242 replies to this topic

[Not A Real RAbbi]

Victor Morson, on 25 July 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

There's plenty of guides out there, but after seeing a massive decline in build quality even amongst pugs lately, I figure this is worth repeating - the list of what not to do. [BUT WHAT IF...] No, not even then! NEVER!

1: Mount a Large Pulse Laser, AC/5, AC/10, LBX/10, Machine Gun, Flamer, ER Large Laser, Medium Pulse Laser, NARC, or less LRMs (per volley) than 20. These guns are horrendous and you're already gimping your build right out of the gate with them! Try better guns.

I don't know about all that. LRMs smaller than 20, sure. But the AC/10 as a bad thing? The LB-10/X? My best matches for damage BY FAR were carrying one or both of those as primaries.

Quote

2: Assume people won't cap you because of "honor." They're going to cap you. If you're getting in a light/medium 'mech, and you see someone going for your base, it's your role to try to stop them. Stop just waltzing by and assuming the heavies will go back for it!

3: Freezing like a deer in headlights at LRM boats. In particular in casual PUG games, LRM boats are very very easy to counter. You just have to rush up on them so they cannot defend themselves up close, or stay at a distance popping shots out of their range near steep cover. Don't just ignore them or wander around in circles. I've seen LRM boats take out teams that could smash them 50 times over! Next time you see an LRM 'mech, try to figure out how to exploit it's blind spots!

4: Storing your ammo in your XL Engine side. More 'mechs die to this than anything. Jam it in your arms, head, legs.. but stop sticking it in the side that will cause you to die if it blows up! I kill more 'mechs to that..

5: Taking horrendously mismatched weaponry. Don't take a fast firing gun, a slow firing gun, a long firing gun, a fast firing gun and then configure them in a way you need to fire a little at a time. You're making your build a mess. You either want to go sustained damage of burst damage, but mounting both is a one way ticket to failure.

-

Agreed without hesitation.



I'm a big fan of your assertion that mechs should be fairly purpose-built, that they should have a specific role in mind. Hence the 12 mech team size (recently up from 8). Plenty of room in there to group specialized mechs into fire teams/lances according to the commander's style and strategy, and of course, by the map's demands.

One more thing to add to the list, though:

DO NOT think you can apply Halo tactics to MWO successfully. You will be a member of a team. Your teammates may not always act like it. But you will live longer and score more kills and earn more Cbills and be a cooler dude if you work WITH your teammates.

[Victor Morson]

AntharPrime, on 09 August 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

I love it when someone on my team has a NARC when I'm running my Catapault, those extra seconds you gain from the missle lock speed really pays off.

You love the fact they wasted 5-6 tons from their 'mech, gimping it for the whole team, for a couple seconds better lock time and no grouping bonus - since NARC does not work with Artemis?

That still blows my mind.

[Shifty Eyes]

I agree that MG's should be checked by you "pros" or whatever after the last patch. 4x Mg's vs internals is terrifying now.

I heavily agree that NARC is crap right now and needs a huge overhaul, but I'd disagree with some of the ballistics that are on the notorious list. I think sometimes people just get stuck in the meta and lose creativity.

But what the hell do I know?

[Void Angel]

Victor Morson, on 09 August 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

There's no error.

Victor Morson, on 26 July 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

24 tons of guns + tons of heat + explosive ammo + high ROF / low damage (need to stay on target) =/= tons of up front, instant, heatless damage. Period.

Victor Morson, on 26 July 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

The bottom line is the AC/5 requires you to stay on target and land repeated shots, while running far too hot to sustain fire for long. The Gauss allows you to be visible for one half of a second, get your damage, and go while sustaining 100% fire capability.

Really? No error, huh? Since you seem to have... forgotten... your own posts, I've quoted them for you - the error is bolded for you, just in case.

Victor Morson, on 09 August 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

AC/5s = Tons of plinking shots that have slower-than-Gauss velocity and are likely to spread over the target, while preventing your ability to be evasive between shots

Gauss/PPC = One big punch in as little as 4 seconds, that'll hit exactly where you want it to with super fast velocity. Also it's not going to explode from ammo and it's far lighter meaning you'll have room for armor and engine upgrades.

In fact, you want math apparently (having repeated it twice in one paragraph) so:

AC/5 - 8 Tons
UAC/5 - 9 Tons

2x AC/5 + 2x UAC/5 = 34 tons.
/w 3 tons of ammo per gun = 56

Space left over on Cataphract: 14 Tons

PPC - 7 Tons
Gauss - 15 Tons

2 PPC + Gauss = 29 Tons
/w 3 tons of ammo per gun = 32 Tons

Space left over on Cataphract: 38 Tons

- DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND BAD BUILDS: -
24 TONS

So my point is even if you were right and 2 UAC/5 and 2 AC/5 were far superior to twin PPC and a Gauss, by the time you've finished cramming enough ammo on it to make it usable, you will be left with a horrendously slow 'mech (so slow you'll likely need to invest another ton for a required heatsink) with a notoriously easy to kill frame.

Slow 'mechs versus PPC + Gauss = Not pretty. At all. They'll be darting around your slow, slow, XL Cataphract obliterating you as an after thought. On top of that, the 3D will have more staying power with plenty of ammunition for the Gauss and two no-ammo weapons, while your 4X is likely to run dry even with 3 tons - God help you if you try to skimp with 2.

