53 replies to this topic

[Burke IV]

I looked it up. Afaik this info is current and trustworthy

Edit: ok i dont know why the link wont work but here is teh quote

"CASE prevents damage from traveling to the center torso by containing the damage within the side torso itself. While this prevents the center torso from taking internal damage, the side torso is still destroyed. When the side torso of a 'Mech with an XL Engine installed is destroyed, the engine itself is also destroyed and the 'Mech disabled with it. Thus, there is no benefit to installing CASE in 'Mechs with XL Engines"

Edited by Burke IV, 28 July 2016 - 03:34 PM.

[Drunken Skull]

I'm not disputing that that is how it is MEANT to work, I am simply stating that I have found from personal experience something entirely different. Maybe somethings broke with the Tempest, I don't know, but of all the possible builds this one just works.

As I said, as soon as case is removed the mortality rate jumps from 10% to 70% It's the most noticeable thing, quite hard to miss. I originally stumbled into this myself by accident as I had just swapped a STD220 out for a 300xl and hadn't bothered to remove the CASE for a few matches, as I wasn't sure an XL would be the best choice. As soon as I removed that case having the 300XL sitting on 6 tons of ammo was like instant promotion from "last man standing in a total wipe" to the "top 30% that die in the first 2 minutes of combat" brigade.

If I strip out the CC and BAP and add ammo and/or heat sinks, the balance of the mech is thrown off and it loses it's edge, it feels like going from using a sharp sword to one that's blunt as s##t, and it shows in the average damage per match, also quite hard to miss.

If you still don't buy that then just think of my case, cc, and bap as my magic talisman and lucky charms (but that also means that I'm just that damn good I can run with 5 and 1/2 tonnes of useless s##t onboard and still pull off 700 to 800 dmg per match consistently, with a low range of 550 if our team gets wiped )

Edited by Drunken Skull, 28 July 2016 - 04:27 PM.

[FLG 01]

I know it can be very hard to change a tried&proven build, but sometimes that is just what you have to do.

I like the Tempest, too. In fact, it is my favoured Hero Mech. And I am not doing too bad in it - 1.62 KDR in 320 T1 Solo PUG matche seems alright for a pure supporter. Which is funny, because I feel you are on the right track with your build: main armament being LRM, 30 tubes (though I usually use 2x ALRM15) with a 4x laser backup (I sometimes switch to ML for better speed).

However, there are some objectively problematic aspects in your build. This is not to discourage you, but I really would not recommend it to anyone else. The Tempest is a hard-to-pilot Mech already and you cannot afford the luxury of waste.
And yes, you do waste tonnage. Others have already pointed out the problems with the CC, BAP and CASE. Even though I respect CASE for being a lore-friendly component, CC and BAP make very little sense for reasons others have outlined much better than I ever could.
It might be alright for you, but I can assure you others will run into trouble with this. ...including myself, because I could not imagine my Tempest to be as effective with CC, BAP and CASE (or back armour or advanced zoom, but that's another story), since I do run hot despite having more heatsinks, I do run out ammo despite having much more ammo.

Just try this: remove the CC, add DHS or ammo as you see fit, and see what happens. If you are satisfied with the results, do ttep two: remove the BAP, add DHS or ammo as you see fit, and see what happens. Etc.

[Drunken Skull]

I do have back armour btw, that is just stock smurfy armour. For security reasons I haven't shown my actual armour distribution, and I'd advise others not to do so either.

That's the thing FLG 01, I went through that iterative process for a solid week exhausting almost every conceivable combination (From laserboat to splatboat and everywhere in-between), and those 5 1/2 extra tonnes were distributed in a myriad of different ways, and the most effective is the combination I have presented. For me targeting without bap and cc is akin to trying to target in a hazy fog, with your flight stick trapped in a foot of mud, that is literally the sensation I get (which is not good considering I use a kbd and mouse). As I said, Its Like swapping from a sharp sword to a blunt butterknife. With cc and bap I can select a target, and less than a second later it is a crisp solid LRM lock, without cc and bap I change target and get to watch the seeker noodle around flakily for 15 seconds when I could be launching mssiles...

As for having more ammo, I try not to waste a shot, and generally make sure as much as possible of the 1050 LRM hit a solid assault mech, which accounts for 550 to 700 of the total damage output per match. I have found any more than this amount leads to the LRM10 launchers being unable to dispose of the entire stock within a timely fashion before match end, and often leads to "explosive" end-game scenario's (also the case if LRM5 is used instead of LRM10, I'd have an appreciable amount of ammo left over from the 6 tonnes with no way of firing it in time before the end of the match, coupled with the fact that this would just make the enemy assault mech angry, and not really hurt it in any significant way....).

As with adding additional heat sinks, the 3xLRM10 being chain-fired does not produce overwhelming heat, neither does group-firing the Mplsr (spamming both at once is another matter, though I rarely find I need to do this more than once or twice in a match which is mitigated by the coolant flush). I have tried adding extra heat sinks in lieu of the BAP and CC and gained no "useful" margin of advantage from it.

