I'd like to see the Black Knight. And give one of them ECM. It doesn't have to be a TRO variant with it either, since the COM-2D, SDR-5D, CDA-3M, or AS7-D-DC lacks it in canon.
1
Comparison Of Next Is Heavy Mech Candidates
Started by Chuanhao, Apr 03 2015 06:39 PM
95 replies to this topic
#41
-
-
- Hearing Impaired
- 3,349 posts
Member
- LocationOn the Delta side of Vicksburg
Posted 04 April 2015 - 03:18 PM
#42
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 6,979 posts
Member
Posted 04 April 2015 - 04:23 PM
Elizander, on 03 April 2015 - 09:37 PM, said:
You can do 3x 75 tonner ECM + ECMando for 250
You can also do 2x 75 tonner ECM + 2x Raven or 2x Cicada
Right now we can do...
2x Atlas DDC + 2x Pirate Bane Locust
1x Atlas DDC + mixture of Raven 3L + Cicada
Can't say any of our current IS options for a full ECM deck is good.
You could do 3x 75s, but the commando portion is basically a throwaway wave.
So those 3x 75s need to pull massive weight.
No 75T IS heavy mech is going to stand toe to toe with SCR/HBR/TBR decks unless they have really massive quirks.
#43
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 619 posts
Member
Posted 04 April 2015 - 04:43 PM
Definitely favoring the Black Knight. By far my favorite IS mech. Plus I think it's the mech the IS really needs in their lineup at this point;
I say give the Black Knight ECM and just run with it. I agree that the IS really need a Heavy ECM mech to round out their CW lineup, but they also need a good heavy Brawler that can go toe to toe with a Timber. None of the IS heavies bar the TBolt, are actually good at close combat and the Tbolts quirks imo make it a better mid-range/sniper mech than a brawler. Most heavies are hampered/crippled by their torso hitboxes being easy to hit and pick open (Dragon, Catapult, Jaeger) and are best not used to brawl.The Quickdraw and Grasshopper have evolved into a good skirmisher mechs but still got easy hitboxes and big targets. The Phract, was a wonder child of the poptart meta and that meta is dead and to me so is the Phract. Without poptarting it is simply too easy to kill it. The Orion has thank hugehonking CT and meh weapon hard points.
The IS heavy lineup leaves much to be desired imo, and lacks variety, but what it really needs is a mech like the Black Knight. Gameplay is already stagnant, and I don't see that changing without a significant rework of Gameplay mechanics so that is a moot issue for now.
I say give the Black Knight ECM and just run with it. I agree that the IS really need a Heavy ECM mech to round out their CW lineup, but they also need a good heavy Brawler that can go toe to toe with a Timber. None of the IS heavies bar the TBolt, are actually good at close combat and the Tbolts quirks imo make it a better mid-range/sniper mech than a brawler. Most heavies are hampered/crippled by their torso hitboxes being easy to hit and pick open (Dragon, Catapult, Jaeger) and are best not used to brawl.The Quickdraw and Grasshopper have evolved into a good skirmisher mechs but still got easy hitboxes and big targets. The Phract, was a wonder child of the poptart meta and that meta is dead and to me so is the Phract. Without poptarting it is simply too easy to kill it. The Orion has thank hugehonking CT and meh weapon hard points.
The IS heavy lineup leaves much to be desired imo, and lacks variety, but what it really needs is a mech like the Black Knight. Gameplay is already stagnant, and I don't see that changing without a significant rework of Gameplay mechanics so that is a moot issue for now.
#44
-
-
- The Nimble
- 16,810 posts
Member
Posted 04 April 2015 - 05:07 PM
I think the Penetrator would offer superior capabilities to the Black Knight. What the IS needs to compete are 70 and 75 ton 'Mechs with long, thin profiles like the Storm Turkey and Timber Derp that make spreading damage quick and easy.The IS have the Catapult, and that's it. The twin AC/10+4x ML or twin UAC/5+4x ML are actually competent brawler builds for the K2, but it suffers from being a 65 tonne 'Mech with 65 tonne armor and payload.
Ideally, they would also be XL-friendly.
