Jump to content

Ultimate Mech Discussion Thread

BattleMech Balance

20517 replies to this topic

#19801 FLG 01

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Leutnant
  • Leutnant
  • 2,646 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 11:50 AM

View PostTheArisen, on 23 October 2018 - 09:12 AM, said:

A medium could fit the bill and personally I'd like a 55 tonner. The Lynx specifically

I totally forgot the Lynx does have an SW-era variant, so it would be fine for MW:5, too!

And it is a great medium. As I said, I would buy it as soon as it is announced.


View PostTheArisen, on 23 October 2018 - 10:16 AM, said:

Personally I'm not attached to the Crusader and looking at it's HPs makes me not very interested at all. Mostly arm HPs and they're mixed so it's limited that way. Average engine size but one of the actually interesting variants has a pitiful engine. Honestly, it's pretty lame gameplay wise.

Well, the Crusader is just one of those Mechs which are too important to ignore them. When it comes to gameplay the novelty is having a mixed load-out with JJs. It could be an ok brawler, but I agree it is not very exiting. If it were not the Crusader, people would probably not look at it twice.

This is actually another reason why I believe they may keep the Crusader in reserve and release it as an MW:5-exclusive to get people interested. This would be a big bang.

#19802 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 23 October 2018 - 02:15 PM

Honestly, I think the Crusader will fit in a very solid jack-of-all trades within the 65 ton bracket, which is something the bracket does lack right now. With very few exceptions, you've got the Catapult running either energy boats or missile boats, the Jagermech is running mostly ballistics, and the Thunderbolt is running mostly energy. Also, while the Crusader might come in a little slow (probably max engine around 300 or so), which means it might get some pretty hefty durability quirks. Combined with the fact that almost all variants come in at near max armor, stock, it'd end up a rather rugged mech out-of-the-box, which in turn would make it good for brawling.

Pulling from a theorycrafting post I made right after the Marauder came out (and those hardpoints turned out to be almost spot on for the Warhammer, Archer, and Rifleman while being close on the Phoenix Hawk), a baseline Crusader might look something like this:

Quote

CRD-3R: RA- 1 Missile, 2 Energy, and 1 Ballistic, RT- 1 Missile and 1 AMS, LT- 1 Missile, LA- 1 Missile, 2 Energy, and 1 Ballistic


CRD-2R: RA- 1 Missile, 1 Energy, and 1 Ballistic, RT- 2 Missile and 1 AMS, LT- 2 Missile, LA- 1 Missile, 1 Energy, and 1 Ballistic

CRD-3L: RA- 1 Missile, 1 Energy, and 1 Ballistic, RT- 1 Missile and 1 AMS, LT- 1 Missile and 1 AMS, LA- 1 Missile 1 Energy and 1 Ballistic, Max JJ- 6

Bonus:
CRD-4D: RA- 1 Missile and 3 Energy, RT- 1 Missile, LT- 1 Missile, LA- 1 Missile and 3 Energy

Now, that was before we got civil war tech, which opens up some other variants, like the 5K and 7L, and of course there are a number of other variants I never touched. Some examples:

CRD-5K: RA- 3 Missile, RT- 1 Energy 1 AMS, CT- 2 Energy, LT- 1 Energy, LA- 3 Missile (uses MRMs stock, C3 becomes 1T armor)

CRD-7L: RA- 2 Missile, RT- 1 Missile 1 AMS, CT- 2 Energy, HD- 1 Energy, LT- 1 Missile and 1 ECM, LA- 2 Missile (uses Stealth Armor)

CRD-5M: RA- 1 Ballistic, 2 Energy, 1 Missile, RT- 1 AMS, HD- 1 AMS, LT- 1 AMS, LA- 2 Energy and 2 Missile, Max JJ- 4 (was already viable, I just hadn't theorycrafted it before . . . but a good "AMS Boat" since it comes with AMS in the head stock; and PGI likes to inflate AMS mechs)

The CRD-8S is an honorable mention as it would be extremely unique. It carries a Heavy Gauss and jumps . . . but also an XL engine. Therefore, to use it we'd either need to shrink the HGR or use split crits. Maybe PGI could decide to make an 8SP that uses an Ultra 10, Rotary 5, or something else where the HGR would be? That'd look something like this . . .
CRD-8SP: RA- 2 Energy and 1 Missile, RT- 1 AMS, LT- 3 Ballistic, LA- 2 Energy and 1 Missile, Max JJ- 4 (or 1 Energy and 2 Missile in each arm, dependin on PGI HP inflation)

