48 replies to this topic

[Ohmwrecker]

I was always more of a fan of hitting more often, sometimes you could disable systems before the enemy would even be able to get a second shot off. Plus if you're geared to hit more often a lot of times you're going to be more mobile as well.

[Skadi]

I prefer hitting hard (Longtom/Arrow IV's? Yes and thank you)

[Jukebox1986]

I like to have control over a fight, so i fight with LRM 5/10 and AC2/5 to rock my enemy at long range and finish him hard with Gauss or AC/LBX 20.
Add medium lasers if possible.

Skadi, on 08 July 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

I prefer hitting hard (Longtom/Arrow IV's? Yes and thank you)

If not fighting alone, a spotter and two Arrow IV´s are my lifetime-favorite.

Edited by Janus Wealth, 08 July 2012 - 12:09 PM.

[Thwack]

It totally depends on the map. On a map with lots of obstacles having hard hitting weapons is a must since you usually only have a second or two to do damage before your target is behind cover. On a more open map having something like a large pulse laser makes much more sense since most fights will be from longer range and therefore have higher chances of missing. Of course if you prefer the hard hit it works well for open too just higher penalty for missed alpha strikes.

[Glythe]

verybad, on 08 July 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

Hit hard will always win versus hit more often. While you're not firing, you should be seeking cover. A frequent firing weapon will require you to be vulnerable for longer, not only to your target, but often to other mechs in the field.

The only way to make rapid fire competitive is to give them significantly more damage over time. You're still going to take more damage.

I would say the faster firing weapons would probably be best on units like Atlases that can't move to cover quickly in any case. Use them for pinning the enemy down in an area.

Over all however, slower firing but harder hitting weapons are more effective.

Let's say you went with 2 ERPPC, LRM 20, and a Gauss rifle (that's all you're going to fit). You've got a lot of long range punch there (20+15+20). But what happens against a slightly modified Atlas who subs his LRM 20 for a second SRM 6 and upgraded his medium lasers to pulse lasers? If he came around a corner and the fight started at 180 meters (right at the end of the range of his lasers) your damage would now be 35 and his would be 68. I don't care how good you are you're not going to beat an opponent at those ranges who is remotely close to your skill. If you spent time trying to blow up his arms he would lose 6 damage but if he did the same to you you would lose 10 damage. There is also the issue of heat for you that is NOT an issue for him.

Long range weapons are a trade off in that you can't carry as much, you generate more heat AND you do less damage to short range weapons per ton if you don't get to make good use of your range.

[Murku]

Sstrikes, on 08 July 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

I beg to differ, jump into competition CS1.6 or CSS and you will see dodging and shooting. Hell, watch SC2 GSL and you will see real multitasking.=)

phinja, on 08 July 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

In which universe? Apparently none I've been in, because things would be easy to do if everyone was so inept at playing games with multiple skillsets.

/Sigh

The important words here are 'as well as if undistracted'. Just google multitasking and read some research. In fact here's a little to start you off with:

'Don't believe the multitasking hype, scientists say. New research shows that we humans aren't as good as we think we are at doing several things at once. But it also highlights a human skill that gave us an evolutionary edge.
As technology allows people to do more tasks at the same time, the myth that we can multitask has never been stronger. But researchers say it's still a myth — and they have the data to prove it.
Humans, they say, don't do lots of things simultaneously. Instead, we switch our attention from task to task extremely quickly. '

