20517 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Odanan, on 08 April 2019 - 03:03 AM, said:

Ok, if MWO would stop releasing new mechs by december 2019. Which would be your picks?

Mine:
- april: Firemoth
- may: Wasp
- june: Hellhound (MW4's)
- july: Crusader
- august: Stone Rhino
- september: Raptor or Argus
- october: Coyotl or Turkina
- november: Longbow
- december: Fire Falcon

/MWO

As has been said before, I think that the MW4 version of the Hellhound should be canonized as its own completely separate mech ("Warhound" or whatever) because I don't think PGI would be willing to stray so far from the BT art of the actual canon design. This would also let us potentially get more interesting variants than the canonical Conjurer.

[Odanan]

FupDup, on 08 April 2019 - 03:13 AM, said:

As has been said before, I think that the MW4 version of the Hellhound should be canonized as its own completely separate mech ("Warhound" or whatever) because I don't think PGI would be willing to stray so far from the BT art of the actual canon design. This would also let us potentially get more interesting variants than the canonical Conjurer.

Canonize it as Hellhound, a new Jade Falcon version of the Conjurer, manufactured in the ocupated IS factories.

[Odanan]

Last day to qualify for the special Catapult. Next mech tomorrow?

[Sereglach]

Ovion, on 08 April 2019 - 02:25 AM, said:

*snip*

Incubus/Vixen is 30, not 35.

Odanan, on 08 April 2019 - 03:03 AM, said:

Ok, if MWO would stop releasing new mechs by december 2019. Which would be your picks?

Mine:
- april: Firemoth
- may: Wasp
- june: Hellhound (MW4's)
- july: Crusader
- august: Stone Rhino
- september: Raptor or Argus
- october: Coyotl or Turkina
- november: Longbow
- december: Fire Falcon

/MWO

Ok, I'll bite . . . not hard to figure out what I'd guess from my last list, but to narrow it down:

April: Firemoth
May: Wasp/Stinger "Swarm" pack (like the Charger/Hatamoto Evolution)
June: Commando IIC
July: Clint
August: Griffin IIC
September: "Revolutions" MW5 Special Commemorative Launch pack - Valkyrie, Chameleon, Crusader, Longbow
October: Peregrine/Horned Owl
November: Mongoose
December: PGI traditional in-house mech by default ... slated for Clan this year. Likely a 95t assault to continue their tradition of equal weight class distribution . . . and 95t is an extremely vacant bracket for canon chassis to pick from, allowing PGI an easy win-win.
For kicks and giggles pipedream thinking . . . PGI announces Clan MW5 Expansion at MechCon 2019 along with a Commemorative "Homeworlds" Clan Mech Pack - Locust IIIC, Shadowhawk IIC, PGI created 60t Black Knight IIC important to the expansion (think Phelan Kell and the Wolfhound IIC), and Phoenix Hawk IIC.

Odanan, on 08 April 2019 - 09:11 AM, said:

Last day to qualify for the special Catapult. Next mech tomorrow?

It wouldn't be a bad time to announce it. It'd put the early adopters for the next mech right in line with the next MW5 preorder.

Edited by Sereglach, 08 April 2019 - 02:14 PM.

[Requiemking]

Odanan, on 08 April 2019 - 04:36 AM, said:

Canonize it as Hellhound, a new Jade Falcon version of the Conjurer, manufactured in the ocupated IS factories.

Or just forget the stupid thing even exists and move on with our lives.

[Odanan]

Requiemking, on 08 April 2019 - 02:55 PM, said:

Or just forget the stupid thing even exists and move on with our lives.

MW4:M was released in 2002 and people didn't move on yet. Just fix the dang lore and it's done.

[FLG 01]

Odanan, on 08 April 2019 - 04:31 PM, said:

MW4:M was released in 2002 and people didn't move on yet. Just fix the dang lore and it's done.

There is no need to fix the lore, since MW:4 was and is non-canon and thus does not concern the lore in the slightest. You'd have to change the lore to include the MW:4 Hellhound, and I don't see why CGL would want to do that.
Also, considering how quickly the community abandoned the Uziel, the Hellspawn, the Thanatos, the Cougar etc. once confronted with the realities of MWO, I'd say we have moved on.

