48 replies to this topic

[V O L T R O N]

These are my mech stats for the current tourney that just was played. I came in 1, 2, 4 and 6 with Hunchies and one Orion

Mech' Matches Played Wins Losses Ratio Kills Deaths Ratio Damage Done XP Earned Time Played


HUNCHBACK IIC HBK-IIC 138 74 64 1.16 139 80 1.74 68,177 195,724 14:12:49
HUNCHBACK IIC HBK-IIC-A 107 58 49 1.18 166 53 3.13 61,311 180,691 11:29:18
HUNCHBACK IIC HBK-IIC-B 94 46 47 0.98 98 52 1.88 48,175 142,586 09:55:30
ORION IIC ON1-IIC-B 58 23 34 0.68 56 43 1.30 27,058 65,697 05:50:18

I havent really played them. I dont enjoy playing them aside from being able to earn recognition and rewards. They are too fragile for me to play in this community. They are very situational. You cant have too many on one team. I am way to aggressive and games are either deathball pushes where I get wrecked or I am on a team full of cowards and I get impatient. So generally Id rather play any mech that I have.

So those stats are from the tourney. Generally not doing much better than other tourneys and people still dont think they need any help. I see most of the reasonable people asking for them to get a few quirks are not asking for a whole lot just simple movement and armor structure quirks. Very small quirks at that.

I dont think the Jenners need any quirks at all. I think they are fine where they are at. The Hunchy/Orion/Highlander yes...

POST EDIT

Due to the people crying about me not breaking them down here is a post edit explanation.
Ok, you want my breakdowns and when what I get where... So I started leveling them all without making any upgrades at all. Just to see how they would perform. I started with the ballistic variant. The 2c, then the B, then the A last. I did this just to get them all in the top 5. I would have figured the energy one would have been the hardest. Easiest to get high scores, but also have the best players among that bracket.

HUNCHBACK IIC .- I first used the trial build. Cant exactly remember what it was, but it was ****. You cant use the xl200's The mechs go way too slow and are too vulnerable. I immediately bought the largest engine inside of it that I could to test it that way. I believe I came up with 2 ml 3 uac5 build first. It was hot, so I got rid of the lasers. The uacs were getting me good distance good range. Allowing me to make the assist in the tourney that I needed with this fragile mech, but my best matches were topping out at 750 with 3 uac5s and ammo. I switched to the xl 255 to give me more ammo at a later date. Still wasnt working. I found myself not being able to get the solo kills spreading so much damage. Was a good build none the less. Then I tried 2 uac10s and 2 ml, a build that everyone was using including McGral18 that I had asked him what he was using. Im not much into generic builds so....Was also VERY hot and only worked on certain maps(unicorn drops/maps that fit your mech).

On the last day *Monday, I asked Jman for his build. Which was 2 uac10s 2 mg 2 sl. I loved the idea of it and immediately got two matches in a row that counted. One was my best match, thanks Jman. The best part about his build is that it was able to sustain damage while running hot, which the uac10s are. The 5's didnt provide enough ammo as the 10's ammo does which allowed me to get higher scores. I call these "unicorn" matches.

HUNCHBACK IIC B - This mech I actually had the most fun with out of all the variants. I found the ballistic one the most tedious as you can tell by matches played. This one I found the most fun because of the builds I came up with. Even thou you can look at the stats and see I played it the least, this was just because of the leader board. I didnt have to play it as much as the others. This is why I saved the energy one for last.

