30 replies to this topic

[Gas Guzzler]

Cathy, on 07 May 2015 - 01:52 PM, said:

the new HGn got an armour buff none of the old ones have

But its missing the speed quirk and it can't carry 2 UAC5s

[Y E O N N E]

Mizeur, on 07 May 2015 - 08:54 AM, said:

8 energy hardpoints. It'll depend on whether they give it the bad 1G agility or the good 1D agility. Also: quirks.

Could be a better-armored TDR-5SS to compete with the Gargoyle (for whatever that's worth).

I feel like that's unnecessary, since it can also already be used as a better-armored TDR-5SS with two LPL and four MPL providing a pretty massive punch. You could do 8x MPL on the BLR-3M, but that only gives you two more points of damage for two more points of heat and a much shorter range. Adding quirks to make 8x MPL a better option would be, frankly, ridiculous.

[Escef]

Terciel1976, on 07 May 2015 - 09:42 AM, said:

Did he? I just heard him say the CTF will have ECM.

Well, he told me on Twitter that ECM on the new BLR is a no-go.

Edited by Escef, 07 May 2015 - 10:34 PM.

[Koniks]

The cur

Yeonne Greene, on 07 May 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

I feel like that's unnecessary,

The current options are either slower or more fragile than the TDR-5SS and the Gargoyle. And since Quirk v2, the other BLRs are both hotter and have less damage at or past the optimal range of the TDR-5SS. And it's outclassed for LLs by the STK.

But hey, maybe they turn it into an oversize FS9-A instead.

[Y E O N N E]

Mizeur, on 07 May 2015 - 10:49 PM, said:

The cur

The current options are either slower or more fragile than the TDR-5SS and the Gargoyle. And since Quirk v2, the other BLRs are both hotter and have less damage at or past the optimal range of the TDR-5SS. And it's outclassed for LLs by the STK.

But hey, maybe they turn it into an oversize FS9-A instead.

So you drop the Med Pulse for regular Meds on the BLR-3M. There's 351 meters of short-duration-quirk MedLas with two LPL and slightly longer maximum reach than the TDR-5SS. It will run hotter, but it has 10 points on the TDR-5SS for its full strike. Two well-placed shots will at least put a crucial section of the TDR into the deep orange if he tries to spread, which means he can no longer realistically face you to try and shoot. By the time he takes one of your sides, you've gone through his CT and it's over.

It's not a bad set of trade-offs and the TDR winning the trade, in my experience, is far from a given.

As for being outclassed by the STK, nope. Not at all. Ignoring that there are BLRs with similar quirks for energy and LL and often with just as many hard-points in high locations, they are two 'Mechs with, I think, vastly differing strengths. The Stalker is great for hull-down, defensive work, but the Battlemaster is much better for leading a push because it can run considerably faster and is more agile and has arms allowing it to brawl more effectively. I don't fear a Firestarter in a Battlemaster, but I do fear one in a Stalker. The Stalker stops the enemy from getting into your base in CW, while the Battlemaster stops them if they do get in.

Finally, the Battlemaster [3M] already is sort of a giant FS9-A, while the Stalker [4N] plays more like a giant LCT-1E.

[Koniks]

The TDR-5SS still has superior cooldown+beam duration. So it gets its second alpha before the BLR can return a full alpha--the BLR can only return fire with the MLs at the same time. So the TDR picks up some extra damage. The heat advantage also gives it a 3rd full alpha while the BLR is cooling down because of the heat quirks. And the BLR-3M has the 1G's terrible twist. The TDR outclasses it there, so it can spread damage better. And it's faster. I prefer it to lead the push for those reasons where I'd rather be second in with the BLR.

I take the BLR-3S over the 3M. And I do better in the 5SS by half a kill per game because of Quirk v2 and no ghost heat on the MPLs. Both of them are still completely reliant on using the team as a meat shield. And yeah, I've had some good games in the BLR-3S.

Where the STK-4N mid-range flexibility outweighs the moderate drop-off in close-range performance, has superior hitboxes, and better energy quirks complemented by the ghost heat change.