There's already a solid hero, too . . . BUT . . . it uses a pair of claws at 5 tons each. If I were PGI and wanted to use a CDR-3R "Crusading Crael" knock-off that "updates the tech" (PGI's new SOP after Community feedback post St. Ives' Blues), I'd put in a LFE and Endo Steel, put a Snub-PPC in each arm, along with 2 more MGs, an extra ton of MG and SRM ammo, and the remaining ton into armor. You'd end up with a mech like this. . .
CDR-CC "Crusading Crael": RA- 2 Energy and 2 Ballistic, RT- 2 Missile and 1 AMS, LT- 2 Missile, LA- 2 Energy and 2 Ballistic

There are some other great variants out there, too, but they utilize MMLs, XL Gyros, and Plasma Rifles. As much as I'd love that tech, I doubt it's on PGI's roadmap for anytime soon.

Regardless, the Crusader has a lot of solid choices that'd provide them with plenty of flexibility for the chassis. I think it has solid performance potential in MWO, as well. If PGI does a heavy next (I'd rather have a Wasp/Stinger pack), then the Crusader is the way to go.

#19803 FLG 01

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Leutnant
  • Leutnant
  • 2,646 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 02:54 PM

Yeah, just as I said, it has the mild novelty of mixed builds with JJ and might be an ok brawler. There is a difference between not being exited and entirely dismissing a Mech (like I do in case of the Hollander e.g.).

So any particular build of note that might get someone exited?

The engine cap would likely be 315, as with all the other, many 65t Mechs using a 260 stock. Not that it matters since 300 would be the engine of choice.

PS: I would never count on quirks or hardpoint inflation. Sometimes PGI is extremely generous, and sometimes they are extremely reluctant.

#19804 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 23 October 2018 - 05:15 PM

View PostFLG 01, on 23 October 2018 - 02:54 PM, said:

Yeah, just as I said, it has the mild novelty of mixed builds with JJ and might be an ok brawler. There is a difference between not being exited and entirely dismissing a Mech (like I do in case of the Hollander e.g.).

So any particular build of note that might get someone exited?

The engine cap would likely be 315, as with all the other, many 65t Mechs using a 260 stock. Not that it matters since 300 would be the engine of choice.

PS: I would never count on quirks or hardpoint inflation. Sometimes PGI is extremely generous, and sometimes they are extremely reluctant.

Agreed on the build points. I'm actually rather reserved in the hardpoint inflation. For the most part the only inflation is to make mechs reach the magic "7-10" that PGI likes to hit for mixed-hardpoint mechs, and to ensure that mechs with similar builds (a lot of the early Crusaders) have slight differentiation. Considering the 3R, 2R, and 3L are all 8 non-AMS hardpoints without any inflation, you're going to hit an almost given 10 hardpoints just to make them different. That was THE reason I had originally theorycraft the CDR-3L with 2xAMS and no other hardpoint inflation, since it has JJ. As a bit more modern and extremely reserved theorycrafting, the 3L might have the minimum 8 hardpoints with JJ, and the 3R or 2R could have 8 weapons hardpoints and 2 AMS, leaving the third with some mild hardpoint inflation in some weapon category.

I don't count on quirks, but just made a note of it for the sake of it, and it is a notable factor on the mech's success. A lot of people do put a great deal of stock on quirks, especially for IS mechs, so it's worth noting likely outcomes. Especially with many arm-reliant hardpoints, heavy defensive quirks in the arms is almost inevitable, with ST quirks likely, in addition to whatever else it receives. After all, the Crusader has quite notable arms and torsos . . . and drawings range from being somewhat average with good proportions, to being rather squat with sizable forearms, calves, shoulders, and side torsos. The Death's Knell is a good example of PGI putting larger defense quirks in the ST's over CT to reinforce the fact that ST loss means the arm is gone. The Crusader -almost guaranteed- wouldn't receive as big of a quirk (in relation to base defense) as the Death's Knell, but it's a worthwhile reference. The Phoenix Hawk is another example, getting defensive quirks (albeit structure) everywhere BUT the CT to defend the sizable legs and the arm-based weapons. Personally, I lean more towards Phoenix Hawk type quirks, but they could be armor over structure . . . especially depending on engine cap (I already imagine some variants with a 275-285 max engine cap).

