32 replies to this topic

[Shiroi Tsuki]

So throughout my years of playing MWO, I have noticed that quite a lot of people tend to be favoring Asymmetrical builds over symmetrical ones. As the name suggests, it's when people mount all their weapons and equipment on one side of their mech, and leave the other half pretty much empty and in some cases, even less armored.
I can definitely see the mentality of Sword and Shield tactic, of using your empty side to soak up the damage, while using the other half to do the hurting. I'm not really a big fan of this kind of build, especially when people are doing high point damage alphas, and with a well placed shot that could end losing the majority, if not ALL your weapons.

In your opinion, which of the two do you think is "superior"? Which builds would be best suited on certain roles? Do asymmetrical builds work for you?

Also I can't help but think of this when people do Asymmetrical builds lol

[Mole]

I have an obsessive compulsive desire to fill all weapon hardpoints on my 'mechs. I never do asymmetrical builds unless the 'mech by its very nature is asymmetrical. I can't help but shake my head when I see somebody loading all of their weapons onto one arm or side torso and they lose that component but otherwise their 'mech would still be in the fight if they hadn't just lost every single weapon they brought. I get it, it makes it easier to poke and you can shield with the empty side, but you lose your good side it's just over, you know? Closest thing I can think of to an asymmetrical 'mech that I have is my Wolverine which has 3 Large Lasers and a Small Laser in one arm and then nothing but a Small Laser in the CT and an SSRM2 in the side torso. I lose that arm I'm pretty much gimped even though I can still do a little something.

Edited by Mole, 13 October 2016 - 06:35 AM.

[Kotzi]

Symmetrical, almost always, kinda spleen for me. Although asymmetrical is "better" i just cant put both ppcs in one arm if there is another slot in the other.

Edited by Kotzi, 13 October 2016 - 06:35 AM.

[Clownwarlord]

First:

If you know that symmetrical means that both sides of something are identical, then it should be easy to learn that asymmetrical means the opposite: the two sides are different in some way. Asymmetrical things are irregular and crooked, and don't match up perfectly when folded in half.

Now that that is out of the way. I prefer symmetrical builds even though I see tier 1, meta mechs, and comp use usually asymmetrical builds. They both have their benefits but for me I like the symmetrical because if I lose that one side torso which holds all the weapons on that side of the mech, I am still useful unlike asymmetrical builds. I also prefer to spread my damage across multiple parts (left arm all the way across to right arm) while when piloting an asymmetrical build you can really only spread the side you do not have weapons on.

Example of mechs I pilot that show the difference:

BLR-1D

While not completely symmetrical I have a decent amount of weapons spread across the mech.

EXE-PRIME

This mech is more asymmetrical but it also becomes a single weapon mech if I lose the right torso.

Another issue I have with asymmetrical is peaking around a corner and having your weapons on the wrong side.

[Bud Crue]

Mole, on 13 October 2016 - 06:27 AM, said:

I have an obsessive compulsive desire to fill all weapon hardpoints on my 'mechs. I never do asymmetrical builds unless the 'mech by its very nature is asymmetrical.

Yup. OCD plus, aesthetics man, aesthetics. Weapons split equally just really brings a mech together ya' know?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Depends on the build and the mech, lately symmetrical builds have been more dominant (or as symmetrical as you can make them).

High mounted mechs tend to favor symmetrical builds because you generally can't run asym and all high mounts (HBK-IIC-A is an exception) while others tend to favor asym builds to capitalize on corner poking (since hill poking is less effective without high mounts).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 13 October 2016 - 06:57 AM.

[Hunka Junk]

Symmetrical until the ac20 comes in.*

*I'm saying this as a Sunday driver. I'm sure the pros prefer assym.

Edited by Hunka Junk, 13 October 2016 - 06:45 AM.

[process]

Aesthetically I prefer symmetrical builds, especially on symmetrically-inclined builds, but functionally asymmetry seems to be more effective. Not only can you sword and board, but it is better for concentrating fire.

[Recon Strike]

For me it heavily depends on the mech and playstyle that comes with it.

Misery is one mech that really begs to be built asymmetrical, but apart from the 5M variant all my other stalkers are built symmetrical.

Griffin 3M is another that comes to mind, I run it completely asym with just srms in the RT, but my 2N and Sparky are both perfectly symmetrical...

Both have their pro's and cons. I must say I have very rarely lost the weapon side first, so that argument is not as big as an issue for me. But as others have said, you can not always choose which corner you fight from, sometimes the battle just forces you somewhere, and it's anoying to have your weapons on the wrong side.

[Alistair Winter]

Even though I'm not a hardcore fan of Battletech lore, I still resent the "sword and shield" (or sword and board) approach to mech building. It just strikes me as a particularly ugly kind of min-maxing, like taking the iconic Nova and leaving its arms unarmored, so it can just use them to soak up incoming fire and then run around without arms like a zombie.

