50 replies to this topic

[N F X]

Do NOT sell the 320XL. its very useful in most IS Heavies and Mediums.

[Rogue Jedi]

Considering this bad experiance I strongly advise asking for advice next time you go to purchase a Mech, reaserch and recomendations go a long way to correcting for bad experiances.

worst case if you realy regret your purchase and feel you wasted your cadet bonus register for MWO with a new account, if you want to keep the name before creating the new account go to profile, name and change it to something else to free it up for the new account ^{(you get 1 free name change).}

Also I can see you have completed your first 25 matches for the bonus 12 million they pay but did you do the tutorial? if not I advise doing so for the 5 million cbills it pays.

Smurfy is a great tool for designing Mechs and provides some great information as well, unfortunately at this point it does not properly update price for Clan XL engines or IS Light Fusion Engines so it is not quite as good for pricing up a Mech as it once was.

if you want a weight saving engine which can suvive a side torso loss, look at the Light Fusion Engine, heavier than an XL but able to suvive loosing 1 side ^{(due to it only taking 2 slots in a side torso and engine death requiring loosing 3 engine slots)}. you suvive loosing a side but do loose some speed and cooling, loosing the second side does kill you unless you have a standard engine, but only having the CT/Head weapons left pretty much removes you from the fight anyway

Edited by Rogue Jedi, 20 March 2018 - 12:19 PM.

[dBreeze]

The Basilisk, on 20 March 2018 - 02:05 AM, said:

The real win with the Zeu-9S2 is that it comes with DHS upgrade.
Try Mr Doomfist as build.
In general the Zeus is a stylish good to pilot mech but not very competitive.
Its fun though as long as you meet enough ppl with no clue what they are doing.

Funnily enough, I naturally ended up with 3 MRM 20s on the right arm anyways. Putting those on chainfire creates a long stream of missiles. Right now I'm debating and testing which autocannons to use on the left, but 2 ER Large Lasers on the torso has worked out well in a few scenarios.

Rogue Jedi, on 20 March 2018 - 12:17 PM, said:

Also I can see you have completed your first 25 matches for the bonus 12 million they pay but did you do the tutorial? if not I advise doing so for the 5 million cbills it pays.

I did, but I had already spent those cadet and tutorial c-bills on my first mechs several months ago (I took a long break from the game and recently came back to it). Right now I have 2 lights, a medium, and 2 assaults. I'll be saving up for a heavy after I'm satisfied with a Zeus build, so maybe I'll have a use for that XL 320 after all.

Edited by dBreeze, 20 March 2018 - 10:40 PM.

[Generic Internetter]

I sold all three of my Zeuses, then upon checking my stats I saw that sone of my best ratios were precisely those mechs I sold.

If you rework the build, and keep trying new things, you’ll get a great build, I promise.
My signature has a little guide that explains this better than I can here.

[Koniving]

If you use LMGs alongside regular large lasers, you may not need autocannons. Can even manage to do the build without an XL or an LE. Have them tied to the lasers in firing groups so they fire at the same time. Do not lead the bullets, they work just like lasers and hit instantly. The particle effect is exactly that, a meaningless graphic.

Kinda hard to run an AC alongside numerous MRMs in a Zeus, 80 tons is somewhat limiting.

If you're looking for good assault mechs for an XL engine, it is difficult to say no to a Battlemaster. Some Cyclops builds (primarily those with lots of missiles) also enjoy XL engines due to the free tonnage for ammunition and launchers. Its also just shy of the biggest engine you can put into a Highlander which they typically make good ballistic/missile boats (and have 10 extra tons to work with).

To quote a minor meme from 2014, "Chicks love Battlemasters." (A frequent guest on my channel got a Battlemaster and it was the only thing she enjoyed running for well over a year.)

Good luck out there.

[dBreeze]

I was wrong. The game didn't rip me off with the XL Engine, it ripped me off with the mech itself. After a lot of fiddling around and trying out different weapon combinations, I think it's safe to say the Zeus itself is garbage.

