Jump to content

First Looks At Some Of The Civil War Mech Models


223 replies to this topic

#41 Metus regem

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sureshot
  • The Sureshot
  • 10,282 posts
  • LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses

Posted 28 April 2017 - 02:35 PM

View PostQuicksilver Kalasa, on 28 April 2017 - 02:30 PM, said:

No it's not because it has to expose all of its torso, the Kodiak and Mauler may end up exposing less than this will. It will expose less than a MAD-IIC, but it will lack the narrower torso that the MAD-IIC benefits from (meaning it will be easier to isolate a torso). Will it be meta? Definitely. Will it be the new god assault like the KDK-3 was when it came out? Probably not.




I just wonder how it will handel in the new skill tree era... As it is likely to not have the same basic agility as the Timber Wolf when it comes to twisting... I mean if you take the time to really look at the Timby's hit boxes they are alright at best, but with the speed that it can twist at, it takes average hit boxes and turns them into solid hit boxes. I have a funny feeling that the Mk. II is going to get very similar hit boxes for the ST's and CT, but will lack the twist speed to make them solid hit boxes.

View Poststealthraccoon, on 28 April 2017 - 02:32 PM, said:

But it would look funny Posted Image



It's an Uziel, it already looks funny, there is no helping that.

#42 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 28 April 2017 - 03:31 PM

I gotta say, they derped up the face of the Annihilator...way to big and Cyclopsy. Loses menace.

#43 I_AM_ZUUL

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 1,017 posts
  • LocationIsle of Skye (Freeing Skye from the Steiner usurpers)

Posted 28 April 2017 - 03:33 PM

View PostGhostNemesys, on 28 April 2017 - 02:06 PM, said:


I don't think that the Anni is doa. It actually looks better than the concept art. Torso mounts are fairly high and if the arms stay as they are in that ca. 30 degree angle they are okay as well. Plus the front profile looks much slimmer than that of a Mauler or KDK, which is good for dakka since that requires a lot of facetime.
I gotta admit, first I wasn't interested in the Annihilator at all, but now...


They are not that high... they are no where near KDK levels but just cause they are not at Black Knight hip level does not make them good. Especially in light of the fact that Madcat is going to only have to expose the top half of its Torso in comparison and a compact top half it is when the ears are removed. NOTHING is ever going to KDK-3 levels of so ridiculously OP was when it was released, so that point is void. But it is clearly going to be right at the top of where the KDK-3/MAD-IIC currently sits... while the Inner Sphere gets possibly a worse Mauler because Engine Decoupling nerfs the ability to Torso Twist using the XL Engine that it is going to require to carry those guns.

#44 MischiefSC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 16,697 posts

Posted 28 April 2017 - 03:37 PM

View PostI_AM_ZUUL, on 28 April 2017 - 02:05 PM, said:


Exactly... Meta Mech confirmed. Do not worry, I had absolute faith in you at PGI to make MORE brokenly OP Clam mechs & IS mechs that has terrible weapon placement and geometry. That way I am never let down


Except pretty much all the newer IS mechs are the same. My Roughneck is.

Sometimes, when I'm alone at night, I'll just strip all the weapons and make her turn slowly in the mech bay, all sleek and nekkid.

While the shield arms on the MCII are better they're not great and while they're higher the mech is hardpoint starved; that means that they'll be carrying 1/2 their firepower in the arms, unless they're taking a 90 ton mech a total of 4 energy hardpoints.

It's no Kodiak. Not even close. The torso ballistics and arm ballistics are probably about the exact same height as the Anni; the difference is really going to be CXL and the Annis high cockpit and low engine cap. However... 5x RAC. Also the Anni is mixed ballistic and energy (ACs and lasers, not really a PPC/Gauss sort of thing) vs the MC2 missile, energy and a ballistic or 2.

Real difference is 70kph vs 52 KPH. That's the make/break right there.

#45 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 28 April 2017 - 03:42 PM

We learned more about ATMs

Theyll probably have a min range (guessing 60m) so damage will ramp up from 0 to 3 at 60m then ramp down linearly from 3 at 60m to 1 at 810m.

ATMs will fire at a much lower angle than LRMs like we assumed, but it sounds like theyll still be able to clear low obstacles and indirect fire.

ATMs will be able to dumbfire.

#46 Snowbluff

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 2,368 posts

Posted 28 April 2017 - 03:42 PM

View PostBishop Steiner, on 28 April 2017 - 12:24 PM, said:

Start with the Annihilator


Will add more as I can
Posted Image


and I got bored so that is it

Honestly it looks like the Mk II's arms came out too short.
https://static.mwome...dcatmk2-std.jpg

#47 Imperius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 5,747 posts
  • LocationOn Reddit and Twitter

Posted 28 April 2017 - 03:48 PM

View PostSnowbluff, on 28 April 2017 - 03:42 PM, said:

Honestly it looks like the Mk II's arms came out too short.
https://static.mwome...dcatmk2-std.jpg

Arms are a bit short or weapons stick out too much.