Ideally, they would also be XL-friendly.
#45
-
-
- 1,598 posts
Member
Posted 04 April 2015 - 05:12 PM
If we get the Penetrator, we might get a mech that can be joked about more than the Wang.
#46
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 398 posts
Member
Posted 04 April 2015 - 05:23 PM
Penetrator!!!!!! Why? Because "operation audacity" "call of duty" "measure of a hero"
Does any more need to be said?!?!,?,
Seriously the thing amazing!
Does any more need to be said?!?!,?,
Seriously the thing amazing!
#47
-
-
- The Raider
- 5,025 posts
Member
- LocationPittsburgh, PA
Posted 04 April 2015 - 05:48 PM
The 60-ton Champion could/would have the CHP-1N, CHP-1N2, and CHP-2N variants available. 
The layout of the Champion is very different from that of the same-tonnage Dragon (two extra lasers, missiles in the LT rather than the CT, no arm weapons at all (ACs in the RT, lasers and missiles in the LT, and lasers in the CT; the data for the CHP-1N and CHP-2N from Solaris7.com (derived from TRO 2750 and TRO 3025, respectively) say the same thing: the Champion's "wings" (aside from the Shoulder and Upper Arm Actuators) are empty)), and the hardpoint potentials are also very different (particularly with regard to missiles).
Give one an extra ballistic hardpoint, give one an extra energy hardpoint, and give one an extra missile hardpoint; the combination of that, the distribution of hardpoints across the body (and thus unable to take advantage of the greater firing arcs and faster tracking allowed by mounting weapons in actuated arms), and the geometry of the 'Mech (with both arms being empty and effectively vestigial... and given their usual shape in BT artwork, generally incapable of being used to effectively (if at all) shield the body) would keep the Champion sufficiently distinct from the Dragon.
Example CHP-1N:
LT: x2 ballistic (x1 LB 10-X)
CT: x2 energy (x2 Small Laser)
RT: x2 energy (x2 Medium Laser), x1 missile (x1 ASRM-6)
Standard Internal Structure, Standard 300 Engine, FF Armor (71% of maximum), Standard Heat Sinks
Example CHP-1N2:
LT: x1 ballistic (x1 LB 10-X)
CT: x2 energy (x2 Small Laser)
RT: x3 energy (x2 Medium Laser), x1 missile (x1 ASRM-6)
Standard Internal Structure, Standard 300 Engine, FF Armor (71% of maximum), Double Heat Sinks
Example CHP-2N:
LT: x1 ballistic (x1 AC/10)
CT: x2 energy (x2 Small Laser)
RT: x2 energy (x2 Medium Laser), x2 missile (x1 SRM-6)
Standard Internal Structure, Standard 300 Engine, Standard Armor (64% of maximum), Standard Heat Sinks
As described in the above examples, the Champion has the potential to carry a greater number of weapons (in different E/B/M ratios) than the Dragon, but has substantially less flexibility in bringing said weapons to bear (due to all of the weapons being torso-mounted).
The layout of the Champion is very different from that of the same-tonnage Dragon (two extra lasers, missiles in the LT rather than the CT, no arm weapons at all (ACs in the RT, lasers and missiles in the LT, and lasers in the CT; the data for the CHP-1N and CHP-2N from Solaris7.com (derived from TRO 2750 and TRO 3025, respectively) say the same thing: the Champion's "wings" (aside from the Shoulder and Upper Arm Actuators) are empty)), and the hardpoint potentials are also very different (particularly with regard to missiles).
Give one an extra ballistic hardpoint, give one an extra energy hardpoint, and give one an extra missile hardpoint; the combination of that, the distribution of hardpoints across the body (and thus unable to take advantage of the greater firing arcs and faster tracking allowed by mounting weapons in actuated arms), and the geometry of the 'Mech (with both arms being empty and effectively vestigial... and given their usual shape in BT artwork, generally incapable of being used to effectively (if at all) shield the body) would keep the Champion sufficiently distinct from the Dragon.
