391 replies to this topic

[Dawnstealer]

shad0w4life, on 02 October 2015 - 07:22 AM, said:

Or they could fix flamers

Oh man - now I pretty much have to make one with a TAG, ML, and the rest Flamers. It'll be glorious.

[RolfS]

Closer to the original than the Marauder, but I would only pay money for the original original mechs, not copy cats that are supposedly the same. That unseens still cant be used after 30 years of the original macross series is EPIC FAIL.

[Trystan Thorne]

lsp, on 02 October 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

Don't like it, doesn't look right. If you're going to do it, do it right and make it look like a Warhammer.

You mean like the Warhammer that will have HG on their backs?

I for one definitely get the Warhammer feel/vibe from this design.

[Gorgo7]

I don't like the looks at all. It appears too streamlined, as if a Clanner had designed it...
I understand that it is "just an artists rendering" but it really needs more sharp planes and projections.
Will pass until c-bills.

[Uncle Totty]

Bastardinc, on 02 October 2015 - 01:16 AM, said:

All they have to do is rid this variant of the machine gun hard points.

...aaaaaaand give IS chassis the ability to mount Clan-tech. (And vise versa.)

[TheDevilsIncarnate]

Sorry, 135 to HBS and none for you. I've spent nearly 1k on this game. Not another dime, especially with the extreme lack of progress.

Edit: I can't spells when tired.

Edited by TheDevilsIncarnate, 02 October 2015 - 12:50 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

Nathan K, on 02 October 2015 - 12:41 PM, said:

...aaaaaaand give IS chassis the ability to mount Clan-tech. (And vise versa.)

They would have to advance the timeline too far for that to happen. I know many players don't care about lore, but what makes this game a BattleTech game is lore. If PGI keeps caving on the lore aspect then I will just forget about MWO and leave it to the console kiddies, because we have a true lore-based BattleTech game on the way now.

[Uncle Totty]

Ed Steele, on 02 October 2015 - 12:49 PM, said:

They would have to advance the timeline too far for that to happen. I know many players don't care about lore, but what makes this game a BattleTech game is lore. If PGI keeps caving on the lore aspect then I will just forget about MWO and leave it to the console kiddies, because we have a true lore-based BattleTech game on the way now.

Well, not on the Clan side of things. They have been mounting Clan tech on IS chassis since Clan tech was made.

[Lance McRaven]

Just bought this package, can't see anything wrong with it. Love the game, and the mechanics of it. I have purchased every package so far, except the Founder's package, to show my support. would have been a Founder too, but my wife was terminal with Cancer at the time...and I lost her. Game was and still is my saving grace. Thanks for all you do, PGI!

[NocturnalBeast]

Nathan K, on 02 October 2015 - 12:57 PM, said:

Well, not on the Clan side of things. They have been mounting Clan tech on IS chassis since Clan tech was made.

In lore Clan warriors would never want to use inferior IS mechs / equipment unless they were Solahma and forced to.

[Nightshade24]

Karl Streiger, on 02 October 2015 - 01:23 AM, said:

A pitty we will see GaussHammers, AAHammers, LurmHammers, WubHammers.....

We need THAT "STOCK MECH" Button seriously

WubHammers is a thing in stock though... well on some variants.

I do want to have the stock private matches button as well.

Steinar Bergstol, on 02 October 2015 - 01:54 AM, said:

-snip-

eh... even though the Warhammer is the early icon of BT, it was soon replaced with the battlemaster for the icon role and then later on Timberwolf after the 1997 I think it was (or 1998? can't remember). Saying timberwolf is not an icon is incorrect, it's just the newer icon, and sadly the one that represents MW: O as it's that time in the timeline.

Bolter01, on 02 October 2015 - 01:37 AM, said:

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the big deal with this mech, is it just pure nostalgia and history?

It is a good fire support mech in lore and stock. But ignoring that because some 20 or so people will yell in my ears stock means nothing in this game.

It is the equivilant of the IS Hellbringer but a battlemech and not an omnimech, it has twin ballistics+ in the torso as well as able to do some missile builds. On top of that it has a spot light on it's upper torso so perhaps this may be the first mech to have a functional spotlight which will be useful for MW: O night maps.

[Will9761]

Ed Steele, on 02 October 2015 - 01:10 PM, said:

In lore Clan warriors would never want to use inferior IS mechs / equipment unless they were Solahma and forced to.

IS mechs were also used for second-line and garrison forces, as long as they were Star League-era hand-me-downs.

[Uncle Totty]

Will9761, on 02 October 2015 - 02:12 PM, said:

IS mechs were also used for second-line and garrison forces, as long as they were Star League-era hand-me-downs.

