34 replies to this topic

[SnowDragon]

Morning,

Having a thought from the Arrow IV discussion which made me remember the days I played battletech with Quad assault mechs. I hadn't seen any mention of them in the forums, and so I wondered if they'd make it to the game.

Then again, I don't think I've ever seen a quad made it into an MW game before.

~~Ciao
~~SD

[Adridos]

We have no idea. We would like it, but none of the devs ever mentioned it.

[Gremlich Johns]

Say no to quads! (A leggers dream, btw)

Leave those to "Dougram: Fang of the Sun" (the Abitate F44-series) in the Anime), Tank Police (the weird stuff in Manga and Anime) and Ghost in the Shell (more weird stuff in The Manga and anime)

[Victor Morson]

Quads are a leggers nightmare, not a dream - you need to disable at least two legs to seriously impact the opposing 'mech. In fact, the ability to keep functioning properly while down a leg is one of their strongest attributes. That said, this was brought up in the "Bring back odd mechs" thread, but it was buried with talk of terrible stuff like LAMS.

I think Quads are entirely fine and a unique addition to the BTU. They don't feel jarring or out of place (see my earlier comment about LAMS) and they mesh well with the general feel of the BTU. Despite there only being a small handful, I'd be entirely down with seeing one or two show up in MWO and even think it'd make for a unique change of pace 'mech.

EDIT: The biggest problem for canon Quads is the only major option I can think of is the Scorpion, which is Reseen and I'm not sure if can be used in a MechWarrior title. They may very well be trying to steer clear of any design that's ever been contested. Most of the good Quad designs appeared in 3058+.

Edited by Victor Morson, 11 March 2012 - 03:09 PM.

[Pvt Dancer]

Scorpion and Golaith were 3025.... but both were 'Unseen'. Your point about to few to make it worth it still holds true, but I do not feel that them being 'Unseen' will hold them back. The real advantage to them from BT is not an issue in this game which is the special movement break.

It is a shame, because I do like the scorp.

[Victor Morson]

Pvt Dancer, on 11 March 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

Scorpion and Golaith were 3025.... but both were 'Unseen'. Your point about to few to make it worth it still holds true, but I do not feel that them being 'Unseen' will hold them back. The real advantage to them from BT is not an issue in this game which is the special movement break.

It is a shame, because I do like the scorp.

There is some chance, because the Scorpion - like the Locust - is classified Reseen, meaning it's art is back in the canon of CBT. However, there's a huge issue of the horrendous mess of BattleTech's legal holdings (with 10 different companies holding 10 different pieces of the puzzle) so I'm not sure if that makes it safe to use in a MechWarrior game.

That said, I'd honestly rather MWO take no chances, even the slightest ones, with possible lawsuits even if that means some of my favorite 'mechs never see the light of day. After the teaser for the MW Reboot that wasn't to be (before MWO became MWO) it was reported that they immediately had lawyers beating down their door for depicting a Warhammer, which was also supposed to be re-seen, because the artwork in a video game context was NOT licensed.. These are the kind of lawsuits that tore FASA a new one and I personally say if there's any doubt, stay away!

For those interested, right now the right holders off the top of my head include Topps, Smith & Tinker, Catalyst, Piranha, and Microsoft. Those are the active right holders, just for the core game, not including reseen artwork, issues with the novelists ownership of the franchise due to non-payment (I think Stockpole settled this) and more. It's a game of legal Jenga and I don't want anyone involved to take any risks when we've got plenty of other content to draw from!

EDIT: Let us bow our heads for a moment of silence in remembrance of MPBT3025, the last game killed outright due to copyright clashes.

Edited by Victor Morson, 11 March 2012 - 05:36 PM.

[Pvt Dancer]

Honestly, as well informed as you are, Piranha has posted repeatedly that they have no problems with Harmoney Gold and that they have in no way hindered the development of the game. By how coy they are in they answer in the first Q&A and the FAQ, if they were not going to do it, they would have said no and have been done with it.

Obviously I have no insider information nor do I claim to know who has what rights to what mechs. But I can read between the lines as well as anyone. Since Piranha has not provided a list of mechs saying 'Sorry, these will not be in the game, stop pestering us about them', you /have/ to read that they are going to have them, re-skinned by FD. I can not honestly believe that with the /well/ known history of this game that they would make the same foolish mistake FASA made.

Infact, your the first person to mention anything about lawyers 'beating down their door' over the Warhammer in the first trailer... that statement is a total contradiction to what Piranha has stated.

From the FAQ...
Q. Will the unseen Mechs make it into the game after all?

A. Look forward to a future announcement.

Dev Blog 0

Oh Yeah, Harmony Gold

Contrary to all the press and speculation that Harmony Gold was getting in the way of a deal or development, this had no impact whatsoever on development or signing a deal for MechWarrior.


Those are not answers or responces by a company that has had to fight off lawyers. Either they are very dumb and are going to do this dispite the risk or this has already been taken care of. To me, it looks like the later.

I can honestly accept that the only reason why they will not have the Scorp is because they do not want to go through the work to create animation for a 4 legged mech for effectivily 2 mechs (and they have different animation to boot, due to leg location). It probably is just not worth it .

[Siilk]

SnowDragon, on 11 March 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

Quad assault mechs.

No. Just no.

[Polymorphyne]

Siilk, on 12 March 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

No. Just no.

