| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zat Earthshatter
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
304
   |
Posted - 2012.08.11 11:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm sure you clicked on this assuming i'd scoff at the whole idea of having mechs in this game.
Books and their covers. Don't judge the former by the latter.
This thread is to put forward a simple idea about what this could be.
What if... instead of a vehicle, the MTAC is a Dropsuit?
This is more than just a empty muse. For one, an MTAC doesn't quite look like it'd sit under an RDV very well.
Also, a dropsuit interface (especially from a different faction) could have difficulty working with the MTAC
Concept :
make an MTAC the DUST version of a cruiser in EVE, and give the dropsuit spec something bigger to fit in.
If you're being pummeled, just pick the MTAC loadout, drop from orbit, and try to shoot as many ants as possible!
NOTE : swarm launchers still lock on to it, and it wouldn't be much harder to aim a Forge Gun at it.
"Undock" Requisites:
Dropsuit Command V
Vehicle Command III
MTAC Command I (higher levels for advanced versions)
Base equipment : 2 arms, mix and match
>Industrial Arm - the attached hand allows grab+throw, 2 lets you grab vehicles. Alternatively, just punch the enemy!
>Cannon Arm - Simply, a tank turret slapped on the shoulder. For balancing (in-game and mechanically), only one of these can be equipped. Also, ammuntion is limited here. -90% to Large Turret powergrid use.
>MG Arm - Indy arm with 2 or 3 hardpoints attached instead of hands. Fits light weapons. 2 or 3 times the gun loss per death
These also come with a single equipment slot.
Weapons : depends on the arm configuration
>Cannon+MG : 1 large turret, 2 or 3 light weapons
>MG+MG : 4 or 6 light weapons (gonna get expensive!)
>One indy : your fist! -OR- the enemy soldier!
>Indy+Indy : the enemy's jeep!
NO GRENADES. unless you count the Mass Driver.
Equipment :
only on the MG arm, and restricted to repair gun or one nanohive.
Modules :
Same as an LAV, maybe with an extra 100 PG units or so.
Tank would be about 1/4 - 1/2 of a well-tanked HAV.
Controls : same as a regular dropsuit, with a few exceptions --
>dual-wielding mechanics, L1 fires left arm, R1 the right
>L2 and R2 activate arm-specific weapon wheels for picking particular guns. "combo" setting on top of wheel fires all harmful munitions.
Spawning :
The player drops from orbit, as CRUs can't hold a "dropsuit" larger than itself. Physics says NO.
Of course, anyone foolish enough to stand under its landing gets killed no matter the team.
A tech-II drop uplink can allow these MTACs to drop onto them.
Death :
To increase feedback and synchro times, a nameless Caldari connected the CPU directly to the clone brain. As a result, the clone dies when the suit breaks!
Of course, if a sniper can figure out where your head is under all that armor, you're dead anyway.
That appears to be all for now. If you'd like to add any ideas, feel free. |
Alixenus
Omega protection service
36
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 12:33:00 -
[2] - Quote
This is the first time someone has written down (to my knowledge) a well thought out and balanced stats for the MTAC. Good work. I hadn't considered the MTAC being mansized, mainly because that would likely put the Heavy out of business as it'll be weak next to he MTAC and slow compared to everything else. thoughts? |
Paran Tadec
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
902
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 14:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
seems legit |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 15:09:00 -
[4] - Quote
Doesnt want a Max Suit. |
Forlorn Destrier
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
915
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 15:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Doesnt want a Max Suit.
What about an Edgar suit? |
Zero Harpuia
Maverick Conflict Solutions
422
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 15:50:00 -
[6] - Quote
I'd be fine with a Dreadnaught :P
In all seriousness, sounds good, and a nice method of breaking spawn camping. Maybe add some directional thrusters, make the landing a bit like Starhawk to do some first strike damage on those HAVs that park IN spawns, but that's the only thing I think it's missing. |
Chao Wolf
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
209
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 15:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
We still a ways from MTACs but I hope it is a type of vehicle... Just my 0.02 isk. |
Traynor Youngs
Royal Uhlans
Amarr Empire
287
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 16:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
All good ideas.
+1
I think it is important for people to realize that the MTAC is only a little bit bigger than a person.
its like this or this.
Not this
And I think there is room for more than one kind of MTAC.