Example CHP-1N:
LT: x2 ballistic (x1 LB 10-X)
CT: x2 energy (x2 Small Laser)
RT: x2 energy (x2 Medium Laser), x1 missile (x1 ASRM-6)
Standard Internal Structure, Standard 300 Engine, FF Armor (71% of maximum), Standard Heat Sinks
Example CHP-1N2:
LT: x1 ballistic (x1 LB 10-X)
CT: x2 energy (x2 Small Laser)
RT: x3 energy (x2 Medium Laser), x1 missile (x1 ASRM-6)
Standard Internal Structure, Standard 300 Engine, FF Armor (71% of maximum), Double Heat Sinks
Example CHP-2N:
LT: x1 ballistic (x1 AC/10)
CT: x2 energy (x2 Small Laser)
RT: x2 energy (x2 Medium Laser), x2 missile (x1 SRM-6)
Standard Internal Structure, Standard 300 Engine, Standard Armor (64% of maximum), Standard Heat Sinks
As described in the above examples, the Champion has the potential to carry a greater number of weapons (in different E/B/M ratios) than the Dragon, but has substantially less flexibility in bringing said weapons to bear (due to all of the weapons being torso-mounted).
#48
-
-
- The Nimble
- 16,810 posts
Member
Posted 04 April 2015 - 06:04 PM
They are going to have to do some funny business with the arm geometry on the Champion so that they can actually shield the sides, or we end up with a second, squishier Catapult.
But like I said earlier, I still really want the Champion in the game.
But like I said earlier, I still really want the Champion in the game.
#49
-
-
- 2,534 posts
Member
- LocationAustralia
Posted 04 April 2015 - 06:07 PM
Pity the Champion looks really horrible.
#50
-
-
- The Spear
- 2,706 posts
Member
- LocationDark Space
Posted 04 April 2015 - 06:23 PM
Champion would immediately hit the trash bin.
Penetrator and War Dog still seem like the best mechs mentioned itt.
Penetrator and War Dog still seem like the best mechs mentioned itt.
#51
-
-
- The Nimble
- 16,810 posts
Member
Posted 04 April 2015 - 06:31 PM
Ace Selin, on 04 April 2015 - 06:07 PM, said:
Pity the Champion looks really horrible.
Just about every pre-Jihad 'Mech on Sarna looks horrible, though...
#52
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 619 posts
Member
Posted 04 April 2015 - 06:33 PM
Yeonne Greene, on 04 April 2015 - 06:31 PM, said:
Just about every pre-Jihad 'Mech on Sarna looks horrible, though...
This. The artwork for Battletech is by and large, sooooo bad. So so bad. I mean, it's got this sort of neat retro 80's look, but 30 years later it just looks ugly.
#53
-
-
- The Raider
- 520 posts
Member
- LocationSingapore
Posted 04 April 2015 - 06:38 PM
Hitboxes is definitely to consider. However, this is probably agnostic to the selection of the mechs as it depends on how it is re designed, and cannot be well interpreted from canon pictures. The Awesome is one example. Further, the BK has two different designs.
if we can't influence hit boxes, we can look at other factors like potential weapon load out for playability, and current gaps in the current mech selection, looks, and even lore. Any new mech should be able to fulfil roles : skirmisher; brawler; etc that its weight class or those around it do not already support.
The Black Knight is certainly a looker. But its role is "just another laser boat". The penetrator at least has got missiles on one variant for variety, and comes with JJ. So if the timeline is shifted, with its native ECM, the "PEN" would seem to be the better choice of the two.
It is so unfortunate that the archer and crusader are No go due to Harmony Gold. What Im puzzled is how then did battlemaster get the okay. Please pardon ignorance.
edit: spelling
if we can't influence hit boxes, we can look at other factors like potential weapon load out for playability, and current gaps in the current mech selection, looks, and even lore. Any new mech should be able to fulfil roles : skirmisher; brawler; etc that its weight class or those around it do not already support.
The Black Knight is certainly a looker. But its role is "just another laser boat". The penetrator at least has got missiles on one variant for variety, and comes with JJ. So if the timeline is shifted, with its native ECM, the "PEN" would seem to be the better choice of the two.
