96 replies to this topic

[PhoenixFire55]

Balance is a lie, there is only boating.
Through boating I gain cheese.
Through cheese I gain victory.
Through victory, my Elo is broken.
The Meta shall carry me.


On a serious note ... its a good post indeed. One thing to consider is that 'cheese' builds are always seen as higher priority targets and thus tend to be focused early/more. That gives a person with a balanced loadout a good chance to be most effective even among the seemingly 'better' one-way builds.

Regardless, IMO it doesn't matter what you are driving, as long as you know how to use your mech to your advantage you will always be effective.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Tesunie, on 24 March 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

I like to have enough close up punch to take out lights when they get to me, while still having enough long range support to help while I move into range (and to open options for when and how I wish to engage my targets). However, I wouldn't mind trying your build either if I had a Highlander. It could tempt me to get one, but I don't like them in the least and admit it. (Basically, it could be the best mech in the game, I probably still wouldn't touch it.)

Your build just has more LRMs than I am comfortable with. It does remind me of my highly effective Thunderbolt build, before I changed it to a build that worked better with my skills. (Me and ACs seem to not get along. But the LBx seems to like me.)
(I'd post a link of the old build I use to have, but I never saved a copy of it on Smurfy... I can tell you it was the (P) version, with LRMs and an LBx. Was all it had, and somehow it worked fairly well. Well enough to have one of my higher K/D rate scores on it.)

An LB-X and two medium lasers is plenty to wipe out most lights, unless you've let yourself stand too far away from your allies so they can get the drop on you without taking any hits first. Also, having the large number of racks means a more constant hail of missiles, letting you force people into cover- or, when necessary, switch targets quickly.

Also, it's very weird to have you say this is 'too many LRMs' when at the same time you're suggesting I remove the main close armament on my Tbolt (which only has one missile hardpoint anyway) to turn the LRM-10 up to an LRM-20.

Tesunie, on 24 March 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

ERLL and LLs are up to taste. I have LLs for a cooler ride, as I alternate between the 4 med lasers and the 2 LLs when people get close. I can keep a fairly steady pattern of those two shooting off at people, which means decent damage. Don't think I could pull that off so well with the ERLLs. But (following above advice I wrote myself), "if you use each weapon in it's own range band"... sometimes my own words can kick myself in my own rear...

ERLLs are somewhat hotter than standard larges, but if you're using a long-range energy build I usually find them at least comparable and sometimes favorable to standard PPCs, which is a lot of mileage out of a 5-ton 2-CHS weapon. If you've got lots of medium lasers for close combat and no dedicated long-range weapon or very little long-range weaponry (and I consider 2xLRM-10 on the low end for a weapons platform like the Stalker) then the ERLL is very much worth it, as long as you remember not to try and abuse it in close combat.

Tesunie, on 24 March 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

Like here...

There are exceptions to every rule. In this case, I think I tried this on a Battlemaster (1G I think). It worked alright, but wasn't the greatest. So, after testing, I'd probably end up changing it to what you have...
(Old 1G build: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...93ca7e6b7432021 )

But, for my own defense, the reason I would probably do the 2 LLs, TAG and LRM20 would be because the 2 LLs can deal the same damage as 3ish (almost 4) med lasers, so it would retain it's close in fighting, but lose it's "burst of damage in desperate times" ability...

2 LLs is slightly more than 3.5 medium lasers, but the heat is actually exactly 3.5 medium lasers' worth. Since the 'mech runs 15 DHS, I don't consider the net 30 heat of both laser sets together too terribly exorbitant, given that that's the heat on an 'emergency shoot all the things' or 'about to not be able to shoot anything' firing pattern. I find the combined options (chain-firing both laser groups lets you mix-and-match as appropriate) much better than with just a pair of large lasers- it lets you tune the heat quite nicely.

Taking the medium lasers off leaves you with 2xLL 1xLRM20, which is an extremely anemic weapons load for an 85 ton 'mech and notably light even for a 65-tonner like the Tbolt. I can see that what you have there is LL/TAG/LRM-20/2xAC/5, which isn't the same thing at all. 2xAC/5 isn't even slightly interchangeable with a single large laser- not only is the tonnage and critical occupation completely different, but the dual AC/5s have a much better range envelope, far less heat, and much faster refire rate than a single large laser with more damage per volley (and thus a much higher damage per second while a much lower heat per second). That BLR isn't even comparable to the Tbolt build I have there.

It's kind of like saying that the Dragon is a lot like the Griffin because they both have LRM-10s and the PPC is sort of like an AC/5...

Tesunie, on 24 March 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

Med lasers are nice in sets of 4... I must concede that point... My Hunchback does great with it's 4 med lasers, and so does my Stalker 3F. Must never mess with the system!

Medium lasers are just generally a great low-tonnage weapon if you have energy slots left and can spare a modest amount of heat.

Tesunie, on 24 March 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

I love it when people confuse any of my builds for an "LRM boat". They always get a nice little "SURPRISE" in their faces when they do. Such a wonderful thing when it happens.

A very healthy surprise if you ask me, people shouldn't make assumptions like that.

Tesunie, on 24 March 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

Silly me for not looking. All I know is, somehow I ended up having 1 ton of ammo stuffed in my CT on my Thunderbolt, and it kepted exploding and killing me. I kept yelling at my screen "I don't have ammo there! How did I die!" Well, took a second look after a while and, behold, ammo. 1 ton of it. I'm just like " How did you end up there!?" Was rather humorous in hind sight.

I don't die to ammo explosions very often at all, myself, regardless of how much ammo is in the 'mech. I guess I just don't run into enough other LB-X users or machine-gun-heavy environments when I'm not running a STD/CASE setup?

Edited by Elli Gujar, 25 March 2014 - 02:37 AM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Elli Gujar, on 25 March 2014 - 01:16 AM, said:

I don't die to ammo explosions very often at all, myself, regardless of how much ammo is in the 'mech. I guess I just don't run into enough other LB-X users or machine-gun-heavy environments when I'm not running a STD/CASE setup?

Even if they destroy the ammo - there is "only" a 10% chance for it to actually explode.

Edit: added the "" around only - because for some people that might as well be 190%

Edited by Shar Wolf, 25 March 2014 - 09:01 AM.

[Tesunie]

Elli Gujar, on 25 March 2014 - 12:43 AM, said:

I have other intended Dragons for SSRM use.


Sounds RATTLERATTLERATTLE. (Also- it's spelled 'lethal'.)



Oh, you and your TAG bonuses. I'm more interested in winning the match, and while the damage on a flamer isn't noticeable and the heat only makes overheating likely rather than certain.... they're hellaciously good at obscuring peoples' views so lights can't navigate and nobody can see clearly enough to shoot well.

You'd know if you've ever run afoul of Clan PIG. They like to run one ECM light with a trio of 3Flamer-AC/20 Boar's Heads. If they're not ambushing you it's fairly easy to stay out of range with faster 'mechs, but the moment they get the drop on you you're pretty much already toast.

Well then, by all means use LRMs on the Dragon. It isn't bad at all really. I always do suggest people to experiment and try out things for themselves. How else can you tell if a Gauss will work for you or not? Got to try it first.


If you haven't noticed yet... my spelling skills are rather lacking. I depend on spell check more than I'd like to acknowledge... So, what did I spell? Or was my spell check turned off at that time? (My browser spell check turns itself off if I click over another tab and then click back and start typing. At least I was close, right?)


I just like how TAG works with AC5s and LLs is all. I've always found TAG to be highly optional, and most of my builds don't have/support them.

I've heard that about the Flammer. I haven't had any luck with them, but maybe I should try them again? I know Koniving has had a lot of good luck with them.

3 Altases dropping on you, enough said! That sounds painful, and if they are good at the stealth and recon, ouch. Very painful.

Elli Gujar, on 25 March 2014 - 01:16 AM, said:

An LB-X and two medium lasers is plenty to wipe out most lights, unless you've let yourself stand too far away from your allies so they can get the drop on you without taking any hits first. Also, having the large number of racks means a more constant hail of missiles, letting you force people into cover- or, when necessary, switch targets quickly.

Also, it's very weird to have you say this is 'too many LRMs' when at the same time you're suggesting I remove the main close armament on my Tbolt (which only has one missile hardpoint anyway) to turn the LRM-10 up to an LRM-20.

I can see that. Like my Raven 4X, but with "bigger MGs". Has a lot of merit.

I like my LRMs, but I have never liked to carry too many of them. I always see it as a problem when most of my chassis is dedicated to LRMs. Seems to always cause more problems than good. But if I have too few... same thing. However, with the Tbolt, I'd be changing it to the 20 for more benefit for the TAG I would be placing on it. (And don't get me wrong, I like your other build too.) As I said, I think I like my LL and TAG combo too much, and I'm still experimenting with it so I want to "put it on everything". So far, I've had great success with my Shadowhawk 2H. Just an AC5, TAG, and 2 LRM10s (may have artemis, not sure). When I see something work, I want to see if it will work on other mechs. I've had mixed results so far. (I also only have a two button mouse, which makes me also constantly try to make all my builds work for just two button weapon groupings.)

