48 replies to this topic

[Ultimax]

Not top tier? Agreed.

Useless? Sorry, no. This sounds more like a pilot issue.

[Kain Demos]

Also I think the WHK-C when it is out for c-bills will change a lot of people's minds. Amazing what 1 damn CT E hardpoint can do for your builds--I have two that I just love and are very effective.

All-pulse laser version of the TBR "laser vomit" 2 x CLPLAS 4 x CMPLAS with 25 DHS and a TC MKVI to eat up the tonnage. With modules this gets the Pulses almost to ER laser range.

1 x CGauss 2 x CLPLAS 3 x CERMLAS which makes the common Gauss+5 CERMLAS "meta" TBR build look tame in comparison.

[Ultimax]

Kain Thul, on 18 March 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

Also I think the WHK-C when it is out for c-bills will change a lot of people's minds. Amazing what 1 damn CT E hardpoint can do for your builds--I have two that I just love and are very effective.

All-pulse laser version of the TBR "laser vomit" 2 x CLPLAS 4 x CMPLAS with 25 DHS and a TC MKVI to eat up the tonnage. With modules this gets the Pulses almost to ER laser range.

1 x CGauss 2 x CLPLAS 3 x CERMLAS which makes the common Gauss+5 CERMLAS "meta" TBR build look tame in comparison.

Honestly I think too many players are obsessed with stuffing LRMs or CERPPCs on it.

The Warhawk runs a much more powerful and efficient Gauss vomit than the TBR.

It gets compared firepowerwise to the DWF but tonnage wise its actually closer to the TBR (85 vs 75 as opposed to 85 vs 100)

[Kain Demos]

Ultimatum X, on 18 March 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:

Honestly I think too many players are obsessed with stuffing LRMs or CERPPCs on it.

The Warhawk runs a much more powerful and efficient Gauss vomit than the TBR.

It gets compared firepowerwise to the DWF but tonnage wise its actually closer to the TBR (85 vs 75 as opposed to 85 vs 100)

For that ten tons you get a lot more "net podspace" as I will put it. Let's look at the 3 Clan 'mechs with the most space with max armor rounded off:

Dire Wolf: 51t
Warhawk: 33t
Timberwolf: 28t

But the Dire Wolf and Timberwolf run 15 locked DHS vs the Warhawk's 20. Usually in comparisons like this I normalize that value to 16 since virtually all builds will run at LEAST that many and most heavies and above are in the 12-16 range with the Warhawk being the outlier. For this argument though let's change it to 20 since DW's running PPC/Gauss and Gauss/Laser Vomit will have 20 or more as well and virtually any "meta" Timberwolf build:

Dire Wolf: 46t
Warhawk: 33t
Timberwolf: 23t

This illustrates that it falls EXACTLY where it should in its place at 85t between the Timberwolf and the Dire Wolf in terms of fire power. If you wanted to go mostly or all ballistic in the Warhawk you really can not though which the Dire Wolf can so it is not as versatile, I will give you that.

Another thing it runs vastly better than the Timberwolf is the 2 x CERPPC 1 x CGAUSS combo. You can go pure heat sinks and never look at your heat bar or stuff in a MK VI TC for velocity and still have 4-5 more than the Timberwolf version (depending on ammo counts, accessories, whether or not they are using the -S).

Edited by Kain Thul, 18 March 2015 - 11:40 AM.

[Cyborne Elemental]

mogs01gt, on 18 March 2015 - 10:51 AM, said:

Its because Whawks look to similar to a DWF. By the time people realize its just a Whawk, it's armor is stripped.

I show no mercy to Clan mechs.. period.

[1453 R]

Ultimatum X, on 18 March 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:

Honestly I think too many players are obsessed with stuffing LRMs or CERPPCs on it.

The Warhawk runs a much more powerful and efficient Gauss vomit than the TBR.