The mech is fragile as hell and doesn't have the tonnage of other assaults, but is an extremely easy target to hit. Many of the heavies I've tried out can take a lot more punishment than the Zeus can and can move much faster. I cannot find any benefit that the Zeus can provide. It feels terrible at everything; long-range, brawling, flanking, peek-a-boo, holding ground, breaking defenses and especially tanking.

It just explodes after taking a few hits, with or without an XL engine. I don't know if the hitboxes are weird or if the armor values are bugged, but the Zeus feels like it just doesn't have any armor at all.

I may just sell the Zeus and keep the XL for later, because my win rate has tanked and c-bill income nosedived after buying this awful thing.

Edited by dBreeze, 22 March 2018 - 01:27 PM.

[Horseman]

Did you remember to frontload the armor, max it out and invest in the survival tree?

The Zeus' main advantage is that it's an 80-tonner with mobility profile of a 55-tonner.

Edited by Horseman, 22 March 2018 - 02:09 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Horseman, on 22 March 2018 - 01:43 PM, said:

Did you remember to frontload the armor and invest in the survival tree?

This...meaning drop the rear armor to 4-8pts each then max out frontal armor.

Quote

tl;dr Do not buy a Zeus with an XL Engine! It is a noob trap and a waste of money!

And this part. This isnt the largest reason PGI could remove the TT rule "3 engine crit" and the mech is out, since they are only using it when a IS mech w/XL loses a side torso. The game does not have a fully incorporated engine crit setup that would affect ALL ENGINE slots, and not just the isXL ONE Side Torso.

Never mind IS tech is heavier, takes up more space and some items may provide similar benefits but not the same benefits as Clan components (Endo/;Ferro)

I can see the OP viewpoint, especially someone who had never played Battletech. And if the OP had played any of the previous MPBT/Mechwarrior series, each had their own setup but dying to the loss of a side torso was not part of things.

And PGI thinks lowering the HEALTH on components will help make things right... right....hmmm..I am happy they brought it alive but so many wrong turns...

[Metus regem]

Tarl, as I'm often left doing this:



When I look at what PGI is doing with their... adjustments to mechs that they say are over performing, never mind that they are often a rare sight in actual game play...

It really makes me wonder how much TT they actually played, how much they actually play MWO... I mean I'm all for lore, but I see no issue with adjusting weights and crit sizes for equipment, but with out the proper RNG hit location and crit system, several things are overly punished in MWO, the isXL being one of them.

[dBreeze]

Horseman, on 22 March 2018 - 01:43 PM, said:

Did you remember to frontload the armor, max it out and invest in the survival tree?

The Zeus' main advantage is that it's an 80-tonner with mobility profile of a 55-tonner.

Yes I did. Zeus' may be as fast as a 55 tonner with the XL but feels more fragile than one.

Tarl Cabot, on 22 March 2018 - 02:10 PM, said:

This...meaning drop the rear armor to 4-8pts each then max out frontal armor.

I admittedly didn't min/max it that much. I have around 20 on the rear armor but I don't think that would be causing the Zeus' fragility. For example, my Stalker's torso has around the same armor values but it can take A LOT more punishment than my Zeus.

Edited by dBreeze, 22 March 2018 - 09:56 PM.

[Koniving]

dBreeze, on 22 March 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

Yes I did. Zeus' may be as fast as a 55 tonner with the XL but feels more fragile than one.



I admittedly didn't min/max it that much. I have around 20 on the rear armor but I don't think that would be causing the Zeus' fragility. For example, my Stalker's torso has around the same armor values but it can take A LOT more punishment than my Zeus.

The stalker has a narrow ct that is very difficult to hit from the front but huge on the rear. The side torsos however are gigantic. Even so the rear sides are reasonably big too. Those huge side torsos reduce all damage by 60 % for every hit that touches them after they are destroyed.

The Zeus can do the same but its side torsos aren't much bigger than the rear torsos of the stalker. Humanoid mechs are much more susceptible to frontal attacks and have an easier time twisting their rear away from enemies.

Humanoid mechs need that front armor. Especially for the ranges of your weapons and their dos nature (3 mrm 20s firing in sequence).

[Koniving]

Actually Zeus St is huge... But not in a good way. Least not for xl.

