17 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

Example comparison in re 3LPL bulds.

45 tons: Black Jack (arrow and 1x predominately) running an XL is often seen with 3LPL.

50 tons: Crab with an XL275 can run near full armor and hold 3LPLs. Can do a similar build on Enforcers or the energy Centurion. Yet, I rarely see the 3 LPL build on any of them, and you can find commentary saying that such builds are a "bad idea".

60 tons: Quickdraw 4G running 3LPL is considered (at least by metamechs.com) to be thee meta meta mech.

65 tons: T-bolt SE standard build is the 3LPL but looking at historical forum discussions many consider it kind of "Meh".

70 tons, both Grasshoppers and Cataphracts can be found running 3LPL builds. Often that is the whole weapons load-out (sometimes hoppers will have a couple of mediums as well).

So for mechs varying in weight by 35 tons you often see nearly identical builds. So my question: What's up with that? That is, why bother with the heavier builds if the best you can do is the same thing that you are doing in lighter and often more manuverable mechs?

Theoretically the heavier mechs with standard engines ought to give better survive-ability than the lighter ones (with the notable exception of the Black Jack and its silly structure buff). Oddly, I find however that of all of the above, the Crab and the Grasshopper are the builds I last the longest and do the most damage in, despite being on opposite ends off the profile spectrum. Just find all of this bewildering and am starting to think I should just run these two mechs in CW.

I hate the 3LPL meta or near meta, or whatever the hell it is, but must admit that it seems to be the best load out for a lot of mechs.

[Skarlock]

Bud Crue, on 18 January 2016 - 05:55 AM, said:

50 tons: Crab with an XL275 can run near full armor and hold 3LPLs. Can do a similar build on Enforcers or the energy Centurion. Yet, I rarely see the 3 LPL build on any of them, and you can find commentary saying that such builds are a "bad idea".

Who says that? The centurion in general isn't a well loved mech right now but it definitely gets run by some higher level players. I've also seen a 3 large pulse enforcer used in competitive league play, specifically I believe by Seraphim Rising Storm. I wouldn't weigh what any one person says is "meta" as the be all end all.

[Bud Crue]

Skarlock, on 18 January 2016 - 06:27 AM, said:

Who says that? The centurion in general isn't a well loved mech right now but it definitely gets run by some higher level players. I've also seen a 3 large pulse enforcer used in competitive league play, specifically I believe by Seraphim Rising Storm. I wouldn't weigh what any one person says is "meta" as the be all end all.

Yep. This is exactly the problem with "meta" play. Much of it is opinion...but opinion based in the end on math. Some folks' (mine especially) numbers just don't add up however. But good or bad isn't the whole point of my post. I'm trying to get at the fact that mechs of disparate weights often have the same weapon loadout. All kinds of questions arise from this (many having to do with flawed game design and mechanics, but I digress), but good or bad isn't my concern.

What I want to know is I guess why not just play the most survivable version of that load out possible and dump the rest. Using your example:

if those higher level players think the centurion 3LPL build is the "meta", why not just run 4 of them in CW? Yet, I rarely if ever see 1) mechs that light consistently played and 2) rarely ever more than one, when I do see them. Yet, if that Centurion is the meta, does it not behove the player to bring that mech as often as possible so as to maximize performance? In this example if the Centurion is the best performer with that 3LPL load out, what is the point of heavier mechs with the same load out? I think that is what is bugging me.

[Wildstreak]

Well it is partly due to how the Mech is physically and quirks.

Crab with a STD can tank damage well so XL is usually a bad idea. Some people still try it but a STD lets you live longer. Blackjack is not really a known tanker so it runs XL more. You can do 2LPL Crab with SPL backup and a STD. Crab also has lower weapon placement so more of it gets exposed when fighting thus it needs the STD to fight while the high weapon mounts of a BJ lets it use XL exposing less of itself when shooting.

Never heard of these 3 LPL Heavies except the 9SE that has always been considered good, that is why 3LPL was put on the Champion version.

[Wintersdark]

Also, because in CW you have a fixed amount of tonnage (currently 265 for IS) to spread between your 4 mechs.

[Bud Crue]

Wintersdark, on 18 January 2016 - 08:01 AM, said:

Also, because in CW you have a fixed amount of tonnage (currently 265 for IS) to spread between your 4 mechs.

Not sure what you mean.

My whole issue, or perhaps current fixation is with mechs of different weights but with similar load outs, and yet even when the lighter mech is considered "better" or "meta" or "comp level", whatever. I rarely see such mechs being consistently and repeatedly dropped in CW. In the case I tried to articulate regarding the 3LPL builds, the "best" performers are in the 45-60 ton range and yet I don't know anyone nor have I encountered anyone who drops with, for example, a 4 enforcers deck regardless of how "comp level" or meta they may be (see Skarlock's comment above). I think what I am trying to get at is if a specific mech build is super duper, why do "meta" players run anything else...especially if four of that mech (whatever it may be) fits in the current deck weight limit? Wouldn't this be a sort of meta of metas?

Using my Metamechs example: if you believe the 3LPL Quickdraw 4g is truly thee best or most meta heavy, would it not behoove you to run 4 of them when you drop competitively or even in CW? Yet, I rarely see more than 1 or 2 Quickdraws in any given CW match if at all.

[Havyek]

You're looking at tonnage and weapons and overlooking all of the other factors like hitboxes, weapon mount locations, quirks (structure, cooldown, range etc).

Many heavier mechs do very well with the 3 LPL build because of cool down and range quirks. Others do well because they can hit and retreat. Others do well because they can hit and tank damage.

Also, the reason you likely don't see many of the "meta" or "best" builds in CW as comp is because they are 2 VERY different beasts.
Also, many people in CW are bad (because they're new, don't understand the quirks or refuse to stoop so low as to "run meta").

Also forgot to address, many times the "meta" for a certain chassis is only at a certain range. One of the newest metas could be considered the MPL/SRM Timberwolf. This build does a hellacious amound of damage, but only to 270m.

Bringing 4 of them (or an equivalent) on Boreal wouldn't be the greatest idea when the other team is set to range you down before you can get close.
The same can be said for ranged meta builds (like the 5-6 LL Stalker 4N). Bringing 2 to Vitric Forge where it's hot and generally a brawl may not be the best choice, ESPECIALLY if you're with a group who are bringing brawlers.

The "best" build isn't always the best build.

Edited by Havyek, 18 January 2016 - 12:24 PM.

[Bud Crue]

Havyek,

I get that not all "best" builds are ALWAYS best for a given map. What I am trying to put my finger on...wrap my head around is more about efficiency I think...perceived or real. The idea of a mech weighing 50 tons and doing the same job (having same loadout) as a mech 25-30 tons heavier just bugs me. Perhaps I have erred in trying to understand this in terms of meta builds. But as far as play-ability I can't deny my own experience and supporting data: namely, of the mechs I bring to CW the most, and with 3LPLs, the ones that do the most damage, live the longest and get the most kills are on the lighter side (best is Crab...and a Crab with an XL no less, then Quickdraw (also running an XL), then T-bolt 9SE, and Cataphract 0XP both running standards...this would seem to be opposite of conventional wisdom that standard engine and more armor translate to longer survivability). It just makes me want to drop with all Crabs (on maps where 3LPL builds are appropriate), extra tonnage be damned. But something tells me this is a bad idea, though I can't seem to put my finger on it.

[Tarl Cabot]

What works for the normal queue does not necessitate working in CW queue, and vis versa. And playing the same thing. IS selected pilot wants to play his T-wolf, he does so in the solo/group queue. If he wants to play a T-wolf in CW, he has to change from IS to Clan faction.

