122 replies to this topic

[Just wanna play]

XD rofl imagine if thats what founders atlases got with the special paint and eyes.... lol i can also see that on a spider XD
can't help but wonder why a robot would even need that.......

[Sephlock]

^ Those should be available for MC...

Like Truck Nutz

[Asmosis]

oldradagast, on 30 April 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

Many mechs with high-mounted weapons lack all the arm actuators, so they can't track targets as well. Examples include: Catapults, Stalkers, and Jagermechs.

Now, is that enough of an advantage? Hard to say - the less humanoid mechs (such as those listed above) tend to have hardpoints better set up for boating weapons, which is all the rage these days, which may contribute to why they work out better in many matches.

agree with this, Awesomes have less "peekaboo" damage potential (which would get them headshot anyway) but they can aim right out to the side of the screen whereas the stalker has trouble tracking moving targets circling faster than they can turn, and you can reliably see where a stalker is aiming. Also torso twist aiming is significantly slower than arm aiming.

Most efficient mech so far for me is 5LL stalker, 23 DHS with 275 engine and near max armor, think 60ish on legs. 4x PPC stalker needs to drop 4-5 DHS to make room for the extra crit slots and downgrading the engine in exchange for better alpha.

You might as well say all arm mounted weapons are at a disadvantage to torso mounted weapons because you dont have to walk as far out sideways from cover to not shoot your cover instead of your target.

Edited by Asmosis, 07 May 2013 - 09:52 PM.

[Just wanna play]

Sephlock, on 07 May 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

^ Those should be available for MC...

Like Truck Nutz

lol iv seen those before, so weird

[Sephlock]

Niko Snow, on 10 May 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

Low-Slung weapons make it harder for some mechs to take advantage of cover as other Mechs might be able to. The typical trade-off is usually that those high slung weapon Mechs also tend to be more exposed, making that very cover less effective.

But that's largely a downside that applies to circle-strafing and obstacles that are about cockpit level, no? And even then, in the cases of some mechs (like the Jagermech), it doesn't really matter, since no one focuses on the arms anyway.

[zraven7]

Sephlock, on 10 May 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

But that's largely a downside that applies to circle-strafing and obstacles that are about cockpit level, no? And even then, in the cases of some mechs (like the Jagermech), it doesn't really matter, since no one focuses on the arms anyway.

The Jager is kind of a special case, though. People tend not to focus the arms because a lot of the more effective Jager builds tend to be soft-armored as a weight compensation. Combine that with sometimes small arms with a funny front profile, and people avoid them.

I think the biggest cases of high-set weapons being focused quickly are the Catapult and the Hunchback. The Cata can do some interesting semi-cover tricks, but it's ears are always just begging for it. ANd the hunchback can similarly semi-expose itself to get hun-shots off, but we all shoot the hunchie there.

[slash b slash]

Every Mech should be able to mount their weapons on sticks with a remote cam, so they can raise them over cover and shoot without exposing themselves. Problem solved.

[Just wanna play]

how bout another question, is having hand actuators a disadvantage? they dont do anything (unlike other actuators) and still take up one crit slot each

some examples are ilya (on 1 arm) highlander (1 arm) atlas (both arms)

slash b slash, on 10 May 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

Every Mech should be able to mount their weapons on sticks with a remote cam, so they can raise them over cover and shoot without exposing themselves. Problem solved.

lol that would also kill poptarting

[Sephlock]

^ Ideally mechs with hand acutators should be able to make snowballs on Alpine and break off Crystal Shards on Tourmaline for use as a weapon- System Shock 2 style.

[Just wanna play]

lol im a little curious if ice will actually go through an atlases armor......

[MustrumRidcully]

Just wanna play, on 10 May 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

lol im a little curious if ice will actually go through an atlases armor......

Realistcally? No?

But I believe there are stories about mechs grabbing trees to damage other mechs. That shouldn't really work either*.


*) No one told that to those poor Enginers responsible for the AT STs of the Empire either.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 10 May 2013 - 01:04 PM.

[Just wanna play]

[Victor Morson]

To be entirely honest OP I would be alright if they renamed and reskinned the Awesome to call it a Charger at this point, because that's how it's actually used in MW:O.

And yes, it's because of the low mounted weapons. It's one of the reasons I will endorse a Jagger 2x Gauss over a Cat 2x Gauss despite having way worse torsos - namely, it can fire straight over ridges.