You're right, that is math. Not terribly relevant math, but it's cute that you tried. The problem is, you're ignoring (again) facts that contradict your world-view - for example, the "space left over" on your slapped-together illustrations isn't really a useful comparison until you determine what your "leftover" tonnage is going to be used for. Now, if you apply your numbers to an actual 'mech design, a few things pop out:

• You'll be using an XL engine, too - unless you want to be "horrendously slow" as well. The biggest standard engine you could fit in the chassis with even minimal jump jets is a 255. Hey! That's exactly the same as the max XL for the 4X!
  
• If you stuck with two jump jets and went for the 325 XL, you'd be at 82.7, compared to the 4X's 64.9 with Speed Tweak - a difference of only 17.8 KPH. Even if you went down to an XL 235 (for the maximum possible ammo),) the difference is still 22.9. You're clearly faster, and your torso twist speed will be superior... But you're not "flitting" around anyone while magically destroying them as they flail helplessly against your flashing speed - this is yet another case of fairy tale logic.
  
• Relevant math you have omitted from your illustrations is that this build's unjammed DPS is almost twice that of the SniparWarrior build. Its initial alpha is 30 points as well, giving it a pretty good kick - and regardless of projectile speeds, it's still going to be pretty accurate at anything shorter than SniparWarrior ranges. Still not enough, as I've pointed out before, to beat a high-alpha in single combat, and certainly not an effective sniper - but more than enough to provide massive damage in support of other combatants.

Every single example you put forth is from the standpoint of single-combat, high-alpha sniping and/or direct brawling. Obviously the 4X isn't going to excell in that kind of combat with a dps build. What it CAN do is fulfil a secondary role as a powerful support gunship. It's not easy, and it's certainly not an optimal 'mech chassis - but it can be done.


That reminds me; once again, you are attempting to hoodwink and twist the conversation around to, "you said the 4X is better than the 3D!" This is not something I've said, and attempting to claim so after being repeatedly corrected can only be a lie. Stop lying - you're not going to get away with it, and it's not helping your credibility any more than making up "facts." In actuality, I've repeatedly pointed out that:

• The AC/5 is a niche-only weapon that should be replaced whenever possible.
  
• My objection is to your assertion that the AC/5 is a high-heat weapon, and my comparison between the Gauss Rifle and the equivalent tonnage of AC/5 served simply to illustrate that point.

Victor Morson, on 09 August 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

I think it's clear who's the winner of this fight from every angle you look at it. Which one of us is in the fairy tale again?

How would you know about "every angle?" You only look at it from one angle - the solo-kill oriented SniparWarrior. All of the arguments above are applicable only in this vein. What has repeatedly escaped your notice is that whenever you argue that the SniparWarrior build is superior at high-alpha sniping combat, you're supporting a point I've repeatedly made. So the only rational objections you've raised support me. You can keep "winning" imaginary arguments all day long - I still won the ones you actually had with me.

It's certainly true that high-alpha builds dominate the MechWarrior landscape at present, despite recent attempts to limit the prevalence of these builds. They're simply more effective than incremental builds overall. But that fact, again, does not mean that simply because a weapon has a high-alpha value, it is always superior to any other weapon set - witness the Gauss Raven, and despair.

Edited by Void Angel, 12 August 2013 - 08:55 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Void Angel, on 11 August 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

Really? No error, huh? Since you seem to have... forgotten... your own posts, I've quoted them for you - the error is bolded for you, just in case.

You're right, that is math. Not terribly relevant math, but it's cute that you tried. The problem is, you're ignoring (again) facts that contradict your world-view - for example, the "space left over" on your slapped-together illustrations isn't really a useful comparison until you determine what your "leftover" tonnage is going to be used for.

I haven't forgotten a thing.

24 tons base difference is not irreverent. That's 1 ton shy of an entire 'mech!

Void Angel, on 11 August 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

Now, if you apply your numbers to an actual 'mech design, a few things pop out:

You'll be using an XL engine, too - unless you want to be "horrendously slow" as well. The biggest standard engine you could fit in the chassis with even minimal jump jets is a 255. Hey! That's exactly the same as the max XL for the 4X!

This.. should be good.

1: One of the reasons the 4X is regarded as a "piece of trash" is the fact it's engine maxes out so low.

2: The STANDARD ENGINE Cataphract 3D with a Gauss and two PPCs is a powerful design that can move near 70, again, with a standard engine. In fact Jager XII of the SJR won the 1v1 tournament with one.

Void Angel, on 11 August 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

If you stuck with two jump jets and went for the 325 XL, you'd be at 82.7, compared to the 4X's 64.9 with Speed Tweak - a difference of only 17.8 KPH. Even if you went down to an XL 235 (for the maximum possible ammo),) the difference is still 22.9. You're clearly faster, and your torso twist speed will be superior... But you're not "flitting" around anyone while magically destroying them as they flail helplessly against your flashing speed - this is yet another case of fairy tale logic.

Why don't you post this magical build? Because when I've looked at the 4X, there is literally no way to fit an XL 235 + at least 2 tons of ammo for each gun (WAY under doing it, you really need 3) + a DHS (crit space). And that's with an XL 225. Perhaps if you go single heatsinks, but.. really?

Second, even 5 kp/h begins getting to be a big deal. By the time you get near 15kp/h difference you're talking a HUGE deal, in particular when your weapon system requires you to maintain LOS and directly aiming at the enemy.