Elli Gujar, on 25 March 2014 - 01:16 AM, said:

ERLLs are somewhat hotter than standard larges, but if you're using a long-range energy build I usually find them at least comparable and sometimes favorable to standard PPCs, which is a lot of mileage out of a 5-ton 2-CHS weapon. If you've got lots of medium lasers for close combat and no dedicated long-range weapon or very little long-range weaponry (and I consider 2xLRM-10 on the low end for a weapons platform like the Stalker) then the ERLL is very much worth it, as long as you remember not to try and abuse it in close combat.

Very true. I like PPCs are my sniping energy weapon of choice, especially if I have ECM. Just a small muzzle flare. A bright bolt that quickly moves, and 10 (or less) damage dealt with people still trying to home in on where I am. ERLLs leave a nice beam to tell people "Here I am". But, for 5 tons 2 crits, you are completely right. Especially with how long range this game has been slowly shifting towards. I recall not too long back, a LL was considered good enough range (by my standards) for long range work, and I would use them as they ran cooler than ERLLs. As of late, there has been a large need for that extra range from the ERLLs.

Elli Gujar, on 25 March 2014 - 01:16 AM, said:

2 LLs is slightly more than 3.5 medium lasers, but the heat is actually exactly 3.5 medium lasers' worth. Since the 'mech runs 15 DHS, I don't consider the net 30 heat of both laser sets together too terribly exorbitant, given that that's the heat on an 'emergency shoot all the things' or 'about to not be able to shoot anything' firing pattern. I find the combined options (chain-firing both laser groups lets you mix-and-match as appropriate) much better than with just a pair of large lasers- it lets you tune the heat quite nicely.

Taking the medium lasers off leaves you with 2xLL 1xLRM20, which is an extremely anemic weapons load for an 85 ton 'mech and notably light even for a 65-tonner like the Tbolt. I can see that what you have there is LL/TAG/LRM-20/2xAC/5, which isn't the same thing at all. 2xAC/5 isn't even slightly interchangeable with a single large laser- not only is the tonnage and critical occupation completely different, but the dual AC/5s have a much better range envelope, far less heat, and much faster refire rate than a single large laser with more damage per volley (and thus a much higher damage per second while a much lower heat per second). That BLR isn't even comparable to the Tbolt build I have there.

It's kind of like saying that the Dragon is a lot like the Griffin because they both have LRM-10s and the PPC is sort of like an AC/5...

Very good point. I don't use chain fire all that much personally. I'd rather just wait for a few more second and do another burst of damage into a single location (as best I can). If I did, your style of laser use would be good. (I think that 2 button mouse is hanging this idea up for me again.)

I had one with 2 ERLLs, TAG and LRM20 (in a 10 tube slot, which was really being the problem I think) and a Std engine. That was the one I was hoping to find in my "old designs" folder. But I found this one, and I hated this design. However, the AC5s and LL tended to work well together for the most part. I had the heat sinks to take the waste shot of the LL at really far targets and aim for the AC5. In LL range, the drop from the AC5 was marginal. (However, I didn't like it because the AC5s kept hitting the ground too often, or at least one of them did.)

Elli Gujar, on 25 March 2014 - 01:16 AM, said:

Medium lasers are just generally a great low-tonnage weapon if you have energy slots left and can spare a modest amount of heat.

Very true. I use them on a lot (almost all) of my builds. Which is making it difficult to choose a mech design that I can test having "no LRMs" to help me counter the "LRMs are OP" threads. However, I can't mix my data from med lasers or SSRMs either if I want a clear test...

Elli Gujar, on 25 March 2014 - 01:16 AM, said:

A very healthy surprise if you ask me, people shouldn't make assumptions like that.

Yes. It is. It teaches them to be careful of us "LRM users" who aren't "boats". Also makes me very happy to not boat my LRMs...

Elli Gujar, on 25 March 2014 - 01:16 AM, said:

I don't die to ammo explosions very often at all, myself, regardless of how much ammo is in the 'mech. I guess I just don't run into enough other LB-X users or machine-gun-heavy environments when I'm not running a STD/CASE setup?

Actually, I've died to ammo explosions a lot. My problem isn't actually with LBx and MGs, it's been with AC10s/20s/gauss/PPCs. When they hit, if they crit they are taking that 10 HP component out. When it hits ammo, that's a 10% change of exploding. When they destroy a section with ammo, each ammo bin (still full) has a 10% chance of exploding as well.

I've actually died twice from someone hitting my head, critting the ammo there, and getting an ammo explosion... Call me unlucky?

Shar Wolf, on 25 March 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

Even if they destroy the ammo - there is only a 10% chance for it to actually explode.

Yet it happens to me... ALL... THE... TIME...

Then again, when I play a digital game and I have a 10% chance to miss, here are my results: Miss. Miss. Miss. HIT. Miss. Hit. Miss.
If it wasn't for the fact I re-read it several times, I would have sworn that it was a 10% to hit, not to miss...
(Or a D&D video game, and I have a 5-10% arcane miscast... and miscast every spell I try to use...)

[Alaskan Nobody]

Tesunie, on 25 March 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

Then again, when I play a digital game and I have a 10% chance to miss, here are my results: Miss. Miss. Miss. HIT. Miss. Hit. Miss.

Don't play Fire Emblem then.

Edited: I edited the post you quoted to allow for the unfortunates such as yourself.
(I can honestly say I only remember dying to Ammo explosions a grand total of 3 times)

Edited by Shar Wolf, 25 March 2014 - 09:16 AM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Tesunie, on 25 March 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

If you haven't noticed yet... my spelling skills are rather lacking. I depend on spell check more than I'd like to acknowledge... So, what did I spell? Or was my spell check turned off at that time? (My browser spell check turns itself off if I click over another tab and then click back and start typing. At least I was close, right?)

You didn't spell any actual word. You were close, but there was an extra 'a' in there.

Tesunie, on 25 March 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

I've heard that about the Flammer. I haven't had any luck with them, but maybe I should try them again? I know Koniving has had a lot of good luck with them.

Yeah... don't try to use more than one (unless you're just making sure that you will still have a flamer after component loss, or really really need a big field of blinding fire), but that screen obscure is really nasty. Most players will panic and flail trying to get away, which is unfortunate.

Tesunie, on 25 March 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

I can see that. Like my Raven 4X, but with "bigger MGs". Has a lot of merit.

Not exactly, but I guess that's close enough.

Tesunie, on 25 March 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

I like my LRMs, but I have never liked to carry too many of them. I always see it as a problem when most of my chassis is dedicated to LRMs. Seems to always cause more problems than good. But if I have too few... same thing. However, with the Tbolt, I'd be changing it to the 20 for more benefit for the TAG I would be placing on it. (And don't get me wrong, I like your other build too.) As I said, I think I like my LL and TAG combo too much, and I'm still experimenting with it so I want to "put it on everything". So far, I've had great success with my Shadowhawk 2H. Just an AC5, TAG, and 2 LRM10s (may have artemis, not sure). When I see something work, I want to see if it will work on other mechs. I've had mixed results so far. (I also only have a two button mouse, which makes me also constantly try to make all my builds work for just two button weapon groupings.)

Okay, but having 14 tons of missile racks and 13 tons of autocannon/lasers (not counting ammo here) on a 90-ton 'mech really isn't 'most of the chassis'. If you want to keep it to 20 LRMs per volley on a heavy or medium 'mech, that's just sane, but on an assault-weight? Heck, the HGN is 5 tons heavier than the Stalker, and you didn't even bring up my 30-salvo-max on that one with the lasers. Your standards seem kind of wobbly.

Tesunie, on 25 March 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

Very true. I like PPCs are my sniping energy weapon of choice, especially if I have ECM. Just a small muzzle flare. A bright bolt that quickly moves, and 10 (or less) damage dealt with people still trying to home in on where I am. ERLLs leave a nice beam to tell people "Here I am". But, for 5 tons 2 crits, you are completely right. Especially with how long range this game has been slowly shifting towards. I recall not too long back, a LL was considered good enough range (by my standards) for long range work, and I would use them as they ran cooler than ERLLs. As of late, there has been a large need for that extra range from the ERLLs.

You must be having a very different PPC experience. Every PPC shot I've seen includes a huge long bright blue channel of 'plasma' that connects the firer to the target. I actually find it just as easy if not easier to see where a PPC shot is coming from, because it can't be wiggled around like a laser, is much broader, has a brighter and more distinct shade of blue, and makes a big splashy light show on the side it hit from (providing another clue as to firing direction). I have absolutely no problems tracing PPC shots.

Tesunie, on 25 March 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

Very good point. I don't use chain fire all that much personally. I'd rather just wait for a few more second and do another burst of damage into a single location (as best I can). If I did, your style of laser use would be good. (I think that 2 button mouse is hanging this idea up for me again.)

