242 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

Victor Morson, on 25 July 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

There's plenty of guides out there, but after seeing a massive decline in build quality even amongst pugs lately, I figure this is worth repeating - the list of what not to do. [BUT WHAT IF...] No, not even then! NEVER!

1: Mount a Large Pulse Laser, AC/5, AC/10, LBX/10, Machine Gun, Flamer, ER Large Laser, Medium Pulse Laser, NARC, or less LRMs (per volley) than 20. These guns are horrendous and you're already gimping your build right out of the gate with them! Try better guns.

Eh, I disagree to an extent - I've seen or used effective builds with some of the above weapons. the AC/5, for example, can be useful depending on your hardpoint configuration (I'm looking at you, Cataphract 4X,) and three Medium Pulse Lasers work well on my Spider D. However, they are definitely niche weapons and should not be used unless you have a Very Good Reason to take them over similar weapons. Other weapons on the list are indeed sub-par right now, including the Narc beacon, which simply needs to be rebuilt around ECM, and the AC/10 - the redheaded stepchild of autocannons.

[Victor Morson]

Prosperity Park, on 26 July 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

I can't say I agree with all the sweeping statements made in the OP, like the "Never, no, never" level of exaggeration.

It is in no way exaggeration. If you are making a good build, you won't use any other weapons, period. Ever, ever, ever.

Prosperity Park, on 26 July 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

I use twin-, tri-, quad-AC/5s to great effect as a substitute for Gauss;

24 tons of guns + tons of heat + explosive ammo + high ROF / low damage (need to stay on target) =/= tons of up front, instant, heatless damage. Period.

Prosperity Park, on 26 July 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

I use quad-LL's to great effect (the beam duration "increased" from 1 second to just over 1.5 seconds now, but it still works well);

If you are going to download and use a macro to time your shots around the failure of a heat system change, sure. Otherwise you're going to extend well past 1.5 seconds with two 1-second discharges and a half-second delay or risk frying yourself instantly.

I would have agreed with you before "The maths" happened.

Prosperity Park, on 26 July 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

I use tri- or quad-Machineguns to great effect as a heat-free supplemental weapon system;

Machine guns are among the very, very, very worst weapons in the whole game. People go "But they deal the same DPS as a small laser for no heat!" and to that I must remind them they deal the same DPS as a small laser... if you continually fire them from the point you'd start firing a small laser, until the time it's ready to fire again. Meanwhile, a small laser pilot will drill you, evade your MGs, then drill you again.

They are a bad gun that's not good on anything, ever, even if you can get acceptable damage against inexperienced pilots.

Prosperity Park, on 26 July 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

and I put an ERLL on my Catapult C4 because the extra range is nice when your only ranged weapon is Energy and has just 2 slots.

It's still way too hot with way too much discharge. You'd be better off mounting a TAG for your missile weapons and calling it a day, every time.

Prosperity Park, on 26 July 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

Other advice is quite good; never assume the other team will ditch the cap for the Honor of Combat; whenever that happens, it means you already lost the match (they had your base hands-down, and that means your team failed), so everything after that is just a playfight for the sake of blowing things up... but you already lost, no matter how well that fight goes. Community Warfare will be territory-based, meaning You and Your Affiliates' K/D ratios are worthless compared to your W/L ratio. K's and D's are only means to a W/L; they, themselves, do not determine who owns the Territory.

The problem with W/L ratio meaning anything is you are entirely at the mercy, outside of the 8 mans, of what your team happens to bring. Part of why this guide is needed.

Prosperity Park, on 26 July 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

However... a big point is that this guide may need major revisions in the upcoming patch cycles if there are significant changes to the weapons table. You might want to be careful about "never do this" kinds of statements when things are subject to change.

I'm happy to update as more weapons either get nerfed, or as more weapons get sacrificed on the altar of other weapons (i.e. break Streaks to fix SRMs, a common pattern).

Prosperity Park, on 26 July 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

The fact that I have been using a plethora (yes, I would say that) of different weapon types makes me quite well-fit for changes to the dominant gameplay tactic.

Play for the game you have, not the one that you might get later.

Prosperity Park, on 26 July 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

I haven't been spending my time evolving myself into the Ultimate PPC+Gauss Sniper because I don't really anticipate PPC+Gauss Sniping to totally own MW:O forever. It's kind of why I also run Medium Mechs: why get stale at everything other than the flavor-of-the-time?

As soon as they totally break PPCs as will likely be the case, we'll just go twin Gauss. It's not going anywhere, even if I wish it would.

Also the majority of what I said, shy of SRMs, hasn't changed in a year.