My first build was the trial build, which just needed a few upgrades and armor to actually be ran with the streak build. I changed the streak build from 4 ssrm6's to changing 1 of them to a 2, the medium lasers to small lasers, and while the pop tart hovers great with 4 jjs, I wasnt able to get solo kills or kill most damage dealt with this mech because of how much it spread damage. Now I did have some success hunting lights first and then waiting to engage the assaults getting the solo kills. Was way too much work. Changed it over to an even more laughable build, but one I had the most fun with out of all the builds this weekend. Which was 1 narc 1 1/2 tons of ammo, xl 255, 4jjs 2 lrm 15s and 1 5 with Artemis. I also had a bap and ammo and 2 ml. I had success on every map nearly with this build. There wasnt much ecm running around and the matches were quite strange at first. I was getting plenty of narcs in, lrming targets pretty easily. However I was capping out at about 5th place and I knew that I was just going to have to switch to the 4 srm 6 with Artemis build 8 tons of ammo and xl 275. This allowed me to get the solo kills and maximize my damage quicker. Which I waited for this build on the last day as well with the build Jman got me.

Hunchback IIC A - The energy hunchy, the easiest mech to get high scores because of pin-point damage at range. You can tell by most of the scores and my k/d ratio this is so. I was dreading having to run the meta. I dont like meta, but I will run it. I put the big engine in it and 2 lp 4 ml. WAAAAY TOO HOT. Especially while leveling it. Then switched it to 1lp and 5 ml. I saw people trying that. I was seeing with the lp builds and ml that too much of my DHS were going in my arms and I was losing heat. Then I switched to my favorite build for this mech, but a build that didnt get me to the top. Which was the poptart 2 er ppc 5 sl 4 jjs and 9 dhs. This build was amazing on all maps and ranges. It just wasnt getting me to the top. I ran into psichiholic on Sunday and he was running 6 mp. I said to myself, I know pulse lasers register the best but dammit I wanted to make it up there without being boring, but I ended up running psichis build, which is only good thou for certain maps with it being that hot and distances. Was surprisingly heat efficient at times thou.

So I went threw all weapon systems and changed engines for the hunchies. I wont breakdown the Orion except for telling you that I used LP and Streak 6's for the 6th place. The ballistic was most tedious judging by time played and the spray and pray damage and kills. The energy one was the most meta and I had much fun with it, and at the end of the day the missile one I found to be equally as interesting as the energy but less meta viable. HUNCHBACK IIC

Edited by V O L T R O N, 31 December 2015 - 05:10 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

I agree they need minor tweaks.

HBK is getting the hitbox tweak, which should help a tiny bit.

I think they all need similar mobility to their counterparts.

The HBK in particular I think needs it's Torso Pitch increased drastically, to 30-35º, similar to a Trebuchet. Unless one has the early adopter model with arm weapons it is impossible to shoot down UAVs closer than 500ish meters, and smart lights can hug your legs and you can't shoot them. That makes some sense on a 95 ton deathstar...less on a 50 ton mech.

I'd prefer to see it done in an iterative manner.... and give those tweaks at least 1 patch cycle. If they are still lacking, then some targeted structure buffs might be needed.

I certainly don't desire to see ANY offensive quirks added.

Also, don't take this wrong, but posting your Tournament Placements every place you can really does nothing to bolster your argument. Most people find an actual detailed and well reasoned argument more compelling than Epeen Badges and Stats. It really doesn't mark you as more of an "authority" for most people.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 30 December 2015 - 06:44 AM.

[ExplicitContent]

First, congratulations on your performance. Was keeping an eye on you during the tourney because you were vocal about the state of the IICs. I am going to disagree with Bishop on the posting of your achievements. To me it says that you know how to play the game well and take advantage of the chassis, using whatever gives you the greatest likelihood for contributing to the match.

Bishop, you kind of make it known that you are hardcore non-meta and play things based on Lore or as close as possible (at least that's the impression I get). I would refer to you as a casual payer (no offense intended). You play for the love mechwarrior and the battle tech universe (again, the impression I get from your various musings). And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. It's just one way to play and love the game.

There is a disconnect between the players who are competitive (will use meta, are not lore bound and play for achievement and to win) and the casual, lore based players who just love the game. The motives are different, and as such, the desired end state is different. Couple this with the fact that there are pretty severe IS/Clan biases and we end up in the perpetual argument stew.

