193 replies to this topic

[Malleus011]

The artwork looks really good; it's a fantastic redesign. I love the Hero paintwork. Not so sure about the Collector's; we'll see how it looks in game.

Not terribly interested in the Cyclops as a 'mech, I don't think it'll transition well into MWO. But I'm glad to see it reimagined.

[Bishop Steiner]

Malleus011, on 20 April 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

The artwork looks really good; it's a fantastic redesign. I love the Hero paintwork. Not so sure about the Collector's; we'll see how it looks in game.

Not terribly interested in the Cyclops as a 'mech, I don't think it'll transition well into MWO. But I'm glad to see it reimagined.

Agreed.

In truth, I did buy the base, but mostly because my tax return came in yesterday. I like the looks enough, and weapon variety enough to say "why not"? I'm not in love with any current IS Assault, maybe this will be the oddball for me, like the RFL-3N for Heavies.

[0bsidion]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 April 2016 - 09:14 AM, said:

Agreed.

In truth, I did buy the base, but mostly because my tax return came in yesterday. I like the looks enough, and weapon variety enough to say "why not"? I'm not in love with any current IS Assault, maybe this will be the oddball for me, like the RFL-3N for Heavies.

I love my Maulers and King Crabs, although I started doing worse in my Maulers when my IS account hit Tier 3.

The original art for this thing was so damn goofy it was hard to get excited about this mech, but this rework concept art is quite the improvement. And 2 ballistic hard point inflation on the (S) variant, well, I love autocannons. If my favorites being the Mauler and KGC weren't a tip-off.

So I'm just kind of envisioning a 3 AC/5 build with over under barrels. Sure, the Mauler can do that too with higher hard points, but the convergence of over-under barrels is impossible to beat especially at close range. Not going to lie, between the art work, that, and the battle computer, I'm a little bit tempted.

[Bishop Steiner]

0bsidion, on 20 April 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

I love my Maulers and King Crabs, although I started doing worse in my Maulers when my IS account hit Tier 3.

The original art for this thing was so damn goofy it was hard to get excited about this mech, but this rework concept art is quite the improvement. And 2 ballistic hard point inflation on the (S) variant, well, I love autocannons. If my favorites being the Mauler and KGC weren't a tip-off.

So I'm just kind of envisioning a 3 AC/5 build with over under barrels. Sure, the Mauler can do that too with higher hard points, but the convergence of over-under barrels is impossible to beat especially at close range. Not going to lie, between the art work, that, and the battle computer, I'm a little bit tempted.

Well, Sleipner also allows me my beloved 2 ac10 loadout... so that might still happen, too.

[Sigilum Sanctum]

SmoothCriminal, on 20 April 2016 - 02:09 AM, said:

Finding it a little hard to get excited for this one - the XL400 is definitely an (expensive) interesting option but (to set out the hypothetical meta list above):

A: 3AC5+2LL, <- MAD/MAL can do this better
Q: 6xASRM6 <- this could be interesting - or a 3LL/7LRM5 version
Z: Obligatory laservomit model <- almost identical to MAL 2P
A-DC: 4xASRM4+2xUAC5? <- MAL 1R
P: ECM + 2xPPCs+2UAC5? <- AS7-DDC Why would you bring PPCs on an Atlas? Also you can't deadside that build on an Atlas.
S: 4xUAC5, 4xAC5, 4xLBX10(lol) <- back in MAL territory

that said, looks like it can sword and board, has more interesting missile options and the XL400. But no ££ is leaving my wallet until the Qurik pass (despite me wanting the gauss CD module).

And of course the Mauler will technically do any of those better, but that's not the point, those are theory crafting for what I want to do with my Geth prime.

I already love my Maulers, I'm sure I'll like this thing too.

[pbiggz]

With the amount of hardpoints it has its exactly what I expected it should be. A landlocked but freakishly well armed gunboat.

That said, I'm skeptical about how useful the sensor equipment will actually be.

[Dawnstealer]

Barantor, on 20 April 2016 - 08:16 AM, said:

I see the 10Z as a lighter Boar's Head, just copy that build in, or put longer range lasers in the arms.

That's kind of what I was getting at, though: if you build the thing like a 100 ton mech - 10 tons, you're going to end up running too hot, running too little ammo, trying to stuff a smaller engine in, etc.

I'd rather model it after a lighter mech build, and then have the extra tonnage/armor to work with.

[xVLFBERHxT]

As always Bishop. First posts about why we don't need a special mech, then after alex concept yeah its my next goto mech... Whining about quirks next?

[Bishop Steiner]

TrapJaw80, on 20 April 2016 - 10:32 AM, said:

As always Bishop. First posts about why we don't need a special mech, then after alex concept yeah its my next goto mech... Whining about quirks next?

still coming up with stupid and totally unsubstantiated claims to assuage your imagined butthurt by me?

Where did I post ANYTHING about "special" mechs, or that it would be my "go to" mech? Nor have I mentioned any campaigning for quirks.

Oh...I didn't. Thanks for failing. 3 For 3 Fail...qualify as Epic Fail?

pbiggz, on 20 April 2016 - 10:07 AM, said:

With the amount of hardpoints it has its exactly what I expected it should be. A landlocked but freakishly well armed gunboat.

That said, I'm skeptical about how useful the sensor equipment will actually be.

Yup. Agreed. With the amount of ECM, it's very questionable. An interesting idea, but IDK if it will matter in practice. Shame looking good doesn't = being good, lol.

Still, will run, will play, will hope I like it. But not getting my hopes up.

[LegendaryArticuno]

Archer 2.0, way too many missile hardpoints and will likely have useless missile quirks.