Quite likely. You know, you can get non-gaming 4-5 button mice at pretty much any electronics store or via online order for about $20, right? Heck, my current is a Kensington Pro Fit™ (I have big ole monkey mitts, you may prefer a smaller mouse in which case there are plenty of other options. Also, I like corded mice because no batteries.) I picked up at Fry's for about $25, and it has a fancy 6th button behind the mouse wheel in addition to two thumb buttons. I've found that four firing groups is pretty much all you need for almost any sane loadout.

Tesunie, on 25 March 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

I had one with 2 ERLLs, TAG and LRM20 (in a 10 tube slot, which was really being the problem I think) and a Std engine. That was the one I was hoping to find in my "old designs" folder. But I found this one, and I hated this design. However, the AC5s and LL tended to work well together for the most part. I had the heat sinks to take the waste shot of the LL at really far targets and aim for the AC5. In LL range, the drop from the AC5 was marginal. (However, I didn't like it because the AC5s kept hitting the ground too often, or at least one of them did.)

You might want to try swapping the LL for an ERLL and the 5's for 2's if you want some really extreme range (and to care less about any ammo you waste). As for hitting the ground too often.... you're in a Battlemaster. Thing has lunky ape arms like a lot of assaults. If you can adjust to it, you can learn how to make it work (just like Cataphract arm mount weapons). Otherwise, swap over to a more energy-oriented loadout and use those shoulder mounts.

Tesunie, on 25 March 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

Yes. It is. It teaches them to be careful of us "LRM users" who aren't "boats". Also makes me very happy to not boat my LRMs...

I really don't like driving LRM boats, so I only ever made the one, and relatively recently turned it into not-a-boat (that's the HGN with the LRMs, by the by- I dropped the quad 15 Artemis' to a pair of tens and a pair of fives and tossed some LRMmo overboard in order to get that LB-X on there and all three jump jets).

Tesunie, on 25 March 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

Actually, I've died to ammo explosions a lot. My problem isn't actually with LBx and MGs, it's been with AC10s/20s/gauss/PPCs. When they hit, if they crit they are taking that 10 HP component out. When it hits ammo, that's a 10% change of exploding. When they destroy a section with ammo, each ammo bin (still full) has a 10% chance of exploding as well.

I've actually died twice from someone hitting my head, critting the ammo there, and getting an ammo explosion... Call me unlucky?

Try differing ammo locations. Use CASE. Stick ammo for arm weapons in the arms (arms rarely get directly blown up on most 'mechs, and when they do, if the arm's full of weaponry to crit, the ammo goes less often). Don't put ammo in under-armored legs (it chains from there to side torsos to center torso) unless you have a Standard engine and Case and are not ever jumping. Pack ammo-holding locations with other things to absorb crits (such as jump jets, heat sinks, electronics gear...). Most fatal ammo explosions and about half of the nonfatal ones I see in game are very much avoidable if more intelligent methods of 'mech design are used.

Probably the worst offender is Jaegermechs. Their legs are big and barrelly and easy to hit, most pilots underarmor them, most of those pilots pack them with ammo, and most of those pilots use XL engines or just skip CASE entirely. In reality, the safest place on a Jaeger for ammo is in the arms. With the sole exception of the -A, Jaegermech arms are absolutely tiny and never get hit. I'm one of maybe three pilots I've ever seen deliberately shoot a jaeger in the arms (and even then it was just because the cannon barrels were all that was poking out of cover) because trying is mostly a waste of time and you wind up hitting either the terrain or the side torso anyway.

Tesunie, on 25 March 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

Yet it happens to me... ALL... THE... TIME...

Then again, when I play a digital game and I have a 10% chance to miss, here are my results: Miss. Miss. Miss. HIT. Miss. Hit. Miss.
If it wasn't for the fact I re-read it several times, I would have sworn that it was a 10% to hit, not to miss...
(Or a D&D video game, and I have a 5-10% arcane miscast... and miscast every spell I try to use...)

My luck is similar to that sometimes (other times it's the complete opposite), and the only real solution is to get cunning about where your ammo is loaded. Go back and have a look at my designs and find all the ammo, all the CASE, all the standard engines, and all the fully armored components. Especially look at all the ammo-bearing 'mech segments that have been crit-packed to the maximum.

There are solutions.

Edited by Elli Gujar, 25 March 2014 - 05:59 PM.

[Tesunie]

Elli Gujar, on 25 March 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

Yeah... don't try to use more than one (unless you're just making sure that you will still have a flamer after component loss, or really really need a big field of blinding fire), but that screen obscure is really nasty. Most players will panic and flail trying to get away, which is unfortunate.

Not exactly, but I guess that's close enough.

I don't know how I would react to a flamer in my face. Hasn't happened yet... But I've hear it can be used to good effect. (See. That was my problem last time I tried them. I did a 6 flamer Cicada (for the fun of it), and I shut down before my targets did... Of course, this was probably close to a year ago.)

Same theology as my Raven 4X. Use the LRMs to open wholes in armor, then use my other weapons when they get closer and destroy components that have no armor left. You just brought in a large shotgun, compared to my Raven's little MGs...

Elli Gujar, on 25 March 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

Okay, but having 14 tons of missile racks and 13 tons of autocannon/lasers (not counting ammo here) on a 90-ton 'mech really isn't 'most of the chassis'. If you want to keep it to 20 LRMs per volley on a heavy or medium 'mech, that's just sane, but on an assault-weight? Heck, the HGN is 5 tons heavier than the Stalker, and you didn't even bring up my 30-salvo-max on that one with the lasers. Your standards seem kind of wobbly.

I guess I should redefine most? As in, I still like to be able to deal enough damage to close targets when they get there...?

Good point... Your Highlander has the same launcher size as my Stalker does, and I called it "too heavy on LRMs"? I've gone crazy (or it was too late at night and was a little frustrated from the "nerf LRMs back" threads...) But the weapons still seem less than what my Stalker has...? (Duh. You must have a larger engine. *Didn't even pay attention to that* Probably was best to ignore my ramblings from that day. I'm gonna plead temporary insanity.)

I don't have much in the way of "standards". The most standard thing I found was what I've been using on my Stalker, and making other mechs fall into that pattern. Outside that pattern, and I'm probably still a little lost trying to find "the right balance" of a mech. I'm also one who tests a build a few times, then change what I felt wasn't working right. Never having played a Highlander, I'm a little lost on how to build one. (Took me a reworking of my Griffin as it was, and that had the template of the Stalker to work with.)

Most my Standards go is to make sure you aren't all range or all close and are useless in either situation. Especially with things such as LRMs and PPCs (normal). Basically, if you have a ton of med lasers on your mech, (unless you are fast) I'd like to see something else for range to help balance. Beyond that, whatever finer balance is probably best left to the user, as we all play differently from one another. (Hence, I suck with ACs. I think it's the slight drop off that gets me sometimes with them, which would explain why I have no problems with PPCs.)

Elli Gujar, on 25 March 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

You must be having a very different PPC experience. Every PPC shot I've seen includes a huge long bright blue channel of 'plasma' that connects the firer to the target. I actually find it just as easy if not easier to see where a PPC shot is coming from, because it can't be wiggled around like a laser, is much broader, has a brighter and more distinct shade of blue, and makes a big splashy light show on the side it hit from (providing another clue as to firing direction). I have absolutely no problems tracing PPC shots.

Appearently, yes. I only see a bright flash from the muzzle, and a quick flash across the screen. Hard for me to pin point back to it's origin (same with ACs and Gauss). A laser though, I can see where those are coming from with ease. I suspect different system specs and settings? I have everything but textures turned down to lowest. (My video card can handle higher, but it seems to like overheating and shutting down easily. Stupid computer casing design. No ventilation near the Video Card slot, leaving it to suck in it's own hot air...)

Elli Gujar, on 25 March 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

Quite likely. You know, you can get non-gaming 4-5 button mice at pretty much any electronics store or via online order for about $20, right? Heck, my current is a Kensington Pro Fit™ (I have big ole monkey mitts, you may prefer a smaller mouse in which case there are plenty of other options. Also, I like corded mice because no batteries.) I picked up at Fry's for about $25, and it has a fancy 6th button behind the mouse wheel in addition to two thumb buttons. I've found that four firing groups is pretty much all you need for almost any sane loadout.

Call me cheap and old fashion if you wish...
Though I might consider looking into a multiple button mouse at some point. However, the standard 2 button has works for me for so long... (Is always reluctant to change anything...)

Elli Gujar, on 25 March 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

You might want to try swapping the LL for an ERLL and the 5's for 2's if you want some really extreme range (and to care less about any ammo you waste). As for hitting the ground too often.... you're in a Battlemaster. Thing has lunky ape arms like a lot of assaults. If you can adjust to it, you can learn how to make it work (just like Cataphract arm mount weapons). Otherwise, swap over to a more energy-oriented loadout and use those shoulder mounts.

