68 replies to this topic

[Teljaxx]

davek1979, on June 28 2013 - 01:20 AM, said:

OK so let me present you with a scenario:

1, I am in desperate need of a fighting mech, have scarce resources and I'm in absolute rush
2, I build a mech that works, but has exposed hydraulics, i.e. THE STUFF THAT MAKES IT WORK
3, I get into a fight and within 0.5 seconds a bullet hits my hydraulics, i.e. THE STUFF THAT MAKES THE MECH WORK
4, now I'm canned inside an unusable piece of scrap metal waiting to be finished off by the enemy
5, waiting for death, reminiscing of my past mistakes, I realize now I should have probably put some armor over that hydraulics, hmmm, have to remember that for my next life. But to my defense: It's really easy to get the knowledge to make tech that takes you to a distant planet but it sure is a challenge to fathom critical tech components need armor to shield them from damage...

Stop advocating this nonsense.
I keep playing this game for the fun of it, but don't expect me to fall in line with those who'd rather invent nice stories and "lore" reasons to advocate silly design choices.

It is more like this:

You get into a war with an opposing corporation. You have no military tech to speak of, but you have a veritable army of industrial loaders, because they were your corporation's primary product. So you take the loaders, draft the citizens within your corporation's territory and make them pilots. Then, arm and armor up the loaders as best you can with what is on hand, and hope that your enemy is as strapped for resources as you are. Luckily they are, and now you have a war on.

The main point here is that the conflict on Illal is between Sentium and Prosk, two non-military focused corporations that have now gone to war with what they have. The whole situation is more like a group of rioters using hijacked construction vehicles to run amok than two nations fighting a war. Neither faction had much pre-existing military might, so they do not use purpose built weapons, they use whatever they can.

Maybe you should read Hawken: Genesis before you keep complaining about all this.

[davek1979]

AsianJoyKiller, on June 28 2013 - 02:11 AM, said:

davek1979, on June 28 2013 - 01:20 AM, said:

Stop advocating this nonsense.I keep playing this game for the fun of it, but don't expect me to fall in line with those who'd rather invent nice stories and "lore" reasons to advocate silly design choices.

Then why aren't you up in arms over things like Cavorite and all the handwavium nonsense that justifies the game's mechanics_

Should I go off-topic just to please you _

[davek1979]

Teljaxx, on June 28 2013 - 02:53 AM, said:

davek1979, on June 28 2013 - 01:20 AM, said:

OK so let me present you with a scenario:

1, I am in desperate need of a fighting mech, have scarce resources and I'm in absolute rush
2, I build a mech that works, but has exposed hydraulics, i.e. THE STUFF THAT MAKES IT WORK
3, I get into a fight and within 0.5 seconds a bullet hits my hydraulics, i.e. THE STUFF THAT MAKES THE MECH WORK
4, now I'm canned inside an unusable piece of scrap metal waiting to be finished off by the enemy
5, waiting for death, reminiscing of my past mistakes, I realize now I should have probably put some armor over that hydraulics, hmmm, have to remember that for my next life. But to my defense: It's really easy to get the knowledge to make tech that takes you to a distant planet but it sure is a challenge to fathom critical tech components need armor to shield them from damage...

Stop advocating this nonsense.
I keep playing this game for the fun of it, but don't expect me to fall in line with those who'd rather invent nice stories and "lore" reasons to advocate silly design choices.

It is more like this:

You get into a war with an opposing corporation. You have no military tech to speak of, but you have a veritable army of industrial loaders, because they were your corporation's primary product. So you take the loaders, draft the citizens within your corporation's territory and make them pilots. Then, arm and armor up the loaders as best you can with what is on hand, and hope that your enemy is as strapped for resources as you are. Luckily they are, and now you have a war on.

The main point here is that the conflict on Illal is between Sentium and Prosk, two non-military focused corporations that have now gone to war with what they have. The whole situation is more like a group of rioters using hijacked construction vehicles to run amok than two nations fighting a war. Neither faction had much pre-existing military might, so they do not use purpose built weapons, they use whatever they can.

Maybe you should read Hawken: Genesis before you keep complaining about all this.

Right, so you didn't address anything related to my previous post, instead you continue with unrelated stuff. Hawken:Genesis has zero, nothing, nada, zilch to do with the point I brought up. In the absence of proper argument, I really have nothing to discuss with you anymore.