It gets compared firepowerwise to the DWF but tonnage wise its actually closer to the TBR (85 vs 75 as opposed to 85 vs 100)

This is a great way to look at it, really. The Warhawk's Gausslasers builds are great machines that take advantage of its hardlocked heat sinks. There's a reason I keep going back to my TT-ish mix of meesailes, Gauss, and C-ERML.

[LordKnightFandragon]

XXXBunnyXXX, on 18 March 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:

no ... its not that


i just noticed that it has **** armour when a wild stalker appered and hit me with 3 lasers and the armour was red .... HOW THE HELL WAS IT RED BY ONLY 3 LL hits


i dont have the c bills and ill probably abandon this account... becouse i screwed up by buying this ****

FUnny thing about is Lasers, they fire multiple beams out of 1 hole. Or atleast, I know stalkers and Dragons do. There was a Trial dragon that had 2 LL and 1 GR on it and the 2 LL fired as 1 beam. Im pretty sure its the same thing for stalkers, so youthink its 2 lasers, but its actually like 4 or 6.

And its mostly you being hit with alot of **** all at once that turns you red fast. Warhawk has decent armor, or no less then any other 85t, maybe more cuz of its Clan weight...Every mech seems to die fast, its not just a Warhawk thing, though it does lost its ST faster then it prolly should, cuz daym dey r huge.

[Escef]

XXXBunnyXXX, on 18 March 2015 - 10:46 AM, said:

yea i comfirm warhawk is useless ...

No durability at all.




Also, firepower is crap.

Edited by Escef, 18 March 2015 - 04:53 PM.

[CtrlAltWheee]

I like the warhawk.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Ultimatum X, on 18 March 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:

Honestly I think too many players are obsessed with stuffing LRMs or CERPPCs on it.

The Warhawk runs a much more powerful and efficient Gauss vomit than the TBR.

It gets compared firepowerwise to the DWF but tonnage wise its actually closer to the TBR (85 vs 75 as opposed to 85 vs 100)

BUt its so sexy with those 4 CERPPCs on it, and besides the laser pods just look terrible. And why cant it's Prime config be just as amazing and viable as any other? BUff dem CERPPC to be vicious and worthy of being called a Masakari. Im sure the DCMS didnt dub it that cuz CERPPC build wasnt worth a pinch of crap. Ofc, obviously they met other variants...but still.

[Reitrix]

Brizna, on 18 March 2015 - 11:06 AM, said:

This is when you think about how important manoeuvrability is at mid and long range ....

I'm not saying that being able to go at 70 kph is useless, but speed is most useful at close range. Warhawk in MWO is simply put a badly designed mech.

The Warhawk is fine.
Being able to hitscan 60+ laser damage for half the heat of 3 PPCs is most definitely NOT fine. And thats where the entire problem comes from. One shot like that into an 85 tonners CT and 2/3rds of your just whiffed away.

Its such fun playing any Assault 'Mech when it melts in 3 seconds flat when a laservomit build so much as glances in your direction.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Reitrix, on 18 March 2015 - 05:24 PM, said:

Its such fun playing any Assault 'Mech when it melts in 3 seconds flat when a laservomit build so much as glances in your direction.

Thats not specific to assault mechs....

[Reitrix]

LordKnightFandragon, on 18 March 2015 - 05:28 PM, said:

Thats not specific to assault mechs....

I was making a point that even the most amount of armor in the game is worthless next to a laservomit build. It needs to be fixed and Ghost Heat isn't the answer.

[aniviron]

Escef, on 18 March 2015 - 04:47 PM, said:

No durability at all.




Also, firepower is crap.

Reminds me of a Mitch Hedberg quote:

"You know when you see an advertisement for a casino, and they have a picture of a guy winning money? That's false advertising, because that happens the least. That's like if you're advertising a hamburger, they could show a guy choking. 'This is what happened once.' "

You did well in a Warhawk once. Congrats. I've had a 1000 damage game in a Mist Lynx once, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the biggest piece of garbage in the entire game.