At least we can agree that the IICs need help. I have mastered my hunchbacks and still find them wanting. Elited my Orions and see no feasible reason to take them on a drop. Still working on HGNs and I think they might be the worst of the bunch. I have done little with the jenners (I prefer not to pilot lights) and wish I could give them to someone that would use them.

[Bishop Steiner]

ExplicitContent, on 30 December 2015 - 07:17 AM, said:

First, congratulations on your performance. Was keeping an eye on you during the tourney because you were vocal about the state of the IICs. I am going to disagree with Bishop on the posting of your achievements. To me it says that you know how to play the game well and take advantage of the chassis, using whatever gives you the greatest likelihood for contributing to the match.

Bishop, you kind of make it known that you are hardcore non-meta and play things based on Lore or as close as possible (at least that's the impression I get). I would refer to you as a casual payer (no offense intended). You play for the love mechwarrior and the battle tech universe (again, the impression I get from your various musings). And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. It's just one way to play and love the game.

There is a disconnect between the players who are competitive (will use meta, are not lore bound and play for achievement and to win) and the casual, lore based players who just love the game. The motives are different, and as such, the desired end state is different. Couple this with the fact that there are pretty severe IS/Clan biases and we end up in the perpetual argument stew.

At least we can agree that the IICs need help. I have mastered my hunchbacks and still find them wanting. Elited my Orions and see no feasible reason to take them on a drop. Still working on HGNs and I think they might be the worst of the bunch. I have done little with the jenners (I prefer not to pilot lights) and wish I could give them to someone that would use them.

Well then you haven't actually read my posts very well, no offense.

My preferred playing style is not Tryhard, it's true, but my balance comments ALWAYS take in a balance between casual and tryhard play. Just like the ones on this Topic.

And was I attacking or denigrating his accomplishments? No. But a post like Kinetix makes, or McGral18 or UltimatumX packed with details, breakdowns, comparisons, and such has much more value than "I am King Hunchback Pilot and I say they need help" does.

In effect you are saying Ad hominem arguments are OK, as long as it's an UberComp making it. And I disagree.

And no offense, but they whole "dude is much comp, must understand balance" thing? Honestly doesn't hold water. Some indeed do. Many are just very good twitch players who copypasta Metamechs and go. Many Ubercomps are actualyl laughably bad in solo queue, when they don't have a team to back them up or cover for any weaknesses in said super specialized Uber build. And some of the worst balance ideas and comments posted have been from Comps (just like some really really bad ones have come from Casuals). Mind you, I am not saying VOLTRON isn't right here, but to claim because one is "comp" one knows how to balance stuff? Utter bullcrap.

So no, leaderboards don't mean much (in regards to balance ideas). I was 1st after 2 days on the HBK-4G (but didn't have a chance to grind the last 2 days) and 3rd on Vindicators leaderboards... so by your reasoning I guess I can't really be casual.....

Anyhow, back on track, I lean to lore for flavor and the basics of the game, in that you are correct. Truly comp players will make whatever is available work. That said, when I have a choice of generic vanilla FPS mechanics or keeping the flavor of the IP? Yes, I choose the IP first.

But confusing one for the other? Nope.
I got nothing against VOLTRON here. I just think details and specifics are the more important thing. I think the Comp Creds really only matter to other Comps. Which comprise less than 5% of the game population.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 30 December 2015 - 12:24 PM.

[V O L T R O N]

Threads are for reading and responding for yourself, not the whole community. I love when people start speaking for everyone.

Bishop you sound really negative and just sounds like bad energy. I didnt give further details packed in here like your other buddies have in other threads because you would just go on and on about how im wrong and you dont like competitive players. You feel that I need to explain to you why I feel a certain way about each chassis what builds they are good for on certain maps, situations, hots and colds, ranges and speeds? No I dont need to baby any infants in this game. Its not my job.