The Conjurer has very little going for it in terms of gameplay, i.e. actually being fun in MWO. I guess you are aware of this, which is why you insist on that MW:4-nostalgia for the Hellhound, rather focussing on the actual qualities of the Mech in game.

But being a fan of medium Mechs I would prefer Mechs that offer a little more than having been in one single videogame (and nothing else) almost 20 years ago.

[Sereglach]

Requiemking, on 08 April 2019 - 02:55 PM, said:

Or just forget the stupid thing even exists and move on with our lives.

FLG 01, on 08 April 2019 - 06:04 PM, said:

There is no need to fix the lore, since MW:4 was and is non-canon and thus does not concern the lore in the slightest. You'd have to change the lore to include the MW:4 Hellhound, and I don't see why CGL would want to do that.
Also, considering how quickly the community abandoned the Uziel, the Hellspawn, the Thanatos, the Cougar etc. once confronted with the realities of MWO, I'd say we have moved on.

The Conjurer has very little going for it in terms of gameplay, i.e. actually being fun in MWO. I guess you are aware of this, which is why you insist on that MW:4-nostalgia for the Hellhound, rather focussing on the actual qualities of the Mech in game.

But being a fan of medium Mechs I would prefer Mechs that offer a little more than having been in one single videogame (and nothing else) almost 20 years ago.

I'll just come right out and say it, because it needs to be said when it comes to CGL "canonization". CGL currently caters to the grognards that have nearly destroyed the IP multiple times all on their own; and the video games are the only thing truly keeping the IP alive. They need to update their ruleset, fix some holes in their lore, and do what it takes to actually join the electronic and physical canon so that, even if the IP has split ownership, they can actually work with each other to help ensure the survival of both. If they're not willing to do that, then CGL leadership is going to allow the self-destructive grognards to finish off what clicky-tech started . . . because they're certainly not getting a lot of new blood out there and the grognards have already done everything they can to smash their first best hope, Alpha Strike, into the ground, since it actually has a chance to bring in WarmaHordes, 40k, and other such fast-playing war-game enthusiasts. Otherwise, Battletech will live on only through exclusively electronic means . . . and when CGL goes under, Microsoft will buy up those rights in a heartbeat because they're desperate for exclusive IPs for the PC and XBOne AND Topps will see the continuation of TT existence as a toxic waste of time.

Now . . . with that out of the way . . .

As far as the MW4 Hellhound is concerned, they can canonize it and easily put it into MWO; and I think it'd actually perform rather well. Besides, MW4 already does the leg-work on the lore, all CGL would need to do is canonize it as the unique mech it already is. It's a 50t clan Battlemech that's far less niche than the Hunchback IIC. While the TT Conjurer has enough variants, if PGI doesn't find them satisfactory then they can just make variants based on the MW4 Hellhound's hardpoint setup and fill whatever performance gaps they want, because PGI has already taken that liberty on more than one occassion for chassis without enough variants. Either way it'd have the potential to perform quite well; and frankly, as a personal opinion, the MW4 Hellhound actually looks more unique, interesting, and inspiring than the TT Conjurer ever will.

Lastly, it's also worth noting that except for a few meta chassis, over 2/3 of the chassis in MWO just sit and collect dust in people's hangars. They're purchased for nostalgia or personal cosmetic tastes and only really pulled out for quick play BS antics. Most people don't actually seriously consider most mechs as being any sort of meta, and not many more are considered truly viable/competitive. However, people still buy and play the mechs on occasion because PokeMech . . . gotta buy 'em all. There's still a LOT PGI can add that's unique or different . . . but will it be competitive? Not likely, not without serious rebalancing on PGI's part to encourage the viability of more mixed loadouts alongside the meta-boats. Otherwise, most of the best "meta" chassis are already in the game, with others only being force-fed into the meta through quirks or more-of-the-same-meta-type gameplay.

Edited by Sereglach, 08 April 2019 - 10:15 PM.

[Hollow Earth]

honestly i love the Champion for being such a bizarre design. it looks like a plane yet none of the production models can jump, large arm structures that does absolutely nothing (except for 3N & Invictus), and jenner style leg and body configuration. only the Invictus hero is the least weirdest of them because it uses the arms and can jump.

Also, thinking of getting a single Nightstar for C-Billz, which model that would be best to play with?

