402 replies to this topic

[Jadel Blade]

But its so ugly

How did they make it look so bad? Its like a plastic model with no detail.

After the amazing cataphract I thought the 3d guys had got it together but this thing is a real letdown.

.....

Anyway as far as on topic goes. It seems like a beast to me. I thought the atlas would be the only assault worth piloting but this throws a spanner in the works. Which is great. It doesnt need any better twist imo

[Khobai]

Quote

You mean it should be just as limited as say a Catapult that has 3-4 SRMs(6-8 weapons) per Arm? Yeah I totally agree with you, Nurf the Stalker to have the same turn range as a Catapult Please!

The Catapult doesnt have 10 hardpoints numb nuts

[FrDrake]

I got a 5S and put 3xLRM20 1xTAG 4xMLAS, DHS and so far it's been extremely deadly. Things get rough if something gets in close, but any missile boat is that way. The close range (300-500m) LRM alpha with TAG just rips anything apart that decided to go into open terrain. I have just my TAG as weapon group 1 and the LRMs as 2, don't have lasers until weapon group 3 .

In any case the best thing is that the above build is possible on any of the Stalkers I'm pretty sure. I haven't noticed any heat issues yet but I don't fire my lasers when I'm LRMing, and I don't LRM when I'm lasering, if I did both of them together I would probably have some heat problems.

[steelblueskies]

try a 5s with the following

ra+la:
medlas
medlas
srm4
dhs
dhs
ams ammo

rt+lt:
ams
medlas
srm4
dhs
dhs
dhs

ct: std300 engine w/2dhs slotted
bap

ll+rl:
srm ammo
srm ammo
and max all armor.

weighs in at 84.5 /85 tons but the only free crit slot is in the head.

playing crit slot tetris ftw. tighter spread on srm 4's vs 6's makes em somewhat nastier at medlas ranges vs small las range, without the added encumbrance of artemis.

still very very hot. still seems best suited to longer range engagement, and self tag+lrms still largely a bust. *might* get better rewards for that line with a fullgroup vs randoms. preponderance of cover options still largest issue when used vs ecm carriers. no need to break los for the missiles, just keep interrupting tag and relock over and over borks guided missile use. even other enemies or friendlies can break tag line to target.

[Shae Starfyre]

I got the 5M and the 5S

5M I am running one ER Large in the CT, and 5 SRM6.

Heat is perfect even on Caustic, and it is still a 75 point Alpha (A couple of times, I chained the SRM when I hear Betty warning of heat).

I have held the ridge on the snow map, and on the river map, that little canyon near the higher base, was a perfect choke point.

Need to find those chock points, and find places where you have a 90 degree angle of cover.

I have not worked the 5S much yet, but my preliminary load out is probably going to be two ER Large or 2 Large, and 2 SRM4 and 2 SRM6, and 2 AMS.

The large and ER are a nice long range while they get close (Although they are more heat intensive then the mediums, they have a longer cycle time, which coincides with the SRMs, makes managing heat a little easier for me.

I find that the main weapon is my SRM's, I am usually loading between 5-7 tons of Ammo for them... and the lasers are just softners.

Never, ever, get caught in the open with them if you can help it.

That's my take so far.

[Cybercobra]

It is slow, it is lumbering, it is vurnerable, it is powerfull, it has more damage potential then nearly any other mech, it looks like a blimp with feet, it is interesting, it is fun.

It is my true love.

[EyeOne]

I bought a 3F and went (4) Large Lasers and (2) SRM6s with it and had good luck. It's deadly.

Then I bought a 5M and put (5) Medium Lasers and (5) SRM6s on it, upgraded the speed to 56.2kph and maxed armor. 5 SRM6s dishes out a hell of a lot of pain.

I've been waiting for the Stalker since before it was announced actually. I'm so glad it's in the game now.

[Mercules]

Thontor, on 19 December 2012 - 05:35 AM, said:

You need to be able to keep that firepower on target. All that firepower doesn't help you much if the enemy stays out of your firing arc.

No, no, no.... don't you know Assault mechs just stand in a line facing each other and shooting like during the Civil War era?

