38 replies to this topic

[Araevin Teshurr]

process, on 11 February 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

There should be a freeze on all new tech until current tech gets sorted out.

Yeah, no *****

[Revis Volek]

This thread is funny....good stuff.


Fafnir seems kinda lame IMO, Doesn't do anything new, Has lots of weapons we dont have yet like heavy gauss and light PPC's also Rocket Launchers.... which makes PGI turn away it seems.

Though im not against mechs with something other then just more LAZORS!

Edited by Revis Volek, 12 February 2016 - 01:20 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

Rhaythe, on 11 February 2016 - 01:14 PM, said:

"Hey, what are you looking at!? My cockpit is up here! EYES UP HERE!"

[Revis Volek]

Alistair Winter, on 12 February 2016 - 01:27 AM, said:

HAHAHA if we get do get the faffy i will name thee "Wall E"

[NeoCodex]

Summed up in three words:

Double. Heavy. Gauss.

Edited by NeoCodex, 12 February 2016 - 01:49 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

GreyNovember, on 11 February 2016 - 03:13 PM, said:

Gigantic Gauss side torsos on a lumbering 100 tonner.

Has the Dire taught you NOTHING about that?

We have a mechlab, hardpoint inflation and UAC5s.

Just saying.

[GreyNovember]

Widowmaker1981, on 12 February 2016 - 04:43 AM, said:

We have a mechlab, hardpoint inflation and UAC5s.

Just saying.

> At which point you may as well use the Mauler.

or, you know, something that doesn't have essentially mech E cup breasts begging to be shot at?

[Widowmaker1981]

GreyNovember, on 12 February 2016 - 04:46 AM, said:

> At which point you may as well use the Mauler.

or, you know, something that doesn't have essentially mech E cup breasts begging to be shot at?

Yeah, i don't really care about the Faf either way** but it does have 10 more tons to play with and higher weapon mounts, so would likely be better than the Mauler, though its ST hitboxes might ruin it i suppose.

**only remaining mech i have nostalgia for and would buy regardless is the Stone Rhino. Everything else will be judged on 'Is this the best mech at something i want to do at its tonnage'

[Metus regem]

Well aside from PGI saying that they can't do crit splitting, meaning that both the Improved heavy gauss and heavy gauss are out of the question, and that kills the Fafnir right off the bat, then there are the hit box issues with that thing...

But hey, if PGI can get crit splitting going, sure why not.

[Funky Bacon]

Metus regem, on 12 February 2016 - 05:17 AM, said:

Well aside from PGI saying that they can't do crit splitting, meaning that both the Improved heavy gauss and heavy gauss are out of the question, and that kills the Fafnir right off the bat, then there are the hit box issues with that thing...

But hey, if PGI can get crit splitting going, sure why not.

But heavy gauss is 11 crit slots... we have 12 in each torso. should fit unless I'm missing something.

(also why does the Sarna wiki say that faffy with a 300 engine move at 54kph? Shouldn't it be 48.6 like any other 100 ton assault?)
(Nwm, forgot about the difference between tabletop with grid based movement and a live dynamic one.)

Edited by Funky Bacon, 12 February 2016 - 07:51 AM.

[ChapeL]

Isn't that thing supposed to fall on its arse if it fires both of its massive... gauss rifles ?

[Metus regem]

Funky Bacon, on 12 February 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:

But heavy gauss is 11 crit slots... we have 12 in each torso. should fit unless I'm missing something.

(also why does the Sarna wiki say that faffy with a 300 engine move at 54kph? Shouldn't it be 48.6 like any other 100 ton assault?)
(Nwm, forgot about the difference between tabletop with grid based movement and a live dynamic one.)

Looking at the crit lay out of the Fafnir you are right, with a standard engine, it has one crit to spare in each ST... that being said, the Heavy Gauss and Improved Heavy Gauss for crit splitting rules can be mounted in the ST's only with spill over going to the arms... and at 18t/each you almost want to take weight savings to be able to use them effectively, even more so at 4 rounds/ton... mind you 18 damage/round (or 22 withe the improved) at range is a bit excessive, sure makes the AC 20 seem less impressive.


Then again, I'm not sure how they would implement the piloting skill check if you fire the normal Heavy Gauss and move in the same turn... I mean that check is done to see if you fall on your ***.... hence the development of the Improved that does away with that check, while keeping almost the same damage at close range....

All that being said, there are other weapons I would like to see first, but they require ammo switching (or maybe just copies of those weapons with different ammo requirements, hint-hint PGI a way to solve the ammo switching problem for LB series AC's)

[pbiggz]

process, on 11 February 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

There should be a freeze on all new tech until current tech gets sorted out.

lol no. Thats never going to happen, so im not waiting [UNDEFINED] years for new tech.

[RussianWolf]

I'd rather see the Devastator make an appearance first.

[RussianWolf]

Metus regem, on 12 February 2016 - 08:29 AM, said:

at 4 rounds/ton... mind you 18 damage/round (or 22 withe the improved) at range is a bit excessive, sure makes the AC 20 seem less impressive.

But there is your balance.....

4*22=88dmg per ton of ammo

7*20=140dmg per ton for the AC20

[Metus regem]

RussianWolf, on 12 February 2016 - 08:43 AM, said:

But there is your balance.....

4*22=88dmg per ton of ammo

7*20=140dmg per ton for the AC20

5 rounds/ton in TT for the AC 20....

8 rounds/ton for the Gauss Rifle in TT...

So in MWO the (improved) Heavy Gauss would likely get 5 or 6 rounds/ton...

5*22=110damge/ton at 570m optimal range for the Improved Heavy Gauss, so more than double the range for the AC 20, for 30 less damage a ton, mind you the Improved Heavy Gauss is 20 tons + ammo (and all of 2 heat with each trigger pull)

That thing would make the AC 20 obsolete so fast....

[pbiggz]

RussianWolf, on 12 February 2016 - 08:39 AM, said:

I'd rather see the Devastator make an appearance first.

I like the devastator alot more than the fafnir, and I'd rather see it first, with the fafnir coming later, but this thread is about the fafnir, so lets discuss that.

[RussianWolf]

pbiggz, on 12 February 2016 - 08:52 AM, said:

I like the devastator alot more than the fafnir, and I'd rather see it first, with the fafnir coming later, but this thread is about the fafnir, so lets discuss that.

no, this post is about bringing the Fafnir in as the next 100t IS mech. Even though its out of timeline.

The Devastator is in timeline and uses current tech and is 100t. It should be next. Or at least should come in before the Fafnir.

[Ratpoison]

I'm curious what PGI would try to do about the Heavy Gauss though, I doubt they'd put this in without adding that.