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


#7801
Posted 12 April 2014 - 04:25 AM
#7802
Posted 12 April 2014 - 04:29 AM
FireSlade, on 11 April 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

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.
#7803
Posted 12 April 2014 - 04:41 AM
Strum Wealh, on 12 April 2014 - 04:16 AM, said:

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.
#7804
Posted 12 April 2014 - 05:05 AM
Strum Wealh, on 12 April 2014 - 04:16 AM, said:

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.
#7806
Posted 12 April 2014 - 08:42 AM
Bishop Steiner, on 12 April 2014 - 04:29 AM, said:
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.
#7807
Posted 12 April 2014 - 09:24 AM
Bishop Steiner, on 12 April 2014 - 04:29 AM, said:
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

#7808
Posted 12 April 2014 - 11:31 PM
Odanan, on 12 April 2014 - 05:05 AM, 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.
#7809
Posted 13 April 2014 - 01:29 AM
Strum Wealh, on 12 April 2014 - 11:31 PM, said:

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)
#7810
Posted 13 April 2014 - 05:20 AM
Jenkss, on 13 April 2014 - 01:29 AM, said:
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.
#7811
Posted 13 April 2014 - 01:26 PM
#7812
Posted 13 April 2014 - 01:52 PM
Ovion, on 13 April 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:
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)
#7813
Posted 13 April 2014 - 02:22 PM
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.
#7814
Posted 13 April 2014 - 03:40 PM
#7815
Posted 13 April 2014 - 03:55 PM
#7817
Posted 13 April 2014 - 05:42 PM
Cimarb, on 13 April 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:
i hope so. Though they their excuse for the clan pack being more expensive was that the clan mechs costed more CBills
#7820
Posted 14 April 2014 - 02:03 PM
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.
16 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 16 guests, 0 anonymous users