Upcoming Assault
#101
Posted 03 March 2014 - 10:26 AM
#104
Posted 03 March 2014 - 10:39 AM
All weapons in one torso it seems aswell. (This is bad)
Edited by MisterPlanetarian, 03 March 2014 - 10:39 AM.
#105
Posted 03 March 2014 - 10:42 AM
MisterPlanetarian, on 03 March 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:
All weapons in one torso it seems aswell. (This is bad)
The BNC-3E has a PPC in one ST, AC5 in the other and SLas in the head, so I'd be willing to bet on 3 Ballistic, 4 Energy.
Also, the stock speed is 64kph, so massive engine!
#106
Posted 03 March 2014 - 10:43 AM
#107
Posted 03 March 2014 - 11:21 AM
5 tons difference is nearly nothing, higher engine cap doesn't make a big difference (because really, XL's in a ground based large assault are terrible) as you're not likely to use a larger engine than you'd cram into an Atlas anyways. Sure, you're moving the energy hardpoints into the torso, but that's not going to change play from how one plays an atlas anyways. If anything, it's a disadvantage as you're losing arm articulation for those weapons.
I don't mean to bash it; I just really want it to be awesome and I'm not seeing how it's going to be. Alas, this is a problem you have when you're cramming in so many mech chassis, though.
Also, the Banshee really doesn't have a good selection of variants in our time frame. They exist, but in our terms they're very similar.
#108
Posted 03 March 2014 - 11:36 AM
If we get the -3S, that's another example of having hardpoint flexibility the Atlas often lacks.
#109
Posted 03 March 2014 - 11:57 AM
Damocles69, on 03 March 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:
What's not to love about a 95 ton pop tart?
You mean the La Malinche, I guess we'll be seeing plenty of them tomorrow.
Expect the 3S or 5S or both I suppose. Prepare for a mech with 8 Energy Hardpoints and still a Ballistic and Missile Hardpoint.
Edited by Monsoon, 03 March 2014 - 11:59 AM.
#110
Posted 03 March 2014 - 12:28 PM
#111
Posted 03 March 2014 - 12:37 PM
#112
Posted 03 March 2014 - 12:40 PM
Monsoon, on 03 March 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:
"A" list could also be a list of mechs that they won`t be doing, ever, for technical reasons
#114
Posted 03 March 2014 - 01:14 PM
#115
Posted 03 March 2014 - 01:29 PM
Also it seem according to Sarna it's considered a failure in universe.
Edited by Anyone00, 03 March 2014 - 01:31 PM.
#116
Posted 03 March 2014 - 01:34 PM
#117
Posted 03 March 2014 - 01:38 PM
Triordinant, on 16 February 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:
Source for weight limits? I've heard "CLASS LIMITATIONS" set at 3/3/3/3 but weight was not factored in.
I believe people are misinformed as always spreading bad information, but i'm always open to being corrected.
#118
Posted 03 March 2014 - 01:43 PM
Pando, on 03 March 2014 - 01:38 PM, said:
Source for weight limits? I've heard "CLASS LIMITATIONS" set at 3/3/3/3 but weight was not factored in.
I believe people are misinformed as always spreading bad information, but i'm always open to being corrected.
It's in the CC post. If not implemented immediately upon release of the launch module it will be implemented shortly thereafter. If you drop in a 90 tonner, the mm will try first to match you against another 90 tonner.
#119
Posted 03 March 2014 - 02:10 PM
#120
Posted 03 March 2014 - 02:19 PM
Anyone00, on 03 March 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:
Also it seem according to Sarna it's considered a failure in universe.
Well it's it's considered a failure because the 3E was a 95-ton mech with only 1 PPC, 1 AC/5 and 1 Small Laser. It stuck all it's weight into standard 380 engine. So in MWO terms that means, it'll immediately have the engine torn out in favor of some real firepower.
Domoneky, on 03 March 2014 - 02:10 PM, said:
Probably the one were getting in 4 months for the IS Mech-of-the-month.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users