****************************************
Locust - 3S
Perhaps even with single heatsinks the small laser can help a bit
Four Srm 2 - 300 srm ammo - 1 small laser - 151.5 kph - 125 armor http://mwo.smurfy-ne...608f3b1a8fd7df2
***************
No Small laser version
160.4 KPH - 125 armor
Four Srm 2 - 300 Srm ammo http://mwo.smurfy-ne...a605f5729d088b7
Swap out a srm 2 for a medium laser
********************************************************
Locust - 3M
Dual ams with 2000 ams rounds
160.4 kph - 125 armor
4 Medium lasers - 2 AMS systems - 2000 AMS ammo http://mwo.smurfy-ne...bd5f61cb64496bb
Well like I promised I'm busy grinding the Locusts but except for the 1V (4 MG, 1ML) I'm not really making good use of the weapon points possibilities.
I've failed miserably with the 3M SL build as I find I get shot to death far too easily. Maybe it's because I try to play it like my Jenner-F which is almost twice the tonnage but I just can't see how I can fix that.
The 3S has been an even sadder tale with al types of missile builds (SRM, SSRM, LRM) just not working for me.
So, for the 3S and 3M I decided to simply mount some LL I had left over. Had one of both the ER and non-ER version. When my ER version had outpaced the regular LL Locust by 5000xp I upgraded that one to an ER as well.
And you know what? They're working fine for me now! I scout, take potshots at long range targets, look for opportunities to deploy my arty or uav and most importantly I tend to make wide flanks and start boring into enemy mechs from unexpected angles forcing them to divert their attention of suffer for it.
I'm getting a good number of destroyed components, damage numbers, even the occasional kill. I'ts a bit boring as far as builds go, and that CT ERLL has terrible torso pitch downwards, but it works for me!
I've really like my 3S with two LRM5s + SL. I just run way at the fringes, dumping in missiles and arty, or just spotting if shooting my missiles would draw too much fire.
But you're right, it is really hard to use all of the weapon hardpoints on the Locust. On the -3M it just runs too hot, and the -3S doesn't have enough weight to really mount all 4 missile points effectively.
So, for the 3S and 3M I decided to simply mount some LL I had left over. Had one of both the ER and non-ER version. When my ER version had outpaced the regular LL Locust by 5000xp I upgraded that one to an ER as well.
And you know what? They're working fine for me now! I scout, take potshots at long range targets, look for opportunities to deploy my arty or uav and most importantly I tend to make wide flanks and start boring into enemy mechs from unexpected angles forcing them to divert their attention of suffer for it.
I'm getting a good number of destroyed components, damage numbers, even the occasional kill. I'ts a bit boring as far as builds go, and that CT ERLL has terrible torso pitch downwards, but it works for me!
It's interesting how some weird builds just work for some people. I'm biased towards the SPLs for the 3M, but a big ERLL is really hard to argue with while it's burning you dead at over 600 meters.
Buckminster, on 09 April 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:
I've really like my 3S with two LRM5s + SL. I just run way at the fringes, dumping in missiles and arty, or just spotting if shooting my missiles would draw too much fire.
But you're right, it is really hard to use all of the weapon hardpoints on the Locust. On the -3M it just runs too hot, and the -3S doesn't have enough weight to really mount all 4 missile points effectively.
It's why I go for the SPL version. The Pulse Lasers have decent heat-to-damage ratio. You lose the 400 Meters reach of Medium lasers, but your DPS and heat will improve if you like being in knife range.
IraqiWalker, on 23 February 2014 - 10:03 PM, said:
Koniving, can I add you as a friend?
For some reason I never saw this. But sure.
On a side note, the armor concept I've been working on...
Look at a Jenner D stock and a Locust stock. Notice something? Both have 128 points of armor.
Spoiler
Mech armor.
Figuring for the Stock armor tonnage + x tonnage = new max armor tonnage concept.
Using 3 tons as the modifier.
32 = 1 ton standard.
36 = 1 ton ferro.
Side note: Internal structure is NOT changed. It is one half of MWO's current max armor for the tonnage + 6. (The remaining 6 is extra health on the cockpit).
Locust All Variants.
Structure: 69 (+ 6, so 75 including ghost head health) points.
