41 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Since there was talk about adding more Champion mechs on the list and the Raven-3L Champion event is able to come online for the weekend, I felt that there was a need for a discussion about the existing 22 Champion mechs that are available in MWO. While every Champion is different in their own way.... they need to be looked at a bit.

The originating purpose of a Champion mech was to be able to show new players to have a glimpse or an idea on how players go about building a mech. There was a "heavy mech building contest" way back in Open Beta, showing interest from the community to help PGI on going about it. The first Champion mech was born from it (Dragon-5N Champion) and while there was a faint promise in doing this again... it didn't happen. The community AFAIK did not have a say in the entire process, and many Champion mechs released since then have been up and down... whether it was "full meta" or "what the eff" kinds of builds being released... each with their own set of problems. It seems that no proper vetting was done as it almost feels like there was never a consistent vision... but that's just one man's opinion. So... this post is born into figuring those problems out, and see if "we could do better" (because, we can do better).

In trying to put an arbitrary scoring system in, I've kinda mulled over the concept as it always seems easy to criticize. So, I'll give some context and meaning to the numbers I've put up... set up on 3 bits of criteria (yes, it's always 3 right?) Whether you agree or not is of course another matter, but like reviewing stuff, you have to put concrete examples or "my two cents" while defending the position. So.. here we go.


3 Criterion:

1) Build Quality - Basically, as a human labrat (a min-maxer), I have my opinion on whether a build is good, bad or terribad based on the build construction and less about the goal of the build. If you're a missile boat, I can tell you honestly don't like them, but if the build is solid it can function within the confines of MWO. So, attributes like "low armor" or "too big an engine" or "what are you thinking?!?!" comes into play. This is just a labrat's POV on the situation.


2) Role - Does the build fit the primary role (or related roles)? For instance if a mech is considered a brawler, but it runs LRMs, then is it a good build? The tendency is not to be the case... not that it cannot be functional, but having LRMs on a "brawling" build tend to have less synergy (you have to make other things function to get LRMs to work properly the way you need them to). Certain mechs are fragile, and probably need more consideration for them to be used for long ranged roles... so these things are mech/chassis and variant dependent.


3) Effectiveness - It's a little of criteria #1 and #2 when it comes to the battlefield. Can a non-meta build be effective? Sure. Does it work? I guess it's best to attribute it to a newbie... will it take effort for a newbie to work "out of the box?" That is the question.


While it is hard to give things are number, each value will set between 0 and 3 and also go in .5 increments.

There is also a "bonus section" where I add my own value to it (it can be any number I choose - it's my article) and it could be positive or negative. It amounts to "author choice".

The sum of the values contributes to the overall score... which will be between 0 and 10. So, it is "possible" (but highly unlikely) I'll give it a perfect 10 overall when the build makes sense. When it doesn't... well, you get an egg (a rotten one at that).

Every scoring section will get its own little feedback blurb so I'm clear on what I attribute the score to...

While I have comments, I will list a smurfy build as a suggested "fix" to improve the build in many/most of the mech listed, so I'm clear on what has to be done.

WIth that said... we can go onto the 22 mech contest...


1) Spider-5K

Build Quality: 2.5

The build is the best you can do with the variant, but I have some issues with the quality (although these are personal build opinions). Ammo in the legs of a Light mech is honestly a red flag as legging is a primary goal of the opfor vs Lights.

A personal change would be moving the JJs into either of the side torsos as you'll be dead anyways if a side core is exposed. Reducing JJ ability when legged doesn't help to increase surviveability.

This build was put together before the engine cap increase IIRC and 1/2 ammo... so splitting the ammo into 1/2 tons and the ammo being put into each arm shouldn't be too harmful.

Also, there's too much backarmor for to my liking... some of it needs to be frontloaded a bit more... (as with a lot of other builds).

Role: 3

The role of the mech is pretty much "nuisance" and "cleanup" as MGs are meant to "put salt" in the mech wound. The outer "shell" of a mech's paperdoll is the external armor and once that is removed, the internal section of a mech is exposed. That is when MGs do their magic. However, if the MG is used on external armor... well it's a surefired waste.

Effectiveness: 2.5

To the new player, this should be OK, but the lack of good MG mechanical understanding is what makes this mech look bad on the surface. The built in CT ERLL is the thing to cut open a mech (however slow a tincan opener it may be). So, this isn't something apparent unless explained.

Author's Point: +1

You can't do any better based on the chassis, so it's hard to criticize it further.

Total Score: 9

Understanding MG mechanics is the key for newbies to make the most of the mech. Otherwise, they will never understand the situational usage which makes the mech otherwise seemingly "bad" otherwise.


2) FS9-S

Build Quality: 1.5

The build itself is meh as it could honestly be better. Leaving ammo in the CT is a risky proposition... especially to the inexperienced.

Suggested Revision:
FS9-S(C)

The idea here is to move the AMS ammo to a more "protected" section (side torsos tend to be less risky in hiding ammo on a Light) and move DHS
into the CT for better crit buffering. Also, 1 JJ on a Light is just painful personally... but being able to move and escape quickly demands more JJs.

Role: 3

I'm not a fan of AMS support lights (as they are better for bigger mechs) but it's helpful to reduce the effectiveness of opposing streak boats. Still, the primary role of the Firestarter is to be a Skirmisher and it's fine for what it is. While the quirks may not be favorable (as of this posting date), you cannot rely on the quirks whenever changes are iterated. A general build should work for the masses and specificity/specialized builds are for those people that have gotten better and understood the game in question.

Effectiveness: 2

For the overall usage, it's used a lot, but just the base build holds its potential back a bit... even for the new player. Understanding the value of full arm articulation may be lost on them while their CT medium laser does not naturally synergize unless arm lock is in use... which almost defeats the purpose of arm articulation...