[Osski]

I've been driving a Dragon and all its variants almost exclusively since closed beta, and I can tell you that I'd much rather face off with a Stalker one on one than an Awesome. Stalkers seem clumsy by comparison and can't get guns on my 89kph self quite as well as an Awesome could. Also, hit location is a breeze on a Stalker. Also, a Stalker is shut down from overheat half the time, if it isn't played just right.

You are comparing only one facet of the two 'mechs, OP. Sooowwiiiie.

[Mercules]

Osski, on 19 December 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

I've been driving a Dragon and all its variants almost exclusively since closed beta, and I can tell you that I'd much rather face off with a Stalker one on one than an Awesome. Stalkers seem clumsy by comparison and can't get guns on my 89kph self quite as well as an Awesome could. Also, hit location is a breeze on a Stalker. Also, a Stalker is shut down from overheat half the time, if it isn't played just right.

You are comparing only one facet of the two 'mechs, OP. Sooowwiiiie.

Yeah, the number of Stalkers that hit the edge of their twist and missed me as I ran by them and blasted was amazing. I am sure they will get the hang of it eventually, but that limited twist is.... limiting.

[JediMastaDJ]

Silly poster is silly. I got out maneuvered by an Awesome just a few minutes ago while in my brand new pretty Stalker that you say is so much better and makes Awesomes obsolete. My pretty side torso gobbled up all of his large lasers and I couldn't turn enough to hit him back before I went kaboom.

Your logic and points are flawed. All my extra lasers and missile hardpoints did nothing to help me. That side torso is a glaring vulnerability that more than offsets any extra hardpoints.

You're also forgetting that a Stalker is meant to take mostly medium lasers with his missiles. An Awesome is meant to take larger weapons, such as PPCs.

[Xenok]

Pugastrius, on 18 December 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

New Mechs are not supposed to be upgrades to existing mechs, they are supposed to be equal but different. This is quite simply an outrageous oversight that needs to be corrected before it goes live. It's a direct slap in the face to all Awesome owners, and nobody will ever buy an Awesome again.

This is where you went wrong. New Mechs are supposed to be upgrades to existing mechs. When we put the F22 in service it was an upgrade to the F15E that it replaced. When we put the F16 in to service it was in upgrade to the F4.

This game is a sym (becoming more an arcade like sorta sym) with a timeline. As new designed come out they will beat out the old ones. They should beat out the old ones. My preferred mech tonnage is a 75 ton heavy mech (we do not have one yet) but right now I am playing catchphrases and Catapults. When the Jaggermech comes out it better have better hard points and/or engine availability than the other two or I will have no reason to buy it. When they put the black knight out it best be better and when we get the clan Timber Wolf and Savage Wolf in they better be significantly better than the ones I pilot now. If they are not why would anyone put the resources into building them or purchasing them.

That being said I would certainly think that some updated models of the Awesome that gave it better hard points being released would be a good thing. Perhaps the model is discontinued and no longer produced leaving the old hulls out there to just get used until the owners can get something new. That should happen with some of the mechs.

This has to be the nature of a game where the finances are around mech purchases and trinket purchases. The trinkets will only take the game so far, but the mechs will keep it rolling forward. In order to do so new models will have to be improvements on those that exist now.

[Aldon]

Awesome is still awesome for some things. Every mech has a role. They do not have to be equal.

I'll take my awesome 8Q over any stalker in a laser duel for example.

The Awesome 9M at high speed can be just nasty.

The Awesome 8T can mount and fire 4 large energy weapons from the arms.

All of these things matter.

[LaserAngel]

I've only really seen SRM or LRM Stalkers. There was only one x4 PPC Stalker all night. I called him out to my friends and we focused him down. Then again they were trying to brawl with the build or were caught when our line moved up.

Distance and speed are how you kill the Stalker. The Atlas can slug it out but when using my Awesome I lay down the PPC fire from 1000 - 300m. Light faster mechs distract and back stab Stalkers. The LRM travel time, cover, and AMS hamper the long range variants. Just stay far away from the face SRM hugger ones.

On Caustic, I've killed plenty of overheated Stalkers using the PPCs. The same can be said of other snipers.

Edit: One last thing, I had a friend last night running a 4 LL, 2 ML Stalker 5S. It wasn't an alpha damage machine but what I remember from all of our matches is unending laser fire in my ears.

I just built my own 5S with 4 LL, 2 ML, 2 AMS, and 22 DHS. I'll try it out later.