Void Angel, on 11 August 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

Relevant math you have omitted from your illustrations is that this build's unjammed DPS is almost twice that of the SniparWarrior build.

First, I'd like to point out, you can't just stop considering jams for your math. They're a big part of the weapon.

DPS means absolutely nothing compared to punch damage. Sure if the sniper 3D was dumb enough to lumber up to you and park shooting, you'd wreck him. I'll give you that.

If he is running around jump jetting everywhere (even gliding backwards) with superior range and speed to boot.. yeah. You're pretty screwed if you're in a 4X. He only needs to see you for a second to get ALL his DPS in. You need to see him the entire time.

Void Angel, on 11 August 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

Its initial alpha is 30 points as well, giving it a pretty good kick - and regardless of projectile speeds, it's still going to be pretty accurate at anything shorter than SniparWarrior ranges.

1- Not it won't. Because while you're pumping out the DPS, the sniper build will fire at you, do massive damage, then start flying/turning/twisting away. The result? Your CT gets stomped and while, even if you're lucky, you might do more damage than the sniper.. but it will be everywhere across their 'mech. They'll have small dents everywhere, you'll be dead.

Second.. given they're faster than you (yes, even 10 kp/h) they're just going to out range you indefinitely anyway.

Void Angel, on 11 August 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

Still not enough, as I've pointed out before, to beat a high-alpha in single combat, and certainly not an effective sniper - but more than enough to provide massive damage in support of other combatants.

As I've said, I don't have a problem with PUG'ing with Ultras. Ultras aren't awful and are a lot of fun in casual matches. However you'd never use them much in serious play because of their massive drawbacks of requiring "on point" damage, leaving your armor ludicrously easy to kill.

This is even more the case in 12 man games. I can tell you PRECISELY what will happen: You'll start plinging away with ACs, this attracts the entire group's attention, and since the Cataphract is an easy to hit 'mech hitbox wise, everyone will turn their attention to you for a single volley of Gauss, PPCs and even SRMs.

Now if you were in a "Sniperwarrior" build, you might be able to pop up, fire a shot, relocate and not get noticed. Blasting away with a bunch of cannons that mean you can barely move your torso around just doesn't work.

Void Angel, on 11 August 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

Every single example you put forth is from the standpoint of single-combat, high-alpha sniping and/or direct brawling.

Obviously the 4X isn't going to excell in that kind of combat with a dps build. What it CAN do is fulfil a secondary role as a powerful support gunship. It's not easy, and it's certainly not an optimal 'mech chassis - but it can be done.

Every single example I put forth is from the standpoint of every single viable role in the game. Which is high alpha sniping and brawling, at present. (Better than JUST High alpha sniping, as it was two months ago.)

The only "support weapons" worth taking are ones that do a lot of up-front damage. Hell, I could argue that a PPC is a support weapon now, given it's often softening things up for the SRMs.

Also, what it can do is absolutely bite, because it's the worst Cataphract in the game bar none. The Ilya and 3D perform circles around it. It's engine limit is too small, it can't jump, and you never have need of 4 ballistics on a 70 tonner.

PS: I might change my tune on Ultras if the Mauler ever shows up, because 4 of them might be enough up front damage to get away with 2-round pop shots.

Void Angel, on 11 August 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

That reminds me; once again, you are attempting to hoodwink and twist the conversation around to, "you said the 4X is better than the 3D!" This is not something I've said, and attempting to claim so after being repeatedly corrected can only be a lie.

Stop lying - you're not going to get away with it, and it's not helping your credibility any more than making up "facts." In actuality, I've repeatedly pointed out that:

The AC/5 is a niche-only weapon that should be replaced whenever possible.

So you are agreeing that the 4X is worse than the 3D. Then why are you recommending it to new players? You are literally going "Hey I'm going to throw a huge fit to show how wrong this guy is about the 4X. Yeah it's not very good compared but you should drive it anyway!" Again, this is a guide to good equipment for new people. Not terrible equipment you like the visual/audio effects of.

"Stop lying!" says the man who spends half a thread defending the AC/5, only to now say it's a niche weapon that should be dumped whenever you can, which is precisely what I opened with in the first place.

Void Angel, on 11 August 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

My objection is to your assertion that the AC/5 is a high-heat weapon, and my comparison between the Gauss Rifle and the equivalent tonnage of AC/5 served simply to illustrate that point.

How would you know about "every angle?" You only look at it from one angle - the solo-kill oriented SniparWarrior.

It is far hotter than it should be, for what it is. Period. I'm not and never have claimed it's hotter than a PPC and I've said the AC/2 is worse. But for the other drawbacks it has, it's heat should be halved.

Wow, you've misjudged me. I'm looking at it from the angle of "Every skilled team in the game." You know, the guys that everyone really, really cries about when they get into a PUG drop because of how "unfair" it is to have to face people who aren't running terrible 'mechs and try to stick together.

Dueling for me is generally something that only happens when everyone else is dead.

Continued in part 2 (Forum quote limits are awful.)

Edited by Victor Morson, 12 August 2013 - 12:18 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Void Angel, on 11 August 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

All of the arguments above are applicable only in this vein. What has repeatedly escaped your notice is that whenever you argue that the SniparWarrior build is superior at high-alpha sniping combat, you're supporting a point I've repeatedly made. So the only rational objections you've raised support me. You can keep "winning" imaginary arguments all day long - I still won the ones you actually had with me.

