70 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Shar Wolf, on 03 February 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

Max cap is based off the stock engine - so same cap as the other Wolverines: 360

I thought they changed that up from time to time, where a mech has same stock engine, but one variant has a larger cap? Oh well. Guess I could be wrong. Just, don't tell anyone that. I want them to believe that I can never be wrong...

It is faster. The 6k can fit in a 375 max. All others (by Smurfy) can get a 360 max... I know. Such a huge difference...

[Koniving]

Tesunie, on 03 February 2014 - 09:18 PM, said:

What about it's max cap? Or is that it's max cap...?

The cap is usually identical for identical engines. 6K caps at 375. 6R caps at 360 (odd). 7K caps at 360.

The 6K's big trait is that it's supposed to have 2 tons more armor than the 6R.
With MWO's current armor system it tops out at 370, and the Wolverine 6R can have 370 just as well as the 6K can. So it's supposed advantage is already gone.

Been spreading an armor concept: stock armor + 100 = that variant's max.

Spoiler

With it, the Wolverine 6R's 308 armor would now max at 408. Old max was 370.
The 6K's armor would be 368 and max out at 468. Old max was 370.
The 7K's armor starts at 370 and would then max at 470 (old max was 370).

Meanwhile if you go through the mechs, certain really overpowered mechs find themselves with a lot less armor, akin to their stock builds and core design. Simply by coincidence.

Jagers, for example.
"Designed as an anti-aircraft platform and long-range fire support unit, the JagerMech was intended to correct several perceived faults of the original Rifleman. While it does address the Rifleman's heat issues and limited ammunition, it does so at the cost of significant armor protection. Carrying only a miserly six tons of standard armor, the JagerMech is very vulnerable to return fire." Jagers aren't meant to brawl, ever. Their starting armor for two of the four variants is less than that of a Raven 4X's armor.

6-S = 196 + 100 = new max 296.
6-DD = 232 + 100 = 332.
6-A = 264 + 100 = 364.
Firebrand = 336 + 100 = 436.

What's really nice is that Shadowhawks get knocked down from brawlers to their lore-proper-place as spotters, recon, and ranged support allowing the Hunchback to retake its place. Meanwhile the under appreciated Kintaros and Griffins excel in more armor than most of the Shadowhawks.

Ah, but it's a concept. Still organizing it to pitch to PGI.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Tesunie, on 03 February 2014 - 09:32 PM, said:

It is faster. The 6k can fit in a 375 max. All others (by Smurfy) can get a 360 max... I know. Such a huge difference...

Welp paint me the wrong one then - since they all started with a 275 engine

[Tesunie]

Koniving, on 03 February 2014 - 09:40 PM, said:

The cap is usually identical for identical engines. 6K caps at 375. 6R caps at 360 (odd). 7K caps at 360.

The 6K's big trait is that it's supposed to have 2 tons more armor than the 6R.
With MWO's current armor system it tops out at 370, and the Wolverine 6R can have 370 just as well as the 6K can. So it's supposed advantage is already gone.

Been spreading an armor concept: stock armor + 100 = that variant's max.

Spoiler

With it, the Wolverine 6R's 308 armor would now max at 408. Old max was 370.
The 6K's armor would be 368 and max out at 468. Old max was 370.
The 7K's armor starts at 370 and would then max at 470 (old max was 370).

Meanwhile if you go through the mechs, certain really overpowered mechs find themselves with a lot less armor, akin to their stock builds and core design. Simply by coincidence.

Jagers, for example.
"Designed as an anti-aircraft platform and long-range fire support unit, the JagerMech was intended to correct several perceived faults of the original Rifleman. While it does address the Rifleman's heat issues and limited ammunition, it does so at the cost of significant armor protection. Carrying only a miserly six tons of standard armor, the JagerMech is very vulnerable to return fire." Jagers aren't meant to brawl, ever. Their starting armor for two of the four variants is less than that of a Raven 4X's armor.

6-S = 196 + 100 = new max 296.
6-DD = 232 + 100 = 332.
6-A = 264 + 100 = 364.
Firebrand = 336 + 100 = 436.