[Teljaxx]

davek1979, on June 28 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

Right, so you didn't address anything related to my previous post, instead you continue with unrelated stuff. Hawken:Genesis has zero, nothing, nada, zilch to do with the point I brought up. In the absence of proper argument, I really have nothing to discuss with you anymore.

So if I give you a bulldozer, ten square feet of quarter-inch thick steel plating, a Browning M2 machine gun and ammunition, and cutting and welding tools, you could make it into a perfectly armored fighting vehicle, with no unarmored weak points, then_

But following your logic, and ignoring the established circumstances, you apparently think that it is possible to create a fully functional Abrams tank just because it is a better and more functional design.

Edited by Teljaxx, June 28 2013 - 04:53 AM.

[RyanLongbow]

Damn it guys...all I want are just a few tweaks here and there to the 3D model of the mechs. For example: the fuel tank on the scout, a more consistent look and feel.

Does it have to become a hatred thread like this. Jeezzzzz, internet at its worst

[davek1979]

Teljaxx, on June 28 2013 - 04:52 AM, said:

So if I give you a bulldozer, ten square feet of quarter-inch thick steel plating, a Browning M2 machine gun and ammunition, and cutting and welding tools, you could make it into a perfectly armored fighting vehicle, with no unarmored weak points, then_

But following your logic, and ignoring the established circumstances, you apparently think that it is possible to create a fully functional Abrams tank just because it is a better and more functional design.

Well if my bulldozer-made-mech is not functional 30 seconds into a battle, why make it in the first place _ If the frickin resources are tight, DO YOU REALLY USE IT IRRATIONALLY to create a glass cannon _ Honestly...

Not sure the counter-argument you possibly might find against this as with any amount of sound logic there simply is none.

[davek1979]

RyanLongbow, on June 28 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

Damn it guys...all I want are just a few tweaks here and there to the 3D model of the mechs. For example: the fuel tank on the scout, a more consistent look and feel.

Does it have to become a hatred thread like this. Jeezzzzz, internet at its worst

Are we calling each other names _ What hatred are you talking about for Pete's sake _ We have a discussion here. Do you want to take part of it _ Post something that adds value to it.

Surely you are new to Internet if you are calling THIS Internet at its worst...

[Zakua]

OP has a different flavor for mech aesthetics.  That is a hard one to quench, so many awesome styles out there and I like Hawkens approach.

Mechwarrior, I don't even know where to start.... I liked the originals but that is because they ripped them from Anime. MW4 had some nice stuff, I liked the Argus and the Uziel to name a couple but I have never been a fan of the big Atlas and others designed like that, some are hideous to me but that is just my opinion.  I know some players loooved the atlas, to each his own =).  The latest MWO hosts every design I despise so you wont find me in that game (props to the devs for carrying the torch though)

Gundam
Apple Seed
Battle tech
Front Mission
Steel battalion
all have designs I love and designs I do not care for.

It seems Hawkens style is pretty fitting for the lore and I can't seem to get enough of it!

More mechs please =)

[GodsHolyMember]

I always figured to allow some poetic license to mechs by virtue of their high-mobility (e.g. boosting/dodging) and that such technology cannot be outfitted to wheeled/treaded vehicles.  As I had stated earlier, Mechwarrior mechs don't make sense why one should make such a conspicuously large target with limbs and legs that moves so slow but with such a high-profile

As for exposed internals and hydraulics, yeah, that's the risk of a light-frame.  Look at the US's DPV, it has no armor to speak of and there's nothing more than a metal box covering part of the engine and the crew are almost totally exposed, yet the vehicle is bristling with weapons, but focuses on mobility first and foremost



This is today's equivalent of an A-Class in Hawken.

I'm not going to bother trying to justify whether mechs will ever have a strategic value in war.  I simply gave a plausable series of steps that could lead to utilizing mechs in combat...but the contingency relies on legs offering a different type of mobility that cannot be bested by more simplistic wheeled and treaded alternatives and that the use of mechs spawned out of todays advances into robotically augmented power suits needing to carry greater and greater loads and the responding arms race that may come from more effective soldier effectiveness and survivability in theater the same way mechanization showed prevalence over entrenchment between WWI and WWII or stealth and logistical superiority between Vietnam and Gulf War I and of course an international ban on the equivalent of terminator-type robots that replace the need for a human pilot at all.

