1016 replies to this topic

[TheArisen]

CK16, on 04 July 2016 - 07:32 PM, said:

Dont worry sure they will add more Nova Cat content soon

(Hopefully some Diamond Shark's as well >.>, Gots to get the goods man!)

Did you guys have to commission these art works? Just curious.

I simply asked in a polite manner (With a touch of begging)
http://mwomercs.com/...nt-for-artwork/

Some of the artists saw the the thread and others I PM'd.

When asking I always made sure that I wasn't being pushy or whiny, I invited them to check it out and if they liked it, they would draw/render it.

Edited by TheArisen, 05 July 2016 - 12:26 AM.

[TheArisen]

Here's a question that could be fun to answer.

With PGI's model of releasing 3 basic variants + 1 hero & 2 extra variants, what should PGI do for the extra 2 variants?

[FLG 01]

There is always the canon downgrade of SL-tech during the Succession Wars:

"there was a gradual downgrading of specifications—standard autocannons replaced Ultra versions, ER lasers were dropped in favor of regular versions and so forth. Few low-tech designs appeared instantly; instead, designs like the MAD-3R Marauder emerged slowly from the Star League era “Lostech” versions." (1st SW sourcebook)

The Nightstar was not around in great numbers during the 1st SW, but it was there. Assuming some survived long enough to become such a victim of LosTech you end up with a quite credible downgrade:

• XL 285 --> STD 285
  
• DHS --> SHS
  
• Gauss Rifle --> AC/10
  
• ER PPC --> PPC
  
• MPL --> ML

Such a Nightstar NSR-10J (like the advanced MAD-2R became the MAD-3R) would work just fine. And it would be 100% in line with the existing canon, albeit naturally extinct by 3053 like so many other Mechs in game. To be honest I think it would be an even better choice than shoehorning a modified -9SS into the game, but that is no small part because I am a fan of the SWs.

Anyway, as much PGI may wish to give us a reinforcement pack... I don't think the NSR can provide 5 variants plus hero with the current tech. Three variants plus hero are already pushing the limits.

[Snowbluff]

It says it's in the marauder family but that's all wrong.
Wrong arm position
Wrong having hands
Wrong ballastics placement
Wrong leading side torsos not coming up the cockpit

[TheArisen]

Snowbluff, on 14 July 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

It says it's in the marauder family but that's all wrong.
Wrong arm position
Wrong having hands
Wrong ballastics placement
Wrong leading side torsos not coming up the cockpit

Just because it's a related design doesn't mean it's going to look nearly identical...

[Snowbluff]

TheArisen, on 14 July 2016 - 06:12 PM, said:

Just because it's a related design doesn't mean it's going to look nearly identical...

Well... if the legs aren't similiar... and the arm's are similar... and the side torsos aren't similiar... and subsequently the CT isn't similiar... WTH?

[TheArisen]

FLG 01, on 14 July 2016 - 04:21 PM, said:

There is always the canon downgrade of SL-tech during the Succession Wars:

"there was a gradual downgrading of specifications—standard autocannons replaced Ultra versions, ER lasers were dropped in favor of regular versions and so forth. Few low-tech designs appeared instantly; instead, designs like the MAD-3R Marauder emerged slowly from the Star League era “Lostech” versions." (1st SW sourcebook)

The Nightstar was not around in great numbers during the 1st SW, but it was there. Assuming some survived long enough to become such a victim of LosTech you end up with a quite credible downgrade:

• XL 285 --> STD 285
  
• DHS --> SHS
  
• Gauss Rifle --> AC/10
  
• ER PPC --> PPC
  
• MPL --> ML

Such a Nightstar NSR-10J (like the advanced MAD-2R became the MAD-3R) would work just fine. And it would be 100% in line with the existing canon, albeit naturally extinct by 3053 like so many other Mechs in game. To be honest I think it would be an even better choice than shoehorning a modified -9SS into the game, but that is no small part because I am a fan of the SWs.

Anyway, as much PGI may wish to give us a reinforcement pack... I don't think the NSR can provide 5 variants plus hero with the current tech. Three variants plus hero are already pushing the limits.

