34 replies to this topic

[Roland]

The biggest issues with getting Quads into this type of game generally hinges upon the fact that they're just hard to implement and balance.

As it stands, every mech has two arms, two legs, the same number of torso panels... maybe a few auxillery panels for things like missile pods... but once you add in quads, things start to get significantly different.

It's software, so it can do anything, but I'm not sure that Quads actually add anything significant to the actual gameplay to justify the complexity of actually implementing them. They're kind of a neat novelty, but that's about it.

[DerMaulwurf]

Although the only quad I really like is the Stalking Spider, I don't have a problem with including the others. The low profile and resistance to legging and knockdowns is enough to warrant inclusion.

I'm not a fan of quad Assaults however, as the lack of torso twist and arms becomes much more of an disadvantage at low speeds. But for example the new Scorpion from the TRO 3085 doesn't look too bad (isn't it adorable stepping on that car?). And with customization it's not a problem that decent canon variants will only appear decades down the road ;P.

Edited by DerMaulwurf, 30 May 2012 - 08:53 PM.

[Xeno Phalcon]

Yeah iv always wanted to see quads in a mechwarrior game, if i recall there were a few ways to snag one back in the MW2 days but was tricky. Devs have always shied away from non-traditional vehicles ever sense then. No vehicles, no quads and we barely got elementals in MW3 which is really sad, I would much prefer to see a Battlefield 3 style capacity to be on foot or in various types of vehicles but its a little late in the development process to be wishing for something so different then what weve been shown. (Which is basically, MW4:mercs online 2012 edition)

Maybe ill just stare and wait for planet side 2 for all my scifi battlefield 3 wannabe needs, spend the rest of my time in MWO's garage fixing up mechs like the old days....spent soo many hours doing that.....wtb quadmech in my garage.

[Anixantheas]

I've personally always been a fan of the Quads. Specifically the scorpion, being a fan of the 3025 era, I loved being able to "pop and shoot" kind of tactics when a quad goes down. The nice PPC long range, the short SRM beatstick, and the extra stability really helped keep that badboy cool when running in the water. Doin't know if anyone remembers an old game called ultrabots, it was an alien siege game where you had 3 mechs to help defend. A large assault biped, a short scout biped, and a large walker that had this huge fricken missle on the tail. This began my "like" of the walker mechs

From a coder standpoint I can see how a quad wold be a pain, it would require a whole new profile, and a whole new set of moving parameters. Though I would still love to see a scorpion making the cut.

[Stormeris]

I totally agree, we need quads! Especially the scorpion, like it's my favorite mech. Goliath isnt half bad either.

[Karl Streiger]

Roland, on 30 May 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

It's software, so it can do anything, but I'm not sure that Quads actually add anything significant to the actual gameplay to justify the complexity of actually implementing them. They're kind of a neat novelty, but that's about it.

From a logical point of view - i totally agree with you.
Quads means: no torso twisting - and strafing - never get the idea why a humanoid battlemech isn't able to strafe left or right.

-> But there is a reason why i want to see quads no matter the costs - this reason is called BARGHEST

[Tryptophan]

Even if there is no torso twist, it would be a very easy fix to have the torso twist command (for 'normal mechs) function as the quad's turn, and what would be the turning command function as a strafe. This would allow the quads to have more than just a different look, but allow a different play style.

It is rational that the standard mechs don't strafe, as even if they could it would probably be very very slow. If you just look at the way the joints are set up on standard mechs, there isn't really a degree of freedom allowing for a strafing movement (to my knowledge, or at least it isn't very common to have this). On the other hand, many quads to appear (physically) to have this sort of functionality.

[Johnny Kerensky]

Make quads their own class of battlemechs in the 105-140 ton range.

[Damocles]

Johnny Kerensky, on 13 July 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

Make quads their own class of battlemechs in the 105-140 ton range.

Why?

[Johnny Kerensky]

Damocles, on 13 July 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

Why?

Why not?

[Sean von Steinike]

If technically feasible, I don't see why not though, probably lower priority than a lot of other things. It wouldn't be worth it if only one or two quads could be added.

[Bombast]

Johnny Kerensky, on 13 July 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

Why not?

Because the Battletech/Mechwarrior weight classes are firmly established and balanced.

To balance a mech heavier then assault would mean a mech that moves at about 16kph. And because this game is objective based, that's just stupid.

And thats not even getting into the whole 'Canon' issue, which I wont discuss because you obviously don;t care.

[Johnny Kerensky]

Bombast, on 14 July 2012 - 03:40 AM, said:

Because the Battletech/Mechwarrior weight classes are firmly established and balanced.

To balance a mech heavier then assault would mean a mech that moves at about 16kph. And because this game is objective based, that's just stupid.

And thats not even getting into the whole 'Canon' issue, which I wont discuss because you obviously don;t care.

Nah, the AT-ATs moved slow and they sure obtained their objective i.e. wiping out the rebel forces on Hoth.

[ChargerIIC]

I would love to see quads in the game, especially the scorpion and the tarantula. They were great mechs for long range dueling and could add an interesting aspect to gameplay I think.

I'm much less certain about the superheavies. We tried them after Maximum Tech came out in TT, they really just performed as less capable Assault mechs. I've also found that no matter how high you push the upper weight class boundaries there are people who will want to push the limits higher than before in the hopes of mounting more mass weaponry on a single platform.

[Xandre Blackheart]

Quads should be doable, but there are a few differences.

Number 1 (and most importantly) quads can STRAFE. That's right they can side step without changing facing. However they cannot torso twist.

Secondly: Quads can lose 2 legs and still move at walk speed, and fire their torso/head mounted weapons.

Third: They don't have arm mounted weapons and can only target with torso (and front leg) weapons in a 3 hex (120') arc in front of them. (Turret rules suck and I'm in favor of tossing them out- turrets are for vehicles, not mechs)

Fourth and last: Quad mechs don't have arms. They don't have "modified" arms. They have 4 legs. The internals are the same for each leg of a mech for that weight class, and they get to have the same amount of armor on each of their individual legs as a biped mech of the same tonnage would have on each of it's individual legs.

The above, combined with sensible hardpoint placement, would mean that a quad pretty much balances out with biped mechs. They will have a lot of stability, and good protection against getting knocked down or legged, at the cost of much slower aiming (no arms) and the increased risk of always having someone behind them (no torso twist).

Edited by Xandre Blackheart, 14 July 2012 - 12:22 PM.