57 replies to this topic

[0bsidion]

DjPush, on 21 December 2015 - 10:40 AM, said:

Except for the Jenner. That mech can suck it. Nerf the hell out of that little OP monster.

Well, they can nerf everyone else's. It really isn't OP in my hands. I usually net around 0 to 1 kills and sometimes break 200 damage before I die. I've had better games in a Spider. Or the Kit Fox.

[Roadkill]

0bsidion, on 21 December 2015 - 10:43 AM, said:

Well, they can nerf everyone else's. It really isn't OP in my hands. I usually net around 0 to 1 kills and sometimes break 200 damage before I die. I've had better games in a Spider. Or the Kit Fox.

They seem pretty good to me, but you really do have to change your style to do well. Very fragile. Don't scout with them... hang around the blob and wait to commit until there's a brawl going.

I'm averaging just under 300 damage, and that's with a couple of spectacularly bad sub-100 games in the mix. (What? You mean I can't successfully brawl a laser Hunchie? GTFO?)

[C E Dwyer]

I look at how well the Hunchback IIC jumps and I think Crap my Victor could do that once apon a time and hate PGI just that little bit more

[Bishop Steiner]

ExplicitContent, on 21 December 2015 - 08:33 AM, said:

The c is my favorite variant. I like having the option of using up to 4 energy points and 2 ballistics. Have been running 2xUAC5, 3xML (had 4 but dropped one because I fail at monitoring heat). Have had some nice matches when I can stay out of the brawl. I tried it in various configurations and this seems to work for me. I have a tendency to go right in to face-wreck mode (in this case, my face being wrecked) if I equip too high of an alpha capability.

Yeah I really regret not getting the early adopter just because that Charlie would fit my CQB needs to perfection. Those arm hardpoints are HUGE for me.

DjPush, on 21 December 2015 - 10:40 AM, said:

All the IIC mechs need structure and armor quirks. Not much, just a smidge. Except for the Jenner. That mech can suck it. Nerf the hell out of that little OP monster.

really? You are one of the only people I have heard complain about the Jenny II. Thing pops when you look at them sideways.

[KrazedOmega]

I love Hunchbacks but I'm not feeling it with these IIC, they have the survivability of a wet paper bag. I don't think I've ever owned a mech that will drop a ST as fast as these do. The only build that seems half decent is the 2x uac10, 2x ml.

Overall I feel I've just wasted my money on them.

[Ted Wayz]

Raggedyman, on 20 December 2015 - 11:01 PM, said:

They are fun, but they need "something" to get them more viable without having to do a near full strip and reload (what I ended up doing). Just an overall 5% hotterness to get them inline with everything else.
Still, I'm very happy they came out without any buffs as it means they can be added to, rather than nerf hammered after wrecking everyone else's play time

Are they more or less viable the mechs that have been around awhile that are not viable? Just curious.

My answer to an earlier post of "What are you least/most looking forward to piloting" was the one that was viable I looked forward to, the ones that are not I wasn't. Unfortunately there are more not viable than viable in the release.

[Chuck Jager]

I thought I saw something pertaining to a possible fix for Hunchies hitboxes/structure "coming to patch near you". I try to not be the 5th monkey on the end of the telephone game passing the wrong info along, but it seems mandatory in internet chatter.

[Tiger Shark]

I'm enjoying I can finally pilot the BattleTech cartoon Hunch IIC. Making the arms a little bit bigger or tiny structure quirk bump to the hunch will make it a little less fragile. Although another option is to up the engine cap, I'm curious as to what people would do with a 330 engined Hunch IIC.

What Pytor drove in the cartoom with the 2UAC20 while fun, isn't a brawler like the IS Hunchie.

The BJ1X-esque 6ERML build plays pretty simiilar, but I think the BJ1X has way more structure quirks and is actually more durable, and runs cooler.

The 4AC2 build is fun on larger maps where you can use the whole range, all the while without blinding yourself.

The 4LRM10 build plays like a quicker Mad Dog.

The 2UAC10 build is a great mid range hang support your heavies and assaults build.

[Bishop Steiner]

title changed to reflect post better.....

It currently has the same 20º pitch range that the parent IS HBK has. The difference, is the IS HBK has arm mounted weapon hardpoints that allow it to deal with both UAVs and leg humpers.

Only the HBK-IIC-C gives one that option, and it is currently out of reach for anyone who did not early adopt. To an extent, this may be applicable to some BNC models and the SHD-2K, off the top of my head. Any mech with arm mounted weapons, well, if you decide to forgo them to "meta shield" that's on you.

So anyhow, 30-35º plus extending the arm hitboxes into the side shoulders, I think would do huge things for the HBK-IIC, without opening the can of works of armor/structure or weapon quirks.

Might it need more? Maybe, but I say let's do simple and iterative changes, then see.

