950 replies to this topic

[Pariah Devalis]

That said, that Timber Wolf is actually going to be at 89 KPH, and ideally at a range of 800 meters. Hitting the mech might not be difficult, but at those ranges reliably nailing a specific part might be. You have Gauss Rifle ERPPCs. You might as well exploit the hell out of them.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 04 May 2014 - 05:01 PM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Koniving, on 04 May 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

So, a PPC gets to be smaller than a person on a small mech, but on the Awesome has to be larger than the light mech when it's still 7 tons? In this case, how come it is Smaller on a Shadowhawk than it is on a Kintaro, when both mechs are the same size?






For that matter, I wonder what MWO will do with Light PPCs? Snub-nosed PPCs? Or Heavy PPCs? Will a Heavy PPC on an Awesome or Atlas be larger than the mech? Will snub-nosed PPCs on the chest of a Blackjack be impossible to see (since they're pretty fat and snubbed anyway)? What about light PPCs when standard PPCs on light mechs are as small as laser ports?

In what way is that fair to anyone? That's not a design consideration at all. A design consideration is allowing stock-based armor limits for larger mechs (the Awesome is large because it has 80 to over 100 more points of armor than a Victor for example. The Dragon has nearly as much armor as most 70 ton mechs despite being a 60 tonner. The Thunderbolt, 65 tons, is literally a half a ton short of the Stalker's armor which is why it is 'big'.) That's a design consideration.

A design consideration is discouraging smaller mechs from using immensely powerful weapons by keeping their sizes consistent. For example discouraging AC/20 Blackjacks by having the AC/20 be the same size it is for every mech instead of a reduced profile.

For example.

Spoiler

and


Yet...

A proper design of a mech with a big gun has a mech with a big gun.



And you, not having armor sufficient enough to protect said big gun, should not want to throw that big gun on a Raven for some unfair advantage. That's a design consideration.

I wish some of you'd been around in the battletech: solaris days on aol & gamestorm.

Not every mech had a unique design. They recycled heavily. The imp, cyclops and banshee used the same chassis design. The design of the catapult was identical to the marauder in every way. The stalker used the same body design as the marauder II, as did the annihilator. Wolverine, blackjack and trebuchet used the same body design also.

Weapons, armor, engines. None of it could be edited or changed. All specs were hardcoded and couldn't be edited. Lasers carried kinetic impact and caused your mech to rock when fired upon. The targeting reticle bobbed up and down as your mech walked making accurate shooting difficult at times.

I wonder what MWO's player base would have thought of that?

edit -

Actually, that game had some advantages over MWO.

#1 Toggle radar. I think it had a 300 meter radar a player could switch to to make it easier to tell where mechs are when brawling at short range.

#2 Weapon active alert light. When weapons were in range of a target centered in the firing reticle, a light next to them would appear.

#3 Whatever. I'll leave it to the veterans and elites to figure it out.

Battlecruiser, on 04 May 2014 - 04:22 PM, said:

I played good shooters for a long time, and I'm one of the people that caused the head hitbox revamp. This game moves at a snails pace to me, as it does for many other pronounced players who are much more accustomed to this game than I and can articulate their actions in this game much better than I, so while I am bragging about my efficiency in ripping apart mechs there are still people who can do it even better than I


it is not difficult to hit a large moving target in this game if you have the proper spatial sense. It does not matter how fast you are moving unless you're in something small and fast enough it abuses the laggy hitboxes and takes advantage of varying terrain.


let me put it this way. doesn't matter how fast you're moving if i know the speed of my projectile, distance to you, your relative speed and direction, because I'll know exactly where you're going. The only counter to this is utilizing varied terrain and weaving to throw the geometry off just enough that I might just miss, but the bigger the target you are the wider the acceptable margin of error is.

if you want my advice, when you get this lumbering fast giant, don't use that speed to try and dodge fire and brawl it out. Use it to out maneuver your prey, utilizing hard cover to obscure their line of sight to you so you come up on their flanks, swinging the axe, and then disappearing again to use terrain to maneuver onto another blind flank. And do try to stay farther than the max range of seismic, they'll never see you coming. if you have ecm, this applies to ecm coverage as well. the hud won't alert them to you, seismic wont alert them to you, and if you're not blocking them with ecm they'll have absolutely no clue... and actually on that note, if you do this dont use ballistics or ppc's. the impulse will tip them off, unless you lock them and wait for them to start getting hit by missiles, then go crazy.

