322 replies to this topic

[Metus regem]

Yellow Kat, on 18 February 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:

I personally prefer to have a nice mix of all ranges. Just in case you know?

Me too, I like to be able to hit someone at all ranges....

My prefered Timber Wolf, is a slightly altered Config D, with normal cSRM 6's and a TC.

[Dock Steward]

You don't need a mixed loadout to hit at all ranges. ERPPC...ERLL...Gauss...AC/2...LL...lots of weapons hit at all ranges.

[Joseph Mallan]

Dock Steward, on 18 February 2015 - 11:41 AM, said:

You don't need a mixed loadout to hit at all ranges. ERPPC...ERLL...Gauss...AC/2...LL...lots of weapons hit at all ranges.

Yup but they only hit the opponent in One way. Front loaded damage is good, but SRMs do help crit seeking... Those kind of things.

[Harrison Kelly]

The "every infantryman can use every weapon in the squad, mechs are like an infantry squad, ergo, mechs should be generalists" is such a twisted, tenuous strand of logic.

I have a high level of respect for military tactics in the proper scenarios, but to say that they MUST apply to gaming scenarios is patently absurd and invokes a level of navel-gazing usually reserved for Hollywood celebrities.

Here's a few cracks in that argument:
1) I can't pick up my buddy's AC20 and strap it on mid-combat. Believe it, it would be very convenient if I could carry Gauss and ERLL through the initial poking stages, then pick up a crippled brother's SRM packs and give it to that Timber Wolf who took him down. MWO doesn't work that way.
2) Humans are hardpoint limited in how many weapons they can carry, much less fire. If an infantryman could accurately fire (while moving) two assault rifles at the same time, at the cost of carrying a sidearm and three grenades, trust me, there'd be more specialization. Mechs and humans (in case this isn't known yet) don't operate on the same equipping rules!
3) With larger infantry weapons, you only really need one. Shooting someone in the chest twice with a .50 caliber sniper rifle is for all practical purposes just as effective as shooting him once. Shooting a Humvee with an AT-4 will explode it just as surely as if you hit it with two. MWO has much lower lethality (a single Gauss round should not one-hit any Mech), so if you want to carry equivalent lethality, you need much greater concentrated firepower.
4) Humans and the environments we fight in tend to have much more importance on concealment. On most maps, even with the Jesus Box, you can't just hide units that well for a flanking maneuver. There's no smoke, no deafening noise, and comparatively little fog of war. Flanking only works if you get there UNDETECTED or the enemy is bad at the game.
5) Lastly, (as an AF brat), the Air Force isn't there to bail you out in MWO to the extent it is in real life, Army!

As for generalist builds, they will always, ALWAYS, ALWAYS be weaker in competitive PvP gaming than specialist builds. An LRM 40 Mech or Dual Gauss Mech with 2 Medium lasers is still a specialist build, btw. It's not as specialized, but it has most of its combat strength built into 1-2 weapon systems, with some backup weapons that comprise less than 25% of its damage output. Generalist builds aren't efficient. They aren't efficient in RTSes like Starcraft. You build a synergistic composition (e.g. Zealot/Archon, Roach/Hydra, MMM) instead of trying to build every unit the game. They aren't efficient in MOBAs (roles are pretty heavily enforced in most of them). They aren't efficient in most shooters, where class warfare is pretty popular. Specialization means efficiency at doing whatever the important task is. In MWO, that's burning through enemy BattleMechs and since the threats on the maps are 90% BattleMechs, you only want builds and weapons that are efficient at doing so (cough, not Flamethrowers). That means specialized builds.

If I take a stock HGN-732 (Gauss, LRM 20, SRM 6, 2 ML) and put it up against a dedicated sniper build (say Gauss, 3 ERLL), then at long-range, the stock 'Mech is going to be hugely outgunned. It has 5+ tons of weapons and ammo that aren't useful at range and another weapon system of dubious value (1 LRM 20 means almost nothing in a duel). When that sniper opens up, it's going to use all of its weapons at once. The stock Mech is banking on catching the sniper in a bad position . . . so a generalist mech can certainly work and exploit the weaknesses of its opponents, but only if the opponent is caught offguard or unawares. A good sniper pilot isn't going to just let that happen and will know how to exploit his build's strengths. With a generalist, you're hoping to exploit your opponent's stupidity, which falls off once your opponents aren't as stupid. With a specialist, you exploit your own strengths.

