Jump to content

Firestarter Chassis Available For Mc


105 replies to this topic

#21 SweetJackal

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 968 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 12:21 PM

View PostProsperity Park, on 11 February 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

Well, I really think the extra 5 tons to upgrade from a ECM Spider to an ECM Firestarter would have been worth the cost for the 4 additional weapons mounts.

Well, it's more like comparing "1 ECM Firestarter, 2 Firestarter/Jenners and 1 Victor" VS "2 Spiders (1 ECM capable), 1 Jenner/Firestarter and 1 Highlander" once tonnage limits hits.

It's not a question of 5 or 10 tons for the hardpoints but instead how well those hardpoints could be used compared to what mechs could be traded up to.

In the end, atleast a bit debatable.

Edited by SuckyJack, 11 February 2014 - 12:22 PM.


#22 TercieI

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 8,028 posts
  • LocationThe Far Country

Posted 11 February 2014 - 12:22 PM

View PostProsperity Park, on 11 February 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:


Actually, it' time to give the Jenner-F an other module slot to make it balanced. We are past the time where ML Jenners ruled the field, and we no longer need to penalize the Jenner-F in the face of other ML Boats.


<shrug>

I hate the fact that all the new 'mechs have exactly 2 module slots. While some of the old ones could do with more or less, I fear if they touch any, they'll just say "everybody gets two," further robbing variants of character.

Edited by Terciel1976, 11 February 2014 - 12:23 PM.


#23 Magitek

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ominous
  • The Ominous
  • 128 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 12:23 PM

I really want artwork. I miss the artwork.

#24 mack sabbath

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 1,073 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationTin Pan Alley

Posted 11 February 2014 - 12:23 PM

Why the hell did they tease that an ECM variant was considered, when clearly, PGI refuse to make any new ECM mechs since forever ago?

Sheesh....

#25 dragnier1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Covert
  • The Covert
  • 1,054 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 12:24 PM

View PostProsperity Park, on 11 February 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

Jenner can shoot over obstacles and out of water - the Firestarter has low arms. THAT's the difference, there. Do you want more motion, or the ability to shoot over terrain?

Don't forget the firestarters' arms can move sideways. That's an added bonus in dogfights.

Edit: Ah nvm, just remembered the added mobility of jenners makes up for it

Edited by dragnier1, 11 February 2014 - 12:27 PM.


#26 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,089 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 12:29 PM

View PostProsperity Park, on 11 February 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:


Actually, it' time to give the Jenner-F an other module slot to make it balanced. We are past the time where ML Jenners ruled the field, and we no longer need to penalize the Jenner-F in the face of other ML Boats.


Actually if each mech variant's maximum armor values were based stock values + an amount (say stock + 100 = new max), the Jenner F would outclass all the Firestarters in terms of armor.

The Raven 4X would also outclass them. And even the 2X would outclass the Raven 3-L in armor in exchange for its slower speed.

But so long as the armor advantages of various mech variants are completely lost with armor equality, PGI will have to resort to goofy ideas to try and balance things that wouldn't need it if done intelligently.

#27 Hobo Dan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 597 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationWest Virginia

Posted 11 February 2014 - 12:31 PM

Am I crazy to suggest running a large STD Engine to make a Zombie Firestarter?

My experience with the Ember suggests this may be beastly...

Edited by Hobo Dan, 11 February 2014 - 01:15 PM.


#28 Monsoon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,631 posts
  • LocationToronto, On aka Kathil

Posted 11 February 2014 - 12:31 PM

S1 with ECM variant?

Denied!

Ah well, stick it on the list with the GRF-2N, of variants people are hoping for at some point.

#29 SweetJackal

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 968 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 12:32 PM

View PostKoniving, on 11 February 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:


Actually if each mech variant's maximum armor values were based stock values + an amount (say stock + 100 = new max), the Jenner F would outclass all the Firestarters in terms of armor.

