Jump to content

80Bit’S Review Of All Mechs


188 replies to this topic

#41 White Bear 84

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,857 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 12:07 AM

View PostZharot, on 06 June 2013 - 11:33 PM, said:

This Guide B80-76
Rating: *
Role: Misinformation, bad opinions

This is a legit terrible guide and nobody should take the majority of the advice given here ever. Your "best" mechs are out of date, you undersell mechs you've clearly never played in your life, and you don't understand the difference between a terrible mech and a mech which is merely overshadowed by its other variants.


Bit harsh dont you think? Rather than state the guide is terrible, maybe you could instead provide constructive criticism and explain your reasons for thinking so? At the end of the day each player has their favorite mechs and those they dislike, its always going to vary between players. The OP is obviously keen on the game and providing his opinion to the community and there is absolutely nothing wrong with him doing so.

#42 Mahws

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 670 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 12:53 AM

Whoah now White Bear. "Constructive Criticism"? "Explaining your reasons"? That's some dangerous talk. Stuff like that could get in the way of snarky internet point scoring.

View PostLindonius, on 06 June 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:


Absolute nonsense. I regularly get 4-5 kills in my Death's Knell and check out the screenie on this thread of the guy who got SEVEN kills running his.

http://mwomercs.com/...an-8-kill-game/

It is an extremely "viable" mech.

Did you notice the bit where I mentioned that experienced players can do well in them, despite them being massively handicapped?

I've had a 5 kill match in my Spider-5K, two of which were 1v1. In my 5D I usually get two or three kills a match, more if I actively try to grab kills instead of focusing on teamplay.
That doesn't make either a good mech. At best it makes me a good/lucky player.

The only advantage a DK has over a Raven or a Jenner is that it has arms. Which is useful, but completely insignificant compared to the disadvantages that come along with it.

By viable I don't mean it can move and shoot, by that definition anything with an engine and at least one weapon is viable. I mean a "viable alternative".

Take pride in how well you do in a 'mando, you certainly deserve it for playing on hard mode. But that doesn't change the fact that choosing to take a Commando/Spider onto the field is a huge handicap to yourself compared to taking a light mech without the tonnage/hardpoint/engine heatsink disadvantage.

I run Commandos. Next to the Spider and the Dragon it's my favorite mech. But I don't kid myself into thinking it's a good one just because I'm having fun and getting kills.

Edited by Mahws, 07 June 2013 - 12:55 AM.


#43 1453 R

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 5,458 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 01:57 AM

Oh yeah! That was the thing I forgot to do earlier!

I must respectfully dispute your * rating of the CDA-2B chassis, good sir. I will admit, in the days of yore before the introduction of maps such as Alpine, the CDA-2B was not generally an advisable purchase over the CDA-2A. These days, however, I've found that the extra vertical play from the arm-mounted beams on the CDA-2B and the X-5 have become significantly more important. Both Alpine and Tourmaline are downright painful for my CDA-2A to fight on - four lasers that can hit my target most of the time are, as it turns out, greater than six lasers that can hit my target maybe half the time.

Canyon is less harsh on 'Mechs without arm guns but still tends to catch them out, and as an experienced Average Cicada Pilot, I can safely say that the vertical advantages of the X-5's/2B's arm-mounted lasers has come into play a lot more often than I figured it would. There have even been a few situations where I've specifically pushed a vertical advantage I knew I had over another machine - engaging HGN-732s at the top of a mountain from the bottom of the mountain, below the firing arcs for their PPCs, is a thing that does not happen often but is enormously satisfying when it does.

I would respectfully propose a ** rating for the CDA-2B. The only build a CDA-2A can do that the CDA-2B can't is, realistically, the 6ML/330XL Garthcada. Doubtlessly a powerful build I've used to great effect myself, but I've put enough time into the Cicada chassis to know that those flap-mounted vertiguns are significantly more valuable than they used to be.

#44 JudgeDeathCZ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Defiant
  • The Defiant
  • 1,929 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 01:59 AM

I see you never tried HGN LRM boat.Those launchers in arms can change up to 10 tube racks which means HGN-733 LRM boat is at par with STK-3H with number of missiles launched in 1 wave.
Also CTF-4X(I think) have 1 missile 5 tube launcher in head.

#45 Kaio-Kerensky x10

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 331 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 03:02 AM

View PostWhite Bear 84, on 07 June 2013 - 12:07 AM, said:

Rather than state the guide is terrible, maybe you could instead provide constructive criticism and explain your reasons for thinking so?


Okay. I'll do that.

Quote

Your "best" mechs are out of date, you undersell mechs you've clearly never played in your life, and you don't understand the difference between a terrible mech and a mech which is merely overshadowed by its other variants.


Much of this advice is long out of date. Some examples: The Raven is not the best light mech in the game any more and has not been for a while. The Jenner D is not better than the F due to the greater weight constraints forced upon it to carry BAP to use SSRMs (and SRMs are in a bad place right now and have been mediocre on lights for a long time). The Cent A has the same problem. So does the Cent D, but he's clearly never played it, since it was a crazy good skirmisher for a time. He talks down the Cent AL while talking up the 4SP, despite the fact that the AL is almost exactly the same as the 4SP except for a better engine and better hitboxes and hardpoint locations.

