Edited by Smeghead87, 23 December 2012 - 11:15 AM.
1
Buff Raven 2X... Or Explain How It Isn't Outclassed By Similar Jenner Varients
Started by Thomas Covenant, Dec 22 2012 07:19 PM
27 replies to this topic
#21
Posted 23 December 2012 - 11:14 AM
If you just look at the 2X vs the K, the raven comes up short again at only 2(+1) modules vs 3(+1). It matches the D for modules.
#22
Posted 23 December 2012 - 11:25 AM
nobody expects a raven to ac20 them.
#24
Posted 23 December 2012 - 11:50 AM
The only other things I can think of are maybe torso twist speed, upper heat limit, maybe even something as nuanced cockpit field of view. I don't see any of these things listed in any stats and I don't have any jenners of my own to test them out.
#26
Posted 21 April 2013 - 02:06 PM
I would like to see the 2X (and 4X) get an engine buff even if it's not as high as the 295XL. A 265XL to 280XL I think would be acceptable. I mean it's pretty depressing how slow they are for a Light. Dragons and Centurions can almost keep up with them and a Trebuchet 3C with the right engine can out-pace them.
#27
Posted 22 April 2013 - 11:53 AM
the raven is gionna have a bigger payload. and since it's actually designed to mount a large LRM array that's good.
#28
Posted 22 April 2013 - 12:50 PM
Necro....
but that the RVN has a max engine rating of 245 is just silly as you have to fit in a non-engine extra heat sink. The only mechs where I use an XL engine lower than 255 are Commandos; even my Spiders get the XL255 (making it one of the most versatile XLs in the game IMHO, much like the XL300).
oh, btw, speed vs pay load overview
but that the RVN has a max engine rating of 245 is just silly as you have to fit in a non-engine extra heat sink. The only mechs where I use an XL engine lower than 255 are Commandos; even my Spiders get the XL255 (making it one of the most versatile XLs in the game IMHO, much like the XL300).
oh, btw, speed vs pay load overview
13 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 13 guests, 0 anonymous users