Jump to content

- - - - -

Grouped Weaps Vs Internals


25 replies to this topic

#21 0111101

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 148 posts

Posted 02 October 2015 - 02:18 PM

View PostSpleenslitta, on 02 October 2015 - 01:40 PM, said:

Sorry but i did make MG's effective....but i guess nobody believes me.
All i know is that when i replaced the MG's with an SRM6 with artemis i suddenly got fewer components destructions per match.
It was very noticable too and it's the truth.
It's like i said earlier...just because you cannot make MG's work doesn't mean everybody who tries will fail automaticly.


Machine guns are a waste of tonnage, hate to break it to you.

EDIT:
Also, your 1ERSL, 1ERML, 1ERLL, 4MG Kit Fox is wildly inefficient with its various engagement ranges and laser burn times.
Try this if you feel so compelled to stick with 4MGs

Edited by 0111101, 02 October 2015 - 02:31 PM.


#22 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 02 October 2015 - 04:32 PM

View Post0111101, on 02 October 2015 - 02:18 PM, said:


Machine guns are a waste of tonnage, hate to break it to you.

EDIT:
Also, your 1ERSL, 1ERML, 1ERLL, 4MG Kit Fox is wildly inefficient with its various engagement ranges and laser burn times.
Try this if you feel so compelled to stick with 4MGs


I tend to (when I run MGs) try to have 0.5 tons of ammo for every set of 2 MGs. Only suggestion I'd have would be to try and have another 0.5 tons of MG ammo to offset the 2 pairs of MGs (4 MGs total). Then again, this has been my preference.

And, mixed range builds isn't always bad. I've tried more focused builds on my Panther, but ended up falling into doing a LL, 3 MLs and an SRM6. (Or my other Panther has 1 LL, 2 MPL and an SRM4.) Sometimes, a more mixed platform is a better fit to a pilots skills than a focused one.

Recall that lasers are effective at any range. Only critique I'd have for his Kitfox would be to remove the CERSL (because he said he had one of each ER type), and try to replace it with something else. Something that matches the MGs and CERML. Either that, or hard point permitting, reduce the CERML to a CERSL for more uniform weapons in his close range envelop.

AKA: I personally would probably try to retain the CERLL in the build, for any long range work that may need to be done. Mostly to be used while approaching the enemy, hopefully not as the primary engagement range for that match.

#23 0111101

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 148 posts

Posted 02 October 2015 - 05:00 PM

View PostTesunie, on 02 October 2015 - 04:32 PM, said:

Recall that lasers are effective at any range.

They will deal their full damage when fired at a target inside their optimal range, yes. But that isn't accounting for laser duration.

In order to do your full 11 damage to the enemy with an ERLL you must hold your reticle on the component you want to deal damage to for a full second and a half. Dealing your full laser duration's worth of damage to an opponent at distance is much easier to pull off than holding that same laser on a target that is in motion at close range. At long range, a light mech moving 150kph is easy to target with an ERLL. At close range that same light is going to torso-twist that 11 points of damage, spreading it out across his entire chassis thanks to the long laser duration. You'll be lucky to keep your reticle on the desired component of his mech for any meaningful length of time.

If you have weapons for all engagement ranges you aren't going to excel at any of them because you're spending tonnage on trying to do three different things with one chassis.

ERLL and machine guns do not belong on the same mech. If the focus is on short range critical hits (machine guns) then the other weapon systems should be focused on short or mid-range damage (ERSLs, SPLs, ERMLs, MPLs, even SRMs.) If the focus is on mid-range to long range fire support (ERLL) then the other weapon systems should be focused on range as well. (a 2nd ERLL, or some ERMLs as a secondary system.) Make sense?

Edited by 0111101, 02 October 2015 - 05:08 PM.


#24 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 02 October 2015 - 05:11 PM

View Post0111101, on 02 October 2015 - 05:00 PM, said:

If you have weapons for all engagement ranges you aren't going to excel at any of them because you're spending tonnage on trying to do three different things with one chassis.


Oh, I get what you are saying, and i do agree. However, there can also be a strength to a build that doesn't have an overwhelming weakness from being too focused.

It depends upon the build, who's using it, and how it's being used. I also tend to focus more on one tactic with a build, and then have a bit of balance in another focus if possible to help cover any weaknesses that could be exploited. There is a place for each concept, and I've used each very effectively within the game.


However, as interesting of a topic as it may be, I think we may have gone off topic here just a little... I have a thread that already discusses these concepts elsewhere, if we wish to continue. (And I'm always open to opposing concepts. Just realize that I do agree with you, even if I'm presenting an alternative tactic.)

#25 Thorqemada

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,365 posts

Posted 02 October 2015 - 06:27 PM

I had at times way back when the Phoenix Pack came out 2 MGs as supplement for the AC on my Shadow Hawk.
Ist fun to use if you can get in range - today you will not get in range nor can you spend the Tonnage for a weapon so ineffective at damageing armored opponents bcs you cant wait to become effective until the enemy is an opened can - usualy a game is already decided that time and only mopping up is left - of Course sometimes the battlechaos leads to fun games where MGs and Flamers can play a role.

PS: Afair i killed less than 10 Mechs with the MGs...and LBX albeit fun is a waste of Tonnage on both IS and Clan side.

PPS: Also tried 3MGs on the Shadow Hawk (3xMG, (ER)PPC, SRMs) and i have had a 4MG Locust and get shot by MG Mechs - i can savely ignore them for a great amount of time even opened up.

Edited by Thorqemada, 02 October 2015 - 06:35 PM.


#26 Spleenslitta

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,617 posts
  • LocationNorway

Posted 02 October 2015 - 10:09 PM

View Post0111101, on 02 October 2015 - 02:18 PM, said:


Machine guns are a waste of tonnage, hate to break it to you.

EDIT:
Also, your 1ERSL, 1ERML, 1ERLL, 4MG Kit Fox is wildly inefficient with its various engagement ranges and laser burn times.
Try this if you feel so compelled to stick with 4MGs

Well i made it work just fine. The reason i managed to that is quite simple too. Remember all those longrange opportunities you had in a build capable of doing really good work at short/middle range?
You cannot hurt a target at long range with those builds so all those opportunities are wasted.....you're toothless at those ranges.
But i can hurt a target at any range.....i get my extra damage from being able to damage no matter what range i'm at.
Furthermore if i get up close i just combo my mid range and short range weapons and can keep up a near constant barrage without overheating while you're laser vomit builds overheat real quick when forced to fire constantly.

There you have it.
Edit: Come to think of it....if you can't make a build like this work. It's probably not because of playing skill but rather more about your choice of tactics.
You trade blows with the enemy too much while i avoid direct confrontation as much as possible.
Shoot but don't get shot in return and such.

Edited by Spleenslitta, 02 October 2015 - 10:46 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users