Author's Point: +.5

While it's not my build of choice, but it's serviceable and done what it needs to do for the new player. Still, too much unnecessary risk is involved with the current build and could easily be optimized further.

Total Score: 7

The only thing that sucks ultimately is the inability to use mech efficiencies, particularly speed tweak to understand how much more powerful light mechs are affected by this change... Light mechs like Firestarters need their speed as it is their primary mantra.



3) JR7-F

Build Quality: 2.5

There's no real issue with the build outside it is not my preference. The greatest issue ultimately is how much back CT armor it has... instead of it being frontloaded.

I'm not a fan of small lasers, but it'll function just fine here.


Role: 3

For a light mech that ends up being a Skirmisher like a Firestarter, it's great. I think the only real issue is trying to explain the Jenner compared to the Firestarter when it comes to arm articulation. They do the same role ultimately... and that's kinda all that matters when it comes to Lights these days.

Effectiveness: 3

The build expresses what one needs to know about light mechs and their dependencies on short range energy weapons. I think the only honest frustration that one would get is how easy it is to hit the CT, but that's just the way the chassis is and will always be...

Author's Point: +.5

There's nothing much to say about it other than the CT issue. If that gets corrected, it'll be fine otherwise.

Total Score: 9

I kinda wished the Jenner as good of quirks like the Firestarter (at the moment) and perhaps it was meant to be that way. Still, the overall build is good enough to show weapon distances (well, kinda anyways) and how that affects how one would approach a target.



4) RVN-3L

Build Quality: 0

I don't even know where to begin. These are corrections I would make to the build..

RVN-3L(C)

The biggest issue with the default champion build is simply the low armor. If you trying to teach new players how to fail, this is it. The score of "0" is all one needs to know about the build.

Role: 2

The clear role of this build is to be a Skirmisher with ECM. The thing is that the build itself could be better or at least different, but the goal is ideally to get into weapons range and fire as much as possible and then get back into cover... assisted by ECM. It's not quite the "Huginn" (the hero Raven) for that purpose though.

Effectiveness: 0

Since the armor distribution is atrocious, it is easy to blow up. If you are getting this mech, you are going to at the very minimum add armor to it. Otherwise, it's a death trap for newbies.

Author's Point: -1

PGI is bad, and should feel bad that this build was released. I don't even know who is responsible for this build, but it breaks the basic fundamental of mech building... it needs as much armor as it can to survive, and ECM doesn't make the mech "invincible" by any stretch.

Total Score: 1

The Raven-3L is still a decent mech, but crippling it beyond belief teaches a newbie nothing than to ragequit. This is UNACCEPTABLE if you're trying to peddle this build for the masses.


5) CDA-2A

Build Quality: 2.5

I don't have many gripes with the build really... other than an overly large engine and I'd like more DHS for comfort honestly. Still, it's fine for what it is.

Role: 3

The role of the Cicada tends to mirror the other lights, despite being a "big Light". Being treated like a Skirmisher is what it is as the only confusing thing can be with the weapon groupings that are ideally used here... there's nothing much to add here.

Effectiveness: 2.5

The only reason this isn't a perfect score is actually because when you use said build compared to a fully elited out equivalent, the mech honestly plays a bit differently... and it's not limited to Speed Tweak. Coolrun and Heat Containment are powerful additions that enhance the heat part of the equation, but the other efficiencies like Kinetic Burst or Hard Brake allows for finer/greater control over the mech. It's noticeable and it's the difference between "good" and "great" sometimes for how one feels about a mech.

Author's Point: +1

See, I know who's primarily responsible for this, and I give him credit (despite his departure from PGI) that at least had "some clue" on how to build a mech. At best, I disagree with his armor logic, but that is what it is.

Total Score: 9

It's fine for what it is and if people understood the "standard" for building mechs is based off of this... we wouldn't be having so many bad/medicore Champion builds.


6) BJ-1

Build Quality: 2.5

It's solid build quality for the most part, with some nitpicking on the armor values and moving around some the the AC20 ammo (like moving one to the head). I'm not a fan of the 1 JJ though would just reduce the engine just for that, but that's just me.

Role: 3

The BJ has multiple roles, so the role defined here is "brawler". It's powerful enough given the chassis and reasonably durable, so it is certainly a learning experience there.

Effectiveness: 2.5

Outside for my gripe of < 250 engines for mediums, I think the one thing the new player honestly needs to learn is optimal range. It used to be way back in beta where max range was 3 times the optimal range... causing people to fire AC20s like they were Gauss Rifles. Still, newbies tend to do this... so it's something that kinda needs to be explained. It's hard to do that with lasers sometimes because "it fires a long way" and doesn't seem as self-evident with ballistics. Missiles just "disappear" which makes it apparant to the player...

Author's Point: +1

This is not a build I would run, but for the masses, it's rather underrated.

Total Score: 9

I like BJs and it's hard to argue against this stock build. The only thing that needs to be taught is the art of brawling....



7)

Build Quality: 2

The build itself is OK, but not great, so this is my suggestion...

CN9-A(C)

One of the bigger issues with the current Champion build is honestly the weak leg protection. People back in Open Beta were a lot more vigilant in legging them, and the current build allows for an large ammo explosion to occur since the ammo literally on the same side as the SRMs... which is very problematic.

SRM6s have more of an impact than SRM4s and it is debatable whether they need Artemis (I tend to like Artemis with SRMs, but avoid using the SRM2 altogether).

The Medium laser over the Medium Pulse laser is a preference though... and the DHS could go either way with the CT or the Left Torso...

Role: 3

The mech itself generally screams brawler back in the day. This may have kinda changed over time, but while doing that can be rather limiting in weapons options and approach... but that's something people have to learn.

Effectiveness: 2

There are essentially two things that have to be taught here. The first thing is using the arms as protection as this mech is dependent on that. Secondly, the learning to use SRMs is something that takes some time to grasp since it isn't as obvious as lasers. The natural weaknesses of the mech only further hinder its potential though.

