1212 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pariah Devalis, on 18 March 2016 - 09:18 AM, said:

Adder works as a supporting SRM boat as is so I'm not terribly concerned with that.

It used too anyway (keep in mind that quirks helped quite a bit there), now with the Jenny IIC around, the Spladder plays second fiddle to the Oxide and its Clan cousin in terms of splat lights.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 March 2016 - 09:20 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 March 2016 - 09:19 AM, said:

It used too anyway, now with the Jenny IIC around, the Spladder plays second fiddle to the Oxide and its Clan cousin in terms of splat lights.

True that. It still didn't suffer much due to slowness and durability issues, though which makes me think a Splouncer would work somewhat.

[Gas Guzzler]

Pariah Devalis, on 18 March 2016 - 09:18 AM, said:

Adder works as a supporting SRM boat as is so I'm not terribly concerned with that.

EHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... why take that over an SRM JR7-IIC??


Again, my concern is its speed tied to 40 tonner armor, means the only things it will be good at is essentially what the Adder can do... ER ML poking, potentially some ER LL, could probably do some ER PPC poptarting. But then, will it get the nice -15% heat generation quirk?

[Pariah Devalis]

Gas Guzzler, on 18 March 2016 - 09:22 AM, said:

EHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... why take that over an SRM JR7-IIC??


Again, my concern is its speed tied to 40 tonner armor, means the only things it will be good at is essentially what the Adder can do... ER ML poking, potentially some ER LL, could probably do some ER PPC poptarting. But then, will it get the nice -15% heat generation quirk?

Can carry more lasers and jump. Theoretically slightly, slightly more durable than the Adder, being a little heavier. I'd rather view it as an undersized Nova than an upscaled Adder based on just how many hardpoints the thing has available vs the Adder.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 18 March 2016 - 09:24 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

While id like the Coyotyl im certain we wont get it due to lack of variants (PGI made up SCatman is actually a future tech variant with fudged guns)

Viper.. well. It would be interesting in that it would jump well enough to get into orbit with 8 Class IV JJs on a 40 ton mech. Not rubbish i guess but its too fast and not enough guns for its tonnage. Would also need some kind of miracle not to be the ugliest mech in the game lol.

Pouncer.. well. I love the Adder, and id love it more if it could jump, and since it comes stock with PPCs hopefully that means it would also get Adder level PPC quirks.. It would need them though, quirkless it would be average at best.

Bad Lanner can F right off. Ugly as sin, and horrendously overengined.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 18 March 2016 - 09:28 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pariah Devalis, on 18 March 2016 - 09:24 AM, said:

Can carry more lasers and jump. Theoretically slightly, slightly more durable than the Adder, being a little heavier. I'd rather view it as an undersized Nova than an upscaled Adder based on just how many hardpoints the thing has available vs the Adder.

The problem with comparing it to the Nova is that they are wildly different outside number of hardpoints, the Pouncer still shares the most with its 5-ton lighter cousin (profile, speed, and closer armor count), it is just an upgraded and larger Adder (keep that in mind too, because the rescale will help the Adder immensely for being sized wrong).

Widowmaker1981, on 18 March 2016 - 09:26 AM, said:

Not rubbish i guess but its too fast and not enough guns for its tonnage.

Again, it isn't too fast for a 40 ton mech, think of the Cicada which is the only 40 tonner in the game currently. The difference is those locked JJs eat up 4 tons.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 March 2016 - 09:31 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Widowmaker1981, on 18 March 2016 - 09:26 AM, said:

Viper.. well. It would be interesting in that it would jump well enough to get into orbit with 8 Class IV JJs on a 40 ton mech. Not rubbish i guess but its too fast and not enough guns for its tonnage.

IMO, the engine is the right size for a 40 tonner, that is the "over-sized light" tonnage range so running 139 is quasi-appropriate in my opinion. If you could remove 6 of the Jump jets it would spectacular, but instead you get to keep the orbital insertion potential with a little extra firepower over a Cheetah, and overall superior hardpoint placement.

[Gas Guzzler]

Widowmaker1981, on 18 March 2016 - 09:26 AM, said:

Would also need some kind of miracle not to be the ugliest mech in the game lol.

HA

Have faith in Alex.

[Coralld]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 March 2016 - 08:30 AM, said:

.....yet, being a slightly better Adder isn't what I would call good. Either way, any 40 tonner addition is going to need quirks to compete.

