Dragon 1C or 1N

Thread in 'Dragon' started by Regina Redshift, Aug 16, 2013.

  1. Regina Redshift

    Regina Redshift Sass Elemental

    1,293
    55
    143
    I really like the SRM8, or the weight-saving 2xLRM5 options in the 1N, and it was my primary 'mech in closed beta. However, it seems to have an inferior hardpoint configuration to the 1C.

    (This is in no way a build post, just a vague attempt at recalling what I used almost a year ago)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 8, 2014
  2. The Verge

    The Verge Moderator Staff Member

    4,367
    497
    231
    The superior part of the 1C is it's high energy points, compared to the 1N. You can mount 2LL in that torso, and use it as a sniper platform. You can use that to your advantage when building a sniper vs a brawler build in the Dragon.
     
  3. Leonhart

    Leonhart Advanced Member

    499
    3
    22
    Quick question: Why would anyone want to brawl in a dragon? They seem to always be one of the absolute worst chassis for it. Every time a dragon gets too close he gets punished for it. Not only do they sacrifice the life-giving armor, they have a horribly easy CT to core that even Helen Keller could hit repeatedly.

    Not saying dragons are horrible, but if they can brawl, ive never seen a pilot that can pull it off.
     
  4. Regina Redshift

    Regina Redshift Sass Elemental

    1,293
    55
    143
    I've done it while dancing like mad... and bringing a 'mech which is much higher-teir to attract the hate.

    I'd rather brawl in a Spider than a Dragon. :phear:

    [quote author=Vergere link=topic=2939.msg17522#msg17522 date=1376678528]
    The superior part of the 1C is it's high energy points, compared to the 1N. You can mount 2LL in that torso, and use it as a sniper platform. You can use that to your advantage when building a sniper vs a brawler build in the Dragon.
    [/quote]

    I think I see what you're saying. That a good ranged offense is the best defense for a Dragon.
     
  5. Leonhart

    Leonhart Advanced Member

    499
    3
    22
    lolz...
     
  6. Aylek

    Aylek Administrator Staff Member

    2,761
    528
    197
    Dragons where my first chassis I choose, and I went for Flame, 1N and 5N, being attracted by the 1N for the 2-of each possible weapon types. What a mistake. Nowadays I'd take the 1C anyday for several reasons:

    - possibility of (energy) sniper because of the 2-of high mounted shoulder hardpoints
    - Gauss + 4ML (+SRM 4/6) is very good on a Dragon
    - SRM6 in it's nose provides a very good finisher-type of weapon. One can argue that SRM4 x2 is better for such a job, but weight and crit slots will quickly become a limiting factor on Dragons.

    The 1N can do some interesting things as well, though, but especially using both of it's ballistic hardpoints quickly limits the mech remaining loadout or it's speed. Overall the 1C is just the better mech.
     
  7. DarkLobster

    DarkLobster Well-Known Member

    206
    3
    22
    The 1N was the Dragon I most struggled with, but when I finally settled on a favourite build for it, it was as a brawler (2 LPLas, 2 SRM4, 2 MG). Maybe it was the change in thinking in regards to the ballistic slots - I was always trying to fit two ACs in before. Sure, the Dragon CT puts you at a disadvantage, but it doesn't mean it can't be done. Speed helps...

    I've ended up playing the 1C as a fast interceptor/harasser (360XL), the 5N as fire-support (triple AC2s), and the 1N as a reasonably quick brawler (XL325). Initially, the 1C was a firm favourite. Now, it's a much tougher call.
     
  8. Regina Redshift

    Regina Redshift Sass Elemental

    1,293
    55
    143
    So... what you're saying is "it depends"?
     
  9. Blagg Zear

    Blagg Zear Star Lord

    5,001
    578
    199
    i feel like the 1C is the strongest non-Hero-Variant of the Dragon, because it has similar Weaponslots like the Flame (the best of all). IMO the Dragon needs speed and should be played as a fast hardstriking Skirmisher, not as a pure Brawler. With 4 Energyslots, you can load more weightsaving Laserweapons than with two Ballistic Slots, so to keep the Engine above XL300. The 1N gives me a mixed feeling. From the Weaponslots it should be played as a strong Brawler, but then the CT of the Dragon is too large for going into Close Range Combat. So in the end, you wont use both Ballistic Slots, if you want speed. And Speed is crucial for the Dragon.
     
  10. DarkLobster

    DarkLobster Well-Known Member

    206
    3
    22
    I guess so. Variety is the spice of life after all.

