20517 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

TrapJaw80, on 04 October 2015 - 05:22 PM, said:

yeah, the ARCHER! Different looking mech (torso cockpit), lots of lore, and morgan kell phantom mech hero :-)

It's also worth noting that the Archer's cockpit "is located beneath the central torso, with the torso armor belt located above the cockpit", and that this is not the same thing as a "torso cockpit".

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 04 October 2015 - 06:57 PM, said:

It's also worth noting that the Archer's cockpit "is located beneath the central torso, with the torso armor belt located above the cockpit", and that this is not the same thing as a "torso cockpit".

true...which ....could be an interesting hardpoint to hitbox dilemma..... stormcrow writ large..... very large. and if true to the original art at all, without any kind of shoulder/arms to shield them. An MWO archer would almost certainly be not XL friendly, AND have a Dragon like CT.

Barring utterly changing the design, don't see a lot of wiggle room in that.

Upside, both ct energy hardpoints should be high mount, above the cockpit, looking kind of like a double barrel version of the Hellbringers head laser. But still, 1 Larger or 2 mediums, ain't a lot to brag about.

It will almost have to be indirect fire support.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 04 October 2015 - 08:05 PM.

[Otto Cannon]

The Archer should be like the IS Vulture. Missile torsos, energy arms, awful hitboxes, lots of nostalgia. Can't wait!

[bad arcade kitty]

scr has good hitboxes due to her stalker/timber/crab-like vaguely ovoid shape which is also slim and ct/st areas are properly divided, it has nothing to do with her cockpit on the level of arms

a low cockpit makes aiming easier while exposing the hump above it... it has nothing to do with xl friendliness since it doesn't depend on the shape

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 October 2015 - 08:03 PM, said:

true...which ....could be an interesting hardpoint to hitbox dilemma..... stormcrow writ large..... very large. and if true to the original art at all, without any kind of shoulder/arms to shield them. An MWO archer would almost certainly be not XL friendly, AND have a Dragon like CT.

Barring utterly changing the design, don't see a lot of wiggle room in that.

Upside, both ct energy hardpoints should be high mount, above the cockpit, looking kind of like a double barrel version of the Hellbringers head laser. But still, 1 Larger or 2 mediums, ain't a lot to brag about.

It will almost have to be indirect fire support.

Considering how much inspiration the MWO MAD & WHM seem to take from Shimmering Sword's work (the MAD moreso than the WHM), I would imagine that the odds are good for a MWO ARC following a similar thread.



It would probably end up being essentially an enlarged DRG torso, with the 'Mech's head on the "nose" rather than on top.

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 04 October 2015 - 08:41 PM, said:

Considering how much inspiration the MWO MAD & WHM seem to take from Shimmering Sword's work (the MAD moreso than the WHM), I would imagine that the odds are good for a MWO ARC following a similar thread.



It would probably end up being essentially an enlarged DRG torso, with the 'Mech's head on the "nose" rather than on top.

which is also the TT and novel description. And like I said all the torso weapons will be above it.....and the hit boxes will be....less than favourable.

BTW, really don't see much in common between SS and FDs versions of the WHM other than the warhammer "look".

Torsos, cockpits, ppc arms, feet, knees, all very very different.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 04 October 2015 - 08:45 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 October 2015 - 08:44 PM, said:

which is also the TT and novel description. And like I said all the torso weapons will be above it.....and the hit boxes will be....less than favourable.

Alas, another "non-meta" 'Mech - I'm sure we'd both be lamenting that point.

So... Archer variant speculation!

• The ARC-2R (x1 MLas in each arm, x2 MLas in the CT, and x1 LRM-20 in each side-torso) is a given, with it being the "standard" variant.
  
• The ARC-5W (x1 SRM-4 in each arm, x1 LRM-20 in each side-torso, x1 Narc beacon launcher in the CT) is unique as the variant that drops any energy weapons for "all missiles, all the time".

