150 replies to this topic

[Titanicus]

Im going to have to disagree with you OP. My most successful mech is the CN9-A and it has an AC10, 2x SRM6, SRM4 and two MedLas. I find a varity of weapons to be more conventient as well. And a lot less boring than having just one weapon.

[Victor Morson]

One Medic Army, on 30 June 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

You forgot a very important factor.

Since all the mechs right now are pretty much big slow assaults, having different projectile velocities doesn't matter very much.
It's quite easy to hit someone with a projectile while hitting them with lasers when they're only going 50kph and the size of a barn.

I didn't forget; but merely hitting the target is not good enough in a MechWarrior game. You need to hit specific parts. Even a good shot with bad synergy weapons will end up spreading that damage across several sections generally, where someone with weapons that work well will be landing damage where they want it.

It's a huge difference that gets more pronounced the more 'mechs you have shooting at you. One on one you might not see much difference between the two; two on two you would. Four on four, you'd starting seeing huge differences between weapons that can easily align on one location, and ones that can just generally hit 'mechs.

[Roland]

Quote

Bad
1 AC/20, 2 Large Lasers

The Large Lasers require 1 second of discharge time with no lead - the AC/20 requires lead time. While you could fire one, then the other, to try to compensate this increases the chance of hitting multiple components and also slowing your overall damage when you have a brief exposure window on the target. i.e. how much you can do before they can get to cover.

While I would tend to run medium lasers rather than larges in such a configuration, I don't think your rationale here really qualifies this as a "frankenmech".

Having two weapons groups, one ballistic and one energy, isn't really that weird.

Indeed, a pretty standard config for a hunchback is a 20 with 3 medium lasers, and it is perfectly workable. You don't generally fire them together, but managing two weapons groups isn't so complex that it starts to cross over into frankemech territory.

Perhaps part of the issue is what exactly constitutes a "frankenmech". Honestly, it may just be better to describe them as garbage builds, since there are other, simple, equally terribad builds out there.

[Victor Morson]

Titanicus, on 01 July 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

Im going to have to disagree with you OP. My most successful mech is the CN9-A and it has an AC10, 2x SRM6, SRM4 and two MedLas. I find a varity of weapons to be more conventient as well. And a lot less boring than having just one weapon.

I'm guessing with that setup you are either very slow, or running XL, to try to get that AC/10 on there. But.. you do almost have a proper configuration.

I'm not sure if you've ever run what is considered the "mainstream" Centurion zombie build, but give it a shot for a few drops and see what you think:

The key parts:
3x SRM6
2x ML
A large standard Engine
(No arm armor, no arm guns)

I think you'll find despite the loss of the AC/10 and only upgrading an SRM4 to compensate, you will be far far far harder to kill and also be able to close into ranges to deal more damage, even with the currently inferior SRMs.

I think you'll find you have way more success with it if you give it a fair shake.

[General Taskeen]

And yet an Atlas-K and RS are Large Lasers and AC/20's. Seems like 'synergesticalness' to me... Its called a Record Sheet Mech.

[Victor Morson]

Roland, on 01 July 2013 - 04:58 AM, said:

Having two weapons groups, one ballistic and one energy, isn't really that weird.

Absolutely not weird at all. The problem is pairing the right weapons in the right situations.

For example, even within the same "weapon family" the AC/2 would pair exceedingly poorly with the AC/20. If you get into point blank with the AC/20 the Large Lasers will be less of a hinderance, but at medium to "long" range, they will be impossible to maximize while having a mismatched weapon.

There's a difference between bracketed weapons (like for example, I run 2 small lasers on my Cataphract 3D in the arms, which I use if I'm cornered ; that's a backup weapon (that works well with the Gauss rifle) for only a ton, and has bailed me out of a lot of situation and due to their short range, lead time is never an issue.

Roland, on 01 July 2013 - 04:58 AM, said:

Indeed, a pretty standard config for a hunchback is a 20 with 3 medium lasers, and it is perfectly workable. You don't generally fire them together, but managing two weapons groups isn't so complex that it starts to cross over into frankemech territory.

Medium lasers pair much better with the 20 than Large; I think I said that at some point here, because they A) Have a shorter range (and thus won't come into play until the AC/20 lead time is less notable), and Have a shorter discharge, which again, helps in this environment. Really Large Lasers aren't the WORST pairing possible with an AC/20, just one of a few. AC/20 would pair poorly with, say, AC/2 for the same reason.

Roland, on 01 July 2013 - 04:58 AM, said:

Perhaps part of the issue is what exactly constitutes a "frankenmech". Honestly, it may just be better to describe them as garbage builds, since there are other, simple, equally terribad builds out there.