As far as the whole team of generalists doing the same job as a team of varied specialists, that's just silly. If you have everyone focusing on having to snipe, AND spot, AND brawl, AND scout, then there's far too much diffusion of responsibility and nobody knows what they should be doing. The quarterback is not also trying to pick up blocks or kick field goals in most scenarios. Having people know their roles and assign to them cuts down on battlefield confusion, simplifies responsibilities, and allows people to work to their strengths (e.g. snipers should snipe, brawlers should brawl). the only way a generalist team would work against an equally-skilled team of specialists was if they were all highly coordinated (read: better than their opponents and more in synch).

If you want to play a generalist 'Mech like that stock HGN-732, be my guest. Preferably on the other team. And you know what, you may even kill me with your generalist 'Mech. But don't tell me how I "should" build my BattleMech, and don't complain that I just punched a 39-point alpha through your torso at 700 meters while tanking your return fire on a zombie arm like I did something "wrong." Don't impose your value system on me like it's sacred or something. I'm not going to tell other players how to build their 'Mechs (especially not in PUGs), but I'm also not going to force myself to build inefficiently for a value judgment I don't believe in either.

Edited by Harrison Kelly, 18 February 2015 - 11:51 AM.

[Dock Steward]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 February 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

Yup but they only hit the opponent in One way. Front loaded damage is good, but SRMs do help crit seeking... Those kind of things.

Crit seeking?!!! Yeah, there's a concept worth building a mech around...

[Brimbooze]

I think a big issue with the approach a lot of folks want to take to increase build diversity/reduce boating is that they often want to nerf the effectiveness of boating. I think a better approach would be to increase the effectiveness of build diversity.

This could be achieved by implemented some sort of Weapon Synergy system. This could be fairly easy to implement as they could make it function similar to how weapon quirks currently function.

For example, say a guy has a DWF-B which has 5 energy hard points and 5 ballistic hard points. Lets say that for every ballistic hard point you fill you boost the effectiveness of all of their energy hard points in some way by a certain amount. Or vice versa. You could add caveats such as if you're using energy hard points to boost ballistic points that you can only have so many of the same type of weapon in your ballistic hard points (so to get the buff from using energy weapons you can just stack 4/5 UACs).

Alternatively you could approach it as for every different weapon all of your other weapons get a buff. So if you uas 2 UACs, to regular ACs, 2 MLs and 2 LLs your get buffed by 4 due to the 4 different weapon types.

Again this is just a rough idea and it would definitely need some refinement. But this way you maybe bring diverse builds up to the same level as builds that just boat 1 weapon.

[Joseph Mallan]

Harrison Kelly, on 18 February 2015 - 11:49 AM, said:

The "every infantryman can use every weapon in the squad, mechs are like an infantry squad, ergo, mechs should be generalists" is such a twisted, tenuous strand of logic.

I have a high level of respect for military tactics in the proper scenarios, but to say that they MUST apply to gaming scenarios is patently absurd and invokes a level of navel-gazing usually reserved for Hollywood celebrities.

Here's a few cracks in that argument:
1) I can't pick up my buddy's AC20 and strap it on mid-combat. Believe it, it would be very convenient if I could carry Gauss and ERLL through the initial poking stages, then pick up a crippled brother's SRM packs and give it to that Timber Wolf who took him down. MWO doesn't work that way.
2) Humans are hardpoint limited in how many weapons they can carry, much less fire. If an infantryman could accurately fire (while moving) two assault rifles at the same time, at the cost of carrying a sidearm and three grenades, trust me, there'd be more specialization. Mechs and humans (in case this isn't known yet) don't operate on the same equipping rules!
3) With larger infantry weapons, you only really need one. Shooting someone in the chest twice with a .50 caliber sniper rifle is for all practical purposes just as effective as shooting him once. Shooting a Humvee with an AT-4 will explode it just as surely as if you hit it with two. MWO has much lower lethality (a single Gauss round should not one-hit any Mech), so if you want to carry equivalent lethality, you need much greater concentrated firepower.
4) Humans and the environments we fight in tend to have much more importance on concealment. On most maps, even with the Jesus Box, you can't just hide units that well for a flanking maneuver. There's no smoke, no deafening noise, and comparatively little fog of war. Flanking only works if you get there UNDETECTED or the enemy is bad at the game.
5) Lastly, (as an AF brat), the Air Force isn't there to bail you out in MWO to the extent it is in real life, Army!