For contrast, I see people claim catapult arm hitboxes are "MASSIVE". My catapult only does about 70 kph. I don't think I've ever had my arms aimed at, much less hit, when moving.

On the rare chance my arms shot off, its always when I'm standing still. Or overheated. The center torso may be a separate case as its typically the area tanking the most damage. I don't think I've ever had the cockpit of a catapult destroyed despite many claiming its cockpit hitboxes are "MASSIVE" & hitting it is "EASY".

I'm not seeing a reason the timberwolf will be any different.

People are praising its overly large hitboxes now.

When I see them in game, I'm sure they won't bother aiming at them, unless I'm overheated or something.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 04 May 2014 - 05:54 PM.

[Koniving]

DirePhoenix, on 04 May 2014 - 03:03 PM, said:

When they make the 3D models for a video game like this, they have to make the percentage of the volume that a hitbox takes fit within a certain range of the overall volume of a mech. So yes, the volume of a 80-ton mech's arm takes up more space than a 65-ton mech's arm.

To clarify, the tabletop's game rules are not directly tied to the art (and in some cases not tied at all). In a 3D video game, it is.

Doesn't seem to mention anything for mechs with the same size. In fact, the Kintaro is slightly bigger than the Shadowhawk. The Shadowhawk's cannons make its left torso take considerably more size, too. In comparison, the Kintaro's hitboxes for side torsos are quite tiny.

Tell me, in what way are these "proportionate" of the overall volume.
The Atlas is BIGGER than an Awesome. But it started with a hitbox that tiny? I do 3D modeling as well, I never had such issues.
Or for that matter, if it is proportionate to the overall size of the mech... why is the Kintaro's PPCs bigger than the Shadowhawk's? Kintaros have significantly larger arms. A significantly larger portion of the hitbox encompasses the arms than the side torsos, while still allowing for a huge center torso. The Shadowhawk has perfectly even side torsos, center torso, and small arm hitboxes.

Compare it to these. Which make the distribution significantly more proportional and even throughout the mechs. Didn't need tiny or oversized weapon models for that.

In comparison, for the Clan mechs its stated that when you mount certain weapons, the hands will automatically be removed.
Given PGI's weapon size track record..


If I slap a PPC in there, the hand will remove. The PPC will be identically sized to the laser module attachment.
What that means is if I equip a PPC, I was significantly reduce the size and profile of my arm hitbox.
Where if PPCs were all the same size, I'd have equal gain and loss in this particular case, because a PPC is larger than a laser on some mechs. But not others for some odd reason.
So I'm not buying the percentage of the mech thing. For example when a 14 or 15 ton weapon is literally 40 to 50% of the mech's weight, it should be larger than the pilot. That'd be like having a huge suitcase, but most of the weight from packing it is in this 14 pound half-pencil I attached on the outside of it.

Also, tested "weapon mount" spots that increase the size of your total volume such as the Banshee's LRM launcher. They stop existing when removed, and exist when attached. Attaching an AMS also increases the size of your hitbox. Now, what about them? It isn't a proportion of the overall volume, because it then increases the overall volume. Anything you attach changes the size of the hitboxes. Larger items increase it significantly for large mechs who are already large and slow. Smaller items decrease it slightly for large mechs. So why are they so far off base for smaller things?

As an example, an PPC attached to the Jenner is huge. Attached to the Locust, is HUGE, as is the LB-10x. Attached to a Blackjack, they are tiny. If it is in relation to the mech's size, then it should be tiny on the Locust, tiny on the Jenner; especially given that you can take two of the PPCs on a Firestarter and stuff them inside of a Jenner's PPC, along with 14 of the Firestarter's machine guns and a Firestarter Gauss Rifle can be used as a plunger to help cram it all in.

My point is if it was consistent, I'd agree and even believe you. But none of it is consistent. For example, the Kintaro's PPC is BIGGER than the Atlas's PPC and is the size of an Awesome's PPC. That's good. But not when the Kintaro is the only mech that is like that.

Btw. I'm one of the ones that like the current Timberwolf design. Though I'm worried it'll be too small -- it's supposed to also fit 6 men in battle armor. Not that it matters here, but that was an issue with the original art too. At least this one looks like it 'could' fit some.

