48 replies to this topic

[Bombast]

Zergling, on 26 February 2018 - 09:20 PM, said:

Then there's a bug with the mechlab program you are using, because changing from XL to standard with no other changes should definitely be causing an increase in BV.

No bug, he's just not paying attention. Skunkwerks properly displays engine BV.

Atlas K with XL - 2175
Atlas K with STD (And Overweight) - 2,374

[Steel Raven]

MWO has evolved into something different from the TT in many ways except in concept (giant robots shooting each other) For example, the Awesome is one of the best mechs on the Table Top, it is one of least popular in MWO. Replacing a AC/5 with a PPC is the thing to do on the table top, in MWO it's somehow become more practical to stack 3X AC/5s on a Marauder.

[SilentFenris]

As far as mech builds I would field in both tabletop and MWO:
- Locust-PB load with ECM and SPL is a good addition for tabletop and a kick to drive
- Just built an Archer for MWO based on a tabletop build I have used for years, two LRM15A and quad MPL. Might tweak a bit though as it runs a bit hot and as others have mentioned, MWO mechs need more ammo than tabletop.

Steel Raven, on 28 February 2018 - 09:46 PM, said:

MWO has evolved into something different from the TT in many ways except in concept (giant robots shooting each other) For example, the Awesome is one of the best mechs on the Table Top, it is one of least popular in MWO. Replacing a AC/5 with a PPC is the thing to do on the table top, in MWO it's somehow become more practical to stack 3X AC/5s on a Marauder.

Yeah, in tabe-top upgrading a Marauder to double sinks and replacing the AC5 with a PPC is the way to go. I did build a 5D model with three PPCs for MWO, but it runs rather hot. My MWO build for the 2R is 2AC5s and 2PPCs rather than three AC5s.

Edited by SilentFenris, 02 March 2018 - 07:07 PM.

[Zergling]

SilentFenris, on 02 March 2018 - 07:03 PM, said:

As far as mech builds I would field in both tabletop and MWO:
- Locust-PB load with ECM and SPL is a good addition for tabletop and a kick to drive

I'd run such a Locust with quad ER Medium Laser instead of SPL. Small Pulses are all sorts of terrible in TT.

[JackCrow]

I don’t know, but if someone rolled up to my game with a star of mechs with 9 pulse lasers or 10 MGs per mech, omg the sheer number of rolls. No thanks.

[Metus regem]

JackCrow, on 04 March 2018 - 07:40 PM, said:

I don’t know, but if someone rolled up to my game with a star of mechs with 9 pulse lasers or 10 MGs per mech, omg the sheer number of rolls. No thanks.

9 pulse lasers isn't that bad in TT, the Nova prime already does 12 lasers.... all pulse does is give them a nice -2 to hit... as for MG's the Piranha does 12 stock as well.... he'll a Dire Wolf has something close to 11 weapons in the prime config that can be sized at short to medium range....

[JackCrow]

Metus regem, on 05 March 2018 - 05:21 AM, said:

9 pulse lasers isn't that bad in TT, the Nova prime already does 12 lasers.... all pulse does is give them a nice -2 to hit... as for MG's the Piranha does 12 stock as well.... he'll a Dire Wolf has something close to 11 weapons in the prime config that can be sized at short to medium range....

Have to admit I only have like 50 TT games under my belt. The little group I was in always was striving to simplify so that we could actually finish a game.

Nowadays I wish I could just a find a group locally.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

[color=#959595]for a pair of large shields mounted to the mech's front side torsos[/color]

Shields can't be mounted anywhere except the arms. Sarna: Construction All shield sizes can only be mounted in arm actuator locations for only IndustrialMechs and BattleMechs. Missing Hand Actuators and arms will reduce Damage Absorbance and Damage Capacity of the any size shield by 1. Shields are hardmounted at construction of a 'mech, any speed reduction will be applied per size of the shield and should be calculated in speed the effected unit. Small Shields do not cause a unit to go slow, however only large sizes do. Both Medium and Large Shields reduces a constructed unit by 1 Movement Point, while Large Shields prevents the usage of Jump Jets.^[5]

JackCrow, on 04 March 2018 - 07:40 PM, said:

I don’t know, but if someone rolled up to my game with a star of mechs with 9 pulse lasers or 10 MGs per mech, omg the sheer number of rolls. No thanks.

This is when you use one of those little craft boxes of like a dozen compartments or so, stick a pair of d6 in each one.

Shake with vigor and place on table. Considering I've seen a 42-MG + large laser design at one point, box-o-dice FTW.

[InvictusLee]

No.

Just. No.

[SilentFenris]

Zergling, on 03 March 2018 - 09:51 PM, said:

I'd run such a Locust with quad ER Medium Laser instead of SPL. Small Pulses are all sorts of terrible in TT.

With a name like Zergling I am surprised you would rather stay at range than pounce on something's back and chew it to death. If you are talking ER mediums I would take 3 and a targeting computer instead of 4 without...but my dice and I have issues to work out.

Edited by SilentFenris, 07 March 2018 - 10:18 AM.

[SilentScreamer]

I'm still really hoping to see more Battletech (tabletop) mech builds in this thread. Most posters are responding with theory on why MWO and Battletech aren't compatible, which I pretty much covered in the first post.

So here are two more bulids to consider from a War of '39 pre-Clan invasion standpoint:

The Champion Dragon - https://mwo.smurfy-n...ab#i=74&l=stock
- only two things not legal out this build are the 1/2 ton gauss in CT and the leg armor distribution. Much more effective at range than the Dragon 5N model.

The Champion Jagermech - https://mwo.smurfy-n...b#i=278&l=stock
- mech is 5 engine rating points over a legal build, leg armor distribution and uses 1/2 ton ammo distribution. Otherwise legal for table top and is more effective than the stock JM6 refit with two gauss rifle due to increased armor.

