53 replies to this topic

[Jack Deth]

ChargerIIC, on 01 November 2011 - 05:16 PM, said:

LAMs were a horrible idea. A friend of mine kept running LAMs in our board game matches - they make locusts look positively bulletproof

He was doing it wrong. Whole point of LAMs is being able to jump 3 times normal distance so you can go behind hard cover way out of his movement range when you loose initiative and when you win you park yourself directly behind the guy with your movement multiplier maxed out. Fragile, yes. But it's pretty hard to hit you when you're nothing but a vague blur in the rear-view.

But ya, I'd rather see time and effort not wasted on them. Priorities for adding extra stuff to the game (in order) ... artillery, vehicles, dropships (landed), aerospace/conventional fighters (planetside), space combat (fighters, dropships, jumpships, warships), then LAMs last.

[steve]

Jack Deth, on 01 November 2011 - 09:08 PM, said:

But ya, I'd rather see time and effort not wasted on them. Priorities for adding extra stuff to the game (in order) ... artillery, vehicles, dropships (landed), aerospace/conventional fighters (planetside), space combat (fighters, dropships, jumpships, warships), then LAMs last.

I'd rather see LAM's before Dropships, Jumpships, and Warships. I will agree that Conventional combat vehicles, Artillery, and Fighters(both conventional and Aerospace) should come before LAM development.

[LordKelvin]

I highly doubt that we'll see LAMs in the game. By this point in history they're extremely, extremely rare, and there are few to no means for producing any more (the last piece of lore I read about it was that the very last factory that could produce them was destroyed by Smoke Jaguar some time during the invasion). And in any case, the creators went well out of their way to all but retcon them out of the universe.

Besides, why go through all the trouble creating new rules, functions, and game mechanics just for three of them? There are far more profitable ways to spend your development time.

[DamoclesGuard]

I both love and hate LAM's.

I loved them for the idea, the versatility, the crazy airmech mode with an 20 something jump MP rating, and the lore surrounding them.

I hated them for the blatant rip off of Robotech/Macross, there "Get hit once and become useless", and there inability to do any job well.
The airmech mode was the only viable mode. In mech mode, a regular mech 20 ton's lighter could defeat them, in AS mode even a conventional fighter could beat them.

They were death traps for there pilots. But at least you went out in style.


As for in MWO... I certainly hope not.

[Fallen Kell]

Darklord, on 01 November 2011 - 03:55 PM, said:

I doubt even a single LAM exist at this point in time in the 3049 universe.

DL

Actually, all of them did. The Shadow Hawk, Phoenix Hawk, Stinger, and Wasp were all included in the 3025 technical readout:

http://www.sarna.net...l_Readout:_3025

Edited by Fallen Kell, 01 November 2011 - 11:33 PM.

[Fallen Kell]

LordKelvin, on 01 November 2011 - 09:51 PM, said:

I highly doubt that we'll see LAMs in the game. By this point in history they're extremely, extremely rare, and there are few to no means for producing any more (the last piece of lore I read about it was that the very last factory that could produce them was destroyed by Smoke Jaguar some time during the invasion). And in any case, the creators went well out of their way to all but retcon them out of the universe.

Besides, why go through all the trouble creating new rules, functions, and game mechanics just for three of them? There are far more profitable ways to spend your development time.

The LexaTech Industries factory still existed on Irece in 3049 and was still making Stinger Land-Air-Mechs. Others like the Shadow Hawk, Phoenix Hawk, and Wasp were getting rare, but some were still found in Star League caches as late as 3085. Irece was not captured until 3050 by Clan Nova Cat.

I do agree with you though about spending the time to deal with them in this particular game. They would be too unbalancing without aerospace fighters and dropship combat being included. But stop spreading the FUD about them not existing. There were still plenty in action and around and being actively produced up to 3050.

Edited by Fallen Kell, 01 November 2011 - 11:40 PM.

[Erhardt]

Ooya, on 01 November 2011 - 08:29 PM, said:

As bad as Far Country is it does have a Phoenix Hawk LAM in it - I did not mention that book, not not at all, you must be delusional.

You know, for as undeniably over-all wretched as Far Country was, the beginning of the book where the jumpship was tearing itself apart and the dropships were detaching in a panic was masterfully written. I felt like I was watching a movie for that whole sequence/chapter. Too bad the book pretty much crashed and burned after that part. =(

[Reoh]

Veritech fighters are cool,but leave them in Macross. They never fit properly into the BT universe.

[Madurai]

The transforming part of the LAM is where it kind of failed to fit in with the rest of the tech. If the LAM was permanently stuck in AirMech mode, they'd have all of the coolness and utility, and none of the craziness. (That was a house rule when I played Back In The Day).

In any event, I suspect they won't be making an appearance.

[Colaessus]

LAM, well we are on the topic can I get bumblebee in the game to. I am a Big Transformer fan.

Also, Macross can GTFO, their little copyright stint back in 2009 was not funny. You know what i am talking about.

[BarHaid]

The1WithTheGun, on 01 November 2011 - 04:58 PM, said:

I don't hate the LAMs, but like oh so many examples of real-life military hardware designed with TOO broad a mission profile - it just can't hold up against more specialized designs.

Not saying that versatile designs don't have a place, but a LAM's mission profile was way too broad - mech's beat them on the ground, and aerospace fighters beat them in the air.

