20517 replies to this topic

[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.

[Sereglach]

FupDup, on 09 April 2019 - 11:06 AM, said:

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.


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


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.


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.

Good eye, and thanks for the corrections. I guess I got so used to playing the free MekTek version I completely forgot it had some omni slots in it. Other than that, I appreciate the explanations. The logic seems reasonably sound and it looks like you made a decent Omnimech. I see a number of combinations I'd like to run; and I really like the hero.

As far as the name, again, PGI uses all of the proper Clan names. Hellhound is the proper clan name of the MW4 mech. Conjurer is the proper clan name of the TT mech. They even go so far as to make that lore distinction of the different mechs; and lore precedent already exists for it for both MW4 and TT. All the legwork is already done. It's like the Mad Cat Mk II being called the "Mad Cat Mk II" instead of the "Timber Wolf Mk II" . . . the Clans actually made a second generation mech and used the IS nickname of the first generation mech when naming the second one. To me, there's no reason -lore or otherwise- to actually change the name. The Hellhound is a second generation Clan Omnimech within IS bounds using captured and retooled factory assets to support clan technology, then named after the IS nickname for an outdated and obsolete older clan mech.

FLG 01, on 09 April 2019 - 01:40 PM, said:

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.

Then I don't know what you're smoking but the Hellhound does NOT have the geometry of an Uziel aside from sharing digitigrade legs and non-hand-actuator arms. The Hellhound was much shorter, squatter, thicker, and more robust feeling mech. It doesn't have a massive over-the-head SRM6 pod that inflates the CT hitbox and the ST hardpoints actually fill out those mech sections. Even the arms on the Hellhound are more robust, albeit still no form of shield arms.

FLG 01, on 09 April 2019 - 01:40 PM, said:

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.

Here's the problem with that logic. Most of those abandoned mechs are that way because PGI released them as crap, and have yet to fix the problems. Balance should be iterative and constant . . . something PGI regularly fails to achieve. If they did that, then every mech should at least have a chance at being enjoyable to drive. If PGI succeeded at that then people would be more willing to have PGI experiment with obscure mechs. However, since PGI have failed on the balance side, people don't trust PGI to make obscure mechs enjoyable and just want them to do the nostalgic mechs so they can at least have the art they want to see . . . even if it is a hangar queen art object . . . at least they have the art they want.

After all, the whole reason PGI touted divisions in Solaris was to allow them to look at mechs in actual gameplay quality, iterate on balance based on Solaris performance, and eventually get the divisions down from 7 to 3 as balance got better (the literal gameplan presented by Russ and Paul when Solaris divisions were announced). Again, PGI has failed to regularly iterate on balance. However, if they actually followed through on their goals, we'd see a LOT more mech balance and by now PGI should at least be down to 5 divisions instead of 7 . . . which would bring more mechs out of the hangar-queen-dust-pit and into at least the QP game modes. Those nostalgic mechs would actually see use instead of being abandoned.

FLG 01, on 09 April 2019 - 01:40 PM, said:

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.

Courtesy of hardpoint inflation and quirks, all mechs have POTENTIAL. All mechs also have the potential to be utter trash. That's no reason for PGI to not make mechs; and it's no reason for CGL to refuse to support the IP properly.

Honestly, if PGI did better due-diligence on gameplay and mech balance, people would love to play their nostalgic mechs more AND they'd be more excited for PGI to pull the "dark horse" and "rogue" mechs out of the dusty reaches of TT obscurity to bring them into MWO. That's the sad reality of that situation.

Push for PGI to do better due-diligence on their balancing of nostalgic mechs and you'll be more likely to see fan support for some of the obscure mechs that have a great deal of potential in MWO. Otherwise, if PGI can't get a nostalgic favorite right, then how will the fans have any faith that PGI would make an obscure mech decent? They won't and they don't. Therefore, they just want the pretty art to look at of their favorite nostalgic chassis.

[FupDup]

Sereglach, on 09 April 2019 - 03:07 PM, said:

As far as the name, again, PGI uses all of the proper Clan names. Hellhound is the proper clan name of the MW4 mech. Conjurer is the proper clan name of the TT mech. They even go so far as to make that lore distinction of the different mechs; and lore precedent already exists for it for both MW4 and TT. All the legwork is already done. It's like the Mad Cat Mk II being called the "Mad Cat Mk II" instead of the "Timber Wolf Mk II" . . . the Clans actually made a second generation mech and used the IS nickname of the first generation mech when naming the second one. To me, there's no reason -lore or otherwise- to actually change the name. The Hellhound is a second generation Clan Omnimech within IS bounds using captured and retooled factory assets to support clan technology, then named after the IS nickname for an outdated and obsolete older clan mech.

