26 replies to this topic

[Ultimax]

Kassatsu, on 25 September 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

Weight has nothing to do with it. Timberwolf is a better mech, period. Is the Cataphract-3D a 75 tonner? No? It's better than an Orion? Okay.

1) Weight has a lot to do with Heavy Mech and Assault mech performance.
2) The CTF-3D has JJs and no Orion has JJs. If the Orion had JJs it would have been a very strong competitor vs. the CTF-3D.
3) Most non-JJ Cataphracts are not that good. So it was OK for ONE VARIANT to outclass every other variant, and to outclass pretty much every other heavy and be "the best".
4) 15 tons is more than 5 tons.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 25 September 2014 - 12:46 PM.

[Kassatsu]

Ultimatum X, on 25 September 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

1) Weight has a lot to do with Heavy Mech and Assault mech performance.
2) The CTF-3D has JJs and no Orion has JJs. If the Orion had JJs it would have been a very strong competitor vs. the CTF-3D.
3) Most non-JJ Cataphracts are not that good. So it was OK for ONE VARIANT to outclass every other variant, and to outclass pretty much every other heavy and be "the best".
4) 15 tons is more than 5 tons.

Amazing. Math. Obviously I forgot how to count. Your logic so far is either assuming I believe Timberwolves are better than every heavy mech in existence and that's my only argument, or that Timberwolves are heavier than Mad Dogs, and therefore better. Only one of those is true, in both my opinion and actual fact. The Jenner is heavier than an Ember, so it's better, right?

Back to the topic: 6xSSRM4, 5 tons of ammo, BAP, max armor, 4 ER small lasers and as many heat sinks as you can fit is hilarious. The things a Mad Dog does better than a Timberwolf are: 6 missiles. That's it.

Edited by Kassatsu, 25 September 2014 - 12:52 PM.

[A DRUNK GUY]

I love the Mad Dog. I have had no problems with it, and have had some really great games in it so far.

[Pariah Devalis]

Kassatsu, on 25 September 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

Amazing. Math. Obviously I forgot how to count. Your logic so far is either assuming I believe Timberwolves are better than every heavy mech in existence and that's my only argument, or that Timberwolves are heavier than Mad Dogs, and therefore better. Only one of those is true, in both my opinion and actual fact. The Jenner is heavier than an Ember, so it's better, right?

Back to the topic: 6xSSRM4, 5 tons of ammo, BAP, max armor, 4 ER small lasers and as many heat sinks as you can fit is hilarious. The things a Mad Dog does better than a Timberwolf are: 6 missiles. That's it.

Actually, the Jenner is not heavier than the Ember. 35 tons vs 35 tons. Uhh....

When you get a mech that is 20% lighter than another, did you really expect it to be better than the Timber Wolf? Really? Seriously? Some logic needs to flow into here a bit. However, ton for ton, it is a damned fine mech. Again, ton for ton. It also brings six missile hardpoints into play which is something the Timber Wolf cannot do. However, outside of utilizing the 6M aspect of it, with the way the current match maker works, there is no real reason to take it over the Timber Wolf.

Which, by the way, has been a known thing since... well... forever? It is a lighter mech with an obscene missile payload and that is all it is.

If the game was fairly strict in regards to weight matching (take a 60 ton mech, match with a mech +/- 5 tons) than taking a Mad Dog is a fantastic choice as it blows away its nearest competition in raw firepower. Hell, in competition drops, when the mech is available for C-Bills, it will be a solid choice simply because it has economy of weight in league drops with fixed tonnage limits.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 25 September 2014 - 01:12 PM.

[Ovion]

Having now tried 6xLRM5 (no Artemis yet, not sure it needs it tbh).

Hahahahahahahaha.
Comedy gold with my LRM maching gun.

[Ultimax]

Kassatsu, on 25 September 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

Amazing. Math. Obviously I forgot how to count.

Glad it helped.

Kassatsu, on 25 September 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

The things a Mad Dog does better than a Timberwolf are: 6 missiles. That's it.

So you're saying it has a unique build angle but that is insufficient?


People played the Illya when the only thing it could do better than the CTF-3D was take 3 ballistics.

People played Jagers when the only thing they could do better than Cataphracts was take Dual AC 20s.


Not every mech is going to end up with dozens of unique build combinations.

Pariah Devalis, on 25 September 2014 - 01:09 PM, said:

with the way the current match maker works, there is no real reason to take it over the Timber Wolf.

This is a bit of a misnomer.

The MM does actually try to balance the entire team vs. the opposing team by tonnage.


So while you might be in a Mad Dog and the other team might end up with a Timber Wolf while the MM enforces 3/3/3/3, your team might also end up with an Atlas, and the other team might end up with a Battle Master to even out the 15 ton difference.

[Pariah Devalis]

Ultimatum X, on 25 September 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

Glad it helped.



So you're saying it has a unique build angle but that is insufficient?


People played the Illya when the only thing it could do better than the CTF-3D was take 3 ballistics.

People played Jagers when the only thing they could do better than Cataphracts was take Dual AC 20s.


Not every mech is going to end up with dozens of unique build combinations.








This is a bit of a misnomer.

The MM does actually try to balance the entire team vs. the opposing team by tonnage.


So while you might be in a Mad Dog and the other team might end up with a Timber Wolf while the MM enforces 3/3/3/3, your team might also end up with an Atlas, and the other team might end up with a Battle Master to even out the 15 ton difference.

This is true. I forgot it tries to match the overall tonnage. Thanks for the reminder!