474 replies to this topic

[1453 R]

...you're trying to use the 1G as a missile support platform? o_O

What is this I don't even...@_#

...what engine are you using in that thing? One of the strengths of the Master of Battles is that it's damn near as agile as the Victor once you get it worked up and kitted out, but neither the Victor nor the Battlemaster are actually all that agile without a high-rated XL...are you trying to get away with a STD in these things? o_o...

[Tesunie]

1453 R, on 21 January 2014 - 07:16 PM, said:

...you're trying to use the 1G as a missile support platform? o_O

What is this I don't even...@_#

...what engine are you using in that thing? One of the strengths of the Master of Battles is that it's damn near as agile as the Victor once you get it worked up and kitted out, but neither the Victor nor the Battlemaster are actually all that agile without a high-rated XL...are you trying to get away with a STD in these things? o_o...

This build is kinda an experiment to see how well it might work with some LRMs, as when I was using direct fire weapons, I was either too late to the show, or just got gunned down by another (or a team of others) build... The LRMs let me provide some support while the mech slowly moved into position. (Not going to even say it's the greatest of designs.) It's providing a half way decent controlled experiment with TAG and LRMs for the moment.

Besides some upgrades (Endo/DHS), it's almost all stock otherwise (and weapons are changed obviously). I don't have the C-bills to place a large XL engine, and I don't have a large XL engine to place into it right now either. (I also dislike placing XLs in assaults, but that's another story all together.) It's got a Std 340 in it. The largest XL I currently own is the XL325 (on my Quickdraw), which is smaller...

One of my points is that the Stalker is more agile with a the same engine over the Battlemaster. If the Battlemaster needs a larger engine to be just as agile as my Stalker, then I'd prefer the Stalker. (Right now, I'm also using the (P) version to get it past elites, and to earn the extra C-bills. I'm having mixed results at the moment. Some games it does great, other games it just flops in my face and dies.)

The (P) version of the Battlemaster is the only one I'm thinking about keeping (mostly because I don't have a choice). I just haven't found a build that works with my skill set in the game, though I think the LRMs on it help out.

[Tesunie]

Okay, I just got the Battlemaster 1G up to double basics. These are my live fire comparisons between the Stalker and the Battlemaster's twist amounts (contained in Spoilers):

Battlemaster:

Spoiler

Take note of the top alignment bar and the minimap "wedge". I know the arms also can rotate, but that doesn't always help when you have torso mounted weapons. However, it is being included in my thoughts, as I'll define in a moment.

For the Stalker 3F (Chassis specification is important here):

Spoiler

I have not gotten double basics on the missile Battlemaster yet, but the 1G and the 1S appear to have the same rate, so I shall presume this, and I don't mind if I am wrong about it (as if I am wrong, I'm soon to get double basics on it anyway).

Here is what I found between the Stalker and the Battlemaster, that makes me feel that the Stalker is a better choice for a generalized chassis (not an LRM shirmisher) over the Battlemaster.

Stalker's advantages:
- Most/all weapons are high mounted. Helps to get over obstacles.
- Large LRM tubes are protected by doors, giving damage reduction.
- Large LRM tubes are located higher, and closer, to the torso, meaning less "shooting them into the nearby hill next to/in front of my arm.
- Arms are rather safe from damage (small, located up high, missile door damage reduction). Makes for a handy spot to store ammo.
- Seems to be more responsive than the Battlemaster with similar (Battlemaster had a 20 point higher) engine ratings for side to side motion.
- Lasers points are positioned fairly high, just like the LRM tubes, making them good for shooting over obstacles.
- Has more energy hardpoints, leaving more room for TAG and close combat capabilities at the same time.
- Larger side torsos, which make shifting damage around away from the CT much easier and more effective. You normally die with no torso left at all. This relates to being better able to take damage (if one doesn't take an XL engine that is).
- Arms don't move independently of the torso, meaning better overall weapon convergence.
- Energy points are away from the cockpit, meaning one doesn't get blinded when shooting their weapons off with thermal or night vision enabled.
- Seems to have better acceleration and deceleration over the Battlemaster. Hard to tell on this one.
- Has a greater side to side twisting capabilities, making it more likely to land with all of it's weapons into a target, compared to just the arm weapons.
- Hard point locations are more evenly distributed. This means I don't lose/keep as much weapons if a side gets blown off, as they are even. (I literally loose only half my mech and weapons.)
- Twist rate is over 90 degrees to each side, probably close to 100-110 degrees. Hard to tell... (don't make me pull out the tool needed to measure it for real!) Battlemaster is twisting less than 90 degrees, and it's arm rotation included (which only helps if your weapons are there) might reach to 90 degrees, or maybe a little over. It could be pushing the same rotation total as the Stalker, but the Stalker can get the same rotation then with all it's weapons to come to bare...