The Conjurer and the Hellhound are the same mech in TT, just like the Mad Cat and the Timber Wolf or Loki and Hellbringer. The Mad Cat Mk. II's name is fine because it has the Mk. II part to distinguish it from the normal Mad Cat. If CDS decided to name their new mech the plain "Mad Cat" instead of Mad Cat Mk. II then that would have caused the same kind of confusion I'm talking about with the Hellhound.

In this case, the name Hellhound Mk. II or Hellhound II would be mostly analogous to the MCII vs. MC thing. The one issue is that a Mk. II version of a mech is supposed to have some kind of similarity to the original version. The "Hellhound II" does not resemble the standard Hellhound in any aspect of its design other than being 50 tons, hence why I went with Warhound instead.

Edited by FupDup, 09 April 2019 - 03:20 PM.

[Sereglach]

FupDup, on 09 April 2019 - 03:14 PM, said:

The Conjurer and the Hellhound are the same mech in TT, just like the Mad Cat and the Timber Wolf or Loki and Hellbringer. The Mad Cat Mk. II's name is fine because it has the Mk. II part to distinguish it from the normal Mad Cat. If CDS decided to name their new mech the plain "Mad Cat" instead of Mad Cat Mk. II then that would have caused the same kind of confusion I'm talking about with the Hellhound.

In this case, the name Hellhound Mk. II or Hellhound II would be mostly analogous to the MCII vs. MC thing. The one issue is that a Mk. II version of a mech is supposed to have some kind of similarity to the original version. The "Hellhound II" does not resemble the standard Hellhound in any aspect of its design other than being 50 tons, hence why I went with Warhound instead.

*shrugs* To each their own and we agree to disagree, I suppose. With PGI's hard line on using proper faction names, calling the Hellhound the Hellhound as a definitive unique Clan name for a mech seems fine and within the confines of lore.

After all, within TT, we've got the IS 60t Crossbow Battlemech and Clan 65t Crossbow Omnimech, the Firestarter 35t light Battlemech and 45t medium Omnimech or the 50t Centurion Battlemech AND Omnimech with ZERO name differentiation, we've got mechs, vehicles, and ships (aerospace or otherwise) with overlapping names between IS nicknames, proper Clan names, and IS chassis names. PGI rolling with the MW4 lore as a canon mech name seems fine by me and completely within the bounds of the lore.

[FLG 01]

Sereglach, on 09 April 2019 - 03:07 PM, said:

Then I don't know what you're smoking but the Hellhound does NOT have the geometry of an Uziel aside from sharing digitigrade legs and non-hand-actuator arms.

Low, waist level mounted cockpit plus high mounted, exposed and unshieldable STs. These factors are exactly what kill the Uziel, as its hardpoints are good, and its mobility is great.

Considering I play mediums very often and with very good results (see Jarlslist), far better than most in fact, I think you should grant me minimum of competency when assessing the potential performance of a medium. I certainly do not deserve the insinuation I'd be on drugs, not even metaphorically.

Sereglach, on 09 April 2019 - 03:07 PM, said:

Courtesy of hardpoint inflation and quirks, all mechs have POTENTIAL. All mechs also have the potential to be utter trash. [...]
if PGI can't get a nostalgic favorite right, then how will the fans have any faith that PGI would make an obscure mech decent?

Some have more potential than others, simple as that. Units which have a bad geometry in the source material already (like the Uziel) have a much harder time than units with good geometry. Sure, PGI can give them mega quirks - that is what people always say when their favourite Mech is called bad and they do not want to face it - but that does not happen very often.

PGI has managed to make many Mechs fun and viable in game, dark horse and fan favourites alike. They also made some Mechs with less potential great in game, and they ruined Mechs with better potential. But again, the point is that that does not happen very often. Most Mechs end up right as predicted.

Edited by FLG 01, 09 April 2019 - 04:08 PM.

[Sereglach]

FLG 01, on 09 April 2019 - 03:58 PM, said:

Low, waist level mounted cockpit plus high mounted, exposed and unshieldable STs. These factors are exactly what kill the Uziel, as its hardpoints are good, and its mobility is great.

Considering I play mediums very often and with very good results (see Jarlslist), far better than most in fact, I think you should grant me minimum of competency when assessing the potential performance of a medium. I certainly do not deserve the insinuation I'd be on drugs, not even metaphorically.

Ok, personally, I could care less about ANYONE'S skill level, even my own. When I play the game, I play to have fun. Don't waste time flaunting the numbers, because they're not pertinent to the discussion. You said that the Hellhound looks like an Uziel and I said -sarcastically- you must be smoking something to make that comparison, because they have very little cosmetic similarities. Deal with it, because that's well within the venues of a reasonable debate and was not a personal attack or outwardly insulting. It was using satire to call out the extreme with which you need to go to say those two mechs look the same.