[Battlesblood]

NSR-9S

[Karl Streiger]

Sereglach, on 08 April 2019 - 10:14 PM, said:

I'll just come right out and say it, because it needs to be said when it comes to CGL "canonization". CGL currently caters to the grognards that have nearly destroyed the IP multiple times all on their own; and the video games are the only thing truly keeping the IP alive. They need to update their ruleset, fix some holes in their lore, and do what it takes to actually join the electronic and physical canon so that, even if the IP has split ownership, they can actually work with each other to help ensure the survival of both. If they're not willing to do that, then CGL leadership is going to allow the self-destructive grognards to finish off what clicky-tech started . . . because they're certainly not getting a lot of new blood out there and the grognards have already done everything they can to smash their first best hope, Alpha Strike, into the ground, since it actually has a chance to bring in WarmaHordes, 40k, and other such fast-playing war-game enthusiasts. Otherwise, Battletech will live on only through exclusively electronic means . . .

Well AlphaStrike is not the savior it's supposed to be, simply for the reason that the stuff that is wearing your time down still exists.
To much calculation - i mean i have fixed that by a simple trick (a pivot table) instead of calculation it's just looking - so instead up to 10sec for each roll, you only need a fraction of this.
To aggregate the ranges was also correct, however the damage and the armor was not done correct (or nice) - was playing Alpha Strike with my Dark Ages miniatures with my son - and I looked at the stats and thought what?
It was a Jupiter 3/4? that ****** JF version with 2xSRM4s instead of 4xUAC5s - not only was it faster it also delivered more damage blasting through my hatchetman in a single volley.
Might have happened in real TT as well but unlikely at least at this (medium) range.

with the "official" possession of the new BT starter box (delivered by the Easter Bunny) I will reinitiate my BT conversion - have started it prior to the Alpha Strike rules several years ago - and it worked like a charm until my Commando got a lock on the Awesome and did blow it into pieces, with a single volley (ok after that the Com didn't have any missiles left)

[Odanan]

Today?

Will it have "Fire" in it's name?

[FLG 01]

Sereglach, on 08 April 2019 - 10:14 PM, said:

Spoiler

As far as the MW4 Hellhound is concerned, they can canonize it and easily put it into MWO; and I think it'd actually perform rather well. Besides, MW4 already does the leg-work on the lore, all CGL would need to do is canonize it as the unique mech it already is. It's a 50t clan Battlemech that's far less niche than the Hunchback IIC. While the TT Conjurer has enough variants, if PGI doesn't find them satisfactory then they can just make variants based on the MW4 Hellhound's hardpoint setup and fill whatever performance gaps they want, because PGI has already taken that liberty on more than one occassion for chassis without enough variants. Either way it'd have the potential to perform quite well; and frankly, as a personal opinion, the MW4 Hellhound actually looks more unique, interesting, and inspiring than the TT Conjurer ever will.

Lastly, it's also worth noting that except for a few meta chassis, over 2/3 of the chassis in MWO just sit and collect dust in people's hangars. They're purchased for nostalgia or personal cosmetic tastes and only really pulled out for quick play BS antics. Most people don't actually seriously consider most mechs as being any sort of meta, and not many more are considered truly viable/competitive. However, people still buy and play the mechs on occasion because PokeMech . . . gotta buy 'em all. There's still a LOT PGI can add that's unique or different . . . but will it be competitive? Not likely, not without serious rebalancing on PGI's part to encourage the viability of more mixed loadouts alongside the meta-boats. Otherwise, most of the best "meta" chassis are already in the game, with others only being force-fed into the meta through quirks or more-of-the-same-meta-type gameplay.

Take a look at the geometry of the MW:4-Hellhound. It is essentially a Clan Uziel: low mounted cockpit, hugely exposed side torsos which are easily destroyed. I know people did not believe me when I told them about the Uziel's geometry problems, and since then they have not played it – of course not, why would they? – so they may have forgotten that I was right.

The Hellhound faces the same problem, and then some. The hardpoints are not terribly useful unless their number is massively inflated or PGI just invents new variants. That means we need a new geometry and different hardpoints, and at that point we are better off just asking for a different Mech.