For instance, a small scout MTAC that can move rapidly, employ jump jets for short hops and is choked full of sensors and stuff, would be able to carry only heavy weapons or smaller, no tank turrets.
A large MTAC could be as you described.
One problem I have with your idea though is the tank turret thing, the missile turrets are quite large, the railgun turrets are also very long...I have a hard time imagining one of those on an MTAC frame...just size wise. |
Avenger 245
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
477
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 18:34:00 -
[9] - Quote
I would rather it be a vehicle. Making it a type of dropsuit would kinda make the heavy suit obsolete. However I do think there should be light and heavy version of the MTAC avaible. Also the MTAC isnt like a super tank its more like half a tank it doesnt half to be as powerful as a regular tank or have full sized turrents, the mtac should be used for heavy urban support and urban defense breaking in place where their less mobile but tougher brother the tank cant go.
Got to remember MTAC would be weaker than a regualer tank but make up for it in mobilty. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 19:26:00 -
[10] - Quote
MTACs industrial type sare about the size of the powerloader pictured above.
However miltiary types have been regarded to be a bit lager probably just like the avatar mech.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/wikiEN/images/3/3a/CCP_Games_-_EVE_Chronicles_-_Tibus_Heth_Caldari_Pilot_-_FD_02.jpg this is an offical picture of an MTAC you can see how large it is, its almost LAV sized in overall mass. |
|
|
Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
134
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 20:09:00 -
[11] - Quote
This pic illustrates the size well. MTACs, especially the military variants, are very much vehicles, and the earlier comparison to Avatar is accurate.
Interesting ideas and concepts in the original post, but it's essential to lore and versatility that they be vehicles. Making it a suit locks you into it until death, and that makes people camp or hide when not useful in the current tactical situation, thus no longer contributing to the team. Climbing out, combined with vehicle recall concepts i've talked about in other threads, would make people willing to leave their vehicles when no longer tactically useful, and thus be able to continue contributing to the team, rather than hiding or camping and being useless to the team. |
Zero Harpuia
Maverick Conflict Solutions
422
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 22:10:00 -
[12] - Quote
Geirskoegul wrote:This pic illustrates the size well. MTACs, especially the military variants, are very much vehicles, and the earlier comparison to Avatar is accurate. Interesting ideas and concepts in the original post, but it's essential to lore and versatility that they be vehicles. Making it a suit locks you into it until death, and that makes people camp or hide when not useful in the current tactical situation, thus no longer contributing to the team. Climbing out, combined with vehicle recall concepts i've talked about in other threads, would make people willing to leave their vehicles when no longer tactically useful, and thus be able to continue contributing to the team, rather than hiding or camping and being useless to the team.
Maybe we can also make it able to spawn in, while still being a vehicle? Provides the power necessary to break a camp, but you can still call it in (or out) as need be during the match. |
Avenger 245
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
477
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 23:51:00 -
[13] - Quote
Or Dont spawn right were their spawn camping, and come to them with the MTAC
As for size I think they should be about or a little bigger than the LAV in terms of mass but not a little bigger than the heavy and not bigger than the tank around LAV size is good |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 04:27:00 -
[14] - Quote
Some MTACs have two seats, President Rhoden once operated such that was used for such and the guy he shoved in the back seat would determine his fate and eventually land him in the president's seat. |
Geirskoegul
Soul-Strike
134
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 19:21:00 -
[15] - Quote
Zero Harpuia wrote:Geirskoegul wrote:This pic illustrates the size well. MTACs, especially the military variants, are very much vehicles, and the earlier comparison to Avatar is accurate. Interesting ideas and concepts in the original post, but it's essential to lore and versatility that they be vehicles. Making it a suit locks you into it until death, and that makes people camp or hide when not useful in the current tactical situation, thus no longer contributing to the team. Climbing out, combined with vehicle recall concepts i've talked about in other threads, would make people willing to leave their vehicles when no longer tactically useful, and thus be able to continue contributing to the team, rather than hiding or camping and being useless to the team. Maybe we can also make it able to spawn in, while still being a vehicle? Provides the power necessary to break a camp, but you can still call it in (or out) as need be during the match.
I've gone over how horribly bad spawning in vehicles would be in othere threads, so I won'd repeat myself here. Quite simply, no, spawning in vehicles is a very bad thing.
