40 replies to this topic

[Hit the Deck]

At 85 tons, it would have the biggest free tonnage per construction rules. With requirements consisting of 64.8 kph, MASC, 4 Jump Jets, and 16 DHS, the resulting free pod space are as follows (tons/crits):

• 80: 27.5/25
  
• 85: 29.0/27
  
• 90: 24.5/29
  
• 95: 24.5/31
  
• 100: 22.5/33

The armor is only as strong as Warhawk's but would you trade 4 crits for 4.5 tons? I think the trade is in general, worth it (depends on where the two more DHS theoretically will be fixed as XL340 can only hold 3 heatsinks).

With this new config, it can carry many of EBJ's loadout comfortably and do dual UAC+lasers better than the WHK (because of WHK's hardpoints). Sample loadouts are dual Gauss (fo' sho'!) or 2UAC/10+4ERML.

Just throwing this out for fun! And if it was a 85 tonner, maybe it would only have 4 instead of 6 fixed DHS which permits more builds! This thread shows me that 85 tons may be the sweet spot for Clan Assaults (Warhawk). What say you? IS may have different story because their DHS consume three crits.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hit the Deck, on 17 July 2015 - 09:58 AM, said:

The armor is only as strong as Warhawk's but would you trade 4 crits for 4.5 tons?

That's because it trades Mark I JJs for Mark II JJs.

[Fate 6]

Executioner is just weird. The crits are all messed up and the tonnage feels really low so the overall mech just feels inefficient no matter what you do

[Hit the Deck]

WM Quicksilver, on 17 July 2015 - 10:08 AM, said:

That's because it trades Mark I JJs for Mark II JJs.

Yes, along with the engine.

Fate 6, on 17 July 2015 - 10:10 AM, said:

Executioner is just weird. The crits are all messed up and the tonnage feels really low so the overall mech just feels inefficient no matter what you do

PGI should've put the single DHS on LT instead of RT. As for the free tonnage, it depends on how good you implement JJs and MASC so people feel that the fixed equipment are worth the trade off instead of ditching them (or the 'Mech) so they can just bring more gunz!

[Sarlic]

Why?

It packs a amazing punch of firepower, it has MASC and more.

I disagree.

Alot of people don't ustilise the mech properly. Just like the EBJ. I see only a few actually make use of the terrain in combination with the high energy/ballistic mount.

[TheSilken]

If only you could take the JJs off then it would be better. Not that it is bad just not the same as the MW4 or TT one.

[Hit the Deck]

Sarlic, on 17 July 2015 - 10:30 AM, said:

Why?

It packs a amazing punch of firepower, it has MASC and more.

I disagree.

Alot of people don't ustilise the mech properly. Just like the EBJ. I see only a few actually make use of the terrain in combination with the high energy/ballistic mount.

Hmm... which post are you replying to?

TheSilken, on 17 July 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

If only you could take the JJs off then it would be better. Not that it is bad just not the same as the MW4 or TT one.

I prefer that they give JJs more thrust instead.

Edited by Hit the Deck, 17 July 2015 - 10:37 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hit the Deck, on 17 July 2015 - 10:26 AM, said:

Yes, along with the engine.

The engine difference only gains you 0.5 tons after the drop in internal weight and armor is accounted for. If it had endo and you could drop the JJs, the 95 ton slot would be the better option. Those Mark I JJs really kill its advantage though.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 17 July 2015 - 10:38 AM.

[Sarlic]

Hit the Deck, on 17 July 2015 - 10:36 AM, said:

Hmm... which post are you replying to?

You.

Or did i understood you wrong?

I think it's fine at its current tonnage. It's where it should be instead of 85 ton and less firepower, right?

[Hit the Deck]

WM Quicksilver, on 17 July 2015 - 10:37 AM, said:

The engine difference only gains you 0.5 tons after the drop in internal weight and armor is accounted for. If it had endo and you could drop the JJs, the 95 ton slot would be the better option. Those Mark I JJs really kill its advantage though.

True, but 0.5t is still a free tonnage! Honestly I didn't check that the weight saving is only that low.

Sarlic, on 17 July 2015 - 10:38 AM, said:

You.

Or did i understood you wrong?

I think it's fine at its current tonnage. It's where it should be instead of 85 ton and less firepower, right?

At 85 tons it would have more pod space (tonnage not crits) because of the construction rules.

Edited by Hit the Deck, 17 July 2015 - 10:45 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Actually I was wrong, MASC gets dropped by a ton and a crit when falling below 90 tons, meaning it is actually MASC and JJs being hardwired that give it the extra 4.5 tons when dropping below 90.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 17 July 2015 - 10:45 AM.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Uh... let me just pull out my handy dandy speed vs weight chart.

