647 replies to this topic

[Leigus]

Awesome list! I'm so glad you've made this and shared it with the community.

I only see a few that I'd disagree on, but never by more than a single "tier," so I guess I have to assume that I'm wrong and the groups you consulted are considering something I'm not. Let the quirks fly!

[warner2]

By the way the Cicada 3M is a terrible 'mech and should be tier 5 and receive loads of buffs (I don't play it much honestly).

[TheFuzzyBunny]

Kaptain, on 30 September 2014 - 02:30 PM, said:

Are the negative quirks being remove for the highlander and awesome also?

You are removing the quirks for the Hunchy... Does that mean the RT is getting a better armor or internal structure buff or is that being scrapped completely?



Agreed all of my victors and highlanders are currently stripped for this reason

I wonder if the negative quirks on the highlander will also be removed along with the vic.

God I hope so. That is by far my favorite mech. I'm not asking for it to be top dog, I just want it to stop sucking so hard that it makes it completely unplayable in higher level play.

[Ultimax]

Adiuvo, on 30 September 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

LRM5s with Artemis burrow directly into the CT. Trevelyas actually used the missile spread values to work out effective damage with and without artemis. I'll poke him for the conclusions later.

If has has data/testing on CLRMs that would be extremely welcome.

Regardless, the IS LRM testing probably deserves its own thread.

[Pjwned]

Bilbo, on 30 September 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

Lock time, on a mech that carries nothing but missiles anyway.

I'm not questioning the use of Artemis itself, it's just that Artemis adds 1 extra ton and 1 extra crit slot per launcher, so I was questioning its use with multiple small launchers (in which case Artemis eats up a lot of space, and is wasted with indirect fire) instead of using bigger launchers and potentially having more firepower.

Adiuvo, on 30 September 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

LRM5s with Artemis burrow directly into the CT. Trevelyas actually used the missile spread values to work out effective damage with and without artemis. I'll poke him for the conclusions later.

Interesting, is it only particularly effective if you boat it though, kind of like AC2 or SSRM2 I guess, or is ALRM5 just a solid launcher to use then? It also puts a fair burden on the LRM mech to stay in direct fire because otherwise all that space taken up by Artemis is wasted.

[Bilbo]

shad0w4life, on 30 September 2014 - 02:30 PM, said:

I'm happy my Wang should get a substantial buff

Never mind...

Kaptain, on 30 September 2014 - 02:30 PM, said:

Are the negative quirks being remove for the highlander and awesome also?

You are removing the quirks for the Hunchy... Does that mean the RT is getting a better armor or internal structure buff or is that being scrapped completely?



Agreed all of my victors and highlanders are currently stripped for this reason

I wonder if the negative quirks on the highlander will also be removed along with the vic.

They said all the quirks were going to be removed and replaced on the Hunchies and Awesomes. Can't imagine they wouldn't do the same for the Highlander.

Pjwned, on 30 September 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

I'm not questioning the use of Artemis itself, it's just that Artemis adds 1 extra ton and 1 extra crit slot per launcher, so I was questioning its use with multiple small launchers (in which case Artemis eats up a lot of space, and is wasted with indirect fire) instead of using bigger launchers and potentially having more firepower.



Interesting, is it only particularly effective if you boat it though, kind of like AC2 or SSRM2 I guess, or is ALRM5 just a solid launcher to use then? It also puts a fair burden on the LRM mech to stay in direct fire because otherwise all that space taken up by Artemis is wasted.

There isn't anything else to use the weight/space for. You can only use so much ammo effectively anyway.

[Xarian]

Hey, I'll try to address your concerns here:

Kaptain, on 30 September 2014 - 02:22 PM, said:

Interesting I wonder how this table was created... Just a feeling or was data tracked?

All of the fire-starters are not considered Tier 1 or 2?

The Ember gets T1 because of its machineguns and the fact that it's the most widely-used light overall. Boating that many energy weapons isn't as good because of the heat and extra tonnage (MLs are heavier than MGs).

Quote

-All of the locust mechs are not Tier 5?

The locusts listed at T4 are, by far, the best of the locusts. They should all be put into T5, but the 3 currently in T5 really belong in T6 (if it existed). Super-light mechs are just terrible due to the way that engine weight scales at the low end.

Quote

-The bulk of commandos are in the same tier as the locusts?

