63 replies to this topic

[Akamia Terizen]

So, question for the forum. Heavy 1v1/2v2 event queue aside, why is the Orion considered terrible, while the Orion IIC actually gets some amount of respect? Does it actually get the respect I perceive it does compared to its Inner Sphere predecessor?

I've seen it around here before, that the leading advice for using Orions is "don't", but by contrast, I've never encountered it with the Orion IIC. After all the balance passes the game's had since the introduction of Clantech, I sincerely doubt the answer is as simple these days as "Clantech stronk". There has to be more at work here.

[Curccu]

Clantech stronk.

really those IS and Clan counterparts have very similar hardpoints but other just is lighter & smaller tech, can use XL safely, can fit better endo and ferro. Because of all that IIC can have wayy larger engine more heatsinks maybe some extra weaponry...

Two example builds for same'ish purpose:
on1-iic-a
on1-va

Which one do you think is better?

[PocketYoda]

From experience mostly the builds and clan tech, most Orion IIC can boat better selections of weapons.. many IS Orions are very fixed in what setups they can carry..

Also since the cauldron have set up a dominance in sniping Orions being almost totally brawlers or lurm boats aren't really a great fit.. The only downside with the clan IIC is they tend to fall apart faster than IS Orions.

Edited by Nomad Tech, 30 September 2022 - 02:02 AM.

[Dekallis]

IIC's are direct upgrades of old innersphere mechs with the advantages of clan tech. This is why the hunchbackIIC is a monstrous medium(though tbh the hunchback was a mean mech to begin with) and the RiflemanIIC is seen much more often than the IS counterpart. In general these mechs simply have many more build options than their originals which makes it much easier to find a viable build. The original orion is a strong mech but the IIC is a stronger one.

To use the above example of two different orion builds: both have similar damage, the original has slightly more armor(perhaps enough to take one more hit than the IIC), However the IIC has vastly superior sustained firepower due to having many more heatsinks and it's engine is a league above the original's. Meaning it can decide when to go in and get there relatively quickly, while the original has to be a big more cautious and when it decides to go in it's committed because it isn't as fast.

If the two mechs were to fight each other the Original might win if it landed every shot clean but if even one missed or the srms spread too far the IIC would win the fight because the original would overheat while it would still be running cool. That's assuming the flamers don't even enter the equation.

Basically the OrionIIC is the better sustained fighter and it's much faster which is better suited for brawling with cqc weapons the original is a decent mech but it's a little too slow to survive withering fire from mechs that outrange it. Both are certainly usable the IIC is just much EASIER to use.

Edited by Dekallis, 30 September 2022 - 08:03 AM.

[martian]

Akamia Terizen, on 29 September 2022 - 10:34 PM, said:

So, question for the forum. Heavy 1v1/2v2 event queue aside, why is the Orion considered terrible, while the Orion IIC actually gets some amount of respect? Does it actually get the respect I perceive it does compared to its Inner Sphere predecessor?

Some IS heavies can run XL engines reasonably well, but Orion not so much.

Well, unless you build your Orion as a sniper or LRM boat, runing XL engine in it can be quite risky. Running SFE or LFE is probably the more reasonable choice, but these engines will cut into your tonnage for weapons and equipment.

On the other hand, Orion IIC can run Clan XL engine quite well, because losing a side torso does not mean the instadeath for it.

And if you add Clan weapons - that are typically lighter, more compact or both than their IS counterparts - it is easy to understand why Orion IIC is generally considered to be much more dangerous opponent than the IS Orion.

Akamia Terizen, on 29 September 2022 - 10:34 PM, said:

I've seen it around here before, that the leading advice for using Orions is "don't", but by contrast, I've never encountered it with the Orion IIC. After all the balance passes the game's had since the introduction of Clantech, I sincerely doubt the answer is as simple these days as "Clantech stronk". There has to be more at work here.

On top of things that I mentioned above, the commonly seen Orion role is "brawling", while the current MWO meta is more directed towards the medium- and long-range combat. Again, Orion IIC equipped with longer-ranged Clan weapons is better suited for MWO.

It can easily happen that a player in Orion is destroyed before it can get close enough to actually, well, brawl.