What's really nice is that Shadowhawks get knocked down from brawlers to their lore-proper-place as spotters, recon, and ranged support allowing the Hunchback to retake its place. Meanwhile the under appreciated Kintaros and Griffins excel in more armor than most of the Shadowhawks.

Ah, but it's a concept. Still organizing it to pitch to PGI.

I think it would have to be some kinda percent, and not a flat 100. Otherwise, imagine the light mechs. IMAGINE THE LIGHT MECHS!

But yeah, I could kinda understand that. It would hurt direct fire support mechs such as the Jagger, but overall I think it might help enforce mech roles more. Maybe...

[Koniving]

Tesunie, on 03 February 2014 - 09:49 PM, said:

I think it would have to be some kinda percent, and not a flat 100. Otherwise, imagine the light mechs. IMAGINE THE LIGHT MECHS!

But yeah, I could kinda understand that. It would hurt direct fire support mechs such as the Jagger, but overall I think it might help enforce mech roles more. Maybe...

A solid number isn't much trouble at all. But a percentage can cause problems. Spoiler as slightly off topic.

Spoiler

Well, the Jenner D would be 128 + 100 = 228.
Locust 128 + 100 = 228.
Raven 3-L 161 + 100 = 261.
Raven 4X 224 + 100 = 324 (this seems to be the highest of all light mech armors. Jenner K also has 324 armor after this change).

Meanwhile. Cicadas: variants vary from 112 and 128. Becomes 212 and 228.
Blackjack: From 272. To 372.
Centurion A and D 272 then 372.
Centurion AL (totally unloved wimpiness in firepower) 338 to 438. (just changed from garbage Centurion to designated damage tank!)
Hunchbacks (all) 320 to 420.
Shadowhawk 2d2 208 to 308 (just turned from most overpowered or heat neutral Shadowhawk to easiest to kill).
Shadowhawk 2H 304 to 404. (an okay middle design that now has some armor.)
Shadowhawk 5M 336 to 436. (this thing surpasses the Hunchbacks in armor and is on par with the Centurion A. But that's good, because its firepower and ability is atrociously inferior and hindered compared to the other two Shadowhawks!)

It's not a problem at all. It's literally just 100 up from stock on every mech so it's an even, balanced number. Stock mechs were balanced to begin with.

Using a percentage will create problems.

Let's use a Locust and an Atlas for a comparison.
Locust, 128. Current max 138. New max if +100 is 228. New max if percentage of additional 50%, 192.
Hunchback 4G, 320. Current max 338. New max if +100 is 420. New max if percentage of additional 50%, 480
Atlas, 608. Current max, 614. New max if +100 is 708. New max if percentage of additional 50%, 912.

...Notice how overpowered we just made assaults?

Can you imagine trying to kill an Atlas? That's almost a thousand armor! And the Atlas isn't the most heavily armored of assault mechs, there are some with even higher stock armor!

Percentages is how pilot skills got way out of whack in the first place. Uping a rising threshold by 20% doesn't mean much if it's 30 (turns to 36) but if it's anywhere between 50 minimum and 86.56 reasonable maximum... 50 turns to 60. 86.56 turns to 103.872 (that's 10 PPCs without ghost heat + 1 medium laser all fired at once to get one shutdown).

Edited by Koniving, 03 February 2014 - 10:10 PM.

[Tesunie]

Koniving, on 03 February 2014 - 10:00 PM, said:

A solid number isn't much trouble at all. But a percentage can cause problems. Spoiler as slightly off topic.

Spoiler

Well, the Jenner D would be 128 + 100 = 228.
Locust 128 + 100 = 228.
Raven 3-L 161 + 100 = 261.
Raven 4X 224 + 100 = 324 (this seems to be the highest of all light mech armors. Jenner K also has 324 armor after this change).