Commandos are just as unplayable due to the super-light engine weights, fixed HSR, lack of ECM, and essentially no weaponry.

Quote

-The broken hit box spider is not Tier 1 or 2?

This has been almost completely fixed as of the various HSR patches. SDR-5D gets T3 due to ECM, and SDR-A gets T3 due to having lots of good hardpoints.

Quote

-The hunchy 4g is Tier 5? By far my favorite medium.

Widely considered unplayable due to the fact that you can't effectively use the 3 ballistic hardpoints and it has so few laser hardpoints. In general, if you're running a big gun, you won't have anything else in the hunch.

Quote

-Thunderbolts are tier 5?

Confused here myself; they should be in T4.

Quote

-Stalkers > The Atlas D? By far my favorite Assault.

Atlases in general suffer from the fact that they are incredibly tall and their hitboxes aren't very good. Stalkers are widely considered to be the hardest mechs to kill in the game. It makes sense that they rate abovethe Atlas D - which is playable, but not as good as Stalkers.

Quote

-How does a Highlander C > Highlander HM. The HM has 3 laser point in the left arm and more jump jets. And it has a higher engine rating...

Highlanders are considered missile boats, and the C has one extra hardpoint to do just that. It's not a *lot* better, but it is better.

Quote

-CTF IM and 3D are not the same tier?

3D has jump jets; Ilya does not.

Quote

-How is the 8R awesome 2 tiers above the 9M?

Look at the difference in the number of missile tubes. The 8R is a superb missile boat; one of the best in the game.

Edited by Xarian, 30 September 2014 - 02:41 PM.

[Abigail Acerose]

I love the DRG-Flame! =D

...but, is it really Tier 3?

Aside from its ability to mount an AC20 (at the precious cost of speed), it suffers the same poor hitboxes and various limiting issues as the other Dragon variants...

Compare it to neighbouring Tier 3 mechs:

• -Ilya Muromets (3xUAC5/3xGauss fame)
  
• -JM6-DD/S (awesome ballistic boats, great hardpoint location)
  
• -Catapult K2 (dual-gauss, dual-AC20)

What does the Flame have on these pugging jewels? While it can be faster, in its use of an AC20, the variant's only significant distinguishing feature from other Dragons, it is relatively slow.

Even in Tier 4, you see:

• -CTF-1X (great brawler with AC20/5xML)
  
• -CTF-4X (low-slung arms, but carries a ton of dakka)

While limited in scope, even these two mechs can be utilized frequently to great potential.

And Dragons?
While not entirely without enjoyment, piloting the Flame (or any Dragon) can be a chore.

A Wyrm Rider must constantly be aware of their steed's protrusive snout- its most glaring weakness. Even skillful torso-twisting is ineffective at shielding the nose from damage.

Using a standard engine allows easier loss of the side torsos. However, this drops the efficacy of evasion (a critical tactic on this fragile frame), and the torsos themselves are already relatively small. Additionally many Dragons favor one side over the other, and often rendered all but ineffective at this loss, while other chassis are not as concerned.

As a pilot used to performing quite well in a variety of mechs and circumstances, the Dragon is, at the very least, underwhelming. The mech cannot carry the firepower to distribute 'good' damage at regular intervals (although skirmishing remains this mech's most viable role). It cannot mount the dps to perform effectively in staring contests, and even if it did, the frame is easily crippled by relatively small amounts of damage (<40, where losing an arm is often 50% or more of firepower). Lighter, more agile mechs can overcome these flaws with proper peeking, but few Dragons have decent high-mounted hardpoints, all variants' arms are low-slung, and none have the blessing of Jump-Jet goodness.

So tell me, with all of this in mind... why is the Flame in Tier 3?

Thanks for reading!

=)

Edited by Abigail Acerose, 30 September 2014 - 02:52 PM.

[TercieI]

I haven't read the whole thread, I don't claim that my opinion is the be-all-end-all, but...

They published a tier list*. This means they take seriously that there are better and worse mechs and they're serious about trying to level that out some.

That's AWESOME. (And about friggin' time, but maybe just the heckipoo with IGP).

*I have a couple nit-picks, but it's not insane.

[Asyres]

Abigail Acerose, on 30 September 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:

So tell me... why is the Flame in Tier 3?

