31 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

If you update your gude, maybe you could create a thread for it in the New Player forum... Not sure it would help getting replies, but maybe it increases the chance of being seen by someone that could benefit from it.

Or maybe not. I am not back long enough to know where threads go to die.

[Appogee]

Nice writeup, thanks Oni.

[MustrumRidcully]

One thought that occured to me regarding the various ways to deal with your heat:

The Firepower Tree nodes lower your heat "production" by 0.75 % per Node.
The Operations Tree nodes increase your heat dissipation by -1.5 % per Node.

Now, if the OPS Tree affects all your heat sinks, you can simply compare how much heat you produce versus how much heat you sink.

The typical BLR-2C Metabuild (http://mwo.smurfy-ne...ac14ce1615d0ff6) with 5 Large Pulse Lasers can produce 1.79 x 5 = 8.95 heat per second.
With 10 True Dubs and 9 PoorDubs it can dissipate 3.35 heat per second. That means your heat production rate is almost three times as large as your heat dissipation rate. That means 0.75 % reduction is also three times as valuable. So even though the heat dissipation buff is twice as large as the heat reduction, overall, for this buidl the heat gen nodes are better.

I suspect that many "meta" builds have similar production to dissipation rates.
A cursory glance at a few metamech.com builds on smurfy seems to suggest that the cooling efficiency (Heat Dissipation / Heat Production) of most builds are indeed below the 50 % mark, with many IS mechs seeming to go below the 40 % mark even. (The biggest outlier is the Dual Guass Jagermech, which has a cooling efficiency of 500 %. But even the UAC/5 drops below the 40 % mark. Boomjagers reach the territory where you might want to buff the dissipation. Unless you like two dual-fire them, then the ghost heat will make heat gen more attractive, unless heat gen does not affect ghost heat.)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 19 June 2017 - 01:03 AM.

[Onimusha shin]

Kiiyor, on 18 June 2017 - 11:24 PM, said:

As for your tree advice, I agree with a most of it, but I do note that a lot of it is subjective. I'm finding that anything I use to fight at knife ranges has a heavier investment in survival quirks, whereas longer range stuff benefits far more from heavy firepower investment.

As for mobility... i'm strangely finding that i'm only using a token amount of it (if any), even in mediums and lights. I find that survival and firepower are of far more benefit, for me anyways.

I find that Lukoi's anecdotal evidence will display that Survival generally helps the party that has it more than the one that doesn't. Firepower+Ops tree buffs serve only to boost your max DPS by 30-40% and sustained DPS by 10-20% but if you went all out, you'd gain another 10% and 5% respectively (hazarding a guess)? And to be able to consistently put shots into the same component repeatedly at long distance, would mean you'd have to be a pretty good shot, at least at the level of a Div B comp team player. Which is pretty hard IRL battles.

MustrumRidcully, on 19 June 2017 - 12:30 AM, said:

If you update your gude, maybe you could create a thread for it in the New Player forum... Not sure it would help getting replies, but maybe it increases the chance of being seen by someone that could benefit from it.

It's actually there already but I'll have to update it as well.

MustrumRidcully, on 19 June 2017 - 01:01 AM, said:

With 10 True Dubs and 9 PoorDubs it can dissipate 3.35 heat per second. That means your heat production rate is almost three times as large as your heat dissipation rate. That means 0.75 % reduction is also three times as valuable. So even though the heat dissipation buff is twice as large as the heat reduction, overall, for this build the heat gen nodes are better.

Congratulations, you've found the problem that confounds many higher tier players. It's not that Cool Run isn't worth it. But if you can get at least 9% Heat Gen reduction, AND the Heat Containment plus Cool Run, your DPS will be at the 90th percentile of players running the same build but with different pathing for the Firepower+Ops trees.