Im just generalizing here but I do have a consensus based off asking very many people that I know that played and owned them. Not all competitive but mostly.

Edited by V O L T R O N, 30 December 2015 - 08:13 AM.

[ExplicitContent]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 December 2015 - 07:29 AM, said:

Well then you haven't actually read my posts very well, no offense.

My preferred playing style is not Tryhard, it's true, but my balance comments ALWAYS take in a balance between casual and tryhard play. Just like the ones on this Topic.

And was I attacking or denigrating his accomplishments? No. But a post like Kinetix makes, or McGral18 or UltimatumX packed with details, breakdowns, comparisons, and such has much more value than "I am King Hunchback Pilot and I say they need help" does.

In effect you are saying Ad hominem arguments are OK, as long as it's an UberComp making it. And I disagree.

And no offense, but they whole "dude is much comp, must understand balance" thing? Honestly doesn't hold water. Some indeed do. Many are just very good twitch players who copypasta Metamechs and go. Many Ubercomps are actualyl laughably bad in solo queue, when they don't have a team to back them up or cover for any weaknesses in said super specialized Uber build. And some of the worst balance ideas and comments posted have been from Comps (just like some really really bad ones have come from Casuals).

So no, leaderboards don't mean much (in regards to balance ideas). I was 1st after 2 days on the HBK-4G (but didn't have a chance to grind the last 2 days) and 3rd on Vindicators leaderboards... so by your reasoning I guess I can't really be casual.....

Anyhow, back on track, I lean to lore for flavor and the basics of the game, in that you are correct. Truly comp players will make whatever is available work. That said, when I have a choice of generic vanilla FPS mechanics or keeping the flavor of the IP? Yes, I choose the IP first.

But confusing one for the other? Nope.
I got nothing against VOLTRON here. I just think details and specifics are the more important thing. I think the Comp Creds really only matter to other Comps. Which comprise less than 5% of the game population.

Thank you for clarifying your stance on things.

I actually didn't see a singular Ad Hominem in Voltron's post, so no, I am in no way saying that it's ok for someone to direct an argument or reaction against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

What I am saying, is that he provided evidence that he is good in those mechs, plays them well, and still says they need help. An awful lot of people will instantly give the "well you are just bad in it" argument to shoot down someone's feedback. That's why I place value in the fact that he shared his success and still has that opinion.

i was with you 100% on your first posting until the last paragraph, which comes off as passive aggressive whether it was intended or not. I just don't see how it's necessary and find it belittling.

[WarHippy]

ExplicitContent, on 30 December 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

What I am saying, is that he provided evidence that he is good in those mechs, plays them well, and still says they need help. An awful lot of people will instantly give the "well you are just bad in it" argument to shoot down someone's feedback. That's why I place value in the fact that he shared his success and still has that opinion.

By saying he is good and you saying we should listen to him because he did well in the tournament gives the argument "well you are just bad in it" credibility in dismissing other thoughts on the matter. His performance is irrelevant to the discussion because it doesn't necessarily indicate he has a clue about balance only that he knows how to make that mech work.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Honestly... I find myself playing them like I played the hunchie 4g in closed beta before tech level 2 stuff was added and way before quirks made them durable.

Basically, I know I'm fragile so I'm an escort mech, and an extra pair of AC20s for our assaults.

I will admit that I'm using the energy one as a PPC poptart with 6cSPL for dealing with close range threats.

Now is it as good as a storm crow? Of course not. Is it as good as a crab or even the hunchie 4g? No... not really because it just doesn't do the curent meta medium roles that well.

It is however excellent at carrying a stupid amount of fire power and devestating anything that ignores you for a couple seconds.

The Missile one is like a 4SP with more missles and due to the light weight missiles and clan XL, it can run a 275 engine, 4JJ, and 4ASRM6, 2ERML, and a heck of a lot of ammo.

Are they the next meta mech? No... not really. Are they good? Sometimes? Are they balanced against IS mediums? Yes. More firepower vs more durability. I am ok with this trade off.