Meanwhile. Cicadas: variants vary from 112 and 128. Becomes 212 and 228.
Blackjack: From 272. To 372.
Centurion A and D 272 then 372.
Centurion AL (totally unloved wimpiness in firepower) 338 to 438. (just changed from garbage Centurion to designated damage tank!)
Hunchbacks (all) 320 to 420.
Shadowhawk 2d2 208 to 308 (just turned from most overpowered or heat neutral Shadowhawk to easiest to kill).
Shadowhawk 2H 304 to 404. (an okay middle design that now has some armor.)
Shadowhawk 5M 336 to 436. (this thing surpasses the Hunchbacks in armor and is on par with the Centurion A. But that's good, because its firepower and ability is atrociously inferior and hindered compared to the other two Shadowhawks!)

It's not a problem at all. It's literally just 100 up from stock on every mech so it's an even, balanced number. Stock mechs were balanced to begin with.

Using a percentage will create problems.

Let's use a Locust and an Atlas for a comparison.
Locust, 128. Current max 138. New max if +100 is 228. New max if percentage of additional 50%, 192.
Hunchback 4G, 320. Current max 338. New max if +100 is 420. New max if percentage of additional 50%, 480
Atlas, 608. Current max, 614. New max if +100 is 708. New max if percentage of additional 50%, 912.

...Notice how overpowered we just made assaults?

Can you imagine trying to kill an Atlas? That's almost a thousand armor! And the Atlas isn't the most heavily armored of assault mechs, there are some with even higher stock armor!

Percentages is how pilot skills got way out of whack in the first place. Uping a rising threshold by 20% doesn't mean much if it's 30 (turns to 36) but if it's anywhere between 50 minimum and 86.56 reasonable maximum... 50 turns to 60. 86.56 turns to 103.872 (that's 10 PPCs without ghost heat + 1 medium laser all fired at once to get one shutdown).

I know... maybe per weight class? Assaults should have more armor available to them...? However, a Locust shouldn't have that much armor either...

I think if you can figure this part out, it could be a more plausible concept. Right now, I think it might not balance out quite right for some mechs...? (Example: Locusts.) Don't forget that internal structure is also based upon max armor values... (Is half max armor value.)

[Koniving]

Tesunie, on 03 February 2014 - 10:16 PM, said:

I know... maybe per weight class? Assaults should have more armor available to them...? However, a Locust shouldn't have that much armor either...

I think if you can figure this part out, it could be a more plausible concept. Right now, I think it might not balance out quite right for some mechs...? (Example: Locusts.) Don't forget that internal structure is also based upon max armor values... (Is half max armor value.)

Per weight class... We already have that. It's why we have the armor issue in the first place, one set armor maximum per weight class. But before I continue, remember that internal structure in tabletop isn't half armor. It's actually a set value per weight class.

Spoiler

Example: Jagermech (paper thin armor) and Thunderbolt (super armor) if stripped of the armor can handle identical abuse. The Jagermech has more structure health than armor. But its maximum armor can never be what the Thunderbolt has because the body just isn't designed to carry it.

Remember that a Locust and a Jenner D actually have identical armor stock. 128. The Locust and the Jenner D will continue to have an identical max armor (228). Even so, the Jenner being 35 tons has more structure health. So once the armor is gone the Locust is as good as dead, while the Jenner can still take abuse. The low armor isn't the case with all Jenners, just the most powerful Jenner that has low armor to carry those missiles.

Locust and Jenner D start out the same, they end the same with this idea in terms of armor.
In MWO's current system the Locust is useless with only 10 more armor possible, the Jenner can carry 110 more armor without sacrificing the launcher or anything else.

Blackjack and Centurion A and D variants start out with 272 armor. With + 100 they wind up at the same level as stock, 372 and on par with each other.
In MWO's current system, Blackjack can only get 306. Centurion can get 338. They don't end up the same.