128 armor stock = 4 tons armor.
7 tons new max = 224 points standard armor.
4 tons ferro = 144 Ferro.
7 tons ferro = 252 new max Ferro.
Engine: 8 to 12 ratings above stock.
Stock 160.
8 rate max 200
12 rate max 220.
Compared to a Jenner.
Jenner Structure: 119 + 6 ghost cockpit points = 125 structure.
Jenner D.
128 armor stock = 4 tons armor.
7 tons new max = 224 points standard armor.
4 tons (stock tonnage) ferro = 144 Ferro.
7 tons ferro = 252 new max Ferro.
Jenner K, invalid stock armor amount, rounded to nearest half ton, from 125 to 128.
Jenner K armor is identical to Jenner D.
JR7-F
224 stock = 7 tons.
New max 10 tons.
320 max standard
360 max ferro.
Universal stock Engine.
245 engine
8 rate max 285
12 rate max 305
--------
So even while both the Locust and the Jenner D/K have the same armor limits, the Jenner D has more structure health (125) versus the Locust (75) so once the armor is gone the Jenner will live longer. Yet the Locust is faster. Much faster...assuming it can even spend the weight on that speed.
Just a thought.
Spoiler
Keep in mind, if I were balancing the game, this armor concept would stem throughout all mechs. Interestingly enough many of the underdog mechs would be leaps and bounds ahead in armor for what they lacked in speed or weapon hardpoints.
Example: The Cicada would become the second fastest mech in the entire game (until the Flea that is).
Thunderbolts become the most armored 65 ton mechs and rival Stalkers.
Dragons also rival stalkers and out perform some Victors in armor.
All Awesomes universally come on par or surpass Stalkers.
Certain Shadowhawks are fantastic at firepower and speed, but have the armor of the Raven 2X.
Jagers may be the most powerful mechs in the game in terms of potential firepower, but they will be inferior to Quickdraws and most 55 and 50 ton mechs when it comes to armor and require the aid and protection of allied units.
Speaking of which the Hunchback has equal armor to some Catapults and 4 of the 5 current Shadowhawks.
The most armored Centurion and the most armored Shadowhawk have the same armor. Both are currently the "worst variants" of their chassis and will subsequently be the ones to use if you like to tank shots.
The worst Cataphract -- 4X -- has the most armor of all Cataphracts. The Muromets is second. The "best" Cataphract (3D) happens to have the worst armor.
And all I did was take a "build your own mech" rule from tabletop, and changed by a couple of words to suit MWO.
Buckminister changed one word of that, creating the new Ferro is useful perk.
For some reason I never saw this. But sure.
On a side note, the armor concept I've been working on...
Look at a Jenner D stock and a Locust stock. Notice something? Both have 128 points of armor.
Spoiler
Mech armor.
Figuring for the Stock armor tonnage + x tonnage = new max armor tonnage concept.
Using 3 tons as the modifier.
32 = 1 ton standard.
36 = 1 ton ferro.
Side note: Internal structure is NOT changed. It is one half of MWO's current max armor for the tonnage + 6. (The remaining 6 is extra health on the cockpit).
Locust All Variants.
Structure: 69 (+ 6, so 75 including ghost head health) points.
128 armor stock = 4 tons armor.
7 tons new max = 224 points standard armor.
4 tons ferro = 144 Ferro.
7 tons ferro = 252 new max Ferro.
Engine: 8 to 12 ratings above stock.
Stock 160.
8 rate max 200
12 rate max 220.
Compared to a Jenner.
Jenner Structure: 119 + 6 ghost cockpit points = 125 structure.
Jenner D.
128 armor stock = 4 tons armor.
7 tons new max = 224 points standard armor.
4 tons (stock tonnage) ferro = 144 Ferro.
7 tons ferro = 252 new max Ferro.
Jenner K, invalid stock armor amount, rounded to nearest half ton, from 125 to 128.
Jenner K armor is identical to Jenner D.
JR7-F
224 stock = 7 tons.
New max 10 tons.
320 max standard
360 max ferro.
Universal stock Engine.