I do not mind nostalgia, but I do mind if that nostalgia blinds people. The Hellhound has glaring problems, and I am not talking about 'meta'. I am talking about being viable enough to have fun in a match.
If you check Jarls you will see that I do understand a little about medium Mechs, and play them a lot. I hate to see a release of a medium Mech wasted just because people do not think about what works in an actual match. Worse, they demand a Mech which they do not want to play after it's available in game.

That is exactly what happened to many Mechs advocated in this very thread, especially mediums: Uziel, Hellspawn, Black Lanner.

Edited by FLG 01, 09 April 2019 - 05:40 AM.

[Odanan]

FLG 01, on 09 April 2019 - 05:39 AM, said:

Take a look at the geometry of the MW:4-Hellhound. It is essentially a Clan Uziel: low mounted cockpit, hugely exposed side torsos which are easily destroyed. I know people did not believe me when I told them about the Uziel's geometry problems, and since then they have not played it – of course not, why would they? – so they may have forgotten that I was right.

The Hellhound faces the same problem, and then some. The hardpoints are not terribly useful unless their number is massively inflated or PGI just invents new variants. That means we need a new geometry and different hardpoints, and at that point we are better off just asking for a different Mech.

I do not mind nostalgia, but I do mind if that nostalgia blinds people. The Hellhound has glaring problems, and I am not talking about 'meta'. I am talking about being viable enough to have fun in a match.
If you check Jarls you will see that I do understand a little about medium Mechs, and play them a lot. I hate to see a release of a medium Mech wasted just because people do not think about what works in an actual match. Worse, they demand a Mech which they do not want to play after it's available in game.

That is exactly what happened to many Mechs advocated in this very thread, especially mediums: Uziel, Hellspawn, Black Lanner.

Who cares if they are going to be effective ingame?

Besides, didn't you advocate for the Nightstar?

Edited by Odanan, 09 April 2019 - 12:30 PM.

[Sereglach]

Karl Streiger, on 09 April 2019 - 02:03 AM, said:

Well AlphaStrike is not the savior it's supposed to be, simply for the reason that the stuff that is wearing your time down still exists.
To much calculation - i mean i have fixed that by a simple trick (a pivot table) instead of calculation it's just looking - so instead up to 10sec for each roll, you only need a fraction of this.
To aggregate the ranges was also correct, however the damage and the armor was not done correct (or nice) - was playing Alpha Strike with my Dark Ages miniatures with my son - and I looked at the stats and thought what?
It was a Jupiter 3/4? that ****** JF version with 2xSRM4s instead of 4xUAC5s - not only was it faster it also delivered more damage blasting through my hatchetman in a single volley.
Might have happened in real TT as well but unlikely at least at this (medium) range.

with the "official" possession of the new BT starter box (delivered by the Easter Bunny) I will reinitiate my BT conversion - have started it prior to the Alpha Strike rules several years ago - and it worked like a charm until my Commando got a lock on the Awesome and did blow it into pieces, with a single volley (ok after that the Com didn't have any missiles left)

Once you learn the basics of Alpha Strike you can play a company vs. company in 45 minutes . . . done it many times. Implement the variable damage (I consider it an essential "optional" rule), and it only becomes 50min-1hour while preventing mechs from being instantly disintegrated. It might not be perfect, but it IS the start of the savior that CGL needs for Battletech.

EDIT: Good luck with your conversion, but that's not CGL official rules and one set of house rules doesn't save an entire IP. It doesn't stop CGL's current inevitable demise.

FLG 01, on 09 April 2019 - 05:39 AM, said:

Take a look at the geometry of the MW:4-Hellhound. It is essentially a Clan Uziel: low mounted cockpit, hugely exposed side torsos which are easily destroyed. I know people did not believe me when I told them about the Uziel's geometry problems, and since then they have not played it – of course not, why would they? – so they may have forgotten that I was right.

The Hellhound faces the same problem, and then some. The hardpoints are not terribly useful unless their number is massively inflated or PGI just invents new variants. That means we need a new geometry and different hardpoints, and at that point we are better off just asking for a different Mech.

I do not mind nostalgia, but I do mind if that nostalgia blinds people. The Hellhound has glaring problems, and I am not talking about 'meta'. I am talking about being viable enough to have fun in a match.
If you check Jarls you will see that I do understand a little about medium Mechs, and play them a lot. I hate to see a release of a medium Mech wasted just because people do not think about what works in an actual match. Worse, they demand a Mech which they do not want to play after it's available in game.

