57 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

zagibu, on 23 August 2016 - 12:10 AM, said:

So if they announce a broken design, it's not broken when it's delivered in the announced state? Interesting perspective...

Yes. That is the reality of their perspective. When the Archer or any other mech with broken geometry gets an actual fix, we will know that their perspective has changed. Wake me when it happens.

[Cabusha]

Nope, that ship sailed at launch.

[Bishop Steiner]

zagibu, on 23 August 2016 - 12:10 AM, said:

So if they announce a broken design, it's not broken when it's delivered in the announced state? Interesting perspective...

Was anything about that state obfuscated or hidden?. The cockpit, for example was known the moment the art was released. Anyone with half a brain could pretty definitively determine the geometry and hit boxes. So, while the quirks were a disappointment, what part of it being broken did PGI conceal?

If nothing, then they are not obligated to "fix" anything.

[Herr Vorragend]

The cockpit needs to stay where it is. It's part of the design. If you don't like it (or not being able to deal with it) get a mad dog or another mech with a high cockpit position.
I like my archers as they are now and how they were announced. There are other ways of helping the chassis

[NeoCodex]

No, I like the mech exactly for the reason of the cockpit design. It's unique. They should just give it some good quirks instead.

[DaZur]

El Bandito, on 22 August 2016 - 09:41 PM, said:

A valid concern, but super low cockpit is something that really should be addressed, IMO. Exposing your entire torsi just so you can see the enemy is utterly stupid. Especially on a mech that is not that good in the first place, thanks to its hitboxes, and lack of offensive quirks.

I understand design deviation in order to mitigate design flaws is a desirous endever. Particularly in a competitive arena...

That said, as a purist I appreciate diversity in design, even at the expense of functionality. The midline cockpit is a documented fluffery that is unique to the chassis.

I know I'm a contrarian oddball... It's one of my redeeming qualities.

[Drunken Skull]

There are various instances where NOVELS and RELATED cover art can be considered NON CANONICAL, as they are clearly stuffing up the original intended design. I posit that this is a NON-canon design, and should not be adhered to. The artist clearly screwed up for the cover art of a novel and some idiot authored some fluff to save the artwork, without knowing what he was doing in the long haul to the design.

How would you like it if PGI took your favorite mech and put it's cockpit in it's crotch? TOTALLY RE-DESIGNING it's cockpit so that instead of cool tanky-style vision slits, it's a Plate-Glass Office Window IN IT'S Crotch.

EVERY other mech has it's cockpit in the right place, but because some hack of a novel cover artist took some artistic liberty, we all have to put up with his/her obsession with great big office windows in the crotch of the mech! I don't think so, you don't get to do that, consider your Artwork and Fluff NON-CANON.

Edited by Drunken Skull, 23 August 2016 - 03:52 PM.

[DaZur]

Drunken Skull, on 23 August 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:

There are various instances where NOVELS and RELATED cover art can be considered NON CANONICAL, as they are clearly stuffing up the original intended design. I posit that this is a NON-canon design, and should not be adhered to. The artist clearly screwed up for the cover art of a novel and some idiot authored some fluff to save the artwork, without knowing what he was doing in the long haul to the design.

How would you like it if PGI took your favorite mech and put it's cockpit in it's crotch? TOTALLY RE-DESIGNING it's cockpit so that instead of cool tanky-style vision slits, it's a Plate-Glass Office Window IN IT'S Crotch.

EVERY other mech has it's cockpit in the right place, but because some hack of a novel cover artist took some artistic liberty, we all have to put up with his/her obsession with great big office windows in the crotch of the mech! I don't think so, you don't get to do that, consider your Artwork and Fluff NON-CANON.

Interesting theory...

Except for the part where the TRO manuals, which is the unofficial/official book of Hoyle in regards to battlemechs clearly states the cockpit is mounted midline.

Could it be the the hacks got it right and the secondary and tertiary artists (To include the artists who rendered it in MekTech add-on) got it wrong?

No way... couldn't be.

[dervishx5]

Death to the proponents of the high mounted cockpit.

Same crowd who thinks the Cyclops cockpit is in the torso, probably.

[El Bandito]

dervishx5, on 23 August 2016 - 07:19 PM, said:

Death to the proponents of the high mounted cockpit.