Edited by LaserAngel, 19 December 2012 - 08:55 AM.

[Pugastrius]

OP Here: So as you can see this post was originally written pleading with the Devs to fix the hard points before it went live... So I spent the night playing with my Shiny new Stalker 5M (8-mans only). And I've come to a few conclusions:

Quote

1) Way Too Much Firepower: As I initially suggested, it's honestly broken with how much damage this thing packs. I "rare" broke 1k damage on any of my other mechs, but I broke 1.3k for the first time last night on my 2nd match. The people that think it isn't broken, are probably the same people that think ECM is fine.

2) No Center Torso: One of the biggest flaws in both the Atlas and the Awesome is that they are really easy to donut. I did not get killed from a donut shot a single time last night.

3) Wing Protectors: The "Giant Nose" that people are complaining about isn't nearly as bad as they make it out to be. Unlike the Catapult, the nose is protected by the side torsos. Thus, so long as you aren't running an XL, they work as shields. Note: with as slender as the CT is, only a fool would equip an XL.

4) Torso Twist / Arms: I honestly can't even tell the difference between 60 and 90 unless I'm intentionally strafing. And the loss of arms is pretty meaningless since most arms don't pack enough of a punch to make that matter. To those that think it helps with the lights... may I suggest using 1-2 of the missile bays to load up SSRMs...

5) Overall Size: This is the thing that really surprises me, I was expecting something the size of the Awesome, but got something the size of smaller than a catapult. Smaller size does a number of positive things for you: Harder to See, Hit, and Focus damage in general.

6) Speed: It's on par with all but the 9-M... so not really an advantage or disadvantage here.

For those that really don't think it's over-powered... try this: On Frozen City, walk into the Drop ship. Put your back into the tail of the ship. Now that you're inside it, they can do nothing but walk in straight at you one at a time. You still have a really good chance of winning even if there are 4-5 mechs left.

Quote

When we put the F22 in service it was an upgrade to the F15E that it replaced.

Wait, so you're advocating that devs spend time making models, introducing them, and having them become obsolete before we are even out of Beta?

Edited by Pugastrius, 19 December 2012 - 09:00 AM.

[Col Forbin]

Don't forget the extra capability to get Large Lasers on fast movers with the full arms of the Awesome as opposed to the nubs on the Stalker...

[Taizan]

Soy, on 18 December 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

had its model slimmed slightly in the patch

From where are you getting this? Please bring quotes or some kind of basis to your statement.

[KeefCheef]

Thinking about getting one as my first assault, but all the variants seem pretty similar - does the 3F have any advantages over the 5S? They seem to have the same layout except the 3F lacks a second AMS hardpoint. The 3H just seems under-gunned.

Your guys thoughts on the strengths/weaknesses of the different variants is appreciated.

[Suko]

MustrumRidcully, on 19 December 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

For now. As new mechs are introduced, more weapon hardpoints will become more common. Should all these mechs also have limited torso twist rates?

Hardpoints should never have been treated as a balancing factor, only as an "aesthetic" factor IMO and to introduce some differences between variants. The balancing in Battletech comes from critical slots and tonnage.

Maybe the Stalker simply doesn't have too many hard points, but other mechs have too little?

I agree with most of this. The Stalker is just one of many mechs to come that will be loaded with hard points. I like the idea of giving each chassis a "quirk" to make it unique and offer some checks/balances, but limiting torso movement to not even 90 degrees is ridiculous. If they felt it was so OP, then make it's torso movement slower or don't allow it to angle so far up/down (I still don't understand how/why it can do this).

The Stalker already handles like a pregnant yak. If you get in a turning fight with it you've already won a battle. Give it the 90 degree twist and reduce it's twist speed or y-axis targeting ability.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pugastrius, on 19 December 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

Wait, so you're advocating that devs spend time making models, introducing them, and having them become obsolete before we are even out of Beta?

The Stalker and the Awesome fill 2 distinct roles and had weapons for those roles. Awesome is primarily a Direct fire support platform as the Stalker is a Seige engine. Both filled distinct roles on a battlefield. The same Hard Point system that keeps us from having an Atlas with 20 Medium lasers blurs the tactical application of Mechs.

So a Awesome can stop trying to be something it is not and get back to what it was designed for.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 19 December 2012 - 10:13 AM.