148 replies to this topic

[Damascas]

Rooster68W, on 15 July 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

I do not want to face that atlas

No argument here, Gauss and an LRM15 with FCS provide more than enough long range capability, LPLs as you close and even a pair of MLs just in case. The scariest thing is that it can fire everything but the LRMs while walking and still stay underheat.

[xRaeder]

Damascas, on 15 July 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

Okay, my bad with the Atlas then, I read pulse in there for some reason, probably from seeing pulse right above them.

If you are hunting support units then I would probably want a bit more one shot power to immediately make any fight unfair and hinder their ability to escape, the speed is probably as good as you are going to get but I generally prefer a bit more for that style of combat, I would still say drop the ERPPC down though but I am not an ERPPC fan in the first place so I am biased.

Can't go faster than 86kph with a Mech of that tonnage. The ER-PPC is on that build for long fire to punch holes in the enemy while I close to get my LBX AC and MPLs in range. The LBX should be really good at seeking out holes in the armor. Its not a front line fighter.

With as many Assaults as I think we will see I don't think even a non-XL Cataphract (which I have built above), will do well. My build is basically a bigger and badder version of the Dragon.

As to the XL Engine in the Jenner. There's no real way around it. If you want to have 118kph and the Jump Jets plus all the scouting equipment there's nothing else you can do to fulfill that role. Not if you want to have any firepower to speak of.

I've always been good at getting in and out of fights quickly. With my throttle to the firewall all the time and liberal use of Jump Jets I don't see the XL as a problem. I tend to immediately hit my Jump Jets as soon as I see someone pointing at me when I am piloting something so light.

I always put CASE in my Mechs regardless, as you can't do much more with .5 tons. I'd rather lose the Mech with the CASE blowing out the XL engine and saving the rest of the Mech with a lower repair bill than having the ammo cook off and blow up the center torso and arm.

Time is money in this game. The more C-Bills you save the more you can do.

Damascas, on 15 July 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

No argument here, Gauss and an LRM15 with FCS provide more than enough long range capability, LPLs as you close and even a pair of MLs just in case. The scariest thing is that it can fire everything but the LRMs while walking and still stay underheat.

Which is exactly the point of the build.

Edited by xRaeder, 15 July 2012 - 07:33 PM.

[xRaeder]

Sept Wolfke, on 15 July 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

So Raeder, have you thought of what you're gonna name your mechs yet? I wanna know that!

Standard model names.

[Graphite]

Damascas, on 15 July 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

My favorite is skunkworks, it is free and really easy to use.

http://www.solarisskunkwerks.com/

Quickmech is good, and fast, as long as you don't need any experimental tech (none in MWO anyway)

http://quickmech.wordpress.com/

[DeathDealer 6]

As far as what Damascus said about your Cataphract, he does have some points but to be honest it depends a lot on your playing style. For a short conflict drop the ER PPC for the regular PPC and the 1 extra ton of LB-X ammo but I would take the weight savings from the ammo and apply it to armor instead of adding the ferro armor for several reasons. 1) Ferro Armor takes up another 14 slots, which you may or may not be able to afford since you have all the other gear too, on top of what you've already lost for the Endo-Steel. 2) Ferrro Fibrous armor is harder to locate and costs 3 times more than the regular armor which means while it may give you more protection in the short run, it also can be a pain to get your Mech repaired later in a strategic sense. Give me the quick turn around of generic battle repairs in the field any day please, so I can get back into battle and kick my opponents rear end as efficiently as possible off of whatever rock we are fighting over plus I won't break the bank doing it but that's my style. You need to figure out what works best for you and roll with it.

Nice Atlas and Jenner, can see they got some potential for mayhem.

[Graphite]

Unless I'm going blind (quite possible) your first Cataphract is still 1.5t underweight...

I notice it has ammo and CASE in the LT, but an XL engine - the CASE seems unnecessary, because once the ammo goes it's goodnight Nora anyway, and ammo in the torso with an XL engine is scary...

[Jakob Knight]

Well, the numbers seem to all match up for the designs, so they should be possible to build.

Some general comments for consideration, though....

Despite what people seem to think, an XL engine in a Light mech is actually alot more sensible than one in a heavier mech. Light mechs are designed to avoid enemy fire and speed. Having an XL engine is a minor cost to these mechs, as they are probably dead if they lose a torso anyway, and the extra speed from the XL engine can mean the difference between being hit and escape. Unlike a heavier unit, a Light can't expect to take the kind of damage that destroys half the mech and keep going.