As for generalist builds, they will always, ALWAYS, ALWAYS be weaker in competitive PvP gaming than specialist builds. An LRM 40 Mech or Dual Gauss Mech with 2 Medium lasers is still a specialist build, btw. It's not as specialized, but it has most of its combat strength built into 1-2 weapon systems, with some backup weapons that comprise less than 25% of its damage output. Generalist builds aren't efficient. They aren't efficient in RTSes like Starcraft. You build a synergistic composition (e.g. Zealot/Archon, Roach/Hydra, MMM) instead of trying to build every unit the game. They aren't efficient in MOBAs (roles are pretty heavily enforced in most of them). They aren't efficient in most shooters, where class warfare is pretty popular. Specialization means efficiency at doing whatever the important task is. In MWO, that's burning through enemy BattleMechs and since the threats on the maps are 90% BattleMechs, you only want builds and weapons that are efficient at doing so (cough, not Flamethrowers). That means specialized builds.

If I take a stock HGN-732 (Gauss, LRM 20, SRM 6, 2 ML) and put it up against a dedicated sniper build (say Gauss, 3 ERLL), then at long-range, the stock 'Mech is going to be hugely outgunned. It has 5+ tons of weapons and ammo that aren't useful at range and another weapon system of dubious value (1 LRM 20 means almost nothing in a duel). When that sniper opens up, it's going to use all of its weapons at once. The stock Mech is banking on catching the sniper in a bad position . . . so a generalist mech can certainly work and exploit the weaknesses of its opponents, but only if the opponent is caught offguard or unawares. A good sniper pilot isn't going to just let that happen and will know how to exploit his build's strengths. With a generalist, you're hoping to exploit your opponent's stupidity, which falls off once your opponents aren't as stupid.

As far as the whole team of generalists doing the same job as a team of varied specialists, that's just silly. If you have everyone focusing on having to snipe, AND spot, AND brawl, AND scout, then there's far too much diffusion of responsibility and nobody knows what they should be doing. The quarterback is not also trying to pick up blocks or kick field goals in most scenarios. Having people know their roles and assign to them cuts down on battlefield confusion, simplifies responsibilities, and allows people to work to their strengths (e.g. snipers should snipe, brawlers should brawl). the only way a generalist team would work against an equally-skilled team of specialists was if they were all highly coordinated (read: better than their opponents and more in synch).

If you want to play a generalist 'Mech like that stock HGN-732, be my guest. Preferably on the other team. And you know what, you may even kill me with your generalist 'Mech. But don't tell me how I "should" build my BattleMech, and don't complain that I just punched a 39-point alpha through your torso at 700 meters while tanking your return fire on a zombie arm like I did something "wrong." Don't impose your value system on me like it's sacred or something. I'm not going to tell other players how to build their 'Mechs (especially not in PUGs), but I'm also not going to force myself to build inefficiently for a value judgment either.

1) If you have a ballistic Hard Point you can carry your own AC. AN have that cool running FLD.

2) I would carry several grenades in a combat situation as a grenadier I would carry quite a few.

3) So that is why a Weapons Company would have several 50 Cal teams per Platoon. Heck I even saw a Cpl, carry one assembled for a half mile.

4) I must not have run into the problem with this. I can Flank successfully if the rest of the Company pushes the front.

5) Thank goodness the Marines have their own Air support!

[ROSS-128]

The thing is, most of the time "mixed loadouts" really are inefficient. If your weapons have radically different effective ranges, most of the time you'll find you can't bring 100% of your firepower to bear, so most of the time as far as the enemy is concerned that's wasted tonnage and you're under-gunned.

It's kind of similar to how older WWI-era Battleships had mixed gun batteries of wildly different calibers, but it turned out that having an "All Big Gun" battleship supported by "all little gun" destroyers/cruisers was much more efficient. So WWII Battleships evolved to divide the big guns and little guns into separate, specialized platforms that supported each other.

There's also issues with aiming and group management. Weapons fired together need to have the same or similar velocities to hit together. I can't group a LL with an SRM, one of those is not going to hit their target.

When you try to build a swiss-army-knife loadout, you get things like the "Randomized Atlas".



