518 replies to this topic

[Gremlich Johns]

stormeris, on 21 April 2012 - 07:40 AM, said:

i thought you could add 2 and 2 together, but i guess i was wrong >.>

the sarna explaination of a quad is really stupid- "The Quad 'Mech uses its "arms" for legs which gives these designs some additional stability and maneuverability" How ignorant does one have to be to see legs as another set of arms that a mech uses - to dog-walk.

The very first sentence under "Battlemech" contradicts that statement: 'A BattleMech (often abbreviated 'Mech, although that could technically also refer to IndustrialMechs) is an armored combat vehicle of roughly humanoid shape, some 10 to 14 meters (about 30 to 40 feet) tall and typically massing from 20 to 100 tons." Note that it did not say "roughly four-legged animal shape"

To reiterate (That means "repeat") - The quad "mech" is not humanoid in shape as the explanation is written. So methinks you are confused by too much ill-thought information in that wiki.

Your argument is fail. The quad is not a battlemech - a mech, being of roughly humanoid shape, is bi-pedal. The quad is not bi-pedal (I think you can at least understand that) but quadra-pedal, therefore mech does not = quad.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 21 April 2012 - 07:59 AM.

[Stormeris]

Gremlich Johns, on 21 April 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

the sarna explaination of a quad is really stupid- "The Quad 'Mech uses its "arms" for legs which gives these designs some additional stability and maneuverability" How ignorant does one have to be to see legs as another set of arms that a mech uses - to dog-walk.

The very first sentence under "Battlemech" contradicts that statement: 'A BattleMech (often abbreviated 'Mech, although that could technically also refer to IndustrialMechs) is an armored combat vehicle of roughly humanoid shape, some 10 to 14 meters (about 30 to 40 feet) tall and typically massing from 20 to 100 tons." Note that it did not say "roughly four-legged animal shape"

To reiterate (That means "repeat") - The quad "mech" is not humanoid in shape as the explanation is written. So methinks you are confused by too much ill-thought information in that wiki.

Your argument is fail. The quad is not a battlemech - a mech, being of roughly humanoid shape, is bi-pedal. The quad is not bi-pedal (I think you can at least understand that) but quadra-pedal, therefore mech does not = quad.

But does it say "If it gots more than 2 legs its aint a mech"? Oh and humanoid shape eh? so Mad Dog, Mad cat, marauder, locust arent mechs either? they arent humanoid shape, are you saying you dont want them too? what about Catapult it isnt humanoid but look, it was already revealed, SO SHUT THE HELL UP ALREADY

[Tremor]

I actually agree with stomeris on this one. Not all 'mechs are very humanoid.

Besides it's quad mech, Not quad combat vehicle.

[Gremlich Johns]

@Tremor and Stormeris

Both of you really need to read carefully the statement copied from Sarna - "roughly humanoid shape". The Timberwolf and Mad Dog are both clearly bi-pedal "roughly" humanoid shapes (both have "arms" that are clearly not legs, and intended to carry weapons, not used to walk) and "roughly humanoid shape" can cover many subjects, like an Urbanmech, just not quads or tanks. Your comment (stormeris) to "So shut the hell up already", in caps no less, tells me that you are quite the teenaged brat, used to getting his/her way. Read more, it will not hurt.

To reiterate (again, that means to "repeat"), Humanoid, just in case you are wondering why you do not understand, suggests the ability to carry about in an upright stance on two legs, not four limbs. And do not bring up the Great Apes, either, they are humanoid shaped as well even if some drag their knuckles sometimes.

And Tremor, the sarna article also identifies them both as "armored combat vehicles" contrary to your statement. Really, read it yourself in the extract in my previous post that I copied from Sarna. You will see it - "is an armored combat vehicle of roughly humanoid shape..."

You may have the last word, you tire me.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 21 April 2012 - 09:32 AM.

[Stormeris]

Gremlich Johns, on 21 April 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

@Tremor and Stormeris

Both of you really need to read carefully the statement copied from Sarna - "roughly humanoid shape". The Timberwolf and Mad Dog are both clearly bi-pedal "roughly" humanoid shapes (both have "arms" that are clearly not legs, and intended to carry weapons, not used to walk) and "roughly humanoid shape" can cover many subjects, like an Urbanmech, just not quads or tanks. Your comment (stormeris) to "So shut the hell up already", in caps no less, tells me that you are quite the teenaged brat, used to getting his/her way. Read more, it will not hurt.

To reiterate (again, that means to "repeat"), Humanoid, just in case you are wondering why you do not understand, suggests the ability to carry about in an upright stance on two legs, not four limbs. And do not bring up the Great Apes, either, they are humanoid shaped as well even if some drag their knuckles sometimes.

And Tremor, the sarna article also identifies them both as "armored combat vehicles" contrary to your statement. Really, read it yourself in the extract in my previous post that I copied from Sarna. You will see it - "is an armored combat vehicle of roughly humanoid shape..."

You may have the last word, you tire me.

oh look, "roughly" humanoids go only so far, what about these rather iconic mechs which arent even remotely humanoid, theyre more birdlike: your not saying that THESE arent actually mechs? that theyre simple vehicles?

Edited by stormeris, 21 April 2012 - 09:41 AM.

