162 replies to this topic

[Alaskan Nobody]

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

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.

Those two sentences show how very very little you actually know about the current state of Hunchbacks.

There are two reccomended builds for Shawks:
* Boat AC/2/5/UAC5 and Poptart (which involves a fairly easy to hit hunch itself)
* Boat SSRM and chase the light mechs until/unless they are smart enough to carry AMS (because of horrible tube counts/hardpoint locations compared to other mechs - LRM and normal SRM are not advised - esp by people such as Vic) (and also involves doubling the width of your CT around the head if you make use of your head mounted M-slot)

Hunchbacks:
* Boat AC/2/5/UAC5
* Boat missiles (LRM/SRM/SSRM whatever you want)
* Boat Energy (including NON-HUNCHed models now - thanks for keeping up with the times)

Even the Generic 4G has about 7 different builds floating around for it - all of which are quite capable of scoring just as high (and consistently just as high) as any Shadowhawk build - outside of the Highest level of 12 man.

But that brings us back to our disagreement - you believe the gap between those mechs is far far larger than I do.

You are not willing to believe I may be right - that the gap may not be as big as you think it is.
I believe you lack the actual skill to play anything but the meta (I can think of no other reason to defend it so badly)

I am done with this conversation: there is no actual communication going on: you repeat the same tired old lines Victor has been mouthing out his ass for the last several months.
The evidence against and for it is just as strong as it ever was.

Have a nice life:
I am done talking AT you.

Edited Edit: I will say this: I do (seriously and honestly) appreciate that you used far far less insults than Vic does/did/and will probably continue to do.

Feel free to tell people how wonderful you think the Shadowhawk is: just keep in mind that it is by far not the invincible behemoth (in comparison to the other mediums at least) people like Victor so love to paint it as.

Edited Edited Edit: (Yes that is as sad as it sounds)
Final Word? It is NOT the meta that I have problems with - but rather Victors' portrayal of the meta.

Edited by Shar Wolf, 03 February 2014 - 05:39 PM.

[Evogenesis]

Hey AJDux,

If you are still around and not out there piloting your new Shadowhawk, I'd humbly suggest trying to play it and others as a hit and run flanker. I've never taken to the current ballistic heavy meta and prefer fast striker mechs. It is just more fun for me. I put the fastest engine I can slam in there and position myself to hit the enemy rear. Outrun what you can't outgun, and outgun what you can't outrun.

Both Shar and Vic have raised good points. I understand the motivation of trying to guide people to the meta Mechs, but I personally just never got on with them. There are valid reasons to use them and I own all the Tier 1 metamechs, but I've had the most fun and great success in my Awesome 9M. Go figure. I'm also loving my new skulking Pretty Baby. Never would have tried it had I listened to the negativity surrounding the Awesome.

OP try the ShadowHawk, but don't limit yourself to a certain build or mech. Try them all out. Some chassis have quirks like a faster than average torso twist and that does help, a lot. Not overly familiar with the Hunchback, but I can see reasons why someone would prefer one over a ShadowHawk.

[luxebo]

Alright, I finally tried the Shadow Hawk. It's GREAT when you know what to do already (with JJs, gliding, all that stuff), but the Hunchback is so much easier and more user-friendly to use. Shadow Hawk's limited cockpit and torso twist feels awkward and cramped, but I can see why the competitive people love the Shadow Hawk, it's really awesome. For a new player however, the Shadow Hawk would be expensive, limited (as not many new players get forward experience and most are purely new), and other quirks and limitations of the mech would be it's drawbacks. In fact, I think any new player wouldn't be happy of the Shadow Hawk until after x2 basics, which can grant the torso bonus, then it's pretty awesome afterward. Nevertheless, I would say while Shadow Hawk is very powerful, it's gonna take a lot of effort to use it fully effectively rather than screw up and not know why the mech is acting as it is. Hunchback is much less of a threat, a lot cheaper, and has good torso twist, feeling much less cramped, therefore it's a lot easier to use that over the Shadow Hawk for a starter imho. Later however, the Shadow Hawk would be epic.

