20517 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Odanan, on 12 April 2014 - 12:14 AM, said:

Nah, the upper legs are too fat.

[Bishop Steiner]

FireSlade, on 11 April 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

I think that he wants this instead.


The "B" variant in Living Legends had twin Gauss but unless they release a variant of the Timber Wolf with a smaller engine twin Gauss may be out of reach. Twin UAC20s on the other hand are totally viable. Go figure.

and 36 tons of weapons before ammo. Yeah, can't say I am sad to not be playing Living Legends.


Also Gauss and UAC 20s are both 12 tons.

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 12 April 2014 - 04:16 AM, said:

However, has anyone from PGI given any statement indicating that they would be back-tracking on their intention to have Engine type & rating locked (such that the Daishi would be forever stuck with a XL 300), to have Internal Structure type & crits locked (such that the Daishi would be forever stuck with a 10-ton Standard Structure), to have the base Heat Sinks locked (such that the Daishi would be forever stuck with an externally-mounted Clan DHS in each of the RT, LT, and LL), or to have the Armor type locked (such that the Daishi would be forever stuck with Standard Armor, even though the Armor values would be adjustable (see here))?
If so, please provide a source (with links).

The XL Engine + torso-mounted DHS combination means that LB 20-Xs could not be mounted in the torso locations (as the guns consume 9 criticals, but only 8 slots would be available), and the inability to change the Engine rating or change to Endo-Steel or remove some/all of the five above-base DHS means that the only way to free up tonnage for additional ammo and/or secondary weapons is to remove substantial amounts of armor (where the Daishi starts with 19 tons of Standard Armor).

So, any quad-Gauss or quad-UAC/20 Daishi builds, with the MWO OmniMech rules as we currently know them, would either have minimal battlefield longevity due to having minimal ammunition stores & no backup weapons, or have minimal battlefield longevity due to being thinly-armored "glass cannons".

someday they will make the mistake of allowing me my Gausszilla Annihilator.

[Odanan]

Strum Wealh, on 12 April 2014 - 04:16 AM, said:

However, has anyone from PGI given any statement indicating that they would be back-tracking on their intention to have Engine type & rating locked (such that the Daishi would be forever stuck with a XL 300), to have Internal Structure type & crits locked (such that the Daishi would be forever stuck with a 10-ton Standard Structure), to have the base Heat Sinks locked (such that the Daishi would be forever stuck with an externally-mounted Clan DHS in each of the RT, LT, and LL), or to have the Armor type locked (such that the Daishi would be forever stuck with Standard Armor, even though the Armor values would be adjustable (see here))?
If so, please provide a source (with links).

The XL Engine + torso-mounted DHS combination means that LB 20-Xs could not be mounted in the torso locations (as the guns consume 9 criticals, but only 8 slots would be available), and the inability to change the Engine rating or change to Endo-Steel or remove some/all of the five above-base DHS means that the only way to free up tonnage for additional ammo and/or secondary weapons is to remove substantial amounts of armor (where the Daishi starts with 19 tons of Standard Armor).

So, any quad-Gauss or quad-UAC/20 Daishi builds, with the MWO OmniMech rules as we currently know them, would either have minimal battlefield longevity due to having minimal ammunition stores & no backup weapons, or have minimal battlefield longevity due to being thinly-armored "glass cannons".

I don't have a link, but they said the armor rating won't be locked.

[4b4dd0n]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 April 2014 - 04:41 AM, said:

someday they will make the mistake of allowing me my Gausszilla Annihilator.

On that day im your wingman with the same Annihilator

[Jin Ma]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 April 2014 - 04:29 AM, said:

and 36 tons of weapons before ammo. Yeah, can't say I am sad to not be playing Living Legends.


Also Gauss and UAC 20s are both 12 tons.

Timberwolf B variant... Baby blood asp here i come

Edited by Jin Ma, 12 April 2014 - 08:46 AM.

[FireSlade]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 April 2014 - 04:29 AM, said:

and 36 tons of weapons before ammo. Yeah, can't say I am sad to not be playing Living Legends.