The discussion is WHY or WHY NOT make the MW4 Hellhound into its own mech and put it into MWO. If you want to approach the hitbox perspective, then make that point . . . don't say

FLG 01, on 09 April 2019 - 01:40 PM, said:

Even considering MWO volumetric scaling and Alex I see a Clan Uziel.

That's approaching the debate from a cosmetic perspective, of which the Hellhound and Uziel have very little in common.

As for hardpoints? Again, PGI controls those and can do whatever they want to inflate them. As for mobility? Those are essentially baked-in quirks that PGI assigns based on what they feel the mech should be able to do. Bad hitboxes? PGI can readily fix those with appropriate quirks as they see fit, but sadly they have fallen far behind on keeping up on balance, as already addressed.

The "death" of the Uziel is exclusively on PGI and nothing to do with community desire to have the mech in the game. It was a mech that was released flawed, and no true push was ever made to get it fixed, because people were too concerned with the Annihilator above just about anything else.

FLG 01, on 09 April 2019 - 03:58 PM, said:

Some have more potential than others, simple as that. Units which have a bad geometry in the source material already (like the Uziel) have a much harder time than units with good geometry. Sure, PGI can give them mega quirks - that is what people always say when their favourite Mech is called bad and they do not want to face it - but that does not happen very often.

PGI has managed to make many Mechs fun and viable in game, dark horse and fan favourites alike. They also made some Mechs with less potential great in game, and they ruined Mechs with better potential. But again, the point is that that does not happen very often. Most Mechs end up right as predicted.

Regardless, the reality is that any mech can be made viable with a combination of quirks and hardpoints. Period. That's not even debatable . . . just look at the Urbanmech and Annihilator as poster-child examples of this. Why should PGI put in the effort to try to market a "dark horse" mech vs. jumping on the nostalgia that they KNOW will make them more money, while plenty of those mechs still haven't been implemented?

PGI's lack of effort on balancing other mechs is the ONLY reason that those mechs continue to be in bad or OP positions. While true that some mechs or mech variants have more potential -sans quirks and inflation- to be better mechs, that is in no way, with current PGI technology and mechanics, a reason to stop ANY mech from being added to the game.

You think a mech is objectively bad (and plenty are)? Then petition PGI to change the quirks or abilities of the mech. You think the community abandoned a mech because it's bad and PGI has done nothing about it? Then start making pushes to get the community involved and push PGI to actually keep up on mech balancing. PGI (namely Russ in NGNG streams) made numerous innuendos to addressing older mechs, but the community never jumped on it. They jumped on Bolt-Ons and Solaris instead; and PGI listened.

[FLG 01]

Sereglach, on 09 April 2019 - 05:37 PM, said:

Ok, personally, I could care less about ANYONE'S skill level, even my own. When I play the game, I play to have fun.

Really? So do I. And I am having a lot of fun, which is why I play so much.
I would like to think we are so very special, but I suspect everyone plays for fun except a few masochist perhaps.

Anyway, we are discussing the potential of a Mech in game, and call me old-fashioned but I do believe expertise matters. Yes, those numbers do matter, because they reflect my experience and understanding of the game.

And if I have not been perfectly clear before, I'll say it: I am talking about the Mech's potential in-game performance. In terms of geometry it is dreadful, and I say so with a lot of experience and expertise using mediums in this game, and I say so after analyzing the problems of that geometry as outlined before. Feel free to disagree but do not for a second pretend I did not know what I am talking about. If you never implied that, fine, thanks.

Sereglach, on 09 April 2019 - 05:37 PM, said:

Regardless, the reality is that any mech can be made viable with a combination of quirks and hardpoints. Period. That's not even debatable . . . just look at the Urbanmech and Annihilator as poster-child examples of this.

I referenced those two, perhaps a little too subtly.

Anyway, in an ideal world PGI would balance all Mechs to perform equally well, including those with less potential. We are not living in such a world. Realistically Mechs with greater potential usually do better in MWO. And more often than not, Mechs with less potential will be bad Mechs in MWO.

You may not like that, and you may think PGI should buff the weaker Mechs, but it is what it is.

Those bad Mechs resulting from this are not played in game, nobody has fun with them, and that is why they should not be released. Plain and simple. And there is no alternative. At least none that is realistic.
You cannot just hope that PGI will fix all the inherent problems of a potentially underperforming Mech. Oh yeah, PGI totally should. People should also stop killing each other. But again, that is not the world we live in.

Edited by FLG 01, 09 April 2019 - 06:57 PM.

[Sereglach]

FLG 01, on 09 April 2019 - 06:52 PM, said:

Really? So do I. And I am having a lot of fun, which is why I play so much.
I would like to think we are so very special, but I suspect everyone plays for fun except a few masochist perhaps.

I don't play as much anymore as I used to. Lack of balance from PGI and banging my head into a wall trying to get more attention in that direction was killing it for me. Honestly, I'm glad to see they've finally starting addressing core issues that have existed for years, whether some of the community likes it or not. In the mean time, I have plenty of other more enjoyable games to spend time with while PGI hopefully addresses their issues.