The definition I lean towards is builds with weapon systems patched in that don't belong on the same 'mech, an unholy contraption that shouldn't be walking around.

That's why (assuming the guns were balanced) I wouldn't consider a 'mech with 3, or even 4 workable weapon groups a Frankenmech if they all work to support each other. There's been DDCs at various points in MWO (before PPC became king) that had to run three entire categories of guns, but generally they all cross bracket and work well together.

[soarra]

well i guess i run a frankenmech then according to this and a bad one at that..
damn ac/20 2LL 1 ppc Misery

[Victor Morson]

General Taskeen, on 01 July 2013 - 05:00 AM, said:

And yet an Atlas-K and RS are Large Lasers and AC/20's. Seems like 'synergesticalness' to me... Its called a Record Sheet Mech.

TRO 'mechs are awful.

What I find amusing about people who insist on running TRO designs is that a lot of the guns added to TRO mechs were added by the game designers as a nerfing factor. Did you ever wonder why MGs are on EVERYTHING in early CBT, but only in pairs of two with a full ton of ammo (when a full ton could support 6+ easily within the rules?)

Simple: The MG ammo is there to cause explosion chances on overheat. Straight up. The same goes for, say, the LRM/10 on the Warhawk - if you replaced it and it's ammo with DHS, it could alphastrike (twice, I believe!) without any risk of shutdown or explosion. Not to mention the chance for someone to crit your ammo.

Record Sheet 'mechs will always suck because they've been gimped on purpose to avoid making them OP. They didn't get extra guns to look cool..

At least most record Sheet 'mechs. A few aren't awful, or require very little tweaking.

soarra, on 01 July 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

well i guess i run a frankenmech then according to this and a bad one at that..
damn ac/20 2LL 1 ppc Misery

Yep, that's a frakenmech.

PPC moves 2000, AC/20 moves 900, Large Lasers are hitscan. You can't lead any of your guns with nearly the accuracy you could if you replaced the PPC with a Large Laser and the AC/20 with a Gauss, or if you swapped the LL for PPCs (I know, it's common) and the AC/20 for a Gauss.

I'd prefer more options, believe me.

Again, synergy isn't boating.. but boating is easy to obtain synergy. The more weapons we can get to parity and with things that make them "click" together, the less boating we will see. It'd be really cool if you could pair that AC/20 with Large Pulse Lasers or something instead, but they suck right now.

EDIT: But yeah, that's a bad build. Hell, if you really insist on the LLs, consider swapping that PPC over and throwing on more DHS at least. It'd bring it down to a "2 group" instead of "3 group" 'mech.

It's hard to recommend an imaginative Stalker with so many weapons in the gutter, but you absolutely could not stand up against a PPC+Gauss Stalker run by a pilot of similar skill. Not even a little chance.

Edited by Victor Morson, 01 July 2013 - 05:15 AM.

[Titanicus]

Victor Morson, on 01 July 2013 - 05:00 AM, said:

I'm guessing with that setup you are either very slow, or running XL, to try to get that AC/10 on there. But.. you do almost have a proper configuration.

I'm not sure if you've ever run what is considered the "mainstream" Centurion zombie build, but give it a shot for a few drops and see what you think:

The key parts:
3x SRM6
2x ML
A large standard Engine
(No arm armor, no arm guns)

I think you'll find despite the loss of the AC/10 and only upgrading an SRM4 to compensate, you will be far far far harder to kill and also be able to close into ranges to deal more damage, even with the currently inferior SRMs.

I think you'll find you have way more success with it if you give it a fair shake.

Im moving at 63.1 mph without an XL, Full armour except im my legs for a total of 308. I have no problem getting around and no problem dropping people who underestemate me.

[Victor Morson]

Titanicus, on 01 July 2013 - 05:14 AM, said:

Im moving at 63.1 mph without an XL, Full armour except im my legs for a total of 308. I have no problem getting around and no problem dropping people who underestemate me.

If you are running 63.1 in a medium 'mech, I know I won't under estimate you. It might be impossible to underestimate you, in fact, because you are driving a horribly gimped 'mech.

Seriously man. Next time you drop, try running the build I suggest - before speed tweak you'll be doing 89.1 with a STD 275 in there, bringing you into the mid-high 90s without it. I absolutely garunutee this will improve the worth of your 'mech immensely - you'll be moving around much faster, saving you tons of damage while also allowing you to get right into optimum range and dogfight.

In fact, for good or ill, if you would like to try it I would love to hear a "trip report" when you get done with 10 or so drops and see what you think. I'm not here to bash your builds, I'm here to try to pass along good information. I personally think you will be a convert, if you try it.

tl/dr: AC/10 is not worth the loss of almost 40kp/h.

