1049 replies to this topic

[ScarecrowES]

Pariah Devalis, on 13 April 2016 - 04:28 PM, said:

No... It fails in the pod space bracket. It's a one trick pony with only 11 tons of pod space when the armor is maxed out. What are you going to put on it, ERSlas? Maybe ERSLas and SRMs? It's extremely limited in what it can do. So is the Phantom (even further limited, really), and for the same reasons, but at least the Phantom has the argument going for it that it is a 40 ton mech. Black Lanner is 55 tons.... That might as well be a heavy mech. Incredibly underwhelming given the circumstances of its weight.

I said Backer, not Lanner. But same rules basically apply to Lanner. Will be small, compact, extremely fast, and ECM capable. That puts it in the same space as the Cicada, but with 55-tonner armor. MWO history says small fast mechs running builds at 11 tons of pod space do more than fine.

I think folks need to get out of the habit of trying to typify these mechs by the base class and look at them as up-armored variants of lighter mechs. They make a lot more sense then.

[Bishop Steiner]

Coralld, on 13 April 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

Like what Bishop and Quicksilver said, in the beginning they did help out a lot, no one is denying that fact, the problem though is that they made some really bone head decision, some of it is their fault while some times it was MW4 fault. But one of the things that really erks me is that they became very and I mean very antagonistic.

But lets keep things on track, I really do not want this thread to be closed down for another day and a half.

There's almost no clan mech I want more than the novacat. The summoner is the only clan mech I like more. But I'm at peace waiting till pgi is ready and has the tech to support a time jump. I don't feel entitled to have it right this second.. Despite the fact is throw my wallet at the screen if it was announced.

But even though it predates the mkII by two years and is made by an IS (future) ally, it'll have to bide it's time.

I'm confident once we do jump it'll be one of the early offerings, along with the mkII.

HECK, I'd even buy a jumbo pack if those two were in it.

[Pariah Devalis]

ScarecrowES, on 13 April 2016 - 04:35 PM, said:

I said Backer, not Lanner. But same rules basically apply to Lanner. Will be small, compact, extremely fast, and ECM capable. That puts it in the same space as the Cicada, but with 55-tonner armor. MWO history says small fast mechs running builds at 11 tons of pod space do more than fine.

I think folks need to get out of the habit of trying to typify these mechs by the base class and look at them as up-armored variants of lighter mechs. They make a lot more sense then.

Except the Lanner is 55 tons. Not so small. It has ECM, but it's still a 55 ton target. Even after rescale, it will still be significantly larger than a Cicada. Hell, as is Cicadas are like cookies. Delicious delicious cookie pinatas filled with more cookies.

As for mixing up Backer and Lanner, my bad. I think the Backer has some potential, as it has enough podspace to load some sort of threatening firepower potential. Just not very much.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 13 April 2016 - 04:38 PM.

[Coralld]

Gas Guzzler, on 13 April 2016 - 04:34 PM, said:

You think the Linebacker would sell better than the Kingfisher or Turkina?

As for the Nova Cat vs Mad Cat Mk. II, I see the Nova Cat coming long before the Mad Cat Mk. II, I don't really put them in the same boat. Not biased as I actually want the Mad Cat Mk. II MORE than the Nova Cat.

To be honest I can see both of them being announced rather early when PGI decided to time jump.

[Coralld]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 April 2016 - 04:36 PM, said:

There's almost no clan mech I want more than the novacat. The summoner is the only clan mech I like more. But I'm at peace waiting till pgi is ready and has the tech to support a time jump. I don't feel entitled to have it right this second.. Despite the fact is throw my wallet at the screen if it was announced.

But even though it predates the mkII by two years and is made by an IS (future) ally, it'll have to bide it's time.

I'm confident once we do jump it'll be one of the early offerings, along with the mkII.

HECK, I'd even buy a jumbo pack if those two were in it.

I know the feeling, you have no idea how long I have waited for the Huntsman to FINALLY be in a MW game and it is my most favorite Clan mech.

But be that as it may I know I will continue to play the waiting game as no amount of complaining will change that as it's up to PGI.

