98 replies to this topic

[MeiSooHaityu]

Kevjack, on 11 February 2015 - 12:54 PM, said:

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.

4 ballistics in a 50 ton is worry some. A Hunchback 4G is 50tons and could BARELY make a triple A/C2 loadout work (and that was before A/C2 RoF needs).

At least I feel a bit better with 4MGs over 3, but hardly better. This mech will normally only be outfitted with 1 or 2 ballistics most of the time I think :/

[FupDup]

Kevjack, on 11 February 2015 - 12:54 PM, said:

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.

Mechs like that are the reason why I wish we had Binary Laser Cannons. :\

[STEF_]

Kevjack, on 11 February 2015 - 12:54 PM, said:

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.

Not necessarily.
If a mech is doa (that is dead) it depends on hitboxes, above all.

Then the loadout can be acceptable for a skirmisher, because it has speed, while Vindy hasn't
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...497d0ccf33c4e30

edit: of course it's not mandatory to load all 4 ballistic hardpoint.

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 11 February 2015 - 01:09 PM.

[STEF_]

MeiSooHaityu, on 11 February 2015 - 01:05 PM, said:

4 ballistics in a 50 ton is worry some. A Hunchback 4G is 50tons and could BARELY make a triple A/C2 loadout work (and that was before A/C2 RoF needs).

At least I feel a bit better with 4MGs over 3, but hardly better. This mech will normally only be outfitted with 1 or 2 ballistics most of the time I think :/

well, imo 2ac5 are better than a single ac10, and 2ac5 leaves room for that energy hardpoint, while 3ac2 weight too much.

About ac2.... no thanks

[MeiSooHaityu]

Stefka Kerensky, on 11 February 2015 - 01:11 PM, said:

well, imo 2ac5 are better than a single ac10, and 2ac5 leaves room for that energy hardpoint, while 3ac2 weight too much.

About ac2.... no thanks

Especially now with the low RoF of the A/C2. Before all the nerfs, the extra weight gave you an Ultra A/C6 lol. But the Jager came a long with it's 5 or 6 A/C2 builds and that is why we can't have nice things.

Yea, the dual A/C5 is the better choice hands down now.

I know Sean Lang was talking about how he would like to see the A/C2 possibly get a Crit Seek instead of an RoF buff (since an RoF buff would be too dangerous boated), but I'm unsure of that. Crit seeking is normally a boating abused mechanic too. The crit seek would have to be good enough to use in a single or double A/C2 application, but not an equipment destroying machine when boated. Just tricky.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 11 February 2015 - 01:29 PM.

[Ovion]

FupDup, on 11 February 2015 - 01:07 PM, said:

Mechs like that are the reason why I wish we had Binary Laser Cannons. :\

Just want Blazers anyway.

Stefka Kerensky, on 11 February 2015 - 01:11 PM, said:

well, imo 2ac5 are better than a single ac10, and 2ac5 leaves room for that energy hardpoint, while 3ac2 weight too much.

About ac2.... no thanks

Or even 2 UAC5 to take advantage of it's probably quirks.

Can fit that, 5-6T ammo and a 255XL in there.

I'll probably whack 4MGs and a LPL on mine.

Edited by Ovion, 11 February 2015 - 01:21 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The ENF-5P will suffer from little mech syndrome in that if it were only 5 tons heavier it could run 2 UAC5 much more efficiently. As it stands currently, with a 255 XL and 3 JJs, you have only 5 tons of ammo with no backup weapons. Albeit that is with UAC5s in separate arms which may or may not be a blessing, depends on how good it is at protecting its arms like its cousin the Centurion.

I was excited about this variant until I realized it was 50 tons instead of 55.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 11 February 2015 - 01:41 PM.

[FupDup]

WM Quicksilver, on 11 February 2015 - 01:38 PM, said:

The ENF-5P will suffer from little mech syndrome in that if it were only 5 tons heavier it could run 2 UAC5 much more efficiently. As it stands currently, with a 255 XL and 3 JJs, you have only 5 tons of ammo with no backup weapons. Albeit that is with UAC5s in separate arms which may or may not be a blessing, depends on how good it is at protecting its arms like its cousin the Centurion.

I was excited about this variant until I realized it was 50 tons instead of 55.