FLG 01, on 09 April 2019 - 06:52 PM, said:

Anyway, we are discussing the potential of a Mech in game, and call me old-fashioned but I do believe expertise matters. Yes, those numbers do matter, because they reflect my experience and understanding of the game.

And if I have not been perfectly clear before, I'll say it: I am talking about the Mech's potential in-game performance. In terms of geometry it is dreadful, and I say so with a lot of experience and expertise using mediums in this game, and I say so after analyzing the problems of that geometry as outlined before. Feel free to disagree but do not for a second pretend I did not know what I am talking about. If you never implied that, fine, thanks.

Sadly, when people start flaunting personal skill, I do have to side with Russ on this point. A good player does NOT make for a good understanding of the game. I'm not saying whether you do or do not understand the game. Again, I don't care about the numbers and the reality is that gameplay is irrelevant here. That's the reality of implementing mechs . . . GAMEPLAY IS IRRELEVANT! You are looking at the game like a skilled player and looking at mechs like a skilled player INSTEAD of looking at the game like a head coach or team owner. THAT is what makes you wrong in this situation above all else.

FLG 01, on 09 April 2019 - 06:52 PM, said:

Anyway, in an ideal world PGI would balance all Mechs to perform equally well, including those with less potential. We are not living in such a world. Realistically Mechs with greater potential usually do better in MWO. And more often than not, Mechs with less potential will be bad Mechs in MWO.

You may not like that, and you may think PGI should buff the weaker Mechs, but it is what it is.

Those bad Mechs resulting from this are not played in game, nobody has fun with them, and that is why they should not be released. Plain and simple. And there is no alternative. At least none that is realistic.
You cannot just hope that PGI will fix all the inherent problems of a potentially underperforming Mech. Oh yeah, PGI totally should. People should also stop killing each other. But again, that is not the world we live in.

You're missing the core point here, completely, or are intentionally choosing to ignore it. The reality of introducing any mech into MWO is potential monetization to keep the game alive. So . . . what sells a mech and what would garner PGI goodwill in introducing other mechs? The reality here is that community goodwill and willingness to spend money is what sells mechs. Lets look at that and break it down.

First and foremost, people want their nostalgic mechs that they remember fondly from the most popular video game and TT mechs out there. The video game mechs matter more . . . exponentially more . . . because many (if not most) MechWarrior players have never touched TT in their life, whether you like that reality or not.

PGI implements said nostalgic mechs, and they implement many of them POORLY. Not only that, but they fail to redress their issues for one reason or another, mostly because of inconsistent community bickering over too many subjects. Due to this, community goodwill for "dark horse" mechs, whether they look good on paper or not, is not appealing to people who were burned over their nostalgic mechs.

ANY mech, PERIOD, can be made competitive and viable. PGI have the tools to do this and have proven it on multiple occasions. Therefore, on top of animosity PGI receives for having nostalgic mechs launch poorly, they receive outright vitriol for failing to redress weak mechs and make them "fun" and at least reasonably competitive. After all, PGI expressed their own desires that with quirks and proper balancing, they'd like to see the Divisions of Solaris (and thereby MWO viability tiers) reduced from 7 to 3. Mechs falling within 3 truly competitive divisions would be far more tolerable of "good" vs. "bad" mech releases and even a "bad" mech release would be tolerated by the community. Hiding behind "good" and "bad" mechs exclusively on paper is a complete farce and moot point.

In the end, if people's nostalgic mechs were at least reasonably competitive, then they'd be more open to obscure mech releases. However, without goodwill through proper mech balancing, PGI will look to implement primarily nostalgic mechs to cater to people at least willing to open up their wallets to Alex's mech art . . . even if they KNOW it's going to be a hangar queen. Therefore, again, if you want the "dark horse" or obscure mechs, then you MUST push for PGI to balance the mechs we already have and garner goodwill from the community.

EDIT: All of that said, the MW4 Hellhound is a very nostalgic mech. It garners a great deal of favor and goodwill from the community if it's released in reasonably good standing. It's been outlined how it can be done reasonably well and how it could turn out just fine. However, TT grognards blocking the popular MW4 Hellhound because of the obscure and unpopular TT Conjurer as the "true mech" is a BS argument that's preventing a popular nostalgic mech from releasing into MWO when all the lore legwork is already done.

Edited by Sereglach, 09 April 2019 - 07:50 PM.

[FLG 01]

Sereglach, on 09 April 2019 - 07:36 PM, said:

Sadly, when people start flaunting personal skill, I do have to side with Russ on this point. A good player does NOT make for a good understanding of the game.

