#41
Posted 22 April 2012 - 08:48 AM
I still cannot believe that they are canon.
#42
Posted 22 April 2012 - 09:27 AM
I made the image from platoon and stuck his head on it!!!
Is this thing on? Can anyone hear me?!?!!?!?!?!?
Clearly he hasn't seen it yet cause I still have forum access and he hasn't written my server host for a cease and desist order
#43
Posted 22 April 2012 - 09:33 AM
I think they can be a boon when you have to board a jumpship or a warship, but as long as MWO stays on the ground, there is no need for them.
#44
Posted 22 April 2012 - 09:47 AM
If LAMs were to ever be implemented in MWO which I find to be highly unlikely, I am sure people would flock to them, at first, but after a while people would simply get them as novelty peaces which is what they really are over actual using them as a weapon to wage war.
As for the comments on the Unseen mechs, yeah, we will most likely not see them but I am very confident that we will have their Reseen counterparts but most likely as mechs you would have to buy using real money, and all I have to say to that is this... My wallet is ready.
#45
Posted 22 April 2012 - 09:57 AM
Coralld, on 22 April 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:
If LAMs were to ever be implemented in MWO which I find to be highly unlikely, I am sure people would flock to them, at first, but after a while people would simply get them as novelty peaces which is what they really are over actual using them as a weapon to wage war.
As for the comments on the Unseen mechs, yeah, we will most likely not see them but I am very confident that we will have their Reseen counterparts but most likely as mechs you would have to buy using real money, and all I have to say to that is this... My wallet is ready.
+1 If they are implemented, I would get one mostly for the novelty of having it. Same with industrial mechs and quads.
Edited by Zaius Ex, 22 April 2012 - 09:58 AM.
#46
Posted 22 April 2012 - 10:13 AM
Paul Inouye, on 20 April 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:
Whhhhhhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Poor Paul... he is turning into the Rockstar at Piranha because he will be the only one we know due to being able to put a face to the name. I think we have our volunteer for the Con circut.
#47
Posted 22 April 2012 - 10:20 AM
Edited by wolf74, 22 April 2012 - 10:20 AM.
#49
Posted 22 April 2012 - 10:28 AM
#50
Posted 22 April 2012 - 01:19 PM
#51
Posted 22 April 2012 - 02:14 PM
Geist Null, on 22 April 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:
That'd never take off the ground. Shilones are pretty famous for being squishy, unlike Atlases, and that's an AeroTech. Atlas level survivability, armament and flight don't combine very well.
GodxStatus, on 22 April 2012 - 06:31 AM, said:
What's unbalanced about a faster version of a Light 'Mech that gets killed doubly as quickly if caught? The coding issue of having to program in flight mechanics is more of a hindrance, I'd think.
#52
Posted 22 April 2012 - 02:28 PM
#53
Posted 22 April 2012 - 02:47 PM
In practical terms, just lots of no. Hell no. **** no. HELL ******* NO.
They're pants-on-head retardedly expensive, take 100 times the money and effort to maintain, they break 50 times more often than other aircraft types, AND what do they bring to the table that another aircraft or vehicle couldn't do better, cheaper, faster, etc? Oh, and the people needed to pilot them effectively are 100 times more expensive than mechawarriors OR aerospace pilots...and just as rare.
Look, I get it. They're 'neat' and all. But they just have no effective practical place in this game or most battletech scenarios. And even if you COULD come up with a scenario that a LAM could do that no other mech could, a chopper or traditional fixed wing or a ******* Harrier could do faster/cheaper/more effectively with better armor and more firepower.
#54
Posted 22 April 2012 - 05:24 PM
#55
Posted 22 April 2012 - 07:04 PM
#56
Posted 22 April 2012 - 07:07 PM
#57
Posted 22 April 2012 - 07:08 PM
#58
#59
Posted 22 April 2012 - 09:43 PM
#60
Posted 22 April 2012 - 09:51 PM
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users