63 replies to this topic

[Hawk819]

Angel of Annihilation, on 20 September 2024 - 02:06 PM, said:

The Thug is just a Hatamoto-Chi just FYI. Same hardpoints, same weight, same tech. Only thing different would be the hitboxes and geometry which can be important. I think it would definitely be more aesthetically pleasing though.

Plus, there's little in the way of good variants to even make it. Just PPCs and SRMs. Nothing else.

[Lanzman]

TercieI, on 16 September 2024 - 07:20 AM, said:

I mean, they also have nostalgia for me personally. That should be reason enough, right? I have whaled long and hard in hopes of a Stinger.

Yes, I'm stupid.

That's pretty much it, yeah. Tho the fact that all three are visually similar should mean less effort to design the models. And even without hardpoint inflation the way MWO works customization means you could probably put some fairly effective builds together. Magshots, MRMs, light PPCs . . . it could work.
Plus it would apparently annoy some of the folks here, which has amusement value all on its own.

[1453 R]

Lanzman, on 27 September 2024 - 03:10 PM, said:

...
Tho the fact that all three are visually similar should mean less effort to design the models.
...

This is not even remotely true. Unless you make them the same 'Mech with simply different bolt-ons - which you cannot do with the Valkyrie - then "visually similar" is still entirely new 'Mech resources. See: Hellbringer and Summoner. Visually similar enough you could likely use bits of the one on the other, and yet still different 'Mechs with different animations, different hardpoint and weapon geo layout requirements, different cockpits, different scales...

Nor does this solve the fact that both the Wasp and the Stinger are completely useless in MWO. They wouldn't even be useful in MW5: Mercs if that game was still under active development. People can say "I don't care if they'd suck, I want them and I'd play them!" until they are asked to put their money, their free time, and their W/L rate where their mouth is. At that point, nobody will continue to say "I'd play a crappy 80s-era redux of a Veritech Battloid with the worst base chassis of any MWO 'Mech!"

[BlueDevilspawn]

Lanzman, on 27 September 2024 - 03:10 PM, said:

That's pretty much it, yeah. Tho the fact that all three are visually similar should mean less effort to design the models. And even without hardpoint inflation the way MWO works customization means you could probably put some fairly effective builds together. Magshots, MRMs, light PPCs . . . it could work.
Plus it would apparently annoy some of the folks here, which has amusement value all on its own.

As a cauldron member who has asked many questions about how mech design and building works I can most assuredly tell you that just because the component pieces exist doesn’t mean PGI can simply slap a mech together. It’s still straight up designing a new chassis and whether a mech is 20 tons or 100 tons doesn’t matter. This isn’t real world construction. You’re asking to make a mech useless in a first person shooter that MWO is. As to your “annoying” comment many mechs are given certain quirks because they exist and had to be made work. We don’t like griefing (eg - why plasma cannons are clan LPPC and not ranged flamers). Finally, it had already been said that new chassis are likely clan due to the flagship property being Clans.