The more I think about the new hero mechs, the more I believe it isn't the hardpoints, themselves, but their locations that drive me bonkers. It was like they were not taking into account the existing pods. A couple examples to illustrate the point:
Shadow Cat currently has a 1M RT. Now they are providing a 2M torso which is outright superior to the existing option. Meanwhile, the Shadow Cat has had the ECM left torso be the de facto only option for the mech due to a lack of useful choices there. However, if the second M hardpoint on the hero was moved, instead, to the Left Torso, which is completely empty in the Hero mech, mind you, it keeps the same number of missile hardpoints, but provides a hard choice for the player. ECM or an extra usable weapon hardpoint for a mech with its limited pod space?
Executioner hero is a similar issue. There was little consideration as to existing omnipods and how it could be abused, here. To drive the point home, you can, with the hero ST pods, make an EXE with 6 ERSLas and 6 Artemis SRM6 with enough ammo and cooling to function. That is all kinds of nuts, especially on a platform that can move 90 in short bursts. However, if the main objective of the hero was to give it splat options, they should have placed those torso missile hardpoints in the arms. 2M/arm would mean the maximum number of missile hardpoints would go up, slightly, but they'd be at direct competition with the laser-fist or would simply duplicate the loyalty left arm. The hardpoints themselves would not be a clear advantage in the overall status of the mech. It would simply provide a set of nice options for the pilot.
Same goes for the Gargoyle. The Hero provides the only way to get side torso weapon pods. Missiles and energy are weight efficient, so providing missile hardpoints on a tonnage starved mech on locations exclusive to the Hero is... shady. If, however, they were shifted to the arms, you'd have an interesting option there. You'd compete with the 1B1M arms or the energy fists with these new SRM fists. Those could be cool, without directly one-upping the existing options.
111
20517 replies to this topic
#15962
-
-
- Leutnant
- 2,646 posts
Member
Posted 05 April 2017 - 11:04 AM
Odanan, on 05 April 2017 - 10:24 AM, said:
Of course, PGI could implement the C3 Network. But how it would work? The "data sharing" thing already exists in MWO and wouldn't the need of a C3 Master and C3 Slaves be too convoluted for this game?
I guess PGI has already decided not to include it. I mean operational C3 is available since 3050 (prototypes since 3039). So they could have done it long ago. In the FCCW era C3 systems are common and there is the iC3 computer. As they have excluded C3 from the FCCW-update again, I doubt we will ever see it. Therefore it does not make sense thinking too much about them, even though I have some ideas for them in MWO...
(And seeing PGI has trouble with relatively simple systems like the CC, it is probably for the best).
Anyway, I am not sure C3-equipped Mechs are automatically excluded. The Loki Prime has A-Pods after all, and obviously it is in game, so at least a C3-slave should be easily replaceable too.
#15963
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 8,210 posts
Member
- LocationBrazil
Posted 05 April 2017 - 11:05 AM
Pariah Devalis, on 05 April 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:
The more I think about the new hero mechs, the more I believe it isn't the hardpoints, themselves, but their locations that drive me bonkers. It was like they were not taking into account the existing pods. A couple examples to illustrate the point:
Shadow Cat currently has a 1M RT. Now they are providing a 2M torso which is outright superior to the existing option. Meanwhile, the Shadow Cat has had the ECM left torso be the de facto only option for the mech due to a lack of useful choices there. However, if the second M hardpoint on the hero was moved, instead, to the Left Torso, which is completely empty in the Hero mech, mind you, it keeps the same number of missile hardpoints, but provides a hard choice for the player. ECM or an extra usable weapon hardpoint for a mech with its limited pod space?
Executioner hero is a similar issue. There was little consideration as to existing omnipods and how it could be abused, here. To drive the point home, you can, with the hero ST pods, make an EXE with 6 ERSLas and 6 Artemis SRM6 with enough ammo and cooling to function. That is all kinds of nuts, especially on a platform that can move 90 in short bursts. However, if the main objective of the hero was to give it splat options, they should have placed those torso missile hardpoints in the arms. 2M/arm would mean the maximum number of missile hardpoints would go up, slightly, but they'd be at direct competition with the laser-fist or would simply duplicate the loyalty left arm. The hardpoints themselves would not be a clear advantage in the overall status of the mech. It would simply provide a set of nice options for the pilot.