Done that... didn't feel it had enough punch. Instead, I went with this (for now till a better/different idea beams me off the side of the head): http://mwo.smurfy-ne...a354333be74bbac
I'm horrible in Battlemasters though. If it wasn't for the fact this one was my (P) variant and can't be sold, it would be sold already. So far, decent luck with that design. (I was following my balanced guide lines better with that design than with my night muddled, tired from arguing, mind with my stupid suggestions on your builds. )

Elli Gujar, on 25 March 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

I really don't like driving LRM boats, so I only ever made the one, and relatively recently turned it into not-a-boat (that's the HGN with the LRMs, by the by- I dropped the quad 15 Artemis' to a pair of tens and a pair of fives and tossed some LRMmo overboard in order to get that LB-X on there and all three jump jets).

(From the Highlander 733) 4 missile, 2 energy, 1 ballistic slot. My problem I think for me making any suggestions on this would be the number of hard points... I have a hard time working Ballistics into a mech from my own personal experiences with them (I think).

What I would want to do would be something like my Thunderbolt honestly. But a single MG isn't very effective. And 2 energy makes it hard to work with... I'd either try to steer into a larger Shadowhawk, or a cross of my Stalker 3F. That would mean an AC5, Tag, ERLL, LRM15-20 and 3 SSRM2s if possible... Or go AC5, TAG, ERLL, 2 LRM15s (however it's done), and maybe if there is room 2 SSRM2s... MG, 2 ERLLs, LRM30 (total)? If it had one more energy slot...

I don't think I'm very good with those hard points... I would want more energy, or more ballistics (for MGs). (Guess why I probably like my Stalker and Griffin so much.)

AKA: Read this as "I in the end wouldn't touch a thing on your build". At least not without test fielding it and seeing how it worked first for me. You have more experience with that Chassis and knows what does and does not work with it.

Elli Gujar, on 25 March 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

Try differing ammo locations. Use CASE. Stick ammo for arm weapons in the arms (arms rarely get directly blown up on most 'mechs, and when they do, if the arm's full of weaponry to crit, the ammo goes less often). Don't put ammo in under-armored legs (it chains from there to side torsos to center torso) unless you have a Standard engine and Case and are not ever jumping. Pack ammo-holding locations with other things to absorb crits (such as jump jets, heat sinks, electronics gear...). Most fatal ammo explosions and about half of the nonfatal ones I see in game are very much avoidable if more intelligent methods of 'mech design are used.

Probably the worst offender is Jaegermechs. Their legs are big and barrelly and easy to hit, most pilots underarmor them, most of those pilots pack them with ammo, and most of those pilots use XL engines or just skip CASE entirely. In reality, the safest place on a Jaeger for ammo is in the arms. With the sole exception of the -A, Jaegermech arms are absolutely tiny and never get hit. I'm one of maybe three pilots I've ever seen deliberately shoot a jaeger in the arms (and even then it was just because the cannon barrels were all that was poking out of cover) because trying is mostly a waste of time and you wind up hitting either the terrain or the side torso anyway.


My luck is similar to that sometimes (other times it's the complete opposite), and the only real solution is to get cunning about where your ammo is loaded. Go back and have a look at my designs and find all the ammo, all the CASE, all the standard engines, and all the fully armored components. Especially look at all the ammo-bearing 'mech segments that have been crit-packed to the maximum.

There are solutions.

Thing is, I only had 1 ton of ammo in the CT of my Thunderbolt. And it kept costing me... It's my luck with percentage numbers and programs. (Should see my luck with dice too! If I need 6's and I roll six dice, at least three of the numbers rolled will be 1's.)

Also, don't forget that when a component is destroyed, every crit "gets destroyed". This means that, if you have 5 crits of ammo in that arm and it gets blown off (as in the arm took the damage), then you have five 10% chances of ammo in that section blowing up. Spreading out the ammo can be a very valid tactic, and besides section destruction, crit padding is also a viable option. (I just place it all into one location if I can, and if it blows, it blows. Then, I just try to protect that location. And, often times, I do place ammo in the location with the weapon. This way, if I lose that section and that weapon, I don't need that ammo either, do I?)

Stalker is another mech with a great hiding place in the arms. You normally (almost always) lose a side torso. When you lose an arm from side torso destruction, nothing in the arm has a chance to blow, as it "didn't get hit". I rarely place ammo in the legs unless I have no other choice. Sometimes, I don't have the crit places anywhere else after DHS placement...

[Tesunie]

PS: Looking at my designs, I think I'm more inclined to "brawl" with some LRM support (or an LRM Brawler). I guess I like to focus a little more heavier on my close range punch, but want a little range as well...? I like engaging people within 270m and outside 180m, which is why I think my "stalkeresk" builds do so well for me. Funny. I didn't think of myself as a brawler in the least... Huh.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Tesunie, on 25 March 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

I don't know how I would react to a flamer in my face. Hasn't happened yet... But I've hear it can be used to good effect. (See. That was my problem last time I tried them. I did a 6 flamer Cicada (for the fun of it), and I shut down before my targets did... Of course, this was probably close to a year ago.)

Well, there's your problem. Flamers get more effective the longer you leave them on target, and generate a lot of heat when fired. But no matter how many flamers you're using, you can't boost someone else's heat past the 90% mark, so there's no point to running that many flamers at all.

Tesunie, on 25 March 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

Appearently, yes. I only see a bright flash from the muzzle, and a quick flash across the screen. Hard for me to pin point back to it's origin (same with ACs and Gauss). A laser though, I can see where those are coming from with ease. I suspect different system specs and settings? I have everything but textures turned down to lowest. (My video card can handle higher, but it seems to like overheating and shutting down easily. Stupid computer casing design. No ventilation near the Video Card slot, leaving it to suck in it's own hot air...)

Right, okay. Everyone on a significantly higher level of graphics than you (most players, I would imagine, though definitely not all) can see the glowy 'plasma stream' like I can. So if you were ever wondering how people found you while you were PPC sniping... yeah. I don't know the turnover point for that, but given that I haven't ever run in less than 'Medium'....

Tesunie, on 25 March 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

Call me cheap and old fashion if you wish...
Though I might consider looking into a multiple button mouse at some point. However, the standard 2 button has works for me for so long... (Is always reluctant to change anything...)

You know that if your mouse has a wheel (and most people I've met would be very hard pressed to locate one that doesn't) has another button, right? The wheel is also a button.

At this point, it's not about cheap and old fashioned- it's very difficult to find purely 2-button and/or corded mice these days unless the mouse is A: a super-cheap portable type to plug into your laptop or B: an Apple mouse. I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually -more- expensive to get ahold of a 2-button-only mouse than a 3-5 button mouse.

If it helps, 'mech loadouts that need more than 3 weapon groups are rare, and more than 4 weapon groups is extremely unusual- I tend to put things that are only for use at extreme range (LRMs) or are very distinct from the other weapons (The LB-X on the Thresher, the PPCs on the one Tbolt, etc.) on that button since I don't have to hit it or think about it in quick-reflex situations (like close combat or emergencies).

Tesunie, on 25 March 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

Done that... didn't feel it had enough punch. Instead, I went with this (for now till a better/different idea beams me off the side of the head): http://mwo.smurfy-ne...a354333be74bbac
I'm horrible in Battlemasters though. If it wasn't for the fact this one was my (P) variant and can't be sold, it would be sold already. So far, decent luck with that design. (I was following my balanced guide lines better with that design than with my night muddled, tired from arguing, mind with my stupid suggestions on your builds. )

....well, that's exactly what I was suggesting as an alternative- leveraging the shoulder hardpoints- so that's great by my view.

Tesunie, on 25 March 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

(From the Highlander 733) 4 missile, 2 energy, 1 ballistic slot. My problem I think for me making any suggestions on this would be the number of hard points... I have a hard time working Ballistics into a mech from my own personal experiences with them (I think).

What I would want to do would be something like my Thunderbolt honestly. But a single MG isn't very effective. And 2 energy makes it hard to work with... I'd either try to steer into a larger Shadowhawk, or a cross of my Stalker 3F. That would mean an AC5, Tag, ERLL, LRM15-20 and 3 SSRM2s if possible... Or go AC5, TAG, ERLL, 2 LRM15s (however it's done), and maybe if there is room 2 SSRM2s... MG, 2 ERLLs, LRM30 (total)? If it had one more energy slot...

I don't think I'm very good with those hard points... I would want more energy, or more ballistics (for MGs). (Guess why I probably like my Stalker and Griffin so much.)

AKA: Read this as "I in the end wouldn't touch a thing on your build". At least not without test fielding it and seeing how it worked first for me. You have more experience with that Chassis and knows what does and does not work with it.

It's worth noting that the LB-X doesn't actually have any projectile dropoff- the spread patterns are a touch unreliable out beyond about 700m, but there's no dropoff I've ever been able to detect (and I make an occasional practice of pegging people over hills with AC/20 shots by exploiting the dropoff).

