139 replies to this topic

[topgun505]

3 GR? Sure! Go ahead. The moment the arm on the same side as the side torso Gauss Rifle gets stripped ... the next hit blows the arm Gauss which in turn damages the internals in the side torso which then immediately blows the side torso Gauss. And if you have an XL in the side as well then that's probably all she wrote for you. Even if it doesn't outright kill you, if anyone so much as pegs you with a machine gun in that side later you're done. In short ... it isn't worth it.

[Captain Midnight]

Daemian, on 27 November 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

I bet there will be a pay 2 win post for every new hero mech.

And with any luck the mob will keep them honest.

[QuantumButler]

If the UAC hadn't been re-nerfed into near uselessness, the hero Phract would be pretty OP due to being able to mount 3 of them.

[Mu]

Captain Midnight, on 27 November 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

And with any luck the mob will keep them honest.

Yep. It's nice that these are clearly well thought out. They knew what they were doing with the Ilya. But to a more cynical mind it could be taken as testing the waters to see how far they can go with these special variants...the Wang is crap but this one is a viable alternative. What's next?

I don't think the Ilya is overpowered, and I might even get one just 'cause I love Cataphracts, but I don't think these variants should even be MC-only. I'd rather they offer the same hardpoints for c-bills with no special skin and no MC bonus as well, even if it was a month or two after the Hero was made available.

[One Medic Army]

I was so-so on the Wang, since no other Centurion can mount an AC/20.
Now we have this mech. The only mech that can mount more than 2 of: LB10-X, AC/10, UAC/5 or gauss.

I'd really prefer that the hero mechs didn't have hardpoint layouts the free players can't emulate.

[Mu]

QuantumButler, on 27 November 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

If the UAC hadn't been re-nerfed into near uselessness, the hero Phract would be pretty OP due to being able to mount 3 of them.

That was my second thought, first being 'HOLY CRAP BABY ANNIHILATOR oh wait that'd be suicide'

I'm hoping they revisit the UAC5 and give it a firing toggle while dealing with the 'jam on first shot' nonsense. But bear in mind that combining torso and arm ballistics results in some really weird aiming issues. If I were to go 3xUAC5 on one of these I'd fire the arms and torso independently, maybe cycle them in a firing rhythm to prevent jams and then hold down the dakka if something gets too close.

[Lightfoot]

XL 180 engine would be about 42 kph, so it couldn't turn on anything. Plus I am showing the CTF carries a max payload, including engine, of 52-53 tons, so these must be unarmored 3x Gauss Cataphracts which means they would suffer critical hits at a massive rate. Not impossible, but not effective either.

Edited by Lightfoot, 27 November 2012 - 08:49 PM.

[Slaytronic]

Kaijin, on 27 November 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

3 GR on a 70 ton mech is going to be more a liability than an advantage. So like YLW, the second hero will also be a P2L mech.

lol so right

[Karr285]

Captain Midnight, on 27 November 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

I think it's telling they made a thread in the command chair about this specific issue because it's so blatantly obvious that it's P2W.

yea and when that great gaussrifle gets tapped even once through that papper armour and goes boom and takes the RT with it XL and all, I think the 3X gaussturret fotm will die out very quick and a lot of people will regret spending money on a very bad idea.

[QuantumButler]

Karr285, on 27 November 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

yea and when that great gaussrifle gets tapped even once through that papper armour and goes boom and takes the RT with it XL and all, I think the 3X gaussturret fotm will die out very quick and a lot of people will regret spending money on a very bad idea.

It will be hilarious to kill all the idiots trying it though for the first day or two after the patch.

[Aurias]

Yeah, 3x Gauss on a 70 ton mech. Go ahead and try it, I need to beef up my K/D some more.

It's crazy how the instant a hero mech is announced, everyone who has never put a single thought into their builds comes out of the woodwork to cry "PAY2WIN!"

Here's the rough outline on how hero mechs currently work, especially regarding balance:
1. Purchase hero mech
2. Get absolutely and completely f*cking wrecked every game because you have no idea what you're doing and thought purchasing different hardpoints would make you a better pilot

[Secundus]

This type of decision appears to be aligned with the rest of the game's business model which is to make every underhanded attempt at getting money out of the customer.

[DivideByZer0]

I am only here because I lol'd at the thread title.

[Tigerhawk71]

Mu, on 27 November 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

That was my second thought, first being 'HOLY CRAP BABY ANNIHILATOR oh wait that'd be suicide'

I'm hoping they revisit the UAC5 and give it a firing toggle while dealing with the 'jam on first shot' nonsense. But bear in mind that combining torso and arm ballistics results in some really weird aiming issues. If I were to go 3xUAC5 on one of these I'd fire the arms and torso independently, maybe cycle them in a firing rhythm to prevent jams and then hold down the dakka if something gets too close.

< Relevant.

I mount triple AC5s in my Phract at the moment, backed up by medium lasers. I play mid range fire support with it and do really well. I'd mount dual UACs if they didn't jam so much and mount some heavier support weapons... but UACs are atrocious at the moment.

[CodeNameValtus]

What I'd be more afraid of on a Cataphract would probably be triple LB-10X. You could make that work alright, max armor, and running around at semi-respectable (you will be pretty slow for a heavy, but not slower than most assault mechs), 4 tons of ammo (20 triple barrel shotgun blasts). And still fit 3 Medium Lasers in there.

Little bit of trigger discipline required. But the amount of havoc in Criticals you could wreck in this thing....oh my!

[Tasorin]

This is not the Pay-2-Win business model you are looking for...

[BigJim]

Captain Midnight, on 27 November 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

A lot of Neville Chamberlain-esque apologists telling us about how it's not pay2win even though at this point it's prettttty obvious.

Kobold, on 27 November 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

1 ballistic, 5 energy, 1 missile
1 ballistic, 3 energy, 2 missile
2 ballistic, 4 energy
2 ballistic, 4 energy, 1 missile
3 ballistic, 3 energy

You're telling me that one of those options is significantly better than the others, such that if it were only available for real money, it would be "pay to win"? Which option is that?

Nah, don't get suckered in - He just heard that phrase somewhere & thought it sounded cool, so he used it here.

If PGI actually paid us money, directly into our bank accounts for playing, some people would be unhappy & call it P2W.

Edited by BigJim, 28 November 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[3rdworld]

trip gauss would look something like this:

[aspect]

I would love to have a sniper battle in my 60kph fully-armored 2xGR-inside-torso cat versus a 40kph poorly-armored 3xGR-mostly-on-arms hero mech that has twice the torso width.

Maybe we could delete the responses to this thread and keep talking about how OP it will be? It would certainly make my matches more fun for a few days after it comes out...

Edited by aspect, 28 November 2012 - 01:55 PM.

[anonymous175]

oaugh