171 replies to this topic

[Kuritaclan]

Jonathan Paine, on 05 April 2015 - 08:57 AM, said:

Stalker 4N:
6 Large lasers/20 DHS/STD 300

Warhawk (Prime):
4 Clan large pulse lasers/28DHS/XL340/T1 computer

...

Stalker strengths:
Amazing dps at 585 or closer
High mounted weapons for excellent ridge humping

Warhawk strengths:
Amazing ranged capability
Quick and agile for an assault
Amazing heat dissipation

So a STD Engine is not an advantage over a Clan XL Engine to mention? I saw enough Stick Stks which soak up Damage, what could be better invested into another target, but well, this is something what isn't reproducable in an 1 vs 1 situation i guess.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 05 April 2015 - 10:58 AM.

[Jman5]

Kuritaclan, on 05 April 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:

So a STD Engine is not an advantage over a Clan XL Engine to mention?

A stalker 4N without side torsos might as well be dead.

Edited by Jman5, 05 April 2015 - 10:58 AM.

[Ultimax]

Kuritaclan, on 05 April 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:

So a STD Engine is not an advantage over a Clan XL Engine to mention?

Considering it's slower & can only slot 2 DHS vs. 3 - I'd say it's a wash.

[Yokaiko]

Johnny Z, on 05 April 2015 - 10:41 AM, said:

On the contrary. Its hilarious, that desciption accurately describes the Omni mech pilots on these forums, for the most part. It couldnt be more funny. I get constant laughs with the lengths to which easy mode Clan players will go to preserve their Cheese mode advantage.

Go ahead prove me right for the millionth time.

Yeah that is why I've been driving nearly all IS for about a month. I have all of the C-bill clan mechs, and I much prefer IS overall.

Kuritaclan, on 05 April 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:

So a STD Engine is not an advantage over a Clan XL Engine to mention? I saw enough Stick Stks which soak up Damage, what could be better invested into another target, but well, this is something what isn't reproducable in an 1 vs 1 situation i guess.

Yeah, doesn't really matter when you are flat to the engine cap to start with.

[Kuritaclan]

Jman5, on 05 April 2015 - 10:58 AM, said:

A stalker 4N without side torsos might as well be dead.

Sure but, you would agree that you have seen enough games where people go for the kill instead of the threat and do care about the stick later?

Ultimatum X, on 05 April 2015 - 10:58 AM, said:

Considering it's slower & can only slot 2 DHS vs. 3 - I'd say it's a wash.

Sure that is what makes the IS diffrent to the Clans - But this little things have to count also in the department of such a comparison. I don't see the heat penality mentioned with a Clan-XL Sidetorso lose. In a 1vs1 Situation, this isn't that much of a deal, but in a longer fight where you can hide and poke corners with the "alive" side, guess running slightly cooler may have an impact.

Oh and for a good comp also some pics should be mentioned:

Edited by Kuritaclan, 05 April 2015 - 11:34 AM.

[Averen]

It's actually not that hard to hit a stalker CT, if you now where to aim. Many people make the mistake of trying to aim for the nose, instead of going for the upper/lower side.

Btw, Interesting comparision. A lot closer than i thought. I'd say stalker has a slight edge in CW, where a long range stands off is the way to play, but a warhawk should win most of the other times above a stalkers range or in close combat. Limited mobility and the pathetic twist is a real issue for Stalkers.

Edited by Averen, 05 April 2015 - 11:18 AM.

[Ultimax]

Kuritaclan, on 05 April 2015 - 11:07 AM, said:

Sure but, you would agree that you have seen enough games where people go for the kill instead of the threat and do care about the stick later?

Oh and for a good comp also some pics should be mentioned:

The ST itself is physically larger on the WHK, but the "ears" on the Stalker are also primary targets as removing them removes most of the best firepower it has (loss of 2x LLAS per ear, and loss of that side's high mounts).

[Bishop Steiner]

Jman5, on 05 April 2015 - 10:48 AM, said:

If you think how we tested was deficient, feel free to do your own 1v1 experiments and report back here.

In sorry, man but that's is exactly why the method is suspect. 1v1 dueling rarely shows and allows foe on e to maximize their use. Stalker is not a duelist. Put those two mechs in team environments, where terrain can trying be maximized, the stalker is hands down superior.

Put the in duel, you likely coup the script, because hill humping and terrain is harder to control

[XXXBunnyXXX]

sold the 4N so that i culd buy a warhawk... no build was good so i abandoned this account

warhawk will suck with every build (even lrm build)

[Ultimax]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 April 2015 - 11:16 AM, said:

In sorry, man but that's is exactly why the method is suspect. 1v1 dueling rarely shows and allows foe on e to maximize their use. Stalker is not a duelist. Put those two mechs in team environments, where terrain can trying be maximized, the stalker is hands down superior.

Put the in duel, you likely coup the script, because hill humping and terrain is harder to control

None of the Stalker's high mount advantage comes from quirks though.


So with quirks, these two mechs have roughly similar firepower.