The Huntsman will be nice, but the HBK-IIC will outshine it except for maybe some ERML+Ballistics build (which aren't as strong these days) and possibly brawling (depends on whether it has Cheetah-esque missile mounts).

Sorry but that's a really bad rebuttal.
First and formost, the Adder is not that bad any more and it's really only glaring flaw is that Its slow for a Light mech but can hit like a truck for it's size, so a 5t heavier Adder would not be as bad as you would think.
Now it may not mesh well with your play style, what ever that may be, but just because YOU have an issue with it does not mean others will.

As for the Huntsman, well, if I were to use your logic, then why the hell would people want to use the Crow? The HBK IIC can do the same thing as the Crow when it comes to fire power, so why not just run the HBK IICs instead? Oh that's right, because the HBK IICs are glass cannons and can't shield their ST to save their lives, literally.
Where as the Huntsman is like a hybrid between the Crow and HBK IIC but doesn't have squishiness of the HBK IIC.
Also, one is a Battlemech, the other is an Omni.

Edited by Coralld, 18 March 2016 - 10:00 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Coralld, on 18 March 2016 - 09:57 AM, said:

Sorry but that's a really bad rebuttal.
First and formost, the Adder is not that bad any more and it's really only glaring flaw is that Its slow for a Light mech but can hit like a truck for it's size, so a 5t heavier Adder would not be as bad as you would think.
Now it may not mesh well with your play style, what ever that may be, but just because YOU have an issue with it does not mean others will.

[CK16]

Imperius, on 10 March 2016 - 08:14 PM, said:

**DISCLAIMER** 100% BRUTAL HONESTY

I know you spent a lot of time on this and you did good work, but I like the other concepts much better. Hump in middle is a little to Quasimodo, the arms are too short they need to be longer like all the concepts so they protect the side of the CT better. Missile pods seem anemic, and as I said I just love the one below too much so my opinion will favor it. I'm hoping Alex changes the Mad Cat MK II more like he has done with many of the mechs in the past. I think the MK II in the past was just a lazy enlarged Timberwolf and I feel like it was a missed opportunity to make the mech feel more like an improved Timber like what was described in the TRO.

To me this concept seems like they took a Murader, the Catapult, and added a King Crab in the mix. The design to me looks futuristic as an improved mech should be. I know we have already heavily discussed it and I thought we agreed to disagree.

I know this is a week old but after thought about holding my tongue..many things you claim are wrong on my design were designed as intended.

I get it we disagree on certain things but larger arms is not very possible wit out having arm depression (how far down they can go). The design of the MC-MK.IIwas not lazy in the past it was what it was intended to be a larger, up gunned and armored Timberwolf not some radical redesign or brand new chassis desgin, They litterly took a Timberwolf Chassis and upscale it added a few new things to compensate for the new loadout of weapons and new scale. Don't like that fact? Don't try to change the design then. Create a new mech then or something and name it somethinges else. What I did, what MW4 did what the TRO is, is a Mad Cat Mk.II. NOT that Mk.VII (thing looks like it's from Hawken not Mechwarrior or Battletech).

- The legs I highly doubt will be offset like they are there or any previous desging. MWO and Alex have only used in line legs I expect the same.

-Arms on mine are about right, large enough to shield but not over shield. The TRO are way to be even, how could they even tilt down without hitting the Launchers?

-Missile Launchers are based of the current Timblerwolf, why would they create a totally different desgin there if they work for the TBR?

-Torso, I did go with the MW4 layout and stream lined it. This design made more sense for housing the engine and ammo of an assualt mech, also now you have JJ's (Timberwolf at this time in 3060 never had JJ's). The head would almost be identical to a TBR my guess maybe a bit stretched out though. The TRO design is not deep enough IMO for everything to fit. It's very shallow it looks like in the back.

If I missed anything in question I will gladly defend why I did it. I didn't just desgin it out of thin air. There is purpose to alot of what I did in terms of its shape and size.

That Mk.VII looks good artistically speaking but it is not an MWO mech desgin or close to one...

[Widowmaker1981]

Coralld, on 18 March 2016 - 09:57 AM, said:

Sorry but that's a really bad rebuttal.
First and formost, the Adder is not that bad any more and it's really only glaring flaw is that Its slow for a Light mech but can hit like a truck for it's size, so a 5t heavier Adder would not be as bad as you would think.
Now it may not mesh well with your play style, what ever that may be, but just because YOU have an issue with it does not mean others will.

