162 replies to this topic

[luxebo]

Well regardless, I hope we don't get into any of these situations again. That wouldn't be good.

Edit: Besides armor allocation, I think that build is the right one. Needs much less rear armor, then that should be alright. Still doesn't look right to me though, wouldn't be using something like that.

Edited by luxebo, 01 February 2014 - 02:48 PM.

[Victor Morson]

1453 R, on 01 February 2014 - 02:46 PM, said:

ALSO:

Maybe something like this?

Knowing what I know about the top-player leagues and their blazing, seething hatred of XL engines, this is the best I could come up with for making the thing work with a STD-type engine. This is the best distribution I can come up with for maximizing heat sink count while not being groin-clenchingly slow. Yeah, you get a lot of extra weight by dropping back down to the 200STD the thing comes with, but really...really...does anyone stick with that engine? Q_Q

Anyways. Actually...I could almost see this, having played some rounds with the Large Lasers 3L. This looks to act exactly the same way, just exchanging the ECM and light 'Mech speed/agility for double the firepower. If I bothered with Hunchbacks/didn't have much better 'Mechs for doing this kind of thing (TDR-5SS, go!), I might have honestly given it a try. As it stands...oh well. Heh, maybe I'll try it on my TBT-5J. Anything that makes Victor praise a Trebuchet even in the slightest is worth a look.

Realistically I think you'd see the arms sawed off in favor of either a larger engine or more DHS on this setup with a STD engine. However I think you might actually see some XL versions of a 'mech like this; I'm not sure what the more popular setup is. It's something I've witnessed being used very effectively a few times both directly and in videos, but It's not something I've personally setup before. It's pretty new.

That one would work pretty well though, esp. with the extra tonnage to play with after losing the limbs.

[Alaskan Nobody]

1453 R, on 01 February 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:

Shar: ...please. Ask yourself if you really think the Hunchback is a better 'Mech for most anything than the Shadow Hawk is? There are times when some minor +1 on a design just doesn't outweigh the half a dozen +5s on its nearest competitor. If someone came up to me and said "I'm new, and I want a medium. Which one should I get?"

My point was that - for teaching - the Hunchback CAN be a superior mech.

I see a lot of new players -and I see a lot of new players learning tunnel vision from the shadowhawk - and then I see those players come in to the forum and whine about balance.

1453 R, on 01 February 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:

I would never recommend a Hunchback over a Shawk. And realistically, neither would you, eh?

YES.
(this is going to be phrased horribly)
I know a lot of players who would rather start out at a disadvantage - not because they want a disadvantage, but because then they can blame their 'newbishness' more on the mech than themselves.

I know a lot of players who learn better when they can see more - and TURN more (lack of twist makes the only thing the Shawk teaches well being positioning, not maneuvering)

I know a lot of players who learn NOTHING from being handed a meta build or mech.

So YES I would recommend the Hunchback.

Does that mean I believe given two equal (and DECENT) pilots the Hunch will win?

No - unlike what Victor will so readily tell you I am not stupid.

I do believe that the Hunchback will help a great deal many people learn more though - not everyone learns the same after all.

[1453 R]

EDIT:: The problem with that, Shar, is that then the pilot is a new player in a fairly bad 'Mech trying to learn by repeatedly getting his face smashed open against the unforgiving stone of the metagame. And on the off chance he powers through it and stops being a new/bad pilot...he's still left with a fairly bad 'Mech he'll most likely have to sell, losing any/all resources he put into its upgrades and pilot mastery tabs. It's a bum deal all around, when starting in the Shadow Hawk may result in slower learning but better performance, and will also result in the player having a 'Mech he can keep from his rookie days...y'know, instead of things like my Dragons, eh?

END EDIT::

Whoops. Totally forgot to reallocate rear armor after pushing the max-out button. My silly. Anyways.

You have to do really inadvisable things to the armor on this thing to get it up to the next valid STD engine size whilst still retaining the maximum allowable heat sinks. A 250STD with three external sinks is...not likely something that happens.

When you switch to an XL engine though, it starts making a lot more sense.

Astonishingly faster, much better heat efficiency. Only reason there's a ton of armor left on the arms is because there's no physical room left for a torso-mounted heat sink. The armor's on the left arm to ensure that there's thirty more points of armor for enemies to chew through on the shield side. This version makes sense to me, if in a sick and demented sort of way.

Edited by 1453 R, 01 February 2014 - 03:09 PM.

