20517 replies to this topic

[Valdarion Silarius]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 July 2018 - 04:57 PM, said:

The single most likely explanation for the specific verbiage of the announcement from Russ is they came to an agreement to allow them the continued use of the assets already designed/in game. There is absolutely nothing in the language to indicate developing new ones. This is reading the language as it is printed, not the language with any "interpretation" added.

And again, this is what you are interpreting is based from a simple tweet from Russ Bullock. Russ Bullock could be only legally allowed to state any new future redesigns as "classics" vs what your interpreted opinion on what was tweeted. The bottom line and the truth on the matter is only time will tell.

If PGI wanted to make brand new mechs based on the Rifleman IIC and Warhammer IIC designs/concepts and called them "Samurai Pizza Large Pulse Laser Mech" and "Big Gorilla Walking PPC Tank" with the obvious implications of the classic designs but couldn't use the legal names of the mechs, then I would be completely fine with it. All that they would have to do is change the names in MW:O once HG's license expires in a year and a half.

The Lighthouse, on 04 July 2018 - 04:58 PM, said:

Well, it is not just unseen artworks require redesigns.

Almost entire mechs really need redsigns if you ask me. Too many medieval fantasy robots and dinosaurs that would had been big hits in 1980s, but they are hardly passable in this age.

Also the quality of those artworks are really bad in general.

I personally don't mind the anime-ish look of the classic IICs. But in terms of modernizing the classics to make them look more beefier with actual thick armor plating then I'm all for the latter.

[Bishop Steiner]

Arnold The Governator, on 04 July 2018 - 05:13 PM, said:

And again, this is what you are interpreting is based from a simple tweet from Russ Bullock. Russ Bullock could be only legally allowed to state any new future redesigns as "classics" vs what your interpreted opinion on what was tweeted. The bottom line and the truth on the matter is only time will tell.

No. Actually this is what happens when one simply reads both announcement for what they actually say, instead of trying to add meaning, interpret or read between the lines. Both are written in explicit legalese, which means one should read them LITERALLY.

But hey, go ahead and set yourself up for disappointment. *shrugs*

Better to expect nothing and be pleasantly surprised then to set high expectations that are not met. Unless you want to be the next Imperius?

[Valdarion Silarius]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 July 2018 - 05:24 PM, said:

No. Actually this is what happens when one simply reads both announcement for what they actually say, instead of trying to add meaning, interpret or read between the lines. Both are written in explicit legalese, which means one should read them LITERALLY.

But hey, go ahead and set yourself up for disappointment. *shrugs*

Better to expect nothing and be pleasantly surprised then to set high expectations that are not met. Unless you want to be the next Imperius?

I've been optimistic ever since PGI released anything after the Marauder IIC. I always hope for the best and prepare for the worst. All that I'm saying is look at both sides of the coin. Based on your literal interpretations of the retention of the "classics" mechs that we already have in MW:O vs what we might get next in line we simply just don't know. Only time will tell.

[Sereglach]

Actually, per Russ's own stated language, it was originally stated -at the time of the announcement of the first "Classic"- that they had every intent of reimagining ALL of the original "Unseen" and dubbing them the new "Classics". This was done to coincide with discussions PGI/Russ had with CGL after CGL had announced that they were reimagining all of the "Classics" themselves.

Therefore, "Classic" by PGI/CGL definition simply means reimagined "Unseen" that uses new artwork specific to PGI or CGL to retcon (CGL specifcially stated it was for retconning purposes) the original artwork of their respective chassis. Going off of that, it means that any chassis not made by PGI/CGL, yet, are completely fair game to be remade as proper "Classics" . . . let alone the fact that CGL had already remade new versions of nearly all of the "Classics" themselves and also had the case against them dismissed with prejudice.

Yes, the language in Russ's twitter account, along with the official forum announcement, is rather carefully selected, but it's also quite telling when proper precedent is applied to it.

