53 replies to this topic

[Aznpersuasion89]

Lykaon, on 26 July 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

How would the Goliath function seeing what we know about how aiming works in MWo.

For those who don't know...

You aim the torso by pointing the arms so you have two targeting reticules one on the arms one for body mounted weapons.The arm reticule leads the torso so pointing the mech's arms right would have the torso swing right until both reticules aligned.

Goliath has no arms and no torso to twist.Would likely put it at a huge disadvantage.

Nda? I could only imagine the goliath as a support vehicle. Carrying large amounts of missles and long range weapons where extreme angles of aim isn't really important

[Skylarr]

Grimskar, on 26 July 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

GOL-2H - The 2H is a Periphery upgrade of the 1H model. The 'Mech removes the Machine Guns from the chassis and adds in their place six Rocket Launcher 10s. This gives the Goliath a very powerful close range punch.

along with x1 PPC,x2 LRM-10's.
you would be hard pressed to stop this mech from rampaging all over your base

The Goliath is meant to fill the Role of a Sniper Mech or a Missile Boat. It stands at a distance and supports the brawlers, Juggernaut, Scout, Skirmisher and Striker Mechs. No Mech works alone. There should be a Mech hanging back to keep the enemy from their rears.

The GOL-2H is a nice upgrade. To bad the Rocket Launcher did not come out until 3064.

Looking at what they say will be in game I feel the GOL-3M would be a nice addition.

GOL-3M - The 3M is an upgrade of the Goliath that uses Star League technology. The 'Mech has had an XL Engine installed to reduce the engines weight by half. The 'Mech retains the LRM launchers and Machine Guns of the 1H model. The 'Mech replaces the PPC with a Gauss Rifle which gives the Goliath devastating long-range firepower.

[BarHaid]

Nicely done Bishop! Way better than the Project Phoenix design.

[Bishop Steiner]

Striker1980, on 25 July 2012 - 11:51 PM, said:

I like the artwork, one thing though, the Devs have stated a design intent to reduce the profusion of long range combat (Gauss, large laser etc) by designing maps specifically with terrain designed to assist short range combat, this being the case why is a handicap in melee and short range combat not a big concern in MWO?

They are also specific about role combat in the game, and LRMs can fire indirectly, if your scout as working as spotter. TMost assaults are too slow for fast action, and at least so far, there is no melee combat that I am aware of (meaning the mech is not at the same disadvantage against an Atlas or Hatchetman that it is TT)

One will always need support units, and few mechs do it as well in this time period. What it doesnt do well is deal with fast mechs up close. At least, the stock version.

[Ghost73]

Lykaon, on 26 July 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

How would the Goliath function seeing what we know about how aiming works in MWo.

For those who don't know...

You aim the torso by pointing the arms so you have two targeting reticules one on the arms one for body mounted weapons.The arm reticule leads the torso so pointing the mech's arms right would have the torso swing right until both reticules aligned.

Goliath has no arms and no torso to twist.Would likely put it at a huge disadvantage.

I imagine it would function similar to the PAC tank in BF2142. With no torso to twist, the mouse would control the orientation/turning of the mech, while WASD (or what have you) would control forward/back and sideways movement.

If the quad chassis style could be implemented in the game, the Goliath would definitely mix up the gameplay. At the very least it would be something awesome to try out.

[Todd Lee]

It certainly would be interesting to these implemented into the game, but part of me thinks it won't happen. I don't know anything in regards to Battletech, nor do I recall seeing a quad mech in the Mechwarrior series, but wouldn't these have quite a bit more fire power than the bi mechs? If so, I could see some balance issues, though I'm sure that can be countered by their severe lack of mobility in comparison (no torso turning, blah blah).

[Fremen]

Interesting Choice? Yes. Good Choice? No.

[verybad]

wanderer, on 26 July 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

The fact that quads can sidestep alone would make them invaluable in MWO. Talk about easily breaking out of circles of death...

It has nothing to do with that, it's just a lot more technical work for the animator. The board game rules have no influence on choosing to make a 4 legged mech for the game (or previous mechwarrior games)

The reason for this is that all the mech's potential angles of limb position have to be animated, as well as the torso angle, on a flat map this isn't a problem, on a map with actual terrain, it's a HUGE problem. It's about 4 times as much work for a 4 limbed mech compared to a 2 lmed mech, there are also problems with the 4 limed mechs in that they tend not to have hips or pelvises that can rotate, while this can be adressed with design revision, the revision is much more extreme than that seen to date on current mech designs. The huge extra amount of work remains the same.

