443 replies to this topic

[Roughneck45]

xDeityx, on 18 March 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

You are ignoring Opportunity Cost and arguing against the straw man argument that nobody put forth, that the Dragon is worthless. Yes, Dragons can do things. No, they are never the best choice.

Thats what ive been saying the whole time. Im ignoring nothing.

I play the Dragons for fun. When I do competative drops I bring a cataphract.

And Vassago, who I was responding to, was clearly saying that Dragons were worthless.

Edited by Roughneck45, 18 March 2013 - 11:48 AM.

[Josef Nader]

Don't reduce the size of the CT, and don't change canon engine weights especially for the dragon. That's opening a dangerous can of worms.

Make it's hardpoints less trash. No mech can make use of 3 ballistic hardpoints in one arm. It's like the poor 4G hunchback with 3 ballistics in a single torso. It just doesn't work.

Strip out the multiple ballistics, give them an extra energy hardpoint or two (or relocate the ones they have to less trash positions), and move the second missile hardpoint of the 1N out of the nose and we might have a much more viable series of mechs. As it stands, they don't do anything particularly well that can't be done better by another heavy.

[Serapth]

Artgathan, on 18 March 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

Does anyone have other suggestions on how to improve the Dragon chassis to make it more competitive?

So far we have:

• Reduce the size of the CT
  
• Relocate / Redistribute Weapon Hardpoints
  
• Perhaps give a 10% weight saving when using engines rated 300 or higher (so if you used a 360 engine, it would only actually weigh 36 tons instead of 40).

Reducing the CT would take away the one strength of the Dragon, the ability to run an XL engine.

[boomboom517]

the dragon is not a specialised mech and its showing its age its replacement has been in manufature for 10 years now in the timeline

[Sayyid]

xDeityx, on 18 March 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

That may be, but I used it in the correct sense as an appropriate reply. Perhaps you should save your lamentations on the overuse of the word for when it's used incorrectly. It is also one of the most common fallacies that people make as well, so I'm not surprised that it gets pointed out a lot.

The trueth is I find the Dragon to be quite a capable mech even in its stock form. Well not the DRG-1C with the AC/2 that thing is pointless. But the AC/5 and UAC/5 versions are good if used correctly. As I said in my previous post, the Dragon is often used incorrectly by 90% of the gamers in this game. And I call them gamers because they play like it. They dont know the history of that mech, or how it is intended to be used, hell most of them cant even tell you that it was the Coordinator of House Kurita mech for almost 100 years.

Most of the gamers take a dragon, strip it down and slap some brawler weapons on it and run headlong into the fight and circle jerk each other till one of them dies, and thats usually the Dragon.

But if you use the Dragon the way it is intended as a long range striker, or a flanking long range direct fire support mech, it is down right nasty. You hit and move, you dont rush in and try and run through and circle around an Atlas because you think you're fast. You use your speed to get from one point to move to another vantage point to fire on the mechs involved in the brawl scrum. When you start to draw fire, or gain unwanted attention, move to another point and continue to support your brawlers.

Its not rocket science, and you arent going to be the 900pt damage ultra killer that a Atlas is, or even the UBER nasty stinger that a Jenner or a Commando is, but you will be worth more to those brawlers, if you can shoot worth a damn.

[Gaan Cathal]

Roughneck45, on 18 March 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

I play the Dragons for fun. When I do competative drops I bring a cataphract.

Then why oppose making the Dragon viable in competitive as well as pug play?

[3rdworld]

Serapth, on 18 March 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

Reducing the CT would take away the one strength of the Dragon, the ability to run an XL engine.

Not from the front. But the CT side profile is nearly has enormous as it is from the front.

In reality the entire mech needs to be shrank.

[xDeityx]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 18 March 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

Because it doesnt make a good boat, and in open class the best boats are what win matches.

How do you respond to the fact that boats are not dominating the top builds? That seems to invalidate your claim rather soundly. The AS7-D-DC is the most powerful brawler in the game and yet it carries 3 different types of brawler weaponry.

[Tremendous Upside]

Roughneck45, on 18 March 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

Once again, Gauss rifle is the difference, adding further versatility over the mediums.

Not sure how many more times ill have to repeat myself *sigh*

Dude you're wasting keystrokes at this point. 95% of the gamers here look to compare mechs strictly on basic stats like alpha damage and speed and couldn't be bothered to look beyond the 50,000ft view at the particulars. They don't care about rate of fire, heat efficiency, range, burst vs. duration or pinpoint vs. splash damage. All of that stuff matters and makes a difference in this game - but they're things that a lot of people don't spend time focusing on.

[Vassago Rain]

boomboom517, on 18 March 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

the dragon is not a specialised mech and its showing its age its replacement has been in manufature for 10 years now in the timeline

Dude.
The atlas is like a 500 year old slab of steel and shells.

[Serapth]

Josef Nader, on 18 March 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

Don't reduce the size of the CT, and don't change canon engine weights especially for the dragon. That's opening a dangerous can of worms.

Make it's hardpoints less trash. No mech can make use of 3 ballistic hardpoints in one arm. It's like the poor 4G hunchback with 3 ballistics in a single torso. It just doesn't work.

