63 replies to this topic

[HellJumper]

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 .

[Paigan]

Allround builds would be good for indiana-jones-like types of "adventures" where you don't know which situations you will encounter or where you will encounter many different situations in a row (need to snipe, need to indirect fire, need to brawl, etc.)

In reality (AND in MWO), the situation is mostly more like you know exactely what you need for a single mission and you concentrate on that. That has nothing to do with "boating" being "lame" or such, it is simply efficient and natural.

Almost ALL combatants from cave men to fighter jets have one primary weapon system and MAYBE a tiny secondary one.

So here's you answer: boating is the NORMAL thing to do. Anything else is naive mech romantic.

Edited by Paigan, 03 May 2015 - 12:15 AM.

[Xenocidez]

Boating is lame.

[Gagis]

Specialization is the heart of human civilization.

[Shadow Magnet]

Paigan got it right. Real weapon systems are usually designed to excel in one purpose and usually only have one primary weapon system.

From PGI's point of view, why whould they make every mech pretty much the same all around fighters? There would be little reason to buy many mechs. As I actually own alot of mechs, I also think like this. Why would I want all or most of my mechs behave almost the same? I would like to have many many specialists that fight in a different way and have special purpose.

That is why I also think that the "align quirks to stock layout" is a bad idea. There are just too many mechs with almost identical stock layout. Horrible boring! I am already afraid to see the Resistance 2 quirks - it will be almost all LL quirks most likely, sigh.

[Yosharian]

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 favours specialized builds because of the nature of the control system. In tabletop you can fire whatever weapon systems you like without penalties to accuracy. In MWO, firing different weapon systems encurs a penalty to accuracy, or delays the use of those weapons, because of projectile speeds. If I want to fire an autocannon I have to lead the target. If I want to fire a laser I must not lead the target. Thus a penalty.

Pinpoint accuracy also plays a part to a lesser extent.

The reality is that all-rounder builds are usually ineffective compared to a build that does one thing really well.

Also table-top all-rounder or stock builds are generally designed to be able to do a lot of different jobs because in reality, a mech would need to do that. In this game, you play as part of a fixed group which never varies (12 man). Thus specialized builds naturally dominate.

There is also the problem that table-top is designed more as an RTS-style game where a field commander directs mechs to perform tasks as groups. So if you have 10 mechs each carrying a single ER Large Laser, you can potentially fire 10 ERLLs on a single target, providing you have LOS. Whereas in MWO, pilots generally do their own thing and it's difficult to get people to work together on that sort of level. Thus in MWO it's better to consolidate that firepower into a few mechs who can then perform that role much more effectively than 10 humans ever could.

This is especially true when you consider the nature of MWO's heat system and how it differs from table-tops, i.e. the ability of MWO heatsinks to add to the heat capacity of mechs, which allows them to fire a lot more than table-top mechs ever could.

It's the same as D&D translations to CRPG games. In D&D there is a full range of tasks to perform, such as talking to NPCs, sneaking about, etc. In most CRPG games tasks range from killing, to more killing, with the occasional talking thrown in that requires almost no actual abilities. Thus traditional D&D builds (and sometimes even entire classes) become useless when translated to CRPGs.

Edited by Yosharian, 03 May 2015 - 12:46 AM.

[El Bandito]

I do not need to bring an all-rounder when I can simply spam long or short ranged weapons only and use my own skill to dictate the range of engagement. Sized-hardpoints could have cut certain big weapon boating, but we do not have that here.

Edited by El Bandito, 03 May 2015 - 12:45 AM.

[Rando Slim]

Simplicity with weapon groupings is usually best for me at least, more than 3-4 is a real problem. So usually I pick maybe two weapon systems that can complement each other at similar ranges. A few exceptions though:

1) I personally think its pretty dumb to be completely ammo dependent in this game so try to avoid tha unless your very sure of yourself, have lots of case, and lots of free tonnage for more ammo than you would ever need.......but then that superfluous ammo would be better spent on a laser......

2) I find SOMETIMES in assault mechs, it can be very useful to have mixed loadouts because you get pieces of you blown off so much and weapons get critted all the ******* time so you can never really rely on which weapons you are gonna have available at any given situation.

3) Things like Inner sphere PPCs need backup weapons (IMO) to cover the whole minimum range ********.

Other than those cases, specialized builds, or nearly specialized builds tend to work best.

[stjobe]

Paigan, on 03 May 2015 - 12:14 AM, said:

Almost ALL combatants from cave men to fighter jets have one primary weapon system and MAYBE a tiny secondary one.

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.

Edited by stjobe, 03 May 2015 - 01:23 AM.

[zagibu]

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.

Very good example. If we apply it to MWO, we'd see only specialized fighter jets again, because there are only other fighter jets to fight against.

[xengk]

I generally build All Rounder as I like overlapping weapon range, my mechs only get deadlier the closer I come.
They are also much more flexible and have backup weapon to help with heat management.

[HellJumper]

xengk, on 03 May 2015 - 01:56 AM, said:

I generally build All Rounder as I like overlapping weapon range, my mechs only get deadlier the closer I come.
They are also much more flexible and have backup weapon to help with heat management.

i have a similar thinking nice to know other players have the same

[CocoaJin]

We have such limited role warfare because we lack open warfare...without it we get no benefit from broad/open mech builds to tackle diverse situations.

