98 replies to this topic

[Ovion]

I use an LBX10, 2mgs, 3 Mpls, and that works out pretty well. In fact for me, with that load out, it was pleasant to basic.
My other, I suck with, run too hot and still sits ignored, not quite basiced, as the other 2 are so similar I worry about the struggle they'll be.
And honestly, I'd love to see AC quirks to set it apart.

Preferably Lbx10, but ac10 would be fine too.

I'm thinking Ballistic range + cool down, maybe with projectile speed too.

[Deathlike]

Ovion, on 11 February 2015 - 10:53 AM, said:

I use an LBX10, 2mgs, 3 Mpls, and that works out pretty well. In fact for me, with that load out, it was pleasant to basic.
My other, I suck with, run too hot and still sits ignored, not quite basiced, as the other 2 are so similar I worry about the struggle they'll be.
And honestly, I'd love to see AC quirks to set it apart.

Preferably Lbx10, but ac10 would be fine too.

I'm thinking Ballistic range + cool down, maybe with projectile speed too.

I doubt you have that many.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ovion, on 11 February 2015 - 10:53 AM, said:

Preferably Lbx10, but ac10 would be fine too.

Definitely a no to LBX10 quirks, that worked out well for the CN9-D for about two weeks before the novelty wore off and people realized it is still a bad weapon even with quirks.

AC10 would be better, but it would then compete with the incoming Enforcer (which will probably have AC10 and LBX10 quirks). So either this or the Enforcer needs a Gauss quirk while the other gets an AC10. As for the AC5, unless they boost the damage for it, the 2 PPC VND-1R will always be the better option for the skirmisher style.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 11 February 2015 - 11:14 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

For one, I feel the ballistic weapon quirks given to the 1X should allow a PPC to be equipped while running the largest XL it can carry (XL235). That's pretty much how the 1AA and 1R works.

The reason I say this is because the Vindicator really needs speed to help make up for it's low tonnage for a medium (and the lower armor that comes with it).

That is why I'm thinking more A/C 5 quirks. An A/C5 with a boosted RoF. It means you could still fire a 15pt alpha when necessary, but can sustain good RoF with the A/C5 if the opportunity arises.

I still would be open to MG buffs if it had wicked range boost...maybe.

I just feel an A/C10 is a bit too heavy to run on the chassis while maintaining good speed (+90 kph) unless your running MLasrers :/

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 11 February 2015 - 11:45 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MeiSooHaityu, on 11 February 2015 - 11:43 AM, said:

For one, I feel the ballistic weapon quirks given to the 1X should allow a PPC to be equipped while running the largest XL it can carry (XL235). That's pretty much how the 1AA and 1R works.

The reason I say this is because the Vindicator really needs speed to help make up for it's low tonnage for a medium (and the lower armor that comes with it).

That is why I'm thinking more A/C 5 quirks. An A/C5 with a boosted RoF. It means you could still fire a 15pt alpha when necessary, but can sustain good RoF with the A/C5 if the opportunity arises.

I still would be open to MG buffs if it had wicked range boost...maybe.

I just feel an A/C10 is a bit too heavy to run on the chassis while maintaining good speed (+90 kph) unless your running MLasrers :/

Honestly I was thinking more along the lines of AC10 with medium laser backup, that's why I suggested the extra energy hardpoint.

The amount of times that AC5's RoF has come in handy is minimal for me, it just doesn't do enough by itself to justify that much exposure. Now if the PPC had a higher RoF to put in closer to the AC5 then maybe I would think about it. That and a higher engine cap so I can justify an XL with that config.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 11 February 2015 - 12:00 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

The problem is MGs, like with very many other under-performing mechs.

Bump MG damage to 0.1 per hit. Bump MG crit rates up significantly. Bump MG bonus crit damage up moderately.

If doing so makes boated MGs too strong, then put a cap on concurrent critical hits or something. It shouldn't be necessary, especially given how weak MGs would remain against armor, but it gives PGI an solution if it does end up being a problem.

Note, I don't think MGs were a problem before the crit rate nerf, and I do think they've become a problem since the damage nerf/hit reg fix, but in the opposite way, where I've stripped them from everything because they're essentially dead weight.