[Cimarb]

Strum Wealh, on 04 May 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

Listen to NGNG's "'Mechs, Devs, & Beer #15" with Paul Inouye (the MWO Lead Designer); he explains that their current (as of the time of the recording) plan is to have Clan LB-X ACs be able to switch between slug (as in the equivalent of shotgun slug) rounds and cluster rounds (which already serve as the equivalent of shotshells), while the Clan UACs would be implemented as burst-fire weapons (such that a clan UAC/20, in stead of firing one large shell for 20 damage per salvo, might fire (for example) five shells that deal 4 damage apiece for a total of 20 damage per salvo).

Note that when Paul discusses the Clan LB-X ACs (from 40:40 to 42:48), he does not specifically indicate whether the Clan LB-X slug mode would also use a burst-fire implementation (like what's described for the Clan UACs) or if slugs would fire as single shells (like the IS Standard ACs), though some of his reasoning for denying ammo-switching for the IS LB 10-X (specifically, with regard to rendering the Standard AC/10 obsolete) implies the latter.

Additionally, note that Paul's discussion of Clan UACs (from 35:50 to 37:36) uses the 5x4 (burst of 5 shells @ 4 damage per shell) statement solely as an example ("...the [Ultra] Autocannon/20, for example - just throwing out some ideas here - is that it'll shoot a 5-round burst with every round doing 4 damage..."); the use of speculative language indicates that the 5x4 pattern was not set-in-stone as of the time of the recording - the CUAC/20 could ultimately end up firing in a 3x6.67 configuration (burst of 3 shells @ 6.67 damage per shell), or a 4x5 configuration, or a 6x3.33 configuration, and so on.

In regard to the two items I emphasized above:

1. I don't really think it implies the latter, personally, but it is completely subjective right now (as usual). IS ACs fire single slug, so having the IS LBX have switchable ammo would make the IS AC10 obsolete. Clan LBX being single slug will be a poor choice, IMO, so I hope they make it consistent with the other Clan ACs (burst).
2. I assume that Paul was using those numbers the same as the IS UAC. An IS UAC5, for instance, fires one 5-damage slug normally. If you double tap it, you get two 5-damage slugs. The CUAC20, then, would fire a burst of 4x5, or double tapping would give a burst of 8x5. (I'm hoping, at least)

Koniving, on 04 May 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

So, a PPC gets to be smaller than a person on a small mech, but on the Awesome has to be larger than the light mech when it's still 7 tons? In this case, how come it is Smaller on a Shadowhawk than it is on a Kintaro, when both mechs are the same size?

A design consideration is discouraging smaller mechs from using immensely powerful weapons by keeping their sizes consistent. For example discouraging AC/20 Blackjacks by having the AC/20 be the same size it is for every mech instead of a reduced profile.

For example.

Spoiler

and


Yet...

A proper design of a mech with a big gun has a mech with a big gun.



And you, not having armor sufficient enough to protect said big gun, should not want to throw that big gun on a Raven for some unfair advantage. That's a design consideration.

I am 100% behind the whole "big gun should be BIG regardless of mech size" idea. I want my AC20 to LOOK like an AC20, no matter what mech it is attached to!

[Koniving]

Cimarb, on 04 May 2014 - 06:26 PM, said:

I am 100% behind the whole "big gun should be BIG regardless of mech size" idea. I want my AC20 to LOOK like an AC20, no matter what mech it is attached to!

Here's what it looks like on a Raven 4X if you're interested.

Keep in mind, an AC/20 that actually is single shot is 203mm. That's the largest UAC/20 that exists, and in the Inner Sphere I've never seen one bigger than the 4 shot 185mm Chemjet Gun mounted on a mech or tank (naval vessels and space ships are a different story). The second closest is on the Hunchback and described by Jordon Weisman (i.e. creator of battletech) as a 5 shot in lore. More on ACs. An AC/20 of a size large enough to do the full damage in a single shot is said to be too big for any humanoid mech to maintain balance with.

There's even a special little story about the Cauldron Born as for why the 65 tonner can handle it, and depictions of it requiring 2 barrels for its UAC/20. Mostly this little story is related to the fact that it's about the height of a Jenner (as some larger tanks are taller than the Cauldron Born), as long as or longer than a Stalker, and as wide from arm to arm as a Dragon with legs thicker than MWO's Catapult.