245 engine
8 rate max 285
12 rate max 305
--------
So even while both the Locust and the Jenner D/K have the same armor limits, the Jenner D has more structure health (125) versus the Locust (75) so once the armor is gone the Jenner will live longer. Yet the Locust is faster. Much faster...assuming it can even spend the weight on that speed.
Just a thought.
Spoiler
Keep in mind, if I were balancing the game, this armor concept would stem throughout all mechs. Interestingly enough many of the underdog mechs would be leaps and bounds ahead in armor for what they lacked in speed or weapon hardpoints.
Example: The Cicada would become the second fastest mech in the entire game (until the Flea that is).
Thunderbolts become the most armored 65 ton mechs and rival Stalkers.
Dragons also rival stalkers and out perform some Victors in armor.
All Awesomes universally come on par or surpass Stalkers.
Certain Shadowhawks are fantastic at firepower and speed, but have the armor of the Raven 2X.
Jagers may be the most powerful mechs in the game in terms of potential firepower, but they will be inferior to Quickdraws and most 55 and 50 ton mechs.
Speaking of which the Hunchback surpasses many 65 ton mechs and 2 of the 3 current Shadowhawks.
The most armored Centurion and the most armored Shadowhawk have the same armor. Both are currently the "worst variants" of their chassis and will subsequently be the ones to use if you like to tank shots.
The worst Cataphract -- 4X -- has the most armor of all Cataphracts. The Muromets is second. The "best" Cataphract (3D) happens to have the worst armor.
And all I did was take a "build your own mech" rule from tabletop, and changed by a couple of words to suit MWO.
Buckminister changed one word of that, creating the new Ferro is useful perk.
Balancing is amazing, isn't it?
Basically things would make sense and be on the logical side if you were balancing the structure set up. Could you please e-mail this to the devs. I will friggin sign it with my blood if they'd just look at it. Since that's pretty much how those mechs should be behaving.
Basically things would make sense and be on the logical side if you were balancing the structure set up. Could you please e-mail this to the devs. I will friggin sign it with my blood if they'd just look at it. Since that's pretty much how those mechs should be behaving.
Glad you liked it.
I have once, and will again once I get the numbers all hashed out so it's more than just a few comparisons. I've found the easiest way to reach the Devs is to reach NGNG (and by extension IGP) with an idea so sound that they bring it up in an interview with Paul or Bryan. It is, in my opinion, the missing link in balancing the mechs and making them truly unique.
If you'd like you can even help out. There's a lot of mechs and I need to get all their armors and engines down.
The armor rule and the engine rules are very simple. Explaining the math and invalid contingencies is more complicated than actually doing the math.
Spoiler
For armor, divide stock armor into tonnage to simplify the math. (By 32 if standard armor, by 36 if Ferro.) If it comes to a "#.0" or a "#.5" then good, if not round it and re-calculate armor points from there.
Example, if 6.4444 tons, round to 6.5. If 6.1 tons, round to 6.0 tons.
Basic rounding, right?
Calculating armor.
6.5 tons * 32 (points standard armor per ton) = 208. <-current.
6.5 tons * 36 (points ferro armor per ton) = 234. <-current.
Right now the demonstration of the rule is using 3 tons (96 points standard, 108 points ferro) on every single mech to just be a 'slider' that basically says stock + 3 tons = new max.
So that 6.5 tons of armor stock + 3 tons armor = 9.5 tons of armor maximum.
Again for clarity.
6.5 tons armor stock + 3 tons = 9.5 new max tonnage.
9.5 * 32 (standard) = 304 points new maximum standard armor.
9.5 * 36 (ferro) = 342 points new maximum ferro armor.
Engine rule.
"5" is a rating. Engines go from "5" to "400." We can't exceed 400. If you find one that does, just note it.
We are taking stock and figuring out 8 ratings higher, and 12 ratings higher.
Since 5 is a rating, the next rating is 10.
There's exactly two mechs that this system doesn't work for (due to making them overpowered) and both of them are non-canon heroes. Dragon Slayer is one, I don't know the other off the top of my head.
The engine system has a few flaws -- every single one of them involves hero mechs.
Hero mechs are (theoretically anyways) easier to rebalanced to fit that though, as they are 100% (save perhaps Yenlo) apocryphal.
That is very true. The only reason for them to not be balanced is PGI built them.
