159 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2017 - 08:04 PM, said:

In this case, I got to disagree. I really found the concept art wonky to put it mildly. And the Osiris and Uziel are near spot on to his concepts. Alex is a Mech God, but these were not his finest work.

I was speak "in general" not specifically to the most recent batch of mechs... But I get your point.

[The Mysterious Fox]

i feel its pretty minor but i dont play IS so i dont have a bone in this. what i only care about is the representation in the sales art to the final product and that is something everyone should care about as consumers.

[MustrumRidcully]

SargeantShepard, on 17 October 2017 - 05:02 PM, said:

To be fair it looks better sidelong.


And even then id argue it has more to do with this fugly paint job than the actual mech's design.


Also, your use of incorrect use of "Gundam" triggers me, as a Gundam fan.

Yeah, that paint job is surprisingly bad. And it's not the image itself, it's really the effects/materials or whatever it is called. Like a washed out jeans rather than a metallic surface.

[The Mysterious Fox]

MustrumRidcully, on 17 October 2017 - 10:12 PM, said:

Yeah, that paint job is surprisingly bad. And it's not the image itself, it's really the effects/materials or whatever it is called. Like a washed out jeans rather than a metallic surface.

its van gogh's starry night painting. night star geddit

[DerMaulwurf]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2017 - 05:42 PM, said:

like I said, 2 barrel widths.

And outside of true comp players I find most players to be far worse than they think they are at judging weapons clear in reality.

It's not nothing but again, it's sure the hell not the difference between a Warhawk and a Jagermech, either.

[...]

It's the difference between having your main guns at cockpit height or not. And that's absolutely not minor.

Comp play ain't got nothing to do with it.

[Thorqemada]

That Thing gets killed by ST destruction anyway...and now it looks like the panicking chicken it shouid be therefore!

Edited by Thorqemada, 17 October 2017 - 10:37 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

The Mysterious Fox, on 17 October 2017 - 10:16 PM, said:

its van gogh's starry night painting. night star geddit

Yes, the painting is fine.

isn't there supposed to be a TARDIS on it, though?

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 17 October 2017 - 10:39 PM.

[FLG 01]

DerMaulwurf, on 17 October 2017 - 10:26 PM, said:

It's the difference between having your main guns at cockpit height or not. And that's absolutely not minor.

Comp play ain't got nothing to do with it.

Indeed.

It's not like only MWOWC finals comp players would be able to make use of the difference. In fact, especially the average player will appreciate the higher mounts. Only the LRM-assault guys and people who hide their Atlas for all the game are not affected by the change.

The Lighthouse, on 17 October 2017 - 05:55 PM, said:

I think if Nightstar had actually any nostalgia, I think much less people would whine about it. But as far as I am concerned this is Nightstar's first ever debut in Mechwarrior video game, so the only real reason to buy a mech is performance for Nightstar's case.

I mean otherwise mechs like Thanatos and Hellspawn.... they are ****ing suicide steel coffins based on performance and hitboxes, but people will buy them for nostalgia. Not so much for Nightstar.

To be fair, unlike units like the Uziel, which is totally insignificant during the FCCW (no RAT entry, no novel appearance etc.), the Nightstar actually has a role in the FCCW.
It cannot be stressed enough that that's a novelty. Many of the new Mechs since the techupgrade were at best sideshow Mechs with little to no relevance in the FCCW.

The Nightstar however is not only regularily found in the army of loyalists and allies (due to the fact that both had a factory under their control producing the Nightstar; loyalists had NST, allies GM), the Nightstar is also the preferred ride of Tranced Sandoval, arguably the most important supporter of Victor in the FedSuns. As such it is in the spotlight of pivotal battles of the FCCW - which, again, is a novelty as far as MWO's Mech selection since the techupgrade is concered.

For me as a BT-fan, it's very nice to get a Mech from the FCCW-lore instead of useless MW:4-rehashes with zero lore relevance like the Uziel.

[theta123]

Well said FLG

Also since so many people are fan of the wolf dragoons....remember... what (ex) member of wolf dragoons piloted a Nightstar ?(with clan tech however)

[The Basilisk]

Lostdragon, on 17 October 2017 - 05:22 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm not that good and the difference between a weapon being mounted in the highest hardpoint possible or the lowest is noticeable to me. Getting gauss rifles into the KDK-3's higher hardpoints is a big deal, and it doesn't look like the height difference here is much less than that example.

Actually it will be a lot more noticeable than the Kodiaks difference.

The KDKs gauss are already on cockpit hight == minimum exposure while firing.
If you get them higher you will have a minimum advantage out of it.

The Nightstars Gauss where on Hipjoint level prior to the lift and are now on level with the lower central energy port.
Sure you still have the ears poking out badly...but all the center of gravity (lower torsopart can now be covered) and hipjoint shooters (Clan laservomit to the leggs) will now have to put an extra voley into you to put you out or go straight for CT.

