18 replies to this topic

[Odd Thomas]

Always preferred brawling. Enjoyed CQ brawling on the smaller older maps. Engagement was quick, brawling just around a corner.

With large maps, half the match is wasted on crossing terrain, avoiding snipers. Ultimately, if still in one piece you may have a brawling opportunity.

At best it's come down to a 50/50 chance. Much time is wasted..you're not of any help to the team for much of the match on a number of maps.

Yes, CQ brawling builds are fun. But on the current large maps and with long range weapons, they are no longer an efficient way to optimally help your team win.

Please voice opinions.

Edited by Odd Thomas, 15 April 2017 - 08:09 PM.

[DavidStarr]

I agree. That's the reason builds like SRM Cyclops 10-Q don't work. You either need to have some mid-range weapon, or be extremely hard to kill (Atlas, to a lesser extent Kodiak Spirit Bear).

Edited by DavidStarr, 16 April 2017 - 01:36 AM.

[Chill Bill]

Also agree. Voiced similar opinion a while back. Miss the CQ brawling but really can't justify the build as 'edc' anymore.

Possibly PGI can come up with a new map that would focus on CQ engagement, allowing mechs like the Atlas to once again relive its glory days.

[Koniving]

DavidStarr, on 16 April 2017 - 01:36 AM, said:

I agree. That's the reason builds like SRM Cyclops 10-Q don't work. You either need to have some mid-range weapon, or be extremely hard to kill (Atlas, to a lesser extent Kodiak Spirit Bear).

Hey now... I beg to differ on the SRM Cyclops.

Then again I pack twin LRM-15s + Artemis, 5 Streak 2s and a couple of ML.
When I did make a change to 5 Streak 2 and 2 SRM-6+Artemis I packed in a couple of ER LL.

(5 chain fired streaks is a non-stop barrage of screen shake.)

It's when they lack long range capabilities that they cost matches.

[Insanity09]

Alternatively, on small maps or maps with plenty of cover the long range builds have spent far too much weight on long range weaponry, so they pull the team down.
On high heat maps, laser/ppc boats suffer and are likely at a disadvantage, thus causing trouble for the team overall.
No single build type costs victories everywhere.

With no foreknowledge, no guarantee, of what map you will play on, it seems foolish to blame somebody for bringing what they hoped would be an effective mech.

I will also comment that it is possible, even somewhat effective, for a well coordinated team that has the usual mix of brawl and long range builds, when stuck on a longer range map, to have the longer range mechs provide more continuous cover fire so the brawlers can close distance more safely. (but not on alpine) There is usually a solution. Teamwork can provide in most cases.

[Rogue Jedi]

if you are a brawler moving 50kph and end up on a map porely suited for brawling you are in just as much trouble as if you take a long range Mech and wind up in a brawl.
single range builds on slow Mechs are a bad idea, everything slower than about 80kph needs something for its non optimal range, e.g. a brawler with a single LRM 10 of 2 ERLLs on an AS7-S, or a long range build with some ML, MPL or SPL.

note I am not sugesting a build equaly divided between multiple ranges, just having backup weapons so if you find yourself fighting outside your optimal range you can still do something.

if you are in a faster Mech like a max engine heavy, a Light or a Medium then you can afford to choose a single range because you have a fair chance of being able to dictate the engaguement range.

[Black Lanner]

I believe there is a perspective/ play style issue here. In PUG you cannot brawl in most games because you cannot trust the other people playing to Push together. You cannot trust most of the other players to share armor. You cannot rely on them to put themselves out there and take some hits.

You want to Brawl? Build a team, a group of people that you can constantly drop with, that share your love of this play style. Develop the teamwork so that everyone can work well together. A solid group of Assaults (My Scorch build is standing by), A strong 2nd line of longer ranged Heavies and Assaults (My Jade Kite and MAD-IIC-D are also waiting), then some strong light-killer/backstaber or sniper scouts (my Arctic Cheetah and Shadow Cats are close to being mastered). I have less than 250 games am still learning good habits. I have been playing for nearly a year, but, until recently, I was playing very infrequently. When I finally got my tax return, I was able to put together a very good computer and am now playing quite a bit on the weekends.

This has been my limited experience, you want to Brawl? Make sure you bring people who have your back.

Edited by Black Lanner, 16 April 2017 - 11:59 PM.

[Jingseng]

Because hitting Terrain, buildings, and teammates is so much more winning.

There are lots of factors leading to losing matches. CQ builds isn't one of them, but what creates this opinion is.

[CraneArmy]

I think you could also address it as a weapons imbalance (ttk BIAS) weighting empirical results from the available maps.

But the short answer is yes. CQ weapons are less consistent especially on QP / with slow mechs.

IMHO The reason is a Map Bias, some of which encourage engagements near the maximum range of ER Large / ER PPC weapons.

Long range weapons are always less effective in CQB because of heat for Energy, extended face time for AC2's low DPS for Gauss and damage drop off for LRM's. Therefore if you are in CQB even a slightly weakened mech boating 6-9 sm-pulse is going to outdps someone with many tons more of ER-Large, because of extra heatsinks, larger engine, and lower heat per damage.

The absolute proof has been in evidence since the introduction of scouting in FW (or CW or FP or whatever it is now). The weapons I just mentioned and others progressively less so as you bring the range in closer, are not competitive in scouting. Where in order to be effective you should either bring small pulse or srm's, maybe flamers or machine guns supplementary. Damage available to both teams on a scout map is low enough to allow 80-120 kph mechs to close to <100m before engaging regardless of the weapons that the other team brought, meaning that the team with better coordination / component focus with sm-pulse or srm's will win.

