What Will The Clan Mechs Actually Excell At?
#41
Posted 29 May 2014 - 03:46 AM
I wonder what there spread will be like, cuz if there all hitting center it will be incredibly lethal...
#42
Posted 29 May 2014 - 04:23 AM
Deacon412, on 28 May 2014 - 11:26 PM, said:
answer is on surface. Check out Clan tech specs and see how many weapons you can fit into Clan mechs. A sheer firepower of Clan mechs is going to be almost one weight class above compared to IS mechs. Clans use only XL engines. And Clan XL's are destroyed only if your mech lost both side torsos. So, they are much more survivable because they have speed of bigger XL engines but they don't die because of loosing one side torso.
These are balanced with incredibly inconvenient weapon positioning which will force Clan mechs to expose themselves almost entirely to make a shot.
So far it looks like IS pilots wiil have to avoid direct encounters as much as possible. Always use cover, be on a move to keep distance as long as possible. In these conditions Clan mechs should have problems with hitting their opponents.
Edited by Rubidiy, 29 May 2014 - 04:24 AM.
#43
Posted 29 May 2014 - 04:32 AM
If coded correctly they will be unbelievably hard to kill. Because every body part of a clan omni that contains ammo or a gauss rifle automatically comes with CASE that weighs 0 tons and takes 0 crits. They also get more bonus armor points per ton for FF armor which means they can max out on armor for less weight. Clan FF only takes up 7 crits instead of 14 like IS and most omnis have it. Add that to the fact that clan XL engines don't die unless the CT or both side torsos are destroyed and they'll be spongy as hell. If all this stuff is coded to match TT...
These features may very well be bugged or not implemented at all, with PGI who knows?
Edited by PanchoTortilla, 29 May 2014 - 04:45 AM.
#44
Posted 29 May 2014 - 04:48 AM
PanchoTortilla, on 29 May 2014 - 04:32 AM, said:
If coded correctly they will be unbelievably hard to kill. Because every body part of a clan omni that contains ammo or a gauss rifle automatically comes with CASE that weighs 0 tons and takes 0 crits. They also get more bonus armor points per ton for FF armor which means they can max out on armor for less weight. Clan FF only takes up 7 crits instead of 14 like IS and most omnis have it. Add that to the fact that clan XL engines don't die unless the CT or both side torsos are destroyed and they'll be spongy as hell. If all this stuff is coded to match TT...
These features may very well be bugged or not implemented at all, with PGI who knows?
and yet even if I have 4tons left over, I cant apply it to armor....
guns? check, fast engine? check.....32 C/DHS? check......4 tons left over and im still under on armor? HA! jokes on you...cuz har dee har har, you cant increase ur armor....
#45
Posted 29 May 2014 - 04:58 AM
#46
Posted 29 May 2014 - 05:06 AM
LordKnightFandragon, on 29 May 2014 - 04:48 AM, said:
and yet even if I have 4tons left over, I cant apply it to armor....
guns? check, fast engine? check.....32 C/DHS? check......4 tons left over and im still under on armor? HA! jokes on you...cuz har dee har har, you cant increase ur armor....
You will be able to adjust the amount of armor just not the type of armor.
#47
Posted 29 May 2014 - 05:28 AM
#48
Posted 29 May 2014 - 05:38 AM
LordKnightFandragon, on 29 May 2014 - 03:24 AM, said:
Thats still very derpy.
Masakari isnt real heavy on the armor......85tons, its fast and under armored, packing serious fire power. I like to pile on the armor....ugh lol. And freeing up space with a mildly lighter engine is always nice. What is PGIs logic behind these limits?
Not really. It's pretty close to maximum armor for its tonnage. An 85-tonner can mount 108 points of armor on CT - front and back. The Masakari has 84 points fore and 20 points aft - a mere 4 points short of the maximum. Out of a maximum of 72 on the side torsos, it has 52 fore and 20 aft - full armor, just not forward-distributed. Arms and legs have full armor.
So no, hardly underarmored.
#49
Posted 29 May 2014 - 05:41 AM
Scurry, on 29 May 2014 - 05:38 AM, said:
Not really. It's pretty close to maximum armor for its tonnage. An 85-tonner can mount 108 points of armor on CT - front and back. The Masakari has 84 points fore and 20 points aft - a mere 4 points short of the maximum. Out of a maximum of 72 on the side torsos, it has 52 fore and 20 aft - full armor, just not forward-distributed. Arms and legs have full armor.
So no, hardly underarmored.
What are armor values for Internal structures on mechs and where do find this info?
TT was like 18 for internal, double that for armor max....but whats the math in MWO?
#50
Posted 29 May 2014 - 05:43 AM
Flaming oblivion, on 28 May 2014 - 11:24 PM, said:
Dude seriously just walk away and go play Plants versus Zombies or something. Your negative attitude is beginning to sound like 'Mommy didnt hug you enough, or Dady didn't by you the bike you wanted" behavior.
