69 replies to this topic

[Philipe von Rohrs]

SneeakyAsian, on 05 February 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

What is exactly wrong with having a LAM mech guys?

Cost?

[Maverick Howell]

Nothing is wrong with lams. However they represent robotech and macross and those rights are under harmoney gold if im not mistaken. the last thing they need is to be sued by harmoney gold again! I think they will take an active aproach in avoiding any mechs that look similar to anything robotech related. so lams are most definitly a pipe dream.. as well as some other mechs i like.=(......also game play wise i think lams might effect or unbalance the game in a negative way from how it looks to be set up. Quads however i see no reason to keep them out of the game. infact i think this game could use an edge and give us mech warrior fans something new to enjoy... or b**** about XD.

[El Loco]

I'm definitely pro quads... wouldn't want to use one though^^ They're just a cool thing to have in Mechwarrior / Battletech. I wouldn't want to have LAM's in the game because I always thought it illogical to have a mix of a ground and an air unit... it just doesn't add up.

[Vertous]

the only things i see happening is Mechwarrior's enemy (Harmony Gold(yes those SOBs)) going down the devs throats for putting LAMs in the game. 4 legged mechs are a good option though.

[Logan Solo Sinclair]

I see it as difficult but worth trying! Crescent Hawk DFA!

[Mautty the Bobcat]

I'm personally in favor of bringing in the 4-legged mechs (not sure about multi-person. would be cool but not realistically feasible for most in terms of players.) but I have ALWAYS hated the stupid f'ing land - air conversion mechs. I never thought they should be in battletech to begin with.

[OzBrad]

Would love to see for following:

Awesome
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Awesome
Rifleman
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Rifleman
Axeman
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Axman
Bushwacker
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Bushwacker


Brad.

[Lima Zulu]

Some of those 4-legged thingies look pretty epic, I'd say. But I guess it will be hard to balance with regular bipedal machines - 4 legs instead 2 means they are worse armored => easier to destroy, and even one lost leg will cause a trouble for quad'. So when regular mech will just lost half of armor on one leg, quad' will lost half of speed.
Second concern - torso twist. Some of those quads haven't twisting torso at all, which cause a lot of troubles in close combat fights.
But I'll be glad to see quads in game, anyway - just 'cause I really like some of old designs: tarantula and scorpion, not those new wobby's beasty things.

LAM. LAM=FAIL. Puny try to explain why mechs, taken from macross look like made of fighter parts. There is no place for LAM in BT, I believe.

[OzBrad]

If referring to mine, I would still have no hesation taking those 4 mechs into battle especially AWESOME shes a beast

[jbone]

I don't think we will ever see LAM's again, something tells me the unseen making a return would be too much to ask. I personally like LAM's but this isn't a combined arms game, so keeping aerospace out of it as a pc thing would be very good. Plus getting parts would be a total pain... unlike you somehow manage to find a 250 year old mech factory somewhere that wasn't looted/blown up/retooled to make more combat effective mechs.

As for quad's they aren't two pilot mechs, and yes they should be present, they have some interesting abilities lateral shifts, and you can lose a leg and do something more than just hop around looking silly, if you somehow managed to stay upright. Oh and my favorite, Mule kicks.

As for me, Battlemaster or the Axemaster. I think the axemaster just has something special about it, nothing says love like going internal on your first tap to the dome.

Edited by jbone, 07 February 2012 - 12:08 AM.

[Xak Crow]

I'm all for have 4-legged and LAM mechs being available. The more choices we have with different types and configurations, could really add a tactical edge, and really call for strategy. Much better than just a bunch of people trying to kill each other to just get to one target and still not accomplish anything.

Just my opinion, but at least with a larger variety of available mechs, much bigger challenge, true?

[Charlic Wolf]

UncleKulikov, on 12 January 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

QUADs.

Not LAMs.

Thorqemada, on 13 January 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

Quads, if someone likes them, ok, but no LAM please, beside historical curiosity.

to the people directly hating on LAMs: they were in Battletech. face it. they existed. and they would be bloody fun to pilot, any day.

[TimberJon]

I don't like Quads too much because of the general lack of torso twisting. In my mind they have too many disadvantages. Kind of similar to a tracked vehicle with a fixed cannon.

LAM's provide a rediculous tactical advange that = game inbalance. Since we don't get fighter planes... why a LAM? They would be fun to pilot, but harmful to gameplay. That is why they thought of using tiny remote controlled drones. Not armored gun platforms that can fly.

Being able to fly over spot the enemy, relay coords to commander and send alot of hurt downrange at the enemy sounds like great fun but negates all the careful work of using a scout mech and building that particular skill tree, using drones and other info-warfare tools.

If you give us LAM's, give us orbital strikes and fighters to maintain our units' air superiority.

Edited by TimberJon, 25 February 2012 - 03:40 PM.

[wwiiogre]

the first time we faced off with 4 leggers on the table top was an eye opening experience and once we saw what they could do in the hands of skilled pilot and warrior some switched and never looked back. they are not every one's cup of tea. But they are viable and have a unique way of being piloted mechs cannot achieve like side stepping behind an obstruction or going hull down with merely weapon barrels showing over cover. Which in some environments would be awesome and scary if the other side had this ability. But me, I like the more variables the better. So you never know what is coming or how to deal with it.

chris

[TimberJon]

Like variables? read this one =)
http://mwomercs.com/...onent-upgrades/

[Kolera]

I say YES! for everything if its possible to provide such things and dont mess with the basic gameplay

ps. yes this is pretty irrelevant post.

Edited by Kolera, 26 February 2012 - 02:57 AM.

[Skygrunt]

please no lam's i hate those things i mean is this transformers..... no lams

[Morgana]

Where's the 6-legged?



360 degree turret. Hmmmm, wonder who would win the legging war?

[Mautty the Bobcat]

I'm still adamantly opposed to LAMs...I don't believe they have a place in the BT Universe to begin with. Having a mech that transforms into a massive fighter jet isn't practical for the kind of warfare that mechs are used for. Heck, even the quads are a bit ridiculous, as having 4 legs support a 'weapons platform' is just asking for trouble when one or more of them get blown off. Granted these suckers could pick up some speed, but the need for fire support due to the lack of torso twisting just made them a bit of a liability in a real time environment. They've worked wonders in TT from what I've heard, being useful if the player could use them correctly...otherwise they were just a waste of resources.

[Adridos]

Quads are fine. Nothing against implementation of those.

LAMs, on the other hand, shouldn't have existed in the first place.