A look at 65 tonners with the Proposed stock +100 is new max armor concept.
Jagermech S starts with 192 armor. +100 concept, 292. Can't brawl due to low armor, has superior firepower, fights long range, plays support. In this case it would still have 42 CT structure, 30 ST structure, 20 Arm structure and 30 leg structure (total of 220 structure) even if it only has 292 armor total with the proposed max. (Remember that Jager S is the weakest Jager in armor, the others would be over 300 in armor.)
Catapult C1 starts with 320 armor. MWO maxes it to 422. +100 concept, 420. Decent firepower, decent armor, jack of trades. Still has 220 structure.
Thunderbolt 5S starts with 416 armor. With the + 100 is max concept, 516. Incredible armor. Bad firepower and heat. Designated tank and damage soak. Still has 220 structure.
Jager to Catapult difference: 128 maintained from stock to max. Jager to Thunderbolt difference 224 maintained from stock to max.

MWO's current for 65 tonners.
MWO maxes Jager to 422 (HOLY O_O). That's 230 difference from its stock (that's 130 more than it'd get from me). Puts super firepower + amazing armor into instant meta rig of super deadliness. Instant brawler. Heavy AC/40 abuse. Ghost heat required.
MWO maxes C1 to 422. That's a 122 difference. Catapult doesn't perform all that well. It can't compete with the super Jager. Obsolete.
MWO maxes Thunderbolt to 422. That's a 6 point of armor difference. Thunderbolt; known for its superior armor for a 65 ton heavy with armor comparable to a Stalker...can't have armor comparable to a stalker. Can't be a designated tank. Hasn't got the firepower to be the brawler it's supposed to be. Is inferior in every way. Now is dead on arrival and garbage before it begins.

Notice the difference here?

Edited by Koniving, 04 February 2014 - 08:41 AM.

[Victor Morson]

AngerMaker, on 03 February 2014 - 04:21 AM, said:

hey guys i have a question what should i get a centurion or stalker i like heavy firepower and health

Wow, a ton of replies already.

Long story short is neither.

What you should be looking at if you like heavy firepower and health is a Highlander, in particular the 733C as a starter model. 2x PPC and 2x UAC/5 will turn it into an absolute beast.

Other options would be the Shadow Hawk, which outclasses the Centurion considerably with all three available models being very, very solid choices (2D2 is a personal favorite, 5M for many). It's got better gun mounts, jump capability, etc.; the Centurion relies on SRMs to be effective as it loses it's arm VERY VERY easily; the 2D2 can run anything from AC/20+ERPPC to 4x SSRM2 and 2x ML to 2x AC/5 1x PPC effectively, not to mention act as the 2nd best available LRM Skirmisher behind the Griffin. It's an awesome, awesome medium.

Finally you might consider the Victor, which is a cross between a Cataphract (another good option) and a Highlander. It can carry almost the same firepower as the Highlander, and it makes just a few sacrifices to be able to support a much faster kind of design. I highly recommend it. The 9S is a great model that's highly flexible, and 2x UAC5 2x PPC, like the Highlander, is hard to go wrong with.

ED: As noted, the Cataphract - in particular the 4X and 3D - are exceptional heavies with excellent firepower, but it's a bit more of a glass cannon than the Victor or Highlander with it's wide chest. It's still very brutal.

---

These are really the best of the best firepower-and-armor 'mechs. Anyone telling you otherwise is simply incorrect. 'mechs like the Jagermech fill the firepower description but lack in the armor request; they're incredibly easy to destroy.

For what it's worth before the Shadow Hawk showed up, I'd recommended the Centurion, as it is very durable; it's just that SRMs aren't really the best gun out there right now and it's all it does well because as I said above, the arms just POP off and soak damage like a black hole soaks light.

Edited by Victor Morson, 03 February 2014 - 10:38 PM.

[JC Daxion]

I have often thought that we should beable to have more armor on certain mechs, and able to place it in different locations....


aka, if you are a cat pilot, you could beef up the center, or a HBK, the hunch.. I think certain mechs should have higher values on certain area's to help vary mechs.. Perhaps some mechs have super strong arms.. or other's you could beef up the legs, Sure a big balance, but i have often thought that armor should be something we could add more of.




As for the OP's Q, i never piloted either, but stalkers are definatly harder to take down, and always have a ton of fire power.. A cent, i never have worried about them, in any mech i have used.. shadow hawk's not so much either.. But i guess i can see there appeal...


