57 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

After getting good amount of games with the Archer, I became especially fond of the Tempest and ARC-5W. PGI did a good job of recreating Archer's looks faithfully and improving on it. However, I feel like their decision to keep the cockpit low is significantly harming the otherwise solid mech's performance as well as popularity.

Allow me to demonstrate. This is how much your Archer has to expose itself in order to get a LoS, highlighted in green. Basically your entire torsi. And if you have your launchers open, denoted by red, then the enemy can spot you even easier from behind cover.




Now compare that to another similarly profiled Heavy mech that is also known in lore for carrying dual LRM20s--the Mad Dog. See how little the Dog has to expose, in order to spot the enemy?




IMO, it would be better if PGI moves the cockpit to a higher vantage point, so that the mech gets a new lease on life. Remember how some people like to say "Get your own lock, LRM noob"? Well, the Archer is one LRM mech that can't get a lock by itself without seriously endangering its safety.




Finally, I know some BT purists will likely get a stroke from such decision, but I think this case is a special one. Archer needs it. Not to mention the TT miniatures had high mounted cockpit, as shown here.



Do you think PGI should raise the cockpit of the Archer?

Edited by El Bandito, 22 August 2016 - 05:24 PM.

[invernomuto]

I agree that the cockpit should be moved upside and, if possibile, please reduce the launcher dimensions OR at least give some additional armor quirks for side torsos. It's kinda weird that your entire side torso is damaged if a launcher door is hit while open...

[Murphy7]

The cockpit location is pretty far down on my list of the help the Archer might need to be more on par with other heavies.

In the existing systems, I would have liked to see some strong quirks specifically for the large class missile launchers the Archer is famous for.

In the coming energy draw system, a quirk that heavily discounted the use of LRM 20's for the Archer with respect to energy use and heat penalties would be a good start, though it would also be good to see missile velocity and grouping benefits for the large class launchers.

[Frankdark]

100% Agree.
And let the Doors go 180° backwards so not looking in the Up but backward.

[Whiplash Wally]

They should put the cockpit in the left leg and make the launchers open only if the pilot climbs up there and opens them with a hand crank.

[3xnihilo]

I agree with the OP. I really like my Archers, but a higher cockpit would be a great improvement. And the 180 missile door idea is really good too. That would take care of my two biggest complaints with the Archer. As far as large launcher quirks, I would rather see the launchers themselves balanced properly than just quirk 1 mech to use them. Probably wishful thinking, but who knows.

[Wintersdark]

They should, but they definitely won't. It's not even remotely likely.

[Ghogiel]

Wintersdark, on 22 August 2016 - 08:12 AM, said:

They should, but they definitely won't. It's not even remotely likely.

[Reza Malin]

El Bandito, on 22 August 2016 - 07:46 AM, said:

Do you think PGI should raise the cockpit of the Archer?

I use a tag on one of the top energy mounts, as its so high you can use it from a lot of cover and it reduces your exposure times due to helping you lock quicker. That helps somewhat i have found!

I have no major issue with the positioning of the cockpit, i think the idea is they are supposed to spot you or it would be very powerful especially with ECM.

Edited by Fade Akira, 22 August 2016 - 08:17 AM.

[jonfett]

I've never understood why in the blazes is the cockpit so low on the Archer?! The Robotech mecha that it's based on has a high-mounted cockpit at the top of the shoulders, in-between the launchers. Where the Archer's cockpit currently is, those are gun pods on the Robotech mecha, behind a set of red doors. So stupid....

[El Bandito]

Fade Akira, on 22 August 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

I use a tag on one of the top energy mounts, as its so high you can use it from a lot of cover and it reduces your exposure times due to helping you lock quicker. That helps somewhat i have found!

I have no major issue with the positioning of the cockpit, i think the idea is they are supposed to spot you or it would be very powerful especially with ECM.

TAG requires LoS, which means you are still exposing half of your mech. Someone else can lock the enemy for you and you can use high mounted TAG on the enemy icon without LoS, but then you wouldn't need a TAG in the first place.

jonfett, on 22 August 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

I've never understood why in the blazes is the cockpit so low on the Archer?! The Robotech mecha that it's based on has a high-mounted cockpit at the top of the shoulders, in-between the launchers. Where the Archer's cockpit currently is, those are gun pods on the Robotech mecha, behind a set of red doors. So stupid....