Mechs are supposed to be extremely valuable and powerful warmachines that can tip the scales of war. Many of them are decades, even centuries old. They are expensive, and repairs are expensive. They're not built to get limbs blown off in every engagement, are they?

To me, it's the equivalent of playing Battlefleet Gothic and using a Space Marine Battle barge as a kamikaze fire ship, when battle barges in lore are often 10,000+ years old and valuable beyond measure. At that point, the game resembles the lore so little that it's basically like a parallell universe.

EDIT: As for asymmetrical builds, it seems to me that the vast majority of builds in Battletech are asymmetrical. So I tend to leave asymmetrical mechs asymmetrical. I wouldn't make the GRF-2N symmetrical, for example. I also keep symmetrical mech symmetrical, as much as possible. But sometimes I go and do something like this, because it looks too good to not do it.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 13 October 2016 - 07:33 AM.

[Shiroi Tsuki]

Alistair Winter, on 13 October 2016 - 07:20 AM, said:

Even though I'm not a hardcore fan of Battletech lore, I still resent the "sword and shield" (or sword and board) approach to mech building. It just strikes me as a particularly ugly kind of min-maxing, like taking the iconic Nova and leaving its arms unarmored, so it can just use them to soak up incoming fire and then run around without arms like a zombie.

Mechs are supposed to be extremely valuable and powerful warmachines that can tip the scales of war. Many of them are decades, even centuries old. They are expensive, and repairs are expensive. They're not built to get limbs blown off in every engagement, are they?

To me, it's the equivalent of playing Battlefleet Gothic and using a Space Marine Battle barge as a kamikaze fire ship, when battle barges in lore are often 10,000+ years old and valuable beyond measure. At that point, the game resembles the lore so little that it's basically like a parallell universe.

I agree, it kinda does seem generally dumb at first, especially with the Novas. But I guess it's one way of maximizing survivability, except on an All-or-Nothing style.

[Mawai]

For Battlemechs ... I think the hard points tend to determine the usage as symmetric or asymmetric. For example, some mechs have limited hard points on one side ... or have hard points separated by type. Ballistic in an arm and several energy on the other side of the mech. If you don't use the ballistic hard point then you might as well use an asymmetric build.

The other aspect is boating. Folks often prefer boating either the same weapon or the weapon type (B,M,E). Many mechs have these weapons concentrated on one side or the other ... so by choosing a specific weapon you get an asymmetric build.

Finally, you can use one side as a shield if you are decent at torso twisting. Folks chew through the arm and the side torso while you preserve your firepower on the opposite side. Of course this runs a risk that someone fires at you from an unexpected direction and can take out most of your weapons. On the other side ... you tend to be able to preserve your firepower later into the game in some cases.

However, most folks aim for the torso, so to take advantage of shield effects you need longer cooldown weapons and you need to practice fast twisting in a chassis that has significant arms (i.e. it doesn't work well for non-humanoid mechs like Stalker or Marauder).


Edit: As for battletech lore ... Battletech is turn based so firing arcs and facing only mildly affect what parts can be hit (can't hit front torso from behind ... and can't fire at a target outside your firing arc) while MWO is real time. The tactic of torso twisting to spread damage actually makes perfect sense in the battletech universe .. pilot aim is so BAD that you randomly hit CT, RT, LT, LA, RA, LL, RL when firing a couple of medium lasers from 200m (assuming you hit at all with both you and the target moving at running speed).

MWO simulates this in two ways ... many weapons are damage over time so that it is harder to maintain the focus on one target element while moving (PPFLD weapons are probably a design error in my opinion unless they come with some mitigating aspects like charge time, minimum range and high heat) ... target torso twisting and movement will also tend to spread damage (except for the aforementioned synchronized PPFLD weapons).

Anyway, in the Battletech universe the goal is to put together the best mech build you can to win the fight. In almost any battle your mech will take damage but the Battlemechs would not have been put in the fight unless you had to win at any cost. So ... if the best build that will help you win the engagement happens to be asymmetric and utilizes torso twisting to spread damage and concentrate damage on the empty parts of the mech ... then presumably that is what Mechwarriors in the Battletech universe would do ... it never happens in lore or table top simply because the mechanics are not sufficiently detailed and the reasons for inaccuracy on damage application are not enumerated

Edited by Mawai, 13 October 2016 - 07:43 AM.

[Felbombling]

This is one misstep by PGI that I really disliked. Being able to strip a single arm equals another ton of ammo, heat sink or some other upgrade elsewhere in the Mech. That kind of freedom leads to min-maxing. Then they come to the realization that TTK is too short, boating is a problem, etc. I think armour values should be mirrored, left arm and right arm, left torso and right torso, left leg and right leg. Even though it is a minor issue in the min-max equation, it is one more tool in the toolbox.

