443 replies to this topic

[Yokaiko]

Sagamore, on 01 April 2013 - 01:48 AM, said:

I just bought my second Dragon, the 5N based on the above comments by Noobzorz.

The -1N was arguably the best Dragon for a LONG LONG time. Now that is debatable until we see what they are doing with the missiles. Its claim to fame was the two missile slots in the CT allowing dual SRM4s. The Fang and -1C are both solid, and the Flame is great.

I didn't like the x4 llas build I ended up settling with "big hunchback" Ac20 and x4 mlas, standard 300 with endo and ferro. Its hot but it hits like a boomcat and run 89.7kph with Speed Tweek. That isn't bad for a 40 point alpha.

[Valentyn]

Just because of this thread I feel like buying a dragon, painting it in 3rd Drakons colours and then go run a muck a bit.

Edit: Just went and bough my -1C. Going to be fun messing around with it, shouldn't take more than a few good matches to get all the basic skills unlocked.

Edited by Valentyn, 01 April 2013 - 02:42 AM.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

It's terrible because I don't like its face and that's all the reason I need. Did I say face? I meant tree trunk. Wtf is in that thing anyway? Candy? A prison cell for captured Goon trash? A mobile loveshack with a few strippers? I must know. Kurita, tell me, please.

[Valentyn]

Bluten, on 01 April 2013 - 02:44 AM, said:

It's terrible because I don't like its face and that's all the reason I need. Did I say face? I meant tree trunk. Wtf is in that thing anyway? Candy? A prison cell for captured Goon trash? A mobile loveshack with a few strippers? I must know. Kurita, tell me, please.

I don't know about the Kuritan scumm, but I have it stocked full of blood pudding and mead.

I'd like them to put knock downs back in as well, I want to run over lights and then stomp on them
It'll also make my Highlander more fun later.

[Iqfish]

Artgathan, on 18 March 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

A few threads have popped up here recently discussing competitive play balancing and overall chassis balancing (such as 'Is every chassis viable for competitive play?'). The general consensus appears to be 'no'. I've seen a lot of players claim that the Dragon is a "trash chassis". I'd like to know why (I've never piloted a Dragon, aside from a few trial mechs a long time ago, so I don't have much insight).

Is it the hardpoints? Is it the way the hardpoints are distributed? Is it the size of the CT? Is it the Torso Twist?

Please be specific about what you think the problem is. I'd like to get discussion going about:

1. What the Dragon's problems are, and
2. What we can do to fix them.

I'd like to see all mechs have a place in competitive play. Variety is good. The point of this thread is to analyze the problems underlying balance issues, and see if we - the players - can find solutions to help level the playing field.

What?

I pilot a Flame and a DRG-1C, and they are both awesome.
I Use a Gauss and 4 MPL in the Flame and an UAC5 plus 4 MPL in the 1C.

I always get atleast one kill, at least 400 DMG and my records were the highest i ever got in MWO.
You have to keep them fast and max out the armor, keep them cool, and use the Laser+Ballistic hardpoints.
The rocket hardpoints are useless, thats right, but i like the Dragon the most of the Heavy chassis.

[Vashko]

Butane9000, on 18 March 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

It isn't terrible. Like Spiders they take a special kind of pilot to succeed.

Totally agree

Edited by Vashko, 01 April 2013 - 03:07 AM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

I wasn't sure about an arms-only build, but I love my 2x ERLL, 2x MPL Flame (XL 345, 19 DHS) ... 400 points of armor, decent long-range, up to 30 points close range, and over 100 kph!

[Noobzorz]

Sagamore, on 01 April 2013 - 01:48 AM, said:

I thought I'd share my success story with the Dragon so far. Maybe not a competitive pick but I'm liking the run and gun style. Feels like my Death's Knell sometimes but with a Gauss rifle. I've been loving the Flame now with the 4 Mlas and Gauss. The advantage with the Flame over other variants is that Gauss can be mounted in the torso. Just went 3 kills and 777 damage (top score) on a match where my radar bugged out so I was fighting pretty much blind! I think that my Elo is in the gutter though from losing 5 matches in a row to begin with on the Dragon.

I just bought my second Dragon, the 5N based on the above comments by Noobzorz.