Sure ,it's POSSIBLE to make a decent animation for a 4 legged mech in the game, but it would take more work, more memory, and be more likely to have visual errors in the game.

Long run, unlikely, short term, almost zero chance.

Mechwarrior 2 had 4 legged mechs, it also had extreme visual errors that were only excusable because it was the dawning of 3D games period. You can't forgive a 4 legged mech with 2 legs off the side of a cliff but running fine now, or 2 other legs deeply inside a raise in terrain.

It's a lot more work, and the result is only one more mech.

Again, I have nothing against 4 legged mechs, I like some of them. The problem is that it is simply more costly to produce for the game and with deeper potential downsides.

Edit. 1,000 post here. Gimme a cookie!

Edited by verybad, 27 July 2012 - 12:59 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Unfortunately, very true, though the nice thing is, once said template is done, it can essentially be used over and over. And while massively outnumbered by bipeds, there are many quads, over the spread of the TROs.

The principle was not unlike the design of Optimus Prime in the Transformers movie, some 10 million moving parts, I believe, but once it was modeled it made all the future ones much easier.

Still and all, if a quad chassis was to be made, I would expect it among the premium content, to offset the resources required. And while possessing little if any advantage over the bipeds, I know I am one of the guys that doesn't feel it has to be "better" to make it worth it.

[Otto Cannon]

I can imagine quads being added one day in the future as premium content to reflect the rarity in canon. You could easily get around the torso problem by making the whole mech turn much faster than bipeds when stationary but lack the ability to shoot sideways when moving.

They would have a very different playstyle that would make them interesting, but I can't see them being added anytime soon because of the amount of work involved to program, animate, and test them. Maybe in a few years when the devs need something new to raise money though.

[Bishop Steiner]

Otto Cannon, on 26 July 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

I can imagine quads being added one day in the future as premium content to reflect the rarity in canon. You could easily get around the torso problem by making the whole mech turn much faster than bipeds when stationary but lack the ability to shoot sideways when moving.

They would have a very different playstyle that would make them interesting, but I can't see them being added anytime soon because of the amount of work involved to program, animate, and test them. Maybe in a few years when the devs need something new to raise money though.

Yeah. I think they would appeal mostly to the old school joystick and TT crowd. Those who either want them do to canon, or looking for a new challenge. The uber-competitive, m+kb FPS set on here probably would avoid it like the plague. Though I expect most of the to run to the Clans the very first second they are made available.

Of course, the clans have one of the best Quads ever made, the Thunder Stallion, which I would LOVE to get a hold of? 4 LRM 15 racks, then swap the AC for a Gauss? Grab a nearby hill top and rain death on all comers!

[Rogen]

I would love to have a goliath in game, byt i expect that quad mechs would need a lot more of thinking and balancing. So i think that we have to wait to see this one.

[Leetskeet]

Good luck ever being able to actually aim and hit something in that.

[Bishop Steiner]

If they ever make quads, I'll be happy to line you up as my first demonstration of how to do just so.....

[MechRaccoon]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 July 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

I know that the original "Unseen" will never be in it, and I am pretty sure most of us found the Project Phoenix version utterly laughable. So I decided to try to make a less dumb version. The mech is somewhat handicapped in melee combat and short range, but those are not as big a concern on MWO. On the other hand, it makes one heck of a fire suupport platform.



Maybe? (yes I know you want a Devastator, Annihilator etc... just throwing out an option.

*hyperventilates* OH MY GOD OH MY GOD OH MY GOD OH MY GOD THAT IS AWESOME! i especially like the cockpit and the huge chaingun.Keep up the good work, Bishop! Also, I recommend putting some of these in the Suggestions section. Maybe they'll be noticed by Piranha and we can see the Unseen again!

[CCC Dober]

@VB
I have to agree that 4 legs can make things incredibly difficult in terms of animation, like trying to balance a table on uneven ground to make a RL comparison. Those legs are stiff though, they don't flex or rotate like those of a Mech. So you could, theoretically, solve the problem of stiff legs by having them flex by default and only extend fully when running or climbing hills. It is possible to handle the quad animation that way, but it needs a bit more planning ahead as you put it, thinking in worst case scenarios. But I think the effort is worth it because the animation data can be used again for other Mechs and even 4 legged Battle Armor. An investment into the future if you want. Btw. congrats on your 1k posts

For the record: I support the general idea of quads and hope PGI's animators are up for the challenge =)

[Kynlore]

I'm not a fan of the platform mechs.

[Hexenhammer]

[Bishop Steiner]

Hexenhammer, on 29 July 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

..............?

[Lightdragon]

quads wont work with the game engine the way it is currently i dont think