Also Gauss and UAC 20s are both 12 tons.

FupDup already called me out on that. Not sure why i was thinking that Clan Gauss Rifles were 15 tons. Still mounting twin UAC10s on the Timber Wolf would make for a faster(after speed tweak), more heavily armored, double tapping Ilya Muromets. You should know how deadly that would be

[Strum Wealh]

Odanan, on 12 April 2014 - 05:05 AM, said:

I don't have a link, but they said the armor rating won't be locked.

We already know that the armor rating (e.g. armor points values) will not be locked, though armor type (e.g. Standard vs Ferro-Fibrous) will be locked; it was stated in Dev Blog 02, and I linked a quotation myself.

However, it is the other things being locked (Engine type & rating, Structure type & crit distribution, hard-wired HS type & distribution) that would serve as measures to keep the Daishi's power in check.

[Jenkss]

Strum Wealh, on 12 April 2014 - 11:31 PM, said:

We already know that the armor rating (e.g. armor points values) will not be locked, though armor type (e.g. Standard vs Ferro-Fibrous) will be locked; it was stated in Dev Blog 02, and I linked a quotation myself.

However, it is the other things being locked (Engine type & rating, Structure type & crit distribution, hard-wired HS type & distribution) that would serve as measures to keep the Daishi's power in check.

I read your quote and he says "armor distribution"

That still worries me as that could mean one of two things:
You can change the location of armor points, but not affect the total amount of armor as defined by the variant

Or

You can add or remove armor as you wish to any varient but can't change the type (ferro vs standard)

[Odanan]

Jenkss, on 13 April 2014 - 01:29 AM, said:

I read your quote and he says "armor distribution"

That still worries me as that could mean one of two things:
You can change the location of armor points, but not affect the total amount of armor as defined by the variant

Or

You can add or remove armor as you wish to any varient but can't change the type (ferro vs standard)

Hey, you got a point here.

[Ovion]

Also, does anyone have any idea or estimate on how many c-bills the Clan Mechs will be?

[Odanan]

Ovion, on 13 April 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

Also, does anyone have any idea or estimate on how many c-bills the Clan Mechs will be?

If any relation with TT, a Timber Wolf should cost 24 million c-bills.

(although in our current timeline a Clan mech is priceless in Inner Sphere)

[Ovion]

So it'll likely be 3-5 times the price of an equivalent weight IS mech for the clan mechs?
I'll have to go trawl sarna for some ballparks I guess.

Holy crap.
Est. Heavy Prices for lights.

Edited by Ovion, 13 April 2014 - 02:25 PM.

[SgtMagor]

Twolf prime variant= 24,233,124 C-bills

[Nathan Foxbane]

0.524% cost inflation since Maximum Tech came out. I really need to get new core rule books. Still operating on Maximum Tech Revised Edition and BT:Master Rules Revised Edition. ):

[Cimarb]

Ovion, on 13 April 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

Also, does anyone have any idea or estimate on how many c-bills the Clan Mechs will be?

Considering they are balancing Clan mechs with current IS mechs, I would assume the cost will be pretty balanced too.

[Jin Ma]

Cimarb, on 13 April 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

Considering they are balancing Clan mechs with current IS mechs, I would assume the cost will be pretty balanced too.

i hope so. Though they their excuse for the clan pack being more expensive was that the clan mechs costed more CBills

[Bishop Steiner]

can I has this as a Hero Griffin?

the "FIANCHETTO"

[Wieland]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 April 2014 - 06:37 PM, said:

can I has this as a Hero Griffin?

the "FIANCHETTO"

Nice one.

[ssm]

Jin Ma, on 13 April 2014 - 05:42 PM, said:

i hope so. Though they their excuse for the clan pack being more expensive was that the clan mechs costed more CBills

Well, I guess that Clan mechs will be around 50% more expensive than corresponding (by weight/price) IS mechs. Any less than that - the excuse of Clan packs being 50% pricier goes out of the window. Any more (2x, for example) will cause enormous (and frankly, justified) P2W uproar.