67 replies to this topic

[Imperius]

Anjian, on 12 March 2018 - 10:11 AM, said:

Not from missiles coming at the top, like the trajectories of the missiles in MWO.

In any case, if a quad has a high climbing ability, it can also abuse peaks.

Programming for four legged movement should not be hard, it should be part of any game developer's suite, since the same algorithms are used to depict movement of animals, dogs, cats, spiders, crabs, dinosaurs, dragons, monsters and demons, that are used in the game.

It pains me to see that phone game looks, runs, and has more fluid movement and useful missiles than MWO. Sigh

[ThreeStooges]

Never going to happen because:

a. Russ hates them.
b. Paul hates them.
c. Russ hates them.
d. Engine code is crap and can't do it.
e. No IK.
f. Would take the animator 3x as much work and pgi is a no effort work place.
g. Would take 3x as much rigging. Mechs already have enough problems with their animations and they are just biped humanoids or stacks of boxes and tubes.
h. Only the texture artist would have fun with it with all the possible things on it. They sure had fun with the sarah and Urbie camos plus some of the hero mechs' camo are sweet. Pnt-KK has a cool dragon theme going on.

[Fox the Apprentice]

Imperius, on 12 March 2018 - 10:22 AM, said:

It pains me to see that phone game looks, runs, and has more fluid movement and useful missiles than MWO. Sigh

It's because it has quads. If MWO had quads it'd be that fluid and sexy looking, too!


...that is how logic works, right?

[jss78]

TL;DR: Apparently Russ really hates the circus.

I can understand the pragmatic reasons. They'd look awful without IK, and even besides that, they'd require a fair bit of development work for just a few 'mechs. The return isn't there when people are still asking for various easier to implement bipeds.

I think they'd enrich the game as such. They'd give us something other than bipedal 'mechs to pilot. The control scheme would presumably be different (I think one suggestion was classic FPS controls, with A and D sidestepping and Mouse Left&Right twisting the entire 'mech.

Edit: Does MW5:M have IK? Maybe then?

Edited by jss78, 12 March 2018 - 01:15 PM.

[Anjian]

Imperius, on 12 March 2018 - 10:22 AM, said:

It pains me to see that phone game looks, runs, and has more fluid movement and useful missiles than MWO. Sigh

That's what Unreal 4 engine can on a phone.

[Juodas Varnas]

Fox the Apprentice, on 12 March 2018 - 12:59 PM, said:

It's because it has quads. If MWO had quads it'd be that fluid and sexy looking, too!


...that is how logic works, right?

[LordNothing]

mostly a and b. pgi has yet to demonstrate mastery over their own engine choice. they know enough to get by but cant do anything spectacular with it. and ive seen much much older engines than this do spectacular things. not to mention quads really dont qualify as spectacular things. just another subclass of mech with slightly different control rules.

Edited by LordNothing, 16 March 2018 - 02:27 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Quads available up to 3068, with at least one variant capable of currently usable tech:

Inner Sphere

• Tarantula
  
• Bishamon
  
• Blue Flame
  
• Scorpion
  
• Barghest (basically a quad-Bushwacker)
  
• Goliath
  
• Sirocco

Clan

• Snow Fox
  
• Stalking Spider
  
• Fire Scorpion
  
• Thunder Stallion

Quite a few mechs to choose from. It isn't a "lack" of chassis, anyways, given we don't generally do the multi-mechpack model anymore. That is almost a year's worth of mech releases. It would have been a full year's worth if they gave us the HAG-20, which would permit the My Little Balius from a tech standpoint, if not a timeline one.

Just like bipeds, several have rear mounted guns... and just like on the bipeds that have them, PGI can just forward shift those guns. The presence of rear guns really isn't a valid argument as a result. Further, mech turrets were experimental tech available on Jihad and later tech quads, and not even all of them as they were... glitchy. Most quads actually do not possess mech turrets.

They'd certainly add something to the game from a gameplay standpoint, as they'd move entirely different from bipeds, with the ability to strafe and with no torso twist, but extra leg survivability. They'd be extremely short by necessity of their body plans, and probably small overall for their weight just due to having four legs taking up so much volume. The price you pay being a premium on available critical slots.

So, if you were to ask me why PGI refuses to introduce quadmechs? A combination of stubbornly refusing to allow quads in their game due to personal reasons by the top brass (despite those making more logical sense for a walker than bipeds), the effort and money required to rig up animations and the alternative control scheme for quads, and fear that quads would look awful without IK - though it is not functionally necessary if you imagine a solid platform that runs under all four legs as the "base" of the mech for ground collision purposes.

About a years worth of revenue seems like a decent chunk of cash to me, though. Especially considering the game is, what, 6 years old? Quads can literally provide income for the equivalent of 1/6 of the game's lifespan. If PGI chose to do something fresh and new and introduce legitimately different types of mechs with different movement profiles to the game.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 16 March 2018 - 05:11 AM.

[Imperius]

I said probably because I never checked how many there were. They definitely won’t make it to MWO maybe mw5, but that’s a stretch too given the position of Russ on quads.

Did not get me wrong I think they are cool. Loved lost planet 2 or 3 that had quads.

Edited by Imperius, 16 March 2018 - 05:20 AM.

[PocketYoda]

Anjian, on 12 March 2018 - 10:11 AM, said:

Not from missiles coming at the top, like the trajectories of the missiles in MWO.

In any case, if a quad has a high climbing ability, it can also abuse peaks.

Programming for four legged movement should not be hard, it should be part of any game developer's suite, since the same algorithms are used to depict movement of animals, dogs, cats, spiders, crabs, dinosaurs, dragons, monsters and demons, that are used in the game.

