94 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Both.

Deal with it.

[Ade the Rare]

Nightstar everytime!

Madcat MkII pilots will see a Nightstar, how much better it looks and how much better it's name is, then drown as their own tears of regret fill their cockpit

[Imperius]

Metus regem, on 03 June 2017 - 05:29 AM, said:

Nightstar as well, the Mk II doesn't do it for me, it's a 90t platform that should've been an 85t Omni platform to keep in line with it's predecessor.

Please quit trying to ruin a good mech...

Ade the Rare, on 03 June 2017 - 05:32 AM, said:

Nightstar everytime!

Madcat MkII pilots will see a Nightstar, how much better it looks and how much better it's name is, then drown as their own tears of regret fill their cockpit

Lol not quite

[Metus regem]

Imperius, on 03 June 2017 - 05:34 AM, said:

Please quit trying to ruin a good mech...

How does making it have more free tonnage make it worse?

As for the Omni bit, it's what it should have been in the first place, if it had ever been intended to be sold to the Clans in the first place.

[Imperius]

Metus regem, on 03 June 2017 - 06:19 AM, said:

How does making it have more free tonnage make it worse?

As for the Omni bit, it's what it should have been in the first place, if it had ever been intended to be sold to the Clans in the first place.

Omni mechs after the great engine decoupling are in my opinion (the ones I use) trash.

Second you don't get more free tonnage by going from 90 to 85... you get less 5 tons less

[Metus regem]

Imperius, on 03 June 2017 - 06:34 AM, said:

Omni mechs after the great engine decoupling are in my opinion (the ones I use) trash.

Second you don't get more free tonnage by going from 90 to 85... you get less 5 tons less

That is a false. An 85t version of the Mk II, mounting same weapons, armour value, DHS, JJ's and ammo is 84t, while the 90t version will be 90t running that load.

[Imperius]

Metus regem, on 03 June 2017 - 06:41 AM, said:

That is a false. An 85t version of the Mk II, mounting same weapons, armour value, DHS, JJ's and ammo is 84t, while the 90t version will be 90t running that load.

I'm gonna need a lot of ammo...

[GrimRiver]

Nightstar because I'm mad for MADs. lol

[singh44s]

Metus regem, on 03 June 2017 - 06:19 AM, said:

As for the Omni bit, it's what it should have been in the first place, if it had ever been intended to be sold to the Clans in the first place.

Lorewise, it was never meant to be sold to other Clans, which is why they chose to continue with the "Mad Cat" name in the first place. Additionally, the whole Crusader/Warden split in Clan Wolf/Clan Wolf-in Exile made all the older "-Wolf" mechs look less desirable in the eyes of several clans.

*edit* Oh, I have a few MC2's on the way. :-P

Edited by singh44s, 03 June 2017 - 07:08 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Both.

Because madcat MKII in the streets, Nightstar in the sheets.

[Battlemaster56]

singh44s, on 03 June 2017 - 07:06 AM, said:

Lorewise, it was never meant to be sold to other Clans, which is why they chose to continue with the "Mad Cat" name in the first place. Additionally, the whole Crusader/Warden split in Clan Wolf/Clan Wolf-in Exile made all the older "-Wolf" mechs look less desirable in the eyes of several clans.

*edit* Oh, I have a few MC2's on the way. :-P

The MK II was meant to buy by Clan Wolf and Jade Falcon, but they haven't bought a single unit but gain them through trails won against the Sharks. The clan that bought the most were the Nova Cats, it just only on occasions it was sold unmodified to the Inner Sphere.

[Metus regem]

singh44s, on 03 June 2017 - 07:06 AM, said:

Lorewise, it was never meant to be sold to other Clans, which is why they chose to continue with the "Mad Cat" name in the first place. Additionally, the whole Crusader/Warden split in Clan Wolf/Clan Wolf-in Exile made all the older "-Wolf" mechs look less desirable in the eyes of several clans.

*edit* Oh, I have a few MC2's on the way. :-P

My point was that in universe, a Battlemechs is inferior to an Omni-mech, the Clans like to use the most efficient and effective units possible. So with the Mk II using older model Gauss Rifles and being a battlemech makes it clear that the Clans were never the intended target market, let alone the name choice or the inefficiencies of being 90t vs 85t in the first place.

[Snowbluff]

MkII, duh!

Then again, it is going to get the **** nerfed out of it. And the NIghtstar has lower actuators and will certainly have better agility. And the IS are getting Rotary ACs. 4 RAC5 on a Nightstar > 4 UAC5 on a MCM II.

Edited by Snowbluff, 03 June 2017 - 08:08 AM.

[singh44s]

Metus regem, on 03 June 2017 - 07:40 AM, said:

My point was that in universe, a Battlemechs is inferior to an Omni-mech, the Clans like to use the most efficient and effective units possible. So with the Mk II using older model Gauss Rifles and being a battlemech makes it clear that the Clans were never the intended target market, let alone the name choice or the inefficiencies of being 90t vs 85t in the first place.