Same goes for the Gargoyle. The Hero provides the only way to get side torso weapon pods. Missiles and energy are weight efficient, so providing missile hardpoints on a tonnage starved mech on locations exclusive to the Hero is... shady. If, however, they were shifted to the arms, you'd have an interesting option there. You'd compete with the 1B1M arms or the energy fists with these new SRM fists. Those could be cool, without directly one-upping the existing options.
Shadow Cat currently has a 1M RT. Now they are providing a 2M torso which is outright superior to the existing option. Meanwhile, the Shadow Cat has had the ECM left torso be the de facto only option for the mech due to a lack of useful choices there. However, if the second M hardpoint on the hero was moved, instead, to the Left Torso, which is completely empty in the Hero mech, mind you, it keeps the same number of missile hardpoints, but provides a hard choice for the player. ECM or an extra usable weapon hardpoint for a mech with its limited pod space?
Executioner hero is a similar issue. There was little consideration as to existing omnipods and how it could be abused, here. To drive the point home, you can, with the hero ST pods, make an EXE with 6 ERSLas and 6 Artemis SRM6 with enough ammo and cooling to function. That is all kinds of nuts, especially on a platform that can move 90 in short bursts. However, if the main objective of the hero was to give it splat options, they should have placed those torso missile hardpoints in the arms. 2M/arm would mean the maximum number of missile hardpoints would go up, slightly, but they'd be at direct competition with the laser-fist or would simply duplicate the loyalty left arm. The hardpoints themselves would not be a clear advantage in the overall status of the mech. It would simply provide a set of nice options for the pilot.
Same goes for the Gargoyle. The Hero provides the only way to get side torso weapon pods. Missiles and energy are weight efficient, so providing missile hardpoints on a tonnage starved mech on locations exclusive to the Hero is... shady. If, however, they were shifted to the arms, you'd have an interesting option there. You'd compete with the 1B1M arms or the energy fists with these new SRM fists. Those could be cool, without directly one-upping the existing options.
They are made to sell, you can't deny that.
The P2W argument could be mitigated if PGI allowed us to buy "hero" omnipods for our C-Bills mechs, even if for MCs. At least that would be cheaper than the whole hero mech (and possible to achieve without spending real money, as many events give a small portion of MCs).
#15964
Posted 05 April 2017 - 02:25 PM
Odanan, on 05 April 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:
They are made to sell, you can't deny that.
The P2W argument could be mitigated if PGI allowed us to buy "hero" omnipods for our C-Bills mechs, even if for MCs. At least that would be cheaper than the whole hero mech (and possible to achieve without spending real money, as many events give a small portion of MCs).
The P2W argument could be mitigated if PGI allowed us to buy "hero" omnipods for our C-Bills mechs, even if for MCs. At least that would be cheaper than the whole hero mech (and possible to achieve without spending real money, as many events give a small portion of MCs).
No doubt they sell. However, they'd sell with new and unique omnipods, anyways. Different does not need to be superior to existing options. I like the idea of extra missile hardpoints on the SHC, GAR, and EXE, and I like the idea of ECM on an IFR, and I like the idea of a couple more E on the MLX.... However, there is no good excuse in making existing omnipods worse than the C-Bill versions. Keep the new hardpoints, sure, but change the locations.
At least some of the mechs are not a real issue. The MDD, EBJ, ACH, and, hell, even the HBR are not what I'd call pay to win. Pay to optimize, perhaps. Pay to play it a little differently, in the case of the MDD. However, the pods they are getting do not eliminate the use of any other pod - with the possible exception of the HBR, given the extra energy hardpoint. Given how warm the HBR gets, I'm not entirely sold on that extra E hardpoint being a particularly big deal, however.
#15965
Posted 05 April 2017 - 03:25 PM
Following that, proposed redistribution of hard-points on Hero II/III mechs could be like the following:
SHC:
From: LA 1E, LT -, CT -, RT 2M, RA 1B1E
To: LA 1E, LT 1E1M, CT -, RT 1M, RA 1B
Provides unique LT in direct competition with the C-Bill ECM left torso. Player's choice is between stealth or firepower.
IFR:
From: LA 2E, LT ECM, CT -, RT 1M, RA 1B
To: LA 1E1B, LT ECM, CT -, RT -, RA 1E1M
Provides unique LA and RA. Provides unique LT ECM, however this is the player's decision if they want to give up the C-Bill 1M LT for it.