Your mileage may very, but if you can put shots on target at long ranges (the AC/2 has a whopping optimal range of 720m and has an insane max range of 2160m) I believe that the 3xAC/2 Dragon is a real monster (89kmph with speed tweak to boot!).

Let me know what you think. I'll be interested to hear if you thought I was correct. Either way I'll probably learn something.

Yokaiko, on 01 April 2013 - 02:15 AM, said:

The -1N was arguably the best Dragon for a LONG LONG time. Now that is debatable until we see what they are doing with the missiles. Its claim to fame was the two missile slots in the CT allowing dual SRM4s. The Fang and -1C are both solid, and the Flame is great.

I didn't like the x4 llas build I ended up settling with "big hunchback" Ac20 and x4 mlas, standard 300 with endo and ferro. Its hot but it hits like a boomcat and run 89.7kph with Speed Tweek. That isn't bad for a 40 point alpha.

I also run a dual SRM4 DRG-1N, and while I sometimes have fantastic success with it, if you're in SRM-4 range it is seriously trivial to core you. Even in the old days, while it was possible to slap around mediums and the mech was fast enough that the light mechs had to take note, I still noticed that other big guys just had to look your way and you were out a CT.

I'm going to take your 1C build for a spin and see if I like it any better (I also decided the 4xLLAS build was pretty lousy in the end). Presently I've settled on the conventional wisdom build (some of the worst conventional wisdom ever, in my opinion) with Gauss and the rest of the space filled up by some combination of medlas and missiles.

As for the Fang and the Flame, I am really not sold on either. At this point I'm convinced that they're a waste of MC, especially with the superb (and totally cool) X5 sitting at a similar pricepoint.

Edited by Noobzorz, 01 April 2013 - 07:03 AM.

[ElliottHD]

Personally, I love the Dragon. By far my favorite chassis. That said, I've never been into easy button boating, so that may be why. I use Dragons competively on a regular basis and even have different ones setup for different situations based on what my team needs loadout-wise. I would say it's not the Dragon that is the problem, it's the pilot. And it's really a case of your play style. I run Awesomes as well, and can regularly make an Awesome look...well....awesome, but put me in an Atlas and it's a waste of 100 tons. I can't get used to the slow pace and movement speed of the mech. And I can never find a loadout I like.

I just think as a player, certain chassis speak to you, while others don't. The problem comes in when you can't seem to nail that one chassis down, so you automatically start saying it sucks. That's not fair to say. It's just not the mech for you. Chalk it up as a learning experience and move on.

[Smk]

I think if it had jumpjets it would be okay in its current form. It tries to do maneuverability but it doesn't really do it enough to outclass the other heavies. It's faster than the pult and cata but they both can get jumpjets to make up for it.

As it stands this is just another case of being too light to be useful. It takes a slot for mechs that could be another 10 tons heavier. The same problem the Awesome has.

[Glythe]

Overall the Dragon has poor weapon choices. Everyone knows where the big weapons live.

If you go with 2 big lasers in the arm you lose the arm like nothing. If you spread out and do something like Gauss+lrm+ 2 medium lasers you have a weird damage/range spread.


Long story short the Dragon cannot boat to compete with the other mechs. It is also almost as large a target as an Atlas which does not help. This would be fine.... except everyone in every game always boats because thats what works.

[Yokaiko]

Noobzorz, on 01 April 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

Your mileage may very, but if you can put shots on target at long ranges (the AC/2 has a whopping optimal range of 720m and has an insane max range of 2160m) I believe that the 3xAC/2 Dragon is a real monster (89kmph with speed tweak to boot!).

Let me know what you think. I'll be interested to hear if you thought I was correct. Either way I'll probably learn something.




I also run a dual SRM4 DRG-1N, and while I sometimes have fantastic success with it, if you're in SRM-4 range it is seriously trivial to core you. Even in the old days, while it was possible to slap around mediums and the mech was fast enough that the light mechs had to take note, I still noticed that other big guys just had to look your way and you were out a CT.

I'm going to take your 1C build for a spin and see if I like it any better (I also decided the 4xLLAS build was pretty lousy in the end). Presently I've settled on the conventional wisdom build (some of the worst conventional wisdom ever, in my opinion) with Gauss and the rest of the space filled up by some combination of medlas and missiles.

