176 replies to this topic

[Fate 6]

Poisoner, on 28 April 2015 - 05:24 PM, said:

I don't think either of you get my post. The problem is not the Stalker. The problem is that Clans only have four good mechs and none of them weigh 85 tons.

The IS doesn't have a good 75 ton mech or an ECM heavy. Compare a Summoner to a Cataphract though - the Summoner gets better everything. Summoner might be bad compared to a Timber Wolf but it's not a useless mech. Same goes for the Mad Dog, Nova, Ice Ferret, and Gargoyle.

[Poisoner]

Fate 6, on 28 April 2015 - 05:54 PM, said:

The IS doesn't have a good 75 ton mech or an ECM heavy. Compare a Summoner to a Cataphract though - the Summoner gets better everything. Summoner might be bad compared to a Timber Wolf but it's not a useless mech. Same goes for the Mad Dog, Nova, Ice Ferret, and Gargoyle.

How many tons of weapons can you put on the Cataphract?

[El Bandito]

Poisoner, on 28 April 2015 - 05:56 PM, said:

How many tons of weapons can you put on the Cataphract?

Depends on whether you want your Phract to be durable but slow, or fast but dies to few well placed alpha to one side torso--made worse by having the crappiest torso hitboxes among all 70 tonners.

Edited by El Bandito, 28 April 2015 - 06:06 PM.

[Lyoto Machida]

Poisoner, on 28 April 2015 - 05:56 PM, said:

How many tons of weapons can you put on the Cataphract?

Not enough to make it worth taking in CW. I could be wrong though but I doubt drop decks have changed that much recently.

These aren't the days of the buzzsaw 3 AC5 Ilyas or poptart 3Ds, unfortunately...

[Y E O N N E]

Poisoner, on 28 April 2015 - 05:24 PM, said:

I don't think either of you get my post. The problem is not the Stalker. The problem is that Clans only have four good mechs and none of them weigh 85 tons.

IS doesn't have a 75 ton 'Mech that has the speed, firepower, and durability of the one the Clans have. Clans can take two of those, a Storm Crow, and then whatever Light you feel inclined to bring (I see bunches of Adders and Mist Lynx, and soon Clans will have the Arctic Cheetah).

What the IS does have is a slow, light-weight Assault 'Mech with similar firepower to counter the Clans' speedy, heavy-weight Heavy 'Mech at doing one thing and one thing only: long-range laser poking. IS can take...two Stalkers, a Wolverine/Griffin/Shadowhawk, and then either a Locust or a Commando. Or two Stalkers, a Dragon, and a Locust.

I don't really see how that's unfair in any way, shape, or form. If the Stalker were a one-to-one match against the Timberwolf in any role, we would only have a slight problem. What you are implicitly asking for is to make an Assault 'Mech be brought to the level of a Heavy 'Mech...a Heavy 'Mech which isn't actually inferior and is, as stated by PGI, meant to punch 5-10 tons above its weight.

[Poisoner]

Yeonne Greene, on 28 April 2015 - 06:19 PM, said:

IS doesn't have a 75 ton 'Mech that has the speed, firepower, and durability of the one the Clans have. Clans can take two of those, a Storm Crow, and then whatever Light you feel inclined to bring (I see bunches of Adders and Mist Lynx, and soon Clans will have the Arctic Cheetah).

What the IS does have is a slow, light-weight Assault 'Mech with similar firepower to counter the Clans' speedy, heavy-weight Heavy 'Mech at doing one thing and one thing only: long-range laser poking. IS can take...two Stalkers, a Wolverine/Griffin/Shadowhawk, and then either a Locust or a Commando. Or two Stalkers, a Dragon, and a Locust.

I don't really see how that's unfair in any way, shape, or form. If the Stalker were a one-to-one match against the Timberwolf in any role, we would only have a slight problem. What you are implicitly asking for is to make an Assault 'Mech be brought to the level of a Heavy 'Mech...a Heavy 'Mech which isn't actually inferior and is, as stated by PGI, meant to punch 5-10 tons above its weight.

How about the Gargoyle and Warhawk get better?

[Sir Wulfrick]

My IS drop deck comprises of 2 x Raven 3L, 1 x Stalker 4N and 1 Wubshee. Of them all the Stalker is the one that I dislike the most. That being said, I genuinely don't think it's over powered. Many IS and clan mechs that should be able to easily compete with it can't, but that's an issue with the current design of those other mechs, not a reason to nerf-bat the 4N in to oblivion.

For those having difficulty facing the 4N, its torso twist is abysmal and though it's fast for an assault mech... It's still an assault mech. Approach it from anywhere outside its firing arc and particularly from the rear and you'll give it a huge head ache. It also doesn't deal well with hot maps: even competent pilots who are careful with their heat will suffer a substantially reduced DPS on hotter maps.