Strip out the multiple ballistics, give them an extra energy hardpoint or two (or relocate the ones they have to less trash positions), and move the second missile hardpoint of the 1N out of the nose and we might have a much more viable series of mechs. As it stands, they don't do anything particularly well that can't be done better by another heavy.

This. fix the hardpoints.

Then give it tweaks to serve its roll as a fast flanker. Increased acceleration and deceleration and faster torso twist.

Done.

[Gallowglas]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 18 March 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

Because it doesnt make a good boat, and in open class the best boats are what win matches.

I don't think this is its primary weakness. My Atlas and Cataphract are not boats (not even close) and yet they consistently do well and vastly outperform the Dragon. Yes, boating does make a chassis popular and in some cases unbalanced, but it's not the defining factor about how successful a chassis can be.

[Serapth]

xDeityx, on 18 March 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

How do you respond to the fact that boats are not dominating the top builds? That seems to invalidate your claim rather soundly. The AS7-D-DC is the most powerful brawler in the game and yet it carries 3 different types of brawler weaponry.

Boats or ECM mechs.

Besides, people are boating LRMs on DDCs increasingly... which granted, is normally quite stupid.

[Skyscream Sapphire]

Gaan Cathal, on 18 March 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

Fine, quad-large-laser Cat, same speed. It's not enough difference. Unless you're proposing to kite a Catapult across the entire map while the rest of both teams ignore you both.

Same speed as what? The 4LL same as splatcat, I guess? That still makes over 20kph slower than the Dragon. If the two of us meet "in the wild," I do not need to kite it across the map. I only need to kite it back to my team. Or until the pilot switches targets, at which point I can swing back around and hit it from a different direction. Meanwhile, if it's already got some armor holes or I detect a less skilled pilot, it cannot run from me.

Dictating the time and place of engagement is the strength of the Dragon. Trying to play it differently is what leads to people calling it garbage. It has some deficiencies, maybe even needs a buff, but is from from worthless, even compared to the mechs nearby in weight.

[Roughneck45]

Banky, on 18 March 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

Dude you're wasting keystrokes at this point. 95% of the gamers here look to compare mechs strictly on basic stats like alpha damage and speed and couldn't be bothered to look beyond the 50,000ft view at the particulars. They don't care about rate of fire, heat efficiency, range, burst vs. duration or pinpoint vs. splash damage. All of that stuff matters and makes a difference in this game - but they're things that a lot of people don't spend time focusing on.

Yeah, everyone just looks at the numbers and whats on paper, never considering the intangibles.

[Ph30nix]

the current trial mechs is the first time ive used a Dragon and i gotta say i feel like im driving a damn Semi truck in that thing... not because its big and powerful no its because that damned torso sticking out in front of my face.

[HammerSwarm]

As a die-hard dragon pilot (I have 2 of them mastered and I just re-bought the third one because I missed it). I also own at least 12 other mechs including many of the heavier heavies, and almost all of the just lighter mediums.

Pros of a Dragon
-Only 60 tons, in a weighted match this would matter.
-Good weapons mix, lasers, ballistics, and missiles.
-Fast

Negatives
-Giant torso.
-Big Engines means small weapons

The Dragon I believe suffers from a lack of skilled pilots. It also suffers from a lack of terrain more than other mechs, When I am out in the open I am dead. When I am first in I am dead. A dragon is a great mech to ride in and finish things off. I can't imagine bringing my dragon to alpine peaks because of the LRM damage to my center torso. I am fast but I can't cover that expanse any faster than a missile can hit me.

I would tune the speed, give it a better multiplier another 10% would make it just that much more potent. If missiles are tuned I believe many of its weaknesses would be solved.

[General Taskeen]

Serapth, on 18 March 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

Reducing the CT would take away the one strength of the Dragon, the ability to run an XL engine.

Reducing the CT inward allows more damage soak to the Side Torso (using them as shields) as it should be. The original Dragon had huge burly side torso's and a tiny belly. The CT on a Dragon is the first thing I shoot out, its so easy to hit.

Edited by General Taskeen, 18 March 2013 - 11:54 AM.

[Sayyid]

These are my stats, all PUG drops with the Dragon.

FLAME 22 11 11 1.00 17 10 1.70 5,267 12,224 02:16:34

DRAGON DRG-1N 6 2 4 0.50 4 4 1.00 1,356 3,041
00:32:23


And my dragons are mostly stock. They still keep true to their original designs, and I havent replaced any of the weapons with things that wouldnt be found on a Dragon.

Here is the EXACT load of my FLAME, ERPPC, 2MdLasers, 1LRM10, 1 Ton of ammo, AMS, 1 ton of AMS ammo, CASE, 15 DHS. Thats it.

[3rdworld]

Roughneck45, on 18 March 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

Thats what ive been saying the whole time. Im ignoring nothing.

I play the Dragons for fun. When I do competative drops I bring a cataphract.

And Vassago, who I was responding to, was clearly saying that Dragons were worthless.

You say you don't use dragons for competitive matches.

But then say they aren't worthless?

If a mech isn't good enough to be used when you are actually trying to win, than what value does it have? Other than fun.

Spiders can be a lot of fun. But that chassis is about as worthless as it could possibly be.