Why Doesn't The Awesome Get Any Love?
#121
Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:03 PM
#122
Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:16 PM
Red squirrel, on 30 December 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:
You should try this one AWS-8T or this AWS-8T - it's the build I have the best results with. Just remember that you are a fire support build.
I shall try your 9M though, sounds good.
The 4xSRM6 8R was really dangerous before they increased the SRM spread. It was a real Atlas killer.
Now after ECM hit and as long as TAG is utterly useless it is the best build I could figure out for the 8R.
Edit: I do sometimes use a TAG though since it can help against the lag shield.
Shoot the TAG and wait for the reticule to go red. Now you know how much lead you need for thos pesky little ********
Man...why didn't I think of that??!?! I gotta try this later. Thanks in advance.
#123
Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:43 PM
If you aren't using head TAG in AWS you're doing it wrong!
Convo went towards the role of the 9M, and some said it's vanguard some said it's support...
...it's both. You're the fastest assault, so if you have to be the first guy to a point to soak a bit of damage while the real army arrives, you do that. Then as your buds arrive you fall back into support role.
Edited by Soy, 04 January 2013 - 01:44 PM.
#124
Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:56 PM
Soy, on 04 January 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:
If you aren't using head TAG in AWS you're doing it wrong!
Convo went towards the role of the 9M, and some said it's vanguard some said it's support...
...it's both. You're the fastest assault, so if you have to be the first guy to a point to soak a bit of damage while the real army arrives, you do that. Then as your buds arrive you fall back into support role.
TAG... of course!! How could I not have seen this in 1000 Awesome drops! LoL.
If you are in an Awesome, and you take point, you died. You're up in heaven with all the other Awesome pilots who thought, "hey I am in the VANGUARD Awesome! I'll go take point!!!" Cored on the first volley most likely.
#125
Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:57 PM
*shrug*
#126
Posted 04 January 2013 - 02:56 PM
#127
Posted 04 January 2013 - 03:52 PM
So... yeah. Thanks Awesome, and you folks out there with bad attitudes and petulent cyber-voices: keep on calling out mechs you dislike on forums. Without you I wouldn't have found this newest fun little challenge.
#128
Posted 04 January 2013 - 05:42 PM
Ialti, on 04 January 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:
So... yeah. Thanks Awesome, and you folks out there with bad attitudes and petulent cyber-voices: keep on calling out mechs you dislike on forums. Without you I wouldn't have found this newest fun little challenge.
that's exactly what the awesome is... a real challenge! cause you find yourself having large hitpoints where speed can't help you and with the hardpoints as they are you're most likely to be under firepowered even compared to mechs 10-15 lighter than you. for 2 months i've been working over this challenging mech so i'm getting out of awesomes when i finally detach myself from them, ******** kinda grown on me.
#129
Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:27 PM
By the way, I find it kind of funny how fast the Awesome is in MWO. In TT, the base models moved 3/5 while the 9M moved 4/6. Kind of hard to be all sorts of fast when you're moving at the same speed as most Heavies. If they stuck with TT speeds, the Awesome would def have the hard time of it.
#130
Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:30 PM
Trauglodyte, on 04 January 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:
By the way, I find it kind of funny how fast the Awesome is in MWO. In TT, the base models moved 3/5 while the 9M moved 4/6. Kind of hard to be all sorts of fast when you're moving at the same speed as most Heavies. If they stuck with TT speeds, the Awesome would def have the hard time of it.
Actually... without custom up-engining and Speed Tweak... those are pretty much how fast Awesomes go. The stock 8s go 3/4.5 (48.6kph) while the 9m goes 4/6 (64.8kph.)
#132
Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:40 PM
Sinjen Liao, on 29 December 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:
Besides the fact that you are Cappellan (FedCom Forever), you are completely right. I love the Awesome in the TT, but PPCs are just too nerfed to use in MWO. P.S. I guess you're from Tikonov.
#133
Posted 04 January 2013 - 07:01 PM
I honestly don't even find PPCs suitable for an Awesome. As many others in this thread have said, the Stalker is a far superior fire support platform in almost every way. The Awesome's advantages are speed and maneuverability. I don't know how or why people use it as anything besides a striker/brawler.
#134
Posted 04 January 2013 - 07:02 PM
It needs a larger engine to shine. I build around 290 standards on everything but the 9m.
Use the speed to your advantage and if you make something bigger mad use your left arm as a shield.
Every Mech has a strength and the Awesomes is maneuverability.
#135
Posted 04 January 2013 - 07:04 PM
Edited by Monky, 04 January 2013 - 07:04 PM.
#137
Posted 04 January 2013 - 07:08 PM
#139
Posted 04 January 2013 - 07:17 PM
Hellcat420, on 04 January 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:
The Awesome isn't that bad, despite certain problems. If I had to identify any major problem with it, though, it would be the matchmaker: by bringing an Awesome, you make it rather likely that your counterpart is an ECM Skilltlas just because those are FOTM.
#140
Posted 04 January 2013 - 07:43 PM
Sandslice, on 04 January 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:
Even leaving aside the ECM Atlas, with the current matchmaking this is commonly the case: The lightest of a weight class is arguably(Yeah, yeah, exceptions etc) a disadvantage to their team. Once tonnage is included in the Matchmaker, however, things will get a lot more interesting.
And honestly, they must eventually put tonnage into the equation. If the whole Dropship thing happens, though (limited respawn via multiple mechs for a battle) I'd *LOVE* to see it be with those mechs chosen by a max of 4 mechs and a max of some number of tons. Thus, taking an Atlas leaves you with 20 tons less than if you'd chosen an Awesome, for example, making choosing your drop MUCH more interesting and giving those "lesser" chassis a very real role to play - this was, in the end, one of the most common reasons you'd field smaller mechs in the various games.
Edited by Wintersdark, 04 January 2013 - 07:44 PM.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users