75 replies to this topic

[Gas Guzzler]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 January 2017 - 09:37 AM, said:

It might trigger some boring-ness with fighting Gauss walls from back in the day though.

Is that a wall of triple Gauss Thunder Hawks you are thinking of?

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 10 January 2017 - 09:41 AM.

[TheLuc]

Russ wrote he doesn't like quads, I guess same goes for the Anni.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gas Guzzler, on 10 January 2017 - 09:41 AM, said:

Is that a wall of triple Gauss Thunder Hawks you are thinking of?

Gauss wall is just a strat from TT that involved throwing lots of Gauss around whether it be Thunder Hawks, Galahads, Hollanders, etc. Anything that had most of its firepower from Gauss was a valid mech, particularly if it was a cheaper unit BV/C-Bill wise. It is generally regarded as pretty cheesy by TT players right along side Arrow/TAG spam teams, Clan LPL/ERLL spam, or Tank/BA/Infantry spam.

[Gas Guzzler]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 January 2017 - 09:49 AM, said:

Gauss wall is just a strat from TT that involved throwing lots of Gauss around whether it be Thunder Hawks, Galahads, Hollanders, etc. Anything that had most of its firepower from Gauss was a valid mech, particularly if it was a cheaper unit BV/C-Bill wise. It is generally regarded as pretty cheesy by TT players right along side Arrow/TAG spam teams, Clan LPL/ERLL spam, or Tank/BA/Infantry spam.

Ah. I don't think it would change this game that much. We already have quad gauss KDK-3s and dual gauss dual ER PPC KDKs. This would just add a similar option on the IS side, but we could also see some impressive autocannon boats.

[MeiSooHaityu]

El Bandito, on 09 January 2017 - 10:31 PM, said:

Neckless Anni.

I like that intepretation /\

Bishop Steiner, on 10 January 2017 - 06:38 AM, said:

I don't mind this one either /\

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gas Guzzler, on 10 January 2017 - 09:51 AM, said:

Ah. I don't think it would change this game that much. We already have quad gauss KDK-3s and dual gauss dual ER PPC KDKs. This would just add a similar option on the IS side, but we could also see some impressive autocannon boats.

I'm not saying it would necessarily be boring in this game, just that Thunder Hawks might be boring to him because of how they were used in TT. That said it would be used as a dakka boat in this game so it isn't really that unique here (though it could do Gauss/PPCs as well just like the KDK-3).

[Bombast]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 January 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

I'm not saying it would necessarily be boring in this game, just that Thunder Hawks might be boring to him because of how they were used in TT. That said it would be used as a dakka boat in this game so it isn't really that unique here (though it could do Gauss/PPCs as well just like the KDK-3).

Well, one of the less charming aspects of piling Gauss Rifles on your team doesn't show up in MWO - That 1 out of every 36 hits would automatically knock out an enemy mech. So at least we have that going for us.

[Gas Guzzler]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 January 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

I'm not saying it would necessarily be boring in this game, just that Thunder Hawks might be boring to him because of how they were used in TT. That said it would be used as a dakka boat in this game so it isn't really that unique here (though it could do Gauss/PPCs as well just like the KDK-3).

Well it's unique in that it can bring more dakka than a Mauler and use an XL engine.

[ChapeL]

Now how about a Pillager instead ? ( Devastator works too )

[Felicitatem Parco]

Gas Guzzler, on 10 January 2017 - 10:02 AM, said:

Well it's unique in that it can bring more dakka than a Mauler and use an XL engine.

It would be the only IS mech in the game that can mount 4 AC/10 (the only big mech with 4 seperate ballistic compartments)

[Gas Guzzler]

Prosperity Park, on 10 January 2017 - 10:19 AM, said:

It would be the only IS mech in the game that can mount 4 AC/10 (the only big mech with 4 seperate ballistic compartments)

Well the Annihilator is yeah, I was talking about the Thunder Hawk though, which can't do that.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Gas Guzzler, on 10 January 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

Well the Annihilator is yeah, I was talking about the Thunder Hawk though, which can't do that.

Oops... Well,then.. Ani > Thunderhawk :-p

[Mole]

I too would like the Annihilator for nostalgia purposes but... face it bruh, dat engine...

[The Zohan]

@ the Op: cause it sucks. Big time.

[AppleseeN]

El Bandito, on 09 January 2017 - 10:31 PM, said:

There are different depictions of Anni.

Slim Anni.




Neckless Anni.




Meta Anni.