As for cool builds like Gauss Jager, this needs zero heat related skills unless you have backup lasers. Or for the 2UAC5 Enforcer, Heat Containment is probably more valuable than say Cool Run and you can tweak the numbers to see what's the optimal balance wrt SP investment. Hence my spreadsheet in my other thread.

[Insanity09]

I'll put my longer comments/opinions in spoilers, and leave the simple stuff open.
By and large Oni gave a good analysis.

Heat stuff

Spoiler

As far as heat and HS, the rule of thumb I've seen that seems to make sense is if you have <14 DHS, you are far better off taking Heat Gen nodes, rather than cool run. 14-16 or so, it could go either way. With 17+ DHS, cool run is better overall (and you get the heat containment on the way, so...) Of course, mileage may vary depending on build, and some of both won't go amiss in most cases, but as far as which to emphasize... If you don't have DHS yet, you're upgrading soon, right?

Durability

Spoiler

For survival, from the numbers I've seen, barring armor/structure quirks, armor will tend to be better. Yes, the structure numbers tend to be about double the armor, but you also have double the armor, so the numbers work out the same (one node of armor, even at half the value, actually gives you basically the same numerical boost as one node of structure).
Also, even if your structure is massively buffed, items in that location can still be destroyed along the way, so armor, on the whole, is to be preferred. If you have quirks, spec to them, ofc.

Firepower, Oni's diagnosis is good, mostly. I'll just add that range nodes for ballistic/energy builds = good, for missile builds range = bad/useless.

I agree the JJ tree, except for specialized jump builds, is to be ignored.

Auxiliary

Spoiler

For most builds/mechs, the same is true of aux nodes (beyond the 1 point). However... if your mech runs very very hot, the coolant nodes might be helpful (and getting an extra coolant usage, not bad). Similarly, on some mechs (mostly lights) I actually do throw a few points into the tree, cap assist can help, and a little extra (potential) damage from the strikes has me buying one node there from time to time. Those are all kind of special builds, where my durability and damage output is low enough that buffing other things instead makes sense.
On the whole though, this tree is an afterthought for me, I spend points here only once I've gotten what I consider crucial for a given chassis.

Sensors, especially radar dep (and AMS in survival)

Spoiler

Rant on.
I am sick and tired of people saying "just find hard cover", "break the locks and you're fine", and so forth.
That is simply NOT always feasible. I defy you to find a single map where you are ALWAYS only a second or two away from hard cover &/or an LOS breaker. There aren't any! Yes, many maps have decent cover in some spots, but unless you just sit in a good cover spot and never move (which is losing strategy for other reasons), you will be exposed at some point, possibly for a while, and at times that cover is rendered USELESS because of the direction the missiles are coming from. It just infuriates me to see people being so out of touch with reality and expecting others to buy in to the madness. LRM's are an inferior weapon, true, but that is very far from saying they are totally ineffective. Pistols are far less effective than rifles, RW, but they can still kill you.
In numbers LRMs can really hurt, and boy do people love to boat them.
Rant off.

Okay, most of the nodes in the sensor tree are meh. Sensors, TIG, decay, target retain are all of limited value. There is a reason most of those modules rarely got used.
As Oni said, if you are an ECM mech you MUST get both the ECM nodes. If you don't, just take the ECM off your mech and use the tonnage for something else. I'm serious, get the nodes, or don't bother with the equipment.
Zoom can be good, and is somewhat cheap at only 4 nodes to get.
As for radar deprivation and seismic, however, I find myself (and, per comments in other threads and when grouping, many others do as well) seriously debating their value given the cost. For a cost of 9 points (left side of tree), you can grab 3 radar dep nodes, and if I've got the numbers correct, and the nodes work the way they seem to be advertised, you are no worse off than you used to be under the modules (base lock retain 2.5s +3.5s full decay = 6s - 60% = 2.4s, less than base lock retain). Cheap at the price, and hey, it comes with a few sensor, TIG, and decay nodes in the bargain.
If you want full rd and/or if you want seismic, you'll pay for it. (tangentially, if you are an ECM mech, it almost does make sense to go full ELINT and get the extra nodes for full radar dep and seismic. <shrug>)
As for the AMS nodes, on any AMS equipped mech, I'd rather take those nodes than shock absorbance. I'm careful when I jump, I don't tend to run off cliffs much, and the falling damage in most cases is not large to begin with, so shock absorbance, imo, is of minimal value, whereas the boost to AMS damage is actually fairly large these days.

