63 replies to this topic

[ROSS-128]

stjobe, on 03 May 2015 - 01:22 AM, said:

Funny you should mention fighter jets, since that is one very clear example of how it's the other way around.
In WWI and WWII we had specialized fighter planes, bomber planes, night fighters, reconnaissance planes, etc and so on. After WWII there have been more and more generalization to the point of there now being almost only fighter-bombers, or multi-role aircraft. The majority of fighter jets today aren't specialized in one area and one area only - they are almost all of them multi-role.

Why? Because a fighter jet is expensive, and having three times as many jets because one can only do CAP, one can only do ground attack, and one can only do recon is throwing money away if one plane can do all three things - even if it does it slightly worse than the specialized plane.

The same logic applies to BattleTech (which, as I'm sure you know, is a child of the eighties); 'mechs aren't only extremely expensive, they are rare and the technology to build them - heck, even repair them in some cases - is mostly lostech. Losing a 'mech was basically financial (and social) ruin for the whole family of the MechWarrior in question. In that setting it makes perfect sense to have balanced builds instead of boating.

In MWO though, 'mechs are thirteen a dozen, dirt cheap, and there's zero penalty to losing one. Why do balanced builds when we know what we'll fight, where we'll fight, and it doesn't even matter if you pick the wrong specialization for a match? Just die and drop in the next one.

That said, I find that in PUGlandia, balanced builds still have a raison d'être, but in CW? Nah. Better to boat.

Keep in mind that those "multi-role" fighters only carry a loadout for one role at a time.

So sure, it can equip, say, 8 AA missiles, 6 laser-guided bombs, external fuel tanks plus recon gear, or 2 anti-ship missiles. But not all at the same time. Each of those is a separate loadout, and to switch between them it has to RTB and rearm. It's not multi-role because it's carrying three times its weight in missiles/bombs/gear, it's multi-role because it can swap that gear out between missions.

"Multi-role" in the military doesn't mean you carry out all your roles simultaneously. Generally you CAN perform multiple roles, but only one role per mission. Infantry are similar, a particular infantry guy with enough training and experience could be a rifleman, a SAW gunner, a TOW gunner, a grenadier, an anti-tank soldier with a Javelin, an anti-air soldier with a Stinger...

But he's not going to carry an M4, a grenade launcher, a SAW, a tripod-mounted TOW, a Javelin, and a Stinger at the same time.

The reason for this most of the time boils down to two things: space and weight. Guess what primarily restricts our builds in both Battletech and MWO?

Edit:

Here's an example:


I assure you, that plane cannot hold all of those munitions at the same time. The US Air Force does not equip their planes with Bags of Holding.

Edited by E Rommel, 03 May 2015 - 05:22 AM.

[Mister Raven]

how can you have any kind of mixed loadout you run out of tonnage and slots so fast.

the whole 1 ER large laser on 10 mechs cant work in MWO because the maps are tiny and we're all crammed in with each other in a TDM meatgrinder.

I like the idea of mixed loadout team work based gameplay. but try getting a firering line for that it will take up a quarter of the freakin map!

Any one who plays this and thinks about it carefully sees the game is a frickin joke if you want to play with formations and teamwork theres just no room for it.


"hmmm what will we do this time? flank right or flank left ? only 2 options since them maps so freakin small. oh look i can see the enemys spawn"

And even if the maps were big enough to accommodate such teamworks theres still no point at the end of the round other than mindless TDM. bigger maps at this point would just prolong the inevitable and make it even more boring.

So if as it stands now if we don't get any special game modes or objectives to fight for then the map size is fine as it is.








ramble end

Edited by Mister Raven, 03 May 2015 - 05:47 AM.

[FupDup]

I prefer all-rounders, like the Wubhawk.


To engage opponents at long range, it uses Large Pulse Lasers.

For medium range combat, it carries Large Pulse Lasers.

Lastly, to for self-defense in close quarters, it comes equipped with Large Pulse Lasers.


It has weapons for each range bracket and can contribute at every range. Hence, it IS in fact an all-rounder.

Edited by FupDup, 03 May 2015 - 05:45 AM.

[Satan n stuff]

Gagis, on 03 May 2015 - 12:30 AM, said:

Specialization is the heart of human civilization.