Promessa, on 17 October 2017 - 10:39 PM, said:

Oh, they made it look less visually appealing...
That's all I see here.
Honestly, this guy screams meta mech, they don't need to have cockpit level arms too.

Well that is a matter of taste realy. From a side angel I do not find it less or more appealing.
And metamech ???
With those big sidetorsoes that hight and that big frontal area ?
Your effin kidding me.

The MadCat MK2 was a meta mech due to it beeing as big as a medium.

Edited by The Basilisk, 18 October 2017 - 12:15 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Elevating the arms might have something to do with balance -- considering that the barrels are now more in line with the elevation of the cockpit i bet it would have better performance than otherwise.

But personally, i criticize it for looking like a fugly Ebon Jaguar, that was it really, just aesthetic.

[CtrlAltWheee]

I think it looks good. And I think the Osiris looks really good.

The concern for the side torsos is legitimate. They can sort it out with quirks.

[kapusta11]

Some people could've said the same about Warhammer back in the days. It's a matter of taste.

[El Bandito]

CtrlAltWheee, on 18 October 2017 - 12:52 AM, said:

I think it looks good. And I think the Osiris looks really good.

The concern for the side torsos is legitimate. They can sort it out with quirks.

It already received durability quirks. +23 structure to CT, and +16 stucture to STs. I think that's a good start. Ultimately, only tech balancing can make the NStar more competitive.

Edited by El Bandito, 18 October 2017 - 02:04 AM.

[Escef]

Eh, it traded away a little convergence for more hill humping. Wasn't a big deal to me, but I suppose the IS needed a decent assault class ballistic hill humper.

[Lykaon]

Promessa, on 17 October 2017 - 10:39 PM, said:

Oh, they made it look less visually appealing...
That's all I see here.
Honestly, this guy screams meta mech, they don't need to have cockpit level arms too.

How do you see meta mech and I see a serious potential for DOA.

Nearly no offensive quirks. There are two variants with UACs in stock config but no jam chance quirks. A variant with one missile hardpoint and another with four missile hardpoints but what mech gets the missile quirk? you guessed it the one CT hardpoint variant.

HUGE side torsos and most variants with an I.S. XL engine stock! So costly engine swaps.

Poor geometry with long torso profile and "ears" poking up from the front profile. Looks like an easy target to me.

and to cap it all off under whelming mobility.

Clan gets a Madcat MKII
I.S. gets ...this

[Paigan]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2017 - 04:57 PM, said:

A height difference so minor that only the top 1% or so of players would likely actually be able to tell in combat.....

*shrugs* Ah well. Just when I thought they couldn't find a way to make it look any worse, lol......

(Seriously this was already the fugliest gundam ever released in the game... and now? Wow. I thought they malfed up the mkII and Uziel... then they give us this guy...)

If you have ever played a WHK and then a MAD-IIC with its lasers in the torso (or a similarily comparable pair), you know that a difference like that is HUGE.
The WHK shoots its arm-mounted lasers into the terrain half of the time on most maps (no, I don't really shoot lasers into the terrain like a ret*rd, I don't shoot at all in such cases), while the MAD-IIC can shoot over it just fine.
That change has a similar effect, although inside the same chassis.

(normally, Mechs should be able to raise their arms, preferably automatically to maintain line of fire, but that's of course delusional for me to wish in MWO)

But I agree that aesthetically, the change made an ugly Mech even uglier.

But then again, I remember a thread where I wrote regarding this that the Mechs get uglier and uglier and you wrote that's only my opinion.

Most of the good and acceptable Mechs have already been released.
The rest are inflationary hey-I-have-an-idea-for-another-Mech fanboy crap designs.
The Nightstar is ugly.
The Hellspawn is the ugliest of them all.
The Piranha can even be seen as some kind of animal joke Mech. Compared to that, the Urban Mech is dead serious (being a police Mech and all that).
It can only get worse from here.

Edited by Paigan, 18 October 2017 - 05:33 AM.

[Lykaon]

Paigan, on 18 October 2017 - 05:29 AM, said:

It can only get worse from here.

Protomechs?

[Haveatya]

I'd be amused if we could toggle arm location between horizontal and the original slant. Trade cqb convergence for hull downing. I think part of the problem aesthetically was that the arms and weapon mounts stayed angled with the arm instead of being vertical.

[Bishop Steiner]

MustrumRidcully, on 17 October 2017 - 10:12 PM, said:

Yeah, that paint job is surprisingly bad. And it's not the image itself, it's really the effects/materials or whatever it is called. Like a washed out jeans rather than a metallic surface.

maybe because it's based off an oil painting on canvas, so metallic would be odd?