The ARC-5S would just render the 2R redundant (x1 MPLas in each arm, x2 MPLas in the CT, and x1 LRM-15 in each side-torso, plus a SSRM-2 in each arm & a Narc beacon launcher in the LT).
Much the same can be said of the ARC-2S (x1 MLas in each arm, x2 MLas in the CT, and x1 LRM-15 in each side-torso, plus an additional SRM-4 in each side-torso).
The ARC-2K (x1 LLas in each arm, x1 LRM-15 in each side-torso) and the ARC-5R (x1 ERLL in each arm, x1 LRM-15 in each side-torso) are redundant to one another.
The ARC-4M (x1 MLas in each arm, x2 MLas in the CT, and x1 LRM-20 in each side-torso) is redundant to the 2R.
The ARC-2W (x1 MLas in each arm, x1 LRM-15 in each side-torso, and x1 SRM-4 in each side-torso) is essentially just the 2S minus both the CT-mounted lasers.
The ARC-2Rb, the SLDF Royals variant, is just the 2R minus one of the CT lasers, plus Artemis and CASE.

All of the ARCs have the same base movement profile (4/6/0), and none natively carry ECM or MASC.
Most Heavy 'Mechs have 6-8 hardpoints, so the ARCs probably shouldn't exceed that (which would mean a limit of 8 or so hardpoints per variant).

IMO, the 2R and the 5W are strong contenders for two of the three variants, but the 5S just feels like too much (even though it is, on some level, the logical choice, the number and distribution of hardpoints puts everything else to shame) & none of the other variants feels particularly inspiring.

Thoughts?

[xVLFBERHxT]

Yeah, no torso mounted cockpit, sorry for that. I meant a centertorso-level cockpit or so :-).

If it comes, i hope it looks like shimmering swords archer. I like his work and his Archer is my Archer.
I am so hyped for this mech. Because its morgans mech. My first Battletech contact was the duel between Morgan Kell (Archer) and Yorinaga Kurita (Warhammer). Then Alex from the gray death legion and Jamie Wolf in his mighty archer :-).

Maybe the meta tryhards would cry Archer doa, tier 5 or no meta. I would sleep in it.

Edited by TrapJaw80, 05 October 2015 - 02:27 AM.

[xVLFBERHxT]

Maybe an Morgan Kell ECM "Phantom-Mech" Hero like the Piratesbane? I know careful...

[Odanan]

Strum Wealh, on 04 October 2015 - 05:16 PM, said:

Interestingly, the ON1s are an exercise in both for me - I'm quite okay with the asymmetrical distribution of the weapons, but the slightly off-center cockpit just kills the whole design for me.

I might have some blame for the off-centered cockpit...

[MeiSooHaityu]

Strum Wealh, on 04 October 2015 - 08:41 PM, said:

I like it, but whoa! That crappy cockpit! If you thought the Shadow Hawk's cockpit was a bit claustrophobic (like playing from inside a mailbox, this would be about the same.

Anyway, it does look cool regardless.

[Strum Wealh]

Odanan, on 05 October 2015 - 02:58 AM, said:

I might have some blame for the off-centered cockpit...

[Strum Wealh]

MeiSooHaityu, on 05 October 2015 - 03:45 AM, said:

I like it, but whoa! That crappy cockpit! If you thought the Shadow Hawk's cockpit was a bit claustrophobic (like playing from inside a mailbox, this would be about the same.

Anyway, it does look cool regardless.

Well, it is largely true to the original (Unseen) design.

The later (Project Phoenix Reseen) redesign had a larger, more conventional canopy.


It'll be interesting to see which variation FD goes with, or if he'll somehow attempt to find a middle ground (and which way that middle ground might slant).

[xVLFBERHxT]

Both designs have the look of an angry bare-knuckle boxer . Ready to brawl.

[zagibu]

TrapJaw80, on 05 October 2015 - 04:06 AM, said:

Both designs have the look of an angry bare-knuckle boxer . Ready to brawl.

It's because they have no neck.

[MeiSooHaityu]

zagibu, on 05 October 2015 - 04:17 AM, said:

It's because they have no neck.

Probably the best layout. An actual head to house the cockpit makes the CT targetable from all angles and places the pilot's POV too far away from his weapons (especially when low mounted). This fault is most visible in the Black Knight.

Even though the Warhammer also has low hard points, at least the cockpit is lower (no head) and closer to those weapons. I bet despite the low weapons, players will have less of an issue with the weapon placement because of it.

At least the smaller mechs can kind of get away with having a defined head. It must be because the mech is smaller in general and therefore the player's POV is just naturally closer to their weapons just due to scale.

[Steinar Bergstol]

TrapJaw80, on 05 October 2015 - 04:06 AM, said:

Both designs have the look of an angry bare-knuckle boxer . Ready to brawl.

