416 replies to this topic

[Tarogato]

Bud Crue, on 05 January 2017 - 03:58 PM, said:

Tarogato,

The A1 you have listed as 6 SRM6 is I assume different than the 6A-SRM6 build at linked at the top of the thread. Would you please confirm that and if it is different pleas supply the specifics to the build you have in mind?

Thanks.

I didn't link a build for it because it's both a mech I don't own and one I haven't gotten a lot of input on yet. My concern is that it's XL vulnerable as a brawler, or that it could be too slow, and if there's some way to do it differently... so yeah I'm open to suggestions from people that have actually run it in CW. The build in Dane's OP is solid, regardless of my qualms.

And nah, I don't specify artemis in any the build names. Should I? Also, generally don't use SRM6 without artemis, because the spread is rather poor so it requires you to get quite a bit closer to pinpoint components. The following chart shows the maximum range that a given weapon will deal full damage to a target roughly the size of a Jenner's CT:

[Sarsaparilla Kid]

Thanks for the re-worked spreadsheet! My question is what to do with the remaining tonnage once you've picked the 3 best T1 heavies in the Mid-Range category? Everything else of lesser tonnage seems to be in the Brawl category. Are we advised to bring a light/medium brawler, then, or are there suggested light/medium mid-range builds for T1 or T2, or does that last light/medium really matter?

Edited by Sarsaparilla Kid, 05 January 2017 - 04:26 PM.

[Bud Crue]

Tarogato, on 05 January 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

I didn't link a build for it because it's both a mech I don't own and one I haven't gotten a lot of input on yet. My concern is that it's XL vulnerable as a brawler, or that it could be too slow, and if there's some way to do it differently... so yeah I'm open to suggestions from people that have actually run it in CW. The build in Dane's OP is solid, regardless of my qualms.

And nah, I don't specify artemis in any the build names. Should I? Also, generally don't use SRM6 without artemis, because the spread is rather poor so it requires you to get quite a bit closer to pinpoint components. The following chart shows the maximum range that a given weapon will deal full damage to a target roughly the size of a Jenner's CT:

Thanks. I find the thought of running Dane's Catapult drop deck intriguing. As to normal play I've only ever had good luck with my A1s on Sulfur defend (in CW), but it works OK on the last wave on most of the other maps where you are staying around the gun (last line of a desperate defense) and or just finishing off enemies. I confess I have not run it in 4.1 yet.

For what it is worth (I am bad at this game and I know it) and since you asked for builds, my build is an XL295, 2JJ, 416 armor, Endo, 6 Artemis srm4s, 8 tons of ammo, and in QP an AMS with a ton of ammo, but in CW I have always dumped the AMS for more SRM ammo. As to XL unfriendliness, its never been an issue as I tend to lose the ears faster than the torsos almost always as I tend to over twist (forgetting that I am in a Catapult).

I see that many folks forgo both the XL and the artemis for regular SRM6s and I assume the durability/speed and spread/alpha/cooldown trade offs (respectively) are worth it since I usually see the regular SRM6 build being proposed by better (higher tier) players. I'd be interested on such folks' take on this, but probably not here since I don't want to derail the thread.

[Tarogato]

Sarsaparilla Kid, on 05 January 2017 - 04:23 PM, said:

Thanks for the re-worked spreadsheet! My question is what to do with the remaining tonnage once you've picked the 3 best T1 heavies in the Mid-Range category? Everything else of lesser tonnage seems to be in the Brawl category. Are we advised to bring a light/medium brawler, then, or are there suggested light/medium mid-range builds for T1 or T2, or does that last light/medium really matter?

I had quite a few options in there. Enforcer, Crab, Cicada, Raven, Shadowhawk, Blackjack, Hunchback ------ so yeah, they aren't really Tier 1 mechs. You shouldn't build a drop deck around them, they don't stand well on their own The reason I have them included at all is for exactly the reason you need them - tonnage fillers. I probably could have worded my post a little better. I'll do that.

[Sarsaparilla Kid]

Tarogato, on 05 January 2017 - 04:55 PM, said:

I had quite a few options in there. Enforcer, Crab, Cicada, Raven, Shadowhawk, Blackjack, Hunchback ------ so yeah, they aren't really Tier 1 mechs. You shouldn't build a drop deck around them, they don't stand well on their own The reason I have them included at all is for exactly the reason you need them - tonnage fillers. I probably could have worded my post a little better. I'll do that.