Edit, correct rd cost.

Edited by Insanity09, 22 June 2017 - 10:43 PM.

[Onimusha shin]

Insanity09, on 22 June 2017 - 09:18 PM, said:

Of course, mileage may vary depending on build, and some of both won't go amiss in most cases, but as far as which to emphasize...

Well, according to the math I did here, it looks like the optimum is really either max CR+HC or 5xCR+4xHC, in terms of SP investment. You will notice that builds shown vary from 10 truedubs only to 25DHS total and the math still holds.

Insanity09, on 22 June 2017 - 09:18 PM, said:

For survival, from the numbers I've seen, barring armor/structure quirks, armor will tend to be better...... Also, even if your structure is massively buffed, items in that location can still be destroyed along the way, so armor, on the whole, is to be preferred. If you have quirks, spec to them, ofc.

Yes, this is something debatable and based on RNG so it's difficult to be certain which is better. But if you want to last longer in the match, might as well go the full 32 SPs investment and raise your HP up to a Mech 5-10tons heavier? It's preference though but I've laid out my arguments and the logic behind it.

Insanity09, on 22 June 2017 - 09:18 PM, said:

Sensors, especially radar dep (and AMS in survival)
Rant on. I am sick and tired of people saying "just find hard cover", "break the locks and you're fine", and so forth. That is simply NOT always feasible. I defy you to find a single map where you are ALWAYS only a second or two away from hard cover &/or an LOS breaker. There aren't any! Yes, many maps have decent cover in some spots, but unless you just sit in a good cover spot and never move (which is losing strategy for other reasons), you will be exposed at some point, possibly for a while, and at times that cover is rendered USELESS because of the direction the missiles are coming from.

Yes, I understand the frustration. Radar Depri is however, a pretty expensive investment unless you're getting only 1 node, which sort of defeats the purpose.

I'd blame PGI for designing the maps this way (Polar, Frozen deja vu, etc) and for making LRMs such an easy way to get damage (locks without LOS? low SP investments to gain more potency? **** that ****!).

There're 2 ways I generally approach such LRM-heavy maps:

• Stay back if I'm a fairly ranged build, stay to trenches or dulating terrain (this one in particular has saved me often on Polar) to allow me to break LOS more easily, find cover if I can.
  
• If close-ranged brawler, I still try to do the above but when all else fails (good spotter/NARCer on the other team), I'd call for a push and just YOLO. Either my team wins or I end the match earlier and switch to another mech and map.

So I don't spend precious SPs on dumb Sensor skills that are so ******* costly to get. They can make different bonuses for different weight classes but they chose to be lazy. I can only hope they do reiterate changes to the Skill Tree but sadly, I doubt they'll refund SPs for any changes to the trees.

Edited by Onimusha shin, 23 June 2017 - 12:49 AM.

[Insanity09]

I kept finding myself saying this over and over, so, I'll put one instance here and scrub it from the rest of the post.
If you, or anyone, are already committed to buying an entire skill tree (survival), all (or nearly) the heat related nodes, or whatever, there is no point in debate, you're just quibbling over what to do with the few remaining points you have.
The real discussion comes when trying to judge the relative values when you are not buying all of something. What gives more benefit, 20 points in Survival and 10 in Firepower, or all 30 in Survival? Tough question to answer, even when you are just looking at one specific variable.