Battlemaster's Advantages:
- Larger engine size means faster speed and faster twist rate. However, when it's twist rate already feels slower than the Stalker's and it already has a 20 point larger engine... it needs the larger engine just to make it twist as fast as a Stalker...
- Large missile ports can shoot up to 15 LRMs in a single burst, unlike my Stalker 3F's ports which shoot in bursts of 10/5. However, this also increases missile spread as well...
- Missiles are mounted in the arms, no energy port is in the arms, meaning the extra "twist rotation" given by the arms will not help your torso mounted weapons. I also tend to find the lower slung arms are wider spread arms tend to lead me to shoot entire bursts from an arm right into a friendly mech, or a nearby hill I thought wasn't close enough to block them. You also tend to twist damage to your arms. LRMs (if that is what you place there) also do not need the arm rotation, denying you many benefits of the arm mounted weapons. (SRMs would benefit more from the arms than LRMs though.)
- Torso mounted LRM slots are larger than the Stalker's SRM ports, and can shoot 10 LRMs in a single burst.
- Most of the Battlemaster's hard points are on one side, meaning that if you lose the other side, you lose less weapons. However, if you lose the wrong side, you lose more of your possible weapons...
- Is much safer for XLs than the Stalker, letting it save far more weight that way. However, side torsos are still easily destroyed, and I often times lost at least one torso (usually the wrong side) before death.
- CT is hit far more often, making it safer for XL. However, that also means, for an assault, that it isn't taking advantage of much of it's tonnage of armor.
(Just because I think they need mentioning, a few bad points specifically with the Battlemaster 1S)
- Less energy points than Stalker, making it more difficult for a close range defensive array.
- Tend to be more easily blinded with your own weapons when fired, as they are right next to your cockpit.
- Using your arms as shields is a bad idea, especially if you have large LRM launchers inside as your main armament. (But the Stalker can't really use it's arms as a shield at all...)


I'm sure I might have missed a few things, but these are my personal findings/conclusions between the two chassis. The Battlemaster has it's own advantages, but also a list of disadvantages to counter them. Same with the Stalker. For my style of play, and my preference towards Std engines in larger mechs, the Stalker is a better fit for me than the Battlemaster. I'm sure this isn't true for everyone, and I encourage people to find what works for them personally. The Battlemaster isn't a bad ride, but I'm not much of an Assault Pilot and I feel the Stalker is a better match for myself personally.

Edited by Tesunie, 21 January 2014 - 09:27 PM.

[1453 R]

Heh...since your list of the Battlemaster's advantages is actually no such thing, let me take a stab at it:

- Massive engine rating upper limit allows the use of huge XL engines, allowing the Battlemaster the option of moving and maneuvering as nimbly as many of the game's heavy 'Mechs. This is absolutely huge and needs to be emphasized in any comparison between the two - the Stalker may feel more nimble with a 320 in it as compared to a 340, but what about a 320 compared to a 385?
- 15-tube LRM launchers (in the 1S) enable denser missile salvos, avoiding the debilitating 'stutter-fire' effect small tube counts force on big LRM launchers and enabling better penetration of AMS coverage.
- More flexible options within the chassis - every Stalker save the Misery is limited to effectively the same armament, whereas the Battlemaster can sport a starkly different configuration in each of its three variants to suit its pilot's taste for the day.
- Twist ratings are actually much better than advertised on the other two Battlemaster variants:

According to Smurfy, the 1G got shortchanged in the twist department, with 60 degrees torso/30 degrees arm, for a total of 90 degrees. This is still better* than the STK-3F, which gets 85 torso/0 arm, but the STK's 85 torso gets a much bigger absolute boost from double Twist X than the BLR-1G's, as the Spoiler images above show. That said...the 1D and 1S get 80 degrees torso/30 degrees arm, which gives them a decisive advantage and allows the BLR-1S (the Battlemaster actually relevant to this thread) to maintain its missile locks over a much wider arc than the SKT-3F. Which, by the way, has a noticeably wider twist than other Stalkers, who're all more in line with the BLR-1G. And the final Battlemaster advantage:

-New and Interesting, while the Stalker is Old and Stale

Really, though...the Battlemaster's engine cap is a monumental advantage that can't really be understated. Yes, taking advantage of it requires an expensive and risky XL engine, but at absolute maximum engine ratings installed, the Battlemaster moves nearly twenty klicks faster than the Stalker. That's a decisive advantage in combat. Even with the somewhat-more-sane 385XL I use in my own Victors/Battlemasters, I get fifteen klicks over you, which is a nearly twenty-five percent increase in footspeed. This is on top of the twist and turn rate advantages I get for having sixty-plus more engine rating than a Stalker's absolute ceiling, as well as the BLR-1S's twist arc advantages as well.

Remember: big honkin' engines are the entire reason the Victor has managed to carve out a place for itself as a lighter, tighter, leaner and faster competitor to the Highlander. If the Battlemaster had jump jets we wouldn't even be bothering with this conversation, eh?

Edited by 1453 R, 22 January 2014 - 05:22 AM.

[Buckminster]

1453 R, on 22 January 2014 - 05:20 AM, said:

Really, though...the Battlemaster's engine cap is a monumental advantage that can't really be understated. Yes, taking advantage of it requires an expensive and risky XL engine, but at absolute maximum engine ratings installed, the Battlemaster moves nearly twenty klicks faster than the Stalker. That's a decisive advantage in combat. Even with the somewhat-more-sane 385XL I use in my own Victors/Battlemasters, I get fifteen klicks over you, which is a nearly twenty-five percent increase in footspeed. This is on top of the twist and turn rate advantages I get for having sixty-plus more engine rating than a Stalker's absolute ceiling, as well as the BLR-1S's twist arc advantages as well.

So I guess this is what I'm doing wrong with my Battlemasters. I've hated them - they've all seemed so slow and ponderous. Granted, I'm playing with them in the middle of mastering my Shadow Hawks, Griffins and Wolverines, so I guess it's going to seem slow no matter what.

I just hate having to spend hard earned C-bills on a big XL engine. Most of my mechs fall in the medium to heavy range, and I have a wide assortment of XLs in the 250-300 size, but nothing big enough to really make the Battlemaster move. I also know that I've been hampered by the lack of Basic and Elite skills, which has only made the grind that much harder.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Buckminster, on 22 January 2014 - 05:48 AM, said:

I just hate having to spend hard earned C-bills on a big XL engine.

That is a large part of why I bought the BH when it went on sale. (already had the MC)
...well there were 2 reasons: the engine, and I needed a 3rd Atlas to help master my DDC.
2 birds with 1 stone, but probably would not recommend it unless you are (like me... sort of) more a fan of the Atlas in general.

[Buckminster]

Just did a quick -1G build in Smurfy's with an XL400 - looks like I know what I'm grinding for next...

[Alaskan Nobody]

Buckminster, on 22 January 2014 - 10:02 AM, said:

Looks like I know what I'm grinding for next...

As an added bonus it is 0.5 tons lighter than the std 340
But you almost assuredly knew that.

[Tesunie]

1453 R, on 22 January 2014 - 05:20 AM, said:

Heh...since your list of the Battlemaster's advantages is actually no such thing, let me take a stab at it:

I could have (and probably should have) downgraded (mentioned the bad parts of the advantages) the Stalker's mentionings, I shall admit.

