24 replies to this topic

[ArandomSTD]

They boost the armor/structure of the Archer which can be quoted as "much needed", but what about the Rifleman? It has very little quirks in the form of structure/armor, I would refer to it as a glass cannon. I don't think anyone would deny the thought that for a 60 ton mech, the rifleman is very fragile.

Just throwing this out there.

[NephyrisX]

ArandomSTD, on 21 March 2016 - 06:07 PM, said:

They boost the armor/structure of the Archer which can be quoted as "much needed", but what about the Rifleman? It has very little quirks in the form of structure/armor, I would refer to it as a glass cannon. I don't think anyone would deny the thought that for a 60 ton mech, the rifleman is very fragile. Just throwing this out there.

In other words, the Rifleman is perfectly fine and fits the lore.

What's the problem?

[Agent1190]

So now they remove the "Support Mech" part of the Archer, and give it enough structure to make it a front line brawler.

We won't bring up the 2C mechs which still don't have any quirks...

Oops.

Edited by Agent1190, 21 March 2016 - 06:53 PM.

[Sader325]

2C mechs are clan mechs.

If you think they need quirks your a moron.

[Bishop Steiner]

Agent1190, on 21 March 2016 - 06:52 PM, said:

So now they remove the "Support Mech" part of the Archer, and give it enough structure to make it a front line brawler.

We won't bring up the 2C mechs which still don't have any quirks...

Oops.

Shall we use small words to explain?

Rifleman: 60 tons mech carrying 7.5 tons of armor, or, the same as a 35 ton Wolfhound.
Archer: 70 ton mech carrying 13 tons of armor (regardless of "role") which is nearly TWICE what a Rifleman packs, and is more than most Assault Mechs in the same TRO carried. Is more armor than a Warhammer or Marauder, stock. In fact the ONLY heavy with more was the Orion.

Now, I know that concept will continue to elude you, but for anyone with a semi open mind, the info is now out there.

As for the IIC?
1) Second line Mechs.
2) The HBK-IIC packs a whopping 6 tons of armor.
3) IICs get the customization capability of an IS Battlemech, plus the advantages of Clan Weapons, DHS, Ferro Armor, Endo Steel and oh yeah, Immortal Clan XLs.

Thus common sense says, they were not given quirks to avoid them becoming the next master race.

Next?

[Bishop Steiner]

ArandomSTD, on 21 March 2016 - 06:07 PM, said:

They boost the armor/structure of the Archer which can be quoted as "much needed", but what about the Rifleman? It has very little quirks in the form of structure/armor, I would refer to it as a glass cannon. I don't think anyone would deny the thought that for a 60 ton mech, the rifleman is very fragile.

Just throwing this out there.

Yeah, it's not the toughest mech out there. On the other hand it packs good firepower for it's weight, has pretty good hitboxes, and aside from the Legend Killer really killer mobility quirks that do wonders for keeping it alive. Simply put my riflemen are currently easier to stay alive and lay out good damage in than my 10 tone heavier, twice as heavily armored Archers are.

Also, only the 2R was a dedicated "Support" role, since the Steiner and Wolf variants also pack SRM racks to back their lasers, and even the ones we didn't get liek the 2K packed 2 Large Lasers. And of course the Tempest is totally made up.

Rifleman as is, almost perfectly fit's it's lore role and character, and is currently one of my absolute favorite Heavy Mechs to run.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 21 March 2016 - 07:02 PM.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

If we're buffing glass cannons can my JR7-IIC have structure quirks too?

[Ted Wayz]

Because a mech that is not supposed to meet direct fire (according to these lurm experts) should be given structure before a mech that has to have face time to use its main weapons, and can die from one shot doing so.

Meanwhile the Archer has better acc/dec than the RFL and a better turn radius. But people will convince you it is "fragile" and can't spread damage. Wow. And these aren't even people that kite their Lurm boats. These are the "give me locks" crowd who rarely if ever see their target. But yeah, it needs structure.

This is the "logic" you are dealing with.