For me, there are a lot of builds I've already been pondering for any of the variants I listed. However, I don't run remotely meta on the overwhelming majority of mech builds I have. I doubt people would be excited about the variety of mixed builds I'm contemplating.

On a more meta-ish note, I could see packing RACs in the arms (more arm movement than a Jager or Rifleman) with laser backups, MRM/SRM brawlers (given), and any energy-boating combo possible (pocket Awesomes, maybe?). Any torso-centric variant (5K, 7L, and a PGI 8SP of the 8S) could of course use the Crusader's likely good shielding arms for solid brawling potential. It's got enough mixed hardpoints to serve as a light-killer with SSRMs and still carry solid firepower elsewhere (energy or ballistic), even with minimal inflation. I see it doing a lot . . . and even doing it every well depending on how the design and quirks.

#19805 TheArisen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,040 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 23 October 2018 - 05:18 PM

View PostSereglach, on 23 October 2018 - 02:15 PM, said:

Honestly, I think the Crusader will fit in a very solid jack-of-all trades within the 65 ton bracket, which is something the bracket does lack right now. With very few exceptions, you've got the Catapult running either energy boats or missile boats, the Jagermech is running mostly ballistics, and the Thunderbolt is running mostly energy. Also, while the Crusader might come in a little slow (probably max engine around 300 or so), which means it might get some pretty hefty durability quirks. Combined with the fact that almost all variants come in at near max armor, stock, it'd end up a rather rugged mech out-of-the-box, which in turn would make it good for brawling.

Pulling from a theorycrafting post I made right after the Marauder came out (and those hardpoints turned out to be almost spot on for the Warhammer, Archer, and Rifleman while being close on the Phoenix Hawk), a baseline Crusader might look something like this:

Now, that was before we got civil war tech, which opens up some other variants, like the 5K and 7L, and of course there are a number of other variants I never touched. Some examples:

CRD-5K: RA- 3 Missile, RT- 1 Energy 1 AMS, CT- 2 Energy, LT- 1 Energy, LA- 3 Missile (uses MRMs stock, C3 becomes 1T armor)

CRD-7L: RA- 2 Missile, RT- 1 Missile 1 AMS, CT- 2 Energy, HD- 1 Energy, LT- 1 Missile and 1 ECM, LA- 2 Missile (uses Stealth Armor)

CRD-5M: RA- 1 Ballistic, 2 Energy, 1 Missile, RT- 1 AMS, HD- 1 AMS, LT- 1 AMS, LA- 2 Energy and 2 Missile, Max JJ- 4 (was already viable, I just hadn't theorycrafted it before . . . but a good "AMS Boat" since it comes with AMS in the head stock; and PGI likes to inflate AMS mechs)

The CRD-8S is an honorable mention as it would be extremely unique. It carries a Heavy Gauss and jumps . . . but also an XL engine. Therefore, to use it we'd either need to shrink the HGR or use split crits. Maybe PGI could decide to make an 8SP that uses an Ultra 10, Rotary 5, or something else where the HGR would be? That'd look something like this . . .
CRD-8SP: RA- 2 Energy and 1 Missile, RT- 1 AMS, LT- 3 Ballistic, LA- 2 Energy and 1 Missile, Max JJ- 4 (or 1 Energy and 2 Missile in each arm, dependin on PGI HP inflation)

There's already a solid hero, too . . . BUT . . . it uses a pair of claws at 5 tons each. If I were PGI and wanted to use a CDR-3R "Crusading Crael" knock-off that "updates the tech" (PGI's new SOP after Community feedback post St. Ives' Blues), I'd put in a LFE and Endo Steel, put a Snub-PPC in each arm, along with 2 more MGs, an extra ton of MG and SRM ammo, and the remaining ton into armor. You'd end up with a mech like this. . .
CDR-CC "Crusading Crael": RA- 2 Energy and 2 Ballistic, RT- 2 Missile and 1 AMS, LT- 2 Missile, LA- 2 Energy and 2 Ballistic

There are some other great variants out there, too, but they utilize MMLs, XL Gyros, and Plasma Rifles. As much as I'd love that tech, I doubt it's on PGI's roadmap for anytime soon.