As far as engines go, yes, they are a large advantage, but also a weakness as well as you have to go XL, or not go large at all. I haven't been able to test any XL Battlemaster, as XL engines are expensive, and I don't currently own any XLs that large.

As far as twist speed, with the same engine, the Stalker (3F) seems to twist faster than the Battlemaster, which means it needs a larger engine just to remain as responsive as the Stalker does with a smaller engine. However,as the Battlemaster can take a larger engine...

Another fault of the Battlemaster, which is minor I shall admit, is that it's arms can rotate to hit targets to the side, but it's torso mounted TAG (what this guide strongly suggests keeping on target as much as possible) can not take advantage of this. That means that, though you can keep your lock while circling, you can't use your LRMs + Artemis + TAG to full effect. (But I guess some effect is better than no effect, right?)

Every chassis has their gives and their takes. I just happen to like the Pros of the Stalker over the Pros of the Battlemaster. Probably doesn't help much that I can't really take advantage of the real pros of the Battlemaster as I don't have the C-bills for such a large engine (especially for a mech I haven't exactly been enjoying all that much).

Also, as far as this guide goes, the Stalker can't preform as an LRM Skirmisher, were as the Battlemaster can almost make the cut for the role. As far as this guide is concerned, the Stalker (by the guide's point of view) is a worse chassis than the Battlemaster as an LRM skirmisher. All I'm trying to relay is that the Stalker might not make it as a Skirmisher, but that doesn't mean it can't do LRMs. Each chassis does have their gives and takes, and depending upon what one wishes to do will depend upon which chassis will preform better for them.

As far as my particular build (used on the Stalker and the Battlemaster equally, or near enough), the Stalker can preform better in my intended role, and the Battlemaster falls short of what I wish for it to preform. For what Victor would want of the Chassis, the Stalker falls short of his intended role, but the Battlemaster preforms it better. To each their own.
(AKA: I agree with you.)

And, are you calling my Stalker STALE!

[wanderer]

Basically, you can do a Battlemaster that functions much like the old laserboat Awesomes, pre-engine limit. Slightly slower, but better armor and hitbox design.

I'm seeing a lot of them packing two Streaks + all the ML's they can fit with a big ol' XL strapped on.

[Tesunie]

Just finished getting x2 Basics on the 1S, and yes, it does have better twist rate than the 1G. However, it still doesn't seem as good as the Stalker, but when the arms are included, it does get close, but I suspect (hard to tell) that the Stalker still has a larger "twist threat range" (combination of twist, arm rotation and amount of weapons each can bare onto a target to either side when twisting). Being able to twist the Torso of the Stalker farther, with all it's weapons to come to bare as well, seems better than the shorter twist of the Battlemaster's torso and it's weapons, and maybe equals to a little less, the same, maybe a little more (very small amount either way) with the arms included and their related weapons...

Spoilers show screens of each. (Same thing as before, but this time with the 1S.)

Spoiler

If anything, they are really close and hard to tell... but I feel that the Stalker's larger twist rate (3F I should specify) out does the Battlemasters arm and twist rate, maybe not literally (or very closely), but at least in principal of getting weapons to bare on the target.

(Figured I'd post this up once it was brought up that the 1G and 1S have different twist rates, which they apparently do. Never claimed to know everything, did I? But I am always right, so just get use to it. )

[Victor Morson]

Tesunie, on 22 January 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

And, are you calling my Stalker STALE!

I think the last 6 pages have been saying that, actually, heh.

[Tesunie]

Victor Morson, on 01 February 2014 - 06:21 PM, said:

I think the last 6 pages have been saying that, actually, heh.

Thing is, he was joking. (Or at least I think he was, and that is how I took it. He did not seem to correct me. )

As far as the Stalker goes, or at least mine, in a PUG match, it works very well. In a high end competitive match, it might be a different story. I don't play 12 man groups all that often, and normally left to play by myself most times. I haven't used this build in a competitive 12 man group yet, and do not know how well it would preform there. Just because it wouldn't work for you, doesn't make it useless or bad...

