Jump to content

- - - - -

Hunchback Iic For Newer Pilots.


61 replies to this topic

#21 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 24 February 2017 - 10:23 AM

View PostTercieI, on 24 February 2017 - 10:19 AM, said:

@Kon...no, the SCR is not better than the HBK-IIC. Locked engine and low mounts make it inferior. The HBK-IIC is pretty much the best medium in the game now. You see very few others in high tier comp even when weight is not a factor.

In terms of damage it can take, it is. Provided no one goes for the legs. The speed combined with the bounce also still messes with laser hit registration a bit since in a single beam aimed toward the center torso from the side... will spread between arm, side torso, center torso, cockpit, center torso again, side torso again, arm, side torso yet again, leg, side torso yet still again...repeat if the laser is longer than a second.

In higher tiers however, everyone has learned "Shoot the ******* legs and be done with it."
Edit, you also have the fact that Stormcrows are 3 years old... **** gets boring after a while.

Also its "low mounts" are almost lined up with the cockpit, so much so it is almost impossible to notice. If the low mounts are a concern, you're not using it properly. Stormcrows are not pop-and-squat mechs. They are hunters and harassers. You're using it for the incorrect playstyle.

While the HBK IIC caters to almost any playstyle, Stormcrows are niche in their compatible playstyles.

The trouble with jack of all trade mechs is that they are good at anything, great at nothing. Niche mechs are great at somethings, decent to terrible at everything else. In its field, Stormcrows are superior. Outside of its field, Stormcrows are terrible. It really depends on what you're doing.

Edited by Koniving, 24 February 2017 - 10:32 AM.


#22 TercieI

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 8,147 posts
  • LocationThe Far Country

Posted 24 February 2017 - 10:28 AM

View PostKoniving, on 24 February 2017 - 10:23 AM, said:

In terms of damage it can take, it is. Provided no one goes for the legs. The speed combined with the bounce also still messes with laser hit registration a bit since in a single beam aimed toward the center torso from the side... will spread between arm, side torso, center torso, cockpit, center torso again, side torso again, arm, side torso yet again, leg, side torso yet still again...repeat if the laser is longer than a second.

In higher tiers however, everyone has learned "Shoot the ******* legs and be done with it."


In higher tiers, we can hit the CT actually.

But that's not even the point: It can take more damage, but it does take way more damage,because its mounts mean you have to expose most of the mech to shoot. The HBK-IIC has ton only expose a small portion of the mech (literally a few pixels on some builds) to shoot, even when not pop-shooting.

#23 Roc Ingersol

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 57 posts
  • LocationArkansas, Terra

Posted 24 February 2017 - 11:03 AM

It seems to me that the most cost effective way to go would be to buy the HBK-IIC A and B and the xl275 engine. I can then save up for either the IIC or IIC-C because I like the ballistic mounts but the tonnage math tells me I don't need more than two ballistics for the tonnage of the mech -- read that somewhere else on the forums -- and the II-C-C can bring two more lasers while still having two autocannons.

Am I reading this correctly? Also I will definitely check out the Metamechs site. THANKS.

#24 Rogue Jedi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 4,908 posts
  • LocationSuffolk, England

Posted 24 February 2017 - 11:17 AM

View PostChuck E Finley, on 24 February 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

It seems to me that the most cost effective way to go would be to buy the HBK-IIC A and B and the xl275 engine. I can then save up for either the IIC or IIC-C because I like the ballistic mounts but the tonnage math tells me I don't need more than two ballistics for the tonnage of the mech -- read that somewhere else on the forums -- and the II-C-C can bring two more lasers while still having two autocannons.

Am I reading this correctly? Also I will definitely check out the Metamechs site. THANKS.

just an FYI, the 3 Mechs to master requirement will likely be removed in a month or 2 when the new skill tree (currently in testing) is judged enough of an improvement over the current one to implement into the game.

on the new skill tree you can take 1 Mech to max skills without having another varient

#25 TercieI

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 8,147 posts
  • LocationThe Far Country

Posted 24 February 2017 - 11:20 AM

View PostChuck E Finley, on 24 February 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

It seems to me that the most cost effective way to go would be to buy the HBK-IIC A and B and the xl275 engine. I can then save up for either the IIC or IIC-C because I like the ballistic mounts but the tonnage math tells me I don't need more than two ballistics for the tonnage of the mech -- read that somewhere else on the forums -- and the II-C-C can bring two more lasers while still having two autocannons.

Am I reading this correctly? Also I will definitely check out the Metamechs site. THANKS.