Regardless, the Crusader has a lot of solid choices that'd provide them with plenty of flexibility for the chassis. I think it has solid performance potential in MWO, as well. If PGI does a heavy next (I'd rather have a Wasp/Stinger pack), then the Crusader is the way to go.


Roughneck already fills that generalist role quite well. I love mine personally.

Btw, the 7L comes with a 195 engine stock... Ouch.

As I said, Crusader would be a money maker but I'd much rather get other mechs.

#19806 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 23 October 2018 - 06:20 PM

View PostTheArisen, on 23 October 2018 - 05:18 PM, said:

Roughneck already fills that generalist role quite well. I love mine personally.

Btw, the 7L comes with a 195 engine stock... Ouch.

As I said, Crusader would be a money maker but I'd much rather get other mechs.

Personal opinion on the Roughneck: As a whole one might consider it a generalist, but each variant tends to be rather heavily slanted towards a specific hardpoint. 1A and 2A are Ballistic heavy, 1B and 1C are Ballistic/Missile heavy, and the 3A is an energy boat. Granted, the heroes (Reaver kind-of, Powerhouse definitely) are more generalist, but I try to avoid using heroes in chassis comparisons, because they generally go outside the norm of the chassis. To me the Crusader would be the epitome of a "generalist" for MWO's hardpoint concerns. Most variants carry a fair amount of everything.

As I said, personal opinion. I'm glad the Roughneck is the 65t generalist you want/enjoy.

Regardless, there are lots of mechs I'd rather get over the Crusader, but they're almost all lights with only a couple of mediums. I'd much prefer a Wasp/Stinger (or just Wasp, if singular) pack over anything else. As far as heavies alone go, though, the Crusader is the absolute top of that list.

#19807 TheArisen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,040 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 23 October 2018 - 06:49 PM

View PostSereglach, on 23 October 2018 - 06:20 PM, said:

Personal opinion on the Roughneck: As a whole one might consider it a generalist, but each variant tends to be rather heavily slanted towards a specific hardpoint. 1A and 2A are Ballistic heavy, 1B and 1C are Ballistic/Missile heavy, and the 3A is an energy boat. Granted, the heroes (Reaver kind-of, Powerhouse definitely) are more generalist, but I try to avoid using heroes in chassis comparisons, because they generally go outside the norm of the chassis. To me the Crusader would be the epitome of a "generalist" for MWO's hardpoint concerns. Most variants carry a fair amount of everything.

As I said, personal opinion. I'm glad the Roughneck is the 65t generalist you want/enjoy.

Regardless, there are lots of mechs I'd rather get over the Crusader, but they're almost all lights with only a couple of mediums. I'd much prefer a Wasp/Stinger (or just Wasp, if singular) pack over anything else. As far as heavies alone go, though, the Crusader is the absolute top of that list.


Oh I guess I misunderstood what you meant. I do admit I generally prefer to only have two weapon types or at the very least weapon synergy is a big factor for me.

#19808 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 23 October 2018 - 07:32 PM

View PostTheArisen, on 23 October 2018 - 06:49 PM, said:

Oh I guess I misunderstood what you meant. I do admit I generally prefer to only have two weapon types or at the very least weapon synergy is a big factor for me.

Completely understandable. I prefer no more than 3 weapon groups in mechs, and I also do a fair bit of bracket firing or purpose-built groups.

#19809 Grus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Devil
  • Little Devil
  • 4,155 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 08:01 PM

Stone Rhino..

#19810 Odanan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 8,210 posts
  • LocationBrazil

Posted 24 October 2018 - 03:29 AM

View PostGrus, on 23 October 2018 - 08:01 PM, said:

Stone Rhino..

Not this time...

#19811 FLG 01

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Leutnant
  • Leutnant
  • 2,646 posts

Posted 24 October 2018 - 05:29 PM

View PostTheArisen, on 23 October 2018 - 06:49 PM, said:

Oh I guess I misunderstood what you meant. I do admit I generally prefer to only have two weapon types or at the very least weapon synergy is a big factor for me.

It's actually one of the most critical, yet somehow underrated factors. It's not just about the raw damage output, it is about how this output is achieved and how it is delivered.
I don't feel confident with more than two types of weapons, and I am hardly an inexperienced or inefficient player. There is just a limit on my multitasking (most of which is consumed by piloting, positioning, understanding the tactical situation and reacting to it; that's where I am goot at). Trained real-life pilots consider this child's play, of course, but that's not me.