I think you've got us confused with the Eldar.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lightfoot, on 03 May 2015 - 04:20 AM, said:

Restore the PPC and Gauss Rifle (remove or modify the de-sync to something competitive with Lasers). The problem is the current weapon balance is Lasers-only until the functional heat cap is reached, then top it off as best you can with some lower heat weapon. That's not how Battle Tech is supposed to work. The weapons are supposed to be equal within their functional parameters, some long range, some short, some hot, some cool. Then you see the All-Rounders being the top mech load-out.

Gauss is the go to used competitively with lasers. So don't see why it needs modified considering it's heavy usage. Half the Clan Heavies use a Gauss, and Gauss Jagers are in just about every match (along with Gauss Krabs and Gridirons). So let's NOT make it too easy, mmmmkay?

E Rommel, on 03 May 2015 - 05:18 AM, said:

Keep in mind that those "multi-role" fighters only carry a loadout for one role at a time.

So sure, it can equip, say, 8 AA missiles, 6 laser-guided bombs, external fuel tanks plus recon gear, or 2 anti-ship missiles. But not all at the same time. Each of those is a separate loadout, and to switch between them it has to RTB and rearm. It's not multi-role because it's carrying three times its weight in missiles/bombs/gear, it's multi-role because it can swap that gear out between missions.

"Multi-role" in the military doesn't mean you carry out all your roles simultaneously. Generally you CAN perform multiple roles, but only one role per mission. Infantry are similar, a particular infantry guy with enough training and experience could be a rifleman, a SAW gunner, a TOW gunner, a grenadier, an anti-tank soldier with a Javelin, an anti-air soldier with a Stinger...

But he's not going to carry an M4, a grenade launcher, a SAW, a tripod-mounted TOW, a Javelin, and a Stinger at the same time.

The reason for this most of the time boils down to two things: space and weight. Guess what primarily restricts our builds in both Battletech and MWO?

Edit:

Here's an example:


I assure you, that plane cannot hold all of those munitions at the same time. The US Air Force does not equip their planes with Bags of Holding.

And I can assure you that that F4 did carry more than one type of missile or bomb on most missions. Even if it was doing an attack role, such as delivering Napalm for Infantry Support, it still mounted Air to Air Missiles and or a gun pod for dealing with any enemy aircraft that might show up.

[Vandul]

The A1-E could carry 7 times its weight in ordinance.

Back to the topic, a "rounded" load out to me isnt necessarily by type of weapon, but by the __range__ of the weapons.

Is my build long distance, medium range, or up close. Weapon selection from there proceeds forward, often matching weapon systems by their ranges (and influenced with modules if necessary). Or do I want to equip appropriate range weapons to inflict damage (no matter how much) as I close with the enemy (Do you hear me multiple LRM5's?)

[LordKnightFandragon]

Yeah, vehicles have 1 main weapon system....but oh? thats right, they carry multiple shell types.

A Tank, it has 1 main gun and 2-3 Machineguns, but its main gun doesnt carry just AP for tanks, it carries HEAT for buildings, lighter vehicles and bunkers. HE for infantry, White Phosphorous for smoke and just being nasty vs INfantry. SO, while yeah, it basically is only carrying a 120mm M256 cannon, its basically doing the All rounder approach to combat through the use of many shell types.

It would pretty much be akin to mechs carrying, LRMs, 2 LL, 2ML, an AC5 and Anti Personnel pods. CUz in a real battletech game, you have infantry, aircraft, tanks, artillery, and no, a solid 4x LPL boat mech wouldnt last 5 minutes. Infantry would swarm the hell out of it in a heart beat. It would over heat in a Solaris minute and be dog meat.

No, Boating is for MWO cuz the lack of any depth or imagination to game design, they just made it a quick simple little arena shooter just like World of Tanks.

[ROSS-128]

LordKnightFandragon, on 03 May 2015 - 07:10 AM, said:

Yeah, vehicles have 1 main weapon system....but oh? thats right, they carry multiple shell types.