[Undercover Brother]

I'm regularly hitting 400+ in my (semi) stock Hunchy.

86kph, AC20 (4 tons ammo), 3 MPLas, -2 points off max armor...

Just last night, I singlehandedly took down 3 Assaults and 1 Heavy in 1 match.

[1453 R]

Had a match last night myself where I pulled 500 damage in my Mini-Vic SHD-5M, with five different killing shots. Hardly 'single-handedly', but frankly I rather starkly doubt that claim. If nothing else, you don't have the ammo to go through that much weight of armor, unless you were getting headshots every time.

Point being, however, that everybody has outstanding games in their favorite 'Mechs. Had a match over the weekend where I scored six kills and seven hundred damage in my Flame, to the point where a couple of the guys on my team snarked "Hey buddy, leave some for us, huh?" after the match. 4K experience and change in that run. Absolute breakout game, enjoyed every second of it.

Does that make the Dragon good? Not at all. It makes me lucky, because even though I'm a long-experienced hand in Dragons with plenty of cockpit time in my Flame in particular, plenty practiced in twisting and evading to keep that g'danged beer gut from rupturing, I also know well enough to know that such games are one-in-a-hundred treasures of coincidence and cosmic awesome, not actual evidence of the merits or drawbacks of any particular chassis.

I still pilot my Flame because I personally enjoy it (and earned my damned bruises where Dragons are concerned), and I'm a good enough pilot by this point to compensate for the machine's shortcomings and get good numbers out of it, but that's hardly a reason to suggest it to new folks who don't know any better, hmm?

[luxebo]

I've actually gotten 10 full kills in the Dragon trial, but I've always failed to record anything I do spectacular. That was a really epic moment then the next game I scored less than a 100 damage.

Edit: Man, how did this thread come from the conversation of what mech is best at brawling to suddenly an argument about Shadow Hawk vs Hunchie?

Edited by luxebo, 03 February 2014 - 09:06 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

luxebo, on 03 February 2014 - 09:03 PM, said:

Edit: Man, how did this thread come from the conversation of what mech is best at brawling to suddenly an argument about Shadow Hawk vs Hunchie?

Victor took personal offense to my post that the Hunchback might have anything to offer the newer players.

Thank you for elaborating on that BTW, you phrased it better than I could have.

[Victor Morson]

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?

2x PPC Cicadas are actually a very, very nasty build some solid units are running now. In some leagues they're also run as a super raven, doing the same 2x ER Large + ECM Setup too, though I could easily argue the Raven would be more optimal for it for it's smaller profile. But yeah, Cicadas are showing up in some leagues now, even in unrestricted ones like RHOD.

[Victor Morson]

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

Option 1.

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

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.

I find that when you have a game of PUGs and then you have, say, 2 properly designed Highlanders on each side it turns into a "Clash of titans in a sea of ants" kind of scenario, honestly. This was in particular true when Ghost Heat first got added and everyone freaked out and started running horrible franken designs for a few weeks.

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

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.

That doesn't make any sense. A shorter 'mech is going to.. uh.. charge into my AC/20 range? OK, thanks, short 'mech!

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

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.

And I believe an AC/20+ER PPC Shadow Hawk would utterly curb stomp the same config on a Hunchback, assuming similar pilot skills. Because it would.

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

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.

No, they were "nigh unkillable" to anyone not going for legs. The crotch was not a great target on them and still isn't, not on that 'mech. Likewise, the mohawk? The very smallest target on the 'mech?

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

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.

What? I absolutely never drop my leg armor more than a few points, and I'm rather vocal about people doing this too often and/or sticking ammo in the legs on top of that weakened armor. It's a huge newbie mistake and it's one I actively avoid. I cut a couple points from my LRM 'mech and my brawlers have max.

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

"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.

Shadow Hawks are jump snipers.
Shadow Hawks are ridge humpers.
Shadow Hawks are brawlers.
Shadow Hawks are light hunters.

I don't know why you think all anyone does in them is pop up and down all day.