[Darth Futuza]

Jenners can be brawlers right?
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...51afd47dab6abd1

[luxebo]

Darth Futuza, on 01 February 2014 - 03:10 PM, said:

Jenners can be brawlers right?
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...51afd47dab6abd1

If you count that as one, yeah. Usually they are more for scouting.

[Victor Morson]

Shar Wolf, on 01 February 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

My point was that - for teaching - the Hunchback CAN be a superior mech.

I see a lot of new players -and I see a lot of new players learning tunnel vision from the shadowhawk - and then I see those players come in to the forum and whine about balance.

The Shadow Hawk doesn't teach tunnel vision anymore than the Hunchback. I don't know why you think otherwise. Because you lose some visibility on the side (in exchange for a killer gun mount)?

Shar Wolf, on 01 February 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

YES.
(this is going to be phrased horribly)

I know a lot of players who would rather start out at a disadvantage - not because they want a disadvantage, but because then they can blame their 'newbishness' more on the mech than themselves.

If you want to take a trash 'mech so you can blame the trash 'mech instead of yourself, yeah, anything I say is probably not meant for you.

But.. you really think most people feel that way? That they rather buy something inferior so they can blame it? I literally know not one person who has ever said that, even though I'm sure a few exist, that is an extreme minority. I think most new pilots rather buy something great first, so they're on equal footing with the best stuff out there. Branching into other niches - including the Hunchback - is pretty solid after.

Shar Wolf, on 01 February 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

I know a lot of players who learn better when they can see more - and TURN more (lack of twist makes the only thing the Shawk teaches well being positioning, not maneuvering)

Shadow Hawk's jump jets give it a massive edge over the Hunchback despite twist differences. That ability to glide is a brawling make-or-break kind of thing and also why I think the age of the Centurion is pretty much over; even if SRMs come back to the forefront, the Griffin will be out by then and will do it so much better.

Shar Wolf, on 01 February 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

I know a lot of players who learn NOTHING from being handed a meta build or mech.

I don't even know what to say to this. Being handed a great 'mech with a solid starter load out teaches plenty, and can insure you can focus on learning to pilot and not wondering if you've screwed up your build or, worse yet, invested your time and money (virtual or otherwise) into a junker that you'll want to replace. Almost the same amount, too.

Shar Wolf, on 01 February 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

So YES I would recommend the Hunchback.

Does that mean I believe given two equal (and DECENT) pilots the Hunch will win?

No - unlike what Victor will so readily tell you I am not stupid.

I do believe that the Hunchback will help a great deal many people learn more though - not everyone learns the same after all.

So there you have it, new folks reading this.

Buy a Shadow Hawk if you want to win.

Buy a Hunchback if you want to repeatedly get beaten to death with an arm tied behind your back. It's good for ya! (according to Shar here, anyway.)

EDIT: I am positive the actual subtext of our conversation really comes down to Shar hating the fact a metagame exists, and attempting to destroy it by steering new players away from it; where as I want to actually help new players get something that'll serve them well. We have very different ideologies on that point.

Edited by Victor Morson, 01 February 2014 - 06:15 PM.

[1453 R]

Come on now, Shar. Try to imagine a Tyrannosaur making a bed. It'll make you feel better.

Seriously. This whole thing is getting out of hand. if you're that completely convinced that the Hunchback is a superior chassis to the Shadow Hawk, then play Hunchbacks. Recommend them to others, but be prepared for other folks to offer their own counter-recommendations. You know me - I'm a pretty reasonable sort of guy (most the time, anyways) down in Puglandia with the rest of y'all, right? I know you hate Victor, but maybe my opinion might carry some weight when I say that putting new players in Hunchbacks over Shadow Hawks is a disservice to said players?

You don't like the current meta. That's all right, nobody does. But there are, nonetheless, four different types of players in regards to the meta.

There's players who acknowledge the meta is there for a reason and stick very strictly to it, a'la Victor.

There's players who acknowledge the meta is there for a reason, but try to work around it/alongside it rather than chase it, a'la myself. And hopefully yourself, as well.

There's players who see the meta as a wicked, antagonistic force, something to be beaten into submission and then ignored because it says things they don't wish to be true. I'm really hoping that you're not in this camp, Shar. This is a bad camp to be in.