As for the Fang and the Flame, I am really not sold on either. At this point I'm convinced that they're a waste of MC, especially with the superb (and totally cool) X5 sitting at a similar pricepoint.

[Yokaiko]

I haven't tried trip 2s in forever.

Still, Ac2s lack punch, and they are heavy, and they are hot

My style is more coup de grace, blow off an arm and ****.

I had my -1C deep build out, x2 PPCs, 2 mlas, and an SRM6 a la 350 XL.......great mech for Tourmaline.

[jay35]

Got a 1C, and then the Fang and Flame when they went on sale a week ago. Mastered them. They're just not very good mechs because they're pretty generic all around. Mediocre damage output, mediocre speed, mediocre responsiveness and mobility, mediocre survivability.

Other mechs do particular jobs better so once you figure out what type of role you like to play, you're better off going for a mech that excels in that role, rather than sticking with a Dragon that doesn't do any one thing exceptionally well.

[PoLaR]

jay35, on 01 April 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

Got a 1C, and then the Fang and Flame when they went on sale a week ago. Mastered them. They're just not very good mechs because they're pretty generic all around. Mediocre damage output, mediocre speed, mediocre responsiveness and mobility, mediocre survivability.

Other mechs do particular jobs better so once you figure out what type of role you like to play, you're better off going for a mech that excels in that role, rather than sticking with a Dragon that doesn't do any one thing exceptionally well.

I have average 1C and Fang builds, but my Flame Is complete ownage haha.

2 LL + 2 ML + SRM 6 with 20 DHS

This build generally tops the boards when I use It, super fun and very effective If played right.

[Terror Teddy]

FANG
Endo-Steel
XL Engine 280
DHS
AC5 X2
MPL X2
LRM 10

Result:
1,7 recycle AC/10 with improved range
74,5 KM/H speed

[Orzorn]

Regarding my past post in this thread (which I believe was true at the time), recent weapon and mech changes now make me believe the Dragon has became more competitive, because it is no longer trying to compete with insane 90 damage alpha strike (or more, counting splash damage as it was) Catapult builds.

As for some people's idea that the Dragon has akward or poor hardpoints, I don't believe that. It has certain restrictions (what mech doesn't?), but I've rarely ever felt like it didn't have a good amount of strong build choices. You absolutely can do high-alpha builds, as well, considering that literally every Dragon can pull off 2 PPC/ERPPC and 1 Gauss, although some better than others due to shoulder energy points letting you shave armor off or not worry about losing your left arm.

I typically run my 1C these days with an XL360, 4 mlas, 1 SRM 6, and a UAC/5. That's a 34 damage alpha strike (although if you count the double shot, its a 39 damage alpha) moving at 106 kp/h (w/ speed tweak) and maxed armor. Proper play allows it to be reasonably heat efficienct.

So I think recent changes, while affecting many of the Dragon's competitors (But not the Dragon, because of its lighter missile usage) has allowed the Dragon more breathing room. I think its much more competetive now that it has been in a long while, although whether that's enough competitiveness to allow it to be of worth in tournaments and other organize play remains to be seen.

[Voridan Atreides]

It looks like it's pregnant..........................

[operator0]

Cest7, on 31 March 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

It needs speed to survive, but building it for speed leaves you with no tonnage for weapons/armour.

Putting BFGs on it makes it a sitting duck.

Dunning–Kruger effect:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

[Shazarad]

Artgathan, on 18 March 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

A few threads have popped up here recently discussing competitive play balancing and overall chassis balancing (such as 'Is every chassis viable for competitive play?'). The general consensus appears to be 'no'. I've seen a lot of players claim that the Dragon is a "trash chassis". I'd like to know why (I've never piloted a Dragon, aside from a few trial mechs a long time ago, so I don't have much insight).

Is it the hardpoints? Is it the way the hardpoints are distributed? Is it the size of the CT? Is it the Torso Twist?

Please be specific about what you think the problem is. I'd like to get discussion going about:

1. What the Dragon's problems are, and
2. What we can do to fix them.

I'd like to see all mechs have a place in competitive play. Variety is good. The point of this thread is to analyze the problems underlying balance issues, and see if we - the players - can find solutions to help level the playing field.

There's your problem. Good chassis is good.