518 replies to this topic

[Stormeris]

Gremlich Johns, on 28 April 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

Historically and canonically insignificant event. A footnote.

@ Willim Peterson, you are just another troll yourself, I have read your drivel.

"They have never decided the outcome of ANY battle in the BT canon." <--- you said that, i proved you wrong, so you say that its historically and canonically insignificant? if it was insignificant no one would bother mentioning it

[Watchit]

Gremlich Johns, on 28 April 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

An historically and canonically insignificant event. A footnote. As I pointed out. Statement of fact is not flaming. Making statements because someoneone does share your point of view is.

@ Willim Peterson, you are just another troll yourself, I have read your drivel. You flame without rationale. Just because you can.

[William Petersen]

Gremlich Johns, on 28 April 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

@ Willim Peterson, you are just another troll yourself, I have read your drivel. You flame without rationale. Just because you can.

And I yours. You really seem to either really hate or really love for that dungram fang of the suns show, and I can't tell which.

I guess since giant walking robots with weapons were around long before BattleTech, then the whole concept is just anime and shouldn't be included, right?

Your position, which you have made plainly clear is this:
Since Quads were in this anime show before they were in BattleTech, the BattleTech quads are obviously just a rip off appeal to those anime fans and should be ignored.
Or, in simpler form. Since 'source' = anime, subject = irrelevant; should not be included. So let's just forego the whole game/universe since it's obviously just a rip off of anime.

This new 'argument' that contribution to the storyline and events of the canon is equally as novel. Why bother including any individual chassis that didn't make significant contributions to major engagements of the canon, too? After all, they're clearly canonically insignificant and don't matter. I'm sure we won't be missing out on anything by excluding them.

Furthermore, I like how you gravitate to an extremely narrow description of "BattleMech" brought from Sarna (made by BattleTech fans for BattleTech fans). You know how I (or most people I know) describe BattleTech to laymen? "It's a game about walking tanks."
Is it covered in armour? Yes. Is it covered in weapons? Yes. Is it mobile? Yes. Congratulations, that's what most people consider a "tank" if it's on land. In fact, that very description "walking tanks" shift quads distinctly more towards "BattleMechs," since, y'know, they walk.

Lastly, if you want to get really technical, "quads" pre-date the humanoid mecha by about 70 years. Sure, it didn't have weapons, but it was A) quadrupedal, B) piloted, and C) mechanical.


I do believe I have, point-by-point, poked each of your objections to Quads. Feel free to pull a LordDeathStrike and ignore everything I've said and continue the Anti-Quad Jihad, or just keep up the ad hominem.

<3

[Stormeris]

@William Petersen

[Der BruzZzler von Wiesndoof]

Gremlich Johns, on 28 April 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

Quads are NOT (and never will be) an integral part of the BT universe (do you know what integral means?) - at best they are a footnote... bla bla

Nuff said...

[Solarflux]

If they ever made it into the game, I would try them out. Sidestepping seems like something fun to do.

[Geriak]

Oh well probaly see one but as a boss mwahaha

[Caballo]

I have enough problems with bipedals to get a quad. Thanks, but no, thanks.

[RobarGK]

I think they would be a great addition for gameplay reasons. Most of the people I have seen play mechwarrior have a hard time with torso twisting when they first start out and often give up on the game because it feels weird to them. The option to sidestep, albeit slowly, could present an opportunity to such players, giving them potential the potential to control the game in a manner similar to a first person shooter. I personally would not pilot one most of the time, but still believe they should be implemented at some point.

[SpiralRazor]

LordDeathStrike, on 15 April 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:

all the good mechs are bipeds, nuff said.

Obvious troll is obvious. Dont mind this guy, he's been drinking too much of the tard juice.

[ArchApollyon]

Though I don't expect to see quads but I would love to play them. I think they would make great support mechs. Also I was introduced to mech warrior when i was like 10 and mech warrior 2 was out. I vaguely remember in my friends Battletech book there being a mech with 1 leg. does anyone remember this? it seems really impractical but i think some really crazy mechs exist in the Battletech universe.

[tynaiden]

It would seem the original scope and appeal for Battletech was indeed bi-pedal hulking death machines so naturally they, and the lore for them, would be front and foremost.

Quads are in lore. They have fully fleshed out rules just as bi-pedals do. They have even been revised as bi-pedal rules have been. Why would the IP holders go through all that if they were not liked or intended?

If they had so little to do with the universe and were inferior why does it matter so much to opponents in this thread if they are included in canon or this game? An extra (some seem to suggest easier) target to gain honor, money, and salvage from would be the worst that could happen. The Mackie was -the- original Battlemech. It seems highly inferior by most of the main BT user timeline and could be considered a side note. Should that be redacted as well, Grandfather Paradox?


After everything in this combined thread, I still stand by my opinion that they could add extra diversity to roles and combat/play-styles, I would pilot one for awhile but not as a main, and they also should be not a priority until development cycles can allow them. Same for vehicles and Battlearmor. I also would not mind if the sole content was just ranked factions in bi-pedal 'Mechs. Everything I have seen or read (from devs) has already glued me to my seat in anticipation for great fun. Maybe even have some of those 'what if' nostalgia dreams of what it would be like finally sated.