Its really sad that IOS games these days have better graphics and gameplay than MWO ...

[Grus]

Koniving, on 12 March 2018 - 10:02 AM, said:

Technical issues, canon (pretty damn rare, only 3 or 4 examples of combat capable models in the current timeline).

The technical issues...
Quad mechs have forward AND rear mounted weapons and often have turrets mounted on either the top (fluff only), the left and the right side. These turrets can shoot anywhere in that arc, much like an arm, which includes behind the mech. These weapons could track and shoot independently of each other and do so simultaneously.

In other words the only way to pull that off would be to have auto aiming turrets mounted on the Quad mechs.
Lets not forget the lack of picture in picture, issues with effectively using weapons if you have to switch from left, right, and front views. And that PGI hasn't implemented a single rear weapon, instead focusing them on the front.

MWO's current balance, furthermore, would basically make quad mechs worthless in terms of meta, as if you can't focus all your firepower on a single point and alpha 100+ damage, your design's effectively "a trash mech" among the meta-biggots out there. So none of the competitive scene would even use them. As that's PGI's primary target consumer....

We'll never see Quads.

or you could force 3rd person.

[Snowbluff]

Anjian, on 12 March 2018 - 10:11 AM, said:

Not from missiles coming at the top, like the trajectories of the missiles in MWO.

In any case, if a quad has a high climbing ability, it can also abuse peaks.

Programming for four legged movement should not be hard, it should be part of any game developer's suite, since the same algorithms are used to depict movement of animals, dogs, cats, spiders, crabs, dinosaurs, dragons, monsters and demons, that are used in the game.

That's incredibly disingenuous. Programming leg movements was never the problem, nor was it the issue with IK. The biggest issue is making that sync with 24 machines, and registering their hitboxes consistently.

Beyond that, quads seem good but the simple fact of the matter is the game isn't built for it. You have to answer a whole lot of questions about how armor is distributed, how many legs you need to work, how torso twisting would fit in, and probably much more, all the while keeping it well balanced with other mechs in the game.

[evilauthor]

Snowbluff, on 16 March 2018 - 10:35 AM, said:

Beyond that, quads seem good but the simple fact of the matter is the game isn't built for it. You have to answer a whole lot of questions about how armor is distributed, how many legs you need to work, how torso twisting would fit in, and probably much more, all the while keeping it well balanced with other mechs in the game.

How armor is distributed: this is a problem for every new mech introduced into the game. What makes Quads so different?

How many legs you need to work: This is more or less answered by the TT game. Four. You'd lose some mobility with each leg, but how much would purely be a game balance decision. The technical coding aspects in comparison are relatively trivial.

How torso twisting would fit in: Also answered by the TT game; it doesn't. Quads don't torso twist. Instead, they get to side strafe, hence my suggestion that Quads play more like classic FPS characters.

[TheMadTypist]

Once, we were told 3rd person would never be added. Then, we were told we'd never have a coolant flush mechanic. The Urbanmech was considered such a joke, it was posted as an april fools! For the longest time, everyone claimed MASC was a pipedream that could never be. We were even told the door had closed on the flea, and yet here it is,the 'mech of the month!

The game is full of things where people wrote long essays about why they were never possible, undesirable, not worth considering, forbidden by the engine, and yet here we are. Where there is a will, there is a 'mechpack. Let there be Quads!

By golly if they call it fit for a circus, let's show them a circus! Send in the clowns!

[Brain Cancer]

Honestly, I think it's because re-rigging the controls, movement HUD, etc for a quad design would be thought of as more effort than it's worth.

Considering it'd also be useful for vehicles, I'm not so sure that's a good comparison though. Quads definitely have some positives- in a game where body shape and size matters, quads tend towards the low (maximize cover) and high (best weapons points- most are the equivalent of a high torso mount on a biped) relative to two-legged designs.

Things like being able to sidestrafe also come to mind as positives. They probably would also be more agile overall to represent the piloting bonus quads get, including being able to clear hills and turn around more easily.

[InvictusLee]

What if.. mechs had the option to switch out legs similar to armored core?...

QUADS AND HOVER ATLAI!!

[Koniving]

Grus, on 16 March 2018 - 10:31 AM, said:

or you could force 3rd person.

True but if you saw the riots on third person in mwo...

[MW Waldorf Statler]

thats the same Problem why has the Rifleman no 360° Torso Twist ? Quads have it all and many different Moving (sidsteps ..etc) IK not come =problems with Hitreg ...PGI hase by Feets thats not a own Hitzone Problems with Hitzones when the Feets stand one Ground in real Factor ???!!!

PGI has not the Experience and Know How for many Things like iK or Quads..Hitreg ...MWO is her first sucessfull game in 17 Years and many good Guys leaves PGI for other Companys or now Working for MW5 ...by the Way PGI search many Guys

https://www.glassdoo...2J_TAB_OVERVIEW

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 17 March 2018 - 12:00 AM.

[Brain Cancer]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 16 March 2018 - 11:57 PM, said:

thats the same Problem why has the Rifleman no 360° Torso Twist ? Quads have it all and many different Moving (sidsteps ..etc) IK not come =problems with Hitreg ...PGI hase by Feets thats not a own Hitzone Problems with Hitzones when the Feets stand one Ground in real Factor ???!!!

The Rifleman never had 360 torso twist. Just flippable arms.

[Juodas Varnas]

Brain Cancer, on 17 March 2018 - 01:27 AM, said:

The Rifleman never had 360 torso twist. Just flippable arms.

Pretty sure nothing is supposed to have 360^o torso twist, i mean, some mechs had the 'extended torso-twist' quirk, but even that only increased the torso-twist by a single hex-side to either side.