186 replies to this topic

[Xiphias]

Victor Morson, on 05 February 2014 - 02:44 AM, said:

The biggest thing is the Ember is only really useful with MGs, and MGs are kind of terrible yet. So this model is going to be pretty ho-hum once the other Firestarters are available to compare it to.

There is one that should sport 6 energy, 2 missile hardpoints and of course the 8 energy hardpoint monster we're talking about. Absolutely brutal.

I think the Ember will quickly fall to the side in favor of those.

Machine guns aren't terrible. They're actually pretty good in large groups, especially in the Firestarter's config.

Greater effective range than SL 120/240m vs 90/180m
DPS of a small laser 1.00 DPS/sec
Crit DPS is significantly higher
0 Heat generation
Ability to strip components
Ability to sustain fire

The biggest problem with the Jenner-F is the heat management. 5 ML is not bad, 6 ML is quite hot, but doable. 8 ML is going to be completely over the top in terms of heat. Between having fewer heat sinks and having to deal with ghost heat you might be able to get a few shots off, but it will suffer a lot at close range.

Compare these two builds:
EMBER
FS9-A

Both of these run 4 ML, the Ember has 4 MGs and the other has 4 SL instead,

Max DPS for both of these is 9.00. Sustained DPS is 7.30 for the Ember (without crits) and 3.87 for the other. Unlike the Spider 5K them Ember, particularly in groups, has enough firepower to strip the armor off of heavy mechs. Once this happens MGs will strip out components and kill the section faster than any other weapon that a light can mount.

The other advantage of MGs is that the sustained fire means that there is never a recycle time to peek and shoot during. In part because of their spread MGs do a good job at hitting crit side torsos on Jenners and other mechs.

The Ember maintains good heat efficiency and ranged fire using 4ML, while also gaining a sustained 4 DPS at close range. This is DPS that you can always fire even when at max heat. That point is huge.

The biggest constraint on the Firestarter is the crit slots. That's where the lack of a 300XL really comes into play. You don't have the extra free slot for the heatsinks. There should be some other good variants of the Firestarter, but the Ember is a beast when it comes to sustained damage output. I see this variant also being usable: FS9-H (substitute BAP or extra JJ for AMS per taste).

[Faith McCarron]

8ML with 13 DHS might not be sustainable in a brawl, but that's not what this thing will be for. With the seismic nerf, A LOT of people just don't take it anymore. This, combined with how oblivious most assault/missile boat pilots are, this thing will park behind an assault/Lurmboat and hit it with a 40 point alpha to the back, then run away to cool off while looking for the next oblivious big boy.

[z00med]

kensie, on 05 February 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

Looking to run the firestarter ember as this any thoughts on whether it would be a good build? Just got the ember today but trying to decide exactly what to do with it.

Without owing one, I'd say stick with 4MG, 4ML (standard build from what I saw) to get used to it. Looks like that single AC2 costs you a lot of speed and brawling firepower. In case you like the shallow Fotm taste in your mouth, 2PPCs may also work (given that you like beeing a poptart that pops quite fast out existence as soon as anything comes near it^^).

edit: I am seriously tempted to get one now... daaaamnnn... ^^

edit2: Anyone has an info about the other variants? Will the one with ECM available? (asking because I wanted to play lights again anyways (I am mostly over the severe psychological trauma the locust inflicted on me ), so I'd like something that would also give me the opportunity to finally try out ECM (after learning the counters the hard way...)

Edited by z00med, 05 February 2014 - 10:43 AM.

[Fang01]

Hammerhai, on 05 February 2014 - 02:47 AM, said:

It excels at picking off isolated enemies. It also seems to lose its arms a bit quickly, but when you find Wispsy in your group ... well the guys know how to aim presumably. That may have something to do with it. Other than that I cannot comment too much. Oh, and I really do not know how I got into that ELO level, other than that some ppl I dropped with must be very high then. Or Match maker really works at balancing.

Edit: And yes, the Ember will fall by the wayside when the other models come onstream. But then most Heroes I have bought have been indifferent-ish in comparison, so much so that my avg earnings with boost often barely matched the normal variants earnings a significant amount of the time.