Considering the model is F2P for this title, it could be hard to say what comes to quads and combined arms. Obviously early development for F2p is centered on getting a core product out there and returning upstart costs. Paramount to that is refining what is most desired to continue support and draw in new interest. Later on it usually turns to continuing income through interest by introducing minor elements and new options to the core.

With their statement about staying as true to TableTop Battletech as possible, it could be interpreted that Quads n Combined would have to be looked at eventually. However that is a double edged sword; TTBT was a great and varied beast so what they pick out to incorporate for interest could be near anything. Ditto for what they could use to stay profitable. To keep costs low, they may not want or be able to pick so much to add.

Who knows for certain what the future has up it's sleeves; not even ComStar did ;]

[Haakon Valravn]

So long as I get my Marauder, I don't care if they bring in quads or not.

[Stormeris]

ArchApollyon, on 28 April 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Though I don't expect to see quads but I would love to play them. I think they would make great support mechs. Also I was introduced to mech warrior when i was like 10 and mech warrior 2 was out. I vaguely remember in my friends Battletech book there being a mech with 1 leg. does anyone remember this? it seems really impractical but i think some really crazy mechs exist in the Battletech universe.

Ehm, i dont think there are mechs with one leg, unless its a biped with one of its legs blown to smithereens,
BUT there are a canon tripodal mech: 130ton Ares, although i believe there was another one, cant remember the name but i dont think the other one was canonical

[LordDeathStrike]

Solarflux, on 28 April 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

If they ever made it into the game, I would try them out. Sidestepping seems like something fun to do.

turning is much cooler the skittering, especially when you add torso twisting on to turning. an atlas can snap around and shoot behind itself with at least its arm weaponry in under a second, you skittering sideways quad takes closer to 10 seconds to rotate 180, and thus anyone will be able to sneak up and camp behind one all day.

on top of quad taking severe dmg to any limb = gimped movement speed, disabled skitter step, and likely to fall down any time it moves because its designed to have 4 legs and only having 3 cripples it.

[Stormeris]

LordDeathStrike, on 28 April 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

turning is much cooler the skittering, especially when you add torso twisting on to turning. an atlas can snap around and shoot behind itself with at least its arm weaponry in under a second, you skittering sideways quad takes closer to 10 seconds to rotate 180, and thus anyone will be able to sneak up and camp behind one all day.

on top of quad taking severe dmg to any limb = gimped movement speed, disabled skitter step, and likely to fall down any time it moves because its designed to have 4 legs and only having 3 cripples it.

You do know that mechs rarely have 360 degrees torso turning? And considering atlas speed, im pretty sure most quads would be able to circle 'round atlas with sidestepping, not giving him a clear shot

[William Petersen]

LordDeathStrike, on 28 April 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

turning is much cooler the skittering, especially when you add torso twisting on to turning. an atlas can snap around and shoot behind itself with at least its arm weaponry in under a second, you skittering sideways quad takes closer to 10 seconds to rotate 180, and thus anyone will be able to sneak up and camp behind one all day.

on top of quad taking severe dmg to any limb = gimped movement speed, disabled skitter step, and likely to fall down any time it moves because its designed to have 4 legs and only having 3 cripples it.

Passing off opinion and supposition as fact. That's cute.

This sounds really familiar... Oh that's probably because you've said it before!

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

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)

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.

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?

You were wrong then. You're wrong now. I really don't understand why you continue to return to this thread.

[BattleFalcon]

stormeris, on 28 April 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

Ehm, i dont think there are mechs with one leg, unless its a biped with one of its legs blown to smithereens,
BUT there are a canon tripodal mech: 130ton Ares, although i believe there was another one, cant remember the name but i dont think the other one was canonical

Ow my eyes... the Ares is NOT LEGAL according to Classic BattleTech rules, which includes everything BattleTech except that god-awful Age of Destruction stuff. There are no Classic rules for five limbs, and there are no rules for >100-ton 'Mechs.

That being said, if the Tarantula gets included in this game, you'd need a very serious prybar to even attempt getting me out of one...

[Arctic Fox]

BattleFalcon, on 29 April 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:

Ow my eyes... the Ares is NOT LEGAL according to Classic BattleTech rules, which includes everything BattleTech except that god-awful Age of Destruction stuff. There are no Classic rules for five limbs, and there are no rules for >100-ton 'Mechs.

That's partially right and wrong, respectively, as I have already pointed out somewhere in this thread. Rules to account for the Ares' tripedal design are going to be in Interstellar Operations, and there are already canon rules out for 'Mechs up to 200 tons in Jihad: Final Reckoning.

[Easy 8]

Yes I'd pilot a quad. I love the old unseen Scorpion and that'd definitely be toward the top of my lsit for ones to pilot. Yes it had heat problems, but a revamp with Star League technology made it a better medium weight mech. Also, in theory the quads should be a much steadier platform to fire from as compared to the bipedal designs. Should be fun if they decide to put the two of them (Goliath and Scorpion) in.