Ok, so after some discussions on other social forums apparently there are some who think the Cheetah and Crow are overpowered/broken chassis that need the nerf hammer dropped on them. The problem is I can't find conclusive evidence/statistics that indicate if and by how much these mechs are broke.
The only thing I could find were people making claims and assertions that these mechs are a problem followed by a screen cap of a stomp. I do not see how a couple of stomps proves the mechs to be OP nor does saying it is true make it so.
With that in mind has anyone got some numbers on this ? If you do please share as I'm keen to see what is really going on.
0
Cheetah And Crow Op?
Started by Bespoke Cheese Cake, Oct 23 2015 03:15 PM
1 reply to this topic
#1
-
-
- Caladbolg
- 225 posts
Member
- LocationThem Interwebs, often in K-Town
Posted 23 October 2015 - 03:15 PM
#2
-
-
- Bridesmaid
- 1,646 posts
Member
Posted 25 October 2015 - 05:45 PM
It's hard to put numbers on these because as Clan OmniMechs, it's really specific combinations that cause them to be pretty ridiculous. I will however cover the case of the ACH, as it is admittedly one of the few things in the game that I hate with the passion of a thousand fiery suns for its outright overpowering abilities.
For the ACH though, it's easier to pinpoint. The structure quirks on STs and legs. +7 ST structure and +15 leg structure. Everyone knows that a light can survive only because speed is life. How do you stop a light mech in its tracks? You blow out one of its legs.
Every light to date will max out their legs, unless they're a poke-raven or something else that really only exposes their torso (which is extremely rare for lights, because if you're poking from the side of a hill, you will still expose one leg). Let's compare a 35-tonner ACH against the next-most (claimed) OP mech on the IS side, the FS9. Both of these mechs are approximately the same size, with (approximately) the same hitbox profiles.
ACH: 28 max armor + 14 natural internal structure + 15 quirks = 59 total hitpoints on each leg.
FS9: 32 max armor + 16 natural internal structure + 0 quirks = 48 total hitpoints on each leg.
So ACH vs FS9, an ACH is -significantly- harder to leg. It's an AC10 hit and a bit more to destroy a leg, not counting crits. This means that in an open field, where mobility is the key for a light to live, an ACH will almost always survive longer than a FS9 assuming equal pilot skill.
Let's take a look at the second way of killing a light mech easily, then. Since speed is life, and big alphas for boom-and-zoom is great, this forces virtually every light mech to run a XL engine. Blowing out a ST is therefore the next easiest way to drop a light, or so we think. Let us assume that a light mech will have only 20% of its armor on the rear of the torsos, giving us 80% frontal coverage.
ACH: 23 frontal armor + 14 natural internal structure + 7 quirk internal structure = 44 total hitpoints per ST
FS9: 26 frontal armor + 16 natural internal structure + 0 quirk internal structure = 42 total hitpoints per ST
Not bad, right? So the ACH is only marginally stronger than the FS9? Far from it. Because the ACH is a clan mech, it is also running a cXL engine. Which means you need to blow out BOTH STs or the CT to kill it, because legging one (as we have discussed above) is much, much harder than to do than to attack the STs or the CT. This means that if one were to destroy an ACH by coring (side only), assuming perfect aim from the front and this armor distribution, you will have to do AT LEAST 88 (!) hitpoints of damage in total to drop it. The FS9 still only requires 42 damage on one ST to force it to take a dirt nap.
As an added bonus, keep in mind that a large enough FLD alpha can actually destroy the engines on a mech. Especially if there is nothing else to crit-pad. A PPC, gauss or AC10/AC20 shot has a very, very good chance of destroying a component inside an exposed part. If this happens to be the engine, anyone running an IS XL can say hello to the matchmaker again. cXLs will require at least a second hit of this on the other torso to have the same effect. Since there seems to be no real negative effect of losing half a cXL at this point in time, this is a *huge* advantage to survivability on an ACH.
