170 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

Deathlike, on 29 October 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

Mech building isn't just about min-maxing, it's about practicality too.

Well, that is min-maxing. Getting the maximum amount performance for a job. If you are taking a 400 XL in a 100 ton Assault, then you aren't min-maxing for optimal dakka performance, you are min-maxing for something else...and that something else is probably sub-optimal for the 'Mech to begin with.

[MischiefSC]

7 tons, 4 kph difference for xl375 and xl400.

[Deathlike]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 October 2017 - 12:17 PM, said:

Well, that is min-maxing. Getting the maximum amount performance for a job. If you are taking a 400 XL in a 100 ton Assault, then you aren't min-maxing for optimal dakka performance, you are min-maxing for something else...and that something else is probably sub-optimal for the 'Mech to begin with.

Well, we're trying to argue basic concepts to someone who has no clue. At this point it makes no difference whether or not he gets it, rather we're trying to make sure his flawed logic doesn't seep into the potato fields. It might be too late for that though.

[Y E O N N E]

Deathlike, on 29 October 2017 - 12:19 PM, said:

Well, we're trying to argue basic concepts to someone who has no clue. At this point it makes no difference whether or not he gets it, rather we're trying to make sure his flawed logic doesn't seep into the potato fields. It might be too late for that though.

I mean, I get it, but part of doing that involves using the term appropriately; can't say what you mean if you don't mean what you say, etc.

It's min-maxing if you bring a 400 with the UAC/40 dakka, it's just being bad at it. Put that tonnage into a TC for moar velocity.

[Shifty McSwift]

MischiefSC, on 29 October 2017 - 12:19 PM, said:

7 tons, 4 kph difference for xl375 and xl400.

Yeah I often took the 375 and made up the speed from speed tweak if needed, or not, the 375 does seem to be the more "efficient" of the two. I only really took the 400 in a laserboat madiic I used to run. That baby moving at 80 was beasty, but engine decoupling took a stick to that idea mostly.

[Deathlike]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 October 2017 - 12:22 PM, said:

I mean, I get it, but part of doing that involves using the term appropriately; can't say what you mean if you don't mean what you say, etc.

I just sigh every time I see something stupid. Frustration only builds. Oh well.

Quote

It's min-maxing if you bring a 400 with the UAC/40 dakka, it's just being bad at it. Put that tonnage into a TC for moar velocity.

No no no. We gotta make the Kodiak go vroom vroom man. VROOM VROOM.

[MischiefSC]

Deathlike, on 29 October 2017 - 12:19 PM, said:

Well, we're trying to argue basic concepts to someone who has no clue. At this point it makes no difference whether or not he gets it, rather we're trying to make sure his flawed logic doesn't seep into the potato fields. It might be too late for that though.

You don't argue on the forums to change the mind of someone you're arguing with.

You argue to put the actual reality, facts and math out there for lurkers and bystanders to see.

[Deathlike]

MischiefSC, on 29 October 2017 - 12:28 PM, said:

You don't argue on the forums to change the mind of someone you're arguing with.

Sure.

Quote

You argue to put the actual reality, facts and math out there for lurkers and bystanders to see.

I think the playerbase at large (aka anyone non-comp or the masses of casuals) is more of accepting of the reality they speak of even if real "facts" disprove the obvious (like comp play). Gotta use #alternativefacts (potato level play as the more common response) if the world-view isn't "right". It's hard to convince people that don't understand what actual consistent success takes.

Edited by Deathlike, 29 October 2017 - 12:37 PM.

[Tarogato]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 October 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

One laser vomit alpha is significant all on its own, because that's one more hit you can expose for. More realistically, that extra armor is worth several minutes of incidental fire.

As for why bother? Because it will slow the 'Mech down if it's equipped with LFE or cXL. Because many 'Mechs still have the majority of their firepower there. Because many 'Mechs have the majority of their heatsinks there. Any of those things will take a 'Mech out of the fight directly either via death or disarmament or indirectly with loss of mobility and sudden heat-capping.

Taking the arm with it right now just happens to be a nice benefit.

Here's the thing though.

Assuming a vanilla 75-ton mech, and your build has a 50-alpha.

138 vs 96


Option 1, you shoot the CT.
After 3 direct hits, the enemy is dead.