The only reason the Adder is no longer the Badder are some almost IS level quirks. Id be hopeful the pouncer would recieve something similar, but there is no guarantee.

[Gas Guzzler]

CK16, on 18 March 2016 - 10:07 AM, said:

I know this is a week old but after thought about holding my tongue..many things you claim are wrong on my design were designed as intended.

I get it we disagree on certain things but larger arms is not very possible wit out having arm depression (how far down they can go). The design of the MC-MK.IIwas not lazy in the past it was what it was intended to be a larger, up gunned and armored Timberwolf not some radical redesign or brand new chassis desgin, They litterly took a Timberwolf Chassis and upscale it added a few new things to compensate for the new loadout of weapons and new scale. Don't like that fact? Don't try to change the design then. Create a new mech then or something and name it somethinges else. What I did, what MW4 did what the TRO is, is a Mad Cat Mk.II. NOT that Mk.VII (thing looks like it's from Hawken not Mechwarrior or Battletech).

- The legs I highly doubt will be offset like they are there or any previous desging. MWO and Alex have only used in line legs I expect the same.

-Arms on mine are about right, large enough to shield but not over shield. The TRO are way to be even, how could they even tilt down without hitting the Launchers?

-Missile Launchers are based of the current Timblerwolf, why would they create a totally different desgin there if they work for the TBR?

-Torso, I did go with the MW4 layout and stream lined it. This design made more sense for housing the engine and ammo of an assualt mech, also now you have JJ's (Timberwolf at this time in 3060 never had JJ's). The head would almost be identical to a TBR my guess maybe a bit stretched out though. The TRO design is not deep enough IMO for everything to fit. It's very shallow it looks like in the back.

If I missed anything in question I will gladly defend why I did it. I didn't just desgin it out of thin air. There is purpose to alot of what I did in terms of its shape and size.

That Mk.VII looks good artistically speaking but it is not an MWO mech desgin or close to one...

I'm in agreement with you, really not a fan of that Mk. II. I would be pretty disappointed if our MWO Mad Cat Mk.II looked like that.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Coralld, on 18 March 2016 - 09:57 AM, said:

Sorry but that's a really bad rebuttal.
First and formost, the Adder is not that bad any more and it's really only glaring flaw is that Its slow for a Light mech but can hit like a truck for it's size, so a 5t heavier Adder would not be as bad as you would think.

Widowmaker1981, on 18 March 2016 - 10:08 AM, said:

The only reason the Adder is no longer the Badder are some almost IS level quirks. Id be hopeful the pouncer would recieve something similar, but there is no guarantee.

Widowmaker is partially correct, but some of the IS lights getting quirks to the point that they also hit like a truck (Oxide mainly, but the 6 MPL Wolfy is still pretty impressive), and with speed definitely helps the IS lights out while making it even harder for the Adder to shine. Part of the Adders problems are related strongly to the size of its CT hitbox, but it is also speed. It also doesn't have that impressive of firepower, the Jenner IIC has similar hitbox problem, and can run similar if not better firepower, it just doesn't have the same heat handling (which isn't a huge problem for lights anyway). Sorry, but the Adder was only saved by the abuse of Streaks before the rebalance, and with the rebalance and the addition of the Jenner IIC, the Adder is once again relegated to being a mech you throw in when you need space for better mechs (like in MSI where you run 3-4 ERLL Adders) and it needed serious quirks to pull even that off.

Coralld, on 18 March 2016 - 09:57 AM, said:

As for the Huntsman, well, if I were to use your logic, then why the hell would people want to use the Crow?

Actually, they don't really use the crow, slowly people are shifting to the HBK-IIC because of the asym high mounts outside of maybe the 5-6 ERML-LPL SCrow builds and of course the brawling builds where its squishiness shows (mainly because it is slow).

Coralld, on 18 March 2016 - 09:57 AM, said:

Where as the Huntsman is like a hybrid between the Crow and HBK IIC but doesn't have squishiness of the HBK IIC.
Also, one is a Battlemech, the other is an Omni.

It also wouldn't have the fantastic mounts the HBK-IIC has which are what ultimately make the HBK-IIC worth it. The SCrow is also surprisingly squishy against people who can actually aim and especially with things like BKs running around. The omni vs battlemech doesn't really matter when the HBK-IIC is already fairly optimized outside of the combo loadouts (E/B and E/M).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 March 2016 - 10:23 AM.

