43 replies to this topic

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Plaese make the Tie Fighter smaller ,its have to big Hitzones in the Sideview against a X-Wing...

[Lily from animove]

Fire for Effect, on 24 June 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

I am not talking about skill I am talking about EXPERIENCE Tier 1 means that you have sufficiently played to understood how this game works nothing more nothing less.. you know the mechanics. Its like a black belt which is in no way a sigjn of mastery it shows that you know the basics nothing more nothing less.

I know a lot of people with that Tier 1 mark havign no idea about many mechacnis, so no, thats not true. Also, suddnely you say its for basics, yet you tryioed to cover your Tier applying you have skill. You contradict yourself suddenly.

Fire for Effect, on 24 June 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

and your point is? its a friggin 50t mech... the nova had to shrink but not 3Dsimple rescale down they should have made it smaller and only a little less height.

it is still feraking wide and you cna easily pick the section and hit them, if not, I still question you aim. it is still easily and very wide and the new charts still show that the NVA is a easy target. So the point is still about how much has which mech to shrink to be a "competitive" target. and the hrink of the nva is still not too small form this pointof view, its still eaisly killable. Just compare suvivability of the NVA vs a Hunchback or centurion. Twistign gives the latter two an easy time to seoak damage, the NVA is still an easy target. As someone of T1 havign "experience" and knowing the "basics" you should also know that. Otherwise you would not even fall into your own descritpion of T1

Fire for Effect, on 24 June 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

actually the combat potential is THE ONLY reason that should be a basis for a resize; in my eyes this resize is complete nonsense.

a dead mech has no combat potential, combat potential is defined by firepower (which should be balanced by heat and weapon quirks) and survivability, which is defined by size, design, speed and HP quirks.

Fire for Effect, on 24 June 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

mechs need a resize because they have to much firepower meager hardpoints or broken hitboxes not because of some feverish idea to size have all mechs of equal tonnage equal surface since it conveniently ignores that a mech might be to large to hide behind terrain features and it ignores completely that up down size is vastly different than left right size, surface is so definitely NOT a comparable basis its painful especially considering that side and front surface are simply added as it seems. also geometric forms are completely ignored; a square is easier to hit than a ring of the same area or a triangle.

Surface is comparable, and it is NOT ignored, Quirks compensate for weird shapes, thats why some mechs with boxy hitboxes which are easier to hit get HP quirks, and why slim mechs with harder to hit hitboxes do NOT get them. The scale is for surface, the quirks are for the shape of that surface as well as hardpoint locations and how much a mech has to expose, and it alos takes hitability into account, since some mechs have CT's able to hit them from all angles.

Fire for Effect, on 24 June 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

hardly it was just to say that I can aim "sufficiently" if I were as you say i would have said that I aim "perfectly" ...

You do not need more than sufficient aim to stay on the hitboxes of a NVA, they are large and boxy in every location. It requires FAR from perfect aim to shoot a NVA to crap. compare that to a SCR and try to stay on the SCR hitboxes. stayong on them is nearly impossible at the Torso areas when the SCR moves thats why people shoot on the legs.

Solis Obscuri, on 23 June 2016 - 01:16 AM, said:

Bingo. Summed it up well.

Of course I considered it a bit of a bonus that the Blackhawk was even able to torso twist, and was willing to live with it being a little tall as a trade-off...

well if the torso twist lacks, then the game should also have the original 90 degree arm angle, which it currently doesn't have. MWO needs torso twist becasue that original feature is lacking. It seems that PGI was either oo lazy or not possible to make torsoless mechs or couldn't make the arms act as in MW3 where you could shoot in 90degree angle to the side, (but only with the arm on that side).

[Solis Obscuri]

Yeah, MW3 had some good features (besides the huge legging emphasis). I liked the way arms worked, and they made sense for the Blackhawk there. I also miss the loopy guidance on SRMs, which was a cool feature. And I think that the way PGI has addressed arm movement ranges - usually to the detriment of torso twist angles - is pretty borked in a lot of cases.