If I were to quirk them I'd give them more yaw so they can deal with mechs hugging your legs and maybe a slight increase to turning speed. Other than that, they're not bad and not like completely OP like we feared.

Edited by Narcissistic Martyr, 30 December 2015 - 11:48 AM.

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

Sorry V O L T R O N, looks like your thread got derailed and trolled, in the general forum section of mwo online ( I know, so unlikely, right? ) lmao.

As to the original topic, the fact that he is one of the good pilots in this game, and can pretty much do well in any mech he jumps into ( since I used to play with him alot, so I know ) is indeed a good reason to listen to his input. I would listen to what he has to say about any mech chassis in this game, not just the iic's. I also agree some minor structure and mobility quirks would be fine on the Hunchie/Orion/Highlander.

Edited by Alwrath, 30 December 2015 - 08:40 AM.

[ExplicitContent]

Alwrath, on 30 December 2015 - 08:40 AM, said:

Sorry V O L T R O N, looks like your thread got derailed and trolled, in the general forum section of mwo online ( I know, so unlikely, right? ) lmao.

As to the original topic, the fact that he is one of the good pilots in this game, and can pretty much do well in any mech he jumps into ( since I used to play with him alot, so I know ) is indeed a good reason to listen to his input. I would listen to what he has to say about any mech chassis in this game, not just the iic's. I also agree some minor structure and mobility quirks would be fine on the Hunchie/Orion/Highlander.

This.

[Duke Nedo]

Didn't have time to play much because Christmas, but my first impression is that the -A is a really good much, which I think your stats also reflect. Over 3.0 kd over so many games is not bad.

The others are less good, but I didn't play them enough to form an opinion yet... I would not call for a buff on jenners or hunchies yet, but would be more inclined toward that Orion and highlanders may need something. Maybe..

Anyways, summoner and mlx first!

[Bishop Steiner]

ExplicitContent, on 30 December 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

i was with you 100% on your first posting until the last paragraph, which comes off as passive aggressive whether it was intended or not. I just don't see how it's necessary and find it belittling.

Odd. I can post exactly what the OP did, add screenies, etc, and everything, and it's "ad hominem" because apparently, "not 1337" And it was not an attack, just a statement. The OP seems to feel the need to tell everyone how well he does. If it had simply been in this Topic, I would have said nothing, but in virtually every post I have seen him make it is prefaced by this.

V O L T R O N, on 30 December 2015 - 08:08 AM, said:

Threads are for reading and responding for yourself, not the whole community. I love when people start speaking for everyone.

Bishop you sound really negative and just sounds like bad energy. I didnt give further details packed in here like your other buddies have in other threads because you would just go on and on about how im wrong and you dont like competitive players. You feel that I need to explain to you why I feel a certain way about each chassis what builds they are good for on certain maps, situations, hots and colds, ranges and speeds? No I dont need to baby any infants in this game. Its not my job.

Im just generalizing here but I do have a consensus based off asking very many people that I know that played and owned them. Not all competitive but mostly.

Strange. So agreeing with you and providing comprehensive feedback to your OP is bad energy?

Sorry if it offends you that I find it a little silly that you MUST post how you ranked on virtually every thread you post on. But in general, no I don't feel it really lends much weight to arguments, the majority of the time. Yes, you are good. We get it. That doesn't even bother me. I just find posting it over and over again closer to braggadocio than "scientific".

Any "bad energy" might well be the patronizing tone you took in your reply.

Any thread derailment is from your buddies circling the wagons because apparently I besmirched your honor. In fact aside from the general comments of the OP, my first post and Narcissistic Martyr, I'm still looking for much in the way of on topic contributions here?

Now as to the actual subject of the OP

I've limited my specific input to the HBK, because it's the only one that I have extensive time in, and so can only comment on the Jenner, Orion and Highlander from the perspective of someone shooting them.

