Would You Support Higher Mounted Archer Cockpit?
#21
Posted 22 August 2016 - 08:56 AM
We don't need to import every comic book artist's tactical combat design decisions into this game. We should let logic prevail every once in a while.
This is one of those times.
#22
Posted 22 August 2016 - 09:01 AM
El Bandito, on 22 August 2016 - 08:55 AM, said:
But we didn't know just how much it will affect the mech until we actually got to play it.
Sure. I'm just saying, that from PGI's perspective it is working as intended, and even if it isn't, they still are not going to change it.
#23
Posted 22 August 2016 - 09:07 AM
So, raise the cockpit and make the darn Mech more worthwhile!
Edited by Prosperity Park, 22 August 2016 - 09:27 AM.
#24
Posted 22 August 2016 - 09:17 AM
One of the things I was bemoaning because of PGI.
Make me sad.
#27
Posted 22 August 2016 - 05:26 PM
MerryIguana, on 22 August 2016 - 09:34 AM, said:
Yep, and higher mounted cockpit is a relatively simple fix for one of its glaring flaws.
Bishop Steiner, on 22 August 2016 - 08:49 AM, said:
But the original TT version of the mech had high mounted cockpit, so "part of the design" is debatable.
#28
Posted 22 August 2016 - 05:36 PM
El Bandito, on 22 August 2016 - 07:46 AM, said:
Do you think PGI should raise the cockpit of the Archer?
Actually the vision package for the Archer (Spartan) is supposed to be housed in the the black box on top of the CT with the antenna/lasers on it. Where the Cockpit is now, is in fact a weapons bay on the original mecha design.
Edited by Drunken Skull, 22 August 2016 - 06:15 PM.
#29
Posted 22 August 2016 - 05:43 PM
El Bandito, on 22 August 2016 - 05:26 PM, said:
Yep, and higher mounted cockpit is a relatively simple fix for one of its glaring flaws.
But the original TT version of the mech had high mounted cockpit, so "part of the design" is debatable.
No, it's actually not. Because art often is inconsistent. Both the official TRO versions, and the novels are specific. Thus, any incidental art before they set the canon is just that, incidental.
"The Archer is one of the few BattleMechs whose cockpit is located beneath the central torso."
TRO 3025.
THAT is canon.
#30
Posted 22 August 2016 - 05:56 PM
Bishop Steiner, on 22 August 2016 - 05:43 PM, said:
No, it's actually not. Because art often is inconsistent. Both the official TRO versions, and the novels are specific. Thus, any incidental art before they set the canon is just that, incidental.
"The Archer is one of the few BattleMechs whose cockpit is located beneath the central torso."
TRO 3025.
THAT is canon.
The only thing the original Mecha design specifies at that location is an articulated IR Searchlight.
Edited by Drunken Skull, 22 August 2016 - 06:14 PM.
#31
Posted 22 August 2016 - 06:05 PM
Drunken Skull, on 22 August 2016 - 05:56 PM, said:
https://www.google.c...&tbnw=197&w=564
as opposed to the pic that was commissioned for that work with the low cockpit? And the description in every novel?
Perhaps that "twit" was trying to create some distance between the battletech version and the macross one?
Naw, because that doesn't fit your preconception. So that can't be it.
#32
Posted 22 August 2016 - 06:24 PM
Yeah, not buying it.
More likely the artist screwed the pooch and rather than fixing it they decided to run with it instead. Now thanks to poor communication about a misunderstood component of the mech(It's an IR searchlight on a gimbal ffs, not "the eyes of the mech" and most certainly wasn't supposed to be the position of the cockpit, which is what the artist OBVIOUSLY misunderstood), the problem has finally come back to bite someone in the ***. Best thing to do here would be to admit to the mistake and the disinformation in these poorly conceived novels, and fix it.
"Save a few pennys and the artist's dignity" they said, "no one will ever cotton on to the massive f**kup", they said...
Imagine putting the Warhammer's cockpit in it's TV-Box Searchlight, because that's exactly what you've done here with the Archer and it's gimbal Searchlight.
One of the cool aspects of the REAL cockpit for this mech, is it's resemblance to a modern day Tank's gun cupola.
Edited by Drunken Skull, 22 August 2016 - 07:23 PM.
#33
Posted 22 August 2016 - 07:51 PM
Drunken Skull, on 22 August 2016 - 06:24 PM, said:
Yeah, not buying it.
More likely the artist screwed the pooch and rather than fixing it they decided to run with it instead. Now thanks to poor communication about a misunderstood component of the mech(It's an IR searchlight on a gimbal ffs, not "the eyes of the mech" and most certainly wasn't supposed to be the position of the cockpit, which is what the artist OBVIOUSLY misunderstood), the problem has finally come back to bite someone in the ***. Best thing to do here would be to admit to the mistake and the disinformation in these poorly conceived novels, and fix it.
"Save a few pennys and the artist's dignity" they said, "no one will ever cotton on to the massive f**kup", they said...
Imagine putting the Warhammer's cockpit in it's TV-Box Searchlight, because that's exactly what you've done here with the Archer and it's gimbal Searchlight.
One of the cool aspects of the REAL cockpit for this mech, is it's resemblance to a modern day Tank's gun cupola.
Gosh, so didn't they put a gun cluster in the CT while they were at if?.
Huh.
#34
Posted 22 August 2016 - 07:59 PM
As a purist, I have to withhold my support.
I see the potential for a wide range of shenanigans regardless of how well intended the premise may be. Short answer is this is a slippery slope that can easily end up like this:
#35
Posted 22 August 2016 - 08:55 PM
Bishop Steiner, on 22 August 2016 - 07:51 PM, said:
Huh.
@DaZur; I prefer crotch-rockets myself.
Edited by Drunken Skull, 22 August 2016 - 08:58 PM.
#36
Posted 22 August 2016 - 09:01 PM
Drunken Skull, on 22 August 2016 - 08:55 PM, said:
@DaZur; I prefer crotch-rockets myself.
So what you're saying it the infamous "Peter-Peen Cannon" is not high on your meta scale?
#37
Posted 22 August 2016 - 09:41 PM
DaZur, on 22 August 2016 - 07:59 PM, said:
As a purist, I have to withhold my support.
I see the potential for a wide range of shenanigans regardless of how well intended the premise may be. Short answer is this is a slippery slope that can easily end up like this:
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.
Edited by El Bandito, 22 August 2016 - 09:53 PM.
#38
Posted 22 August 2016 - 09:57 PM
As a side note, I'll say that I enjoy both my Archer and Mad Dog equally but play them quite differently in part due to the physical differences you mentioned.. The MDD is the vulture on the hill raining down missiles and the ARC is the spitting cobra in the high grass getting its prey while it's distracted. ( .. and that's enough lame metaphors for one night )
Oh one last thing! We could leave the cockpit where it is but bring everything else down. Like so :
#39
Posted 23 August 2016 - 12:10 AM
Bud Crue, on 22 August 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:
So if they announce a broken design, it's not broken when it's delivered in the announced state? Interesting perspective...
#40
Posted 23 August 2016 - 02:05 AM
^ Make it Like this please
Remember, the barrel on it's waist is supposed to be the Search Light, the 3 battletank style vision slits up top is where the cockpit is.
This isn't just any random mech design, it's a Kazutaka Miyatake masterpiece, to change it is akin to drawing on the Mona Lisa with a permanent marker. It DEMANDS to be FIXED!
Edited by Drunken Skull, 23 August 2016 - 03:18 AM.
14 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 14 guests, 0 anonymous users