Well, it's 70 tons, so give us melee attacks and it _will_ be a nasty bare-knuckle fighter. If you were next to another mech as an Archer in TT you said "screw the medium arm lasers! I'm punching you for 7 points per fist and a 1 in 6 chance of hitting you in the face!"

Well, you _could_ kick for 14 Points, but punching faces is more satisfying, unless the target is a light mech. Then making them limp is hillarious.

[KuroNyra]

Tomorrow, a cave demon will appear in my garage...

I'm scared...

[Odanan]

Strum Wealh, on 04 October 2015 - 10:16 PM, said:

Spoiler

Alas, another "non-meta" 'Mech - I'm sure we'd both be lamenting that point.

So... Archer variant speculation!

• The ARC-2R (x1 MLas in each arm, x2 MLas in the CT, and x1 LRM-20 in each side-torso) is a given, with it being the "standard" variant.
  
• The ARC-5W (x1 SRM-4 in each arm, x1 LRM-20 in each side-torso, x1 Narc beacon launcher in the CT) is unique as the variant that drops any energy weapons for "all missiles, all the time".

The ARC-5S would just render the 2R redundant (x1 MPLas in each arm, x2 MPLas in the CT, and x1 LRM-15 in each side-torso, plus a SSRM-2 in each arm & a Narc beacon launcher in the LT).


Much the same can be said of the ARC-2S (x1 MLas in each arm, x2 MLas in the CT, and x1 LRM-15 in each side-torso, plus an additional SRM-4 in each side-torso).
The ARC-2K (x1 LLas in each arm, x1 LRM-15 in each side-torso) and the ARC-5R (x1 ERLL in each arm, x1 LRM-15 in each side-torso) are redundant to one another.
The ARC-4M (x1 MLas in each arm, x2 MLas in the CT, and x1 LRM-20 in each side-torso) is redundant to the 2R.
The ARC-2W (x1 MLas in each arm, x1 LRM-15 in each side-torso, and x1 SRM-4 in each side-torso) is essentially just the 2S minus both the CT-mounted lasers.
The ARC-2Rb, the SLDF Royals variant, is just the 2R minus one of the CT lasers, plus Artemis and CASE.

All of the ARCs have the same base movement profile (4/6/0), and none natively carry ECM or MASC.
Most Heavy 'Mechs have 6-8 hardpoints, so the ARCs probably shouldn't exceed that (which would mean a limit of 8 or so hardpoints per variant).

IMO, the 2R and the 5W are strong contenders for two of the three variants, but the 5S just feels like too much (even though it is, on some level, the logical choice, the number and distribution of hardpoints puts everything else to shame) & none of the other variants feels particularly inspiring.

Thoughts?

No redundancy, you are just not using enough inflation.

OK, let's do this:

ARC-2R

LA 1E +1E
LT 1M
CT 2E
RT 1M
RA 1E +1E

ARC-EW

LA 1M
LT 1M +1M
CT 1M (+1M?)
RT 1M +1M
RA 1M

ARC-5S

LA 1E, 1M
LT 2M
CT 2E
RT 1M
RA 1E, 1M

ARC-2S

LA 1E
LT 2M
CT 2E
RT 2M
RA 1E

ARC-2K

LA 1E +1E
LT 1M +1M
CT
RT 1M +1M
RA 1E +1E

ARC-5R

LA 1E +2E
LT 1M
CT
RT 1M
RA 1E +2E

ARC-4M

LA 1E
LT 1M +1M
CT 2E
RT 1M +1M
RA 1E

ARC-2W

LA 1E
LT 2M +1M
CT
RT 2M +1M
RA 1E

ARC-2Rb (I would keep this variant out of the game, but could be made different by unusual quirks)

LA 1E +1E
LT 1M
CT 1E
RT 1M
RA 1E +1E

And... ARC-PHN "Phantom", Morgan Kell's hero mech. (suggested hardpoints)

LA 1E
LT 2M + ECM
CT 1E
RT 2M
RA 1E

Sure, the Archer looks much better than the Catapult, with 2 more hardpoints, but it doesn't have jump jets and could have worst hitboxes.

Edited by Odanan, 07 December 2015 - 05:43 PM.

[Juodas Varnas]

Odanan, on 05 October 2015 - 05:42 AM, said:

Sure, the Archer looks much better than the Catapult, with 2 more hardpoints, but it doesn't have jump jets and could have worst hitboxes.

I don't think anything can have worse hitboxes than the Catapult