[Royalewithcheese]

zraven7, on 26 July 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

Yes, this is the most efficient way to kill a mech by yourself. The point of LBX/SRM builds is to sling large amounts of damage over mechs while your team comes in and destroys the weakened mechs.

Pinpoint does that better, generally. Keep in mind that even the mighty splatcats of yore did their best to concentrate their SRM36 blasts as much as possible.

[Void Angel]

Roland, on 26 July 2013 - 07:53 AM, said:

I'm confused about your suggestion here.

An LBX-10 is specifically terrible for punching through armor, because it will spread damage all over the place.

When dealing with armor, you want to focus your damage on a single panel to get through it as fast as possible. It doesn't serve any purpose to strip the armor off of multiple panels if you can help it. The most efficient way to kill a mech is to get to its internals on a critical section as fast as possible, while leaving the rest of the mech in pristine condition.

Some people will dedicate their build to simply smashing as much armor as they can, letting others with pinpoint damage weapons score kills more easily. Typically they'll use the LB-X along with SRMs, and back it up with lasers of some kind (depending on the 'mech.) It's a definite team player build strategy, and one I'm a bit on the fence about.

The idea is that by using weapons which spread damage around, they force the enemy to protect multiple armor locations, while at the same time giving teammates with high-damage pinpoint weapons more opportunities to score a telling blow. This also makes it harder for enemies to protect damaged locations. The 10X also causes more cockpit shake than anything in the game - even the AC/20, and is superb at killing weapons in locations whose armor has been breached.

All that being said, I've always been skeptical about the idea that mass armor-stripping is (or even should be) a viable tactic to build an entire Battlemech around. I had this... discussion back when LRMs were nerfed (briefly) into the ground a while back; people were actually arguing that the totally ineffective levels of damage were "fine" because the LRM was supposedly an "armor-stripping" weapon, and not a "killing weapon." But I digress. The point I'm making is that for imprecise weapons like the 10X to be viable, they need to do more damage to compensate for their spread, or bring something else to the table - and I'm not sure the 10X's ability to smash equipment is enough.

Certainly, until the high-alpha meta is completely done away with, the 10X underperforms compared to more pinpoint damage weaponry.

[jper4]

my 2 credits on the weapons list as mostly a mediums player.

LPL, ERLL, LBX, flamer, NARC i tried breifly and didn;t really have much appeal to me as regular LLs seem to work better.

LRMs i don't mess with much, had one dual lrm 15 on a jager A for a little while, was ok. but when the mood strikes i may toss an LRM 5-15 on a trebbie for supression since when the target hears that missile warning they don;t know at first if it's 5 or 50 heading at them so first instinct of running to cover is going to take them out of play for a little bit. i don't use them intending to do major damage. wouldn't devote the entire mech to a LRM platform (cause mediums wouldn't have much room for anything else plus room for enough ammo)

machine guns since the buff are ok for lights, those jager 6MG loadouts seem to work decently (never used them myself) but i wouldn;t really use them myself in anything else. tried it in the hunchy 4G a few times when i got sick of losing the hunch 5 seconds into the match so i said the hell with it and loaded up MGs with LLs. wasn;t too impressed.

MPLs however i think can make a good backup/support weapon on mediums/heavy lrm/dakka boats and a primary on lights as you want to keep moving on a light so you're better off using something you don't have to keep on target as long instead of watching the regular laser draw a circle around the mech you're circling (especially if you're not used to the speeds on lights). i used MPLs on my dakka jagers since when the lights start to swarm you you're better off having something that can do the damage faster in the brief time they spend in your sights. also work better late in matches when everyone has red CTs, MPL is going to finish that quicker than a ML will generally. SPLs are the best of course- only ones that don't suffer the range penalty and more heat efficent than a ML for the same weight (though less range/damage)

finally the ACs. i have found the AC10 seems a bit lacking. used to use them a lot but it always seemed like i'd be hitting the same target forever and it didn't die- same with dual ac10s on a jager. AC5s though i find much more useful, fire faster, heat is seldom an issue even dual mounted and other than the ac20, it's my preferred ballistic on my mediums- ac2s seem to heat up too fast on smaller mechs for the bursts needed to do it's damage- fine on heavies and assaults though- while ac5s, even a lone one i can usually fire all day and still be able to use my lasers regularly- not to mention not getting noticed longer- one 5 pt shot every few seconds vs. a chain of 2pt shots in the same time frame that always gets noticed.

points 2 and 3 i agree- though on 3 i find whenever i do go lrm boat hunting there's always an ac40 jager or an ecmed atlas standing right next to it...

point 4 i never died to an ammo explosion with an xl- usually because the xl itself tends to blow up first.

point 5- i usually never try to go beyond 2 weapons groups myself- only time i go past that is if i'm using something i know i won't be firing with the others (like lrms with a lot of MLs for the rest of the weapons). other than that yeah better off not having all different types of weapons on your mech.