Putting 3 tons of ammo for an LBX weapon makes very good sense if you consider the possibility of needing an extra ammo bay for special ammo types. The LBX weapons in the TT rules require a seperated ammo location in order to use them fully, so having just two ammo slots means having half your normal combat load. Having only a single ammo bin means a painful choice of deciding which mode the weapon will fire in for the entire battle. With three tons, you get a reasonable combat load and still reserve a ton for that 'special' cluster ammo. We don't know if MWO will handle it this way, but if it doesn't, then it can be replaced much easier than trying to find that room later.

From what I have seen in the videos, heat is much more of a problem in MWO than the stats on the sheet might indicate. In the one video featuring a Catapult, the mech was threatening to shut down after only three firings of its medium lasers and backing up. That should easily have been within the 'mech's 15 heat sink capability, but instead the heat spiked after each firing. What might it be like in models with only a fraction of the heat dissipation carried for the weapons to be fired?


Ultimately, we won't know how any of these designs will fare until the game actually comes out. They seem reasonable, though I wonder how many shots you will actually get off from your LRMs before the enemy enters the range where they are unusable. We just don't know how the setup will work, and that will determine how these actually perform.

Hope this helps a little.

[Kerzin]

I don’t think the Jenner build will work you only have 1 missile hard point so mounting two LRM-4’s may not be possible depending on how the mech. lab hard point system works (if you can it would be sweet).

On the other if you can only mount one launcher you can upgrade the SRM-4 to an SRM-6 and still have 2 tons to play with mmmm the possibility’s.

[xRaeder]

Kerzin, on 16 July 2012 - 06:26 AM, said:

I don’t think the Jenner build will work you only have 1 missile hard point so mounting two LRM-4’s may not be possible depending on how the mech. lab hard point system works (if you can it would be sweet).

On the other if you can only mount one launcher you can upgrade the SRM-4 to an SRM-6 and still have 2 tons to play with mmmm the possibility’s.

@SRM4 = ammo SRM4

Only 1 launcher on that build.

[Bishop Steiner]

Damascas, on 15 July 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

The Cataphract does not need 3 tons of LBX ammo for 1 gun, two should be more than sufficient I think and I would drop the ERPPC down to a regular one personally as I feel the heat curve is too high unless you are a sniper and need that extra little bit of range, and I generally recommend ferro armor to go along with endo IS since the price jump is not that big and since with and LBX and MPLs it seems you will be in regular combat you will want that extra protection.

I like your Atlas.

Only things I really noticed enough to comment on, HBK and Jenner seem fine to me.

(excerpt from 3025 TRO) "..... More than once, a ZEUS pilot has pressed the trigger, only to hear a silence louder than any reassuring whoosh of missiles launching."

Basically saying that I could not disagree more about the third ton of ammo. If MW:O is sticking as closely to TT designs and such, each ton of ammo is going to get you a LOT less shots than the MW4 version featured. Each ton of AC/10 ammo should be 10 shots. So unless all missions are quick 5 minute skirmishes, a lot of designs are going to be hoarding their ammo, and wishing they had more energy weapons, since those heavy ACs, Gauss and Missile racks are going to empty FAST.

There is seldom a whole lot of truly useful stuff you can slap on to a heavy or assault chassis for 1 ton, as generally an extra ton of armor, heatsink or another medium laser is not going to be as useful as being able to use your main gun.


I do on the other hand fully agree about the ER PPC (and ER L.Lasers) as the IS versions are just too heat intensive, unless of course they add Triple Strength Myomers and HtoH combat.... then I see them as a little more useful.