[RickySpanish]

They're both crap, and only gain traction during specific circumstances that limit the use of other 'Mechs.

[martian]

RickySpanish, on 30 September 2022 - 10:24 AM, said:

They're both crap, and only gain traction during specific circumstances that limit the use of other 'Mechs.

Orion is a mediocre 'Mech, but I think that Orion IIC can be useful with the right loadout.

[Meep Meep]

Well the clan upgrades to IS mechs were supposed to make them better overall and they did for the most part. The difficulty is translating the TT mechs over into the real time shooter environment which is what the original pgi balance team kinda dropped the ball on and cauldron is picking up the pieces.

[Void Angel]

I don't think they dropped the ball so much as painted themselves into a cognitive corner. Looking back, it seems to me that they lacked the dedicated pool of playtesters that they needed to get good feedback on changes, and that led to change after change based on a partial understanding of what went wrong (or right) with balance. The Cauldron gives them that pool, and while there are perils to balancing a game based primarily on the advice of high-level players, the Cauldron changes seem really good overall, at least to my eye.

[1453 R]

Sphere Onions can be rough, but they suffer from the typical Sphere problem: Armor, speed, weapons - pick two. if your Onion is built for rugged durability and facxe smash (the way it rightly should), you're going to be a big slow sluggish lumbering pillar of easily-shot steel. You'll have to pick your moments, and if you get caught on you're done. it's frankly the same thing that happens with brawly assaults, you just trade armor/weapons tonnage for marginal improvements in mobility.

IIC Onions have no such issues. CXL is still probably the single most bogus piece of tech in the game even if there's nothing Piranha can readily do about it, CEndo and CFerro each being half the size is a huge edge, and the IIC versions also have built-in Speed Tweak for reasons I simply cannot fathom. Sure, the IIC variations don't get the SuperMegaUltraQuirks of the Sphere versions and have significantly reduced armor, but they don't need nearly as much armor when they go twenty klicks faster with heavier overall armaments. And even then, IIC Onions aren't generally considered serious contenders to the best of my knowledge. Onions in general have acute Badgeoitis; I murdered them readily in my Hellfire back in the Solaris event because it's very easy to pick out individual target locations on any Onion, IIC or otherwise. If you don't respect their ability to be seventy-five tons of Attitude Problem and leave them to their own devices they'll wreck you, but if you're fighting one head-on they're not generally a disproportionate issue.

[Vonbach]

The Onion is a good brawling mech unfortunately the devs hate brawling. It plays a lot like a mini atlas.

[MrTBSC]

i play both, to me the orion is THE definition and propper presentation of a battlemech ... not the timberwolf, not the warhammer neither the Atlas .. imho the orion in battletech seems to be rather underappreciated .. yet lorewise Kerenski himself used it ...

[Void Angel]

Kerensky used a lot of things - like desertion and eugenics. That doesn't make them good.

[Meep Meep]

And again what works fine or even excels in TT or the lore books can be a smoking pile of dog crap here.

[martian]

MrTBSC, on 30 September 2022 - 09:36 PM, said:

i play both, to me the orion is THE definition and propper presentation of a battlemech ... not the timberwolf, not the warhammer neither the Atlas .. imho the orion in battletech seems to be rather underappreciated .. yet lorewise Kerenski himself used it ...

Meep Meep, on 30 September 2022 - 10:46 PM, said:

And again what works fine or even excels in TT or the lore books can be a smoking pile of dog crap here.

Actually, Orion is a mediocre 'Mech in the tabletop BattleTech too - and I am generous when saying that.

[Akamia Terizen]

Void Angel, on 30 September 2022 - 10:36 PM, said:

Kerensky used a lot of things - like desertion and eugenics. That doesn't make them good.

Pretty sure Aleksandr Kerensky did not use eugenics; that was his son, Nicholas, when he founded the Clans after Aleksandr's death. He is probably guilty of desertion, I suppose, although one might argue that the Star League had already fallen by the time Operation EXODUS began, and thus there was nothing for him to desert from...

With regard to the answers to my question, I think that clears up my confusion. Guess there is still some vestiges of "Clantech stronk" in the game after all, at least where it concerns direct Clan successors to Inner Sphere BattleMechs.