[Victor Morson]

BoPop, on 26 July 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

but regarding weapons, it makes me curious as to what mech and play style the OP runs primarily? i'm going to guess a sniping gauss/ppc/srm highlander with jump jets. 2nd guess would be... gauss and 2 erppc or whatever. no doubt the highlander is a powerful mech. 3rd guess would be a PPC stalker *yawn*

PPC Stalkers were honestly more popular with the "Baby's first alpha" crowd than the competitive community right from the start; we generally run Misery if we use Stalkers at all.

To answer your question, pretty much: Cent, Cataphract, Victor, Highlander. Pretty much all the best designs in the game.

Again you can *yawn* all you want, but this is a guide to how to make good 'mechs, not pretty ones. Do not confuse the two.

BoPop, on 26 July 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

whichever it is, doesn't there come a point when you get tired of running the same mech? many of the weapons the OP listed as "don't use EVAR" can find a home on several of the chassis in a variety of play styles. I've got close to 50 chassis mastered having used all of these weapons in one way or another.

I do run other 'mechs sometimes, but I'd never do so when trying to be competitive. Again, this guide is steering players to good weapons, not flashy ones.

BoPop, on 26 July 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

the only weapon I might agree with is the LB just cuz I think only a somewhat seasoned player could put it to good use, but if i'm running a medium or light and i find a target that has an LB it puts me on alert until i find out how good that pilot is with it.

The LBX? It's scatter shot. You don't need to be that good of a gunner to hit with it, it just doesn't do much when it does.

BoPop, on 26 July 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

I like ac5's, 10's, LPL's, LL's, MPL's and have found uses for them in many a build. i did an experimental build on a cataphract with just the ballistic and 2LPL's, think i used an ac10,

Your build is pretty much precisely the kind of thing that prompted this OP. 4 Trash weapons =/= a good build.

BoPop, on 26 July 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

and i had no weapons on my arms, and lowered their armor. i had several good rounds in a row and basic'd that thing out quick with a build i thought would only entertain me for one match. Alpine was the only map that stinks for silly builds like that but the rest of the maps were ok for that set up. i used MPL's too to master my cicadas, even ran a 2B build that had 3 LL's (before the heat penalty)

Subjective "this build is good because I did good in it!" opinion is not a good way to base what is good and what is not, because again, if you're facing people in just as bad a builds as you.. you're likely to think you're doing fine.

If you're running a good 'mech, you will slaughter them all.

This guide is, again, for good 'mechs.

[zraven7]

Void Angel, on 26 July 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

Some people will dedicate their build to simply smashing as much armor as they can, letting others with pinpoint damage weapons score kills more easily. Typically they'll use the LB-X along with SRMs, and back it up with lasers of some kind (depending on the 'mech.) It's a definite team player build strategy, and one I'm a bit on the fence about.

The idea is that by using weapons which spread damage around, they force the enemy to protect multiple armor locations, while at the same time giving teammates with high-damage pinpoint weapons more opportunities to score a telling blow. This also makes it harder for enemies to protect damaged locations. The 10X also causes more cockpit shake than anything in the game - even the AC/20, and is superb at killing weapons in locations whose armor has been breached.

All that being said, I've always been skeptical about the idea that mass armor-stripping is (or even should be) a viable tactic to build an entire Battlemech around. I had this... discussion back when LRMs were nerfed (briefly) into the ground a while back; people were actually arguing that the totally ineffective levels of damage were "fine" because the LRM was supposedly an "armor-stripping" weapon, and not a "killing weapon." But I digress. The point I'm making is that for imprecise weapons like the 10X to be viable, they need to do more damage to compensate for their spread, or bring something else to the table - and I'm not sure the 10X's ability to smash equipment is enough.

Certainly, until the high-alpha meta is completely done away with, the 10X underperforms compared to more pinpoint damage weaponry.

Thank you. All eloquently put.

It is, indeed, a build that works best on a mech that can take some punishment, and it does excel because there is no torso-twisting or jumping you can do to avoid it. Where ever it is hitting, that's just fine.

Now, as far as the efficacy of it vs other tactics, that's a point that could be argued for a few threads all by itself. I will say that, regardless of whether or not it works better than anything else, it does work.

That said, the 10X geting some kind of a buff, like a cooldown reduction, would make a lot of sense.

