74 replies to this topic

[Roughneck Cobra]

Wont see Quads on this game simply because it would take more than crippling one leg to really mess them up, which then causes the well I've only got two legs and you open up pandora's box.

Is a nice concept but you wont see it here, ever.

(Plus a more obvious point is PGI took 5 years get us some new weapons, you think they wanna programn/invisbox/test a new chassis that really is a limited branhc of mechs?)

[Kiyoshi Amaya]

Roughneck Cobra, on 08 May 2017 - 01:20 PM, said:

Wont see Quads on this game simply because it would take more than crippling one leg to really mess them up, which then causes the well I've only got two legs and you open up pandora's box.

Is a nice concept but you wont see it here, ever.

(Plus a more obvious point is PGI took 5 years get us some new weapons, you think they wanna programn/invisbox/test a new chassis that really is a limited branhc of mechs?)

Well, not gonna stop trying.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Kiyoshi Amaya, on 08 May 2017 - 01:24 PM, said:

Well, not gonna stop trying.

Like the Urbie. If we try hard enough, we may get it...

[Tarogato]

All quads should be able to climb slopes up to a 50% grade. (10% more than bipedal lights)

All quads should have ballin' acceleration and deceleration because of their inherent stability.

Quads lose 30% speed per leg lost. So if you lose one leg, it's not so bad. Two legs, not insufferable. Three legs and you're pretty much a sitting duck. Because quads are so hard to kill via legging, they can afford to strip an extra 0.5 to 1.0 tons of armour compared to most bipedal designs, which gains them some of the tonnage they lost because of crit shortage (inability to mount Ferro, XL, or sometimes even Endo and LFE)

Quads distribute their weight more evenly, so they have half the detection radius on seismic.

Because four legs is more volume than two legs + two arms, quads would be smaller than bipedal mechs of the same tonnage. Also, they sit relatively low to the ground, so they really are quite short and unthreatening.

Quads already have almost universally high cockpit and weapon mounts - this is their primary strength. Ridge peeking. Also, sneaking around and using shorter terrain features as cover.

Quads are neato, and would add some sorely needed variety to the game.

---

I'm still hung up on the control scheme, but I see two paths.

1. Quad mechs are given a pelvis and independent torso like any other mech. Quad mechs behave identically to bipedal mechs in all facets. Except they have an additional option to strafe - I imagine this could be via double-tapping A and D.

2. Quad mechs are introduced as per the art, with no torso twisting. A and D are strafe by default, and the mouse controls the turning (yaw) of the mech, legs and everything.



The problem with #1 is it is not lore friendly. Quads aren't supposed to be a turret on legs - a rotating turret is only supposed to be an auxiliary component included on some quads (and few, at that.)

The problem with #2 is that quads can't pitch up and down, which is a massive problem because like any combat vehicular they would conform/align to terrain, and need to be able to aim independently of their pitch. Also, leg control via mouse appears to be very glitchy at the moment, with your crosshair spazzing out a bit. The leg control for quads would probably have to be direct, I doubt PGI would be able to make quad turning feel consistent with biped's torso twisting, so they would feel different, and quads would be much harder to aim with.

I have to go with #1, giving quads a pelvis and independent torso - it just makes the most sense, and fixes more problems. Allows PGI to reuse as much bipedal code as possible.

[Johnny Z]

Tarogato, on 08 May 2017 - 08:51 PM, said:

All quads should be able to climb slopes up to a 50% grade. (10% more than bipedal lights)

All quads should have ballin' acceleration and deceleration because of their inherent stability.

Quads lose 30% speed per leg lost. So if you lose one leg, it's not so bad. Two legs, not insufferable. Three legs and you're pretty much a sitting duck. Because quads are so hard to kill via legging, they can afford to strip an extra 0.5 to 1.0 tons of armour compared to most bipedal designs, which gains them some of the tonnage they lost because of crit shortage (inability to mount Ferro, XL, or sometimes even Endo and LFE)

Quads distribute their weight more evenly, so they have half the detection radius on seismic.