At heavy and assault, he just doesn't know what he's talking about, and parrots "good" mechs he's heard other people recommend, despite the fact that those recommendations are long out of date or just dumb. The K2 has been only okay at best for a long time. The 8R is a funny LRM boat but a gimmick at best because it's hot, can't fit any armament besides the LRMs without making crazy sacrifices in speed/heat/ammo. Highlanders are good but not hot **** any more after the poptart nerf, largely because Stalkers already do the same thing but better. DDCs haven't been the kings of Atlases for months now.

Similarly, he downplays mechs he's clearly never played. The practical game difference from the number of energy hardpoints between the DD and S is negligible. He doesn't actually know a thing about Stalkers; I'm not sure if this is just a lack of skill or a lack of experience. Talking up the 3H as an LRM boat while downplaying the 733 is especially insane. Same goes for Highlanders: the 733C is a pretty mediocre brawler, and worse than the 733 just because of the reduced arm twist. (Going all-in with an AC/20 isn't a good idea even if you are going to build a brawler Highlander, and 2UAC5 is really dumb.) It's one of those counterintuitive things that the mech that can run an AC/20 should not, and that the mech that can only run a gauss is the better brawler.

He rates hero mechs he hasn't bought. That's pretty obvious. All of the "good" heroes (plus the X-5 for some reason) are three stars with some mealy-mouthed comments, and all of the bad heroes are two stars, even useless garbage like the Death's Knell and Yen Lo Wang. Can't offend people who are emotionally invested in their bad purchases!

The Jenner K and Atlas K, are, in a vacuum, fairly decent mechs. They are overshadowed by the better alternatives, but there is no reason to be telling people that it's more painful to play a Jenner K than, say, a Raven 2X. One of those is a fairly decent mech overshadowed by a similar but slightly better alternative, and one of those is a total deathtrap that makes grinding out Basic efficiencies a hellish gauntlet.

Most damning, he's not even playing at a very high level of skill. If you can't manage heat on a BJ-1X or 4P, you probably should not be offering people advice on building mechs at all. His advice isn't even consistent for his skill level; the advantages of a Jager S are only noticeable if you're ready to handle a very hot mech where you need to make every scrap of ammo count. Otherwise, you're running 0-2 MLs and won't ever notice the difference between the DD and S.

Constructive criticism is not necessarily nice. If you want some reasons, there you go. This guide is a tier list, and tier lists are terrible.

#46 Just wanna play

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,520 posts
  • LocationInside the Womb of a Great Turtle

Posted 07 June 2013 - 03:04 AM

View PostJudgeDeathCZ, on 07 June 2013 - 01:59 AM, said:

I see you never tried HGN LRM boat.Those launchers in arms can change up to 10 tube racks which means HGN-733 LRM boat is at par with STK-3H with number of missiles launched in 1 wave.
Also CTF-4X(I think) have 1 missile 5 tube launcher in head.

getting it a little mixed up arent you? it has 2 20 launcher hard points in a side torso and 2 6 launcher hard points on arms, 3H is still better because its lighter (you always want a support mech to be light because then you will be supporting heavier mechs or the team will also have lighter mechs, its a passive type of support) and lrms are better on arms because you can aim the arms upward to help the missiles clear obstructions

awesomes 8rs (60 total) have more launcher tubes then either stalker or hgn, imo kinda of silly to use those as lrm boats

imo someone should make a list of the real pros and cons of each chassis variant and the the mech as whole and not base it off of the builds people use while going over things like tube count viewing angle arms torso twist hit box and weapon location, anyone wanna volunteer? im actually thinking about doing something like that

Edited by Just wanna play, 07 June 2013 - 03:16 AM.


#47 Kaio-Kerensky x10

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 331 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 03:16 AM

View PostJust wanna play, on 07 June 2013 - 03:04 AM, said:

getting it a little mixed up arent you? it has 2 20 launcher hard points in a side torso and 2 6 launcher hard points on arms


No, it doesn't. An LRM20 and an LRM10 in the LT and 2LRM10 in the LA will fire in one salvo. Highlander firing tubes are weird.

View PostJust wanna play, on 07 June 2013 - 03:04 AM, said:

3H is still better because its lighter (you always want a support mech to be light because then you will be supporting heavier mechs or the team will also have lighter mechs, its a passive type of support)


This is nonsense. All assaults are the same 'weight' for the matchmaker. 8Rs will be matched against 733s which will be matched against D-DCs.

Quote

lrms are better on arms because you can aim the arms upward to help the missiles clear obstructions

True. They're even better on jumpjetting mechs because you can leap on top of the obstacles to do the same thing.

Quote

awesomes 8rs (60 total) have more launcher tubes then either stalker or hgn, imo kinda of silly to use those as lrm boats

4LRM15 and the ammo to make them work strain the hell out of an Awesome's tonnage, while 50-tube loadouts can actually carry some secondary weaponry and have non-terrible engines.

