21 replies to this topic

[Wolf Clearwater]

Just a suggestion: Give the Raven 2X and the 4X the same engine cap as the 3L please. Then we might actually see more of them on the battlefield! Right now, they are the slowest light mech, and most only use them to unlock elites for their 3L. The other Ravens need a little love!

Yeah, this is horribly biased

[Inertiaman]

I'd love that but I think you'd find more votes for gimping the 3L down to the smaller engines :E

[Wolf Clearwater]

How about a total reversal?
3L gets engine cap at 245, 2x and 4x at 295!
I want my 2x to be useful again!

[Wolf Clearwater]

No interest? Really?

[Idgit Galoot]

It is funny how the Raven with the fastest engine and the most missile slots also gets the ecm. kinda makes everything else useless. I can take on most mechs with my 4x and 2x but as soon as a single 3L shows up, I might as well just push the eject button; if there was one! The other Ravens should at least be able to keep up with the 3L speedwise.

[Markis Steiner]

Idgit Galoot, on 28 January 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

It is funny how the Raven with the fastest engine and the most missile slots also gets the ecm.

This is my thoughts exactly. The 3L outclasses all the other Ravens in firepower, speed, and equipment.

They could always swap the 3L's engine capacity with the 4X. This way the 4X has more speed along with it's other abilities. You could then allow more armor for the 2X making it a bit more durable for firefights. These might not be the best ideas, but I do still think the 2X and 4X are in need of a reason to be played.

Edited by Markis Steiner, 28 January 2013 - 10:29 PM.

[BloodyDziq]

the BIGGEST mistake with Raven was giving the fastest one ECM, that made other ones absolute. IMGO, the 2X and 4X should have ECM not the 3L

Edited by Seraphims Blood, 29 January 2013 - 03:28 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

Wolf87535, on 28 January 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

Just a suggestion: Give the Raven 2X and the 4X the same engine cap as the 3L please. Then we might actually see more of them on the battlefield! Right now, they are the slowest light mech, and most only use them to unlock elites for their 3L. The other Ravens need a little love!

Yeah, this is horribly biased

Actually, all of the Raven variants do have the same engine cap.

Quote

Restrictions Formula
1.) Maximum-Engine power rating cannot exceed 400 or ~8.5x the 'Mech's tonnage, whichever is lower.
2.) Maximum-Engine power rating with (round up to nearest 5 or 0):

• Light 'Mech = 1.4 x Stock-Engine
  
• Medium 'Mech = 1.3 x Stock-Engine
  
• Heavy 'Mech = 1.2 x Stock-Engine
  
• Assault 'Mech = 1.2 x Stock-Engine

The issue with the -2X and -4X is that they are both based on the -1X, which starts with a Standard 175 Engine.
1.4 [the multiplier used for all light 'Mechs] * 175 [the stock engine rating] = 245 [maximum Engine power rating]

By contrast, the -3L has the same cap (1.4x), but starts with a higher-rated stock engine (a 210 XL).
1.4 [the multiplier used for all light 'Mechs] * 210 [the stock engine rating] = 294 -> round to 295 [maximum Engine power rating]

The thing is, the -3L is faster than the -2X and the -4X because it starts with a higher-rated (and more powerful) Engine while being subject to the same cap as all light 'Mechs.

The -2X and -4X are also slower than the Commando variants (for which all of the variants top out at an Engine rating of 210, from a stock Engine rating of 150) because the effects of the difference in mass (35t for the Raven vs 25t for the Commando) outstrip the effects of the difference in Engine rating.
Specifically, the formula (also used in BattleTech TT, to get the KPH speeds listed in the books) is:

• ("walking"/cruising speed) = 10.8 * (Engine rating)/('Mech tonnage)
  
• ("running"/maximum speed) = 16.2 * (Engine rating)/('Mech tonnage)

[parman01]

I support this. I'd gladly trade ECM for JJ in 4X if it ran as fast as 3L.

[Mazgazine1]

I was rockin my 2x raven all weekend, it was awesome, 124kph is good enough, I play it like a light H-4SP,

Got him mastered and did plenty of damage and even hunted streak commandos.

[Wolf Clearwater]

@ Strum Wealth: I understand that they are based off a formula, but the formula is not always followed. The Commando does not follow that formula, the Death's Knell has a bigger stock engine (175 vs, 150) than the others and is restricted to the same maximum engine: 210. The spider is also has an engine cap smaller than the formula (stock 240, max 255). If the spider followed that formula the max should be a 335 (rounded down from 336), so clearly exceptions can be made and do exist. My argument is simply that the 2x and 4x need a larger maximum engine size to be more competitive/viable. Thank you for the link for the engine cap page.