I have become skilled because I analysed things, learned and adapted. I see the geometry of the Hellhound and I see huge problems based on my previous analyses. Low mounted cockpit and high-mounted, exposed STs are a bad combination; this theory is backed up by comparable empirical data of which I have a lot after playing Mechs with similar weaknesses in the geometry. Same with the hardpoints and other factors.

I know you want my experience and my results to mean nothing, just like you want PGI to balance everything perfectly. The reality and your wishes are not the same.

Sereglach, on 09 April 2019 - 07:36 PM, said:

You're missing the core point here, completely, or are intentionally choosing to ignore it. The reality of introducing any mech into MWO is potential monetization to keep the game alive. So . . . what sells a mech and what would garner PGI goodwill in introducing other mechs? The reality here is that community goodwill and willingness to spend money is what sells mechs. .

I ignored it for your sake, but if you really wish it, you can show me how popular the Hellhound is.

How many people voted for it in polls compared to other Mechs, how many have expressed their desire to buy it? Hard numbers, please. A handful of users in this thread, if that many, are hardly representative considering they also told me how popular the Hellspawn was, and that was a rare sight even on release. (Again, if I am wrong, show me the sales figures and hard numbers).

If it were such a hit, PGI probably would not have released units like the Vapor Eagle or the Hellfire before it.


The point I am trying to make is not that the Hellhound will never be good under any circumstances. It is perfectly possible that PGI saves the Mech. It is just unlikely. More likely it will share the fate of so many underperforming Mechs which had not enough potential. Those Mechs are not enjoyed, not played, they are a waste of a release. A Mech with greater potential is more likely to be viable and thus able to bring fun to MWO. So when I have to decide between a low potential Mech (that might be buffed enough if the stars align but probably wont) and a high potential Mech (which more likely than not will be fun in game), I naturally chose the latter.


Yes, I really ignored a lot of your stuff because there is just too much to correct. One example:

Sereglach, on 09 April 2019 - 07:36 PM, said:

many (if not most) MechWarrior players have never touched TT in their life, whether you like that reality or not.

You are implying I somehow would not like that reality. (Yes, you do. Do not even deny it.) My first taste of BT was not TT, it was the BoK, then MW:2. So I do not mind people coming from any MW-game. I also played MW:4 and liked it.
That was almost 20 years ago. Now I play MWO and I wish to play it with Mechs that have more to offer than "was in MW:4". I want fun Mechs. Yes, I know, you think it totally can be fun; we had this one already. My distain for bad Mechs has nothing to do with their origins and everything with their underperformance resulting in no fun. I do not dislike the Hellspawn because it was in MW:4, I dislike it because it is useless and blocked the release slot of a worthy unit.

You are assuming so much stuff that I am more comfortable with ignoring it than writing lengthy rebuttals nobody wants to read.

Heck I guess nobody wanted to read the last pages of this thread anyway.

So I will just stop here. You write your answer if you wish (I'd be really interested in those sales figures!), and we all imagine I wrote something in response, and so on. It is not like the discussion is getting forward anyway. And while you play less and less, I'll enjoy this game in fun Mechs.

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

[Sereglach]

FLG 01, on 09 April 2019 - 09:02 PM, said:

I have become skilled because I analysed things, learned and adapted. I see the geometry of the Hellhound and I see huge problems based on my previous analyses. Low mounted cockpit and high-mounted, exposed STs are a bad combination; this theory is backed up by comparable empirical data of which I have a lot after playing Mechs with similar weaknesses in the geometry. Same with the hardpoints and other factors.

I know you want my experience and my results to mean nothing, just like you want PGI to balance everything perfectly. The reality and your wishes are not the same.

Right there you proved yourself wrong and played into exactly what I said. You're assuming your personal skill in gaming whatever rules/balance that PGI puts forward gives you the knowledge to claim to decide what is a good or bad mech in MWO. However, with a wave of the magic balancing wand, PGI could upend MWO balance in a heartbeat and what's good or bad changes overnight. People like you are the reason Russ makes comments like he does and dismisses people for making videos like the "Unfunning of MWO". Mentalities like that are the reason PGI has finally started ignoring the community and pushed forward with things like missile system adjustments and buffs.

The reality that PGI has fallen behind on balance, because the community bickers too much to come to any consensus. That creates the situation where bad mechs remain bad and good mechs remain good, with new mechs being make-or-break at launch due to how well PGI actually treats them. It's the reason Solaris still has 7 divisions after being out for a whole year.

FLG 01, on 09 April 2019 - 09:02 PM, said:

I ignored it for your sake, but if you really wish it, you can show me how popular the Hellhound is.

How many people voted for it in polls compared to other Mechs, how many have expressed their desire to buy it? Hard numbers, please. A handful of users in this thread, if that many, are hardly representative considering they also told me how popular the Hellspawn was, and that was a rare sight even on release. (Again, if I am wrong, show me the sales figures and hard numbers).