Now that's a big cannon.

o.O; So that poor Raven would have a lot of trouble doing what it does with that size AC/20. A more proportional one would be one of the 40mm to 100mm AC/20s. Like the Pontiac 100 (Victor) which is described to fire bursts of 100 shots (Heir of the Dragon) and be manually reloaded.

For fun, AC/5s go 40mm to 120mm. AC/10s are only recorded (by me, I've been going through books one at a time and they're not popular) as being 100mm to 120mm. Inner Sphere AC/20s from 40mm smallest to 185mm. AC/2s from 30mm to 80mm. (note, MG is 12.5mm vehicles, 20 to 25mm for mechs).

More fun to note: The one 120mm gun AC/5 (Whirlwind/5, Thunder Ridge. Wolves on the Border) that specifies shots per rating dictates 3 shots. 3 * 1.666666666666667 = 5. The 120mm Deathgiver AC/20 for the King Crab? Dictates 12 shots (Storms of Fate). If we assume it does the same damage per shot, 1.666666666666667 * 12 = 20. Even more fun? The shot count for an AC/2 and an AC/5 at 40mm also matched mathematically to make both possible with the same size ammo. The magazines or "uses" per ton also matched up within a 7 shot count difference (sorry wrong gun) 60 shot difference (8 shots for AC/2, 0.25 damage per bullet. 45 magazines (battletech calls them cassettes), 360 shots per ton. 20 shots for AC/5, 0.25 damage per bullet, 15 magazines 300 shots per ton), but the way the ammo is loaded can account for that (larger and more forceful magazines consume more weight). The excuse for range difference? Recoil; the bigger guns with the same size rounds not only shoots more shots but shoots them faster.

A 40mm weapon, just for reference. A 120mm weapon (the tank cannon or large bore rifle as they call it now).

The books have balancing figured out for us.

Shame PGI went their own road.
(Last edit. Sorry for so many quotes!)

Edited by Koniving, 04 May 2014 - 07:25 PM.

[Cimarb]

Koniving, on 04 May 2014 - 06:39 PM, said:

Keep in mind, an AC/20 that actually is single shot is 203mm. That's the largest UAC/20 that exists, and in the Inner Sphere I've never seen one bigger than the 4 shot 185mm Chemjet Gun mounted on a mech or tank (naval vessels and space ships are a different story). The second closest is on the Hunchback and described by Jordon Weisman (i.e. creator of battletech) as a 5 shot in lore. More on ACs. An AC/20 of a size large enough to do the full damage in a single shot is said to be too big for any humanoid mech to maintain balance with. There's even a special little story about the Cauldron Born, and depictions of it requiring 2 barrels for its UAC/20 as for why the 65 tonner can handle it. Mostly related to the fact that it's about the height of a Jenner, as long as or longer than a Stalker, and as wide from arm to arm as a Dragon with feet thicker than MWO's Catapult.

o.O; So that poor Raven would have a lot of trouble doing what it does with that size AC/20. A more proportional one would be one of the 40mm to 100mm AC/20s. Like the Pontiac 100 (Victor) which is described to fire bursts of 100 shots (Heir of the Dragon) and be manually reloaded.

For fun, AC/5s go 40mm to 120mm. AC/10s are only recorded (by me, I've been going through books one at a time and they're not popular) as being 100mm to 120mm. Inner Sphere AC/20s from 40mm smallest to 185mm. AC/2s from 30mm to 80mm. (note, MG is 12.5mm vehicles, 20 to 25mm for mechs).

More fun to note: The one 120mm gun AC/5 that specifies shots per rating dictates 3 shots. 3 * 1.666666666666667 = 5. The 120mm Deathgiver AC/20 for the King Crab? Dictates 12 shots. If we assume it does the same damage per shot, 1.666666666666667 * 12 = 20. Even more fun? The shot count for an AC/2 and an AC/5 at 40mm also matched mathematically to make both possible with the same size ammo. The magazines or "uses" per ton also matched up within a 7 shot count difference, but the way the ammo is loaded can account for that (larger magazines consume more weight). The books have balancing figured out for us.

Shame PGI went their own road.

Really, what should happen is they should make a single static-sized model for each manufacturer version based upon the caliber, and use the appropriate sized version that fits the chassis you are equipping it. The variant would still do balanced DPS (4x5, 12x1.67, etc.), but the size would fit the mech AND it would allow mechs that are designed for bigger versions (Hunchback, for instance), to benefit from that design quirk with larger FLD (5 vs. 1.67, etc.).