Edited by Sir Wulfrick, 28 April 2015 - 06:27 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Poisoner, on 28 April 2015 - 06:22 PM, said:

How about the Gargoyle and Warhawk get better?

I don't actually have a problem with that, but you also need to consider that the margin of superiority has to decrease along an exponential curve as 'Mech tonnage goes up, otherwise your 85 and 100 ton assaults are completely unmatched by anything the IS can bring.

If the Warhawk didn't have all of its DHS in one side and if it had higher hard-points, it would be absolutely crushing it in this game.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 28 April 2015 - 06:26 PM.

[5th Fedcom Rat]

Yeonne Greene, on 28 April 2015 - 06:25 PM, said:

I don't actually have a problem with that, but you also need to consider that the margin of superiority has to decrease along an exponential curve as 'Mech tonnage goes up, otherwise your 85 and 100 ton assaults are completely unmatched by anything the IS can bring.
If the Warhawk didn't have all of its DHS in one side and if it had higher hard-points, it would be absolutely crushing it in this game.

Except the fact that they're slow, big targets which overheat easily and they're usually not hard to run rings around.

Warhawk has more problems than just those two. It also has side torsos that are easily cleaved off (perhaps solved by higher arms acting as shields). Beyond that it simply doesn't have the hardpoints, available crits or spare tonnage (due to the sunk heatsinks) to ever be "crushing". That's on top of the fact it doesn't have the 4N's silly OP quirks. The only powerful Warhawk build is an LRM boat which says a lot.

.

Edited by 5th Fedcom Rat, 28 April 2015 - 06:36 PM.

[Lexx]

In my opinion the biggest problem with the 4N is the changes to large laser ghost heat. A mech that can mount 6 large lasers and fire 3 at a time repeatedly without overheating on the 2nd or 3rd salvo shouldn't exist. The mech is fine, the quirks are fine, but if it mounts 6 large lasers it should only be able to fire 2 at a time without ghost heat.

I feel ghost heat should be mech specific in some cases. For example the Stalkers large lasers should have ghost heat at 2+, but a mech like the Highlander should be able to fire 3. My Heavy Metal would be even more useless than it is if I couldn't fire 3 large or ER large lasers at the same time on that arm. A mech like the Awesome should be able to fire 3 or even 4 PPCs or ERPPCs at the same time without ghost heat. Then someone might actually use one without having to quirk it to the level that the Thud 9S used to be.

The IS has to use massed Stalker 4Ns, because it's about the only mech we have that can compete with certain other mechs. If ghost heat doesn't change, then perhaps what it needs is a heat quirk nerf to 5% or 10% (down from 20%) because it shouldn't be able to keep up the sustained level of fire it does now without overheating.

Edited by Lexx, 28 April 2015 - 06:40 PM.

[Fate 6]

Poisoner, on 28 April 2015 - 06:22 PM, said:

How about the Gargoyle and Warhawk get better?

The Gargoyle is worse than the Timber Wolf but not, in any way, worse than the 80 tonners than the IS gets. It compares basically 1:1 with the Victor/Zeus (minus the Hoverjets on the Victor) in terms of hitboxes/tankiness but gets more effective weapons and better speed.

[Fate 6]

5th Fedcom Rat, on 28 April 2015 - 06:34 PM, said:

Except the fact that they're slow, big targets which overheat easily and they're usually not hard to run rings around.

Warhawk has more problems than just those two. It also has side torsos that are easily cleaved off (perhaps solved by higher arms acting as shields). Beyond that it simply doesn't have the hardpoints, available crits or spare tonnage (due to the sunk heatsinks) to ever be "crushing". That's on top of the fact it doesn't have the 4N's silly OP quirks. The only powerful Warhawk build is an LRM boat which says a lot.

.

In terms of pure numbers the 4LPL Warhawk has the SAME damage profile as the Stalker-4N. Basically same heat dissipation, damage, range, and recycle. You can do the math, but it compares very closely. The Stalker gets way better hitboxes and mounts, and the Warhawk gets better speed.

[Y E O N N E]

5th Fedcom Rat, on 28 April 2015 - 06:34 PM, said:

Except the fact that they're slow, big targets which overheat easily and they're usually not hard to run rings around.

Warhawk has more problems than just those two. It also has side torsos that are easily cleaved off (perhaps solved by higher arms acting as shields). Beyond that it simply doesn't have the hardpoints, available crits or spare tonnage (due to the sunk heatsinks) to ever be "crushing". That's on top of the fact it doesn't have the 4N's silly OP quirks. The only powerful Warhawk build is an LRM boat which says a lot.

.

No, those really are its only two major problems.

