Jump to content

Anyone Else Want To See A Quad Mech


37 replies to this topic

#21 Xeno Phalcon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 2,461 posts
  • LocationEvening Ladies

Posted 17 November 2018 - 06:44 AM

View PostTarl Cabot, on 17 November 2018 - 05:29 AM, said:


Bolt-ons !!! Posted Image

Posted Image


Thats no bolt on, thats a Carry-On! :P

#22 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 06:45 AM

adding quads doesnt fix the core game issues, and could arguably make those issues worse

id rather see the core game issues fixed first

Edited by Khobai, 17 November 2018 - 06:46 AM.


#23 Thorn Hallis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,902 posts
  • LocationUnited States of Paranoia

Posted 17 November 2018 - 06:47 AM

I'd like to see them in HBS Battletech. In MWO...not so much.

#24 JediPanther

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,087 posts
  • LocationLost in my C1

Posted 17 November 2018 - 09:39 AM

I'd buy quads and stinger/wasp lams. The humanoid and bird type mechs are pretty boring now.

#25 Steel Raven

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,382 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 12:10 PM

Can't find a single MW game with Quads, it may be outside of the current game mechanics along with melee.

Quads are incredible limited as well with no torso twist and none of the benefits of the table top (crossing rough terrain) the only real benefit would be that it would be slightly harder to leg.

Edited by Steel Raven, 17 November 2018 - 12:11 PM.


#26 Xeno Phalcon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 2,461 posts
  • LocationEvening Ladies

Posted 17 November 2018 - 12:19 PM

View PostSteel Raven, on 17 November 2018 - 12:10 PM, said:

Can't find a single MW game with Quads, it may be outside of the current game mechanics along with melee.

Quads are incredible limited as well with no torso twist and none of the benefits of the table top (crossing rough terrain) the only real benefit would be that it would be slightly harder to leg.


There was a mission in MW2 that had you pilot a tarantula, and you could unlock it through cheat codes for elsewhere.

Repost from another thread back in 2012 lol.

Posted Image

#27 Rainer Frost

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 23 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 12:21 PM

The Adder and Nova are not supposed to twist their bodies either, yet got changed gamewise.
Therefor pgi would not have to care about quads's lack of twist either.

#28 Anjian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 3,735 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 01:45 PM

View PostPariah Devalis, on 17 November 2018 - 04:35 AM, said:

I would very much like to see Quads in MWO. Hell, we have enough at this point in time to implement at least one of each weight class for both Clan and IS tech. Yes, it would require PGI use resources to make quads, since they'd need different animations, and need to move differently in that they can side strafe (like a standard FPS style movement) and turn in place, as opposed to torso twist, in addition to modified legging mechanics, however I'd argue the game is stale in part to no real variety in gameplay.

All biped mechs move the same way. All of them. If we had an alternative movement profile, it would at least be a novelty, and thus interesting. It would be something legitimately new, instead of just another mechpack. Further, Quads should have high volume for their weight, meaning that due to volumetric scaling, PGI would be forced to make quads smaller than their tonnage would imply with bipeds.

I know PGI won't do it. They generally don't spend the resources for innovative or interesting things unless it involves specific game modes. It doesn't mean they shouldn't do it. Because, IMO, they should. Adding quads would be adding an actual feature to the game in the form of alternative gameplay and mobility options.

Edit:

An example of what Alex's take on a quad would be, from his DA:
Posted Image



This design does not have weapons fixed on top but rather the weapons are set on a twistable turret. So the top is a turret that turns around like this is a four legged tank. Pretty workable.


Another executable concept, this time a non spider type quad leg. This one is from a simple mech game on mobile called Robokrieg. Note the weapons above independently twisting like an upper turret.


Edited by Anjian, 17 November 2018 - 02:00 PM.


#29 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,145 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 17 November 2018 - 04:11 PM

For some reason Russ completely hates them, but for me, adding in mechs that do something different, allow a different play style is a good thing.

The bigger issue is probably the Inverse Kinetics needed so the mechs don't dissappear into hill sides and there were issues around bringing that back and the hit registration and netcode and so on. Perhaps if it was possible to only have IK active on the quads?
Don't know.

As far as making the mechs have a point of difference there are multiple options.

Firstly, a different movement mode combined with a redesign of the mechs. The forward, reverse and side strafe speeds along with the accelerate and decelerate values could all be the same as effectively it is always 'forward'. I would think that we would not want to apply the same bipedal movement mode to the mechs.

Rear hit boxes could be underneath the mech.

Arms because they function as legs have increased armour values and we might find, depending on the designs, that the legs are going to shield the torso a bit.

Does the mech have a torso twist and if so, how far? We have to think that the torso twist might be needed for the turning function so how that then works with the movement needs to be considered. Maybe it doesn't actually matter as you can crab walk your way around obstacles and therefore the torso could be a turret and have 360' turning which would seem more logical.