[Arctic Fox]

Total Warfare notes that "BattleMechs also come in two primary chassis configurations: the significantly more common bipedal (humanoid) design and a four-legged (quad) design". So clearly Quad 'Mechs are, in fact, BattleMechs...

Tremor, on 21 April 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

Besides it's quad mech, Not quad combat vehicle.

At least until we know exactly what Clan Hell's Horses mysterious 'QuadVees' are...

[GrizzlyViking]

I like options and Quads are a good option.

[Der BruzZzler von Wiesndoof]

The term Quad'Mech says it. It's a mech and a man/woman who rides a mech is ?
RIGHT ... A Mechwarrior !
A pilot who rides a 130kph fast quad that can jump 240 meters with a single leap isn't a Mechwarrior?
Cmon guys! That doesn't sound like a "tank commander".

[Tremor]

Gremlich Johns, on 21 April 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

And Tremor, the sarna article also identifies them both as "armored combat vehicles" contrary to your statement. Really, read it yourself in the extract in my previous post that I copied from Sarna. You will see it - "is an armored combat vehicle of roughly humanoid shape..."

You may have the last word, you tire me.

Again, the name of quad 'mech is just that. quad 'mech. Not to mention the very "Humanoid" looking 'mechs kindly provided by stormeris.

If tactfully arguing a point is to 'tiring' for you, try it against inanimate objects. It's much easier to win a debate if your opponants can't crush your invalid argument with evidence.

[Watchit]

@sromeris

Are you saying the Stalker isn't humanoid shaped? It is clearly shaped as a humanoid [redacted to prevent banhammer]

[Rejarial Galatan]

i will never pilot a quad mech. NEVER. A quad battle armor, yes, mech NO. I cant figure me out on this one, dont expect yall can either!

[LordDeathStrike]

GrizzlyViking, on 21 April 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

I like options and Quads are a good option.

as an option i love quads, all i gotta do is hit one leg hard and youre gimped (note that bt rules state 1 leg broken = mech crawls around crippled, even if a quad)

as a mech i despise them, they are all very poor designs, none of them hold a candle to similar weight IS designs of the same timeline, let alone clan mechs.

[Skylarr]

I cannot believe people are argueing about a battlemech is?


"A BattleMech (often abbreviated 'Mech, although that could technically also refer to IndustrialMechs) is an armored combat vehicle of roughly humanoid shape, some 10 to 14 meters (about 30 to 40 feet) tall and typically massing from 20 to 100 tons."

Common. We all know that this is just a general statement.

[KageRyuu]

You should add a 5th option, No, but I would certainly be amused fighting those crippled mechs.

My answer is no, but that's primarily because they can't carry hatchets, which I do love greatly, and will push for until this game dies.

[William Petersen]

LordDeathStrike, on 21 April 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

as an option i love quads, all i gotta do is hit one leg hard and youre gimped (note that bt rules state 1 leg broken = mech crawls around crippled, even if a quad)

Well that shows us all how much (Read: little) you know about BattleTech rules (which comes as no surprise to anyone who has actually read this thread in totality). Didn't you get enough thrashing earlier in here?

One leg destruction results in the loss of all bonuses due to being a quad (lateral shift, -2 PSRs, and auto-success on stand-up), and the incurring of a -1 movement points penalty.

Only after two legs are lost is it reduced to 1 MP.


Are you done demonstrating exactly how ignorant you are, yet?

[Pilot Revant]

This thread has got massive levels of buttmadium.

Look what's the problem with having quads?

[Hell Grunt]

Pilot_Revant, on 22 April 2012 - 02:24 AM, said:

This thread has got massive levels of buttmadium.

Look what's the problem with having quads?

They are just afraid of being circle-strafed or sniped by Scorpions with impunity, or being mocked by Tarantulas spotting for the arty on top of skyscrapers.

Edited by Hell Grunt, 22 April 2012 - 05:44 AM.

[Stormeris]

William Petersen, on 22 April 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

Well that shows us all how much (Read: little) you know about BattleTech rules (which comes as no surprise to anyone who has actually read this thread in totality). Didn't you get enough thrashing earlier in here?

One leg destruction results in the loss of all bonuses due to being a quad (lateral shift, -2 PSRs, and auto-success on stand-up), and the incurring of a -1 movement points penalty.

Only after two legs are lost is it reduced to 1 MP.


Are you done demonstrating exactly how ignorant you are, yet?

THANK YOU! maybe finally that lord fucknut will stop spouting b.s

[Der BruzZzler von Wiesndoof]

Hell Grunt, on 22 April 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

or being mocked by Tarantulas spotting for the arty on top of skyscrapers.

That would be so awesome ...
The ultra agile Tarantula could do the job.

[Lomack]

I don't really have a problem with them. I would try them out and compair them to other options. The issue I see is...

Currently a kill is.... destroy the head, torso, or both legs.
- we don't currently know what happens when a mech loses one leg. Immobile, Limps, can only sit and torso twist, etc...

With a 4 leg mech what would you need to do to destroy it.
- After one leg was destroyed would it still be mobile?
- After two legs were destroyed I could see it being immobile, but is that really enough to count it destroyed?

I just see issues with balance. That's not to say I'm against it. I just see it being harder for PGI to design the balance into the game that feels fair.

Edited by Lomack, 22 April 2012 - 08:18 AM.