Both are heavy Inner Sphere mechs with a 30 or 31 long range alpha. Both are vulnerable to side torso loss as they use XL engines. But with the range available is the high damage alpha worth the danger of the XL engine. There is no Clan tech, Light Fusion engines or C3 computer networks to worry about in this Battletech era.

Thoughts on using these MWO builds in table top?

[Steel Raven]

SilentFenris, on 02 March 2018 - 07:03 PM, said:

Yeah, in tabe-top upgrading a Marauder to double sinks and replacing the AC5 with a PPC is the way to go. I did build a 5D model with three PPCs for MWO, but it runs rather hot. My MWO build for the 2R is 2AC5s and 2PPCs rather than three AC5s.

That's because MWO Double Heat Sinks only have 1.5 heating capacity vs 2 in the TT. This was so the PPC and other energy weapons wouldn't overshadow ballistic builds. Some MWO players who are Dakka fans still complain about energy boats even though PGI has done everything possible give ballistic weapons the clear edge in game from high velocity, high fire rate, higher ammo capacity than the TT and giving most energy weapons higher heat.

[SilentFenris]

Steel Raven, on 08 March 2018 - 09:40 AM, said:

That's because MWO Double Heat Sinks only have 1.5 heating capacity vs 2 in the TT. This was so the PPC and other energy weapons wouldn't overshadow ballistic builds. Some MWO players who are Dakka fans still complain about energy boats even though PGI has done everything possible give ballistic weapons the clear edge in game from high velocity, high fire rate, higher ammo capacity than the TT and giving most energy weapons higher heat.

Not "everything" yet. From Beta days, many players have voiced the opinion that much lower heat caps and much higher heat dissapation would improve many weapon balance issues, ballistics vs energy being a great example, but also reduce or eliminate the use of the Ghost Heat System.

[SMDMadCow]

So, I actually put some up on the CBT forums:
https://bg.battletec...6634#msg1316634

Most need tweaking; engine to make legal, sinks added/subtracted, or ammo reduced.
The only one I've found that really works in both is the old school Gauss-apult - the one I posted has double sinks, but could use singles in TT with no problem.

[SilentScreamer]

SMDMadCow, on 14 March 2018 - 08:22 AM, said:

So, I actually put some up on the CBT forums:
https://bg.battletec...6634#msg1316634

Most need tweaking; engine to make legal, sinks added/subtracted, or ammo reduced.
The only one I've found that really works in both is the old school Gauss-apult - the one I posted has double sinks, but could use singles in TT with no problem.

Love the Poptart'Phract. I prefered my poptart Highlander though it was not close to a legal or useful tabletop build. Thanks for posting!

[Throe]

It's a silly proposition. Everyone knows this game is *based* on BattleTech. The initial values for almost everything in Beta were pulled from BattleTech, because it was an excellent place to start, especially given that this was intentionally a game based on BattleTech(not coincidence or accident). However, MWO has departed so completely from BattleTech by this point that attempting to compare the two is just going to result in wildly incompatible results, and it doesn't matter whether you want to bring BattleTech into MWO or vice versa.

The only annoying thing at this point is that the developers seem intent to "follow the timeline" instead of looking at what could be introduced to 1) improve game balance and 2) increase variety in matches, by abandoning that original pseudo-goal. To be fair, those two primary goals are going to be in constant conflict, but there's no reason we can't have both. It's been done before in MWO, it can be done again.

[MechaBattler]

I was talking to a friend about my Banshee build. And he said a Banshee is a poor man's Atlas in TT. I said that's because the Banshee in TT doesn't have the advantage of high mounts. Which really helps distinguish it.

[SMDMadCow]

MechaBattler, on 14 March 2018 - 02:58 PM, said:

I was talking to a friend about my Banshee build. And he said a Banshee is a poor man's Atlas in TT. I said that's because the Banshee in TT doesn't have the advantage of high mounts. Which really helps distinguish it.

Then your friends a fool - the 3S is a ******* monster.

*also, I put a few more in that thread.

Edited by SMDMadCow, 14 March 2018 - 07:20 PM.

[Steel Raven]

The Banshee 3S is a BEAST on the table top, it's only problem is heat. The 6S, 7S and 9S get progressively more scary for your opponent.

There are a few MWO hero mechs that would make for interesting TT ideas. The Spirit Bear would make for a nice Kodiak variant and some some version of the Jester would also make sense for a variant of the Catapult K2.

[Metus regem]

MechaBattler, on 14 March 2018 - 02:58 PM, said:

I was talking to a friend about my Banshee build. And he said a Banshee is a poor man's Atlas in TT. I said that's because the Banshee in TT doesn't have the advantage of high mounts. Which really helps distinguish it.

Your friend is an idiot...

The Banshee 3S is a monster, it dares you to close with it, and if you do, then you are playing right into it's game.... it wants you in CQB to beat your skull in with two fist attacks for 10 damage each....

As for mount locations, the only, I repeat only time it matters, is if you are standing behind level 1 cover and want to shot any leg mounted weapons., everything else is considered to be level 2 height, with some mechs able to shoot out above level 2, the Fire moth comes to mind as one of the few with over head arms.

In TT the Banshee that get's laughed at the most (by those that can't understand how to use it right) is the 3E, that one is a 4/6, what it doesn't out gun, it can out run... most IS heavies of the pre-clan invasion are 4/6, some mediums are 4/6, that puts this Banshee into a whole other classification, if you get a charge off, you are looking at 50 point damage charge if you can get a full 5 hex run at something before running into it, that's more than an Atlas can pull off on a charge! (Mind you not as impressive as what a Charger can pull off... 56 damage there )