I think it is a shame that mixed builds don't work better in MWO, but here we are...


View PostSereglach, on 23 October 2018 - 05:15 PM, said:

However, I don't run remotely meta on the overwhelming majority of mech builds I have. I doubt people would be excited about the variety of mixed builds I'm contemplating.

Meta as in "latest try-hard build, potentially exploitative", or meta as in "above average"? You see, I generally do run builds I enjoy, but an important part of that fun is having reasonable success. I do use PPCs in the arms on the Warhammer e.g. because I consider a Warhammer without them heresy, but I don't throw in some random stock weapon because that would be wasteful.

If you argue from a lore point of view, nobody could disagree the Crusader deserves the number one spot. But if you decide to engage in a gameplay discussion, the question of successful builds is essential. If a Mech fails to be viable in MWO, it is not fun and will not be used... iconic or not.

We have too many Mechs serving as hangar queens not because they are old and simply forgotten, but because they were subpar on release due to their inherent characteristics (hardpoints, geometry, engine etc.).

The Crusader might escape that fate, or it might not. I have not made up my mind yet, hence my question. From a purely gameplay perspective I don't see the appeal, certainly not when compared to units like the Dragon Fire (which has a notable FCCW history, btw).

Take the Champion for example. When it was announced I was less than thrilled, as you may remember (I wrote as much in this thread). But I ran the numbers, came up with some builds, and decided it's worth it. Again, perhaps I'll change my mind when I see the announcement.
So far, however, there is a boatload of heavy Mechs more deserving when it comes to gameplay. Mechs that probably will bring more enjoyment to the player in game.

I know, many disagree; I have seen it before: the Uziel, the Hellspawn, the Thanatos, the Cougar, the Black Lanner... All once wanted, all dead now. And if the Crusader is released I sure hope quirks and geometry prove me wrong. There is a chance, but I doubt it lies in mixed builds.

Edited by FLG 01, 24 October 2018 - 05:30 PM.


#19812 TheArisen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,040 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 24 October 2018 - 05:58 PM

View PostFLG 01, on 24 October 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:

It's actually one of the most critical, yet somehow underrated factors. It's not just about the raw damage output, it is about how this output is achieved and how it is delivered.
I don't feel confident with more than two types of weapons, and I am hardly an inexperienced or inefficient player. There is just a limit on my multitasking (most of which is consumed by piloting, positioning, understanding the tactical situation and reacting to it; that's where I am goot at). Trained real-life pilots consider this child's play, of course, but that's not me.

I think it is a shame that mixed builds don't work better in MWO, but here we are...



Meta as in "latest try-hard build, potentially exploitative", or meta as in "above average"? You see, I generally do run builds I enjoy, but an important part of that fun is having reasonable success. I do use PPCs in the arms on the Warhammer e.g. because I consider a Warhammer without them heresy, but I don't throw in some random stock weapon because that would be wasteful.

If you argue from a lore point of view, nobody could disagree the Crusader deserves the number one spot. But if you decide to engage in a gameplay discussion, the question of successful builds is essential. If a Mech fails to be viable in MWO, it is not fun and will not be used... iconic or not.

We have too many Mechs serving as hangar queens not because they are old and simply forgotten, but because they were subpar on release due to their inherent characteristics (hardpoints, geometry, engine etc.).

The Crusader might escape that fate, or it might not. I have not made up my mind yet, hence my question. From a purely gameplay perspective I don't see the appeal, certainly not when compared to units like the Dragon Fire (which has a notable FCCW history, btw).

Take the Champion for example. When it was announced I was less than thrilled, as you may remember (I wrote as much in this thread). But I ran the numbers, came up with some builds, and decided it's worth it. Again, perhaps I'll change my mind when I see the announcement.
So far, however, there is a boatload of heavy Mechs more deserving when it comes to gameplay. Mechs that probably will bring more enjoyment to the player in game.

I know, many disagree; I have seen it before: the Uziel, the Hellspawn, the Thanatos, the Cougar, the Black Lanner... All once wanted, all dead now. And if the Crusader is released I sure hope quirks and geometry prove me wrong. There is a chance, but I doubt it lies in mixed builds.