If you have the cash, or don't mind grinding i think i would give the stalker a shot.. it is something i wan't to get into my mech bay one day..


But perhaps another option would work.. I have not piloted the new thunder bolts, but the armor/loadout/speed all look pretty good.. though not what you would call the most META mechs. But for someone that likes to think outside the box they look like a lot of fun. After i buy this last Cataphract 3D for my tri-fecta of mechs, the thunder bolt is on my shopping list

Edited by JC Daxion, 03 February 2014 - 10:42 PM.

[Victor Morson]

JC Daxion, on 03 February 2014 - 10:38 PM, said:

I have often thought that we should beable to have more armor on certain mechs, and able to place it in different locations....


aka, if you are a cat pilot, you could beef up the center, or a HBK, the hunch.. I think certain mechs should have higher values on certain area's to help vary mechs.. Perhaps some mechs have super strong arms.. or other's you could beef up the legs, Sure a big balance, but i have often thought that armor should be something we could add more of.

The difference isn't armor values (except on 'mechs with missile bay doors; this does play into the Cent 9A's durability a bit if you get tricky with it), but rather hit boxes. Some 'mechs - like the Hunch you mention - have really bad hit boxes. That's why the Jagermech is a "glass canon" despite not having that much of an armor disadvantage; even after the hitbox rescaling, it's super easy to pop through side torso blows.

This is also a big culprit of why a 'mech like the Awesome is extremely flimsy despite having satisfactory armor. Or why a Spider seems to shrug off damage, while a Locust seems to attract it like a magnet.

'mech hit boxes can change a 'mech's usefulness entirely, as can it's artistic design, something I don't think some people in the design process fully appreciate. (i.e. the super high shoulder mount on the Shadow Hawk is a huge advantage that came from the art.)

Edited by Victor Morson, 03 February 2014 - 10:43 PM.

[Tesunie]

Koniving, on 03 February 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

Per weight class... We already have that. It's why we have the armor issue in the first place, one set armor maximum per weight class. But before I continue, remember that internal structure in tabletop isn't half armor. It's actually a set value per weight class.

Spoiler

Example: Jagermech (paper thin armor) and Thunderbolt (super armor) if stripped of the armor can handle identical abuse. The Jagermech has more structure health than armor. But its maximum armor can never be what the Thunderbolt has because the body just isn't designed to carry it.<br></p><p><br></p><p>Remember that a Locust and a Jenner D actually have identical armor stock. 128. The Locust and the Jenner D will continue to have an identical max armor (228). Even so, the Jenner being 35 tons has more structure health. So once the armor is gone the Locust is as good as dead, while the Jenner can still take abuse. The low armor isn't the case with all Jenners, just the most powerful Jenner that has low armor to carry those missiles.</p><p><br></p><p>Locust and Jenner D start out the same, they end the same with this idea in terms of armor.</p><p>In MWO's current system the Locust is useless with only 10 more armor possible, the Jenner can carry 110 more armor without sacrificing the launcher or anything else.</p><p><br></p><p>Blackjack and Centurion A and D variants start out with 272 armor. With + 100 they wind up at the same level as stock, 372 and on par with each other.</p><p>In MWO's current system, Blackjack can only get 306. Centurion can get 338. They don't end up the same.</p><p><br></p><p>Jagermech S starts with 192 armor. +100 concept, 292. Can't brawl due to low armor, has superior firepower, fights long range, plays support. In this case it would still have 42 CT structure, 30 ST structure, 20 Arm structure and 30 leg structure (total of 220 structure) even if it only has 292 armor total with the proposed max.</p><p>Catapult C1 starts with 320 armor. MWO maxes it to 422. +100 concept, 420. Decent firepower, decent armor, jack of trades. Still has 220 structure.</p><p>Thunderbolt 5S starts with 416 armor. MWO maxes it to 422. That's 6 difference. + 100 concept, 516. Incredible armor. Bad firepower and heat. Designated tank. Still has 220 structure.</p><p>Jager to Catapult difference: 128 maintained from stock to max. Jager to Thunderbolt difference 224 maintained from stock to max.</p><p><br></p><p>MWO maxes Jager to 422 (HOLY O_O). That's 230 difference from its stock (that's 130 more than it'd get from me). Puts super firepower + amazing armor into instant meta rig of super deadliness. Instant brawler. Heavy AC/40 abuse. Ghost heat required.</p><p>MWO maxes C1 to 422. That's a 122 difference. Catapult doesn't perform all that well. It can't compete with the super Jager. Obsolete.</p><p>MWO maxes Thunderbolt to 422. That's a 6 point of armor difference. Thunderbolt; known for its superior armor for a 65 ton heavy with armor comparable to a Stalker...can't have armor comparable to a stalker. Can't be a designated tank. Hasn't got the firepower to be the brawler it's supposed to be. Is inferior in every way. Now is dead on arrival and garbage before it begins.</p><p><br></p><p>Notice the difference here?