GAR:
From: LA 1B, LT 2M, CT 1E, RT 1M, RA 1B
*To: LA 2M1B, LT -, CT 1E, RT -, RA 2M1B
*Note: added an additional missile hardpoint in the total count.
Provides unique LA and RA that directly compete with the laserfists. Completely strips out the side torso weapons because there is no equivalency in C-Bill variations.
EXE:
From: LA 1B, LT 2M, CT -, RT 2M, RA 3E
To: LA 2M, LT 1B1E, CT-, RT 2E, RA 2M
Provides unique RA and unique LT. Missile arms compete directly with the laserfists, and the ballistic left torso option is self limited by how crit limited the Executioner is as an overall package.
All of these maintain the same hardpoints, but change one or many actual mounting locations. The only exception being the GAR which, really, I mostly did out of a dislike of asymmetry.
SHC:
From: LA 1E, LT -, CT -, RT 2M, RA 1B1E
To: LA 1E, LT 1E1M, CT -, RT 1M, RA 1B
Provides unique LT in direct competition with the C-Bill ECM left torso. Player's choice is between stealth or firepower.
IFR:
From: LA 2E, LT ECM, CT -, RT 1M, RA 1B
To: LA 1E1B, LT ECM, CT -, RT -, RA 1E1M
Provides unique LA and RA. Provides unique LT ECM, however this is the player's decision if they want to give up the C-Bill 1M LT for it.
GAR:
From: LA 1B, LT 2M, CT 1E, RT 1M, RA 1B
*To: LA 2M1B, LT -, CT 1E, RT -, RA 2M1B
*Note: added an additional missile hardpoint in the total count.
Provides unique LA and RA that directly compete with the laserfists. Completely strips out the side torso weapons because there is no equivalency in C-Bill variations.
EXE:
From: LA 1B, LT 2M, CT -, RT 2M, RA 3E
To: LA 2M, LT 1B1E, CT-, RT 2E, RA 2M
Provides unique RA and unique LT. Missile arms compete directly with the laserfists, and the ballistic left torso option is self limited by how crit limited the Executioner is as an overall package.
All of these maintain the same hardpoints, but change one or many actual mounting locations. The only exception being the GAR which, really, I mostly did out of a dislike of asymmetry.
Edited by Pariah Devalis, 05 April 2017 - 03:27 PM.
#15966
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 8,210 posts
Member
- LocationBrazil
Posted 05 April 2017 - 03:55 PM
Pariah Devalis, on 05 April 2017 - 03:25 PM, said:
Following that, proposed redistribution of hard-points on Hero II/III mechs could be like the following:
They won't do that. They already started selling those mechs. If they change something (for the worst), people will ask for refunds.
#15967
Posted 05 April 2017 - 03:59 PM
Odanan, on 05 April 2017 - 03:55 PM, said:
They won't do that. They already started selling those mechs. If they change something (for the worst), people will ask for refunds.
According to Russ' last two tweets, not only are they considering it, but they are prepared for refunds.
https://twitter.com/...757607988387840
https://twitter.com/...634729376731136
#15968
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 8,210 posts
Member
- LocationBrazil
Posted 05 April 2017 - 04:20 PM
Pariah Devalis, on 05 April 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:
According to Russ' last two tweets, not only are they considering it, but they are prepared for refunds.
https://twitter.com/...757607988387840
https://twitter.com/...634729376731136
Oh. Interesting...
#15969
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 8,210 posts
Member
- LocationBrazil
Posted 09 April 2017 - 04:47 PM
Things are a little slow here... we are still about 23 days for the next mech pack but what is this thread without speculation?