[Koniving]

Cimarb, on 04 May 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

Really, what should happen is they should make a single static-sized model for each manufacturer version based upon the caliber, and use the appropriate sized version that fits the chassis you are equipping it. The variant would still do balanced DPS (4x5, 12x1.67, etc.), but the size would fit the mech AND it would allow mechs that are designed for bigger versions (Hunchback, for instance), to benefit from that design quirk with larger FLD (5 vs. 1.67, etc.).

Akin to this sadly outdated video? (had a number of errors, such as the shot count for the Chemjet Gun, quoting a fan fiction as an official book, etc. that I've since learned more about through some research and interest on the topic) See, that's what I'd do too. It'd also make good sense and go easily with Community Warfare.

To top it off, we'd also have a reason for a crouch function too. For example, if you use an autocannon that's larger than optimal for your mech (i.e. requiring fewer shots to get x damage), then you could crouch to fire said slightly oversized autocannon safely without falling over. But if you try to overdo it and mount two slightly larger than optimal ACs, you fall (similar to knockdown or as MW3 calls it a "gyro overload;" basically you lose your balance). Meanwhile if you have a larger mech and mount smaller variants of the ACs, you can better handle the recoil giving you better accuracy (which gives you a reason to use the higher-shot-count versions even if you can use the larger, fewer-shot and quicker to kill deadlier versions).

Even had laser variant ideas; accidentally creating a Bombast laser. O.o; After all there are 44 unique (more than 60 total when counting non-unique) variants of standard medium laser. Not even counting the clan versions, ER versions, pulse versions, etc. Just standard inner sphere medium laser.

My favorite is the Rassal Blue-Beam by Arcturan Arms; described as a blue-colored laser with the record time to reach the medium laser damage rating of 5 [in other words the most instant upfront damage you can get with an ML] with the drawbacks of an incredibly long recharge time and slight self-EMP effect in the form of "EM Interference". I found that interesting.

There's also 18 unique Gauss Rifles. 12 unique mech/tank AC/20s (15 or 16 if you count the variant-variants, i.e. if burst fire Crusher super heavy cannon is standard then the two replicas by different companies include, autofire Crusher is a variant-variant. AC/20 Deathgivers of the 100mm and 120mm variations). The list just stackpiles to lots of unique weapons to make the field so much more interesting; though I couldn't even imagine getting half the laser variants into the game.

But yes. Ultimately overall heat generated, optimum range, overall damage dealt, weight, etc. could not change. Was also big on not changing DPS, but a single shot weapon of any sort when combined with multi-shot variants can't rely on recoil alone, so a DPS change there would make sense. Example, if multi-shot AC/20s are 5 DPS, then the single shot AC/20 should be 4 DPS (i.e. take 1 extra second to reload).
Edit: question mark in an odd place.

Edited by Koniving, 05 May 2014 - 07:41 AM.

[Haitchpeasauce]

Navid A1, on 15 April 2014 - 12:58 AM, said:

Dude...
perfect... thanks to you, i cant stop laughing when i see a victor on the field from now on...

Take a look at the Atlas crotch. I didn't realise until I tried building a Minecraft version of the Atlas... that thing hangs down to the knees.

[wickwire]

Honestly, this is one of the worse Mech designs guys.

The torso and cockpit look fine IMO, the missile pods are ok, but the arms and legs are just too bulky.

[Pariah Devalis]

wickwire, on 09 May 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

Honestly, this is one of the worse Mech designs guys.

The torso and cockpit look fine IMO, the missile pods are ok, but the arms and legs are just too bulky.

Correction, one part of the mech that you clearly like the design of otherwise is not to your taste.

Stop.

With.

The.

Disrespectful.

Hyperbole.

[Black Kirito]

This was always one of my favorite mechs. Happy to preorder it.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

I wonder if we could get a picture like this:


For the Timber Wolf. For science?

[Vermaxx]

I bought one yesterday, I'm requesting a refund tonight.

LRM use is higher now than any time I can remember, other than the first rollout of Artemis. I can see substantial improvement in my OWN numbers when I run LRM mechs versus direct fire, even when I die quickly and contribute little.

I can't pay another 55 dollars for something that isn't quite what I want, just because it will get me there faster. I was ready to go, then I played most of the day and really soured on MWO, again.