As it is, we have restricted combat, within predefined confines and within a limited time window, we a pre-determined start. This means our combat situations vary very little...creating limited niches to exploit, resulting in certain builds and classifies being inherently better for the restrictive combat at hand.

No matter what, provoke will seek out the best few for the job and specialize in them for maximum effectiveness. The problem isn't the mechs or their balancing, so changing them will never solve anything. PGI needs to create diverse combat situations...no just diverse visual themes. Truly vary the combat situation and you create diversity in which more mechs canning niches to thrive.

[Ursh]

I really prefer to only have 2 primary weapon groups, with a 3rd one possible on the rare builds where I use LRMs. If you get into a long range exchange with someone boating long-range weapons, they're probably going to win, and same with short range weapons. Having said that, an LRM boat without backup lasers for lights deserves to die.

It's not that I boat for meta, for me it's just easier to have 2xAC5 on one trigger, with my medium lasers on the other, as an example.

For clan builds, I tend to focus on one or two weapon systems, so large pulses on left mouse, cerml on right mouse.

Edited by Ursh, 03 May 2015 - 02:39 AM.

[anonymous161]

Actually you dont truly own any digital content...you are renting it until the servers are shutdwon and then...you literally have nothing but perhaps that stupid wallpaper they gave to those who bought the first wave.

Ursh, on 03 May 2015 - 02:37 AM, said:

I really prefer to only have 2 primary weapon groups, with a 3rd one possible on the rare builds where I use LRMs. If you get into a long range exchange with someone boating long-range weapons, they're probably going to win, and same with short range weapons. Having said that, an LRM boat without backup lasers for lights deserves to die.

It's not that I boat for meta, for me it's just easier to have 2xAC5 on one trigger, with my medium lasers on the other, as an example.

For clan builds, I tend to focus on one or two weapon systems, so large pulses on left mouse, cerml on right mouse.

I play almost exactly like that.

[Bishop Steiner]

Paigan, on 03 May 2015 - 12:14 AM, said:

Allround builds would be good for indiana-jones-like types of "adventures" where you don't know which situations you will encounter or where you will encounter many different situations in a row (need to snipe, need to indirect fire, need to brawl, etc.)

In reality (AND in MWO), the situation is mostly more like you know exactely what you need for a single mission and you concentrate on that. That has nothing to do with "boating" being "lame" or such, it is simply efficient and natural.

Almost ALL combatants from cave men to fighter jets have one primary weapon system and MAYBE a tiny secondary one.

So here's you answer: boating is the NORMAL thing to do. Anything else is naive mech romantic.

Actually, as you describe it (and correctly) just how does a single primary weapon count as boating? (Unless you are talking about an actual boat, or, really, ship, like an Iowa Class Battleship, with 9x 16 inch rifles. Of course......the term Boating kinda comes from theses things.....)

Also, this is Btech, not IRL. 35 ft tall bipedal tanks that are fragile shelltraps have much more in common with Indiana Jones than "the real world". And in their fictional world, boating is not the norm.


Now, to the OP.

Depends on the Mech. I generally like 2, to 3 weapon systems tops, because I feel simplicity is key. But some mechs are more specialized. Still, full on boating like 7 MPL? Yawn. Boring.

[Bishop Steiner]

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.

Well pointed out. Plus look at the "standard" loadouts under the wings of most of those craft, and the bomb and missiles tend to be a mixed bag except for when they are being tasked to a very specialized mission. But being on deck in ready 5, or a CAP, and getting the call to bust some tanks pinning down your troops....it really helps to have something beside sparrow and sidewinders.

Ursh, on 03 May 2015 - 02:37 AM, said:

I really prefer to only have 2 primary weapon groups, with a 3rd one possible on the rare builds where I use LRMs. If you get into a long range exchange with someone boating long-range weapons, they're probably going to win, and same with short range weapons. Having said that, an LRM boat without backup lasers for lights deserves to die.

It's not that I boat for meta, for me it's just easier to have 2xAC5 on one trigger, with my medium lasers on the other, as an example.

For clan builds, I tend to focus on one or two weapon systems, so large pulses on left mouse, cerml on right mouse.

similar concept for me.

[Star Witch Esperanza]

most of my IS mechs are focused on one thing, sometimes two weapons systems tops.

but my timberwolf can comfortably fit large lasers,mediums and lrms, i feel like the higher damage output and higher heat lends itself to mixing and matching a bit more.

Edited by Nephera, 03 May 2015 - 03:57 AM.

[Lightfoot]

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.

[kapusta11]

There's no such thing like "all rounders" because there are no armor types, different ammo types and crit system that makes crit seeking weapons worth carrying into battle. "Boating" is favored by PGI and the rules they've set play style. Teams that consist of "boats" are more or less balanced against each other. The only problem is people that bring garbage mixed-loadout builds to the table, lose every trade and then come to forums calling for nerfs.

Edited by kapusta11, 03 May 2015 - 04:54 AM.