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!

Except it's not, as it's arm mounted gun can even hit people from on top of the hill peak in Crimson Strait. In fact, I routinely go up there with my LRM Skirmisher and rain death from that hill using my arm to lock & TAG targets, it's insanely effective in pugs as you'd be surprised how often they don't look up.

Also, the gun tips down MORE than enough to obliterate people on Canyon Network down range..


PS: This was a NO STRIKE, NO JUMPJET Marik Civil War drop, which is why you don't see jumping.

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

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

It's strong enough that if pilots of equal skill will win with the Shadow Hawk nine times out of ten, if not even more often than that. That's a big difference.

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

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.

I'm rather aware of the weaknesses of my 'mechs, but have simply countered that their weaknesses are not enough to matter. The Shadow Hawk's limited torso twist is ENTIRELY negated by the Hunchback's lack of Jump Jets.

Edited by Victor Morson, 04 February 2014 - 12:13 AM.

[Victor Morson]

luxebo, on 03 February 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

Alright, I finally tried the Shadow Hawk. It's GREAT when you know what to do already (with JJs, gliding, all that stuff), but the Hunchback is so much easier and more user-friendly to use. Shadow Hawk's limited cockpit and torso twist feels awkward and cramped, but I can see why the competitive people love the Shadow Hawk, it's really awesome. For a new player however, the Shadow Hawk would be expensive, limited (as not many new players get forward experience and most are purely new), and other quirks and limitations of the mech would be it's drawbacks. In fact, I think any new player wouldn't be happy of the Shadow Hawk until after x2 basics, which can grant the torso bonus, then it's pretty awesome afterward. Nevertheless, I would say while Shadow Hawk is very powerful, it's gonna take a lot of effort to use it fully effectively rather than screw up and not know why the mech is acting as it is. Hunchback is much less of a threat, a lot cheaper, and has good torso twist, feeling much less cramped, therefore it's a lot easier to use that over the Shadow Hawk for a starter imho. Later however, the Shadow Hawk would be epic.

To be honest I'd still recommend a Centurion over the Hunchback if "ease of use" was the only factor; The 3x SRM6/2 ML build is incredibly solid as a very, very hard to kill, cheap and easy to use 'mech, as long as someone tells them how to open their missile bay doors! (Stupid lack of documentation).

Shar Wolf, on 03 February 2014 - 03:59 PM, said:

There are two reccomended builds for Shawks:
* Boat AC/2/5/UAC5 and Poptart (which involves a fairly easy to hit hunch itself)
* Boat SSRM and chase the light mechs until/unless they are smart enough to carry AMS (because of horrible tube counts/hardpoint locations compared to other mechs - LRM and normal SRM are not advised - esp by people such as Vic) (and also involves doubling the width of your CT around the head if you make use of your head mounted M-slot)

Wrong, wrong and wrong. On every single point, actually. Let me hit them all up:

• Nobody boats AC/2s on a Shadow Hawk. 3x AC/2 is awful for this 'mech.
  
• 2x AC/5, 1x PPC which can poptart, ridge hump, midrange, snipe and brawl.
  
• The Shadow Hawk has fine missile tube counts with more than enough to sport Streaks. The 4x SSRM2 2x ML Shadow Hawk will absolutely obliterate even AMS equipped lights.
  
• The Shadow Hawk also runs 1x ER PPC 1x AC/20.
  
• The Shadow Hawk also runs 1x AC/20 2x ML.
  
• The Shadow Hawk also runs 2x AC/5 3x SSRM2.
  
• The Shadow Hawk also runs 1x LRM/15 1x LRM/10 1x LRM/5 1x TAG. The Griffin is slightly superior for this config.
  
• The Shadow Hawk also runs Gauss + PPC.
  
• The Shadow Hawk .. you get the point.
  
• The Shadow Hawk could run regular SRMs absolutely fine as well, but the Griffin is superior at it.

You are literally talking about a 'mech that you seem to know absolutely nothing about at this point, Shar.

