488 replies to this topic

[Klaus]

CG Oglethorpe Kerensky, on 02 March 2013 - 08:03 PM, said:

4 Laser
2 Missile (dual tube)
ECM

DEAL WITH IT

I just don't understand how you people think this is going to be like adding 1 more laser to a Raven 3L and is going to 'break the game' and make it 'pay to win'.

NEWS FLASH.

The Cicada isn't a Raven 3L.

You're not going to be able to carry an XL 340 engine with max armor AND 4 medium lasers with 2 Streak SRMs. You're going to have to armor the arms unlike the other Cicadas because they have laser hard points on them. So you are going to have to choose from being as fast as a Raven 3L, having decent armor, or having decent cooling, while the whole time being a much bigger target.

CDA-3M

Picture adding 2 streak srms and 2 tons of ammo to this build. You're only going to be going 135.9 with SPEED TWEAK.

You're going to have to either sack the engine, armor, or cooling. There is no way around it. While the Raven 3L doesn't have to sacrifice anything to have the best of everything.

It's not going to a be better Raven 3L if it has ECM.

Edited by Klaus, 03 March 2013 - 03:59 PM.

[Drexorn]

Thontor, on 01 March 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

maybe they'll surprise us and put a netcode fix in on Tuesday that let's them remove engine restrictions so mechs can go faster

That's what I was thinking... netcode fix to go along with it.

They tweeted this on friday: "ok guys, the big announcement is <twitter removed> ! We are so excited about <twitter removed> that it will be even more fun to play!"

My guess is the big announcement is the x-5 and netcode fix. They're excited about the netcode fix, that the x5 will be even more fun to play.

Edited by Drexorn, 03 March 2013 - 12:08 PM.

[Earthtalker]

Drexorn, on 03 March 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

That's what I was thinking... netcode fix to go along with it.

They tweeted this on friday: "ok guys, the big announcement is <twitter removed> ! We are so excited about <twitter removed> that it will be even more fun to play!"

My guess is the big announcement is the x-5 and netcode fix. They're excited about the netcode fix, that the x5 will be even more fun to play.

Possible. I'm not holding my breath until I'm actually zooming around ingame. If they do this, though, oh boy hold onto your butts.

Also: YAY! MY 100th post!

[jay35]

Something that's often forgotten when it comes to hero mechs is this: You don't have to buy it! No one's forcing you to buy it. And unless everyone else buys it and it's the only mech people run anymore, it's clearly not "OP" or "P2W" or anything of the sort.

[Sephlock]

If all of this tech was available so early then how come Phelan Kell shat his pants when he got hit by an ER PPC at range, and when he first saw pulse lasers?

[CG Oglethorpe Kerensky]

Klaus, on 03 March 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

I just don't understand how you people think this is going to be like adding 1 more laser to a Raven 3L and is going to 'break the game' and make it 'pay to win'.

NEWS FLASH.

The Cicada isn't a Raven 3L.

You're not going to be able to carry an XL 340 engine with max armor AND 4 medium lasers with 2 Streak SRMs. You're going to have to armor the arms unlike the other Cicadas because they have laser hard points on them. So you are going to have to choose from being as fast as a Raven 3L, having decent armor, or having decent cooling, while the whole time being a much bigger target.

CDA-3M

Picture adding 2 streak srms and 2 tons of ammo to this build. You're only going to be going 135.9 with SPEED TWEAK.

You're going to have to either sack the engine, armor, or cooling. There is no way around it. While the Raven 3L doesn't have to sacrifice anything to have the best of everything.

It's not going to a be better Raven 3L if it has ECM.

And you are 100% correct.
The Cicada with a 340XL has less tons for weapons than a Raven 3L...which is why it won't be gamebreaking.

[Ralgas]

Now i may be nuts, but doesn't that look like 2 small las in the ct on the plates below the cockpit?

[Vapor Trail]

The way I calculate it, I can put a 300XL engine in it,
(133.7 kph w/ Tweak, 3 kph slower than an Untweaked 3L, though ~20 kph slower than a Tweaked 3L)
And still get:

256 out of 274 armor (standard).
4 medium lasers.
2 Streak 2s.
w/ 25 shots of Streak.
16 double heat sinks.
And a Guardian suite in the leg.

If you want more streak ammo, you can pull a heat sink. Cooling is still going to be decent.

Speed is still decent, but it is significantly slower than the Raven. Though people DO manage to hit the Raven from time to time...

What I think some people are concerned about is the "ideal cheese lance" might look like this after the X-5's intro:

2 Raven 3L
2 Cicada X-5
2 Catapult A-1 (replace for C-1, K-2, or other chassis at heavy player's option).
2 Atlas D-DC

It conforms to the "2-2-2-2" pattern desired by, at least some, competitive teams.
It brings a maximum of ECM, Streaks, and raw firepower.

[Vapor Trail]

Ralgas, on 03 March 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

Now i may be nuts, but doesn't that look like 2 small las in the ct on the plates below the cockpit?

You're nuts. But not really. Think it's a leftover from the basic design.

The Cat C1, C4, and K2 share something similar. The little "yellow lenses" I mean.

The C1 actually has the hard points behind them.

The C4 and K2 have them too, but no corresponding laser hardpoints.

<---- see?

or here---\/

http://mwomercs.com/...atapult/cplt-c1
http://mwomercs.com/...atapult/cplt-c4
http://mwomercs.com/...atapult/cplt-k2

Most likely they're just art.

Edited by Vapor Trail, 03 March 2013 - 06:07 PM.

[Ralgas]

Vapor Trail, on 03 March 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

You're nuts. But not really. Think it's a leftover from the basic design.