Author's Point: +.5

While I have stopped liking Cents since the dynamic hardpoint changes (that ultimately lost the missile doors), it's not been the same since. Still, it's a venerable chassis that needs some time for learning.

Total Score: 7.5

Overall, it's "OK" for what it does, but it could be better. SRM6s provide a greater punch that a new player wouldn't experience until they build one themselves...


8) HBK-4P

Build Quality: 3

The only issue this build suffered from is age and ghost heat. If Ghost Heat was removed, this build would suck much less.

Since this build occurred BEFORE the engine cap increase, it should just be tweaked and revised to use a STD 265 engine (shave off some armor from the legs) to get that.

Otherwise, some minor armor tweaks are needed... and nothing needs to change...

Role: 3

This is more of a hit and run type of build... it's hard to manage this trying to pick on everyone as heat buildup is problematic so it becomes important to pick your spots. The hardest thing a new player has to do is know when to show up and when to disappear. This is critical in being able to survive and thus succeed in this game.

Effectiveness: 2

Ghost Heat is the major issue holding this build back, as it's honestly not needed... if anything a reason to NOT run it. Still, it's serviceable, but ultimately needs an explaination on how to be run properly. Also, teaching a player about the Hunch is critical in its ability to dish damage, instead of taking unnecessary hits. That is the challenge for many people in this chassis.

Author's Point: +.5

I still like Hunchbacks and only Ghost Heat is the overwhelming issue that makes playing this chassis less desireable by default. Still, it's a solid build despite all of that.

Total Score: 8.5

What's holding this back is Ghost Heat, no matter how one wants to argue this. That's the problematic mystery that confuses the new player as vague statements of "heat increase" is not very useful no productive when it comes to player understanding of a convoluted system to address an issue...


9) TBT-7M

Build Quality: 1.5

This variant like a number of other Champions follow the basic "transferable" philosophy in that you could effectively rebuild the same loadout (more or less) in other variants. This is kind of in that ballpark.

So, naturally, there is really nothing interesting about this build, other than the oversized engine (300XL is usually the sweet spot) and running a PPC... which is actually extremely tough to use without running 3 or more Jump Jets. A Large Pulse Laser would be more useful here.

Role: 1.5

The goal of the Trebuchet is not to be a short rank skirmisher with a large weapon for long range. It should always try to keep the opponents at bay, using long range weapons such as LRMs or Large Lasers to keep away due to the chassis, so it gives the wrong impression of durability once the target is near you. It's not that it cannot do it, but other mechs honestly do this role better.

Effectiveness: 1.5

Given that the role is completely wrong, the durability is skewed based on the scaling of the mech, and the mech's weapon loadout placement. Having the majority of the weapons on the arms is not a bad thing until you realize the arms are large. The thing about brawling is that you notice your durability is a factor and trying to use your arms to shield is rather backwards at times, so you hold a risk by doing it. I guess it depends on which side you want to sacrifice (usually the missile side first). Thus, the mech is ultimately very difficult for a new player to make the most of.

The great speed it has is offset by a new player's desire to get to close to a mech based on its weapons loadout... as that speed is SUPPOSED to give you a way out instead of being the thing that lures one to get closer to the target.

Author's Point: 0

It's just all sorts of bad, but it's not inherently bad. I can't say much else.

Total Score: 4.5

"Generic build" and poor syeregy with the chassis honestly does not help a struggling chassis. All in all... it's not newbie friendly at all.


10) KTO-18

Build Quality: 2

The build is mostly OK as you have enough backup weapons to fend for yourself. However the lack of TAG is generally considered egregious for an LRM boat.

However, I'd rather improve upon the concept, for improved synergy.

KTO-18(C)


Having access to a long ranged weapon is a more useful option, as it teaches the player to "stay away" from the engagement as long as possible. Also, it goes well with TAG (subbing a Large Laser is OK).

Otherwise, there isn't too much of an issue.


Role: 3

Long range support is the goal of the Kintaro for the most part, and the build supports this well. Nothing more needs to be explained.

Effectiveness: 1.5

Outside of somewhat poor synergy with the medium lasers is the lack of TAG. This is an important lesson to learn when it comes to ECM... which is a struggling point for most players when they are trying to understand LRM mechanics. If they don't get a "red dorito" and get a lock, they are lost as to how to properly counter... and thus TAG should be MANDATORY for all LRM builds for newbies. This is hard enough when there is no tutorial to describe this.

Author's Point: -.5

Is there any way to find out the person responsible for putting CASE on a build with an XL engine? The question bears asking... do you understand how the game works when you built this? Fortunately, converting CASE into a 1/2 ton of ammo is more productive. Still, trying to teach a new player good building habits should have been a priority.


Total Score: 6

The Kintaro itself is problematic in most other roles, so the build is sufficient for what it is. Learning the optimal way of using LRMs is trial and error, but not providing the proper tools for this is a bigger issue. That's what makes LRM missile boat builds kind of a drag.



11) SHD-2H

Build Quality: 3

The build itself is essential part of an older meta... which is still somewhat functional and yet different. Still, the build itself will hold up OK. The only real quibble I'd have is the ammo placement as I'd spread it out a bit more using more crit buffering techniques. Still, it's better than what you could build otherwise that would go full dakka or full of something else.

Role: 3

The primary role for this build is mid/long range sniper with the occasional damage dumping through the AC5s. Essentially, it's ideal to keep as much range from the target, but it's mostly effective at all ranges outside of the PPC range. It's sufficient for what it does.

Effectiveness: 2

The kind of problem with the new player is trying to figure out how to make the most of Jump Jets as it was a primary function of the build. It still can do damage w/o it, but it's not as ideal to do, and it kinda requires the occasional use of arm lock to sync the convergence of the PPC and AC5s. It's harder to tackle w/o a tutorial as it won't become natural initially.

