Jump to content

Firestarter Chassis Available For Mc


105 replies to this topic

#41 RavensScar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 219 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 11 February 2014 - 01:52 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.


Going slightly off topic - I've always thought it would be interesting if FF allowed the same tonnage of armour at the reduced weight per point, as opposed to the same number of points. I wonder if that would make it a real alternative to Endo on some mechs. At present, there's no reason to take FF over Endo. The only mechs that run FF are lights with very few weapons. However, if FF actually allowed you to increase your max armour it might become a tougher decision.

#42 Garamanus

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 63 posts
  • Location260+ Ping, Australia

Posted 11 February 2014 - 01:56 PM

View PostMagic Murder Bag, on 11 February 2014 - 12:05 PM, said:



I think it's either Forest Colony, specifically one of the crates scattered near the ship or HPG manifold due to how dark the area is (forest is more grey than it is black).


I am going for Manifold because of the Stars.

Wish there was more than mainly energy hard points though, Ping 250-300 I still struggle with lazers

#43 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,069 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 02:01 PM

View PostRavensScar, on 11 February 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:


Going slightly off topic - I've always thought it would be interesting if FF allowed the same tonnage of armour at the reduced weight per point, as opposed to the same number of points. I wonder if that would make it a real alternative to Endo on some mechs. At present, there's no reason to take FF over Endo. The only mechs that run FF are lights with very few weapons. However, if FF actually allowed you to increase your max armour it might become a tougher decision.


Problem is... we currently can't equip some of the mechs with their stock armor.
Dragon 1-C, Thunderbolt 9SE, Awesome 9M, Cataphract 4X are just some examples of mechs with left over tonnage, stock, that when stripped and compared to structure weight + armor weight...is less than the stock armor of the actual mech. And the remaining difference is the weight not allocated.

But I agree, if we could equip that same weight or if Ferro had an actual benefit beyond lighter weight. However, that wouldn't be very lore-friendly.

The genuine benefit was from financial cost. Ferro armor was nearly 5 times cheaper to repair than endo steel structure. Granted with armor you always repaired it as you always took damage and Endo only had to be repaired if you took structure damage, the financial difference was tremendous. But that requires repair and rearm to mean jack.

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 ;)


Jagers have the most superior firepower of any mech currently existing with the way MWO works. Other than being removed from the brawling scene and put back to where they belonged in lore as fire support and absolutely devastating fire support at that, I don't think it'll phase them one bit. But the AC/40 rigs would change to quad AC/5s or even Gauss + AC/2s.

Edited by Koniving, 11 February 2014 - 02:04 PM.


#44 Damocles69

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 887 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 02:07 PM

goodbye jenner f. you have been replaced.

variety is for chumps anyway

#45 RavensScar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 219 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 11 February 2014 - 02:07 PM

View PostKoniving, on 11 February 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:


Problem is... we currently can't equip some of the mechs with their stock armor.
Dragon 1-C, Thunderbolt 9SE, Awesome 9M, Cataphract 4X are just some examples of mechs with left over tonnage, stock, that when stripped and compared to structure weight + armor weight...is less than the stock armor of the actual mech. And the remaining difference is the weight not allocated.



Particularly annoying on the mechs that are out by 2 points. Removing 14 points of armour from an Orion just to get a round tonnage value... ;)

How did we end up with these slightly peculiar numbers? I understand the armour per ton is doubled from TT, but I don't quite understand how that leaves us with excess tonnage. Armour values in TT were accurate to 0.5 tons, surely? (I've never been a TT player.)

#46 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,069 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 02:20 PM

View PostRavensScar, on 11 February 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:


Particularly annoying on the mechs that are out by 2 points. Removing 14 points of armour from an Orion just to get a round tonnage value... ;)

How did we end up with these slightly peculiar numbers? I understand the armour per ton is doubled from TT, but I don't quite understand how that leaves us with excess tonnage. Armour values in TT were accurate to 0.5 tons, surely? (I've never been a TT player.)


Depending on the rule book and/or the source of the mech specs, PGI used one book to get the numbers. Of course, while every book follows the same rules for structure, not all of them use the same rules for armor. Structure is universal for all mechs in the same class. Armor not so much.

One thing to note is that some of the armor limits are based on the highest point of armor that a specific mech had at the time they set it up. Some mechs exceed these. I also suspect that PGI probably tried to do steady increments between weight classes.

But yes, there's even an Orion that can't equip stock armor. And this hampers a lot of mech designs.

A stock+100 = new max armor (per variant) style concept would really even out the playing field quite a bit. Note that Structure isn't affected.

Example: Locust (all variants), Jenner D, and Cicada A all have 128 armor. Chosen for that reason. New max is 228 if stock+100 = new max. Locust, a 20 ton mech, has 61 structure (so total health is 228 armor + 61 structure). Jenner has 119 structure. Cicada has 137 structure. Cicada still lives longer than the other two.

Note that a Jenner F has 234 stock armor and 119 structure. New max with stock + 100 = 334. So while it has no missiles, it can clearly tank much better.

Some mechs were made for recon. Others for brawling. The Raven 4X isn't actually a recon but a combat mech. It's 234 stock armor (new max 334) reflects this (versus the Raven 3-L's measily 161 stock armor which has a new max of 261)

There's exactly 3 problems with this idea. Trebuchets would need some kind of buff. Poor things. Jenner K is screwed by way of PGI-made hardpoints not favoring it and its 125 stock armor and may need a buff. The Dragon Slayer is the only hero mech that doesn't fall nicely into this system; clearly demonstrating its overpowered stock nature.

#47 Reno Blade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 3,384 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 11 February 2014 - 02:42 PM

From the rulebook:
Spoiler

Edited by Reno Blade, 11 February 2014 - 02:43 PM.


