67 replies to this topic

[Vlad Ward]

I feel the need to point out that "Tanks" are only really a thing in RPGs. MWO is not an RPG. MWO is a First Person Shooter. The most effective build is the one that kills the red team the fastest while dying the slowest.

If at any point you're intentionally putting yourself in danger trying to block damage for your allies, your allies are screwing you. They shouldn't need you in front of them to begin with. The total durability of a 'Mech depends more on hitboxes, hardpoint positions, maneuvering, use of cover, and torso twisting than max CT armor. The only real "Tank" in Mechwarrior Online is the rock you're hiding behind between salvos.

On topic,

It's a consistent bad habit of the Mechwarrior community to try to generate tactics or strategic reasoning where none is inherently necessary. It's a lingering holdover from the tabletop game that people want to feel more like a general moving game pieces than a soldier holding a rifle. Mechs are assigned "Roles" like Scout, Brawler, Sniper, Harasser, and Support in order to make them feel more thought out. In practice, these "roles" end up as little more than excuses for bad mech design and subpar builds. People use pseudo-military terms like "Force Multiplier" and quote the Art of War and modern military practice to try to justify this kind of nonsense, but the reality is that Mechwarrior Online is just a video game - and not a very complicated one at that.

Maybe that upsets some people. Maybe there are dudes out there who want to play a game that requires years of real world military experience to master. Maybe some people just want to play Chromehounds again, hell if I know. The fact is that building effective Mechs in MWO is not hard, and there are very clear distinctions between what works and what doesn't.

If playing the best Mechs isn't enjoyable for you, or you just think it's more fun to run around in whatever junk you think fits your RP the best, that's your call. That's a conscious decision you make to play less effective Mechs. Just don't think you're doing anyone any favors trying to justify that crap with half-baked scenarios from the top of your head or a dissertation on modern military practice because that's all bunk.

[Alexander Steel]

3 Panthers + 1 Atlas-K

[Alexander Steel]

CocoaJin, on 16 February 2015 - 02:22 PM, said:

I'll eventually have 2x MPLs in the torso and an AC10 if experiment with an XL engine. The LRMs won't be my primary weapon. They will be used to disorient and put opponents my lance brawlers are engaging.

Plus, my LRMs are a great deterrent against light mechs harassing the lance. It's one LRM rack on a dual 4x energy build...which can easily be converted into an SRM6 if necessary. The LRMs can be fired over friendly to engage the same target within SRM range...without needing to fire past/through the lance, meaning I'm not holding fire at choke-points. The plan isn't to operate as a typical rear guard LRM...I'm hoping to be more like a MRM for the lance.

I figure I might as well try something different, be unorthodox, feel it out and change if I dont like it. But why go with typical -K builds if no one likes them anyway.

If you drop enough armor you can add some more weapons! Or upgrade the AC 10 to a Gauss Gun for more Sniping fun.

Edited by Alexander Steel, 18 February 2015 - 01:31 PM.

[pwnface]

Vlad Ward, on 18 February 2015 - 11:16 AM, said:

I feel the need to point out that "Tanks" are only really a thing in RPGs. MWO is not an RPG. MWO is a First Person Shooter. The most effective build is the one that kills the red team the fastest while dying the slowest.

If at any point you're intentionally putting yourself in danger trying to block damage for your allies, your allies are screwing you. They shouldn't need you in front of them to begin with. The total durability of a 'Mech depends more on hitboxes, hardpoint positions, maneuvering, use of cover, and torso twisting than max CT armor. The only real "Tank" in Mechwarrior Online is the rock you're hiding behind between salvos.

I kind of disagree with this assessment.

In a lot of matches and especially in longer range engagements, it doesn't make sense to have "tanks", people should be trading damage against the enemy team as effectively as they can. The more damage you can do while taking the least amount of damage back generally determines how effective you are

When you are doing a brawler push having "tanks" can become an incredibly valuable asset. Having a front-line assault mech that can absorb considerable damage be the most obvious primary target allows other mechs a few seconds of valuable DPS without return fire. I don't think a DRG-1N pumping out 18dps using an Atlas DDC as a shield is "screwing over your team", it is about maximizing your available firepower to defeat your enemy.

The problem with "tanks" in MWO is that people don't understand WHEN it is appropriate to tank. If your team is trading sniper fire and you are eating shots you aren't "tanking" you are just being out of position. If your friendly Dire Wolf is 100% weapons capable but has an open red CT, it might be a good idea to push the enemy in your 80% armor Timber Wolf so your Dire can get some free shots.