[LastKhan]

CK16, on 18 March 2016 - 10:07 AM, said:

I know this is a week old but after thought about holding my tongue..many things you claim are wrong on my design were designed as intended.

I get it we disagree on certain things but larger arms is not very possible wit out having arm depression (how far down they can go). The design of the MC-MK.IIwas not lazy in the past it was what it was intended to be a larger, up gunned and armored Timberwolf not some radical redesign or brand new chassis desgin, They litterly took a Timberwolf Chassis and upscale it added a few new things to compensate for the new loadout of weapons and new scale. Don't like that fact? Don't try to change the design then. Create a new mech then or something and name it somethinges else. What I did, what MW4 did what the TRO is, is a Mad Cat Mk.II. NOT that Mk.VII (thing looks like it's from Hawken not Mechwarrior or Battletech).

- The legs I highly doubt will be offset like they are there or any previous desging. MWO and Alex have only used in line legs I expect the same.

-Arms on mine are about right, large enough to shield but not over shield. The TRO are way to be even, how could they even tilt down without hitting the Launchers?

-Missile Launchers are based of the current Timblerwolf, why would they create a totally different desgin there if they work for the TBR?

-Torso, I did go with the MW4 layout and stream lined it. This design made more sense for housing the engine and ammo of an assualt mech, also now you have JJ's (Timberwolf at this time in 3060 never had JJ's). The head would almost be identical to a TBR my guess maybe a bit stretched out though. The TRO design is not deep enough IMO for everything to fit. It's very shallow it looks like in the back.

If I missed anything in question I will gladly defend why I did it. I didn't just desgin it out of thin air. There is purpose to alot of what I did in terms of its shape and size.

That Mk.VII looks good artistically speaking but it is not an MWO mech desgin or close to one...

The one imp posted is more along the lines of a more hyper realistic Madcat mk2 with all the armor skirting and dodads. If there is going to be one it will more then likely be sharing alot of the style of the current concepts and in game models. No lanky legs mcgee like the mw4 version and not super ultra armored core like the mk7 most likely the in between.

[Widowmaker1981]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 March 2016 - 10:22 AM, said:

Widowmaker is partially correct, but some of the IS lights getting quirks to the point that they also hit like a truck (Oxide mainly, but the 6 MPL Wolfy is still pretty impressive), and with speed definitely helps the IS lights out while making it even harder for the Adder to shine. Part of the Adders problems are related strongly to the size of its CT hitbox, but it is also speed. It also doesn't have that impressive of firepower, the Jenner IIC has similar hitbox problem, and can run similar if not better firepower, it just doesn't have the same heat handling (which isn't a huge problem for lights anyway). Sorry, but the Adder was only saved by the abuse of Streaks before the rebalance, and with the rebalance and the addition of the Jenner IIC, the Adder is once again relegated to being a mech you throw in when you need space for better mechs (like in MSI where you run 3-4 ERLL Adders) and it needed serious quirks to pull even that off.

Its all about the 2xERPPC, TC1 adder imo. Like you say it has baaad CT hitboxes, it just doesnt want to be near things. But with those nice acc/dec quirks and decently high toso mounts and 25% faster 15% cooler ERPPCs.. yeah, its definitely worth 35 tons in CW and solo queue. not so much group queue though.

Thats exactly what id want the Pouncer for.. a jumping version of the same thing, but it would need similar quirks.. at least 10% heat gen and 20% velocity.

Edit: i guess i should say i detest C-ERLLs and dont have them mounted on a single mech.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 18 March 2016 - 10:37 AM.

[Coralld]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 March 2016 - 10:22 AM, said:

Widowmaker is partially correct, but some of the IS lights getting quirks to the point that they also hit like a truck (Oxide mainly, but the 6 MPL Wolfy is still pretty impressive), and with speed definitely helps the IS lights out while making it even harder for the Adder to shine. Part of the Adders problems are related strongly to the size of its CT hitbox, but it is also speed. It also doesn't have that impressive of firepower, the Jenner IIC has similar hitbox problem, and can run similar if not better firepower, it just doesn't have the same heat handling (which isn't a huge problem for lights anyway). Sorry, but the Adder was only saved by the abuse of Streaks before the rebalance, and with the rebalance and the addition of the Jenner IIC, the Adder is once again relegated to being a mech you throw in when you need space for better mechs (like in MSI where you run 3-4 ERLL Adders) and it needed serious quirks to pull even that off.


