64 replies to this topic

[Shadowomega1]

Not to mention to get quads working right you will need IK, however IK isn't going to be going in with the current engine.

[Rovertoo]

Can anyone put up some pictures of any cool quads? All Ive seen is the scorpion... Which like some people have said is uncannily similar to a pancake with legs.

Also, what benefit did they get in TT? Just more legs to hit or something?

[Internal Obedience XIII-omega]

Rovertoo, on 22 August 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

Can anyone put up some pictures of any cool quads? All Ive seen is the scorpion... Which like some people have said is uncannily similar to a pancake with legs.

Also, what benefit did they get in TT? Just more legs to hit or something?

They could side step without movement penalty IIRC, hull down, and possibly others i cannot recall. ONLY downside i could really think of is space limitations which some quads mount weapons in the legs and PGI has not done to any existing mechs. OFC there are very few bipeds that do mount leg weapons.

[Brain Cancer]

In TT, quads got a piloting skill bonus, making them more stable when attempting dangerous things or getting slapped down. They made a good heavy gauss platform in part due to that stability, namely the Barghest.



It'd probably get a freebie equivalent of improved gyros in MWO, at the least. Quads also tend to be terrain huggers and with their unique ability to side-strafe have a rather unique movement pattern vs. bipeds. They have 12 less crit spaces, but all four limbs are treated as legs, so they're able to carry more armor.

[Rovertoo]

Huh. In that case maybe they would play like an average shooter in MWO, letting you aim freely while the arrow keys dictate movement, instead of the current desynced legs and torso tanklike we have now~

[Brain Cancer]

Yep. Depending on the quad, weapons are torso-forward (Scorpion), have a "torso turret" like the Urbanmech (Tarantula), or mounted on a "bestial" style quad mode like the Barghest, which tends to sidecar it's guns outside or above the leg assembly.

[Dollar Bill]

Antares102, on 22 August 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

Juodas Varnas is asking for them since he was born.
No quads so far. Russ consideres them circus mechs.

And we all know that Russ knows best.

[Anjian]

Doing quads, and even creepier six legs, are not a problem when you have a development team that actually has skill. Note, yeah, inverse kinematics.

Game balance though, is another thing.

These are developed for the iPhone and iPad, hopefully next, Android.

[Lanzman]

The Scirocco or the Thunder Stallion could be complete beasts, if you want quads.

[Khobai]

what dumb **** will people ask for next next? agrotractor mechs from darkages?

[FLG 01]

Smites, on 22 August 2017 - 09:55 AM, said:

Hello MechWarriors. How many quad mechs were introduced during the civil war period of Battletech [...]?

I would argue that FCCW and Jihad were the eras with a most notable use of quads compared to the Succession Wars and the early Clan Invasion eras. The Dark Ages have continued the trend of having at least a small number of Quads in the game.

I am personally not sure about Quads in MWO because they need to be viable alternative without being too strong. If half the team consists of Quads something is wrong... It seems hard to balance.

But then, Quads are part of BattleTech and not that outlandish, much less circus. The Barghest e.g. is just a perfect watchdog for a Lyran assault lance.
Unfortunately the Quads I want are from the Dark Ages: Ursa and Jaguar.

Edited by FLG 01, 22 August 2017 - 08:18 PM.

[RestosIII]

Rovertoo, on 22 August 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

Can anyone put up some pictures of any cool quads? All Ive seen is the scorpion... Which like some people have said is uncannily similar to a pancake with legs.

Sirocco



Goliath



Stalking Spider

[Black Ivan]

As much as I would like to see Quads, as long as Russ hates them, no chance

[Lily from animove]

Internal Obedience XIII-omega, on 22 August 2017 - 10:10 AM, said:

Everytime i read about quad mechs and "programmer issues" you would think PGI do something about their programmers??? Like, actually get someone who knows WTH they are doing? Cause that excuse grows stale each time and here we are asking for better content such as maps and if PGI really cared, efforts to integrate quad mechs into this game could/would reach an all time high in favor of the masses.

Praise Blake!

I guess it's also a matter of effort and benefit, the changes needed may be very big for just a rather small kind of benefit for the game. There aren't many quad mechs and they aren't very "mainstream" so that kind of implemention would probably be very expensive with very low return.