For clarity, i mean the vehicle and you appearing at the same time, not spawning in a vehicle with a cru. That said, the mobile crus should be a dedicated vehicle like in planetside, it shouldn't be a standard module any can fit; it simply doesn't make sense in terms of size, logic, or lore. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 20:37:00 -
[16] - Quote
CRUs are not easy to fit on most vehicles and I am suspecting the miltia one will get nerfed more, its more of a specialist. |
Alshadow
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
71
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 21:16:00 -
[17] - Quote
scrap the industrial arm and make the turret slot for small turrets, and no equipment, and also no light weapons just dual weild light turrets, and im in on this
just have the melee be stomp or punch
anyone played section8? they did a good job with mini mechs |
Avenger 245
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
477
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 21:24:00 -
[18] - Quote
funny i just read the op. um wow thats alot of fire power when i think of the mtac i think of something about as big a LAV sat straight up not a walking tank. 2 light turrents or both arms and a few modules slots would do. the mtac a urban combat vehicle not a anti tank vehicle a tank should still dominate the battlefield |
wathak 514
Circle of Huskarl
Minmatar Republic
106
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 21:43:00 -
[19] - Quote
I do like most of the suggestions here but i do think that the mtac should be a veihicle as my understanding goes once the pilot dropsuit comes in only wearers of that dropsuit can pilot vehicles whick by my assumption the dropsuit would be even scinner then the scout in terms of armor as ur armor is ur vehicle leaving no need for a cockpit to be able to support a hevy dropsuit so the mtac only needs to be a little bigger then a lav.
As for the equipment i suspect the mtac could becom the t3 cruiser in the dust game play. If u look at games like the armor cor series which are exclusivly mechs then you can plainly see that a mtac has innumerable customization methods. U could have 1 hull per race from there add in legs sensors arms and weopons. Ofcoarse each of these will have there drawbacks with the benifits for instance a pair of high tank legs could support almost anything else without weight being a cator but ud be slow and low tank legs allow for fast movement but good luck fitting a large railgun.
As for weopons i love ur diffrent arm choices though the turrets shouldnt be straight mount its unsensable for a maching able to support arms and i dont know about the missle turret but i can most defiantly see the railgun become the mtacs sniper rifle. The grabing i love though would think of it as hard to implament for all the coding needed for a smooth control interface. The gun arms i dont think should be fitted with light weopons but thats me i would find it more senseable for heavy machine guns to be fitted.
And ofcoarse no spawning in vehicles i know a dropship by its name and time era should be space worth but vehical spawning would just be a tremendous unbalancer in my opinion. The fact that vehicles have to spawn befor u get in allows swarm lunchers like me who like to keep enemy vehicles in check even if i only have a militia luncher. That moment of spawning lets me put some dmg on the vehicle that should easily be able to turn the entire tide of the match due to it being top of the line. |
Iceyburnz
316
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 22:02:00 -
[20] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Doesnt want a Max Suit.
Id rather have max suits that biffers |
|
|
Simon Havoc
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
26
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 04:17:00 -
[21] - Quote
I think everyone is approaching this a little incorrectly. In the books when describing instances of MTACs being used, they were taking out tanks. MTACs are an alternate heavy vehicle, and they were used because of the utility. The reason a MTAC capable civilization would use tanks is because of the massive decrease in cost a treaded vehicle would be.
The MTAC shown in one of the above posters link as a giant yellow/orange vehicle protecting someone with half of a building practically, is exactly what I think should be in this game.
MTACs should be all shapes and sizes, have all levels of damage and utility, and should be either insanely expensive. We are not talking industrial MTACs here. We are mercs, wtf are we doing walking around with a load lifter? The MTACs should be able to smash a tank to pieces if it could get in reaching distance, and the weapons they carry should be of all sorts.
An MTAC with a gauss cannon on it would need to brace itself, kind of like a gorilla sitting down, but that doesnt mean it couldnt be equipped with small autocannon turrets on it. Or a MTAC that has rockets, shoulder fired rockets that fly out and hit the ground where the MTAC is targeting if its within range.
You have to remember a Combat MTAC would not in any means be an easy thing to hide or duck behind cover, these things are huge. In Mechwarrior if you have ever played it, people got killed all the time because their mechs big ass was hanging out around the building.
I think we need to stop thinking of MTAC as an in-between for LAV and HAV and more like an endgame vehicle that requires some time and investment to actually use.
