30 replies to this topic

[General Taskeen]

shabowie, on 02 July 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

Awesome was always drawn pretty fat looking. Maybe a little skinnier in the legs.

http://www.sarna.net...d_Awesome_Q.jpg

Nope!








Was SKINNY. Look at those excellent skinny center torso lines and torso's.

Edited by General Taskeen, 02 July 2013 - 02:09 PM.

[Thuzel]

General Taskeen, on 02 July 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

HAHA, is this for serious? An 80 ton Assault Mech in the size of a Heavy. The Awesome just got a whole lot more dead, the final Nail in The Coffin.

You mean another one...

The Stalker has been in that boat since it was released. It's roughly the same size as a catapult despite being 20 tons heavier.

[Adridos]

LordBraxton, on 02 July 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

it is the height of a cataphract, and takes up a lot less space

BS... so full of BS. I'm sorry for the language, but this whole nonsens of unbacked accusations is getting on my nerves.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

Autobot9000, on 02 July 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

Also I am not sure what all this Awesome bashing is all about, I run some custom Awesome variants with extreme success. It may not dish out as much as a highlander/atlas but other mechs dont do that either. Tonnage equality is not part of Battletech.

The Awesome was one of the most feared IS mechs to battle Clanners. As in Clanners were actually SCARED of skilled Awesome pilots.

I can regulate in my 9M, 8R, and 8T, but I'm still playing at a massive handicap. When I bought a Stalker 3F I literally turned my brain off and cheesed every single game, because it is a "look ma, no skill" braindead easymode mech.

The Awesome deserves better.

[Ngamok]

Adridos, on 02 July 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

BS... so full of BS. I'm sorry for the language, but this whole nonsens of unbacked accusations is getting on my nerves.

He must have been looking at a Centurion or Trebuchet thinking it was a Victor.

[Ralgas]

Even the end of the promo vid displayed it's height as equal to or just under an atlas(at the end with a fixed cam it shoots one in the back and walks over it). Haven't seen one ingame, but i say pics or bs

Edited by Ralgas, 02 July 2013 - 02:27 PM.

[jakucha]

Adridos, on 02 July 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

BS... so full of BS. I'm sorry for the language, but this whole nonsens of unbacked accusations is getting on my nerves.

That's a big problem with these forums unfortunately and a side effect of all the arrogant armchair devs.

[General Taskeen]

Victor has become my new Awesome. 3 PPC Victorysome!

The video of the "Slayer" even shows it Slaying Awesomes. BRILLIANT.

[tuffy963]

Dreamslave, on 02 July 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

Yea, how hard is it to actually make the mechs the sizes they are supposed to be? I mean, is PGI even looking at the mechs prior to implementing them?

The mechs that are larger/smaller than other mech's in an adjacent weight classes is not an oversight, or poor design by PGI. They did it intentionally. This becomes pretty clear when you look at the new archetype sizing mechanism used in determining a mech hill-climbing capability. I will say it again, they did it on purpose.

[General Taskeen]

tuffy963, on 02 July 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

is poor design

M-M-M-Monster Fixed. Guess what every shoots at the most, the front profile of a Mech. And its scale and size directly correlates with balance, and with some Mechs, it affects them negatively.

Edited by General Taskeen, 02 July 2013 - 02:46 PM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Darvaza, on 02 July 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

so, which is "better" - Victor or Highlander? If only getting one set of three, which is the better set.?

Victor is going to be alot faster and more mobile while the Highlander is going to mount more armor and weapons typically.