On heat...
Ofc the higher numbers of CR and HC will be better. Axiomatic, not so?
The graph you point to (at least the examples shown) shows the exact same amount of HG nodes in use (9% reduction), with varying CR/HC combos. Simply too many variables to change both HG and CR/HC at the same time? I also note that they refer to specific weapon combos, which is great if I'm using those, but don't seem to show variance based on number of heat sinks for those builds? Weapon load and HS amount are both factors, I would think, that would seriously alter the equation (particularly for CR).

An additional consideration, as hinted at above and by you in the original post of this thread, is the value and number of 'trash' (non-heat related, in this context) nodes required to get to the desired heat items. Many of the nodes in operations, for example, are of little, if any, practical use, while those in the fire tree are, ostensibly, all of use (although, I might suggest that if you are truly concerned about heat, cooldown nodes are actually contraindicated, but anyhow...).

What I paraphrased was based on values another math fan had calculated, and then this person distilled them down to a general guideline, not a hard and fast rule. The point was allowing somebody an idea of what was likely better for them, HG or CR, purely based on total DHS number (engine and external).
It seems to be a pretty good rule of thumb, standing me in good stead on a number of builds.


The point about armor remains. If you are getting the same number of points per node (armor v structure), i.e., no quirks either way, armor is better than structure.
If your extra durability is in the form of armor, the RNG (for crits) simply doesn't get involved until after the extra points are gone.
I'm not clear on why there would be a debate on that?
I suppose if you are stripping armor you could argue that structure would be better, since those nodes will always give full value. But... if you care enough about durability to be specing into Survival (possibly heavily), why are you stripping armor in the first place?

You, and others, may find that pre-determining a large number of your skill points works for you. It would certainly make the decision process easier. I mostly don't work that way (though some points are in common, true).

Yup, sensors is a matter of personal preference (unless you're ECM). My expenditure in that tree varies wildly (I've got some zeroes, and some around 20), depending on the mech.


I am well aware of how to defend against LRMs. I strongly suspect the vast majority of people are the same (though I admit a small number do seem woefully ignorant, alas), which makes the regular 'git gud vs. LRMs' type of comments even more annoying. I try to use all the tricks when possible, which tactics will vary based on map and my mech/build, but at times, frequently even, it simply is NOT possible to do anything about the incoming fire (true for direct weapons as well as LRMs).

[Onimusha shin]

Insanity09, on 23 June 2017 - 02:26 AM, said:

On heat...
Ofc the higher numbers of CR and HC will be better. Axiomatic, not so?
The graph you point to (at least the examples shown) shows the exact same amount of HG nodes in use (9% reduction), with varying CR/HC combos. Simply too many variables to change both HG and CR/HC at the same time? I also note that they refer to specific weapon combos, which is great if I'm using those, but don't seem to show variance based on number of heat sinks for those builds? Weapon load and HS amount are both factors, I would think, that would seriously alter the equation (particularly for CR).

If you had actually opened my spreadsheet or downloaded it, you'd find that there are build links with VARYING number of DHS (from 9truedubs+1false to 25DHS total). All point towards the same combination of 4HC+5CR resulting in nearly the best total DPS improvement per SP invested.

HeatGen is as much as you can spare and get. I didn't really bother tinkering with how much HG you should get varied to what combination of HC+CR you should bring. That's because you need to get as many HG nodes as possible without SP wastage (anything more than 2 non-DPS improving nodes, ie. Range is a waste). And 9% HG is the optimal attainable path without too much wastage. The last 2 HG nodes come at a cost of 4SPs each, which some might prefer to use for Mobility/Sensors or more strikes.

Insanity09, on 23 June 2017 - 02:26 AM, said:

The point about armor remains. If you are getting the same number of points per node (armor v structure), i.e., no quirks either way, armor is better than structure.
If your extra durability is in the form of armor, the RNG (for crits) simply doesn't get involved until after the extra points are gone.
I'm not clear on why there would be a debate on that?

See GMan's work here, someone already did the math, IF you want to be skimping on the Survival tree.