EDIT: This isn't so much me posting my favorite design or something; this is the Centurion 9A EVERYONE runs in upper tiers and to be honest, not many people have found alternatives that have sold me (or many others). But really, you should make a rule to never make a medium that goes slower than 80, ever ever ever. EVER.

Edited by Victor Morson, 01 July 2013 - 05:21 AM.

[Roland]

Vic's right, the Cent build you described is terrible.

Running just SRM's and ML's on a cent is a far stronger build, even with nerfed SRM's. It's one of the toughest mechs in the game, with the maneuverability to get its firepower where it needs to be.

If you're running sub 70 in a medium, you're basically just a really weak heavy... hell, most of my heavies run faster than that.

[Victor Morson]

Roland, on 01 July 2013 - 05:23 AM, said:

Running just SRM's and ML's on a cent is a far stronger build, even with nerfed SRM's. It's one of the toughest mechs in the game, with the maneuverability to get its firepower where it needs to be.

There is literally no 'mech I hate having to prime worse than a good zombie Centurion, because I know even with everyone shooting at the bloody thing, we're not going to be dropping it anytime soon.

Seriously, the toughest assault in the game will go down before this thing, easy. heh

[jay35]

Bring whatever you want, so long as it works well for you. I don't care if it's all Small Lasers, if you're killing and winning, good for you. The whole point of the mech lab is build diversity and experimentation. The more restrictions placed on that, the duller the game becomes.

[MustrumRidcully]

Deadmeat313, on 01 July 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

Firstly, I'm sensing a lot of antagonism to the OP here that I don't think is warranted.

He didn't come across as "pro boating" - though obviously boating a single weapon type is the simplest and neatest way to find Synergy. We all know the boating arguments now, the main one being that YES boats exist in canon - but NO they couldn't pop all 6 of their lasers straight into your right torso.

Aside from not just being about boating - he's not saying that "pro boating" is good game design.
He explains why the game design we have is "pro boating" and how it acts against mixed weapon loadouts (and what kind of mixed weapon loadouts its acts against.)

Just because someone hates boats doesn't mean he could not recognize the features that lead to it happening in M:WO. Or at least it shouldn't but some are so blind in their frustration or hatred over boating that they cannot accept that there are crucial, balance-affecting reasons that make boating effective.

If players don't play in the manner you wanted them to play, then your system benefits people playing the way you didn't want them to play, instead of benefiting people playing the way you want them to play. You have to identify the cause and fix it, or you will just stumble around helplessly with random "fixes", buffs and nerfs.

[Matta]

It all boils down to a single question:can a pilot master 4-6 weapon groups (and fire them independently and in proper time) or just 2, like these synergy builds.

Personally, I have more respect to my enemies who engage me (successfully) with the "franken" setup than to those who follow current meta and some synergy theory.

All it takes is one lousy Spider with able pilot and "franken" setup to blow all this theorycraft to spectator mode til the end of the match.
It may be less often than oposite way but it does happen a lot.
And I hope PGI raises that chance a lot more by implementing proper measures that will increase fun factor and Mechwarrior spirit of game and decrease e-peen factor and "3lit3ness" that has been circling like plague for some time now.

Not trying to offend you OP, I understand what you're saying. But I simply don't like it and won't accept it as a single and only way to play this game successfully.

[Victor Morson]

jay35, on 01 July 2013 - 05:28 AM, said:

Bring whatever you want, so long as it works well for you. I don't care if it's all Small Lasers, if you're killing and winning, good for you. The whole point of the mech lab is build diversity and experimentation. The more restrictions placed on that, the duller the game becomes.

I absolutely would love it if worked that way. With so few viable weapons and even less compatible ones to chose from, it simply does not. There are a handful of really "top" designs, a handful of "second tier" designs and then a whole bunch of 3rd tier "Fun to pug in, but still wouldn't last in a serious match" games.

A good example of the last category would be the 3 UAC/5, 3 ML Ilya Muromets. That's a really fun mech that does very solid damage output with good synergy, but it's still lackluster compared to the serious top 'mechs. (This is despite the fact it does easily even more damage than those 'mechs, points wise, it simply cannot deliver the alphas other guns can).

The more guns that are finally fixed and made usable (if PGI ever manages it, at this point!), the more what you just said can happen. I was finding new and ENTIRELY worthwhile designs right up until the day I stopped playing MW4: Mercs. You STILL had the same synergy issues you have here, but many weapons worked well with each other and in different combinations, resulting in lots of options - despite a couple popular ones like the 2 LG, 1 PPC Uziel.

That said, by comparison, I haven't bothered to modify any of my 'mechs (outside of rigging one to suicide easily for a tournament) after I've built them in like three months, because I have absolutely nothing viable to convert them into.