    That said, you do have 2 missile and 2 ballistic slots on the 1N that you have quite limited options for. The 1C hardpoints do give you a bit more versatility, so by the "variety is the spice of life" logic, maybe it is better...
     
  11. Aylek

    Aylek Administrator Staff Member

    2,761
    528
    197
    With the upcoming quirks this is as relevant as 1.5 years ago, and at least as interesting to discuss.

    1C looses a lot of charme in this comparison, and 1N suddenly looks very attractive again. Let's see how you feel about this.

    Which Dragon(s) would you choose if you were to start this chassis - and why?
     
  12. epikt

    epikt Benefactor

    2,511
    502
    104
    Beware of the 1N's AC/5 quirk to be nerfed in two weeks.
     
  13. Aylek

    Aylek Administrator Staff Member

    2,761
    528
    197
    This was my first reaction as well to be honest. But if you think about it again - why should they? They implemented the quirks to level the playground for certain variants or even chassis and to bring them nearly on par with the variants (chassis) considered tier 1 by whoever created that list.

    They might adjust the changes a bit, but how far can they go without making a particular variant obsolete or worthless again when revising the quirks? This would be against their own new strategy of communication and would also negate all the efforts made so far to turn some variant into something interesting.
     
  14. epikt

    epikt Benefactor

    2,511
    502
    104
    Well, if the leaked values are kept the triple AC/2 is obsolete from day one, even with the quirks given to the -5N. Way to revive the old favourites...

    Seriously, everybody with half a brain would realize, simply by looking at numbers, that a cooldown reduction of 62.5% (50 from quirks + 12.5 from modules) is totally disproportionate, whatever the weapon and whatever the mech.
    Also, if an AC needs love it's the AC/2, not the AC/5 that already have major arguments on its favor (at least its high dmg/heat ratio, 2.5 times the AC/2s).

    No doubt the -1N is currently the weakest Dragon chassis, and it should be given quirks accordingly. But not at this obscene level.

    Actually, what would REALLY be against their own new strategy of communication is if they release an obviously broken and unbalanced system, that would draw the flame war to the system itself (which is, in my opinion, good) and not at the numbers needed to be tweaked. After a quick look at the values I'd say it looks fairly OK, but there are few quirks obviously disproportionate and the DRG-1N's is one of them.
     
  15. Aylek

    Aylek Administrator Staff Member

    2,761
    528
    197
    Sure, that's what I am thinking as well.

    But on the other hand I also think this unanimously weakest DRG variant needs some obscene quirks to be even considered worthwhile. The current quirks for the AC5 are indeed over the top, but would anybody even thinking about getting that variant if they weren't? Would 12.5% AC5 plus 12.5% ballistic be enough to consider this variant? I don't think so.

    Whatever PGI does in this regard, it'll be like a dance on the razor's edge...

    Damn. Earworm. :wideyed:
     
  16. epikt

    epikt Benefactor

    2,511
    502
    104
    12.5+12.5 probably wouldn't be enough indeed, even if it already makes a very generous -37.5% stacked with the module: basically one shot every second, that's already a good DPS (~5dmg/s).
    There must be a middle ground, I don't think the total modificator (quirk + module) should go further than 50%. That make something like 36% (18+18?) for the quirk.
     
    Aylek likes this.
  17. Excalibaard

    Excalibaard 101 010 Staff Member

    5,051
    1,107
    269
    They should just make multiplicative quirks. Additive is stupid as fuck and hyperscales as % reduction and DPS are inversely related. Assuming you already have 80% CDR, another 10% would DOUBLE your DPS, instead of increasing it by 11%. the impact gets increasingly big as there are other cooldown quirks.

    50% (or 25+25) from AC5, then 5% from fast fire and 12% from CDM5 when additive is 67% reduction. It increases DPS to 3x original value, which is a completely disproportionate idiotic number.

    Assuming multiplicative:
    0.75*0.75*0.88*0.95 = 0.47 (53% CD reduction) so DPS would be roughly over twice as high. Still absurd, but the further they go into this ultra impatful quirks territory, the more it matters.


    Honestly, they should proably be multiplicative AND reduce the values by approx. a third of their current values.
     
    epikt likes this.
  18. Aylek

    Aylek Administrator Staff Member

    2,761
    528
    197
    I like this discussion. Let's keep it going!
     
  19. epikt

    epikt Benefactor

    2,511
    502
    104
    Quoted to highlight this specific point.
     
top-fast
top-fast
top-fast
top-fast