But the following are canon to some degree.
Misery, Pretty Baby, Boar's Head... Death's Knell. Heavy Metal. Huginn. A lot of the 'balanced' ones are in fact actual mechs. Some just the pilots are real. Some the mechs are.
So you know.. Boar's head is..
AS7-D Atlas Danielle
Piloted by Wolf's DragoonsCaptain Danielle Rondema, this modified Atlas carried three medium lasers in each arm, trading away the SRM rack to do so. The additional heat was dissipated by two additional heat sinks that replaced the rear-firing medium lasers. BV (2.0) = 1,976
Death's Knell's specific stuff isn't actually detailed.
Huginn (and its companion Muginn or some such) are canon.
But what they have might not be canon. Don't know for sure.
Pretty Baby and Heavy Metal are canon. PB hasn't got its details though.
But yeah, it's mainly two of them that don't work. Dragon Slayer and I know there's one more but for the life of me I can't freaking think of it. It's one of the screwballs; the totally non-canon ones. Oxide maybe? Jester? Can't remember for the life of me.
Beyond that, engine limits make certain hero mechs OP compared to others (Huginn for example, otherwise it's perfectly balanced).
Ravens (to demonstrate).
Spoiler
When reading below, remember that a Hunchback stock is 320 armor. Its current max is 338. Its new max standard will be 416.
I mention a Hunchback as a stage of neutral reference in the 50 ton category, the literal middle ground. So that fears of these amounts being too high or too low are put into perspective with something else.
The two goals of the concept are
1) slow mechs down for significantly improved hit detection (making all weapons viable) and
2) give mechs armor that lets players beef up a little bit but maintains at all times the ratio of armor differences between variants and chassis.
This would enforce the third goal, a system of imprecision; preferably one based on movement speed and skill.
(Example, play in third person and shoot while running at full speed. Notice the crosshair? Do this with a 'steady' mech, then with a stalker, a raven/locust, a Jagermech, and any bouncy mech like a Thunderbolt. The work is already done, it just has to be applied to first person! Isn't that great?)
(Example two. Fewer instant damage weapons and more damage over time style weapons.)
Raven
3-L
161 -- INVALID NUMBER.
160 = 5 tons.
256 max standard.
288 max ferro.
210 engine
8 rate max 250
12 rate max 270
2X
6.5
208
304 max standard.
342 max ferro.
175 engine
8 rate max 215
12 rate max 235
4X
224 stock
7 tons
320 max standard
360 max ferro.
175 engine
8 rate max 215
12 rate max 235
Huginn
232 = 6.444444 tons INVALID. Rounding to nearest 0.5.
234 = 6.5 tons Ferro.
6.5 tons = 208 Standard (stock -- It's a Raven 2X!)
342 Ferro max.
304 standard max.
280 engine:
8 rate max 320
12 rate max 340
^Balancing issue.
Notes: Huginn mixes Raven 4X ballistics and jumping ability with Raven 2X armor and Raven 3-L twin missile launchers. An example of a perfectly balanced mech (save for the fast engines; but that's pretty balanced compared to Jenners).
Basically things would make sense and be on the logical side if you were balancing the structure set up. Could you please e-mail this to the devs. I will friggin sign it with my blood if they'd just look at it. Since that's pretty much how those mechs should be behaving.
I'll send blood! This can be splashed in the faces of the Devs while they read the proposal for greater shock value!
That is very true. The only reason for them to not be balanced is PGI built them.
But the following are canon to some degree.
Last I checked, all of them had some connection to canon - just most of them were tenuous at best
Only one I knew that pulled stats from something specific was Yenlo - Hadn't realized they had pulled BH's stats from a specific place though. Hadn't really checked since then either....
so my computer finally combusted (I am using my girlfriend's laptop right now) I will not be able to help with anything or update much until I can fix that.
For some reason I never saw this. But sure.
On a side note, the armor concept I've been working on...
Look at a Jenner D stock and a Locust stock. Notice something? Both have 128 points of armor.
Spoiler
Mech armor.
Figuring for the Stock armor tonnage + x tonnage = new max armor tonnage concept.
Using 3 tons as the modifier.
32 = 1 ton standard.
36 = 1 ton ferro.
