150 replies to this topic

[TehSBGX]

I've been following this post a bit and I want to share my CN9-A build because it's certainly a frankenmech.

http://goo.gl/pz9uV

Yep, it's running an XL a huge taboo for cents but it allows me to be a glass cannon with decent speed a play style I personally like. It would be far better to drop the ac/10 and run a standard engine so I can Zombie it out. I know how to optimize the mech, but it won't be as fun for me and well fun is a huge part of why I like this game so much.

Also lastly, Victor isn't preaching PPC boating he's trying to explain what works together and what doesn't. Give the guy a break, he's actually a pretty decent guy.

[Victor Morson]

Matta, on 01 July 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

In my opinion, PPCs got OP not just because of velocity. Heat decrease and HSR implementation brought it on top.

People keep saying that, but seem to have forgot that PPCs were kings long, long before HSR.

TehSBGX, on 02 July 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

I've been following this post a bit and I want to share my CN9-A build because it's certainly a frankenmech.

http://goo.gl/pz9uV

Yep, it's running an XL a huge taboo for cents but it allows me to be a glass cannon with decent speed a play style I personally like. It would be far better to drop the ac/10 and run a standard engine so I can Zombie it out. I know how to optimize the mech, but it won't be as fun for me and well fun is a huge part of why I like this game so much.

I have absolutely no problems with people running non-meta fun builds, in particular if they understand the situation like you do. Hell, I've been running my 2x LRM10, 1x LRM5 Treb in PUG games every time I lone wolf, even though it (was) pretty bad.*

* LRMs seem to have taken more a buff than I thought this patch. Still investigating.

TehSBGX, on 02 July 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

Also lastly, Victor isn't preaching PPC boating he's trying to explain what works together and what doesn't. Give the guy a break, he's actually a pretty decent guy.

Thanks man! heh

[Angel of Annihilation]

While there is some truth to what you say, many differet weapons pair up well. For example a PPC/ER PPC pairs well with a Gauss Rifle since they have similar ranges, aimpoints and cooldowns. Additionally you can easily compliment an AC/20 build with a couple medium lasers and a SRM6 because they have similar range profiles.

Rarely do you have a true Franken mech that can't or doesn't have options to mount weapons that compliment each other in some way, form or fashion. (The new Shadow Hawk Pheonix variant will be one such mech however).

[Victor Morson]

Viktor Drake, on 02 July 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

While there is some truth to what you say, many differet weapons pair up well. For example a PPC/ER PPC pairs well with a Gauss Rifle since they have similar ranges, aimpoints and cooldowns. Additionally you can easily compliment an AC/20 build with a couple medium lasers and a SRM6 because they have similar range profiles.

So basically exactly what was said in the OP, then?

[Sybreed]

would you be alright with PGI wanting to make frankenmechs a little more compatible and effective?

The only advantage the frankenmech has right now is a high probability of having a weapon system that can hit a target at any range (LRMs, ACs, SRMs, lasers). The problem is that since long range weapons usually are as effective at short range, it's a good idea to use long range weapons only (hence why I suggested that if PGI wanted to bring convergence, they should make long range weapons converge SLOWER than short range weapons). There's little incentive to bring mix weaponry for different scenarios, as there are no real downsides to using some specific weapons (like, say, the PPC). Also, having less weapon groups seems to be a plus to most players, as it's easier for the brain to handle those limited groups instead of 5-6. Personnally, I rarely have under 4 weapon groups... but I like to gimp myself.

In WW2, during the pacific battle, having multiple weapons for multiple scenarios was preferable. Just look at the Enterprise, that ship had dozens of guns, with many being specific to a range scenario (short, medium, long range). Long range guns were useless up close, short range guns couldn't hit far away targets, medium range guns were middle of the road. I wish that kind of tactic was still viable here.

[Valore]

TBH, I see it from a different angle.

They're bad because the game requires very little skill to maneuver your mech into the position you want.

And this comes from a pilot whose mechs average out to around 75kph in speed.

So you're always far better off taking weapons that suit the range you want to fight in.

