43 replies to this topic

[Purplefluffybunny]

At the risk of sounding a little stand offish, until the rubber banding issues are sorted all other considerations and preferences seem overly forward looking.

[Agent of Change]

jay35, on 15 April 2013 - 06:54 AM, said:

Some of these questions need multiple choice checkboxes instead of radio buttons. I am not a single issue voter.

There are complex combinations of reasons why I build how I build or skip variants I skip.

Sometimes it's because there's not enough speed, other times because there's not enough firepower, and yet other times where it gives an appearance of potential but fails to perform well in testing.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you, but I chose not to for two reasons:

1. to keep the focus as narrow as possible, the 'favorite' mech ideal, not in general but all things being equal consider speed as a question.

2. an attempt to ameliorate Trolling of the "I hit all the option cause i could variety".

Originally the survey was bigger and had several check box options but due to the previous reasons i went with the above.

[jay35]

Agent of Change, on 15 April 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you, but I chose not to for two reasons:

1. to keep the focus as narrow as possible, the 'favorite' mech ideal, not in general but all things being equal consider speed as a question.

2. an attempt to ameliorate Trolling of the "I hit all the option cause i could variety".

Originally the survey was bigger and had several check box options but due to the previous reasons i went with the above.

There is also a significant amount of contextual impact on the answers for questions 1 & 2. For example, on Tourmaline I want a faster mech because the map is larger and impatience plays a role. On River City, I don't care much about speed, because the front line is within walking distance of the base so even an Assault mech can generally make it back in time to prevent a cap, as it should be.
Your survey is well intentioned but falls short of considering some of the main factors that really paint the picture on the answers given or even enabling people to supply an accurate answer.

[Roadbeer]

Sure, the questions don't cover every scenario, but they're general enough to get the temperature of what people build.

I approach every build with what I'm trying to do. I have my Fast Cat, which is a XL315, 4 LL, and every heatsink I can shoehorn into the damn thing and I have my Boomcat which is slow and plodding and brings withering damage to the field.
Same with my DDCs, I have one that's as fast as I can get it, with max armor and close range weapons so it can act as the focal point of fire while the other brawlers do their thing, then I have a DDC that has as much high damage, long range weaponry as it can take, and driving that, I can go make a sandwich by the time it gets to the battle.

This is the good part of being in a group, we can determine what we plan to do before drop, get our builds in line and compliment each other on the field.

All of this has absolutely nothing to do with the poll...

[Agent of Change]

jay35, on 15 April 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:

There is also a significant amount of contextual impact on the answers for questions 1 & 2. For example, on Tourmaline I want a faster mech because the map is larger and impatience plays a role. On River City, I don't care much about speed, because the front line is within walking distance of the base so even an Assault mech can generally make it back in time to prevent a cap, as it should be.
Your survey is well intentioned but falls short of considering some of the main factors that really paint the picture on the answers given or even enabling people to supply an accurate answer.

Added clarification in the main post, this is not about 'currently' effective so much as what you enjoy running. The mech i have the most fun driving doesn't change based on the map I'm on, it's effectiveness may but not the fun factor of the mech. Some people may not feel the same way you may be one of them. I respect that.

Edit: thanks RoadBeer, well said

Edited by Agent of Change, 15 April 2013 - 07:07 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Speed is a primary concern for me in every mech, period.

I will run standard engines in specific chassis (atlas, hunchback) but otherwise build options for me are figured out first with a max sized XL, then sometimes downsized a little bit for efficiency.

However, for me, Assault mech absolute minimum speed is 60kph, 70 is a target minimum. Heavies? At least 85, and my favourite is my Flame at 104.

I honestly almost never play mediums, because they offer little I can't get in heavies. I'd want more speed than most can offer with a decent load out.

Lights... Max speed, only. Period.

[Jack Lazarus]

Agent of Change, on 15 April 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

I get what you are saying. I have a stable of 18 mechs encompassing all 4 weight classes and every battlefield role, that said though I do have one or two mechs that I am happy... perhaps too happy, maybe even giddy to drive.

Alas, I have no mechs which I enjoy the use of more than others. If I did perhaps I would know my answer to the speed question.

[Mercules]

Some of these just don't fit very well with build concepts though.

For example, I like to make my mech go as fast as I can however there are times I want to try a specific weapon loadout and so need to strike a balance to get both speed and particular weapons. I don't typically build the weapon loadout and then the biggest engine I can so that doesn't fit. I sometimes will start with the biggest engine I can fit and then drop it down if the weapon loadout I end up deciding on will not fit with that.


For the most part I decide what I want the mech to do and then build towards that.

Some I don't care if they go faster so I tend to focus on load out of weapons and systems first. With others I go the other way.

[jay35]

Okay, that helps, thanks. The weight-class-specific questions I'm still struggling with though, because I actually try multiple approaches before determining if I'm going to buy a given variant, and I do that regardless of weight class. I play around in smurfy's lab to see how much firepower I can fit with the largest engine, but I also try building out the best weaponry and seeing what that leaves for an engine. I also try to find a sweet spot somewhere in between. I tend to try maxing firepower first, so should I choose that? But I generally end up trying to find the sweet spot, so should i choose that instead?

Edited by jay35, 15 April 2013 - 07:14 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

I play almost only slow or moderately fast mechs, but speed isn't much of a concern to me. Almost all my assault mechs have the biggest possible engine, or close to biggest, but that's because brawling demands mobility.