Shar Wolf, on 03 February 2014 - 03:59 PM, said:

Hunchbacks:
* Boat AC/2/5/UAC5
* Boat missiles (LRM/SRM/SSRM whatever you want)
* Boat Energy (including NON-HUNCHed models now - thanks for keeping up with the times)

Now the counterpoints..

• Not enough weight to boat UAC/5s, but a hair, effectively. So no.
  
• Not as many missile tubes as the Shadow Hawk. The Shadow Hawk 2D2 has 6, 10x2, 5. The Hunchback has 10x2 max, any missile variant. A Shadow Hawk can fire 30 missiles with only 5 trailing in an LRM setup, a Hunchback can only fire 20x10. The Hunchback also has less missile hard points.
  
• I have repeatedly and constantly made an exception for the Laserback as a very, very niche league mech.

Shar Wolf, on 03 February 2014 - 03:59 PM, said:

Even the Generic 4G has about 7 different builds floating around for it - all of which are quite capable of scoring just as high (and consistently just as high) as any Shadowhawk build - outside of the Highest level of 12 man.

There are far, far more builds for Shadow Hawks. The 'mech is far, far more versatile than what you believe, for whatever reason.

Shar Wolf, on 03 February 2014 - 03:59 PM, said:

But that brings us back to our disagreement - you believe the gap between those mechs is far far larger than I do.

You are not willing to believe I may be right - that the gap may not be as big as you think it is.
I believe you lack the actual skill to play anything but the meta (I can think of no other reason to defend it so badly)

And I believe you are wrong because I clearly demonstrated above, you are wrong. You have absolutely no understanding of the Shadow Hawk and simply attack it from the corner as not being THAT much better; you don't realize even half of what it can do, apparently, and it's coloring your opinion very badly.

Shar Wolf, on 03 February 2014 - 03:59 PM, said:

I am done with this conversation: there is no actual communication going on: you repeat the same tired old lines Victor has been mouthing out his ass for the last several months.
The evidence against and for it is just as strong as it ever was.

Have a nice life:
I am done talking AT you.

Where have I heard that before? The last 4-5 pages? See you in the next reply, man.

Shar Wolf, on 03 February 2014 - 03:59 PM, said:

Edited Edit: I will say this: I do (seriously and honestly) appreciate that you used far far less insults than Vic does/did/and will probably continue to do.

Feel free to tell people how wonderful you think the Shadowhawk is: just keep in mind that it is by far not the invincible behemoth (in comparison to the other mediums at least) people like Victor so love to paint it as.

You are in no way invincible. Think of this way: You're in a warzone, and you're the only guy with an assault rifle - everyone else has handguns and swords. You're going to have a massive leg up, but someone can still shoot you. Doesn't mean I'd trade the rifle.

Shar Wolf, on 03 February 2014 - 03:59 PM, said:

Edited Edited Edit: (Yes that is as sad as it sounds)
Final Word? It is NOT the meta that I have problems with - but rather Victors' portrayal of the meta.

Because I state (accurately) that X 'mech is better than Y? I'm sorry man, I did not make the rules. Hell if I had my way, I'd buff the Awesome AND Hunchback tomorrow.

Shar Wolf, on 03 February 2014 - 09:16 PM, said:

Victor took personal offense to my post that the Hunchback might have anything to offer the newer players.

I did no such thing. I simply corrected incorrect information, which was that a new player should consider a Hunchback as a good alternative to the Shadow Hawk, when it's clearly not.

[1453 R]

Actually Vic, I boat three AC/2 on my SHD-2D(P) Dakkahawk. I do it because it makes me giggle though, not because it's a good idea. And because people in Puglandia often do one of two amusing things when I start laying into them - either they freak out and start twisting madly whilst running full-tilt towards the nearest rock...or they ignore me altogether whilst I chew through their armor in record time.

Besides. Triple/2 Dakkahawk is the only thing the 2D variant has going for it that isn't just flat-out better on the 5M. I do wish the 5M had been the Phoenix variant...oh well. C'est la vie. And long live the DakkaHawk, no matter how terrible it is.