[Sahoj]

Ballistics and Lasers work incredibly well together. It's not hard to sequence your shots to get very strong damage.

Ballistics, Lasers and missiles (any range) work well together. Again, sequence your shots. Having a ballistic weapon and an SRM grouping to rely on in a hot map during a brawl when your heat gets up can win you many battles against energy boats who simply have to stop firing.

I have a hard time working lasers of different ranges efficiently or effectively combining a 4th weapon group. I also struggle with ballistics who use different speeds combined with PPC's.

[The Cheese]

Sahoj, on 02 July 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

Ballistics and Lasers work incredibly well together. It's not hard to sequence your shots to get very strong damage.

Ballistics, Lasers and missiles (any range) work well together. Again, sequence your shots. Having a ballistic weapon and an SRM grouping to rely on in a hot map during a brawl when your heat gets up can win you many battles against energy boats who simply have to stop firing.

I have a hard time working lasers of different ranges efficiently or effectively combining a 4th weapon group. I also struggle with ballistics who use different speeds combined with PPC's.

The point we're trying to get at is that some weapons just work better with others. Being able to fire them all, but one at a time, isn't good enough. What we're talking about here basically comes down to the ability to use them all with as little impact on each other as possible. That means, downtime while readjusting aim is bad. Downtime while waiting for a lock is bad. Having many weapons with the same effective range, but facing the enemy to fire a single weapon while others are on cooldown is bad.

[Morikuro]

Valore, on 02 July 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

TBH, I see it from a different angle.

They're bad because the game requires very little skill to maneuver your mech into the position you want.

And this comes from a pilot whose mechs average out to around 75kph in speed.

So you're always far better off taking weapons that suit the range you want to fight in.

This is because the game, even conquest mode to a lesser extent, is still pretty much a cage match between groups. It's not really a war or battle, it's a single engagement where most of the fighting will be slugfests, regardless of the range they're conducted at.

If we got real expansive maps with multiple objectives that required different things, then having your optimized one size fit all mech would be less important. If you got maps that were so big that the assaults fitted for alpha and hill humping couldn't move themselves around fast enough to compete with a more fluid opposing team...you'd see all mech types being valuable again. Actual objectives, like escorts, base strikes, etc. Not all mechs are suitable for all missions, but you would want something to cover every catagory. And because range would suddenly become so variable depending on actual positions with no one mountain to rule the map, mechs with dramatically different weapon systems would become more useful due to their adaptability. And don't drop all the teams in one place, spread them out a bit, so one huge artillery strike or aerospace bombardment can't take them all at once (justification, that).

To take that a bit further, if we had small campaign mode battles where the mech you took was the only one which you were allowed to have for the whole chain of maps, then having a one note design would become even more crippling unless your team as a whole was varied enough to be adaptive. Either way it would up the variety we see in the game. Even maps like Tourmaline and Alpine don't really accomplish this, though Alpine on Conquest has a bit of that (the huge assaults just can't contribute the same way because of the sheer distance).

Pipe dream though. It would probably be far too difficult for PGI to implement something like that (reliably). But that's why we have these problems. We play mechs like solaris games with more rugged arenas, but they're made with all kinds of potential battles in mind in universe. That's not even humping the TT or canon, it's just a fact of war in general. Age of sail people had frigates and armed sloops and the rest, not just ships of the line, because you had different missions that required different gun fits and hulls and rig types. WW2 combined arms evolved and you got all kinds of nuanced designs for weapons and their platforms according to the roll they'd fill, etc etc. That doesn't mean everything would be fluffy kittens and all weapons would be balanced, but right now we're just not seeing the full context of the environment mechs would operate in.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

[SJ SCP Wolf]

About 90% of you are so dense that an electron couldn't pass through your skulls.

Synergy ≠ Boating.

Look at the examples. The examples aren't boats. They are mixed load outs that work together. The AC/5 MPL load out being the best example. I understand this is Victor making the post, but his point /engage chagrin mode Is valid.

Edited by SJ SCP Wolf, 02 July 2013 - 09:36 PM.