20517 replies to this topic

[xSONOHx]

RestosIII, on 12 October 2016 - 04:03 PM, said:

Remember, they made it so you straight up couldn't equip more than 2 goose waffles on a mech at a time. So it's DEFINATELY dead.

Ah, I forgot about that "special balance decision"...
Silly balance, some weapons, builds, or 'mechs will simply be better than others.

Edit: I still want my slow, lumbering, heavy af, and death incarnate 'mech. (which is up for debate since I've never used the Annihilator in any BT or MW game ever.)

Edited by xSONOHx, 12 October 2016 - 04:38 PM.

[Imperius]

xSONOHx, on 12 October 2016 - 04:31 PM, said:

Ah, I forgot about that "special balance decision"...
Silly balance, some weapons, builds, or 'mechs will simply be better than others.

Edit: I still want my slow, lumbering, heavy af, and death incarnate 'mech. (which is up for debate since I've never used the Annihilator in any BT or MW game ever.)

Go OMEGA or go home

[Alex Morgaine]

Wait, they literally programmed it so you can't fit 3+ assuming you had space and weight for gauss? Or just the fire 2 at a time limit?

Edited by Alex Morgaine, 12 October 2016 - 05:52 PM.

[TheArisen]

xSONOHx, on 12 October 2016 - 04:31 PM, said:

Ah, I forgot about that "special balance decision"...
Silly balance, some weapons, builds, or 'mechs will simply be better than others.

Edit: I still want my slow, lumbering, heavy af, and death incarnate 'mech. (which is up for debate since I've never used the Annihilator in any BT or MW game ever.)

The Nightstar is calling...

[Odanan]

Alex Morgaine, on 12 October 2016 - 05:52 PM, said:

Wait, they literally programmed it so you can't fit 3+ assuming you had space and weight for gauss? Or just the fire 2 at a time limit?

You can fire just 2 at a time.

I don't know it things will be different with the ED, though...

[Odanan]

Annihilator... Omega (!)... Nightstar... (where are the Quads and LAMs?) you guys are getting desperate, don't you?
I take all of that and rise to the Fire Moth!

BTW, about the quads, Alex Iglesias himself gave me a reason why quads wouldn't work in MWO:

Quote

the problem with quads is that unlike bipedal mechs, the terrain would actually influence how high or low they could aim by virtue of their horizontal arrangement. which would cause no shortage of complications

Sorry Juodas... :/

[xVLFBERHxT]

Edited by TrapJaw80, 13 October 2016 - 03:06 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

xSONOHx, on 12 October 2016 - 04:31 PM, said:

Ah, I forgot about that "special balance decision"...
Silly balance, some weapons, builds, or 'mechs will simply be better than others.

nah the weapon itself is hardly the problem - the combination of the same weapon is the problem

4 Gauss Rifles on 4 Mechs are not the same type of problem as 4 Gauss on 1 Mech.
We really need that wobbling spreading crosshair or otherwise simply don't allow weapons to fire as one.
Well I would not prefer any of them - but with the current design there are no other options remaining.

About the Anni -why to bother with Gauss --- AC10 is all you need. If there is a iusse with the Anni - then the punny weapons we have thanks to weapon geometry.
I know you disliked the A1 but at least those missiles had the right size

Edited by Karl Streiger, 13 October 2016 - 03:29 AM.

[SlightlyMobileTurret]

Alex Morgaine, on 12 October 2016 - 05:52 PM, said:

Wait, they literally programmed it so you can't fit 3+ assuming you had space and weight for gauss? Or just the fire 2 at a time limit?

On the PTS, more than 2 Gauss was an invalid loadout (im not sure if it is right now, need to go try) on the same scale as no engine or weapons.

[TheArisen]

Odanan, on 13 October 2016 - 02:42 AM, said:

Annihilator... Omega (!)... Nightstar... (where are the Quads and LAMs?) you guys are getting desperate, don't you?
I take all of that and rise to the Fire Moth!