No P2W here, move along ...

I saw him running with a pack of them last night in mordor. He might have been the guy I legged and then called artillery on...

[ApolloKaras]

What bugs me is, that they put in the patch notes that they were going to buff the Flamer and the narc. Flamers were supposed to get the target up to 90% quicker. Also that Narc was going to break through ecm (only on the mech that was hit with narc), and wouldnt fall off due to damage. I'm wondering why that was removed. The Flamer buff would have been great with the Ember

After the patch went live they Ninja'd it out of the patch notes.

[z00med]

z00med, on 05 February 2014 - 10:36 AM, said:

Without owing one, I'd say stick with 4MG, 4ML (standard build from what I saw) to get used to it. Looks like that single AC2 costs you a lot of speed and brawling firepower. In case you like the shallow Fotm taste in your mouth, 2PPCs may also work (given that you like beeing a poptart that pops quite fast out existence as soon as anything comes near it^^).

edit: I am seriously tempted to get one now... daaaamnnn... ^^

edit2: Anyone has an info about the other variants? Will the one with ECM available ("S1", as far as I remember)? (asking because I wanted to play lights again anyways (I am mostly over the severe psychological trauma the locust inflicted on me ), so I'd like something that would also give me the opportunity to finally try out ECM (after learning the counters the hard way... )

edit:sorry, I have no idea why this attempt of an edit appears as a new post...

Edited by z00med, 05 February 2014 - 10:47 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Well I didn't think the Oxide was gimped as some have suggested on this thread but the Ember is frightening.


what makes the difference between the ember and other lights

Is the 4ml 4 mg combo, it strips armour faster than a spider, with a single energy point, and 4mg its faster less of a target than a raven the only other balistic light

This thing is the illy of the lights.

Can keep the 8 energy mounts and ECM variants

This thing rocks.

[Bront]

Wriath, on 05 February 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

Have most of the people calling it op not driven it? It handles like a brick. Granted I don't yet have double basics, but the thing handles like a max engine TBT-3C. The jenner, and especially the lighter mechs (mando, spider) can make this thing feel like a medium if they're good.

Most non-elited mechs do though.

[Latorque]

well; even if it is; it's a refreshing change to see another indestructible light than the ubiquitous spider... i'm starting to have nightmares about those.

[Jetfire]

Actually the firestarter doesn't seem superior to the Jenner in terms of manueverability. It does not feel like a ninja.

I am interested to try my BJ-1X build on the energy variant though, 2x flamers, 4x mlas, 2x mplas. Flank and Harrass for the big boys.

[Victor Morson]

Modo44, on 05 February 2014 - 02:56 AM, said:

No, it should not. That would really make all other lights irrelevant.

I was thinking of the FS9-C, which I now realize is oddly a 3064 'mech, so fortunately we won't be getting it.

I wasn't saying "I want that because it'd be cool!" but rather "It's likely coming because there's a variant like that." Fortunately, i was in error on the year, so we won't have what would be - as you say - a very nasty version of the Firestarter.

Adiuvo, on 05 February 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

Competitively, nobody is going to run 8MLs. Yes, the hardpoints make that possible, but its better to use the S variant for a laserboat. It can run 5ML with an XL295 like a normal Jenner, but the kicker is its ability to mount double AMS. This is invaluable both during pug play and comp play, due to the prevalence of streaks.

I bet you're going to see a lot of good SL boats in there though. I'm not sure how 8SL would do overall on a light, but different combos like 3 Med/5 Small might really take off that the current Jenner can't do.

That said, I entirely agree with you. The Jenner is about to be entirely replaced as top dog of the lights. It had a good run, holding that title since day 1 of closed beta! heh

[Draconis March]

Mutaroc, on 05 February 2014 - 05:46 AM, said:

The OXIDE is OP.

Any other light mech will run away when they see the oxide.

LOL @ liking your own post.

Anyways, I'm mostly curious about the double-AMS one.

Edited by Draconis March, 05 February 2014 - 12:13 PM.

[Koniving]

aniviron, on 05 February 2014 - 02:09 AM, said:

Edit: I forgot to add, the FS9 series is smaller than a Raven, but without the laughably terrible hitboxes that make the Ravens suicide machines.

