The Worse Mech's
#21
Posted 24 December 2012 - 01:50 PM
- Dragon
- Centurion
- Awesome
and no matter how good the pilot is...it does not make the mechs good. a good pilot in a good mech will beat a good pilot in a bad mech. very simple.
#22
Posted 24 December 2012 - 01:55 PM
Huntsman, on 24 December 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:
Centurion and Dragon: both tend to have a disproportionate amount of firepower on 1 arm and are easily headshot.
right and a cat isnt easily headshot #rolleyes
nothing wrong with a cent or a dragon just dumb pilots who think they know everything.
#23
Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:01 PM
#24
Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:06 PM
Noakei Siegel, on 24 December 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:
- Dragon
- Centurion
- Awesome
and no matter how good the pilot is...it does not make the mechs good. a good pilot in a good mech will beat a good pilot in a bad mech. very simple.
You should tell that to the people I've killed in my Centurions and Awesomes (I can't get into a dragon for some reason - just not my particular mech style I guess) running their fresh "good" mechs....
#25
Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:07 PM
#26
Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:14 PM
#27
Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:22 PM
Dragons and Commandos are somewhat weaker than other mechs in their weight class, which is as it should be since they're the lightest mechs in their weight classes currently.
The Dragon, on top of that, has the difficult-to-use ballistic arm which is also mounted far wide and somewhat low and exacerbates the convergence issues. (I absolutely love my Flame, and non-ballistic Dragons, but I dislike their arm ballistics).
The main issue is that we have weight class matching, rather than tonnage matching. A Dragon is matched against Catapults and Cataphracts. A Commando is matched against Jenners and Ravens.
#28
Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:25 PM
Willie Sauerland, on 24 December 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:
You should tell that to the people I've killed in my Centurions and Awesomes (I can't get into a dragon for some reason - just not my particular mech style I guess) running their fresh "good" mechs....
I do not doubt that these mechs are valid in PuGplay, but they are not competitive. Most PuGs have an aim like a 100year old and the same reflexes and comprehension of the gameplay.
from time to time I have to PuG, and it is always amazing, how bad most PuGs are.
#29
Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:26 PM
One Medic Army, on 24 December 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:
Dragons and Commandos are somewhat weaker than other mechs in their weight class, which is as it should be since they're the lightest mechs in their weight classes currently.
The Dragon, on top of that, has the difficult-to-use ballistic arm which is also mounted far wide and somewhat low and exacerbates the convergence issues. (I absolutely love my Flame, and non-ballistic Dragons, but I dislike their arm ballistics).
The main issue is that we have weight class matching, rather than tonnage matching. A Dragon is matched against Catapults and Cataphracts. A Commando is matched against Jenners and Ravens.
Yep. Same. I've piloted every chassis enough to get elite skills, either now or in CB.
Sure, a good pilot can get kills in anything. That doesn't mean that the "anything" is not strictly worse than other mechs in some way. A commando is worse than a jenner or RVN. An awesome is worse than an Atlas or Stalker. A dragon is worse than a catapult or cataphract. A centurion is worse than a hunchback.
While there are some niche builds you can do with specific variants (such as the fast AWS-9M), generally those niche builds are simply not as useful to a team as something that is less niche from a different chassis.
#30
Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:32 PM
Monky, on 24 December 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:
Tell that to my commando-2D equipped with ECM and an XL 195,i rarely get taken out when using it and the awesome is pretty good once you learn how to use it,cant say anything about the dragon as a barely ever used one.
#31
Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:36 PM
J4ckInthebox, on 24 December 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:
mmm not true. some mechs are just flat out worse than others. Awesome has always been bad, with the stalkers its now worse. Raven 4X with two ballistic slots it cant really use well, that 4x ballistic cicada and so on.
In an ideal game, then yes no mech would be bad.
decman117, on 24 December 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:
Although the worst customised mech I own is a 4 LL jenner.... goes 46kph
Right, but not entirely. A good pilot will do fine in a bad mech. He/she would however do better, in a better mech.
#32
Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:39 PM
#33
Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:40 PM
I believe the awesome chassis is the worst of.
Only the 9M is really effective since the engine nerf.
The awesome generally suffers from BOTH limited armor in torso sections as well as easy-to-hit torso sections.
It can deliver alot of damage, but since the engine nerf AND the weight increase on engines only the 9M retains any battlefield survivability..
#34
Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:42 PM
Maybe as some said, the Awesome isn't bad, it's just the pilots. Too many people are used to other games where they press a button and fire all their weapons and when they cycle, off goes another round. Maybe learning how to balance damage with heat efficiency should be a required class before someone starts to play.
#35
Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:45 PM
Baudolino, on 24 December 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:
I believe the awesome chassis is the worst of.
Only the 9M is really effective since the engine nerf.
The awesome generally suffers from BOTH limited armor in torso sections as well as easy-to-hit torso sections.
It can deliver alot of damage, but since the engine nerf AND the weight increase on engines only the 9M retains any battlefield survivability..
Sorry what, so detail to me why exactly you would take a Stalker 3H over a 3F?
there is such thing as literally just worse mechs in this game.
#36
Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:49 PM
Lefty Lucy, on 24 December 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:
Yep. Same. I've piloted every chassis enough to get elite skills, either now or in CB.
Sure, a good pilot can get kills in anything. That doesn't mean that the "anything" is not strictly worse than other mechs in some way. A commando is worse than a jenner or RVN. An awesome is worse than an Atlas or Stalker. A dragon is worse than a catapult or cataphract. A centurion is worse than a hunchback.
While there are some niche builds you can do with specific variants (such as the fast AWS-9M), generally those niche builds are simply not as useful to a team as something that is less niche from a different chassis.
If you are talking competitive in terms of cheese-build ROFLstomping, then I agree. Take away the MIN/MAX teams and any mech will fill its role wonderfully with the correct pilot and strategy.
OH! Almost forgot to mention, the MIN/MAX builds are easy enough to counter - and yes, I've done it in my lowly Centurion or Awesome as well.
#38
Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:52 PM
Some mech variants however can be made better.
#39
Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:53 PM
Sebesto, on 24 December 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:
{IMAGE REMOVED}
Maybe as some said, the Awesome isn't bad, it's just the pilots. Too many people are used to other games where they press a button and fire all their weapons and when they cycle, off goes another round. Maybe learning how to balance damage with heat efficiency should be a required class before someone starts to play.
Well, that is a campaign which has been going on ever since Closed Beta. Piloting 101 would be awesome as with all the other suggestions for training ranges, arenas, and other things.
Yes, heat management is a valuable thing to know. I strip all sorts of things off mechs with my centurions and awesomes. But, since some people can't play with them or they aren't "competitive enough" (whatever that means), they are useless and should be scrapped.
Ah well, everybody has their own opinion. Last time I checked, nobody was forced into playing a particular mech....
#40
Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:54 PM
Willie Sauerland, on 24 December 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:
If you are talking competitive in terms of cheese-build ROFLstomping, then I agree. Take away the MIN/MAX teams and any mech will fill its role wonderfully with the correct pilot and strategy.
OH! Almost forgot to mention, the MIN/MAX builds are easy enough to counter - and yes, I've done it in my lowly Centurion or Awesome as well.
You are making literally zero sense. Something cannot be "cheese-build ROFLstomping" and "easy to counter" at the same time. If a competitive mech is driven by a weak pilot, it's the pilot that loses that match. If a competitive mech is driven by a competent pilot... well you're putting yourself at a strict disadvantage in that match up.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users