As pointed out before this design completely wrecks Heavy and Assault Mechs since they have very low variances under that formula and would give massive boons to light mechs.

#30 Yiazmat

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 531 posts
  • LocationCentral CA

Posted 11 February 2014 - 12:34 PM

View PostSpiralFace, on 11 February 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

sweet.

I'm interested to see what that 9k does on the field.

6 energy hard points in arms with lower arm actuators and 2 in the chest....

Seems pretty nasty to me.


Over rated. The arms on the FS9 come off in almost every game i play. rather not have 75% of my guns in my shields

#31 Ngamok

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 5,033 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationLafayette, IN

Posted 11 February 2014 - 12:34 PM

View PostDie Primate Die, on 11 February 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

Why the hell did they tease that an ECM variant was considered, when clearly, PGI refuse to make any new ECM mechs since forever ago?

Sheesh....


Don't think they did, did they?

#32 Ransack

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,175 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 12:35 PM

Booo! I wanted to retire my Tin Man Commando. Oh well, I still like the chassis, so will buy when available for C-Bills.

#33 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,089 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 12:41 PM

View PostSuckyJack, on 11 February 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

As pointed out before this design completely wrecks Heavy and Assault Mechs since they have very low variances under that formula and would give massive boons to light mechs.


Light mechs are one-shottable even after said boosts. The most gimped heavies and assaults get massive buffs; the Awesome outclassing the Stalker in armor. The Victor suffering the armor of heavy mechs. The Dragon outclassing 2 out of 3 chassis in the 65 ton range despite being a 60 ton mech and outclassing the 2 out of 4 Victor variants. The Quickdraw getting a much needed buff though still clearly outclassed by the Dragon in armor (the Dragon even with the armor superiority in the 60 ton league is still inferior in ranged offensive ability and maneuverability to the Quickdraw, balancing the whole thing out.)

Hunchbacks would be able to compete with 55, 60 and 65 tonners in armor. Shadowhawks; 2 out of 3 variants yield to the superiority of the Hunchback. (Meanwhile at original pre-buff medium mech engines, the Shadowhawks outclass Hunchbacks in speed and firepower potential and suddenly the very long-ranged focus of the stock weapons for a Shadowhawk make sense; one of the three variants has the armor of a light mech! The other has the armor of a Blackjack or Centurion A / D).

And if you're worried about Centurions, while two Centurions (A and D) get less armor both outclass many of the Hunchbacks in firepower, the A outclasses it in manueverability even with the same engine limit, and the D is a lot faster. Meanwhile the Centurion AL and the Wang both outclass the Hunchbacks in armor in exchange for their offensive inferiority. A trait completely lost in MWO's current system.

Overall, 100% of lore's original intention of armor differences between mechs is 100% maintained from stock to maximum armor. The only removal is PGI's meddling (and the tabletop universal armor rule which exists for the creation of original mechs).

In the end, the game and ultimately the meta becomes choosing mechs and variants based on the choices of speed, firepower, armor, or some combination.



Instead of speed, firepower, speed and firepower, or being completely gimped with something mostly useless as it's qualifying trait (armor) can be put on anything.

Edited by Koniving, 12 February 2014 - 02:55 PM.


#34 Mordin Ashe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,505 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 12:53 PM

View PostYiazmat, on 11 February 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

The arms on the FS9 come off in almost every game i play.

Don't blame people for shooting your arms off. They were aiming for your CT, you know. Be glad hit detection makes your arms go away instead of your CT.

Anyway, many energy hardpoints would make this an excellent small arms boat - small lasers, flamers and this stuff. The problem is, to use those well one has to remain in close distance from the enemy (not further than 90m) which can kill you very fast. Either way, still a perfect trolling mech.

#35 Corvus Antaka

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 8,270 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationInner Sphere

Posted 11 February 2014 - 12:55 PM

View PostProsperity Park, on 11 February 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

I guess the FS9-S1 would have obsolesced the Spider...