So, let's take a look at the third (common) way of destroying a light: attacking the CT. Assuming 20 percent of the armor is on rear CT.
ACH: 32 frontal armor + 20 points natural internal structure + 0 quirks = 52 hitpoints on CT
FS9: 36 frontal armor + 22 points natural internal structure + 0 quirks = 58 hitpoints on CT
Since the CT is an instant kill on any mech, and both the FS9 and ACH CTs are approximately the same size, the FS9 has a very slight advantage here with an additional 6 hitpoints on its CT.
Now for the other issue: the boom-and-zoom light. Both of these mechs are designed for quick strikes, assassinating a single mech and then hightailing it out of these before the enemies realise what's happening. For this to happen, the mechs need to both get up close, and do significant damage in a very, very short time.
Both the ACH and the FS9 have 6 JJs - they can actually jump fairly well. The ACH has the advantage of potentially having ECM, which stealths it for most of the approach to the enemy. For a FS9 to approach undetected, it has to remain either behind cover for the entire duration, beyond detection range of enemies, or be in the rear 180 degree arc of ALL the enemies. This gives the ACH a distinct advantage in getting closer, if it uses ECM.
The most common builds for ACH is the C-SPL boat. With ECM, this is a 6x C-SPL build, for 36 damage alphas at 165m long range. It takes 0.75s for the entire burn to complete, with a cooldown of 2.25s with no quirks or modules, giving a total cycle time of 3.00s with 18 heat per alpha.
If we take the FS9's 8-SPL boat, this is a 32 damage alpha at 110m long range. It takes 0.5s for the entire burn to complete, with a cooldown of 2.25s without quirks or modules. This is a cycle time of 2.75s with 16 heat per alpha.
Although the ACH's burn time is longer, it also hits for full damage at a much higher range, allowing for lower-risk poking and backstabs. Due to the 6 C-SPL build weighing in at 2 tons less than the FS9's 8-SPL build, this also allows an ACH to run with an ECM and still have one double heatsink more than the FS9. While the FS9 can have one more engine-mounted TrueDub, this advantage is largely nullified by the fact that an ACH can actually have more external cDHS to get more heat cap and heat dissipation.
In addition to this, for a FS9 to run all SPLs, it must either get rid of some or all JJs, some armor, or lower its speed, or a combination of all of these.
On the whole, the ACH runs hot, but so does any other pulseboat lights on the IS side. But its combination of everything - ECM, firepower, cooling, JJ, speed, accel/decel, structural leg and ST quirks, and the virtual indestructibility of the cXL - causes it to be ridiculously powerful. I cannot in any way see it as balanced, even relative to top-tier IS lights like the FS9.
For the ACH though, it's easier to pinpoint. The structure quirks on STs and legs. +7 ST structure and +15 leg structure. Everyone knows that a light can survive only because speed is life. How do you stop a light mech in its tracks? You blow out one of its legs.
Every light to date will max out their legs, unless they're a poke-raven or something else that really only exposes their torso (which is extremely rare for lights, because if you're poking from the side of a hill, you will still expose one leg). Let's compare a 35-tonner ACH against the next-most (claimed) OP mech on the IS side, the FS9. Both of these mechs are approximately the same size, with (approximately) the same hitbox profiles.
ACH: 28 max armor + 14 natural internal structure + 15 quirks = 59 total hitpoints on each leg.
FS9: 32 max armor + 16 natural internal structure + 0 quirks = 48 total hitpoints on each leg.
So ACH vs FS9, an ACH is -significantly- harder to leg. It's an AC10 hit and a bit more to destroy a leg, not counting crits. This means that in an open field, where mobility is the key for a light to live, an ACH will almost always survive longer than a FS9 assuming equal pilot skill.
Let's take a look at the second way of killing a light mech easily, then. Since speed is life, and big alphas for boom-and-zoom is great, this forces virtually every light mech to run a XL engine. Blowing out a ST is therefore the next easiest way to drop a light, or so we think. Let us assume that a light mech will have only 20% of its armor on the rear of the torsos, giving us 80% frontal coverage.
