27 replies to this topic

[Smeghead87]

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.

Edited by Smeghead87, 23 December 2012 - 11:15 AM.

[Broceratops]

nobody expects a raven to ac20 them.

[Thomas Covenant]

Broceratops, on 23 December 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

nobody expects a raven to ac20 them.

This topic is about the Raven 2X, which does not have any ballistics hardpoints.

And yes I that is why I love the 4X.

[Smeghead87]

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.

[Broceratops]

Thomas Covenant, on 23 December 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

This topic is about the Raven 2X, which does not have any ballistics hardpoints.

And yes I that is why I love the 4X.

my mistake, i get the non 3L ravens mixed up. yes the 2x is worse off!

[Dashwood Fox]

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.

[MasterErrant]

the raven is gionna have a bigger payload. and since it's actually designed to mount a large LRM array that's good.

[Phaesphoros]

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