(it has ECM and JJs, but far more weapons than a Spider)


They should release it, but with a max engine rating of like XL 255 to give it a drawback.

This looks great. One thing ive noticed is every variant has the same arm range, torso pitch, etc. varying these on a per variant basis by 1-10 points depending on hardpoint locations & weapons would give each variant a more unique flavour.

#36 Belorion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 5,341 posts
  • LocationEast Coast

Posted 11 February 2014 - 12:55 PM

Any talk of whether we are getting this one and one of the Saber mechs next patch?

#37 SpiralFace

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 1,151 posts
  • LocationAlshain

Posted 11 February 2014 - 01:02 PM

My guess is that they will probably come either next month or the one after.

I'm sure they want to give those that bought the saber packages SOME time with their toys before the others do to justify the premium price they paid to get them.

We'll see though. My opinion? we have enough medium mechs out there even without the saber packs. I would hope we get another assault, light, or Heavy before throwing even more 55 ton mechs out into the field.

#38 627

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 4,571 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 01:22 PM

View PostKoniving, on 11 February 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:


Light mechs are one-shottable even after said boosts. The most gimped heavies and assaults get massive buffs; the Awesome outclassing the Stalker in armor. The Victor suffering the armor of heavy mechs. The Dragon outclassing 2 out of 3 chassis in the 65 ton range despite being a 60 ton mech and outclassing the 2 out of 4 Victor variants. The Quickdraw getting a much needed buff though still clearly outclassed by the Dragon in armor.

Hunchbacks would be able to compete with 55, 60 and 65 tonners in armor. Shadowhawks; 2 out of 3 variants yield to the superiority of the Hunchback.

Overall, 100% of lore's original intention of armor differences between mechs is 100% maintained from stock to maximum armor. The only removal is PGI's meddling.

In the end, it becomes choosing mechs and variants based on speed, firepower, or armor. Instead of speed or firepower.


This is definitely an interesting idea for a quirk system. I doubt PGI has the courage to make such a big change to all existing mechs, though. QQ would be insane.

Poor jagermech ;)

#39 Cimarb

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,912 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationA hop, skip and jump from Terra

Posted 11 February 2014 - 01:31 PM

View Post627, on 11 February 2014 - 01:22 PM, said:


This is definitely an interesting idea for a quirk system. I doubt PGI has the courage to make such a big change to all existing mechs, though. QQ would be insane.

Poor jagermech ;)

PGI (maybe Paul?) has already stated that there will be additional quirks, such as a bonus to armor, coming eventually. That will mean "tanky" mechs will have a boost to their armor of say 5-10%, while "scout" type mechs will have a penalty to the same.

Btw, Did they fix the camo for Ember yet? I am really annoyed that changing camo colors does almost nothing to the mech, since 90% of it is a bluish-grey that you can't change...

Edited by Cimarb, 11 February 2014 - 01:32 PM.


#40 Solis Obscuri

    Don't Care How I Want It Now!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,745 posts
  • LocationPomme de Terre

Posted 11 February 2014 - 01:47 PM

View PostProsperity Park, on 11 February 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

Jenner can shoot over obstacles and out of water - the Firestarter has low arms. THAT's the difference, there. Do you want more motion, or the ability to shoot over terrain?

So far as hardpoints, it's a wash - the JR7-F already runs about as damn hot as I'd want any light 'mech to run. The Firestarter seems to have much more forgiving hitboxes from what I've seen so far, though, which makes it the stronger choice overall.

View PostProsperity Park, on 11 February 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:

Actually, it' time to give the Jenner-F an other module slot to make it balanced. We are past the time where ML Jenners ruled the field, and we no longer need to penalize the Jenner-F in the face of other ML Boats.
Should do the same for the CPLT-K2 - or else give it some more energy slots. Being a heavy 'mechs with 6 MPLas is no longer anything resembling a balance problem.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users