I always thought that the efficiencies of Omnis were that repairs happened faster, since all the less-damaged components could be reassembled into a functioning mech, and sent back out onto the battlefield, whereas an entire Battlemech had to sit in mechbay even if you only needed to fix a scratch in the paint.

Obviously, those long-term campaign mechanics never got added to MWO, so all we're left with here is weapon/tonnage capacity and hardpoint flexibility when every mech that drops starts at 100%.

[Imperius]

Snowbluff, on 03 June 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

MkII, duh!

Then again, it is going to get the **** nerfed out of it. And the NIghtstar has lower actuators and will certainly have better agility. And the IS are getting Rotary ACs. 4 RAC5 on a Nightstar > 4 UAC5 on a MCM II.

Pretty sure everything you listed is why it won't get nerfed. If it does well I guess I'll lose faith in the balance team.

[Y E O N N E]

Snowbluff, on 03 June 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

MkII, duh!

Then again, it is going to get the **** nerfed out of it. And the NIghtstar has lower actuators and will certainly have better agility. And the IS are getting Rotary ACs. 4 RAC5 on a Nightstar > 4 UAC5 on a MCM II.

Why on earth wouldn't you be running UAC/10 in the mix on the Mk II if you are going for dakka?

Also, I'm not sure RAC/5 and UAC/5 are at all comparable. 450 meters on the RAC/5 is quite short, and I have a feeling that the differences in operation will be quite notable. Also expect ghost heat to make running 4x RAC/5 pointless.

[Snowbluff]

Imperius, on 03 June 2017 - 08:31 AM, said:

Pretty sure everything you listed is why it won't get nerfed. If it does well I guess I'll lose faith in the balance team.

Same here. Then again they've made a lot of weird choices. Watch. MkIl has no lower actuators but will still have a bad torso twist.

Yeonne Greene, on 03 June 2017 - 08:46 AM, said:

Why on earth wouldn't you be running UAC/10 in the mix on the Mk II if you are going for dakka?

Also, I'm not sure RAC/5 and UAC/5 are at all comparable. 450 meters on the RAC/5 is quite short, and I have a feeling that the differences in operation will be quite notable. Also expect ghost heat to make running 4x RAC/5 pointless.

Honestly, not sure if it would fit.

Since cUAC have a duration, it might not be a huge difference in function.

[Snazzy Dragon]

Nightstar. It's much more interesting visually in all the concept art I've seen and from all the theorycrafting I've personally done the MK II doesn't have nearly as much fun factor.

Plus it's an IS mech! Who doesn't like gimping themselves a little every now and then?

Edited by Snazzy Dragon, 03 June 2017 - 10:04 AM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Metus regem, on 03 June 2017 - 06:41 AM, said:

That is a false. An 85t version of the Mk II, mounting same weapons, armour value, DHS, JJ's and ammo is 84t, while the 90t version will be 90t running that load.

I could be wrong but to make up the speed different, the 90 ton mech has to mount a much larger engine, weighing significantly more. The engine weight difference usually will eat up the 5 extra tons meaning you may or may not end up with less usable tonnage at the end of the day. There are a few weight classes where this isn't true for example, the 75 ton weight usually provides the optimal engine weight to free usable tonnage ratio as well as a few other weights.

[Angel of Annihilation]

singh44s, on 03 June 2017 - 08:10 AM, said:

I always thought that the efficiencies of Omnis were that repairs happened faster, since all the less-damaged components could be reassembled into a functioning mech, and sent back out onto the battlefield, whereas an entire Battlemech had to sit in mechbay even if you only needed to fix a scratch in the paint.

Obviously, those long-term campaign mechanics never got added to MWO, so all we're left with here is weapon/tonnage capacity and hardpoint flexibility when every mech that drops starts at 100%.

Actually your spot on with this although you left something out. The other benefit of an Omnimech is that its weapons load out could be tailored to the mission or circumstance. For example, If you were running low on ammo on a long campaign, you would just remove ammo dependent weapons and replace them with energy or maybe if you were operating in a hot environment, you could reconfigure your Omnimechs with more DHS or cooler weapons. On a Battlemech, you were stuck with what you had. Running out of ammo, well all your Ballistic or Missile mechs were entering the field with empty ammo bins making them less efficient and/or powerful. Hot planet, driving a hot mech, you just had to fire half the weapons you normally would or risk heat related shutdown or damage.

So even aside from any particular weapons superiority, you had a massive logistical and operational advantage while using an Omnimech which would act as a significant force multiplier if used correctly. Unfortunately the Clans didn't use it to its fullest advantage since they typically didn't think in terms of long campaigns.