[Denolven]

Victor Morson, on 04 February 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

And I believe you are wrong because I clearly demonstrated above, you are wrong.

Actually you proved only one thing: that there are situations where the Shawk can outperform other mechs.
Which is not the same as a proof for "X is always better than Y".

People tend to forget the dependencies/limitations outside of the mech itself. There is no universal "X is better than Y". Because that depends on who uses it and what it's used for. For easier arguing let's assume the abstract task is always the same: win the game by killing stuff.

Now what you say is that the Shawk is always better, but that's simply not true. The better mech/config is what the pilot performs best in. Depending on pilot limitations, this can be very different for different pilots. The mech doesn't play the game alone. It's always a combination of mech and pilot, and the pilot does NOT have unlimited resources/potential.

Example: The AC20 is considered one of the most powerfull weapons, especially in mediums due to the combination of pinpoint damage and good mobility. But in my hands, this weapon is a nightmare. Why? Because I have to make every shot count, which I can't.
So while your answer might be "train more to improve your aim", I'm telling you that this is not the issue. There is this thing called talent, which determines how much work is needed to improve in something. Yes, I could spend a few years extensively training my mouse skills and finally become 10% better. Or I take another route and use equipment that suits my strengths and weaknesses better and be effective right now. Unless you give me a very good reason to do the first, I'll stick with the second one.

I have enough skill in fields that are not linked to aiming to compensate the lack of aiming ability. It's the overall result that counts. I do what works for me, because I am the one that pilots my mechs. And you are doing the same. Don't confuse "works well for many people" with "works well for all people".

And that is why people sometimes say that this or that thing is not that much better. When ignoring everything else it might be, but in the context of player and task it might not. You never know, unless you analyse the players abilities and limitations.
Saying "X is always better" is ignoring the reality of limited resources. Now, if you would say "X is better in most cases", I would agree. It's a much better wording


Oh, as for the "meta-builds":

Spoiler

I don't win my games with what I call utility (the ability to master a tool, that's what people usually call "skill"). I win my games with versatility - the ability to pick the right option at the right time. You can tell me "go AC/PPC" all you want - doesn't change the fact that my MissileHawk (2ML, 2SSRM and 2 LRM10+A) has no pinpoint whatsoever and is still my most successfull mech with a w/l ratio of 1.8. My DakkaHwak has 1.6. Seems to work I'd say.
The AC2 has become my top favorite weapon. Because even if my aiming sucks, I can still take out a "pro" by destroying his aiming too. Pulling you down to my aiming level is way easier than getting up to your aiming level. Simple cost-benefit-calculation.

In short: I win with versatility, because that's my style. Forcing myself into another style has way too much cost for way too little benefit.

Edited by Denolven, 04 February 2014 - 07:15 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Denolven, on 04 February 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

Actually you proved only one thing: that there are situations where the Shawk can outperform other mechs.
Which is not the same as a proof for "X is always better than Y".

That's simply not the case here. The Laserhawk has a niche. Everything else is flat out inferior to the Shadow Hawk. In every situation; it outperforms it at all ranges & roles.

Denolven, on 04 February 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

People tend to forget the dependencies/limitations outside of the mech itself. There is no universal "X is better than Y".

If you honestly think an Awesome or Locust are on par with a Highlander or Jenner, abandon all hope.

This "the pilot can overcome!" attitude in this community is hilarious, because no, the pilot can't overcome. If you are fighting someone of roughly equal skill and they have a superior chassis to this degree, they're going to win, end of discussion.

Denolven, on 04 February 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

Because that depends on who uses it and what it's used for. For easier arguing let's assume the abstract task is always the same: win the game by killing stuff.

Now what you say is that the Shawk is always better, but that's simply not true. The better mech/config is what the pilot performs best in. Depending on pilot limitations, this can be very different for different pilots.

If they are fans of the AC/20.. it does that.
If they are fans of SRMs.. it does that.
If they are fans of LRMs.. it does that.
If they are fans of Gauss.. it does that.
If they are fans of PPCs.. it does that.
If they are fans of Streak light hunting.. it does that.
If they are fans of meta AC5.. it does that.