[Paigan]

Dimento Graven, on 22 August 2017 - 10:05 AM, said:

[...]

Antares102, on 22 August 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

[...]
No quads so far. Russ consideres them circus mechs.

No, I believe the stated reason was "Because programming is hard... <tear drop rolling down cheek>"

Why not both?
They are ridiculously ugly circus Mechs that would cause massive amounts of coding effort to be implemented plus maybe even all sorts of problems like hitreg, walking aesthetics (especially since IK won't come), maybe even balance issues.

IMHO, for any player with the least bit of aesthetical sense and/or cost-benefit awareness, these clowns are as dead as dead can be. (Sorry Juodas).

Edited by Paigan, 22 August 2017 - 11:23 PM.

[Savage Wolf]

Internal Obedience XIII-omega, on 22 August 2017 - 10:10 AM, said:

Everytime i read about quad mechs and "programmer issues" you would think PGI do something about their programmers??? Like, actually get someone who knows WTH they are doing? Cause that excuse grows stale each time and here we are asking for better content such as maps and if PGI really cared, efforts to integrate quad mechs into this game could/would reach an all time high in favor of the masses.

It's not an issue about not having good programmers, it's about having enough. And some problems just require the resources of a game studio like Blizzard or similar. Welcome to playing a niche game with a low budget.

[Lykaon]

KursedVixen, on 22 August 2017 - 10:09 AM, said:

They'd also be unfair because they can potentially lose legs and still be effective.

any "unfairness" is probably more than compensated for by the following.

No arms so reduced range of motion for weapon aiming.

No arms so the front pair of legs are replacing arms but are still legs so 12 fewer crit slots.

No arms! all weapons must fit in the side torso center torso and head limiting loadouts severely and making the use of weight saving options light endo steel,ferro fibrous and XL engines problematic.

No arms! so twisting to shield the mech's torso and sacrifice arms is NOT an option.

if anything I would be concerned that this armless limitation is to great and any slight advantage from extra legs does not off set the down sides enough.

Claiming the issue is because quads lack a waist is B.S. we have mechs in game now that the original designs lacked a waist like the Nova and Viper that literally had their arms sticking off their hips and their hip joints joined at the side torso of the core chassis.

Those mechs were redesigned to fit the game mechanics of MWo and many of the quads can be adjusted as well. Some like the tarantula quad battlemech already have their legs attacked below the main body with the torso section behaving like turret.

[Lily from animove]

Paigan, on 22 August 2017 - 11:17 PM, said:

Why not both?
They are ridiculously ugly circus Mechs that would cause massive amounts of coding effort to be implemented plus maybe even all sorts of problems like hitreg, walking aesthetics (especially since IK won't come), maybe even balance issues.

IMHO, for any player with the least bit of aesthetical sense and/or cost-benefit awareness, these clowns are as dead as dead can be. (Sorry Juodas).

well the stalkign spide ris ok design wise, also most regular old emchs look ugly, MWO desogns of thems still look cool.
But seriously all thsoe AT&T like styles are kinda ugly.

[MustrumRidcully]

Internal Obedience XIII-omega, on 22 August 2017 - 10:10 AM, said:

Everytime i read about quad mechs and "programmer issues" you would think PGI do something about their programmers??? Like, actually get someone who knows WTH they are doing? Cause that excuse grows stale each time and here we are asking for better content such as maps and if PGI really cared, efforts to integrate quad mechs into this game could/would reach an all time high in favor of the masses.

Praise Blake!

The programmers are probably not saying "impossible", because every programmer knows that's not true. They say: "This takes X time". And then Russ say "but with X time, we could also do a, b and c! Let's do that instead!"

[Anjian]

Its not impossible, and it doesn't cost that much development money, assuming you got the competent skilled developers for this.

This was all done in a few months with development seed money. Inverse kinematics, segmented hit boxes and **six** legs, with two mechs using them, the rest being bipedal. All in a game with the computing resources of an iPad.




I do agree that some of the quad mechs in the Battletech universe look pretty ugly and need to be liberally interpreted in their creative depiction.