Is The Warhammer Ct Soft?
#21
Posted 25 January 2016 - 12:21 AM
#22
Posted 25 January 2016 - 01:04 AM
Twist speed is kinda crappy in it too, every one of them, and its only made worse by the Skilltree nerf.
Needs side profiling, and stretch the torso hitboxes to cover the sides of its belly, and that would be good enough.
#23
Posted 25 January 2016 - 01:39 AM
Honestly, thought it felt fine for a 70 tonner. Tad tankier than the CTF, but not much.
#24
Posted 25 January 2016 - 02:15 AM
Humanoid mechs with low slung arms have Torso issues regardless, as most MAD pilots will tell you. you have to compensate with learning how to torso twist with your arms higher.
95% of a pilots issues are self inflicted, 3% is the team, 1% is the map, and the final 1% is the mech. Most of the "issues" I see on the forums about mechs needing buffs/nerfs are are because the player isn't using the mech effectively. Just practice with the mech more and just overall moevement practice.
#25
Posted 25 January 2016 - 06:45 AM
Mister D, on 25 January 2016 - 01:04 AM, said:
Twist speed is kinda crappy in it too, every one of them, and its only made worse by the Skilltree nerf.
Needs side profiling, and stretch the torso hitboxes to cover the sides of its belly, and that would be good enough.
It would help the CT...but at the expense of making it even more questionable with XLs. It's already borderline (honestly seems to be about in the same boat as Jagers and Cataphracts), but the problem lies in that it really can't mount particularly effective builds with a STD, and it needs that big engine mobility to escape evade and twist.
It's kind of a catch 22, as it already is uberquirked structurally, so I'm not sure what to do to "fix" it. I mean it's not terrible, but it realistically ain't likely to catch on as a "Tier 1" chassis, either. Simple truth being that it's shape, size and low slung arms have conspired (as I figure they would, but hey it's a warhammer so I had to have it, lol) to make it moderately squishy, regardless.
Running "meta inspired" builds and leaving the arms stumps or medium laser bays mitigates this some....but really... why would I buy an Icon only to make it into a pale imitation of something the Grasshopper and Black Knight both do better anyhow?
It'd be like taking an A-10 in a Modern Air Combat game and ripping out the Avenger cannon, so you can pack more weight in missiles and slapping on a pair of General Electric F110-GE-400 turbofans... because they are more "meta". Why even grab the A-10 airframe in the first place then? Because you think your F-14 looks cooler with a Warthog skin?
I'll admit, I don't get the appeal.
#26
Posted 25 January 2016 - 07:05 AM
How do I know. It's happened to me a few different times on Highland, shooting at mechs and they are shooting back at me, back carefully shielded by being far enough from teammates it can't be them and yet their sensor range covering the rear arc so no SUrPRISE locusts or jenners.
Intact front armor. Gone rear armor and internals. ALL DAY LONG. I was wondering why it was so hard leveling these mechs, and I've narrowed it down to this.
#27
Posted 25 January 2016 - 07:09 AM
Lugh, on 25 January 2016 - 07:05 AM, said:
How do I know. It's happened to me a few different times on Highland, shooting at mechs and they are shooting back at me, back carefully shielded by being far enough from teammates it can't be them and yet their sensor range covering the rear arc so no SUrPRISE locusts or jenners.
Intact front armor. Gone rear armor and internals. ALL DAY LONG. I was wondering why it was so hard leveling these mechs, and I've narrowed it down to this.
It is funny I find em as squishy, or squishier than my Jagers, Phracts and Orions. :/
#28
Posted 25 January 2016 - 07:14 AM
#29
Posted 25 January 2016 - 07:17 AM
1. Square or Circle upper body: A square is easy for the eye to acquire and easy to find the center of. Dividing it into thirds doesn't take much effort and aiming for center mass isn't difficult either, even when adjusting for angle. Circle is easy enough to aim for the center, though harder when at an angle.
2. Easily identifiable CT: The Whammy like many other mechs has the CT basically outlined for you via the way the mech is designed. While not as easy as mechs like the Dragon, the Whammy is cut into thirds vertically.
3. Side Torso Weapons: When you mount big guns in the side torsos you have to face your enemy, giving them the easiest frontage to shoot your CT. With all the Gauss builds, it's no wonder the CTs are hit more often. Some pilots just can't use the arm weapons, but it exposes less of your CT when you fire.
#30
Posted 25 January 2016 - 07:28 AM
Cillipuddi, on 25 January 2016 - 07:14 AM, said:
+
#31
Posted 25 January 2016 - 08:00 AM
#32
Posted 25 January 2016 - 08:35 AM
How has the XL experience been, for those of you running XL engines? Is it worth the risk?
#33
Posted 25 January 2016 - 08:44 AM
But I might be twisting too much as I keep getting hit in the back when twisting.
Not sure if there are areas on the side that count as rear armor when shooting at 90 degrees...
#35
Posted 25 January 2016 - 10:00 AM
Cillipuddi, on 25 January 2016 - 07:14 AM, said:
I can also say that I have had more 1K+ matches than any other mech I have owned but I think it just because it totally fits my play style with the load out I have come up with which does not include the broken ppc's (sorry Bishop). I feel a Bishop campaign to fix these is in order!
#36
Posted 25 January 2016 - 10:55 AM
#37
Posted 25 January 2016 - 01:04 PM
Edited by anof, 25 January 2016 - 01:05 PM.
#38
Posted 25 January 2016 - 03:57 PM
4 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users