Option 2, you shoot a side torso.
After 2 direct hits, the enemy lost whatever equipment was in his side torso. He keeps his arm.
After 3 further direct hits, now to the CT, the enemy is dead.

That's something like 60-70% more effort to remove the mech from the game.

At best, assuming they are LE or cXL and you ignore the CT, going for both side torsos is at best 30-40% more effort to kill the mech. But more often it's the CT is targeted next after a side torso is lost, because it's already been opened by stray shots intended for the ST. Which brings me to my next point...




When firing at CT, damage will invariably spread to both side torsos. If side torsos open up first, it can still be helpful to just finish them off and strip the enemy of some weapons.

When firing at ST, damage will invariably spread to CT and adjacent arm, but not as much to the opposite side torso. Since damage is spreading to the CT naturally, you generally end up killing the mech by having gone through its entire CT after you took its ST out. If you go for both side torsos, then any damage that was already naturally spread to the CT now goes completely to waste.


The only time that going for STs makes any sense is when you are facing chasses with certain hitboxes. I find the MAD-IIC to be one of these mechs - I find I can generally guarantee hits to the STs on that mech, and avoid faffing about with the CT because I know the CT is thin, can only be reliably hit from straight on, and I'm going to waste damage all over the place if i try to go for it from the outset.

[Khobai]

Quote

7 tons, 4 kph difference for xl375 and xl400.

yeah we know its not worth it now because of engine desync

but when mech agility was directly tied to engine size it was more worthwhile to consider

its not a coincidence that the Kodiak-3 took such a huge hit after engine desync occured. Its because it lost all that extra agility it used to gain by taking a 400XL.

Quote

Well, that is min-maxing. Getting the maximum amount performance for a job. If you are taking a 400 XL in a 100 ton Assault, then you aren't min-maxing for optimal dakka performance, you are min-maxing for something else...and that something else is probably sub-optimal for the 'Mech to begin with.

I dont think the Kodiak-3 was a suboptimal build.

It was a pretty fine tuned death machine.

And they put a 400XL in it. true story.

Quote

Well, we're trying to argue basic concepts to someone who has no clue. At this point it makes no difference whether or not he gets it, rather we're trying to make sure his flawed logic doesn't seep into the potato fields. It might be too late for that though.

huh? Its well documented what the most popular kodiak-3 meta build used to be.

it had a 400XL engine. go look it up. its established fact.

youre trying to make up your own version of history that never happened.

OMG KHOBAI MADE UP THE TRUTH AND I DONT LIKE IT. People stuck 400XLs on Kodiaks. deal with it.

Edited by Khobai, 29 October 2017 - 12:52 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Tarogato, on 29 October 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

Here's the thing though.

Assuming a vanilla 75-ton mech, and your build has a 50-alpha.

138 vs 96


Option 1, you shoot the CT.
After 3 direct hits, the enemy is dead.



Option 2, you shoot a side torso.
After 2 direct hits, the enemy lost whatever equipment was in his side torso. He keeps his arm.
After 3 further direct hits, now to the CT, the enemy is dead.

That's something like 60-70% more effort to remove the mech from the game.

At best, assuming they are LE or cXL and you ignore the CT, going for both side torsos is at best 30-40% more effort to kill the mech. But more often it's the CT is targeted next after a side torso is lost, because it's already been opened by stray shots intended for the ST. Which brings me to my next point...




When firing at CT, damage will invariably spread to both side torsos. If side torsos open up first, it can still be helpful to just finish them off and strip the enemy of some weapons.

When firing at ST, damage will invariably spread to CT and adjacent arm, but not as much to the opposite side torso. Since damage is spreading to the CT naturally, you generally end up killing the mech by having gone through its entire CT after you took its ST out. If you go for both side torsos, then any damage that was already naturally spread to the CT now goes completely to waste.


The only time that going for STs makes any sense is when you are facing chasses with certain hitboxes. I find the MAD-IIC to be one of these mechs - I find I can generally guarantee hits to the STs on that mech, and avoid faffing about with the CT because I know the CT is thin, can only be reliably hit from straight on, and I'm going to waste damage all over the place if i try to go for it from the outset.

You are trying to turn this into a hard CONOPS, and it doesn't work.