A Tank, it has 1 main gun and 2-3 Machineguns, but its main gun doesnt carry just AP for tanks, it carries HEAT for buildings, lighter vehicles and bunkers. HE for infantry, White Phosphorous for smoke and just being nasty vs INfantry. SO, while yeah, it basically is only carrying a 120mm M256 cannon, its basically doing the All rounder approach to combat through the use of many shell types.

It would pretty much be akin to mechs carrying, LRMs, 2 LL, 2ML, an AC5 and Anti Personnel pods. CUz in a real battletech game, you have infantry, aircraft, tanks, artillery, and no, a solid 4x LPL boat mech wouldnt last 5 minutes. Infantry would swarm the hell out of it in a heart beat. It would over heat in a Solaris minute and be dog meat.

No, Boating is for MWO cuz the lack of any depth or imagination to game design, they just made it a quick simple little arena shooter just like World of Tanks.

I highly doubt even the tank carries all four ammo types simultaneously though. Mainly because when you've only got a 40 round capacity, you'd be putting yourself in a tight spot by bringing 10 of each. Good way to run out of the ammo type you need real fast.

That's what recon is for. You get a good idea of what you're going into, and bring one or two types of ammo appropriately.

And if you're trying to engage an enemy force that has aircraft, infantry, tanks, artillery, and other mechs with just a single mech of your own, you've already screwed up. You should have brought an army of your own to meet theirs.

A big reason for this is the ability to concentrate fire. Say you have 10 mechs each carrying 1 LL, 1 LRM10, 1 AC/5, 1 SRM-6, a NARC, an LBX-10, a PPC, and a medium laser. Say you run into three targets, one in a place where you want to use the PPC+LRMs, one in a place where you want to use the LL+AC/5, and one in a place where you want to use the LBX-10+SRM-6.

If you try to concentrate fire on any one of them, the other two will be left alone while the weapon system you could have used to engage them sits idle. And you'll have a hard time getting all those NARCs to the LRM targets while everyone is trying to hang back and LRM them.

But let's say instead you have an LL boat or two, a PPC boat, a LRM boat or two, a couple dakka mechs, a splat mech and one NARC scout. Now all the LLs/ midrage-ACs can focus on the midrange target, all the PPCs and LRMs can focus on the long range targets, the NARC scout can use its NARC, and the SRMs/shortrange-ACs can focus on the near targets. Your weapons get fully utilized.

Always remember, you have more than one mech to work with!

[InspectorG]

HellJumper, on 03 May 2015 - 12:11 AM, said:

Hello

Soecialized build like boating certain things, dedicated lrm voats, lasers vomit builds, bralwers etc

All rounder builds are thise builds that take different weapon system on a single chasis.

Which one do you play/ prefer? And why is that


I go with all rounder bhilds always because i like to have as mucht variety as i can and so that i can engage the emeny at all ranges .

MWO favors focused and concentrated fire. By teammates and weapons on an individual mech.

So boating or weapons that synchronize range/duration/cooldown are favored as well. Pin-point damage being even more preferred.

BT, having weapons for each range was preferred because you couldnt aim the weapon(in most cases) to a particular spot on the enemy.
So being able to hit at most ranges most of the time allowed you get land crits better, which were more brutal in BT.

TL;DR

MWO favors boating

[AkoolPopTart]

Xenocidez, on 03 May 2015 - 12:24 AM, said:

Boating is lame.

But it gets results.
Armored Core V/Verdict Day was filled with cookie cutter builds. Hvy Reverse Joints's with Stunning Auto-Shotties. Hvy Biped's with dual EN-Buffed Karasawa's. These mechs were the mechs that ultimately broke/killed the game but they were mechs that produced results.

[stjobe]

E Rommel, on 03 May 2015 - 05:18 AM, said:

Keep in mind that those "multi-role" fighters only carry a loadout for one role at a time.

Well, sorta-kinda. You want a couple of AA missiles even if you're on an A/G mission loaded up with Mavericks, Hellfires, and dumb or "smart" bombs - and of course your 20-30mm gun is more often than not there whatever other load out you have.

E Rommel, on 03 May 2015 - 05:18 AM, said:

Each of those is a separate loadout, and to switch between them it has to RTB and rearm.

Sure, but not to rebuild. They don't remove the 20mm M61A2 Vulcan from an F/A-18 Super Hornet and put a 30mm GAU-8 in instead. They don't change how many rails are mounted and in what places. They rearm, which is to say they reload.