Because the weapons are most likely torso mounted it suggests that the hard point locations are going to be pretty good or at least at cockpit level.

If we look at options that are presently available in the skill tree as potential quirks then quirks like hill climb and gyro stability would seem sensible.

What about using the 'bay door' key command as a way to raise and lower the stance of the mech?

There are various possibilities that would make the mechs very interesting and different to use which is important for player experience and game variety.
If nothing else, if the mechs have not really been used in other MW titles, then it would be another mark of achievement for MWO.

Personally, I would be interested in buying them.
A quad mech 4 pack?

#30 The pessimistic optimist

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,377 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 04:16 PM

Hell yea! I did well in our Mega Mech tournament in a Goliath.

#31 Anjian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 3,735 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 05:53 PM

View Post50 50, on 17 November 2018 - 04:11 PM, said:

For some reason Russ completely hates them, but for me, adding in mechs that do something different, allow a different play style is a good thing.

The bigger issue is probably the Inverse Kinetics needed so the mechs don't dissappear into hill sides and there were issues around bringing that back and the hit registration and netcode and so on. Perhaps if it was possible to only have IK active on the quads?
Don't know.

As far as making the mechs have a point of difference there are multiple options.

Firstly, a different movement mode combined with a redesign of the mechs. The forward, reverse and side strafe speeds along with the accelerate and decelerate values could all be the same as effectively it is always 'forward'. I would think that we would not want to apply the same bipedal movement mode to the mechs.

Rear hit boxes could be underneath the mech.

Arms because they function as legs have increased armour values and we might find, depending on the designs, that the legs are going to shield the torso a bit.

Does the mech have a torso twist and if so, how far? We have to think that the torso twist might be needed for the turning function so how that then works with the movement needs to be considered. Maybe it doesn't actually matter as you can crab walk your way around obstacles and therefore the torso could be a turret and have 360' turning which would seem more logical.

Because the weapons are most likely torso mounted it suggests that the hard point locations are going to be pretty good or at least at cockpit level.

If we look at options that are presently available in the skill tree as potential quirks then quirks like hill climb and gyro stability would seem sensible.

What about using the 'bay door' key command as a way to raise and lower the stance of the mech?

There are various possibilities that would make the mechs very interesting and different to use which is important for player experience and game variety.
If nothing else, if the mechs have not really been used in other MW titles, then it would be another mark of achievement for MWO.

Personally, I would be interested in buying them.
A quad mech 4 pack?




IK is a basic requirement for games to implement. Not because for robot movement, but IK is used for human movement. Many FPS games use IK just for the humans alone.

Another use of IK in games are for animal movements --- that dog, that horse, that dragon as a raid boss, that giant spider as a raid boss. Darn sure a game like that recent Monster Hunter is going to be chock full of IK implementations.

So what's the difference between a spider robot and a giant monster spider in some RPG? Nothing. They're the same, the difference lies that they're both skins on the same underlying frame. For that reason a bipedal robot is a reskinned human, and that chicken walker mech is reskinned chicken.

Hit boxes? No problem, If a game lets you attack the legs of a dragon individually which some action RPGs do, then you have it, you already got the basic infrastructure for it.

It also doesn't take up much memory and processing resources, many of these examples of quad mechs in games are actually on mobile and tablet. The Nelly on Battle of Titans (Android, iOS) is a good example of a quad mech whose legs have separate hitboxes. Not only that, but you can also armor the legs. The body of the mech is also sectionally armored.



Now when it comes to a Mechwarrior game, you would need a new configuration menu so that you can configure four legs individually instead of two. Means like adjusting the armor points and putting ammo or heat sinks into them. But that only represents a light to moderate coding effort. The database for the mechs would have to be reformed to have two more fields for two additional legs.

Movement is fairly easy, pretty standard WASD for legs and directional movement and mouse for the torso or turret twist. Instead of the bipedal legs turning around to the direction of the movement, the quad mech simply "crawls" to the direction of the movement. The controls for quads easily blend in with bipedals, in fact its practically seamless, you won't feel the difference between the two, and you can incorporate quads into multispawn drop decks with bipedals. To put it in another simple way, this is no different from controlling a mounted archer on lets say an action RPG, and once again I like to point out, there is no fundamental difference between a quad mech and a mounted knight --- both are skins.

From a first person perspective, if you are in a quad mech, you will have to expect that your weapons are going to be above from your point of view. This can make an interesting experience when you hill hump and peek o boo. Your lasers will be shooting from the top over you instead of from the lower sides. However, because of your low view point, a lot of obstacles will appear in your line of sight. But if you already have a third person viewpoint option, that will help you.

Edited by Anjian, 17 November 2018 - 05:59 PM.