It is asking a lot but there are some mechs that have gotten multiple made up variants, specifically the Enforcer & Mauler. Those two both have two (arguably three for the Mauler) invented variants.

[TheArisen]

Snowbluff, on 14 July 2016 - 06:14 PM, said:

Well... if the legs aren't similiar... and the arm's are similar... and the side torsos aren't similiar... and subsequently the CT isn't similiar... WTH?

The mini's are fairly similar in design.

[Snowbluff]

Eh, that works.

BISHOP! plz makes a nightstar more like the MWO marauder.

[TheArisen]

Snowbluff, on 14 July 2016 - 06:22 PM, said:

Eh, that works.

BISHOP! plz makes a nightstar more like the MWO marauder.

I'd say Soku Yamashita's rendition shares a reasonable resemblance.

[Snowbluff]

TheArisen, on 14 July 2016 - 06:23 PM, said:

I'd say Soku Yamashita's rendition shares a reasonable resemblance.

Eh, it does look like the TT Marauder (canon crappy field of view and all), but not like the MWO one (which has an awesome field of view).

[FLG 01]

The Nightstar is part of the Marauder family, or in BT terms: "the series". There are three Mechs directly derived from the Marauder design principles hence sharing a number of similarities. But they are not just Marauders of different weights. They were simply designed with the Marauder in mind: Brothers, but not necessarily siblings.

The familiy heritage is not as important in the 50ies and 60ies of the 31st century anymore as it was when the series was designed. That's because the Marauder design features became less unique, hence the Marauder's brothers did not stand out as much anymore.

(Out of universe: there are some inconsistencies in the timeline and the uniqueness of the Marauder's design features, and perhaps a number of retcons).

[TheArisen]

Hey FLG I had an idea about your SW Nightstar. To distinguish it from the others replace the erppc with a Ac10. That'd give it unique hard points & still be loyal to it's base.

[FLG 01]

The NSR has the tonnage to do so, but from a lore point of view, a lot speaks against such a modification in the SW. If you want a third ballistic HP in the RT, you might better look for a hypothetical FedCom variant. With advanced cannons and CASE around it makes a whole lot more sense to use an AC in place of the PPC. And Davions actually like their ACs.

You have to keep in mind that ACs in the SWs were in a bad spot: no CASE, no special ammo, heavy. In fact, most people desired to replace their ACs with the more advanced PPCs if possible – not the other way around.
And we are talking about a major refit as you replace a large energy weapon with an even larger ammuntions-based weapon; also you need to upgrade the targeting system to handle the different weapon characteristics. I cannot see somebody going thes extra miles for what effectively is a major downgrade. If really no PPC were available, the LL would be the first choice of replacement.
I mean there is plenty of room for an odd NSR-survivor having gone through such a change, however as a common variant...?



Sorry to be a killjoy. Here is the the FedCom variant I mentioned.

NSR-9D

Equipment:

• Engine: XL 285
  
• Structure: STD
  
• Armour: STD
  
• Jump Jets: 1x LL, 1x RL

Armament and Ammunition:

• LA: 1x GR, 1x ML
  
• RA: 1x GR, 1x ML
  
• RT: 1x LB-10X, 1x LB-10X ammo, 1x CASE
  
• LT: 3x GR ammo, 1x CASE
  
• H: 1x SL

Both the JJ and the LB-10X AC fit the Davion style. You could also downgrade the GR for UAC/5s, use FF or ES, and upgrade the engine to the XL 380 (which is actually what I proposed earlier in this thread). In case this has something to do with the triple Gauss... (if not, don't read the spoiler):

Spoiler

please take it as a friendly advice: it won't make you happy. Just do the math and take the Banshee, our only 95 ton IS Mech:

• Remove all equipment, give it max armour with something less on the legs to be generous. You are left with 72.5 tons and 39 crits using ES:
  
  • Now calculate. Three GR need 45 tons and 21 crits. You are left with 27.5 tons and 18 crits.
    
  • Subtract 9 tons and 9 crits for the ammo (3x ammo for each GR). You are left with 18.5 tons and 11 crits.
    