#48 JudgeDeathCZ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Defiant
  • The Defiant
  • 1,929 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 03:40 AM

View PostJust wanna play, on 07 June 2013 - 03:04 AM, said:

getting it a little mixed up arent you? it has 2 20 launcher hard points in a side torso and 2 6 launcher hard points on arms, 3H is still better because its lighter (you always want a support mech to be light because then you will be supporting heavier mechs or the team will also have lighter mechs, its a passive type of support) and lrms are better on arms because you can aim the arms upward to help the missiles clear obstructions

On HGN those launchers can change number of tubes.Up to 20 in torso and up to 10 in arm.Which means you can get 60 LRMs but if you use Artemis then you can not use XL engine which means less ammo/lower speed.
So for those reasons it is better to load 2xALRM15 to torso and 2xALRM10 into arms.

#49 John MatriX82

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,398 posts
  • LocationItaly

Posted 07 June 2013 - 04:39 AM

Absolutely cool work as usual 80 bit, I agree with most of it except some ratings:

-the 4P may not get the 4 stars I agree, but deserves 3 of them, not two. I totally agree with the rest of the HBKs but 4P stands out. I use 4Ps in competitive to a much better extent and successfullness than either CN9A and 4SP (this because srms now are a little underpowered).

-STK 3F it's one of the best mechs of the game, I think 3 stars are few on this one, even more considering you awarded the same stars to 3H and 5S; the first is a good LRM platform the latter is exactly the same of the 3F but shares the little 60° torso twist of the former. 3F is superior to both, more hardpoints and better brawling and capabilities of both. I'd either have awarded 5S and 3H 2 stars to keep the 3F at 3, but if you place those two at 3, 3F deserves moar. Imho of course :P

-CTF 3D.. hmm, I'd keep the rating for the 3D, but given the poptarting nerf, imho it shares the same level of usefulness of the Ilya right now. Keeping the MC only option then yes, maybe the Ilya could stay at 3 stars rather than 4 but still whenever someone asks me for a good hero mech I always point him to the Ilya.

-HGN 733C at three stars. Hmm no, considering its thinner arm yaw, Imho 733/732/733P are a step over this one, even considering the 4th jj capability and the AC20 capability. In particular, once the 733 will see some SRM buffs, it will become tremendously effective. Whenever I want to use a more balanced build than a 732 (now that it has been nerfed), the 733 it's even superior to both, I've employed that one even in 8mans with more success than other landers.

#50 ValdnadHartagga

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 422 posts
  • LocationA contested planet

Posted 07 June 2013 - 05:16 AM

Quote

CPLT-C4
Rating: **
Role: Brawler, Indirect Fire Support
Top Speed: 86.4 KPH
Hard Points: 2E 4M

The C4 trades two energy hard points from the C1 for two more missile hard points, and an upgrade to 20 tube launchers. On the surface this seems like a good deal. But the remaining two energy hard points are located on the center torso, severely limiting your load out options. And four missiles hard points is nice, but there are no practical LRM builds that the C1 can’t run just as well. If the C4’s energy points were on the side torsos it would be a fantastic variant, but in the current configuration, it’s just a decent one.


Fair points, but as a nearly C4-exclusive player I can tell you that the C4 can do direct fire support just as well as a C1. I'm probably biased because it is my absolute favorite 'Mech in the game, but to me it's the Swiss army knife of Catapults.

Here is my C4: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...3bd34f3ac8fc2e5

This is pretty much the build I've used since my first week of Closed Beta (adding TAG and targeting/support modules as they became available). Except for Caustic and Tourmaline, the single heat sinks are adequate in managing my heat.

I personally prefer the C4 over the C1 because I feel like I have more options in combat - the Streaks can make up for not having lateral arm movement in CQB and I've been able to take out more than one circle-strafing light with those alone. Someone who is less Swiss-army-knife-oriented as I am could drop the TAG for a damage-causing laser, or the BAP for more ammo. I can spot my own targets (and for others as well), maneuver to attack them indirectly or directly, and defend myself adequately while being able to support my team at any range.

#51 80Bit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 555 posts
  • LocationIdaho

Posted 07 June 2013 - 07:14 AM

To address a few things several people have brought up.

First, I will be going over the Blackjacks again soon. They are the newest mech and definitely warrant further review as their capabilities and weaknesses are further brought to light.

Second, as to the freshness of the reviews, they were definitely not all written yesterday. It has take me the last 6 weeks to put this together. But I did go over them all before posting to make sure nothing was grossly out of date. The only major game balance issues I did not fully reflect were the jump jet changes, because I want to give them more time settle in first.


View PostZharot, on 07 June 2013 - 03:02 AM, said:


Okay. I'll do that....


Thanks for the feedback. Sorry you feel my opinion is worthless, but I appreciate you taking the time to read it all the same.


View PostValdnadHartagga, on 07 June 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:


Fair points, but as a nearly C4-exclusive player I can tell you that the C4 can do direct fire support just as well as a C1...


I think the C4 is solid, and with BAP changes it make shake out to be even more viable. When I update later I will see how much difference 2 streaks can make over 2 energy hard points when BAP is in the picture.

#52 scJazz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,668 posts
  • LocationNew London, CT

Posted 07 June 2013 - 07:18 AM

Holy ****! Your awesome but I hope you put on your flame retardant suit cause this next part is gonna sting!

*dives for cover as he sees the approaching pitchfork and flamethrower crowd*

#53 shellashock

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • 439 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 07:37 AM

Warning! This will be a very long post, so make sure that before you reply to this post, be prepared for a lot of reading. I will not respond if someone makes an offhanded comment about my post without actually reading all of it first.

