Bishop Steiner, on 08 November 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:
No, please, just no.
Fabulous TT mech is just a horrible choice for MW:O
Firstly, (aside from the lack of 3 versions in time line) is that it is an all energy boat. This leaves it's armament nerfed compared to other lights that can carry missiles and ballistics. Not only boring, but nothing the Jenner, for instance can't already do better.
Boring? Well, I don't think any other weapons would be more exciting, really. We probably won't get a 35 ton light mech with 4 missile hardpoints, because it would be too OP due to Streaks. And we already have plenty of energy / missile combinations with the Jenner, Commando and Raven.
Even if they introduce a 35 ton mech with plenty of energy and ballistic hardpoints, it's hard to imagine how it's going to be better than the JR7-F just from the hardpoints. Medium laser > machine gun. And if you have 6 medium lasers, you'll be better off with a few extra heat sinks rather than a couple of machine guns.
In regards to other things that a Wolfhound might be able to do better than a Jenner, it's completely open to the imagination. Engine caps are not set in stone. Torso twist, acceleration speed, hitboxes and a number of other small, but important factors, such as whether the arms are blocking shots that would otherwise hit the torso.
The number of hardpoints is completely arbitrary, so it can be anything that PGI needs.
Bishop Steiner, on 08 November 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:
Next, it's mobility is average, with no JJs, and a relatively slow top speed of 96 kph stock.
NamesAreStupid already addressed this.
Bishop Steiner, on 08 November 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:
Basically you have a mech that is slower, less maneuverable, no better armored with extremely restricted weapon options. Thanx, but no thanx.
I am disappoint, Bishop. I was secretly hoping you would want to draw a modern MWO-style rendition of one of the most iconic light mechs in Battletech, in my eyes. I'm guessing you're not inspired
And in regards to the rest, I would say two things. First of all, I think freedom in regards to energy hardpoints could potentially make this a viable option. Second of all, this is all academic, because the main reason why I want to see the Wolfhound is nostalgia. It's only after I started playing MWO that I learned of the Urbanmech. But I knew of the Wolfhound almost 20 years ago, watching Battletech cartoons while eating breakfast in my pyjamas at my mother's house.
stjobe, on 08 November 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:
Yeah, and that's what speaks against the Wolfhound; it only has three variants and they're functionally identical:
WLF-1 (one of the MLs rear-facing - which won't happen in MWO, so it's identical to the WLF-1B)
WLF-1A (rear ML removed, heat sink added)
WLF-1B (rear ML moved forward - which would happen in MWO anyway, so identical to the WLF-1)
So really only two variants with a minor difference (1 energy hard point), all the other variants are out of timeline.
Look at what PGI has done with existing variants in the game. Sarna doesn't say anything about the AWS-8T vs AWS-8R in regards to their missile capacity, for example. Yet one has 4 missile hardpoints, and the other has 2. And what does Sarna say about the AS7-D-DC or AS7-RS? Nothing that relates to their advantages in MWO. Basically, PGI made it interesting by tweaking their MWO stats, and they can do the same for future mechs, like the Wolfhound, if they want.
4
