103 replies to this topic

[Artificer]

I think that what happened here was that a series of gameplay and animation tests lead to a heavily revised version of the design.

Before adding all the details and gubbins, the modeller would have followed the concept and created a low-detail first version, passed that on to rigging and perhaps some gameplay testing. I expect they found it to be a very uncompetitive design in terms of potential hit boxes...the side torsos can be hit with such ease and the 'arms' offer next to no protection. It would be destroyed far too easily to be an assault mech worth considering, especially if given an XL engine.

The solution seems to have been to play down the elongated torso. Personally, I would have taken the approach of lengthening the 'arms' instead. Perhaps combine them somehow with that crescent shaped mass on the torso seen in the battletech source images.

[Der BruzZzler von Wiesndoof]

Armorpiercer M82, on 13 December 2012 - 01:24 AM, said:

exactly,
and the other thing is, the "nose" is too small ingame. look the cenceptart, its HUGE powerfull torso. from the ingame screen it looks like its catapult size.

i dont like it.

Yup, the torso isnt bulky and not long enough.

Soyaman, on 13 December 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

I loved the concept art.
The long nose, bulky & ugly look made it really attractive.
I feel like they tried to make it pretty, but in the process the Stalker's soul slipped through their fingers and disappeared.

Sure, it looks good.. But the concept art was much, much better.. Please remake it, and give us the nose back.

This! ^

Edited by The Birdeater, 13 December 2012 - 08:22 AM.

[Virisken]

Tennex, on 12 December 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

Guys i fixed it

this!
now it looks like a stalker and not a fat catapult...stalker never had or should have "ears"

[Vapor Trail]

KerenskyClone, on 13 December 2012 - 04:29 AM, said:

Anyone notice the LOW armour values compared to the Atlas and even the Awesome? This thing is going to be very squishy...

But the firepower alone is going to make people cry OP the minute they appear in the game...

This is because the Stalker is not really a brawler. It's a long/medium range fire support mech. It's supposed to be the second line, behind the Atlas and other brawler- types during close to contact, and by the time it actually reaches the brawl, the brawl should be over...

The basic fire pattern for the base stock is LRMs, LRMs + LLs, then SRMs and MLs.

I will predict this though... the Stalker will out-Awesome the Awesome... meaning it's going to be a much better PPC/ERPPC boat than the Awesome Chassis, simply because of weapon placement.

[KerenskyClone]

Vapor Trail, on 13 December 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

This is because the Stalker is not really a brawler. It's a long/medium range fire support mech. It's supposed to be the second line, behind the Atlas and other brawler- types during close to contact, and by the time it actually reaches the brawl, the brawl should be over...

The basic fire pattern for the base stock is LRMs, LRMs + LLs, then SRMs and MLs.

I will predict this though... the Stalker will out-Awesome the Awesome... meaning it's going to be a much better PPC/ERPPC boat than the Awesome Chassis, simply because of weapon placement.

Not to mention its smaller profile (from the front) as well as a higher tonnage. So yeah, the Awesome is going to go the way of the Dodo once the patch hits...

[Tennex]

Radbane, on 13 December 2012 - 12:46 AM, said:

The only thing that bothers me are its feet, and that goes for concept and in-game screenshot. I miss forward toes or something that would make it look like it had some kind of balance. As it's designed now it looks like a jenner could push it from behind and make it tip forward.

Otherwise a great looking mech, and it does remind me of the catapult which is a good thing, as it's the most beatiful mech in this game =)

i kind of like the feet. its prett creative imo and fits the peersonality of the stalker.

[SpiralRazor]

Tennex, on 12 December 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

its arms are mounted too far above the head.

in the concept art the arms are nearly level with the top of the torso.

it looks a bit like rabbit ears now.

Taller and mounted higher are good things to me bro.....I dont want a repeat of the Cataphract that cant really fire from out of cover; Even though im quite used to it, it still kinda sucks.

[General Taskeen]

If the CT was modeled longer and the legs perhaps with dual-jointed knees, it would look a lot more unique. I could care less if it doesn't make sense, this is Battle Tech.

[SpiralRazor]

Vapor Trail, on 13 December 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

This is because the Stalker is not really a brawler. It's a long/medium range fire support mech. It's supposed to be the second line, behind the Atlas and other brawler- types during close to contact, and by the time it actually reaches the brawl, the brawl should be over...

The basic fire pattern for the base stock is LRMs, LRMs + LLs, then SRMs and MLs.

I will predict this though... the Stalker will out-Awesome the Awesome... meaning it's going to be a much better PPC/ERPPC boat than the Awesome Chassis, simply because of weapon placement.

Man.....you are wrong on so many levels.... Ill put this here for you just to show you how wrong you are :


Stalkers are often used to lead major advances while flanked by other heavy 'Mechs. This heavily armored spearhead was intended to blow holes in the enemy line through firepower and endurance. These steady advances suit the STK-3F well. With a maximum speed of 54 kilometers per hour, it is one of the slowest 'Mechs on the battlefield. The Stalker was not intended for hide-and-seek guerilla warfare, but for dogged fire-fights.