[Kjudoon]

Best way to deal with the 1X for me is to ignore the ballistics and go LRM10. No seriously. Stop laughing. It's a great variation of what you're already doing.

My only complaint over the 1R and 1X is still too small of engines. Beyond that... meh. I'll work with it, and as for the 1X, I found what works for me.

Edited by Kjudoon, 11 February 2015 - 12:07 PM.

[LT. HARDCASE]

Kjudoon, on 11 February 2015 - 12:06 PM, said:

Best way to deal with the 1X for me is to ignore the ballistics and go LRM10. No seriously. Stop laughing. It's a great variation of what you're already doing.

My only complaint over the 1R and 1X is still too small of engines. Beyond that... meh. I'll work with it, and as for the 1X, I found what works for me.

What do you run with this LRM10?

[MeiSooHaityu]

WM Quicksilver, on 11 February 2015 - 11:58 AM, said:

Honestly I was thinking more along the lines of AC10 with medium laser backup, that's why I suggested the extra energy hardpoint.

I think if the energy was in the same location, I could be swayed to think the same way you do. Problem is though, the only 2 energy are in different locations (1 arm and 1 head). It causes a convergence issue when your maneuvering. When your backup energy is 2 MLasers or 2 MPLasers, it is just too limited when they can't converge properly when moving fast. At least the YLW or Centurion A has it's energy backup in the same location (chassis) to help combat that.

[Tahribator]

There's no saving it. You can only utilize those 3xB with machine guns, and that leaves you with an arm E, head E and torso M, which are really hard to work with. It's just a bad design. Now, if only it had a single ballistic but got 3 arm E's instead . . . that'd be a nice addition.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 11 February 2015 - 12:02 PM, said:

The problem is MGs, like with very many other under-performing mechs.

Bump MG damage to 0.1 per hit. Bump MG crit rates up significantly. Bump MG bonus crit damage up moderately.

If doing so makes boated MGs too strong, then put a cap on concurrent critical hits or something. It shouldn't be necessary, especially given how weak MGs would remain against armor, but it gives PGI an solution if it does end up being a problem.

Note, I don't think MGs were a problem before the crit rate nerf, and I do think they've become a problem since the damage nerf/hit reg fix, but in the opposite way, where I've stripped them from everything because they're essentially dead weight.

That's why I think if MG quirks were to be considered, it would have to involve a huge range buff. With 3 MGs you can carry a PPC, SRM4 or 6, and still carry like 3 tons of MG ammo. If the range was MLaser level or even MPLaser level range, I could see using the PPC at range and spamming a MPLaser w/ 3 MGs at closer range with a SRM launcher. I think that can work....I think.

I will agree, I am iffy on the MG quirk idea, but I think I could see it be viable with 3 and good range.

[Torgun]

Mcgral18, on 11 February 2015 - 08:38 AM, said:

On a totally unrelated note, doesn't the picture of Vindy remind you of the expression "SadPanda" or is it just me?

[TripleEhBeef]

Huh, I actually liked the 1X a lot more than the 1R. This was when the chassis dropped mind you, I haven't played the mechs in a long time. Not to mention those two were only using a STD 235. I guess an XL just gives you that much more room to play with on the 1R.

[MeiSooHaityu]

TripleEhBeef, on 11 February 2015 - 12:23 PM, said:

Huh, I actually liked the 1X a lot more than the 1R. This was when the chassis dropped mind you, I haven't played the mechs in a long time. Not to mention those two were only using a STD 235. I guess an XL just gives you that much more room to play with on the 1R.

Yea, the funny thing is (unskilled) the 235 engine puts the Vindicator in the 80 kph range which is a bit too slow for how fragile the mech is at 45 tons.

Before I skilled it (speed tweak), I ran the 1R with a standard engine for survivability sake. I don't remember my load out though.

Now I run the 1R with a XL235 due to the speed tweak being unlocked (93kph). It makes me feel a bit more comfortable. Now I running full JJs, Endo, 2 PPCs with backup 3 SLasers. The PPCs in a 1R see a 40% Velocity increase so they are pretty effective.

Thing is, if the quirks were ERPPC instead, I'd move my 1AA to 2 ERPPCs w/ 1 MLaser and make my 1R the 2 LPLaser / 3 MLaser build.