[1453 R]

None of this is going to matter for balls in six more months, because then the Clan pack will hit, I'll get my Adder, and the era of the 35-ton Lurmishing Death Light will begin. GO GO 4.5-TON CALRM-15S.

Beeteedub. Expect LRMs to come back with a vengeance when the Clans hit and we get launchers that weigh literally half of what the IS tubes do. Even when Piranha inevitably nerfs the ammo-per-ton to try and force the total weight of the weapon system back up (if CLRM launchers don't go back down to TT values of 100 missiles/ton, I will be shocked), it's gonna be brutal.

[Tesunie]

1453 R, on 01 February 2014 - 08:41 PM, said:

None of this is going to matter for balls in six more months, because then the Clan pack will hit, I'll get my Adder, and the era of the 35-ton Lurmishing Death Light will begin. GO GO 4.5-TON CALRM-15S.

Beeteedub. Expect LRMs to come back with a vengeance when the Clans hit and we get launchers that weigh literally half of what the IS tubes do. Even when Piranha inevitably nerfs the ammo-per-ton to try and force the total weight of the weapon system back up (if CLRM launchers don't go back down to TT values of 100 missiles/ton, I will be shocked), it's gonna be brutal.

Agreed to some extent. However (though I too like the Puma, and the Ryoken, and maybe the Nova a bit), expect to still see me in my IS mechs. Stalker/Hunchback4sp/Quickdraw...

[Victor Morson]

1453 R, on 01 February 2014 - 08:41 PM, said:

Beeteedub. Expect LRMs to come back with a vengeance when the Clans hit and we get launchers that weigh literally half of what the IS tubes do.

Unless they totally ruin the weight, which they are openly talking about doing.

But yeah. EVERYTHING changes then. 2 LRM/20s are light enough to be your backup gun on a Clan 'mech, for crying out loud! That's more missiles than any of the mediums we've talked about can field that you could easily fit on a light 'mech.

Clan LRMs are nuts.

Tesunie, on 01 February 2014 - 08:50 PM, said:

Agreed to some extent. However (though I too like the Puma, and the Ryoken, and maybe the Nova a bit), expect to still see me in my IS mechs. Stalker/Hunchback4sp/Quickdraw...

My greatest, bar none, problem with the way Clans are being put in is that they aren't faction locked to Clan vs IS.

I really was hoping for some other disparity to balance it (Weight, numbers, bv) and to get epic Clan vs IS fights in. Obviously I'd been on the InnerSphere side, which is kind of amusing given I constantly get accused of being a power gamer here. heh

It's my hope we'll have lobbies and maybe can do some good IS vs Clan player run leagues since I have a feeling those will ultimately be superior to whatever they finally do with CW (which to my knowledge isn't even really being worked on yet) and will offer the kind of experience we were looking for to begin with.

Edited by Victor Morson, 02 February 2014 - 01:37 AM.

[1453 R]

I don't think they'll wreck the weight of Clan LRM launchers. It'd be too devastating a blow to any/all OmniMech TT configurations, and the damage it'd do to the playerbase's already quite spotty opinion of Piranha would be severe.

Like I said, I expect them to cut the ammo/ton on the LRMs, as well as most any other Clan weapon. Piranha wants to preserve the 'flavor' of Clanner tech without making IS stuff obsolete? Well...the Clans' 'flavor' is being extraordinary duelists with unmatched personal skill, but who are kinda junk at actually fighting a war. None of them care about battlefield longevity or sticking out the long fight - they're born and bred for short, intense conflicts and trained to never miss, while Spheroid pilots used to actual war will stuff every bullet they can into every sock they've got.

If Piranha runs with that, I could easily see them cutting all Clanner ballistics/missiles back to TT values of ammo/ton to make up the weight savings players get from the more advanced tech, and also to help emphasize the Clansmen's preferred combat style of short, savage duels rather than drawn-out battles of attrition. After all, Clansmen are supposed to be the galaxy's ultimate warriors. A Clansman does not need all the extra ammo a useless Spheroid pilot does - he hits his mark when he fires, and he only needs to hit a few times. If he cannot do that, then he deserves what is coming to him, quiaff?