So yeah. The Shadow Hawk literally does whatever niche someone wants to do, and it does it better than the Hunchback, outside of laser boating. Which again I've made an exception for repeatedly for pages now.

Denolven, on 04 February 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

The mech doesn't play the game alone. It's always a combination of mech and pilot, and the pilot does NOT have unlimited resources/potential.

Example: The AC20 is considered one of the most powerfull weapons, especially in mediums due to the combination of pinpoint damage and good mobility. But in my hands, this weapon is a nightmare. Why? Because I have to make every shot count, which I can't.

Which is why you can swap that AC/20 out for 4 SSRM2 on a Shawk and be ready for an entirely new role.

Denolven, on 04 February 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

And that is why people sometimes say that this or that thing is not that much better. When ignoring everything else it might be, but in the context of player and task it might not. You never know, unless you analyse the players abilities and limitations.
Saying "X is always better" is ignoring the reality of limited resources. Now, if you would say "X is better in most cases", I would agree. It's a much better wording

Finding your niche is important, of course. Not everyone will be good at everything. I don't even own a light 'mech, and when I run with our light lance in a Treb 3C or something, I am terrible at it as one example.

But the bottom line is the Shadow Hawk caters to all niches, and it's one of the top reasons it's so easy to recommend. It's not some expert-weapon that requires months to get the most out of it - it's something that the rawest of newbies can jump straight into and begin using immediately, and will last them all the way into leagues.

Denolven, on 04 February 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

I don't win my games with what I call utility (the ability to master a tool, that's what people usually call "skill"). I win my games with versatility - the ability to pick the right option at the right time. You can tell me "go AC/PPC" all you want - doesn't change the fact that my MissileHawk (2ML, 2SSRM and 2 LRM10+A) has no pinpoint whatsoever and is still my most successfull mech with a w/l ratio of 1.8

And builds like that are the reason the w/l loss system is a coin toss. You get too many on your team, and you're doomed. The fact is 99% of the time even the most deadly of pilots makes jack-all difference on the outcome of a game, unless they have a whole premade lance with them. You might as well flip a quarter every time for a pug w/l ratio.

Denolven, on 04 February 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

The AC2 has become my top favorite weapon. Because even if my aiming sucks, I can still take out a "pro" by destroying his aiming too. Pulling you down to my aiming level is way easier than getting up to your aiming level. Simple cost-benefit-calculation.

You should try the AC/5 or UAC/5. Similar mechanics and far, far superior to the AC/2.

Denolven, on 04 February 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

In short: I win with versatility, because that's my style. Forcing myself into another style has way too much cost for way too little benefit.[/spoiler]

Again part of the reason this debate continues is the Shadow Hawk does everything the Hunchback's style does (outside of the laserback) and does it better.

PS: If you really like 3 AC/2s, by the way, the Shadow Hawk also does that too.

Edited by Victor Morson, 04 February 2014 - 07:16 AM.

[Corbon Zackery]

If your building a Brawler some standard rules apply to the mech you select.

1. You want a mech with CT Weapons
2. You want a mech with a standard eng.
3. You want to maximize your armor to ensure long term survival.

So will use Smurfy to give you a example.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...5eccba7468be057

So this Cent is set up with close to max armor. Standard eng. double heatsinks, All ammo is CASE.

You can lose 90% of your mech LA RA, LT RT, LL and still keep fighting.

Streaks give light mech deterrent and close to 100% hit rate in a brawl 30 shots with the AC 10 combined with 2 m.lasers. The other arm has max armor for torso twist shielding. Legs and Speed are low but when your brawling your getting in close doing as much damage as possible. Destroying the mech and moving on to the next brawl.

People are going to tell you to ditch the CASE and move the ammo to the legs. If you want blow up real quick follow that advice.

Other people will say well I need more back armor when you brawl you want to maximize the time in combat by keeping all your armor in the front of your mech.