[NBShoot_me]

GodsHolyMember, on June 28 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

I always figured to allow some poetic license to mechs by virtue of their high-mobility (e.g. boosting/dodging) and that such technology cannot be outfitted to wheeled/treaded vehicles.  As I had stated earlier, Mechwarrior mechs don't make sense why one should make such a conspicuously large target with limbs and legs that moves so slow but with such a high-profile

As for exposed internals and hydraulics, yeah, that's the risk of a light-frame.  Look at the US's DPV, it has no armor to speak of and there's nothing more than a metal box covering part of the engine and the crew are almost totally exposed, yet the vehicle is bristling with weapons, but focuses on mobility first and foremost



This is today's equivalent of an A-Class in Hawken.

I'm not going to bother trying to justify whether mechs will ever have a strategic value in war.  I simply gave a plausable series of steps that could lead to utilizing mechs in combat...but the contingency relies on legs offering a different type of mobility that cannot be bested by more simplistic wheeled and treaded alternatives and that the use of mechs spawned out of todays advances into robotically augmented power suits needing to carry greater and greater loads and the responding arms race that may come from more effective soldier effectiveness and survivability in theater the same way mechanization showed prevalence over entrenchment between WWI and WWII or stealth and logistical superiority between Vietnam and Gulf War I and of course an international ban on the equivalent of terminator-type robots that replace the need for a human pilot at all.

Yes, but when it comes to the MW mech, the arms and legs shouldn't be falling off after the first explosive hit as they pretty much should in Hawken.

Say, for example a reaper takes a few hits, if the KE-Sabot rifle is hit, you've got your ammunition magazine completely exposed and no shielding around the rifle's firing mechanism.  Same goes for the Hawkens-RPR.  Any direct or indirect explosive damage to the legs should drop that mech to the ground like a rock with the exposed hydrolics where they are.  The armor looks like corrugated metal roofing with a tarp slung around one side with a somewhat important looking conduit or hose of some sort snaking around the top and into the FRONT of the mech.  This thing is ED-209 (think about the radiator in the front of the ED-209 for starters) levels of "shouldn't put X there if you want this thing to survive a small arms firefight" and it's not the exception in the mech line up.

If the mechs in Hawken were supposed to have roles similar to that of the DPV or even the ALSV, they'd look less dumb, but even as they are, they do still look cool... just REALLY out of place for what they're supposed to be doing.

[Teljaxx]

NBShoot_me, on June 28 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

Yes, but when it comes to the MW mech, the arms and legs shouldn't be falling off after the first explosive hit as they pretty much should in Hawken.

Say, for example a reaper takes a few hits, if the KE-Sabot rifle is hit, you've got your ammunition magazine completely exposed and no shielding around the rifle's firing mechanism.  Same goes for the Hawkens-RPR.  Any direct or indirect explosive damage to the legs should drop that mech to the ground like a rock with the exposed hydrolics where they are.  The armor looks like corrugated metal roofing with a tarp slung around one side with a somewhat important looking conduit or hose of some sort snaking around the top and into the FRONT of the mech.  This thing is ED-209 (think about the radiator in the front of the ED-209 for starters) levels of "shouldn't put X there if you want this thing to survive a small arms firefight" and it's not the exception in the mech line up.

If the mechs in Hawken were supposed to have roles similar to that of the DPV or even the ALSV, they'd look less dumb, but even as they are, they do still look cool... just REALLY out of place for what they're supposed to be doing.

So you are saying that the game does not play like it would if it was real life_ Does that mean that it is unrealistic that you are playing as humans in CoD, because you can survive an infinite number of bullets, as long as there is an interval of a few seconds between them_

In both cases,the Devs made the characters look the way they wanted them to, then designed the game to be fun. Just because the game then does not match up to the characters does not mean that either one is a bad design decision.

davek1979, on June 28 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

Teljaxx, on June 28 2013 - 04:52 AM, said:

So if I give you a bulldozer, ten square feet of quarter-inch thick steel plating, a Browning M2 machine gun and ammunition, and cutting and welding tools, you could make it into a perfectly armored fighting vehicle, with no unarmored weak points, then_

But following your logic, and ignoring the established circumstances, you apparently think that it is possible to create a fully functional Abrams tank just because it is a better and more functional design.

Well if my bulldozer-made-mech is not functional 30 seconds into a battle, why make it in the first place _ If the frickin resources are tight, DO YOU REALLY USE IT IRRATIONALLY to create a glass cannon _ Honestly...

Not sure the counter-argument you possibly might find against this as with any amount of sound logic there simply is none.

You have an enemy force on its way to attack you, and all you have are the supplies I listed. What would you do with them_ You could either simply use the machine gun to fight back, or you could get the best chance of survival and make a makeshift fighting vehicle. This is not a situation where you can simply choose not to fight, either. So finding the situation that gives you the best chance for survival is your best option.

Another similar example: You need to transport something along a stretch of desert highway as quickly as you can. All you have is an old beater car that may not make it the entire way without breaking down. Will you simply walk the entire way_ Or would it be a better idea to take the car as far as it will go, and walk the rest if you have to_

You do not always have the best options available to you for the situation. Sometimes you have to make due with the extremely limited supplies at hand.

[onehourleft]

I would

Daronicus, on June 27 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

figuratively literally break down in tears

too

[NBShoot_me]

Teljaxx, on June 28 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

So you are saying that the game does not play like it would if it was real life_ Does that mean that it is unrealistic that you are playing as humans in CoD, because you can survive an infinite number of bullets, as long as there is an interval of a few seconds between them_

In both cases,the Devs made the characters look the way they wanted them to, then designed the game to be fun. Just because the game then does not match up to the characters does not mean that either one is a bad design decision.

I'm saying that it's funny to see people knock BT/MWO designs when Hawken designs aren't any better.  As for CoD, don't care for the game, so not going to even defend what they've done to it.  Didn't care for the way health was handled in CS, and you couldn't auto-heal in that game but was 100% combat effective with 1% health.

I'm more of a CS/NS/Q3A/RTCW:ET/BF1942 style gamer.. I expect ammo to run out, no auto-heal, and somewhat decent hit-detection.  And aside from maybe CS and BF1942, I doubt anyone (or many) would go around arguing over the finer details of how X player model is more realistic or of better design than the other.  I'm just talking within the scope of the thread.

For me, I wouldn't expect the fantasy-land mechs in Hawken to work like they would in RL, but when I see people knocking mech designs from other games because of "bad design" (too big and slow for starters) and praise THIS game, I get a pretty good laugh out of it.  And all the back-story plot-holes won't make up for what I personnally see as bad design in the mechs in Hawken.  Not to mention, dumb mistakes like weapons magazines that would REQUIRE the pilot to GET OUT of the mech and MANUALLY change out after say 20 rounds or less fired...give or take, or critical electrical and hydrolic parts being COMPLETELY exposed in areas that you would EXPECT to see a lot of damage.

Aside from a couple of the more absurdly designed mechs in Hawken, like I've said before, I do like the look of most of them.  But outside of "looks cool" area, I don't care if they're supposed to be thrown together with a bunch of spare parts, that's just an excuse to "OMG! MUST ADD COOL LOOKING GREEBLES!" overkill that was done to these things.

EDIT: and just where are all those gobs of spare rockets the rocketeer has_  The devs stopped even trying with that one... might as well have been the Quake rocket launcher glued to it.

Edited by NBShoot_me, June 28 2013 - 07:28 PM.

[Wondrz]

davek1979, on June 28 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

RyanLongbow, on June 28 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

Damn it guys...all I want are just a few tweaks here and there to the 3D model of the mechs. For example: the fuel tank on the scout, a more consistent look and feel.

Does it have to become a hatred thread like this. Jeezzzzz, internet at its worst

Are we calling each other names _ What hatred are you talking about for Pete's sake _ We have a discussion here. Do you want to take part of it _ Post something that adds value to it.

Surely you are new to Internet if you are calling THIS Internet at its worst...

Lax he just wants some small tweaks, nothing much. to me i see this as a more interesting TF2 in my perspective. He just wants the mechs to look more, 3D or look cooler its also a video game, this isnt real life where of my pipes got shot im just some hunk of scrap now that i cant move.