So would it be better to grab a tier 2 long range or extreme range medium mech than either of the two mid range tier 3 mediums, even if mid range is the primary role for the rest of that deck? I at least have BJs, including the Arrow. There used to be an LPL build for that, but it is listed with ERLLs.

[Therax]

Tarogato, on 05 January 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:

I've reformatted and updated the build sheet a bit.

I was looking these builds over and noticed that the Battlemaster 1G 6LL build could be further optimized; if one of the heat sinks in the arms is moved to the engine it frees up enough slots for Endo-Steel and the tonnage saved can then be applied to a larger engine and another half ton of armour.

BLR-1G

Thanks for putting this spreadsheet together for the community.

[Sjorpha]

Therax, on 05 January 2017 - 09:42 PM, said:

I was looking these builds over and noticed that the Battlemaster 1G 6LL build could be further optimized; if one of the heat sinks in the arms is moved to the engine it frees up enough slots for Endo-Steel and the tonnage saved can then be applied to a larger engine and another half ton of armour.

BLR-1G

Thanks for putting this spreadsheet together for the community.

I even think it's worth shaving some of that armor off again and going up to a 375 + another DHS

BLR-1G

[Tarogato]

Therax, on 05 January 2017 - 09:42 PM, said:

if one of the heat sinks in the arms is moved to the engine it frees up enough slots for Endo-Steel

----DOH!

Cheers for pointing that out, I've been making that mistake a lot lately.

Sjorpha, on 06 January 2017 - 09:22 AM, said:

I even think it's worth shaving some of that armor off again and going up to a 375 + another DHS

BLR-1G

... annnnnnd done.

Sarsaparilla Kid, on 05 January 2017 - 06:56 PM, said:

I at least have BJs, including the Arrow. There used to be an LPL build for that, but it is listed with ERLLs.

Added. Though I'm not personally a fan of it, it runs a bit hot. Will stay in Tier 3, as in my opinion you're better off restructuring your deck so that you're not forced to run mechs that aren't heavies, unless your adopting Dane's strategy of the 12-medium kamikaze brawl rush.

[Starbomber109]

Something that's been bugging me. The original Griffin 3N scouting build, had an XL engine in it. The current brawler one has a standard, but the 3M build has an XL. Why the difference? I'm just curios what's so different between the two chassis, shouldn't it be reversed? (3N with the XL, 3M with the STD? Since you can hard shield with one side (no weapons over there))

Edit I meant 2N not 3N, the 2N has ECM, the 3N is....

Edited by Starbomber109, 08 January 2017 - 04:55 PM.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Starbomber109, on 07 January 2017 - 10:00 PM, said:

Something that's been bugging me. The original Griffin 3N scouting build, had an XL engine in it. The current brawler one has a standard, but the 3M build has an XL. Why the difference? I'm just curios what's so different between the two chassis, shouldn't it be reversed? (3N with the XL, 3M with the STD? Since you can hard shield with one side (no weapons over there))

Structure bonus I would imagine. 3M has about 50% extra structure while the 2N doesn't.

[BoldricKent]

If the effective optimal range for SRMs sheet is accurate, why would one put ML in HBK-4sp build,
since you are pushing sub 100 meters fights, SMPL would be far more efficient for stable DPS.
I know range sucks, but 2/4 (8/16)compered to 4/5 (16/20) on ML its a decent trade off.
I use the head slot for 5th laser of ML, for poking and mid range with srms (+150).

With the speed change in FW, its odd none of PHX are included in recommended builds, while
a bit to large, JJ, speed, ability to do ECM(brawling or mid-long range), shouldnt be overlooked.
Buffing arm armor did help a lot. And all others 45/50/55 are slower.

[JaegerDjinn]

Keep a spot open for me this Friday night coming [1/13] in the RKA. Checked in this friday and groups where full from what i seen, 13-15 in each drop zone. Was tired so i didnt check in. I am wanting too find another group too do cw drops thru the week so i can learn the maps again for Friday. Also,though i got an reply about the rifleman, which i bought and build a new mech for RKA drop. I got no response on the Marauder build which instead of the 3 ac5 and 2 med lasers that you have as slow. Mine is 2 ac5,1ac2, and 4 med lasers that runs 80.1 kph. The question was can I use mine for the RKA drop deck.