Tesunie, on 25 March 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

Also, don't forget that when a component is destroyed, every crit "gets destroyed". This means that, if you have 5 crits of ammo in that arm and it gets blown off (as in the arm took the damage), then you have five 10% chances of ammo in that section blowing up. Spreading out the ammo can be a very valid tactic, and besides section destruction, crit padding is also a viable option. (I just place it all into one location if I can, and if it blows, it blows. Then, I just try to protect that location. And, often times, I do place ammo in the location with the weapon. This way, if I lose that section and that weapon, I don't need that ammo either, do I?)

If that were the case, I would have seen tons more ammo explosion deaths, and I pretty much never do. I've lost side torsos with ammo in them, arms with ammo in them, on certain 'mechs legs with ammo in them, over and over and over and over again and no explosion ensued. I'm not sure where you're getting this information, but unless I'm some extremely weird outlier who just never sees that 10% chance happen on any of up to three tons of ammo in a given arm (particularly on my Stalkers while I was mastering them) no matter how many times that arm gets blown off (before the torso goes, which just makes it fall off anyhow) and hasn't in well over four thousand matches with about 3200 deaths, then you're wrong about that.

I've leveraged crit padding and ammo placement loads of times (most notably in my HGNs and that Tbolt, who all have autocannon arms with the ammo in the arm alongside the cannon) to avoid (or at least drastically reduce the chance of) stackpoling from ammo I couldn't spend anymore because the relevant weapon's fallen off.

Tesunie, on 25 March 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

Stalker is another mech with a great hiding place in the arms. You normally (almost always) lose a side torso. When you lose an arm from side torso destruction, nothing in the arm has a chance to blow, as it "didn't get hit". I rarely place ammo in the legs unless I have no other choice. Sometimes, I don't have the crit places anywhere else after DHS placement...

Ammo in Stalker legs? Not if it can be helped. (All those poor people in the XL engine ammo-leg Champion trial Stalker.... I feel so sad for them...) Even if nobody bothers to shoot the legs of the thing.

My experiences still tell me you're wrong about the ammo exploding when the arm gets shot off by a hit that didn't detonate the ammo to begin with.

Edited by Elli Gujar, 26 March 2014 - 03:54 AM.

[Thalynos]

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...f1c62269b2d4658 TDR-5S I've been trying this recently and it's been mostly useful. I'd like to try to get it back into a standard engine but i don't have the c-bills to find a lower engine and I like the speed too much lol

[Tesunie]

Elli Gujar, on 26 March 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:

Well, there's your problem. Flamers get more effective the longer you leave them on target, and generate a lot of heat when fired. But no matter how many flamers you're using, you can't boost someone else's heat past the 90% mark, so there's no point to running that many flamers at all.

I might have to give them another test run and see what becomes of it. Maybe when I get the Raven x2 (if at this rate), I might give it a try.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...ac6d28f7981656e
Replace one med laser for a flamer and see what becomes of it? Would make for a good test bed I think...

Elli Gujar, on 26 March 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:

Right, okay. Everyone on a significantly higher level of graphics than you (most players, I would imagine, though definitely not all) can see the glowy 'plasma stream' like I can. So if you were ever wondering how people found you while you were PPC sniping... yeah. I don't know the turnover point for that, but given that I haven't ever run in less than 'Medium'....

I actually find that I get spotted less with the PPCs than with (ER)LLs. Don't know. I do not doubt what you say though.

Elli Gujar, on 26 March 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:

You know that if your mouse has a wheel (and most people I've met would be very hard pressed to locate one that doesn't) has another button, right? The wheel is also a button.

At this point, it's not about cheap and old fashioned- it's very difficult to find purely 2-button and/or corded mice these days unless the mouse is A: a super-cheap portable type to plug into your laptop or B: an Apple mouse. I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually -more- expensive to get ahold of a 2-button-only mouse than a 3-5 button mouse.

If it helps, 'mech loadouts that need more than 3 weapon groups are rare, and more than 4 weapon groups is extremely unusual- I tend to put things that are only for use at extreme range (LRMs) or are very distinct from the other weapons (The LB-X on the Thresher, the PPCs on the one Tbolt, etc.) on that button since I don't have to hit it or think about it in quick-reflex situations (like close combat or emergencies).

True. My mouse does have the wheel button, but that's my zoom. I've considered changing it a few times, but always find I instinctively use that button to zoom, so I think I'm stuck with it. (For a moment there, I thought you were going to say I had the old mouse than ran on a ball, instead of the laser. )

I've had a few mechs I wouldn't have minded one extra weapon group, for my LRMs normally. But, either adapted to it, or I changed the build to better match my hard ware.

Elli Gujar, on 26 March 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:

....well, that's exactly what I was suggesting as an alternative- leveraging the shoulder hardpoints- so that's great by my view.

I figured it was, which was why I posted the build.
I came to this as my conclusion after using it as a "TAG + Artemis always hits only/mostly CT" test bed. (And let me just say, no. It doesn't. It does help more hit the CT, but not all or even "almost all" will.) The Battlemasters went through a lot of revisions before I came to this designs. A lot of my mechs seem to be a growing process. My Stalker alone went through about 6 versions before coming up with the current one. One was SSRMs and 6 Med lasers. Another was 4 LRM5s and 6 med lasers. Another one was 4 PPCs (before it was powerful, just to add, only played it a few times. was fun.). Then I think I did some LL/Med laser pairing with SRMs...

A lot of mechs I find is a growing process. Sometimes, it's about finding how you play. Other times it's finding out how that mech plays.

Elli Gujar, on 26 March 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:

It's worth noting that the LB-X doesn't actually have any projectile dropoff- the spread patterns are a touch unreliable out beyond about 700m, but there's no dropoff I've ever been able to detect (and I make an occasional practice of pegging people over hills with AC/20 shots by exploiting the dropoff).

I actually do well with the LBx. Other ACs are a different story. This helps to confirm my conclusion about the drop off being what is hindering my use of it.

Elli Gujar, on 26 March 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:

If that were the case, I would have seen tons more ammo explosion deaths, and I pretty much never do. I've lost side torsos with ammo in them, arms with ammo in them, on certain 'mechs legs with ammo in them, over and over and over and over again and no explosion ensued. I'm not sure where you're getting this information, but unless I'm some extremely weird outlier who just never sees that 10% chance happen on any of up to three tons of ammo in a given arm (particularly on my Stalkers while I was mastering them) no matter how many times that arm gets blown off (before the torso goes, which just makes it fall off anyhow) and hasn't in well over four thousand matches with about 3200 deaths, then you're wrong about that.

I've leveraged crit padding and ammo placement loads of times (most notably in my HGNs and that Tbolt, who all have autocannon arms with the ammo in the arm alongside the cannon) to avoid (or at least drastically reduce the chance of) stackpoling from ammo I couldn't spend anymore because the relevant weapon's fallen off.

That was what I last knew. If I could find the PGI posts on it, I would and link them. However, I can never (okay, rarely) find what I am looking for on these forums. However, that doesn't mean that I could be wrong. What I've seen (with my luck), it seems to happen to me like that. (Lose a side torso, CT still has armor. Take two steps. Think I'm okay. Go to shoot back and POP. I'm dead. Ammo explosion. Then again, you are talking to someone who died with a single shot to the head, had my armor only breached, and ammo explosion...)

However, if you lose a section but it isn't destroyed, it will fall off harmlessly with no chance of crits inside that component. (AKA: You lose your arm from a side torso destruction. Anything in your arm will not crit, but things in your side will still have the chance.) Once more, this is what I have experienced and read (somewhere) on these forums. (Really wish I could find the post, because I don't mind if I'm wrong, but I want to at least know!)

Elli Gujar, on 26 March 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:

Ammo in Stalker legs? Not if it can be helped. (All those poor people in the XL engine ammo-leg Champion trial Stalker.... I feel so sad for them...) Even if nobody bothers to shoot the legs of the thing.

My experiences still tell me you're wrong about the ammo exploding when the arm gets shot off by a hit that didn't detonate the ammo to begin with.

I hate placing ammo in the legs of any of my mechs. I had a proposed Stalker design with ammo in the legs. I refused to do it. It didn't sit well as a good idea.

I feel bad for them having the XL engine! That alone on a Stalker is typically bad news. Especially for an inexperienced player... (An experienced player will at least know enough on twisting damage to maybe get it to work, or even get it to work very well even.)

I could be wrong. I'm not 100% certain. Wouldn't be the first (nor last) time I've been wrong either...

[Tesunie]

Thalynos, on 26 March 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...f1c62269b2d4658 TDR-5S I've been trying this recently and it's been mostly useful. I'd like to try to get it back into a standard engine but i don't have the c-bills to find a lower engine and I like the speed too much lol

I like the concept of that build (though don't always listen to me, as noted above, I sometimes make bad "spur of the moment" ideas). Got a good mix between range and closer up.

If you want a Std engine, only thing I can think of (without getting ride of what is probably viewed as your primary weapons) is to remove the 3 med lasers and place in a 270 engine. This greatly reduces your close in punch, but you should be able to shoot all your weapons for a long time... Besides that, if you like the speed, I don't think you are going to be able to remove the XL without giving up something on the build.