[Vlad Ward]

Yeah, see, all that theorizing and strategerizing always assumes your opponents are brain dead. Like, seriously functionally incapable of making rational decisions.

An Example Of The Ideal Strategerical Opposition: "Hurr guys, that mech is da biggest, therefore we must shoots it first."

Half decent players will shoot an arm off a 1N the second someone calls it out. They'll take right torsos off Thunderbolts, arms off Wubverines (these no longer exist though), and legs/missiles off Atlai and quietly continue rolling through the rest of your team once the highest DPS threats have been removed from the equation.

There is no "Taunt" function in MWO. There is no aggro system. There is no way for your team to make this sort of strategy work except to rely on the utter stupidity of your opponents. I'm not a big fan of plans that require my opponents to be bads. It simply doesn't work against decent teams - and let's be honest, against not-decent teams you could throw LRM boats and Locusts at them and probably do alright.

[pwnface]

Vlad Ward, on 18 February 2015 - 02:58 PM, said:

Yeah, see, all that theorizing and strategerizing always assumes your opponents are brain dead. Like, seriously functionally incapable of making rational decisions.

An Example Of The Ideal Strategerical Opposition: "Hurr guys, that mech is da biggest, therefore we must shoots it first."

Half decent players will shoot an arm off a 1N the second someone calls it out. They'll take right torsos off Thunderbolts, arms off Wubverines (these no longer exist though), and legs/missiles off Atlai and quietly continue rolling through the rest of your team once the highest DPS threats have been removed from the equation.

There is no "Taunt" function in MWO. There is no aggro system. There is no way for your team to make this sort of strategy work except to rely on the utter stupidity of your opponents. I'm not a big fan of plans that require my opponents to be bads. It simply doesn't work against decent teams - and let's be honest, against not-decent teams you could throw LRM boats and Locusts at them and probably do alright.

Oh come on! Don't be dense!

Obviously good players will try to assess the biggest threats and shoot the arms off a DRG-1N but this is much more difficult to do when you have a DDC approaching you blasting you with huge alpha strikes. I've NEVER died or lost my arm first when using an Atlas as a shield to approach, a giant 100t mech approaching you is a much easier target to hit than just my right arm sticking out from behind him. An Atlas at close range is even more dangerous than a DRG-1N, you are forcing the enemy to make a split second decision between trying to put down the Atlas before it gets close or trying to pick off the arm of a DRG-1N which is a much smaller target.

Yes, there isn't an "aggro system" or "taunt" in MWO but generally players will target more immediate threats. This isn't relying on enemy players being stupid, it is just forcing them to make difficult decisions. If there is a 3xASRM6 + AC20 Atlas approaching you from 350m away you aren't going to be shooting at or even looking at the 2x Gauss Jagermech 700m away. In fact shooting at the Jagermech in that situation is probably going to be the wrong choice.

Maybe your experience differs from mine but I find that tactics matter a lot in CW, MWO is a much more complex game than you give credit for. Synchronizing drop decks and waves to run 12x lights or 12x snipers etc. 100% counts as tactics. Not understanding the need or usefulness of specific TACTICS shows your shallow understanding of MWO combat.

[pwnface]

I'll give you a prime example of tactics winning a match:

House Kurita mixed group with 4 or 5 NS pilots drops against an MS 12man on Sulfurous on a counter-attack. Luckily, House Kurita is fairly organized now and all 12 of us were in the same teamspeak. Based on my experience with the pilots on my team, I realized that we had a very small chance of beating the MS group in a straight up fight. We had several inexperienced pilots running less than optimized builds and not everyone is exactly good at aiming.

1st Drop Wave - I call to bring sniper mechs first. We all group at beta gate and pick off the Omega objective from just outside the gate using Gauss / ERLL spam. MS mixed group tries to return fire here and there but we already have a 12man firing line set up. Presumably MS group probably doesn't have 12 snipers either and doesn't want to engage in an all out sniper war. Once we pick off a single kill we start backing away from Beta gate since technically we have a kill lead and have omega down we are currently fulfilling the objective to win the match. MS is forced to even up the kills or risk losing the match. Our kill lead climbs a few more kills at this point. They chase us out all the way to our dropships as we trade fire and eventually we start losing out on kills as they close the distance.