Actually, they don't really use the crow, slowly people are shifting to the HBK-IIC because of the asym high mounts outside of maybe the 5-6 ERML-LPL SCrow builds and of course the brawling builds where its squishiness shows (mainly because it is slow).


It also wouldn't have the fantastic mounts the HBK-IIC has which are what ultimately make the HBK-IIC worth it. The SCrow is also surprisingly squishy against people who can actually aim and especially with things like BKs running around. The omni vs battlemech doesn't really matter when the HBK-IIC is already fairly optimized outside of the combo loadouts (E/B and E/M).

I am not denying the quirks helped out the Adder, but one can also make the argument that when PGI unlocked it's flamer helped it out just as much, perhaps even more so that Its quirks.

Don't get me wrong, I love the HBK IIC, I am a Hunchy-juncky, but it does not change the fact that the HBK IIC is squishy. Also yes the greatest thing about the HBKs as a whole is they have high mounts, but than again so dose the Huntsman.
The Huntsman is commonly compared to the cheater visually which is not to far off. But the cheater also has missile high mounts in it's arms as they are are not mounted low like they tipicly would be, same for the Huntsman, but the Huntsman also has energy mounts up there as well.
I would also guess the ST energy and ballistic mounts to be around cockpit level or just bellow, which is not bad at all.

Edited by Coralld, 18 March 2016 - 11:01 AM.

[ScarecrowES]

There are always interesting arguments when it comes to what makes a good mech. When someone tries to make an argument against a particular mech, I try to pay attention to the crux of that argument and look for patterns of that in the game to make an informed judgement on the "rightness" of that argument. I guess I try to see their side and see if the point has merit, even if it's something that I don't personally believe.

Having done that in MWO over the years, and especially now that we have 60+ chassis available to compare to, I find that a lot of arguments simply don't hold water, and can only be made to sound reasonable if you focus solely on that argument and not on any other factor surrounding it. I find that these pre-proclamations of mechs being DOA before introductions are very premature and not looking at the full picture.

For instance, on the subject of mechs with base engines larger than is traditional for a weight class: The usual argument here is that large engines reduce pod space, and thus lower the ability of a mech to bare firepower. I find that, on its face, this argument is reasonable. Lower available free tonnage means fewer weapons or fewer heatsinks to handle them. However, once you consider other factors, the effect of lower free tonnage doesn't necessarily have the negative effect that many claim.

One additional factor to consider is the ability of the mech to make use of that tonnage in an efficient way to maximize firepower. Obviously, mechs that rely on ballistic weapons to achieve damage output will be at a significant disadvantage under low-podspace conditions. And mechs with an atypically low number of hardpoints will not be able to mount the smaller types of weapons in a category in mass to offset. BUT... a mech that has a large number (5+) energy slots WILL be able to offset lower free tonnage with space-efficient and high-damage weapons in the small and medium laser categories - bringing to the fight a reasonably good level of firepower for mechs at 65 tons or below. So perhaps the first thing we should look at in a free tonnage-starved mech is whether or not it has a good spread of energy or missile hardpoints to make use of that free tonnage.

Another factor to consider is survivability. Does the larger engine actually provide a tangible speed gain that would allow the mech to operate in roles normally run successfully by mechs in lighter classes? While it's often stated that there is no point in bringing a heavier mech to do a job that a lighter mech can perform, such arguments tend to ignore the factor of survivability. A heavier mech will bring more armor and internals to the role, making its longevity compared to equivalent lighter mechs much higher. If the lighter mech is successful at that role, reason dictates the heavier mech should be at least equally as successful in the same role. Additionally, the extra speed and mobility afforded by the larger engine should provide enhanced survivability for a mech even compared to mechs of the same tonnage. Though the firepower potential is likely diminished, chances are high that it could be kept in a fight longer, and thus the practical output would average out.

A practical question to ask then: Let's say you have a favored mech in the medium or light category. You can do 500+ damage consistently with that mech in matches. If PGI were to announce that they were going to add +25% structure and armor quirks for the mech, but that it would be increased in total volume by 15%, would this make the mech less effective? Not really, right? More effective, you'd say. So why would we feel that mechs that present that situation by default are somehow disadvantaged?

[Coralld]

Gas Guzzler, on 18 March 2016 - 10:04 AM, said:

Step on a Lego.

[Gas Guzzler]

Coralld, on 18 March 2016 - 11:04 AM, said:

Step on a Lego.

http://mwomercs.com/...ssions-and-you/