What I wanted:
- LIGHT: Fire Moth (Clan, omni, 20 tons)
- MEDIUM: Black Lanner (Clan, omni, 55 tons)
- HEAVY: Rifleman IIC (Clan, battlemech, 65 tons)
- HEAVY: Crusader (IS, battlemech, 65 tons)
What we will probably get:
- LIGHT: Osiris (IS, battlemech, 30 tons)
- MEDIUM: Hellhound (Clan, battlemech, 50 tons)
- HEAVY: Avatar (IS, omni, 70 tons)
- HEAVY: Nova Cat (Clan, omni, 70 tons)
What I wanted:
- LIGHT: Fire Moth (Clan, omni, 20 tons)
- MEDIUM: Black Lanner (Clan, omni, 55 tons)
- HEAVY: Rifleman IIC (Clan, battlemech, 65 tons)
- HEAVY: Crusader (IS, battlemech, 65 tons)
What we will probably get:
- LIGHT: Osiris (IS, battlemech, 30 tons)
- MEDIUM: Hellhound (Clan, battlemech, 50 tons)
- HEAVY: Avatar (IS, omni, 70 tons)
- HEAVY: Nova Cat (Clan, omni, 70 tons)
#15970
-
-
- The Sureshot
- 10,282 posts
Member
- LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses
Posted 09 April 2017 - 05:24 PM
Odanan, on 09 April 2017 - 04:47 PM, said:
Things are a little slow here... we are still about 23 days for the next mech pack but what is this thread without speculation?
What I wanted:
- LIGHT: Fire Moth (Clan, omni, 20 tons)
- MEDIUM: Black Lanner (Clan, omni, 55 tons)
- HEAVY: Rifleman IIC (Clan, battlemech, 65 tons)
- HEAVY: Crusader (IS, battlemech, 65 tons)
What we will probably get:
- LIGHT: Osiris (IS, battlemech, 30 tons)
- MEDIUM: Hellhound (Clan, battlemech, 50 tons)
- HEAVY: Avatar (IS, omni, 70 tons)
- HEAVY: Nova Cat (Clan, omni, 70 tons)
What I wanted:
- LIGHT: Fire Moth (Clan, omni, 20 tons)
- MEDIUM: Black Lanner (Clan, omni, 55 tons)
- HEAVY: Rifleman IIC (Clan, battlemech, 65 tons)
- HEAVY: Crusader (IS, battlemech, 65 tons)
What we will probably get:
- LIGHT: Osiris (IS, battlemech, 30 tons)
- MEDIUM: Hellhound (Clan, battlemech, 50 tons)
- HEAVY: Avatar (IS, omni, 70 tons)
- HEAVY: Nova Cat (Clan, omni, 70 tons)
Fire moth, that'd be great, but not gonna happen as Russ stated speed still an issue.... Piranha or Locust IIC more likely.
Black Lanner is just bad.... 11.5t of pod space on a 55t mechs is just bad.
Conjurer, is that the actual one or the MW4 version?
Avatar, it would need a major overhaul in the model to not be a death trap, IS280XL with large flat ST's is not going to hold up well in actual game play.... Crusader or Thanatos would be better options.
#15971
-
-
- Leutnant
- 2,646 posts
Member
Posted 09 April 2017 - 06:17 PM
Metus regem, on 09 April 2017 - 05:24 PM, said:
Avatar, it would need a major overhaul in the model to not be a death trap, IS280XL with large flat ST's is not going to hold up well in actual game play....
It's the mother of deathtraps as far as MWO is concerned. The Mech is slow, cannot shield its STs, the STs are easily singled out, and it has a fixed XL engine.
The IS has so many good Mechs with such a rich lore waiting for release - including OmniMechs - that there is no need for deathtraps.
The other popular options are better. Thanatos, although I am not a fan, might work in game (despite the C3-caveat). And the Crusader would be solid if remarkably unspectacular. The one thing the Crusader has going for it, besides nostalgia of course, is Alex. I think he could create a most beautiful Mech based on the canon art.
I for one just hope PGI has the balls to do what worked well for them in the past: take a less well-known Mech and make it work financially and in game. I have no special feelings for powerhouses like the Dragon Fire, but - by Blake's beard - it could be our Night Gyr in terms of in-game viability.
#15972
-
-
- The Cub
- 3,031 posts
Member
- LocationAlshain V
Posted 09 April 2017 - 08:35 PM
Rifleman IIC over Nova Cat?
#15973
-
-
- The Hammer
- 47,187 posts
ForumWarrior
- Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time
Posted 09 April 2017 - 08:42 PM
CK16, on 09 April 2017 - 08:35 PM, said:
Rifleman IIC over Nova Cat?
Folks are allowed to have different preferences. Or I wouldn't be driving Urbanmechs and Assassins.
Rifleman IIC predates the Nova Cat in lore and in video games. Someone who used one in mw2 for instance, may indeed prefer it over the Nova Cat. Jump Jets and high hardpoints are a good combo, and the original TRO 3055 version looked really cool.