Author's Point: +1

I like the build for what it is... on arguably the worst Shadowhawk variant. So, it can be an issue to make the most out of bad situation w/o promoting a particular playstyle of sorts.

Total Score: 9

It's good for what it is and the Shadowhawk tends to be the staple of medium mechs, so it's hard to argue against what came out of it.


12) DRG-5N

Build Quality: 2.5

The build is holding up for the most part, but it's on a chassis that struggles in general. So, for what it is, it's actually doing the best it can. My only issue is the weak leg armor, but considering that most people pay attention to the other aspects of the mech, it's a non-issue.


Role: 3

It pays the hit and run role well, so the build allows for it with the speed afforded. Any extended facetime with a target tends to not end well.

Effectiveness: 2

The biggest issue honestly stems from the chassis so the skill required bridge that gap is somewhat high. This and the addition of the Gauss charge (which wasn't there before the build's existence) will make learning the optimal use of Gauss another challenge. So... it honestly not the new player's chassis of choice and it may be hard for a newbie to get over that.

Author's Point: 0

I'm not a Dragon user (outside of grinding it) or fan, but if you excel in hit and run, this is the tough way to learn it.

Total Score: 7.5

I think this build says that the community has an idea on building mechs... but from WHOM these builds come from needs to be vetted. Still, the community can produce "non-meta" mechs and still be useful. Too bad that source is ultimately untapped.


13) CPLT-A1

Build Quality: 1.5

I'm not in the business of saying that an ammo-only based mech should be a good choice... but it is what it is.

With that said, I think the build could be better as it doesn't even take advantage of Jump Jets, nor even uses Artemis to help the new player out.

This is what it should kind of look like:
CPLT-A1(C)

I don't entirely believe in XL in Catapults as using torso twist to stay alive is critical...

Abusing the Artemis and Streak mechanic should help out ultimately.

Role: 2.5

For being able to focus on both long range and short range is good, although completely dependent on lock on weapons sucks. It won't be good tougher builds, but it can hold its own if the player has the patience to have their hands tied behind their back... assuming they learn missiles "the hard way". This is the way to do it...

It's going to be a support mech as trying to do anything w/o a teammate is woefully problematic.

Effectiveness: 1.5

It's not going to be dreadfully effective until the basic missile mechanics are learned. This might take a while. While Artemis requires LOS to be effective, it make train or force the player to understand positioning, which is arguably one of the most important things to be learned, which makes this effective as it could be. Still, it's a hard learning curve, and the Catapult is generally not a friendly mech for that.

Author's Point: 0

The variant picked the nature of the mech doesn't inspire much confidence for me but you can only do what you have to work with...

Total Score: 5.5

It makes one wish the variant chosen was the K2 as it'll teach people more on how to stay away while being in a squishy chassis. Oh well, learning missiles the hard way can help improve proficency. Still, it takes a while to get there.


14) TDR-9SE

Build Quality: 1.5

I'm not even sure why this mech is built like this. It doesn't have much in terms of rhyme of reasons for the methodology of a role (well, it does in hit and run, but meh) but the build itself seems to try to do a jack of all trades and honestly is a master of none.

Here's my build idea...

TDR-9SE(C)

Swap the PPC for the LPL (which happens to be a current quirk, but still usable w/o it) and make it more heat efficient... allowing it to be more effective at brawling and just pushing damage. Also, the left arm is now more of a legitmate shield than it was before because you want to protect the left torso as long as you possibly can. Anyways, the originating build is just bad.

Role: 2

While hit and run is great for durability, I think too many resources were overcommitted to making it happen (larger than 300 engine) and having a non-existent shield arm doesn't help. Also, Thunderbolts don't get legged often, which makes the design decision odd if not awkward. While the Thunderbolt is capable of brawling, it doesn't exactly do it exceptionally well without minimal facetime though...

Effectiveness: 1

It's not effective due to the build, which affects synergy and sustainable damage through the constant need to cooldown. It's hard to teach a new player anything that is subpar in build design. It doesn't suffers from an identity crisis.

Author's Point: 0

I like Thunderbolts and even before quirks, I can already tell you that the build is an insult. Just stop trying to make it something that it is not.

Total Score: 4.5

I don't even know how these Champions are vetted, but if we just take a random build out of Mechspecs or smurfy and allow it to have no context, it's confusing to the new player trying to learn to play the game.


15) CTF-3D

Build Quality: 1.5

Sometimes I wonder who builds these things. I'm not anti-LBX exactly, but most players seem to not know to make the most of it, and you need a push a lot of damage into a section of the target before you can start using them... like MGs.

This is the build I would use...

CTF-3D(C)

The AC10 isn't that great, but it does a better job for what you need it for.

Role: 1.5

I think the role of the mech has been "removed" for the most part. It used to function like the Shadowhawk Champion, but it doesn't hasn't aged well due to nerfs. I think brawling with the occasional sniping is OK, but that takes a high level of play to get a little more out of it.

Effectiveness: 1.5

The effort required to make the most of the mech is huge. Having the need to use shield arms is a requirement as the side torsos are large. Also, knowing WHEN to use LBX is an issue... of course the doubling down of LBX ammo in the CT is asking for a quick death through the occasional ammo explosion. Adding risk when there shouldn't need to be is not what a newbie needs to build a mech or their confidence for that matter.

Author's Point: -.5
Outside of a bad build, the hilariously bad astromical price due to the original build having XL makes this a poor selling point of the mech. If you're going to buy it, buy the regular version with C-bills.

Total Score: 4

Once part of the top tier meta, now relegated to poor Champion builds makes a once powerful chassis, a shell of itself, replaced primarily by Thunderbolts these days. Sad, but true. It requires too much skill for the new player to make the most of, and the gains themselves are negligible at best.


