20517 replies to this topic

[ShadowbaneX]

Zergling, on 14 January 2017 - 07:08 PM, said:

How about a quad light gauss Mauler or King Crab? Pretty much requires an XL engine, and only 32 damage alpha, but I expect the range and projectile velocity would make for a rather nasty sniper.

Well, XL wouldn't work with the Mauler, not enough crit slots (5+5+3). You could get away with a Light Engine though. Also, if they keep the "you can only fire up to 2 gauss rifles at a time" thing, you couldn't alpha. Not sure how well the Light Gauss would work.

[Zergling]

ShadowbaneX, on 14 January 2017 - 08:27 PM, said:

Well, XL wouldn't work with the Mauler, not enough crit slots (5+5+3). You could get away with a Light Engine though. Also, if they keep the "you can only fire up to 2 gauss rifles at a time" thing, you couldn't alpha. Not sure how well the Light Gauss would work.

Oh right, I forgot IS XLs taking 3 slots instead of 2. Derp.

I predict the Light Gauss will be treated separately to the regular Gauss for the '2 at a time' rule... unless they are mixed, 'cause otherwise people will exploit that loophole by doing 2x regular + 2x Light for a 46 point gauss alpha.

[ShadowbaneX]

2 Light Gauss + 2 Standard Gauss is a lot of tonnage and you don't have enough space for a light engine, and only like 15 tons for ammo & armour. The King Crab can't manage that given the upper arm & shoulder actuators. The King Crab could manage quad Light Gauss, but it seems a bit of a waste to me.

[Sereglach]

Zergling, on 14 January 2017 - 08:32 PM, said:

Oh right, I forgot IS XLs taking 3 slots instead of 2. Derp.

I predict the Light Gauss will be treated separately to the regular Gauss for the '2 at a time' rule... unless they are mixed, 'cause otherwise people will exploit that loophole by doing 2x regular + 2x Light for a 46 point gauss alpha.

Either there'll be a version of "Ghost Heat" for Gauss Rifles where everything is going to be measured in its own fashion (for example, 1 Heavy Gauss, 2 regular Gauss, or 3 Light Gauss can be fired at a time, but you can't mix and match), OR we'll probably see the return of Energy Draw in some new form to combat all of the new equipment and all of the ways it could min-max and interact under the Ghost Heat system.

Frankly, whether people like it or not, I'm betting on an Energy Draw system coming back in some form. Note that PGI had said that the ED discussion would resume after the new year; and now (after the new year) we're being told a whole bunch of new tech is going to be coming on line this summer along with gameplay balance taking a more front-and-center position according to PGI's current Roadmap post:

Quote

Beyond this change we have identified some larger balance points that we will be pushing after the release of the Skill Tree system, which will see some critical changes to the overall Clan vs. IS dynamic. More details will be provided about these changes after the release of the new Skill Tree, within the new context of balance introduced by the release of that feature.

We will continue to heavily examine the overall balance between the Inner Sphere and Clan factions through 2017, and adjust as needed.

AND

Quote

These new technologies will no doubt represent a big step forward in build diversity and gameplay, and it must be stressed that we are committed to ensuring that the introduction of these new technologies doesn’t upend or undo the work that has gone into the current state of balance.

To me that says that they feel they have some sort of "silver bullet" to ensure that balance is going to work out no matter what kind of equipment technology they add to the game. Whether it's Energy Draw, something derived from the ED PTS runs, or something entirely different, we'll just have to wait and find out.

[Odanan]

Costly updated the OP with the later info.

Oh boy, the (Mad) Cat (MK II) it's out of the bag now.

[CK16]

You know? Why does the IS not ask for something like?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Sagittaire

She seems pretty good IMO for 95 tons >.> Might be a bit slow but seems well not horrible!

[Odanan]

CK16, on 16 January 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

You know? Why does the IS not ask for something like?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Sagittaire

She seems pretty good IMO for 95 tons >.> Might be a bit slow but seems well not horrible!