I don't see anything wrong with the Goliath...

[Dlardrageth]

I'd really like to get a...



...around the year 3055 game-time. And in 3059 the Clans come out with their own variant of it:



And would you really deny Clan Goliath Scorpion the right to use their Totem Mech?


Which incidentally is a 2834 design already...

Edited by Dlardrageth, 12 March 2012 - 06:00 AM.

[Siilk]

Longsword, on 12 March 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

I don't see anything wrong with the Goliath...

You mean other than it looks like a beheaded AT-AT with a tank placed on it's back? Quads, just as LAMs, always felt unnatural in BT universe, so adding them wouldn't add to the game atmosphere. Admit it, most quads are ugly. Actually all of them are. Not to mention, they would be a huge pain in the arse to model and animate as they usually lack turret-mounted weapons, not to mention fully-twistable torso.

[SnowDragon]

I used to build a lot fo Quad assault mechs in the 1707 rules. It's actually a disadvantage in firepower because you can't spread artillery to the arms to allow the 15 slots, so no Arrow IVs. BUt you could shuffle sideways and basically never slowed down. They have their place, I think. I'd like a few in the game.

[AkwardArcher]

I have heard a rumor that the talks are ongoing, but there is an issue of price in refrence to the 'Unseen'

Edited by Rance Praton, 12 March 2012 - 10:45 PM.

[Captain Nice HD]

Dlardrageth, on 12 March 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

I'd really like to get a...

I'd really like to pilot a....



XNT-O3. Too bad it's extinct.

[SnowDragon]

Captain Nice HD, on 13 March 2012 - 01:12 AM, said:

I'd really like to pilot a....



XNT-O3. Too bad it's extinct.

Daaaaayum that's a nice piece of hardware.

[Polymorphyne]

I like the aesthetics of the Goliath, and no, I wont admit that they are "all ugly" because it isn't true.
I love the tarantula and scorpion- they are nice looking quads.

edits: the problem with LAMs is they are really silly designs that could not possibly fly.
Quads actually DO make sense from an engineering and tactical standpoint.

Edited by Longsword, 13 March 2012 - 03:28 AM.

[Nill Zenath]

Practicalities aside, whether its LAM or Quads anything that adds greater diversity to the game is a good thing.

Alot of Battletech is impractical, and more so the further back to the original game and designs. LAMs suffer from not recieving attention; they had their original designs and were redone to a degree that was only enough to keep them around. I don't think their concept has beendone justice, and that if it had far fewer would be opposed to them. This MW game is emphasizing role warfare finally allowing LAMs to show their setting "realistic" advantage.

That said, outside the context of the game Quads are more "realistic" and practical than bi-pedal mechs. As a case based on aesthetics, there are many ugly mechs and some of the ones that MWO has released the concept art for look so much better than previous incarnations. So anyone opposed to Quads on the grounds of aesthetics needs to think of this as an opportunity to fix their looks. I personally like a number of the Quads and I hope to see them in the game. I see quads as one more way to vary the game play. MWO should be a 5th-gen mech game... as removed as Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 or 3 is from the good old days of Counterstrike... and then some. Quads and LAMs are the "and some" and are the little bits of zest that helps distinguish the Mechwarrior/Battletech setting from other Mech based games.

[THOR HAMMER]

Bring on the quads love to pilot a scorpion

[Victor Morson]

Siilk, on 12 March 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

You mean other than it looks like a beheaded AT-AT with a tank placed on it's back? Quads, just as LAMs, always felt unnatural in BT universe, so adding them wouldn't add to the game atmosphere. Admit it, most quads are ugly. Actually all of them are. Not to mention, they would be a huge pain in the arse to model and animate as they usually lack turret-mounted weapons, not to mention fully-twistable torso.

There's a few Quads that I think would work, even if torso movement is necessary to MWO (I kind of hope it is not, due to the arm movement unlock, to make 'mechs like the Nova unique when it's introduced). For example the Sirocco:


Again, it's not until after 3058. Really I can't think of a single, totally in the clear artwork wise quad before that era. I really don't find the majority of quads jarring (There's some awful, terrible, hideous ones like one that seriously looks like a giant monkey - but this is from the same era someone came up with battle armor that looks like a dog and makes the infantryman carry his supplies in it's mouth - Rottweiler I think it is - so I am ignoring that) or out of place in the universe.

I'm a person that hates LAMS, Colossals and pretty much anything Dark Age vomited out, so I'm pretty hardline/old school about my BattleTech but I have zero problems with Quads.

Nill Zenath, on 13 March 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:

Quads and LAMs are the "and some" and are the little bits of zest that helps distinguish the Mechwarrior/Battletech setting from other Mech based games.

Newer isn't always better, and sometimes things that were shown to have been bad ideas in the past are good to pay attention to. Most people hate LAMs, myself included, because within the universe the idea of a transforming robot into a plane is stupid. That's not stupid based on real world stuff, because as you said, CBT sure isn't; no, it's based on being dumb within the context of the world it shares.

Quads don't jar be because the idea of adding extra legs for a different profile to a 'mech is not jarring. It's completely feasible feeling within the context of the BTU.

Edited by Victor Morson, 22 March 2012 - 07:30 PM.

[Stauffenberg]

In Battletech, I use to love running a Goliath. Even if 1 leg was blown off you could still stand. I would at least like to try them out in the game.