I think you didn't get what I meant. Take your idea, but have it by a weight class. Maybe, +50 points over stock armor values for light mechs. +75 points more armor avalible over stock for mediums. +100 points for Heavies. +125 points for assaults. (Just example numbers.)

This means that, if an Atlas 2 has 200 points stock (just random number, hold on with me here), it would have 325 points max. But if Atlas 2O had 150 points of armor stock, it would have 275 max armor available.

Don't know. I just think a flat number might favor lights too much, and a percentage will favor assaults...

[Tesunie]

Victor Morson, on 03 February 2014 - 10:36 PM, said:

Long story short is neither.


Anyone telling you otherwise is simply incorrect.

Okay, you present good choices, but fail to answer the posters questions. He was wondering between two chassis (though it doesn't hurt to mention other rides as well). However, telling him neither is not an answer. I personally have had, and continue to have, very good luck with my Stalker. It continues to preform very well in every match I play in it, even in "poor" matches, it still normally get at least 300 damage, often more. (These are PUG matches.) Just because you don't like the Stalker, doesn't make it a bad choice. (Same for the Centurion, for whatever reason.)


And once more, cue the attitude. You give decent advice, and then ruin it with this ego you ooze out. The Stalker and Centurion are still very viable and good rides, even if they don't match the current meta. They can work very well, playing style and preferences dependent. Though the Shadowhawk, Victor and Highlander are also very good choices, that doesn't invalidate the Stalker and/or Centurion either.

The OP posted a question. He asked which one we feel is a better ride for what he is looking for. Between the two choices, either one is a good choice. (I wont go into why, as we've done a fairly decent job I think so far of mentioning the strengths and weaknesses of each chassis.) As far as his question is concerned, which one to you feel is a better ride? The Stalker, or the Centurion. After answering that, THEN you should go into other choices and why they might make a better option instead, if he wished to. (Personally, I don't like how the Victor or Highlander look, but I love my war blimp... I mean mobile fortress... ah... I mean Stalker...)

Victor Morson, on 03 February 2014 - 10:41 PM, said:

(i.e. the super high shoulder mount on the Shadow Hawk is a huge advantage that came from the art.)

And was there in lore, models, description, other art... It's a signature part of the Shadowhawk. (Just mentioning.)

It's like the tall and wide Awesome. It's part of the mech as that is how the mech looks. You are in part correct. The art was done without consideration to a 3D environment. This has lead to certain things when it is converted into a 3D concept, giving some machines more or less advantages because of their very design and looks. (Basically, I don't know if you where, but don't place any blame on the PGI art staff. If anything, blame lore, and classic BT, and the novels...)

[Victor Morson]

Tesunie, on 03 February 2014 - 11:20 PM, said:

Okay, you present good choices, but fail to answer the posters questions. He was wondering between two chassis (though it doesn't hurt to mention other rides as well). However, telling him neither is not an answer. I personally have had, and continue to have, very good luck with my Stalker. It continues to preform very well in every match I play in it, even in "poor" matches, it still normally get at least 300 damage, often more. (These are PUG matches.) Just because you don't like the Stalker, doesn't make it a bad choice. (Same for the Centurion, for whatever reason.)