Also it may be the perspective but the arm weapons don't seem to line up with the cockpit like they should. Might be a bit low, I hope this is the perspective used.

#48 MischiefSC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 16,697 posts

Posted 28 April 2017 - 03:48 PM

View PostKhobai, on 28 April 2017 - 03:42 PM, said:

We learned more about ATMs

Theyll probably have a min range (guessing 60m) so damage will ramp up from 0 to 3 at 60m then ramp down linearly from 3 at 60m to 1 at 810m.

ATMs will fire at a much lower angle than LRMs like we assumed, but it sounds like theyll still be able to clear low obstacles and indirect fire.

ATMs will be able to dumbfire.


I hope so. I hope they work really well so that people take them over LRMs. I hope they are flat and fly more quickly.

#49 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 26,888 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 28 April 2017 - 03:51 PM

View PostKhobai, on 28 April 2017 - 03:42 PM, said:

We learned more about ATMs

Theyll probably have a min range (guessing 60m) so damage will ramp up from 0 to 3 at 60m then ramp down linearly from 3 at 60m to 1 at 810m.

ATMs will fire at a much lower angle than LRMs like we assumed, but it sounds like theyll still be able to clear low obstacles and indirect fire.

ATMs will be able to dumbfire.

A min range is kind of weird given that the whole point of High Explosive ATM ammo was to be powerful in short range.

#50 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 28 April 2017 - 03:59 PM

View PostFupDup, on 28 April 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

A min range is kind of weird given that the whole point of High Explosive ATM ammo was to be powerful in short range.

but there has to be a balancer to avoid replacing SRMs.

#51 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 28 April 2017 - 04:03 PM

ATMs werent in danger of replacing anything lol.

Versatility has never won over specialization in MWO and theres no reason to think ATMs will be any different.

#52 Imperius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 5,747 posts
  • LocationOn Reddit and Twitter

Posted 28 April 2017 - 04:03 PM

Gauss rifles line up with the square on the chin and are just above the laser points under.
Posted Image

#53 Hit the Deck

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,677 posts
  • LocationIndonesia

Posted 28 April 2017 - 04:03 PM

Damn, this looks awesome!

Posted Image

#54 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 26,888 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 28 April 2017 - 04:10 PM

View PostBishop Steiner, on 28 April 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

but there has to be a balancer to avoid replacing SRMs.

SRMs by default offer better efficiency for what you spend and they aren't dependent on MWO's gimmicky lock-on mechanics.

Failing that, there's also the slower reload time route.

#55 Hit the Deck

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,677 posts
  • LocationIndonesia

Posted 28 April 2017 - 04:15 PM

View PostMischiefSC, on 28 April 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

I hope so. I hope they work really well so that people take them over LRMs.

ATMs aren't comparable to LRMs (the former are much less efficient at long range per TRO), unless if you mean like SRMs are better than LRMs so people swap their LRMs with SRMs.

I might cancel my MKII preorder and buy the Uziel instead because it seems that the latter will look better Posted Image

#56 Moonlight Grimoire

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Moon
  • The Moon
  • 941 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 28 April 2017 - 04:17 PM

View PostBishop Steiner, on 28 April 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

but there has to be a balancer to avoid replacing SRMs.


Sadly there is no real way to avoid that, ATM3 is 1.5 tons, and is meant to have Artemis baked into the launcher. At 2 slots for an ATM3 for 1.5 tons, it is more flexible than a cSRM6 and should have a tighter cluster, plus tighter damage from half the missiles at 3 vs 6 thanks to, again, baked in Artemis. That is the smallest launcher, now of course the main draw back would be likely be same cooldown to a cSRM6 as an ATM3 puts out 9 damage per shot vs an SRM6 doing 12 so DPS SRM6 would be better, though lacking tracking.

Stepping up from that to the ATM6 it shares size of a cLRM15+A with the weight of an cLRM15-A, ATM9 shares Slots and Weight of a cLRM20, and ATM12 is 7 tons and 5 crits which is beyond any missile weapon the clans have now so it couldn't just copy the cooldown timer of an existing clan weapon instead. The idea being making ATM's do more damage up close so you don't want to get close to them as they will smack you hard and rock your day unlike a LRMboat would, but, wouldn't have the DPS like a SRMboat thus leaving SRM brawlers having a place in MWO. Likely ATM6 have cooldown of cLRM10, so on and so forth as they do have lower damage potential at longer range, and 4 seconds for 18 damage is getting to AC20/LB20X cooldown time for the ATM6 doing effectively "Missileboat shotgun" with it's payload at the "3 damage per missile" range. That of course also doesn't get into the issue of SRM's are also going to remain far more damage per ton of ammo efficient than ATM's as ATM's are 60 missiles per ton, likely going up to 100 under PGI's rules which is still lower than SRM's ratio.