Because I have no emotional attachment with that mech... :/

It was not even in MW4, my only window to post 3050's events...

[CK16]

Odanan, on 16 January 2017 - 03:47 PM, said:

Because I have no emotional attachment with that mech... :/

It was not even in MW4, my only window to post 3050's events...

True, but TT wise I mean it is the cover to 3067 xD

[ShadowbaneX]

CK16, on 16 January 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

You know? Why does the IS not ask for something like?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Sagittaire

She seems pretty good IMO for 95 tons >.> Might be a bit slow but seems well not horrible!

It's a jump capable Banshee. That should be reason enough right there.

I've been theory crafting with 3060s tech. You can manage a pair of Improved Heavy Gauss Rifles on MAL-2P with 10 tons of ammo, but requires downgrading to a 250 Engine...and even then with 20 shots per weapon, it's not exactly going to be in the fight long. I wonder if it'd be worth it to drop down to a 225 or even a 200. You're Urban mech slow at that point, but you'd have sufficient ammo, and enough tonnage for some SLs for backup.

Another option for more facey-punchy is just Heavy Gauss Rifles which drops the range severely for max damage, but frees up 4 tons. It'd be the AC/20 Jagermech-pocalypse v2.0, only much, much slower.

I wonder if one of the mechs that will drop with this patch would be the Fafnir. We currently don't have any 95 or 100 ton mechs with Ballistics in both side torsos. At 11 crit slots the King Crab cannot mount either of the Heavy Gauss Rifles. Perhaps a single Heavy Gauss might be worthwhile, but I think you're looking at least something like a Cataphract to mount one. I'm not sure anything lighter can really manage it. Would an AS7-S with 4 SRM6s be worth it? Or is it better just to stick with a (u)AC/20?

[Odanan]

CK16, on 16 January 2017 - 03:52 PM, said:

True, but TT wise I mean it is the cover to 3067 xD

I know, and the mech indeed looks good, but I stop following the Battletech history somewhere after the Refusal War.

[Odanan]

ShadowbaneX, on 16 January 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

It's a jump capable Banshee. That should be reason enough right there.

I've been theory crafting with 3060s tech. You can manage a pair of Improved Heavy Gauss Rifles on MAL-2P with 10 tons of ammo, but requires downgrading to a 250 Engine...and even then with 20 shots per weapon, it's not exactly going to be in the fight long. I wonder if it'd be worth it to drop down to a 225 or even a 200. You're Urban mech slow at that point, but you'd have sufficient ammo, and enough tonnage for some SLs for backup.

Another option for more facey-punchy is just Heavy Gauss Rifles which drops the range severely for max damage, but frees up 4 tons. It'd be the AC/20 Jagermech-pocalypse v2.0, only much, much slower.

I wonder if one of the mechs that will drop with this patch would be the Fafnir. We currently don't have any 95 or 100 ton mechs with Ballistics in both side torsos. At 11 crit slots the King Crab cannot mount either of the Heavy Gauss Rifles. Perhaps a single Heavy Gauss might be worthwhile, but I think you're looking at least something like a Cataphract to mount one. I'm not sure anything lighter can really manage it. Would an AS7-S with 4 SRM6s be worth it? Or is it better just to stick with a (u)AC/20?

Please, no changing of the weight or crit-size of any weapon.
We came this far without it (and I worship PGI for that) and I hope we will continue that way.

Heavy Gauss is meant to be a huge weapon - only a STD engine side torso can take it. This alone is a big limiting factor. So, no Heavy Gauss in the King Crab. It will be the primary weapon in any mech, and not many mechs will be able to bring 2 of them.

I love the Fafnir, and fully expect it to feature in MWO soon. I hope Alex Iglesias can do the miracle of making it viable (not huge torsos' hitboxes) but keeping the classic look. (which is really impressive, IMHO)

[ShadowbaneX]

Odanan, on 16 January 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

Please, no changing of the weight or crit-size of any weapon.
We came this far without it (and I worship PGI for that) and I hope we will continue that way.