I'm ok with 3 or 4 weapon groups, etc, but imo mechs are more like tanks which as history has shown, one big gun is better. Battleships went the same route. Less weapons typically means more focused firepower. A generalist is simply not good enough usually in one specific role to compete. (In mwo anyway). Flexibility is good but there is such a thing as too much.

The thing for me that hurts the Crusader is more than just it's generalist hps on most variants (as opposed to the Roughneck that has it as a chassis) is that so many of it's weapons are in it's arms which further limits the build options for a 65 tonner. Also the 7L, ecm variant, comes with a sad little 195 std... Sure it has ecm but also assault mech speed.

I actually do like my Thanatos as an LBX40 with high mounts but that's about it. I wish I'd waited for cbills with it.

#19813 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 24 October 2018 - 07:30 PM

View PostFLG 01, on 24 October 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:

Meta as in "latest try-hard build, potentially exploitative", or meta as in "above average"? You see, I generally do run builds I enjoy, but an important part of that fun is having reasonable success. I do use PPCs in the arms on the Warhammer e.g. because I consider a Warhammer without them heresy, but I don't throw in some random stock weapon because that would be wasteful.

Non-meta as in I play what I feel like playing, what I want to play, and I make it work for me. I've had people berate me, and my builds, on chat and voip before. I could care less. Mechs like my 2x LBX2 Adder, Flamer mechs, and others have never been considered meta by any stretch. Some of my builds aren't even considered viable by any stretch.

Sometimes my builds work out in some meta fashion. While I don't think people have widely realized it yet, for example, Flamers are so brokenly OP right now it's hilariously aggravating (sooo livid that PGI aka Chris Lowrey directly blew me off and yet now Flamers are "under the microscope" while they are in this state). Most of the time, however, I'm just doing my own thing because it's what I want to do for enjoyment. Sometimes I'm doing well, sometimes I'm not. In many cases (Flamer and AMS mechs, in particular) my damage is in the gutter because it's more a support build then a damage dealing build, and that also draws ire.

View PostFLG 01, on 24 October 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:

If you argue from a lore point of view, nobody could disagree the Crusader deserves the number one spot. But if you decide to engage in a gameplay discussion, the question of successful builds is essential. If a Mech fails to be viable in MWO, it is not fun and will not be used... iconic or not.

We have too many Mechs serving as hangar queens not because they are old and simply forgotten, but because they were subpar on release due to their inherent characteristics (hardpoints, geometry, engine etc.).

The Crusader might escape that fate, or it might not. I have not made up my mind yet, hence my question. From a purely gameplay perspective I don't see the appeal, certainly not when compared to units like the Dragon Fire (which has a notable FCCW history, btw).

Take the Champion for example. When it was announced I was less than thrilled, as you may remember (I wrote as much in this thread). But I ran the numbers, came up with some builds, and decided it's worth it. Again, perhaps I'll change my mind when I see the announcement.
So far, however, there is a boatload of heavy Mechs more deserving when it comes to gameplay. Mechs that probably will bring more enjoyment to the player in game.

I know, many disagree; I have seen it before: the Uziel, the Hellspawn, the Thanatos, the Cougar, the Black Lanner... All once wanted, all dead now. And if the Crusader is released I sure hope quirks and geometry prove me wrong. There is a chance, but I doubt it lies in mixed builds.

I'm not arguing from a money-making or raw lore/nostalgia standpoint, because I don't think there's any competition there, at all. The Crusader would absolutely sell well on those points alone. However, I do sincerely think that, from a gameplay perspective, the Crusader will be a solid mech.

First things first, while quirks aren't to be outwardly relied upon, we know that with most hardpoints in the arms the Crusader will get hefty defensive quirks in the arms . . . and likely side torsos. Phoenix Hawk, Death's Knell, Panther, and Mist Lynx, among many others, all show this. Regardless of quirk size, it will mitigate issues with the arm reliance. Also, we know from mechs like the Annihilator and Urbanmech (extreme, but makes the point), if the Crusader comes in at a lower engine cap then they're going to compensate with significant defensive quirks; and that will help alleviate issues if it comes in as a slower chassis. I'm not relying on these, but making it clear that PGI has a solid background of handling things this way. Not to mention that they're even more likely with the Crusader as an IS chassis, and PGI would NOT want to screw up such an iconic Classic. Regardless, just making that point first to get it out of the way.