In general, all the IIC seem to have the same basic geometry/hitbox issues of their forebears, magnified by having bulkier, boxier geometry.

The Jenner IIC in particular, while packing a lot of firepower is very easy to hit and put out of commission, if you see it coming. It's dumbo ear arms and more upright torso hump are super easy to hit, and it seems to register damage more reliably than the FS9 or ACH. The difficulty with buffing it is the danger of the scale tipping to OP too quickly. If it had ACH level survivability AND Heavy/Assault Mech level short range firepower? It's going to be broken as heck.

Orion IICs I barely see on the field more than the IS version. And they never come across as much of a threat. But then, in most cases, neither do normal Orions. Could this be a case of "working as intended"? In other words, we need to fix the basic Orion first, then see how to build Orion IIC quirks around that? Maybe with it's Brick Box construction it needs structure buffs more than mobility tweaks, since it really can't shield itself, regardless.

The Highlander? Mostly only see them effective as LRM boats. I know prior to the last Quirk shift, the HGN handled like a pig, though I hear the IS version is now more agile. Haven't played them since, so I cannot confirm or deny. That said, it probably does need mobility buffs along the lines of the IS version, because as said, previously, the HGN handled like a garbage scow.

And again, I think while they do need to tweak them, PGI must approach any changes cautiously, because open customization plus the advantages of Clan Tech DOES have the potential to flip the script to OP very easily. So iterative steps, IMO are most definitely the way to go.

And the only way they should consider any offensive quirks is if they decide to totally embrace the whole Glass Cannon concept...at which point they shoudl receive ZERO structure quirks and be all gun, all the time.

Thoughts?

[Revis Volek]

V O L T R O N, on 30 December 2015 - 08:08 AM, said:

Threads are for reading and responding for yourself, not the whole community. I love when people start speaking for everyone.

Bishop you sound really negative and just sounds like bad energy. I didnt give further details packed in here like your other buddies have in other threads because you would just go on and on about how im wrong and you dont like competitive players. You feel that I need to explain to you why I feel a certain way about each chassis what builds they are good for on certain maps, situations, hots and colds, ranges and speeds? No I dont need to baby any infants in this game. Its not my job.

Im just generalizing here but I do have a consensus based off asking very many people that I know that played and owned them. Not all competitive but mostly.

He sounds negative? From the guy who in every other thread i have ever been in throws his Epeen around and tell everyone that his PSR rank is higher so they know less then him...

Right, get a grip on yourself dude. I have said it to you before and I will say it to you again, YOUR COMMITMENT TO THE GRIND DOES NOT DIRECTLY TRANSLATE TO BEING GOOD AT THIS GAME.

You also are just making your thread to once again throw your epeen around, you dont really care about the HBk you just want to show everyone your stats otherwise why would they even be important in this thread? I can answer that for you, they are not.

Edited by DarthRevis, 30 December 2015 - 09:37 AM.

[cSand]

i would be OK if they added some nice agility buffs to those mechs. Keep them glass cannons but at least make them able to move around and twist it up better

[V O L T R O N]

DarthRevis, on 30 December 2015 - 09:37 AM, said:

He sounds negative? From the guy who in every other thread i have ever been in throws his Epeen around and tell everyone that his PSR rank is higher so they know less then him...

Right, get a grip on yourself dude. I have said it to you before and I will say it to you again, YOUR COMMITMENT TO THE GRIND DOES NOT DIRECTLY TRANSLATE TO BEING GOOD AT THIS GAME.

You also are just making your thread to once again throw your epeen around, you dont really care about the HBk you just want to show everyone your stats otherwise why would they even be important in this thread? I can answer that for you, they are not.

Yeah, you are full of it, only have ever thrown anything around is when people start throwing personal insults. Here you are not contributing to the thread at all coming to comment only to direct it at me after saying you'd block me. Wish you would have followed threw with that statement.