We can have crazy long-range wubcannons, and fire-hose dakka dakka, but apparently ammo per ton quirks aren't an option.

[CocoaJin]

3 out of 4 ain't bad...let 1X "suck". It might be a great mech in the future if we ever get combat dynamics and game modes and objectives that take resource cost and logistics into account...some fronts just don't need, nor should it necessarily be viable to have top notch, front line mechs drop.

We need some lack luster units for the derp engagements every theater of war has...like the back water areas of the Mediterranean and expanses of North Africa during WWII(pre-Allied build up into invasion of Europe).

We need to leave viable options for combat dynamics other than the current style of "Combat Unlimited".

[FupDup]

CocoaJin, on 11 February 2015 - 03:58 PM, said:

3 out of 4 ain't bad...let 1X "suck". It might be a great mech in the future if we ever get combat dynamics and game modes and objectives that take resource cost and logistics into account...some fronts just don't need, nor should it necessarily be viable to have top notch, front line mechs drop.

We need some lack luster units for the derp engagements every theater of war has...like the back water areas of the Mediterranean and expanses of North Africa during WWII(pre-Allied build up into invasion of Europe).

We need to leave viable options for combat dynamics other than the current style of "Combat Unlimited".

Costs would only make the mech a "good" choice for space poors. People with a decent amount of cash, including pre-established Mech Romneys like myself, wouldn't really get any benefit.


Also, I firmly hold the belief that people who say that any weapon or mech should intentionally be crappy, should be forced to use that mech/weapon exclusively for the remainder of their time playing this game. If you ask for certain units to be cannon fodder, it's only fair that you should have to play that role yourself.

[Redwo1f]

MeiSooHaityu, on 11 February 2015 - 12:32 PM, said:

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

You mean I have to run it with only 1 ML???? lol - throw in an XL, put in more....just be wary of the XL. I run mine with 2PPC, 2ML and a sml - single JJ for maneuvering and 93km speed. Works fine - but apparently I do well with mechs I am not suppose to.

[Redwo1f]

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.

Disagree. The value of it increases as the match rolls on. If you can survive the start and early middle, providing it isn't an enemy team steam roll, the LB10-x is pretty decent getting crits over an enemy already chewed up...it becomes clean up time....and if you are fast as well, can be very effective. That is usually how it goes with my 1X - if I can stay in reasonable shape come middle/end, it does pretty decent....the trick is IF cuz it has a pretty squishy torso - lol..

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Redwo1f, on 11 February 2015 - 04:22 PM, said:

Disagree. The value of it increases as the match rolls on. If you can survive the start and early middle, providing it isn't an enemy team steam roll, the LB10-x is pretty decent getting crits over an enemy already chewed up...it becomes clean up time....and if you are fast as well, can be very effective. That is usually how it goes with my 1X - if I can stay in reasonable shape come middle/end, it does pretty decent....the trick is IF cuz it has a pretty squishy torso - lol..

LBX is surpassed by MGs at getting crits. You would be better off if you mounted a PPC and a few MGs than mounting the LBX10 (especially given the PPC quirks). Or just pick a different mech and go full-laser vomit and then you don't even need to worry about crits.

Im sorry but I miss the MW4 days where LBX was a close range weapon that had high damage potential over its standard cousin. LBX being only useful for critseeking (or dealing with Aerospace) is not something that should've been translated from Battletech.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 11 February 2015 - 05:20 PM.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 11 February 2015 - 04:03 PM, said:

Costs would only make the mech a "good" choice for space poors. People with a decent amount of cash, including pre-established Mech Romneys like myself, wouldn't really get any benefit.


Also, I firmly hold the belief that people who say that any weapon or mech should intentionally be crappy, should be forced to use that mech/weapon exclusively for the remainder of their time playing this game. If you ask for certain units to be cannon fodder, it's only fair that you should have to play that role yourself.

You are speaking to my heart and I demand your hand in marriage...

Oh never mind... I hate V-Day, so I'm getting overly sensitive at the moment and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Ovion]

WM Quicksilver, on 11 February 2015 - 05:19 PM, said:

LBX is surpassed by MGs at getting crits. You would be better off if you mounted a PPC and a few MGs than mounting the LBX10 (especially given the PPC quirks). Or just pick a different mech and go full-laser vomit and then you don't even need to worry about crits.