  • Now comes the engine: you cannot take the XL since you are out of crits (6 + 3 + 3 for the XL). That means you can take the STD 250 at max, providing you with a speed of 45.8 kph after the speed tweak.
    
  • In case you want three ML as backup (and much more is hardly possible), you have 15.5 tons left. The problem is that engines with that weight require external heatsinks, further lowering your effective engine rating. You end with a 215 engine and 39 kph.
• So what if we decide for STD structure and XL engine?
  
  • Then you get 68 tons and 53 crits.
    
  • 3x GR with 3x ammo each leave you with 14 tons and 23 crits.
    
  • With a XL 275 engine you get 50.5 kph, and no backup weapons.
    
  • If you want the 3x ML, you have to take the XL 225 (as you need the external HS), which leaves you with 41.2 kph.
• So your four options, using 3x GR with 3x ammo each, are:
  
  • running 45 kph with STD engine
    
  • running 39 kph with STD engine, adding 3x ML,
    
  • running 50 kpg with XL
    
  • running 41 kph with XL, adding 3x ML

You may reduce the ammo a bit, though I think 3 tons per rifle is already pushing it, but in the end you are stuck with a Mech the Daishi can outrun. Do you really want that? You cannot even fire three GR at once.


Again, I do not mean any disrespect or hostility, I just want to make clear that this is not a good idea; not worth a variant

Edited by FLG 01, 15 July 2016 - 08:21 PM.

[TheArisen]

FLG 01, on 15 July 2016 - 08:18 PM, said:

The NSR has the tonnage to do so, but from a lore point of view, a lot speaks against such a modification in the SW. If you want a third ballistic HP in the RT, you might better look for a hypothetical FedCom variant. With advanced cannons and CASE around it makes a whole lot more sense to use an AC in place of the PPC. And Davions actually like their ACs.

You have to keep in mind that ACs in the SWs were in a bad spot: no CASE, no special ammo, heavy. In fact, most people desired to replace their ACs with the more advanced PPCs if possible – not the other way around.
And we are talking about a major refit as you replace a large energy weapon with an even larger ammuntions-based weapon; also you need to upgrade the targeting system to handle the different weapon characteristics. I cannot see somebody going thes extra miles for what effectively is a major downgrade. If really no PPC were available, the LL would be the first choice of replacement.
I mean there is plenty of room for an odd NSR-survivor having gone through such a change, however as a common variant...?



Sorry to be a killjoy. Here is the the FedCom variant I mentioned.

NSR-9D

Equipment:

• Engine: XL 285
  
• Structure: STD
  
• Armour: STD
  
• Jump Jets: 1x LL, 1x RL

Armament and Ammunition:

• LA: 1x GR, 1x ML
  
• RA: 1x GR, 1x ML
  
• RT: 1x LB-10X, 1x LB-10X ammo, 1x CASE
  
• LT: 3x GR ammo, 1x CASE
  
• H: 1x SL

Both the JJ and the LB-10X AC fit the Davion style. You could also downgrade the GR for UAC/5s, use FF or ES, and upgrade the engine to the XL 380 (which is actually what I proposed earlier in this thread). In case this has something to do with the triple Gauss... (if not, don't read the spoiler):

Spoiler

please take it as a friendly advice: it won't make you happy. Just do the math and take the Banshee, our only 95 ton IS Mech:

• Remove all equipment, give it max armour with something less on the legs to be generous. You are left with 72.5 tons and 39 crits using ES:
  
  • Now calculate. Three GR need 45 tons and 21 crits. You are left with 27.5 tons and 18 crits.
    
  • Subtract 9 tons and 9 crits for the ammo (3x ammo for each GR). You are left with 18.5 tons and 11 crits.
    
  • Now comes the engine: you cannot take the XL since you are out of crits (6 + 3 + 3 for the XL). That means you can take the STD 250 at max, providing you with a speed of 45.8 kph after the speed tweak.
    
  • In case you want three ML as backup (and much more is hardly possible), you have 15.5 tons left. The problem is that engines with that weight require external heatsinks, further lowering your effective engine rating. You end with a 215 engine and 39 kph.
• So what if we decide for STD structure and XL engine?
  