So, the 95 ton gives you an extra 2 tons+ another 0.5 from ES. However, you're forced to use 2 ton JJ. So, with 4, that's a 4 ton loss. Net loss by being 95 tons is 1.5 tons.

Their MASC weights are the same.

In short, it's a bit silly to build a 10 ton heavier mech that carries less equipment. But, you do gain another 2 tons of armor you can fit, so if the extra armor is more important to you it makes a fair amount of sense.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 17 July 2015 - 09:21 PM, said:

Their MASC weights are the same.

MASC weights for an 85 ton are not the same as the 95 ton MASC, well unless there is a bug in SSW rounding for MASC.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 17 July 2015 - 09:29 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

TheSilken, on 17 July 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

If only you could take the JJs off then it would be better. Not that it is bad just not the same as the MW4 or TT one.

whats the point of jump capable mechs if you take the JJs off?

So tired of this being offered as a "fix" on Jumpers.

also, TT Executioner is equipped exactly like MWO one. JJs are locked.

[Hit the Deck]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 17 July 2015 - 09:21 PM, said:

Uh... let me just pull out my handy dandy speed vs weight chart.

So, the 95 ton gives you an extra 2 tons+ another 0.5 from ES. However, you're forced to use 2 ton JJ. So, with 4, that's a 4 ton loss. Net loss by being 95 tons is 1.5 tons.

Their MASC weights are the same.

In short, it's a bit silly to build a 10 ton heavier mech that carries less equipment. But, you do gain another 2 tons of armor you can fit, so if the extra armor is more important to you it makes a fair amount of sense.

Interesting chart but they don't take into account the max armor weight.

Yeah, it's about trade off. BTW EXE uses Ferro and is not equipped with ES.

WM Quicksilver, on 17 July 2015 - 09:26 PM, said:

MASC weights for an 85 ton are not the same as the 95 ton MASC, well unless there is a bug in SSW rounding for MASC.

SSW round the number down which is different from MWO. IN MWO, 85 tonner is assigned MASC IV so the free tonnage will be one ton less.

[Khobai]

No the Executioner should not be 85 tons. Thats stupid.

However the Executioner should be able to remove its oppressive 2 ton JJs (see below)

Quote

whats the point of jump capable mechs if you take the JJs off?

The point is it gives you the option to run the mech with JJs or without JJs and with more weapons instead.

Having more options is a good thing. Especially in the case of excessively penalized mechs like the Gladiator. Having to pay 2 tons per jumpjet AND having fixed jumpjets is ridiculous.

Also it balances the non-S omnipod jumpjets with the S omnipod jumpjets... since S omnipod jumpjets can be removed by not using the S omnipods. It makes absolutely no sense to give the timberwolf and daishi the ability to add and remove jumpjets as they please but penalize the summoner and executioner by not allowing them to remove JJs at all.


This is how jumpjets should work for clans:

Non-S omnipods should be able to remove jumpjets. So a Summoner or Executioner could remove their jumpjets.

S omnipods should have locked jumpjets, since jumpjets are the whole point of S omnipods. So a Timber Wolf-S or Daishi-S could not remove their jumpjets. They would have to use non-S omnipods to not have jumpjets.

Edited by Khobai, 17 July 2015 - 10:14 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hit the Deck, on 17 July 2015 - 09:56 PM, said:

SSW round the number down which is different from MWO. IN MWO, 85 tonner is assigned MASC IV so the free tonnage will be one ton less.

In other words it would only get 3.5 tons over the 95 ton version.

[Hit the Deck]

WM Quicksilver, on 17 July 2015 - 10:09 PM, said:

In other words it would only get 3.5 tons over the 95 ton version.

Right. And not to mention the Class II JJs didn't get any buff from Paul in last pass I don't know how good they perform since I don't own a Victor.

[Ultimax]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 July 2015 - 09:35 PM, said:

whats the point of jump capable mechs if you take the JJs off?

So tired of this being offered as a "fix" on Jumpers.

also, TT Executioner is equipped exactly like MWO one. JJs are locked.

If it actually jumped amazingly well and with fast thrust, I wouldn't mind.


But it doesn't.


The 8 tons of JJs in terms of benefit are simply not worth the total tonnage invested, and I don't think they will ever be worth it in this game.


I don't need removing them to be the only solution, but I don't think a JJ improvement to actually justify 8 full tons is on the horizon - at which point the JJs need to be removable to a degree or I'll simply play other mechs.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 17 July 2015 - 10:31 PM.

[Hit the Deck]

Ultimatum X, on 17 July 2015 - 10:30 PM, said:

If it actually jumped amazingly well and with fast thrust, I wouldn't mind.
....

It actually jumps amazingly well just not with "fast thrust".