ACH: 23 frontal armor + 14 natural internal structure + 7 quirk internal structure = 44 total hitpoints per ST
FS9: 26 frontal armor + 16 natural internal structure + 0 quirk internal structure = 42 total hitpoints per ST
Not bad, right? So the ACH is only marginally stronger than the FS9? Far from it. Because the ACH is a clan mech, it is also running a cXL engine. Which means you need to blow out BOTH STs or the CT to kill it, because legging one (as we have discussed above) is much, much harder than to do than to attack the STs or the CT. This means that if one were to destroy an ACH by coring (side only), assuming perfect aim from the front and this armor distribution, you will have to do AT LEAST 88 (!) hitpoints of damage in total to drop it. The FS9 still only requires 42 damage on one ST to force it to take a dirt nap.
As an added bonus, keep in mind that a large enough FLD alpha can actually destroy the engines on a mech. Especially if there is nothing else to crit-pad. A PPC, gauss or AC10/AC20 shot has a very, very good chance of destroying a component inside an exposed part. If this happens to be the engine, anyone running an IS XL can say hello to the matchmaker again. cXLs will require at least a second hit of this on the other torso to have the same effect. Since there seems to be no real negative effect of losing half a cXL at this point in time, this is a *huge* advantage to survivability on an ACH.
So, let's take a look at the third (common) way of destroying a light: attacking the CT. Assuming 20 percent of the armor is on rear CT.
ACH: 32 frontal armor + 20 points natural internal structure + 0 quirks = 52 hitpoints on CT
FS9: 36 frontal armor + 22 points natural internal structure + 0 quirks = 58 hitpoints on CT
Since the CT is an instant kill on any mech, and both the FS9 and ACH CTs are approximately the same size, the FS9 has a very slight advantage here with an additional 6 hitpoints on its CT.
Now for the other issue: the boom-and-zoom light. Both of these mechs are designed for quick strikes, assassinating a single mech and then hightailing it out of these before the enemies realise what's happening. For this to happen, the mechs need to both get up close, and do significant damage in a very, very short time.
Both the ACH and the FS9 have 6 JJs - they can actually jump fairly well. The ACH has the advantage of potentially having ECM, which stealths it for most of the approach to the enemy. For a FS9 to approach undetected, it has to remain either behind cover for the entire duration, beyond detection range of enemies, or be in the rear 180 degree arc of ALL the enemies. This gives the ACH a distinct advantage in getting closer, if it uses ECM.
The most common builds for ACH is the C-SPL boat. With ECM, this is a 6x C-SPL build, for 36 damage alphas at 165m long range. It takes 0.75s for the entire burn to complete, with a cooldown of 2.25s with no quirks or modules, giving a total cycle time of 3.00s with 18 heat per alpha.
If we take the FS9's 8-SPL boat, this is a 32 damage alpha at 110m long range. It takes 0.5s for the entire burn to complete, with a cooldown of 2.25s without quirks or modules. This is a cycle time of 2.75s with 16 heat per alpha.
Although the ACH's burn time is longer, it also hits for full damage at a much higher range, allowing for lower-risk poking and backstabs. Due to the 6 C-SPL build weighing in at 2 tons less than the FS9's 8-SPL build, this also allows an ACH to run with an ECM and still have one double heatsink more than the FS9. While the FS9 can have one more engine-mounted TrueDub, this advantage is largely nullified by the fact that an ACH can actually have more external cDHS to get more heat cap and heat dissipation.
In addition to this, for a FS9 to run all SPLs, it must either get rid of some or all JJs, some armor, or lower its speed, or a combination of all of these.
On the whole, the ACH runs hot, but so does any other pulseboat lights on the IS side. But its combination of everything - ECM, firepower, cooling, JJ, speed, accel/decel, structural leg and ST quirks, and the virtual indestructibility of the cXL - causes it to be ridiculously powerful. I cannot in any way see it as balanced, even relative to top-tier IS lights like the FS9.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