I'm guessing it has to do with the roof-mounted ballistic hardpoint, combined with the Dragon's good mobility. That's just speculation, though.

[ImperialKnight]

The list seems fine. I liked the +X armor on Centurion left arms. If anything, that should go even further with the new quirk pass. Imagine a +40 armor on that arm. That would really encourage people to learn to torso twist.

It may SEEM OP. But remember the Cent is still a JJ-less 50 tonner. But at least it would encourage people to use it over the SHDs and GRFs.

[Gas Guzzler]

So maybe the HGNs should shift to a worse tier... no objection here It is funny I like never see them anymore.

[n r g]

Tier list looks pretty good.

If you don't want to our-right buff PPC speed, maybe a module or IS mechs that have a velocity boost for PPCs?

[Madcap72]

Pjwned, on 30 September 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

I'm not questioning the use of Artemis itself, it's just that Artemis adds 1 extra ton and 1 extra crit slot per launcher, so I was questioning its use with multiple small launchers (in which case Artemis eats up a lot of space, and is wasted with indirect fire) instead of using bigger launchers and potentially having more firepower.

Sorry if the quotes come out goofed..


As far as Art and small launchers vs large, I run a 6x LRM 5 Catapult.


I don't know if it's just me, but using the smaller launchers, it appears that the physically smaller launchers makes the missle land in a tighter cluster, and I get WAY, WAY more done faster than with dual LRM 15's, especially in chainfire vs alpha strikes.

By mixing indirect, with agressive direct LOS fighting I consistantly can get a few kills per game and MANY kill assists. Larger launchers IMHO don't equal greater lethality.

Art is what you make it. For people that LRM boat and think that just getting locks and shooting missles is all there is too it, then it's probably not worth it.

For guy like me that understand how to use LRM's in a dedicated support role as tactical asset with teamwork, art, CC, BAP and the sensor modual can be used with LRM's and manouver to help wipe the map.

(FWIW that's by myself in PUG matches, when my buddy in his fire support kitfox or raven drops with me, it's game on)

Edited by Madcap72, 30 September 2014 - 02:58 PM.

[Jman5]

Hey Russ, I don't know if this is possible, but I think the best idea for the Grid Iron would be to modify the hardpoints.

Currently it's:
2 Ballistic (RT)
1 Missile (LT)
3 Energy (RA, LA, Head)

The problem with this set up is that you can't really make a good build that uses all the hardpoints. Even the stock build comes with just 1 ballistic weapon equipped. The weight of the common IS autocannons + ammo are prohibitive on a 50 ton mech.

A better alternative would be:
1 ballistic
2 Missile
3 Energy

If you truly wanted to improve the Grid Iron this is something you should consider doing first.

Players who want to stuff multiple ballistics on their hunchback (God knows why), will still be able to with the HBK-4G.

Edited by Jman5, 30 September 2014 - 02:56 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Kaptain, on 30 September 2014 - 02:22 PM, said:

-CTF IM and 3D are not the same tier?

To be fair, they shouldn't be. The 3D's jump jets put it ahead of the Ilya, and now with the Ilya having more quirks, the two might be comparable.

[Bullseye69]

Highlander jump jets make it lower teir mech need to move down.
I would argue that the spider 5 d with ecm is a teir 1 mech so hard to hit and to register a hit on it plus it got the ecm going for it.
I mostly play heavu assault and medium shadow hawk plus the jenner but look to be a good start,

The heavy metal variant highlander with max jump jets really need to be looked at since it max out the jets but has no go on the thrust.

[Victor Morson]

Gas Guzzler, on 30 September 2014 - 02:52 PM, said:

So maybe the HGNs should shift to a worse tier... no objection here It is funny I like never see them anymore.

Hopefully the HGN's downsides were flushed along with the Victor's.

[o0Marduk0o]

Pjwned, on 30 September 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

A 300 rating engine means you can put 2 extra internal heatsinks in which means no real crit slot concerns and internal heatsinks are more efficient, but with a 295 engine cap you only get 1 extra internal heatsink slot.

But you lose 0,5t worth a JJ while not being able to fill all crit slots anyway to make the one more internal heatsink useful. You will run out tonnage before slot space. Furthermore, I prefer external heatsinks being hit with crit rolls instead of weapons.

[Stonefalcon]

Will the Founders/Pheonix variants also benefit from the quirks if their normal variant is receiving a quirk?