Insanity09, on 23 June 2017 - 02:26 AM, said:

I strongly suspect the vast majority of people are the same (though I admit a small number do seem woefully ignorant, alas), which makes the regular 'git gud vs. LRMs' type of comments even more annoying.

You probably don't realise how wrong you are about the above. In any case, if you frequently find yourself out of position wrt both direct and indirect fire without your team to help spread damage, then you probably need to work on your positioning a bit more. It doesn't matter if you say you are aware of how to defend but yet still get caught out on a regular basis.

[Insanity09]

There seems to be a disjunct here.
I'm not sure you are understanding the points I'm trying to make.

I understand that you are in favor of buying the complete survival tree and as much of the heat related nodes as possible.
You favor those over everything else, including mobility. Got it.
The sensor tree (except when you have ECM), jj, and aux trees are all of limited to no value. Got it.

You say that having basically all the CR and HC nodes (all but one of the HC) gives you the best heat performance (and thus DPS).
I will nod, agree, and say that yes, having the best possible heat management will certainly improve your DPS.
I freely admitted that I didn't look at the full spreadsheet, AND that you may have included more varied builds.
It's a shame that the sample that shows up did not display that. Sigh. You try and admit the possibility of error, but...

What I am saying is that if, for whatever reason, you cannot or do not want to spend the points to grab every (or nearly) CR/HC node and the great majority of the HG nodes, and you instead want to get the best heat performance you can for a minimal investment, that is where things get interesting.
Putting it a different way, imagine you have only 20 points to spend between firepower and operation, and want to get the best heat management you can, other concerns aside, what's the best way to manage it?

The rule of thumb thing, as I said (and I wish I could find and credit the original poster) is based purely on the number of HS you are carrying, since the benefit of CR is entirely based on that value. More HS makes CR better.
So, in the circumstance where you will NOT be buying basically every HC/CR/HC node available, where do you spend your points?
In the simplest form, high HS, go CR, low HS, go HG.
Understandable?

A simple fact about the armor and structure nodes: even if you do not see the numbers change, the truth is that they are still giving you the benefit. If you have 300 armor and get a 1% boost, that 3 points will be spread across all the armor locations and likely will not even appear as a +1 anywhere.
I've looked at GMan's page, he is delightfully non-specific.
However, I will again affirm that given the chance of being crit, armor, point for point, is better than structure (because the extra armor means it take longer for that crit chance to occur).
That is the main thing.

So, in the instance where I am buying only a few nodes into survival (or even ,say, 1/2 to 2/3 the tree), I personally prefer to take armor over structure. This is true even at assault tonnages, even though the 2:1 bonus ratio starts to favor structure in that weight class (it's more than 2:1, lists at 2.5:1 at 100 tons).
I do admit that on most of my builds, I am spec'd into survival by a decent amount (full only on a few). That is my preference. Your playstyle and mech choices might compel you to buy the entire survival tree.
I usually favor armor, though quirks can change that. I will also admit that at high tonnages I am more likely to buy more heavily into survival, and lean more to structure than armor.
It is actually impossible to buy all the armor nodes without hitting a few structure nodes. The reverse is not true, you can buy all the structure without hitting any armor.
However, even at assault tonnages and with the % bonus for structure being so much better, the amount of time you would spend with your armor open makes it far more likely you are turned into a big slow stick due to losing your internals before you die. I've heard it happen over comms a number of times since the ST went live, from mechs with more than just arm weapons, I might add. It's sad to see a de-weaponed banshee lumbering around the battlefield, unable to shoot and too slow to ram.


And now the LRM stuff. Again.
I'm very happy to hear that you've never been caught by LRMers on polar or alpine. I'm glad you've not experienced the joy of trying to push across the water in river city under missile fire. It's really neat that you've never taken cover from missiles against a wall, in canyon network or mining or alpine, only to find that there was another LRMer on the enemy team choosing to target you from enough of an angle that the wall doesn't give you cover.
It's really cool that all of your mechs can pitch to near straight up so you can always shoot down enemy UAVs, and that you never run very short range builds making you unable to do so.
I'm amazed and inspired that you can fire at enemies consistently without ever being exposed to return fire, with any build on any map. That is an unbelievable skill level I honestly don't think I will ever achieve.