2nd Drop Wave - Brawlers spawn on top of the defending MS team who are now heavily engaged with our remaining dwindling sniper force. We all push to Alpha gate once we've cleared out their first wave. MS meets us at the gate and a brawl ensues, kills are pretty even at this point but I call for all light mechs for the 3rd wave.

3rd Drop Wave - We've manged to get 1 more kill than the MS group while spawning into 11 light mechs and 1 DRG-1N. I asked our DRG-1N pilot to hide in a corner and power down in order to not get killed. The remainder of our match was spent kiting the MS group around the map avoiding the main force. They would send lights to scout us and we'd run away as soon as their main force was spotted. When their lights moved to chase us, we would turn around and 12v3 their light mechs. After killing their light mechs we are now up 4 kills and are able to kite the MS group for the remainder of the match for a victory.

If we had just charged in guns blazing every wave without thinking about tactics, I'm 100% confident we would have lost with like a 30-48 final score. TACTICS MATTER in this game.

Edited by pwnface, 18 February 2015 - 03:39 PM.

[Vlad Ward]

Bro I was the drop commander, drop deck coordinator, and overall strategist for the Remnant during 3 seasons of Run Hot or Die and 2 seasons of Marik Civil War - where we ranked in the top 5 of all NA teams alongside SwK and SJR, who we regularly played. You can tell me that I have only a "shallow" understanding of MWO combat, but reality would beg to differ.

I divide MWO combat into two basic categories: Games against Teams that Suck and Games against Teams that Don't Suck.

Against teams that suck, you can feel free to "strategize" however you want knowing that the individual skill of your own players is likely to carry the team to a win regardless of what you do. Sure, you can give the credit for these wins to awesome strategeries and ultra special opfors and whatnot. But the reality is you're probably just better pilots than the other guys.

Against teams that don't suck, though, no amount of tanking or mind games are going to distract them like that. I know. I've tried it. I've seen firsthand the results of trying to throw a brawler push at a team like SJR or Blackstone Knights (do these guys still play? I miss them). It's abysmal. Always.

In all honesty, it's rare that it's going to matter at the moment. The vast majority of CW opponents are going to fall into category 1. You can do whatever you think is cool and still walk away with a win most of the time. This is purely a spreadsheet warrior online discussion.

Edit: Also I'm not saying all tactics are worthless. That's stupid. I've used plenty of tactics and made plenty of organized calls. "Tanks", however, are useless. Always. Every time. Real, coordinated teams don't react to that sort of play. "Support" is also a nonexistant pseudo-category that can best be described as "Mechs that are intentionally bad for the sake of blaming other people when you lose", but that's another discussion entirely.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 18 February 2015 - 03:58 PM.

[Alexander Steel]

It's got to be bad in Clan space when "Vlad Ward" jumps ship and becomes a Drac.

[pwnface]

Vlad Ward, on 18 February 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

Edit: Also I'm not saying all tactics are worthless. That's stupid. I've used plenty of tactics and made plenty of organized calls. "Tanks", however, are useless. Always. Every time. Real, coordinated teams don't react to that sort of play. "Support" is also a nonexistant pseudo-category that can best be described as "Mechs that are intentionally bad for the sake of blaming other people when you lose", but that's another discussion entirely.

Your statement here does contradict your previous one, "It's a consistent bad habit of the Mechwarrior community to try to generate tactics or strategic reasoning where none is inherently necessary." Now that we can both agree that tactics are useful..

If you straight up out-skill your opponent then tactics matter less and less, if the skill gap is not very big then tactics matter a lot more.

Spreading the damage across your entire team typically results in retaining more firepower for your team, typically assault mechs have the most armor to spare. As I've stated in my previous post, "tanking" damage is largely situational and is often times a really bad idea, to say that it is 100% not useful though is something I can't agree with. I can agree to disagree regarding the usefulness of tanking damage for your teammates and/or support roles (ecm support is nice to have).

[An Anime Princess]

Vlad Ward, on 18 February 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

"Support" is also a nonexistant pseudo-category that can best be described as "Mechs that are intentionally bad for the sake of blaming other people when you lose", but that's another discussion entirely.

well you see while the rest of my team is engaged in direct fire i am standing 1000m away cheerleading. incredible power.

[pwnface]

An Anime Princess, on 18 February 2015 - 04:19 PM, said:

well you see while the rest of my team is engaged in direct fire i am standing 1000m away cheerleading. incredible power.