If it were such a hit, PGI probably would not have released units like the Vapor Eagle or the Hellfire before it.

Funny . . . MW4 Hellhound isn't included in the most popular MWO poll because it was rejected by the poll maker. Only the Conjurer is present. That couldn't possibly be because of the TT Grognards protest the MW4 Hellhound's existence and the person running the thread sides with them, like people in this very thread did when it was brought up? Looks like you stand on the side of that vocal grognard minority that is happy to run the IP into its own grave. Therefore, your argument is even more baseless and hollow than the realities I've put forward.

On the other hand, obviously the Hellspawn did good enough in sales to promote several more MW4 based mech releases. Almost 6 months of nostalgic MW4 mech releases (Civil War, CW: Escalation, Thanatos, and Hellspawn) did well enough to keep the company running. For a small studio, 6 months of poor sales choices is easily enough to kill a company, especially one that's doubled its development staff over the past few years working on MW5 and already suffered a major financial debacle with their Transverse fiasco. So, you tell me . . . just how poorly did these hangar queens do for PGI, or are you afraid to admit that people bought nostalgic hangar queen art because they had enough nostalgic goodwill to support the art, if nothing else?

As for the other MW4 mechs? Apparently PGI saw enough of the nostalgia for that game to decide to release those mechs; and they targeted underrepresented weight brackets for the first implementations. Note the sales patterns:
- Only after the nostalgic goodwill of Civil War packs, Thantos, and Hellspawn did they go for the Piranha.
- Only after the nostalgic goodwill of the Black Lanner, Fafnir, Blood Asp, and Flea (based on MW4 art) did they go for the Hellfire and Vulcan.
- Then they went for the MW2 nostalgia of the Incubus and MW3 nostalgia of the Champion before going for the Vapor Eagle.

So you tell me, how is the pattern I pointed out against reality? How am I wrong in my statments about the way PGI truly works their sales figures and mech choices? That's averaging 1 "dark horse" or obscure mech per 2 nostalgic favorites. That's right in line with what I outlined above. PGI needs to garner nostalgic goodwill to be able to push the obscure mechs. Sorry, but great skill in the game does not make for a marketing professional; and you proved yourself wrong yet again.

I'm sorry you are unwilling to acknowledge reality, because that's exactly what you've been doing in refusing to actually address the points of the debate. Therefore, if you don't want to acknowledge them, then yeah, I'll put the hard numbers in front of you that show you're wrong, since you asked so kindly.

FLG 01, on 09 April 2019 - 09:02 PM, said:

The point I am trying to make is not that the Hellhound will never be good under any circumstances. It is perfectly possible that PGI saves the Mech. It is just unlikely. More likely it will share the fate of so many underperforming Mechs which had not enough potential. Those Mechs are not enjoyed, not played, they are a waste of a release. A Mech with greater potential is more likely to be viable and thus able to bring fun to MWO. So when I have to decide between a low potential Mech (that might be buffed enough if the stars align but probably wont) and a high potential Mech (which more likely than not will be fun in game), I naturally chose the latter.

No, what you're doing is refusing to acknowledge that PGI can make or break any mech with their balancing choices, but that they have the tools to make any mech viable. You're still dancing around that and trying to use TT paper stats to dictate where PGI should or shouldn't utilize their mechpack resources. You make excuses for mechs you like, such as the Nightstar, while trying to create hollow arguments on why PGI shouldn't focus efforts on mechs you don't like.

Then, of course, being a skilled player capable of gaming whatever systems PGI puts forward, you're at least willing to set aside your personal distaste of a mech if it happens to turn out to be good in the game.

FLG 01, on 09 April 2019 - 09:02 PM, said:

Yes, I really ignored a lot of your stuff because there is just too much to correct. One example:

You are implying I somehow would not like that reality. (Yes, you do. Do not even deny it.) My first taste of BT was not TT, it was the BoK, then MW:2. So I do not mind people coming from any MW-game. I also played MW:4 and liked it.
That was almost 20 years ago. Now I play MWO and I wish to play it with Mechs that have more to offer than "was in MW:4". I want fun Mechs. Yes, I know, you think it totally can be fun; we had this one already. My distain for bad Mechs has nothing to do with their origins and everything with their underperformance resulting in no fun. I do not dislike the Hellspawn because it was in MW:4, I dislike it because it is useless and blocked the release slot of a worthy unit.

You are assuming so much stuff that I am more comfortable with ignoring it than writing lengthy rebuttals nobody wants to read.

Heck I guess nobody wanted to read the last pages of this thread anyway.

So I will just stop here. You write your answer if you wish (I'd be really interested in those sales figures!), and we all imagine I wrote something in response, and so on. It is not like the discussion is getting forward anyway. And while you play less and less, I'll enjoy this game in fun Mechs.