Reasonable plan, though the B is the weakest of the 4. You might just grab an A and ride it hard until you can afford the others. As for only two ballistics, 3xUAC5 is seen and 4xUAC2 is very strong. The C's extra energy is less useful than the base version's extra ballistics IMO.

(Full disclosure: I heavily favor the A and have generally soured on dakka since the jam duration changes)

#26 Roughneck45

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Handsome Devil
  • The Handsome Devil
  • 4,452 posts
  • LocationOutreach

Posted 24 February 2017 - 11:20 AM

View PostChuck E Finley, on 24 February 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

Am I reading this correctly?

Yup.

You can do triple UAC5 on the IIC if that is something you'd be interested in, otherwise the extra energy hardpoints on the C are more useful.

#27 Tilakkam

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts

Posted 24 February 2017 - 11:22 AM

View PostChuck E Finley, on 24 February 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

It seems to me that the most cost effective way to go would be to buy the HBK-IIC A and B and the xl275 engine. I can then save up for either the IIC or IIC-C because I like the ballistic mounts but the tonnage math tells me I don't need more than two ballistics for the tonnage of the mech -- read that somewhere else on the forums -- and the II-C-C can bring two more lasers while still having two autocannons.

Am I reading this correctly? Also I will definitely check out the Metamechs site. THANKS.


Energy, ballistic, engine and after that - rocket or C-C. I found rocket Hunch not so easy to play/

Edited by Tilakkam, 24 February 2017 - 11:22 AM.


#28 Roc Ingersol

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 57 posts
  • LocationArkansas, Terra

Posted 24 February 2017 - 11:22 AM

OHHHHHH.

Did NOT know that. Thanks. I just thought the variants have different playable loadouts to switch up from lasers to missiles to ballistics etc...

#29 Roughneck45

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Handsome Devil
  • The Handsome Devil
  • 4,452 posts
  • LocationOutreach

Posted 24 February 2017 - 11:22 AM

View PostTercieI, on 24 February 2017 - 11:20 AM, said:

though the B is the weakest of the 4.

You think so? I prefer it over the ballistic builds. I guess there is a lot more competition for the SRM medium slot too.

#30 Tilakkam

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts

Posted 24 February 2017 - 11:29 AM

And remember 1 thing - NEVER sold your hunchbacks. IIC or IS - no matter. You ask - why? Because hunchback - is the better mech in all battletech.

#31 xe N on

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,335 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 24 February 2017 - 11:58 AM

The Hunchy-IIC is one of the best mediums. I play it alot.

However, it is a medium. And you should be sure if you can handle this weight class.

Mediums have especially one problem: They are not even close as fast an a light (beside maybe some lighter mediums), nor they have the firepower or armor of a heavy.

The optimal usage of a medium is therefore as support for heavier mech. Because of the slightly higher speed and better mobility compared to heavies, they can quickly exploit situations and maneuver them self in advantageous positions.

The HBK is great, because he comes with a top speed of 95 kph, jump jets and high hardpoints. High hardpoint allow minimal exposure at firing. USE THIS ADVANTAGE. AND: USE LONG RANGE WEAPONS.

Brawling for medium mechs is hard these days. Mechs like Night Gyr, Mauler and Kodiak will shred you as a medium mech in seconds if you get into the fire line. So, just don't try to brawl! Especially not in a HBK-IIC.

My most successfully builds for the HBK-IIC are:

4 C-ERLL + 275 XL engine
6 C-ERML + 275 STD engine (yes, STD!)
4 C-UAC 2 + 255 XL engine

In fact, the 4-UAC2 build is superior to the 3 C-UAC5 build.

Edited by xe N on, 24 February 2017 - 11:58 AM.


#32 TercieI

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 8,147 posts
  • LocationThe Far Country

Posted 24 February 2017 - 12:19 PM

View Postxe N on, on 24 February 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

In fact, the 4-UAC2 build is superior to the 3 C-UAC5 build.

Absolutely.

View PostRoughneck45, on 24 February 2017 - 11:22 AM, said:

You think so? I prefer it over the ballistic builds. I guess there is a lot more competition for the SRM medium slot too.


Well, I have thought so, but you're making me think about it again. Within the context here (new players, presumably mostly solo play), I'm still going to say so since a brittle SRM brawler is a very tough thing to play well, especially in pubs. But, objectively, let's consider....

I would say a variant has to be judged by its best build, since that's its ceiling (though if you like flexibility, that's a big strike against the B since it has really one good build).

By variant, then, best builds (IMO of course).