Rework of 80 bit review

This post will be all about the light and medium section of the review.

As a disclaimer, you (as in 80 Bit), are the final judge on whether these changes should be made. Some of these changes are for grammatical errors, or they might just be compulsive nitpicking by me that may or may not clear up what you are trying to say. Therefore, make sure you read every change I say and the notes I make for the changes to decide whether or not the changes should be made in your essay. I also would like to congratulate you on this essay, as it is a solid piece of work with in my opinion that must have taken a lot of time to complete. Of course I will not agree with everything you say, but for the most part, great job! (There might be a few out of order, so make sure you read the changes carefully so you change the appropriate spot.)


I am assuming compressive should be comprehensive. Made some other grammatical changes.

This comprehensive guide is meant to be a subjective review of each mech variant, how it stacks up to its peers, and what roles it excels at. While I do not own all 60+ mech variants, I do own, and have extensively played, one or more variant of each chassis. When rating the mechs, I considered how their hard points, hit boxes, performance, and unique characteristics define them compared to not only other variants, but other mechs that fit the same role. This guide covers mech capabilities in normal solo and small group play, so even mechs with high marks may not be great in the highest end 8v8 play.


Minor change in order that was compulsive nitpicking.

2 Star (**): These mechs have no major flaws, but no features that stand out either



Com 1B: Changed arm mounded to arm mounted.

With arm mounted energy hard points and a single 2-tube missile launcher on its center torso, the COM-1B is a little under gunned compared to other variants. It’s hard to squeeze enough fire power out of the 3 energy points unless you use medium pulse lasers, and then heat management becomes a problem. Unless you hate missiles and don’t want to buy a Death’s Kneel, there is not much point to the 1B


Com 1D: I think the Com 1D paragraph should be spelt like this. Some changes were bolded besides removing a comma.

The 1D has the right hard points, but in the wrong places. The two 6 tube missile hard points are crammed into the center torso, and both energy points are on the right arm. This means that the COM-3A, which spreads out the same hard points, can do everything this variant can do and more. If you have an overwhelming compulsion to shoot 4 streak missiles out of your mech’s belly button, the 1D is for you. Otherwise, avoid it.



Com 2D: Removed a comma, switched some stuff around.

With ECM capability and 3 missile hard points, the 2D is the easily the most (perhaps only), feared Commando variant. The ability to field 3 SSRM2 launchers while blocking enemy lock-on makes this variant an excellent light mech hunter. The only thing that prevents the 2D from being crowned king of the light mechs is the ECM equipped, 10 ton heavier yet just as fast, Raven 3L. Ammo is another concern; tonnage becomes very tight, even with FF armor and Endo Steel internals, when ECM is equipped. Regardless, the 2D may not be king of the light mechs, but it is at least a crowned prince.



COM 3A: It is okay to have 2e 2m when in describing hardpoints in the quick look section, but you must have a plus sign when you describe hardpoints like that in the paragraph. At least that is my take on it.

The 3A has the right hard points, and unlike the 1D, they are in the right places. With one energy hard point on each arm, and two 6 tube missile launchers split between arm and center torso, this variant can field a nice range of serviceable builds. But it is still a 2E + 2M Commando with no other advantages and it ends up being a very ho-hum light mech overall.



Spider 5D: You forgot to add a comma here.

If you want to buy one Spider, just to try it out, this is the one to get.



Jenner D: Forgot an apostrophe.

In a light on light matchup, the RVN-3L and COM-2D are the only mechs that can rain on the 7-Ds parade, though a build that utilizes BAP can give even those mechs a solid fight.



Jenner F: Some minor changes and a switch around.

This variant drops missiles completely and puts 3 energy hard points on each “arm”. With the ability to easily focus fire 6 lasers, the JR7-F can put out respectable damage while maintaining the speed and jump jets of the other variants. Unfortunately, heat management is almost always an issue with this mech, and your heat warning will go off constantly in combat on hot maps. The variant is also limited to a single module slot, which is starting to become a real hindrance as modules become more varied and useful. The JR7-F is definitely a capable mech, but it takes a fine tuned build and a good deal of skill to really make it reach its potential. But once a pilot does have the right skill level, the JR7-F becomes a top tier mech in their hands.


Raven 2x: small additions.

This variant is almost a good light mech, but everybody knows that almost doesn’t count. Though it has enough weapon hard points to field some decent firepower, the 2X is hindered by its low max engine size, which keeps its top speed to a relatively low 125KPH. The fact that it is one of the slowest light mechs is not offset by any useful feature, so you end up with a mech that pales when compared to its 3L brother or any of the Jenners. Speed is life for a light mech, and this variant does not have enough of it to be competitive.



Raven 3l: You need to pick what sentence you want for this change. Also, some small changes.

This is the cream of the crop and the king of the hill when it comes to light class mechs. No other mech has inspired more rants on the MWO forums. And that is because no other mech can move at 150KPH toting a healthy assortment of lasers and missiles, all while being shielded by ECM.

[Warning! The following change should be made according to the preference of 80 Bit. There is no recommendation for this change, so 80 Bit can pick one or the other to change!]

The simple fact is that in light on light fighting, having both streak missiles and ECM is a big advantage, and the RVN-3L and COM-2D are the only lights that can do that.