[Rakshasa]

So I logged on and $70 suddenly vanished from my wallet. What just happened? O.o



...oh right.

Celebratory dancing will now commence in the approved fashion.

[Bishop Steiner]

LegendaryArticuno, on 20 April 2016 - 10:39 AM, said:

Archer 2.0, way too many missile hardpoints and will likely have useless missile quirks.

Well, only one version is insane with Missiles.

The rest are between what..1-4 missile hardpoints most with a ton of ballistics and pretty solid energy to go with. 3-4 is pretty perfect for SRMs.

I'd be more concerned with the hardpoint elevation compared to hit box geometry than the actual types of hardpoints, which are IMO one of the 4 positive factors it has.

Pros:
-Dead Sexy
-Very nicely varied hardpoints
-400 Engine cap
-New Tech device

Cons:
-Bad geometry for hitboxes
-Low hardpoints
-New Tech probably neutered by ECM
-400 engine probably neutered by Huge Profile and lack of mobility quirks.

Just off the top of my head.

As more get's revealed I reckon those might get adjusted.

Rakshasa, on 20 April 2016 - 10:45 AM, said:

So I logged on and $70 suddenly vanished from my wallet. What just happened? O.o



...oh right.

Celebratory dancing will now commence in the approved fashion.

You got a lobotomy?

I kid, I kid. If you like it, buy it. Though I still think the Ultimate Pack should come at a 10% discount.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 20 April 2016 - 10:48 AM.

[xVLFBERHxT]

Bishop, you wrote so much in public, don't be so sensitive when someone notes that you repeat. No offense , it happens to the best ;-).

[Scout Derek]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 April 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

Well, only one version is insane with Missiles.

The rest are between what..1-4 missile hardpoints most with a ton of ballistics and pretty solid energy to go with. 3-4 is pretty perfect for SRMs.

I'd be more concerned with the hardpoint elevation compared to hit box geometry than the actual types of hardpoints, which are IMO one of the 4 positive factors it has.

Pros:
-Dead Sexy
-Very nicely varied hardpoints
-400 Engine cap
-New Tech device

Cons:
-Bad geometry for hitboxes
-Low hardpoints
-New Tech probably neutered by ECM
-400 engine probably neutered by Huge Profile and lack of mobility quirks.

Just off the top of my head.

As more get's revealed I reckon those might get adjusted.

Tinfoil hat theory, as I've called my guesses too. We, right now, are making assumptions from the lack of information. Until we get more information such as the BP and Lore info, along with, per say, like the Kodiak Stream, we shouldn't attempt to get ahead of ourselves, we have much to see.

Want a prime example? Some people said the Kodiak wouldn't be good, until quite a few saw the Kodiak In-game model. Opinion changes rather quickly when there's more information to digest and really make a good opinion based on what you've seen and think.

[Aethon]

Triordinant, on 19 April 2016 - 03:08 PM, said:

It's wearing a Robe of Eyes worth 120,000 gp!

Pretty sure Tzeentch approves of this thing's camo.

Edited by Aethon, 20 April 2016 - 11:12 AM.

[wanderer]

Quote

first impression: WTF engineers? make a dome like cockpitglass, cover it with a weird FOV limiting cappy.

Fluffwise, the original Cyclops had a distressingly high chance of being decapitated by enemy fire- being command 'Mechs and literally headhunted to begin with. The cowl was a redesign to better protect valuable officers.

[Bishop Steiner]

Scout Derek, on 20 April 2016 - 10:55 AM, said:

Tinfoil hat theory, as I've called my guesses too. We, right now, are making assumptions from the lack of information. Until we get more information such as the BP and Lore info, along with, per say, like the Kodiak Stream, we shouldn't attempt to get ahead of ourselves, we have much to see.

Want a prime example? Some people said the Kodiak wouldn't be good, until quite a few saw the Kodiak In-game model. Opinion changes rather quickly when there's more information to digest and really make a good opinion based on what you've seen and think.

Ah, but mine is the same. based on the geometry, the Kodiak will be good or bad, based entirely on the hitbox boundaries.

Geometry limits hitboxes. Much like the Archer, with enough structure quirk, the Cyc might be survivable, but it's geometry will never allow for the hitboxes to be good, if the model follows the art.

That isn't tinfoil, that is very easy to extrapolate. Which is why I have always defended the Kodiak. As long as those shoulder pauldrons are Arm and not torso, it's going to absorb fire like nobodies business.

Which is what I said (and backed up with mock ups, etc) since the art was released.

[C E Dwyer]

Well now the early morning meh has taken place, and the brain cells have fired up, the cyc is either going to be very XL friendly as everything will hit the CT and it dies in seconds uber quirks not with standing, or if the CT is made extremely thin, std engines only, and bye bye weapons hello stick.

Not that it really matters because your not going to be buying it for meta reasons, but because it look great

[Bishop Steiner]

Cathy, on 20 April 2016 - 01:07 PM, said:

Well now the early morning meh has taken place, and the brain cells have fired up, the cyc is either going to be very XL friendly as everything will hit the CT and it dies in seconds uber quirks not with standing, or if the CT is made extremely thin, std engines only, and bye bye weapons hello stick.

Not that it really matters because your not going to be buying it for meta reasons, but because it look great

or, like many mechs it will have both bad CT and STs. And be equally bad either way, just that you can pack more guns before you die with an XL.

Not really the same as XL Friendly.

[Bregor Edain]

Lily from animove, on 20 April 2016 - 12:50 AM, said:

first impression: WTF engineers? make a dome like cockpitglass, cover it with a weird FOV limiting cappy.

Still looks really nice.

Well, in lore they had 360 (condensed to 160 or somewhere close to it) view regardless of how the cockpit looked because of sensors.