#48 Killkie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 119 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 02:50 PM

The S doesn't have ECM as an equipable item? The only difference between the S and the S1 is which electronics package. Seeing as how this is a game where equipment is modular enough to...

...oh, never f'n mind... I guess you won't get my money... I'm not going to spend any time to train, what is in esense, another jenner.

#49 Killkie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 119 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 02:54 PM

View PostKillkie, on 11 February 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

The S doesn't have ECM as an equipable item? The only difference between the S and the S1 is which electronics package. Seeing as how this is a game where equipment is modular enough to...

...oh, never f'n mind... I guess you won't get my money... I'm not going to spend any time to train, what is in esense, another jenner.


I'm just glad I didn't buy ember.

#50 Felicitatem Parco

    Professor of Memetics

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,522 posts
  • LocationIs Being Obscured By ECM

Posted 11 February 2014 - 03:02 PM

View PostKillkie, on 11 February 2014 - 02:54 PM, said:


I'm just glad I didn't buy ember.

To be honest... I would have bought the Firestarter line if they released the -S1, but I intentionally held back from buying Ember upon release because I didn't know if the -S1 would be in the available line-up or not.

Posted Image

#51 Bors Mistral

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 313 posts
  • LocationMontreal

Posted 11 February 2014 - 03:03 PM

View Postdragnier1, on 11 February 2014 - 12:24 PM, said:

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

The Firestarter has the most constraining torso tilt in the game: just 15 degrees. ;(

View PostCimarb, on 11 February 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

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...

Nope, colours are still limited to mostly greyish-blue.

#52 SweetJackal

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 968 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 03:05 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.

The problem is that when you limit variance of total armor to "Stock Armor + Flat Value" you are reducing mobility at a far greater rate than you are increasing armor as you move up the weight classes. Light mechs end up receiving a boost in survivability compared to now while in many cases Assaults will face a reduction.

This design ends up decreasing TTK against larger targets, which are already slow and easy to hit.

If you wanted to do a formula anywhere near that then it would have to be a % value, which would add insurmountable amounts of armor to Assaults compared to the meager offerings lights would get.

And all of that, trying to find some hybrid balance there that doesn't break the game by bringing TT Design and Armor rules into the game in an even more complex fashion than we already have is completely pointless. Currently the TT Armor Rules for Maximum Armor generally work after minor, simple tweaking of the values.

If you want to talk about ways of improving the system then talk about Hit Location Shapes and Percents. Right now you're shooting a pipe dream that is -even worse- than what we already have by making more chassis death traps. If you want to argue that, go launch mechs with stock armor and watch how fast you melt to weapons.

More over, there has been buzzing around PGI that they want to increase the Time To Kill of the game slightly, not cut it down further.

#53 SweetJackal

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 968 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 03:09 PM

View PostRavensScar, on 11 February 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:


Going slightly off topic - I've always thought it would be interesting if FF allowed the same tonnage of armour at the reduced weight per point, as opposed to the same number of points. I wonder if that would make it a real alternative to Endo on some mechs. At present, there's no reason to take FF over Endo. The only mechs that run FF are lights with very few weapons. However, if FF actually allowed you to increase your max armour it might become a tougher decision.


Yes yes yes, I've wanted this for so long. Wouldn't break stock loadouts as all stock loadouts measure armor by Tonnes, not by points. Gives a reason for FF to actually exist and be used on builds and often brings a choice in how you build your mech.

Do you take Endo for that extra bit of firepower or ammo? Do you take FF to increase your armor cap? Do you cut back Crit Space to take both?

#54 Butane9000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,788 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

Posted 11 February 2014 - 03:18 PM

Can you tell us whether we'll see the Griffin or Wolverine this month as well as the Firestarter?

#55 SweetJackal

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 968 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 03:22 PM

View PostButane9000, on 11 February 2014 - 03:18 PM, said:

Can you tell us whether we'll see the Griffin or Wolverine this month as well as the Firestarter?

Griffin on the 18th of Feb. Wolverine on the 18th of March.

We are getting two mech chassis this month.

#56 Bront

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 4,211 posts
  • LocationInternet

Posted 11 February 2014 - 03:22 PM

View PostButane9000, on 11 February 2014 - 03:18 PM, said:

Can you tell us whether we'll see the Griffin or Wolverine this month as well as the Firestarter?

3rd tuesday we get 1 (I think the Griffin), just like the other Phoenix mechs. We'll aslo get the Firestarters for CBIlls.

#57 White Bear 84

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,857 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 03:24 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)


Yes but the spider has lag/hitdetection/magic-shield

#58 Belorion

    Member

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

Posted 11 February 2014 - 04:46 PM

View PostProsperity Park, on 11 February 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

To be honest... I would have bought the Firestarter line if they released the -S1, but I intentionally held back from buying Ember upon release because I didn't know if the -S1 would be in the available line-up or not.

Posted Image


They have had all the variants in the pilot tree...

#59 990Dreams

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,908 posts
  • LocationHotlanta

Posted 11 February 2014 - 04:51 PM

On the topic of the JR7-F, doesn't it have more torso movement?

Also, http://mwo.smurfy-ne...e6ef4bb489cc772

#60 Victor Morson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 6,370 posts
  • LocationAnder's Moon

Posted 11 February 2014 - 04:57 PM

View PostTerciel1976, on 11 February 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

^This. Except for the JR7-D with two SSRMs. But weep for the JR7-F.


That is dead too. Unless you want to be firing 2 SSRM2s at a pack of 'mechs with twin AMS.

View PostSuckyJack, on 11 February 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

Griffin on the 18th of Feb. Wolverine on the 18th of March.

We are getting two mech chassis this month.


Ah thanks for confirming that. I want to buy Griffins and have absolutely zero interest in Wolverines.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users