[JaegerDjinn]

Here is the build

[SCHLIMMER BESTIMMER XXX]

Mech The Dane, on 30 December 2016 - 04:51 AM, said:

When you become good, feel free to tell others how to do the same. Until then please stop posting in my thread.

oh ok.Then i leave now, sry for posting in YOUR THREAD. xD

[SCHLIMMER BESTIMMER XXX]

Jesus McEvedy, on 30 December 2016 - 09:08 AM, said:

While you are right, as far as wanting to enjoy the game, but remember that enjoyment is different from player to player. Some thrive in the lore, bracket builds, trying new things and having fun. Others have fun being part of an organized Unit, min-maxing 'Mechs and developing working tactics on the battlefield. Neither is more important than the other when it comes down to it.

That being said... the point Dane is trying to make is this IS a game that works off of hard numbers. This IS nothing more than scripts and code. Some things work better than others. If you are looking for casual fun and doing what you want to do, then keep on doing it. If you want to become more organized, build the 'Mechs that are MOST EFFECTIVE, MOST OF THE TIME, then that is what Dane is trying to educate people on. Sure, taking a GAR or EXE as a Clanner is fun, but not MOST EFFECTIVE, MOST OF THE TIME. Neither is bringing an AWS or DRG. May be fun, but it is FAR more difficult to pull your own weight in a coordinated match than it is with min-maxed Meta builds. Sure, they are cookie-cutter and uninspired, but they exist for a REASON. Players FAR better than you, myself or Dane have developed these through trial and error. THEY WORK.

If your goal is to have fun on your terms, do it. Expect to lose but enjoy your wins. If your goal is to be the best pilot possible, pull your weight on every match, properly coordinate and be EFFECTIVE, then Dane is not wrong here. You will expect to win, but your losses MUST serve as lessons on improving your piloting, Unit coordination and communication.

MY personal feelings on the matter are as simple as this: QP is for outrageous balls-to-the-wall piloting, goofy/fun/trolling builds, bringing whatever you want to and generally HAVING OBJECTIVE FUN, while FP is where you are expected to participate as part of a larger entity. You should play selflessly, listen to the DC, bring the 'Mechs/builds that are MOST EFFECTIVE, MOST OF THE TIME, and be prepared to sacrifice some of that wild, ridiculous fun in exchange for a little work and effort. I will say, when you get to the point where you and 11 others are doing this; running the same builds, shooting/moving/communicating the same way every time, prioritizing every target the same and are WORKING to win, not PLAYING to have fun, the end results are usually far more success, and a measure of fun and satisfaction you cannot get when you just play casual. It isn't MORE fun or BETTER fun, just a different kind of fun.

I hope I was able to cast into light WHY Meta builds and proper drop decks and coordination ARE important. I implore you to try it for a bit. Doesn't have to be your usual thing, but from time to time drop with a coordinated 12-man with proper drop decks and follow every command of the caller, and you will see what we are all talking about. Good luck and good hunting!

EDIT: Typos

well spoken! thats a good point of view.
But on a sidenote, i dropped with organized 12 mans.Sure it is very satisfying to pull a win in a close match but telling
people the whole time they are useless or bad and shoud play only 5 mechs all the time (funny that the people that tell
that have 100+ mechs in their mechbays) dont help the game much.

[Tarogato]

Starbomber109, on 07 January 2017 - 10:00 PM, said:

Something that's been bugging me. The original Griffin 3N scouting build, had an XL engine in it. The current brawler one has a standard, but the 3M build has an XL. Why the difference? I'm just curios what's so different between the two chassis, shouldn't it be reversed? (3N with the XL, 3M with the STD? Since you can hard shield with one side (no weapons over there))

Edit I meant 2N not 3N, the 2N has ECM, the 3N is....

