92 replies to this topic

[Zergling]

Khobai, on 11 June 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

youre free to speculate about the future. but as of now the annihilator is the only mech that can run that build. and its pretty much a non-threat.

It isn't a wise idea to write off the Annihilator before it has even been released.

Aside from that, what about Mauler and Sleipnir? They can run 2x Heavy Gauss with a single PPC, for 60 point alpha.
And also don't forget the great many mechs that will be able to run 2x Heavy PPC + 1x Heavy Gauss, for a 55 point alpha.

Khobai, on 11 June 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

And I kindve doubt the pillager or thunderhawk are getting released ever. they certainly would not be my top picks for a new 100 ton IS mech.

There is also the Fafnir and Devastator.

Fafnir is fairly likely, given it appeared in MW4.

Edited by Zergling, 11 June 2017 - 10:45 AM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

There's always the Nightstar NSR-9P for a Dual HGR + PPC joke build (I still want my Fafnir, though!)

[Edit] Also, I fully expect HGR to have a charge limit of 1 and may a charge limit of 4 for the LGR

On topic, All the IS LBX class ACs need to be -1 ton and -1 crit compared to their regular AC brethren. The HGR should stay at 11 crits though. [/Edit]

Edited by Jay Leon Hart, 11 June 2017 - 10:48 AM.

[Zergling]

Jay Leon Hart, on 11 June 2017 - 10:45 AM, said:

There's always the Nightstar NSR-9P for a Dual HGR + PPC joke build (I still want my Fafnir, though!)

Oh right, I forgot about that variant.

It will be able to run a 285 standard with endo-steel, and be able to fit 1x Heavy PPC + 2x Heavy Gauss with 6 tons of ammo, if it drops the leg armor to 66 points and one arm to 2.

Eg, here's a Banshee with 52 tons and 32 slots available.

Edited by Zergling, 11 June 2017 - 10:53 AM.

[Kaptain]

Khobai, on 11 June 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

the main thing that will deter dual heavy gauss (assuming it stays at 11 crits) is that youll have to use a annihiLOLator.

A mauler could run it also: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...21b20f8c869b63d

Note the free tons and slots.

Edited by Kaptain, 11 June 2017 - 10:58 AM.

[Kangarad]

Whoever keeps bringing up the KGC... that thing ahs only 10 slots free in teh arms and thers 1 variant with 2 ballistics in a side torsi and thats the non lore compliant hero variant. the most you can install there is a std+ hgauss.


the HGauss needs to be put down to 10 slots for an LFE or 9 for an XL. BUT nomatter what you do you will die once that Hguass explodes unless you have case in which case you need a standart engine regardless.


The anahilator could carry 2 in a STD BUT its hitbox and locations is not good.

The only currently implemented mech that would not just outright suck and die with em would be the Kodiak due to high mounts/nice poke speed and free CASEII ... but that is not an option since its a clan mech.

We need the fafnir if you want to brign 2 hgauss and use it to full effect without getting blown to pieces, or Case II no space for IS (upgrade to case I ) OR the thing needs to eb massively downsized to atleast 9 at best 8 so that one can actualy install a case and an LFE. and the dps better be worth it since its range is not good enought to make 25 damage for that whegiht worth it. you can litteraly mount 2 ppc, get more damage and heatsinks and dont even have to worry about ammo for the price of 1 of those massive things.

I am hoping that it gets tremendously buffed from its TT stats and does not keep the side torsi only rule AND that gauss explosion damage gets its TT damage that its supposed to do so that It does not just explode your mech when it goes boom in your arm aswell as access to free Case II.

[Tarogato]

Kangarad, on 11 June 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

The anahilator could carry 2 in a STD BUT its hitbox and locations is not good.

I keep hearing this again and again...

I really don't agree. The Annihilator has pretty high mounts and it looks like it will have great hitboxes. It has great geometry - it's not wide at all, and it's kinda round, so it will spread damage very well, kinda like a Stalker/MAD-IIC, but with more balanced CT rather than non-existent CT. Annihilator doesn't really have any pronounced components. You could point a finger at that elevated cockpit, but really it's quite thin, and the higher you aim on it the more likely you are to miss outright.