Concept one: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...1686888e5734a5c
Concept from above. Removed the 3 med lasers for a larger std engine. (Probably not the best idea, but it could still work.)

Concept two: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...0207e1ef3c2e688
Reduced the LRM launchers to x2 LRM5 launchers and removed a ton of ammo. Also removed a single med laser. Slightly reduced punch at range and close up, but probably marginal in the long run.

Concept three: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...650bd9f332c1d66
Same reduced LRMs to 2 LRM5s, 2 tons ammo (light on the ammo), downgraded the UAC5 to a standard AC5 and retained the 3 Med Lasers. Very light on ammo, which may be a problem. A med laser may be needed to be dropped for AC5 ammo.

(If it isn't posted)
This is the build I did for myself for the 5S: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...1e01d025e505557
This is based of my Stalker concept, with a little touch of the Raven 4X added into it.
This isn't as fast as your other build, and doesn't have as much long range punch as yours, but I have an LRM20, 3 med lasers, a SSRM2 and 2 MGs. BAP and Artemis help the SSRMs with ECM, and the LRMs for sensor range and LRM tracking/grouping. If you come across someone with exposed armor, the MGs should help deal damage in the closer ranges.
(Crit placements on all builds are always subject to change by the user.) (PS: Not suggesting this build if you don't like it. Just showing what I did personally with that chassis.)



Don't know if any of this is helpful to you. It's hard to go back to a Std engine without making sacrifices along the way. A lot of build design will also depend upon your personal skills and play style. (AKA: What works for me, might not work for you.)

[Void Angel]

CURSE YOU RANDOM FORUM LOGOUTS THAT LOST MY HUGE POST!
CUUUURSE YOUUUUU!

Well, I feel marginally better now. I put up a huge post yesterday, only to have it get lost to the forums logging me out. I put in examples I mocked up in Smurfy's, and spoilers to organize the page, and edited it for flow and clarity... All gone. Alas. I'm not going to re-work that post, but I'll summarize it:

Essentially, I agree with you in general principle, but not in application. It's always good to have some rounded capabilities, but it's best to add those capabilities without compromising your main role. Take LRM builds as a primary example. People have figured out that they need AMS again, so an LRM10 often just won't cut it. LRMs are very tonnage-intensive, and since only 3 AMS at the target will pretty much stop an LRM10 cold (fewer, if you have to fire through an entire AMS umbrella to hit the exposed target,) you're risking at least 6 tons on a system that may be completely ineffective. Even if the enemy team had no AMS, one ton of ammo will only last you 67.5 seconds of combat, and deal 198 damage if every single missile hits.

In my view, balance in a build is best achieved by using multipurpose weapons to back up your primary focus, or splashing in tonnage-efficient guns to close weaknesses in your primary weapon set. The LRM boat I used in the tournament had TAG and three medium lasers, and a lot of missiles. I was able to deal respectable damage to exposed enemies, get some good licks in even if they charged me, and still not be completely helpless close-in. I could also use them to supplement my direct-fire LRMs at close ranged to help ensure a kill. I did fairly well with this 'mech, even on Sunday evening when it was down to the wire and most of the casuals had stopped playing. Those medium lasers got me kills I would not have had otherwise, but they didn't compromise my focus on LRMs. That's the kind of balance I'd advocate.

A great example of this kind of "focused balance" is, perhaps ironically, the cookie-cutter poptart meta build used by many Highlander and Victor pilots - two PPCs and a pair of 5-calibre autocannons. These builds are devastating when used correctly - and part of the reason is that the AC/5s double as close-defense brawling armaments. The build is still focused on long-range combat, but can still do significant damage to the kind of small, agile opponents who might try to sneak up on them while they're jump sniping.

[Tesunie]

Basically, follow the principal of a heavily focused build, but not a boat. Completely agreed. (Like, I was reviewing my stats, and realized I'm just about a brawler with some LRM support. Didn't realize it till recently. I'm a brawler. WITH LRMS! )


Funny. When I get "randomly logged out", it just wont let me post, but will keep the post sitting there. I will press the post button, it will go "saving post" for a second, and then pop the Post and More Reply Option buttons back up... I also use Fire Fox and always use the "quick reply" box...

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Thalynos, on 26 March 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...f1c62269b2d4658 TDR-5S I've been trying this recently and it's been mostly useful. I'd like to try to get it back into a standard engine but i don't have the c-bills to find a lower engine and I like the speed too much lol

Okay, so, here's the thing I'm noticing here- you're using an XL engine, but you're not really leveraging it in the way your weapons loadout says you want to use it. Using an XL engine is mostly good for two things on any 'mech: Loading up oodles of weapons, or making it go fast with a weapons loadout that would be reasonable on something slower. You can do crazier things in some instances, but that's for after you have a lot of practice 'mechbuilding with XL engines and learning when the extra threat of engine popping is okay and when it's not.

That said, there are two ways I would recommend going with this machine, since you seem to think it's 'okay', but not good enough.

The first is dual-option:

If you prefer lasers and LRMs, then http://mwo.smurfy-ne...eaeb6bd25767092

There's really no reason to not use your second missile hardpoint with the laser- LRM-5+LRM-10 is the same tonnage and unison launch as an LRM-15 with the added advantage that you can chain fire them into smaller targets so as not to lose as many missiles around the edge, plus they soak crits better. You have to keep your reticle on target all the time with the laser, but since you're locking for missiles, you kind of need to do that anyway.

If you prefer autocannon, then http://mwo.smurfy-ne...3fbe463879d78e8

There are less missiles by necessity, but you save a lot of space on heat sinks and can afford the Ferro-Fibrous, which ups your armor protection a bit and lets you spend tonnage on that heavy, heavy autocannon.

The autocannon and an ER Large Laser have nearly the same range envelope, with different advantages/disadvantages (the Large Laser uses no ammo and weighs less but demands more heat sinks, the UAC generates virtually no heat and doesn't require you to hold the beam but eats tonnage like a starving whale).

Alternatively, you could go whole-hog for weapons: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...aa1e5487eec6077

You only lose about 8 KPH after Speed Tweak, and you have more missile tubes. Have to watch your heat a bit more, but it lets you keep people in cover.

In all three builds, I moved the ammo out of the legs, and there's a good reason for this: you've underarmored your legs. You do not ever want ammo in an under-armored location, especially not legs, because light 'mechs will punish you super hard for that. A good light pilot pays attention to where their shots deal more percentage damage (cause greater color change in armor) and will home in on your weak legs like mad, because most heavier 'mechs underarmor the legs. The last thing you need is someone who has to use machine guns shooting at your ammo bins. Practically nobody bothers to machinegun arms, though, and if you're piloting intelligently then you rarely run into close combat with much of your LRM ammo left anyways.

Tesunie, on 26 March 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

True. My mouse does have the wheel button, but that's my zoom. I've considered changing it a few times, but always find I instinctively use that button to zoom, so I think I'm stuck with it. (For a moment there, I thought you were going to say I had the old mouse than ran on a ball, instead of the laser. )

Do you mean scrolling the wheel or depressing the wheel? I meant it literally when I said 'the wheel is a button'. If you bind your zoom to scrolling, you can still use the wheel as a button for something else.

Tesunie, on 26 March 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

I figured it was, which was why I posted the build.
I came to this as my conclusion after using it as a "TAG + Artemis always hits only/mostly CT" test bed. (And let me just say, no. It doesn't. It does help more hit the CT, but not all or even "almost all" will.) The Battlemasters went through a lot of revisions before I came to this designs. A lot of my mechs seem to be a growing process. My Stalker alone went through about 6 versions before coming up with the current one. One was SSRMs and 6 Med lasers. Another was 4 LRM5s and 6 med lasers. Another one was 4 PPCs (before it was powerful, just to add, only played it a few times. was fun.). Then I think I did some LL/Med laser pairing with SRMs...

LRMs almost all hit the CT if the missile spread is small. Artemis and Tag mostly affect lock-on times- the other thing they do is improve missile turning, not tighten the missile clusters. Very good for shooting flighty fast 'mechs and actually hitting when you would have missed, not really any good for hitting with more missiles when you would have hit or focusing damage on CTs.

This is why I lean heavily towards LRM-10s and LRM-5s on my multiple-missile-rack builds. It's also why the Cataphract 2X can make a hilariously effective anti-light missiler- it has only four tubes on that left arm, so the missiles always come out in batches of 4 or less (4-1 for an LRM-5, 4-2 for an SRM-6, 4-4-2 for an LRM-10, 4-4-4-3 for an LRM-15, and 4-4-4-4-4 for an LRM-20). Remember that the tightness of missile cluster is dependent on how many are launched simultaneously, no matter how many or how few racks are being used and no matter how many total missiles are launched by one rack firing. You can really leverage this with the limited missile tubes on some 'mechs (like the Stalker 6-tube torso slots) to get more effect out of your high-launch-number missile racks (I'm tempted with my LRM-Laser Stalker to try to find a way to get those LRM-10s into the torso and move the 5s to the arms, just for that reason). This is also why it's really inadvisable to simultaneous-fire 30+ LRMs at one target unless you're firing into heavy AMS shielding. More missiles is a bigger spread, and even assault 'mechs standing still rarely catch the entirety of an LRM-20 spread, nevermind a quad-10 or quad-15 spread.