[Void Angel]

Victor Morson, on 26 July 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

24 tons of guns + tons of heat + explosive ammo + high ROF / low damage (need to stay on target) =/= tons of up front, instant, heatless damage. Period.

Well, actually...

First, the Gauss rifle does do a ton of damage up front - but it's DPS/ton is abysmal; exactly 0.25 dps/ton. That, along with its weight, serves to balance its high pinpoint damage and low (not nonexistent) heat. By contrast, the AC/5 does much less up-front damage, but it smokes the Gauss in dps/ton, weighing in at 0.416 dps/ton - and it does not by any means generate "tons of heat." In fact, a Cataphract 4X with a quad-AC/5 build and the bare minimum 10 double heat sinks in the engine can fire those weapons for two minutes and forty-three seconds solid before reaching overheat - and to fire this long would require over fourteen tons of ammunition; more than twice what a reasonable build could carry. Certainly, you have explosive ammunition - but you're getting a nastier all-around weapon to compensate.

So, while the Gauss does well in a sniping role, it is emphatically not a better all-around weapon than the AC/5 - which is why the Gauss Rifle wasn't hit with the boating penalties as was the AC/20 and the (ER)PPC.

[Victor Morson]

Modo44, on 26 July 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

And it would be well and good in the noobie help subforum. Saying "those weapons always bad" here, in a general guide, just sounds silly/trolly.

I am saying always.* They are always bad ideas.

* Literally unless you are screwing around on purpose.

zraven7, on 26 July 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

I'm not too keen about it in the Newbie help forum, either. People need to try the weapons, learn what they like and such.

This isn't a thread about what weapon you might like, it's which ones work. Some people will want to know what's good, not what's pretty.

[Victor Morson]

Kurkotain, on 26 July 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

DCM Zeus would like a word with you. best multi weapons platform use of a highlander i've ever seen to date.

What's he run? I know I've blown Zeus up at least a few times.

Soldryn, on 26 July 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

1.) buy a stalker or atlas or Jenner, Raven, Centurion, Cataphract, Victor or Highlander.
2.) pack as many ppc's and gauss rifles as possible, use excess tonnage on DHS and ammo
3.) ridicule educate anyone using anything else on field
4.) complain in forums that you can't handle any other meta regarding weapons post when it's broken that it needs fixing
5.) ragequit when someone tells you that your ELO aintis as great as you think it is.

That said I blow myself up plenty for league reasons so I'm sure my ELO is actually pretty damaged. That and I rarely PUG anymore to farm it. But nobody in higher ELO brackets is likely to disagree with a thing I've said.

[MustrumRidcully]

Void Angel, on 26 July 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

Some people will dedicate their build to simply smashing as much armor as they can, letting others with pinpoint damage weapons score kills more easily. Typically they'll use the LB-X along with SRMs, and back it up with lasers of some kind (depending on the 'mech.) It's a definite team player build strategy, and one I'm a bit on the fence about.

The idea is that by using weapons which spread damage around, they force the enemy to protect multiple armor locations, while at the same time giving teammates with high-damage pinpoint weapons more opportunities to score a telling blow. This also makes it harder for enemies to protect damaged locations. The 10X also causes more cockpit shake than anything in the game - even the AC/20, and is superb at killing weapons in locations whose armor has been breached.

All that being said, I've always been skeptical about the idea that mass armor-stripping is (or even should be) a viable tactic to build an entire Battlemech around. I had this... discussion back when LRMs were nerfed (briefly) into the ground a while back; people were actually arguing that the totally ineffective levels of damage were "fine" because the LRM was supposedly an "armor-stripping" weapon, and not a "killing weapon." But I digress. The point I'm making is that for imprecise weapons like the 10X to be viable, they need to do more damage to compensate for their spread, or bring something else to the table - and I'm not sure the 10X's ability to smash equipment is enough.

Certainly, until the high-alpha meta is completely done away with, the 10X underperforms compared to more pinpoint damage weaponry.

In theory, there might be a scenario and a set of variables where basically "AOE" damage against multiple hit location is worth it.
But right now, repeated use of the AC/10 will create a hole in the enemy mech's armour, the LBX-10 will need much more time for that - it seems to me easier for a team to exploit a single, very strongly weakened section, than several moderately weakened sections.


Generally, the key to AOE damage being useful relies on the following:
- Taking something out is more effective then just removing hit points, unless there are some serious penalties for damage. (Most games with hit points don'T have that.)
- An AoE effect must be weaker on a per target base than a single target/pinpoint attack.
- But the total damage must be higher.