I'm in the same boat with you when PGI decided to do the time jump, no reason to go half cocked.

[ScarecrowES]

Pariah Devalis, on 13 April 2016 - 04:36 PM, said:

Except the Lanner is 55 tons. Not so small. It has ECM, but it's still a 55 ton target. Even after rescale, it will still be significantly larger than a Cicada. Hell, as is Cicadas are like cookies. Delicious delicious cookie pinatas filled with more cookies.

As for mixing up Backer and Lanner, my bad. I think the Backer has some potential, as it has enough podspace to load some sort of threatening firepower potential. Just not very much.

If I remember my theory-crafting accurately... the Backer should be able to run a UAC-10 with 3 tons ammo and 5 ERMLs with efficient armor and cooling. Might have been 4 MLs. Either way, that's basically the same build I run in my 1000 damage per match Hellbringer. But the Backer would be the size of the current Nova (which is 61 tons according to PGI), and run at over 100kph.

It could do a spread of SRMs with lasers which is equivalent to what SCRs are running... and it gets the same speed, more armor, and a smaller profile.

Everything on the torso is mounted above the cockpit... only the arms drag, so its in better shape than many mechs for hardpoint locations.

I think it's going to be a lot more useful than people give it credit for. We don't really have anything in MWO righr now like it.

Now, the size of the Lanner... bigger than a Cicada, definitely... but compared to most 55-tonners it's very compact. It will have a smaller front profile than the SCR for sure. ECM and MASC will probably make this a go-to mech for what the Cicada is used for now... a more survivable light, backstabber, or sniper.

[Pariah Devalis]

ScarecrowES, on 13 April 2016 - 04:50 PM, said:

If I remember my theory-crafting accurately... the Backer should be able to run a UAC-10 with 3 tons ammo and 5 ERMLs with efficient armor and cooling. Might have been 4 MLs. Either way, that's basically the same build I run in my 1000 damage per match Hellbringer. But the Backer would be the size of the current Nova (which is 61 tons according to PGI), and run at over 100kph.

It could do a spread of SRMs with lasers which is equivalent to what SCRs are running... and it gets the same speed, more armor, and a smaller profile.

Everything on the torso is mounted above the cockpit... only the arms drag, so its in better shape than many mechs for hardpoint locations.

I think it's going to be a lot more useful than people give it credit for. We don't really have anything in MWO righr now like it.

Now, the size of the Lanner... bigger than a Cicada, definitely... but compared to most 55-tonners it's very compact. It will have a smaller front profile than the SCR for sure. ECM and MASC will probably make this a go-to mech for what the Cicada is used for now... a more survivable light, backstabber, or sniper.

Ignore my last post. Again, I keep reading Badlanner when you type Backer.

[Bishop Steiner]

Coralld, on 13 April 2016 - 04:49 PM, said:

I know the feeling, you have no idea how long I have waited for the Huntsman to FINALLY be in a MW game and it is my most favorite Clan mech.

But be that as it may I know I will continue to play the waiting game as no amount of complaining will change that as it's up to PGI.

I'm in the same boat with you when PGI decided to do the time jump, no reason to go half cocked.

Yeah. And the only reason the Summoner is above the Novacat is because I played one for like a 6-7 years before there was a Novacat. There was a virtual world about an hour from my home, and I always ended up in a SMN Prime in it. Love love love that thing.

But my favorite in game model was the MW4 Novacat, my fave Dark Age Clix, and my fave TT Mini (though my ASN was a close second).

Had I come into Btech around 2000, there is no doubt in my mind the Novacat would be my fave mech, period.

[Ace Selin]

Gas Guzzler, on 13 April 2016 - 04:20 PM, said:

Seriously, can anyone see why the Linebacker would be a "OHHH we need to release that one" when in the same breathe you basically say "Kingfisher/Turkina are not worth releasing"? I mean come on.