IIC: 4 UAC2, XL255
IIC-A: 2 ERPPC, XL275, TC1-4 on pilot preference
IIC-B: ASRM24, 2MPL, XL275
IIC-C: 2 UAC10, 2 ML, XL275

Of those, the PPCs rule (and 1-2 other IIC-A builds might come next actually), so I make the A the best. Next is the IIC. That quad UAC/2 build had me chuckling when I first saw it, but it's weirdly extremely strong. Then it comes down to whether you think the brawling B or the dual UAC/10s is stronger. Hm. I really don't know. Both have serious flaws now that the UAC jam duration can be so ruinous. For a new player, the UACs are still better. I'd prefer to play the brawler. Posted Image

Edited by TercieI, 24 February 2017 - 12:20 PM.


#33 Rogue Jedi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 4,908 posts
  • LocationSuffolk, England

Posted 24 February 2017 - 12:27 PM

View Postxe N on, on 24 February 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Mediums have especially one problem: They are not even close as fast an a light (beside maybe some lighter mediums), nor they have the firepower or armor of a heavy.

that totaly depends on the Mech, while it is true no Medium can outrun the Locust with max engine or the fastest versions of Commando, Spider and Wolfhound with max engine there are Lights whigh were designed to run slower than most heavies, and mediums designed to be fast (Cicada, Viper, Ice Ferret, and even Shadow Cat if using MASC) can outrun some Light Mechs, while the Adder, Kit Fox, Urbanmech and some not yet ingame Lights like the Hollander and Cougar, both moving the same speed as most of the Clan heavies, are Light Mechs which cannot outrun the 55 ton Stormcrow

#34 Roughneck45

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Handsome Devil
  • The Handsome Devil
  • 4,452 posts
  • LocationOutreach

Posted 24 February 2017 - 12:35 PM

Good breakdown.

I haven't tried the UAC2's so Ill have to give it a spin. The PPCs are certainly the go to, funnily enough I really don't enjoy that build. I love dual PPCs but I have more fun using a SHD or Adder for it, despite the drawbacks. Maybe its the footspeed.

I think I just have a soft spot for JJ's with SRMs Posted Image

#35 TercieI

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 8,147 posts
  • LocationThe Far Country

Posted 24 February 2017 - 01:06 PM

View PostRoughneck45, on 24 February 2017 - 12:35 PM, said:

Good breakdown.

I haven't tried the UAC2's so Ill have to give it a spin. The PPCs are certainly the go to, funnily enough I really don't enjoy that build. I love dual PPCs but I have more fun using a SHD or Adder for it, despite the drawbacks. Maybe its the footspeed.


Double PPC ADR...Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Yeah, I like it well enough, but my absolute favorite HBK-IIC-A is 6MPLs. It's just a wonderful PUG mech.

View PostRoughneck45, on 24 February 2017 - 12:35 PM, said:

I think I just have a soft spot for JJ's with SRMs Posted Image


Nothing wrong with that!

#36 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 24 February 2017 - 07:14 PM

View PostChuck E Finley, on 24 February 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

It seems to me that the most cost effective way to go would be to buy the HBK-IIC A and B and the xl275 engine. I can then save up for either the IIC or IIC-C because I like the ballistic mounts but the tonnage math tells me I don't need more than two ballistics for the tonnage of the mech -- read that somewhere else on the forums -- and the II-C-C can bring two more lasers while still having two autocannons.

Am I reading this correctly? Also I will definitely check out the Metamechs site. THANKS.

Additional ballistic hardpoints are handy for other things, such as machine guns. Combined with lasers, especially pulse lasers, they provide additional damage, follow the same firing mechanics, and generate no additional heat.

Also remember that Metamechs might serve as a guideline or suggestion; it isn't a bible of how to play unlike how some may think. And know that those builds often work for very specific playstyles or very specific situations.

#37 xe N on

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,335 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 24 February 2017 - 11:20 PM

View PostRogue Jedi, on 24 February 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

that totaly depends on the Mech, while it is true no Medium can outrun the Locust with max engine or the fastest versions of Commando, Spider and Wolfhound with max engine there are Lights whigh were designed to run slower than most heavies, and mediums designed to be fast (Cicada, Viper, Ice Ferret, and even Shadow Cat if using MASC) can outrun some Light Mechs, while the Adder, Kit Fox, Urbanmech and some not yet ingame Lights like the Hollander and Cougar, both moving the same speed as most of the Clan heavies, are Light Mechs which cannot outrun the 55 ton Stormcrow


Those light mechs that are slow (e.g. Kitfox or Adder) are not very good in MWO. Slow light in MWO means dead lights. They might be fun and some builds are even viable (e.g. C-SRM Adder) as fire support, but their role can be better filled with mediums (e.g. Griffin as SRM brawler).