Edited by Akamia Terizen, 03 October 2022 - 11:31 AM.

[XenoWraith]

Simply put in terms of what both are supposed to do best at, which is brawling, the Orion IIC just does it better because the only real downside is that it was designed for brawling. Other than that the Orion IIC kinda struggles but that’s why you use cXL engines so you can do an easy 70kph with none of the downsides.

[pbiggz]

I played a protector built like a mini atlas for like, a year, back in ye olde days. I had alot of fun but it was never anything but a mediocre quick play mech. This was before even clan-tech. The chassis has since sort of been left behind. The IIC is faster, tankier, and better armed. I know of a few builds on the IIC that are not so commonly used and rather frightening. I'd love to see the IS orion get a bit more love one day.

[caravann]

Orion is slow compared to other mechs.

It is a mini Atlas.

Atlas is based on Orion

Orion was the heaviest design before assault class

It's struggling with equipment space and game design.

Orion is short and most of times hits buildings as if the cannon was meant to clear paths.

It usually has one ppc family and one Ac20

iiC has better arm mounts and it doesn't need a dorsal cannon.

Orion has missiles in the arms and one ppc family.

Orion is designed to be close range fighter but has no shield arm making XL engine an option.
Since it has no arm shield it has to ambush targets and sit in a corner and plays like a Stalker.

Because of design one missile arm need to be guided , usually the left arm.
The arms are as well storage of all ammo unless you want an open rear kill-box.
There's no space in the legs unless you want to store AC20 ammo in a leg without CASE

Orion suffer by having missiles +ballistics
Too little space to carry the ammo bins for every category.

The one thing that could help orion is better camouflage to make the left side torso an easier target to protect the center torso.

[martian]

caravann, on 04 October 2022 - 12:33 AM, said:

Orion is slow compared to other mechs.

Orion in the tabletop BattleTech is about as fast as the majority of other similar IS heavies

• ON1-K Orion - moves 4/6
  
• MAD-3R Marauder - moves 4/6
  
• BL-7-KNT-L Black Knight - moves 4/6
  
• CRD-3R Crusader - moves 4/6
  
• TDR-5S Thunderbolt - moves 4/6
  
• WHM-6R Warhammer - moves 4/6
  
• RFL-3N Rifleman - moves 4/6
  
• etc.

Orion in MechWarrior Online is as fast - or as slow - as you build it. It shares its maximal engine rating with Black Knight, Thanatos (yes, I know that one BLK and oneor two TNS have higher max engine rating) or Marauder. Within this engine limit, you are free to use any desired engine size and make your Orion go as fast as you wish.

In the Quick Play queue you are not limited by PGI to stock 'Mechs.

caravann, on 04 October 2022 - 12:33 AM, said:

It is a mini Atlas.

In MWO? Only if you build it this way. Other players can devise different loadouts.

caravann, on 04 October 2022 - 12:33 AM, said:

Atlas is based on Orion

One unnamed in-universe source compared Orion with Atlas, but that does not necessarily mean that Atlas is based on Orion.

caravann, on 04 October 2022 - 12:33 AM, said:

Orion was the heaviest design before assault class

Mackie was the first BattleMech ever and with its 100 tons it was sitting on the top end of the assault class in 2439. Orion came in 2453, i.e. after Mackie.

caravann, on 04 October 2022 - 12:33 AM, said:

It's struggling with equipment space and game design.

Orion is short and most of times hits buildings as if the cannon was meant to clear paths.

It usually has one ppc family and one Ac20

iiC has better arm mounts and it doesn't need a dorsal cannon.

Orion has missiles in the arms and one ppc family.

Orion is designed to be close range fighter but has no shield arm making XL engine an option.
Since it has no arm shield it has to ambush targets and sit in a corner and plays like a Stalker.

Because of design one missile arm need to be guided , usually the left arm.
The arms are as well storage of all ammo unless you want an open rear kill-box.
There's no space in the legs unless you want to store AC20 ammo in a leg without CASE

Orion suffer by having missiles +ballistics
Too little space to carry the ammo bins for every category.

The one thing that could help orion is better camouflage to make the left side torso an easier target to protect the center torso.

Thanks for the description of your Orion builds.