The Hunchback, well, I have a personal bias and just don't like trading one ultra heavy weapon for 2 medium ones. W/3050 Tech levels, I tend to lean toward something like this:
Chassis Endo-Steel
Engine 200XL
Heat sinks: 10(20)
Armor: 10 tons standard w/ CASE
Armament:
- 1 AC/20
-ammo (AC/20) x 3 (15 shots)
-2 Medium Lasers
-1 ER PPC
-Guardian ECM

reasoning: New tech chassis, engine and Heat sinks free up a lot of mass. Inner Sphere Ferro armor is traditionally pretty useless (again, unless one use the broken MW4 game mechanics), and if build is going to be anything like TT or MW3, take up 14 of your available 43 critical slots. Also, the Hunchback only has room to upgrade the leg armor, and that is by a mere half ton in total, so armor is fine as is, w/CASE added for pilot survivability. XL does add some vulnerability, but it tends to be overstated. That THIRD ton of ammo allows you to keep your big gun in play longer, and the ER PPC is recommended in this case over a standard in part because of the Hunchbacks relatively low speed, having better long range, and no short range tageting issues isa good thing, and the PPC is meant to be used to give you firepower while closing, where you switch to you short range weapons (also gives decent heavy weapon back up for when you do run out of ammo). Gaurdian ECM will play merry hob with opposing lights trying to light you up for their big brothers, and greatly aid you in ambushes.

My primary knock on your Hunchback being that it pretty much lacked anything with a knockout punch. I don't tend to favor the "death by a thousand paper cuts" approach.

I pretty well like the rest of your designs as is.

[Bishop Steiner]

Jakob Knight, on 16 July 2012 - 06:15 AM, said:

Well, the numbers seem to all match up for the designs, so they should be possible to build.

Some general comments for consideration, though....

Despite what people seem to think, an XL engine in a Light mech is actually alot more sensible than one in a heavier mech. Light mechs are designed to avoid enemy fire and speed. Having an XL engine is a minor cost to these mechs, as they are probably dead if they lose a torso anyway, and the extra speed from the XL engine can mean the difference between being hit and escape. Unlike a heavier unit, a Light can't expect to take the kind of damage that destroys half the mech and keep going.

Putting 3 tons of ammo for an LBX weapon makes very good sense if you consider the possibility of needing an extra ammo bay for special ammo types. The LBX weapons in the TT rules require a seperated ammo location in order to use them fully, so having just two ammo slots means having half your normal combat load. Having only a single ammo bin means a painful choice of deciding which mode the weapon will fire in for the entire battle. With three tons, you get a reasonable combat load and still reserve a ton for that 'special' cluster ammo. We don't know if MWO will handle it this way, but if it doesn't, then it can be replaced much easier than trying to find that room later.

From what I have seen in the videos, heat is much more of a problem in MWO than the stats on the sheet might indicate. In the one video featuring a Catapult, the mech was threatening to shut down after only three firings of its medium lasers and backing up. That should easily have been within the 'mech's 15 heat sink capability, but instead the heat spiked after each firing. What might it be like in models with only a fraction of the heat dissipation carried for the weapons to be fired?


Ultimately, we won't know how any of these designs will fare until the game actually comes out. They seem reasonable, though I wonder how many shots you will actually get off from your LRMs before the enemy enters the range where they are unusable. We just don't know how the setup will work, and that will determine how these actually perform.

Hope this helps a little.

Great points. I think the heat discrepancy comes from cycle times, something largely not used in TT. Average BT tabletop turn was 10 seconds, and base rules allowed any weapon carried to be fire once during that period. That gave the Heat sinks plenty of time to vent. In MW3 and 4, you could fire as quickly as weapons recycled, somewhere around what, 3 seconds for medium lasers?? So in the time the TT allowed you to fire the Catapults 4 lasers once, the "real world" cycling in video game form allows you to fire them 3 times, going from 12 pts of heat in 10 seconds to 36 pts of heat, or at 21 of 30 on the heat scale, in serious risk of an ammo explosion.

Of course, that is based off the totally unfounded assumption that the MW:O heat and weapon mechanics in any way are in line w/ TT or MW4. I am certainly curious to see how it will be addressed, because an Awesome could easily find itself McScrewed if someone gets over zealous, lol. People are going to discover the value of water and chain-firing weapons over alpha strike real fast, methinks!

[Bishop Steiner]

xRaeder, on 15 July 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

Can't go faster than 86kph with a Mech of that tonnage. The ER-PPC is on that build for long fire to punch holes in the enemy while I close to get my LBX AC and MPLs in range. The LBX should be really good at seeking out holes in the armor. Its not a front line fighter.

With as many Assaults as I think we will see I don't think even a non-XL Cataphract (which I have built above), will do well. My build is basically a bigger and badder version of the Dragon.