It is so unfortunate that the archer and crusader are No go due to Harmony Gold. What Im puzzled is how then did battlemaster get the okay. Please pardon ignorance.
edit: spelling
Edited by Chuanhao, 04 April 2015 - 06:40 PM.
#55
-
-
- Overlord
- 2,547 posts
Member
Posted 04 April 2015 - 06:57 PM
Strum Wealh, on 04 April 2015 - 05:48 PM, said:
The 60-ton Champion could/would have the CHP-1N, CHP-1N2, and CHP-2N variants available.
The layout of the Champion is very different from that of the same-tonnage Dragon (two extra lasers, missiles in the LT rather than the CT, no arm weapons at all (ACs in the RT, lasers and missiles in the LT, and lasers in the CT; the data for the CHP-1N and CHP-2N from Solaris7.com (derived from TRO 2750 and TRO 3025, respectively) say the same thing: the Champion's "wings" (aside from the Shoulder and Upper Arm Actuators) are empty)), and the hardpoint potentials are also very different (particularly with regard to missiles).
Give one an extra ballistic hardpoint, give one an extra energy hardpoint, and give one an extra missile hardpoint; the combination of that, the distribution of hardpoints across the body (and thus unable to take advantage of the greater firing arcs and faster tracking allowed by mounting weapons in actuated arms), and the geometry of the 'Mech (with both arms being empty and effectively vestigial... and given their usual shape in BT artwork, generally incapable of being used to effectively (if at all) shield the body) would keep the Champion sufficiently distinct from the Dragon.
Example CHP-1N:
LT: x2 ballistic (x1 LB 10-X)
CT: x2 energy (x2 Small Laser)
RT: x2 energy (x2 Medium Laser), x1 missile (x1 ASRM-6)
Standard Internal Structure, Standard 300 Engine, FF Armor (71% of maximum), Standard Heat Sinks
Example CHP-1N2:
LT: x1 ballistic (x1 LB 10-X)
CT: x2 energy (x2 Small Laser)
RT: x3 energy (x2 Medium Laser), x1 missile (x1 ASRM-6)
Standard Internal Structure, Standard 300 Engine, FF Armor (71% of maximum), Double Heat Sinks
Example CHP-2N:
LT: x1 ballistic (x1 AC/10)
CT: x2 energy (x2 Small Laser)
RT: x2 energy (x2 Medium Laser), x2 missile (x1 SRM-6)
Standard Internal Structure, Standard 300 Engine, Standard Armor (64% of maximum), Standard Heat Sinks
As described in the above examples, the Champion has the potential to carry a greater number of weapons (in different E/B/M ratios) than the Dragon, but has substantially less flexibility in bringing said weapons to bear (due to all of the weapons being torso-mounted).
The layout of the Champion is very different from that of the same-tonnage Dragon (two extra lasers, missiles in the LT rather than the CT, no arm weapons at all (ACs in the RT, lasers and missiles in the LT, and lasers in the CT; the data for the CHP-1N and CHP-2N from Solaris7.com (derived from TRO 2750 and TRO 3025, respectively) say the same thing: the Champion's "wings" (aside from the Shoulder and Upper Arm Actuators) are empty)), and the hardpoint potentials are also very different (particularly with regard to missiles).
Give one an extra ballistic hardpoint, give one an extra energy hardpoint, and give one an extra missile hardpoint; the combination of that, the distribution of hardpoints across the body (and thus unable to take advantage of the greater firing arcs and faster tracking allowed by mounting weapons in actuated arms), and the geometry of the 'Mech (with both arms being empty and effectively vestigial... and given their usual shape in BT artwork, generally incapable of being used to effectively (if at all) shield the body) would keep the Champion sufficiently distinct from the Dragon.