For me, with the WHK being one of my favorite mechs, if they gave the WHK STs some +structure or +armor, I'd be very happy - to overcome the geometry & hardpoint location issue.

Ideally they would have given high torso mounts to the WHK, instead of the DWF-S (not as high as the Stalker's but still overall good weapon placement).



The point of Jman's testing is that firepower wise these two mechs are actually very well matched - and that requires the Stalker-4N to have the quirks it has.


Any other Stalker trying to run a mid-long range energy build vs. this Warhawk build would likely lose.



We also don't know whether or not Lord Scarlett has the WHK-C, which would allow for side poking and full shielding.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 05 April 2015 - 11:22 AM.

[Kuritaclan]

Ultimatum X, on 05 April 2015 - 11:15 AM, said:

The ST itself is physically larger on the WHK, but the "ears" on the Stalker are also primary targets as removing them removes most of the best firepower it has (loss of 2x LLAS per ear, and loss of that side's high mounts).

losing an ear is just damage done to a mech, what does not kill his fire power in fullfilness but leave in this case a 4LL Mech, that has if only the ear was the part damaged just the sidetorso and ct armor left to burn through. I know many don't see it that way, but those who play clan mechs, know for sure that you get often blowouts of sidetorsos, while your arms nearly to never go before and soak up the possible full damage.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 05 April 2015 - 11:26 AM.

[Lord0fHats]

This is comical. The Warhawk is crippled by a number of issues;

-It looks a lot like a Dire Wolf from a distance, so it tends to get treated like one even though it isn't.

-It is a fire support mech with low slung arms and its only torso hardpoints are for missiles. It pretty much loses right off the bat to the Stalker right there as in a fire support mech, higher hard points = just plain better. But by all means lets continue!

-The Warhawks hardpoints are all in its arms. Unless you're making a CERLL Warhawk, you're basically stuck with a mech that will never have enough pod space where it needs it to fit damage worthy of an 85 ton mech. And 6 CERLL's run hot as hell, which leads to the next problem;

-CERLL's kind of suck. Their duration of fire is just too damn long. No Clan mech can afford to be exposed for that long with so many of them, Warhawk included, having low slung hardpoints. The only exception to this is the Hellbringer, whose hardpoints are so high, it can fire while exposing less than a third of its body to enemy fire. Leading to the last problem;

-There are no other Clan weapons that can fit on the Warhawk to make a suitable build. Large pulse can be used, but runs even hotter than CERLL to the point it either can't be used, or doesn't pack enough punch to use the Warhawk over a Timber.

The Stalker is invariably superior to the Warhawk. The Hawk would be good if some of its hardpoints were moved to its torso and set high up (the locked heat sinks would need removing).

Jman5, on 05 April 2015 - 10:58 AM, said:

A stalker 4N without side torsos might as well be dead.

A stalker without side torsos is still big enough and tanky enough to do a fair amount of body blocking.

Edited by Lord0fHats, 05 April 2015 - 11:28 AM.

[Averen]

Lord0fHats, on 05 April 2015 - 11:24 AM, said:

This is comical.

Funny you're the one saying that. Still didn't learn about laser and heat? No, CLPL aren't less heat-effcient than CERLL, in contrary. The CLPL-Warhawk is cooler and has more sustained DPS than our superquirked stalker 4n.

[Bishop Steiner]

Ultimatum X, on 05 April 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

None of the Stalker's high mount advantage comes from quirks though.


So with quirks, these two mechs have roughly similar firepower.


For me, with the WHK being one of my favorite mechs, if they gave the WHK STs some +structure or +armor, I'd be very happy - to overcome the geometry & hardpoint location issue.

Ideally they would have given high torso mounts to the WHK, instead of the DWF-S (not as high as the Stalker's but still overall good weapon placement).



The point of Jman's testing is that firepower wise these two mechs are actually very well matched - and that requires the Stalker-4N to have the quirks it has.


Any other Stalker trying to run a mid-long range energy build vs. this Warhawk build would likely lose.



We also don't know whether or not Lord Scarlett has the WHK-C, which would allow for side poking and full shielding.

Don't see where my post remotely had anything to do with quirks.

You can have carbon copy numbers, man and that tells only part the story. Stalker has far better profile, and hitboxes, and in actual typical gameplay, hardpoint placement.

Especially with the speed differences, and on Assaults, it's unlikely (though not impossible) that maneuver and positioning plays near as heavy a role in a 1v1 duel, and I could easily seeing the WHK being on par for that, especially with the better speed and arm reflex. In dueling, mobility often trumps positioning, whereas in 12 v 12 play, it's usually the opposite, unless one is running 100 plus KPH mechs.

And just like the TDR-9S, what is only marginally broken when encountered solo, can become ridiculously broken en masse, which is why the STK-4N is so effective and so overnight popular in CW.

[Ultimax]

OK I had time to do some rudimentary testing.

STK-4N
https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

WHK
https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

TBR
https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing


Simple observations

STK-4N:
* Alpha hit 72% heat cap
* 13 to 13.5s to cool to 0% after alpha
* 6 half alphas in 8s, overheat shutdown on the 6th volley


WHK-A
* Alpha hit 64% heat cap
* 10 to 10.5s to cool to 0% after alpha
* 6 half alphas in 10s, no overheat shutdown on 6th volley

TBR-Laser Vomit
* Alpha hit 51% heat cap
* 8s to cooldown to 0 after alpha
* 6 half alphas in 10s, overheat on the 6th volley


Some thoughts

STK-4N:
+ Has superior (high) arm mounts that benefit 66% of it's firepower
+ Alpha & Half-Alpha do slightly higher damage (2 extra points and 1 extra point respectively)
+ Faster rate of fire allows for 6x half alphas in 8s.

- Is slower
- Cools off slower
- Has less range
- Has a lower total heat cap, and therefore shuts down faster


WHK:
+ Is faster
+ Has better torso yaw range
+ Has a higher heat cap allowing for 6x half alphas without shutting down
+ Cools off faster
+ Has more range
+ Has targeting computer

- Has all firepower lower mounted
- Has a slower rate of fire from lack of quirks and
- CLPLs have slightly longer burn time (0.15s longer)

** Unknown quantity: WHK-C version will be fully asymmetrical.



EDIT: I might also need to re-do the WHK test, I'm not sure if my manual fire cut the 2 half alpha volleys close enough or not.




This is what Timber Wolf Laser Vomit looks like:

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

I'll put simple comparison notes up near the other two mechs.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 05 April 2015 - 01:41 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Jman5, on 05 April 2015 - 10:48 AM, said:

If you think how we tested was deficient, feel free to do your own 1v1 experiments and report back here.

i think what might be more telling is 2 comp groups, in CW dropping 12 STK-4N vs 4 WHK (no Stromcrows or TWs) and battle it out a dozen times.

I think we would get a much more "real world" look at each chassis performance. Still not perfect, since one rarely sees 12 of anything vs 12 of anything, but also removes variables, as much as possible.

[Jman5]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 April 2015 - 11:16 AM, said:

In sorry, man but that's is exactly why the method is suspect. 1v1 dueling rarely shows and allows foe on e to maximize their use. Stalker is not a duelist. Put those two mechs in team environments, where terrain can trying be maximized, the stalker is hands down superior.

Put the in duel, you likely coup the script, because hill humping and terrain is harder to control

You have to reduce variables or else you can never arrive at any meaningful conclusions. If you add teammates you're only making it more difficult on yourself. The test was on forest colony and the fight started the moment the game went live. The result was a series of realistic scenarios where the stalker started the fight off by trying to trade at range, but there were also moments where the warhawk was able to use his speed advantage and terrain to get in closer. Both mechs used realistic match builds, not 1v1 dueling builds.

If you throw 11 other teammates on each team you're creating too much noise. However, if you think you can create a better test where you pit 12 stalker 4Ns vs 12 Warhawks, be my guest. Either way, I find a 1v1 test to be much more valuable then simply having people go back and forth with: "STALKER WINS, NO WARHAWK WINS, NO STALKER WINS!" etc...

[Averen]

Jman5, on 05 April 2015 - 11:35 AM, said:

If you throw 11 other teammates on each team you're creating too much noise. However, if you think you can create a better test where you pit 12 stalker 4Ns vs 12 Warhawks, be my guest. Either way, I find a 1v1 test to be much more valuable then simply having people go back and forth with: "STALKER WINS, NO WARHAWK WINS, NO STALKER WINS!" etc...

Also thanks for actually testing the thing being talking about and bringing more than theretical data. Sometimes there is too much talk and arguing.^^'

[Bishop Steiner]

Jman5, on 05 April 2015 - 11:35 AM, said:

You have to reduce variables or else you can never arrive at any meaningful conclusions. If you add teammates you're only making it more difficult on yourself. The test was on forest colony and the fight started the moment the game went live. The result was a series of realistic scenarios where the stalker started the fight off by trying to trade at range, but there were also moments where the warhawk was able to use his speed advantage and terrain to get in closer. Both mechs used realistic match builds, not 1v1 dueling builds.

If you throw 11 other teammates on each team you're creating too much noise. However, if you think you can create a better test where you pit 12 stalker 4Ns vs 12 Warhawks, be my guest. Either way, I find a 1v1 test to be much more valuable then simply having people go back and forth with: "STALKER WINS, NO WARHAWK WINS, NO STALKER WINS!" etc...

Don't get me wrong, it provides data. I think it tells part of the story,and can show strengths and weaknesses each chassis.

But you can't claim it's definitive, is what I'm saying, because it realistically can't emulate the actual game environment we play in. Same reasons what works in CW doesn't always work in casual, or what works in coordinated teams, may not work as a PUG. YMMV. So what you and Johansen did is undeniably useful. Just should not be taken as telling "the rest of the story".

[Armorine]

I'll bite here. If y'all don't think the primes worth it what's the best war hawk model and why? I really want us to flesh out this thought processes behind the war hawk being seen as bad. Other then it's mistaken identity syndrome.