[The Lobsters]

Maybe the 3c could take a minor offensive quirk as it just seems a bit flat compared to the others and the Jagers, which I kinda consider the same mech. The best success I've had in it is with 2x AC20. I'd take a +5 AC10 quirk or a velocity buff.

[Bishop Steiner]

The Lobsters, on 21 March 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

Maybe the 3c could take a minor offensive quirk as it just seems a bit flat compared to the others and the Jagers, which I kinda consider the same mech. The best success I've had in it is with 2x AC20. I'd take a +5 AC10 quirk or a velocity buff.

3C is a bit of an odd duck. Maybe it needed better weapon specific quirks? Because the 3N runs the 3Cs loadout better than the 3C does. It is the least fun to run, so far, that's for certain. The other 3 all sort of have their own flavor, the 3C feels like it sorta got left out.

[Archangel.84]

In terms of pure entertainment value I had/have hella fun with 4xAC/2s on the 3C.

[Walsung]

I like the rfl but for a glass canon the canons aren't that special esp the 3c and the almost useless lbx's on the lk (and lorewise it doesn't seem to have packed these so that is no excuse) you can pump a half dozen *2 rounds into a light at close range and it i'll core you with it's little pin point lasers and not even bother dodging.

LK was a total waste of money.

[The Lobsters]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 March 2016 - 07:54 PM, said:

3C is a bit of an odd duck. Maybe it needed better weapon specific quirks? Because the 3N runs the 3Cs loadout better than the 3C does. It is the least fun to run, so far, that's for certain. The other 3 all sort of have their own flavor, the 3C feels like it sorta got left out.

Yeah, and I really do like the RFL. When I did an afternoon of theorycraft assuming the RFL and Jager to be the same mech I ended up with a good range of fits, each with their own specialities. I went with the JM6-S as the AC10 mech as it took medium lasers better and the 3C as the AC20 mech as it beats the JM6-s with acc/decc and twist/turn which mitigates against the necessary smaller engine on any AC20 fit.

Obviously personal reasoning and debatable. I thought it was the better choice for it but even then only marginally and probably personal playstyle specific.

But really, in my reasoning it's key quirks were secondary movement quirks. I'd prefer something a bit bolder.

ed. And the range quirk which I think I actually prefer for the AC20's than a velocity quirk due to the RFL being a more stand-off mech.

Edited by The Lobsters, 21 March 2016 - 08:13 PM.

[Damia Savon]

Ted Wayz, on 21 March 2016 - 07:32 PM, said:

Because a mech that is not supposed to meet direct fire (according to these lurm experts) should be given structure before a mech that has to have face time to use its main weapons, and can die from one shot doing so.

Meanwhile the Archer has better acc/dec than the RFL and a better turn radius. But people will convince you it is "fragile" and can't spread damage. Wow. And these aren't even people that kite their Lurm boats. These are the "give me locks" crowd who rarely if ever see their target. But yeah, it needs structure.

This is the "logic" you are dealing with.

Stop drinking the tea or are you dense? Seriously, do you even pay attention to reality or are you in your fantasy world?

Stop making up crap. Pretty much everyone who complained about the Archers did so for very good reasons. We know how to run fricking lrm mechs. We are not the "gimme locks " crowd.

The only Rifleman that needs attention is the 3N because it has no structure quirks. Otherwise they are very true to their TT VERSION.

The archers simply are not, not even after tomorrow's quirk upgrades, which, in reality, are the quirks they should have had on release. Paul admitted the released quirks were "wrong". Russ, as usual, can't admit a mistake and went with the wrong ones.

Try joining the real world Ted.

[Bishop Steiner]

Damia Savon, on 21 March 2016 - 08:09 PM, said:

Stop drinking the tea or are you dense? Seriously, do you even pay attention to reality or are you in your fantasy world?

Stop making up crap. Pretty much everyone who complained about the Archers did so for very good reasons. We know how to run fricking lrm mechs. We are not the "gimme locks " crowd.

The only Rifleman that needs attention is the 3N because it has no structure quirks. Otherwise they are very true to their TT VERSION.

The archers simply are not, not even after tomorrow's quirk upgrades, which, in reality, are the quirks they should have had on release. Paul admitted the released quirks were "wrong". Russ, as usual, can't admit a mistake and went with the wrong ones.