Well, you obviously didn't like reality being pointed out, because you took quite a bit of offense several times at having your skill being called irrelevant to the discussion and being told that you're smoking something if you think the Uziel and Hellhound look the same. So, yeah, I wouldn't call the conversation irrelevant. A lot has been discovered here that I think is pertinent.

1. You think personal skill somehow equates to being able to make viable company decisions on sales, which is laughable.
2. You refuse to acknowledge that all of the lore work for the MW4 Hellhound has already been done.
3. You can't refute that any mech can be made viable by PGI . . . in fact you admitted as much through discussion of the Urbanmech and Annihilator.
4. You admitted that the Hellhound has the potential to be a 50t Linebacker, but still refuse the design outright on personal tastes, which in turn renders your "logic" on viability of mechs moot, because you're going off of personal tastes. The Nightstar says hello.

You're right, I'm pointing out that you don't like the reality of the situation. You've walked right into that numerous times with your dodging of the points and avoiding honest debate. At least you're willing to admit it and walk away.

[Karl Streiger]

Wait, tried to follow your discussion but I think you both missed the other arguments.

The Hellhound has a lot of things common with the Uziel - from the design perspective cockpit shortly above the hip, high shoulders - arms in height of the cockpit (front view - it has exactly the same indicators that broke the Uziel).

However, there are make or break variables that speak for the Hellhound.

The first the MW4 Hellhound compared to the MW4 Uziel has no upper arms, instead of tiny upper arms, you might get (rifleman) style arm.
The Hellhound does not use digitigrade legs - Can't help my self to think, that the Uziel was a test to animate legs with 4 joints; but it failed and instead of redesigning the legs (Crab, Huntsman) they kept those tiny legs. This results in a mech that loses a lot of volumes there, so you have a large Mech with a large torso and tiny arms - dead sins.
Also as mentioned (but I don't think this hold water) the Hellhound has a long torso when looking at the MW4 mech.

The high mounts above the cockpit are worthless thx to HSR - but when you don't use those pods maybe they will vanish (Madcat) then you might have a solid mech - with its main guns in large pods in the arms - at cockpit height.

I admit, I'm indifferent towards the Hellhound didn't use it in MW4 (used the Uziel instead - and it hurts to see what they did to this great Mech), but given the choice between Conjurer or MS Hellhound, I rather take the Hellhound/WarDog.


Other "good" Mechs that should not be good is a question of quirks and like the 3d model, quirks is unsteady. You can not build your arguments on the base of those guessing

So FLG use a correct base of his argument in looking for Mechs that have already a good geometry and good hardpoints to start with, weapons above the cockpit are a waste (thx again you damn HSR) - a high placed cockpit with a weapon in height of the cockpit are ideal - twisting favors humanoid mechs as well.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 10 April 2019 - 12:27 AM.

[Odanan]

Guys, in the end you know PGI will choose the mech that (they think) will sell better, don't you? MW4 mechs certainly will sell more than obscure designs like the Hellfire.

[Bishop Steiner]

Odanan, on 10 April 2019 - 03:54 AM, said:

Guys, in the end you know PGI will choose the mech that (they think) will sell better, don't you? MW4 mechs certainly will sell more than obscure designs like the Hellfire.

eh that doesn't explain the Vulcan, etc....

[Karl Streiger]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 April 2019 - 05:33 AM, said:

eh that doesn't explain the Vulcan, etc....

wasn't the Vulcan your 'fault'? clearly one of the later more decent looking Mechs

Edited by Karl Streiger, 10 April 2019 - 06:40 AM.

[FLG 01]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 April 2019 - 05:33 AM, said:

eh that doesn't explain the Vulcan, etc....

The Vulcan and other recent IS releases are probably a result of MW:5. Set in the late SW-era PGI seems to prefer Mechs from that era, as they can use them for MWO and MW:5.

As for Clan Mechs... It is hard to tell what drives those decisions, and without knowing the sales figures I would not jump to conclusions anyway. PGI sure takes its time to release the Hellhound, as it is now more than two years since announcing the FCCW timejump, and we got obscure units like Hellfire first.

Karl Streiger, on 10 April 2019 - 06:39 AM, said:

wasn't the Vulcan your 'fault'? clearly one of the later more decent looking Mechs

What's more important: it is enjoyable and people are having fun with it... in game. It was not my favourite and I never wanted it, but playing the Vulcan changed my mind.

[Sereglach]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 April 2019 - 05:33 AM, said:

eh that doesn't explain the Vulcan, etc....

I actually covered that in the debate. PGI knows their marketing and what they need to do to sell mechs. By capitalizing on several nostalgic mechs to build community goodwill, PGI can then capitalize on that to goodwill to bring in a more obscure mech. People are then willing to give the obscure mech a chance after they've had their nostalgia fed.