It's as simple as this:

The immediate goal of any fight is to have more guns firing at the enemy than the enemy has guns firing at you to maximize your damage out and minimize your damage in. Favorable trades. When you are presented with a target, you take the shot. Period. If the CT is not available, you hit the ST because that's still less durability on that 'Mech. Even if all destroying the ST did was remove some guns and heatsinks from that 'Mech, you have reduced the number of enemy guns firing at you, you have reduced the amount that the remaining guns can fire at you, and you've reduced the ability for those guns to get to where they need to be when the fight inevitably moves. To compound, if the enemy's best mounts were in the torso, now they have to expose even more to fight using the arms, which just snowballs into more damage received.

And really, when you trade, nobody is spreading damage much unless he knows the shot is coming. As such, putting burns into sides is easy against most targets. And even when they do, shooting a side denies the target of choosing which direction it wants to twist. If you aim to its right torso, it must twist right because your burn will finish before it can sufficiently twist left. That has its own uses.

[MischiefSC]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 October 2017 - 01:07 PM, said:

You are trying to turn this into a hard CONOPS, and it doesn't work.

It's as simple as this:

The immediate goal of any fight is to have more guns firing at the enemy than the enemy has guns firing at you to maximize your damage out and minimize your damage in. Favorable trades. When you are presented with a target, you take the shot. Period. If the CT is not available, you hit the ST because that's still less durability on that 'Mech. Even if all destroying the ST did was remove some guns and heatsinks from that 'Mech, you have reduced the number of enemy guns firing at you, you have reduced the amount that the remaining guns can fire at you, and you've reduced the ability for those guns to get to where they need to be when the fight inevitably moves. To compound, if the enemy's best mounts were in the torso, now they have to expose even more to fight using the arms, which just snowballs into more damage received.

And really, when you trade, nobody is spreading damage much unless he knows the shot is coming. As such, putting burns into sides is easy against most targets. And even when they do, shooting a side denies the target of choosing which direction it wants to twist. If you aim to its right torso, it must twist right because your burn will finish before it can sufficiently twist left. That has its own uses.

Often popping a ST for sure is preferable to maybe a CT. Total reduction in enemy firepower and the cooling loss is brutal. A guy who's 1 touch CT can still fade back and get a few more clean hits in. A ST loss immediately removes firepower.

[Y E O N N E]

MischiefSC, on 29 October 2017 - 01:11 PM, said:

Often popping a ST for sure is preferable to maybe a CT. Total reduction in enemy firepower and the cooling loss is brutal. A guy who's 1 touch CT can still fade back and get a few more clean hits in. A ST loss immediately removes firepower.

Yup, that exactly.

Simply being alive means nothing. Being a threat means everything.

[Deathlike]

Khobai, on 29 October 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

I dont think the Kodiak-3 was a suboptimal build.

It was a pretty fine tuned death machine.

And they put a 400XL in it. true story.

A fair number of bad KDK-3 builds involved using max engine.

Quote

huh? Its well documented what the most popular kodiak-3 meta build used to be.

it had a 400XL engine. go look it up. its established fact.

youre trying to make up your own version of history that never happened.

OMG KHOBAI MADE UP THE TRUTH AND I DONT LIKE IT. People stuck 400XLs on Kodiaks. deal with it.

I never said people never used 400XL engines. For the purposes of the build in question (UAC dakka), it was more efficient for min-maxing to use a smaller engine (usually 375XL) to run a dakka Kodiak-3 at the highest levels of play. Even the meta build didn't run a full 400XL, because that would be a waste of tonnage that could've been used for heatsinks and/or ammo.

[MischiefSC]

Deathlike, on 29 October 2017 - 01:26 PM, said:

A fair number of bad KDK-3 builds involved using max engine.



I never said people never used 400XL engines. For the purposes of the build in question (UAC dakka), it was more efficient for min-maxing to use a smaller engine (usually 375XL) to run a dakka Kodiak-3 at the highest levels of play. Even the meta build didn't run a full 400XL, because that would be a waste of tonnage that could've been used for heatsinks and/or ammo.

You don't have to be leet uber meta comp minmax hardcore to understand and use good math.

7 tons for 4 KPH was always a good call, that's how you got enough ammo and DHS to make it sustainable.

[Tarogato]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 October 2017 - 01:07 PM, said:

You are trying to turn this into a hard CONOPS, and it doesn't work.

It's as simple as this:

The immediate goal of any fight is to have more guns firing at the enemy than the enemy has guns firing at you to maximize your damage out and minimize your damage in. Favorable trades. When you are presented with a target, you take the shot. Period. If the CT is not available, you hit the ST because that's still less durability on that 'Mech. Even if all destroying the ST did was remove some guns and heatsinks from that 'Mech, you have reduced the number of enemy guns firing at you, you have reduced the amount that the remaining guns can fire at you, and you've reduced the ability for those guns to get to where they need to be when the fight inevitably moves. To compound, if the enemy's best mounts were in the torso, now they have to expose even more to fight using the arms, which just snowballs into more damage received.

And really, when you trade, nobody is spreading damage much unless he knows the shot is coming. As such, putting burns into sides is easy against most targets. And even when they do, shooting a side denies the target of choosing which direction it wants to twist. If you aim to its right torso, it must twist right because your burn will finish before it can sufficiently twist left. That has its own uses.

Maybe this is where we are missing one another:

I mean picking a component from the outset and always aiming to kill it. The moment you see the enemy, or even before the match even starts - choosing whether to aim for CT or ST first. I'm not at all talking about taking advantage of sundry spontaneous and exceptional opportunities, such as "I can only see a sliver of his mech, and it's his side torso", because the only reason I wouldn't take that kind of shot is if I knew that he was likely to expose his CT soon and I could hit it if I don't waste my shot prematurely by firing on his ST.

EDIT:
Before somebody calls me out on my hypocrisy, YES, I often shoot specifically for STs in public queue, just to farm damage. Not because I think it's a winning strategy. Just thought I'd say this before somebody pipes in here saying, "I fought you earlier today and you were taking everybody's STs off!"

Edited by Tarogato, 29 October 2017 - 01:50 PM.

[Sjorpha]

Khobai, on 29 October 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

huh? Its well documented what the most popular kodiak-3 meta build used to be.

it had a 400XL engine. go look it up. its established fact.

youre trying to make up your own version of history that never happened.

OMG KHOBAI MADE UP THE TRUTH AND I DONT LIKE IT. People stuck 400XLs on Kodiaks. deal with it.

I thought the 2 initial meta builds for the 3 was 4UAC10 and 2Gauss,2PPC. I think neither were XL400 builds, like so and so or something along those lines.

After the UAC10 build was ghost heated you got the 2UAC102UAC5 build, something like that which can be pushed up a bit in engine but surely not often to 400. But I never recall that build really being the meta because the gauss/ppc build was much stronger.

How did the XL400 meta build look exactly and what is the documentation you refer to I can't find it.

Otherwise I agree with you on the main point that being able to take a large engine that pushed agility up was the big thing about the kodiak, I just remember it being in the 375-390 range rather than 400.

[Khobai]

Quote

How did the XL400 meta build look exactly and what is the documentation you refer to I can't find it.

its on metamechs.com, competitive list, medium range, tier 1 kodiak

the build was also posted on these forums and on the mechspecs forums

so yeah it was a well documented build as I said

the build was so popular at one point that I would see a variation of the build at least once per game.

Quote

After the UAC10 build was ghost heated you got the 2UAC102UAC5 build, something like that which can be pushed up a bit in engine but surely not often to 400.

it can easily be pushed to 400. you didnt remove the arm armor on both arms.

I mean theres no reason to use a 400 engine at all now, because of agility being desynced from engine size. But at one time the Kodiak got quite a decent agility boost out of using a 400 engine.

nowadays youre better off with a smaller sized engine like a 350 because you dont get extra agility anymore. the larger engines like the 375-400 have lost pretty much any appeal they once had.

also UAC10s run hotter now because their heat was increased. so the build just isnt as good all around. I dont get why PGI felt the need to make ballistics so much worse while leaving huge laser vomit alphas completely intact. hopefully theyll link large lasers and medium lasers in the same ghost heat group. Thats my christmas wish at least.

Edited by Khobai, 29 October 2017 - 03:02 PM.

[ocular tb]

I just went to metamechs and saw something disturbing....why does the Gauss PPC Kodiak have 2 MGs and no ammo?

[Deathlike]

ocular tb, on 29 October 2017 - 02:58 PM, said:

I just went to metamechs and saw something disturbing....why does the Gauss PPC Kodiak have 2 MGs and no ammo?

The MGs prop the Gauss in the ballistic/dakka hardpoints to an even higher location.