The 6x LL Stalker runs about as hot as the 4x LPL Warhawk with about the same damage and about the same range. The Stalker is also slow, and big, and loses side torsos very easily (and this is actually considered a feature on it). The Stalker even features reduced torso twist abilities to compensate for its torso shape.

And yes, I've played both Warhawks and Stalkers.

[Aresye]

Stalker 4N:
+ Great hitboxes.
+ Great hardpoint locations.
+ Great armor.
+ Great heat control.
- Slow Speed
- Torso twist limitations.

It's got weaknesses. The problem is CW maps generally have longer range engagements. Your best way of countering the 4Ns is to stay in cover and let them come to you. If you're attacking, stay in cover as long as possible while you try and close distance.

[Ultimax]

Yeonne Greene, on 28 April 2015 - 06:25 PM, said:

If the Warhawk didn't have all of its DHS in one side and if it had higher hard-points, it would be absolutely crushing it in this game.

If you run an all energy build, you will have DHS everywhere anyway.

Higher hardpoints would be great, I wish it had them.

[Y E O N N E]

Ultimatum X, on 28 April 2015 - 07:31 PM, said:

If you run an all energy build, you will have DHS everywhere anyway.

Higher hardpoints would be great, I wish it had them.

This is true, though the asymmetrical DHS allocation does limit the potential of alternative builds while the Stalker doesn't have such a restriction (instead, it just has large equipment that takes up a bunch of tons and slots, netting a similar result anyway).

I think Wave III is really going to shake up Clan drop decks, with so many high-mount options to choose from. Still won't have a high-mount Assault, but I'm not entirely convinced the Clans really need one when the TBR is considered match for the STK (and BLR).

[Ultimax]

5th Fedcom Rat, on 28 April 2015 - 06:34 PM, said:

Except the fact that they're slow, big targets which overheat easily and they're usually not hard to run rings around. Warhawk has more problems than just those two. It also has side torsos that are easily cleaved off (perhaps solved by higher arms acting as shields). Beyond that it simply doesn't have the hardpoints, available crits or spare tonnage (due to the sunk heatsinks) to ever be "crushing". That's on top of the fact it doesn't have the 4N's silly OP quirks. The only powerful Warhawk build is an LRM boat which says a lot. .

4x CLPL Warhawk keeps pace with 4N.








It's not the heat that's an issue, it's not the firepower loadout.

It's primarily hardpoint location & lack of flexibility in loadout options.

[Eider]

Hillarious.. anything is even slightly good and clanners cry to high heaven. Nothing is wrong with the mech and its quirks. You still have a huge range advantage over those large lasers and broken hitboxes on all but 1 of your trinity god mechs. Maybe as they old saying goes, just get guud. This is just a repeat of the thunderbolt at least then the erppcs did have range gallore.

[Eider]

Poisoner, on 28 April 2015 - 05:49 PM, said:

I do take a Timberwolf. Its not tonnage efficient to take a DWF however.

So let me ask this, when IS players fight each other do they just meta each other to death with STKs and TDRs?

Funny.. dont clan players just field nothing but stormcrows? Derp.. and here you are complaining about a large laser. And as for complaints about brawl dying.. why do you think that really is? Answer, clan weapons have far greater range than is.. so is needs to field its long range just to hit back.

[Roadkill]

I don't have a Stalker 4N, so today I made this Battlemaster 1G just to see what the fuss was all about. (Yes, that Battlemaster could be improved. Not the point. I didn't want to spend millions of c-bills for a simple test.) The 4N has 10% better quirks and 4 of its 6 energy mounts are higher than the 1G's. That said, all 6 of the 1G's energy mounts (that are used) are high-ish, which means it can use 2 x 3 LL alphas (betas?) in quick succession while peeking instead of 1 x 4 LL alpha.

The mechanics of optimally using high energy mounts aside, I think this probably gave me a pretty good idea of what the 4N is capable of.

I was reasonably impressed in the solo queue, and I can see how it could be used extremely effectively in CW. Coordination is a must to use a build like this effectively because it is HOT. The Stalker is likely cooler, both because of 10% less heat generation and likely only using 4 of 6 lasers for many shots, but that also means it's putting less damage downrange when it shoots.

When I was able to work with at least one other teammate (often without them realizing I was working with them), it was a beast. But when I had to maneuver, or when I was forced to work alone, it was a beached whale.

I cannot see how the 4N can possibly be truly OP. Very good, sure. Top tier in CW, entirely possible. But the tradeoffs are pretty significant.

Put another way, my experimentation today didn't convince me to buy a 4N. I have 3 mastered Stalkers already so leveling up the 4N wouldn't be difficult, but I just don't see it adding greatly to my current selection (I'm over 100 Mechs mastered). Plus with all the whining going on about it, I don't want to risk buying one only to see it get nerfed shortly thereafter.