The 100 ton mech IS should get instead.







The mutant Urbie was a big success with its lore smashing 180 engine... money talks, and PGI listens.

Just mentioning Annihilator... you are summoning'ere 5 100tons troubles, such as:

- Annihilator
- Thunder Hawk
- Devastator
- Pillager
- Vampire (battlemech not a dropship) unseen


That can hurt the most of a deep pink sweet Clanners feeling entirely[/color]
Don't forget... that PLG, DVS, VME and THK have leggit builds that contain more than one Heavy Gauss Rifle

Edited by AppleseeN, 10 January 2017 - 01:28 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gas Guzzler, on 10 January 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

Nightstar (sexy), Gunslinger (85 ton IS Night Gyr with ECM), and Cerberus (quad AC10!) would be great to have. But I have to stop and defend the Thunder Hawk (yes the Devastator would be a bit boring IMO). It comes with 3 gauss rifles, which means we could reasonably expect 5-6 ballistic hardpoints spread between 3 different components. This provides some previously unavailable configurations that would help stand up to the other top tier assaults by providing a different role, and is able to bring an XL engine unlike the Mauler. The Cerberus has ballistic hardpoints spread to 4 components, so 4 AC10s is possible, and thats great too, but I dont think the Thunder Hawk would be boring.

IDk, depends on your perspective. Gauss Vomit gets old fast to me, also. I like variety. Mind you, not saying the Thunderhawk would be bad, not by a long stretch. Just... I don't think I'd buy one.

Gunslinger... those 4 insanely high energy mounts have meta promise (5th in the head... maybe useful), while the lo arms for me are asking for AC10s, not Gauss. Add ECM and JJs (maybe...depends on how limp the thrust is) and I like the potential

Not meta, but for a fun build, be pretty easy to top mount 2x ERLL, 2x AC10 in the arms, and 5 torso/Head mounted Mediums. Or, load the upper hardpoints with long range pew pew, etc. There is a lack of canon usable variants, but for a Hero, the GUN-1ERD Gunslinger Jared , with LRM15/SRM4 in each arm... sounds very fun. JJs, ECM, 4x aSRM6 and 2x Torso PPCs with a smattering of lasers? Like you say, overweight Night Gyr, but I'm OK with that.

For the Cerberus... where the MGs are mounted, is a big question...are they in the humps on the shoulders? If so, very nice sniping locations. Lacking in usable variants, but not really a big issue, anymore.



Thunder Hawk would be a lot more interesting to me...if we had Arrow IV.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 January 2017 - 09:49 AM, said:

Gauss wall is just a strat from TT that involved throwing lots of Gauss around whether it be Thunder Hawks, Galahads, Hollanders, etc. Anything that had most of its firepower from Gauss was a valid mech, particularly if it was a cheaper unit BV/C-Bill wise. It is generally regarded as pretty cheesy by TT players right along side Arrow/TAG spam teams, Clan LPL/ERLL spam, or Tank/BA/Infantry spam.

Basically all the "pro" strategies for FW, lol........ Guess that's just the difference in gaming mindsets.

[Bishop Steiner]

AppleseeN, on 10 January 2017 - 01:27 PM, said:

Just mentioning Annihilator... you are summoning'ere 5 100tons troubles, such as:

- Annihilator
- Thunder Hawk
- Devastator
- Pillager
- Vampire (battlemech not a dropship) unseen


That can hurt the most of a deep pink sweet Clanners feeling entirely[/color]
Don't forget... that PLG, DVS, VME and THK have leggit builds that contain more than one Heavy Gauss Rifle

Vampire Unseen? Source please? (or is this non canon?)

[AppleseeN]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 January 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

Vampire Unseen? Source please? (or is this non canon?)

Not sure if it's canon, it's a TR level 2 rules only)))) If not wrong.

Btw I would like to see a Spartan ere...

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Spartan

[Bombast]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 January 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

Vampire Unseen? Source please? (or is this non canon?)

It's not on Sarna, so I imagine it must be one of those weird mechs that was released in a magazine or something but never made it into a TRO, and thus is non-canon.

Or he's mistaken.

[AppleseeN]

Bombast, on 10 January 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

It's not on Sarna, so I imagine it must be one of those weird mechs that was released in a magazine or something but never made it into a TRO, and thus is non-canon.

Or he's mistaken.

Also can't find it on Sarna, but does exist on UTRO3058 books. If I'll get ma hands on scaner I'll scan it-off for the thread.