In MWO we remove an SRM launcher and put am LRM launcher in instead. Or remove a PPC and put a LL in. That's not reloading or even rearming, that's rebuilding (or at the very least refitting).

I'll skip the rest since it's not really pertinent; my point was just that fighter jets are a very good example of generalists, not specialists, and for much the same reasons 'mechs in BattleTech (but not MWO) are: When you only have one 'mech, and it's basically irreplaceable and costly as hell to maintain, let alone repair, and your life and livelihood depends on it performing in any kind of situation you might find yourself in; yes, you're going to want a mixed load-out.

That's totally irrelevant for MWO though, because as I said 'mechs are cheap as dirt and plentiful like ... a very plentiful thing, and there's absolutely nothing depending on your 'mech performing well - plus, we know rather well by now what kind of enemy we're likely to be facing, and on what kinds of terrain.

There's zero incentive in MWO not to boat.

[ROSS-128]

stjobe, on 03 May 2015 - 08:15 AM, said:

Well, sorta-kinda. You want a couple of AA missiles even if you're on an A/G mission loaded up with Mavericks, Hellfires, and dumb or "smart" bombs - and of course your 20-30mm gun is more often than not there whatever other load out you have.


Sure, but not to rebuild. They don't remove the 20mm M61A2 Vulcan from an F/A-18 Super Hornet and put a 30mm GAU-8 in instead. They don't change how many rails are mounted and in what places. They rearm, which is to say they reload.

In MWO we remove an SRM launcher and put am LRM launcher in instead. Or remove a PPC and put a LL in. That's not reloading or even rearming, that's rebuilding (or at the very least refitting).

I'll skip the rest since it's not really pertinent; my point was just that fighter jets are a very good example of generalists, not specialists, and for much the same reasons 'mechs in BattleTech (but not MWO) are: When you only have one 'mech, and it's basically irreplaceable and costly as hell to maintain, let alone repair, and your life and livelihood depends on it performing in any kind of situation you might find yourself in; yes, you're going to want a mixed load-out.

That's totally irrelevant for MWO though, because as I said 'mechs are cheap as dirt and plentiful like ... a very plentiful thing, and there's absolutely nothing depending on your 'mech performing well - plus, we know rather well by now what kind of enemy we're likely to be facing, and on what kinds of terrain.

There's zero incentive in MWO not to boat.

They still don't carry every possible weapon type simultaneously though, which is my point. Fighters are versatile because they're modular, not because every single one carries the entire arsenal of democracy. The weapon system is entirely contained in the missile/bomb or a modular launcher, allowing them to be swapped out between missions.

If a plane RTBs, I take the 1000lb laser guided bombs off, and I stick some AIM-120s on there, would you define that as a rearm or a rebuild? I just changed the aircraft's role, how is that different than taking a SRM out and putting an LRM in?

Or I could take its AIM-7s off and put AIM-54s in, then I've literally taken an SRM (well technically an MRM, but MWO doesn't have those right now) off the aircraft and put LRMs into it.

So while aircraft are technically multi-role, they do boat during their missions because they can change loadouts between missions.

It's the same thing here, our mechs are able to boat during a mission because they can change loadouts between missions. Thus they are able to be versatile and boat at the same time. It just so happens, if you want versatility, having modular swappable weapon systems is a much more efficient way to achieve that than trying to hard-wire/weld every single weapon system imagineable onto a single chassis at the same time.

[stjobe]

E Rommel, on 03 May 2015 - 08:37 AM, said:

It's the same thing here, our mechs are able to boat during a mission because they can change loadouts between missions.

Yes, in MWO all that is true. I've said as much in both my latest posts.

In BattleTech, they can't - at least not anywhere near as easily and cheaply. They have to be generalists, or you might find yourself one 'mech short of what you need in the next combat situation.

Imagine yourself in command of an air squadron full of fighter jets. You have the best air superiority fighters around, so when it's time to establish air superiority, you're just what's needed. But when that's done, and you need to start doing ground attack, you don't have anything to do it with. You're effectively sidelined, with all your multi-billion assets. And if your squadron is all the aircraft your side has, there's not going to be any air-to-ground attacks in that campaign.