I should probably try to find some well-balanced games and see what kind of AoE vs Single Target damage values you have. In D&D 4, a 1st level Rogue (Role: Striker, Typical focusing on taking out single targets) can deal about 1d8+2d6+4 (13.5) damage against one target, while a Wizard (Role: Controller; debuffing enemies and creating area effects) can deal 1d6+4 (7.5) damage against multiple targets (up to 8). Assuming the Wizard catches about 3 targets per attack, and assuming Wizard vs Rogue is decently balanced, that would mean D&D 4 aims at having an AOE deal about 50 % more total damage than a single target attack on average, but only half the damage per individual target.

Now, hit locations in MW:O are not exactly the same as AoE effects against multiple targets, but they are also some similarities - each enemy target has his own set of actions and attacks. In MW:O, each hit location can have its own weapons that can be fired together with the others.

I don't know how many hit locations the LBX-10 typically damages, but let's say it was 3 hit locations. The AC/10 deals 10 damage to 1 hit location, so that means each hit location attacked by the LBX should take about 5 damage, so the total amount of damage inflicted is 15. Which means 1.5 damage per pellet.

But that's just theorycrafting, we need to test this out! Let me start up my private test server and test it!

Oh, dang. Too bad.

[MizarPanzer]

I agree with your points except point 1.

I will mount an AC10 whenver I can on all my mechs with ballistic points unless PGI nerf them to 0.1 damage and 100 heat per shot.......

Just because it's the first weapon I've ever fired in any Mechwarrior game and it always has a special place on my mech.

Edited by MizarPanzer, 26 July 2013 - 12:44 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Xeno Phalcon, on 26 July 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

[/b]
Oh lordy someone hold ma banjo I gots to git my whoopin stick for this one!

Oh boy.

Xeno Phalcon, on 26 July 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

Machine Guns are fairly light and a good support weapon on many ligths and mediums. Medium Pulse Lasers are alittle heavy, hot and very short ranged but the damage they can focus on a relatively small area can be nasty.

Machine Guns are not good. At all. For the .5 tons + 1 ton ammo, you could have a small laser on another 'mech for the same DPS, delivered in "bursts" so that you can evade between shots - vital for light 'mechs - with a double heat sink to take up the heat. They are simply terrible, terrible guns.

Medium Pulses focus and damage increase is flat out not justifiable over a regular medium laser when you consider they weigh twice as much for very little benefit. Keep in mind that 1 ton out of a 35 ton 'mech is a big chunk of weight!

Xeno Phalcon, on 26 July 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

If you have a joystick or a fancy mouse with far too many buttons (Or magic fingers around the number keys) there aint nothing wrong with a little diversity in your arsenal, however such an assortment of equipment generally takes more experience to use in comparison to the 1-2 groups favored by boats and ppc+gauss chumps.

I run all 6 weapon groups on my Cataphract, which is a PPC+GAUSS "Chump."

G1 - Gauss
G2 - ER PPC + PPC
G3 - MedLas
G4 - Gauss + Medlas (Arm guns)
G5 - Gauss + ER PPC (Ext. close/long guns)
G6 - PPC Cycle

There's a lot you can do with the config. I wish it wasn't the only viable option other than SRM+AC20 now, but that's where we are.

[Victor Morson]

Kurkotain, on 26 July 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

The LB10X is a niche weapon. You can't just strap one into a mech as a vanilla autocannon and expect it to work.

But, as any niche weapon, once it finds its niche it is devastating.

Favorite build for it is http://mwo.smurfy-ne...bac1977a54e13b6

Fast, packs a punch, absolutely terrifying to anything under 55 tons, quite durable for an XL mech if piloted the right way. Not enough ammo endurance to pull the whole match, but enough to seriously cripple or destroy a whole lance.

THAT BUILD IS NOT GOOD. AT ALL. The Streaks will scatter everywhere but where you want to hit (they suck so hard now) and the LBX/10 can't crack armor. "BUT!" you cry, "CRITS!" And to that I say.. do you realize engine hits are not in the game? You cannot be killed by a crit unless it blasts your ammo, so if you store it in locations that aren't as vital - even with damage transfer - it will never ever kill you. This build will simply be entirely ineffective against competent designs!

Kurkotain, on 26 July 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

Oh and did i mention fun? cause it is a blast to pilot. picture yourself cackling maniacally as you pound lightmech after lightmech that made the mistake of trying to distract the assault component of your lance you were guarding.

This is a guide to what works, not what is "fun." I keep saying this.

Kurkotain, on 26 July 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

Yes, it works best as a bodyguard or a close range striker/dueler. like a hunchback on steroids, if you are tired of playing the long range game with your jagermechs.