I cannot help myself to build Mechs balanced, if the weapon hard points are there. My Hellbringers have armour on the arms and weapons in them, if you can believe that! I like to have the option to shoot down enemy UAVs if required, and found that not having anything in the arms made that rather difficult. My Dire Wolf is another example of my desire to spread the wealth. I actually went so far as to even up the tonnage allocated to the right side and left side of the Mech, in case one side got destroyed. Made me feel better knowing that I hadn't put all my eggs into one basket, so to speak.

[meteorol]

Both have advantages and drawbacks.

The main drawback of one sided builds is that you can lose the vast majority of your firepower quickly if you are jumped on. That is especially the case with the Gauss/PPC KDK-3. Most people play it rightsided. The torso gauss has a incredibly high chance of critting as soon as the side torso is open. If you get the jump on one, or can even shoot it form behind, you can often strip it down to a single gauss in seconds.

Generally i'd prefer one sided builds if playing in large groups (IF the mech and build even allows to chose between one sided or not, which is often not the case). It minimizes the chances of getting shot out of nowhere, because you generally (should) have better communications and mapcontrol.

Soloqueue though? You really can't count on puggels doing anything about a KDK simply walking past 8 of them. While they are picking flowers or catching flies. In the crazyness of soloqueue i'd prefer balanced builds. Since i only play soloqueue nowadays, i mostly use balanced builds (if the mech allows it).

Edited by meteorol, 13 October 2016 - 08:56 AM.

[RestosIII]

Symmetrical builds are the best.



But yeah, if I'm running anything that isn't a lore build (god forbid) it's symmetrical, or as symmetrical as I can make it. I'm not planning on keeping both ST's, but I have no clue which one I'm going to lose. I want to still have firepower left. (Dire Wolf Prime lore loadout is basically my baby)

[Tarogato]

Symmetrical all the way for me. I only run asymmetrical builds on IS XL mechs like the Enforcer that would die if they lost a side torso anyways. Otherwise, I submit that asymmetrical is vastly inferior. If you get caught off guard and lose your gun side, you are screwed.

Anecdote: One of the first games I played after the Cyclops arrived, I looped around the back of Mining Collective in my CDA-2B in solo queue and had another Cicada buddy following me. Came across a Cyclops that was behind the rest of his team, and while he was trying to track my other Cicada buddy, I put a couple shots into his right rear torso and BOOM all his weapons were gone. He ran off and survived because a pair of Adders came to his defense, but by that time he was already stick'd and he just shutdown in the corner of the map and disconnected and we didn't see his mech again until the end of the match where we had to hunt down his shutdown mech for like four minutes.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

I understand why asymm is so good, but every time I play it and end up having to fight on the **** side, or have a KDK-3 erase 100% of my weapons in one salvo I get salty.

Most of my mechs end up going 60/40 or 70/30. Most of my favorite mechs (King Crab, Cyclops, Awesome, Mauler) play symmetrically or near symmetrically.

[KodiakGW]

Shiroi Tsuki, on 13 October 2016 - 06:22 AM, said:

Also I can't help but think of this when people do Asymmetrical builds lol

Your Dragon has it's gun arm on the wrong side.

On topic, I always try to run symmetrical builds in solo PUG queue. When I don't one of two things never fails to happen. Either my team rotates in a way to make it difficult to use the side I have all the weapons on. Or (happens more often), a flanker focuses fire on me from my weapon side, instead of the 4-5 easier targets I figure would get shot at before me, and strips me of weapons. Also contributing to that are the 4-5 teammates that don't react to enemy fire crossing in front of them that is damaging their teammate (me).

Group queue I would take asymmetrical builds with teammates taking similar.

[El Bandito]

If the biggest gun is on the arm, then asymmetrical. If the biggest gun is in high-mounted torso and I can slap another on the other torso, then it is symmetrical.

Also, in IS XL mechs, losing the side torso with most of the weapons = death anyway. Therefore asymmetrical loadout makes sense.

Edited by El Bandito, 14 October 2016 - 02:05 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

If your mech supports shielding one side easily, and can mount multiple guns in tight clustering near one another, asym can make sense. Assuming the chassis is well designed for it. I see people deadsiding on mechs that it offers zero benefit on, like the EBJ, and it makes no sense. You cannot protect those side torsos. No matter how much you torso twist. Deadsiding something like that is just asking to be stripped.

However, I prefer symmetrical builds precisely because I have personally neutered an uncountable number of asym builds with the incredible ability called learning to aim.

Yes, asym provides a great deal of additional survivability on the mechs that can manage it, but I much rather hedge my bets by splitting the payload. I also am pretty good at wiggling my torsos (aka: armor rolling), so I can take a pretty insane amount of punishment from some builds before going down. While the total damage I might be able to absorb via armor rolling might be lower than multi-component damage reduction through deadsiding, I tend to plan for the worst, but hope for the best. In which case, I assume I will go up against pilots who can also aim, and who will neuter my mech rapidly should I go asymmetrical.

After all, eventually I will need to look at them to shoot. That's all the window one needs to blast an offending side torso off.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 13 October 2016 - 06:59 PM.