For the normal queues, it is whatever you like and rarely do most fights stay long range for long. In the CW queue though, long range fights can last for some time before things turn nasty, so energy builds (non-PPCs) primarily are it. Ballistics (except Gauss Rifle) have been reduced to a tortoise speed while being ammo dependent. For IS, it is either a hit or a miss. And on a majority of the ballistic-centric mechs, the hardpoints are torso low set, as well as most arms, arms that can not be raised up to clear terrain.

With energy weapons your aim can be corrected to apply damage to a target and keep it on it. And even with energy weapons, hardpoint location are also important, since mechs are not fighting on flat terrain. Most importantly though, there is no travel time for lasers to hit a target, that is the efficiency of it.

And for IS mechs, there are many that have quirks that allows them to take advantage of that. For Clan mechs, the CERLM and smaller weapons had their max range, not their optimal range reduced but their C-ERLL/LPL were not affected. Again, instant hit/convergence for said weapons, no travel time.

Edited, just to add a link to another thread.
http://mwomercs.com/...anis-and-range/

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 18 January 2016 - 01:29 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Thank you for helping me realize something. I'm going to go test it out later this week, but I think I found a new build for an underappreciated mech that might make it incredible. After all, the quirks are there and I use a similar build on the Grasshopper.

This is tantalizing.

[Bud Crue]

Kjudoon, on 18 January 2016 - 01:47 PM, said:

Thank you for helping me realize something. I'm going to go test it out later this week, but I think I found a new build for an underappreciated mech that might make it incredible. After all, the quirks are there and I use a similar build on the Grasshopper.

This is tantalizing.

If interested, send me a note as to the chassis and I will let you know if I've done it and how it went (I have nearly all mechs and multiples of several...especially odd builds). I am a bit obsessed with efficiency and certainly in re Grasshopper and Black Knoght builds I have probably tried every conceivable variant of them on something much smaller as well.

[Kjudoon]

Just did some testing grounds. The build would only work on very cold maps. Otherwise a cooling efficiency of 1.09 has me constantly shutting down.

On the other hand 3LPL works very well on another 45 ton mech that is considered garbage.

Okay, time to see what this does. Compare and contrast.

The supposed BJ 3LPL meta
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...015e9307d25fc34
One sided high mounted hardpoints (Better focused fire)
A little cooler running (Extra heatsink)
Slightly better range (438m versus ~402m)

But how about this?
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...de7264edd2e7f21
Faster cooldown (better DPS)
Less Heat Generation (15% versus 10%)
A faster moving/overall mobility (better twist speeds 90.5kph post speedtweak versus 87.5kph)
Lower slung weapons on 2 sides (better durability. arms protect side torsos better and loss of one arm doesn't disarm.)

Let the debate begin.

Edited by Kjudoon, 18 January 2016 - 02:40 PM.

[Richard Warts]

It depends on the range ppl wish to go for. Unless you're up against a more coordinated group you'll often find many engagements within the 400-800m range (mid-range). However having ONLY LPL builds are not the end all meta. They're vulnerable to long range exchanges and close up brawls and are really best suited for support roles (especially in unison with short range brawlers).

[Havyek]

Bud Crue, on 18 January 2016 - 01:03 PM, said:

Havyek,

I get that not all "best" builds are ALWAYS best for a given map. What I am trying to put my finger on...wrap my head around is more about efficiency I think...perceived or real. The idea of a mech weighing 50 tons and doing the same job (having same loadout) as a mech 25-30 tons heavier just bugs me. Perhaps I have erred in trying to understand this in terms of meta builds. But as far as play-ability I can't deny my own experience and supporting data: namely, of the mechs I bring to CW the most, and with 3LPLs, the ones that do the most damage, live the longest and get the most kills are on the lighter side (best is Crab...and a Crab with an XL no less, then Quickdraw (also running an XL), then T-bolt 9SE, and Cataphract 0XP both running standards...this would seem to be opposite of conventional wisdom that standard engine and more armor translate to longer survivability). It just makes me want to drop with all Crabs (on maps where 3LPL builds are appropriate), extra tonnage be damned. But something tells me this is a bad idea, though I can't seem to put my finger on it.