Ghost heat problem fixed. Build made deadlier.

The Ember is as tall as an Atlas's waist, taller than a Spider, thicker than a Spider, and a Spider is taller than a Raven.
It just isn't as 'long' as a Raven, otherwise they're about the same surface area. The Ember's (and thus the Firestarter's) cockpit is easier to hit (got headshot in a light for the first time in a year while going 150 kph).

Also, don't forget the Raven's hitbox design makes it very resistant to lasers while it moves in its trademark hopping hobble. Its legs however were made super easy to hit to fix that. Meanwhile the Jenner's legs are hard to hit without streaks, but its center torso is as large as a Spider from Pelvis to Cockpit and Shoulder to Shoulder.

The Ember's hitboxes however are quite simple.
_O
/| || |\
Fairly straight forward. LT is LT, RT is RT, CT is CT. What it has are simple hitboxes. Its Dragon / Centurion walk/run animations give it no special movement traits either, so LT hits go to the LT instead of accidentally being taken to the RT or CT as often happens with bouncier lights such as Ravens and Locusts.

Honestly there wouldn't be any overpowered talk if PGI didn't make it so that all mechs of the same weight could have the same armor.

Spoiler

Ever noticed they don't start with identical armor? Why should they end with identical armor? Structure is universal, if one mech has 121 points of structure then another of the same weight should too.

But armor, Jagermech S as an example versus the Thunderbolt 9S.

Jagermech S has 192 armor and is known for paper thin armor and long range firepower. Thunderbolt 9S, stock, comes with more armor than is even possible in MWO for a 65 ton mech. Yet both can be made to have the same amount of armor when the Jagermech's weapon potential is vastly superior to the Thunderbolt in every way. Meanwhile the Thunderbolt, known for being a damage soak and tanking enemy fire "like an assault mech would", can't do jack because the 9S can't even have its stock armor levels which would make it half a ton short of a stalker's stock armor.

[Modo44]

I could see TAG being a thing on this mech, seeing how 8 of any energy weapon will likely be too hot because of limited heatsink space. Even with 7, it does not look too good.

[Drunken Bunny]

kensie, on 05 February 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

Looking to run the firestarter ember as this any thoughts on whether it would be a good build? Just got the ember today but trying to decide exactly what to do with it.

Don't know how that would play to be honest but if you want to run it you're going to have to find a way to max the armor on the legs. Most people know to shoot lights in the legs and with that ammo in there you're begging to be gimped. Most of my runs in this bad boy, arms and legs are first to take a beating. Have fun experimenting!

[aniviron]

Koniving, on 05 February 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

Ghost heat problem fixed. Build made deadlier.

I dunno, you're giving up a lot of range in that trade. I have no real issues with the 6xMLAS JR7-F, and I think you could play the FS9 the same way. If things get a little hot, you can even switch to two groups of four and dodge the ghost heat penalties while maintaining a symmetrical weapons profile. At this point I think it's just a matter of taste, though.

Koniving, on 05 February 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

Honestly there wouldn't be any overpowered talk if PGI didn't make it so that all mechs of the same weight could have the same armor.

Ever noticed they don't start with identical armor? Why should they end with identical armor? Structure is universal, if one mech has 121 points of structure then another of the same weight should too.

But armor, Jagermech S as an example versus the Thunderbolt 9S.

Jagermech S has 192 armor and is known for paper thin armor and long range firepower. Thunderbolt 9S, stock, comes with more armor than is even possible in MWO for a 65 ton mech. Yet both can be made to have the same amount of armor when the Jagermech's weapon potential is vastly superior to the Thunderbolt in every way. Meanwhile the Thunderbolt, known for being a damage soak and tanking enemy fire "like an assault mech would", can't do jack because the 9S can't even have its stock armor levels which would make it half a ton short of a stalker's stock armor.

I do think this is a really good aside, and it's very relevant to this discussion. If they had thought ahead and done armor rating like engine rating where you are capped to a certain percentage over the stock variant's armor they could have fixed this problem, and there would be a lot more diversity to the mechs we see on the field. You might even see mechs like the Awesome once in a while, since it comes with nearly-maxed armor, unlike a lot of its nearest competitors.