It's certainly true that high-alpha builds dominate the MechWarrior landscape at present, despite recent attempts to limit the prevalence of these builds.

I doubt very many people think you've "won" anything. You're literally trying to about face on a ton of stuff in the same post while trying to claim I'm the off one.

And again, my viewpoint is more team oriented than lone wolf. Take these scenario outcomes: Pretend a lead 'mech of a 12 man charge is pushing into your line of sight. Do you want:

A> A bunch of AC/5s and Ultras firing away at him, giving him time to turn away, fallback, or soak it on the charge?

B> A bunch of Gauss/PPC to hit him and instantly obliterate the guy?

Also, there's a reason all of the veterans said the heat scaling system doesn't work, and are/were very, very vocal about it. A lot even left the game over it. It's not because it hurt high alpha builds, it's because it didn't hurt high alpha builds - it hurt low-alpha ones. It damaged AC/2s and Large Lasers badly, and guess what? I'm still running a 1 Gauss, 3 PPC Highlander with barely a speed bump.

It's a bad system as many, many people have explained because the only thing it achieved was knocking out "Baby's first alpha" Stalkers.

Void Angel, on 11 August 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

They're simply more effective than incremental builds overall. But that fact, again, does not mean that simply because a weapon has a high-alpha value, it is always superior to any other weapon set - witness the Gauss Raven, and despair.

EDIT: I see what you were implying here, I misread it at first.

And while yes, the Gauss Raven would be awful, you'll notice the Raven can use other weapon systems on the good list - Small Pulse, Medium Lasers, SRMs, etc. Guns that do have a place in the game.

Along the same vein, ER PPCs work well on Ravens, anyway.

Gauss is always > AC/5.

Gauss is not always > Medium Lasers.

Edited by Victor Morson, 12 August 2013 - 12:28 PM.

[White Panther]

A few mechs that I really miss using and were former competitive builds: founders C1 with large and medium pulse, 5 medium pulse hunchbacks, dual gauss k2 (3D does everything better), streak catapaults. Probably a few others I am forgetting as well. IMO I think the game would be more fun if we had these builds were good again alongside the current meta builds we see today.

[Victor Morson]

White Panther, on 12 August 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

A few mechs that I really miss using and were former competitive builds: founders C1 with large and medium pulse, 5 medium pulse hunchbacks, dual gauss k2 (3D does everything better), streak catapaults. Probably a few others I am forgetting as well. IMO I think the game would be more fun if we had these builds were good again alongside the current meta builds we see today.

I miss all of those. I loved LPL before they were "fixed."

[Void Angel]

Victor Morson, on 12 August 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

I haven't forgotten a thing.

Then you're deliberately ignoring facts you don't want to hear? Good to know!

Quote

Why don't you post this magical build? Because when I've looked at the 4X, there is literally no way to fit an XL 235 + at least 2 tons of ammo for each gun (WAY under doing it, you really need 3) + a DHS (crit space). And that's with an XL 225. Perhaps if you go single heatsinks, but.. really?

Go do your homework. If you can't reverse engineer the mockup I'm using with the information you just quoted, you have no business holding forth on weapon utility.

Quote

Second, even 5 kp/h begins getting to be a big deal. By the time you get near 15kp/h difference you're talking a HUGE deal, in particular when your weapon system requires you to maintain LOS and directly aiming at the enemy.

DPS means absolutely nothing compared to punch damage. Sure if the sniper 3D was dumb enough to lumber up to you and park shooting, you'd wreck him. I'll give you that.

If he is running around jump jetting everywhere (even gliding backwards) with superior range and speed to boot.. yeah. You're pretty screwed if you're in a 4X. He only needs to see you for a second to get ALL his DPS in. You need to see him the entire time.

And again, you're assuming a certain combat situation with no interaction with any teammates - mine or yours. Your SniparWarrior build is always free to "flit" away, and "fly" back to cover, while the poor, dumb 4X pilot stands in the open confusedly shooting at random 'mech parts. As I've said before, and will say one last time: I'm not arguing the one-on-one viability of the 4X v. the 3D. I personally, as I have said, prefer the 3D. I do take issue with your position that high alpha weapons will always - under every conceivable tactic regardless of team makeup - so totally outperform any low-alpha, high-dps weapon build that the poor dps user will always lie prostate at the feet of your glorious manhoo Battlemech.

Quote

It [the AC/5] is far hotter than it should be, for what it is. Period. I'm not and never have claimed it's hotter than a PPC and I've said the AC/2 is worse. But for the other drawbacks it has, it's heat should be halved.

1) That's not what you said; you said it generates "tons of heat," and that it had the "same heat problems as the AC/2." You also said that the AC/5 only "seems" to run cooler because it has a lower rate of fire. These claims are empirically false. 2) Muddying the waters by talking about how "well... uhm, it should be... cooler than it is, so yeah! Yeah, they should halve the heat, and I didn't make that claim about PPCs that no one said I did, either! So there!" just isn't going to pass muster.

Quote

Wow, you've misjudged me. I'm looking at it from the angle of "Every skilled team in the game." You know, the guys that everyone really, really cries about when they get into a PUG drop because of how "unfair" it is to have to face people who aren't running terrible 'mechs and try to stick together.

Dueling for me is generally something that only happens when everyone else is dead.

