Edit. Word correction. Autocorrect apparently favors militarizes over... huh. There is no unique plural form for military as a plural. (Added just a little more, 'cause I can't help it.)
FLG 01, on 15 January 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:
Sorry, no. Again, Sarna is horribly inaccurate when it comes to weapon introduction dates. Here are the correct canon dates (IO, Universal Technology Advancement table, pp. 35-63):
One of the many reasons I prefer Mech Factory over Sarna. MF doesn't paraphrase, it carries its entries word for word.
The rifles entry irks me though. I know that means Extinction and Return. But I wish it more accurately said Retired (from military service) and uh... whatever is a good word for pulling a relic out of retirement. Since Rifles don't go extinct, the major military forces of the big factions just stopped using them since giant machine guns based on anti-air weapons and gatling guns that shoot explosive bullets that can penetrate just enough to put explosive power into the armor to destroy it from within were just better than single shot hard hitting cannons based on tanks that could no longer punch through the armor as they were designed to do before exploding. The damage that Rifles still do to a Barrier Armor Rating (BAR; think of it like a penetration rating for armor in Battletech) of ten relies too heavily on the kinetic brute force to do its damage.
They only went 'extinct' as far as active military service (though some vehicles do indeed still wield them.) Periphery nations, smaller merc units (like that of MW5 Mercs and Battletech by Harebrained Schemes), pirates and such still field them as a cheap low tech alternative to the venerable single blow of the immensely powerful siege cannon (aka the PPC.)
The Clan's answer to Rotary Autocannons was... Rotary Autocannons. Diamond Shark started making experimental ones in 3069 and had them in full production 4 years later.
actually, Clans didn't adopt RACs till Dark Age. the original prototype was tested and ultimately abandoned in favor of HAGs. RACs were likely later adopted simply due to the breakdown in communications and therefore logistics in Dark Age, which meant getting replacement HAGs would've been a pain in the ***, hence they would've gone with the far-easier-to-produce Rotaries.
@Koniving: in fairness, think the main reason we don't get access to Arrow IVs is simply the sheer destructive power a single shot has, given it does its damage in a 45m radius and is roughly equivalent to a heavy autocannon in damage. something mounting two Arrow IV launchers could easily put down most of an enemy team in short order even with just near misses. don't really need to remind you how broken the Long Tom Strike was.
actually, Clans didn't adopt RACs till Dark Age. the original prototype was tested and ultimately abandoned in favor of HAGs. RACs were likely later adopted simply due to the breakdown in communications and therefore logistics in Dark Age, which meant getting replacement HAGs would've been a pain in the ***, hence they would've gone with the far-easier-to-produce Rotaries.
@Koniving: in fairness, think the main reason we don't get access to Arrow IVs is simply the sheer destructive power a single shot has, given it does its damage in a 45m radius and is roughly equivalent to a heavy autocannon in damage. something mounting two Arrow IV launchers could easily put down most of an enemy team in short order even with just near misses. don't really need to remind you how broken the Long Tom Strike was.
mmm arrow launchers.... I get what your saying but shouldn't the blast damage be mitigated by A; it's slow flight speed. B AMS. C getting into cover.
If it hits a building and I'm on the other side I shouldn't take damage. Or if it gets shot down.. ext ext.
Add to this maybe have a large min range and low ammo count per ton. So if you want to boat them you're going to have to choose to rather carry more ammo or have backup weps.
I would see these as a game changer for teams that like to "deathball" and or NASCAR. Clumped together like they are this would have a big impact on that group. Add one guy with a narc and party time!
If Sarna's so dreadfully inaccurate, it would be nice if someone who knew their stuff would edit it. I've been out of the loop for like a decade before playing MWO.
If Sarna's so dreadfully inaccurate, it would be nice if someone who knew their stuff would edit it. I've been out of the loop for like a decade before playing MWO.
It's not completely inaccurate.
Its sort of up and down. Some of it is as simple as poor word choice.
For example there's one under Thunder... Its got a Kali-Yama Big Bore. And yes the barrel looks insanely huge, but it even admits this is only a 120mm cannon, which means that immense size is impossible unless it is the smallest damn mech ever seen.
This image, by Karl Streiger, is made to be 105mm and 90mm respectively (top to bottom). Note how small it is compared to the man.
Now look at the Thunder's barrel... huh, the old image is missing, but here's another. This one actually has some proportion to it with a reference to scale. If the image doesn't work, go to this page.
Anyway, the original thunder image I had seen there depicted the barrel as wide open big as the arm, practically, with no inner barrel... and no size reference.