Edited by Victor Morson, 01 July 2013 - 05:44 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Matta, on 01 July 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

It all boils down to a single question:can a pilot master 4-6 weapon groups (and fire them independently and in proper time) or just 2, like these synergy builds.

Personally, I have more respect to my enemies who engage me (successfully) with the "franken" setup than to those who follow current meta and some synergy theory.

All it takes is one lousy Spider with able pilot and "franken" setup to blow all this theorycraft to spectator mode til the end of the match.
It may be less often than oposite way but it does happen a lot.
And I hope PGI raises that chance a lot more by implementing proper measures that will increase fun factor and Mechwarrior spirit of game and decrease e-peen factor and "3lit3ness" that has been circling like plague for some time now.

Not trying to offend you OP, I understand what you're saying. But I simply don't like it and won't accept it as a single and only way to play this game successfully.

I don't think that someone with the ability to run a frankenmech has some specialized brain area that only helps him with frankenmechs. I think if he'd use a more synergistic layout, he'd fare even better.


It's not about what we wish to be true. It's about what the game design encourages and what it discourages, and how it does so. Once we figured that out, we can try to find out how to change the game design to encourage or discourage what we want it to.

By "we" i mean the hypothetical MW:O designer, of course. We're just arm chair designers here and can't do jack, unfortunately.
(MW:O for open source, Private Test Servers, something?).

[BlackIronTarkus]

The poll is literally ******** and acheive nothing at all. I dont know if it was intented to be funny or not...

Anyway, I get what the OP is trying to say, and I agree to an extant.

[Victor Morson]

Matta, on 01 July 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

It all boils down to a single question:can a pilot master 4-6 weapon groups (and fire them independently and in proper time) or just 2, like these synergy builds.

Frankemechs have nothing at all to do with how many weapon groups you run. I run 6 on my 3D - I use a 1 Gauss, 1 ER PPC, 1 PPC, 2 Small Laser variant. (I sacrificed one ton for the twin Smalls, many people don't do that, primarily because I've found them reliable "finishing blow" weapons on injured lights more than a few times, and they work well with the Gauss.) I then setup the groups as such:

1 - Gauss
2 - PPC + ER PPC
3 - 2 Small Lasers
4 - Gauss + 2 Small Lasers (All arm weapons)
5 - Gauss + 2 Small Lasers + ER PPC (All weapons effective under 70m)
6 - Gauss + ER PPC (All weapons capable of hitting to extreme range)

I use all 6 groups. A ton. Yet my 'mech is about as meta as it can get, other than my arguable decision to add smalls and go half-and-half with the PPCs, which I primarily do to hedge my bets on what map is coming up. If I knew that, I'd spec into one or the other.

Matta, on 01 July 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

Personally, I have more respect to my enemies who engage me (successfully) with the "franken" setup than to those who follow current meta and some synergy theory.

If I run across someone capable of destroying me in a Fraken (well, if they did the majority of damage, anyway), they are a far better pilot than I. I won't argue that. Yet if you took a pilot of their skill level and pitted them against an optimum 'mech instead, they'd lose in seconds.

A great pilot in a bad 'mech will beat a bad pilot in a great 'mech.
A great pilot in a bad 'mech will not beat a great pilot in a great 'mech.

Matta, on 01 July 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

All it takes is one lousy Spider with able pilot and "franken" setup to blow all this theorycraft to spectator mode til the end of the match.

I'm not even sure what you could Franken on a Spider, it doesn't have the slots to do more than MG and ML. Maybe if some nut job was running an AC/2 on one with some smalls or something..

Matta, on 01 July 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

It may be less often than oposite way but it does happen a lot.
And I hope PGI raises that chance a lot more by implementing proper measures that will increase fun factor and Mechwarrior spirit of game and decrease e-peen factor and "3lit3ness" that has been circling like plague for some time now.

The funniest part is all the people that the community rails on for being "elitist" by trying to tell them they are doing it wrong would greatly improve the typical PUG experience by making more weapons - and thus more weapon combinations - effective at all levels of play.

Matta, on 01 July 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

Not trying to offend you OP, I understand what you're saying. But I simply don't like it and won't accept it as a single and only way to play this game successfully.

I don't accept so few weapon combinations being viable, myself, but that's largely why I'm in this forum all of the time trying to get PGI to give us a sign they realize that the situation is rather dire right now.

I'd LOVE a MW:O where I feel like I'm not gimping myself by straying outside of the handful of viable setups right now. But even if they fix it, you STILL have to keep synergy in mind - always.

[Hotthedd]

It is the current implementation of pinpoint alpha strikes that makes "FrankenMechs" un-optimized.

Remove the magical ability to have all weapons converge on a single spot when fired all at once and mixed-weapon loadouts would become more viable.