And yet your evaluation is always along the lines of "my SniparWarrior mech will beat "your" 4X like this, and like that and you'll be all like, 'oh noe, I am helpless!' and I'll just fly around and kill you! Yeah!" You may very well play as a teammate in real matches - all truly competent players do. But the examples you've given up till nowhave always been one-on-one comparisons, followed up by fallacious appeals to your own authority - like the first paragraph in the previous quote.

Other bad arguments that I haven't directly quoted include assuming bad tactics on the part of the hypothetical 4X - he's not going to walk out in the middle of the firing line and "plink away" where every enemy can see him. The only way that build would work is if it's a party crasher type who only goes in to back up an assault.

I've already demonstrated situations where the Gauss Rifle would be inferior to the AC/5. I also pointed out that the AC/5 should be replaced with a heavy beam cannon or UAC/5 whenever possible (and that's assuming you can't use a more specialized ballistic weapon instead.) Then I linked back to the posts. Please read opinions you criticize.

I haven't recommended the 4X to new players - in fact, I've stated (several times now) that I prefer the 3D. The 4X only came up because it is the poster child for a chassis with very limited hardpoint types.

In summary, the crux of my disagreement is twofold: the specific, false-to-fact claim that the AC/5 generates "tons of heat" and has "the same heat problems as the AC/2," and the general idea that "dps is meaningless" compared to alpha damage.

Edited by Void Angel, 12 August 2013 - 06:24 PM.

[Mr Andersson]

I want to add two things:

Never stand directly in front of a team mate
You are blocking his line of fire. Step away.

Never stand directly behind a team mate
You are blocking his escape route. Even worse than the previous point.

[Victor Morson]

Void Angel, on 12 August 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

Then you're deliberately ignoring facts you don't want to hear? Good to know!
Go do your homework. If you can't reverse engineer the mockup I'm using with the information you just quoted, you have no business holding forth on weapon utility.

Oh dear lord man, you have no idea what you're talking about. What unit are you with? Maybe we can set something up where we can video some duels and get them posted to youtube. It'd be pretty hilarious.

Void Angel, on 12 August 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

And again, you're assuming a certain combat situation with no interaction with any teammates - mine or yours. Your SniparWarrior build is always free to "flit" away, and "fly" back to cover, while the poor, dumb 4X pilot stands in the open confusedly shooting at random 'mech parts.

This right here displays your ignorance of a lot of what I've said. Everything I said was absolutely and entirely applicable to team play. In fact AC/5 builds are far more viable in one on ones.

In practice you will pop out for a second and get almost no damage unless you can fire several salvos, while every time someone with a proper weapons setup pops, they will do huge damage to you instantly. In the case of an SRM brawler instead, you'll be spinning around trying to plink rounds while the Cataphract's huge chest eats SRMs.

There is literally no scenario that makes your AC/5 'mech remotely, and I mean remotely, as viable as a proper sniper or brawler.

Void Angel, on 12 August 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

As I've said before, and will say one last time: I'm not arguing the one-on-one viability of the 4X v. the 3D. I personally, as I have said, prefer the 3D. I do take issue with your position that high alpha weapons will always - under every conceivable tactic regardless of team makeup - so totally outperform any low-alpha, high-dps weapon build that the poor dps user will always lie prostate at the feet of your glorious manhoo Battlemech.

But high alpha weapons do always have the edge. It's a fact of the game, as it is right now. That's why Ultras are far better than AC/5s, they can fire a short "burst" and then hide, which is as much of a compromise as you'd want.

Also this constant "Sure the 3D would wreck a 4X in a fight but in a teaaam gammme.." - if it's going to wreck it in 1v1, it'll wreck it even harder in 12v12.

Void Angel, on 12 August 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

1) That's not what you said; you said it generates "tons of heat," and that it had the "same heat problems as the AC/2." You also said that the AC/5 only "seems" to run cooler because it has a lower rate of fire. These claims are empirically false.

"Seems" was a bad choice of words, but they both generate the same heat at different recycles. Guess what? The heat problems cripple the AC/2, in particular now - and they are a severe issue with AC/5 builds. Among their many, many, many other drawbacks.

Void Angel, on 12 August 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

2) Muddying the waters by talking about how "well... uhm, it should be... cooler than it is, so yeah! Yeah, they should halve the heat, and I didn't make that claim about PPCs that no one said I did, either! So there!" just isn't going to pass muster.

AC/5s are too hot. It's a major flaw with them, because you need to carry heatsinks AND ammo to operate them, when they're already so far off on the tonnage/crit-to-usefulness scale it is ridiculous. Honestly I'd even go as far as to strip light AC heat entirely as they are presently. They're just not worth any major heat gain.

Void Angel, on 12 August 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

And yet your evaluation is always along the lines of "my SniparWarrior mech will beat "your" 4X like this, and like that and you'll be all like, 'oh noe, I am helpless!' and I'll just fly around and kill you! Yeah!"

You may very well play as a teammate in real matches - all truly competent players do. But the examples you've given up till nowhave always been one-on-one comparisons, followed up by fallacious appeals to your own authority - like the first paragraph in the previous quote.

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what will happen.. In a 1v1 or 12v12, snipers will be popping in and out of terrain that they are moving faster than you on, simply leveling you.

I'm going to guess you don't play any 12 mans, do you?

None of them have been. The example where a 3D can keep range / outmaneuver you while you're forced to try to stay on target is more of a team scenario than a dueling one. Why?