Example CHP-1N:
LT: x2 ballistic (x1 LB 10-X)
CT: x2 energy (x2 Small Laser)
RT: x2 energy (x2 Medium Laser), x1 missile (x1 ASRM-6)
Standard Internal Structure, Standard 300 Engine, FF Armor (71% of maximum), Standard Heat Sinks
Example CHP-1N2:
LT: x1 ballistic (x1 LB 10-X)
CT: x2 energy (x2 Small Laser)
RT: x3 energy (x2 Medium Laser), x1 missile (x1 ASRM-6)
Standard Internal Structure, Standard 300 Engine, FF Armor (71% of maximum), Double Heat Sinks
Example CHP-2N:
LT: x1 ballistic (x1 AC/10)
CT: x2 energy (x2 Small Laser)
RT: x2 energy (x2 Medium Laser), x2 missile (x1 SRM-6)
Standard Internal Structure, Standard 300 Engine, Standard Armor (64% of maximum), Standard Heat Sinks
As described in the above examples, the Champion has the potential to carry a greater number of weapons (in different E/B/M ratios) than the Dragon, but has substantially less flexibility in bringing said weapons to bear (due to all of the weapons being torso-mounted).
X2 on the Champion, that is one unique mech, was looking over the thread to see if it got posted yet.
I want an Avatar. it is an IS omni. I don;t care, PGI can either tackle IS omni, or make it a non omni as it wouldnt really matter the way IS mechs work. If they go IS omni, they could open a whole new mechlab/playstyle for us. I also think it goes hand in hand with Clan standard battlemechs, like the Kodiak. PGI needs to figure it out eventually, sooner than later if they want to cash in. Avatar fits in too, lasers and missiles vs grasshopper and phracts. PLus it has an ECm variant(later)
I dunno, IMO the timeline when it comes to mechs is irrelevent the way this game works. Weapons etc make a difference. A mech from Jihad or a Mackie doesnt matter when they load the same tech on, its just looks and hitbox/hardpoints in MWO.
#56
-
-
- The Raider
- 520 posts
Member
- LocationSingapore
Posted 04 April 2015 - 07:34 PM
The hammerhands shares certain similarities with cataphract being ballistic heavy, but would play quite quite differently as a more ponderous and deliberate quasi assault then say grasshopper
3D version has 2B 1M 2E
4D version has 2B 3E
6S is a 3D with ECM but future tech
And since this is about the nearest thing to Warhammer, lets just have a
WH version with 2B 1M 6E and make the fan boys (and cheque books) happy.
IS omni? I would go straight for the Perseus!
3D version has 2B 1M 2E
4D version has 2B 3E
6S is a 3D with ECM but future tech
And since this is about the nearest thing to Warhammer, lets just have a
WH version with 2B 1M 6E and make the fan boys (and cheque books) happy.
IS omni? I would go straight for the Perseus!
Edited by Chuanhao, 04 April 2015 - 07:34 PM.
#57
-
-
- Civil Servant
- 5,154 posts
Member
Posted 04 April 2015 - 07:55 PM
OP,
You do not need 3 variants, the Enforcer-5P is not a canon variant.
The only way they will get a IS ECM Heavy in game is to make a non-canon variant because every canon one does not exist.
If Russ says otherwise, just say, "Enforcer-5P."
Also ask him where the Griffin-2N ECM version is.
I would like to see one less reliant on Energy weapons given the recent Grasshopper release.
I do not see
Dragoon (01, 002, 003, 004)
Guillotine (3N, 4L, 4P, 5M)
Champion (1N, 1Nb, 2N).
Merlin is another, 1A is a official variant, 1B could be moved up a few years it was a simple swap after all of a weapon for a HS and a fictional ECM version could be made, Merlin was once considered the general training Mech so there would need to be a ECM version.
Nope. Power Creep also kills games.
I won't. I recall a poll some time back on the MWO Facebook page for the next Medium Mech, you could choose between Kintaro, Hoplite or Dervish. Guess which won. While the other 2 were mentioned, they have not shown up and that poll was some time ago, the Enforcer came before the other 2. Might have even been before Phoenix.
Guillotine - difference is it is the closest we could get to a Warhammer especially depending on hardpoints, they could fudge those to be a legal Warhammer substitute.
You do not need 3 variants, the Enforcer-5P is not a canon variant.
The only way they will get a IS ECM Heavy in game is to make a non-canon variant because every canon one does not exist.
If Russ says otherwise, just say, "Enforcer-5P."
Also ask him where the Griffin-2N ECM version is.