Edit:

@Mazgazine1: Not saying they are worthless, the 2x is my favorite Raven.... just that I am horribly biased and that the 2x and 4x could use a buff.

Edited by Wolf87535, 29 January 2013 - 05:04 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

Wolf87535, on 29 January 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

@ Strum Wealth: I understand that they are based off a formula, but the formula is not always followed. The Commando does not follow that formula, the Death's Knell has a bigger stock engine (175 vs, 150) than the others and is restricted to the same maximum engine: 210. The spider is also has an engine cap smaller than the formula (stock 240, max 255). If the spider followed that formula the max should be a 335 (rounded down from 336), so clearly exceptions can be made and do exist. My argument is simply that the 2x and 4x need a larger maximum engine size to be more competitive/viable. Thank you for the link for the engine cap page.

Each of those exceptions, though, is made to make the 'Mechs in question slower (ostensibly, to keep them - and the game - manageable while the netcode/lag/etc issues are being resolved).
Presumably, there would come a day where those issues are sufficiently resolved, to the point that that particular part of the speed restriction (and, in the hopes of some, the entire Engine restriction system) would be discarded.

In the mean time, though: if they're making 'Mechs that should be fast slower, why would make 'Mechs that are at the speed they should be at faster?

[Wolf Clearwater]

Strum Wealh, on 29 January 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

Each of those exceptions, though, is made to make the 'Mechs in question slower (ostensibly, to keep them - and the game - manageable while the netcode/lag/etc issues are being resolved).
Presumably, there would come a day where those issues are sufficiently resolved, to the point that that particular part of the speed restriction (and, in the hopes of some, the entire Engine restriction system) would be discarded.

In the mean time, though: if they're making 'Mechs that should be fast slower, why would make 'Mechs that are at the speed they should be at faster?

I agree that they are limited because of netcode..... can you imagine what the spider top speed would be otherwise?
Again, the argument is that they need a engine size/speed boost to be more competitive and viable when compared to other light mechs. I am also suggesting that the 2x and 4x would see far more use if they had a comparable top speed to the 3L. The jenner is capable of a much higher top speed and carries more firepower, the commando is faster and carries a comparable amount of firepower, the spider.....well that is its own issue. Presumably when jump jets get revisited, that will actually be a significant advantage....but there is a whole other thread for that. You make a good argument sir, again I will admit I am biased

[Vassago Rain]

I sold both mine.

[DocBach]

they are suppose to be obsolete crap. Personally I wish there was some kind of sequence or skill tree you had to complete before unlocking the higher tier (post 3050) designs.

And perhaps matchmaking could group players that haven't completed as many trees together so you don't have 2X Ravens being eaten alive by 3L Ravens like we do now.

Edited by DocBach, 29 January 2013 - 08:45 AM.

[ICEFANG13]

It would be nice if they all could use ECM, and they all would have an engine max of 255. The slowest light mechs, but still much faster than most mediums, and all with ECM. It would be great and fun!

[Strum Wealh]

Wolf87535, on 29 January 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

I agree that they are limited because of netcode..... can you imagine what the spider top speed would be otherwise?
Again, the argument is that they need a engine size/speed boost to be more competitive and viable when compared to other light mechs. I am also suggesting that the 2x and 4x would see far more use if they had a comparable top speed to the 3L. The jenner is capable of a much higher top speed and carries more firepower, the commando is faster and carries a comparable amount of firepower, the spider.....well that is its own issue. Presumably when jump jets get revisited, that will actually be a significant advantage....but there is a whole other thread for that. You make a good argument sir, again I will admit I am biased

Actually, you don't have to keep repeating that you're biased in favor of your own suggestion, as that bias is part of the default assumption - the thinking is that if you weren't biased in favor of said suggestion, you wouldn't have made it in the first place or persisted in arguing in its favor.

That being said, I must admit that I'm somewhat biased the other way - I like the general idea behind the Engine restrictions (though, not the additional speed cap that slows the faster 'Mechs).

Personally, I feel that the engine restrictions should be kept in place largely to aid in role preservation, especially with regard to Light and Medium 'Mechs, which respectively tend to be designed for scout/harasser and vanguard/striker roles.
I rather like the notion of Lights and Mediums being (or becoming) the go-to 'Mechs for the roles for which they were designed, rather than heavily min-maxed Assaults moving at Light/Medium speeds being the norm.