And then there's new players who don't know what the meta is, and who come to this forum seeking guidance from people who know better so they don't get stuck with a garbage 'Mech they end up selling four months later with a dose of regret and a bitter taste in their mouths. Does, or does not, the Hunchback fall into this category at this stage? Even in tabletop canon, the Hunchback wasn't terribly well regarded as most anything but a city fighter. Most any of the Phoenix mediums would be a more useful choice over the long run than HBKs, as would Blackjacks, Centurions, and possibly Kintaros. Don't know as I'd recommend Trebs to a new player because even though I love my Trenchbuckets, they're neither the cheapest nor the most versatile chassis in the game.

Whereas an AC/20 SHD-2D2 takes maybe eight mil to put together from absolute scratch (including selling the old 275STD, which new players may or may not need to do), and does most anything the HBK-4G does. While also being able to reconfigure into a fast, Streak-spamming missile ****** with a splash of long-range fire to give it something to do during the dakkasnipe phase of a fight. Or into an agile and flexible LRM delivery platform. Or into a crazy-fast pocket jumptart for owning faces during that dakkasniping phase and getting off fast shots from wherever it likes after the battle has joined. Or a mini-VTR medium fire support 'Mech that's surprisingly good with the oft-maligned AC/10 (I actually run this on the 5D, with extra jump jets. You'd be amazed how well it works out). Or even into a lollerskates old-skool SRM missile cruiser because SRMs are not (entirely) dead yet and you intend to prove it.

And this is only one variant of the chassis. And my least-favorite one, at that.

How, exactly, can we really justify recommending new players pick up something as limiting and inflexible as a Hunchback when the Shadow Hawk will let them have a taste of everything, right when they most need something that can do at least a little bit of everything?

Edited by 1453 R, 02 February 2014 - 11:08 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Super well written and said post, 1453 R.

1453 R, on 02 February 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

There's players who acknowledge the meta is there for a reason and stick very strictly to it, a'la Victor.

What is kind of amusing is that I'm actually one of the more open-minded players when it comes to the meta; mostly because I realize there are still niche (or even mainstream) designs to be found, and adapted in, and I think it's a good thing to always be looking for that next big thing, even if finding it is one in a thousand.

A great example is the units that figured out the power of the 2 ER LL Raven. The ER Large was a joke weapon and the Raven was a pretty much entirely trash-bin light in the meta, but someone put them together and now we have a very popular, powerful and more than acceptable killer light.

It's the same reason I mess with LRM Skirmishing so much, despite going against the popular "LRMs = bad 100% of the time" viewpoint, because I think there's an honest to God niche for them in a very specific setup - just like the ER Large, which is not something you'd want on 99.9% of 'mechs, but when in a very specific Raven/Cicada kind of deal, is an absolutely brutal tool.

People that only run what the current meta is and aren't looking to the future and trying to find new things are in fact making a huge mistake. It took months for that above example to catch on because of bias against the ER Large Laser & Raven, but it was hard to argue with the results produced by the early adopters. Now it's typical. I have to admit, I was slow to convert to this build but seeing is believing.

So really I think I less stick strictly to the meta and more am usually trying to find ways to advance it, including looking at chassis and weapons that are disliked rather frequently and seeing what, if anything, can be done with them. There's definitely room to experiment; but you need to be willing to acknowledge the flaws and weaknesses and then ask yourself "Is there any reason to take A over B? Is that reason enough?" The option you pick needs to really earn it's place there.

Of course this is a bit off topic; nobody is discussing ways to make the Hunchback viable or strengths it might have other than a brief discussion about laserbacks, but rather, discussing it's viability as a brawler against a Shadow Hawk with similar weapon setups, which is a whole other discussion. The capabilities of both are known very well and the Shadow Hawk absolutely outclasses the Hunchback for this; it simply doesn't have enough advantages to put in the same league for most roles.

Long story short (that was way more words than I'd planned) I think there's one last category of meta player, the meta player that follows the meta - but is also willing to look outside of it for new options to improve upon it, if they prove practical. I honestly believe even if they didn't change weapon balance again (But God, I hope they do - provided it's not backwards!) we'd still find several more good niche 'mechs over the next few months. Part of that is knowing when an idea is not working and to let it go, though.

Sorry for wandering so far off-topic here.

Edited by Victor Morson, 02 February 2014 - 01:47 PM.