The thing is that they don't necessarily DO the same job.

Just because a BJ 3and TBOLT 9SE both run 3LPL doesn't mean that's their job.
The BJ is a bad example because its structure quirks make it a bit tankier than a standard 45 tonner, but let's look at 2 of the builds:
<a href="http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=80&l=dfe2c2a838900fb7df4d0af45a0552ec5df01627">BJ-3</a>
3 LPL
11 DHS
XL 235 - 91 km/h
3.28 DPS
39% heat efficiency

<a href="http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=116&l=2c6a47c4aa8520c569024351bb6ba59cf06c98ac">TDR-9SE</a>
3 LPL
14 DHS
STD 300 - 80 km/h
3.96 DPS
47% heat effiency

Now they both have the same alpha, the biggest difference is that the TBolt is a lot tankier, just from the nature of hard points and weight class.
The BJ is only 11 km/h faster (and has 2 JJs) than a 'Mech 20 tons heavier. That's a lot of armor that the BJ is giving up. The TBolt also has 2 arms and an entire right torso to tank with thanks to that STD engine.

Both 'Mechs I just threw together in Smurfy's, but hopefully you get the general idea. Just because different 'Mechs carry the same loadout, doesn't mean that they play the same, perform the same job, or even score the same.

[Tarl Cabot]

The other side is the BJ is smaller + speed makes it more difficult to hit where as the T-bolt is larger, making it easier to hit. And due to its size, I change a few things, slightly smaller engine, an external DHS and add 2 ML to the right arm.

The other benefit of the BJ is the energy hardpoints in the arms, which the arms themselves are mounted high, not hanging around its crotch like most humanoid mechs, allows it to utilize cover more effectively than the this particular T-bolt SE. The BJ, atm, some some stupidly strong structural quirks, allowing it to take quite a bit more punishment than the next medium. And with its low engine cap, T-bolt would not gain any benefit by using an XL engine, it would simply become a glass cannon, more so due to its size.

But of the heavies, the T-bolt line has seen great success on the CW battlefield. But many do get burned out on using specific mechs, it so when people drop into the normal queue it is mechs they like, for whatever reasons and/or to level specific variants enough so the more preferred variants can be improved via Skill Tree.

Overall though, especially in the CW atmosphere, IS mechs will tend to use similar payloads simply due to both quirks (for IS mech) and what lasers bring to the table for both factions, be it ERLL//LL/LPL and ERML/ML, etc while no crippling heat scale effects until you meet/exceed 100% heat scale.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 18 January 2016 - 04:42 PM.

[Bud Crue]

Thanks for the discussion folks, but based on the comments thus far I am not making myself clear. I certainly recognize that different weight mechs have different intended roles. I also understand that different maps and different modes help dictate certain mech loadouts

What I am trying to get to the bottom of is the actual performance of different mech weights but which have similar builds in the CW environment. In my experience it seems that the lighter mechs do better or as well as the heavier mech whose "meta build" is the same...regardless of map, mode or intended role.

In other words: on average, on most maps, in most modes, a mech of weight A that can functionally mount load out A (in my example 3LPL) performs better than a heavier mech B but which has the same load out as A.

XL doesn't seem to play a significant detrimental role. The superior speed and smaller profile of the lighter builds seems to offset, and is a superior advantage to, the heavier armor and use of standard engines in the larger mechs.

My guess is that in a CW push the bigger mechs get called out and focused, just because they are bigger; thereby allowing the smaller builds to live longer. Its about all I can come up with. I suppose the only way to test this is to try and convince my fellows to consistently and repeatedly do all medium drops and all heavy drops using the same build criteria above; and then repeat with a mixed drop of heavies and mediums with the same respective loadouts. Will give it a shot.