#15974
-
-
- The Cub
- 3,031 posts
Member
- LocationAlshain V
Posted 09 April 2017 - 09:34 PM
Fair enough, I was just going off more the fact that clans need another 70ton option atm. Nothing against the Rifleman IIC, just what feels more urgent by MWO standards currently.
#15975
-
-
- Fire
- 1,563 posts
Member
- LocationWherever things are burning.
Posted 09 April 2017 - 10:17 PM
Metus regem, on 09 April 2017 - 05:24 PM, said:
Fire moth, that'd be great, but not gonna happen as Russ stated speed still an issue.... Piranha or Locust IIC more likely.
When was the last time Russ said speed was still an issue? I'm honestly asking here, because the last things I heard Russ say on HSR was that they've basically blown all of the boundaries out of the water. Just for reference, this was where things stood the last time I heard speed really come up:
Sereglach, on 19 October 2016 - 06:54 PM, said:
Ok, it's been a LONG time, but I've done some digging to try to find where it was mentioned in a townhall about hit registration fixes. This was the best I could muster before I got a headache trying to dig through crap. I can't find the exact quote where Russ stated in a townhall that hit detection really starts to break after 200kph. However, here's what I did find:
- October 2013: MWO patched to new max speed of 170kph due to massive hit registration fixes.
- Sep 2014: MASC considered no-go because mechs will go too fast and break hit registration.
- Dec 2014 - Early 2015: Major hit registration fixes go out.
- April 16, 2015 town hall: MASC engineering is done and it could take mechs (namely mentions the Arctic Cheetah, but realizes he misspoke and that mech can't have MASC) beyond the current 170kph cap. They "MAY" have problems with Flea/Locust speed mechs, so they'll avoid them for now. In the same town hall it's stated that Neema would be working on even more HSR and hit registration fixes in the future.
- June/July 2015: June Townhall announces Neema making MAJOR HSR improvements that revolutionize hit registration and lift a lot of limits. Mech BONE rewinding in HSR creates a huge change that will make a huge difference.
I believe the quote comes in a town hall after this fact. However, next thing I could find without listening to hours and hours of town halls was that Jan/Feb 2016 MASC was getting buffed to further increase speed and agility and it wasn't a major concern on the hit registration side.
- October 2013: MWO patched to new max speed of 170kph due to massive hit registration fixes.
- Sep 2014: MASC considered no-go because mechs will go too fast and break hit registration.
- Dec 2014 - Early 2015: Major hit registration fixes go out.
- April 16, 2015 town hall: MASC engineering is done and it could take mechs (namely mentions the Arctic Cheetah, but realizes he misspoke and that mech can't have MASC) beyond the current 170kph cap. They "MAY" have problems with Flea/Locust speed mechs, so they'll avoid them for now. In the same town hall it's stated that Neema would be working on even more HSR and hit registration fixes in the future.
- June/July 2015: June Townhall announces Neema making MAJOR HSR improvements that revolutionize hit registration and lift a lot of limits. Mech BONE rewinding in HSR creates a huge change that will make a huge difference.
I believe the quote comes in a town hall after this fact. However, next thing I could find without listening to hours and hours of town halls was that Jan/Feb 2016 MASC was getting buffed to further increase speed and agility and it wasn't a major concern on the hit registration side.
I'm not saying that he hasn't recently stated that speed is still an issue . . . just that I haven't heard it. If you've got some form of direct link or reference, that'd be greatly appreciated. The speed issue is one thing I was trying to keep tabs on, as there are a lot of mechs I'd like to see implemented where speed would become an issue . . . the Fire Moth being one of them.
EDIT: One reason I ask is because based on their previous stance and the way they implemented MASC, they'd be able to implement the Fire Moth and it'd stay under 200kph . . . so theoretically it wouldn't be much of an issue.
Edited by Sereglach, 09 April 2017 - 10:18 PM.
#15976
Posted 10 April 2017 - 03:47 AM
CK16, on 09 April 2017 - 09:34 PM, said:
Fair enough, I was just going off more the fact that clans need another 70ton option atm. Nothing against the Rifleman IIC, just what feels more urgent by MWO standards currently.
Agreed. 65 ton mechs we do not require. 60 and 70, however, we do.
