280 replies to this topic

[Kanil]

Appogee, on 08 December 2017 - 11:37 PM, said:

However, I can see from this thread that lore purists are against anything original being added to canon, and I guess that must have had an impact, too.

My problem is when their additions are either redundant or easily solved by existing canon options.

If PGI wants to make their own 'mechs where canon options are either sparse or impractical, that's fine with me. If they want to give us another friggin' 65 tonner, I'll be a bit disappointed...

[Kargush]

JackalBeast, on 08 December 2017 - 10:29 PM, said:

guys stahp.

Except that one doesn't have 2 SRM6 launcher on the left side. So no.

[Pariah Devalis]

Kanil, on 09 December 2017 - 06:19 AM, said:

My problem is when their additions are either redundant or easily solved by existing canon options.

If PGI wants to make their own 'mechs where canon options are either sparse or impractical, that's fine with me. If they want to give us another friggin' 65 tonner, I'll be a bit disappointed...

As I said:

Pariah Devalis, on 09 December 2017 - 05:20 AM, said:

Honestly, as I said before, I'm fine with the rare few new chassis from PGI. MW4 did it, and people didn't lose their minds. Might as well allow PGI the same courtesy, with moderation. Once a year isn't too bad.

I only hope, however, that these new mechs actually address tonnage points that we are lacking in. For example, the 60-ton and 95-ton Clan points.

Last thing the game actually needs are more 65 ton mechs. IIRC, that is the single most over-populous tonnage point in the game.

[Kanil]

Pariah Devalis, on 09 December 2017 - 06:26 AM, said:

Last thing the game actually needs are more 65 ton mechs. IIRC, that is the single most over-populous tonnage point in the game.

50 and 35 tonners are more plentiful, and 75 tonners the same as the 65s. But most of the 65s are somewhere between "good" and "workable", whereas you don't typically see lots of Orions, Trebuchets, or Panthers...

Edited by Kanil, 09 December 2017 - 06:31 AM.

[Juodas Varnas]

I honestly think it could be a decent choice for a 55 ton Clan BATTLEMECH,
Then the clanners will have 2 Omnis (Stormcrow for the punchiness, Black Lanner for speediness) and 1 Battlemech to choose from.
60 tons could also be a decent choice, since clanners only have the Vulture in that bracket

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 09 December 2017 - 06:45 AM.

[pheeere]

Juodas Varnas, on 09 December 2017 - 05:49 AM, said:

You're a bit of a drama queen aren't you?

Low tolerance and patience with obnoxious wise-cracks, but sure, put it on me mate.

[FupDup]

Kargush, on 08 December 2017 - 11:33 PM, said:

I know I'm probably barking up the wrong tree here, but...

Since the banner mentions MechWarrior, both Online and 5, but nothing about BattleTech, might it be a mech that would fit the timeline in both?

That ought to narrow down the list of suspects.

The weapon geometry on the right arm indicates an Ultra AC/10, which ain't available in 3025...

[Jay Leon Hart]

Soon!

[Cy Mitchell]

I think it is an IS Mech but if it turns out to be an "Alex" original Clan chassis then I will buy it. I have no problem with PGI working with Catalyst to add and canonize new Mechs for MWO and BattleTech. I would much rather see something like this added to MWO than some of the garbage looking Mechs that you see in the TROs.

[Brain Cancer]

Rampage, on 09 December 2017 - 10:30 AM, said:

I think it is an IS Mech but if it turns out to be an "Alex" original Clan chassis then I will buy it. I have no problem with PGI working with Catalyst to add and canonize new Mechs for MWO and BattleTech. I would much rather see something like this added to MWO than some of the garbage looking Mechs that you see in the TROs.

What I'd like them to do is work with Catalyst on these.

When MWO puts out something, they also release a special canonized blurb with the TT stats for each variant, making it legal for use in the boardgame as well. This also means we get good lore fluff for new robots and give the dice-and-hex players some new content as well.

[Cy Mitchell]

Brain Cancer, on 09 December 2017 - 10:54 AM, said:

What I'd like them to do is work with Catalyst on these.

When MWO puts out something, they also release a special canonized blurb with the TT stats for each variant, making it legal for use in the boardgame as well. This also means we get good lore fluff for new robots and give the dice-and-hex players some new content as well.

Well they did release some fluff for the Roughneck Reaver and I posted a cryptic tweet from Catalyst written December 5th that said they had sent a lore piece to PGI for approval. It is starting to appear that the lore piece may be the fluff for this new Mech.

[Jackal Noble]

Kargush, on 09 December 2017 - 06:23 AM, said:

Except that one doesn't have 2 SRM6 launcher on the left side. So no.

Where can you tell it's an srm6X2? From the earlier pic it looked like either an lrm 10(6+4) or an srm6/srm4. The body layout has a lot of similarities to that of the Hellfire; it has a protruding CT and with protruding ST pieces. It's also one of the only mechs that has that style of setup where the missile launchers separate the arms from the side torso, which you can see in the picture. Also has digitigrade legs like the hellfire. Disparities lie in the tube count, ballistic style right arm, and left torso energy point location. It could be the hero hell fire. Also we need another 60 tonner and a battlemech is preferable. So ya.

[Cato Zilks]

JackalBeast, on 09 December 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

Where can you tell it's an srm6X2? From the earlier pic it looked like either an lrm 10(6+4) or an srm6/srm4. The body layout has a lot of similarities to that of the Hellfire; it has a protruding CT and with protruding ST pieces. It's also one of the only mechs that has that style of setup where the missile launchers separate the arms from the side torso, which you can see in the picture. Also has digitigrade legs like the hellfire. Disparities lie in the tube count, ballistic style right arm, and left torso energy point location. It could be the hero hell fire. Also we need another 60 tonner and a battlemech is preferable. So ya.

Except it has the rugged frankenmech look of an IS mech. I agree the game most needs a clan 60t, this just doesnt look to be it.

[Jackal Noble]

Ahhh screw it we are all wrong and will know in a few hours. Whatevs.

[Jackal Noble]

Cato Zilks, on 09 December 2017 - 11:14 AM, said:

Except it has the rugged frankenmech look of an IS mech. I agree the game most needs a clan 60t, this just doesnt look to be it.

Ya and that thought crept up to me as well. It has the new age hybrid IS look to it. Like with the Bushie, and the Osiris and the Nightcap.

[Pariah Devalis]

[FupDup]

Pariah Devalis, on 09 December 2017 - 12:23 PM, said:

I knew it was the Crusader, you guys should've listened to me!

[Mole]

That looks an awful lot like an Argus just... there shouldn't be missiles on the right arm.

[FupDup]

Mole, on 09 December 2017 - 12:29 PM, said:

That looks an awful lot like an Argus just... there shouldn't be missiles on the right arm.

No man, it's totally the Crusader!

[Battlemaster56]

Pariah Devalis, on 09 December 2017 - 12:23 PM, said:

Super Locust confirmed?