So yes, both of you just seem to come here to blow off some negative energy. I appreciate all your feed back Bishop after you got done with whatever else that was...

[Wintersdark]

Yeah, tournament stats have no relevance here. Skill at the game doesn't imply knowledge of game design principles. Doesn't exclude it either obviously, its just unrelated.

But posting tournament stats at the start of your post tends to make the whole post look like an exercise in self promotion - and implies that anyone who didn't do so well in the tournament (whether or not they even participated) is just wrong by default. Even if that wasn't your intent, that's how it comes across.

---

As someone who's been leveling his IIC mechs:

Yeah, the HBK IIC mechs need help. They're too bulky and fragile, and 100% reliance on torso mounted weapons with limited torso pitch is a CRITICAL disadvantage. The total inability to shoot down UAV's matters, as well as complete uselessness around hills. That one (currently unobtainable) variant has arm mounted weapons doesn't solve the problem for the 3 other variants.

The Orion? Not so much of a problem. It's a bit fragile, but is at least capable of pushing very heavy alpha strikes to compensate. I have no trouble posting very strong results in mine in T2 matches - 80-100pt alpha strikes go a long ways to covering fragility issues. A shield side that is larger than the sword side is helpful as well. I'd argue it needs some structural buffs, OR some agility buffs, but not both.

The Jenner is fine. It's made of paper, but hits like a truck. Any defensive buffs would make it grossly OP IMHO.

I haven't played the Highlander yet, but as it has no mobility quirks, it handles like a pre-buff Highlander. Ugh.

[V O L T R O N]

Wintersdark, on 30 December 2015 - 09:57 AM, said:

Yeah, tournament stats have no relevance here. Skill at the game doesn't imply knowledge of game design principles. Doesn't exclude it either obviously, its just unrelated.

But posting tournament stats at the start of your post tends to make the whole post look like an exercise in self promotion - and implies that anyone who didn't do so well in the tournament (whether or not they even participated) is just wrong by default. Even if that wasn't your intent, that's how it comes across.

---

As someone who's been leveling his IIC mechs:

Yeah, the HBK IIC mechs need help. They're too bulky and fragile, and 100% reliance on torso mounted weapons with limited torso pitch is a CRITICAL disadvantage. The total inability to shoot down UAV's matters, as well as complete uselessness around hills. That one (currently unobtainable) variant has arm mounted weapons doesn't solve the problem for the 3 other variants.

The Orion? Not so much of a problem. It's a bit fragile, but is at least capable of pushing very heavy alpha strikes to compensate. I have no trouble posting very strong results in mine in T2 matches - 80-100pt alpha strikes go a long ways to covering fragility issues. A shield side that is larger than the sword side is helpful as well. I'd argue it needs some structural buffs, OR some agility buffs, but not both.

The Jenner is fine. It's made of paper, but hits like a truck. Any defensive buffs would make it grossly OP IMHO.

I haven't played the Highlander yet, but as it has no mobility quirks, it handles like a pre-buff Highlander. Ugh.

I agree with all that you said on your breakdowns. Good stuff. My opinion isnt any greater than anyone others experience

Once again, I did post my personal information in a thread I made about my stats and related little info. Some people may find it interesting or useful. Thats why I posted it if you want to know.

Lol, its my opinion in a thread I made, its not the "end all of mwo" lol.

Edited by V O L T R O N, 30 December 2015 - 10:09 AM.

[V O L T R O N]

Yet threw all the personal attacks, everyone has Agreed with me. Hilariously interesting.

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

Wintersdark, on 30 December 2015 - 09:57 AM, said:

Yeah, tournament stats have no relevance here.

Actually they do, you just choose not for them to hold relevance for you, which is, imo... kinda silly.

[CygnusX7]

Personal attacks and negativity from Bishop?
Never seemed that way to me.. Always felt he was pretty neutral and not a Richard.
Probably why I always say hi when I notice we're in a match.