[1453 R]

Victor: That's the Jonny-Spike outlook right there, and the thing I love to try and do. Largely unsuccessfully, but it's still fun to try. And every now and then, you get the ultimate rush of coming up with that Next Big Idea. Heh...I'll be honest: the meta-chasing players who sneer and scoff and turn up their noses at anything that hasn't been proven, stamped, and widely accepted for months and months drive me insane. I hate pure Spikes, folks who're content to never move outside their comfort zone of tried-and-true Meta-Approved builds/decks/teams/whatevers because "This is what's good. if you don't use what's good you're a loser and you should just go home and be a loser somewhere I don't have to watch you do it."

How the hell do you know what's good and what isn't if you don't try it yourself? And conversely, how do you know what's good and what isn't if you're unwilling to accept bad when you see it? Sometimes, a thing just doesn't work out. You can keep pounding your skull on it until you've dashed your brains out, or you can move on and try the next thing that just might work out.

Who knows? Maybe your name can go on the ER LL Raven next time! Heh...after all, I almost had it way back in the day with Okuu. It was honestly kind of eerie, hearing Victor tell me how top units were totally running large laser-equipped Ravens as close support for larger machines. I was sitting there going "DUDE. I was doing that in my RVN-2X, like, months ago!"

EDIT:: Okuu 3.0, for reference. See? The same thing, only lame!

Edited by 1453 R, 02 February 2014 - 03:30 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

1453 R, on 02 February 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

Come on now, Shar. Try to imagine a Tyrannosaur making a bed. It'll make you feel better.

Seriously. This whole thing is getting out of hand. if you're that completely convinced that the Hunchback is a superior chassis to the Shadow Hawk, then play Hunchbacks.

Did I ever say it WAS?

Quote me on that - go ahead.

You seem about as smart as Victor.

Which isnt very.

I never said it was (fully and outright) : just that it might teach more - and had some advantages.

See the difference?

Big problem is: Victor thinks the game is like Pokemon Red/Blue - Alakazam reigns supreme, and there is no counter.
Experience in PuG matches (where the bulk of players, and thus the bulk of people looking for advice reside) says otherwise.

I could honestly care less about the Meta, one way or the other. I mean that literally, it is very possible for me to care less. What I care about is teaching the players to THINK about what they are doing, and how they are doing it.
What I see is dozens of new players dropping in meta mechs thinking they are being handed a lvl100 Alakazam because people like Vic tell them any other option is a lvl3 Rattata, when the difference is more a lvl99 Alakazam.

The person who put more effort into the match wins. (To continue the Pokemon metaphor: did that lvl100 Alakazam max his IV/EV? if not then he may very easily lose to even a lvl70-80 Alakazam who did)

I keep seeing people dropping in Shadowhawks and Highlanders and paying absolutely no attention to what is actually happening because "Their mechs are better!" - and losing because they never actually learned how to play, because they read people like Victors posts and assumed there was THAT much of a difference between the Meta and Non-Meta mechs.

I literally dropped into a match with my TDK and soloed half the enemy team - because they never actually learned how to play - because the Meta carried them that far.

So YES I will sit here and fight Victor because I keep seeing that - for all the Meta is strong, it isn't teaching the players DIDDLY.

1453 R, on 02 February 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

the meta-chasing players who sneer and scoff and turn up their noses at anything that hasn't been proven, stamped, and widely accepted for months and months.

That is Victor all the way through though - see why I argue with him?

Not because he is outright wrong, but because he honestly believes any other way would make him by default a bad player.

He took one look at ONE build I put together, based off of thousands of matches worth of watching how things worked - and decided that the entire forum should be warned against me - he spent 3 months deriding every post I made:
even the ones where I was outright agreeing with him

As I have said several times already: He is not outright wrong, just wrongheaded.

Edited by Shar Wolf, 02 February 2014 - 04:36 PM.

[1453 R]

Never occurred to you that such might honestly be on the players' head more than the 'Mech's?

Remember what the dominant FPS game on the market is. Things like Call of Duty don't reward learning, intelligence, forethought or planning or jack. They have virtually zero penalty for dying, and substitute psychotic meth-fueled twitch skill for literally everything else.

This type of player is a very poor fit in MWO, and honestly will likely always be. Some players just can't be taught, no matter what ride they're in. The players that can be taught are here, seeking instruction and advice - and you're advising them to get themselves killed.

It's not a case of lvl.100 Alakzam vs. lvl.3 Rattata. It's a case of lvl.100 Alakzam vs. lvl.65 Alakazam. The level 65 Alakazam is fine, does the job just great, and still stands a chance against, say, a lvl.80 Machamp. But don't you think that a lvl.100 Alakazam would do a better job?