The Stalker could be worse. If you're willing to spend money on a Misery in particular. It's not a terrible 'mech, like the Awesome, don't get me wrong.

But he was trying to chose between them for armor & firepower. Neither are the best option for both; one has firepower, the other has legendary hard to kill status. I told him 'mechs that do in fact have both, in spades, do with it what he will.

Tesunie, on 03 February 2014 - 11:20 PM, said:

And once more, cue the attitude. You give decent advice, and then ruin it with this ego you ooze out. The Stalker and Centurion are still very viable and good rides, even if they don't match the current meta. They can work very well, playing style and preferences dependent. Though the Shadowhawk, Victor and Highlander are also very good choices, that doesn't invalidate the Stalker and/or Centurion either.

He wants to know what's good, which I would assume would mean "what is good in the game currently." I told him the best 'mechs in the game. If he really wants a Stalker or Centurion anyway, he could definitely do worse. They're both B grade 'mechs; there's plenty of worse choices out there. But there are better ones, and that's what my answer provides.

Tesunie, on 03 February 2014 - 11:20 PM, said:

The OP posted a question. He asked which one we feel is a better ride for what he is looking for. Between the two choices, either one is a good choice. (I wont go into why, as we've done a fairly decent job I think so far of mentioning the strengths and weaknesses of each chassis.) As far as his question is concerned, which one to you feel is a better ride? The Stalker, or the Centurion. After answering that, THEN you should go into other choices and why they might make a better option instead, if he wished to. (Personally, I don't like how the Victor or Highlander look, but I love my war blimp... I mean mobile fortress... ah... I mean Stalker...)

And was there in lore, models, description, other art... It's a signature part of the Shadowhawk. (Just mentioning.)

Really pressed between the two, I'd say the Centurion. It's far, far harder to kill and isn't so handicapped by Ghost Heat like the Stalker is. But like I said, neither are horrible, but they're just not great either.

Tesunie, on 03 February 2014 - 11:20 PM, said:

It's like the tall and wide Awesome. It's part of the mech as that is how the mech looks. You are in part correct. The art was done without consideration to a 3D environment. This has lead to certain things when it is converted into a 3D concept, giving some machines more or less advantages because of their very design and looks. (Basically, I don't know if you where, but don't place any blame on the PGI art staff. If anything, blame lore, and classic BT, and the novels...)

I'm not placing blame on the art staff, but rather the fact the 'mech design team doesn't seem to understand why these things are strengths and weaknesses, or why they are huge problems.

Take the Shadow Hawk: I highly doubt that PGI would have released the very, very best 'mech in Project Phoenix first - rather than as apart of Saber - if they had realized it.

The fact is if you have a 'mech with it's art seriously impacting the 'mech, you have to address it in some way, is all I meant. Here's an even better example of what I mean: What on Earth are they going to do with the Madcat's launchers? This is probably cleanest example of how you need to balance around the visual design. If those things are seriously kept as Right Torso/Left Torso hitboxes, it will be a broken, broken piece of junk.

What I'm saying is if they are going to make a 'mech as wide as a house with low slung guns, they better give it some unique armor buffs or extra special hardpoints/quirks to make up for it, or it ends up really bad - see the Awesome, may it RIP. The Jagermech is a classic example of a 'mech with just that - terrible hit boxes, but saved by it's high-gun design (again, something not even considered by the original art) and unique ability to haul 2 AC/20 it shares only with the K2; but I think this was more fluke luck than intention.

This is really off topic at this point, but I think you get the general drift of what I'm saying. The art itself is fantastic, but it needs to be taken into consideration just as much as armor points and engine rating on the design side; since it was not, it needs to be taken into consideration by the pilot looking to buy a 'mech, instead.

Edited by Victor Morson, 03 February 2014 - 11:43 PM.