I prefer my cheerleaders to be 0.5m away, the same length of my sexytime ac20. Also, anime princesses are my favorite flavor of cheerleaders.

[An Anime Princess]

also i dont believe 'tanking' is a role outside of someone is going to get shot first when you make a burly push in an awkward situation. the best way to tank is to not die while making the other guy die. it's good to be beefy if you're at the front but not at the expense of everything else.

i'm pretty sure we're all really on the same page here?

Edited by An Anime Princess, 18 February 2015 - 04:21 PM.

[pwnface]

I think it is also important to distinguish between "tanking" as an action and a "tank" as a noun.

Every mechwarrior should try to "tank" damage in order to increase their own longevity.

"Tanks" in MWO are essentially people that are in the front of the push begging people to shoot at them first.

Typically good focus fire will reduce "tanks" to scrap within a few seconds so in reality they feel like they may feel like made out of paper but someone has to get shot at first right?

Edited by pwnface, 18 February 2015 - 04:25 PM.

[Vlad Ward]

pwnface, on 18 February 2015 - 04:18 PM, said:

Your statement here does contradict your previous one, "It's a consistent bad habit of the Mechwarrior community to try to generate tactics or strategic reasoning where none is inherently necessary." Now that we can both agree that tactics are useful..

If you straight up out-skill your opponent then tactics matter less and less, if the skill gap is not very big then tactics matter a lot more.

Spreading the damage across your entire team typically results in retaining more firepower for your team, typically assault mechs have the most armor to spare. As I've stated in my previous post, "tanking" damage is largely situational and is often times a really bad idea, to say that it is 100% not useful though is something I can't agree with. I can agree to disagree regarding the usefulness of tanking damage for your teammates and/or support roles (ecm support is nice to have).

It's not a contradictory statement. Some tactics are useful. Some coordination is useful. The kind of pseudo-fantasy la-la land "I'll do this, and then my enemies will think 'that' and totally screw up lololol!" nonsense that comprises 99.8% of forum strategy posts is not.

When it comes to MWO strategery, the John Roberts approach is the most effective. Paraphrased, 'If it's not necessary to have it, it's necessary to not have it.'

Also, minor correction: What you're now calling "tanking" is synonymous with torso twisting. All mechs should do this. It is not something for only certain mechs to do, or something any particular mech has an advantage in. Having an extra 20 points of CT armor isn't going to mean anything against focus fire, which is what all good teams will use anyways.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 18 February 2015 - 04:31 PM.

[pwnface]

Vlad Ward, on 18 February 2015 - 04:27 PM, said:

It's not a contradictory statement. Some tactics are useful. Some coordination is useful. The kind of pseudo-fantasy la-la land "I'll do this, and then my enemies will think 'that' and totally screw up lololol!" nonsense that comprises 99.8% of forum strategy posts is not.

Not all tactics are created equal. People try to come up with all kinds of crap that don't work in reality. This doesn't mean people shouldn't try to come up with things that will work effectively.

I also have no idea why we are discussing the validity of tactics or tanking in a roleplay mech build thread. I think we've both wandered off track here. *exits quietly*

Edited by pwnface, 18 February 2015 - 04:46 PM.

[pbiggz]

Old school brawling where you eat damage hasn't been relevant since closed beta.

[Vlad Ward]

pwnface, on 18 February 2015 - 04:43 PM, said:

I also have no idea why we are discussing the validity of tactics or tanking in a roleplay mech build thread. I think we've both wandered off track here. *exits quietly*

Pretty much. I'll readily admit we hit upon a particularly sore nerve of mine. I used to be the Atlas Brawler Push guy. Like, that was my thing. I remember when it used to be cool, and I have very vivid, painful memories of how it was systematically relegated to junk status over several years of updates from SRM and AC/20 ubernerfs to massive hitreg improvements that gradually increased the effective combat range of non-Atlai until the 270m cutoff of SRMs became untenable and Atlas CTs became ridiculously easy to hit. It's mostly a moot point though since it's not like anyone's likely to run into super top tier teams in random CW drops.

Anyways, back to RP Gundams. I like the RX-78-2.

[An Anime Princess]

Vlad Ward, on 18 February 2015 - 04:55 PM, said:

Anyways, back to RP Gundams. I like the RX-78-2.

or uhh wait i guess maybe the delta plus is cool too

[Alexander Steel]

Deathscythe, that's my Gundam. Although the double bladed weapon was silly.