717 replies to this topic

[SgtMagor]

I am going to have so much fun with the Glad, thank you, thank you very much http://lilliemcferri...x537-140830.png

[CoffiNail]

[Ryoken]

Navid A1, on 12 June 2015 - 11:09 AM, said:

Special Geometry... first destroyed alex masterwork EBJ and now this: (the video is using a very unhealthy FOV btw)

This is why we need special geometry options someday along the road.

It is not only for aesthetics but also hinders gameplay on some mechs. (IIRC Locust is also suffering from "special geometry")

[Syndrome Stoned]

thats not the cockpit of an EBJ its of the exe

[Luscious Dan]

Nobody said it was an Ebon Jaguar cockpit. The quote claims the modelers didn't translate the Ebon Jaguar artwork to the game model, and in addition to that claim the Executioner Invasion variant has the faulty side-burns.

Personally I quite like the Jaguar game model (I think it's one of the better translations of Alex's concept work), and I think the koala sideburns are a complete non-issue at reasonable FOV settings. If you need to be zoomed out to anywhere near 0.60x zoom to see the sideburns, they aren't a problem for the majority of users. I like my default zoom around 0.87x personally, so it shouldn't affect me at all.

[Wintersdark]

Jaspbo1, on 12 June 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

Liking MASC, however speed tweak means you get less overall value out of the tonnage spent on MASC, going from 64 to 84 is a twenty KPH difference, that's great! Going from 71 to 84 is only 13kph which is still the same boost of the non speed tweak so that's good, but it's no cigar, I'd say either 89 or 91 would be far suitable.

That's just off assumption, haven't played it of course, also the cool down might be a bit long, but we'll see what happens when it arrives.

The Exe is darn ugly sexy though.

it may not be a large top speed difference, but the acceleration difference is *enormous*. They say it impacts twist and turn speed too, which will be extremely useful for a 95 tonner.


But this aside, I simply CAN NOT WAIT to see how wild MASC is on my Scat.

[Duckpool]

So, basically, there are going to be a lot of MASC'd up Executioners come Tuesday then...count me in for that party.

[Navid A1]

Duckpool, on 12 June 2015 - 02:24 PM, said:

So, basically, there are going to be a lot of MASC'd up Executioners come Tuesday then...count me in for that party.

I'm gonna need a few more buttons on my keyboard.
I use shift for my group 6.... (6 weapon groups FTW...)

[Wintersdark]

Navid A1, on 12 June 2015 - 11:50 AM, said:

Then how's that those "STUFF" does not happen to non-(I) mech?

.... And (P) mechs. Poor Locust.

[Koniving]

Navid A1, on 11 June 2015 - 03:54 PM, said:

EBJ vs

NVA:

Issue is the TBR, Nova, and a number of others are using Cataphract animations. Hence the high stances.

The EBJ, possibly, has a new animation set? (That would really get me excited; as an animation geek myself). That or it's using the Raven/Locust/Kitfox/Adder animation set.

Either way, I'm content with the EBJ's lower stance; some of the early shots left me very unsettled due to the 'high' stand during the first shots during its walk cycle.

I'd rather see this:


As opposed to this.



(Which leaves a speculation; low neutral stance, high walk?)

Spoiler

Kinda going from this


to this?

(I agree, the Timber Wolves stand WAY too dang high as do the Stormcrows. Truth be told... Novas always stood high but the legs connected to the shoulders... where here it has a pelvis.)

Edited by Koniving, 12 June 2015 - 03:01 PM.

[Pezzer]

Bilbo, on 12 June 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

According to Russ, in the post above yours, they don't show up until 78 FoV, so I think you are safe.

I honestly don't believe his statement. After playing with 75 FoV I can tell you that at least some of that unique geometry is going to get in the way at the edges of my vision, all because I pre-ordered the Mech with money instead of buying it with C-Bills.

And as I said, the cockpit view needs to be fixed anyways. The external model has those side-plates BELOW the cockpit view, not next to it.

[Bilbo]

Pezzer, on 12 June 2015 - 03:00 PM, said:

I honestly don't believe his statement. After playing with 75 FoV I can tell you that at least some of that unique geometry is going to get in the way at the edges of my vision, all because I pre-ordered the Mech with money instead of buying it with C-Bills.

And as I said, the cockpit view needs to be fixed anyways. The external model has those side-plates BELOW the cockpit view, not next to it.

78 is kind of specific to be off the cuff, but I guess we'll see on Tuesday.

[JRR1285]

I really hope that a good implementation of MASC leads the way to other 'mechs like the Firemoth and Flea.

