30 replies to this topic

[Novakaine]

Since the Clankers are getting the "Night Girl".
The Inner Sphere deserves the Longbow.
It's only fair.
And without the "Archer Treatment".

[Juodas Varnas]

What's the "Archer Treatment"?

[jonfett]

Low mounted cockpit i guess?

[Juodas Varnas]

jonfett, on 17 September 2016 - 11:17 PM, said:

Low mounted cockpit i guess?

Can't really blame PGI for that one.
Low-mounted cockpit was the main difference between the Archer mech and the Destroid Spartan (which had a top-mounted cockpit):
The most unique feature of the Archer compared to other humanoid 'Mechs was its cockpit placement, located beneath the central torso. Although giving the MechWarrior a unique battlefield perspective, this placement didn't provide any additional protection as it sat below the torso armor belt, which shielded the Gyro and engine from enemy fire.

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 17 September 2016 - 11:21 PM.

[Dogstar]

You do realise that the 'head' of the longbow is actually a mahussive searchlight? Right?

[Spheroid]

I don't see the point. Heavy fire support is well represented on several chassis at 65 tons and above. The Longbow doesn't bring anything new. The Awesome-8R already has a head TAG and articulated arms for faster locks and great quirks.

The Stalker can match some builds and the Cyclops and Archer can beat it on missile hardpoints spamming LRM5s.

Hardly iconic either seeing as it is absent the early runs of the board game and the classic TROs(3025/3050).

Edited by Spheroid, 18 September 2016 - 09:19 AM.

[CycKath]

Spheroid, on 18 September 2016 - 12:04 AM, said:

I don't see the point. Heavy fire support is well represented on several chassis at 65 tons and above. The Longbow doesn't bring anything new. The Awesome-8R already has a head TAG and articulated arms for faster locks and great quirks.

The Stalker can match some builds and Cyclops and Archer can beat it on missile hardpoints spamming LRM5s.

Hardly iconic either seeing as it is absent the early run of the board game and the classic TROs(3025/3050).

This. But many people love it blindly, sadly like many Macross things.

[C E Dwyer]

CycKath, on 18 September 2016 - 12:21 AM, said:

This. But many people love it blindly, sadly like many Macross things.

I sure as hell don't, the Longbow is an abortion of a mech, give me my Crusader !

[El Bandito]

Spheroid, on 18 September 2016 - 12:04 AM, said:

I don't see the point. Heavy fire support is well represented on several chassis at 65 tons and above. The Longbow doesn't bring anything new. The Awesome-8R already has a head TAG and articulated arms for faster locks and great quirks.

The Stalker can match some builds and Cyclops and Archer can beat it on missile hardpoints spamming LRM5s.

Hardly iconic either seeing as it is absent the early run of the board game and the classic TROs(3025/3050).

Longbow has a very good chance of having a Hero variant that is also an LRM boat with 4+ missile slots. Which means we can finally get a true Assault class Hero LRM Boat. That's what matters. Pretty Baby and Hellslinger both suck as a LRM boat.

I'll be shelling out cash, fo sho.

If not Longbow, then Blood Kite is equally fine.

Edited by El Bandito, 18 September 2016 - 12:41 AM.

[Rhent]

It would be an 85 ton catapult to be earred. It would be fun to cripple, but frankly to pilot it would be a liability.

[El Bandito]

Rhent, on 18 September 2016 - 12:47 AM, said:

It would be an 85 ton catapult to be earred. It would be fun to cripple, but frankly to pilot it would be a liability.

If the enemies are shooting at its arms, then they are not shooting at its XL engine, which suits me just fine. If LRM Awesomes and Battlemasters are not liability, then the Longbow should do just fine.

[BattleBunny]

there is plenty of LRM platforms in the game as it is.

[El Bandito]

BattleBunny, on 18 September 2016 - 05:33 AM, said:

there is plenty of LRM platforms in the game as it is.

There are plenty of laser boats and dakka boats in the game as is.
Plus, the potential for a Hero Assault Missile Boat is too good to pass.

Edited by El Bandito, 18 September 2016 - 05:46 AM.

[cazidin]

Another Missile Boat? Because the Archer is a great mech with solid geometry, hitboxes and armor, right? And we need another heavy mech too!

Edited by cazidin, 18 September 2016 - 06:25 AM.

[El Bandito]

cazidin, on 18 September 2016 - 06:25 AM, said:

Another Missile Boat? Because the Archer is a great mech with solid geometry, hitboxes and armor, right? And we need another heavy mech too!

Not sure if serious.

[RestosIII]

DRINK!

[Bishop Steiner]

Longbow was seriously overrated even in TT.... whoohoo!! Missile boat! Cuz I has 2 more LRM5 than an Archer!!!!!

[El Bandito]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 September 2016 - 08:05 AM, said:

Longbow was seriously overrated even in TT.... whoohoo!! Missile boat! Cuz I has 2 more LRM5 than an Archer!!!!!

I wouldn't mind a Longbow variant that has 2 more LRM5 slot than the ARC-5W.

[Bud Crue]

Instead of "LONGBOW!"

How about:

"NEW MAPS!"
-New map pack ($20): access to 3 new maps.
-Collectors map pack ($40): includes bonus 1st map with special randomly placed drop zones, conquest points, domination circle and assault mode bases.
-Hero Map (add on of $15) is a unique double sized map that does not force both teams into a central location, so as to encourage more diverse tactical game play and role warfare.

That's a new pack I could get behind.

Obviously I am joking (a bit) here, at least in the sense that I don't want to encourage PGI to start charging for maps in this way. What I do want to encourage is us to start pushing as hard for new maps to the same extent as we constantly do for, more, more!, MORE! mechs. Yes, every once in a while there is a thread about what kind of maps would we like to see added, the frequency of that however is WAY less than the near weekly refrain of "what mech should be next...how about ____!?" As long as the only thing we as players/customers get consistently vocal about is "what's the next mech we want to see" PGI is going to keep making mech packs at the exclusion of everything else (unless its energy draw or killing CW ).

TLDR: We need more of ANY form of content other than more mechs. I'm willing to pay for that content, but not more mechs.

[RestosIII]

Bud Crue, on 18 September 2016 - 08:26 AM, said:

Instead of "LONGBOW!"

How about:

"NEW MAPS!"
-New map pack ($20): access to 3 new maps.
-Collectors map pack ($40): includes bonus 1st map with special randomly placed drop zones, conquest points, domination circle and assault mode bases.
-Hero Map (add on of $15) is a unique double sized map that does not force both teams into a central location, so as to encourage more diverse tactical game play and role warfare.

That's a new pack I could get behind.

Obviously I am joking (a bit) here, at least in the sense that I don't want to encourage PGI to start charging for maps in this way. What I do want to encourage is us to start pushing as hard for new maps to the same extent as we constantly do for, more, more!, MORE! mechs. Yes, every once in a while there is a thread about what kind of maps would we like to see added, the frequency of that however is WAY less than the near weekly refrain of "what mech should be next...how about ____!?" As long as the only thing we as players/customers get consistently vocal about is "what's the next mech we want to see" PGI is going to keep making mech packs at the exclusion of everything else (unless its energy draw or killing CW ).

TLDR: We need more of ANY form of content other than more mechs. I'm willing to pay for that content, but not more mechs.

I'm really hoping you ARE sarcastic about map packs due to the buckets situation. Anyways, I care less about maps, more about PvE/CW fluff. Remember how they said you could run a mercenary corp and capture planets on the periphery for your unit?