You might have to squint a bit to read it, but that's one Large Laser, one ERPPC (which can't be fired together if you want them to both hit, see above), one LRM 10, one SRM 2, one LRM 20, one AC5, and one AMS. That's four different kinds of ammo, and outside of the LRMs no two of those weapons can be effectively grouped with each other.

That's easily five separate groups, and if you're like me, of the five fingers on your hand only four of them are able to effectively reach the number row at the top of the keyboard (seriously, getting your thumb up there is hard). Even with a multi-button mouse, five weapon groups is a headache.

Not to mention, this means at any one time this 100 ton mech is only engaging the enemy with ONE weapon!

[Joseph Mallan]

Dock Steward, on 18 February 2015 - 11:53 AM, said:

Crit seeking?!!! Yeah, there's a concept worth building a mech around...

LOL Once the hard shell is busted Crits count on teh XP and pay screen.

E Rommel, on 18 February 2015 - 11:56 AM, said:

The thing is, most of the time "mixed loadouts" really are inefficient. If your weapons have radically different effective ranges, most of the time you'll find you can't bring 100% of your firepower to bear, so most of the time as far as the enemy is concerned that's wasted tonnage and you're under-gunned.

It's kind of similar to how older WWI-era Battleships had mixed gun batteries of wildly different calibers, but it turned out that having an "All Big Gun" battleship supported by "all little gun" destroyers/cruisers was much more efficient. So WWII Battleships evolved to divide the big guns and little guns into separate, specialized platforms that supported each other.

There's also issues with aiming and group management. Weapons fired together need to have the same or similar velocities to hit together. I can't group a LL with an SRM, one of those is not going to hit their target.

When you try to build a swiss-army-knife loadout, you get things like the "Randomized Atlas".



You might have to squint a bit to read it, but that's one Large Laser, one ERPPC (which can't be fired together if you want them to both hit, see above), one LRM 10, one SRM 2, one LRM 20, one AC5, and one AMS. That's four different kinds of ammo, and outside of the LRMs no two of those weapons can be effectively grouped with each other.

That's easily five separate groups, and if you're like me, of the five fingers on your hand only four of them are able to effectively reach the number row at the top of the keyboard (seriously, getting your thumb up there is hard). Even with a multi-button mouse, five weapon groups is a headache.

Not to mention, this means at any one time this 100 ton mech is only engaging the enemy with ONE weapon!

At a Naval level you are right, But How many naval fleets fight in a Jungle?

[Sarlic]

E Rommel, on 18 February 2015 - 11:56 AM, said:

The thing is, most of the time "mixed loadouts" really are inefficient. If your weapons have radically different effective ranges, most of the time you'll find you can't bring 100% of your firepower to bear, so most of the time as far as the enemy is concerned that's wasted tonnage and you're under-gunned.

It's kind of similar to how older WWI-era Battleships had mixed gun batteries of wildly different calibers, but it turned out that having an "All Big Gun" battleship supported by "all little gun" destroyers/cruisers was much more efficient. So WWII Battleships evolved to divide the big guns and little guns into separate, specialized platforms that supported each other.

There's also issues with aiming and group management. Weapons fired together need to have the same or similar velocities to hit together. I can't group a LL with an SRM, one of those is not going to hit their target.

When you try to build a swiss-army-knife loadout, you get things like the "Randomized Atlas".



You might have to squint a bit to read it, but that's one Large Laser, one ERPPC (which can't be fired together if you want them to both hit, see above), one LRM 10, one SRM 2, one LRM 20, one AC5, and one AMS. That's four different kinds of ammo, and outside of the LRMs no two of those weapons can be effectively grouped with each other.

That's easily five separate groups, and if you're like me, of the five fingers on your hand only four of them are able to effectively reach the number row at the top of the keyboard (seriously, getting your thumb up there is hard). Even with a multi-button mouse, five weapon groups is a headache.

Not to mention, this means at any one time this 100 ton mech is only engaging the enemy with ONE weapon!

Its not all about the build every build is different. The pilot who is piloting is more important. But the build you are giving out as a example is not fitting the generalist build at all. You obviously slapped something together, do you even Atlas?

I use the numers on my keyboard and a not a special 'Macro' mouse.. We have weapon groups for a reason.

Depending on what role the pilot is going to take a Atlas can take multiple roles. It can be a good allrounder for any situation.