But, yes, I can see how ATM's would look a lot more attractive than SRM's until you start realizing an ATM3 is the same as a SRM6 in terms of tonnage, you get 20 shots per ton of ammo with an ATM3 which is up from an SRM6 with 16.7, but 9 damage vs 12 damage, same cycle time, tighter cluster but less missiles (so if you partially miss with an SRM6 you are likely to fully miss with an ATM3 due to tighter spread due to baked in Artemis and only 3 projectiles). Throw in the flexibility and people will likely throw out missiles at mid and long range running their ammo dry sooner and lose out on damage as it does reduced damage at longer range. SRM's still will be king of brawling over ATM's, but, ATM's will be great for mid range combat and closing imo.

#57 Glaive-

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 951 posts
  • LocationIn a cave

Posted 28 April 2017 - 04:18 PM

View PostBishop Steiner, on 28 April 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

but there has to be a balancer to avoid replacing SRMs.


Everyone keeps saying this but it seems that people are forgetting that ATMs will be larger and much heavier than SRMs or LRMs.

I expect boating SRMs to still be plenty viable on Clan mechs. It'll be easier to make use of many missile hard points, and easier to take backup weapons or fit more heatsinks.


I personally hope that ATMs end up as essentially Clan MRMs, but with some extra extra flexibility.


Edit: Got ninja'd by Moonlight

Edited by armyunit, 28 April 2017 - 04:37 PM.


#58 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 28 April 2017 - 04:41 PM

View PostFupDup, on 28 April 2017 - 04:10 PM, said:

SRMs by default offer better efficiency for what you spend and they aren't dependent on MWO's gimmicky lock-on mechanics.

Failing that, there's also the slower reload time route.

I'm not disagreeing. I am simply telling you what PGI is thinking. Chill, Fuppy. Would I have liked your post if I disagreed with it? Hmmm? Posted Image

View PostMoonlight Grimoire, on 28 April 2017 - 04:17 PM, said:

stuff


View Postarmyunit, on 28 April 2017 - 04:18 PM, said:


ninja'd stuff

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 28 April 2017 - 04:42 PM.


#59 I_AM_ZUUL

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 1,017 posts
  • LocationIsle of Skye (Freeing Skye from the Steiner usurpers)

Posted 28 April 2017 - 04:48 PM

View PostMischiefSC, on 28 April 2017 - 03:37 PM, said:


Except pretty much all the newer IS mechs are the same. My Roughneck is.

Sometimes, when I'm alone at night, I'll just strip all the weapons and make her turn slowly in the mech bay, all sleek and nekkid.

While the shield arms on the MCII are better they're not great and while they're higher the mech is hardpoint starved; that means that they'll be carrying 1/2 their firepower in the arms, unless they're taking a 90 ton mech a total of 4 energy hardpoints.

It's no Kodiak. Not even close. The torso ballistics and arm ballistics are probably about the exact same height as the Anni; the difference is really going to be CXL and the Annis high cockpit and low engine cap. However... 5x RAC. Also the Anni is mixed ballistic and energy (ACs and lasers, not really a PPC/Gauss sort of thing) vs the MC2 missile, energy and a ballistic or 2.

Real difference is 70kph vs 52 KPH. That's the make/break right there.


1. x2 cERPPC/cGauss= Low Hardpoint is pointless to talk about
2. PPFLD do not really use "shield arms" since they are not brawling or even mid-range
3. RACs are a DPS weapon meaning way more facetime to use and at closer range, therefore the IS XL is going to get it slaughtered especially in the face of Engine Decoupling
4. The height of the weapons from the ground is irrelevant when talking about hill humping which is the entire point we are discussing, so the substantially lower torso height in comparison is makes it important
5 Correct on the speed.

Basically you are wrong about everything you failed to correct about my statement while bringing up even more ways it is OP that I did not even get to... just agree with me so that you are not wrong all the time, it is much simpler.

#60 Pariah Devalis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Clan Cat
  • The Clan Cat
  • 7,655 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationAboard the NCS True Path

Posted 28 April 2017 - 05:13 PM

Cougar Gallery
http://imgur.com/a/eYEFZ

Uziel Gallery
http://imgur.com/a/qCOa6

Annihilator Gallery
http://imgur.com/a/lbQ2f

MKII Gallery
http://imgur.com/a/KNl00

Random Tech
Posted Image

Hail Satan Reddit for these compilation galleries.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 28 April 2017 - 05:16 PM.






10 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 10 guests, 0 anonymous users