Now, from a purely gameplay viability or semi-meta perspective on builds, the Crusader will be able to do a wide variety of reasonably popular builds on nearly any variant, even without hardpoint inflation. Dual Rotary 5's with better arm movement than a Jager. Dual MRM 40's either in the arms for better targeting or in the torsos for arm shielding (the 5K and 5L with CT and HD energy hardpoints would be ideal for arm shielding). PPC or Ballistic Snipers or Ballistics/PPC PPFLD or Ballistic/Laser DPS builds. SRM Brawlers with some lasers and MGs for crit-gutting. You could even SSRM boat for anti-light defense in FP or pack in LRMs for people who like to do that, and in either case you've got at least energy hardpoints, if not energy and ballistic, for backup weapons.

Conveniently, the Crusader has a bit of everything, but it has enough of everything (the thing has quite a pile of hardpoints on most builds) to make plenty of respectably viable or meta builds. Many heavy mechs for the IS have builds that rely on as little as 2-4 hardpoints, and the Crusader will absolutely have those 2-4 hardpoints somewhere on some variant. While plenty of people would go, "Well, we've already got that in mechs XYZ," the same goes for almost all meta mech builds that are out there.

Depending on hit boxes and geometry (as with nearly any mech, this could be make or break), I think the Crusader will actually be in a solidly competitive spot if released. Thankfully, the artwork out there implies that the Crusader should do reasonably well in those departments.

#19814 Odanan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 8,210 posts
  • LocationBrazil

Posted 29 October 2018 - 04:52 AM

3 days!!!

Will we get a Wasp/Stinger combo? Or even Wasp/Valkyrie?

#19815 MeiSooHaityu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 10,912 posts
  • LocationMI

Posted 29 October 2018 - 04:56 AM

View PostOdanan, on 29 October 2018 - 04:52 AM, said:

3 days!!!

Will we get a Wasp/Stinger combo? Or even Wasp/Valkyrie?


Wouldn't that be nice.

I wonder if it would just pop up like that, or would PGI wait until MechCon to make an announcement like that?

#19816 Odanan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 8,210 posts
  • LocationBrazil

Posted 29 October 2018 - 10:55 AM

View PostMeiSooHaityu, on 29 October 2018 - 04:56 AM, said:

Wouldn't that be nice.

I wonder if it would just pop up like that, or would PGI wait until MechCon to make an announcement like that?

MechCon is when they release an "in house" mech.

#19817 MeiSooHaityu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 10,912 posts
  • LocationMI

Posted 29 October 2018 - 11:05 AM

View PostOdanan, on 29 October 2018 - 10:55 AM, said:

MechCon is when they release an "in house" mech.


Traditionally, sure.

Still though, if PGI was adding the Wasp/Valkyrie, that is big news and what better place for big news than MechCon :).

If they want to announce it before that though, sure I am up for that too :).

#19818 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 29 October 2018 - 01:02 PM

View PostOdanan, on 29 October 2018 - 10:55 AM, said:

MechCon is when they release an "in house" mech.

They could always do multiple mech announcements at the con. It would be a really big deal if PGI said, "Hey, we've got these Classics packs coming/now-available and here's this new in house mech we're announcing, too!" Even if they're not all available at the same time, PGI could possibly do that.

There are plenty of other marketing options they could pull out of various orifices, as well. Maybe they announce a classics mech pack that's tied to a MW5 preorder, "Get this/these Classic Chassis in MWO with super-special-edition-platinum-deluxe-surreal-mega-hype-preorder of MW5: Mercenaries, to be released into MWO on the same date MW5 releases!" That still allows them to announce an "available now" preorder for an in-house chassis announced at MechCon.

Regardless, PGI has options for whatever they want to do . . . if they want to do it.

#19819 Odanan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 8,210 posts
  • LocationBrazil

Posted 31 October 2018 - 07:56 PM

New mech(s) today?

Go Wasp and Stinger!

#19820 The Lighthouse

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 1,141 posts

Posted 31 October 2018 - 09:15 PM

View PostOdanan, on 31 October 2018 - 07:56 PM, said:

New mech(s) today?

Go Wasp and Stinger!


Wow, it's already first day of a new month. Time passes too fast.





9 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 9 guests, 0 anonymous users