New Mech Announcement?
#1
Posted 06 December 2017 - 06:59 AM
Seeing as it's the 6. December now (a Wednesday) and there still seems to be no trace of any new Mech announcements, I start wondering:
Are they holding the new Announcement back for Mechcon?
And if so, why? Are they about to announce something big?
Usually, those packs aren't really too much of a big deal, or maybe just for those, who have a special connection to that specific mech.
I'm not actively looking for something to dump money on. I just ask out of pure curiosity, because I find this exception from the rule somewhat strange.
On the other hand, I do enjoy the monthly issue of Mech P*rn that is Alex' Concept Art.
So is there something that I missed? Did they already say something about this "missing" announcement?
#2
Posted 06 December 2017 - 07:00 AM
Last year's MechCon reveal was a 'big deal' (PGI/Alex Original), but that doesn't necessarily mean this years will be.
Edited by Bombast, 06 December 2017 - 09:09 AM.
#3
Posted 06 December 2017 - 07:02 AM
#4
Posted 06 December 2017 - 07:09 AM
#5
Posted 06 December 2017 - 07:15 AM
Bombast, on 06 December 2017 - 07:00 AM, said:
Last year's MechCon reveal was a 'big deal' (PGI/Alex Original), but that doesn't necessarily mean this years will be.
Which one was it last year? Guess I missed that, since I just started playing around that time.
Think I started close to the Kodiak announcement.
What do you guys think? Maybe it's gonna be some kind of big package (2 - 4 mechs) to go along one of the bigger, announced features like Solaris, the "Go-Through-Hangar" or maybe just the city map?
#7
Posted 06 December 2017 - 07:18 AM
#8
Posted 06 December 2017 - 07:20 AM
Huh, time flies.
Bombast, on 06 December 2017 - 07:17 AM, said:
The Roughneck.
One could hope for IS Omnimechs this year, but I doubt it. Probably just a PGI Clan original, or another fan favorite (Blood Asp, etc).
Guess a Clan Original would only be fair, seeing how the IS has a non-canon mech some people can hate on.
Hopefully it's not gonna be the same caliber.
A walking fortress with Clan Mobility and Payload? Straight out of Nightmares right there and / or literal money printer.
#9
Posted 06 December 2017 - 07:33 AM
FunkyT, on 06 December 2017 - 07:20 AM, said:
Huh, time flies.
Guess a Clan Original would only be fair, seeing how the IS has a non-canon mech some people can hate on.
Hopefully it's not gonna be the same caliber.
A walking fortress with Clan Mobility and Payload? Straight out of Nightmares right there and / or literal money printer.
A Clan 60-tonner would be the best option for adding an original mech to the current line-up. There are plenty of good Clan mechs in other tonnage brackets, but the 60-ton bracket has been pretty underdeveloped within Battletech as a whole. A tanky 60-ton Battlemech without a bloat of hardpoints would serve well.
#10
Posted 06 December 2017 - 09:15 AM
Verilligo, on 06 December 2017 - 07:33 AM, said:
Not true. We have a couple options, many of which are actually pretty good. Dominated by Battlemechs, and not omnis, but that's fine considering we already have an omni 60-tonner. Virtually all of them have promise.
#11
Posted 06 December 2017 - 11:24 AM
Pariah Devalis, on 06 December 2017 - 09:15 AM, said:
Not true. We have a couple options, many of which are actually pretty good. Dominated by Battlemechs, and not omnis, but that's fine considering we already have an omni 60-tonner. Virtually all of them have promise.
I don't entirely agree, to be honest. While yes, these do all exist within Battletech and I'm sure they're fine mechs... two of them suffer badly from hardpoint bloat, the Hellfire and Matador. The Thresher is not a mech I would say is from the sterling days of battlemech design and the Glass Spider is essentially a boring Clan rehash of the Rifleman in a world where the Rifleman IIC already exists. Presuming we ever get the latter due to its popularity, I can't see a reason to take a Glass Spider when I could take a Rifleman IIC instead, especially when nothing about the Glass Spider's design calls it out as being tanky.
That mostly leaves the Predator, which... in all fairness, is a really good option. It's just that's by and large THE only option that already exists in-universe for a tanky-ish design without hardpoint bloat, thus my underdeveloped claim.
#12
Posted 06 December 2017 - 11:45 AM
Verilligo, on 06 December 2017 - 11:24 AM, said:
That mostly leaves the Predator, which... in all fairness, is a really good option. It's just that's by and large THE only option that already exists in-universe for a tanky-ish design without hardpoint bloat, thus my underdeveloped claim.
Considering all are battlemechs, and battlemechs get inflation, usually, in MWO (even clan ones)? Down the list:
Thresher offers the most interesting options in both MASC and jump jets. Hardpoints are scattered across the arms and torsos, but those are all essentially roof mounted. From a meta player's perspective, damned near ideal placement. The physical design is very flat, meaning side on it should be able to protect an opposite side torso fairly well.
Glass Spider, assuming standard inflation, might have a 4B option. The other variants are decidedly more energy based, but PGI would need to invent variants for most mechs, existing or imagined, regardless, so who knows what they'd come up with. Comes with a standard engine, which can easily be swapped for a CXL for a much bigger engine while still saving weight. Doing so gives it a stupidly large amount of free tonnage. Would fill the same sort of niche the rifleman does, without any of the risk that a IIC would threaten (though that risk might be near non-existent soon).
Hellfire would not be my first choice, honestly. Besides looking like a visual mess, it seems... I donno.... Uninspired? I'm pretty luke warm about this one. Same goes for the Matador, though at least that walking brick has a healthier range of hardpoint options for a mech its tonnage.
Predator would likely be a solid ride, but that depends on if they stick the cockpit in its crotch like the art, or higher towards the head. In any case, it has a nice base configuration, and plenty of potential for configurations in game.
#13
Posted 06 December 2017 - 12:22 PM
#14
Posted 06 December 2017 - 01:55 PM
Pariah Devalis, on 06 December 2017 - 09:15 AM, said:
Not true. We have a couple options, many of which are actually pretty good. Dominated by Battlemechs, and not omnis, but that's fine considering we already have an omni 60-tonner. Virtually all of them have promise.
The problem with the 60 ton clan battlemech weight bracket is that they all lack variety. We will definitely see PGI variants which is something personally I wouldn't want to look forward to. The Predator and Matador would be the only battlemechs in that weight class that I think would be something interesting to the table at least. Again though, if PGI really had to make up another battlemech, it should have been a PGI original in the clan 60 ton range since the clan 60 ton department is rather lacking.
Only exception to my own rule still remains with non canon variants is the Toyama. The reason being is that I personally love the look of the mech, and it won't be absolute garbage if it were ever implemented in the game. It's also one of the very few IS mechs that I had reasonable success with over on proving grounds.
#15
Posted 06 December 2017 - 02:26 PM
Gas Guzzler, on 06 December 2017 - 12:22 PM, said:
I really do not understand this, man.....
Stuffs like Uziel was not even supposed to appear at the game at all. It was just one designer made the model during his free time, and it was introduced on the game because it was 'looking cool'. It was not even an original initially pushed by Microsoft, it was an one-man project. Don't be so negative when companies introduce mechs for their own games. It's been like that for a long time.
I really love Roughneck. I like it very much regardless of the mech's performance. Literally only thing this company is good at anything is art/design thanks to Alex. I will look forward to hear news if this is another good PGI original.
#16
Posted 06 December 2017 - 07:03 PM
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users