Or

The simple fact is that in light on light fighting, having both streak missiles and ECM is a big advantage, and the RVN-3L and COM-2D are the only lights that can carry both.

Other Changes to Raven 3L:

However, the 3L has a full 10 ton advantage over the Commando and usually wins that matchup as well. The 3L is by far the most popular current light mech variant, and is seen extensively from PUG matches all the way up to competitive 8 man play. Recent changes to the Raven’***** box and a change to SSRM missile damage has taken the 3L down a peg, but it was 4 pegs higher than other lights to begin with, so it is still a powerhouse. BAP changes have given other light mechs more of a fighting chance against the 3L, but it still holds the advantage. Well rounded, capable, and with an edge in pretty much any light on light situation, the RVN-3L holds the crown as king of the light mechs.



Medium description: These changes are really nitpicking and don’t necessarily have to happen, but I think it helps explain it better. Really your choice on how this change goes.

But detractors aside, medium mechs have time and time again proven that they are capable of performance beyond their tonnage. They are an especially good choice for newer pilots, since they are very affordable to buy and load out, and don’t require the same level of skill that light mechs often do.



Cicada Description: you do not need the apostrophe in Cicada’s.

The mech focuses mostly on energy weapons, but the Hero X-5 sports a few missile points, and two variants have ballistic points as well, so you can find Cicadas running all sorts of weapon combinations.



Cicada 2B: small changes.

The 2B variant is similar to the 2A, but moves the side torso energy points to the arms, and only has one energy point on center torso instead of two. This means that compared to the 2A, it has one fewer energy hard point in exchange for some arm mounted hard points. This makes the 2B inferior to the 2A in almost all circumstances. Unless you just can’t live without the extra 30 degrees of vertical aim movement that the weapon arm mounts give you, the 2B is a definite pass.



Cicada 3C: just a few changes.

Here is the thing; machine guns suck. It is becoming apparent that they will likely always suck. And since machine guns are the only thing you can realistically use 4 ballistic slots for on a mech of this size, the CDA-3C variant in turn sucks. While there is enough tonnage to squeak out useable builds around a single, larger ballistic weapon, the 3M variant is superior if you are going that route. The 3C is unique in all the wrong ways, and is currently one of the worst mechs available.



Cicada 3M: Removed the “s” from options.

As the only medium mech to carry ECM, and with a serviceable array of weapon hard points, the 3M is a very solid variant. While ballistic weapons may not be the best option for fast moving mechs like the 3M, the additional four energy hard points still give plenty of load out options. With the ability to bring ECM coverage and decent firepower to the battle, but lacking the missile hard points so vital in light mech dogfighting, the 3M is a very team oriented mech. Don’t buy the 3M expecting to dominate light mechs just because you are a little bigger. But if you enjoy the ability to skirmish while bringing ECM to the table, this variant is a great option.



The X-5: added a comma, and changed the order of a sentence. Removed the “en” from been.

The Hero mech X-5 is basically a JR7-D that trades the jump jets for a little extra tonnage and armor. As the only Cicada to have missile mounts, it is the best of the bunch for hunting light mechs. The spread out energy hard points can make high speed weapon convergence a little unwieldy and it will never be as nimble as the jump jetting Jenner it emulates; even with its similar top speed. But with good weapon options and no big downside, the X-5 is definitely a top tier skirmisher.



Blackjack Description: Just some additions to make the paragraph feel more complete. Alo has some grammatical corrections.

With high arms that are missing the lower actuator, this medium mech is the spitting image of his big brother, the Jaggermech. But unlike its 65 ton relative, the Blackjack is not exactly a powerhouse. Though it has weapon hard points aplenty, the low weight of this medium prevents it from any truly high damage load outs. And unlike the even lighter Cicada, the Blackjack does not have a lot of extra speed to make up for the low tonnage. Several models do have jump jets however, and the increased mobility is welcome. But with low armor and vulnerable side torsos, a Blackjack caught in the crosshairs of the enemy won’t last long; making it a below average skirmisher. Because of this, it does best in a direct fire support role. But overall, the Blackjack is in a very unfortunate position on the mech food chain. It’s too slow to keep up with light mechs, and too light to compare to the more robust 50 ton mechs in firepower or armor. Try as I may, I can’t think of a situation where the Blackjack is not an inferior option compared to the other medium mechs.



BJ-1: Added two commas.

The BJ-1 variant is a 1DC that trades two energy hard points for four jump jets. For a 45 ton mech that is going to have a hard time using a large ballistic load out, jump jets are not that useful. Jumping into the air to plink out a few AC/2 rounds is not exactly intimidating. However, the variant does turn out to have enough tonnage to squeak a jumping AC/20 build, which is decidedly more intimidating. Because of this, the BJ-1 is a serviceable skirmisher.



BJ-1DC: Removed a comma in the first sentence. Changed loud outs to load outs.

The BJ-1DC variant makes a little more sense over the similar BJ-1 if you are planning on fire support more than skirmishing. That said, it is still a tricky mech to work with. There are very few ballistic load outs that fit on a 45 ton mech. It can run the always underwhelming twin AC/2 build with some backup lasers, or drop the energy weapons and squeeze on some AC/5s. Another option is to run a single, larger cannon. All of these builds are workable, but none of them are going to leave you feeling like you found a great load out. If you want the cheapest, fastest mech that can effectively run two small auto cannons, the 1DC fits the bill; just don’t expect the performance to match the larger medium mechs.