[Bloodweaver]

Pezzer, on 12 June 2015 - 03:00 PM, said:

I honestly don't believe his statement. After playing with 75 FoV I can tell you that at least some of that unique geometry is going to get in the way at the edges of my vision, all because I pre-ordered the Mech with money instead of buying it with C-Bills.

And as I said, the cockpit view needs to be fixed anyways. The external model has those side-plates BELOW the cockpit view, not next to it.

Highlander has similar plates along the sides, and has never been a problem. This really is a non-issue, aside from the "cockpit view not matching the 'Mech model" element. But that has been a long-standing issue, and affects other 'Mechs much more drastically.

[Odanan]

PGI, now you added MASC to the game, you can add these variants:

Cataphract CTF-3L
Wolverine WVR-7D
Wolverine WVR-7M

Unfortunately, these are the only IS variants with MASC so far...

EDIT: here are the suggested hardpoints:

Spoiler

Cataphract CTF-3L
DHS, XL Engine

RA 2e
RT 1e, 1b
CT
H
LT 1e, MASC
LA 1e

Wolverine WVR-7D
Jump (5), FF, XL Engine

RA 1b [inflated to 3b]
RT MASC
CT
H 1e
LT 1m [inflated to 2m]
LA

Wolverine WVR-7M
Jump (5), DHS, XL Engine

RA 2e
RT 1e, MASC
CT
H 1e
LT 1m [inflated to 2m]
LA

Edited by Odanan, 13 June 2015 - 02:42 AM.

[Fenrisian Wolf]

I cant wait to try the Ebon Jaguar and Gladiator out. The Cauldron Born models looks very impressive

[Odanan]

JRR1285, on 12 June 2015 - 04:05 PM, said:

I really hope that a good implementation of MASC leads the way to other 'mechs like the Firemoth and Flea.

Those two mechs can't have MASC or they would break the game's speed limit, running at 200+ km/h.

IS lights in general can't equip MASC unless they have a very low starting speed (such as the Panther or UrbanMech) resulting in a smaller maximum engine.

Fire Moth (Dasher) could be added without MASC, however, and it would still be very fast, but there is a Clan light Omnimech with MASC perfect for the game: the Hellion (it's form 3059, so Clan Wave 5 or 6...)

[Frost Lord]

Ryoken, on 12 June 2015 - 01:45 PM, said:

This is why we need special geometry options someday along the road.

It is not only for aesthetics but also hinders gameplay on some mechs. (IIRC Locust is also suffering from "special geometry")

just need to change the point of view, i changed it to about 80 and the locust is sweat now i dont even get blinded by the pirate banes machine guns anymore.

[Nightshade24]

Ovion, on 12 June 2015 - 06:11 AM, said:

Stock is balanced by other things

Just ignoring the other parts as I doubt I can persuade you the things about quirks nad how they are important for stock based gameplay as most people want stock for a lore like experience...


however instead I will focus on that little part:

Want to know how it was ballanced on stock? money, c-bills, repair time, quantity.
Things MW: O or private matches can not do or provide.

[Sereglach]

I love the implementation of MASC. The speed jump looks like a more modest ~20% boost (looks like 18.6% for the Gladiator going from 71.2kph to 84.5kph) instead of a 33% boost from TT (mechs run double walk speed, with MASC, in TT instead of a 50% increase over walk for normal running).

The system of implementation is great, and prevents a new form of poptarting/hill-humping, from arising with MASC, by using the reticle shake. Granted, you could still pull it off, if you time your MASC usage right, but it'll be a skill based thing. At first I was worried the "overload" happened way too quick at the beginning of the video, but was pleasantly reassured seeing the much slower buildup later in the video, without the time-lapsed suicide.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That brings another point . . . what other MASC mechs (particularly my beloved lights) could they implement:

So, for the Flea, if you put it in with an engine cap of 170, which would let it run at 151.5 normally, and allowed it to carry MASC, then it would theoretically run around 180 (or just a hair under). It increases the speed cap by 10kph, BUT it also gives the mech an additional ton to allocate towards firepower if it equips MASC (1 ton in a 20 ton mech is quite a bit of space, relatively speaking).

Now, sadly for the Firemoth (another mech I'd love to see in game . . . I love my lights), unless they get hit registration reliable at 200+kph, this mech isn't happening with MASC. However, I'd be just as happy to let it in the game without MASC, have it running around at 162, and allocate the extra ton to omnipod space.

Then, IF they get hit registration reliable at those speeds, then they could theoretically turn around and add the MASC hardpoint to the CT of the Firemoth, and fix it in there, as it's supposed to be. Although I want to see the inflated hitboxes removed from mechs like the Raven and Locust legs that are used to "increase hit reliability" on their narrow profile legs. I don't want to see that happen to all the super-fast mechs as the "fix" to allow higher speeds, and thereby get MASC on lights.