The Idea behind splitting the launch system between 3x10 instead of 2x15 or 2x20 is that; in the time it takes to reload a single LRM10 I have launched 30 missiles and am prepared to launch another 30, that's 60 LRM in flight in the time it takes 2 LRM10 to load, by the third LRM10 Reload I have 90 missiles in flight, all of this being further enhanced by the lrm10 cooldown 5; which means face-to-face, a 3xLRM10 Archer can out-launch a 2xLRM15 archer substantially, and can out-launch a 2xLRM20 Archer by a mile.

Another advantage of the 3xlrm10 is the resolution of fire, I can stop firing at a target that becomes obscured or destroyed, and maybe lose 1 or 2 salvo's in flight at worst (predicting when to shoot and not to shoot is half the fun), where as a 2xlrm15 and 2xlrm20 missile system must commit to it's target with batches of 15/30 or 20/40 missiles respectively, consequently losing a far larger portion of missile stock to dud shots.

The main reason I decided not to go the Artemis route is that I want to take advantage of Tag and Narc bonuses provided by teammates, this makes things much more interesting, and helps out the little guys with much needed assist bonuses, also an ALRM10 won't fit in the ct. And if it came down to a choice between ALRM5 and ASRM4 in the CT I'd probably opt for the ASRM4... better to just use std guided lrm10 for maximum module boostage, coupled with the glory of striking down a well tagged or narc'ed enemy (preferably from Beyond Visual Range, cause you know how assault mechs like being pumbled by things they can't even see...) .

The thing to remember about Smurfy is that it doesn't take into account the mode of fire when calculating the sustained DPS and heat generation of chain-fired LRM10 (it assumes an alpha strike use of the weapons, which would generate a ghost heat penalty), and it's not taking into account the buffs gained by modules such as the LRM10 Cool-down 5, so it cannot be relied upon for an accurate representation of true DPS and heat management qualities.

Edited by Drunken Skull, 28 July 2016 - 08:37 PM.

[Lykaon]

Changing gears,since no amount of convincing is going to change that he is love with wasted tonnage and inefficent choices.

I have a Butterbee. It has no ECM,no BAP no command console and XL engine and of course no CASE. I do not use an advanced zoom and I do not have an LRM range module.

It is armed with 4x LRM 5 with 7.5 tons ammo and 3 x lrg lasers.
It has an advanced seismic sensor and target retention module in the mech slots
It has LRM 5 cooldown and lrg laser range modules for the weapon modules
I use a cool shot and a UAV in the consumables.

This mech also rakes in the c-bills and damage and rarely even on a team loss fails to at least maintain PSR (frequently it climbs). I do not have the ECM crutch my enemy can see me and my loadout. I am up front with my team mates so I am a target.

How I use it....

Hold the line with the assaults and swing back and forth to strengthen lanes of attack or suppress enemy advances. I use my "extra" ammo payload to keep the enemy's heads down and to herd targets into friendly killzones.

I find that if I begin a combat at about the mid point in the pack I can support/suppress along a 1.5 km stretch (about 750m to my right/left or front and rarely rear) I rarely bother to engage targets outside 750m because it's a waste of ammo most of the time. (I will fire to suppress though)

And the kicker is...This mech will tear that Tempest a new one. The Catapult will be down half it's payload since the ECM will counter the locks but the large lasers outrange the medium pulse lasers by quite a bit.

I will gladly sit and trade 3 LRM10s for 3 lrg lasers odds are highly in the Catapults favor that well aimed direct fire lasers will tear that 300XL off before the LRMs even breach the Cat's armor anywhere.

So I put it to you that you are using the wrong chassis you should have bought a Butterbee.

Edited by Lykaon, 29 July 2016 - 10:56 PM.

[Drunken Skull]

I'm no stranger to the cat so I know what I'm talking about when I say "3 Large, sounds pretty hot". I can guarantee that you will have more than a few heat issues with that mech, last thing you want to be doing is overheating in a firefight. Consider also that my primary role is escort, so, the Charlie lance I'm cloaking might interfere with your plans some...

In wake of the recent light mech event I am considering swapping over to a 2x15ALMS and STD engine, so I will be dropping the bap and cc from the new build, as they were mainly just filling a 5 tonne gap to begin with but I did grow fond of the advantages they gave.

Edited by Drunken Skull, 29 July 2016 - 11:53 PM.

[Drunken Skull]

Ok gave that a try, 2xalrm15 2xerLlsr and no cc bap, 5 games each averaged 100 damage, not impressed... went back to my original build and just got 847 damage first game... Just outlined to me how important cc and bap is to my play style.

Edited by Drunken Skull, 30 July 2016 - 01:24 AM.

[FLG 01]

Please spare us the hyperbole. BAP and CC provide target info faster (no faster locks!) and increase the sensor range for your build. Adding them does not just result in a Mech 8 times more efficient, no matter what play style.