I feel that it also adds another layer of individuality for each chassis, and even for variants within chassis.
As an example, the CN9-D Centurion is faster than all of the other Centurion variants because it starts with a higher-rated, more powerful Engine; it was explicitly designed to be faster, at the cost of Engine weight (15.5t for the CN9-D's 300 XL, versus 11.5 tons for the Standard 200 used by the CN9-A and CN9-AL), durability and longevity (the CN9-D's use of an XL Engine means that it can be taken down by destroying the side-torsos, a weakness that the other variants don't have), and repair/maintenance costs (4.9 million c-bills for the 300 XL, versus 1.2 million for the Standard 200).
Likewise, the AWS-9M was designed to be faster than the other Awesome variants, the CTF-4X is designed to be slower than the other Cataphracts... and (most importantly for this conversation) the RVN-3L is designed to be faster than the other Raven variants.

So, the RVN-3L is a fast and LosTech-heavy (imagine what will happen when repair and rearm costs return... ) electronic warfare specialist, the RVN-4X has ballistics (and the capacity to become a pseudo-Hollander) and is jump-capable (a characteristic the actual Hollander would lack), and the RVN-2X is a near energy boat (4 energy hardpoints and a single missile hardpoint allow it to match the JR7-K and very nearly match the JR7-D (one missile hardpoint short!)) that starts with more armor than the other variants (and more than the comparable Jenner variants) and is the cheapest Raven (in terms of both c-bills and MC; it's also cheaper than all of the Jenner variants).

It's not as though the -2X and -4X have nothing to offer or are "unviable", but what they offer just happens to not be the current FOTM build.

[Wolf Clearwater]

Strum Wealh, on 30 January 2013 - 05:04 AM, said:

Personally, I feel that the engine restrictions should be kept in place largely to aid in role preservation, especially with regard to Light and Medium 'Mechs, which respectively tend to be designed for scout/harasser and vanguard/striker roles.
I rather like the notion of Lights and Mediums being (or becoming) the go-to 'Mechs for the roles for which they were designed, rather than heavily min-maxed Assaults moving at Light/Medium speeds being the norm.

I feel that it also adds another layer of individuality for each chassis, and even for variants within chassis.
As an example, the CN9-D Centurion is faster than all of the other Centurion variants because it starts with a higher-rated, more powerful Engine; it was explicitly designed to be faster, at the cost of Engine weight (15.5t for the CN9-D's 300 XL, versus 11.5 tons for the Standard 200 used by the CN9-A and CN9-AL), durability and longevity (the CN9-D's use of an XL Engine means that it can be taken down by destroying the side-torsos, a weakness that the other variants don't have), and repair/maintenance costs (4.9 million c-bills for the 300 XL, versus 1.2 million for the Standard 200).
Likewise, the AWS-9M was designed to be faster than the other Awesome variants, the CTF-4X is designed to be slower than the other Cataphracts... and (most importantly for this conversation) the RVN-3L is designed to be faster than the other Raven variants.

Excellent points, however:
Those roles might be possible if we had much larger maps (3-4x the current size), but we don't. Again, not saying they are "unviable", just that they are severely underpowered vs the other light mechs (except perhaps the spider) and especially vs the 3L (which is broken via ECM SSRM combo right now). In this game, speed is the be and end all for light mechs. I don't think a small speed buff is really that damaging to the game mechanic or the role of the raven (because that role does not exist in MWO at all). I am not suggesting that they receive additional hard points to turn the raven into a jenner, but this speed buff might make them more attractive so we don't only see the 3L. The ECM/SSRM combo will get fixed sooner or later, but the 3L will still be the far superior raven.

"The Raven's job is first and foremost to provide electronic warfare and countermeasure support to other units; any mission in which the 'Mech is forced into a combat role is seen as a failure."
source: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Raven
This role is just simply impossible in MWO (at least at the moment). I would like to see a 3L that had that role in MWO.

same source:
RVN-2X - Many of the Ravens captured by the Federated Suns in the Fourth Succession War were refitted to the 2X standard. It replaces the EW equipment with a Large Laser and adds an additional two and a half tons of armor.
Edit: - (if the 2x could carry more armor that the 3L by 2.5 tons, you would have a good point on the role)

RVN-4X - A Capellan variant of the original prototype, the -4X was an attempt to turn the chassis into a pure combat unit.

A larger maximum engine size would help that role. In MWO, the 3L is the pure combat unit, the 4x not even close.