Imagine you instead had some modern multi-role fighter-bombers; you'd be able to do it all - from recon to air superiority to ground attacks; if it's in the air, you can do it.

That's why 'mechs in BattleTech are generalists with mixed loadouts; when all you have is twelve 'mechs, you don't want to leave some of them behind because they're not mission-capable.

And again, for the third time: In MWO, this doesn't matter. Here, we have zero incentive not to boat. 'Mechs are cheap, they can be completely rebuilt from the ground up between matches, and losing a match means nothing (winning means almost as little, but that's beside the point).

Which is another reason I find that "a BattleTech game" tagline they put on the logo more than a little bit ironic.

[ROSS-128]

stjobe, on 03 May 2015 - 09:09 AM, said:

Yes, in MWO all that is true. I've said as much in both my latest posts.

In BattleTech, they can't - at least not anywhere near as easily and cheaply. They have to be generalists, or you might find yourself one 'mech short of what you need in the next combat situation.

Imagine yourself in command of an air squadron full of fighter jets. You have the best air superiority fighters around, so when it's time to establish air superiority, you're just what's needed. But when that's done, and you need to start doing ground attack, you don't have anything to do it with. You're effectively sidelined, with all your multi-billion assets. And if your squadron is all the aircraft your side has, there's not going to be any air-to-ground attacks in that campaign.

Imagine you instead had some modern multi-role fighter-bombers; you'd be able to do it all - from recon to air superiority to ground attacks; if it's in the air, you can do it.

That's why 'mechs in BattleTech are generalists with mixed loadouts; when all you have is twelve 'mechs, you don't want to leave some of them behind because they're not mission-capable.

And again, for the third time: In MWO, this doesn't matter. Here, we have zero incentive not to boat. 'Mechs are cheap, they can be completely rebuilt from the ground up between matches, and losing a match means nothing (winning means almost as little, but that's beside the point).

Which is another reason I find that "a BattleTech game" tagline they put on the logo more than a little bit ironic.

Well that's a horribly backward and inefficient way to fight a war. The square-cube law will be screwing you seven ways to Sunday.

Of course, technically this is exactly why Omnipods were invented and why in TT they were a straight upgrade to battlemechs. Omnipods could boat with no consequences, as long as you had access to the right pods. Of course, actually implementing that in MWO would severely screw the IS over because we'd be stuck with horribly mis-matched engines, single heat sinks, crazy schizo builds that only have 1 ton of ammo for each of their guns, etc.

Not to mention we've been trying to avoid/undo the whole "Clantech is just straight up better than Spheretech in absolutely every way" thing.

Failing that, when building your TT army it was almost always better to field several medium/heavy boats to cover different roles than to try to field a single jack-of-all-trades Assault mech. Because two boats can be in two different places at once, meaning the long-range and short-range boats can both be in their optimal ranges at the same time.

The real reason 'mechs were designed with a dozen different weapon systems that didn't complement each other has nothing to do with practicality. They were stuck on there because the artist wanted to see four to eight different-sized barrels and sixty missile tubes sticking out all over the model.

Being decked out with gun bling ain't going to win you fights though.

[Jman5]

Specialization is critical. That doesn't mean you shouldn't take versatile weapon types, but your build should have a unifying theme. The key is to build your mech to be strong at something in particular and then find ways to put yourself in positions of strength during a match. So if I have a hunchback 4P with medium lasers, I need to find a way to get myself into ~300 meters where I can poke from cover. If I can do that successfully and consistently it doesn't matter that I'm useless at 600+ meters because I'm always able to sneak in close enough.

When you try to be good at everything you wind up being good at nothing. You spread yourself out too thin.

The only exception to this rule is when you have a crippling weakness in your build that can be rectified with minimal tonnage/space. For example, my Hunchback 4J uses LRMs. Ideally I would never have to use anything else because it just decreases my DPS by chewing through my heat inefficiently. However, no matter how hard I try I still find myself getting caught in engagements under 180meters. I need something or else I straight up die. So I invest 2.5 tons in small lasers. Small lasers are a perfect back up weapon because they are at their strongest right when my LRMs become completely useless.

