Marauder Iic Next Mech, Confirmed
#61
Posted 04 August 2016 - 12:57 PM
#62
Posted 04 August 2016 - 12:58 PM
#64
Posted 04 August 2016 - 01:01 PM
This is almost a deadringer for the Project Phoenix MAD IIC though.
#65
Posted 04 August 2016 - 01:03 PM
FupDup, on 04 August 2016 - 12:56 PM, said:
It also reduces flavor by making customization almost identical between both mech types.
That's kind of the point Omni mechs should be better, but the real advantage to Omni-mechs will never be seen in MWO, not with out a massive shift, as the massive advantage to them is quick in field rearm, repair and refits. I've begged PGI several times to let Omni mechs save 3-4 load outs, and let them change that load out before the match count down finishes, to reflect that ability they have in lore. As to a lower speed, locked engine sizes might help with TTK, making it take longer for engagements, as well as twisting to reduce damage take more time, meaning that twist and shoot would take longer to do, also it would help curb poke warrior online a bit too.
#66
Posted 04 August 2016 - 01:04 PM
dervishx5, on 04 August 2016 - 01:01 PM, said:
This is almost a deadringer for the Project Phoenix MAD IIC though.
People expect the IIC Mechs to be completely remodeled and look very different from the Mechs they are entirely based on.
Like why people always expect the next Porsche model to look completely different from previous Porsches.
#67
Posted 04 August 2016 - 01:05 PM
Metus regem, on 04 August 2016 - 01:03 PM, said:
That's kind of the point Omni mechs should be better, but the real advantage to Omni-mechs will never be seen in MWO, not with out a massive shift, as the massive advantage to them is quick in field rearm, repair and refits. I've begged PGI several times to let Omni mechs save 3-4 load outs, and let them change that load out before the match count down finishes, to reflect that ability they have in lore. As to a lower speed, locked engine sizes might help with TTK, making it take longer for engagements, as well as twisting to reduce damage take more time, meaning that twist and shoot would take longer to do, also it would help curb poke warrior online a bit too.
No, neither mech type should be better. Stop trying to imbalance the game.
And also, lower engine sizes do not mean higher TTK. Many mechs become too slow to avoid damage and not agile enough to spread it around via twisting, meaning that once they come under fire they are less likely to escape alive.
#68
Posted 04 August 2016 - 01:05 PM
Yeonne Greene, on 04 August 2016 - 12:57 PM, said:
Actually I expected that PGI would release a Light-pack Mechpack before a IIC-pack but it turned out that I was wrong....
#70
Posted 04 August 2016 - 01:11 PM
Metus regem, on 04 August 2016 - 01:03 PM, said:
That's kind of the point Omni mechs should be better, but the real advantage to Omni-mechs will never be seen in MWO, not with out a massive shift, as the massive advantage to them is quick in field rearm, repair and refits. I've begged PGI several times to let Omni mechs save 3-4 load outs, and let them change that load out before the match count down finishes, to reflect that ability they have in lore. As to a lower speed, locked engine sizes might help with TTK, making it take longer for engagements, as well as twisting to reduce damage take more time, meaning that twist and shoot would take longer to do, also it would help curb poke warrior online a bit too.
OmniMechs are *not* better, they are merely cheaper and faster to modify. That is it entirely.
#71
Posted 04 August 2016 - 01:12 PM
Arnold The Governator, on 04 August 2016 - 01:09 PM, said:
Cool. Now where's my rifleman iic?
That has a strong chance of being next. Any IS mech currently in the game that has an IIC counterpart has a high chance. All they have to do is slightly alter the art and geometry and bingo: new mech with much less work.
Edited by dervishx5, 04 August 2016 - 01:12 PM.
#72
Posted 04 August 2016 - 01:12 PM
Prosperity Park, on 04 August 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:
Like why people always expect the next Porsche model to look completely different from previous Porsches.
Only it should have stub wings.
Are we sure this is going to be a clan one as well, as people have been wanting mixed tech for ages, and this is after all an I.S mech, some variants using clan tech and others, not..
#73
Posted 04 August 2016 - 01:14 PM
#75
Posted 04 August 2016 - 01:16 PM
Cathy, on 04 August 2016 - 01:12 PM, said:
Are we sure this is going to be a clan one as well, as people have been wanting mixed tech for ages, and this is after all an I.S mech, some variants using clan tech and others, not..
Don't confuse the Marauder II (C) with the Marauder IIC. One is a 100 ton IS assault mech, the other is an 85 ton clan mech.
#77
Posted 04 August 2016 - 01:17 PM
What we should be wondering about is how many MWO-only variants we're going to see fill in the mechpack gaps. Since there's only two legal MWO official versions, that means at least two customs + possible hero.
#78
Posted 04 August 2016 - 01:20 PM
Yeonne Greene, on 04 August 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:
OmniMechs are *not* better, they are merely cheaper and faster to modify. That is it entirely.
Exactly. The strength of the Omni was that you could change out weapon systems and the like cheaply, quickly, and do it all in the field. They were never more customizable than Battlemechs. It took a long time and a lot of money to customize a Battlemech but Omnis were never ever more customizable.
#79
Posted 04 August 2016 - 01:26 PM
- The Kodiak
- The Huntsman
- The Viper
- The Night Gyr
- The Linebacker
- The Marauder IIc
And the IS gets:
- The Phoenix Hawk
- The Cyclops
- Lots of nerfs
Cool.
Edited by Darth Hotz, 04 August 2016 - 01:27 PM.
#80
Posted 04 August 2016 - 01:27 PM
The -IIC... no thanks. Actually I still believe the -IICs are most boring, least imaginative options possible. Early Clan-Mechs, SL-era Mechs, Mechs build in resonse to the Clan invasion... So many options and they took the safest route (update of a best seller)
I am a die-hard Marauder Mech but I will not support this.
.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users