20517 replies to this topic

[Tkhaw]

My preferred role is fire support and flanker/striker.

For flanking/striking, I use shadowhawks and victors (AC20, 2ML and SRM4s). Basically, just smash and go.

For fire support, I use catapults CPLT-C1(LRMs with an optimal range of 300-500)

Edited by Tkhaw, 23 March 2014 - 09:07 PM.

[Jin Ma]

FireSlade, on 15 March 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

I cannot wait for them to do a pass on all the mechs that received a hero design before they started having the model change with the type of weapon. My Ilya and 3D look weird having 3 barrels for the ACs and me not using the torso ballistic HP.

No you're not - Catapults

[FireSlade]

Jin Ma, on 23 March 2014 - 08:52 PM, said:

No you're not - Catapults

The Catapult dynamic hard points just made it uglier, not really hurting the design unless you run with the doors closed; a small price to pay for better looks and realism. I just wish that they made each weapon 1 size so that any Raven running an AC20 would look like it was struggling to stand under that huge cannon.

[Steinar Bergstol]

MonkeyDCecil, on 23 March 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

So I was wondering how you guys played? Or what is your play style?

I am a flanker and I prefer medium & heavies for my mechs. I try to go 80kph+.
I use medium to long range weapons. And I try not play meta builds.

I tend to play "balanced" mechs. In other words mechs with a loadout which allows it to engage at all (or almost all) ranges. Basically the sort of loadouts you might see in a Tech Readout My Flame, for example, is basically a 3050 era Grand Dragon. My TDR-5S Thunderbolt has pretty much the stock loadout with some minor adjustments like DHS, Endo steel and so forth. Same for my STK-3F Stalker.

As for playstyle I tend to run mechs with lots of guns, and lots of guns were meant to be fired! All of them! My Stalker is constantly redlining the heatscale, so firediscipline is, I guess, not my strongest suit. I do tend to try to flank along with other teammates to start with, but once we're comitted to the fight I tend to press on, even if that might mean I get focused on and take the brunt of the incoming fire. Sure, I might die, but as long as they're firing on me they're not firing on my lancemates. I guess being a Thunderbolt fan from way back I just naturally gravitate towards the "take it on the chin" bruiser role, which was something the tabletop TBolt excelled at.

With my Griffins it's a bit different, of course. Those I use mostly in a support role, focusing on LRM fire until the missile drums are empty and then engaging with the PPC (or medium lasers for the variants I've outfitted with that).

[Marukage]

Dervish?

DV-6M 2610
DV-1S 3025
DV-7D 3050

Edited by Marukage, 24 March 2014 - 04:45 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Marukage, on 24 March 2014 - 04:38 PM, said:

Dervish?

DV-6M 2610
DV-1S 3025
DV-7D 3050

The 1S uses "Primitive Technology", so the cockpit/Engine/armor/etc weights would be different from the normal versions of the same components.

More likely for the Dervish would be the DV-6M, DV-6Md, and the DV-7D.
Even then, it would be a fifth 55-ton 'Mech, and one where all of the variants have the same minimum hardpoint layout.
The Dervish was also addressed previously in this thread.

[BarHaid]

Strum Wealh, on 24 March 2014 - 05:10 PM, said:

The 1S uses "Primitive Technology", so the cockpit/Engine/armor/etc weights would be different from the normal versions of the same components.

More likely for the Dervish would be the DV-6M, DV-6Md, and the DV-7D.
Even then, it would be a fifth 55-ton 'Mech, and one where all of the variants have the same minimum hardpoint layout.
The Dervish was also addressed previously in this thread.

We still need it.

NEED.

[Will9761]

I'd like to see the Hatamoto-Chi Variants:
Hatamoto-Chi
2x PPCs
2x SRM-4

Hatamoto-Hi
2x PPCs
4x Medium Pulse Lasers

Hatamoto-Ku
2x PPCs
1x AC/5
Even though the Ku is underhanded, it just needs good hardpoints like the Banshee-3E to work with.

Hatamoto-Chi Sorenson
2x LBX Autocannons10
2x SRM-4

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 24 March 2014 - 05:10 PM, said:

The 1S uses "Primitive Technology", so the cockpit/Engine/armor/etc weights would be different from the normal versions of the same components.

More likely for the Dervish would be the DV-6M, DV-6Md, and the DV-7D.
Even then, it would be a fifth 55-ton 'Mech, and one where all of the variants have the same minimum hardpoint layout.
The Dervish was also addressed previously in this thread.

It's awesomeness for this game can not be denied! And if it gets the same hardpoint inflation the rest of the 55 tonners did, it should have in theory about 6 missile hardpoints on at least one variant. I'm thinking that, along with JJs, would make it the premiere scout hunter. And I think I made it look pretty cool, too.

[Steinar Bergstol]

That is, indeed, a very cool looking Dervish, Bishop. A Dervish which looked like that I would proudly place next to my Griffins, Wolverines and Shadow Hawks in my mech hangar.

[SgtMagor]

little different view of this sweet mech, jump capabilities and mobility of a light packed into a medium yup yup a must have mech gimme gimme

Edited by SgtMagor, 26 March 2014 - 02:54 AM.

[Cimarb]

I think the Dervish would make a good mini-Archer, but we really, really don't need another 55-tonner.

[Odanan]

Cimarb, on 26 March 2014 - 05:27 AM, said:

I think the Dervish would make a good mini-Archer, but we really, really don't need another 55-tonner.

I agree there are other Medium brackets in more urgent need (40 and 45 tons)...

Maybe next year the Dervish will have a chance?

[Tkhaw]

I am calling for

40 tonnes - Assassin

45 tonnes - Vindicator

...

[ShadowbaneX]

Cimarb, on 26 March 2014 - 05:27 AM, said:

I think the Dervish would make a good mini-Archer, but we really, really don't need another 55-tonner.

LIES! Hateful, hateful lies! We need all the 55-tonners from 3025...well, 'cept for the Scorpion. No one likes quad-mechs.

[stjobe]

Odanan, on 26 March 2014 - 05:42 AM, said:

I agree there are other Medium brackets in more urgent need (40 and 45 tons)...

CLNT-2-3T
CLNT-2-3U
CLNT-2-4T
Hero: CLNT-2-3T Denton

Edited by stjobe, 26 March 2014 - 09:55 AM.

[WarHippy]

Someday in the sadly distant future I would love to have a Brigand. Would look great and be rather fitting with a buccaneer paint job.

[Steinar Bergstol]

ShadowbaneX, on 26 March 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:

LIES! Hateful, hateful lies! We need all the 55-tonners from 3025...well, 'cept for the Scorpion. No one likes quad-mechs.

Excuse me, but you take that back RIGHT NOW! I want my Scorpion, including it's lore-correct kidney-bruising bumpy ride! AND I want my tank on stilts, the Goliath!

[ShadowbaneX]

Could they even really do quad-mechs with the current controls? There's no torso to twist so I suppose the mouse could be remapped to turn left & right. Then the turn keys would become strafe keys, but I don't think that would react well to the throttle controls we have. Sounds...well about as easy to code as comfortable as the ride is.

[Odanan]

ShadowbaneX, on 26 March 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

Could they even really do quad-mechs with the current controls? There's no torso to twist so I suppose the mouse could be remapped to turn left & right. Then the turn keys would become strafe keys, but I don't think that would react well to the throttle controls we have. Sounds...well about as easy to code as comfortable as the ride is.

There are already too few quad mechs for they implementing a whole new control system...
But if you consider the chassis with 3 time-wise variants, I think there is no quad mech to add to the game at all.