Multitasking: A Human Delusion?
"People can't multitask very well, and when people say they can, they're deluding themselves," said neuroscientist Earl Miller. And, he said, "The brain is very good at deluding itself."
Miller, a Picower professor of neuroscience at MIT, says that for the most part, we simply can't focus on more than one thing at a time.
What we can do, he said, is shift our focus from one thing to the next with astonishing speed.
"Switching from task to task, you think you're actually paying attention to everything around you at the same time. But you're actually not," Miller said.
"You're not paying attention to one or two things simultaneously, but switching between them very rapidly."
Miller said there are several reasons the brain has to switch among tasks. One is that similar tasks compete to use the same part of the brain.
"Think about writing an e-mail and talking on the phone at the same time. Those things are nearly impossible to do at the same time," he said.
"You cannot focus on one while doing the other. That's because of what's called interference between the two tasks," Miller said. "They both involve communicating via speech or the written word, and so there's a lot of conflict between the two of them."
Researchers say they can actually see the brain struggling. And now they're trying to figure out the details of what's going on.
Putting The Mind To The Test
At a lab at the University of Michigan, researchers are using an MRI scanner to photograph test subjects' brains as they take on different tasks.
During a recent test, Daniel Weissman, the neuroscientist in charge of the experiment, explained that a man lying inside the scanner would be performing different tasks, depending on the color of two numbers he sees on a screen.
"If the two digits are one color — say, red — the subject decides which digit is numerically larger," Weissman said. "On the other hand, if the digits are a different color — say green — then the subject decides which digit is actually printed in a larger font size."
The tests can be tricky — which is the point. After an attempt, the technician told the test subject, "OK, do the same thing, except try to go faster this time."
MRI studies like this one, Weissman said, have shown that when the man in the scanner sees green, his brain has to pause before responding — to round up all the information it has about the green task.
When the man sees red, his brain pauses again — to push aside information about the green task and replace it with information about the red task.
If the tasks were simpler, they might not require this sort of full-throttle switching. But, Weissman said, even simple tasks can overwhelm the brain when we try to do several at once.
"If I'm out on a street corner and I'm looking for one friend who's wearing a red scarf, I might be able to pick out that friend," Weissman said.
"But if I'm looking for a friend who's wearing a red scarf on one street corner, and in the middle of the street I'm looking for another friend who's wearing a blue scarf — and on the other side of the street I'm looking for a friend wearing a green scarf — at some point, I can only divide my attention so much, and I begin to have trouble."
So the brain starts switching. Scan for red. Switch. Scan for blue. Switch. Scan for green. Switch.
The part of the brain that does this is called the "executive system." It's a bit like one of those cartoon conductors telling the orchestra: louder, softer, faster, slower. You come in here. You be quiet for a few measures.
The conductor in our heads lives in the brain's frontal lobes, basically above our eyes.
"Executive processes allow us to make plans for our future behaviors," Weissman said. "They allow us to exert some sort of voluntary control over our behavior."
The executive system also helps us achieve a goal by ignoring distractions.
"For example, if we're performing a task where we want to watch TV and ignore voices that are coming from, say, our children nearby," Weissman said, "our frontal region brain may configure the brain to prioritize visual information and dampen down auditory information."
And the brain's executive will keep us in that mode until we hear, say, one of our children screaming.
"These are the things that make us the most human," Weissman said. "We are not like jellyfish — it's not like when you poke us, we always do the same thing."'

My point is simple, be able to do one task well by focusing when it matters, be able to blag and confuse when it doesn't.

[CCC Dober]

@VB
I was asking myself what was prompting the NATO forces to replace the trusty 7.62mm with the pea shooter 5.56mm on a large scale. Hitting harder obviously has no impact on the decisions made by the brass. I sure know the difference between both and wouldn't trust the latter caliber to do squat in real combat beyond spitting range. So yeah, I'm with you on this one: stopping power FTW, the more the better. Oh and range is comfy too

Edited by CCC Dober, 08 July 2012 - 01:10 PM.

[Commie95]

Hitting hard is superior for duck & cover tactics. Also that high initial hit can either criple or outright kill small targets.

Hitting often (assumed same DPS) is better in that it reduces or eliminates overkill on weaker targets and less penalty for missing.

I prefer hitting hard, but both strategies are viable.

[Salticidae]

I like to hit hard at long range with big mechs, but I always carry smaller fast firing weapons to get rid of annoying light mechs

[Elendil]

In the real world, hard-hitting, slow-firing is much better than really fast firing weapons.
For example, say that you have a weapon that fires every half second, and the DPS is actually a little higher than a weapon that fires every 5 seconds. With the faster firing weapon, you must have your target in sights every half second in order to out DPS the slower firing weapon. That severely limits your options when it comes to cover, and evasion, and situational awareness, etc. Realistically, it's not possible to constantly keep the enemy exactly in your sights. The faster firing weapon just won't be able to keep up its DPS, AND it will distract you from piloting your mech.
I mean, that's an extreme example, but it illustrates the point very vividly: the slower your weapon fires, the more time you have in between to not worry about aiming.


HOWEVER:
Your weapons interfere with the other mech's aim every time you hit them. Obviously the amount of interference depends on how heavy the mech you're shooting is, and what you're shooting them with, etc. etc.
But as most people have experienced at one point or other, a constant barrage of fire can make it impossible to aim at anything with any semblance of accuracy. Or how a perfectly timed shot that hits you right when you pull your trigger will make you shoot the dirt in front of yourself.
Now, that doesn't mean that a weapon that fires every half second would ever actually be useful for anything, but it does mean that one which fires every 2 seconds or so could be used very effectively to keep a heavier mech off balance, especially at long range where the knockback makes more difference.
Or (my personal favorite); you can use several really really slow weapons fired one at a time in sequence to similar effect, and then you can also alpha-strike when needed.