I'd say without any doubt that we can see the remaining Classics in MWO. It's just a matter of when. With the time it takes to make a mech, it means we might not have any such announcements until Mech Con. Of course, all they need for an announcement is a bunch of concept art and Alex might already have some on hand. However, if they've already got the next to-be-announced mech in production I doubt they'd shift the timetables, in order to maintain their development pipeline and schedule. On the other hand, saving them to make MW5 the first MechWarrior game, ever, to have all of the classics is certainly something to create some hype over.

Edited by Sereglach, 04 July 2018 - 07:25 PM.

[The Lighthouse]

Sereglach, on 04 July 2018 - 07:24 PM, said:

Actually, per Russ's own stated language, it was originally stated -at the time of the announcement of the first "Classic"- that they had every intent of reimagining ALL of the original "Unseen" and dubbing them the new "Classics". This was done to coincide with discussions PGI/Russ had with CGL after CGL had announced that they were reimagining all of the "Classics" themselves.

Therefore, "Classic" by PGI/CGL definition simply means reimagined "Unseen" that uses new artwork specific to PGI or CGL to retcon (CGL specifcially stated it was for retconning purposes) the original artwork of their respective chassis. Going off of that, it means that any chassis not made by PGI/CGL, yet, are completely fair game to be remade as proper "Classics" . . . let alone the fact that CGL had already remade new versions of nearly all of the "Classics" themselves and also had the case against them dismissed with prejudice.

Yes, the language in Russ's twitter account, along with the official forum announcement, is rather carefully selected, but it's also quite telling when proper precedent is applied to it.

I'd say without any doubt that we can see the remaining Classics in MWO. It's just a matter of when. With the time it takes to make a mech, it means we might not have any such announcements until Mech Con. Of course, all they need for an announcement is a bunch of concept art and Alex might already have some on hand. However, if they've already got the next to-be-announced mech in production I doubt they'd shift the timetables, in order to maintain their development pipeline and schedule. On the other hand, saving them to make MW5 the first MechWarrior game, ever, to have all of the classics is certainly something to create some hype over.

No, it is clear that PGI has been using Mech Con to show off their own original Mechs.

2016 : Roughneck.
2017 : Sun Spider.

I really like PGI Originals so I will be looking forward to see more originals at this year's Mech Con.

[The Lighthouse]

FupDup, on 04 July 2018 - 04:53 PM, said:

Eh, yes and no. The Hollander's niche was that it let you add a Gauss Rifle to your army for fewer C-Bills and/or lower BattleValue than a larger unit. It was a "bang for your buck" kind of unit. Anything bigger than the Hollander with a Gauss Rifle (or multiple Gauss) was better in a direct 1-to-1 comparison but generally more expensive (less cost-effective).

However, in a game like MWO where absolute effectiveness (1-to-1 power) is the only thing that matters (cost effectiveness is not a thing here), that advantage goes away pretty quick. It would need pretty hefty quirkage to make it powerful on the absolute power level scale, and I'm not optimistic about that given PGI's historical stinginess with quirks.

Yes, so it is good in TT, relatively cheap for what's doing. But indeed for MWO it needs a lot of quirks to be effective.

[Sereglach]

The Lighthouse, on 04 July 2018 - 08:45 PM, said:

No, it is clear that PGI has been using Mech Con to show off their own original Mechs.

2016 : Roughneck.
2017 : Sun Spider.

I really like PGI Originals so I will be looking forward to see more originals at this year's Mech Con.

I won't be surprised if it's that, either. It's just one theory among many.

However, Mech Con this year is also going to be heavily touting it's playable demo of MW5 and a lot of MW5 information. It could be possible there would be more than one mech reveal/announcement to be had; and even if there isn't a reveal, it'd still generate a lot of hype to say "All the classics will be in a MechWarrior game, for the first time ever, with MW5: Mercenaries." I could easily see Russ waiting for the Mech Con stage to make such an announcement.

Edited by Sereglach, 04 July 2018 - 10:38 PM.

