15 replies to this topic

[Solis Obscuri]

I was thinking about this a bit in scope of the high-alpha meta problem, and it occurred to me that, despite similar tonnage and beam hardpoint numbers, Stalkers were infinitely preferred for alpha-boats than was the Awesome. Sure, the Awesome's squishy big CT was part of the problem, but the other part was the way the beam hardpoints are situated on a Stalker - higher than anything else but the cockpit glass. That made a peeking Stalker almost invisible for a distance, and very difficult to return fire against or suppress.

Now, just moving those hardpoints to the lower part of the arm (as per old TRO art) would bring the Stalker into relative parity with the other assault 'mechs in terms of how much exposure it would need to deliver its payload - strikes me as a fairly simple way to improve balance across the assault 'mech class and weaken energy-based high-alpha sniping somewhat as well, without the need for new complicated mechanics.

Current MWO Stalker

TRO 3050 Stalker

Proposed Redesign

[Funky Bacon]

Technically having your lasers above the missile tubes makes no sense since your LRM salvos would crash into the laser beams if fired at the same time.

[Chaon]

Basically the hardpoints at the moment are in the upper arms.

Changing the location would be putting them into the lower arms which would be more logical when put with missile tubes.

[MrZakalwe]

And this would remove the only reason to take a Stalker over a highlander.
Disadvantages of the Stalker
Stalkers have bad torso twist.
Stalkers are limited to small engines.
Stalkers cannot mount jumpjets.
Typically Stalkers have no ballistic options.
Stalkers have no lower arm actuators making them (especially when combined with torso twist) incredibly vulnerable to light mechs.

Advantages of the Stalker.
High firepoints for energy weapons.
Large side torsos.

If you remove one of the only two things that keep Stalkers useful you could condemn them to obscurity; the Highlander would do everything it does but with jumpjets.

P.S. even if you deleted the Stalker from the game entirely the Highlander would still be a better energy platform than the Awesome but wouldn't need to be because it can go twin ERPPC/Gauss and hit harder from longer range running cooler with better profile, better hitbox and jumpjets. Nothing short of massive changes can save the Awesome.

Edited by MrZakalwe, 13 August 2013 - 05:46 AM.

[Fetladral]

well since the stalker is primarily meant for missile support it makes sense to have the LRM launchers on the arms higher up to make it easier to provide indirect fire support. well not specifically for missile support but that is one of the reasons for the LRMs to be above the lasers.

[Solis Obscuri]

MrZakalwe, on 13 August 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

And this would remove the only reason to take a Stalker over a highlander.
Disadvantages of the Stalker
Stalkers have bad torso twist.
Stalkers are limited to small engines.
Stalkers cannot mount jumpjets.
Typically Stalkers have no ballistic options.
Stalkers have no lower arm actuators making them (especially when combined with torso twist) incredibly vulnerable to light mechs.

Advantages of the Stalker.
High firepoints for energy weapons.
Large side torsos.

If you remove one of the only two things that keep Stalkers useful you could condemn them to obscurity; the Highlander would do everything it does but with jumpjets.

P.S. even if you deleted the Stalker from the game entirely the Highlander would still be a better energy platform than the Awesome but wouldn't need to be because it can go twin ERPPC/Gauss and hit harder from longer range running cooler with better profile, better hitbox and jumpjets. Nothing short of massive changes can save the Awesome.

You left out the Stalker's lack of convergence delay, and its much greater number of energy hardpoints. The sheer number of energy weapons it can mount gives it an edge over the Highlander as an energy boat. Fewer ballistic hardpoints (typically) are also offset by having more missile hardpoints (typically) compared to the Highlander.

[Alreech]

The problem isn't the position of the Hardpoints, the problem is that any Mech with at least 2 Energy Hardpoints in Arms or Side Torso can mount double PPCs...

[Mechteric]

While I like this feature about my Stalker, I also kinda thinks it shouldn't have such an advantage. I would be ok with this nerf.

[MrZakalwe]

Solis Obscuri, on 13 August 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

You left out the Stalker's lack of convergence delay, and its much greater number of energy hardpoints. The sheer number of energy weapons it can mount gives it an edge over the Highlander as an energy boat. Fewer ballistic hardpoints (typically) are also offset by having more missile hardpoints (typically) compared to the Highlander.

The Stalker has the same convergence delay as anybody else and the Highlander HGN-733P has got functionally the same number of energy slots; you aren't going to mount more than 4 PPCs are you? Other Highlanders can go with 2 ERPPCs+Gauss for all their direct fire needs plus better range and larger alpha.

The only thing that makes a Stalker worth using is model, remove that one advantage and you've just created a mech where the highlander does everything it does but better.

This would not be a good thing.

As I said even if you made Stalkers unviable Awesomes would still be no better as the Highlander would still fill the niche better than the Awesome; you'd just see more 733Ps popping up.