Heavy Gauss is meant to be a huge weapon - only a STD engine side torso can take it. This alone is a big limiting factor. So, no Heavy Gauss in the King Crab. It will be the primary weapon in any mech, and not many mechs will be able to bring 2 of them.

I love the Fafnir, and fully expect it to feature in MWO soon. I hope Alex Iglesias can do the miracle of making it viable (not huge torsos' hitboxes) but keeping the classic look. (which is really impressive, IMHO)

Uhhh. Is that a response to my post? 'Cause if it is, nowhere do I suggest changing the size. I point out, as you sorta did, that the King Crab can't mount the Heavy Gauss, nor the Improved version because they require 11 crit slots (and while I didn't point it out, it sorta goes without saying that arms have at best 10 crit slots due to the shoulder and upper-arm actuators).

If you're just seizing upon my post to prevent the idea, that's good. If not...ummm, *shrug* I didn't say what you thought I said? It's one of the reasons why I brought up the Fafnir, since we don't have any 100 tonners for it. Atlas could do it, but would probably be better with a uAC/20 and SRMs. Mauler could do it, but it would be glacially slow and/or have a pathetic amount of ammo.

I trust Alex to be able to make any mech look good (accept for the Urbanmech. Not even a mother could love that thing). I'm not to fond of the version you linked though...cockpit area looks too flat. I prefer the shape of the lineart one from the source books, although, it does need improvement.

Edited by ShadowbaneX, 16 January 2017 - 04:25 PM.

[FLG 01]

CK16, on 16 January 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

You know? Why does the IS not ask for something like?
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Sagittaire

The Sagittaire has always been overshadowed by other assaults of the era, especially Fafnir and Templar. The latter was probably the harder competition for being another FedSuns-Mech, one that eventually became very important. It was not terribly well represented in the lore, either. At least I couldn't name any famous Sagittaire pilot on top of my head, whereas I know three for the Templar (Sortek, Sandoval, Julian) without being much of a Davion-fan.
Furthermore, 3060ies Mechs are only a realistic option for MWO since a few days. It is not suprising that a never-popular Mech isn't coming up at once.

[Odanan]

ShadowbaneX, on 16 January 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

Uhhh. Is that a response to my post? 'Cause if it is, nowhere do I suggest changing the size. I point out, as you sorta did, that the King Crab can't mount the Heavy Gauss, nor the Improved version because they require 11 crit slots (and while I didn't point it out, it sorta goes without saying that arms have at best 10 crit slots due to the shoulder and upper-arm actuators).

If you're just seizing upon my post to prevent the idea, that's good. If not...ummm, *shrug* I didn't say what you thought I said? It's one of the reasons why I brought up the Fafnir, since we don't have any 100 tonners for it. Atlas could do it, but would probably be better with a uAC/20 and SRMs. Mauler could do it, but it would be glacially slow and/or have a pathetic amount of ammo.

I trust Alex to be able to make any mech look good (accept for the Urbanmech. Not even a mother could love that thing). I'm not to fond of the version you linked though...cockpit area looks too flat. I prefer the shape of the lineart one from the source books, although, it does need improvement.

My bad!

Dang, my kids are in summer vacation (southern hemisphere here), so my understanding abilities (and most mental faculties) are in very bad shape right now. Yeah, spending entire days locked with two hyper-active children at home (it's raining a lot theses days) was not the best idea.
It will be better if I refrain from posting in any social media right now: that's my second stupid post in a few days (the other was to Russ in twitter)

[SlightlyMobileTurret]

I would love to buy the Sagittaire for C-bills if they ever make it in this game.

As mentioned, it's a jump capable BNC and I love BNCs.

While I would have some reservations about the mounts and the lack of variety on it, I would still pick them up.