[Odanan]

FupDup, on 04 July 2018 - 04:53 PM, said:

Eh, yes and no. The Hollander's niche was that it let you add a Gauss Rifle to your army for fewer C-Bills and/or lower BattleValue than a larger unit. It was a "bang for your buck" kind of unit. Anything bigger than the Hollander with a Gauss Rifle (or multiple Gauss) was better in a direct 1-to-1 comparison but generally more expensive (less cost-effective).

However, in a game like MWO where absolute effectiveness (1-to-1 power) is the only thing that matters (cost effectiveness is not a thing here), that advantage goes away pretty quick. It would need pretty hefty quirkage to make it powerful on the absolute power level scale, and I'm not optimistic about that given PGI's historical stinginess with quirks.

Well, you could say the same about the Panther, Vindicator and UrbanMech...

Hollander is not even in my top 30 wanted mechs list, but I would understand if PGI added it (so many people like it, apparently). Hopefully the Hollander II (45 tons) instead of the 35 tons Hollander.

[The Lighthouse]

Odanan, on 05 July 2018 - 02:19 AM, said:

Well, you could say the same about the Panther, Vindicator and UrbanMech...

Hollander is not even in my top 30 wanted mechs list, but I would understand if PGI added it (so many people like it, apparently). Hopefully the Hollander II (45 tons) instead of the 35 tons Hollander.

We can have mixed. 35 tons for basic pack, and 45 tons for Reinforcements.

Edited by The Lighthouse, 05 July 2018 - 03:38 AM.

[Chados]

I’d rather that be the other way around. I’d prefer the Hollander II to be up front so the (S) variant would be the BZK-F5(S).

[Odanan]

The Lighthouse, on 05 July 2018 - 03:38 AM, said:

We can have mixed. 35 tons for basic pack, and 45 tons for Reinforcements.

That would be amazing.

[Ovion]

I've been saying for about a year, mixed pack

Quote

In my opinion, the Hollander would be salvageable without quirks by A: Hardpoint Inflation. B: Doing something interesting like releasing it as half Light, Half Medium.

This would give you something along the lines of:
BZK-F3 - (35T) Gauss Rifle (To bring it in line with the likely 3-7 hardpoints on the G1, 3-7B)
BZK-G1 - (35T) LBX10, 2ML (Probably 1-3 B, 2-4E)
BZK-F5 - (45T) Gauss Rifle, Medium Laser, SSRM2 (1-3B, 1-3E, 1-3M but not more than 7 / whatever the rest get)
BZK-F7 - (45T) Heavy Gauss Rifle (same as the F3)

Leaves 1 35T and 1 45T PGI variant for reinforcements, with the added bonus of 2 Hero variants and 2 S versions, one for each.
Probably one would replace the Ballistic with a heavy missile of some flavour, one of each would be an energy boat
The base package of 2+2 for $20, the reinforcements of 2 for $15, then the 2 heroes for $10 and $15 a pop, to be in line with other packs.

[FLG 01]

Odanan, on 05 July 2018 - 02:19 AM, said:

Well, you could say the same about the Panther, Vindicator and UrbanMech...

There is a crucial difference: Panther and Vindicator are relatively cheap trooper Mechs relying on at least two main weapons to be effective in that role. The original Hollander is neither a trooper, lacking flexibility and staying power, nor has it any secondary armament – which sparked the more conventional variants deviating from the single big gun philosophy.

Yet the single big gun philosophy is what makes the Hollander interesting in TT games, not the wannabe troopers. The BZK-F7 is big fun! (Though part of the fun comes from the chance of accidentally blowing up the HGR without enemy action...)

The same philosophy is utterly useless in MWO; despite GR, LGR, HPPC or UAC/10 – nobody mounts a single big gun on a light. Mounting a single HGR on a medium has proven to be just as ineffective. Not just inefficient, ineffective.