Ahem.

Am I frequently out of position, or even on a regular basis? No, I don't think so. Certain maps (polar chief among them) are easy to get caught in the open, but for the most part, I think I'm decent about keeping to cover and not blundering around.
I do admit I sometimes make mistakes, turn the wrong corner or hop the wrong hill. Unless you claim perfection, I'd suspect you, and every other human, are the same.
I've even been part of team pushes, in the middle of the pack, where I've been singled out for destruction by multiple enemies (it was rather painfully obvious I was the target). I've no idea why. Does that make me a bad player somehow?
I do freely cop to the fact that, at times, frustrated in the extreme with seeing my team try to hide (unsuccessfully) and getting gradually picked off by making bad trades, I will YOLO. I don't include moments like that, because I'm doing something dangerous (and stupid? but intentional), hoping to snap my team out of their gradually losing behavior. (at times like that, I'd rather have a nice, quick, and clean end, with a chance for things to turn around, rather than dragging it out with the death of a thousand cuts)

If you've got actual helpful tips on how to never ever make mistakes (even when you have no intel AT ALL on enemy position) and never expose yourself to direct fire or LRMs, all while being able to shoot the enemy and sharing your armor, I'm all ears.
If you merely want to assume I'm a poor player, rather than one who tries to play intelligently and is imperfect... well, that says volumes.

[Onimusha shin]

Insanity09, on 24 June 2017 - 05:12 PM, said:

Putting it a different way, imagine you have only 20 points to spend between firepower and operation, and want to get the best heat management you can, other concerns aside, what's the best way to manage it? The rule of thumb thing, as I said (and I wish I could find and credit the original poster) is based purely on the number of HS you are carrying, since the benefit of CR is entirely based on that value. More HS makes CR better. So, in the circumstance where you will NOT be buying basically every HC/CR/HC node available, where do you spend your points? In the simplest form, high HS, go CR, low HS, go HG. Understandable?

Let me put it as simply as possible: If you're going to gimp yourself and spread ONLY 20 SPs across Firepower & Ops, why should you really care about best heat management? Also, I believe I've stated in my guides that, Heat Gen nodes are #1. You will get useful nodes along the way as well so Ops tree should be secondary after Firepower tree.

With 20 SPs, ANY spare SPs you have will be limited to getting say 2 CR, 3 HC probably, if you're foolish enough to not get as much HG nodes on the left side of the Firepower tree. There's really no point debating whether you're high or low DHS build. The pathing PGI created is as such, you'd have to get some HC on the way to CR.

Insanity09, on 24 June 2017 - 05:12 PM, said:

A simple fact about the armor and structure nodes: even if you do not see the numbers change, the truth is that they are still giving you the benefit. If you have 300 armor and get a 1% boost, that 3 points will be spread across all the armor locations and likely will not even appear as a +1 anywhere. I've looked at GMan's page, he is delightfully non-specific.

I'm pretty sure I've read some PGI statement (prolly from Chris Lowrey) that the armor/structure boosts are fully calculated to 2 decimal places. It'll be tough to find but if that's true, what you're fussing about is really moot.

Yes, armour is better than struture, I agree. GMan's math however, shows that only at a certain level of quirks then should you choose the quirk-related skills at certain tonnages. If you don't have those quirks, you're better off having armour for lower than 80ton mechs or structure for 85ton or heavier.

Insanity09, on 24 June 2017 - 05:12 PM, said:

And now the LRM stuff. Again. I'm very happy to hear that you've never been caught by LRMers on polar or alpine.
.
.
.
I do admit I sometimes make mistakes, turn the wrong corner or hop the wrong hill. Unless you claim perfection, I'd suspect you, and every other human, are the same.