In urban battles, the Stalker is a particularly deadly opponent. With a wide range of short-range weaponry, the STK is most effective at ranges of 30 to 270 meters. In cities, where most fighting occurs at close range, the Stalker can take full advantage of its weight and short-range weaponry.

The STK-3F can be employed to clear a path through buildings or fortifications. Its heavy armor allows it to crash through even hardened walls without serious damage. A favorite tactic of many Stalker pilots is to wait inside a building until another 'Mech comes into range, and then step through the wall and into the street. Often, the Stalker can appear behind its intended victim and fire before the other 'Mech can turn.

The Stalker is also an adept defender. It can absorb tremendous amounts of abuse before being forced to retreat, and its cross-section of weapon types allows it to return fire effectively at any range. However, the STK-3F is more likely to carry the fight to the attackers rather than adopt a defensive position. Because of its highly efficient short-range firepower, a Stalker will usually attempt to close with the enemy and concentrate its attack on the heaviest 'Mech.





Does that really sounds like a support/sniper mech to you bro? No....its Primary Variant is made to smash its way through fortified areas and go TOE to TOE with other Assaults.

If PGI has gimped its armor values, they are doing it a grave injustice.

[Jadel Blade]

Adrian Steel, on 12 December 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

I think the modelers bastardized another great art rendition like they did the Centurion.

Truth.

Although its feet looked ******** in the concept art too.

[shabowie]

Lord Ikka, on 12 December 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

Looks good. I'm glad for another Mech that doesn't look human, especially an Assault. Should be interesting to see the dominant builds for Stalkers too...

Should be a good variety of viable builds with what we think are the hardpoints.

I don't get why they didn't make a 3-Fb though.

[Dukarriope]

Hooves are more stable than long feet are. Larger, wider area of contact is better for stability.

[Cache]

shabowie, on 14 December 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

I don't get why they didn't make a 3-Fb though.

Because that design was lost to the Succession Wars and won't be rediscovered for another 20-some years.

Tennex, on 12 December 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

Guys i fixed it

The question is, how well does your "fix" work with the arm and torso movement that is necessary for gameplay?

[General Taskeen]

shabowie, on 14 December 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

Should be a good variety of viable builds with what we think are the hardpoints.

I don't get why they didn't make a 3-Fb though.

The Fb can be made exactly with the 3F. I tested that theory already in the offline mech bay program. Some variants aren't added since it would be too redundant when they can made with existing variants. I'm assuming the hardpoints of the Fb (ECM) and Fk will be rolled into the 3F.

[Tennex]

cache, on 14 December 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

The question is, how well does your "fix" work with the arm and torso movement that is necessary for gameplay?

shouldn't be too much of an issue. The only thing changed was to make the torso bigger, and the arms smaller the clipping issue would resolve because the arms would be mounted further up and smaller.

[shabowie]

cache, on 14 December 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

Because that design was lost to the Succession Wars and won't be rediscovered for another 20-some years.

All the technologies for it are available right now in the timeline. It's only a subtype. No reason there couldn't be a refit to that standard available.

They are also bringing out the RAC like 13 years ahead of timeline so its not like BT canon is holding them back.

General Taskeen, on 14 December 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

The Fb can be made exactly with the 3F. I tested that theory already in the offline mech bay program.

I was thinking more like the 3-Fb would have two fewer missile hardpoints and ECM to make up for it. Then again that's assuming ECM stays as strong as it is now, maybe it won't.

Edited by shabowie, 14 December 2012 - 10:19 AM.

[Cache]

shabowie, on 14 December 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

All the technologies for it are available right now in the timeline. It's only a subtype.

The technology exists for the Falconer, Devastator, and Thunder Hawk. Why don't we have them now? The technology exists for a lot of variants that are only available in the future of the BT universe but they're not going to release them as stock variants. Technology available doesn't matter, it's the lore that they're sticking with. It's up to the players to customize if they want them.

shabowie, on 14 December 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

They are also bringing out the RAC like 13 years ahead of timeline so its not like BT canon is holding them back.

Source? I've heard nothing of the RAC being brought out.

[shabowie]

cache, on 14 December 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

... it's the lore that they're sticking with.

They are bringing out the RAC that doesn't come out until 3062 in the lore, so nice try bud.

[Cache]

shabowie, on 14 December 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

They are bringing out the RAC that doesn't come out until 3062 in the lore, so nice try bud.

again, source?

[General Taskeen]

cache, on 14 December 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

Because that design was lost to the Succession Wars and won't be rediscovered for another 20-some years.

That's not quite right. The default 3F, that is being put into the game, is already an extremely aged design built during the era of the Star League (2571-2780) in 2594. The 3-Fb was a sub-variant that appeared in 2705 during the build up to the Early Succession War (2781-2900). The design is not "lost" if the 3F is already appearing in-game.