8R could well replace my 3M outside tryharding. And the 9D with two B mounts at minimum would certainly be better than a BNC-3S.

285 stock engine? Please no. Never mind this post.

Edited by Keshav Murali, 16 January 2017 - 06:16 PM.

[TheArisen]

CK16, on 16 January 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

You know? Why does the IS not ask for something like?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Sagittaire

She seems pretty good IMO for 95 tons >.> Might be a bit slow but seems well not horrible!

I like it but I'd prefer the Wubshee over it because at 95t I'd rather have a 400xl & shield arms over some JJ although I do like the variant with two ballistics.

[Brain Cancer]

Odanan, on 16 January 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

Please, no changing of the weight or crit-size of any weapon.
We came this far without it (and I worship PGI for that) and I hope we will continue that way.

Heavy Gauss is meant to be a huge weapon - only a STD engine side torso can take it. This alone is a big limiting factor. So, no Heavy Gauss in the King Crab. It will be the primary weapon in any mech, and not many mechs will be able to bring 2 of them.

This is a limitation only in MWO. Heavy Gauss (and iHGR) can be split-mounted in tabletop just fine between adjacent locations. If MWO actually could follow construction rules, a dual HGR King Crab would indeed be possible. Or dual UAC/20, for that matter.

Keshav Murali, on 16 January 2017 - 06:14 PM, said:

I would love to buy the Sagittaire for C-bills if they ever make it in this game.

As mentioned, it's a jump capable BNC and I love BNCs.

While I would have some reservations about the mounts and the lack of variety on it, I would still pick them up.

8R could well replace my 3M outside tryharding. And the 9D with two B mounts at minimum would certainly be better than a BNC-3S.

285 stock engine? Please no. Never mind this post.

Who cares what the stock engine is? People will be able to upgrade it, just like the Banshee. Given it's profile, that likely means a 345 engine cap.

[Karl Streiger]

Main issue with the HGR next to crit splitting necessary for everything but a STD engine (light, XL) the 11slots and 40dmg of explosion. So the thing will go critical almost the first moment a PPC breaches through your armor

I really would love it when PGI would shrink some of the bigger weapons - shrinking would not "invalidate" any "lore" builds
Of course to have a HGR in the arms might be an issue - however the later 3060 weapons are far better balanced then the SDLF and formost CLanMechs to beginn with. So it might be simpler for PGI to get the balance for those guns right.

well however even with +3060 the issues of the MechLab remain - and so are the numbers of mechs that will offer some unique features
(Wraith or LightRay, Falconer or Jinggau)

Edited by Karl Streiger, 17 January 2017 - 12:07 AM.

[SlightlyMobileTurret]

Brain Cancer, on 16 January 2017 - 11:52 PM, said:

Who cares what the stock engine is? People will be able to upgrade it, just like the Banshee. Given it's profile, that likely means a 345 engine cap.

If you own a BNC-3S, you would know just how much of a {LT-MOB-25}-block it is. And completely takes away the XL option, because 63 kph XL IS mech? Pffft... It's wider than a BNC as well.

[TheArisen]

Brain Cancer, on 16 January 2017 - 11:52 PM, said:

This is a limitation only in MWO. Heavy Gauss (and iHGR) can be split-mounted in tabletop just fine between adjacent locations. If MWO actually could follow construction rules, a dual HGR King Crab would indeed be possible. Or dual UAC/20, for that matter.



Who cares what the stock engine is? People will be able to upgrade it, just like the Banshee. Given it's profile, that likely means a 345 engine cap.

The Sagi would be a solid assault but there are more appealing options like the Cerberus that would have a 400 engine cap and can do quad AC10 or quad RAC 5s, maybe even ×2 uac10 & ×2 uac5. Or the Nightstar which offers equally good mounts, a 400 capable variant & a JJ variant with a smaller frontal profile. Although tbh JJ at 95t is more a convenience than an advantage.