A 2C with 3S/1D agility and great quirks would make it the close range energy boat. Or competitive with the STK if they go the LL or TDR-9SE LPL quirk route.

Edited by Mizeur, 09 May 2015 - 12:29 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

I consider the Stalker's hit-boxes to actually be terrible. A non-standard opinion, I know, but it's not because they get you killed. They are great from a pure survivability point of view, true, but I don't care about surviving if I can't also shoot. When I drive Stalkers, I can tank damage like a boss, but I'll lose all of my guns fairly quickly because I can't really shield the sides. Rather, the sides are shields for the center. And while I'm spreading the damage, I also can't really return fire too well. With the Battlemaster, I seem to retain my firepower a lot better, because people go for the CT and the CT profile is large enough to take some of the hits away from the sides. The big arms also help, and also allow me to just use one torso as a shield while I return fire with the far-side arm.

The STK-4N's energy quirks are also only marginally better. While I wouldn't try to beat a Stalker in its strong game with a Battlemaster, the Battlemaster does make for a great stand-in when no Stalker is available...and it can better defend itself if the enemy somehow closes in.

As for facing off against the TDR-5SS, I still don't think it's that cut and dry. The armor advantage and the higher alpha makes it very close fight. You shouldn't just sit there facing the Thud, letting him wail on you, and you can shield much better than he can, even with that crap torso twist (which really has no business still being there when PGI said they removed all of the negative IS quirks). Even if both of them keep their CTs out of view until they can shoot, the BLR needs two alphas and a burst from the faster-charging 4x MedLas to kill the TDR while the TDR needs four full shots from the MedPulse. In both cases, their lasers burn so fast that they are hard to spin away.

The BLR-3S looks a great Battlemaster. I ran that build on my 3M for awhile and it was pretty devastating. Nowadays, I run it like I showed you in the link but with ERPPC in place of LPL because I love PPCs, and I do work with them. I'm considering using the Challenge C-bills to repurchase some Battlemasters, and I'm on the fence about the 1S, 3S, and 1D. I'm thinking 1S because it has the missiles to brawl, and I'd like to use it the way I use the 3M; as a great brawler that can punch targets at range if necessary. I'm not a huge fan of big-alpha laser-vomit, and I think I've only got one 'Mech so set up (BJ-1DC).

[Elizander]

theta123, on 07 May 2015 - 07:35 AM, said:

soooo

will we see a double cockpit?

And what will its loadout/hardpoints be?

Would be a lot of work but would be cool if your friend could spectate with the second cockpit. Maybe even take over controls. Share a mech.

[Koniks]

Yeonne Greene, on 09 May 2015 - 06:10 PM, said:

I consider the Stalker's hit-boxes to actually be terrible....With the Battlemaster, I seem to retain my firepower a lot better, because people go for the CT and the CT profile is large enough to take some of the hits away from the sides. The big arms also help, and also allow me to just use one torso as a shield while I return fire with the far-side arm.

The STK-4N's energy quirks are also only marginally better.

As for facing off against the TDR-5SS, I still don't think it's that cut and dry.

We've had this argument about shielding before. We seem to have different ways of using the technique, particularly in the context of team play. When used for LL vomit, the STK-4N quirks are significantly better than what the 3M has to offer.

It's also not about 1v1 competition between the BLR and the TDR, necessarily. It's about how they fit on the team. And the TDR does a better job of that. The fact that an 85-ton mech versus a 65-ton mech with similar loadouts is "close" says it all. Regardless, I only want either one of them in a situation where it has an asymmetric advantage. Like being able to close on Clan laser vomit.

The 1S has a 25% range quirk. It's now the best ERLL Assault sniper. Or put 3 of them on with some LRM5s and a TAG.Used to do that with regular LLs. But if you don't want STK or want to brawl I prefer the 3S. The 1S missile hardpoints are too spread out for it to be good at brawling. Put 6xMPL+2xASRM6 on the 3S and have fun.

Liked the BLR-1D pre-Clans and pre-quirks but it's completely obsoleted now.