That's the problem right there. The time's a LAM is useful are few and far between. Every other time, you're going to get pounded to scrap. However, I am MORE than willing to die multiple times learning to be "That freak with the LAM".

[Bismarck]

Well i played a PH LAM for a long time in the board game. We used the old FASA MW RPG to make our pilots.
You talk about things like they fit into the BT universe or not. They are part of the universe.
I will tell you a different view.
As a LAM pilot in the RPG you need 4 skills instead of 2. You need Piloting and Gunnery Battlemech and Aerospace Fighter. You have to spent more points just to be good. Only Mech Pilots get lower stats much faster.
And thats my suggestion. If the LAM mechs will ever show up in this game, make them very rare. AND make more skills you have to master to steer them. They should be expensive in every way.
Dont get me wrong. It should be fun to play one. But it should be hard to get one.

Edited by Bismarck, 02 November 2011 - 08:23 AM.

[r4plez]

LAM's were THE stupidest idea of Battletech, please don't make them. Those things are abominations in BT Universe.

Edited by r4plez, 02 November 2011 - 08:26 AM.

[Panaka]

Amro_One, on 02 November 2011 - 07:43 AM, said:

LAM, well we are on the topic can I get bumblebee in the game to. I am a Big Transformer fan.

Also, Macross can GTFO, their little copyright stint back in 2009 was not funny. You know what i am talking about.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there's been a Mech that transforms into a VW Beetle or Camero in Battletech. Nor one that transforms into any car, nor one that transforms into a truck for that matter.
There have been mechs that transform into aircraft in BT lore, as much as people apparently dislike them.

[Nill Zenath]

With the way the developers have said they want to introduce role and information warfare aspects into this game LAM would actually be a lot of benefit. Yes they're fragile, but in the role of scout and information gathering their flight capability would really help them excel. The scout role in this game allows those scout mechs to provide real time feed to their commander. Having a mech that could move as quickly across a map and provide as clear an overhead view would be completely invaluable. LAMs get a lot of flak because the advantages such a mech would provide aren't aspects of the tabletop game. The tabletop game also goes out of its way to punishe LAM's with weight and fuel constraints that don't make much sense within the context of aerospace fighters. I think LAMs are one of those concepts that translates better in a computer game than they do in a tabletop game.

Also there is a lot of discussion about dropships and jumpships, fighters and land vehicles... I think all of that stuff should be NPC units. Dropships and jumpships should just be scenario or deployment based features of the location or map. Fighters and aircraft in general should just be auxiliary support units representing assets non-tangible to the mech commander... like calling an airstrike... or just commanding a supporting tank unit to go to specific location and take specific postures.

Edited by Nill Zenath, 02 November 2011 - 08:43 AM.

[AJC]

idea for lams..make them based off Sunrise's Zeta Gundam instead of Macross's VF-1 X)

so they only have have fighter mode and mech mode.

in fact one of the lams worked just like that it didn't have a airmech mode and only could transform from mech to fighter.

Edited by AJC, 02 November 2011 - 10:27 AM.

[Munchausen]

The tone of this discussion changes drastically if you do like I always do - Pronounce "LAM" with a long A.

No LAM(e)s, please.

[Tirak]

Yes please LAMs! Like several people said earlier it really plays into the "different mechs for different roles" concept that they want to get going so every mech is useful. LAMs would be an absolutely fantastic in the scout, ambush or "********* I need reinforcements NOW!" role. At launch I don't think it's feasible, just like Aerofighters aren't going to be in at launch, but I think their inclusion would be great for the uniqueness of MWO.

[BlackWidow]

Ah, LAMs. Gotta love. Haveta hate em.

1. Macross fan or not (I'm not, I just love all GFR) you have to admit, LAMs look cool.
2. The tech is way awesome...
3. The tech is (like 3025 should be) losttech and very rare and very finicky. So sure...spend your credits on a LAM. And while you are sitting in the mech hanger waiting on parts....for YEARS....I'm taking my mudstompers right up to your capital building....Say hello to your new groundpounding overlords! Weet!
4. In BT tabletop, if you knew how to play a LAM and take advantage of the speed and HEIGHT capabilites......you were nigh-untouchable. But you were also nigh-out of combat. Sure, you could easily be the last surviving mech...but did you have fun skipping around watching the rest of us have fun?
5. And ...the ONLY reason they were even viable in the BT was because most folks didn't play / use AEROTECH.

As to the topic of MWO:LAMs? Sure. As long as they had the same tech restrictions, parts scarcity and technical malfunctions they were desined to have...let someone waste the money on them.

ACTUALLY.....LAMs would be a GREAT way to help keep the game funded. No really! Listen! All the ROBOTECH and MW-johnnie-come-latelys will say oooo!!! I want a Gundam! blah blah blah. Sure kid, for $15 bucks it's all yours! We'll even through in a custom paint job and fuzzy dice for your canopy. (one weekend later......) Hey! PGI! My mech is broken. And it broke during a training mission! Can I get spare parts? PGI: Sure, kid. A new mode conversion actuator is only $25. or to sum up:

1. Offer LAMs for RL online store
2. Keep them in line with 3025 cannon.
3. ????
4. PROFIT!

And the rest of us get to hang out in your mech bay, drink beer and chuckle at your pretty, but useless toy.

[Skoll]

Much as I love Macross, leave LAMs to that and mechs to MechWarrior.