BTW, about the quads, Alex Iglesias himself gave me a reason why quads wouldn't work in MWO:

Sorry Juodas... :/

Quads would need to be turreted & function somewhat like a tank in MWO to avoid this issue.

[Juodas Varnas]

TheArisen, on 13 October 2016 - 08:12 AM, said:

Quads would need to be turreted & function somewhat like a tank in MWO to avoid this issue.

I don't really get that reason myself.
I don't see why would the terrain need to affect their pitch angle, when it doesn't affect mechs like the Stalker and other mechs that are longer than they are tall.
Seriously, just make the mech's torso level and give the legs Inverse Kinematics. Sure, it would probably look a bit awkward when climbing VERY steep hills or whatnot, but it'd be only as awkward as the bipeds trying to climb steep hills (with our without kinematics).

But i'm no game-developer, i don't know sh*t.

[Odanan]

Juodas Varnas, on 13 October 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

I don't really get that reason myself.
I don't see why would the terrain need to affect their pitch angle, when it doesn't affect mechs like the Stalker and other mechs that are longer than they are tall.
Seriously, just make the mech's torso level and give the legs Inverse Kinematics. Sure, it would probably look a bit awkward when climbing VERY steep hills or whatnot, but it'd be only as awkward as the bipeds trying to climb steep hills (with our without kinematics).

But i'm no game-developer, i don't know sh*t.

Yes, it would look awkward. While mechs are always vertically strait, quads are different. It would need a whole new system walking/standing.

It is possible? Sure. Does it worth it? Probably not (for the amount of work/resources spent).

[Juodas Varnas]

Odanan, on 13 October 2016 - 09:27 AM, said:

Yes, it would look awkward. While mechs are always vertically strait, quads are different. It would need a whole new system walking/standing.

It is possible? Sure. Does it worth it? Probably not (for the amount of work/resources spent).

Except that i'm 99% sure that currently bipeds aren't always vertically straight.
When going downhill, i've seen many mechs lean forward, Though the only mechs i can think of that i've noticed it happening with are the Quickdraw and Stalker.
Could be more of them, but they're the only ones i noticed it happening with.
Might be a bug,

Bah, who the hell cares, it's not like PGI would even be capable of implementing them, even if it was a smart choice profit-wise.

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 13 October 2016 - 09:40 AM.

[CycKath]

Just a quick screencap from the new Spotlight: Crescent Hawks, the last place we expected to see the lineart for Classics Thunderbolt

[Odanan]

CycKath, on 18 October 2016 - 02:40 AM, said:

Just a quick screencap from the new Spotlight: Crescent Hawks, the last place we expected to see the lineart for Classics Thunderbolt

Looking good...

[Juodas Varnas]

CycKath, on 18 October 2016 - 02:40 AM, said:

Just a quick screencap from the new Spotlight: Crescent Hawks, the last place we expected to see the lineart for Classics Thunderbolt

Holy sh*t, that looks great!
I'd still prefer if the cockpit and the LRM drum switched places (because the LRM drum is on the right torso, according to its stats, not the left one).

Here's the new Griffin from the same place.


Also, the Valkyrie (i'm not sure if it was posted already)

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 18 October 2016 - 07:28 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

10S and 10SE have a left torso launcher. Maybe that's that one?

[Juodas Varnas]

Pariah Devalis, on 18 October 2016 - 07:31 AM, said:

10S and 10SE have a left torso launcher. Maybe that's that one?

It's a 5S.
LRM-15, 3xMLs, SRM-2 and a LL. (10S has an extra PPC and the 10SE has a LRM-10, as far as i remember)

It's an issue that the original Unseen design also has (which makes sense, because the new CGL designs are VERY CLOSE to the original designs).

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 18 October 2016 - 07:35 AM.

[Virlutris]

So Supernova's next. Nova Cats are getting some love lately.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/supernova

[Odanan]

Virlutris, on 18 October 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

So Supernova's next. Nova Cats are getting some love lately.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/supernova

WTH?