For being such a slow weapons platform, I don't think it could have gotten better geometry, it's about as good as it can get.

[Kaptain]

Jay Leon Hart, on 11 June 2017 - 10:45 AM, said:

On topic, All the IS LBX class ACs need to be -1 ton and -1 crit compared to their regular AC brethren. The HGR should stay at 11 crits though. [/Edit]

I would be happy with the LBX20 (and only the LBX20) getting a one slot reduction.
The rest of them could have faster rates of fire or some other balancing measure.

Edited by Kaptain, 11 June 2017 - 11:38 AM.

[Tezcatli]

More of a case for the IS LBX20, hell all of them, to have less slots. Who the hell is going to use LBX that actually take more slots than the regular version? At that point you just take the regular AC. : /

[GrimRiver]

LB10X's has it's spot in IS over AC10 at most times due to it being 1 ton less, 1 crit slot less, 1 heat point less, 90m more opt range, 720m more in max range and bonus crit damage to internals. All only at the cost of pinpoint damage which is a fair tradeoff I feel.

If the other LBX's don't get those bonuses then they're only worth is the crit damage only.

Edited by GrimRiver, 11 June 2017 - 11:44 AM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Tarogato, on 11 June 2017 - 11:22 AM, said:

I keep hearing this again and again...

I really don't agree. The Annihilator has pretty high mounts and it looks like it will have great hitboxes. It has great geometry - it's not wide at all, and it's kinda round, so it will spread damage very well, kinda like a Stalker/MAD-IIC, but with more balanced CT rather than non-existent CT. Annihilator doesn't really have any pronounced components. You could point a finger at that elevated cockpit, but really it's quite thin, and the higher you aim on it the more likely you are to miss outright.

For being such a slow weapons platform, I don't think it could have gotten better geometry, it's about as good as it can get.

The elevated cockpit is a problem because it forces you to expose a large part of your CT (and possibly STs) before in order to bring your weapons to bear. It would make for a terrible hill peeker and will have fewer viable options for cover as a result.

The arm hardpoints look like they'd be pretty low as well.

[Tarogato]

Kaeb Odellas, on 11 June 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

The elevated cockpit is a problem because it forces you to expose a large part of your CT (and possibly STs) before in order to bring your weapons to bear. It would make for a terrible hill peeker and will have fewer viable options for cover as a result.

The arm hardpoints look like they'd be pretty low as well.

That's just the things though... your elevated cockpit is a super thin target. It could be very hard to actually hit it if it's the only thing you can see. But if you're ridge-peeking in this mech, you're probably playing it wrong anyways. And the arms are definitely not low slung by any means, they appear to be just below the nose. Not like this thing will have KingCrab or Cataphract problems.

[Kangarad]

Tarogato, on 11 June 2017 - 11:22 AM, said:

I keep hearing this again and again...

I really don't agree. The Annihilator has pretty high mounts and it looks like it will have great hitboxes. It has great geometry - it's not wide at all, and it's kinda round, so it will spread damage very well, kinda like a Stalker/MAD-IIC, but with more balanced CT rather than non-existent CT. Annihilator doesn't really have any pronounced components. You could point a finger at that elevated cockpit, but really it's quite thin, and the higher you aim on it the more likely you are to miss outright.

For being such a slow weapons platform, I don't think it could have gotten better geometry, it's about as good as it can get.

you have seen how high it is because it is that slim right? because your gona get shot, in the face, alot ... befoire you poke with your 2 lower ballistics points, and most buildings on places like grim plexus will actualy not provide you ANY cover. LRM's will have a very easy time with you too since your mid point is higher and your sts are lower... infact those that miss the ct are bound to hit you ... in the back. If you had a fafnir the weapons would litteraly be on coockpit height, youd have more armour that an atlas and its fairly square and would therefore be smaller, yes st's can be easier singled out, but it also has shield arms litteraly for the sides unlike the Anihilator ... which I wish you good luck on shielding with your arms.

the things twist speed is also goign to be very low... and maybe even lower than the atlass, and teh base speed sucks. you dont have 50 with a300... you have less than 40.