I would like to see one less reliant on Energy weapons given the recent Grasshopper release.
I do not see
Dragoon (01, 002, 003, 004)
Guillotine (3N, 4L, 4P, 5M)
Champion (1N, 1Nb, 2N).
Merlin is another, 1A is a official variant, 1B could be moved up a few years it was a simple swap after all of a weapon for a HS and a fictional ECM version could be made, Merlin was once considered the general training Mech so there would need to be a ECM version.
mogs01gt, on 03 April 2015 - 06:51 PM, said:
Power creep exists for a reason in games. Quirking mechs isnt the answer to balance.
mogs01gt, on 03 April 2015 - 06:59 PM, said:
F2P games are based around power creep to sustain a player base. Creating in game content/mechs that are inferior is simply pointless. PGI cant sustain themselves making crap mechs over and over.
Nope. Power Creep also kills games.
Gas Guzzler, on 03 April 2015 - 07:20 PM, said:
I will be very shocked if the next heavy is not a Black Knight. ECM? Maybe. Not unheard of to give a mech in this game ECM when it didn't have it officially.
I won't. I recall a poll some time back on the MWO Facebook page for the next Medium Mech, you could choose between Kintaro, Hoplite or Dervish. Guess which won. While the other 2 were mentioned, they have not shown up and that poll was some time ago, the Enforcer came before the other 2. Might have even been before Phoenix.
Chuanhao, on 04 April 2015 - 05:20 AM, said:
Guillotine
Feels too similar to a grasshopper being in the same weight range except for swooping the LRM for a SRM. Probably a non starter.
Feels too similar to a grasshopper being in the same weight range except for swooping the LRM for a SRM. Probably a non starter.
Guillotine - difference is it is the closest we could get to a Warhammer especially depending on hardpoints, they could fudge those to be a legal Warhammer substitute.
#58
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 318 posts
Member
Posted 04 April 2015 - 08:25 PM
Yeonne Greene, on 04 April 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:
I think the Penetrator would offer superior capabilities to the Black Knight. What the IS needs to compete are 70 and 75 ton 'Mechs with long, thin profiles like the Storm Turkey and Timber Derp that make spreading damage quick and easy.The IS have the Catapult, and that's it. The twin AC/10+4x ML or twin UAC/5+4x ML are actually competent brawler builds for the K2, but it suffers from being a 65 tonne 'Mech with 65 tonne armor and payload.
Ideally, they would also be XL-friendly.
Ideally, they would also be XL-friendly.
If you think the Penetrator is good take look at the Bandersnatch. This mech IMO is the next in line to go toe to toe with the timber and or best it. 75 tons, 2 LBX-10, 6 ML (probably 4 after PGI corrects the variants) and 3 LRMs 5s. This seems like the closest in terms of straight firepower. I could easily see some devastating load outs from it. However, I think two problems arise from this mech. 1) it has an ECM variant which coupled with its firepower totally obsoletes the Orion. 2) The ballistics mounts will be nearly identical to the Phract which could again obsolete that chassis as well.
All together I'd love to see this 75 ton monster in game. I think like se used to say the Orion was a mini Atlas, I think the Bander could easily be a mini crab.
#59
-
-
- Bad Company
- 219 posts
Member
- LocationUK
Posted 05 April 2015 - 01:40 AM
I would love to see the Lancelot. It's got 5 timeline appropriate variants (well, as appropriate as the King Crab variants are) and it would bring something new to the IS stable - 100kph heavy. The variants are all quite different, too.
Plus, Alex has sketched it and made it look awesome:
Plus, Alex has sketched it and made it look awesome:
#60
-
-
- The Raider
- 520 posts
Member
- LocationSingapore
Posted 05 April 2015 - 02:20 AM
That design looks very nice. Could even pass as a remake of the rifleman less the iconic top hat. It is still a laser and ballistic platform, so the 60 ton range still lacks a many missile model.
Base on current work schedules, we get only two heavies a year. Lets make sure we give as much feedback so that something really useful, beautiful, is added.
Base on current work schedules, we get only two heavies a year. Lets make sure we give as much feedback so that something really useful, beautiful, is added.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