Im sorry but I miss the MW4 days where LBX was a close range weapon that had high damage potential over its standard cousin. LBX being only useful for critseeking (or dealing with Aerospace) is not something that should've been translated from Battletech.

actually, lbxs have a higher crit chance AND do more damage, at much longer range.

[CocoaJin]

FupDup, on 11 February 2015 - 04:03 PM, said:

Costs would only make the mech a "good" choice for space poors. People with a decent amount of cash, including pre-established Mech Romneys like myself, wouldn't really get any benefit.


Also, I firmly hold the belief that people who say that any weapon or mech should intentionally be crappy, should be forced to use that mech/weapon exclusively for the remainder of their time playing this game. If you ask for certain units to be cannon fodder, it's only fair that you should have to play that role yourself.

The resource and logistic cost wouldn't and shouldn't be a player expense, it would need to be a faction expense that has significance toward overall campaign victory conditions, regional asset/resource allocations, respawn timers, drop tonnage, etc. This way, deep pockets can't be immune to the dynamics of war.

I'd never ask for a certain unit to suck...I'm just willing to accept that some units will be harder to operate or appreciate...especially when we are currently restricted to a very small representation of war time taskings, objectives and tactical/strategic ramifications.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ovion, on 11 February 2015 - 05:28 PM, said:

actually, lbxs have a higher crit chance AND do more damage, at much longer range.

Yes, at a one to one comparison, compare 3 MGs vs 1 LBX then add the PPC you can fit thanks to free tonnage. You get better damage and insane crits because you have more numerous hits and chances for crits. Keep in mind LBX rounds only do double damage on the lowest crit, MG rounds do 9x their normal damage on the lowest crit. Range isn't that big of a deal considering the spread and recycle time anyway.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 11 February 2015 - 06:08 PM.

[Deathlike]

Oh... someone wants to run the Spider-5V challenge marathon.

I'll embrace your presence with a Streakcrow or Streakdog.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 11 February 2015 - 06:54 AM, said:

It's still pretty sad that PGI refuses to give Rate-of-Fire quirks to MGs. We already have the same type of code used on the AMS Overload module, just with a different weapon being affected.

All PGI has done for MGs so far is range quirks, but range boosts are worthless while they still have a CoF built in.

It seems that PGI is only willing to modify the following weapon attributes with quirks:
1. Range
2. Cooldown
3. Heat
4. Velocity
5. Beam Duration

If you ask for anything, ANYTHING other than those five qualities, you're a heretic apparently. Increased upfront damage, or higher crit rates, more ammo, less spread, faster RoF (which isn't the same as cooldown buffs), jam rate/time, lock-on rates, sensor quirks, charge-up times, etc. are apparently Lostech™.

range quirks on MGs and LB-Xs make me gnash my teeth, so worthless. Give me a quirk to tighten the pattern on my LB-X and that will give me more FUNCTIONAL range anyhow.

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

If it would help, a 3rd missile hardpoint exists.

Yup. Originally all VNDs were going to have 1 more Missile rack, but Russ felt that would OP them.

I'm dead serious, too.

Fate 6, on 11 February 2015 - 08:48 AM, said:

All this talk of Vindicators lately makes me want to get some... Even though I really don't like my Blackjacks since all of the nerfs to AC2s and PPCs (and their relative lack of quirks).

Why don't they just give the 1X a combination of decent AC5 quirks (20% CDR) and PPC quirks (~25% CDR) and let it be a decent mech that also runs an interesting and balanced loadout. Throw on a 15% missile range and 15% missile cooldown and I think we've got a really nice mech.

The SIB, 1AA and 1R are all great little mechs IMO, and can run very well with a diverse array of builds. So I don't feel liek getting rid of any...except the 1X.

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.

that's impressive, with 2 energy hardpoints.

[Deathlike]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 February 2015 - 06:27 PM, said:

Yup. Originally all VNDs were going to have 1 more Missile rack, but Russ felt that would OP them.

I'm dead serious, too.

I can't tell you there is some awesome medical substances being used to allow such decisions to be made, but I'd like to think that is the case here.

Have they not been repeatedly told that one missile hardpoint is generally considered "ineffective" for the most part?

I would like to think the man who shall not be named has a clue, but this is honestly news to me.