I think it bears rereading what I said and what I did not. And if you want to continue ASSUMING the things you think I'm saying about you, continue to shitpost. I don't really care either way. And for the record, I commit the same mistakes like you do or any average player. I just don't see the point of using Sensor crutches if they're not going to help me improve me positioning/situational-awareness/reflexes. You can disagree and I'll tell you the same thing I told another dude from Reddit: "I'm not pointing a gun at new players to use what I've wrote up."

Onimusha shin, on 23 June 2017 - 12:41 AM, said:

There're 2 ways I generally approach such LRM-heavy maps:

• Stay back if I'm a fairly ranged build, stay to trenches or dulating terrain (this one in particular has saved me often on Polar) to allow me to break LOS more easily, find cover if I can.
  
• If close-ranged brawler, I still try to do the above but when all else fails (good spotter/NARCer on the other team), I'd call for a push and just YOLO. Either my team wins or I end the match earlier and switch to another mech and map.

[Insanity09]

Sigh. The epithets and slurs. I really shouldn't bother, but...

I did re-read what you posted, I refer back regularly. You did soft-sell it a bit, but the implication was obvious.

I said IF. Conditional statement. I not advocating for any particular decision, I'm trying to discuss a possibility, and a way to make the best choices in such a circumstance.
To answer your question directly, I think you should always care about the best heat management you can. Even if you haven't prioritized it enough to have spent more fully in that area, it still behooves you to do the best you can with what you have available, point-wise.
IF somebody (obviously not you, because you wouldn't do this) had spent a bunch of points in other trees, and they had only 20 points left to spend in Firepower and Ops, many might find it helpful to have a guideline for how to get the most out of those 20 points. The HS count method suggests how to work with a limited expenditure, which is why I brought it up originally.

Clearly a person who chose to spend 71 points in the other trees did so for reasons they consider valid. I'll allow them to make that choice, and unless they have intentionally purchased nodes as many 'junk' nodes as possible, I'm not likely to judge. Heck, even then they might be choosing to do some (to me) odd experiment. More power to them.

The trade-off you seem to choose is maximum firepower heat (all HG, 31 points), full survival (33 pts), 4 HC and 5 CR in Ops (18 points),the first slot in Aux, and your total nodes used is 83 out of the possible 91. Good for you. I assume such builds fit your style and improve your enjoyment of the game. As they should.
Having that as your go-to would certainly cut down on the decision making for the ST that some folks complain about.

You state that to do anything beside what you believe is correct is to gimp yourself. I have seen posts suggesting that spending only 8 points (leftover from your typical build) in mobility is gimping yourself.
Clearly, there are differences of opinion on the matter, but unless there truly is only one correct choice (be it yours or someone else's), that was one of the goals of the skill tree, allowing different builds. It would be a darn shame if the skill tree more completely failed in that area, instead only partly.

I myself have suggested that one of the failings of the skill tree is that there are no good choices, only the painful decision of where you want to be gimped.
You've apparently chosen yours. Mine vary quite a bit more.

For example, I pilot quite a few lights, by choice, and on many of them I need, at best, a minimal investment in heat management. I also find that on many of those lights sensor expenses are well worth it, they give me a little better foreknowledge of when I might run around the wrong corner (seismic), and let me provide better intel for my team (sensor range, TIG).
That is far from how I spend points on every mech though.


You are familiar with the 80-20 rule? The general concept is that in many situations you get a majority of the benefit for a small amount of the total possible effort?
Though the specific numbers obviously don't apply, per se, you being a fan of working out the math, the concept certainly does work with the skill tree.
Even you have made that sort of choice, since you seem to have recommended only getting 4/5 HC nodes. Why that choice? Because there isn't enough benefit to getting the last 3% of containment, going through another less valuable node to do so.

For different people and styles, those choices may happen in different places.