Karl Streiger, on 10 April 2019 - 12:22 AM, said:

*snip*

Actually you apparently missed my side entirely if you're just digging into the cosmetic view of the mech, but failing to acknowledge that PGI has, can, and will make or break mechs with their own artwork and the tools at their disposal used for balancing mechs. The cosmetics were already laid out in how the Hellhound could turn out like a 50t Linebacker; and yet that was refused based on nothing more than personal tastes and desires in mechs.

PGI actually owes it to the community to make all mechs at least reasonably viable; and that was even set forth as a design goal when implementing Solaris. PGI's intent was to use Solaris to help balance mechs from 7 divisions down to 3, but community flip-flopping and bickering (yet again) on the Solaris game mode caused PGI to re-shift focus and abandon the project. Saying a mech will just be bad, and we should wholeheartedly accept that, when PGI has the tools to balance mechs is a joke and that's more of the community giving up on itself rather than open dialogs with PGI on helping the nostalgic hangar queens.

Regardless, the core point was that personal skill in the game doesn't correlate to being able to decide PGI's marketing strategy better than themselves. All personal skill means is that the player can adapt to whatever the "meta" is and whatever mechs prove to be "good" or "bad" based on PGI's releases, regardless of efforts made to balance them or not. PGI know, frankly far better than FLG or just about any of us, what mechs to pick and when to release them. They've actually proven that with their economic survival over the years, growing their company despite a niche player base, and managing to extend their license with Microsoft to make MW5.

[FLG 01]

Sereglach, on 10 April 2019 - 07:30 AM, said:

Regardless, the core point was that personal skill in the game doesn't correlate to being able to decide PGI's marketing strategy better than themselves.

Since you keep coming back to that, I have to note that I never said anything like it. When I call a Mech 'bad' in this thread it means (potential) in-game performance, and yes my understanding of this game does allow me to analyse what Mechs can work in game, and how.

I do not refer to the (projected) sales figures or the emotional impact of a Mech when calling it bad. Of course a bad Mech (in terms of in-game performance) can sell well. I am pretty sure the Hollander would sell really well. I am not 100% sure, of course, since we do not have sufficient data to make any definite statement on marketing or economic viabilty.

Edited by FLG 01, 10 April 2019 - 07:48 AM.

[Sereglach]

FLG 01, on 10 April 2019 - 07:46 AM, said:

Since you keep coming back to that, I have to note that I never said anything like it. When I call a Mech 'bad' in this thread it means (potential) in-game performance, and yes my understanding of this game does allow me to analyse what Mechs can work in game, and how.

I do not refer to the (projected) sales figures or the emotional impact of a Mech when calling it bad. Of course a bad Mech (in terms of in-game performance) can sell well. I am pretty sure the Hollander would sell really well. I am not 100% sure, of course, since we do not have sufficient data to make any definite statement on marketing or economic viabilty.

I'm coming back to it because it's true. You stated multiple times how you KNOW mechs because of your great "skill" and you feel you know what mechs PGI should and shouldn't be putting effort into releasing (you even did it again, just now . . . get it through your head . . . your "skill" means nothing). You emphasized how your "skill" needs to be given credence and you demanded I show you the hard numbers that proved you wrong. I did just that, for you, and showed you how PGI capitalizes on nostalgia to fuel their marketing strategy.

At the same time you admit PGI can make or break mechs on a whim through artwork, quirks, etc. yet say that only mechs which look good on paper should have effort put into them. You can't have it both ways; and obviously PGI's model proves you very wrong in this regard. If PGI wants a super-nostalgic mech to have a super release (Annihilator), PGI can make even the worst hitboxes a viable, if not OP, mech. Therefore, in the end, that means you're using nothing but your personal tastes to drive your points on what mechs you want PGI to release, and making excuses if they don't go the way you want (Nightstar says hi).

In the end, if you want more obscure mechs, then you need to demand PGI put more effort into balancing the nostalgic hangar queens, so they garner more community goodwill off of each release and aren't outright hangar queens, and then PGI has more clout to release more obscure mechs more frequently.

Edited by Sereglach, 10 April 2019 - 08:17 AM.

[FLG 01]

Sereglach, on 10 April 2019 - 08:05 AM, said:

you demanded I show you the hard numbers that proved you wrong. I did just that, for you, and showed you how PGI capitalizes on nostalgia to fuel their marketing strategy.

I actually did not doubt nostalgia plays a part, in fact I have been saying it time and again. I merely wanted hard numbers on how many people would like to buy the Hellhound; you did not provide one. I wanted sales figures; you did not provide them. I do not have such data, and you do not either.
You just go on endlessly on what I 'really' meant, how evil I am and so on. Everybody got that by now, and I am sure people are super exited to read it.

[Gas Guzzler]

Is the anticipation killing anyone else? Should get a mech pack announcement AND beginning of MAD II countdown