As to the XL Engine in the Jenner. There's no real way around it. If you want to have 118kph and the Jump Jets plus all the scouting equipment there's nothing else you can do to fulfill that role. Not if you want to have any firepower to speak of.

I've always been good at getting in and out of fights quickly. With my throttle to the firewall all the time and liberal use of Jump Jets I don't see the XL as a problem. I tend to immediately hit my Jump Jets as soon as I see someone pointing at me when I am piloting something so light.

I always put CASE in my Mechs regardless, as you can't do much more with .5 tons. I'd rather lose the Mech with the CASE blowing out the XL engine and saving the rest of the Mech with a lower repair bill than having the ammo cook off and blow up the center torso and arm.

Time is money in this game. The more C-Bills you save the more you can do.



Which is exactly the point of the build.

Well, I dont know if MASC or Triple Strenght Myomers are going to be used in game, but either would allow your cataphract that "extra gear" too get in and out in a pinch, like when that Atlas comes back unexpectedly (cuz their pilot didn't add a 3rd ton of ammo and so have to reload already! )

[Graphite]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 July 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

Basically saying that I could not disagree more about the third ton of ammo. If MW:O is sticking as closely to TT designs and such, each ton of ammo is going to get you a LOT less shots than the MW4 version featured. Each ton of AC/10 ammo should be 10 shots.

Seeing as MWO is apparently going to have double armour (see the mechlab video) I think it's likely they'll also double the shots per ton for ammo.
I just don't see how it's workable otherwise.

[xRaeder]

Graphite, on 16 July 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

Seeing as MWO is apparently going to have double armour (see the mechlab video) I think it's likely they'll also double the shots per ton for ammo.
I just don't see how it's workable otherwise.

You're right. I hadn't noticed until now. But technically they are quadrupling the amount of armor you can carry.

If you look at this video you can see that the Mech starts off with 320 pts of armor (while in TT it starts off with 160 --- 160x2 = 320). But according to TT you can only have a maximum of 169 (if they followed TT and just doubled the amount it would be 169x2 = 338 pts)pts of armor on a Hunchback. However this mech is showing that you can add up to 700 points of armor.

Edited by xRaeder, 16 July 2012 - 07:22 AM.

[Thaygood]

I'll take the atlas, how much down?

[xRaeder]

Thaygood, on 16 July 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

I'll take the atlas, how much down?

10,410,000 CBills.

[Thaygood]

xRaeder, on 16 July 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

10,410,000 CBills.

LOL...checks in the mail...LOL

[Bucky Goldstein]

One thing I'd like to point out about the designs that I'd like some clarification on is that it looks like you're placing all your heat sinks on the chassis and that some of them will be directly mounted on the engine. if you divide the engine rating by 25 and drop the remainder, that'll indicate how many can be engine mounted, freeing up some crit slots hopefully.

Edit: Looks like you were just putting heat sinks for the engine as listed for CT placement. Mech's having 9 CT crit slots aren't possible. Otherwise the designs look pretty decent.

Edited by Bucky Goldstein, 16 July 2012 - 09:16 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I think that heat will be the downfall of many theoretical designs. Even using TT rules most people would tolerate a slight excess of heat. It will be interesting if we have to use "cool" designs with what seems to be "excess" capacity. Bang go the 2 ERPPC skirmisher designs.
Would certainly aid the use of missiles and ballistics even more than DoT for lasers.

[xRaeder]

Bucky Goldstein, on 16 July 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

One thing I'd like to point out about the designs that I'd like some clarification on is that it looks like you're placing all your heat sinks on the chassis and that some of them will be directly mounted on the engine. if you divide the engine rating by 25 and drop the remainder, that'll indicate how many can be engine mounted, freeing up some crit slots hopefully.

Edit: Looks like you were just putting heat sinks for the engine as listed for CT placement. Mech's having 9 CT crit slots aren't possible. Otherwise the designs look pretty decent.

Yeah, I could have said engine but didn't...

Nik Van Rhijn, on 16 July 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

I think that heat will be the downfall of many theoretical designs. Even using TT rules most people would tolerate a slight excess of heat. It will be interesting if we have to use "cool" designs with what seems to be "excess" capacity. Bang go the 2 ERPPC skirmisher designs.
Would certainly aid the use of missiles and ballistics even more than DoT for lasers.

I think heat looks manageable, and using Alpha strikes will be very situational.