The only reason my 1AA doesn't run the 2 PPC / 1 MLaser loadout now is because 1 MLaser isn't enough to deter the enemy from face hugging you, yet oddly 3 SLasers in a 1R does. Go figure

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MeiSooHaityu, on 11 February 2015 - 12:13 PM, said:

I think if the energy was in the same location, I could be swayed to think the same way you do. Problem is though, the only 2 energy are in different locations (1 arm and 1 head). It causes a convergence issue when your maneuvering. When your backup energy is 2 MLasers or 2 MPLasers, it is just too limited when they can't converge properly when moving fast. At least the YLW or Centurion A has it's energy backup in the same location (chassis) to help combat that.

The god-tier medium and heavy both have energy weapons in a variety of locations and they don't get affected by it that bad. It may be more pronounced in more humanoid mechs but I don't think it is that big of a deal with hitscan weapons like lasers.

Though I would still say the backup should be 3, meaning it gets a ballistic hardpoint removed for an 1 energy hardpoint. Ballistic hardpoints aren't equivalent in worth to energy hardpoints on medium mechs past the first hardpoint and its something the devs seemed to overlook for the longest time.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 11 February 2015 - 12:40 PM.

[Ovion]

Deathlike, on 11 February 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

I doubt you have that many.

Maybe 2?
However many hard points it has MPLs.
Was from memory at work.

WM Quicksilver, on 11 February 2015 - 11:14 AM, said:

Definitely a no to LBX10 quirks, that worked out well for the CN9-D for about two weeks before the novelty wore off and people realized it is still a bad weapon even with quirks.

AC10 would be better, but it would then compete with the incoming Enforcer (which will probably have AC10 and LBX10 quirks). So either this or the Enforcer needs a Gauss quirk while the other gets an AC10. As for the AC5, unless they boost the damage for it, the 2 PPC VND-1R will always be the better option for the skirmisher style.

Honestly, I consistently do well with Lbx10s.
Less well with ac10.

They're so versatile and functional at all ranges and run so cold.

But each to their own.

Looking forward to the Lbx10 urbs and enforcer

[Kjudoon]

Kevjack, on 11 February 2015 - 12:10 PM, said:

What do you run with this LRM10?

PPC and MPL.

Works great. has a weapon for all ranges.

Max engine and I think 3 JJ

[MeiSooHaityu]

WM Quicksilver, on 11 February 2015 - 12:39 PM, said:

The god-tier medium and heavy both have energy weapons in a variety of locations and they don't get affected by it that bad. It may be more pronounced in more humanoid mechs but I don't think it is that big of a deal with hitscan weapons like lasers.

Though I would still say the backup should be 3, meaning it gets a ballistic hardpoint removed for an 1 energy hardpoint. Ballistic hardpoints aren't equivalent in worth to energy hardpoints on medium mechs past the first hardpoint and its something the devs seemed to overlook for the longest time.

I think the slower mechs are affected by split energy locations less and also mechs with no lower arm actuators. I think a quick mech with lowervarm actuators makes the different locations for energy more pronounced.

I'm not saying this makes using 2 MLasers or 2 MPLasers useless or anything, just not as optimal, especially dealing with only 2 energy (one in each location). Now in a swayback where I have 9 energy and its split 2 and 7, that's not as big of a deal for me lol.

I agree 100% with you when it come to removing a ballistic and replacing it with an energy. It would make a world of difference, but I can't see that happening sadly

[LT. HARDCASE]

Tahribator, on 11 February 2015 - 12:16 PM, said:

There's no saving it. You can only utilize those 3xB with machine guns, and that leaves you with an arm E, head E and torso M, which are really hard to work with. It's just a bad design. Now, if only it had a single ballistic but got 3 arm E's instead . . . that'd be a nice addition.

I fear that PGI's homemade ENF-5P is soon to suffer the same fate.

I mean, 4B and 1E, on a 50 ton mech? That's legit DOA, no jokes.

[STEF_]

WM Quicksilver, on 11 February 2015 - 11:14 AM, said:

.........., the 2 ER PPC VND-1R will always be the better option for the skirmisher style.

Fixed.
As previously said, the 1R is too damn slow for being able to keep a medium range skirmish and medium or light can eat him
alive.
The Er-ppc quirks would be much better than what we have now.