As far as OP's post, i suspect the Clan LRM boats are going to be mean. There launchers are suppose to be lighter then IS, so get ready for IS mechs to run heavy ECM and dual AMS.
#51
Posted 29 May 2014 - 05:45 AM
LordKnightFandragon, on 29 May 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:
What are armor values for Internal structures on mechs and where do find this info?
TT was like 18 for internal, double that for armor max....but whats the math in MWO?
Well, armor values and internal structure (IIRC for structure) are doubled in MWO.
Current 85-tonner values were taken from the Smurfy layout of a Battlemaster.
Masakari stock armor values were doubled from a copy of TRO 3050 Upgrade.
#52
Posted 29 May 2014 - 05:46 AM
Yes the tech might have started out as superior, but it was never superior tech that made the clan so overpowering. It was their pilots. In game terms, a regular IS mechwarrior compared to a clan mechwarrior during the initial invasion, it was a good 2 or even 3 point difference in both piloting and gunnery, which in game terms was huge.
What this meant was that, at long range in the open field (clear shot and no cover or movement, a clan mechwarrior only had to roll six or above on two dice (think of monopoly) to hit, while an inner sphere mechwarrior had to roll eight or above. These differences became even more magnified when you put into effect the different modifiers like own mech movement, other mech movement, cover, etc. that come into effect on the battlefield. This is what made the clan truly overpowering during the initial invasion.
In a game like this, the clan lacks one of the most "OP" capabilties (ECM), it lacks a lot of the configurability and versatility people have grown accustomed to, do they really expect the decent pilots out there to choose clan over IS? I just don't see it happening.
#53
Posted 29 May 2014 - 05:53 AM
#54
Posted 29 May 2014 - 06:05 AM
Edited by Octavian, 29 May 2014 - 06:13 AM.
#55
Posted 29 May 2014 - 06:06 AM
Deacon412, on 28 May 2014 - 11:41 PM, said:
News Flash, Clan LBX is single shell...not burst fire.
#56
Posted 29 May 2014 - 06:08 AM
Alex Warden, on 29 May 2014 - 03:00 AM, said:
some predict them to be UP, some OP... if statistics apply correctly in this case, they will be just fine... i personally go the slightly OP route though
Here's the reality.
Maxing the advantages and minimizing their weaknesses will be quickly ironed out by the playerbase.
Many options will be DoA due to their design, and the remaining options/mechs will be boiled down to "the best".
So there will be mechs and weapons that are UP, and there will likely be configurations/weapons/mechs that are OP.
So the answer is "both".
#57
Posted 29 May 2014 - 06:14 AM
Making people spend millions more to get a 'Mech no better than any other IS one, thereby making them the most grindy 'Mechs around.
#58
Posted 29 May 2014 - 06:15 AM
AccessTime, on 29 May 2014 - 05:46 AM, said:
Yes the tech might have started out as superior, but it was never superior tech that made the clan so overpowering. It was their pilots. In game terms, a regular IS mechwarrior compared to a clan mechwarrior during the initial invasion, it was a good 2 or even 3 point difference in both piloting and gunnery, which in game terms was huge.
What this meant was that, at long range in the open field (clear shot and no cover or movement, a clan mechwarrior only had to roll six or above on two dice (think of monopoly) to hit, while an inner sphere mechwarrior had to roll eight or above. These differences became even more magnified when you put into effect the different modifiers like own mech movement, other mech movement, cover, etc. that come into effect on the battlefield. This is what made the clan truly overpowering during the initial invasion.
In a game like this, the clan lacks one of the most "OP" capabilties (ECM), it lacks a lot of the configurability and versatility people have grown accustomed to, do they really expect the decent pilots out there to choose clan over IS? I just don't see it happening.
I wouldn't go so far. The point is, Clans only had veteran pilots in the cockpits during the invasion. IS forces also had some good pilots, but unlike the Clan forces, they also had rookies piloting their mechs. Clan forces had no problems sweeping through those rookie forces, but when they encountered veteran or elite IS units, they also had the advantage of superior equipment. So it's a combination of both in reality.
But yeah, ingame, it will be a massacre for Clans, at least on private servers that are running "real" battles, i.e. Clan vs IS.
Even if Clan equipment wouldn't be nerfed to hell (which it is), ECM alone could be a deciding factor. Imagine an IS unit with 3 ECM mechs. Clans have no way to counter the ECM bubble, so every form of missile (even SSRM, the one thing everyone says will be OP for Clans) is effectively negated, as is coordinate fire because you can't lock on enemy mechs any more.
The only way Clan players could mitigate this to a certain degree would be by using TAG and NARC, which is ridiculous because the Clans didn't really use those during invasion.
#59
Posted 29 May 2014 - 07:17 AM
#60
Posted 29 May 2014 - 07:28 AM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users