Several weapon systems are just looking for the right pilot and situation to shine. You can't just strap weapons to a mech, and fire when the enemy is on your sights, and expect it to work.

It works best in the trash pile, to be honest, man.

Void Angel, on 26 July 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

Some people will dedicate their build to simply smashing as much armor as they can, letting others with pinpoint damage weapons score kills more easily. Typically they'll use the LB-X along with SRMs, and back it up with lasers of some kind (depending on the 'mech.) It's a definite team player build strategy, and one I'm a bit on the fence about.

Unless their computer is REALLY bad, and thus they need a weapon that requires low aiming accuracy, I would much rather they be trying to breach armor as well. Some "smashed armor" on the arms won't do me any good if I'm trying to kill their XL Right Torso.

Void Angel, on 26 July 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

The idea is that by using weapons which spread damage around, they force the enemy to protect multiple armor locations, while at the same time giving teammates with high-damage pinpoint weapons more opportunities to score a telling blow. This also makes it harder for enemies to protect damaged locations. The 10X also causes more cockpit shake than anything in the game - even the AC/20, and is superb at killing weapons in locations whose armor has been breached.

Cockpit shake isn't a big deal in MW:O, only reticule shake is and guns don't cause that. New players freak out when they get pelted by LRMs or AC/2s for the first time but veterans will just turn, stay calm, and murder you. Cockpit shake is not the best.

Also again, I'd rather have had some concentrated fire smashed onto the 'mech so I have crit parts to blow off than scattered damage. It's rough.

Void Angel, on 26 July 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

All that being said, I've always been skeptical about the idea that mass armor-stripping is (or even should be) a viable tactic to build an entire Battlemech around. I had this... discussion back when LRMs were nerfed (briefly) into the ground a while back; people were actually arguing that the totally ineffective levels of damage were "fine" because the LRM was supposedly an "armor-stripping" weapon, and not a "killing weapon." But I digress. The point I'm making is that for imprecise weapons like the 10X to be viable, they need to do more damage to compensate for their spread, or bring something else to the table - and I'm not sure the 10X's ability to smash equipment is enough.

Certainly, until the high-alpha meta is completely done away with, the 10X underperforms compared to more pinpoint damage weaponry.

You are wise to be skeptical, and for all the reasons you listed. It doesn't work in practice, in particular without engine crits.

Void Angel, on 26 July 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

Well, actually...

First, the Gauss rifle does do a ton of damage up front - but it's DPS/ton is abysmal; exactly 0.25 dps/ton. That, along with its weight, serves to balance its high pinpoint damage and low (not nonexistent) heat. By contrast, the AC/5 does much less up-front damage, but it smokes the Gauss in dps/ton, weighing in at 0.416 dps/ton - and it does not by any means generate "tons of heat." In fact, a Cataphract 4X with a quad-AC/5 build and the bare minimum 10 double heat sinks in the engine can fire those weapons for two minutes and forty-three seconds solid before reaching overheat - and to fire this long would require over fourteen tons of ammunition; more than twice what a reasonable build could carry. Certainly, you have explosive ammunition - but you're getting a nastier all-around weapon to compensate.

So, while the Gauss does well in a sniping role, it is emphatically not a better all-around weapon than the AC/5 - which is why the Gauss Rifle wasn't hit with the boating penalties as was the AC/20 and the (ER)PPC.

The bottom line is the AC/5 requires you to stay on target and land repeated shots, while running far too hot to sustain fire for long. The Gauss allows you to be visible for one half of a second, get your damage, and go while sustaining 100% fire capability.

There is no contest.

MizarPanzer, on 26 July 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

I agree with your points except point 1.

I will mount an AC10 whenver I can on all my mechs with ballistic points unless PGI nerf them to 0.1 damage and 100 heat per shot.......

Just because it's the first weapon I've ever fired in any Mechwarrior game and it always has a special place on my mech.

While that is your right, I would suggest that nostalgia not be a qualifier in recommending it to others.

[zraven7]

Alright, is anyone else getting tired of Victor's "I'm Amazingly Right!" thread?

We've all given him good reason's why certain weapons are, indeed, feasible, and he's just jumped up and down on his soap box screaming about how wrong we all are.

Really, I'm done. I'm out of this thread, and I suggest you all jump ship, too.

[Void Angel]

Victor Morson, on 26 July 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

The bottom line is the AC/5 requires you to stay on target and land repeated shots, while running far too hot to sustain fire for long. The Gauss allows you to be visible for one half of a second, get your damage, and go while sustaining 100% fire capability.

There is no contest.

