29 replies to this topic

[Metus regem]

TheArisen, on 08 June 2017 - 02:20 PM, said:

HGauss takes too many slots to be put in an arm or be mounted with an LFE. I'm not sure how many slots a Lgauss takes but I don't think you can fit two in an arm & the 9P only has 2 E HP's.

LGR:
Tons: 12
Crits: 5
Damage: 8
Shots/ton: 16
Heat 1
Minimum range 3 (90m)
Long Range: 25 (750m)

To put this into perspective:

RAC/5
Tons:10
Crtis:6
Damage: 5/shot
Heat: 1/shot
Ammo/ton: 20
Minimum range: 0
Long Range: 21 (630m)


Personally I'd rather save 2t, lose 120m long range and take a RAC/5 in place of a LGR. LGR's have never been tonnage to damage ratio efficient, especially when compared to the normal Gauss. the LGR loses 3t and gains 90m more range at the expense of doing nearly half the damage. When it comes to MWO, I expect that the LGR will be a weapon bust summed up by Admiral Ackbar:

[Y E O N N E]

TheArisen, on 08 June 2017 - 06:42 AM, said:

Maybe a pair of Lppcs would be better because they might have a higher rate of fire? They might not be too dissimilar from being energy AC5s. A hvy ppc might also be worth the weight as well, but it'd require an xl to fit. ECM may not be as good as it once was but being able to fire from it's cover would still be good.

Also the 10P can use a LFE but a X5 AC5 Mauler can't.

The 10P can't fit a pair of LPPCs; it has two energy hardpoints and one of them is in the head. You need two slots for an LPPC.

The 5x AC/5 Mauler can't use the LFE, but the 2x UAC/5 + 4x AC/2 one can, and it has more DPS than the 5x AC/5.

[Fyrwulf]

Cyrilis, on 08 June 2017 - 06:50 AM, said:

The BFG needs 11 slots... will only fit in the 9P ST

Oops. My bad. I meant the 9P.

[Fyrwulf]

Metus regem, on 08 June 2017 - 02:34 PM, said:

Personally I'd rather save 2t, lose 120m long range and take a RAC/5 in place of a LGR. LGR's have never been tonnage to damage ratio efficient, especially when compared to the normal Gauss. the LGR loses 3t and gains 90m more range at the expense of doing nearly half the damage. When it comes to MWO, I expect that the LGR will be a weapon bust summed up by Admiral Ackbar:

I think you're going to end up finding that the RAC is going to spread its damage like an LBX and it's going to jam like nothing else. At least the LGR will have consistent DPS and its damage will be pinpoint.

[TheArisen]

Fyrwulf, on 09 June 2017 - 07:09 AM, said:

I think you're going to end up finding that the RAC is going to spread its damage like an LBX and it's going to jam like nothing else. At least the LGR will have consistent DPS and its damage will be pinpoint.

Well hopefully it's RoF is good enough to justify it's weight and only 8 DMG.

[Metus regem]

Fyrwulf, on 09 June 2017 - 07:09 AM, said:

I think you're going to end up finding that the RAC is going to spread its damage like an LBX and it's going to jam like nothing else. At least the LGR will have consistent DPS and its damage will be pinpoint.

I'm concerned about the RoF on the LGR, too long and it isn't worth the weight investment, especially when the UAC/10 is 13t and 7 crits, granted it is much shorter ranged (540m optimal in MWO), but has the option to put 20 damage on target before the LGR can do 16. The other thing to consider is that most engagements happen in MWO between 200 and 500m on average, meaning the extra range from the LGR is almost moot.

I mean as it stands, for the IS there is very little reason to take a LGR over a GR, 3t isn't that much of a savings, as 12t is still a large investment for most IS mediums, hell even some heavies have a hard time justifying investing 13t in to one weapon system (LRG+1t ammo). This is due in large part to the weight inefficiencies and crit inefficiencies of IS tech compared to clan tech. While for IS that 3t gives you a weapon that only gives up 90m of range for 88% more firepower per shot.


As for the RAC/5 I'm holding off on my commitment to it until I get a chance to use it a few times to get a feel for it, as I find the IS UAC/5 not worth taking, too much investment for too little return, I'd rather take an AC/10 over UAC/5. Thing will be interesting for me when the UAC/10 becomes an option how ever. In use in TT how ever, I do prefer the RAC/5 over the LGR, as with all dice based games, volume of dice is more important (yes I used to play WH40k by averages when I ran Imperial Guard, lot of models shooting each turn... it was faster to do it that way)... even still over the RAC/5 I prefer the UAC/10, as your actual jam chance is 1 in 36.