And again, I ask you - do you think that a new player deserves to have to sell the first 'Mech they buy a few months later because someone else said to them "this 'Mech is great for learning!" without adding the necessary addendum, "but it's {Scrap} for fighting!"

[Victor Morson]

Shar Wolf, on 02 February 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

Big problem is: Victor thinks the game is like Pokemon Red/Blue - Alakazam reigns supreme, and there is no counter.
Experience in PuG matches (where the bulk of players, and thus the bulk of people looking for advice reside) says otherwise.

Because anyone at any skill level can buy any 'mech.

What you are seeing is just PUG players that ignore you and let you shoot them over and over, pretty much. It has nothing to do with Meta. I suspect this TDK run you're talking about involves a bunch of Shadow Hawks running horrible configurations like machine guns and Large Pulse or something, which you do see a lot of. You've got to properly design the chassis once you own it, or it's not going to benefit you much.

Shar Wolf, on 02 February 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

I could honestly care less about the Meta, one way or the other. I mean that literally, it is very possible for me to care less. What I care about is teaching the players to THINK about what they are doing, and how they are doing it.
What I see is dozens of new players dropping in meta mechs thinking they are being handed a lvl100 Alakazam because people like Vic tell them any other option is a lvl3 Rattata, when the difference is more a lvl99 Alakazam.

The person who put more effort into the match wins. (To continue the Pokemon metaphor: did that lvl100 Alakazam max his IV/EV? if not then he may very easily lose to even a lvl70-80 Alakazam who did)


I keep seeing people dropping in Shadowhawks and Highlanders and paying absolutely no attention to what is actually happening because "Their mechs are better!" - and losing because they never actually learned how to play, because they read people like Victors posts and assumed there was THAT much of a difference between the Meta and Non-Meta mechs.

I literally dropped into a match with my TDK and soloed half the enemy team - because they never actually learned how to play - because the Meta carried them that far.

So YES I will sit here and fight Victor because I keep seeing that - for all the Meta is strong, it isn't teaching the players DIDDLY.

But why you think these pilots aren't learning things because they've got solid 'mechs, that part I don't get. This is an odd leap in logic based on nothing but conjecture and a personal theory, with nothing at all backing it up - or even suggesting it to the rest of us.

There is literally zero reason a pilot would learn less in a Shadow Hawk than a Hunchback. As for effort, remember, the game begins in mechlab and you've given yourself a disadvantage by taking an inferior 'mech.

Honestly I'd go one further and rank the mediums: Shadow Hawk -> Cicada -> Griffin/Black Jack (tie) -> Kintaro KTO-18 -> Centurion -> Hunchback, outside of again, that niche laserback.

Finally you end on a note vowing to fight my opinions, yet take it very personally when I argue yours. I don't get this part. I don't take your opinions personally, we're discussing and strategies here. I'm not in anyway attacking you personally but you are a frequent poster, with as it happens, frequently very unaligned viewpoints.

[The Schwartz]

Stupid ghost heat.... can't use my 7 LL HB-4p anymore QQ... well... I can use it once.... in all it's glory...

[1453 R]

Brief interlude: when did Cicadas stop being anything but derpy overfed Jenners to anyone but Garth and me? People have been telling me to get out of that garbage chassis forever and I just fail to listen to them and play what I want anyways.

You telling me people actually get to run Cicadas and not be laughed at now?

[Itsalrightwithme]

1453 R, on 03 February 2014 - 04:54 AM, said:

Brief interlude: when did Cicadas stop being anything but derpy overfed Jenners to anyone but Garth and me? People have been telling me to get out of that garbage chassis forever and I just fail to listen to them and play what I want anyways.

You telling me people actually get to run Cicadas and not be laughed at now?

Since people figured out that AC are damn good, and the CDA can squeeze one or two AC2s and can be deadly in the hands of a good tactical player. Sure, people run ERPPC or PPC builds, but you can do those with Jenners or Spiders. A CDA with 1 AC2 and 1-2 MLas is quite fun.

[Alaskan Nobody]

1453 R, on 02 February 2014 - 04:39 PM, said:

...........

And that is exactly the point - how great is the difference?

You and Victor believe that it is to much.

Every game I play says otherwise.

Is it because of the players?
It is because of the Mechs?
Is it some of both?

You believe one thing - because your play experience says that.
I believe another because my experience says another.