I would support the 3L having the maximum engine size reduced, and the 2x and the 4x still getting a max engine size buff.

Edited by Wolf87535, 30 January 2013 - 05:59 AM.

[Hubis]

The viability of the -4X and -2X Ravens suffer from a lot of problems, and none of them have to do with not being the current mech de jour. Right now streaks are still the dominant light destroying weapons in the game. This wouldn't necessarily be such a problem, except that it means that if you're in a light with ECM and Streaks, you're gauranteed to kill any light WITHOUT those things in a one-on-one duel. Due to the way matchmaking works, if you bring a light you're guaranteed to be facing at least one other light. At that point, it's simple game theory:

• If we both bring non-ECM/non-streak mechs, it's a toss-up
  
• If one of us brings Streaks, they will kill the other
  
• If both of us brings Streaks but no ECM it's a toss-up
  
• if both of us bring Streaks and one brings ECM, they will kill the other
  
• if both of us bring ECM and Streaks, it's a toss-up

I think the other Ravens might do well in a harassment/fast brawler role, but there's not a lot of room for that right now due to the above meta-game. In addition to that, due to the way "Free" heatsinks work with DHS, you will always be at a base heat-dissipation disadvantage relative to any mech with a larger engine.


The hard points on the -4X are pretty bad. It has two ballistic points which, while interesting for gimmicks (hello Gauss Raven!) are impractical for high-quality builds. Machine Guns aren't worth having [yet] and AC/2's borderline to heavy for a 35T mech for what you get out of them AND suffer from continuing netcode problems. This leaves two energy hardpoints and one missile -- this limits your overall damage output greatly, as you can't fit Large Lasers reasonably, and 2x Medium/Medium Pulses just don't have decent enough damage output. The SRM capability helps, but it's nothing the Jenner D or K can't do better -- plus your low speed/fragility ratio means that getting into range to use the weapons is a big risk.

My best bet for the RVN-4X would be something like this: [color=#000000]RVN-4X - Brawler[/color]
[color=#000000]The standard engine gives you a little durability. Wait until your heavies and assaults engage, then swing in and try to finish off anything that's been wounded. Torso-twist aggressively, using your left side as a shield like a Centurion.[/color]

The hardpoints on the 2X are a bit better -- You can fit something like 4 Mediums + SRM6, or even medium pulses, and be alright at killing relatively slower mediums or assaults. Unfortunately, you'll still get chewed up by enemy lights with ECM/Streaks.

My best bet for the -2X would be something like this: [color=#000000]RVN-2X - Harasser[/color]
This is a medium/long-range bracket mech. You fit an XL engine which makes you vulnerable, but allows you to fit two Large Lasers. At the start of the match, hang back with the assaults and add long-range support. When the fight starts, stay at roughly 300-400m (outside of streak range, and most people's attention) and use your medium lasers on anything that gets close. When you have a good shot on a mech's back or open section, hit it with the larges. It's not awesome for 8-mans or anything, but it's surprisingly fun and effective for pick-up games due to your ability to swoop in and steal kills.

The non-3L Ravens may see a boost eventually, if certain changes work out well:

• Netcode improvements will make direct-fire weapons more potent against other lights, reducing the ECM/Streak gap. They'll also make using direct-fire weapons while moving quickly more reliable, allowing for better overall damage potential
  
• MG refinements might make the -4X interesting, letting you use SRMs to strip armor and then the machine-guns to knock out components
  
• Large energy weapon heat changes will make the fewer hard points less of an obstacle, as you will be able to fit bigger weapons with less of an inherent penalty
  
• Larger maps would make highly mobile firepower more useful, as you could spread out your slower mechs, then rely on your fast light/medium brawlers as "Cavalry" to move to wherever the enemy is concentrated

Edited by Hubis, 30 January 2013 - 05:58 AM.

[Wolf Clearwater]

Thank you Hubis, I think you are spot-on.

Hubis, on 30 January 2013 - 05:57 AM, said:

The viability of the -4X and -2X Ravens suffer from a lot of problems, and none of them have to do with not being the current mech de jour. Right now streaks are still the dominant light destroying weapons in the game. This wouldn't necessarily be such a problem, except that it means that if you're in a light with ECM and Streaks, you're gauranteed to kill any light WITHOUT those things in a one-on-one duel. Due to the way matchmaking works, if you bring a light you're guaranteed to be facing at least one other light.

Thank you Hubis, I think you summed it up well.