I'll ask a question of you which is with this change what role do you see Stalkers having? (bearing in mind that Highlanders already do the missile support role better, the brawler role better and that currently the Stalker only excels in ridge hugging direct fire support, removing it's one real role wont make its other roles better) Would you propose to buff some other aspect of the Stalker to give it a purpose?

[Solis Obscuri]

Stalkers do missile support as well or better than Highlanders in my experience. Their maneuverability and twist range limits brawling, but they function well both as snipers and as part of a concerted push so long as they have support to watch their flanks. They also have enough hardpoints to cover both long and short range missions, allowing them to specialize mainly in one role (like missile-boating or sniping) without significantly handicapping themselves in any other (LRM boats can carry potent direct-fire back-up for close range, builds with heavy direct-fire weapons can back-up with Streaks to handle fast-movers, etc.) Other assaults can manage that sort of multi-role competency, but generally not the degree that the Stalker can. It's a very solid and well-rounded 'mech, and one of my preferred assault chassis.

[MrZakalwe]

Solis Obscuri, on 14 August 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:

Stalkers do missile support as well or better than Highlanders in my experience. Their maneuverability and twist range limits brawling, but they function well both as snipers and as part of a concerted push so long as they have support to watch their flanks. They also have enough hardpoints to cover both long and short range missions, allowing them to specialize mainly in one role (like missile-boating or sniping) without significantly handicapping themselves in any other (LRM boats can carry potent direct-fire back-up for close range, builds with heavy direct-fire weapons can back-up with Streaks to handle fast-movers, etc.) Other assaults can manage that sort of multi-role competency, but generally not the degree that the Stalker can. It's a very solid and well-rounded 'mech, and one of my preferred assault chassis.

The reason it works for sniping and the reason it gets to be the only heavy/assault mech without jumpjets that can snipe is that it has its firepoints high up.

Lets go through the heavy and assault mechs.
Atlas
Can snipe well? No.
High firepoints? No.
Jumpjets? No.

Victor
Can snipe well? Yes.
High firepoints?No.
Jumpjets? Yes.

Highlander
Can snipe well? Yes.
High firepoints?No.
Jumpjets? Yes.

Awesome
Can snipe well? No.
High firepoints?No.
Jumpjets? No.

Cataphract
Can snipe well? Yes.
High firepoints?No.
Jumpjets? Yes.

Jagermech
Can snipe well? Moderately
High firepoints?Yes.
Jumpjets? No.

Stalker
Can snipe well? Yes.
High firepoints? Yes
Jumpjets? No.


Notice the pattern? to be able to snipe in MWO you need either high firepoints or jumpjets (basically some way of using cover).

If you remove the high firepoints from the Stalker it removes it from the Sniper role then it just has the missile mech options and seriously the highlander does those better.

Jumpjets are a massive advantage and mechs with a 0 at the end of their tonnage get more benefit from endo than mechs with a 5 at the end.

In a world where Highlanders and Victors exist Stalkers need high firepoints.

They aren't great at brawling now that mass SRMs are trash (3LL+ 4ASRM6s no longer works), Missile support is better done by other chassis and you propose to remove the ability to snipe giving Stalkers zero viable roles.

This firepoint change would only be good if you removed jumpjets from the game or gave a Stalker them.

[Solis Obscuri]

It's not like I'm proposing to move the hardpoints to the feet. Proportionately they'd still be higher than either the Atlas or Awesome's are. But the Stalker would actually have to make itself reasonably visible while hill-humping, whereas now it can snipe with less exposure than a Blackjack.

[MrZakalwe]

Solis Obscuri, on 16 August 2013 - 12:18 AM, said:

It's not like I'm proposing to move the hardpoints to the feet. Proportionately they'd still be higher than either the Atlas or Awesome's are. But the Stalker would actually have to make itself reasonably visible while hill-humping, whereas now it can snipe with less exposure than a Blackjack.

For sniping duty that is the only reason you pick a Stalker over a Highlander.

[TexAce]

Alreech, on 13 August 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

The problem isn't the position of the Hardpoints, the problem is that any Mech with at least 2 Energy Hardpoints in Arms or Side Torso can mount double PPCs...

that is no problem at all.What do you want to do? Limit laser hardpoints to head only lol?
Besides a lot of stock mechs have 2 PPCs, the awesome even 3. Its totally common.

[Roland]

The torso twist on the 3f is not restrictive at all.

Lower arm actuators tend to be disadvantages rather than advantages in mechwarrior online. They are wasted slot space.

[MrZakalwe]

Roland, on 17 August 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

The torso twist on the 3f is not restrictive at all.

Lower arm actuators tend to be disadvantages rather than advantages in mechwarrior online. They are wasted slot space.

True and that is something I'd like to see PGI fix; add a button that allows mechs to extend or raise their arms.

Brawling Stalker loadouts tend to be quite weak and only one Stalker variant has enough tubes to make LRM use worth it (others get murdered by AMS) Sniping (and niche mid range large laser builds) are what the Stalker has left.

Everything else is gone.