I disagree, sorry.

Edited by Sarlic, 18 February 2015 - 12:12 PM.

[MechWarrior5152251]

More than 2 weapon types requires me to use my Mouse 3 button, which is not that instinctive. That is probably why most people stick with 2 weapons....

[Morticia Mellian]

Roles goes beyond just loadouts though.

I am one those that stick with one or two weapons, both for simplicity and to be more effective in a match where there is **** communication among a group of people who do not always play together.

Despite that, my role will change with the mech. My Raven 3L has ecm, and max possible speed and reaction time. Not just sniping, but allows me to effectively harass the enemy, quickly respond to enemy maneuvering by flanking them, and even support my teammates with ECM and to provide extra firepower. All depending on the situation.

Generally the same with my Cicada 3M with three medium pulses, max speed, and ECM, but need to get closer and better able to distract opponents.

Then there is my Kit Fox when using a LRM 20 and ER Laser loadout, with ECM, Probe, and Targeting Comp. This one more of supportive mech that sticks with larger teammates, but is **** at brawling or maneuvering about quickly. Alternatively, there is my Sniper Kitty with two ER Lasers, ECM, and jump jets which allows to be more of a supportive harasser.

If players pay attention to what their Lancer and Team have in terms of mechs, and loadouts, roles can be quickly identified and in turn determine what you can do. Generalists or Specialists, makes not much difference in the grand scheme of things in a match. It is Arena fights, not full on combine arms battles with mechwarriors who trained and work together with proper communications, like in the actual Battletech verse.

[AlphaToaster]

E Rommel, on 18 February 2015 - 11:56 AM, said:

The thing is, most of the time "mixed loadouts" really are inefficient. If your weapons have radically different effective ranges, most of the time you'll find you can't bring 100% of your firepower to bear, so most of the time as far as the enemy is concerned that's wasted tonnage and you're under-gunned.

It's kind of similar to how older WWI-era Battleships had mixed gun batteries of wildly different calibers, but it turned out that having an "All Big Gun" battleship supported by "all little gun" destroyers/cruisers was much more efficient. So WWII Battleships evolved to divide the big guns and little guns into separate, specialized platforms that supported each other.

There's also issues with aiming and group management. Weapons fired together need to have the same or similar velocities to hit together. I can't group a LL with an SRM, one of those is not going to hit their target.

When you try to build a swiss-army-knife loadout, you get things like the "Randomized Atlas".



You might have to squint a bit to read it, but that's one Large Laser, one ERPPC (which can't be fired together if you want them to both hit, see above), one LRM 10, one SRM 2, one LRM 20, one AC5, and one AMS. That's four different kinds of ammo, and outside of the LRMs no two of those weapons can be effectively grouped with each other.

That's easily five separate groups, and if you're like me, of the five fingers on your hand only four of them are able to effectively reach the number row at the top of the keyboard (seriously, getting your thumb up there is hard). Even with a multi-button mouse, five weapon groups is a headache.

Not to mention, this means at any one time this 100 ton mech is only engaging the enemy with ONE weapon!

That is actually 4 viable weapon groups. I say that loosely because the SRM/2 baffles me and ends up in a group on it's own.

Group 1 = AC/5 + erPPC (doable if the PPC is in the right Arm and the AC/5 in the right torso)
Group 2 = Large Laser
Group 3 = LRM/10 + LRM/20
Group 4? = SRM/2 (just for the sake of creating a horrible build. This would go in its own weapon group for those special face hugging moments. Perhaps even bind group 4 to fire SRM/2 + AC/5 together assuming it's for point blank cuddle time for not as much heat.)

Not saying this build is optimized, merely pointing out that these weapons do have some basic synergy and can be grouped together in certain situations.

[wanderer]

Quote

Yup but they only hit the opponent in One way. Front loaded damage is good, but SRMs do help crit seeking... Those kind of things.

Given the nature of MWO crits, a single PPC bolt is more likely to do the job (that is, crit a single item to the point of destroying it) than an SRM spread (since individual SRMs don't deal enough damage to do so). Yes, this is exactly the opposite of TT. "Crit-seeking" weaponry in MWO is derptastic tactics- the best weapons to induce actually meaningful crits are the ones that deliver the largest focused his.

