20517 replies to this topic

[CDLord HHGD]

MeiSooHaityu, on 02 October 2014 - 02:07 AM, said:

I was cruising around Sarna.net this morning and came across the original artwork for the Flea. It is just amazing. This is how this mech should look in MWO once MASC is sorted out




I mean REALLY, it's no contest. The original looks way sleeker and more powerful.

Sorry man, I much prefer the MWO art to the original. Hope they get MASC figured out so we can get it in game.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Odanan, on 02 October 2014 - 04:01 AM, said:

[/size]
You are joking, right?

What do you think? Lol

Of course I'm kidding. It looks like a Chinese take-out container with legs (especially if it was painted white with a big Draconis logo on it).

[Odanan]

cdlord, on 02 October 2014 - 04:08 AM, said:

Sorry man, I much prefer the MWO art to the original. Hope they get MASC figured out so we can get it in game.

I hope they simply forget this mech.

Flea is neither a relevant mech to the Battletech universe or to MWO - it's too similar (in both looks, role and loadout) with the Locust.

Comparison:


Flea (stock):
20 tons
speed: 97 km/h (119 with MASC)
5 energy weapons

Locust 3M (stock):
20 tons
speed: 129.6 km/h
5 energy weapons

Same total armor, and slower than the Locust, all Flea variants have better Locust surrogates.

To add a mech that looks exactly like the Locust and it's even worst*, is a terrible idea...

*and we know how much the Locust is bad challenging.

Edited by Odanan, 02 October 2014 - 04:26 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Odanan, on 02 October 2014 - 04:24 AM, said:

I hope they simply forget this mech.

Flea is neither a relevant mech to the Battletech universe or to MWO - it's too similar (in both looks, role and loadout) with the Locust.

Comparison:


Flea (stock):
20 tons
speed: 97 km/h (119 with MASC)
5 energy weapons

Locust 3M (stock):
20 tons
speed: 129.6 km/h
5 energy weapons

Same total armor, and slower than the Locust, all Flea variants have better Locust surrogates.

To add a mech that looks exactly like the Locust and it's even worst*, is a terrible idea...

*and we know how much the Locust is bad challenging.

Sorry, can't disagree more here. MASC would make the Flea far faster and unique to the locust. Plus, even if the biggest difference is the skin, then IMO that's enough. We need more diversity, not less.

[SgtMagor]

wasup with the portable washing machine! http://www.sarna.net...px-Flea.jpg.png

[Odanan]

cdlord, on 02 October 2014 - 04:31 AM, said:

Sorry, can't disagree more here. MASC would make the Flea far faster and unique to the locust. Plus, even if the biggest difference is the skin, then IMO that's enough. We need more diversity, not less.

Who said MASC should be restricted to chassis that originally have it? You want fast*? Put MASC in a Locust.

*or bring the Fire Moth.

[Molossian Dog]

SgtMagor, on 02 October 2014 - 04:41 AM, said:

wasup with the portable washing machine! http://www.sarna.net...px-Flea.jpg.png

2 months into a planetary campaign and you would speak with more respect of the fusion powered field washing machine.

Edited by Molossian Dog, 02 October 2014 - 05:02 AM.

[Odanan]

And the Flea is hardly more diversity...

[Odanan]

Now that would be diversity:



(at least visual diversity, because the loadouts have similarities with existing chassis)

[Belorion]

I say bring em all in. I am actually quite excited by the prospect of a new IS package. If Russ can pull it off and get some more unseen designs approved then I will forgive them the flea a while longer, but I still really want this mech.

I still like the idea of a Flea, Crab, Grasshopper, Kind Crab as an arthropod themed package... Then its addon could be the Exterminator just for laughs.

[Soul Tribunal]

To say the Flea is not important I don't agree with at all.
The Flea for many of us whom played MW4:Mercenaries was a Solaris Champ, being so small an so much faster you could wreak absolute chaos in the game with it.
All Mechs, that were in the MW series are relevant regardless of weight class. Many people don't realize that not all MWO players come from a BT/TT World per se. A good portion of us were MW Series Exclusive and as such want to see all the Mechs we had there come to MWO, and that is why we support it.

-ST

[Odanan]

Soul Tribunal, on 02 October 2014 - 05:39 AM, said:

To say the Flea is not important I don't agree with at all.
The Flea for many of us whom played MW4:Mercenaries was a Solaris Champ, being so small an so much faster you could wreak absolute chaos in the game with it.
All Mechs, that were in the MW series are relevant regardless of weight class. Many people don't realize that not all MWO players come from a BT/TT World per se. A good portion of us were MW Series Exclusive and as such want to see all the Mechs we had there come to MWO, and that is why we support it.