[Floydy]

Can't say I've ever had a problem with the Mech's in Hawken like some of the guys in this thread.

They're Mechs, in real life you'd never consider a Mech over a tank or an aircraft. ie they'll never have the efficiency with movement over even terrain as a wheeled or tracked vehicle - if you had the tech to make things that could dodge like the Hawken Mechs and hover - why would you even have them land - you'd just save weight and fly! There would be no point in making them look believable, they'll never work in a realism sense.

Stop taking the game so seriously and just enjoy shooting each other

[AsianJoyKiller]

Hawken takes place in the future in a universe where there's a sturdy, lighter-than-air metal.
Why is it so unreasonable to think the alloys and materials the mechs are made of are much more durable than what we have in real life_
Why is it unreasonable to think that far in the future hoses could be exposed because they are lined with a special alloy mesh that's extremely resistant to being punctured_

[NBShoot_me]

AsianJoyKiller, on June 29 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

Hawken takes place in the future in a universe where there's a sturdy, lighter-than-air metal.
Why is it so unreasonable to think the alloys and materials the mechs are made of are much more durable than what we have in real life_
Why is it unreasonable to think that far in the future hoses could be exposed because they are lined with a special alloy mesh that's extremely resistant to being punctured_

Sure, it’s not unreasonable to say that the mechs in Hawken are composed entirely of unobtainium (which for some reason explodes and burns away when health hits 0… yeah, I know, cheap effect to keep poly counts down.. ) which gives a hydraulic hose or piston the armor equivalence of 100 ft thick whatever composite armor we have today.  So what_  Are we to then assume that weaponry of teh future hasn’t progressed one day beyond what is currently available today_  The mechs in Hawken look thrown together.  Does it looks cool_  Sure does.  Do they look like war machines_  Eh.. not to me, not really, no (but this is my opinion).


To me, they look like the result of someone being handed a boat load of greebles and told to glue them all together until it looks like something futuristic with weapons, or at the very least prototypes that come before the actual mechanized war machines actually meant to go to battle.

[AsianJoyKiller]

NBShoot_me, on June 29 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

Sure, it’s not unreasonable to say that the mechs in Hawken are composed entirely of unobtainium (which for some reason explodes and burns away when health hits 0… yeah, I know, cheap effect to keep poly counts down.. ) which gives a hydraulic hose or piston the armor equivalence of 100 ft thick whatever composite armor we have today.  So what_  Are we to then assume that weaponry of teh future hasn’t progressed one day beyond what is currently available today_  The mechs in Hawken look thrown together.  Does it looks cool_  Sure does.  Do they look like war machines_  Eh.. not to me, not really, no (but this is my opinion).

You could explain that away by saying ammunition has been made of softer/weaker metals/materials because it's easier to obtain, refine, reforge, doesn't mess with warhead properties, etc.

Quote

To me, they look like the result of someone being handed a boat load of greebles and told to glue them all together until it looks like something futuristic with weapons, or at the very least prototypes that come before the actual mechanized war machines actually meant to go to battle.

That's really the whole point. The mechs supposed to look like walking kitbash, and it's so apparent because as a design choice, it's meant to be obvious, exaggerated.

[Tsyklon]

I like the look of the mechs. I can see panels of reactive armor, sensor stalks and external cameras you would find on contemporary armored vehicles, etc. Hence, no glass cockpits. That would be suicidal with the amount of projectiles being tossed through the air. It's interesting to note that people seem to be complaining most about the fact that they don't 'look' like war machines. I believe they do; they look like contemporary technicals. Which, in essence, is what they are: repurposed industrial loaders and mining tools, just like a technical is a truck with guns and armor (if they're lucky).

Another thing people tend to forget is that technology took a pretty big blow with the release of the Hawken virus on Illal. It destroyed one third of the planets surface in a wave of grey goo reconstruction. Safe to say a lot of their manufacturing capability was taken down with it, especially if it was based on self-replicating nanobots.

It's a part of the lore; they were literally thown together by people fighting for the remaining resources on a devasted planet. They are not purpose-built war machines. It'd be like if we repurposed tractors into tanks (which happened in WW2, interestingly enough).

Besides, they look a bit more believable than Gundams, or Variable Fighters, or Armored Cores.

[dEd101]

Is this the real life_

Is this just fantasy_