The IICs are really just full Clan tech re-fits of old Star League chassis.

In fact they were never called "IIC"s till they hit the IS.

Edited by Nathan K, 02 October 2015 - 02:22 PM.

[Uncle Totty]

Ed Steele, on 02 October 2015 - 01:10 PM, said:

In lore Clan warriors would never want to use inferior IS mechs / equipment unless they were Solahma and forced to.

That does not change the fact that they were used.

[Koniving]

lsp, on 02 October 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

Don't like it, doesn't look right. If you're going to do it, do it right and make it look like a Warhammer.

Looks pretty close; there's an issue with using the original warhammer art. The original warhammer art is 'licensed without a proper authority to license it', yada yada yada.... from Robotech/Macross, a Japanese anime.

[NocturnalBeast]

Nathan K, on 02 October 2015 - 02:26 PM, said:

That does not change the fact that they were used.

Fine, if Clanners want to roleplay disgraced warriors pulling garrison duty on an unimportant planet in the occupation zone than ok. I would not even mind if IS had a chance of salvaging some Clan tech and spending a huge amount of money to get it installed in one of their mechs. Or PGI can advance the timeline to after the Dark Age (current BattleTech timeline).

[Will9761]

Nathan K, on 02 October 2015 - 02:22 PM, said:

The IICs are really just full Clan tech re-fits of old Star League chassis.

In fact they were never called "IIC"s till they hit the IS.

That is true Nathan, but for the mech who didn't get the privilege they were only give the "C" to their name.

[Javin]

Not impressed with the art. When will we get more game and less mechs?

If players offer money for new maps or new options will you do that?

[Odanan]

process, on 01 October 2015 - 03:20 PM, said:

I wish the arms didn't look so... Gundam rifley. I guess I would prefer something more blunt. But overall I'm really digging the redesign.

It's also vaguely looks like a cross between a Battlemaster and a Hellbringer. Battlebringer? Hellmaster?

Awesome and Hellbringer. Awebringer. Or Hellsome?

Edited by Odanan, 02 October 2015 - 02:52 PM.

[Nightshade24]

Ed Steele, on 02 October 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

-snip-

you would be correct but the thing is the Clans would use IS mechs... Ghost bear had multiple accounts of using SLDF Kingcrabs and Highlanders which isn't a surprise because if you look at the ghost bears they tend to use battlemechs more then other clans as well as non clan battlemechs...

There is also the orion and atlas II and mentioned regular Atlas which has been used by the clans, famously an Atlas II spotted on Tukayiid 3052. Debatable for the ghost bears if they were forced to use battlemechs due to low availability of omnimechs or clan omnimechs but the Orion and Atlas II was considered a great honour to pilot only fit for the best mechwarrior.

Granted, this isn't common enough to mean clanners should use SLDF mechs BUT the flipside is that ghost bear has more functional kingcrab 000b's then the entire IS in 3050's... it begs the question that should the IS use the Kingcrab (at least some variant) at all either?

ALSO the problem with adding the Warhammer (C) is there is really no need to... really.
We got the hellbringer in the heavy weight class as an omnimech and we got the Warhammer IIC as an assault as a battlemech. if any C mech was to ever occur it would not be the warhammer C...


However, on another topic... you would be true Ed Steel in BT clanners would often field a Clan omnimech instead of an inner sphere battlemech. but in MW: O there are many IS mechs that are superior to some clanners... due to omnitech limitations in MW: O and battlemech freedom. As well as quirks making things more of a nightmare of balance. That and many IS pilots use DHS, Endo, Min maxing, some XL's here and there. many MW: O IS mechs do what a lore timberwolf did and better. So if clanners existed in MW: O they would have dumped all there novas and ice ferrets for hunchbacks and shadowhawks or get more jagermechs then mad dogs and replace the warhawks with awesomes.

It's an awkward debate here. However that is just a point on the aspects of power in MW: O being a lot more different then in BT.

Javin, on 02 October 2015 - 02:50 PM, said:

Not impressed with the art. When will we get more game and less mechs?

If players offer money for new maps or new options will you do that?

Paying for mech packs is exactly that.

You think the same people who make the mech art is the same who do the map art?
or the same person who manages the packs and sales is the same person who codes a new game mode?


PGI is quite busy with a massive reballance aimming to change role warfare and better ballance in MW: O.
PGI is also busy working away at Community warfare wave 3.0 as well as Steam Release.

PGI is also working on moniters working in a mech as well as new additions to cosmetics to mechs as well as addign the first IS masc mech.

We are also seeing them massively redo maps with caustic valley being in 4 days.

And lots of people is poking russ to have the Warhammer to have that spot light functional.