BJ-3: Just shortened a sentence to “However,” instead of adding a comma to avoid repetition.

There are plenty of workable options with this mech. However, even this variant can’t overcome the general weight and armor deficiencies of the chassis. The BJ-3 is like a Cicada that trades speed for jump jets, which it turns out, is not a great trade.



Centurion Description: Something really tweaked me in third sentence, so I reworked it to sound less grating. Also added a comma and fixed some forgotten words.

It is a fun chassis to invest in not only because all the variants are fairly unique, but also because (unlike the other 50 ton chassis), none of them down right suck. Want to fit a bunch of SRM6s? There is a variant for that. Want to run big energy weapons? There is a variant for that. Want to use a ridiculously large engine? There is a variant for that. Why, there is even a variant that mounts an AC/20 on its arm while simultaneously giving you unlimited openings for off color jokes. Want a mech that can keep fighting after losing both arms and both side torsos? They can all do that! It’s no wonder the Centurion is such a well regarded mech. It does require good skill in torso twisting to get the most out of it, so while it works well for novices, it really shines in the hands of an expert pilot.



Centurion-A: Changed a comma to a semi-colon. Added a forgotten word

Used at even the highest levels of play, the CN9-A is regarded as one of the best medium mechs in the game; largely because it is the only medium mech that can spew out 18 SRMS in a single salvo. There is a lot of value to having 3 missile hard points on a medium mech, and combined with the general durability of the chassis, this variant has a lot of effective build options. It can be outfitted with a larger engine and used as a striker, or a smaller engine to give it plenty of firepower to be a brawler. It is also the mech that is least vulnerable to the loss of its right arm, which is a concern for all Centurion pilots. The CN9-A has a lot going for it and is one of the premier mediums available.



Centurion Al: Added some commas, a semi-colon, and a forgotten word.

If you like energy weapons, this is the Centurion for you. As the only variant without a ballistic right arm, it has two energy hard points there instead. This makes it a prime mount of PPCs, or a nice array of medium or large lasers. It also means that to get good fire power, it requires a hot build; which can be a detriment for a medium speed brawler. Because of this, the AL can do better in a fire support role, where they have the ability to disengage if heat becomes a problem. While it does not have any capabilities that put it at the top of the heap, the AL is still a solid mech.



Yen-Lo-Wang: Just added a comma.

But that big right arm also makes an easy target for enemy mechs, and if it gets blow off, almost all your firepower goes with it.



Hunchback Description: Broke up a run on sentence, added some brackets, and added a comma.

The aptly named Hunchback can run some of the highest firepower builds around for a medium. AC20, Dual LRM15, 3x Large Laser, and 9x medium lasers are all builds potentially seen on a Hunchback. But except in the 4SP variant, the high weapon capacity is largely carried in the mechs oversized “hunch” right torso. This means that the enemy is always aiming there, and once that right torso is gone, the mech has almost no firepower left. Because of this (though many play the Hunchback as a brawler), I find it works best as a direct fire support mech, staying just back from the front line and bringing its heavy firepower to bear with less risk of a de-hunching.



Hunchback 4G: Added a comma.

The 4G is the iconic Hunchback variant, with a giant AC/20 sitting on its shoulder. But when compared to the 4H variant, the 4G has two extra, mostly useless, ballistic hard points instead of energy. Since at this tonnage it’s hard to make use of more than one ballistic weapon, the 4G is generally inferior to the 4H. Unless you have a specific build in mind that needs the ballistic points, go with the 4H over the 4G.



Hunchback 4J: Merged two sentences together with some added words for the sentence to make sense.

This was just done to avoid to many uses of “And”. Also removed “And” in the seventh sentence.
The Hunchback 4J is an interesting mech. It is the only medium mech to have two full 20 tube missile hard points. It also has an impressive six energy hard points. But despite impressive looking hard points on paper, the 4J is a little used variant. There is just nothing it does that a similarly priced alternative does not do better. Trebuchets make better LRM platforms and since running two LRM20s on a 50 ton mech is not generally feasible, the extra missile tubes on the Hunchback are more or less useless. If you are going to use the missile mounts for SRMs or SSRMs, the Hunchback 4SP is clearly superior. As with many of the Hunchback variants, the 4J is not bad, other mediums are just better.



Hunchback 4P: Added commas, made “Realistically” the sentence starter for the fifth sentence. Added a letter to “sort” to make it “short”. Added an o to “to” to make it “too”.

The “P” in HBK-4P stands for “Pew Pew”. This variant can mount more energy weapons that any other mech in the game. A 4P with 9 medium lasers can definitely melt anyone’s face. Of course, with great pew pew comes great heat. Realistically, it is difficult to run 9 energy weapons on a 50 ton mech and actually fire them all more than once a minute. In the past, small laser builds were popular, but the modern Hunchback can’t quite run fast enough to use such short range weapons. Since medium mechs can generally only run 4-6 energy weapons while maintaining good heat management, the 4P is relegated to the “good, but not best” category. Players at very high skill levels can still push the 4P to greatness, but for mere mortals, driving a 4P is often like flying too close to the sun. Still, though it may not be the most practical mech, there is undeniable fun in firing a Death Star like array of lasers.