16) ON1-K

Build Quality: 2

This is another one of this "generic builds" for all variants. It does a little bit of everything and masters nothing. I guess it's OK, but it's honestly better to specialize a variant than to make them all the same (which is only a Clan specialty).

Role: 2

Well, it's kind of a mini-Atlas, it can kinda do everything, but nothing extraordinary by design. It's fine for what a new player needs, but doesn't teach them anything outside of the build.

Effectiveness: 2

It should be effective regardless of the situation, but having no distinction will expose weaknesses in the overall build scheme. Something that specializes in range will do a better job than this mech... and anything upclose will do the same. In essence, the new player will learn that general builds will get them killed if they don't run a support role. A specialized mech will almost always be more effective for its primarily intended role.

Author's Point: 0

Generic builds suck and I don't support them really. It doesn't mean they are truly bad, but they will never excel at anything in particular... I guess it's a great place to start, but nothing else.

Total Score: 6

Mediocrity is good for general builds, but excelling at nothing doesn't help. For the new player, replicating the base build sounds good, but diversifying is much more impactful as you learn how to maximize the chassis/variant in question. Clan mechs can be specialized BETTER with generalistic hardpoint configurations... but IS mechs cannot do the same.


17) QKD-4G

Build Quality: 1

I honestly don't know where to begin. I understand that need to want to have a shield side on a Quickdraw, but anyone that runs a Quickdraw reasonably knows that they tend to run in XL. It's not ideal, but it has a lot more to do with getting speed to overcome chassis deficiencies.

Additionally, once you lose the right side, you're virtually doomed anyways. Speed is necessary to make up for this.

QKD-4G(C)

While I'd rather build it differently, using LPL over PPCs helps out. The original build is requires a significant higher level of skill and it's nowhere near optimal once caught under minimal range... outside of trying to swap in an ERPPC for a PPC. It's just too much for a new player to get ontop of existing stuff.

I'm not going to say the large engine is ideal (it's expensive), but it gets a struggling mech out of situations that it should not be a part of.


Role: 2

The idea to keep the Quickdraw at PPC range away from the opfor is actually the best way to be successful consistently. This is fine unless you are going to specialize in close range brawling... so the build is sufficient for the most part.

Effectiveness: .5

For the new player, maximizing the PPCs will be difficult. The shield side issue should become obvious through experience, but certainly not optimal. The scaling on the chassis doesn't help and the mech completely relies on spreading damage as much as possible... sacrificing limbs like the arms. Using Jump Jets to spread damage to the legs... and pretty much needing to exert a lot of effort into making the mech survive as long as possible. The build by definition relies on everyone else to be a distraction to even be useful. It's just a bad combination and it just honestly doesn't make much sense.

Author's Point: 0

I like Quickdraws, but this is not the variant that should've been a Champion and the build is just awful, period.

Total Score: 3.5

I'll just raise my Quickdraw's hands in trying to figure this build out.


18) VTR-9S

Build Quality: 3

There aren't too many issues with the build outside of moving the 1 JJ into the CT and swapping positions with the ammo. I'm not a fan of the Victor's missile tube setup, but that's another matter altogether.

Role: 3

The Victor's primary function is to brawl and the build speaks to it. This is kind of the ideal methodology used for the most part.

Effectiveness: 3

The only tricky part is managing 3 different weapon groups as they all function differently. The other trick is to sacrifice an arm or 2 when it comes to protecting one's self from being losing a side torso... as that is a major functionality and tradeoff of an XL engine.

Author's Point: 0

I didn't like this build initially, due to the mass of negative quirks it had for a long period of time. Now with their removal, it is not so bad, but the Victor isn't used for much else outside of brawling.

Total Score: 9

Outside of the initial release, it's better now than it was then, but it's a tricky mech to play with the speed and the durability that comes with an XL engine on an Assault.


19) STK-3F

Build Quality: .5

The biggest issue is inherently the use of an XL engine. I know there will be detractors on this... but the ultimate question is.. if a newbie has it, will he able to survive when push comes to shove? You know my answer.

My build answer:
STK-3F(C)

One of the bigger downsides of the original build is the tube limit causing problems as the torso volley of missiles will be shot in 3 groups... which is a problem on its own.

The other issue is ghost heat generated and while the Awesome-8R would be the posterchild for "we can do it better", it's just really hot by default and you need all the cooling that you can.

Role: 2

The Stalker is effective as a missile boat, but it's not my preference. It will function well anyways.

Effectiveness: .5

I'm not sure how the build teaches a new player. The first problem they will most likely have is "durability" in an assault mech. Running XL on a mech that oftentimes loses a side torso is asking for a death sentence early. It amounts to sheer frustration over being farmed. It's fine if you have exceled at the game, but the new player won't understand the nuance of an XL engine. That's been my primary gripe with this build from the beginning, regardless.

Author's Point: -1

It's a waste of the 3F variant as the 5M does the job better IMO. More missile hardpoints allows for better missile spam. Did I forget to mention that the build has XL?

Total Score: 2

Having played and seen enough easy kills in CW with the stock build, this really needs to be revamped into a Standard Engine build for the sake of the new player. If you believe your own telemetry (which I greatly question), then you should be able to see this. I might not be a fan of missile boats, but XL on Stalkers is just a bad idea from the start.


20) HGN-733C

Build Quality: 1.5

Do you remember the Orion that I had discussed before? Here we go again.

While the build is OK, it's just generic that it does nothing of consequence.

Role: 1

I said the same thing for specialization and generalized builds... so I don't want to repeat this again.

Effectiveness: 1

The biggest hurdle for this chassis is actually trying to see how far off the ground one can hover. This is the inside joke of Hoverjets™. The bigger problem is actually just trying to copy the generalized build concept and put it in a "now currently" nerfed chassis. That's all that needs to be said. It's great that every other variant other than the 733P can reuse the build, but that's just it. It's uninspired and it's still easy to take down even though it's sturdy as a build.