Very true. The Destroid Spartan, which the Archer got its look from, has high mounted cockpit, as seen here.




Archer should have had a cockpit like this.

Edited by El Bandito, 22 August 2016 - 08:30 AM.

[Reza Malin]

El Bandito, on 22 August 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

TAG is requires LoS, which means you are still exposing half of your mech. Someone else can lock the enemy for you and you can use high mounted TAG on the enemy icon without LoS, but then you wouldn't need a TAG in the first place.

I am aware, but as i play mostly solo queue, i never rely on other people for locks.....that is madness.

Also tag speeds up your lock times.

I always find it helpful to have a TAG. It also helps the team to see ECM mechs as well.

Edited by Fade Akira, 22 August 2016 - 08:26 AM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

I like the cockpit where it is, for a variety of reasons, not least tradition and aesthetics.

I think a more practical fix would be to tweak the missile covers. Ideally, they'd actually fold up instead of just flip, making them far lower profile. In the absence of that, they could simply lift to a lower peak angle, so that instead of bunny ears the flaps will be mostly forward-pointing.

[Spheroid]

Why? Seems a reasonable counterweight for superior hardpoint quantity(and ECM). The Warhammer and Orion have the high cockpits you want.

Why must we judge everything against the Mad Dog when the Jager-A and Catapult have suffered likewise for years?

Edited by Spheroid, 22 August 2016 - 08:34 AM.

[El Bandito]

Spheroid, on 22 August 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

Why? Seems a reasonable counterweight for superior hardpoint quantity(and ECM). The Warhammer and Orion have the high cockpits you want.

Why must we judge everything against the Mad Dog when the Jager-A and Catapult have suffered likewise for years?

Superior hardpoint quantity and ECM? Then what about ARC-2R? ARC-5S? What do they have? Do you really think the Tempest and the 5W are considered good enough mechs that require such a big downside to compensate, in the first place? Would they be T1 if the cockpit gets higher?

Personally I am judging the Archer against the Mad Dog because they both have very similar profile, with jutted CT and prominent STs, and their traditional loadouts are similar. Archer cockpit though is situated absurdly low.

Edited by El Bandito, 22 August 2016 - 08:44 AM.

[Chados]

I tried both the 2R and 5S and sold them. There's not much a 2R can do that a Tempest can't and the 5W is just the best of the four. I wish the Tempest had the 5W's mobility!

[JaidenHaze]

No i would not and that will never happen as such changes would be a sacrilege to the Lore this mech is based on. Yes, it may not be optimal for gameplay but that could, at least in theory, countered by quirks. But PGI doesnt quirk that way, there is no other explanation.

I know its strange to talk about Lore when some variants are strictly invented or changed in some capacity to make a build with the current technology work or to get around mechanical problems ingame (such as no option to choose between slug and cluster ammo for LBX) but its something different if you bastardize a Chassis this extreme so it fits your idea of gameplay.

Also: If you play LRM, wait for the locks of your team mates. If you dont want to rely on PUGs, use Group Queue. I know its not perfect but its better then doing whatever you want.

[Bishop Steiner]

Nope. It's part and parcel to the design.

[Bud Crue]

You can have a higher Archer cockpit, when I get a Cataphract that doesn't mount its arm energy weapons under the arm, or a Quickdraw H whose second LT missile hard point isn't glued on, or a Victor that can fire all of its missles in a single volley, etc.

Two points.
One, even where certain mechs clearly need work with geometry (fixes) they were ignored, via rescale when PGI could have easily fixed them (see examples above). So geometry changes, even when asked for to address well known short comings in under performing mechs are not likely to happen. So "fixing" the Archer is even more unlikely.

Two: As to that "fixing"... the geometry of the Archer was presented that way when the mech was first announced, and we got almost exactly what was promised. So it isn't actually broken from PGI's perspective.

(edited for clarity because original post was fing gibberish...proof your work folks)

Edited by Bud Crue, 22 August 2016 - 08:59 AM.

[El Bandito]

Bud Crue, on 22 August 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

Two: As to that "fixing"... the geometry of the Archer was presented that way it is when the mech was first announced, and we got almost exactly what was promised. So it isn't actually broken from PGI's perspective.

But we didn't know just how much it will affect the mech until we actually got to play it.