Another thing to remember here is, when it comes to the matter of defending or attacking persistant zones (player controlled etc) it was discussed as the commanders of the forces having a set number of types of deployment vehicles they can select. The players can deploy with their own pick of vehicles but within the groups set by the commander. MTACs may be restricted to SOV warfare and Faction Warfare zones anyhow like some of the many features in EVE Online. In doing so you restrict the requirement to deal with them to people who truly want to fight over territory.
Restrict their use in highsec and such, as I think Orbital Bombardment will probably be restricted, and let us Lowsec/Faction/Nullsec players use MTACs the way LORE wise they are, and if we are cornered, well, orbital bombard the things into dust.
Spending all this time balancing everything is great, but you have to remember that some of these features people are so quick to hate they may never encounter because they are looking for a quickplay shooter and not the immersive side of things that are experiences outside highsec quick match games. |
Avenger 245
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
477
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 14:57:00 -
[22] - Quote
When I think MTAC I think large mobile heavy firepower built to deal with urban enviroments, not a super tank that can rasly rival a tank, MTAC would fill the one role a tank is ill suited for urban combat, a small MTAC about the size of a upfirght LAV would be perfect for urban combat, capabal of bring firepower against strong points and to tank damage. That would be the MTAC niche. The tank on the other hand is fast moving and power able to breach strong points and tank enemy damage but lacks the mobility to be hood in urban combat.
Those are the two niche is see tanks and MTAC filling in combat and is why I think MTAC should be smaller than tanks and have the same amount of mass as a upright LAV, not be a large walker. If a vehicle or weapon fills the same niche as another it will cause the weaker of the two to become disued. Which is why a MTAC should be a smaller weaker but more mobile tank for urban combat and ahould not be able to take down a tank in direct 1 on 1. Of course if a skillful MTAC pilot finds a stupid tank then the MTAC will have more than enough firepower to threaten that tank. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 16:18:00 -
[23] - Quote
MTACs also double up as hazard humaniods so do expect some maps possibly 'requiring' MTACs at basic gear to get even the simplest things done but also expect the facilites to scale up with them.
Maybe there will be various mtac classes like there are dropsuits,
Hazard - Basically similar to the dropsuit idea.
Light - LAV anti-infantry trype.
Heavy -Tank Destroyer. |
Avenger 245
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
477
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 21:17:00 -
[24] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:MTACs also double up as hazard humaniods so do expect some maps possibly 'requiring' MTACs at basic gear to get even the simplest things done but also expect the facilites to scale up with them.
Maybe there will be various mtac classes like there are dropsuits,
Hazard - Basically similar to the dropsuit idea.
Light - LAV anti-infantry trype.
Heavy -Tank Destroyer.
I think light should be more of a basic MTAC that os very general role very mobile
I think heavy should have more firepower more armor and less speed but it shouldnt be able to go toe to toe with a tank.
Think about it like this the light will be for general squad support and the heavy will be for urban defense breaching. Tanks would still be able to blast a MTAC apart except in a urban combat a tank wont be able to follow or go were a mtac can or even keep up which is where its streagth would be. I dont like the idea of a mtac being able to 1 on 1 a tank, because then whats the point of a tank? |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 21:34:00 -
[25] - Quote
Avenger 245 wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:MTACs also double up as hazard humaniods so do expect some maps possibly 'requiring' MTACs at basic gear to get even the simplest things done but also expect the facilites to scale up with them.
Maybe there will be various mtac classes like there are dropsuits,
Hazard - Basically similar to the dropsuit idea.
Light - LAV anti-infantry trype.
Heavy -Tank Destroyer. I think light should be more of a basic MTAC that os very general role very mobile I think heavy should have more firepower more armor and less speed but it shouldnt be able to go toe to toe with a tank. Think about it like this the light will be for general squad support and the heavy will be for urban defense breaching. Tanks would still be able to blast a MTAC apart except in a urban combat a tank wont be able to follow or go were a mtac can or even keep up which is where its streagth would be. I dont like the idea of a mtac being able to 1 on 1 a tank, because then whats the point of a tank?
I think getting into size classes and such might lead to BFR syndrome (Planetside players know what I mean).