That is exactly what happened to many Mechs advocated in this very thread, especially mediums: Uziel, Hellspawn, Black Lanner.

I never advocated for any of those MW4 mechs. HOWEVER, given Alex's work on converting mechs, and volumetric scaling, the Hellhound didn't skip leg day, and it's a short, stocky, stout mech. It'd likely have Linebacker hitboxes in a smaller 50t package. You're going to say those are bad hitboxes and PGI couldn't make variants with decent hardpoints? Plenty of Linebackers running around with decent builds; and PGI have inflated plenty of hardpoint choices. Hell, the utterly crap (yes, because it's truly crap, just like an IS Wolverine, in my opinion) TT Conjurer would need just as much hardpoint inflation on most variants and it'd have easy to pick off blocky humanoid hitboxes.

Otherwise, if people can get their utterly terrible Hellspawn, Nightstar, Uziel, Cougar, Spider, Ice Ferret, Vindicator, Dragon, Thanatos, etc. etc. etc. (and those are just off the top of my head and NOT diving into specific trash variants in some of the "decent" chassis), then people should be allowed to have their MW4 Hellound, Argus, Valkyrie, Osts, and other mechs that'll likely run the gambit from crappy to mediocre. PGI can at least make them playable through quirks if they're not willing to put the effort into making mixed loadouts more competitive vs. boats. Balance will always be a never-ending and truly unachievable goal, but PGI can at least put the efforts into trying to make trash mechs less trashy.

If PGI monetizes future mechs properly in conjunction with MW5 (already discussed previously how PGI can make it happen as a win-win for everyone), then they can make mechs indefinitely; and that means the good and the bad can all get made. It just takes time.

Edited by Sereglach, 09 April 2019 - 10:39 AM.

[FupDup]

I just want to point out that the MW4 "Hellhound" had a completely different loadout than the TT Conjurer, and if we went with my idea of making a non-canon "Warhound" based off it then we could make any hardpoints we want. I even made a spreadsheet of it.



Though I'm thinking about giving it more slots in the side torsos and fewer in the arms, to contrast against the HMN and NVA that tend to put most of their critslots in the arms. I'm also not entirely settled on the variants other than the Alt D (which comes with 2 ERPPCs and a bunch of HMGs stock). Not giving it any JJ variants is a conscious decision to keep it different from the other Clan 50-tonners.

I also just noticed that I forgot to list the open slots in the legs.

Edited by FupDup, 09 April 2019 - 10:48 AM.

[Sereglach]

FupDup, on 09 April 2019 - 10:39 AM, said:

I just want to point out that the MW4 "Hellhound" had a completely different loadout than the TT Conjurer, and if we went with my idea of making a non-canon "Warhound" based off it then we could make any hardpoints we want. I even made a spreadsheet of it.



Though I'm thinking about giving it more slots in the side torsos and fewer in the arms, to contrast against the HMN and NVA that tend to put most of their critslots in the arms. I'm also not entirely settled on the variants other than the Alt D (which comes with 2 ERPPCs and a bunch of HMGs stock).

I also just noticed that I forgot to list the open slots in the legs.

Few critiques. Prime should have Ballistic in the RT, Missiles in the LT, and energy in the arms, to match the MW4 stock loadout, if I remember correctly. You could readily make a 2-4 AMS variant based on the fact that MW4 Hellhound was one of the mechs that could take LAMS as an option, or is that why the A has AMS in the CT? Also, why the name change? The Conjurer was called the Hellhound by the IS, true, but that's the IS nickname and MWO uses all proper clan names . . . in MW4 the Hellhound was the actual clan name for the mech, so giving it that name isn't an issue.

Otherwise, why are you classifying the MW4 Hellhound as an Omnimech? It was classified as a Battlemech in MW4. After all, it had no Omni hardpoint sections in the base game, which is what was necessary to consider something an Omnimech.

[FupDup]

Sereglach, on 09 April 2019 - 10:56 AM, said:

Few critiques. Prime should have Ballistic in the RT, Missiles in the LT, and energy in the arms, to match the MW4 stock loadout, if I remember correctly.