That said, I think PGI realize this, which is why they have mentioned that they want to cap the armor of omnimechs to stock levels. It's too late though, the cat's out of the bag, and there's going to be an outcry if they change it now, since it would upend the meta in some ways. If they apply this rule to only omnis, all they're going to do is condemn some chassis (Looking at you, Kitfox) to never be played when they have to fight mechs with maxed armor that never should have had it.

[Koniving]

aniviron, on 05 February 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

I do think this is a really good aside, and it's very relevant to this discussion. If they had thought ahead and done armor rating like engine rating where you are capped to a certain percentage over the stock variant's armor they could have fixed this problem, and there would be a lot more diversity to the mechs we see on the field. You might even see mechs like the Awesome once in a while, since it comes with nearly-maxed armor, unlike a lot of its nearest competitors.

That said, I think PGI realize this, which is why they have mentioned that they want to cap the armor of omnimechs to stock levels. It's too late though, the cat's out of the bag, and there's going to be an outcry if they change it now, since it would upend the meta in some ways. If they apply this rule to only omnis, all they're going to do is condemn some chassis (Looking at you, Kitfox) to never be played when they have to fight mechs with maxed armor that never should have had it.

Indeed. What I noticed is most of the "overpowered" or "high meta" favorite rigs of "elite mechs" are the only ones to suffer from such a change.

Take the stock armor of any mech, and add 100 and say that's the new max. What happens?

Most mechs get a buff in armor by varying amounts. The "top tier" mechs by meta players, however, all get armor nerfs. By simple coincidence; by freak accident; without any effort, the most powerful, high end mechs suddenly get balanced with very small armor amounts.

An example, take the common Raven.
Raven 3-L current top tier of the Ravens. 161 armor. The 2x, unloved and slow? 208 armor. The 4x? 234.
New maxes after this:
3-L 261 (with 121 structure)
2X 308 (with 121 structure)
4X 334 (with 121 structure.)

Jagermechs?
S - 192. New max 292.
DD - 232. New max 332.
A - 256. New max 356.

Rest spoilered.

Spoiler

Commando 1-B and 2D. Start 128 (same as Jenner D). Current max, 178. New max, 228. BUFF of 50 more.
Commando 1A and 3A. Start 96. Current max, 178. New max, 196. BUFF! Buff of 18 more. (1A and 3A will likely keep engine buffs. 1-B might be brought between 2-D and the As in terms of engine limit.).

Structure levels of all mechs will remain unaffected with 89 structure health.

Locust and Jenner D, both start 128.
Locust armor turns 228.
Jenner D armor turns 228.
Locust structure is still 69.
Jenner D structure is still 119.

In both firepower and survivability it's still better to use a Jenner D, but at least the Locust can carry some armor and the rules are maintained. PGI abandoned the armor limit rule in favor of mech equality...which has completely lost the flare of the mechs and exasperated the bad weapon system designs.

Literally all mechs get a + 100 armor to stock. Nothing more, nothing less. It's an even buff to every single mech from what they were supposed to be. Even the ones that get nerfed in armor are just being brought in line with how they were originally designed to be. Even so, in the Jager S case it has more structure health than armor so it can still take more abuse than it sounds.

Atlas currently is 608. Current max is 614. If MWO keeps the same system, when certain other 100 ton heavies come along, that max is gonna reach 814 to accommodate the amount of armor they get. Then if MWO's current system continues, that structure is gonna go from 307 to 407 anyway just to accommodate that mech.

In my proposal, the Atlas goes to from 608 to 708 max (+100 like anyone else) but its structure will never change from 307. So when that bigger, badder 100 ton heavily armored assault mech comes along, even if it does get maybe 914 armor, it'll still have 307 structure. Thankfully that mech doesn't really come with good weapons or hardpoint potential.

I am looking ahead, too.


I was using Smurfy to pull up armor, and yes the commando 1A and 3A are slightly lower than a Jenner D. Remember the Jenner D is the lowest armored Jenner, but I use it as a reference because it's also the meta Jenner. The Jenner F is the most armored, identical to the Raven 4X (the heaviest armored light in MWO at the moment when considering stock).