As an example, here is a mining MTAC from the EVE Chronicle "In The Pits".
http://wiki.eveonline.com/wikiEN/images/1/18/InthePits.jpg
I imagine that's the size we'll be dealing with. |
Avenger 245
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
477
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 21:46:00 -
[26] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Avenger 245 wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:MTACs also double up as hazard humaniods so do expect some maps possibly 'requiring' MTACs at basic gear to get even the simplest things done but also expect the facilites to scale up with them.
Maybe there will be various mtac classes like there are dropsuits,
Hazard - Basically similar to the dropsuit idea.
Light - LAV anti-infantry trype.
Heavy -Tank Destroyer. I think light should be more of a basic MTAC that os very general role very mobile I think heavy should have more firepower more armor and less speed but it shouldnt be able to go toe to toe with a tank. Think about it like this the light will be for general squad support and the heavy will be for urban defense breaching. Tanks would still be able to blast a MTAC apart except in a urban combat a tank wont be able to follow or go were a mtac can or even keep up which is where its streagth would be. I dont like the idea of a mtac being able to 1 on 1 a tank, because then whats the point of a tank? I think getting into size classes and such might lead to BFR syndrome (Planetside players know what I mean). As an example, here is a mining MTAC from the EVE Chronicle "In The Pits". http://wiki.eveonline.com/wikiEN/images/1/18/InthePits.jpgI imagine that's the size we'll be dealing with.
That looks like a good size maybe a little shorter but wider and long enough to fit a person.
|
Ten-Sidhe
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
414
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 04:01:00 -
[27] - Quote
MTACs can rip tanks apart with their hands/grippers. It was mentioned in a video on ccp youtube channel. They are also stronger then tanks in slay. CCP seems to have a plan all ready, seems to fill role of dreadnought in warhammer 40k based on little bits i've seen.
They seem be able to shred tanks up close, maybe they will be shorter range, will probably be slower but able to go where tanks can't. I'm looking forward to seeing how they will work, but I don't think we have enough info yet to figure out how they will work or be balanced yet. They will probably replace marauders as the focus of anti-vehicle forum rage once they appear.
Heth used a make shift shield(not force field, knight and armour type) on one in the first eve novel, a shield would be a cool fitting option. If they can kill tanks in melee, an option to fit a upgraded melee instead of a ranged weapon would be nice. |
Avenger 245
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
477
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 04:43:00 -
[28] - Quote
I wouldnt want the to be like the dreadnought from warhammer or like any powerful tank crushing machine. I would rather them be a important but not powerful part of the battle were player should be on the look out for them but shouldnt think of them as instoppable warmachines. It would be far better for the game if they were a simple light vehcile design to bring firepower and limited tanking ability to places where tanks couldnt go rather than some tank destory monster.
I think they would fit into the game better as a part of urban warfare rather than as a endgame destroyer. So I support smaller urban MTAC and am complete against Large tank destorying MTAC because thwy would mess up the games battle layout. Mechs and dreadnought like MTAC are great for games like 40k were extremes are good but would be akward in a more organic and realistic battlefield. |
Ten-Sidhe
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
414
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 05:10:00 -
[29] - Quote
I agree, but ccp seems to be doing the other.
CCP said tear tank apart, and mech is stronger then armour in slay, so I think CCP is planing for them to be very powerful.
I am guessing the range will be short, so tank in open will kill MTAC before it gets in range(ccp may have some other way to balance planned?). This would make MTAC good in close quarters more then in open, like urban terrain as you suggested.
40k dreadnought reference was to similar size of two vehicles, the ability to kill tank in hand to hand, and the walker having lighter armour and weapons then similar sized tank, many of the dreadnought weapons tend to be short ranged.
CCP seems to have plan for very strong MTAC, I personally would like one between lav and hav(I also want a mav light tank in between lav and hav). CCP seem to be putting hav between lav and mtac from what I've seen. I would like option of melee anti-vehicle specialist MTAC, seems like it would be a fun fit to drive/walk.
Perhaps they will be harder for vehicles to kill, but more infantry vulnerable then hav. I think we will have to wait for ccp to give out more info on what they are planning for us to give useful feedback to them on MTAC. |
Avenger 245
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
477
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 05:27:00 -
[30] - Quote
Hey gm I know you guys are so talkative and love answer strange post directed towards yall. But since you atleast know or have seen the devs in person can we have a vaguely less criptic answer as to which one were getting or can we have a poll.
Speaking of poll I vote invetween lav and hav rather than bigger than hav,
Tally so far small 1 large 0 lol |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |