31 replies to this topic

[mogs01gt]

I've just ran my 4sp in a few matches and each time, the SRMs get destroyed before the ST goes pop. The CT still has armor but those damn ST's on hunchies!! I'd trade 10 structure HP for 5-10 more ST armor! Hell I'll even run an XLs in them! Is there a way to prevent he SRMs from going boom? Maybe not torso twisting as much and face tanking more?


Of course, I may be asking too much for proper quirks on mechs...



Mogs

Edited by mogs01gt, 12 November 2016 - 02:10 PM.

[Deathlike]

Outside of not losing that section, you need to learn the art of crit buffering.

Putting DHS in sections where you want the weapon primarily available helps a lot in keeping them available as long as possible.

With that said, the 4SP's claim to fame in the current meta is durability... not firepower.

[mogs01gt]

Deathlike, on 12 November 2016 - 02:13 PM, said:

Outside of not losing that section, you need to learn the art of crit buffering.

Putting DHS in sections where you want the weapon primarily available helps a lot in keeping them available as long as possible.

With that said, the 4SP's claim to fame in the current meta is durability... not firepower.

I have DHS in the ST. The SRMs still go pop.

[Y E O N N E]

You use structure buffs when the 'Mech's problem is out-right survivability and you want finer-grain control of how buffed it is. A structure buff is less potent than an armor buff because crits make the expected time-to-kill with the new hit-point count into a soft value. It also demands a little more of the pilot to take advantage of the buff, building and piloting the 'Mech to keep components intact.

You use an armor buff when the 'Mech's problem is more about getting mission-killed. That is, loses all of its fighting ability without actually dying. 'Mechs like the PHX, MLX, and HBK need armor buffs to places like the arms and the right torso because they have all of their fight in easily disposed locations. If we just used structure, it wouldn't block crits, and so instead of losing all of the weapons when you lose the component you just lose them while that component sponges damage. Structure, in this case, has not solved the problem.

[Jman5]

With the 4SP I run ammo in my side torsos for the crit padding. IMO, the benefit outweighs the risk of ammo explosion.

[mogs01gt]

Jman5, on 12 November 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:

With the 4SP I run ammo in my side torsos for the crit padding. IMO, the benefit outweighs the risk of ammo explosion.

interesting, no case?

[Deathlike]

Armor is better. Structure is what the basic MGs are supposed to feast on (although the best builds require quirks).

Structure is not a real replacement for armor in the grand scheme of things.. unless you don't care about that section (like the Centurion's Left Arm).

mogs01gt, on 12 November 2016 - 03:55 PM, said:

interesting, no case?

CASE only matters when there's a great potential for an ammo explosion.

You can get away with 1 ton or so (or more, depending on the build) in a side torso AS LONG as you dump as much ammo to effectively remove them from those sections (allowing you to use the "empty ammo" as crit buffers).

Very rarely would you really need to use CASE (basically, if you are using a side torso/arm for an ammo dump, then go ahead... but it's just a waste of tonnage+space otherwise).

Edited by Deathlike, 12 November 2016 - 03:59 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

I think the only time I ever use CASE is when I'm protecting myself from my own Gauss rifle, and the only 'Mech I currently have equipped with a Gauss is the Bounty Hunter. Clan 'Mechs bringing Gauss left and right really take that free CASE for granted.

Honestly, I feel that the IS Gauss should not explode. That's the penalty for losing three tons in the transition from IS to Clan. Then I could bring it in isXL-equipped side torsos.

[TercieI]

Jman5, on 12 November 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:

With the 4SP I run ammo in my side torsos for the crit padding. IMO, the benefit outweighs the risk of ammo explosion.

^This. Ammo only has a 10% chance of exploding even if critted. It's simply not worth worrying about.

[Mcgral18]

Deathlike, on 12 November 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:

Armor is better. Structure is what the basic MGs are supposed to feast on (although the best builds require quirks).

Structure is not a real replacement for armor in the grand scheme of things.. unless you don't care about that section (like the Centurion's Left Arm).



CASE only matters when there's a great potential for an ammo explosion.

You can get away with 1 ton or so (or more, depending on the build) in a side torso AS LONG as you dump as much ammo to effectively remove them from those sections (allowing you to use the "empty ammo" as crit buffers).

Very rarely would you really need to use CASE (basically, if you are using a side torso/arm for an ammo dump, then go ahead... but it's just a waste of tonnage+space otherwise).

I remember I used CASE purposely on one mechL The Banshee 3E

It had most of the ammo with the MLs in the RT (and RL, still saves me)
It did keep me from exploding, and there's still 2 tons left after the fact.



Of course...that robot isn't great anymore, but RNGeesus is the same as he's always been.

Yeonne Greene, on 12 November 2016 - 04:08 PM, said:

I think the only time I ever use CASE is when I'm protecting myself from my own Gauss rifle, and the only 'Mech I currently have equipped with a Gauss is the Bounty Hunter. Clan 'Mechs bringing Gauss left and right really take that free CASE for granted.

Honestly, I feel that the IS Gauss should not explode. That's the penalty for losing three tons in the transition from IS to Clan. Then I could bring it in isXL-equipped side torsos.

On Gauss?

20 damage on a Heavy isn't terrible.
I'm still not sure if damage=40% with explosions or not.
I remember it being different to typical damage transfer and at 100%...but I can't remember WHY I think that.