#15977
-
-
- The Sureshot
- 10,282 posts
Member
- LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses
Posted 10 April 2017 - 04:07 AM
Sereglach, on 09 April 2017 - 10:17 PM, said:
When was the last time Russ said speed was still an issue? I'm honestly asking here, because the last things I heard Russ say on HSR was that they've basically blown all of the boundaries out of the water. Just for reference, this was where things stood the last time I heard speed really come up:
I'm not saying that he hasn't recently stated that speed is still an issue . . . just that I haven't heard it. If you've got some form of direct link or reference, that'd be greatly appreciated. The speed issue is one thing I was trying to keep tabs on, as there are a lot of mechs I'd like to see implemented where speed would become an issue . . . the Fire Moth being one of them.
EDIT: One reason I ask is because based on their previous stance and the way they implemented MASC, they'd be able to implement the Fire Moth and it'd stay under 200kph . . . so theoretically it wouldn't be much of an issue.
I'm not saying that he hasn't recently stated that speed is still an issue . . . just that I haven't heard it. If you've got some form of direct link or reference, that'd be greatly appreciated. The speed issue is one thing I was trying to keep tabs on, as there are a lot of mechs I'd like to see implemented where speed would become an issue . . . the Fire Moth being one of them.
EDIT: One reason I ask is because based on their previous stance and the way they implemented MASC, they'd be able to implement the Fire Moth and it'd stay under 200kph . . . so theoretically it wouldn't be much of an issue.
Around the time of the civil war update announcement, via twitter.
#15978
-
-
- The Death Wish
- 2,529 posts
Member
- LocationTFS Aurora, 1000km up.
Posted 10 April 2017 - 04:27 AM
Sereglach, on 09 April 2017 - 10:17 PM, said:
When was the last time Russ said speed was still an issue? I'm honestly asking here, because the last things I heard Russ say on HSR was that they've basically blown all of the boundaries out of the water. Just for reference, this was where things stood the last time I heard speed really come up:
I'm not saying that he hasn't recently stated that speed is still an issue . . . just that I haven't heard it. If you've got some form of direct link or reference, that'd be greatly appreciated. The speed issue is one thing I was trying to keep tabs on, as there are a lot of mechs I'd like to see implemented where speed would become an issue . . . the Fire Moth being one of them.
EDIT: One reason I ask is because based on their previous stance and the way they implemented MASC, they'd be able to implement the Fire Moth and it'd stay under 200kph . . . so theoretically it wouldn't be much of an issue.
I'm not saying that he hasn't recently stated that speed is still an issue . . . just that I haven't heard it. If you've got some form of direct link or reference, that'd be greatly appreciated. The speed issue is one thing I was trying to keep tabs on, as there are a lot of mechs I'd like to see implemented where speed would become an issue . . . the Fire Moth being one of them.
EDIT: One reason I ask is because based on their previous stance and the way they implemented MASC, they'd be able to implement the Fire Moth and it'd stay under 200kph . . . so theoretically it wouldn't be much of an issue.
The game's Engine can't handle speeds above 176 kph. Even if they kept is below 200, its still far to high.
#15979
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 8,210 posts
Member
- LocationBrazil
Posted 10 April 2017 - 04:37 AM
CK16, on 09 April 2017 - 08:35 PM, said:
Rifleman IIC over Nova Cat?
Any day.
#15980
-
-
- Fire
- 1,563 posts
Member
- LocationWherever things are burning.
Posted 10 April 2017 - 07:48 AM
Metus regem, on 10 April 2017 - 04:07 AM, said:
Around the time of the civil war update announcement, via twitter.
Thank you. Did he say what the blocker was, or just that "speed is still an issue"? I may have to see if I can find that twitter post, but it's always a pain to dig through . . . I really wish they'd use their own game forums for such communications. Oh well.
EDIT: For some reason I can browse through is main tweets no problem, but I can't get tweets & replies to actually load more historical tweets. Therefore, if someone could link the tweet in question I'd sincerely appreciate it.
Athom83, on 10 April 2017 - 04:27 AM, said:
The game's Engine can't handle speeds above 176 kph. Even if they kept is below 200, its still far to high.
Again, outlined in the evidence where Russ had said that the issue is actually HSR/hit registration . . . not engine. Massive HSR improvements have long since been made. Regardless, Metus regem gave me the info I was looking for.
Edited by Sereglach, 10 April 2017 - 07:56 AM.
6 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users