Because four legs is more volume than two legs + two arms, quads would be smaller than bipedal mechs of the same tonnage. Also, they sit relatively low to the ground, so they really are quite short and unthreatening.

Quads already have almost universally high cockpit and weapon mounts - this is their primary strength. Ridge peeking. Also, sneaking around and using shorter terrain features as cover.

Quads are neato, and would add some sorely needed variety to the game.

---

I'm still hung up on the control scheme, but I see two paths.

1. Quad mechs are given a pelvis and independent torso like any other mech. Quad mechs behave identically to bipedal mechs in all facets. Except they have an additional option to strafe - I imagine this could be via double-tapping A and D.

2. Quad mechs are introduced as per the art, with no torso twisting. A and D are strafe by default, and the mouse controls the turning (yaw) of the mech, legs and everything.



The problem with #1 is it is not lore friendly. Quads aren't supposed to be a turret on legs - a rotating turret is only supposed to be an auxiliary component included on some quads (and few, at that.)

The problem with #2 is that quads can't pitch up and down, which is a massive problem because like any combat vehicular they would conform/align to terrain, and need to be able to aim independently of their pitch. Also, leg control via mouse appears to be very glitchy at the moment, with your crosshair spazzing out a bit. The leg control for quads would probably have to be direct, I doubt PGI would be able to make quad turning feel consistent with biped's torso twisting, so they would feel different, and quads would be much harder to aim with.

I have to go with #1, giving quads a pelvis and independent torso - it just makes the most sense, and fixes more problems. Allows PGI to reuse as much bipedal code as possible.

This is the biggest problem, aligning with terrain. This is also why the idea of them being 150 tons to 250 tons and being a special mech only aloud on some terrain makes some sense. Something like that anyway, maybe even multi player mechs.

The entire terrain thing may be to much to actually bring in regular game play quads. Of course maybe its a problem that can be beat. But it is a deal breaker problem at the moment.

The animations and the rest shouldn't be a problem at all. From doing a lot of modding quite a while ago I have some idea about this stuff.

Fallout 4 has a Sentry bot that isn't to different than a quad. Looks like it isn't a problem for that game to have the legs stick to the ground. Just found this out now. So maybe Cry engine can do it to.

2/3 through shows it quite good.

Edited by Johnny Z, 08 May 2017 - 09:33 PM.

[Anjian]

iPad game

Edited by Anjian, 08 May 2017 - 09:29 PM.

[Anjian]

I can see this happening.

Player moved forward and suddenly discovers he is under fire. But as he retreats, or tries too, he can't move back any further, like something is tripping his legs up. As he twists his torso to shake off the fire, he sees his path of retreat blocked by the legs of a teammate quad mech. That quad mech could not back off because another quad mech is behind him. The player's mech falls under a hail of fire as he curses in the channel, and later writes a flaming thread in the forums.

Edited by Anjian, 08 May 2017 - 10:23 PM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Why, like this of course;


Joking, but honestly if you ever really want to see them in it would be with some sacrifices for sure, they would function just like all other mechs except have 4 legs (which would probably be annoying enough to code in at this stage alone), the benefits of the extra legs would just be a part of their statistics, whether it be full 360 torso swivel, or faster natural speeds and or higher resistance to things that drop speed rates (like losing an ST or a leg or hills etc).

It is about the only way I see them getting in, and I wouldn't mind seeing it, as it would prove they are capable of adding extra limbs and/or new or unique extra structure points for mechs (that would have to show up in the UI), which would mean other things possible, like 4 armed mechs and the like.

[Shifty McSwift]

Converting the arms to legs actually would be the first and easiest choice, but their upper bodies would be all torso.