[Zergling]

Kangarad, on 11 June 2017 - 12:17 PM, said:

the things twist speed is also goign to be very low... and maybe even lower than the atlass, and teh base speed sucks. you dont have 50 with a300... you have less than 40.

I kinda doubt that; Atlas mobility figures are already too low, so even lower figures would result in a mech that is obviously unusable.

And the Annihilator would have 48.6 kph base speed with a 300 rated engine, the same as a Dire Wolf.

[Khobai]

Quote

It isn't a wise idea to write off the Annihilator before it has even been released.

why? its 300 engine cap, bad hardpoint locations, and awful geometry arnt suddenly going to change between now and release

Quote

The Annihilator has pretty high mounts and it looks like it will have great hitboxes.

it doesnt have high mounts at all.

its mounts are located way below its cockpit. and the height of the mounts in relation to the cockpit is what determines whether a mech has high mounts or not. ideally you want weapon mounts that are cockpit level or above the cockpit.

Quote

That's just the things though... your elevated cockpit is a super thin target.

the cockpit is still the size of a light mech. very easy to hit.

annihilator is going to be just plain bad. its going to need some massive armor or structure quirks to even get consideration.

Edited by Khobai, 11 June 2017 - 01:23 PM.

[kapusta11]

Well, looks like Heavy Gauss is destined to suck 18 tons + at least 3t ammo + around 6 ton difference between STD and LFE engine, 180m expected optimal range, the gun itself explodes on crit and all for what, 5 more damage over AC20?

Small laser sends its regards.

[Zergling]

Khobai, on 11 June 2017 - 01:17 PM, said:

why? its 300 engine cap, bad hardpoint locations, and awful geometry arnt suddenly going to change between now and release



it doesnt have high mounts at all.

its mounts are located way below its cockpit. and the height of the mounts in relation to the cockpit is what determines whether a mech has high mounts or not. ideally you want weapon mounts that are cockpit level or above the cockpit.



the cockpit is still the size of a light mech. very easy to hit.

annihilator is going to be just plain bad. its going to need some massive armor or structure quirks to even get consideration.

Hardpoint height relative to the height of the mech is what matters the most, not relative to cockpit height.




And those torso hardpoints are pretty high; relatively little of the mech will have to be exposed to fire its torso weapons.

Further, that 'head' will very likely be a mixture of side and center torso hitboxes, meaning it will be quite hard to focus damage with shots against it.

So unless PGI screws up badly, it would be foolish to write the Annihilator off.

[Khobai]

Quote

Hardpoint height relative to the height of the mech is what matters the most, not relative to cockpit height.

um no. the value of hardpoints is their height relative to the cockpit.

you want hardpoints to be at cockpit level or higher to minimize how much of your mech is exposed when you crest over hills.

the annihilator's hardpoints being substantially lower than its cockpit means the annihilator has to expose a good portion of its upper body before it can even clear a hill to fire. that is bad. very bad.

and I would be very surprised if its entire cockpit isnt CT. in fact I would bet on it all being CT. I think its pretty wishful thinking that any of it will count as ST.

I understand you want the annihilator to be good. But the reality is that it wont be good. It possesses none of the characteristics that make an assault like the kodiak so good. Annihilator is extremely slow, it likely wont be very agile, its hardpoints arnt high mounted, and its geometry is awkward and clunky. There is nothing of value there.

If it gets atlas-level armor/structure quirks it might barely be passable as a Tier3 mech... but it will never be a Tier1 mech like the Kodiak.

Edited by Khobai, 11 June 2017 - 03:27 PM.

[Zergling]

Khobai, on 11 June 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

um no. the value of hardpoints is their height relative to the cockpit.

you want hardpoints to be at cockpit level or higher to minimize how much of your mech is exposed when you crest over hills.

the annihilator's hardpoints being substantially lower than its cockpit means the annihilator has to expose a good portion of its upper body before it can even clear a hill to fire. that is bad. very bad.