Because while you're aiming at evil CTF-3D #1, #2 and #3 will pop up for all of 1 second and start hammering you, likely in one of those slow XL torsos, and pop goes the Void. It's an outright fact that this is how it goes down almost without exception.

Meanwhile, if you were in a 3D, you'd only be exposed for a tenth the time, and delivering full-damage shots in return. See the problem? Again, almost everything I've said is just as applicable to 1v1 as it is 12v12.

Void Angel, on 12 August 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

Other bad arguments that I haven't directly quoted include assuming bad tactics on the part of the hypothetical 4X - he's not going to walk out in the middle of the firing line and "plink away" where every enemy can see him. The only way that build would work is if it's a party crasher type who only goes in to back up an assault.

Which they are absolutely horrendous at. Have you faced many zombie centurions lately? Cataphracts are prime targets because they've got really bad chest hitboxes. It's not a big deal at range, but up close, Cataphracts go down in 2.5 alphas. In otherwords, about 5 seconds when multiple Centurions are involved.

You simply cannot afford to be moving that slow, in something that fragile, with that little ammo and backing up anybody. You would, quite seriously, be better off in a properly fitted medium brawler for that.

Void Angel, on 12 August 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

I've already demonstrated situations where the Gauss Rifle would be inferior to the AC/5.

No you haven't. Not a single one.

Void Angel, on 12 August 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

I also pointed out that the AC/5 should be replaced with a heavy beam cannon or UAC/5 whenever possible (and that's assuming you can't use a more specialized ballistic weapon instead.) Then I linked back to the posts. Please read opinions you criticize.

I have no idea why you're defending a weapon you're also saying is trash. Your argument makes less than 0 sense.

Void Angel, on 12 August 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

I haven't recommended the 4X to new players - in fact, I've stated (several times now) that I prefer the 3D. The 4X only came up because it is the poster child for a chassis with very limited hardpoint types.

In summary, the crux of my disagreement is twofold: the specific, false-to-fact claim that the AC/5 generates "tons of heat" and has "the same heat problems as the AC/2," and the general idea that "dps is meaningless" compared to alpha damage.

Good, because the 4X is among the worst builds in the game.

DPS is pretty much meaningless compared to punch damage. It's just how the cookie crumbles and wishing for it to be different all you want won't change it.

[MnDragon]

Victor Morson, on 25 July 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

There are very, very clear tiers of weapons & equipment in this game with currently broken and vastly inferior ones. For some reason people like to steer newbies into using the junk. It's a bad idea. Pretty much: T1 - PPC, ER PPC, SRM, Gauss, MedLas, AC20 | T2 - LRM/TAG, SPL, SL, UAC/5 Everything else is downhill from there at present time. Sharply down hill.

Not to troll, but honestly, its this mentality that has set up the current Meta. I purposely don't use these weapons unless there is a specific reason for it on my mechs. I try different things on my loadouts to try new weapons and find niches for all of them. Do I always succeed, no. But the fact is that I have found very interesting combinations that WORK and make broke weapons useable and I still throw up decent damage. I have a jager that fires 1 AC20 and 2 MG as primary and secondary, and anything below assault, I can take out with pretty much one shot of the AC20 and a few bursts of the MG array. Its how you group the weapons that helps. I say ignore the meta, find what you like to play and ignore stupid tier posts.

[Void Angel]

"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." I wholeheartedly agree that some (though not all) of the current high-alpha SniparWarrior meta is simply groupthink. I saw this with the release of the Highlander and the concurrent Assault Versus the World tournament.

Everyone was playing a PPC/Gauss sniper or an LRM boat for most of that weekend - it was an exercise in futility to bring a brawler, because no one would leave cover to support you. You had the choice of hiding till the match was usually decided without you, or going out in a blazing pyre. By Sunday afternoon, however, enough people had gotten sick of SniparWarrior Online that you started to see significant numbers of brawlers, making a concerted flanking attack on the Snipars viable. This, in turn, brought home to the Snipars a valuable lesson: that some tactics become the only "viable" tactic when virtually everyone else is doing it. Once brawlers started to adapt, the PPC-monkeys got rolled by higher-dps, close-range builds - the Brawler Backlash had begun.

On the other hand, certain weapons are definitely weaker than others, and it is useful to caution new players against them. that being said, there is an important difference between helpful caution and adamantly insisting

As for you Victor... I guess you win. Not because you've scored a single logical victory, but because I'm tired of responding to your walls of text-n-lies. I will slap down one final "point" you've failed to prove, because it's what I was really talking about in the first place - and it is emblematic of your stubborn and dishonest refusal to face facts.

Quote

"Seems" was a bad choice of words, but they both generate the same heat at different recycles. Guess what? The heat problems cripple the AC/2, in particular now - and they are a severe issue with AC/5 builds. Among their many, many, many other drawbacks.

AC/5s are too hot. It's a major flaw with them, because you need to carry heatsinks AND ammo to operate them, when they're already so far off on the tonnage/crit-to-usefulness scale it is ridiculous. Honestly I'd even go as far as to strip light AC heat entirely as they are presently. They're just not worth any major heat gain.

