Let's Get Hyped For Iic Mechs! - Why Another Iic Mech Pack Should Be In The Game
#21
Posted 28 April 2016 - 09:47 PM
#22
Posted 28 April 2016 - 09:54 PM
Other alternatives I'd suggest for the Assaults would be the Marauder IIC and the Phoenix Hawk IIC. PHIIC has never been seen in a PC game, but I imagine that clanners would love an assault mech with lots of torso ballistic slots and jump capability.
#23
Posted 28 April 2016 - 10:24 PM
ice trey, on 28 April 2016 - 09:54 PM, said:
And an engine we could swap. May kill the Gargles, but I certainly wouldn't mind.
#24
Posted 28 April 2016 - 10:40 PM
#26
Posted 28 April 2016 - 11:52 PM
Black Ivan, on 28 April 2016 - 10:40 PM, said:
Geometry and hardpoint locations are far, far, far more important than tech tree, and the ON1-IIC and HGN-IIC have crappy geometry and crappy hardpoints, like their IS cousins. That does not mean ALL IIC mechs have crappy geometry and crappy hardpoints.
Jesus, people need to stop confusing correlation with causation.
Idiots:
HGN-IIC and ONI1-IIC suck! therefore IIC = suck!
Non idiots:
HGN-IIC and ON1-IIC suck, therefore those two specific mechs have crap geometry and hardpoints. Can we have some IICs with good geo and hardpoints please?
Edited by Widowmaker1981, 28 April 2016 - 11:52 PM.
#27
Posted 29 April 2016 - 01:01 AM
Since PGI released the IICs, I was hoping they would follow up with a whole bunch more this year, but it's not looking likely. Still hopeful that they will release more of them eventually.
Edited by BD RAIDR, 29 April 2016 - 01:03 AM.
#28
Posted 29 April 2016 - 04:13 AM
DovisKhan, on 28 April 2016 - 10:48 PM, said:
To hell with you warhammer, Marauder FTW!
Never been a fan of the Marauder family, but been in love with the Warhammer family since I first saw SDF Macross when I was 10. As far as CBT goes, the Warhammer is the one Mech I can truly depend on in a do or die moment, they have never failed me.
#29
Posted 29 April 2016 - 08:52 AM
#31
Posted 29 April 2016 - 02:58 PM
#32
Posted 29 April 2016 - 04:56 PM
WrathOfDeadguy, on 29 April 2016 - 02:58 PM, said:
You mean get dunked in the trash in style?
Because getting dunked is the only thing Clans should be good for, bunch of gutless cowards.
#33
Posted 30 April 2016 - 08:08 AM
Widowmaker1981, on 28 April 2016 - 11:52 PM, said:
Geometry and hardpoint locations are far, far, far more important than tech tree, and the ON1-IIC and HGN-IIC have crappy geometry and crappy hardpoints, like their IS cousins. That does not mean ALL IIC mechs have crappy geometry and crappy hardpoints.
Jesus, people need to stop confusing correlation with causation.
Idiots:
HGN-IIC and ONI1-IIC suck! therefore IIC = suck!
Non idiots:
HGN-IIC and ON1-IIC suck, therefore those two specific mechs have crap geometry and hardpoints. Can we have some IICs with good geo and hardpoints please?
The idiots that you are referring to probably only have limited experience with IICs through unfortunately, mechwarrior online. I wouldn't blame anyone who has limited experience to the franchise only through this game, to make a claim that IIC clan mechs suck based on one pack. They probably also think that clan mechs suck in general based on how overly nerfed they are in the game.
Metus regem, on 28 April 2016 - 05:10 PM, said:
I'm probably going to add the marauder IIC through another pack in TT sim. But I've always been a fan of the warhammer iic's original artwork and tanky appearance. I've always felt that the Marauder IIC judging by the artwork couldn't take more than a few auto cannon rounds with those chicken legs.
If they were going to implement the marauder iic into mwo, I hope they follow Bishop Steiner's concept artwork instead. Now that looks like a beefy war machine.
Edited by Arnold The Governator, 30 April 2016 - 08:13 AM.
#34
Posted 30 April 2016 - 08:14 AM
GreyNovember, on 28 April 2016 - 08:09 PM, said:
Or I've forgotten exactly how fragile 25 tonners are that aren't humanoid.
The Commando IIC would like a word with you.
That aside there would be enough for a 2nd and 3rd IIC 4-mech pack, problem is they really seem to be moving away from the 4-mech packs and settling on a 1-mech-a-month system.
#35
Posted 30 April 2016 - 08:27 AM
considering those are pretty bad mechs (with the exception of only 2 of them) why would you want IIC mechs on the game? In fact, any clan mech?
#36
Posted 30 April 2016 - 09:06 AM
#37
Posted 30 April 2016 - 09:21 AM
Spadejack, on 30 April 2016 - 08:27 AM, said:
considering those are pretty bad mechs (with the exception of only 2 of them) why would you want IIC mechs on the game? In fact, any clan mech?
Well in the pack that I suggested, most of the mechs have good geometry and hardpoints, like the Rifleman IIC's high energy arm mounted weapons and the Shadow Hawk IIC 7's shoulder cannon. As of right now, there are currently NO clan mechs in game that boast high weapon mounts that fill the support role of a IS jagermech/rifleman.
In spite to your claim that 'IIC mechs are pretty bad mechs with the exception of two of them', I think you are missing the point that we would also want these mechs because we grew up with games like Mechwarrior 2 and Mechwarrior 2: Ghost Bear's Legacy. We've experimented with different load outs and already understand what our nostalgia mechs are capable of on the battlefield.
People would want the Warhammer IIC and Rifleman IIC for the fact they are hard-to-crit tanky mechs. People would want the locust IIC by itself for it's hardpoints and geometry. People would want the Shadow Hawk IIC for it's shoulder mounted canon variant, and simply for the fact that it is a good clan medium.
Edited by Arnold The Governator, 30 April 2016 - 09:26 AM.
#38
Posted 30 April 2016 - 11:34 AM
GreyNovember, on 28 April 2016 - 08:09 PM, said:
Or I've forgotten exactly how fragile 25 tonners are that aren't humanoid.
A.) It's gonna be hot with 8x cERSL and an engine large enough to make it worth being a 25 tonner and not a 30-35 tonner.
B.) As a Locust, it's more of a walking CT than the Jenner.
C.) No quirks!
#39
Posted 30 April 2016 - 02:47 PM
#40
Posted 01 May 2016 - 06:30 PM
10 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 10 guests, 0 anonymous users