I have tried Victor's builds and at my Elo (whatever that may be) they are near non-functional.

IE: The Shadowhawk is NOT that much better because there are to many short mechs that are smart enough to get in to close to use any of the ballistics it can mount. - a fact that JUMP JETS DO NOT HELP WITH.

Therefore: for the games I play - the Shadowhawk's advantages - as "massive" as they are - are worthless TO ME, and TO THOSE I PLAY WITH/AGAINST.

Get the point?

You believe the meta is all powerful.
I believe that the meta is the "Great and Powerful OZ!" - a threat - but more because people believe it one.

Example: back what Centurion were "Night Unkillable" .... they were only such to those not competent enough to hit the crotch or the mohawk - both of which were wide open targets, hittable from almost any angle, regardless of how much torso-twisting they did.

Similarly - what advantages the Shadowhawk provides are countered by the fact that even Victors builds cut the leg armor to the point where it is actually easier to just blow the legs off than try to core it.

"But its a pop-tart! they shouldn't SEE the legs!!1!!11"
Like fighting the LRMAGEDDON (which as Victor is quick to tell you - LRM are only strong against those not smart enough to use the terrain) you use the terrain against them (pop-tarts, like LRM have their very definite places they pop from) you can quite easily neuter that advantage.

Hell - even in Canyon Network - the pop-tarts favorite map, they are also at their most vulnerable - because as the "oh-so powerful" Shadowhawk is standing on the hill - he is incapable of aiming at whoever is standing right under him!

Is the Shadowhawk stronger than the Hunchback? Hell YES!
Is he THAT much stronger? HELL NO

In other words: is it the pilots as much as the machine? Hell YES! and Victor has repeatedly shown himself to not know the limits of his own machines. - proving time and time again (Shadowhawk torso-twist, once claiming there are multiple Stalkers with ballistics.. ) that he knows less than any {Dezgra} actually looking in the mechlab.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Shar Wolf, on 03 February 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

Hell - even in Canyon Network - the pop-tarts favorite map, they are also at their most vulnerable - because as the "oh-so powerful" Shadowhawk is standing on the hill - he is incapable of aiming at whoever is standing right under him!

"But Shar! the Shadowhawk is just as good at sneaking around and hitting their legs! better even because he has JUMP JETS!!!11!!1"

Except he isn't - because any decent Shadowhawk pilot (by Victors rules anyways) would be running the Meta! and thus not sneaking around, but sitting behind another hill poptarting himself - and any Shadowhawk who had the build to DO that would be (by Victor's rules) by default a BAD PILOT!!111!!

[1453 R]

Shar.

Settle down.


You're not helping your cause by wigging out like this. I get that your play experience is much different than ours, but I'm a pretty prolific Shadow Hawk player myself, and I have never once had an issue with being unable to hit a target too close to me for me to pitch down and see. I also don't generally play meta-based Shadowhawks (my 2H(P) Dakkahawk aside, but dagnabbit I get to put three AC/2s on something!) - my favorite SHD uses an AC/10 and regular SRMS, for Bob's sake.

The fact, however, remains that while the Shadow Hawk's bad pitch and twist are issues, they're not issues that cripple it in every match, the way the Hunchback's dismayingly juicy hunch does. Nor does the Shadow Hawk suffer from One-Build-Itis the way Hunchies do. As I pointed out, even just a single variant of the SHD can manage half a dozen fairly unique configurations, whereas any given Hunchback...basically runs super stock or bust. Hunchbacks are objectively, provably worse in the tactical flexibility department, and that is an important department for new players.

I'm not trying to convince new players to load up in MetaMechs and think themselves immortal. I'm trying to get them into a 'Mech that will let them experiment with all kinds of whacky configurations, as well as stick with them through thick and thin and be a valid and viable machine in their stables for many moons. The Hunchback does neither of those things.

A new player looking for a good starter 'Mech should think about the Shadow Hawk. And back to the OP for a second: a player looking for a medium-weight AC/20 'Mech should be thinking about Blackjacks, not Hunchbacks and not Shadow Hawks. STD-engine brawler mediums haven't really cut it since the twilight days of the HBK-4SP.

[Alaskan Nobody]

1453 R, on 03 February 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

You're not helping your cause by wigging out like this.

Believe it or not - I am not wigging out.

Or rather - I am wigging out about as well as you are actually paying attention to what I am saying.

Edited by Shar Wolf, 03 February 2014 - 03:59 PM.