Problem with that entry, is the Kali-Yama Big Bore is 120mm and claimed that a single shot can do some serious ****.
The wording that would have made it accurate, is a single volley from said Big Bore.
After all a 120mm AC/5 does 1.67 damage per shot.
And a 150mm AC/20 does 2 damage per shot.
Where then, in such logic, can a 120mm weapon do 20 damage in a single shot?
But a single volley covers it.
My point is the inaccuracies come from original wording of given information.
Lets take an example: Guy reads text. Guy puts it in his own words on Sarna.net. Guy's words unintentionally change the intended meaning. Others take that, put it in their own words, and it spreads and worsens. It is so minor in its original change that either people don't even notice them or think they are not worth correcting.
I mean, a year is off, so what?
It says shot instead of burst or volley, conveys the same idea after all it's still one tick on the ammo counter either way..
Autocannon entry says it can be fired singly or bursts (which is accurate, you can fire them one at a time or in bursts), but people misconstrue that to mean "single shot = full damage" which isn't true..but the original text is accurate.
No one thinks of how it could be misinterpreted... in a game that encourages interpretation.
And thus... no one really goes around fact checking and fixing things.
I've only edited two Sarna pages.. and it was after checking the sources -- specifically one source -- and finding it had nothing to do with what was said. In fact there was no mention of the subject, let alone the unit, let alone even being about a unit. In its place, I added something similar from a different source that actually had to do with the unit. So the information wasn't entirely incorrect, but the source was bogus and probably falsely remembered or someone else had edited it to deliberately mess with the reference.
That's one of the problems with public wikis, anyone can do anything on it.
The other page I edited was Catapult, where I added another reference and more details about the Jester from its lore page on MWO. (It didn't even have the pilot name)
Just take Sarna with a grain of salt or a small filter. Or check the sources.
Anyone ever seen the one about the average person eating spiders daily?
This is an amazing watch on this very topic.
(Also see what I did there, I changed a single word to make it inaccurate from the title, which completely changed the entire meaning of the sentence.)
that... doesnt make sense. Any mech brought into the game can be used in FP, so if a mech from 3063 is brought into the game... the game must be at 3063
Did you miss the whole Civil War release/timeline moving forward? This isn't news.
That, and that PGI has repeatedly stated that they will release any mech, as long as the majority of its variants contain weapons that are already in game.
Edited by Gas Guzzler, 31 January 2018 - 01:12 PM.
Sorry, no. Again, Sarna is horribly inaccurate when it comes to weapon introduction dates. Here are the correct canon dates (IO, Universal Technology Advancement table, pp. 35-63):
Light Autocannons! Do. Want! (also, Rifles would be excellent in lighter mechs, but those are not wide-spread in IS currently)
BTW, what's an Improved Autocannon? If those are like the IS versions, but as the other Clan weapons, are a little lighter/smaller, DO WANT!!!
i would have instantly dropped money on it if was closer to this
i like the arms of the MOW one but i hate the body. i hated MW4 take on it.
i may get one only when it goes on CBills and drops to 50% off.
also paint needs striped and redone
oh the arms on my miniature is form a Sagittaire.
Edited by The Boneshaman, 16 March 2018 - 01:57 PM.
Its 100 ton assault mech . Thats 100 tons of guns and armour fully customizable at a mech lab,s click notice .
Sooo naturally you man childs worry about the big bewbs instead . Boy if only i had mech credit for every time i saw an OMG look at that hitbox size comment .
You are an assault mech , the new April fashionably FAF kid on the block . Your 'hitboxes" could be A cup size or smaller , everyone is still going to shoot hellfire rockets on your head when they see you .
Its 100 ton assault mech . Thats 100 tons of guns and armour fully customizable at a mech lab,s click notice .
Sooo naturally you man childs worry about the big bewbs instead . Boy if only i had mech credit for every time i saw an OMG look at that hitbox size comment .
You are an assault mech , the new April fashionably FAF kid on the block . Your 'hitboxes" could be A cup size or smaller , everyone is still going to shoot hellfire rockets on your head when they see you .
True, the MWO community does tend to focus on the new releases first. True it's an Assault 'Mech, but I hope they give it some armor/structure quirks as those STs are going to be super easy to pop from afar. Wait, what am I saying? I didn't order this thing... No, nevermind PGI, don't give it any quirks, I look forward to increasing my c-bills from components destroyed.
Also, "man childs"? Really? Who mentioned "bewbs"?
12
FLG 01, on 15 January 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:
