171 replies to this topic

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Deathlike, on 05 April 2015 - 06:04 PM, said:

The Hunchback whisperer...

Did you hear that Jman? You're the Hunchback Whisperer.

Deathlike, on 05 April 2015 - 06:04 PM, said:

Also, that Warhawk build I've found to be excellent over the 4 LPL build. I don't know why, but the build is pretty heat efficient and a bit more sustainable than the 4 LPL build. I'm not usually that big on the Warhawk, but by 85 tonner standards, it's close enough to some Misery builds.

I love that Warhawk build and find it to be far superior to the quad LPL build, and I wanted to compare my best Warhawk build against his best Stalker to see how they stack up. Makes me want to do it with other clan mechs against their best IS counterpart to see just how they stack up.

[Chagatay]

No, Stalker wins the geometry/HP battle and is the winner in most situations....but I still like Warhawk. Warhawk is good mech certainly not OP but not terribly UP either at least in the clan lineup a middling mech as it were.

[Macster16]

As you an see from the schematic image on sarna, the WHK is traditionally supposed to have its arms sit at or just below cockpit level. It's supposed to also have a skinny torso profile as well. If PGI followed these design aspects more closely, the WHK would've turned out to be a very decent assault.

But as it turns out, it seems they just lazily copy-pasted the DWF and built the WHK from there by making alerations here and there which is probably why the WHK looks so much like a DWF, is about the same size as one and has the DWF's low slung arms.

[Armorine]

Macster16, on 05 April 2015 - 07:05 PM, said:

As you an see from the schematic image on sarna, the WHK is traditionally supposed to have its arms sit at or just below cockpit level. It's supposed to also have a skinny torso profile as well. If PGI followed these design aspects more closely, the WHK would've turned out to be a very decent assault.

But as it turns out, it seems they just lazily copy-pasted the DWF and built the WHK from there by making alerations here and there which is probably why the WHK looks so much like a DWF, is about the same size as one and has the DWF's low slung arms.

I was always under the assumption that the war hawk was based on the dire wolf. It was recently pointed out to me that the dire wolf entered production after the war hawk. It still begs the question, their designs are so close there has to be a connection between them. Shared designs, stolen, won in a trial of possession. Something?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Armorine, on 05 April 2015 - 07:31 PM, said:

I was always under the assumption that the war hawk was based on the dire wolf. It was recently pointed out to me that the dire wolf entered production after the war hawk. It still begs the question, their designs are so close there has to be a connection between them. Shared designs, stolen, won in a trial of possession. Something?

Their designs aren't that close, they just share the same legs. One is meant to be death at all ranges while the other is meant to be a more mobile medium-long range "sniper" mech (I say sniper because all variants have a TComp).

Warhawk is a CSJ design, while the Dire is a Wolf design (that was "stolen" by CSJ).

[Ultimax]

Deathlike, on 05 April 2015 - 06:04 PM, said:

Also, that Warhawk build I've found to be excellent over the 4 LPL build. I don't know why, but the build is pretty heat efficient and a bit more sustainable than the 4 LPL build.

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 05 April 2015 - 06:48 PM, said:

I love that Warhawk build and find it to be far superior to the quad LPL build, and I wanted to compare my best Warhawk build against his best Stalker to see how they stack up. Makes me want to do it with other clan mechs against their best IS counterpart to see just how they stack up.

I agree, that loadout has been my go-to load out since the PPC velocity nerf.

I only run the Wubhawk when I want a change of pace, but I always prefer the Gauss+Vomit Warhawk build.

It harness all of the Warhawk's DHS, and lends itself well to being a firesupport build.

It doesn't have the raw power of the Dire Wolf version, due to being 15 tons lighter and therefore having one less Gauss.


On the other hand, it's rare to be left behind in that mech and the added agility means even light mechs need to think twice before trying to nip your heels.

[Jonathan Paine]

To clarify: I do not consider the Warhawk's 4xCLPL to be the end-all uber build for the chassis, it is just a viable build that also perfectly matches what is almost the only good build for the Stalker 4n. I find it ridiculous that what is considered a bit of a "meh" build on a "meh" mech has made players cry to Russ about a nerf.

For those who like to mix and match, doing a one-two punch of 2xCLPL and 2xCERPPC is really fun, with no ghost heat and quite the knock out capability.

[reign]

Jonathan Paine, on 06 April 2015 - 08:33 AM, said:

To clarify: I do not consider the Warhawk's 4xCLPL to be the end-all uber build for the chassis, it is just a viable build that also perfectly matches what is almost the only good build for the Stalker 4n. I find it ridiculous that what is considered a bit of a "meh" build on a "meh" mech has made players cry to Russ about a nerf.

For those who like to mix and match, doing a one-two punch of 2xCLPL and 2xCERPPC is really fun, with no ghost heat and quite the knock out capability.

You do realize that he brought the 4 gh at 4 large laser nerf up because he played Jade Falcon (Russ) for a week and got his face melted by stalker 4N right. it wasn't clanners griping at him...

Such assumptions...

Learn to read his Twitter feed

[MrZakalwe]

Jonathan Paine, on 06 April 2015 - 08:33 AM, said:

To clarify: I do not consider the Warhawk's 4xCLPL to be the end-all uber build for the chassis, it is just a viable build that also perfectly matches what is almost the only good build for the Stalker 4n. I find it ridiculous that what is considered a bit of a "meh" build on a "meh" mech has made players cry to Russ about a nerf.

For those who like to mix and match, doing a one-two punch of 2xCLPL and 2xCERPPC is really fun, with no ghost heat and quite the knock out capability.

Nobody thinks the Warhawk should be nerfed (compared to top end mechs it sucks) it's the Stalker that overperforms; I'd take my 4N over my Timbeys any day in CW.

[1453 R]

Comparing the Warhawk to the Stalker in a 1v1 duel highlights the Warhawk's advantage of mobility, which unfortunately is not nearly so much of an advantage in an actual game. The Warhawk is one of my favorite assault 'Mechs - I've mastered out all three of my Warhawks, and have not ever actually piloted a single of my Whales.

The issue is that the Warhawk is the size of a 100-tonner - a very specific 100-tonner, which it gets mistaken for a lot and thus draws vastly more enemy heat than its threat level warrants. The Stalker is the size of a heavy 'Mech and has a very nearly perfect physical shape for hill-humping, with that narrow frontal profile and those super-high hardpoints. It's a superb hill sniper because it can expose virtually none of itself to enemy attack, while the Warhawk has to haul its flub pretty much entirely over the hill to get at the bad guys.

The WHK-C will alleviate some of those concerns, but I'm one of those who feels like this is a 'Mech that would benefit most from some durability quirks. Nobody has an issue with its firepower, not once they get to actually know the 'Mech. It runs cool in any sane configuration and while it doesn't have the TBR or HBR's maddened profusion of hardpoints, it has enough hardpoints to get the job done.

Really, the Warhawk's only big issue is that it's the size and shape of a Dire Whale and so it gets focused down orders of magnitude more quickly, and more easily, than a Stalker. Games where I've managed to avoid heavy focus fire in my Warhawks tend to be 1k+ games. That's a qualifier I normally hate giving, but it's quite accurate in this case.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 06 April 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

Really, the Warhawk's only big issue is that it's the size and shape of a Dire Whale and so it gets focused down orders of magnitude more quickly, and more easily, than a Stalker. Games where I've managed to avoid heavy focus fire in my Warhawks tend to be 1k+ games. That's a qualifier I normally hate giving, but it's quite accurate in this case.

I'd be rich if I had a dollar for every time someone says "follow the Dire Wolf" in reference to my Warhawk. I do wish TComps had been implemented differently so I could justify taking a giant TComp and building it like a true Warhawk, but that's probably not going to ever happen.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 06 April 2015 - 11:36 AM.

[BARBAR0SSA]

Warhawk loses an arm, half its Firepower gone down to 26 dmg potential remaining (unless you use a C and they shoot wrong arm but also limited ability to aim CT lpl))

Stalker 4n loses and arm 1/3 its firepower gone 36 dmg potential remaining

Stalker4n 1s Burn 2.6s cooldown = in 4.1s deliver full 54 dmg no heat penalty
WHK 1.15s Burn 3.25s cooldown = 4.9s deliver full 52 dmg no heat penalty

With optimal timing the Stalker could strip the arm off the warhawk before it starts its second round of firing, or cored the WHK and started torso twisting to spread damage.

They are similar but definitely not identical. Toss in some hill sniping or put ERLLs on the stalker and it has a clear advantage over the warhawk on Boreal, close range though the delivery of full damage without ghost heat would be much closer.

Edited by shad0w4life, 06 April 2015 - 12:49 PM.

[Ultimax]

shad0w4life, on 06 April 2015 - 12:48 PM, said:

Warhawk loses an arm, half its Firepower gone down to 26 dmg potential remaining (unless you use a C and they shoot wrong arm but also limited ability to aim CT lpl))

Stalker 4n loses and arm 1/3 its firepower gone 36 dmg potential remaining

Stalker4n 1s Burn 2.6s cooldown = in 4.1s deliver full 54 dmg no heat penalty
WHK 1.15s Burn 3.25s cooldown = 4.9s deliver full 52 dmg no heat penalty

With optimal timing the Stalker could strip the arm off the warhawk before it starts its second round of firing, or cored the WHK and started torso twisting to spread damage.

They are similar but definitely not identical. Toss in some hill sniping or put ERLLs on the stalker and it has a clear advantage over the warhawk on Boreal, close range though the delivery of full damage without ghost heat would be much closer.