[mogs01gt]

TercieI, on 12 November 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

^This. Ammo only has a 10% chance of exploding even if critted. It's simply not worth worrying about.

Still dont see how using DHS or ammo is helpful to prevent the hardpoint(srm) from getting popped.

[Mcgral18]

mogs01gt, on 12 November 2016 - 05:39 PM, said:

Still dont see how using DHS or ammo is helpful to prevent the hardpoint(srm) from getting popped.

See the LT VS RT heatsink


The RT is Crit padded (...with Ammo...) so it has a lesser chance to be destroyed
This is, of course, subject to RNGeesus, and you can still lose it the second a 10 PP FLD source penetrates your armour, but, this reduces the chance.

A 3 slot SRM6+A would have a 100% chance to be destroyed if alone (like the LT heatsink) with 3/3 Critable slots
But, fill out that torso with heatsinks or whatnot, and if you fill all 12 slots, it's only 3/12 Critable slots, or 25% chance to be the target of a Crit


That's better than 100%

[Y E O N N E]

Mcgral18, on 12 November 2016 - 04:53 PM, said:

On Gauss?

20 damage on a Heavy isn't terrible.
I'm still not sure if damage=40% with explosions or not.
I remember it being different to typical damage transfer and at 100%...but I can't remember WHY I think that.

By the time the Gauss typically goes boom, my CT is also already damaged. Having the CASE allows me to at least keep fighting with the left side of my 'Mech instead of being, well, dead.

It's saved me often enough that I think it's worth it. And I only have a single Gauss anyway, I'm not losing anything significant by sacrificing 5 rounds of the usual 30 for that safety net.

[FupDup]

The purpose of structure buffing instead of armor is PGI's attempt to make crit-seeking weapons into an actual thing rather than a joke.

It hasn't really succeeded.

[Tarogato]

Adding structure is preferable because it is an indirect buff to crit-seeking weapons like MGs and LB, which need all the help they can get to remain viable. Adding armour instead just makes mechs tankier and doesn't buff crit-seekers.

[mogs01gt]

Tarogato, on 12 November 2016 - 06:35 PM, said:

Adding structure is preferable because it is an indirect buff to crit-seeking weapons like MGs and LB, which need all the help they can get to remain viable. Adding armour instead just makes mechs tankier and doesn't buff crit-seekers.

But a mechs like a Hunchie needs to be more tanky. Especially a mech like the 4sp which has an effective range of like 270m.

Edited by mogs01gt, 12 November 2016 - 08:54 PM.

[Tarogato]

mogs01gt, on 12 November 2016 - 08:53 PM, said:

But a mechs like a Hunchie needs to be more tanky. Especially a mech like the 4sp which has an effective range of like 270m.

Yes, that's why you add structure to them.

If you give them armour instead, you're basically nerfing crit-seeking weapons like MGs and LBs. Because now the mech is comprised of a higher percentage of hitpoints that do not crit than it otherwise would, which shifts the balance further in favour of "weapons that deal damage" instead of "weapons that deal crits". There are certain instances where crit-proof buffs I think are okay, such as the Centurions left arm, which is literally a shield, but I think it's better for the vast majority of durability buffs to be in the form of structure, so that it helps give crit-seekers a reason to exist.

[FupDup]

Tarogato, on 12 November 2016 - 08:59 PM, said:

Yes, that's why you add structure to them.

If you give them armour instead, you're basically nerfing crit-seeking weapons like MGs and LBs. Because now the mech is comprised of a higher percentage of hitpoints that do not crit than it otherwise would, which shifts the balance further in favour of "weapons that deal damage" instead of "weapons that deal crits". There are certain instances where crit-proof buffs I think are okay, such as the Centurions left arm, which is literally a shield, but I think it's better for the vast majority of durability buffs to be in the form of structure, so that it helps give crit-seekers a reason to exist.

That "workaround" solution to crit-seeking guns is basically a bandaid.

Maybe just make those guns...not suck against mechs that lack structure quirks (e.g. most of the top Clan mechs).

[Tarogato]

FupDup, on 12 November 2016 - 09:01 PM, said:

That "workaround" solution to crit-seeking guns is basically a bandaid.

Maybe just make those guns...not suck against mechs that lack structure quirks (e.g. most of the top Clan mechs).

Well, another one of the problems with them, is that "regular" weapons crit-seek just fine already. If you buffed the crit potential of crit-oriented guns, then you are contributing to a faster TTK. So it would be better to at the same time nerf the crit-seeking abilities of non-crit-oriented guns, like PPCs, lasers, and non-LB ballistics.

[mogs01gt]

Tarogato, on 12 November 2016 - 08:59 PM, said:

Yes, that's why you add structure to them.

If you give them armour instead, you're basically nerfing crit-seeking weapons like MGs and LBs. Because now the mech is comprised of a higher percentage of hitpoints that do not crit than it otherwise would, which shifts the balance further in favour of "weapons that deal damage" instead of "weapons that deal crits". There are certain instances where crit-proof buffs I think are okay, such as the Centurions left arm, which is literally a shield, but I think it's better for the vast majority of durability buffs to be in the form of structure, so that it helps give crit-seekers a reason to exist.

who cares about already inferior weapons. Giving more structure simply saves the STs and not the hardpoints.