Same crowd who thinks the Cyclops cockpit is in the torso, probably.

This comment made no sense.

[MauttyKoray]

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

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?

PLEASE NO... Archer is supposed to be a fire support mech, not a hill humper. I love it and please stop trying to make every mech viable/conform to certain play styles.

You HAVE your hill humpers, leave my fire support mech alone! D: This isn't even coming from a TT perspective (not a TT player), just that I'm sick of people complaining a mech doesn't work for things like hill humping.

[El Bandito]

MauttyKoray, on 23 August 2016 - 07:32 PM, said:

PLEASE NO... Archer is supposed to be a fire support mech, not a hill humper. I love it and please stop trying to make every mech viable/conform to certain play styles.

You HAVE your hill humpers, leave my fire support mech alone! D: This isn't even coming from a TT perspective (not a TT player), just that I'm sick of people complaining a mech doesn't work for things like hill humping.

On the other hand, fire support mechs doesn't have to have super low cockpit. AWS-8R, BLR-1S, HBK-4J etc, are also mostly used for LRM fire support and they have high cockpit. In fact they can fire support better cause of it.

Archer suffers doubly because of its "bunny ear" missile bay doors giving away its position even easier before the Archer can see the enemy.

Edited by El Bandito, 23 August 2016 - 07:43 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Drunken Skull, on 23 August 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:

There are various instances where NOVELS and RELATED cover art can be considered NON CANONICAL, as they are clearly stuffing up the original intended design. I posit that this is a NON-canon design, and should not be adhered to. The artist clearly screwed up for the cover art of a novel and some idiot authored some fluff to save the artwork, without knowing what he was doing in the long haul to the design.

How would you like it if PGI took your favorite mech and put it's cockpit in it's crotch? TOTALLY RE-DESIGNING it's cockpit so that instead of cool tanky-style vision slits, it's a Plate-Glass Office Window IN IT'S Crotch.

EVERY other mech has it's cockpit in the right place, but because some hack of a novel cover artist took some artistic liberty, we all have to put up with his/her obsession with great big office windows in the crotch of the mech! I don't think so, you don't get to do that, consider your Artwork and Fluff NON-CANON.

Well, let's see, if it was my favorite mech, 1) I'd know that every official representation for the past 30 years or so had that "Hipster" cockpit. 2) When the official art came out for MWO confirmed it, well, then I'd have chosen to buy or not buy, with that knowledge.

oh, and here's another Hipster Mech... this one literally since it's cockpit...is actually a COCKpit.


Enjoy!

[Bishop Steiner]

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

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.





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?

BTW...here's the ACTUAL Ral Partha Battletech Archer Mini, not a robotech one repurposed for Battletech



Y MY WARHAMMER NO HAVE MISSILES!?!?!?!?!

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 24 August 2016 - 04:15 AM.

[xVLFBERHxT]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 August 2016 - 04:15 AM, said:

BTW...here's the ACTUAL Ral Partha Battletech Archer Mini, not a robotech one repurposed for Battletech



Y MY WARHAMMER NO HAVE MISSILES!?!?!?!?!

ARCHHAMMER FTW!

[dervishx5]

Yeah idk, the angle at which the Archer launches it's missiles, I never had a problem with the cockpit. I jusy adapted my playstyle to the mech rather than the other way around.

I get why people want to change it, but I'm not part of the "everything mist be the best it can be" crowd.

[Bishop Steiner]

dervishx5, on 24 August 2016 - 04:30 AM, said:

Yeah idk, the angle at which the Archer launches it's missiles, I never had a problem with the cockpit. I jusy adapted my playstyle to the mech rather than the other way around.

I get why people want to change it, but I'm not part of the "everything mist be the best it can be" crowd.

MunckinMechs FTW!!!!

*smh*

[cazidin]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 August 2016 - 04:03 AM, said:

Well, let's see, if it was my favorite mech, 1) I'd know that every official representation for the past 30 years or so had that "Hipster" cockpit. 2) When the official art came out for MWO confirmed it, well, then I'd have chosen to buy or not buy, with that knowledge.

oh, and here's another Hipster Mech... this one literally since it's cockpit...is actually a COCKpit.


Enjoy!

He must get ALL the lady-mechs!