In the meantime I am loving my Crabs (all the builds not just my 3LPL build) more and more for use in CW.

[Nephologist]

Kjudoon, on 18 January 2016 - 02:13 PM, said:

But how about this?</p>
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...de7264edd2e7f21
Faster cooldown (better DPS)
Less Heat Generation (15% versus 10%)
A faster moving/overall mobility (better twist speeds 90.5kph post speedtweak versus 87.5kph)
Lower slung weapons on 2 sides (better durability.  arms protect side torsos better and loss of one arm doesn't disarm.)

Let the debate begin.

That 1R build is what I run when I'm not running 2 LPL and 2 ML. It is my best performing Vindi. The low slung arms mean that if you want to get a full alpha you will have to expose your entire upper torso. Two LPLs in the right arm and an empty left arm turns the Vindi into a surprisingly effective sword n boarder as well as peaking around corners.The 1AA can run with this build as well. You're missing the PPC quirks, but the higher engine cap (XL295) means it's a lot more agile and with 6 JJ the thing can fly as well.

[Not A Real RAbbi]

Bud Crue, on 18 January 2016 - 01:03 PM, said:

Havyek,

I get that not all "best" builds are ALWAYS best for a given map. What I am trying to put my finger on...wrap my head around is more about efficiency I think...perceived or real. The idea of a mech weighing 50 tons and doing the same job (having same loadout) as a mech 25-30 tons heavier just bugs me. Perhaps I have erred in trying to understand this in terms of meta builds. But as far as play-ability I can't deny my own experience and supporting data: namely, of the mechs I bring to CW the most, and with 3LPLs, the ones that do the most damage, live the longest and get the most kills are on the lighter side (best is Crab...and a Crab with an XL no less, then Quickdraw (also running an XL), then T-bolt 9SE, and Cataphract 0XP both running standards...this would seem to be opposite of conventional wisdom that standard engine and more armor translate to longer survivability). It just makes me want to drop with all Crabs (on maps where 3LPL builds are appropriate), extra tonnage be damned. But something tells me this is a bad idea, though I can't seem to put my finger on it.

So, first big difference between, say, a BJ-1X or BJ-3 carrying 3x LPL, and a QKD-4G with the same weapons?

Mech geometry, which has already been mentioned. The BJ has the advantage here. So, why not just run 4 of those then?

They carry less armor than the QKD. And with 15 fewer tons, despite having a lighter structure and engine for the same speed (think BJ-3 w/225 XL, versus QKD-4G w/300 XL), the BJ also gives up a heat sink or two. Generally speaking, the QKD brings the same weapons to the fight, but can stay IN the fight longer. SURE, the BJ has ridiculous structure quirks, but ARMOR is what protects the weapons and equipment from critical damage, and the QKD brings more of that.

Step that up to a Grasshopper or Black Knight, and you get even MORE armor and structure than either the BJ or QKD.

Or, go the other way. At the same speed as the BJ-3 and QKD-4G in the example, I could run a RVN-2X with 175XL engine, 3x LPL, 10 DHS (7 engine, 3 external), and 3.5 tons of armor. Given the quirks, that'd be one FAST-FIRING LPL monster, and Smurfy puts the HE at 34%. Of course, a stiff wind could blow the armor off of it. But it can still do the job, even if it's not at all survivable.

So THERE lies the big difference between various mechs. We are kinda hard-wired to take the heaviest mechs that can do the job, on the belief (usually well-founded one) that heavier means more survivable, and the longer the mech lives, the more opportunity it has to do damage and contribute to victory.

If the IS drop deck limit was 340 tons, you'd see a lot of 4x STK-4N decks out there spamming the big blues. SURE, I can mount five LLs/ERLLs on a CPLT-JESTER, but that's giving up 20 tons, and that's a LOT of armor and structure between your weapons and my mech's demise (though a four-JESTER deck DOES sound delicious).