Yep totally

[Widowmaker1981]

ScarecrowES, on 13 April 2016 - 04:35 PM, said:

I said Backer, not Lanner. But same rules basically apply to Lanner. Will be small, compact, extremely fast, and ECM capable. That puts it in the same space as the Cicada, but with 55-tonner armor. MWO history says small fast mechs running builds at 11 tons of pod space do more than fine.

I think folks need to get out of the habit of trying to typify these mechs by the base class and look at them as up-armored variants of lighter mechs. They make a lot more sense then.

No, they dont make sense - because you are trading size for armour, which is a bad trade (better to be smaller and harder to hit with less armour - its more survivable), especially when it also comes at the cost of large amounts of mech tonnage, which is opportunity cost everywhere except the solo queue. Mechs need to bring an amount of firepower that makes sense for their tonnage.

and dont try to say they will somehow be small. They ARE trading size, because volumetric scaling means they will absolutely, definitely, take up the same volume as other mechs of the same tonnage.

Massively overengined mechs are a bad design choice. The Gargoyle is bad, the ice ferret is bad, the Black Lanner will be bad (though slightly redeemed by ECM) and the Linebacker will be bad.

[ScarecrowES]

Widowmaker1981, on 14 April 2016 - 12:45 AM, said:

No, they dont make sense - because you are trading size for armour, which is a bad trade (better to be smaller and harder to hit with less armour - its more survivable), especially when it also comes at the cost of large amounts of mech tonnage, which is opportunity cost everywhere except the solo queue. Mechs need to bring an amount of firepower that makes sense for their tonnage.

and dont try to say they will somehow be small. They ARE trading size, because volumetric scaling means they will absolutely, definitely, take up the same volume as other mechs of the same tonnage.

Massively overengined mechs are a bad design choice. The Gargoyle is bad, the ice ferret is bad, the Black Lanner will be bad (though slightly redeemed by ECM) and the Linebacker will be bad.

Youre confusing volume and profile. Both the Linebacker and LAnner are very compact mechs. Both chicken walkers and both squat in the torso. Contrast to mechs like the Hellbringer. The distribution of volume makes the Hellbringer a bigger target than the Linebacker at the same tonnage. Like I said... volumetrically the Linebacker would come in at the current overall height and width of the currwnt Nova. That makes it much harder to hit and capable of running basically the same builds.

[1453 R]

Widowmaker1981, on 14 April 2016 - 12:45 AM, said:

No, they dont make sense - because you are trading size for armour, which is a bad trade (better to be smaller and harder to hit with less armour - its more survivable), especially when it also comes at the cost of large amounts of mech tonnage, which is opportunity cost everywhere except the solo queue. Mechs need to bring an amount of firepower that makes sense for their tonnage.

and dont try to say they will somehow be small. They ARE trading size, because volumetric scaling means they will absolutely, definitely, take up the same volume as other mechs of the same tonnage.

Massively overengined mechs are a bad design choice. The Gargoyle is bad, the ice ferret is bad, the Black Lanner will be bad (though slightly redeemed by ECM) and the Linebacker will be bad.

What about massively overgunned 'Mechs?

One could argue that being slow as a one-legged Whale in leg irons is as conducive to an early demise as being bigger than your britches might otherwise warrant. People have long decried the Stormcrow and the Timber Wolf both as being 'over-engined' because they dare to go faster than sixty klicks an hour...but would a Stormcrow with a 220-rated engine be even half the 'Mech the 330 Stormcrow is? Would a Timber Wolf with a 225 be remotely worth driving?

Why do people even want to do those things in the first place? Has not the biggest complaint against the Timber Wolf always been that it is surreally agile for its size and firepower? Isn't the Stormcrow's reputation as a do-everything murderbird that can outrun just about anything it can't outgun sort of reliant on the outrun part?

I get that there are some things that take Big Engine Envy too far. Personally I consider the Linebacker one of them - 97kph at 65 tons is not nearly so impressive as 119 at 55 tons. The Black Lanner might find some interesting niche-y uses as a heavily armored pursuit 'Mech or harasser, while the Linebacker just doesn't gain enough extra speed to really reap benefit from its big ol' engine. Not compared to available 'mechs that can nearly match it with a great deal more everything-else. But seriously, man...seriously. There is a range of weights in the middle where you have room for both 'Mechs with big engines and 'Mechs with big guns. It doesn't always have to be about trying for that 90-point alpha you can fire once every forty seconds.