Long Range weapons cannot compete in cqb.

If you framed it as a weapons imbalance for long range weapons, you would create a greater disparity in cqb, which I dont think makes the game more fun, if PGI focused on a handful of maps for QP that encouraged CQB (and probably some FP / CW / FW maps that were bigger) you would achieve greater consistency for CQ loadouts and start to threaten the ppc / gauss meta.

This is my long way of saying I want a map on the Hesperus Mech Factory.

[Roughneck45]

Bad play costs wins.

The bigger maps make it harder for the CQC builds, for sure, but half the time all you need is a bit more patience to reap the rewards.

I could see an argument for CQC Assaults being less desirable on those bigger maps though.

[Black Lanner]

Most of the folks that are making the argument against the Brawl builds seem to be newer players...
Let's ask more seasoned players, like Roughneck, to weight in. Players that have been around for a while, and have learned the dynamics.

[Leone]

Okay. Well for one, I despise large lasers. Acs aren't half bad, and lrms can be useful and fun. Not to mention the devastating pinpoint power of gauss, but I feel large lasers give up too much damage to heat and weight ratio to be worth it.

I feel that every range bracket has its uses, but I'll bring brawl every match unless my unit asks me otherwise. And almost never in a light. I mean, a light is already a high speed delivery system.

But yeah, a good dual gauss used to be able to brawl well, but they've changed the cooldown times to make it less attractive. Lrms are hard to brawl with, cuz I keep wanting to close the distance more'n I should. Of all the range weaponry, Autocannons work best I feel, but they're a pretty hefty weight allotment.

~Leone.

[chucklesMuch]

DavidStarr, on 16 April 2017 - 01:36 AM, said:

I agree. That's the reason builds like SRM Cyclops 10-Q don't work. You either need to have some mid-range weapon, or be extremely hard to kill (Atlas, to a lesser extent Kodiak Spirit Bear).

I generally drop in QP solo and I didn't have much in the way of issues with using splatter-clopes (no more any other mech). That is one seriously fun brawler!!

Edit: I mean the xl395, 76k/h, 6xsrm6a, 1xsrm4a one... not a fan of lrms

Edited by chucklesMuch, 18 April 2017 - 01:30 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Bad players are costing wins. A bad player in a long range mech is a liablity just the same way as a bad player in a close range mech.

[The Basilisk]

I never understood the tendency of some players to pilot 100T avatars filled with nuclear fire and malice and then wanting to use the equivalent of clubs to cudgel each other to dead.
While I do appreaciate some SRMs for close range backup I prefere lasers and PPCs over missiles and ACs.

Due to the ever changing (and mostly random) nature of battlefields an elaborate mix of weapons is something that will fit the bill far better in most QP situations than a single minded loadout strategie. (I'm not talking about eclectic loadouds) Even if some may argue that this means overgunning or wasting tonnage in some situations I found it better than beeing useless in wide time periodes of the match. (yea yea just drive a clan MADIIC an use quad LPLs and you got next to all ranges covered...cheapasses)
Always remember:
--The right tool for the right job.
--And QP isn't comp.

f.e. CP-10-Q definetly overgunned and broke the XL on assaults rule but.... a constant 1.4 w/l and 1.4dk aren't too bad for an IS assault.
The Hellslinger can be great as long as you do not meet to many Gauss+PPC builds

Edited by The Basilisk, 18 April 2017 - 02:01 AM.

[Mercworks]

I'm sorry. I didn't hear that over the 4 kills per game I get in my Scortch with double LBX20s.

[Ghostrider0067]

I do just fine in any of my Cataphracts as most of them are built around brawling loadouts. While some maps work better than others and you never know what kind of teammates you're going to get, I'm of the belief that a pilot makes his own luck and a good one regardless of build will help turn the tide or be a difference maker.

I see what you're getting at though, OP.

[Hayvok]

99% i use cq loadout. If u peek out too much with cq loadout during the long range trading phase u r doing it wrong.

Hunker in while the long range duke it out. Stay with ur team. Kill any lights that crosses the line to harrass ur heavies.

When the long range dealers armor are spent and they taking cover u charge in and mop up.

Theres nothing wrong with cqs if you know your role.

[The Schwartz]

Think mobility is the key issue to a ton of brawler builds, well that and heat generation (moreso than long ranged). I used to play brawlers exclusively and been finding playing a more medium ranged mech to be more effective in general (slightly less dps but can engage at almost twice the distance) Also mech quirks make a much broader and pronounced presence in brawling than in most of the other styles.
Speed and hardpoints make a ton of difference. Skill to play a brawler is typically higher, much more torso twisting and quick shots. Biggest mistake i constantly see is people running straight at the enemy in a brawler vs using a shield arm or taking time to get in a flank position. I definatly don't use the atlas as much but the ONI's both clan and IS seem to do okay. It's tricky and does require patience, as what you're saying about being supportive in the team fire category it's a decent point for sure.

Personally i find in QP matches that most of the engagement is at medium range vs long or short so been experimenting with team builds focused more on that range. Rarely do i use assualts anymore for brawling as they are the big center of attention mechs, in general in QP a medium-long range mix seems to be more consistent for me.