[Khobai]

hunchback IIC is fine how it is

worse survivability is the price you pay for better firepower and better mobility. its a glass cannon. working as intended.

as for not having enough pitch... its got no arm weapons... increasing its torso pitch to 35 isnt gonna fix the problem. its still not going to be able to shoot down uavs or light humpers. besides you also have jumpjets which the regular hunchback doesnt.

if you dont like the tradeoffs play an IS hunchback.

Edited by Khobai, 22 December 2015 - 02:36 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Khobai, on 22 December 2015 - 02:29 PM, said:

hunchback IIC is fine how it is

No, it's not.

But some constructive posting as to why you think it is would go a long way.

It's universally recognized as being made of glass, the clan XL doesn't come close to compensating for bad geometry/hitboxes or lack of any sort of quirks, leaving it both weaker and less agile than it's IS counterpart.

Conversely, the "massive firepower" advantage is largely chasing a unicorn because of the realities of clan Ballistics and heat of any real Energy builds. It can literally carry more guns than it can realistically or effectively use. That's no actual advantage.

So, no, under no objective terms is it "fine".

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 22 December 2015 - 02:36 PM.

[Jman5]

I really hope PGI collects mech-metrics so they can make a more informed decision on whether or not the IIC's need any buffs.

[Bishop Steiner]

Jman5, on 22 December 2015 - 02:33 PM, said:

I really hope PGI collects mech-metrics so they can make a more informed decision on whether or not the IIC's need any buffs.

They are. And it's why any buffs or nerfs need to be iterative.

I informed Russ of the hibox/geometry issue with the arms literally absorbing no incoming fire. PGI tested it and Russ confirmed that was so, so they are looking at some form of hitbox adjustment (though hopefully NOT the one Russ posted).

I'm relatively certain you would have to agree that allowing more pitch is hardly going to spring the mech into "OP" territory, but literally being unable to shoot down a UAV while getting buttpuckered by LRMs, because the design mounts no arm weapons? It's pretty lame.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 22 December 2015 - 03:08 PM.

[Khobai]

they dont need buffs its just crybabies that cant handle mechs having downsides.

theres clan mechs that are WAY worse off than the IICs.

[Bishop Steiner]

Khobai, on 22 December 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

they dont need buffs its just crybabies that cant handle mechs having downsides.

theres clan mechs that are WAY worse off than the IICs.

Ah. So no actual points to make as usual. Thanks, I can safely go back to ignoring you.

[0bsidion]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 December 2015 - 02:36 PM, said:

They are. And it's why any buffs or nerfs need to be iterative.

I informed Russ of the hibox/geometry issue with the arms literally absorbing no incoming fire. PGI tested it and Russ confirmed that was so, so they are looking at some form of hitbox adjustment (thoughtfully NOT the one Russ posted).

I guess I'm one of the few that's had my Hunchie IIC lose its arms. Not that I disagree with your position, as I've said before, better to lose those useless arms than the much more valuable torsos.

Also nice to hear they've abandoned that not so good idea of making the CT more vulnerable. It definitely would not have helped this poor bugger.

[Bishop Steiner]

0bsidion, on 22 December 2015 - 02:51 PM, said:

I guess I'm one of the few that's had my Hunchie IIC lose its arms. Not that I disagree with your position, as I've said before, better to lose those useless arms than the much more valuable torsos.

Also nice to hear they've abandoned that not so good idea of making the CT more vulnerable. It definitely would not have helped this poor bugger.

I've had maybe two or three arms lost in 150 matches. It can happen but it's mostly because they stick out so when you poke and hide they are sometimes still exposed... or because someone has bad aim. I haven't seen an instance yet where they were useful as shields.

As for the CT, I had not heard confirmation that they had abandoned the CT plan....source?

[0bsidion]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 December 2015 - 02:54 PM, said:

I've had maybe two or three arms lost in 150 matches. It can happen but it's mostly because they stick out so when you poke and hide they are sometimes still exposed... or because someone has bad aim. I haven't seen an instance yet where they were useful as shields.

As for the CT, I had not heard confirmation that they had abandoned the CT plan....source?

I guess I misread your post.

Bishop Steiner, on 22 December 2015 - 02:36 PM, said:

PGI tested it and Russ confirmed that was so, so they are looking at some form of hitbox adjustment ==>(thoughtfully NOT the one Russ posted). <==

I thought you meant "thankfully" instead of "thoughtfully", but maybe you meant hopefully? So I took that as you had information they were dropping the easier to hit CT idea.

[Bishop Steiner]

0bsidion, on 22 December 2015 - 03:01 PM, said:

I guess I misread your post.

I thought you meant "thankfully" instead of "thoughtfully", but maybe you meant hopefully? So I took that as you had information they were dropping the easier to hit CT idea.

eh..autocorrect fail... should double check my phone closer.....
"though hopefully" was what it should have said, lol


though.....
as of 8 minutes ago...

[Ultimax]

https://twitter.com/...126136417296384

https://twitter.com/...130017356365824




Remind me to remind him in January.