Author's Point: -1

Wouldn't it make more sense to sell a build with an AC20 as the primary benefit? No? I guess that's Lostech.

Total Score: 2.5

The Highlander has suffered too many negative changes, and as a result has left any non-generalized build to be made even worse. The Orion doesn't suffer as much ironically, but the Highlander itself is not even a glimmer of what it once was. The Trial build just reinforces that notion.


21) BNC-3M

Build Quality: .5

I feel like I've seen this type of build before... like the Hunchback-4P, but it's more like the Nova-Prime, except you don't immediately die on a full alpha. it's just a bad build, and whoever thought of the build should feel bad.

BNC-3M(C)

While it still has Ghost Heat written all over it, it has effective shield arms AND just better cooling. I mean... that's what all that wub needs.

Role: 3

Going full wub is probably the best thing that can happen to the Banshee as a large burst damage based brawler-skirmisher that needs to melt things ASAP before it overheats. It's always going to be successful for that purpose.

Effectiveness: .5

The stock build is just so bad, I can't even begin to explain it despite the recent Ghost Heat "improvement". Still, it cannot be understated how bad a design it is. I mean... when you run so many hot weapons, you NEED as many DHS as you can run. Otherwise, it's just asking for trouble. Additionally, having non-existent shield arms is asking to be sidecored based on LOADOUT alone.

Author's Point: -1

Just no. Don't insult the Wubshee.

Total Score: 3

Again.. someone must be playing a vastly different game where everyone else distracts the targets while a 95-ton assault overheats itself often enough to "try" and kill stuff. Just stop building these bad things for the masses.


22) Atlas-RS

Build Quality: 1.5

I don't even know where to begin on this.

The thing about Atlases is that Gauss is not really good on a mech that tends to get its sides removed so frequently. It just isn't kosher.

So, this is how I'd do the build (although, I wouldn't use it personally on principle).

AS7-RS(C)

Removing the LRMs from something ridiculously bad to something more reasonable is done here. Of course, I'd prefer SRMs, but I've understood
the notion of trying to use some sort of weapon before getting into brawling range, and that's the best I could come up with.


Role: 1.5

The build sends mixed signals... and none of it is good. LRMs require a significant amount of attention like TAG or BAP and an Atlas is a really bad platform for all of them. Gauss has the similar assumption that you can try to snipe. The problem is that these two weapons tend not to go together ON THIS MECH as the ballistic torso is the first to be shot off and difficult to get going the way one needs to (it's just a rather low firing point, relative to the cockpit). So, there's literally no synergy and the roles are skewed and doesn't have one. Think of it like a general build, but not having any related elements that help each other in any ideal circumstance. While the D-DC cannot replicate the effective build, the others can and strangely should never field anything resembling this.. at least on this chassis anyways. That is the primary issue really.

Effectiveness: 1

With that said, it's really a new player practice dummy target as trying to figure out how to make it useful will get the player killed. Had this build been like something like a Highlander, it might work out a little better. It simply doesn't work on this chassis by design, confusing the new player to make the most out of... thin air.

Author's Point: -1

I can't be bothered to look at this build at all, whatsoever.

Total Score: 3

The Atlas is better than this, and it completely gives the wrong impression of effective builds. Sometimes I wonder what minds come to these kinds of conclusions. I'm not saying there's one right answer... but man, there's so many wrong ones.


In summation, I didn't intend to write a semi-newbie guide, but this is to give an understanding of how the build affects the NPE... as finding out the poor-described mechanics of many things in this game does affect the new player's reaction to the game. While I don't think my suggestions will take hold or be listened to, I hope to give insight as I why I'm vocal about the entire system. When the trial mech system involved stock mech builds for use in the game... it was fortunate this was "rectified" before the game's launch (I suggest you look at the stock builds of many mechs like the Jager - you'd don't want to be funneled in such bad designs), but the main problem is still there. Some trial builds are better than others... and being stuck in one shouldn't be a death trap. Hopefully it won't stay like this forever.

We will see...


Author's Note:

This article was started approximately a week and a half ago... written over the course of a few days. While some of the content and comments feel inconsistent (it took a while to put together), I hadn't gotten enough time to review it thoroughly (it's taking too long as it is).

I can review the Clan trials if there's enough requests (they are all the Primes for the moment), but for the most, there's just a lot more bad/mediocre designs in the current set of Champion mechs. While I can't say there isn't any subjective judgement (building mechs is somewhat of an art), but solid builds tend to have a common theme that is consistent in an "optimized build".

Feedback is welcome. I'd like to think the Champion builds are suitable for newbies, but if they have actual flaws that are to be exposed... then for the average/veteran player... farming is going to result. I would like to think these builds aren't complete garbage, but having so much mediocrity doesn't show the potential a chassis can have... and giving the new player "bad ideas" on how to build their mech only serves to compound existing frustrations on going about playing the game. So... I'd hoping something good comes out of it... go figure.

[Mcgral18]

I think the revised Stalker could lose a heatsink and add a TAG. Same issue as the current Kintaro.


Also, no true WubShee? It doesn't have ghost heat, which makes it new player friendlier. Though, I'm tempted to give them something with a STD350. 5ML, 3LPL? Assuming that GH change sticks. Easy button alpha's are pretty handy.

Not sure if giving the new players a fragile XL is a good idea, even if it takes them considerably better than a Stalker.

[Brody319]

but seriously. good job reviewing them all. The older ones do need a touch-up especially the Stalker.

[Navid A1]

Champion mechs are selected based on popularity (based on PGI telemetry on people builds)

Unfortunately, that Atlas RS(C) is from a time when we did not have gauss charge. PGI chose Atlas RS with a gauss as the champion ( because it was popular) and then added gauss charge a few patches later.
Result:
pretty much in-effective build on that atlas.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mcgral18, on 26 February 2015 - 10:44 PM, said:

I think the revised Stalker could lose a heatsink and add a TAG. Same issue as the current Kintaro.

