11 replies to this topic

[Clydewinder]

If I build a 90 ton Atlas, shouldn't that only count as 90 tons on my dropship?

[Ryokens leap]

No

[Lukoi Banacek]

I vote no.

[Dirty Starfish]

no so that idiots don't run around in 90 ton atlai (because you know it's going to happen)

[Blakkstar]

No, and you shouldn't even be able to field underweight mechs in the game to begin with.

[FupDup]

If you want a 90 ton Gundam, drive a 90 ton Gundam. That's the exact reason why they exist.

[ztac]

Didn't know there was a CW MM , just a drop limit.

[Brody319]

nope

[Sandpit]

no

[Ulketulke]

Morritse Messorem Kotare, on 19 December 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

Why the **** would you even want to do this? It is un-optimal. Any designated 90 ton mech will be better than a 90 ton atlas in EVERY way.

Not every way, DDC has more armor and ECM.

Edited by Ulketulke, 19 December 2014 - 12:35 PM.

[Deathlike]

I hate these kinds of threads where people keep trying to find ways to circumvent the tonnage limit system.

Trying to fit in a "90" or "95" ton D-DC instead of trying to actually field a Highlander or Banshee is simply trying to get an advantage. Sure you may have less tonnage being used, but you're getting benefits like more armor and/or favorable hardpoints (including ECM in this example) that give one advantages not intended by the system.

This is why leagues ban this kind of thinking.

So, that is the long answer for "HELL EFFING NO".

[oldradagast]

Bad idea for a few reasons:

- Encourages more dysfunctional builds, which will hurt your teammates.

- Will no doubt allow silly ways to cheat the tonnage system.

- Will encourage screwy mixes of "good mechs" and under-weight, awful ones... which ties into my earlier points.