The places of concern is with the Trebuchet, and the only hero that won't convert "kindly" to this system, the Dragon Slayer.

And yes, with alpha strike warrior I am concerned but at the same time... if you dig through Smurfy and look at the stock armor of each mech... which ones get hurt by it?

• Cataphract 3D,
  
• Victor,
  
• Shadowhawk 2H and 2D2 (the more powerful ones),
  
• Jenner D, Jenner K (the missile Jenners)
  
• Raven 3-L,
  
• all of the ultra-deadly Jagers,
  
• and a few other common meta rigs.

What gets a slight buff?

• The easy to kill Atlas (got one with a Locust!), (with +100 to all mechs, this is just maintaining the ratio across the board)
  
• Locusts,
  
• the "bad" Ravens,
  
• Commandos,
  
• (Spiders get a +2 armor buff to their current max, pfft big deal),
  
• the worst Cataphracts get buffed,
  
• the Dragons get buffed,
  
• the Quickdraws which obsoleted them get buffed but significantly less than the Dragons do,
  
• the Hunchback gets buffed in a way that makes it superior to the 50 tonners and some 55 tonners which makes up for the fact that it was supposed to be as slow as an assault,
  
• the Thunderbolt which was absolute garbage gets a huge buff that lets it tank shots like an assault as it was written to do to make up for its high heat and bad mostly-energy assortment,
  
• the Awesome gets buffed,
  
• overall, most mechs get an armor buff compared to what they are now. Some as low as 2 points, some as high as 100 points more. But all of it in ratio to what they were supposed to have in the first place, rather than a preset for a weight class.

It's a start. But ultimately even the mechs with inferior armor will still have their weight class's preset structure. Some will have more structure health than armor.

So as mentioned before, even if the Locust, Commando, Jenner D, and some Cicadas have identical armor, the 35 and 40 tonners will still take more abuse due to higher structure values. Otherwise the Cicadas would be useless.

These were just some quotes from messages hashing the idea out. Of course, there were many others and a detailed comparison of what happens to the Shadowhawk (which only the weakest yet most expensive variant of Shadowhawk that happens to start with the most armor will be the only one to compete with a Hunchback; the other two take a step down to bow to Hunchback superiority and resume their place as lore intended as ranged support, spotters, cliff-poppers, etc.) and a comparison with the three 65 ton mechs and the 60 ton mechs.

Most of all though, such a simple change would do wonders to promoting role warfare.

[Buckminster]

I think the biggest problem with the max-armor meta was that they allowed for stuff like ES, FF, DHS, and XL engines. We have all of these weight-saving measures that were never available in old-school TT, and now that we do have them the first thing people are doing is maxing armor.

It used to be a real conundrum - trying to balance the amount of weight you put towards weapons vs armor vs engine vs heat sinks. We all wanted max armor, but on a heavy mech that meant gimping your speed and weapons layout to account for the additional weight. Now? Just buy some ES and boom - max armor.

Sure, you did start to see this with the canon variants - take the Shadow Hawk 5M - but by allowing us to do it across the board things got out of hand. Then again, if they didn't allow it, then all the canon variants that didn't have ES and XL engines would be blatantly inferior.

[Buckminster]

Koniving - that's a neat idea. Allow a simple, equal buff of armor per mech variant, and you keep the flavor. It goes against the base construction rules, so I get PGIs theory, but it would have made things a LOT more interesting.

[Koniving]

Buckminster, on 05 February 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

Koniving - that's a neat idea. Allow a simple, equal buff of armor per mech variant, and you keep the flavor. It goes against the base construction rules, so I get PGIs theory, but it would have made things a LOT more interesting.

Thank you.

Though base construction rules: Technically, I think armor equality violates them too.
But seriously, have a look at the Thunderbolt 9SE's stock armor. See that left over weight? That's the missing armor that can't be allocated with armor equality. 9SE's stock armor surpasses what is allowed for a 65 ton mech in MWO.

So instead, it's left out. The only thing universally shared for all mechs of the same weight class is structure health and weight.

Edited by Koniving, 05 February 2014 - 01:27 PM.