The cockpit height is irrelevant so long that it is higher than the weapons. The hardpoints themselves are very high relative to the total height of the mech, so relatively little of the mech has to be exposed to clear those hardpoints for firing.

Go draw a line under the torso hardpoints in the image I posted above, then compare it to a KDK-3 or other high hardpoint mech, and you'll see the Annihilator has little exposure above that line.

Khobai, on 11 June 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

and I would be very surprised if its entire cockpit isnt CT. in fact I would bet on it all being CT.

I understand you want the annihilator to be good. But the reality is that it wont be.

Your claim requires three things to happen:

1) PGI to screw up in the first place by failing to realise that would cripple the mech
2) PGI failing to listen to PTS feedback complaining about it
3) PGI further failing to notice performance metrics for the mech after it is released or take action based on those metrics

It certainly is possible for PGI to do all 3 of those failures, as they have done it before in the past, but the odds are that they won't.
So I'll be waiting for the mech to be released (or at least, for PGI to ignore PTS feedback) before I say the mech is going to suck.

[Khobai]

Quote

The cockpit height is irrelevant so long that it is higher than the weapons.

absolutely wrong. because your weapons need to clear terrain.

if your cockpit is exposed, but your weapons havent cleared terrain, it means you can be shot at without being able to return fire.

but if your weapons clear the terrain before or at the same time as your cockpit, it means you can return fire immediately.

because the annihilators hardpoints are so much lower than its cockpit, it means its going to get pummeled in the face before it can even return fire. especially with that garbage 300 engine which is really going to struggle getting uphill. its highly unlikely to have good acceleration/deceleration either given its a 100 tonner.

Quote

Your claim requires three things to happen:

no it requires one thing to happen: PGI.

when it comes to PGI its best to assume they will do everything wrong. they have given us no reason to believe they can do something right.

not only is a triple failure possible for PGI. it is the expected outcome. always.

Edited by Khobai, 11 June 2017 - 03:44 PM.

[Zergling]

Khobai, on 11 June 2017 - 03:37 PM, said:

absolutely wrong. because your weapons need to clear terrain.

if your cockpit is exposed, but your weapons havent cleared terrain, it means you can be shot at without being able to return fire.

but if your weapons clear the terrain before or at the same time as your cockpit, it means you can return fire immediately.

because the annihilators hardpoints are so much lower than its cockpit, it means its going to get pummeled in the face before it can even return fire. especially with that garbage 300 engine which is really going to struggle getting uphill. its highly unlikely to have good acceleration/deceleration either given its a 100 tonner.

Ok, I went and checked; the mounts won't be as high as on a KDK-3 or Hunchback IIC, but they will be at least as high as on a Black Widow, which is a decent height and sufficient for the Annihilator to be competitive.

Feel free to keep arguing if you want, but as I said before, I'm reserving judgement until the mech is actually out.
Plenty of people have made proclamations of 'dead on arrival!' and the mechs have turned out to be either decent or good.

Khobai, on 11 June 2017 - 03:37 PM, said:

no it requires one thing to happen: PGI.

when it comes to PGI its best to assume they will do everything wrong. they have given us no reason to believe they can do something right.

not only is a triple failure possible for PGI. it is the expected outcome. always.

The last 'triple failure' PGI made was the Kodiak, due to how slow PGI was to give it adequete nerfs.
Phoenix Hawk was a 'double failure', but the eventually buffed it, preventing a triple failure of ignored performance metrics (although it is arguable if they buffed it enough).
Night Gyr and Marauder IIC are arguable double failures too, but are set to be nerfed soon.

The only other triple failures I can think of are in old mech content, like when they nerfed the Quickdraw and their long standing neglect of the Victor, Highlander, Cataphract and other obsolete mechs.

But in new mech releases? Such failures aren't that often, and tend to be of the 'overpowered' type of failure instead of the 'crippled/useless/underpowered' type.

It is also impossible to predict when and if PGI will make such failures, although I will admit that the amount of content coming in the July patch makes failures more likely than normal.

Edited by Zergling, 11 June 2017 - 04:03 PM.