  • Then you get 68 tons and 53 crits.
    
  • 3x GR with 3x ammo each leave you with 14 tons and 23 crits.
    
  • With a XL 275 engine you get 50.5 kph, and no backup weapons.
    
  • If you want the 3x ML, you have to take the XL 225 (as you need the external HS), which leaves you with 41.2 kph.
• So your four options, using 3x GR with 3x ammo each, are:
  
  • running 45 kph with STD engine
    
  • running 39 kph with STD engine, adding 3x ML,
    
  • running 50 kpg with XL
    
  • running 41 kph with XL, adding 3x ML

You may reduce the ammo a bit, though I think 3 tons per rifle is already pushing it, but in the end you are stuck with a Mech the Daishi can outrun. Do you really want that? You cannot even fire three GR at once.


Again, I do not mean any disrespect or hostility, I just want to make clear that this is not a good idea; not worth a variant

Nah you're good man, I can handle someone disagreeing with me. I just hope ppl can handle me explaining my reasoning.

I thought to replace the PPC with a AC because I recall reading that ppcs were kinda scarce or hard to maintain so I thought it'd make sense to use a lower tech replacement. Then again, I suppose it wouldn't make sense to give a NSR to anyone but an important person who would also get the best toys.

I'm pretty sure you can fit an AC10 in with an XL, you'd just have to put the ammo in the CT or LT. & since unlike the Banshee this NSR wouldn't be putting multiple ballistics in one torso you could do ×3 AC10 & lasers, etc.

But since this would be a lower tech version I thought perhaps to also replace the Gauss with AC10s, extra ammo & lasers.

If you think that's a failure of an idea you can say so and I won't be offended. I'm just trying to come up with variants that are different from the others to allow more "flavor" in the chassis.

[FLG 01]

TheArisen, on 15 July 2016 - 09:15 PM, said:

If you think that's a failure of an idea you can say so and I won't be offended. I'm just trying to come up with variants that are different from the others to allow more "flavor" in the chassis.

Yeah, perhaps I was overreacting, sorry!
I am not in a good mood today, it seems.

An AC/10 in the RT would be easily possible if there is a factory doing the refit. Not sure about regimental assetts, though. I can see why you'd think the AC/10 and the PPC can be swapped. After all the PPC is more or less an energy-based AC/10, even in TT.
It is just that in the SWs I don't think that would be a common modification. In contrast, the response to the Clans in the 50ies spawned a lot of interesting (and often very experimental) designs. I could better imagine that there was a variant with a ballistic weapon in the torso on the drawing boards, perhaps even a prototype.

Perhaps the Word of Blake could help. They were nuts, sure, but they had some innovative designs often deviating from the usual paths. Let me think about it...

Edited by FLG 01, 15 July 2016 - 10:33 PM.

[TheArisen]

FLG 01, on 15 July 2016 - 10:32 PM, said:

Yeah, perhaps I was overreacting, sorry!
I am not in a good mood today, it seems.

An AC/10 in the RT would be easily possible if there is a factory doing the refit. Not sure about regimental assetts, though. I can see why you'd think the AC/10 and the PPC can be swapped. After all the PPC is more or less an energy-based AC/10, even in TT.
It is just that in the SWs I don't think that would be a common modification. In contrast, the response to the Clans in the 50ies spawned a lot of interesting (and often very experimental) designs. I could better imagine that there was a variant with a ballistic weapon in the torso on the drawing boards, perhaps even a prototype.

Perhaps the Word of Blake could help. They were nuts, sure, but they had some innovative designs often deviating from the usual paths. Let me think about it...

I think the best explanation for this variant would be to have a cheaper & easier to maintain variant of the NSR. I'm not a big lore guy so I'm not %100 on where that'd fit.

[FLG 01]

TheArisen, on 16 July 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:

I think the best explanation for this variant would be to have a cheaper & easier to maintain variant of the NSR. I'm not a big lore guy so I'm not %100 on where that'd fit.