[Otto Cannon]

The biggest factor for me when choosing an engine is the shape of the mech; in a Catapult I'll use an XL because the torsos are tiny, but when building a Hunchback or Centurion I'd use a standard engine even if I'd want it to be faster ideally.

Generally I like faster mechs though because I find that speed saves me where an extra weapon wouldn't.

[Agent of Change]

jay35, on 15 April 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

Okay, that helps, thanks. The weight-class-specific questions I'm still struggling with though, because I actually try multiple approaches before determining if I'm going to buy a given variant, and I do that regardless of weight class. I play around in smurfy's lab to see how much firepower I can fit with the largest engine, but I also try building out the best weaponry and seeing what that leaves for an engine. I also try to find a sweet spot somewhere in between. I tend to try maxing firepower first, so should I choose that? But I generally end up trying to find the sweet spot, so should i choose that instead?

with the class specific questions i've broadened the criteria so yeah if weapons are your priority over speed that's where to say so.

[Zerberus]

As a rule, the faster I am, the more battlefield effective I am. I can move to and from cover faster, reposition myself faster, and if necessary (and fast enough) completely change whichch part of the theater I am active in to adapt to new objectives (for ex the ever popular "Base is being captured").

If I could get an Atlas to go 150 without sacrificing firepower, I would. As it stands, I have to be content with outrunning stock unleveled catapults + jägers.

But traditionally in BT more guns > higher speed, all other factors remaining the same. This is actually somewhat contrary to current (western) military doctrine, where the emphasis usually is on strinking fast, hard, and precise instead of just showering everything with fire until something goes boom (though that admittedly is a million times more fun)... In MWO it does not hold quite as true, we´ve all seen (or at least heard of) lights taking down assaults in a 1:1 at some point, with and without cheese (and Bacon! Never, ever, forget the Bacon! ).

For me to feel comfortable, a 100t Assault that`s not primarily LR support needs to run at least 60, and dedicated close range builds need to be at least fast enough to outrun any non light that `s stupid enough to run backwards and close in for a bruising, so about 64-65 range, which on an atlas is about a 350 w/tweak.

On heavies, I often actually downsize the engine a bit.

On lights and to a lesser degree mediums, engine size is survivability., so the priority changes a bit...

But as a general rule, I select my weapons loadout, then play with the engine size and number of heatsinks to get as close to maximum speed and ideal heat dissipation as possible. If I have 1 ton to play with for either an additional external or an engine that will let me add an internal, I go for the engine. and extra tonnage after weapons and HS maxing is always engine, engine, engine.

But I will not for ex. run an Atlas on anything smaller than a 300, because when you start crawling around at <50 you`ve completely lost the ability to put your firepower where it needs to be when it needs to be there, the entire engagement can literally outrun you.

[General Taskeen]

If I want to troll, I go fast. Top speed assists my ability to prolong the match as long as possible.

If I don't care to troll for the day, 80% of my builds are stock or close to stock speed on challenge builds. Both of my Commando's, go... get this, 97.2 KPH.

[Agent of Change]

So far the most interesting (to me) results are the following:

• Based on preferred speeds i'm making the guess that most of the respondents prefer piloting heavy and medium mechs given their preference.
  
• The majority of people answering the survey consider themselves patient in the eyes of others.
  
• Repondents by majority consider weapons and equipment first or at least in tandem with Engine size/speed rather than as a priority.
  
• Respondents Overwhelming consider speed first (and not just speed XL engines) with lights
  
• Medium mechs are the most varied in the approach of speed as a priority/secondary/equal consideration with the rest of the loadout.

Thanks for the responses so far guys.

[ReissTC]

Lights, I prefer max or near-max XL engines. Speed is life!

Mediums, I prefer to keep around 80-90km/h. XL or STD depends on chassis. Or, rather, if it's the Trebuchet, use the XL engine. If not, no. Cicada is wierd, though I tend to move closer to 100-120km/h depending on the config.

Heavy mechs are varied. Dragon and Catapults I keep close to 80km/h and use XL engines. Cataphracts, 64.8 standard engines.

Assaults, not sure. Had Stalkers and currently have an Atlas; in all cases, stock. Upping the speed in one of these by any noticeable amount is too damned costly in weight. Never use an XL engine.

Generally, when buying a mech, I don't often look at its speed, unless it's a light (seriously, I'd say the Raven 2x and even the 4x would be /ok/ if they could just move faster...). Can always upgrade the engine, if I need to, and with the exception of the Hunchback and Centurion, I'm usually fine with stock speeds.

Mostly I enjoy heavy and medium mech piloting. Centurions and Cataphracts. Yum.

[BlackWidow]

GREAT POLL!

Really well thought out and good answer spread.

[Pale Jackal]

I selected 'select a specific engine size and build around that' because, with XL engines, I generally try to shoot for an XL280, XL295 or XL300. Those are the most tonnage efficient engines, because you pay 1.5 tons to upgrade to a XL305, so on the rare occasion I want an engine speed above 300, I try to get a 340XL which is another tonnage efficient engine, or maybe an XL330.

[Agent of Change]

BlackWidow, on 15 April 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

GREAT POLL!

Really well thought out and good answer spread.

Thanks!

I have some other goals with the info i'm gathering and potential follow up questions for down the road if the response is good. tell your friends.

[Nathan Foxbane]

I use a minimum threshold to determine speed based on class. No Assault 'Mech in my 'Mech bay may go less than 48 kph, no Heavy 'Mech may go less than 60 kph, no medium may go less than 80 kph and no light may go less than 90 kph. All loadouts and armor are considered afterwards.