The Cat C1, C4, and K2 share something similar. The little "yellow lenses" I mean.

The C1 actually has the hard points behind them.

The C4 and K2 have them too, but no corresponding laser hardpoints.

<---- see?

or here---\/

http://mwomercs.com/...atapult/cplt-c1
http://mwomercs.com/...atapult/cplt-c4
http://mwomercs.com/...atapult/cplt-k2

Most likely they're just art.

And here i was thinking i was about to start a mountain of qq over a 6E 2M cicada

[LittleTigru]

X-5 means RotaryAC5 of course!

[Skadi]

Please note mentlegen, that in the bottom right where the scroll bar is, there is JUST enough room to scroll down to fit in another mech below the PB... in the Assault catagory.

We have our next hero weight class... let the bets begin.

[hargneux]

Skadi, on 04 March 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

We have our next hero weight class... let the bets begin.

Calling Stalker.

[Agent of Change]

hargneux, on 04 March 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

Calling Stalker.

it's a no-brainer it's a stalker, we aren't gonna be getting hero mechs for any of the founders chassis until all the other mechs have a hero.

[Ngamok]

hargneux, on 04 March 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

Calling Stalker.

STK-3F Stalker Jagawen - Designed for close combat, the Stalker used by Sho-sho Jagawen Torisobo replaced the LRM launchers with an additional SRM-6 rack in each torso. Six additional heat sinks kept the machine cool. BV (2.0) = 1,570^[8]

[Strum Wealh]

Ngamok, on 04 March 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

STK-3F Stalker Jagawen - Designed for close combat, the Stalker used by Sho-sho Jagawen Torisobo replaced the LRM launchers with an additional SRM-6 rack in each torso. Six additional heat sinks kept the machine cool. BV (2.0) = 1,570^[8]

The Jagawen variant is simply switches out the LRM-10 launchers in the arms for an additional SRM-6 launcher in each side-torso and six more (standard/single) Hear Sinks.
It doesn't really do anything that can't already be very closely approximated with the standard STK-3F upon which it is based.

The STK-8S (not available until 3064) carries a Heavy Gauss Rifle (split between the RT and CT) in addition to a couple of ER-PPCs (one in each arm), a couple of MPLas (one in each arm), and a couple of ERMLs (one in each side-torso).
Additionally, the Cicada X-5 is unique because it is the only Cicada variant that mounts missiles.

I can imagine that PGI could make up a Hero Stalker that is an energy/ballistics variant, in contrast to the "typical" energy/missile Stalker loadout...

[Rakash]

TheFlyingScotsman, on 27 February 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

2ECM (Yes, two ECM slots. Supposedly it will be double range, as opposed to both on separate states.)

No. That's ridiculous AND ********. And if it were true, it would be ridiculous ********. Just having two ECMs to run dual-mode would already be crazy, and something that should be reserved for dedicated command mechs. At least in the current broken-*** iteration of ECM.

Strum Wealh, on 04 March 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

I can imagine that PGI could make up a Hero Stalker that is an energy/ballistics variant, in contrast to the "typical" energy/missile Stalker loadout...

Do that, and I will buy that.

[Ngamok]

Strum Wealh, on 04 March 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

The Jagawen variant is simply switches out the LRM-10 launchers in the arms for an additional SRM-6 launcher in each side-torso and six more (standard/single) Hear Sinks.
It doesn't really do anything that can't already be very closely approximated with the standard STK-3F upon which it is based.

The STK-8S (not available until 3064) carries a Heavy Gauss Rifle (split between the RT and CT) in addition to a couple of ER-PPCs (one in each arm), a couple of MPLas (one in each arm), and a couple of ERMLs (one in each side-torso).
Additionally, the Cicada X-5 is unique because it is the only Cicada variant that mounts missiles.

I can imagine that PGI could make up a Hero Stalker that is an energy/ballistics variant, in contrast to the "typical" energy/missile Stalker loadout...

But they can mess with the stats of it in any way they want. Give it better twist than the standard 3F. Or make it 4E 6M instead.

[Strum Wealh]

Ngamok, on 05 March 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

But they can mess with the stats of it in any way they want. Give it better twist than the standard 3F. Or make it 4E 6M instead.

The Jagawen variant's loadout is known (my previous post includes a link to the webpage with the BattleTech Record Sheet), and it necessarily needs a minimum of six (6) energy hardpoints and four (4) missile hardoints to carry its armament.

Simply giving it extra missile hardpoints (for a total of six (6) energy hardpoints and six (6) missile hardoints) allows it to carry more individual weapons than any other Stalker variant - just imagine the howling about "pay-to-win" that would result.

Simply moving the missile hardpoints or giving it a slightly wider/faster torso rotation doesn't really make it noticeably different, especially given the Stalker's lack of actuated arms.
Why pay MC for a 6E/4M variant when there is a c-bill purchasable 6E/4M variant that does the same thing to such a large degree that there is substantially no difference?

It's the same reason why they made up the Ilya Muromets rather than put in the canonical Lucky Thirteen (piloted by George Lytton of the Fox's Teeth) - apparently, PGI feels that the Hero 'Mechs have to be substantially different from the other variants of the same chassis, without being substantially better than said other variants.

[Odanan]

Skadi, on 04 March 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

Please note mentlegen, that in the bottom right where the scroll bar is, there is JUST enough room to scroll down to fit in another mech below the PB... in the Assault catagory.

We have our next hero weight class... let the bets begin.

Stalker, of course.
I hope is a certain anti-hero Lyran Stalker.

Edited by Odanan, 05 March 2013 - 07:51 PM.