Hunchback 4SP: Removed a comma and added “is” to the second last sentence.

“Why G when you can SP?” You could ask the same of any hunchback variant when compared to the HBK-4SP. This is the “hunchless” Hunchback, which trades the giant, weapon concentrating hunch of the other variants for a slim 6 tube missile launcher on each shoulder. It also spreads the hard point love around, with two energy hard points on each arm and one on the head. This effectively does away with all the downsides of the other variants. The result is a mech that can hold a lot weapons, has no single vulnerable point, and can maintain over 50% of its firepower even after losing an entire side torso. It’s no surprise this mech is a pilot favorite and is often recommended to new players. Mobility, firepower, and durability all add up to make this mech not only one of the best mediums, but one of the best mechs overall in the game.



Trebuchet Description: added an “s” to “variant”.

For one thing, it has two jump jet capable variants, making it the only 50 ton mech that fly; a capability many use to play as a jump sniper.



Trebuchet 7M: added an "o” to “to” to make it “too”. Cleaned up some sentences that had some words that didn’t really make sense.

Like the 5J, the TBT-7M can fit up to 5 jump jets. When outfitted with PPCs, it makes a respectable jumping sniper. And if you want to jump onto a building for a good LRM vantage point, it has the missile hard points to make that possible too. Some people were initially excited about running 3xSRM6 brawler builds, but the 7M’s third missile launcher was of the one tube variety. But even with the mostly useless one tube missile launcher, it is still one of the few jump capable, LRM friendly mechs, and that gives it a niche all on its own.

Stay tuned for my review over the heavy and assault part of this review. Thanks for reading.

Edited by shellashock, 07 June 2013 - 08:40 AM.


#54 Teh Hobo

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 30 posts
  • LocationOttawa

Posted 07 June 2013 - 10:36 AM

A couple thigs sprag to mind reading this.

STK-5M doesn't do the one-at-a-time launching anymore, 5 lrm 15s on it are just silly(both in support capability and in heat management) STK-5M, with the recent buff to lrm damage it works very well (except on river city). 5 srm6 brawlers work well and zombie extremely well with a LL in the CT. It definetly deserves 3 stars.
2 srm4 on the JR7-D is at least as good as 2 ssrm2s and BAP, better against things that arn't lights for a slight reduction in light killing capability.
I know AC2s seem underwhelming at first, but 4/5 AC2s=pain JM6-DD. There is a learning curve, but not nearly as large of one as DRGs or AWSs

#55 Wildstreak

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 5,154 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 11:20 AM

View Post80Bit, on 06 June 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

HBK-4J
Rating: **
Role: Skirmisher, Direct Fire Support, Indirect Fire Support
Top Speed: 92.7 KPH
Hard Points: 6E 2M

The Hunchback 4J is an interesting mech. It is the only medium mech to have two full 20 tube missile hard points. It also has an impressive six energy hard points. But despite impressive looking hard points on paper, the 4J is a little used variant. There is just nothing it does that a similarly priced alternative does not do better. Trebuchets make better LRM platforms. And since running two LRM20s on a 50 ton mech is not generally feasible, the extra missile tubes are more or less useless. And if you are going to use the missile mounts for SRMs or SSRMs, the Hunchback 4SP is clearly superior. As with many of the Hunchback variants, the 4J is not bad, other mediums are just better.

The 4J has 2 full 10 tube missile hardpoints. Probably better off to take 1LRM20 instead of the stock 2LRM10, less heat compared to less criticals while still using all 20 tubes plus I think AMS has it harder to counter enough missiles out of 1 LRM20 flight compared to 2 10s.
Also of all the Hunchbacks, it has been noted the 4J has the worst hunch of all making it easier to hit.
Cannot say any positives as I have not gotten to try the 4J I built in smurfy's lab focusing on 2LL + 1LRM20 letting it fight at long range never getting in close where it would be hit easy.

#56 Just wanna play

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,520 posts
  • LocationInside the Womb of a Great Turtle

Posted 07 June 2013 - 02:02 PM

View PostZharot, on 07 June 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

This is nonsense. All assaults are the same 'weight' for the matchmaker. 8Rs will be matched against 733s which will be matched against D-DCs.


True. They're even better on jumpjetting mechs because you can leap on top of the obstacles to do the same thing.


4LRM15 and the ammo to make them work strain the hell out of an Awesome's tonnage, while 50-tube loadouts can actually carry some secondary weaponry and have non-terrible engines.

could have sworn it pays a little attention to total tonnage (it will eventually)

so you have to use at least another 2 tons just to clear obstacles (and you will also have to expose yourself) to get the same effect as simply having arms.....

speed isnt really that important to lrm boats and if your smart and actually stick with the main group instead of hiding in the back of the map like most lrm boats do the pros far out weigh the cons (11 more dmg not counting splash as well as faster fire rate compared to lrm 20s, also more cockpit shake)
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...cb4d35e468c3b0e
can fire 18 times (if firing all weapons at once) can also get another ton of ammo if you go down to a 255 engine

#57 White Bear 84

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,857 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 03:26 PM

View PostZharot, on 07 June 2013 - 03:02 AM, said:


Okay. I'll do that.