This'd also balance (or at least start to balance) CLRM launchers without screwing over pretty much every OmniMech ever, the way flat-out increasing the weight of the launchers themselves would.

'Course, none of this matters, either. Even if they don't do jack to CLRM launchers except release them, the instant the CUAC/20 hits the field, game balance will go flying merrily out the window to take a Jamaican vacation for the foreseeable future. But that's a discussion for another thread.

EDIT:: Also! MixTech should be utterly and completely illegal. You want to talk about balance problems? @_Q And yes. Clan vs. IS matchmaker drops would be awesome, but sadly I don't see Piranha doing that. Too hard on the MM system when it already has problems just handling three basic gametype queues...

Edited by 1453 R, 02 February 2014 - 07:12 AM.

[Victor Morson]

1453 R, on 02 February 2014 - 07:06 AM, said:

I don't think they'll wreck the weight of Clan LRM launchers. It'd be too devastating a blow to any/all OmniMech TT configurations, and the damage it'd do to the playerbase's already quite spotty opinion of Piranha would be severe.

I agree it'd be an awful idea.

It's also one they have advanced as a likely scenario in the initial Clan interview, stating they were considering adding several tons to the Clan launchers (but not as many tons as the IS launchers) to make "both viable."

The reason it's so stupid is that it doesn't make both viable, it just makes one slightly less superior, but superior all the way yet. On top of those you've cited.

[1453 R]

I would say something like "They have to realize how horrible an idea it would be to completely invalidate at least one configuration of every OmniMech ever just to make CLRMs less overpoweringly superior to ISLRMs, right?"

...then I remember Ghost Heat, and grow very afraid T_T.

SERIOUSLY, PIRANHA. The ammo thing does the trick for Clan launchers! The super-lightweight CLRM launchers get the drawback of having barely half the ammo/ton of IS launchers, forcing pilots to take more ammunition for extended engagements and making back some of the weight lost with the tubes without blowing up every Clan missile-firing machine ever and also allowing pilots the option of skimping on ammo so as to use the tubes more as a supplement for direct-fire weapons! Tactical flexibility is increased, and CLRM boats need to take, like, twelve tons of ammo just to match a normal IS medium's round count which discourages pure LRM boating with the lightweight launchers! Everybody wins!

Edited by 1453 R, 02 February 2014 - 08:13 AM.

[Tesunie]

Victor Morson, on 02 February 2014 - 01:36 AM, said:

My greatest, bar none, problem with the way Clans are being put in is that they aren't faction locked to Clan vs IS.

I really was hoping for some other disparity to balance it (Weight, numbers, bv) and to get epic Clan vs IS fights in. Obviously I'd been on the InnerSphere side, which is kind of amusing given I constantly get accused of being a power gamer here. heh

Hate to say it, we don't know what they will ultimately do with CW in the end, and it very well may be as you say, or as faction based, you are clan if you use clan, you are IS if you use IS, type gameplay. We just don't know, and PGI is keeping any of this data really close to them. Can you blame them with how some people react to some "maybe" plans?

I at least haven't accused you of power gaming. Being a "competitive" player you may be. Power gamer I would not know.

Victor Morson, on 02 February 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

I agree it'd be an awful idea.

It's also one they have advanced as a likely scenario in the initial Clan interview, stating they were considering adding several tons to the Clan launchers (but not as many tons as the IS launchers) to make "both viable."

The reason it's so stupid is that it doesn't make both viable, it just makes one slightly less superior, but superior all the way yet. On top of those you've cited.

They have only mentioned it as a possibly or example possible. Only thing that felt "confirmed" was the way that Omni mechs will be able to be customized, and even that is still subject to change last I knew.

I'll give it till it's in before I start with any torches or pick forks... But that's just me. At the same time, I have no problem with speculation, as long as we understand that "we just don't know for sure yet".


Personally, I like 1453 R's suggestion about reducing ammo. The reduced weight of the launchers will be countered by the "need" for more weight of ammo. But, at the same time, will leave all stock versions as still very viable to play with and able to be configured.