To be honest, after seeing your threads about how BAP and CC make LRM lock faster and how CASE protects XL engines, I don't think you are serious.

Edited by FLG 01, 01 August 2016 - 01:48 PM.

[AztecD]

LRM20A(2) + 4 ML + BAP+STD engine+AMS

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...07fb9820b0f80d1

Im a firm believer in STD engines myself

[Drunken Skull]

Since the event of the C.A.S.E and XL thread I am doing a total re-design of the build(dropping the c.a.s.e and attempting to completely pad all critical slots in both side torso's). I will also do a review of the cc and bap but at this stage I remain convinced these are providing me a significant edge in combat.

@ AztecD
I do like that build, but I wonder why you'd opt for both AMS and ECM together, is there a specific advantage to this?

[Rhent]

Honestly, 3 LPL's + 2 SRM6's and you'll do better. Once the LPL's open up the armor, you do 1 blast from SRM's to get the kill.

[Lynx7725]

Working off your original build (and not really going through all the suggestions...), my suggestions are as follows:

Swap the CC and CASE out, and upgrade the two torso LRMs to LRM15s. (Yes, doing this may require you to have a second LRM cooldown module).

In such a case your ammo load may be insufficient, but depending on your playstyle, might work. Some possibilities if you encounter ammo problems:

Reduce 4 MPL to 4 ML (personally, I suspect 4 medium anything lasers would run a bit hot when you need to use it).
Reduce 4 MPL to 4 SPL (again, depending on your playstyle).

The above will free up 4 tons and you should have sufficient ammo at that point; alternatively, you can go Artemis/ TAG if you feel the need (though that would remove the CT LRM10).

As for module, as some had said, the LRM range module is usually pointless. You're very unlikely to get targets that far out that you need it, and if they show face to you, they likely have something that can hurt you from beyond your range. Better to spend the time to get closer.

ECM-BAP is not a great combination but I'm sort of attached to both. Just remember your ECM has a toggle switch, you can turn it off if you need to.

And to answer your question on AMS/ ECM; ECM gives limited coverage, so not all team members are covered; those not covered can still be fired upon, so AMS is a team asset in such cases to reduce damage. Personally, I don't like that AMS can give away my position (yes, I know they can toggle now), so I don't always field it, but on my LRM support I did devote 1 ton to help the team with anti-missile.

[Lykaon]

Drunken Skull, on 01 August 2016 - 05:13 PM, said:

.

@ AztecD
I do like that build, but I wonder why you'd opt for both AMS and ECM together, is there a specific advantage to this?

The purpose of AMS and ECM is more a matter of team support Than direct benefit to you.

Your ECM has a 90m radius while the AMS will engage missiles traversing into or through it's radius (that is much larger than ECM's 90m I can't recall exact AMS range but I think it's about 250m radius ) This means you can provide some anti missile suppport to friendly mechs that are outside your 90m ECM range yet are still within your AMS range or are within the tragectory path that will take the missiles through your AMS.

However there are times when you may have your ECM toggled to counter mode and will not be protected from being missile locked so AMS can be of direct use to you then.

Edited by Lykaon, 01 August 2016 - 09:28 PM.

[Lykaon]

Drunken Skull, on 29 July 2016 - 11:32 PM, said:

I'm no stranger to the cat so I know what I'm talking about when I say "3 Large, sounds pretty hot". I can guarantee that you will have more than a few heat issues with that mech, last thing you want to be doing is overheating in a firefight. Consider also that my primary role is escort, so, the Charlie lance I'm cloaking might interfere with your plans some...

Heat efficiency for 3 lrg lasers and 4 LRM 5 is actually the same as 4 medium pulse and 3 LRM 10 (with the heatsinks each of our builds use). That being said I do fire the LRMs and Large Lasers in tandem far more often than you would be using the medium pulse lasers with the LRM 10s.

It is hot (29% heat efficency) so one would not simply spam missiles and triple laser blasts. The weapon groupings are 2 lrg lasers,1 lrg laser, 4 LRM 5 (groupfire) and 4 LRM 5 (chainfire).

I would not recommend this build for someone who is not skilled at heat managment. It requires knowing the timing of weapon firing and how/when to make use of the coolant module.

It is not a novice level mech because it is very nuanced.

I also (when the need arises) escort (or assist) other mechs that have become vulnerable. I am not reliant on the magic jesus box to do it for me I instead activley target and supress the enemy that are a threat.

The advantages to the lrg lasers is I can apply damage to targets simultaniously with the LRM barrages. With med pulse lasers the ranges will rarely be complimentry. The pinpoint ability of the lasers allows me to exploit damage done previously from the LRM hits to maximize effects. If/when I am attacked at ranges under LRM min. I switch to the lasers exclusivley (and use the coolant if I need the heat displaced fast).

Overall I find the longer reach of the lrg lasers to be more advantageous than using a more tradisional array of light lasers.