[Kiyoshi Amaya]

Tarogato, on 08 May 2017 - 08:51 PM, said:

All quads should be able to climb slopes up to a 50% grade. (10% more than bipedal lights)

All quads should have ballin' acceleration and deceleration because of their inherent stability.

Quads lose 30% speed per leg lost. So if you lose one leg, it's not so bad. Two legs, not insufferable. Three legs and you're pretty much a sitting duck. Because quads are so hard to kill via legging, they can afford to strip an extra 0.5 to 1.0 tons of armour compared to most bipedal designs, which gains them some of the tonnage they lost because of crit shortage (inability to mount Ferro, XL, or sometimes even Endo and LFE)

Quads distribute their weight more evenly, so they have half the detection radius on seismic.

Because four legs is more volume than two legs + two arms, quads would be smaller than bipedal mechs of the same tonnage. Also, they sit relatively low to the ground, so they really are quite short and unthreatening.

Quads already have almost universally high cockpit and weapon mounts - this is their primary strength. Ridge peeking. Also, sneaking around and using shorter terrain features as cover.

Quads are neato, and would add some sorely needed variety to the game.

---

I'm still hung up on the control scheme, but I see two paths.

1. Quad mechs are given a pelvis and independent torso like any other mech. Quad mechs behave identically to bipedal mechs in all facets. Except they have an additional option to strafe - I imagine this could be via double-tapping A and D.

2. Quad mechs are introduced as per the art, with no torso twisting. A and D are strafe by default, and the mouse controls the turning (yaw) of the mech, legs and everything.



The problem with #1 is it is not lore friendly. Quads aren't supposed to be a turret on legs - a rotating turret is only supposed to be an auxiliary component included on some quads (and few, at that.)

The problem with #2 is that quads can't pitch up and down, which is a massive problem because like any combat vehicular they would conform/align to terrain, and need to be able to aim independently of their pitch. Also, leg control via mouse appears to be very glitchy at the moment, with your crosshair spazzing out a bit. The leg control for quads would probably have to be direct, I doubt PGI would be able to make quad turning feel consistent with biped's torso twisting, so they would feel different, and quads would be much harder to aim with.

I have to go with #1, giving quads a pelvis and independent torso - it just makes the most sense, and fixes more problems. Allows PGI to reuse as much bipedal code as possible.

I'd like number 2 please, Bob.

[Pariah Devalis]

Tarogato, on 08 May 2017 - 08:51 PM, said:

The problem with #2 is that quads can't pitch up and down, which is a massive problem because like any combat vehicular they would conform/align to terrain, and need to be able to aim independently of their pitch. Also, leg control via mouse appears to be very glitchy at the moment, with your crosshair spazzing out a bit. The leg control for quads would probably have to be direct, I doubt PGI would be able to make quad turning feel consistent with biped's torso twisting, so they would feel different, and quads would be much harder to aim with.

I have to go with #1, giving quads a pelvis and independent torso - it just makes the most sense, and fixes more problems. Allows PGI to reuse as much bipedal code as possible.

Use the legs to tilt the torso up and down. Front legs crouch, rear legs extend, nose and guns tip down. Front legs extend, rear legs crouch, nose and guns rise up. Problem solved.

[Anjian]

We had already discussed that the lore Nova had no turntable torso, no twistable torso.



But the ingame Nova has a turning torso.




If ever quad mechs are implemented on the game, they will have independently turning torsos even if the lore drawings don't have them.

[Vanguard319]

Prosperity Park, on 08 May 2017 - 01:04 PM, said:

Accuracy penalties you say?

QUADS GET NO JJ RETICULE SHAKE!!!

Will never happen, people will cry about quad pop tarting

[Tarogato]

Pariah Devalis, on 09 May 2017 - 07:24 AM, said:

Use the legs to tilt the torso up and down. Front legs crouch, rear legs extend, nose and guns tip down. Front legs extend, rear legs crouch, nose and guns rise up. Problem solved.

While moving at any speed? That's a lot to ask.

