26 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 26 January 2018 - 06:04 PM, said:

I already explained why

because an omnimech with perfect hardpoints is inferior to a battlemech with perfect hardpoints

No, you just assert it so.

Khobai, on 26 January 2018 - 06:04 PM, said:

the madcat mk2 for example is superior to an executioner. even though the executioners hardpoint combinations are pretty good, its locked equipment makes it inferior.

So what? The Pakhet is an example of superior (and numerous) hardpoints over the Hunchback IIC-B. Do you really think you are proving anything? Never mind the fact that Executioner doesn't have perfect hardpoints to begin with.

Battlemechs are built differently, with different hitboxes, different locked equipment, what was the battlemech is built for. There is more than just "Omnimech vs Battlemech" in play here, something you are obviously missing out with your one-dimensional thinking... again.

Khobai, on 26 January 2018 - 06:04 PM, said:

and yes they do underperform compared to perfect battlemechs because of locked equipment. you cant minmax them to the same degree as battlemechs.

Based on what stats? Also, just because we can't meta them with gauss-vomit, suddenly they are underperformers?

Likewise if there is perfect omnimechs to perfect battlemechs, why are you comparing not-perfect omnimechs to perfect battlemechs. I mean really? Executioner to Madcat?

Khobai, on 26 January 2018 - 06:04 PM, said:

the only way an omnimech can ever equal a perfect battlemech is if all its locked equipment is also perfect. which happens on very few omnimechs.

So basically:

Premise 1 = Perfect is better than not-perfect
Premise 2 = Perfect Omnimech is better than not-perfect omnimech
Premise 3 = Perfect Battlemech is better than not-perfect omnimech
Premise 4 = Perfect Battlemech is equal to perfect Omnimechs (as per quote)
Premise 5 = There are only few perfect Omnimechs.
Therefore = Battlemechs are better than omnimechs

Your entire response right there just refuted your own assertion. Congratulations.

But okay sure, we were just looking at hardpoint for perfect -- but then wouldn't it also make sense to say that the state of being perfect for an omnimech is how it's locked equipments are handled too? So therefore Omnimechs to be perfect must have these two: perfect hardpoints + perfect locked equipment, and they cannot attain the state of being perfect if there's only one of the two.

Do you not see how idiotic your justification is? Not only you are improperly comparing something that is perfect, to something that is not which is an unfair comparison, you are widely generalizing the two kinds of machines. Having terribly set up omnimechs does does not say that the omnimech system is worse or better than standard battlemech system.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 26 January 2018 - 06:44 PM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Khobai, on 26 January 2018 - 04:29 PM, said:

theres no advantage for being an omni

a battlemech with perfect hardpoints is better than an omni with perfect hardpoints

Still wrong.

Being able to customise your hardpoints is an advantage.
Being able to swap ECM, JJ & AMS capable OmniPods around is an advantage.
Being able to add/remove hand & LAAs is an advantage.

An OmniMech with perfect hardpoints and more of them is better than a BattleMech with perfect hardpoints but less of them.

If only OmniMech XLs survived ST loss, that would be another OmniMech advantage, but some people don't want to lose the powercreep from certain Clan BattleMechs.

[Rusharn]

On the issue of IS omni mechs, they would very much want to make sure to select chassis that would have the best arrangements of weapons, equipment, and geometry and keep this in mind when designing the mechs. All this could help off set the side torso destruction of an XL. Assuming PGI is able to do such a thing that is.

[Y E O N N E]

We've been parroting the best IS Omnis for months now:

Raptor
Men Shen
Black Hawk-KU

They all have fantastic omnipod options and they all run reasonably quick for their XLs.

[Tarl Cabot]

Does it really matter? Even if they do not change the isXL from being a glass cannon but instead opt to add significant armor/is bonuses, as we have seen the the past how quickly said quirks can be removed...

[Y E O N N E]

Tarl Cabot, on 29 January 2018 - 07:13 PM, said:

Does it really matter? Even if they do not change the isXL from being a glass cannon but instead opt to add significant armor/is bonuses, as we have seen the the past how quickly said quirks can be removed...

We've also seen how quickly base stats on a weapon can go from hero to zero.

So, meh.

[The6thMessenger]

I'd rather they just make IS XL survive torso-loss when it's an Omnimech, it will have locked equipment that are larger and heavier anyways. That way, there's an incentive to pick and omnimech that has torso-survivable IS-XL versus a battlemech that dies with IS-XL torso-loss.