The MW4 stock build is 1 ERLL in the LA, 1 SSRM6 in the LT, 1 ERLL in the RT, and 1 LB 10-X in the RA. MW4's mechlab gave all mechs way more tonnage than they're supposed to have in BT so I had to tone it done to just 2 ERML (LA), 2 SSRM4 (LT), 1 ERLL + 1 ERSL (RT), and 1 LB 5-X (RA). This also gives it more hardpoints to play around with.

Sereglach, on 09 April 2019 - 10:56 AM, said:

You could readily make a 2-4 AMS variant based on the fact that MW4 Hellhound was one of the mechs that could take LAMS as an option, or is that why the A has AMS in the CT?

I wanted to let the Nova retain its special Iron Dome niche in the Clan medium lineup.

Sereglach, on 09 April 2019 - 10:56 AM, said:

Also, why the name change? The Conjurer was called the Hellhound by the IS, true, but that's the IS nickname and MWO uses all proper clan names . . . in MW4 the Hellhound was the actual clan name for the mech, so giving it that name isn't an issue.

Everything about the MW4 Hellhound is different from the canon Hellhound, so I figured we might as well go whole hog and make it into its own separate mech. This also lets us bypass the issue of the name Hellhound already being taken by the Conjurer. I don't think PGI is willing to cross that line.

Sereglach, on 09 April 2019 - 10:56 AM, said:

Otherwise, why are you classifying the MW4 Hellhound as an Omnimech? It was classified as a Battlemech in MW4. After all, it had no Omni hardpoint sections in the base game, which is what was necessary to consider something an Omnimech.

In the vanilla version of MW4 the Hellhound had 2 Omni hardpoints in each arm. MekTek later changed that to Direct Fire hardpoints.

EDIT: It was actually 2 ballistics in the right arm and 2 Omnis in the left arm.

Edited by FupDup, 09 April 2019 - 11:30 AM.

[FupDup]

Whoops, I just started up the vanilla MW4 to double-check and turns out only the left arm had 2 Omni slots. The right arm was 2 ballistics.



A side-note is that while it did have ECM capability it was not mounted stock. I added ECM to the Warhound to make it stand out from the other Clan 50-ton mediums.

Edited by FupDup, 09 April 2019 - 11:23 AM.

[FLG 01]

Sereglach, on 09 April 2019 - 10:34 AM, said:

HOWEVER, given Alex's work on converting mechs, and volumetric scaling, the Hellhound didn't skip leg day, and it's a short, stocky, stout mech. It'd likely have Linebacker hitboxes in a smaller 50t package.

It is really more of an Uziel because that is what the designers were going for. MS was pushing the designers to include non-humanoid stuff, hence the massive redesign of the Conjurer, hence the Uziel (which allegedly started as a napkin drawing someone accidentally found and liked).
Even considering MWO volumetric scaling and Alex I see a Clan Uziel.

Sure, PGI could change the geometry, they could change the hardpoints, and they could add substantial quirks. There is the chance it becomes a smaller Linebacker. This might work. I just would not count on it, and I can name many Mechs were such a rationale did not work.

And as I said, I do not mind people's nostalgia. If they are honest and truly devoted to their Mechs, piloting them no matter what. I deeply respect every Uziel driver.
But the reality is that all those loud, oh-so-nostalgic players forget their 'iconic Mech' as soon as it is in game. And I deeply resent them. They abandoned it like it was dirt under their fingernails. That is so sad, and so low. Not only did they ruin it for them, they ruined it for others, too.

It is entirely unfair to waste a release on Mech which nobody enjoys while there are so many Mechs people could enjoy.
See, I did not want the Vulcan or the Champion, but I ran the numbers, I tested them in game, and now I play them regularly - because they are fun to play. That should be the driving reason, not a contest what could be the worst nostalgia Mech.

Odanan, on 09 April 2019 - 07:34 AM, said:

Who cares if they are going to be effective ingame?

Besides, didn't you advocate for the Nightstar?

People who do not want to run the Mech in game seem to care a lot. Do you really think it is the purpose of a Mech never to be played in game?

The Nightstar presents a different case. Unlike an Uziel or a Hellspawn, it had potential, especially its geometry. What we have is only a shadow of the real thing, i.e. a slim, elongated Mech with minimal frontal profile, which it unfortunately is not in MWO. Well, bad luck. Happens to everyone once in a while.

I never said my predictions are 100% right anyway. ...on the other hand, they actually were 100% right when it comes to MW:4 units.