Sure, PGI could massively inflate the hardpoints, give it a greater engine cap, and add the decidedly mediocre 45t variants to the pack, but the original appeal of the Hollander – i.e. one big gun on a small Mech – would be lost.
I do not see any point in having a Mech pack of useless and/or mediocre units, which no one will enjoy playing, just to satisfy some people's nostalgia for a very short time ...yet again.

It seems to be a radical idea but I want Mechs I can actually have fun with.

[Marauder3D]

I agree that the Hollander would need amazing quirks just to be effective in MWO. And it would have to be a 45 ton Hollander II, because a 35 ton Hollander wouldn't be very fun to play, unless again, AMAZING quirks like the Grid Iron had.

Then again, I'm 100% into HBS BattleTech these days, so unless we get the amazing news that we are all secretly hoping for and don't even want to talk about out, I'm going to pass anyway.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Marauder3D, on 05 July 2018 - 09:52 AM, said:

I agree that the Hollander would need amazing quirks just to be effective in MWO. And it would have to be a 45 ton Hollander II, because a 35 ton Hollander wouldn't be very fun to play, unless again, AMAZING quirks like the Grid Iron had.

Then again, I'm 100% into HBS BattleTech these days, so unless we get the amazing news that we are all secretly hoping for and don't even want to talk about out, I'm going to pass anyway.

The Hollander/Hollander II wouldn't make it into the current HBS BattleTech game because BattleTech takes place roughly 29-ish years before the Hollander was put into service. The Hollander was released in 3054 where as BattleTech takes place in 3025.

[Marauder3D]

That's why I spoke about MWO in the first paragraph, and admitted that I like HBS BattleTech in the second paragraph.

I know it won't be in HBS BattleTech, and unless we get good news about the NuClassics getting into either game, I'm non plussed!

[Ovion]

FLG 01, on 05 July 2018 - 07:56 AM, said:

Sure, PGI could massively inflate the hardpoints, give it a greater engine cap

The minimum weapons is 3-4 (to match across variants like otehr mechs do).
The engine cap is mid/upper of 35T mechs anyway.

People said much the same about the Urbanmech too tbh, but... that's a staple now.

[The Lighthouse]

Marauder3D, on 05 July 2018 - 09:52 AM, said:

I agree that the Hollander would need amazing quirks just to be effective in MWO. And it would have to be a 45 ton Hollander II, because a 35 ton Hollander wouldn't be very fun to play, unless again, AMAZING quirks like the Grid Iron had.

Then again, I'm 100% into HBS BattleTech these days, so unless we get the amazing news that we are all secretly hoping for and don't even want to talk about out, I'm going to pass anyway.

Just asking: are you playing BatteTech with Roughtech? It seems everyone plays with that mod these days.

[Marauder3D]

Nope, probably try it someday. Just playing with all the new 1.1 buttons turned up to max, and needing 8 pieces of salvage to make a mech. At the rate I get to play considering family and work, will probably take me a month or two to finish the campaign. Really digging the new difficulty levels. I actually need to "nope" out of missions now and then.

[FLG 01]

Ovion, on 05 July 2018 - 01:13 PM, said:

The minimum weapons is 3-4 (to match across variants like otehr mechs do).
The engine cap is mid/upper of 35T mechs anyway.

People said much the same about the Urbanmech too tbh, but... that's a staple now.

Regular multiplier for light Mechs is 1.4x. That means an engine cap of 245, not the 275 or even 300 you wanted.
And if you want to use more than one big gun on a Hollander you miss the point of that Mech anyway, but at least it shows you know how bad the concept really is, as does hoping for UrbanMech level quirks to save it.

For the record, I am not saying there is no way the Hollander might be alright. I am saying the Hollander needs massive quirks and massive hardpoint inflation (plus some other help like increased engine cap), and at that point is really not a Hollander anymore. Also, it's not very likely to happen.

Unfortunately it's more likely that we get a terrible Mech noone will use, because nostalgia blinded people. Again.

Edited by FLG 01, 05 July 2018 - 01:39 PM.