Do I think this is a disadvantage? Sure. Does something need to be done about it?

Nope!

This is just a quirk, the same as any other. In fact, this adds an extremely stealthy way to nerf/buff 'mechs now that (I assume) PGI realizes how important gun placement has become. When Flyingdebris is doing redesigns, I'm sure this is something that gets talked about going forward. It is literally possible to nerf a 'mech by making it's arms a little larger, or gun mounts a little lower or vice versa.

It's one more unspoken stat that has more impact than all the number crunching we've ever done reveals. I don't see any reason to mess with it.

PS: Speaking of unspoken stats I wish people would talk about Discharge time when balancing beam weapons. That number is honestly more important than just core damage output. I'd take a gun with 3 damage and 0.1 discharge over one with 6 and 0.4 discharge any day.

Edited by Victor Morson, 10 May 2013 - 02:00 PM.

[Just wanna play]

Victor Morson, on 10 May 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

To be entirely honest OP I would be alright if they renamed and reskinned the Awesome to call it a Charger at this point, because that's how it's actually used in MW:O.

And yes, it's because of the low mounted weapons. It's one of the reasons I will endorse a Jagger 2x Gauss over a Cat 2x Gauss despite having way worse torsos - namely, it can fire straight over ridges.

Do I think this is a disadvantage? Sure. Does something need to be done about it?

Nope!

This is just a quirk, the same as any other. In fact, this adds an extremely stealthy way to nerf/buff 'mechs now that (I assume) PGI realizes how important gun placement has become. When Flyingdebris is doing redesigns, I'm sure this is something that gets talked about going forward. It is literally possible to nerf a 'mech by making it's arms a little larger, or gun mounts a little lower or vice versa.

It's one more unspoken stat that has more impact than all the number crunching we've ever done reveals. I don't see any reason to mess with it.

PS: Speaking of unspoken stats I wish people would talk about Discharge time when balancing beam weapons. That number is honestly more important than just core damage output. I'd take a gun with 3 damage and 0.1 discharge over one with 6 and 0.4 discharge any day.

well its not like its a realistic or proper nerf, its oner of the reasons why stalkers are doing what awesomes should, overall its creating unnecessary "buffs/nerfs" making some mechs just better for no real reason making others obsolete
so a stalker can fire over things awesomes cant and also has more crit slots to use, while what does an awesome have that helps it fill its role of ppc support? and again, stalker can fire lrm missiles over things awesome cant

and well i wouldn't call beam duration "unspoken", especially considering there are weapons like small pulse laserz that only have one advantage, and thats the benefit of doing 3 damage faster then the other lasers(mediums and small)
i have done plenty of number crunching on it and know what laser weapons have the strongest beam damage per millisecond wise and in what order from strongest 2 weakest (hint: its on the **** my ride thread)

[Sephlock]

MustrumRidcully, on 10 May 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

Realistcally? No? But I believe there are stories about mechs grabbing trees to damage other mechs. That shouldn't really work either*. *) No one told that to those poor Enginers responsible for the AT STs of the Empire either.

Why not? You have no idea what alien trees are made of!

[MustrumRidcully]

Sephlock, on 10 May 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

Why not? You have no idea what alien trees are made of!

I don't want to be nitpicky and all, but...

They still seem to be carbon-based lifeforms. That limits a bit what you can and can't do. And if they are made from another element, then you better find me one that behaves exatly like carbon so that can form trees and humans can live on the same planet.

Or maybe they were just reinForced?

[shabowie]

MustrumRidcully, on 10 May 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

*) No one told that to those poor Enginers responsible for the AT STs of the Empire either.

I dunno, 2 logs weighing 15-20 tons (dont remember exact scale of the logs involved but just as an example) swinging in toward each other might do some serious damage to even a heavily armored vehicle. No evidence AT-ST are super heavily armored, they were a scouting vehicle after all. Plus it's just sheer crushing force, not the blaster fire they are armored against.

Edited by shabowie, 11 May 2013 - 02:56 AM.

[Just wanna play]

ya know now that i think of it logs dont weight that much(certainly not 15 tons) of course, alien trees might be completely different from earth trees, so who knows

[Sephlock]

[Just wanna play]

Sephlock, on 12 May 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

ROFL XD wtf that was creepy (esp at the end) yet funny, but stupid, all at the same time!
lol 300ft tall trees breathing fire, you think that planet has forest fire problems?

XD wait, was he talking about his desk????