Void Angel, on 26 July 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

Well, actually... a Cataphract 4X with a quad-AC/5 build and the bare minimum 10 double heat sinks in the engine can fire those weapons for two minutes and forty-three seconds solid before reaching overheat - and to fire this long would require over fourteen tons of ammunition; more than twice what a reasonable build could carry. Certainly, you have explosive ammunition - but you're getting a nastier all-around weapon to compensate.

This right here is why you're not worth talking to - it's like arguing with a two-year-old. No, really; I'm not exaggerating to insult you, that's exactly what it's like. Because I've pointed out the facts over and over again, and you just repeat your debunked position - you're crossing your arms, scowling your best scowl, stamping your foot, and saying "NO!" You ignore verifiable, empirical facts that you're given in favor of anecdotal stories and fabricated "examples" based on your personal experience - after spending post after post correcting other people who rely on anecdote to counter verifiable fact. This combination of invincible ignorance and logical hypocrisy makes you unassailable - in your own mind. It's likely you think you win most of the arguments you have, but the reality is that the people who can argue properly just go away because you make them tired.

So congratulations! You get the last word. May it be more honest than what has come before - but I won't hold my breath. Nor will I be listening.

Edited by Void Angel, 13 August 2013 - 08:26 AM.

[Shifty Eyes]

MnDragon, on 13 August 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

Not to troll, but honestly, its this mentality that has set up the current Meta. I purposely don't use these weapons unless there is a specific reason for it on my mechs. I try different things on my loadouts to try new weapons and find niches for all of them. Do I always succeed, no. But the fact is that I have found very interesting combinations that WORK and make broke weapons useable and I still throw up decent damage. I have a jager that fires 1 AC20 and 2 MG as primary and secondary, and anything below assault, I can take out with pretty much one shot of the AC20 and a few bursts of the MG array. Its how you group the weapons that helps. I say ignore the meta, find what you like to play and ignore stupid tier posts.

I have to agree with this.

I'm usually a pretty casual gamer (with school and work going on), but I've played my share of competitive games. One thing I've really noticed, and the #1 reason I really dislike "esports", is that a good chunk of "top tier" players do get brainwashed into whatever the current "meta" is, to the point of limiting their selves to the same safe strategies over and over. At this point, sometimes very noobish tactics will throw off a good player's game and cause them to lose because it was unexpected and they've failed to exercise adaptive thinking.

Not all good players let this happen, but too many do. I think this whole thread sort of exemplifies this. You can do math and in-house testing all day long every day, but battles don't happen in a vacuum. "This build will destroy this build" is a naive thing to argue about, because there will always be team mates, there will always be terrain, and there will always be variables out of your control. I know a lot of players are trying out creative builds and having mixed results. I hope the majority of players will always be trying new and creative ways to make use of underused weapons, whether they are successful or not.

To casual players, I'd recommend just ignoring most of this thread and building mechs you enjoy playing, which will naturally be builds you are good with as well (most of the time). To the hardcore gamers, I know the game is always changing and weapons are always being tweaked, and some weapons appear to just be nerfed into oblivion, and really some weapons have truly been hopeless without a doubt (0.04 damage MG pre crit seeking), but stay creative and don't lock yourself down and become stale.

Anyway, that's my pent-up rant, probably towards competitive gaming in general more than just to MWO.
TL:DR - I agree with the above quote.

[Marmon Rzohr]

'Sup mechwarriors

Anyway after reading through the whole thread I'd just like to add my little two cents to the pile.

So try to bear with me through this:

(Too long post ? Threads like this, tier lists etc are awesome and useful - read below for explanation)
(Also: I suggest editing a couple of sample good builds into the original post as a frame of reference. It would be helpful to have a "visual aid" going with the list. )

I'm a long-time MW player and fan. I'd been watching MW:O for quite while and missed out on closed beta when i finally decided to sign up and see what it's like.

Apart from being by far the best Mechwarrior game ever made it was also my first real encounter with canon (standard) mech variants. In MW 3 & 4 it was "hey, a new mech" - boom - straight to the mechbay to fit stuff i like.

Needless to say the trail variants were very lacking (but also kinda fun).

Naturally I wanted to get my hands dirty in the mechbay and build my own stuff. SInce grinding CBills takes some time I did the sensible thing (taught by my DotA and LoL experience) and looked up what's what on the forums.

I skipped over individual builds (knowing they catered to personal tastes) and posts with specific discussions. After a couple of minutes i found a treasure:
"Common Mechs In Run Hot Or Die (Competitive League Mech Designs)"
http://mwomercs.com/...e-mech-designs/

Naturally I went through it and found myself a design for a 4SP zombie and built that. It was sweet and remains to be a nice mech to date. After that i built a slightly "for fun" 4P with 9xML, that was also fun. Then I got to lvling the 4H. No matter what I tried the mech was only okay. It simply wasn't as good.

Naturally when i elited it, I sold it and got a Cat K2 (on the count that the only heavy more consistently praised was the 3D, and the K2 looks like a spaceship with legs while the 3D looks like someone crashed a vastly better looking mech into a wall at high speed). I built it myself this time with 4xLLs. Was a nice build. Worked well. Then I went for 2xErPPC + 2xLL (i assumed i would be s#it with the PPCs so i kept 2 of the lasers). Suddenly I was like, yeah these PPCs everyone's on about are really sweet.

Then I wanted to experiment a bit. Went back to the competitive thread. Found the 4xPPC K2. It was simply glorious. Sure the other designs i tried were fun and nice, but this one kicked so much *** it was borderline not-funny.