Give me some CONCRETE INFO on CW, release some non omni clan mechs (Hunchback IIc); or give us the option (HOWEVER EXPENSIVE) to upgrade certain Inner Sphere mechs to clan tech - possibly our Founder variants. Give me SOMETHING worth spending money on.

I wish Clan tech would sell me on MWO again, but it's being nerfed and undervalued. You can't implement a concept like the Clans, then immediately balance them against the lowest common denominator just to keep everyone in the same queue. The Clans aren't balanced, or fair, or even. They come in smaller groups and smaller weight classes and still kick everyone's teeth in.

Edited by Vermaxx, 11 May 2014 - 07:12 PM.

[Cimarb]

Vermaxx, on 11 May 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

LRM use is higher now than any time I can remember, other than the first rollout of Artemis. I can see substantial improvement in my OWN numbers when I run LRM mechs versus direct fire, even when I die quickly and contribute little.

LRMs are in a very good place now - they are useful and worth taking, but not "the best", which is where they should be. If you die to LRMs, you made a mistake, and that is not the LRMs fault.

Vermaxx, on 11 May 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

I can't pay another 55 dollars for something that isn't quite what I want, just because it will get me there faster. I was ready to go, then I played most of the day and really soured on MWO, again.

No one is forcing you to buy anything. Take a break until the Clan mechs are released for cbills and then see if you enjoy the game more at that point.

Vermaxx, on 11 May 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

I wish Clan tech would sell me on MWO again, but it's being nerfed and undervalued. You can't implement a concept like the Clans, then immediately balance them against the lowest common denominator just to keep everyone in the same queue. The Clans aren't balanced, or fair, or even. They come in smaller groups and smaller weight classes and still kick everyone's teeth in.

You don't even know exactly how Clan tech will be implemented, so complaining about how they are implemented is a little premature. That being said, we should know EXACTLY how Clan mechs work by now, seeing as they are being released in 36 days. This is a completely unacceptable fact that PGI should have fixed months ago. If they are still figuring it out, shame on them for such poor planning. I love the ideas that Paul shared in the podcast, but MAN, this is pretty ludicrous that we have no concrete details other than hardpoints with just over a month to go until they are released! Along the same lines...

Vermaxx, on 11 May 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

Give me some CONCRETE INFO on CW, release some non omni clan mechs (Hunchback IIc); or give us the option (HOWEVER EXPENSIVE) to upgrade certain Inner Sphere mechs to clan tech - possibly our Founder variants. Give me SOMETHING worth spending money on.

I agree that we should have more details on CW as well. Not so much the mixed tech or IIC versions, as I think there is still a lot more time to get those implemented, but we should be having CW updates at least monthly by this point...

[ssm]

Cimarb, on 12 May 2014 - 05:30 AM, said:

You don't even know exactly how Clan tech will be implemented, so complaining about how they are implemented is a little premature. That being said, we should know EXACTLY how Clan mechs work by now, seeing as they are being released in 36 days. This is a completely unacceptable fact that PGI should have fixed months ago. If they are still figuring it out, shame on them for such poor planning. I love the ideas that Paul shared in the podcast, but MAN, this is pretty ludicrous that we have no concrete details other than hardpoints with just over a month to go until they are released! Along the same lines...
(...)

I read somewhere that the next dev vlog (currently in the works) will be about Clan tech implementation, so I guess It'll be accompanied by detailed write-up. But you're right - it's months overdue.

[Cimarb]

ssm, on 12 May 2014 - 05:49 AM, said:

I read somewhere that the next dev vlog (currently in the works) will be about Clan tech implementation, so I guess It'll be accompanied by detailed write-up. But you're right - it's months overdue.

That may be why it was delayed, too. I sure hope you are right!

[Why Run]

Already got mine, MKII as well. Ya'll late.

[Cimarb]

Wow, what an ugly Timber Wolf. Looks like a new-born deer wearing a Mickey Mouse hat and front legs chopped off at the knees.

[Why Run]

It is 12 years old... Give it some slack. It looks better than many of our current models!

The small miracle is that 1) i have physical copies of MW:4 and MW:4 BK; and, 2) that they work on Windows 8.1!

I am currently in a state of panic because I cannot find my physical media for MW2 and 3!

Edited by Why Run, 05 June 2014 - 06:26 AM.

[Why Run]

Remember, that was the MKII, here's the Madcat/Timberwolf