The Kintaro needs less XL as well, it may not be at the Stalker level, but it takes a lot of hits to the side torso so it is definitely not XL friendly. At least that is my experience trying to master it within the current meta.

Honestly 5 ASRM4 was much more reliable than 5 LRM5s on it as well, but PGI seems intent on this being an LRM boat... then again that goes along with LRMs being feast or famine.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 26 February 2015 - 11:20 PM.

[Deathlike]

WM Quicksilver, on 26 February 2015 - 11:14 PM, said:

The Kintaro needs less XL as well, it may not be at the Stalker level, but it takes a lot of hits to the side torso so it is definitely not XL friendly. At least that is my experience trying to master it within the current meta.

Honestly 5 ASRM4 was much more reliable than 5 LRM5s on it as well, but PGI seems intent on this being an LRM boat... then again that goes along with LRMs being feast or famine.

I don't like the idea of the Kintaro for brawling... but if you really have to, you'll need a Standard engine. "Keep away" works better if you run XL though, but then again it doesn't work for the Stalker Champion....

The Kintaro is just side torso squishy really...

LRM Kintaro works best IMO (I mean, it's better than the Catapult-A1 because of TAG), but eh... whatever.

I'm pretty sure I have too many mistakes written... I'll try to correct them if I get a reminder...

Edited by Deathlike, 26 February 2015 - 11:26 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Deathlike, on 26 February 2015 - 11:26 PM, said:

I don't like the idea of the Kintaro for brawling... but if you really have to, you'll need a Standard engine. "Keep away" works better if you run XL though, but then again it doesn't work for the Stalker Champion....

The Kintaro is just side torso squishy really...

LRM Kintaro works best IMO (I mean, it's better than the Catapult-A1 because of TAG), but eh... whatever.

I'm pretty sure I have too many mistakes written... I'll try to correct them if I get a reminder...

The Kintaro is outclassed in whatever it does, because the HBK-4J does LRMs better than the Kintaro ever could, and that beast can mount a STD engine to pull it off. Then there is the SCrow which just puts the Kintaro to shame as well since it can pull off almost any loadout the Kintaro can and do it [insert hyperbolic amount]x better.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 26 February 2015 - 11:54 PM.

[Deathlike]

WM Quicksilver, on 26 February 2015 - 11:52 PM, said:

The Kintaro is outclassed in whatever it does, because the HBK-4J does LRMs better than the Kintaro ever could, and that beast can mount a STD engine to pull it off. Then there is the SCrow which just puts the Kintaro to shame as well since it can pull off almost any loadout the Kintaro can and do it [insert hyperbolic amount]x better.

Welcome to the overquirkening. Let us find ways to obsolete other mechs in the process!

[Kiiyor]

Heh, this is great. It helped me answer a question i'd held for a while: "Are there any decent champion mechs?"

Aaaand... no. There really aren't.

Out of all of those, though, my vote would actually go to the Stalker. In spite of the XL, I find LRM's fairly forgiving as learner playstyles go, and it will certainly teach you about heat management. If they are in a position where they are caught out in a match, they're probably doomed anyway, XL be damned.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kiiyor, on 27 February 2015 - 12:02 AM, said:

Heh, this is great. It helped me answer a question i'd held for a while: "Are there any decent champion mechs?"

Aaaand... no. There really aren't.

Out of all of those, though, my vote would actually go to the Stalker. In spite of the XL, I find LRM's fairly forgiving as learner playstyles go, and it will certainly teach you about heat management. If they are in a position where they are caught out in a match, they're probably doomed anyway, XL be damned.

I find it the opposite, XL engines especially on assaults are simply not noob friendly as vultures like me love to see these. LRMs aren't noob friendly either because it tends to encourage the "LRM boat, need locks" attitude as they sit as far as possible from the fight lobbing missiles and then there is the odd ECM/BAP/TAG/LRM/PPC mechanic mess.

[MikeBend]

The point of trial mechs is giving a new player something that works. If someone takes Kintaro, because he likes the looks of it, he wouldnt care if Hunch does it better, what that player needs is a build that works. Seriously, how many mechs we have and how many roles? Whatever you take, there is probably something that does it better. The point is, trial mechs need to come as close to top performance as posiible, not be the coffin on legs.

Thats a great review, Deathlike!

[Deathlike]

Kiiyor, on 27 February 2015 - 12:02 AM, said:

Heh, this is great. It helped me answer a question i'd held for a while: "Are there any decent champion mechs?"

Aaaand... no. There really aren't.

I have a few off the top of my head (I'm not rereading my own review to look that over).

Jenner-F
Firestarter-S
Cicada-2A
BJ-1
Shadowhawk-2H
Victor-9S (maybe, if you learned how to torso twist first)

That's about it. I mean the Dragon-5N build is solid, but then again the Dragon is notorious for dying quickly if exposed for too long... and there's a number of other mechs that are similar.

There are a bunch of serviceable ones, but as far as I'm concerned, we're talking about only a quarter or so of the trial mechs that are reasonably good... and the reason are flawed in some ways. From guessing, I think there's just as many really good builds as there are really bad... and the rest (like half) are just mediocre that need a bit of tweaking and/or improvements.

Still, I'd honestly like to find out those responsible for the outright bad builds... because it's mind blowing that you're trying to sell stuff that would actually function so poorly (therefore, reducing the likelihood of a purchase).

WM Quicksilver, on 27 February 2015 - 12:37 AM, said:

I find it the opposite, XL engines especially on assaults are simply not noob friendly as vultures like me love to see these. LRMs aren't noob friendly either because it tends to encourage the "LRM boat, need locks" attitude as they sit as far as possible from the fight lobbing missiles and then there is the odd ECM/BAP/TAG/LRM/PPC mechanic mess.