Front loaded damage in bigger bites is superior to spread damage, period- and that includes attempting to deliver a crit that does more than scratch a few random internals for insignificant (you'd have to have two SRMs triple-crit the same location to disable it, or three double-crit, or -five- single-crit the same location to disable a 10HP critical location). Even an AC/5 has a better chance of a disabling hit than firing a dozen SRMs at your target, though the SRM-12 would be more likely to obliterate the section entirely.

This shows a fundamental lack of info on how MWO weapons function, Joe. This isn't tabletop where a spray of LB-X pellets or SRMs can roll multiple crits and destroy locations with a single pellet/missile.

Edited by wanderer, 18 February 2015 - 12:21 PM.

[Rear Admiral Tier 6]

Mixed loadouts will always fail when facing coordinated focus fire from min maxers,thats why its futile even to run them in anything under 80 tons.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Loadout diversification is simple.
Different weapon systems do different damage values to Internal Components and Armor.

LRMs are designed to soften targets up.
100 % vs. Armor, 50% vs. Internal

SRM lack guidance and pinpoint accuracy
100% vs. Armor, 100% vs. Internal

SSRM the bane of light mechs everywhere receive same modifiers as other guided missiles (LRMs)
100 % vs. Armor, 50% vs. Internal

Lasers (all types): Pinpoint precision and various ranges make them very powerful, however many internal components are insulated to protect against Engine heat, and are therefore resistant to Lasers.
100 % vs. Armor, 50% vs. Internal

Autocannons (standard and UAC): For both balance sake and because I watched Fury.
50 % vs. Armor, 100% vs. Internal (alternatively have AC2 and AC5 reversed to favor damage against armor)
However I think PGI could introduce different ammo types with different characteristics since ACs tend to have non standard complimentary weapons.

PPC’s like other longer range weapons these are designed to expose weaknesses in enemy armor. But with a special caveat, against mechs with advanced electronic systems they deal full damage to internal structure.
100 % vs. Armor, 50% vs. Internal (100% vs. internal against mechs with BAP or ECM)

Gauss Rifles tend to destroy flat hull armor, while missing or deflecting away from narrow angular internal structures.
100 % vs. Armor, 50% vs. Internal

This will increase the TTK of most mechs and encourage a more diversified loadout.
The numbers are just placeholders, but the theory is that you require different weapons for different situations within the same match.

Edited by Agent 0 Fortune, 18 February 2015 - 01:53 PM.

[terrycloth]

They already have some weapons do increased damage vs internal structure thanks to increased crit modifiers.

By splitting it up between hardpoint types you're really screwing a lot of mechs. You need to give each hardpoint type options if you want to make it more drastic like that.

eg, pulse lasers shred armor (the pulses defeat the armor trying to ablate into laser-deadening clouds), other lasers are general purpose, flamers and PPCs do bad things to internals.

Machine guns and LBX do bad things to structure, gauss rifles mostly puncture armor but tend to make a narrow and not-very-damaging hole in internals, other ACs are general purpose.

Missiles should probably be general purpose until they can switch ammo types.

[ROSS-128]

It appears some people have misunderstood the message of my post.

First and foremost, I am not hating on the Atlas, and that is not my loadout (though it is a loadout that has been seen "in the wild", some poor sap actually dropped with that build). It is an excellent mech, but the point is that by trying to do too many things at once that loadout fails to utilize the Atlas' potential. It is true that the Atlas can do a good job of filling many different roles, but not all at the same time.

For example, that SRM that has everyone rightly confused. The Atlas actually can use good SRM builds, especially in combination with an AC20. But a single SRM2 isn't going to do squat for you: it's essentially wasted tonnage, and an extra weapon group. If he ditched the LRMs though, he could comfortably run 3xSRM6 to complement a close-range build. By standardizing his energy weapons he could group them together to streamline his loadout and give it more focus, bringing his total weapon groups down to a more manageable 3.

While the Atlas can LRM, its low tube count (10/6/6) makes it difficult. However, by ditching the SRM2 he could put in a 10 and two 5s. This would approximate an LRM20 for 1 ton less, and allow him to fire all his missiles in a single volley.

With the tonnage saved by standardizing his other weapons (especially the missiles) and reducing the number of ammo types he has to carry, he could put something more threatening in that ballistic slot such as an AC/10 or AC/20. Or, if he wants to focus on a mid/long range he could comfortably fit twin AC5s/UAC5s.