Edited by Mizeur, 09 May 2015 - 08:21 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Mizeur, on 09 May 2015 - 08:20 PM, said:

We've had this argument about shielding before. We seem to have different ways of using the technique, particularly in the context of team play. When used for LL vomit, the STK-4N quirks are significantly better than what the 3M has to offer.

It's also not about 1v1 competition between the BLR and the TDR, necessarily. It's about how they fit on the team. And the TDR does a better job of that. The fact that an 85-ton mech versus a 65-ton mech with similar loadouts is "close" says it all. Regardless, I only want either one of them in a situation where it has an asymmetric advantage. Like being able to close on Clan laser vomit.

The 1S has a 25% range quirk. It's now the best ERLL Assault sniper. Or put 3 of them on with some LRM5s and a TAG.Used to do that with regular LLs. But if you don't want STK or want to brawl I prefer the 3S. The 1S missile hardpoints are too spread out for it to be good at brawling. Put 6xMPL+2xASRM6 on the 3S and have fun.

Liked the BLR-1D pre-Clans and pre-quirks but it's completely obsoleted now.

I think we need to return to the root of this discussion, because you are starting to get wrapped up in the BLR vs. TDR thing. You said, initially, that the BLR-2C could be a better armored TDR-5SS. I said that's unnecessary because we have a couple BLRs that fill that role. You said that the BLR is more fragile, which is patently false, and that it is slower, which is actually true.

Which brings us back to my original statement: it's redundant for the 2C to try and emulate the TDR-5SS. No Battlemaster, or any other IS Assault, can ever be a true, up-armored TDR-5SS. To run fast enough would require an XL 400, and that is a certain death-sentence when enemies zero in on that really fast, big IS stompy shooting pulse lasers everywhere. Even if it could go fast enough, you'd be paying extra weight in your CW drop-deck or Tournament restrictions to do something only marginally better than another machine weighing 20 tons less. So what you have are closest-options. The 2C cannot physically be appreciably better than the 3M or the 3S as a stand-in, overweight Wubberbolt without granting it some really screwy quirks (which they might do, and the game would be worse for it). Adding one more laser onto the likes of the 3S to make the 2C is insufficient to have that effect.

What you are forgetting is that Tier 1 benefits scale with how good you and your group already are, and are always relative to the skill of your enemy. The Stalker and Thunderbolt are great, but they are not so great that it makes them automatic win buttons in a match. It's in that zone of ever-present skill disparity where I am operating, while you seem to be focused only on whatever combination of flavors are currently preached as the best™.

On a lighter and friendlier note, I think I'll be buying the 1S. After messing around with it in the PTS, I like the way it handles loaded like this. It feels like it plays very similar to my 3M, but also different by virtue of missiles subbing for Medium Lasers and having high-mounted PPCs. I'll probably grab the 3S afterward, and just drop the missiles in favor of the reliable 2x LPL + 4x MPL build. It'll be a decent fall-back if somebody needs me to serious the f*ck up and play Assault...which as you know is something that is way outside my usual. I had the 1D and the 1G before, and didn't much care for them.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 10 May 2015 - 12:47 AM.

[Koniks]

If it's not going to be slower, it needs an XL. That makes it more fragile.

And the other BLRs don't fill the same role as effectively as the TDR given that they weigh 1/3rd again as much. So making one a TDR-equivalent fills a void. And that can be done with sufficient heat quirks so that taking a bigger alpha with more smaller lasers and fewer heatsinks allows a bigger engine to close the heat differential.

I play plenty of solo queue and solo CW drops. So let's not use context as an excuse.

ETA: in context, I couldn't seriously run anything like that BLR-1S build. It's built so far away from the quirks, with such low heat efficiency, and such bracketed range that it's going to be outgunned at most ranges either due to heat or not being able to bring its entire loadout to bear. If I had a desire for PPCs on a BLR, I'd take the 1D and add an AC10 or 2xAC5.

Edited by Mizeur, 10 May 2015 - 08:58 PM.