Edited by Corbon Zackery, 04 February 2014 - 08:05 AM.

[Denolven]

Victor Morson, on 04 February 2014 - 07:15 AM, said:

If you honestly think an Awesome or Locust are on par with a Highlander or Jenner, abandon all hope.

That's not what I said. I said there might be people who are more effective in an Awesome than they are in a Highlander. Which means in those cases (as rare as they may be), the Awesome is in fact outperforming the Highlander. The mech is not the only variable in the equation.

Quote

This "the pilot can overcome!" attitude in this community is hilarious, because no, the pilot can't overcome.

Again, that's not what I said. I said the pilot can compensate. Lets imagine a point system, and let's say the Highlander is 30 points better than the Awesome (in whatever point system you apply).
Depending on the pilot, the synergy effect of pilot+mech can in some cases be higher than this 30 point drawback. Of course this is not always the case, as there is a synergy factor for the highlander pilot as well. But the Highlander is better in most cases, not in every case. If [AWS + pilot synergy] is bigger than [HGN + pilot synergy], the AWS performs better, as simple as that.

If by "equal skill" you mean "the same", then you are right of course. Just remember that there can be different types of skill. Even if the ELO of two players is equal, they are still different. Skill is not one-dimensional.

I don't question your method (the one with expected values and gauss curves). That method works very well in general. All I'm trying to say is that you should switch the word "always" for "in most cases". Because logically spoken, your 100%-claim is invalid as soon as anything that is not a mech is involved. Make it a 95% claim and we're set

Edited by Denolven, 04 February 2014 - 08:27 AM.

[Corbon Zackery]

None of the Highlander variants conform with the rules I laid out for Brawling. With no CT weapons these mechs when Brawling will lose there LT and RT leaving you with no weapons.

AWS 9M is a very good baseline for a Assault Brawler since it has both 2 energy and 2 missile hard-points in the CT. This gives you flexibility with the 2 CT slots.

Remember Brawling is all about close range combat so it is very easy to target very specific spots on a mech since your at point blank range during the engagement.

Edited by Corbon Zackery, 04 February 2014 - 08:39 AM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Corbon Zackery, on 04 February 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

People are going to tell you to ditch the CASE and move the ammo to the legs. If you want blow up real quick follow that advice.

Ammo has only a 10% chance of exploding if it is actually destroyed.
Between how few people actually are smart enough to shoot at the legs - and that low chance I have died from ammunition explosions exactly once.

Putting that 0.5 tons toward an AMS or more armor is frequently more useful for me - but that would depend largely on personal experience.

Denolven, on 04 February 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

Again, that's not what I said.

Doesn't matter what excactly you said - you said that a non-meta mech might be in any way viable - and so victor has written you off as one of the stupid masses that must be brainwashed educated about the truth.

Why do you think I have him on ignore?

(BTW Vic - keep quoting me and you are only strengthening my case against you with the MODs)

Oh - and the AC/2 is currently the best suppression weapon in the game - best range and rate of fire = Keep Your Head Down.

Keep Your Head Down = countering Pop-tarts.

Countering Poptarts = more chances to actually brawl.

That doesn't mean that the brawlers should have AC/2 mind you (there are far better brawling weapons IMO) but rather brawlers should be grateful to those who are willing to bring and know how to use the AC/2

[Grey Black]

The Orion full-stop. AC/20 with SRMs and MLas and you're golden.

[Victor Morson]

Denolven, on 04 February 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

That's not what I said. I said there might be people who are more effective in an Awesome than they are in a Highlander. Which means in those cases (as rare as they may be), the Awesome is in fact outperforming the Highlander. The mech is not the only variable in the equation.

This is like saying at a Formula One race that "Hey now, that driver MIGHT be better in a Pinto than a high performance race car." Sure, maybe they are better with the Pinto, but they sure aren't taking home the trophy.

[Buckminster]

But it's also like saying that a rally race driver will be good in a Formula One car. "Superior" equipment is rubbish if it doesn't jive with the pilot's style.