197 replies to this topic

[Bombast]

MechCon 2017

[Lily from animove]

Jun Watarase, on 10 August 2017 - 08:08 AM, said:

Not that impressive as that sounds when you really only need up to 9 for laser vomit (3x LPL/LL, rest med lasers of some kind). I mean sure, the Nova can run 12x med lasers, but thats really really dumb.and nowhere near as impressive as it sounds. Plus the main attraction, the ability to swap pods, is negated by the fact that quirks are being moved to set of 8 pod bonuses and the fact that you can just pick a normal mech with the hardpoints that you want anyway.

but nova pays soem very hot er long burn duration lasers, however some regular med lasers x12 thats amazing.

But the X engine might be more of a problem in it.NVA like hitboxes won't go well with XL.

[Jingseng]

so......

basically IS want to complain about set of 8 quirks too?

[Lily from animove]

Jingseng, on 18 December 2017 - 07:06 AM, said:

so......

basically IS want to complain about set of 8 quirks too?

Do people still complain about them? I guess everyone just ignores their existence already.

Edited by Lily from animove, 18 December 2017 - 07:07 AM.

[Battlemaster56]

Lily from animove, on 18 December 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

Do people still complain about them? I guess everyone just ignores their existence already.

It's the internet there's always something to complain about.

[CK16]

Bump, for timely nature.

[Grus]

Im just going to love the salt that's going to be mined because they can't change out the IS Xl's lol

[Metus regem]

Grus, on 07 May 2018 - 09:08 AM, said:

Im just going to love the salt that's going to be mined because they can't change out the IS Xl's lol

Some IS Omni's are better than others, even taking into account the IS XL, but that is due to hit box shapes more than anything else...

The best medium omni with currently available tech is the Men Shen, narrow like a Bushwacker with high mounts. Heavies it gets a bit harder, not a lot of fantastic selection there, lights it's more or less the Raptor there and Assaults get tricky as it will really depend on how PGI handles the art for them.

[Battlemaster56]

At this point just release one or hell tease it, just give us a sign.

[MechaBattler]

The upside of IS omnis is that you can mix and match pods for more hard points. Thus giving the IS the ability to power creep hard points with every new variant they release.

[Seranov]

When there is hardly a single chassis in each weight category for IS Omnis that won't be a horrific deathtrap, what is even the point of offering them? Better to ignore them than to implement them and have them experience the same nonsense most of the MW4 IS mechs have experienced, except turned up to 11 due locked stuff.

I adore the Templar, but I know for a fact I wouldn't want to play it in MWO unless it had like the agility of a Linebacker and massive armor and/or structure quirks, in addition to that. And even then, it wouldn't be that great.

Edited by Seranov, 07 May 2018 - 10:21 AM.

[Stridercal]

Kiran Yagami, on 10 August 2017 - 06:17 AM, said:

IS omnis that are locked to XL = fail. Any mech locked to an XL engine that doesn't have amazing hit boxes is DOA. PGI screwed the pooch on IS omnis a long time ago when they decided XL engine side torso death should be a thing. That a horrible, stupid decision that killed many other concepts long before they were even born, like IS omnis. The Sunder in particular is very boxy and large. That would be one giant death trap with its locked XL engine. IS omnis shouldn't even be considered in MWO. Don't even think it.

Stop complaining about cannon performance. Three engine hits means dead engine. Fact. Done.

That's what happens when IS XL engine lose a torso.

[CK16]

Stridercal, on 07 May 2018 - 10:34 AM, said:

Stop complaining about cannon performance. Three engine hits means dead engine. Fact. Done.

That's what happens when IS XL engine lose a torso.

To be fair....to make IS Omni's more viable I could see a rule for them only that their XL's get more durability in MWO to survive one ST lose. Say it has shielding or something idk lol.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Stridercal, on 07 May 2018 - 10:34 AM, said:

Stop complaining about cannon performance. Three engine hits means dead engine. Fact. Done.

That's what happens when IS XL engine lose a torso.

Don't confuse TT rules with lore.

[Verilligo]

Stridercal, on 07 May 2018 - 10:34 AM, said:

Stop complaining about cannon performance. Three engine hits means dead engine. Fact. Done.

That's what happens when IS XL engine lose a torso.

Just because it's canon doesn't mean it's good or even right. But you are correct that it's probably too late to make better.

[Stridercal]

Verilligo, on 07 May 2018 - 10:54 AM, said:

Just because it's canon doesn't mean it's good or even right. But you are correct that it's probably too late to make better.

If you had ever played the original version, you'd actually have a shred of respect for the game design at work.

Jay Leon Hart, on 07 May 2018 - 10:52 AM, said:

Don't confuse TT rules with lore.

In this case, the lore is the tabletop is the lore is the rules is the tabletop.

[Metus regem]

CK16, on 07 May 2018 - 10:42 AM, said:

To be fair....to make IS Omni's more viable I could see a rule for them only that their XL's get more durability in MWO to survive one ST lose. Say it has shielding or something idk lol.

To be fair, that really helps the ones with bad hit boxes... Avatar and Blackjack Omni I'm looking at you two...

The benefit to some of the ones with decent to okay hit boxes (Templar and Sunder) each have their own issues that go beyond the isXL engine, but they would be in a slightly better place with this change...

Also, when it comes to the 'lore' argument, find me one piece of fluff that references three engine crits knocking it out or equipment crit sizes... TT rules do not equal lore... If PGI can't make the equipment right, I am okay with them changing the stats from their TT counterparts if it makes that equipment more viable... Hell HBS (with the very founder of BT at the helm) made changes from TT rules to make it work better in a video game environment...

[Stridercal]

CK16, on 07 May 2018 - 10:42 AM, said:

To be fair....to make IS Omni's more viable I could see a rule for them only that their XL's get more durability in MWO to survive one ST lose. Say it has shielding or something idk lol.

So why don't other IS XL mechs get the same super duper special engines then? Should the clans likewise get special engines that suffer zero penalties for side torso loss? That'd be fair, right? Because your new engine doesn't break...

The arguments you and others are making on this issue basically boil down to this: "I don't like it, and as such, any internal consistency in the game should be thrown out so i can stop pouting!"

[Jay Leon Hart]

Stridercal, on 07 May 2018 - 10:58 AM, said:

In this case, the lore is the tabletop is the lore is the rules is the tabletop.

Except it's not. I've asked in many (a dozen, surely?) threads for a non-TT citation of this supposed rule and no-one has thus far been forthcoming.

3 crit engine rule is as much lore as the Ghost Heat system.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Stridercal, on 07 May 2018 - 11:01 AM, said:

So why don't other IS XL mechs get the same super duper special engines then? Should the clans likewise get special engines that suffer zero penalties for side torso loss? That'd be fair, right? Because your new engine doesn't break...

OmniMech XL = Clan XL (penalty with 1 ST loss, death with 2 ST loss)
BattleMEch XL = IS XL (death on ST loss)
No LFE change needed, as OmniMechs can't swap engines
Buff Clan BattleMechs with torso structure and/or armour buffs

Reasoning?

OmniMech engines are hardwired, so it's easier to build in fail-safes and redundant systems.
BattleMech engines are "easier" to swap out, so no such fail-safe or redundancy systems exist.