73 replies to this topic

[Buenaventura]

MrKvola, on 16 June 2018 - 12:29 PM, said:

Based on what? Your average 400+ damage match with a Locust?

More like my average ~100 damage match in a Locust. Had to use arty to get the current challenge done, and this asked only for 500 damage, not for 2x2000+5x1000=9000 damage like the last release events.

[MrKvola]

Buenaventura, on 17 June 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:

More like my average ~100 damage match in a Locust. Had to use arty to get the current challenge done, and this asked only for 500 damage, not for 2x2000+5x1000=9000 damage like the last release events.

I did mine in a single match, scoring 600+ damage. Again, why should this one be any easier than the others?

edit: no arty used.

Edited by MrKvola, 17 June 2018 - 01:54 PM.

[el piromaniaco]

Buenaventura, on 15 June 2018 - 01:41 PM, said:

Well, you can see in the title picture how much these quirks are helping

Well, you can conclude that these „telescopic“ rockets (twice as long as the actual launcher tube) need some time to stabilize After being jolted out of the tube and just having expanded?

P.S.: Note to myself: Never question technical details, such as reloading those launchers for example, in BT universe.

[Damnedtroll]

WOW it look smaller than the locust !

[Buenaventura]

MrKvola, on 17 June 2018 - 01:54 PM, said:

I did mine in a single match, scoring 600+ damage. Again, why should this one be any easier than the others?

edit: no arty used.

Neither you nor me are statistically relevant.
But setting the same damage targets as for a Fafnir is way harder, as in needs more matches played to achieve.

Switching to match score instead of damage could help.

[MrKvola]

Buenaventura, on 17 June 2018 - 09:20 PM, said:

Neither you nor me are statistically relevant.
But setting the same damage targets as for a Fafnir is way harder, as in needs more matches played to achieve.

Switching to match score instead of damage could help.

Sure, we are not, exactly my point. If you are not able to get decent damage scores out of a Locust does not mean that nobody can. And as was discussed on multiple occasions, challenge rewards should be something you actually have to work for at least a little bit.

Very similar damage scores are achievable across the board, except for some outliers (in both directions). While you have more and bigger weaponry in an assault 'mech, it is more probable that you will be way higher on the target priority list than a Locust, hence you may have a better opportunity to do your thing with it. These things tend to even themselves out. It is evenly possible to get a good match in a light as well as in any other weight class, finishing with good damage numbers as a result.

And switching to match score would most probably not really help much, or make much of a difference, as it is partially a function of damage - so again the more damage you do, the faster you are able to fulfill your objective.

[Lt Blackthorn]

These size comparison screen shots are trash. It's nearly impossible to accurately compare scale from that angle. We get it, you put in a first-person, ground-level view mode for the mechlab, and that's neat, but please give us functional screen shots in the future.

[Agent of Change]

Has anyone else ever wondered why a mech named the "Flea" doesn't have jump jets and therefore cannot perform the signature action of it's namesake, Jump?

[Laser Kiwi]

Deeber, on 17 June 2018 - 05:14 AM, said:

The idea of actually using "viable" to describe a light mech never even entered my consciousness ... and I'm a light pilot.

If you don't think light mechs are "viable", you aren't a light pilot.

[KS Highlander]

Laser Kiwi, on 19 June 2018 - 11:19 AM, said:

If you don't think light mechs are "viable", you aren't a light pilot.

Agreed. You don’t have to play a ‘larger’ mech to have a great game. A light is like any other mech when it comes to score; you have to play it correctly.

[Arkhangel]

KS Highlander, on 20 June 2018 - 08:34 AM, said:

Agreed. You don’t have to play a ‘larger’ mech to have a great game. A light is like any other mech when it comes to score; you have to play it correctly.

people who suck in lights tend to be TurretWarriors, i find. key to doing well in a light is to never stop moving (even the Urbie, though in its case, it's more that moving helps its sort-of-heavy-mech-scale armor last slightly longer). in the case of mechs like the Flea and Locust though, it's a given you never stop moving, because you lose most of your armor if you're so much as sneezed on directly. making sure people can't get a clear shot on you helps a lot. why i'm loving my Fleas with MASC. i've left more than one pursuer confused about the fact they just had a clear shot get instantly jinked out of and then watched the dust cloud as my Flea sped off at 177.7Kph.

[Deeber]

Laser Kiwi, on 19 June 2018 - 11:19 AM, said:

If you don't think light mechs are "viable", you aren't a light pilot.

I appreciate the position you're presenting. For my part, I pilot lights more often than any other weight class, and I do that because I simply enjoy piloting them more than anything else. From that point of view, I'm comfortable calling myself a light pilot. But going by statistics, I do perform better piloting mediums, and I'd guess that that's true for many other players. Maybe this puts a bit of context around my views ... but if not, feel welcome to call me a medium pilot. It won't stop me enjoying my beloved lights.

[Arkhangel]

to be honest, the line between mediums and lights is blurred sometimes too, like the Cicada, Adder and Cougar, for instance. former is a light in a medium's body, second two are mediums in a light's body. course, then there's the Urbie, which is a heavy in a light's body XD