Simply wrong, and for reasons you actually quoted me pointing out to you. You lose credibility if it seems that you're not reading the things you quote. To reiterate, the AC/5 is a better all-around weapon than the Gauss rifle, having extremely low heat and a much higher dps/ton. Certainly it is, as I said, outperformed in a SniparWarrior build - but if you match a Gauss Rifle against a (roughly) equivalent tonnage of Ac/5s in a brawl, the Gauss is at a disadvantage. Yes, even with torso twisting. Your assertion that the AC/5 is somehow heat-limited is empirically incorrect, and invalidates your argument.

[Roland]

zraven7, on 26 July 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

Yes, this is the most efficient way to kill a mech by yourself. The point of LBX/SRM builds is to sling large amounts of damage over mechs while your team comes in and destroys the weakened mechs.

Precision damage is the most efficient way to kill mechs, period. Spraying damage doesn't serve a useful purpose.
Even if you are expecting your teammates to bat cleanup, it's still better to punch through that single panel as quickly as possible, and then have your teammates hit that panel.

Kurkotain, on 26 July 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

DCM Zeus would like a word with you. best multi weapons platform use of a highlander i've ever seen to date.

Eh, I play against Zeus pretty often. He's quite a good player. I don't recall him ever dropping with a bunch of garbage weapons on his mech.

Void Angel, on 26 July 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

Simply wrong, and for reasons you actually quoted me pointing out to you. You lose credibility if it seems that you're not reading the things you quote. To reiterate, the AC/5 is a better all-around weapon than the Gauss rifle, having extremely low heat and a much higher dps/ton. Certainly it is, as I said, outperformed in a SniparWarrior build - but if you match a Gauss Rifle against a (roughly) equivalent tonnage of Ac/5s in a brawl, the Gauss is at a disadvantage. Yes, even with torso twisting. Your assertion that the AC/5 is somehow heat-limited is empirically incorrect, and invalidates your argument.

The issue here is that the fact that the AC5 has a higher DPS/Ton compared to the gauss doesn't actually matter that much, due to the fundamental mechanics of gameplay in mechwarrior.

In Mechwarrior, the single most important capability is being able to kill a mech.

If killing a mech came down to doing enough damage to remove all of that mech's internals and armor, essentially destruction of all of its "health", then DPS would matter more. However, the modular hit locations of mechwarrior mean that DPS gets superceded in terms of importance by the ability to deliver large punches of damage.

One of the reasons why the gauss is so much better than an AC5, for instance, is because the AC5 needs to land THREE shots to do the damage of a single gauss round. That adds both a large degree of challenge to the shooter, while also giving the target the ability to soak that damage by hiding that section from the shooter.

Imagine, for example, that you are firing an AC5 at me, and I fire a gauss at you. In that opening salvo, I hit one of your sections for 15 damage, and you hit me for 5.

In 1.5 seconds, your weapon has recycled, and you are able to fire again... but at that point, I'm able to just twist that section that you shot away from you. My weapon is still recycling, so I can't hit you right then.. but I can deny you the opportunity to concentrate your damage on a single panel. Thus, you are left with two options: 1) You can wait until I turn back to face you, at which point I'm gonna shoot you against for 15, and you have negated any ROF or DPS advantage. or 2) you can shoot a DIFFERENT location, and effectively start over, trying to punch through a fresh panel.

This is why DPS tends not to matter as much as alpha power in Mechwarrior.

Weapons which require you to fire often mean that you have to face the target often... which means that you are limited in your ability to soak damage through torso twisting. Additionally, they are weaker against mechs who are not simply staring at you, and susceptible to the target torso twisting.

[Fire and Salt]

Mr. Morson, can you please refute my arguments, I am feeling left out...

[Void Angel]

Roland, on 26 July 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

The issue here is that the fact that the AC5 has a higher DPS/Ton compared to the gauss doesn't actually matter that much, due to the fundamental mechanics of gameplay in mechwarrior.

In Mechwarrior, the single most important capability is being able to kill a mech.

If killing a mech came down to doing enough damage to remove all of that mech's internals and armor, essentially destruction of all of its "health", then DPS would matter more. However, the modular hit locations of mechwarrior mean that DPS gets superceded in terms of importance by the ability to deliver large punches of damage.

One of the reasons why the gauss is so much better than an AC5, for instance, is because the AC5 needs to land THREE shots to do the damage of a single gauss round. That adds both a large degree of challenge to the shooter, while also giving the target the ability to soak that damage by hiding that section from the shooter.

Imagine, for example, that you are firing an AC5 at me, and I fire a gauss at you. In that opening salvo, I hit one of your sections for 15 damage, and you hit me for 5.