You'd think the AC/10 is easier to maintain and repair, and cheaper too, wouldn't you? So would I. However when I looked that up, I was wrong... And that was a big suprise to me!

The prices for AC/10 and PPC are the same, but the AC/10 needs ammo which also costs. Considering the PPC is a much more advanced weapon, and accordingly has a higher tech rating, this is strange. But it gets even stranger: the AC/10 has worse availability rating than the PPC in the Succession Wars (C vs D). I had to check that twice, but both the TechManual and the newer Interstellar Operations (the current seminal book on such matters) are in agreement. And now the icing on the cake: due to the higher amount crits, the AC/10 is also harder to repair.

Isn't that weird? On the other hand, do not underestimate ACs. I know in MWO they seem little more advanced than the current tank guns, but according to fluff they are. They rely on relatively complicated mechanisms.

The more I think about it the more I am convinced a FedCom-variant should be the way to go. Beside the aforementioned Davion-variants (the Davions love their ACs), one may go the Steiner-way.
Seeing the Nightstar is the bigger brother of the Marauder, why not take the MAD-5S as an inspiration and make the Nightstar-9S essientially a larger version of that?

NSR-9S

Equipment:

• Engine: XL 380
  
• Structure: ES
  
• Armour: STD

Armament and Ammunition:

• LA: 1x ER PPC, 1x MPL, 1x MG
  
• RA: 1x ER PPC, 1x MPL, 1x MG
  
• RT: 1x GR, 2x GR ammo, 1x CASE
  
• LT: 1x MG ammo, 1x CASE
  
• H: 1x MPL

It is truly a larger MAD-5S with addition of the MG and the head-MPL, which allows for some experimenting in the MechLab. Especially since the MAD-5S configuration does not really work in MWO for a number of reasons (I tried...), this might be interesting.

[TheArisen]

FLG 01, on 16 July 2016 - 10:04 PM, said:

You'd think the AC/10 is easier to maintain and repair, and cheaper too, wouldn't you? So would I. However when I looked that up, I was wrong... And that was a big suprise to me!

The prices for AC/10 and PPC are the same, but the AC/10 needs ammo which also costs. Considering the PPC is a much more advanced weapon, and accordingly has a higher tech rating, this is strange. But it gets even stranger: the AC/10 has worse availability rating than the PPC in the Succession Wars (C vs D). I had to check that twice, but both the TechManual and the newer Interstellar Operations (the current seminal book on such matters) are in agreement. And now the icing on the cake: due to the higher amount crits, the AC/10 is also harder to repair.

Isn't that weird? On the other hand, do not underestimate ACs. I know in MWO they seem little more advanced than the current tank guns, but according to fluff they are. They rely on relatively complicated mechanisms.

The more I think about it the more I am convinced a FedCom-variant should be the way to go. Beside the aforementioned Davion-variants (the Davions love their ACs), one may go the Steiner-way.
Seeing the Nightstar is the bigger brother of the Marauder, why not take the MAD-5S as an inspiration and make the Nightstar-9S essientially a larger version of that?

NSR-9S

Equipment:

• Engine: XL 380
  
• Structure: ES
  
• Armour: STD

Armament and Ammunition:

• LA: 1x ER PPC, 1x MPL, 1x MG
  
• RA: 1x ER PPC, 1x MPL, 1x MG
  
• RT: 1x GR, 2x GR ammo, 1x CASE
  
• LT: 1x MG ammo, 1x CASE
  
• H: 1x MPL

It is truly a larger MAD-5S with addition of the MG and the head-MPL, which allows for some experimenting in the MechLab. Especially since the MAD-5S configuration does not really work in MWO for a number of reasons (I tried...), this might be interesting.

Well that is some baffling information. The concept of the PPC alone would suggest it's more difficult to repair & keep in stock.

I like your build but the Gauss in the RT with a XL is a little worrisome but i suppose in MWO that wouldn't be a big deal because we can modify our mechs so much.

[Alienized]

while i was reading through some sarna articles... it says production year 2767.
also, one of my favourite mechs, the cestus, was build 2766 and has 3 variants.
one mech i really would love to see is the devastator... production year 3048