Edited by Elendil, 08 July 2012 - 02:46 PM.

[Halfbreed]

oh man Alpha Strike, I had totally forgotten the term and being reminded of it pleases me so, thank you Elendil

[Adm Awesome]

Elendil, on 08 July 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

In the real world, hard-hitting, slow-firing is much better than really fast firing weapons.
For example, say that you have a weapon that fires every half second, and the DPS is actually a little higher than a weapon that fires every 5 seconds. With the faster firing weapon, you must have your target in sights every half second in order to out DPS the slower firing weapon. That severely limits your options when it comes to cover, and evasion, and situational awareness, etc. Realistically, it's not possible to constantly keep the enemy exactly in your sights. The faster firing weapon just won't be able to keep up its DPS, AND it will distract you from piloting your mech.
I mean, that's an extreme example, but it illustrates the point very vividly: the slower your weapon fires, the more time you have in between to not worry about aiming.

This^

I have to thoroughly agree. As nice as having pulse lasers are when you're chasing a dude from behind and can just fire like crazy at his back, you hardly have these moments, making it not really worth the only benefit.
I'd definitely rather have a ER medium laser then pulse medium, and take that extra few seconds to align a perfect shot and probably be able to take advantage of every split recycle time. With ****, you may end up waiting the same amount of times between shots as an ER weapon for the most part, or just missing shots, which is a waste of heat. Now if you're just a crazy sick Scout that can run like a pro and get every hit, every .5 seconds, then it would be more beneficial to you, but out of personal experience I'd have to stick with something with a bit longer CD.

[Suskis]

In the rpg Mechwarrior each hit gives you xp points, so it' a lot better to have 20 small lasers than an AC/20, for example. I remember like 20 years ago that I created a Locust variant with said 20 SL to earn XP at the fastest rate and it performed really good also in terms of critical hits ofc.

[Lt muffins]

Hit more often ....

[Halfbreed]

lulz DakaOrcDaka

[light487]

In "other" games where there is a chance to not penetrate, I would say to sacrifice damage for penetration.. but this is not that "other" game and there is not really such a thing as penetration in MW. Of course a harder hitting (more damage) weapon is going to eat away more armor than not and there is still a level of "uselessness" against some targets with some weapons.. but ultimately you should be going with something big if you can.. like a Gauss or PPC.. then seeking cover while it reloads. Of course you should keep some short/medium range quickfire stuff handy so that if you get caught, you can still mess with them.. but I would definitely be sacrificing slots in favour of big guns.. but this is all providing you are talking about playing as a Defender/Attacker..

[ArchRakshasa]

Just remember when using projectile and fragmentation weapons if the splash damage mechanic is employed you might Jack yourself in the process if too close to your target.

[Glythe]

Elendil, on 08 July 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

In the real world, hard-hitting, slow-firing is much better than really fast firing weapons.

Based on what? You'd rather shoot at someone with a .50 caliber bolt action rifle than an Uzi? I don't know about you but I'll take the Uzi every time. This isn't real life it's a game where mechs take lots of hits to go down before they die. Stop a moment to consider lag, the necessity to lead a target at range (remember different people in the same mech will be moving at vastly different speeds) and the time required for toso mounted weapons to adjust to aim at a target. You also have to factor in the speed of the projectile; remember that Gauss, AC/20 and PPC all travel at different speeds.

Bearing all that in mind scroll up and read what I posted about shorter range weapons. In this game (and the TT) close range weapons deal more damage for less heat and less weight. Range can be a killer but if you aren't a fast mech then you have to consider the possibility that someone who can choose the range of the fight can bring more smaller weapons to bear and nearly match the damage of your slow firing weapons at close range (in an otherwise "inferior" mech).

Elendil, on 08 July 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

Your weapons interfere with the other mech's aim every time you hit them.

That's not true, watch the developer videos (Assault video). From what I can tell only the PPC is the only weapon that seems to disrupt another player's aim.

Edited by Glythe, 08 July 2012 - 04:10 PM.

[Gun Bear]

Mix of both is my preferred way of doing it. Some light quick firing weapons and one big coup de grace.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

This is a damage vs dps argument. They both have advantages and disadvantages really. But people usually take the burst damage in video games because it always allows them to hit and run, without needing to keep constant LoS/melee range. In other words a guy will stack PPCs and simply run away and hide behind terrain while they recycle and he cools off. You with your Pulse Lasers or such better be fast because if you can't keep up, you won't be able to keep their sustain up at all.