Now what's the point ?

The point is that like MavRCK's tier list this type of "guide" is great. It helps new players understand the meta in mere minutes. It points them in the right direction. You can go all day about the meta being artificial and uncreative, and it always is, every meta changes when some team finds a new way to win... BUT none of this helps new players. As new player you want to know the cookie cutter. You want to know what's tried, tested and know to work. As you get more and more games under your belt, you too start to tread untested water and new builds. However when you're getting started you want to know where to go. You don't want to loose your time grinding for something that works situationaly or with a high skill cap. You want something you can rely on so you can enjoy the game while you're learning it.

That's why: Thanks Victor, MavRCK, Protection and others for doing this.

Yes tier lists are innacurate and imperfect. My K2 now runs UAC5s and MLs. And is wonderful. That doesn't change the fact that Sniping and "proper" brawling builds are great and even better because they do more for less effort.

So...
i wanted to recount my experience for a firsthand experience (someone who hasn't played every BattleTech game since MW2 would have and even harder time keep in mind) in an attempt to quell some flames and keep the original point in sight.

(I too flame on posts about the metagame (it is a bit lame) myself now, but this is the guides section, and therefore requires different types of posts)

In that vein:
I suggest editing a couple of sample good builds in the original post as a frame of reference. It would be helpful to have a "visual aid" going with the list.

Cheers everyone

[NineTails]

MnDragon, on 13 August 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

Not to troll, but honestly, its this mentality that has set up the current Meta. I purposely don't use these weapons unless there is a specific reason for it on my mechs. I try different things on my loadouts to try new weapons and find niches for all of them. Do I always succeed, no. But the fact is that I have found very interesting combinations that WORK and make broke weapons useable and I still throw up decent damage. I have a jager that fires 1 AC20 and 2 MG as primary and secondary, and anything below assault, I can take out with pretty much one shot of the AC20 and a few bursts of the MG array. Its how you group the weapons that helps. I say ignore the meta, find what you like to play and ignore stupid tier posts.

That you're presenting an x1 AC/20 x2 MG Jager as an effective meta-breaking build makes me doubt your credibility.

And that's without addressing the issue of 'what the heck are you using the rest of your tonnage on?'.

[Victor Morson]

MnDragon, on 13 August 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

Not to troll, but honestly, its this mentality that has set up the current Meta. I purposely don't use these weapons unless there is a specific reason for it on my mechs. I try different things on my loadouts to try new weapons and find niches for all of them.

Which is a shame, because this behavior is what screws up the metrics and insures nothing ever gets fixed.

Shifty Eyes, on 13 August 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

Not all good players let this happen, but too many do. I think this whole thread sort of exemplifies this. You can do math and in-house testing all day long every day, but battles don't happen in a vacuum. "This build will destroy this build" is a naive thing to argue about, because there will always be team mates, there will always be terrain, and there will always be variables out of your control. I know a lot of players are trying out creative builds and having mixed results. I hope the majority of players will always be trying new and creative ways to make use of underused weapons, whether they are successful or not.

Except the weapons the competitive gamers work in all ranges, all situations, on all terrain. It's hard to argue with point-and-click damage to a single location no matter what you're doing.

Again, if everyone just accepted the weapons as they were, we would have MUCH better balance. Everyone still clinging to the desperate hope the LBX/10 might be remotely worthwhile keeps it on the radar, and insures it never will be made worthwhile.

EDIT: Also the only way noobish builds have ever thrown me or anyone in my unit is off is from snide commentary and laughing, breaking our coms discipline. Their dastardly plan worked! ("Oh Jesus this guy has machine guns and AC/2s, poor, poor Jagger, somebody kill it will ya?")

Edited by Victor Morson, 13 August 2013 - 04:44 PM.

[NineTails]

Victor Morson, on 13 August 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

EDIT: Also the only way noobish builds have ever thrown me or anyone in my unit is off is from snide commentary and laughing, breaking our coms discipline. Their dastardly plan worked! ("Oh Jesus this guy has machine guns and AC/2s, poor, poor Jagger, somebody kill it will ya?")

I think the thing that keeps people 'doing well' with these builds is that enemies see them and immediately start looking for a real target. And then by the time the the AS7s, HGNs, and CTFs are all dead, the little MG Jager-That-Could has been firing all this time and has 500 damage, 1 kill, and 4 assists. Not by any particular merit of the build, but simply by accumulating numbers as their more threatening teammates were terminated first.

[Victor Morson]

NineTails, on 13 August 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:

I think the thing that keeps people 'doing well' with these builds is that enemies see them and immediately start looking for a real target. And then by the time the the AS7s, HGNs, and CTFs are all dead, the little MG Jager-That-Could has been firing all this time and has 500 damage, 1 kill, and 4 assists. Not by any particular merit of the build, but simply by accumulating numbers as their more threatening teammates were terminated first.

That is a very likely factor, too. If we've got an AC/20 Jagger or even an SRM Cent in our face, we're very likely to put an MG Jag right to the bottom, fast.

[NineTails]

Victor Morson, on 13 August 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

That is a very likely factor, too. If we've got an AC/20 Jagger or even an SRM Cent in our face, we're very likely to put an MG Jag right to the bottom, fast.

JM6-DD

Why must you crush Little Timmy Mechwarrior's hopes and dreams?

Edited by NineTails, 13 August 2013 - 07:34 PM.