#21
Posted 30 September 2014 - 10:51 AM
that said hey im all for some dragon lovin ill proably go on a binge with it if they buff it. If they get nerfed again please dont blame me.
#23
Posted 30 September 2014 - 11:14 AM
Musashi Alexander, on 30 September 2014 - 10:33 AM, said:
I'm sure they won't, of course. I'm positive they'll buff the CT at least. But I'd rather see it receive larger offensive buffs instead.
Edited by Wintersdark, 30 September 2014 - 11:15 AM.
#26
Posted 30 September 2014 - 07:19 PM
The way to play a Dragon is make it go 106 km/h, slap on whatever you want in terms of weapons and use your speed to pop, peek, flank and encircle. I literally fear no one in my Dragon at this point. It used to be that Shadowhawks and Stormcrows could kill me, they were my feared enemies and I respected them a lot. Now for some reason even these guys can't do much.
I use:
1x LB10x
4x MLAS
or
1x LB10x
4x MPLAS with fewer sinks both builds are sick.
God I need to get a gameplay video somehow, I'll ******* record it with my camera just to show you guys. I keep having this debate. I mean I have nothing against making them more powerful, but I think they are fine and people simply don't know how to pilot them. Play them more like a FPS then a mech sim...
Edited by Louis Brofist, 30 September 2014 - 07:39 PM.
#27
Posted 30 September 2014 - 07:27 PM
I also enjoy dragons, sometimes i get ganked, but usually because the team is idiotic and I end up trying to take on 5 at once because our front line got smooshed in 45 seconds. Usually I do over 500 dmg and either get kills or leave them so bad somebody else can in short order. They do play differently for sure. (NOTE: I havent run my hero mechs since before ghost heat, maybe even 8 vs 8, only recent play is on 5N and 1N)
Oh on the hero thing, whatever makes them UBER compared to c-bill variants, must be so awesome it forces them to with hold a module slot too i guess.
#28
Posted 30 September 2014 - 07:56 PM
Eldagore, on 30 September 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:
I believe the reason is that flame have ballistic and energy on 1 side, so builds like ac10+2xppc build can be a very effective peek-a-boo mech.
#29
Posted 30 September 2014 - 08:02 PM
pulupulu, on 30 September 2014 - 07:56 PM, said:
I believe the reason is that flame have ballistic and energy on 1 side, so builds like ac10+2xppc build can be a very effective peek-a-boo mech.
No dragon is an effective peek-a-boo mech. for that type of play, a 5 ton heavier Jager like a firebrand could do it better. The fact FB is a hero is moot, because we are talking about heroes.
Any IS heavy chassis can do this better actually, cept maybe the K2 catapult because the arms are so much higher then the torso, but it would still be more durable IMO. dragons really are hit and run background mechs, you can't peek a boo without moving right after anyway, and you have to expose 75% of the dragon to clear a ridge to fire.
besides, I can mount that loadout on the c-bill ones and lose almost nothing in play-ability anyway. And what of Fang?
#30
Posted 30 September 2014 - 08:05 PM
#31
Posted 30 September 2014 - 08:06 PM
Wintersdark, on 30 September 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:
I don't want to see CT buffs.
Same here. I like that people focus on my CT, it's a nice change from other mechs. I do really well in my Flame, regardless of loadout.
Only thing I want is a hood ornament for my Dragon.
#32
Posted 30 September 2014 - 08:15 PM
Eldagore, on 30 September 2014 - 08:02 PM, said:
I agree, those mech can do it better. But not significantly better at the case of ac10 +2xppc. It is basically only 1 heatsink and high mount weapon difference.
Quote
Flame don't need to show 75%, because all weapon can be thrown on 1 side. Only showing up to left torso can let it fire 1 ac10 and 2 ppc.
Quote
Not you can't. Normal dragon need to show both arm when it peek to maximize damage, that's the 75% you are talking about, but it is more like 90%. Fang suffer the same exact problem, but now with 1 less module.
#33
Posted 30 September 2014 - 08:50 PM
Louis Brofist, on 30 September 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:
1x LB10x
4x MPLAS with fewer sinks both builds are sick.
I mean I have nothing against making them more powerful, but I think they are fine and people simply don't know how to pilot them. Play them more like a FPS then a mech sim...
I agree. I pulled out my Flame with this loudout the other night and had great success. Not as good as you, but I had several 600+ 3-kill games with most over 500 damage. Back during the reign of PPC/AC5, I had a hard time but today's environment favors the Dragon style of play. I never thought the LBX to a great weapon, but it works well on the Dragon at the moment.
#34
Posted 30 September 2014 - 09:47 PM
#35
Posted 30 September 2014 - 11:50 PM
ArchSight, on 30 September 2014 - 09:47 PM, said:
Well you cant nerf skill no matter how hard you try.