Side note: Internal structure is NOT changed. It is one half of MWO's current max armor for the tonnage + 6. (The remaining 6 is extra health on the cockpit).
Locust All Variants.
Structure: 69 (+ 6, so 75 including ghost head health) points.
128 armor stock = 4 tons armor.
7 tons new max = 224 points standard armor.
4 tons ferro = 144 Ferro.
7 tons ferro = 252 new max Ferro.
Engine: 8 to 12 ratings above stock.
Stock 160.
8 rate max 200
12 rate max 220.
Compared to a Jenner.
Jenner Structure: 119 + 6 ghost cockpit points = 125 structure.
Jenner D.
128 armor stock = 4 tons armor.
7 tons new max = 224 points standard armor.
4 tons (stock tonnage) ferro = 144 Ferro.
7 tons ferro = 252 new max Ferro.
Jenner K, invalid stock armor amount, rounded to nearest half ton, from 125 to 128.
Jenner K armor is identical to Jenner D.
JR7-F
224 stock = 7 tons.
New max 10 tons.
320 max standard
360 max ferro.
Universal stock Engine.
245 engine
8 rate max 285
12 rate max 305
--------
So even while both the Locust and the Jenner D/K have the same armor limits, the Jenner D has more structure health (125) versus the Locust (75) so once the armor is gone the Jenner will live longer. Yet the Locust is faster. Much faster...assuming it can even spend the weight on that speed.
Just a thought.
Spoiler
Keep in mind, if I were balancing the game, this armor concept would stem throughout all mechs. Interestingly enough many of the underdog mechs would be leaps and bounds ahead in armor for what they lacked in speed or weapon hardpoints.
Example: The Cicada would become the second fastest mech in the entire game (until the Flea that is).
Thunderbolts become the most armored 65 ton mechs and rival Stalkers.
Dragons also rival stalkers and out perform some Victors in armor.
All Awesomes universally come on par or surpass Stalkers.
Certain Shadowhawks are fantastic at firepower and speed, but have the armor of the Raven 2X.
Jagers may be the most powerful mechs in the game in terms of potential firepower, but they will be inferior to Quickdraws and most 55 and 50 ton mechs.
Speaking of which the Hunchback surpasses many 65 ton mechs and 2 of the 3 current Shadowhawks.
The most armored Centurion and the most armored Shadowhawk have the same armor. Both are currently the "worst variants" of their chassis and will subsequently be the ones to use if you like to tank shots.
The worst Cataphract -- 4X -- has the most armor of all Cataphracts. The Muromets is second. The "best" Cataphract (3D) happens to have the worst armor.
And all I did was take a "build your own mech" rule from tabletop, and changed by a couple of words to suit MWO.
Buckminister changed one word of that, creating the new Ferro is useful perk.
Balancing is amazing, isn't it?
I wish there were somewhere to make this seen, writ large in public like Homeless Bill's thread used to be. Have you made a dedicated thread about this that I managed to miss? Either way, you should post/repost it once we get general discussion back. I know I've said I liked this idea in the past, but I really do think this is pretty much the best balance suggestion I've ever seen on the forums. This, combined with a hitbox tweak (smaller CTs! Similarly sized sides! Bigger arms! Everyone gets to be how the Stalker/Cent used to be!) would make such a huge difference.
I also think it would help lore-wise a bit. Right now we're slated to get the first mechwarrior game where Battlemechs are more customizable than Omnimechs; I think the restrictions placed on the clan omnis will be good in the long run, but I'd like to see battlemechs get the same sorts of restrictions to help emphasize their roles.
6 points instead of 5 and pitch/yaw may be different. Should make a good platform for slas SPL or MLAs combos. Pitch and yaw might be different as well
IraqiWalker, on 13 April 2014 - 11:37 PM, said:
so my computer finally combusted (I am using my girlfriend's laptop right now) I will not be able to help with anything or update much until I can fix that.
So there's been public mention on variant threads and various other doodads (some reddit leak). Source.
Supposedly it will include two new Locusts variants. Anyone got ideas here? From memory (it's been a few days since I read it), one has 2 center torso laser mounts. One's got 4 missiles. That might be the same one. Then another has 6 energy hardpoints exclusively on the arms.
49