Edited by Jman5, 03 May 2015 - 09:42 AM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

In TT, the vast majority of mechs were generalists. In TT, the vast majority of mechs were also bad. IMO, when I played using 3025 tech, the best mech was the Awesome 8Q. Why? Because it long ranged really damn well. It's deficiency came about at 90m and closer, where the Demolishers/SRM carriers and infantry picked up the slack.

The way we build mechs in MWO is the way the bulk of vehicles are built in TT. If a generalist mech wandered into the territory of a vehicle like a tank, it was probably going to die.

That's what made TT great, building an army that could beat your opponents army. It just so happened that the most dangerously built armies had few to no mechs and a metric ****ton of tanks, infantry, artillery, and aero where each vehicle or infantry unit had a very specific purpose.

[Ursh]

Actually, a 4xLargePulse Warhawk is perfectly viable, and far deadlier than the 4xCERPPC prime is, because you can make it completely heat neutral, sitting on a hill and delivering 40 points of called shot damage each turn.

In TT you could lure someone in to an ambush by parking an awesome on a hill and hitting them with ppcs over and over again. They'd rush in trying to get under the 90m, only to discover you'd hidden an SRM carrier just around the corner. Meanwhile, the awesome is backing up so they can try to get to 4 hexes or more to start firing the ppcs again while the SRM carrier unloads.

You can do something similar in MWO, but if you're playing team on team, someone is going to notice that they've only seen 8 mechs moving around, which means there's a lance of brawlers waiting to ruin someone's day.

Edited by Ursh, 03 May 2015 - 11:59 AM.

[Yokaiko]

Ursh, on 03 May 2015 - 11:48 AM, said:

Actually, a 4xLargePulse Warhawk is perfectly viable, and far deadlier than the 4xCERPPC prime is, because you can make it completely heat neutral, sitting on a hill and delivering 40 points of called shot damage each turn.

Doing 3-2-3-2 against half armor was brutal, and you could fling LRM at will while you were at it. The TT Warhawk Prime was NO joke.

[Chuck Jager]

The quirks have caused boating is probably undeniable. I do think they have also underlined how effective a specialized build is. Look at the Stalker 4n and the FSA smplas builds. On the Firestarter the 15% range bonus does not change the fact that the build is still the best "in your back" and the 10% energy does not help if you should have run away after the third alpha. The Stalker gets 20% to LL range and heat reduction (generic combined) and this makes the 6th laser possible. But if the quirks were removed you would still probably see 5 llasers with a mandatory range module as a great mech for CW.

Boating and cheese are really a negative words that people use when the builds they want to use do not match the damage output or play styles they want. Our unit has one player that does extremely well in Summoners, Gargoyles and and XL LRM Atlas with an AC20. We should all know the general opinion of the performance level for these mechs. When I watch him use these, I can see how he is extremely aware of the potential shortcomings of the mechs and their loadout. He also uses the strengths to the teams advantage. He is also willing to take on for the team by trying to create an opening that his build and the team both work well in. Many of the "existing" cheese builds work because they perform well enough if the person does not take any responsibility for creating the opening (human nature).

So following this logic, I would say create the builds to work best in the areas you most often find or are willing to put yourself in. A good build should always do well in its best environment, it is how the player recognizes and deals with the weaknesses.

As a rule of thumb specialization is the easiest way to get good results (not just in this game). For the best results use the form == function equation. First identify the problem and then find whatever means are available to solve the equation at the level desired. If you do not get the results desired try again (more effort) or after numerous attempts admit that the methods/material available are not adequate for the amount of work required. This is a very simple equation that is easier to say than to put into practice because individual desires for quick results usually outweigh the necessary cost required and it is easier to just blame the tool not its user.

[Bishop Steiner]

Yokaiko, on 03 May 2015 - 11:51 AM, said:

Doing 3-2-3-2 against half armor was brutal, and you could fling LRM at will while you were at it. The TT Warhawk Prime was NO joke.

yeah but the 4 LPL was just as evil..and dat -2 to hit roll...... LPLs that almost always hit and don't overheat you heat PPCs that are not as accurate and do overheat ya.

Both were pretty vicious though, but the 4 LPL was my go to for them. Especially when Zell was off the table....4-12 LPLs would strip dang near anything