[TheArisen]

Metus regem, on 09 June 2017 - 08:15 AM, said:

I'm concerned about the RoF on the LGR, too long and it isn't worth the weight investment, especially when the UAC/10 is 13t and 7 crits, granted it is much shorter ranged (540m optimal in MWO), but has the option to put 20 damage on target before the LGR can do 16. The other thing to consider is that most engagements happen in MWO between 200 and 500m on average, meaning the extra range from the LGR is almost moot.

I mean as it stands, for the IS there is very little reason to take a LGR over a GR, 3t isn't that much of a savings, as 12t is still a large investment for most IS mediums, hell even some heavies have a hard time justifying investing 13t in to one weapon system (LRG+1t ammo). This is due in large part to the weight inefficiencies and crit inefficiencies of IS tech compared to clan tech. While for IS that 3t gives you a weapon that only gives up 90m of range for 88% more firepower per shot.


As for the RAC/5 I'm holding off on my commitment to it until I get a chance to use it a few times to get a feel for it, as I find the IS UAC/5 not worth taking, too much investment for too little return, I'd rather take an AC/10 over UAC/5. Thing will be interesting for me when the UAC/10 becomes an option how ever. In use in TT how ever, I do prefer the RAC/5 over the LGR, as with all dice based games, volume of dice is more important (yes I used to play WH40k by averages when I ran Imperial Guard, lot of models shooting each turn... it was faster to do it that way)... even still over the RAC/5 I prefer the UAC/10, as your actual jam chance is 1 in 36.

Well here's hoping.

[Reno Blade]

Few more, but probably too slow and not meta enough

NSR-9P
Fusion 285
+1 DHS
EndoSteel (0 crits left)
2x RAC5 (4t) (arms)
2x ML (HD/CT)
1x HG (3t) (RT)


(probably my fav theory loadout)
NSR-9J
XL 285
+5 DHS
Standard (6 crits left) - 92% std armor
2x LGauss (4t) (arms)
2x ML (arms)
2x SNPPC (arms)
1x ERPPC (RT)


NSR-9S
XL 285
+4 DHS
Standard (6 crits left)
2x UAC20 (6t) (arms)
2x ML (HD/CT)
2x SNPPC (LT/RT)

[TheArisen]

Yeonne Greene, on 05 June 2017 - 06:09 PM, said:

NSR-9FC
- 350 LFE
- Endo
- 16x DHS
- 2x HPPC
- 1x Gauss

The meta build. We're going to see this a lot, unless HPPC get neutered to uselessness. You'll also see it with the smaller engine on the other variants.

NSR-9FC
- 350 XLE
- Endo
- 17x DHS
- 2x Ultra AC/10 (6.0 tons)
- 2x PPC

Another bread-and-butter build that I suspect will be common.

NSR-9FC
- 375 XLE
- Endo
- Light Ferro
- 15x DHS
- 2x Light Gauss (5.0 tons)
- 2x ER Large Laser
- 3x ER Medium Laser

This will be fun. Solid slugging power at long range, dangerous mid-range surge, especially with the duration reduction nodes. You can go harder on the mid-range by swapping the ER Large to standard Large and the Light Gauss to AC/10, moving two of the MedLas out to the arms and pulling the Larges into the torso.

NSR-9FC
- 350 XLE
- Endo
- Light Ferro
- 14x DHS
- 2x Light Gauss (5.0 tons)
- 4x ER Large Laser

Super hot, but 52 damage at 810 meters will send targets reeling and, barring radical changes this month, the duration will be decently short. Could be an absolute monster on Boreal, Polar, Plexus, and Alpine. Can probably drop engine to make it more monstrous by squeezing in more DHS.

NSR-9S
- 345 XLE
- Endo
- Light Ferro
- 13x DHS
- 2x Ultra AC/20 (7.5 tons)
- 2x Snub-nose PPC

Beefy.

I really like the long range build, x2 Lgauss & erLL. I might go for 3 erll with a bigger engine but I feel like this will play to the NSR's strengths.

[TheArisen]

X2 Gauss + X3 ErLL with xl350.

A little hot but manageable