Whenever I see the Stalker Champion build in CW, it's honestly "farming time". It really is that bad. It is literally the quickest way to pad your k-d ratio.

[Ultimax]

Why...would you do this to yourself? ;p

I haven't had a chance to read it all, but A+ effort.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 27 February 2015 - 07:43 AM.

[Pjwned]

Most of my feedback stems from worrying about potential ammo explosions too much because they're so rare that it's almost never a concern.

Additionally, I don't have a whole lot of feedback on the revisions, but for the AS7-RS(C) I would honestly take out 2 tons of ammo so that the LRMs can have Artemis, and considering that suggested revision is quite clearly a brawler for the most part (with some LRMs as supplemental firepower) I think it makes more sense that way.

[Wintersdark]

Kiiyor, on 27 February 2015 - 12:02 AM, said:

Heh, this is great. It helped me answer a question i'd held for a while: "Are there any decent champion mechs?"

Aaaand... no. There really aren't.

Out of all of those, though, my vote would actually go to the Stalker. In spite of the XL, I find LRM's fairly forgiving as learner playstyles go, and it will certainly teach you about heat management. If they are in a position where they are caught out in a match, they're probably doomed anyway, XL be damned.

Eh, there are usable builds.


But if you're using Trial mechs to teach new players to play, they're not the place to teach more advanced things. Ultimately, once players are ready to learn more advanced things, they can do that in their own mechs.

A good LRM boat or two should be in the trials. At least a couple reasonable LRM boats - trials don't need to be super-optimized, but shouldn't suck.

The Stalker trial, however, is plain bad. It's incredibly vulnerable. It's so damn easy to pop stalker side torsos, which means the poor newbie in the Stalker 3F(C) will die so often so quickly, he'll give up on it before learning to use it effectively.

I'm not a "NO XL ENGINES IN ASSAULTS" guy, but I *AM* a "NO XL ENGINES IN STALKERS!" guy. The poor new player will be facing experienced players, if generally speaking very average ones. Those experienced players all know a LRM15 STK-3F(C) has an XL, and will pop it in seconds.

It's a mean, mean build, and shouldn't exist as a trial. Lose the XL, probably Artemis too. Artemis doesn't stack with TAG([i]I was wrong, it DOES stack with TAG, but still: 4t, 4s, and TAG is enough in LOS), doesn't provide much of a benefit when out of LOS. 4t 4s is a huge price to pay, when you're facing using an XL in a stalker.


Edited for incorrect information. My bad.

Edited by Wintersdark, 27 February 2015 - 05:46 PM.

[Wintersdark]

---

Ultimately, there's a few trial mechs (that Deathlike points out above) that are fundamentally terrible builds, and they've no place being there for new players to learn to play. Particularly the more deeply flawed builds that are easy for opponents to exploit, or the builds that show a total lack of knowledge of MWO's mechanics (case in point: CASE in XL side torsos). These either put new players in a position where they won't get an opportunity to learn, or will be taught things that are flat out wrong.

[Deathlike]

Wintersdark, on 27 February 2015 - 05:02 PM, said:

It's a mean, mean build, and shouldn't exist as a trial. Lose the XL, probably Artemis too. Artemis doesn't stack with TAG, doesn't provide much of a benefit when out of LOS (and when in LOS, you have TAG). 4t 4s is a huge price to pay for faster lock times and basically nothing else.

TAG and Artemis does stack.

It's NARC and Artemis that does not.

[luxebo]

In all honesty half+ of the trials Clan have are similarly as bad. They need champions too. Stormcrow, Summoner, Timber, Adder, and maybe Warhawk are decent but the rest are garbage. I asked on most town halls this year about trials and of course PGI didn't care for it.

Anyway thank you Deathlike on writing on the trials; I did my own share in my sig. I also highly suggest allowing trials to have modules and mastered to top tier, along with the best possible build for all those mechs. Only some are half decent.

[Wintersdark]

Deathlike, on 27 February 2015 - 05:25 PM, said:

TAG and Artemis does stack.

It's NARC and Artemis that does not.

Edit: I was wrong, my bad.

Excuse me!

Edited by Wintersdark, 27 February 2015 - 05:44 PM.

[Wintersdark]

luxebo, on 27 February 2015 - 05:38 PM, said:

In all honesty half+ of the trials Clan have are similarly as bad. They need champions too. Stormcrow, Summoner, Timber, Adder, and maybe Warhawk are decent but the rest are garbage. I asked on most town halls this year about trials and of course PGI didn't care for it.

Anyway thank you Deathlike on writing on the trials; I did my own share in my sig. I also highly suggest allowing trials to have modules and mastered to top tier, along with the best possible build for all those mechs. Only some are half decent.

Summoner is decent? Warhawk? Are you kidding?

Bishop Steiner's masochism aside, the Summoner trial is atrocious. LBX-10 with one ton of ammo is totally worthless, wasted space. LRM15 with 2 tons? Pretty damn light. ERPPC as the rest of it's loadout? That's garbage.

Warhawk? 4 cERPPC's? cERPPC's are terrible weapons to start with. 4 run horrendously afoul of ghost heat, and our heat system in general. It's an awful build in MWO.

Adder is bad for the same reason. Not nearly enough cooling for 2 cERPPC's - again, which are pretty terrible weapons on their own. Dropping 30 heat per (horrifically slow moving) shot is awful, and on a mech that's dissipating 2.3 heat per second when you've got doubled basics... You need a full 13 seconds to dissipate the heat from firing once, on a neutral map. Adder's are... Niche mechs, at best (spladders are kind of awesome, I'll admit) but dual ERPPC adders, as the game stands right now, are awful.

---

However, I will agree whole heartedly about Trial mechs at least counting as having all their Basic skills, if not counting as being Mastered. Let players see what the mech is really capable of, given they can't modify it etc.

Edited by Wintersdark, 27 February 2015 - 05:54 PM.