And these days I find there is very little excuse to not at least break eighty klicks if you're not a full-up fatbro. The rest of the game has gotten much faster since the 50kph Toaster pastry days, and if you don't think speed and mobility can win games, you need to step out of the Fatlas for a little bit, mang.

[Gas Guzzler]

Ace Selin, on 13 April 2016 - 09:58 PM, said:

Yep totally

Do explain. The 16 tons of podspace should be just enough for some mild laser vomit or SRMs, sounds so exciting from a heavy mech. Even a Summoner would outgun that thing.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Widowmaker1981, on 14 April 2016 - 12:45 AM, said:

They ARE trading size, because volumetric scaling means they will absolutely, definitely, take up the same volume as other mechs of the same tonnage.

I do want to point out one small thing, some mechs actually benefit a lot from volumetric scaling than others, the Cicada is one of those mechs that should benefit, unlike thin mechs like the Spider and Grasshopper. The boxier the torso, the better chance it actually has at having an improved profile with volumetric scaling versus something thin and spindly.

Gas Guzzler, on 14 April 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:

Do explain. The 16 tons of podspace should be just enough for some mild laser vomit or SRMs, sounds so exciting from a heavy mech. Even a Summoner would outgun that thing.

To be fair, 6 ASRM4s would be fun at that speed, and you could still run 4 ASRM6, but the spread would be rough due to the hardpoint locations.

[Gas Guzzler]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 14 April 2016 - 07:47 AM, said:

I do want to point out one small thing, some mechs actually benefit a lot from volumetric scaling than others, the Cicada is one of those mechs that should benefit, unlike thin mechs like the Spider and Grasshopper. The boxier the torso, the better chance it actually has at having an improved profile with volumetric scaling versus something thin and spindly.


To be fair, 6 ASRM4s would be fun at that speed, and you could still run 4 ASRM6, but the spread would be rough due to the hardpoint locations.

Can't you do 5 ASRM6s at that speed on a Stormcrow?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gas Guzzler, on 14 April 2016 - 07:48 AM, said:

Can't you do 5 ASRM6s at that speed on a Stormcrow?

You can, but it is fairly fragile (not that 10 tons helps that much with durability), but suffers less spread issues than the Linebacker would so the Linebacker would definitely need quirks to even be workable. Which is a bit unfortunate, I kinda miss its power from Mektek's mod.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 14 April 2016 - 07:50 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

I'm just saying, I don't see how the Turkina and Kingfisher are not worthy, but the Linebacker is a must-release.

[pbiggz]

Gas Guzzler, on 14 April 2016 - 07:51 AM, said:

I'm just saying, I don't see how the Turkina and Kingfisher are not worthy, but the Linebacker is a must-release.

Rose TT tinted glasses.

Id much rather have the Turkina other direwolf, and Kingfisher other executioner, than the linebacker, any day of the week. I'd rather have ok assaults than bad anything.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gas Guzzler, on 14 April 2016 - 07:51 AM, said:

I'm just saying, I don't see how the Turkina and Kingfisher are not worthy, but the Linebacker is a must-release.

There isn't really a reason, I'm honestly hoping it isn't the Linebacker for this reason, but I guess the Mad Dog needs competition for worst Clan heavy.

[Gas Guzzler]

pbiggz, on 14 April 2016 - 07:59 AM, said:

Rose TT tinted glasses.

Id much rather have the Turkina other direwolf, and Kingfisher other executioner, than the linebacker, any day of the week. I'd rather have ok assaults than bad anything.

My optimistic tinted glasses see the Kingfisher getting some significant structure quirks just so its tanky as ****, with high hardpoints, so people say "How is it not dead??" and their teammates will say "Its a Kingfisher...".

And then if the Turkina can at least torso twist over 90 degrees it will at least be able to run walk and gun better than the Dire, and it would of course deserve some agility quirks.