The true light role, as e.g. filled by Arctic Cheetah, or Jenner-IIC could be filled by fast lighter mediums, e.g. the viper (140 kph top speed, same as ACH), however, lights will perform those roles better, because they smaller and more difficult to hit. And advantages of the additional armor is negligible considering current DPS and alpha situation.

Normally, those mechs 5 tons heavier as the previous weight class can be used in the same manner as the lighter weight class. (e.g. Cicada and Viper can be piloted as "fat lights" while 60 and even 65 ton can be piloted as "fat medium" --> Linebacker).

However, while in FW it is balanced weight by weight, in QP you must not only carry you weight in ton but you entire weight class. As a 40 ton viper you need to take down a 55 ton SCR or HBK to make your team not carrying you.

Edited by xe N on, 24 February 2017 - 11:25 PM.


#38 Rogue Jedi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 4,908 posts
  • LocationSuffolk, England

Posted 25 February 2017 - 03:26 AM

xe N on said:

Mediums have especially one problem: They are not even close as fast an a light (beside maybe some lighter mediums), nor they have the firepower or armor of a heavy.


View Postxe N on, on 24 February 2017 - 11:20 PM, said:


Those light mechs that are slow (e.g. Kitfox or Adder) are not very good in MWO. Slow light in MWO means dead lights. They might be fun and some builds are even viable (e.g. C-SRM Adder) as fire support, but their role can be better filled with mediums (e.g. Griffin as SRM brawler).

The true light role, as e.g. filled by Arctic Cheetah, or Jenner-IIC could be filled by fast lighter mediums, e.g. the viper (140 kph top speed, same as ACH), however, lights will perform those roles better, because they smaller and more difficult to hit. And advantages of the additional armor is negligible considering current DPS and alpha situation.

I am not denying any of this, just pointing out that what you said in the previous post was not facturaly correct.

Quote

in QP you must not only carry you weight in ton but you entire weight class. As a 40 ton viper you need to take down a 55 ton SCR or HBK to make your team not carrying you.

in a Viper I have taken down Stormcrows, Hunchback IICs, Novas, Linebackers, Mad Dogs, Ebon Jaguars, Timber Wolves, Dire Wolves, Kodiaks, Atlases, Marauders and many other chassis.

any Mech can take any other Mech, yes some will have an advantage over others but in no way does taking a fast medium instead of a light disadvantage your team.

the 3 of each weight class rule does not seem to apply anymore, I know PGI substantialy reduced its impact on match making, probably more than a year ago and I believe right now top priority is tier, then combined team weight, then weight class matching, so weight class matching would only realy come into play if you already had very closely matched teams in terms of psr and tonnage, but I could be wrong.

#39 Roc Ingersol

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 57 posts
  • LocationArkansas, Terra

Posted 25 February 2017 - 07:43 AM

I only have one post for today. I have three more matches until I finish training. Thank you all for your advice and build ideas

I bought the HBK-IIC-A and I bought the xl 255 engine because I have noticed that all of the variants can have great builds with that engine. I plan to get the xl275 after I buy the other two hunchbacks. Even though they will be changing the skill tree system, I really want to have a ballistic, energy and missile build so I can switch and avoid getting bored. I plan to buy the IIC AND IIC-B.

Metamechs has some great builds and I really like how gman made videos to show how he uses those builds. I realize now that I have been playing it a little too aggressively and dying too early to really help my team. i will work on that. His builds may not work for everyone but its cool that he does that, and that you guys post on here to help others improve at MWO.

#40 Roc Ingersol

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 57 posts
  • LocationArkansas, Terra

Posted 26 February 2017 - 12:08 PM

I found a build for the IIC-A that I really like and works for me. XL255, 2 er large lasers, 6 small pulse lasers. I wanted the erlls to fight from a distance. I tried the 6 mpl build and liked it but was hamstrung by distance early in the match on bigger maps. It was also really hot on Tourmaline and hotter maps. This build lets me barely peek over the hills and trade back from a distance yet defend myself if a locust comes calling. When they push or we push and things get down and dirty the small pulses let me do some cqc. I have been practicing on the training grounds firing all six then twisting. I'm hoping this build will let me hold my own on any map.

I don't have enough for the IIC or the xl 275 yet.

Does anyone see a flaw in the build?







1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users