[Tarogato]

Johnny Z, on 08 May 2017 - 09:23 PM, said:

This is the biggest problem, aligning with terrain. This is also why the idea of them being 150 tons to 250 tons and being a special mech only aloud on some terrain makes some sense. Something like that anyway, maybe even multi player mechs.

The entire terrain thing may be to much to actually bring in regular game play quads. Of course maybe its a problem that can be beat. But it is a deal breaker problem at the moment.

The animations and the rest shouldn't be a problem at all. From doing a lot of modding quite a while ago I have some idea about this stuff.

Fallout 4 has a Sentry bot that isn't to different than a quad. Looks like it isn't a problem for that game to have the legs stick to the ground. Just found this out now. So maybe Cry engine can do it to.

2/3 through shows it quite good.

Terrain alignment itself actually should be the easy bit. Plenty of vehicles already operate like this (there's even humvees that come with the cryengine sandbox).

Even adding inverse kinematics to work with it shouldn't be all the hard.

I see the tricky part as getting the leg animations looking right. Shouldn't be that hard if the forward movement and strafing movement were animated as separate layers that could compound on one another, but I don't know how exactly animations are keyed like that. Well, actually the parallel-legged mechs would be easy, like the Goliath and such. But the tricky mechs would the the ones with oblique legs like the Tarantula and Scorpion.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Anjian, on 09 May 2017 - 07:38 AM, said:

We had already discussed that the lore Nova had no turntable torso, no twistable torso.

NO, for the love of god, the lore the Nova DID have torso twist, the artwork just never reflected it (the TT Nova can in fact torso twist, unlike quads). Please stop perpetuating this myth.

That said, I would honestly prefer BOTH of Tarogato's suggestions because not all quad are Spider-esque (Tarantula, Scorpion, etc). Some of more the horse-like quads (Goliath) and thus strafing would look....odd (imagine an AT-AT trying to do it).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 May 2017 - 10:03 AM.

[Kiyoshi Amaya]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 May 2017 - 09:59 AM, said:

That said, I would honestly prefer BOTH of Tarogato's suggestions because not all quad are Spider-esque (Tarantula, Scorpion, etc). Some of more the horse-like quads (Goliath) and thus strafing would look....odd (imagine an AT-AT trying to do it).

And that's where tonnage comes into play, right? The lighter the mech the more manoeuvrable...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kiyoshi Amaya, on 09 May 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

And that's where tonnage comes into play, right? The lighter the mech the more manoeuvrable...

No, it is purely based on the leg structure. For example the Snow Fox would have the latter design (same movement as a biped with a turret-esque torso).

[Felicitatem Parco]

We really have to drop the idea of strafing.

Yes, Cryengine supports it. Yes, quads can strafe according to lore. No, some should not be able to strafe based on TRO art. No, we do not have to stick with TRO art when it comes to this game... I know...

However A and D are bound to Turn. You are asking PGI to rewrite how the keybinds work on a per-mech basis (some Mechs A would be turn left, other mechs the same keybind would be strafe left, and the mouse yaw would also have to double-bind torso twist or leg turn depending on the Mech you chose).

I know quads coming into the game may be unrealistic... But if we treat the topic realistically then we stand a better chance.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Prosperity Park, on 09 May 2017 - 10:53 AM, said:

However A and D are bound to Turn. You are asking PGI to rewrite how the keybinds work on a per-mech basis (some Mechs A would be turn left, other mechs the same keybind would be strafe left, and the mouse yaw would also have to double-bind torso twist or leg turn depending on the Mech you chose).

Because different keybind profiles are so new to gaming......oh wait.

Pretty sure if keybinds can be different in MW:LL between aerofighters/VTOLs and mechs/tanks I'm pretty sure they can find a way to do something similar with quads. Now how much effort will it take to do that? Honestly only someone who knows the code well can really guesstimate that.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 May 2017 - 11:32 AM.