#32 Lykaon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,815 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 07:31 PM

View Post50 50, on 17 November 2018 - 04:11 PM, said:


The bigger issue is probably the Inverse Kinetics needed so the mechs don't dissappear into hill sides and there were issues around bringing that back and the hit registration and netcode and so on. Perhaps if it was possible to only have IK active on the quads?
Don't know.



This is probably the biggest stumbling block for PGI to overcome.

Movement and such are not so difficult one could do some of the following.

Quads are all redesigned to incorperate a "hip" section that the legs attach to with a "torso" sitting above the "hips" (sort of like how the Nova was redesigned to have a waist instead of "hip/shoulders" like the B-tech art.

Give quads access to max speed regardless of direction of travel and a 360 torso twist.

Leg destruction has a lesser effect on quads having an accumulative effect per leg destroyed until the handicap from a destroyed leg matches a biped at some point (2 legs lost on a quad = 1 leg lost on a biped? )

Quads don't have "rear" armor.A torso has one hit location with one armor pool for that location.

Quads have greatly improved "hill climb" as a base chassis ability.


But do keep in mind there are some serious drawbacks to quads.

12 fewer crit slots
no arm mounted weapons (lesser range of traverse for weapons)
potentially short with reduced option for firing over terrain.

Edited by Lykaon, 17 November 2018 - 07:42 PM.


#33 Gristle Missile

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • 275 posts

Posted 17 November 2018 - 10:30 PM

100% yes to quads
Dont care how hard it is PGI, the sales will make up for it compared to what you throw into solaris

#34 Jay Leon Hart

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 4,669 posts

Posted 18 November 2018 - 01:26 AM

The biggest issue with adding IK is hit registration.

People already complain about hitting certain locations on certain 'mechs, imagine how much worse it would be if the game decided "nope, that leg was raised, no damage for you".

I'll take a game that works better over a game that looks better, thanks.

#35 Anjian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 3,735 posts

Posted 18 November 2018 - 02:03 AM

View PostJay Leon Hart, on 18 November 2018 - 01:26 AM, said:

The biggest issue with adding IK is hit registration.

People already complain about hitting certain locations on certain 'mechs, imagine how much worse it would be if the game decided "nope, that leg was raised, no damage for you".

I'll take a game that works better over a game that looks better, thanks.



If the leg is raised, the shot goes through and hits the torso instead (In B.o.T. its referred to as the Tower.)

The torso will get hit a lot. Not to mention that quads offer plenty of horizontal hit area for missiles to drop on, as opposed to the vertical hit area of a stand up bipedal mech.

Once again, using B.o.T. as the tech demonstrator. Note that this game does not use a proprietary engine, and instead, it uses the same Unreal Engine as you do with MW5. In this match, note the right hand corner of the screen, you will see the sectional hit areas of the quad mech. This particular one has separate hit boxes for legs, left and right torso, hip and head. Another thing that makes the game similar to MWO is that it has structural HP, so once the outer armor is stripped out, you have to rely on your structure. The robot lacks arms, instead weapons protrude from the side of the torso, and weapons have their own separate HP pool.


Edited by Anjian, 18 November 2018 - 02:03 AM.


#36 Grus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Devil
  • Little Devil
  • 4,155 posts

Posted 18 November 2018 - 04:25 AM

Judus put you up to this didnt he?...

#37 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,145 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 18 November 2018 - 07:09 PM

View PostLykaon, on 17 November 2018 - 07:31 PM, said:

12 fewer crit slots
no arm mounted weapons (lesser range of traverse for weapons)


That would be IF the design for the mech bay was altered.
It's a bit of an interesting choice of direction.

Redesign the arms as legs and account for effects such what happens when a leg is destroyed and how many need to be destroyed to destroy a quad.
Take into account changes to critical spaces and actuator effects and so on.

Or, treat the arms as legs as though a biped mech had been pushed onto it's back and had to use it's arms to walk.
I'm favouring this approach at the moment as there are a couple of benefits.
1. It means the mech lab doesn't need to be changed to cater for the design.
2. The damage still transfers the same way to the torso.
3. No loss of critical spaces and suddenly there is an IS mech that can have IS DHS in the 'legs'.
Where I would be asking some questions though is what should happen when an arm is destroyed?
Logically it should impact movement which might suggest that the 'arm' is not removed in the damage modelling.
If it is removed, then are we are going to see some tripodding and torso dragging? While that might be a little funny, I think it would be preferrable to alter the damage modelling.

If PGI were to go to the trouble of designing and coding a new movement mode for the quads I would suggest that all quads are re-imagined in their design and function the same way.
That being the crab/spider walking for the omni-directional movement and utilizing a turret torso to account for no actual turning ability.
I see little point in adding quads that function (poorly) as bipedal mechs and provide the same sort of experience to pilot.

btw:
https://mwomercs.com...ould-quad-work/

Edited by 50 50, 18 November 2018 - 07:09 PM.






7 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users