In 1.5 seconds, your weapon has recycled, and you are able to fire again... but at that point, I'm able to just twist that section that you shot away from you. My weapon is still recycling, so I can't hit you right then.. but I can deny you the opportunity to concentrate your damage on a single panel. Thus, you are left with two options: 1) You can wait until I turn back to face you, at which point I'm gonna shoot you against for 15, and you have negated any ROF or DPS advantage. or 2) you can shoot a DIFFERENT location, and effectively start over, trying to punch through a fresh panel.

This is why DPS tends not to matter as much as alpha power in Mechwarrior.

Weapons which require you to fire often mean that you have to face the target often... which means that you are limited in your ability to soak damage through torso twisting. Additionally, they are weaker against mechs who are not simply staring at you, and susceptible to the target torso twisting.

I'm aware of how torso twisting works, and use it myself when appropriate. I'm also well aware of why high-alpha damage is indeed the most important weapon characteristic. Your disagreement seems to stem from a focus on alpha damage as the only important weapon characteristic, as well as a blind spot concerning the importance of hardpoint number and location - to say nothing of the individual differences between Battlemechs.

First, simply because a weapon's alpha is the most important weapon characteristic in the current meta, it does not follow that it is that this one weapon characteristic trumps all others. Rate of fire is vitally important, as is damage per ton. An equivalent tonnage of AC/5 has to hit you three times for every twice you hit him... assuming he's attempting to hit the same location your Gauss is in. If he's instead hitting a leg or the side torso nearest him, he can easily cripple it before you cripple his protected torso - because by the time you fire three times for 45 damage, he will have fired six times into your near torso. By the time you fire four times for 60 damage (and only the last shot will penetrate the side torso armor of a Cataphract or higher, generally,) he will have, with his two AC/5s, hit you fifteen times, for 150 damage. He doesn't need to hit any location you can protect. He can simply leg you to death, and walk away laughing.

Of course, all this assumes that we're only using these weapons; you might be using two Gauss Rifles; I might be using 4 AC/5s. In that case the AC/5s' damage before torso penetration (i.e. the last shot before the second Gauss volley) would be equal to the Gauss' second shot, making the exchange favor the Gauss on any chassis that can field 4 AC/5s, unless the AC/5 pilot got really lucky- except that only one variant of one chassis can mount two Gauss rifles outside the arms, which skews the numbers a bit... depending on which hypothetical 'mechs we use. Plus if I use the build that I actually would if I were to try this kind of Cataphract, my UAC/5s would tear your dual Gauss to swiss cheese - if, again, we were only using those weapons.

No discussion of any weapon is valid or complete without the inclusion of the intended circumstances involved in their use. If you're a Spider 5K, you'd better be bringing machineguns; you'll need every single weapon you can get, and an ER LLaser on that chassis will still never overheat.

Spoiler

You could argue that the Spider is underpowered (if you discount the bugged hitboxes,) and I'd provisionally agree - it's unquestionably under-armed, but it's also the most agile 'mech in the game, which can make it useful as part of a team strategy. Honestly, the bugged hitboxes make it hard to evaluate the chassis, and I think we'll need to see how it performs without an undue advantage.

Similarly, the AC/5 is clearly inferior to the Gauss Rifle - as a sniping weapon. As an all-around choice, on the other hand, it has much to recommend it, and is a hands-down superior brawling weapon compared to the Gauss.

I'm not disputing the importance of alpha damage, or that some weapons are simply under-performing and should not be used under normal circumstances. See for example, the flamer, or the AC/10 - the Forgotten Autocannon. Focusing on alpha damage to the effective exclusion of all other factors will lead to faulty analyses and even to the revision of plain facts, such as Victor's embarrasing assertion that the AC/5 is a hot weapon.

Edited by Void Angel, 08 August 2013 - 11:19 AM.

[Royalewithcheese]

Void Angel, on 26 July 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

Similarly, the AC/5 is clearly inferior to the Gauss Rifle - as a sniping weapon. As an all-around choice, on the other hand, it has much to recommend it, and is a hands-down superior brawling weapon compared to the Gauss.

In a brawl, alpha still matters. You can't rely on the ability to constantly point your guns at the opponent - if they know what they're doing, they'll be torso twisting and using terrain, and if you know what you're doing, you'll be torso twisting as well. I'd rather take an AC/20 over both of those, but Gauss is decent close-range. One thing you'll never see in the right torso of my fatlas is two AC/5, though. UAC/5, maybe, because at that point the DPS starts getting high enough to override the inherent problems with DPS in this game.