#36
Posted 01 October 2014 - 12:33 AM
After all this, I can positively say that a simple CT hitpoint increase is the most irrelevant thing they can do to make the Dragon more viable. After the side torso hitbox change, a good Dragon pilot is going to die from XL engine hits 90% of the time rather than Center Torso damage. Before the change I was always dying from Center Torso, that was what showed how much XL friendly the mech is in the first place. After the hitbox change the friendliness is gone. Unfortunately, Dragons NEED their XL engines. You can play with a standard engine but you will be gimping yourself so much its not even funny.
So, the CT is NOT a bullet magnet as people make it out to be, this was a fact BEFORE the hitbox change. Now Dragons have a problem with their SIDE torsos because they aren't viable without XL, a Dragon is guaranteed to have an XL engine. Smart pilots just shoot a Dragon's side torso to kill it faster, bad pilots focus on the CT. Heck, I even have to present my CT to some pilots out there to avoid getting hit on my side torsos!!!
If PGI is going to implement some kind of defensive twist on Dragons, they should add it to both side torsos NOT the CT. Increase side torso armor and keep the torso twist speed in place for example. They should do quirks that make the Dragon super XL-friendly since it cannot do Standard engines. If "lore" wasn't in the way I would just remove the "XL side torso destruction kills you" from Dragons. (and only Dragons mind you)
On another note, since there is a rumor about specific ballistic weapon buffs on Dragons instead of ALL ballistics buff, if I have to guess, I'd say AC10 buffs on Dragon 1C and AC2 buffs on Dragon 5N, quite possibly on 1N too but i'm not so sure about that.
EDIT: If they really want to serve both "lore" and MWO's gameplay balance, they need to think out of the box a bit. Since knockdown isn't returning, how about buffing SRM's coming out of the Dragon's CT? If they buff them enough they will give an incentive for people to just run towards their target and "knockdown" {sort of} them with SRMs. How about SERIOUSLY increasing the screen shake from SRM's launched from a Dragon? That would give them a reason to utilize that Missile slot that almost every Dragon build I see in game ignores.
Edited by BOWMANGR, 01 October 2014 - 12:41 AM.
#37
Posted 01 October 2014 - 12:41 AM
I am all for a general balistics cool-down buff, that would help all chassi, especially the ones plinking away with gauss or brawling with AC10/LBX10.
#38
Posted 01 October 2014 - 01:12 AM
I believe that they should add General buffs AND specific buffs based on what a variant is supposed to do.
Some examples are: Only one Dragon has 2 missile slots. Buff its SRM values.
Only one Dragon has 2 good high-mounted energy weapon slots. Buff its PPC values.
Another Dragon has too many ballistic hardpoints and ballistics are heavy. Buff its AC2 values or HEAVILY buff Machine Guns on those hardpoints.
They can do so much. There is no reason to just stick with general all around buffs. Specific buffs will increase variety while reducing customization very little. I much prefer to lose some customization if it allows me to use a mech in a specific role that it was meant to do anyway. As we go down in tonnage and the builds are more restricted this should be even more important.
Assault mechs which can pick and choose many different configurations should receive less specific quirks in order to allow customization which was there in the first place but some chassis which already have 2-3 viable builds should get a specific buff on those builds, especially if those builds are role-specific, like Sniper, ECM mech, NARC-enabled mech and so on.
#39
Posted 01 October 2014 - 01:17 AM
That alone would make Dragon a very tempting mech,not competitive by any means but it would make it a really good fast drive by skirmisher.
#40
Posted 01 October 2014 - 01:25 AM
BOWMANGR, on 01 October 2014 - 12:33 AM, said:
So, the CT is NOT a bullet magnet as people make it out to be, this was a fact BEFORE the hitbox change. Now Dragons have a problem with their SIDE torsos because they aren't viable without XL, a Dragon is guaranteed to have an XL engine. Smart pilots just shoot a Dragon's side torso to kill it faster, bad pilots focus on the CT. Heck, I even have to present my CT to some pilots out there to avoid getting hit on my side torsos!!!
I couldn't agree more. The people who go shouting "Dragon's CT hitbox is HUGE!" around have either not played with the Dragon at all and going from word-of-mouth, or only played before the hitbox changes. The Dragon has one of the largest ST hitbox surface areas in game and it's very easy to take one out by focusing one.
The Awesome's CT quirk for example, it's totally useless. Ever since the hitbox pass on Awesomes the ST's go first 90% of the time, so that CT armor bonus only makes the Awesome live a bit longer in zombie mode. It's wasted. I guess PGI asked some known members of the community(I suspect NGNG) and because they only had memories of the horrible CT hitbox days, they suggested a CT armor buff.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users