Try joining the real world Ted.

I hear comp teams are kicking down his door trying to get him to join up, because he's that good.

[Bishop Steiner]

Damia Savon, on 21 March 2016 - 08:09 PM, said:

Stop drinking the tea or are you dense? Seriously, do you even pay attention to reality or are you in your fantasy world?

Stop making up crap. Pretty much everyone who complained about the Archers did so for very good reasons. We know how to run fricking lrm mechs. We are not the "gimme locks " crowd.

The only Rifleman that needs attention is the 3N because it has no structure quirks. Otherwise they are very true to their TT VERSION.

The archers simply are not, not even after tomorrow's quirk upgrades, which, in reality, are the quirks they should have had on release. Paul admitted the released quirks were "wrong". Russ, as usual, can't admit a mistake and went with the wrong ones.

Try joining the real world Ted.

Actually, the 3N, IMO is the best RFL, even without structure. It's ballistics quirks are fantastic. And it's mobility quirks are worth more than stucture. Also, the other variants all had increased armor over the base 3N, thus them having mild structure quirks over and beyond the 3N is very appropriate.

Heck it's my favorite Rifleman and I'm arguing against making it "better". Crazy, right?
(If anything, the Jagermech should really have it's structure buffs removed. Hopefully after rescale they can adjust it. More guns, less armor. It's the Jager/Rifleman creed.)

[Y E O N N E]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 March 2016 - 08:23 PM, said:

Heck it's my favorite Rifleman and I'm arguing against making it "better". Crazy, right?
(If anything, the Jagermech should really have it's structure buffs removed. Hopefully after rescale they can adjust it. More guns, less armor. It's the Jager/Rifleman creed.)

Jager's problem is that its offense is pretty much all tied up in ballistics, unlike the RFL with its awesome energy mounts, and outside of pure AC/2 or MGs you can't realistically use all of those hard-points. So you have a 65 ton 'Mech with firepower that is, at best, comparable the RFL but attached to worse hit-boxes and a larger target profile. Those 5 extra tons get chewed up on engine to maintain similar speed or simply go toward more ammo. Whoopee, it's not enough.

I would say the DD is the only Jager with decent ballistics quirks. The S needs more, the A and FB definitely need more. Even the DD could use some ballistic velocity.

[The Lobsters]

Yeonne Greene, on 21 March 2016 - 08:42 PM, said:

Those 5 extra tons get chewed up on engine to maintain similar speed or simply go toward more ammo. Whoopee, it's not enough.

IDK, If I'm going Jager over RFL those two facets are often why. Plus the better twist rate.

[Y E O N N E]

The Lobsters, on 21 March 2016 - 08:48 PM, said:

IDK, If I'm going Jager over RFL those two facets are often why. Plus the better twist rate.

Geo on the RFL lets it spread better, in my experience, and the arms make better shields.

I'm not running into ammo problems on my RFLs. Actually, because my energy weapons can contribute more often, I find I have an ammo surplus. I only have 165 rounds of UAC/5 ammo on my JM6-DD, but my RFL-3N carries 180...and it's overkill with 6x MedLas in tow to help in dishing the damage.

I have only ever run out of ammo once, and that was on the Legend Killer using LB-10X. Needs more ammo to make up for the spread damage.

[Bishop Steiner]

Yeonne Greene, on 21 March 2016 - 08:52 PM, said:

Geo on the RFL lets it spread better, in my experience, and the arms make better shields.

I'm not running into ammo problems on my RFLs. Actually, because my energy weapons can contribute more often, I find I have an ammo surplus. I only have 165 rounds of UAC/5 ammo on my JM6-DD, but my RFL-3N carries 180...and it's overkill with 6x MedLas in tow to help in dishing the damage.

I have only ever run out of ammo once, and that was on the Legend Killer using LB-10X. Needs more ammo to make up for the spread damage.

Jager hardpoints are a tad higher.

I still love my 6DD build... 2x LB-10X, 4x MG, 2x MLs, 295XL. And of course, the 6A can pack Missiles. So those two are safe in my mechbay.