Edit: Not trying to say the Warhawk is garbage. I own three, and while they're not good at all, they're certainly not the worst mechs in the game, or even the worst clan mechs in the game. That said, they're far too fragile to fill a proper frontline assault role, and their arms are far too low to fill a sniper assault role. Also cER PPCs suck.

Edited by aniviron, 18 March 2015 - 05:46 PM.

[Escef]

NVM, misread something.

Edited by Escef, 18 March 2015 - 05:51 PM.

[FupDup]

aniviron, on 18 March 2015 - 05:44 PM, said:

Reminds me of a Mitch Hedberg quote:

"You know when you see an advertisement for a casino, and they have a picture of a guy winning money? That's false advertising, because that happens the least. That's like if you're advertising a hamburger, they could show a guy choking. 'This is what happened once.' "

You did well in a Warhawk once. Congrats. I've had a 1000 damage game in a Mist Lynx once, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the biggest piece of garbage in the entire game.

Edit: Not trying to say the Warhawk is garbage. I own three, and while they're not good at all, they're certainly not the worst mechs in the game, or even the worst clan mechs in the game. That said, they're far too fragile to fill a proper frontline assault role, and their arms are far too low to fill a sniper assault role. Also cER PPCs suck.

I had a 1233 damage match today with my 2 LPL Puma. I was just one shot away from killing the last guy and winning the game for my team almost by myself (I did most of the heavy lifting, carry harder!) before I overheated to death like a derp. :\

Pumas are clearly OP and must be nerfed. Nao.

Edited by FupDup, 18 March 2015 - 07:31 PM.

[Escef]

aniviron, on 18 March 2015 - 05:44 PM, said:

You did well in a Warhawk once. Congrats.

This is suspiciously insincere.

I'm not the only one that has done well in the Warhawk. Yes, it has weaknesses. The most glaring of which being that removal of the right torso often robs you of more than half of your firepower. Tearing off my Warhawk-B's right torso deprives me of everything but the Gauss and a single ERML. But if you are on top of your tactical positioning and your build isn't total crap you can do well in almost anything. The Warhawk is neither a crutch nor a handicap.

[Ultimax]

LordKnightFandragon, on 18 March 2015 - 04:56 PM, said:

BUt its so sexy with those 4 CERPPCs on it, and besides the laser pods just look terrible. And why cant it's Prime config be just as amazing and viable as any other?

Don't get me wrong, I hate the current PPC weapon family speeds.


My original WHK-Prime build was Gauss + 2x CERPPCs, with an alternate build on the WHK-A with UAC 10 + CERPPCs.

I'd love to run those builds again.

aniviron, on 18 March 2015 - 05:44 PM, said:

You did well in a Warhawk once.

I'm not a top tier player or anything, but I feel I've done well enough in my Warhawks.

[aniviron]

Escef, on 18 March 2015 - 07:41 PM, said:

This is suspiciously insincere.

I'm not the only one that has done well in the Warhawk. Yes, it has weaknesses. The most glaring of which being that removal of the right torso often robs you of more than half of your firepower. Tearing off my Warhawk-B's right torso deprives me of everything but the Gauss and a single ERML. But if you are on top of your tactical positioning and your build isn't total crap you can do well in almost anything. The Warhawk is neither a crutch nor a handicap.

I've logged quite a few hours in my Warhawks. I would say they are below average. Certainly they are worse than every IS assault in the 80-90 ton range, and yes I do include the Awesome in that, though admittedly only because of the 8Q.

No, they aren't terrible mechs, but I also think it's insincere to post a 1000 damage game screenshot and pretend like that's an average game in a WHK. They're slightly below middle-of-the-road mechs, not as bad as a Gargoyle but not as good as even a Battlemaster.

[Ultimax]

aniviron, on 18 March 2015 - 07:59 PM, said:

Certainly they are worse than every IS assault in the 80-90 ton range, and yes I do include the Awesome in that, though admittedly only because of the 8Q.

I think you are extremely wrong, but to each their own.