Tesunie, on 26 March 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

That was what I last knew. If I could find the PGI posts on it, I would and link them. However, I can never (okay, rarely) find what I am looking for on these forums. However, that doesn't mean that I could be wrong. What I've seen (with my luck), it seems to happen to me like that. (Lose a side torso, CT still has armor. Take two steps. Think I'm okay. Go to shoot back and POP. I'm dead. Ammo explosion. Then again, you are talking to someone who died with a single shot to the head, had my armor only breached, and ammo explosion...)

I've never seen anything anywhere to indicate this. It's possible there's a misinterperetation of the statement 'any equipment in a component that is destroyed is also destroyed' to blame for this, but it does not function like this in the tabletop, and the tabletop is where PGI derived the location/'component' rules from. Besides, with their intent to increase time to kill, making component destruction also detonate ammo would be counter to their stated intent.

Void Angel, on 26 March 2014 - 12:18 PM, said:

CURSE YOU RANDOM FORUM LOGOUTS THAT LOST MY HUGE POST!
CUUUURSE YOUUUUU!

The 'Back' button will work to save you on that, for many browsers.... but I'm sorry you misplaced your post.

Void Angel, on 26 March 2014 - 12:18 PM, said:

Essentially, I agree with you in general principle, but not in application. It's always good to have some rounded capabilities, but it's best to add those capabilities without compromising your main role. Take LRM builds as a primary example. People have figured out that they need AMS again, so an LRM10 often just won't cut it. LRMs are very tonnage-intensive, and since only 3 AMS at the target will pretty much stop an LRM10 cold (fewer, if you have to fire through an entire AMS umbrella to hit the exposed target,) you're risking at least 6 tons on a system that may be completely ineffective. Even if the enemy team had no AMS, one ton of ammo will only last you 67.5 seconds of combat, and deal 198 damage if every single missile hits.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, on the principle of using resources to exhaust resources. Yes, that LRM-10 shot is going to get eaten by AMS, but it's also going to eat up about a hundred shots of AMS ammo total (assuming three AMSes) in the process. This is another part of the reason I like large numbers of small racks, or large racks in small-tube hardpoints. As much as I'd rather be dealing damage to the enemy, if I can exhaust the enemy ability to prevent damage, then that's just as good. I don't care if I get the damage or someone else gets the damage, because either way as long as damage gets through, my team wins.

Using small racks or small-tube hardpoints means that you get to eat through AMS ammo faster, and punish those without AMS harder by dealing more focused central damage (to larger 'mechs) and more consistent damage (to smaller 'mechs who are usually narrower than the missile spread on an LRM-10 and always narrower than a 15-missile spread).

I'll happily take 'eat more damage shield/deal more focused damage' over 'get a few missiles through damage shield with slower firing rate/blow up terrain because the target is too small'.

Void Angel, on 26 March 2014 - 12:18 PM, said:

In my view, balance in a build is best achieved by using multipurpose weapons to back up your primary focus, or splashing in tonnage-efficient guns to close weaknesses in your primary weapon set. The LRM boat I used in the tournament had TAG and three medium lasers, and a lot of missiles. I was able to deal respectable damage to exposed enemies, get some good licks in even if they charged me, and still not be completely helpless close-in. I could also use them to supplement my direct-fire LRMs at close ranged to help ensure a kill. I did fairly well with this 'mech, even on Sunday evening when it was down to the wire and most of the casuals had stopped playing. Those medium lasers got me kills I would not have had otherwise, but they didn't compromise my focus on LRMs. That's the kind of balance I'd advocate.

Which 'mech was this? I couldn't possibly give an opinion on that without knowing, because I have no idea the tonnage, available hardpoints, or general capability of this mystery machine.

Void Angel, on 26 March 2014 - 12:18 PM, said:

A great example of this kind of "focused balance" is, perhaps ironically, the cookie-cutter poptart meta build used by many Highlander and Victor pilots - two PPCs and a pair of 5-calibre autocannons. These builds are devastating when used correctly - and part of the reason is that the AC/5s double as close-defense brawling armaments. The build is still focused on long-range combat, but can still do significant damage to the kind of small, agile opponents who might try to sneak up on them while they're jump sniping.

Very true. Probably would be less true if AC/5s and AC/2s had something to equate to the minimum range they were given in tabletop (look it up! They originally had a minimum range. Mind, minimum range in the tabletop works out to more difficult hits, not'deal no damage ever' like it is in this game, but minimum range was there, and it was there for a reason. Does this reason hold true for MWO? Honestly, I don't know, but it's something to know and wonder about.) but is quite true right now.

I don't agree with you, though, mostly because you're declaring that one form of firepower consistency (which I'm not going to call 'balance' to avoid confusion) is superior to the other, when it actually depends on the pilot. Much as in the tabletop game, where some players gain tons of effectiveness by using bracket fire and others do so through unison fire (don't worry about it too much if you don't know, for any other readers), different people think and operate different ways, which leads to different playstyles, which are better leveraged with different kinds of 'mech builds.

If what you're actually saying is "Firepower consistency is superior to a wide variety of weapons with overlapping envelopes for me, Void Angel", then I'll happily agree with you there, though.

Edited by Elli Gujar, 26 March 2014 - 03:55 PM.

[Tesunie]

Elli Gujar, on 26 March 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

Do you mean scrolling the wheel or depressing the wheel? I meant it literally when I said 'the wheel is a button'. If you bind your zoom to scrolling, you can still use the wheel as a button for something else.

*Bashes head on desk a few time* I was just use to the wheel button being zoom. I didn't consider making the zoom the actual wheel wheeling... or... whatever you want to call it...

Can it let me do that? That could help open up some LRMs on my other builds that I couldn't before hand due to lack of a third button.

*Is an idiot if I can*

Elli Gujar, on 26 March 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

LRMs almost all hit the CT if the missile spread is small. Artemis and Tag mostly affect lock-on times- the other thing they do is improve missile turning, not tighten the missile clusters. Very good for shooting flighty fast 'mechs and actually hitting when you would have missed, not really any good for hitting with more missiles when you would have hit or focusing damage on CTs.

This is why I lean heavily towards LRM-10s and LRM-5s on my multiple-missile-rack builds. It's also why the Cataphract 2X can make a hilariously effective anti-light missiler- it has only four tubes on that left arm, so the missiles always come out in batches of 4 or less (4-1 for an LRM-5, 4-2 for an SRM-6, 4-4-2 for an LRM-10, 4-4-4-3 for an LRM-15, and 4-4-4-4-4 for an LRM-20). Remember that the tightness of missile cluster is dependent on how many are launched simultaneously, no matter how many or how few racks are being used and no matter how many total missiles are launched by one rack firing. You can really leverage this with the limited missile tubes on some 'mechs (like the Stalker 6-tube torso slots) to get more effect out of your high-launch-number missile racks (I'm tempted with my LRM-Laser Stalker to try to find a way to get those LRM-10s into the torso and move the 5s to the arms, just for that reason). This is also why it's really inadvisable to simultaneous-fire 30+ LRMs at one target unless you're firing into heavy AMS shielding. More missiles is a bigger spread, and even assault 'mechs standing still rarely catch the entirety of an LRM-20 spread, nevermind a quad-10 or quad-15 spread.

I was doing this test in the 1G, so I only had one missile port. And it was a 10 tube launcher. However, I did not find it hitting "only (or just about only) CT" and still saw a lot of damage hit the arms or side torso when they twisted. (I was arguing with Victor Morson about LRMs and he made the claim that his LRMs would core out my Stalker, even if I twisted my torso to his impact. I told him, his missiles would still hit the side facing him, but some would still hit the CT. Then, after my tests, I posted my results and my build, and he brushed me off as my Battlemaster build was "dumb and isn't effective". Never said it was.)

So far, with the new LRMs, I've been having good luck with my single ALRM20. 43ish% accuracy so far. (For my build set up, I can't do the smaller launchers. However, if I was to dedicate more slots of LRMs, I'd probably do two LRM10s, 4 LRM5s, or some combo, as you suggest.)

Is the bug of LRMs shooting from smaller launchers still shooting a full launcher size in? AKA: (And I've notice it myself) If you have an LRM 10 launcher in a 6 tube slot, does it still shoot 2 volleys of 6? I noticed this on my Hunchback a couple of times where I have 2 6 slot launchers (at the time) and an LRM15 there. Instead of having a nice even number dividable by 5, I would end up with strange numbers (dividable by 6 I later figured out)...

Elli Gujar, on 26 March 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

I've never seen anything anywhere to indicate this. It's possible there's a misinterperetation of the statement 'any equipment in a component that is destroyed is also destroyed' to blame for this, but it does not function like this in the tabletop, and the tabletop is where PGI derived the location/'component' rules from. Besides, with their intent to increase time to kill, making component destruction also detonate ammo would be counter to their stated intent.