You've written a decent guide, you've explained or at least hinted at the logic behind your choices. Well done.
However, though I enjoyed reading the guide itself and found some of the reasoning helpful and insightful, I do not believe that your guide is the end-all, be-all, must-choose guide to work with. There are other guides out there that make different recommendations, after all.

Further, they are guides, not commandments, true? The last bit of your latest post above does seem to jibe with that sentiment.

In that vein, shouldn't it be possible to discuss minimal resource management and alternative cases (such as the light I mentioned above, where heat management is basically a waste)? The tiers of your guide suggest there is room for such, but when the idea came up, you seemed to be... dismissive. I'm trying not to read too much into your responses. We might both work on that.
Or would you suggest that if people do want to spend points in sensors and mobility (beyond the 8 you have left over) or something similar, they just not bother to read your guide, since they aren't choosing to follow your primary preference? Out of curiosity?
In such a case, I might suggest prefacing your guide with the idea that this is the best way you've found to get the most (effective) heat management and durability, and if that's what somebody wants, you've put together a seminal work.


I'm glad you chose to acknowledge the point I was trying to make about armor vs structure.
As I did say, barring quirks, I do start to go for more structure nodes when speccing an assault, because there is more benefit at that level. However, I still don't ignore armor entirely, even on assaults with structure quirks.

The prime reason behind my LRM rant is that people are constantly saying how very simple it is to not suffer damage from them, totally ignoring the reality.
That's like telling somebody playing football (soccer) that all they need to do is kick the ball into the net. It's easy, right?
The implication (and outright statement in some cases) is that you are a total loser and shouldn't even be playing if you can't manage that simple thing. That bugs me on numerous levels.
I try to play intelligently and well. I always hope everyone on my team is doing the same. Sadly, sometimes there are no good choices.


A couple situations I've experienced recently, where I'm hard pressed to figure out exactly what I did wrong, if anything.

Spoiler

Scenario: I'm working with my team on Frozen City, moving from building to building, we're heading to G7/F7 from the valley, and LRMs start raining in. Perhaps an enemy light I didn't see just ran through and popped a UAV, perhaps we're just under observation. I get a missile warning and immediately move to cover, even before I start getting hit. The cover does me little to no good, I adjust and am still getting hit, perhaps more, perhaps less (hard to judge). Near as I could tell, missiles were coming from two main directions. I keep moving, trying to avoid the thrashing, and eventually it stops. In a medium mech, I end up surviving the barrage, but have been beaten up badly enough that my fate is sealed. Died not long after that.

Scenario: My team is forming behind the ever popular G6 building in River City. The intent was to stage there and move on together. I'm on one edge, and observe a large number of the enemy moving up on the ocean side, getting into position to flank and crush my team. I announce the movement, giving ~numbers and weights. My team does nothing. I state the problem again, with the same team reaction (none). I see three reasonable choices, but at that point, none of them seem good: run the heck away at let others on my team take it in the back (or teeth); get to a covered firing position so I'm exposed to a minimum part of the enemy team while I try to shoot and discourage them; move into the main body of my team and just be part of the oncoming furball, for good or ill (usually the latter). In general situations, which option I choose will depend on what mech I'm using and what the specific terrain is, some situations favor one choice over the others. In example I'm thinking of, I was in a light, so took a couple quick shots and bugged out.

I'm trying to illustrate that sometimes, especially in the solo queue, but even in the group queue at times (or FW), having a decent plan (or the start of one) and playing intelligently (or trying to) simply don't always protect you.
Sometimes your team has no good direction (in spite of attempts by someone to give it), sometimes they are just... well, sometimes it doesn't work.

All I feel I can do is play my best; working with and supporting my team is part of that.
Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose.

[Onimusha shin]

Insanity09, on 25 June 2017 - 05:48 PM, said:

All I feel I can do is play my best; working with and supporting my team is part of that.
Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose.

Amen