Mechs really do have more in common with battleships or tanks when it comes to weapon layouts. Like tanks, they typically only have only one gunner controlling most/all of the weapon systems (though in a mech he's also the only crewman period). This means keeping control of those weapons fairly simple by allowing them to be fired co-axially without having to manage too many different attributes. Like a battleship though, it does mount multiple weapons that are meant to work together with each other.

I'm not saying you should only ever spam a single weapon, but it is important to not attempt every role simultaneously when building a mech. Start with a clear goal in mind, and select a "primary battery" that will allow you to achieve that goal. This is Weapon Group 1 (though it may be split for heat management purposes on certain mechs).

The primary battery is the defining feature of your mech, it's the group you will fire the most and everything you do will revolve around bringing your primary battery to bear on the enemy as often as possible. Your build will center around making sure the primary battery can operate effectively. Once you've got that nailed down, you can fill out secondary batteries that either reinforce the role of the primary battery or provide a little extra punch in specific situations. Maintaining that focus and sense of purpose is important though.

For example, Medium Lasers are a good way to get a little extra short-range kick out of leftover energy hardpoints, for the low, low cost of 1 slot and 1 ton. They also make good "spacers" to ensure that primary weapons end up on the part of the model where they need to be, for example, pushing a Banshee's large lasers up into the shoulders by mounting a ML in the lower torso slot.

Another example with the Atlas: a short-range Atlas would want the 3xSRM6, a long-range Atlas would want the LRM10/5/5, but trying to mix the two would cripple both.

[Ultimax]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 February 2015 - 10:33 AM, said:

You do recognize that the tank has 2 weapons The cannon and the MG.Why would it do that? It also has the ability to carry other equipment/weapons.

How much does the MG weigh?

Does it weigh half as much as the main gun?

1/3rd?


The MG is there for, I'm guessing, anti-infantry. We do not face infantry.

Joseph Mallan, on 18 February 2015 - 10:33 AM, said:

And yes. 1 LRM10 does make a difference.

Like having one M-203 to lob grenades over walls.

1 Grenade doesn't weigh 8 tons.

Joseph Mallan, on 18 February 2015 - 10:44 AM, said:

it did during my service. I was taught to pick up any platoon weapon and use it.

I think you are talking about cross-training and preparedness - MWO is basically vehicular combat.

Your vehicle needs to be built for a purpose, it has limited tonnage to do that.

[Kristov Kerensky]

BattleTech is filled with both generalized/rounded builds and specialist/boat builds, often the same chassis will have variants that do both. This was done for the exact same reason Joseph was taught to use any weapon in his squad and to be able to take any position in his squad as well, because if someone goes down, someone needs to take up the slack. BattleMechs do NOT operate solo, except in Solaris, they are part of a Lance/Star at the smallest and on up to Battalion/Galaxy units. When in combat, you want Mechs with LRMs, you want Mechs with long range direct fire and you want Mechs with short range punch. You ALSO plan that some of those specialized builds WILL get removed from combat for whatever reason and another Mech will need to fill their place, so you have the rounded builds who can do just that. They may not do it as efficiently but they can do it, and that's the important thing.

Same in MWO, we have 12 Mechs in a drop, you do NOT want 12 specialized builds in that drop because gods help you if the enemy has your counter, you have no plan B. A lance, even 2 lances of specialized builds is good to take, but keep at least 4 Mechs who are rounded out and can step up to take over for a specialist who goes down, or to counter the enemies counter to your specialist.

Rounded builds are not the easiest to run, and evidently some of you can't handle more than 2 weapon groups without freaking out. Sorry, no insult intended, but that cracks me up. I'm used to dealing with far more weapon groups from MW2 through MW4, 2 is a no brainer, 4 isn't an issue at all, hell I've got specialist builds that need 5 or 6 right now because I prefer to break my weapons up by type and location and even split those up so I can chain or alpha as I see fit without having to change how the groups fire. My mouse allows this with ease, my joystick does as well, not that I use a joystick with MWO currently(tried it, sucks, horrible support). Numpad can be used for your weapon groups as well, just fyi. It does take more to run a rounded build, but like others here, I've had some of my best results using them, especially in my Atlases and Battlemasters, which tend to be rounded builds to begin with, that was their purpose after all, C&C Mechs.

Neither is best, neither is worst, BOTH are the optimal mix.