Much of this advice is long out of date. Some examples: The Raven is not the best light mech in the game any more and has not been for a while. The Jenner D is not better than the F due to the greater weight constraints forced upon it to carry BAP to use SSRMs (and SRMs are in a bad place right now and have been mediocre on lights for a long time). The Cent A has the same problem. So does the Cent D, but he's clearly never played it, since it was a crazy good skirmisher for a time. He talks down the Cent AL while talking up the 4SP, despite the fact that the AL is almost exactly the same as the 4SP except for a better engine and better hitboxes and hardpoint locations.

At heavy and assault, he just doesn't know what he's talking about, and parrots "good" mechs he's heard other people recommend, despite the fact that those recommendations are long out of date or just dumb. The K2 has been only okay at best for a long time. The 8R is a funny LRM boat but a gimmick at best because it's hot, can't fit any armament besides the LRMs without making crazy sacrifices in speed/heat/ammo. Highlanders are good but not hot **** any more after the poptart nerf, largely because Stalkers already do the same thing but better. DDCs haven't been the kings of Atlases for months now.

Similarly, he downplays mechs he's clearly never played. The practical game difference from the number of energy hardpoints between the DD and S is negligible. He doesn't actually know a thing about Stalkers; I'm not sure if this is just a lack of skill or a lack of experience. Talking up the 3H as an LRM boat while downplaying the 733 is especially insane. Same goes for Highlanders: the 733C is a pretty mediocre brawler, and worse than the 733 just because of the reduced arm twist. (Going all-in with an AC/20 isn't a good idea even if you are going to build a brawler Highlander, and 2UAC5 is really dumb.) It's one of those counterintuitive things that the mech that can run an AC/20 should not, and that the mech that can only run a gauss is the better brawler.

He rates hero mechs he hasn't bought. That's pretty obvious. All of the "good" heroes (plus the X-5 for some reason) are three stars with some mealy-mouthed comments, and all of the bad heroes are two stars, even useless garbage like the Death's Knell and Yen Lo Wang. Can't offend people who are emotionally invested in their bad purchases!

The Jenner K and Atlas K, are, in a vacuum, fairly decent mechs. They are overshadowed by the better alternatives, but there is no reason to be telling people that it's more painful to play a Jenner K than, say, a Raven 2X. One of those is a fairly decent mech overshadowed by a similar but slightly better alternative, and one of those is a total deathtrap that makes grinding out Basic efficiencies a hellish gauntlet.

Most damning, he's not even playing at a very high level of skill. If you can't manage heat on a BJ-1X or 4P, you probably should not be offering people advice on building mechs at all. His advice isn't even consistent for his skill level; the advantages of a Jager S are only noticeable if you're ready to handle a very hot mech where you need to make every scrap of ammo count. Otherwise, you're running 0-2 MLs and won't ever notice the difference between the DD and S.

Constructive criticism is not necessarily nice. If you want some reasons, there you go. This guide is a tier list, and tier lists are terrible.


I skimmed over this cause i am hungover as hell this morning, but appreciate these views. Not to say i agree with ALL of your comments, but you make some valid points, in particular in regards to light mechs. Still think the DDC is rockin, but then that is a strong personal preference..

Edit.. ..that said i used to HATE the dragon with a passion, but once they started fixing stuff it became much more viable...

Edited by White Bear 84, 07 June 2013 - 03:47 PM.


#58 Kaio-Kerensky x10

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 331 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 04:06 PM

View Post80Bit, on 07 June 2013 - 07:14 AM, said:

Thanks for the feedback. Sorry you feel my opinion is worthless, but I appreciate you taking the time to read it all the same.

No. It is not worthless. It is actively harmful, because it is almost entirely misinformation. Not only that but it encourages players to justify their bad play now. "Mere mortals" can't play the 4P? You still don't understand that the Cent AL and the Hunch 4SP are basically the same mech even after having it directly pointed out to you.

This is terrible.

Quote

Second, as to the freshness of the reviews, they were definitely not all written yesterday. It has take me the last 6 weeks to put this together. But I did go over them all before posting to make sure nothing was grossly out of date.


Oh yeah. If you actually did this, you're really bad at it. The Raven 3L, Atlas D-DC, Cent A, 4SP, and K2 aren't the best mechs in the game and most of them haven't been for a while. In fact, (save possibly the Raven, which suffered from the BAP change) they weren't the best mechs in MWO six weeks ago, either.

Edited by Zharot, 07 June 2013 - 05:40 PM.


#59 Lukoi Banacek

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • WC 2018 Top 12 Qualifier
  • WC 2018 Top 12 Qualifier
  • 4,353 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 06:32 PM

Interesting stuff here. Don't agree with it all (but you can't please everyone right?), but I'd ask that you rethink some of your ratings given how BAP neutralizes ECM in the light on light knife fights. It really seems like you considered ECM/sSRM from the pre-BAP "burnsthrough" era.

#60 TehSBGX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 911 posts

Posted 07 June 2013 - 07:56 PM

Nice job with the guide, but I think you may not know that the Cent-A Can't really make the best use of srm abuse anymore, one of it Quirks added a while ago was ten missle tubes. So while triple srm6/atremis is possible it's not as devastating especially since splash got adjusted too. The Cent-A is still really respectable, just not really a powerhouse anymore.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users