[AngerMaker]

Ok hi guys I've heard mixed replys about my mechs I chose I might get but I've heard things about others at first I just wanted either the stalker or centurion but I so so many threads that changed my mind in fact I'm gonna check out of all the mechs (6,000,000 to 7,000,000) what would be GOOD thanks again

[Turist0AT]

oooh, battlemaster vs stalker, now thats a tough one. Stalker is still more durable. They are completly different mechs, one is humanoid and the other is a chicken walker.

If you dont mind diyng litle more i would say take Battlemaster.
(BLR-1G;XL)You can have: 2ERPPC, for long range +4ML for hill hump + LPL 2AC5 arms for brawls. all in one packade.
But in Stalker (5M;STD) you can have: 2ERPPC +2MPL +1LPL(zombie lazer) +5Streaks(with BAP)

So hard to choose and Stlaker 5S has dual AMS.

Edited by Turist0AT, 04 February 2014 - 02:22 AM.

[Turist0AT]

AngerMaker, on 04 February 2014 - 02:18 AM, said:

Ok hi guys I've heard mixed replys about my mechs I chose I might get but I've heard things about others at first I just wanted either the stalker or centurion but I so so many threads that changed my mind in fact I'm gonna check out of all the mechs (6,000,000 to 7,000,000) what would be GOOD thanks again

Orions falls in that price range. They are like mini atlases but not so mini. Very deadly mechs.
Victors are slightly above 7mil, they to are super duper awsome. they come with Jay Jays! (Better than orion in my opinion)

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Yep, Victors are pretty mean. Jump jets, dual AC, dual PPC, ride Victor Morson's wet dreams to victory.

For Heavies, the Cataphract is probably your best mix of firepower and survivability. Honourable mention to the Jaeger for troll potential.

Mediums - Shadowhawk, Wolverine (when it's out), Centurion.

Lights - Jenner, Spider. The new Firestarter (cautious optimism about the lovechild of the SDR and JR7), when that's out for c-bills.

[Victor Morson]

Why Wolverine over Griffin? The Griffin can Streak as well as the Streak Hawk (better, actually, with a tight SSRM grouping) and LRM better than the LRM Shadow Hawk, so there's a role for it out there. It'd even make a badass replacement for the C9A if SRMs get good.

But the Wolverine really has yet to impress me. It's not horrible or anything, but it's just so... middle of the road.

[Tesunie]

AngerMaker, on 04 February 2014 - 02:18 AM, said:

Ok hi guys I've heard mixed replys about my mechs I chose I might get but I've heard things about others at first I just wanted either the stalker or centurion but I so so many threads that changed my mind in fact I'm gonna check out of all the mechs (6,000,000 to 7,000,000) what would be GOOD thanks again

If you can get past his godliness, Victor makes some very good points about Highlanders and Victors (as well as Shadowhawks and others).

(He always makes good points, and then ruins it's reception with a huge does of attitude. If he could just tame that "holier than thou" concept, he would have some really great stuff.)

Personally, I like my Hunchback 4SP, Dragons, Quickdraws, and Stalker 3F (and others too). But then again, I tend to like my LRMs as well, which isn't everyone's "cup of tea". I found I didn't like the Battlemaster all that much, and much rather use the Stalker chassis over the Battlemaster. This is of course my preference.

I've heard good things about Orions, Highlanders and Victors, but never used them all that much. Jagermechs can be a lot of fun if you like direct fire ACs, such as the infamous dual AC20 setup. There is even a missile variant (which I never got to use before I realize the Jagermech wasn't for me). Cataphrats still seem popular and common on the field, and can pack a good punch on them (even though they are ugly if you asked me).


If you really want us to help you pick a mech that will probably be good for you, describe how you like to play. What weapons do you like to use? What range do you want to be at (in their face, back a ways, indirect fire)? Do you feel the "need for speed"? When you are taking damage, do you tend to twist your torso around to shift it to better sections? Etc.

[Tesunie]

Victor Morson, on 04 February 2014 - 07:06 AM, said:

Why Wolverine over Griffin?

I don't know. Preference maybe? Maybe he's got a really mean custom on his Wolverine?