-ST

You can name you Locust as Flea, you know...

I agree the more mechs the merrier, but adding both Grasshopper and Guillotine, for instance, is a waste of resources. The same applies for Flea and Locust.

There are still many mechs out there that could add more to the game right now.

[Soul Tribunal]

What denotes a waste of time and doesn't is not up for us to decide. That is for PGI to figure out from a financial standpoint, and if the proportion of time needed is kept in check with player demand, than what we say bears little to what will happen.

And, like the locust/urbanmech, there is almost a cult following on certain mechs.
Trust me, I'd love them to drop all other things and time warp to 3053 so I can finally have my Bushwacker again, but I would not want to ever think my desire should deny someone else the mech they want.
And many many people want the Flea.

-ST

[CDLord HHGD]

Odanan, on 02 October 2014 - 05:01 AM, said:

Who said MASC should be restricted to chassis that originally have it? You want fast*? Put MASC in a Locust.

*or bring the Fire Moth.

I envision MASC to have a limited hardpoint like ECM actually. So the Flea would be unique....

[Cimarb]

Soul Tribunal, on 02 October 2014 - 06:00 AM, said:

And many many people want the Flea.

-ST

There may be people that actually want the Flea for the Flea, but the vast majority of the people in support of the Flea just want MASC in the game. The Flea, minus MASC, is virtually useless and gives zero diversity to the game, and is therefore a waste of resources.

[CDLord HHGD]

Cimarb, on 02 October 2014 - 07:47 AM, said:

There may be people that actually want the Flea for the Flea, but the vast majority of the people in support of the Flea just want MASC in the game. The Flea, minus MASC, is virtually useless and gives zero diversity to the game, and is therefore a waste of resources.

six in one, half dozen in the other. I'd love to see a new technology like MASC brought in, but I also want the Flea just for the Flea. The artwork shows some great hardpoint placement and diversity in the hardpoint layouts from the Locust (side torsos vs all in ct or arms). I'd rock a Flea just like I rock Locusts....

[Cimarb]

cdlord, on 02 October 2014 - 07:54 AM, said:

six in one, half dozen in the other. I'd love to see a new technology like MASC brought in, but I also want the Flea just for the Flea. The artwork shows some great hardpoint placement and diversity in the hardpoint layouts from the Locust (side torsos vs all in ct or arms). I'd rock a Flea just like I rock Locusts....

I totally appreciate that, but you are in the vast minority. Most just want MASC, and the Flea was their "confirmed" method of getting it in game.

Honestly, I think it is much more likely to get out in to select mechs that are heavier and slower otherwise, such as the Executioner, as you can implement it without having to worry about the games speed cap. I would assume the only reason it has not been added that way is that they are worried about community outrage if it is locked only to certain mechs.

[Soul Tribunal]

That is your Opinion Only Cimarb. It does nothing to denote to PGI what is and is not a waste of their resources.
Regardless of the reason for implementing something.

**EDIT** - It also fulfills on a promise given to us almost 2 years ago when its artwork was released. And that is something that you cannot quantify.


-ST

Edited by Soul Tribunal, 02 October 2014 - 08:35 AM.

[wanderer]

I'd guess we might end up with slightly extended burn time to go with everything else, at worst. The thing about having a large energy weapon is that it gives 'Mechs with fewer effective hardpoints more potent options to fit in them- like the Atlas for a notable example. Blazers also are stuck with standard LL ranges vs. ERLL options, putting them as a viable "main gun" option.

I'd guarantee ghost heat would be set at 2 or more. After all, it's like firing 1.5 LL's as it is.

[Metus regem]

Soul Tribunal, on 02 October 2014 - 08:34 AM, said:

That is your Opinion Only Cimarb. It does nothing to denote to PGI what is and is not a waste of their resources.
Regardless of the reason for implementing something.

**EDIT** - It also fulfills on a promise given to us almost 2 years ago when its artwork was released. And that is something that you cannot quantify.


-ST

That may be true about the promises given that long ago, that was before they ran into an issue with the net code when mechs start going faster than 150 kph. The server says they are in one place, while the client says they are in another... Now as much as I would love to see the Executioner or the Fire Moth even with dead weight equipment (5 tons and 5 crits, hard locked on those omni mechs OUCH!), I'd rather see then exculded from MWO, till they can find a way to either fix the net code to work with those kinds of speed, or figure out a way, to make lights less dependent on speed to live.