1) Who the hell shoots Warhawk's in their arms?
2) I already did a full analysis about damage delivery, everyone can stop pretending that burn time and recycle are a huge factor.

So yeah, the STK-4N gets 6 half alphas and shuts down after 8s.

The WHK gets 6 half alphas and does not shut down after 10s.

The WHK cools off significantly faster.



The key takeaway is that the STK-4N has better mount locations, but the only thing the quirks do is equalize their firepower.

Ultimatum X, on 05 April 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:

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, 06 April 2015 - 02:26 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Macster16, on 05 April 2015 - 07:05 PM, said:

As you an see from the schematic image on sarna, the WHK is traditionally supposed to have its arms sit at or just below cockpit level. It's supposed to also have a skinny torso profile as well. If PGI followed these design aspects more closely, the WHK would've turned out to be a very decent assault.

But as it turns out, it seems they just lazily copy-pasted the DWF and built the WHK from there by making alerations here and there which is probably why the WHK looks so much like a DWF, is about the same size as one and has the DWF's low slung arms.

What ive been saying all along....PGI needs to up and remodel the Warhawk to more fit that image, scale and size....

Put its guns up high like that and give it long barrels so the arms can kinda shield the ST, we would all see the Warhawk actually be a Masakari...

WM Quicksilver, on 05 April 2015 - 07:45 PM, said:

Their designs aren't that close, they just share the same legs. One is meant to be death at all ranges while the other is meant to be a more mobile medium-long range "sniper" mech (I say sniper because all variants have a TComp).

Warhawk is a CSJ design, while the Dire is a Wolf design (that was "stolen" by CSJ).

And its 4x CERPPC+LRM15 =D Long range death dealer, to bad that isnt the case in MWO....

[BARBAR0SSA]

Ultimatum X, on 06 April 2015 - 02:25 PM, said:

1) Who the hell shoots Warhawk's in their arms?
2) I already did a full analysis about damage delivery, everyone can stop pretending that burn time and recycle are a huge factor.

Take off half their damage potential before than can unleash it again, a lot smarter than than the guys that said WHK vs Stalker 4N ended up with them having a red CT every time.

Your analysis didn't show that a stalker can unload almost 108 damage before the warhawk gets a chance to fire its second 52.

If burn time and recycle aren't a huge factor, then you aren't playing your mechs right. Eg. a 6 erLL warhawk would get its CT chewed apart by a stalker because of the amount of facetime required with the 1.5s Burn duration. While the stalker could spread the damage out.

Edited by shad0w4life, 06 April 2015 - 02:33 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

LordKnightFandragon, on 06 April 2015 - 02:28 PM, said:

What ive been saying all along....PGI needs to up and remodel the Warhawk to more fit that image, scale and size....

Put its guns up high like that and give it long barrels so the arms can kinda shield the ST, we would all see the Warhawk actually be a Masakari...

I wouldn't say it is horribly off. The two main differences is they raised the level of where the cockpit actually sits compared to the TRO and they also lowered the arms slightly.

Here is a mockup I did of how high the arms probably should've been:

[Ultimax]

shad0w4life, on 06 April 2015 - 02:31 PM, said:

If burn time and recycle aren't a huge factor, then you aren't playing your mechs right. Eg. a 6 erLL warhawk would get its CT chewed apart by a stalker because of the amount of facetime required with the 1.5s Burn duration. While the stalker could spread the damage out.

Your example does not even fit the scenario, and the build makes no sense in this context.

You only put it here as a strawman, because it's easier than trying to tackle all of my math and testing videos.

4x CLPLs vs. 6x LLAS. That's the comparison anyone with a few brain cells is making.



Soon I'll have a fully asymmetric WHK-C, with a complete shield side to add to this.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 06 April 2015 - 03:04 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

On the topic of weapon layout for the Stalkers, that has often left me scratching my head is why were the laser hardpoints placed above the missile hardpoints.

Since if Lasers are being fired then they should naturally interfere with the path of LRMs, if lasers are on top..

And some of the original artwork has what appears to have Lasers mounted below the missiles.

Spoiler

So I'd like to see them flipped to match the older artwork, from their current:


To this:

[Jonathan Paine]

In the "what if scenarios": what if the Warhawk gets to shoot the stalker at ranges where the stalker does little or no damage? Wow, warhawk so op because stalker did 0 damage. What if the Warhawk fires first and takes most of the CT armor from the Stalker? Before the stalker can fire twice, it is dead.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Praetor Knight, on 06 April 2015 - 03:06 PM, said:

I suggested this not long ago, but considering it is one of the few top tier IS mechs, it is unlikely to happen. That is until it gets its dreaded dynamic geometry pass. The argument for keep it with the high hardpoints is that it keeps it in line with other mechs lacking LAA and Hands like the Jager, BJ, Catapult, Locust, etc. Only difference to me is that no assault has been quite as dominant throughout MWO like the Stalker has outside the Whale.