Don't know. I had the data when I was debating in a "Change Crit Chances to 100% upon ammo destruction" thread... but I don't think I could find it again... (They also could have changed it too.)

Elli Gujar, on 26 March 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

The 'Back' button will work to save you on that, for many browsers.... but I'm sorry you misplaced your post.

Doesn't always for me. Only "sometimes". And normally not on long worded posts...

Elli Gujar, on 26 March 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

...this mystery machine.

It's a van. A van of ultimate destruction! (Probably was a Stalker or Battlemaster is my guess...)

Elli Gujar, on 26 March 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

Very true. Probably would be less true if AC/5s and AC/2s had something to equate to the minimum range they were given in tabletop (look it up! They originally had a minimum range. Mind, minimum range in the tabletop works out to more difficult hits, not'deal no damage ever' like it is in this game, but minimum range was there, and it was there for a reason. Does this reason hold true for MWO? Honestly, I don't know, but it's something to know and wonder about.) but is quite true right now.

I don't agree with you, though, mostly because you're declaring that one form of firepower consistency (which I'm not going to call 'balance' to avoid confusion) is superior to the other, when it actually depends on the pilot. Much as in the tabletop game, where some players gain tons of effectiveness by using bracket fire and others do so through unison fire (don't worry about it too much if you don't know, for any other readers), different people think and operate different ways, which leads to different playstyles, which are better leveraged with different kinds of 'mech builds.

If what you're actually saying is "Firepower consistency is superior to a wide variety of weapons with overlapping envelopes for me, Void Angel", then I'll happily agree with you there, though.

Without the minimum range, they kinda fall into the same category as normal LLs. That category is a "close and far range weapon", where they can be used effectively for either role. (ERLLs are designated as long range to me, as they are too hot to be overly effective in close combat. PPCs have the minimum range. ERPPCs are too hot, similar to ERLLs. Etc. AC10 even boarders on the multi-range category, as it can shoot a good distance as well.)

In TT, I love my Crabs. 2 LLs, and enough heat sinks to just about keep them going while walking. (And if I get desperate, I can also always show rear armor, as they have good armor back there.) Up close, I can punch, and still shoot with my med and sm laser, dealing the same damage as the two large lasers with less heat.
(Haven't tried my C3 ERPPC version yet. And I haven't bought my King Crabs to go with my Crabs yet either. Then I need a Stalker...)

Oh, and just to say it to be funny...

Looks like a fight is going to break out! *Pulls out popcorn*

Wait... I mean... Keep it civil guys...

[Alaskan Nobody]

Tesunie, on 26 March 2014 - 04:17 PM, said:

*Bashes head on desk a few time* I was just use to the wheel button being zoom. I didn't consider making the zoom the actual wheel wheeling... or... whatever you want to call it...

Can it let me do that? That could help open up some LRMs on my other builds that I couldn't before hand due to lack of a third button.

Wouldn't say you would be an idiot if it could - my mouse has separate bindings for the "button" and "scroll" but the scroll tends to happen when I push the button, so I have yet to be able to really make use of it.
(User error possibly -IE, the way I hold it?)

[Tesunie]

Shar Wolf, on 26 March 2014 - 04:27 PM, said:

Wouldn't say you would be an idiot if it could - my mouse has separate bindings for the "button" and "scroll" but the scroll tends to happen when I push the button, so I have yet to be able to really make use of it.
(User error possibly -IE, the way I hold it?)

That's actually something I'm worried about. Zooming in when I want to shoot that third weapon group. (If it's LRMs, shouldn't be too much of an issue.) I'm also worried I'll fire that group when I want to zoom when I scroll. (Which probably wouldn't be a good thing.) I also tend to use my LRMs fairly close, so I don't want them too difficult or too much of a hindrance to fire...

I will have to think about this...

[Alaskan Nobody]

Tesunie, on 26 March 2014 - 04:32 PM, said:

I will have to think about this...

Just be sure to actually play around with your mouse while you do the thinking - my mouse scrolls up and down websites by default - and the wheel button works like the right-click.
If yours works like that you can test it out as you run around the site - if it scrolls when you try to click with it, you might have problems.

[Void Angel]

Elli Gujar, on 26 March 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

I don't agree with you, though, mostly because you're declaring that one form of firepower consistency (which I'm not going to call 'balance' to avoid confusion) is superior to the other, when it actually depends on the pilot. Much as in the tabletop game, where some players gain tons of effectiveness by using bracket fire and others do so through unison fire (don't worry about it too much if you don't know, for any other readers), different people think and operate different ways, which leads to different playstyles, which are better leveraged with different kinds of 'mech builds.

If what you're actually saying is "Firepower consistency is superior to a wide variety of weapons with overlapping envelopes for me, Void Angel", then I'll happily agree with you there, though.

Well, we're not talking about "firepower consistency;" we're talking about whether to build a mech with significant investment in different roles. You can, and should, take weapons which are somewhat multipurpose (autocannons often fit this bill, which is part of why they're a bit overpowered,) or even "splash" some low-tonnage weapons (i.e. Medium Lasers) to fill in critical weaknesses - but if you try to be effective as both an LRM attacker and a brawler, you will fail at both roles. A real brawler will hug cover and work you over up close, while a real LRM boat will stomp you flat and laugh at your return salvos.

Min-maxxing has been a staple of gaming since ever - and for good reason. If you generalize your build, you generally cannot use all of your capabilities effectively; this is true in games ranging from D&D 1st Ed to Hearthstone - MWO is no exception. You can, however, focus on one role and try to play to your strengths. If I choose to field a Missile Boat (and this is a boat, by the way,) I will have to be sure to maneuver close to my team so that they can support me against enemy scouts and brawlers. If I instead try to make Some Kind of Hybrid, I'm going to be hard-pressed to perform well in either role, no matter how well I play - enemy AMS will take a much higher proportion of my salvos than the one launcher removed might suggest, and my ammunition for both ranges will be drastically curtailed. Every permutation along these lines will result in this kind of problem, and that's with a Battlemaster, which has a lot of hardpoints and tonnage to play with; a Hunchback, for example, will fare Much Worse. Resorting to Tabletop examples is no good; you can't rely on pure range and stomping through woods hexes to give the enemy a real chance to miss you, nor will he roll for hit locations, or overheat at the same rate - this game is a drastically different format.

This isn't to say that you have to boat all the time, or that there is no legitimate variance in builds to account for player tastes. In that missile boat, I know people who would have put an even smaller engine in there, and used more launchers. Personally, I didn't want to be that slow (and clumsy fighting lights/mediums) in the PuG tournament environment. Now that fewer people seem to be playing LRM boats - and more people have AMS - I may actually go That Route, but I digress. My point is that while you can certainly tailor your builds to pilot taste, you should do so without compromising your primary role. That Missile Boat I mentioned had just enough heat sinks to sustain its maximum rate of fire temporarily in heavy combat, and its close defenses were intended to convince light 'mechs that I wasn't worth the effort more than anything else. These kinds of decisions are pilot-driven, and there's often no clear better or worse option - but in other cases there is. In many cases you can see mathematically (I love Smurfy's WeaponLab tool) how much you're losing by trying to generalize too much.

Take the "Some Kind of Hybrid" and "Much Worse" links above: compared to their examples, these builds lose firepower/longevity and vital levels of speed/agility (respectively) in exchange for the benefits of being able to fight less well at two separate ranges. But these capabilities cannot be used together very well: the Battlemaster trades long-range punch for mediocre short-range power, and the Hunchback does the converse, throwing in reduced agility (movement and twist speed) to boot. The brawler will almost never be able to use his brawling and his LRMs effectively together, and the Hunchback can only use that ER laser by exposing himself to fire, reducing his ability to brawl. In both of these instances, build effectiveness was a math problem with graphics, and I gave the wrong answer. You can only get so much mileage out of "different strokes for different folks." At some point, we have to acknowledge the implications of the fact that we are all playing the same game under the same rules - some builds are empirically better than others, and player preference is less important than many of us would wish. The only time I can really get effective use of an entire multi-range array of weapons is if I'm charging at the enemy over open ground. It seems counter-productive to design my 'Mech so that I can only get the most out of it while I'm committing suicide.

At the end of the day, I recommend that you design your 'mechs by picking a role and adding equipment only to support that role - either by using multipurpose weapons or filling in critical weaknesses (e.g. use Medium Lasers on LRM boats.) If you try to mix LB-10Xs with ER Lasers, you're going to lose to someone who brought an AC/20, or a UAC/5 with PPCs. If, on the other hand, you start with a couple of PPCs and then add UAC/5s (which just happen to have similar ballistic characteristics and range) as an all-purpose burst damage weapon to complement them, you'll end up with a fully effective long-range jump sniper with backup close-range combat ability - and, incidentally, the cookie cutter meta build.

Edited by Void Angel, 26 March 2014 - 10:01 PM.