I prefer the -2N with XL and the -3M with STD. Logic being:

• the -2N has two shoulder pods, it's less likely for a single one to be focused for an XL check
  
• the -3M has more structure bonus, so a STD keeps with the theme. Plus one missile pod, tends to get focused more often, and it's nice to have a dead side that you can completely give the enemy without worrying about an XL check

But somebody made an argument on the reverse, and I've decided it's probably the wiser choice, even if I don't prefer it:

• the -3M has an XL because if you lose your right torso, you're stripped anyways. Might as well be dead. Plus extra structure points keep an XL alive longer.
  
• the -2N has two missile sides, so even if you lose one, you can stay alive with a STD and keep shooting with the other

Edited by Tarogato, 10 January 2017 - 04:32 PM.

[Tarogato]

BoldricKent, on 08 January 2017 - 04:08 AM, said:

If the effective optimal range for SRMs sheet is accurate, why would one put ML in HBK-4sp build,
since you are pushing sub 100 meters fights, SMPL would be far more efficient for stable DPS.

HBK-4SP is the tankiest medium in the game (if you add up its bonus structure and armour, it's roughly equivalent to a 74-ton mech). As such, it's preferable to lead with it, and it's nice to have those MLs to reach out and get damage while on the approach, especially if it dies before it gets in range to use its SRMs. Plus it gets 20% heat generation quirk on MLs, so heat isn't really that much of a concern. If you're splatting and then twisting, you won't get the full benefit of the SPLs anyways. People generally aren't firing SRMs at the utmost maximum recycle rate, and the difference in recycle rate between the two weapons is only 0.70 seconds, which barely feels longer than the amount of time (0.50+) you'd wait to dodge ghost heat in other mechs.

fwiw, with quirks, skills, and modules, in order:

ML recycle: 3.04s
MPL recyle: 2.74s
SRM6 recycle: 2.34s
SPL recycle: 2.10s


SPL or flamer is preferred for most competitive applications, but I think MLs added versatility (range) is appropriate for CW.

Quote

With the speed change in FW, its odd none of PHX are included in recommended builds, while
a bit to large, JJ, speed, ability to do ECM(brawling or mid-long range), shouldnt be overlooked.
Buffing arm armor did help a lot. And all others 45/50/55 are slower.

Phoenix Hawks only do well against teams that are guaranteed to shoot legs. Otherwise the best they can do is pretend to be a BJ-1X but with guns that tend to fall off as soon as you start trying to spread damage. I don't believe they are worth taking yet - PGI needs to make their arms at least as tanky as their side torsos before I'd consider them worth taking.

[Yiryi-Sa]

How often do the Tier 1 brawling, KungsArmé mechs appear in CW drops? I'm fairly close to building a deck of mostly brawlers, with a mix of Thunderbolts, Centurions and Shadow Hawks.

I've tried GHRs and WHRs, but I feel like it was a chore to use them. Would the Catapult K2 make a decent mid-range replacement (say fitted out with twin AC10s and 4 MLs?). If not, I'll look into the recommended Tier 2 Thunderbolt and Rifleman builds.

Edited by Yiryi-Sa, 10 January 2017 - 08:07 PM.

[Starbomber109]

Yiryi-Sa, on 10 January 2017 - 08:00 PM, said:

How often do the Tier 1 brawling, KungsArmé mechs appear in CW drops? I'm fairly close to building a deck of mostly brawlers, with a mix of Thunderbolts, Centurions and Shadow Hawks.

I've tried GHRs and WHRs, but I feel like it was a chore to use them. Would the Catapult K2 make a decent mid-range replacement (say fitted out with twin AC10s and 4 MLs?). If not, I'll look into the recommended Tier 2 Thunderbolt and Rifleman builds.

As far as I can remember, in the drops I've had the pleasure of teaming with ISEN on, they typically only run one brawler. On quickplay maps its their first drop, to mess up the enemy and kill as many of them as they can. I haven't seen the full on 'goat deck' yet, but I heard it's been done, to some effect. (Hell, the clanners did it to me last week, defending on sulfur, I never expected 12 gargoyles and mad dogs to come right through the middle head on into the pocket.)

[KinLuu]

The Griffin-3Ms only real advantage over the Griffin-2N is its ability to run with a full shield side. If you run it with a full shield side, not only can you protect all your weapons during the initial charge, it also gives the mech a lot of survivability for a medium mech, if you twist away after each shot.

If you run it with a XL, you might as well bring a 2N.