[Horseman]

dBreeze, on 22 March 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

I admittedly didn't min/max it that much. I have around 20 on the rear armor but I don't think that would be causing the Zeus' fragility. For example, my Stalker's torso has around the same armor values but it can take A LOT more punishment than my Zeus.

20 armor on the back is excessive. I don't run more than 10 on most of my mechs except the least maneuverable assaults (Atlas, King Crab, Annihilator and the like). In your case, you could bump the front side torso armor by 20% (which is kind of important)

[Tarl Cabot]

Be aware in STOCK form, mechs armor is based on the tabletop game Battletech, a turn based game, where tis dice being used for hit/miss and location. That same armor distribution does not really work in a FPS game like MWO.

To add to the above, The damage transfer reduction is one of several reasons Clan mech, which most are chicken walkers instead of humanoid and almost all are using cXL (which does not take a mech out with the loss of one side torso). The few Clan battlemechs that a player may use a STD will be due to multiple gauss rifles.

Or put it another way.. 20pts on RT/RCT/RL, that is 60pts of armor not being utilize effective and is not soaking up damage except for pesky light that may get to your rear. Moving 45pts of damage across the front allows for more effective use to soak up incoming damage, that is unless you intend to be showing your backside to your enemy a lot.....

Just one other thing. If you fire into a destroyed leg/arm placement location, the transferred damage is reduced when hitting the destroyed side torso but that damage is then reduced more when going into the CT.

[Metus regem]

Tail, I stand by that the stock, well front loaded in any case, could work in MWO, provided that we didn't have near perfect convergence for our weapons, but rather had a hit circle that allowed for all shots to land in.

[Koniving]

Metus regem, on 23 March 2018 - 05:14 AM, said:

Tail, I stand by that the stock, well front loaded in any case, could work in MWO, provided that we didn't have near perfect convergence for our weapons, but rather had a hit circle that allowed for all shots to land in.

I'd say the same, but rather than simply a hit circle, less front loaded damage and more dispersed over time. After all an AC/20 does 60 damage in 8 seconds, which a RAC/5 in the source material does 30 damage in up to 10, when the RAC/5 is superior to the AC/20 in terms of maximum damage potential in that 10 seconds except in the case of exceptional risk of barrel warpage/permanent jam, in which it could come out on top by only 10 damage. Even then that damage isn't culminated in 3 shots but many... Take the stated energy for lasers and their full damage isn't possible in single shots either (which is fine since many lasers have 0.1 to 0.2 second shots...yet others of also the standard variety have 1 to 2 second long beam times). Missiles therefore wouldn't be nearly so useless and would feel like missiles due to how much damage 1 or 2 damage per missile would actually feel like compared to ACs and lasers gradually netting that damage... also remembering how armor/structure is less than half of what MWO uses, and that heat plays a much bigger factor. Also Gauss Rifles going through mechs as opposed to stopping on a mech would remind us as to why the Gauss Rifle is considered so immensely powerful even when compared to the AC/20... and why they are so big.

Ultimately though, the real issue is how incompatible weapon types are, and how the excessive amounts of armor and structure we have makes any single weapon useless instead of effective.... as well as the blatant lack of variety in targets. Where's the infantry? The aircraft? The tanks? The supply lines running through the battlefield to keep scarce stores of ammunition resupplied?

Or more simply, disperse health across sub-hitboxes. 80 armor on the torso, 40 structure? Instead of fire a mass 100 damage alpha strike at the CT to nearly obliterate the mech, what if the CT was divided into several sub sections like 4 or 5, and each only contained an equally divided amount of health. So say its 60 of the 80 armor on the front torso, with the front torso divided into 4 sections of 15 armor each and the overall CT divided into 2 sections of structural health of 20 each (with 2 sections of armor overlapping each of these two sections of structure). Now you alpha strike and that massive overkill strike of 100 damage has only actually done 15 armor and 20 structure for a total of 35 damage. What a waste of firepower, time to shift away from mass alphas to something more efficient. That's okay though, stock builds are quite a bit more efficient there as opposed to mass alpha builds.

But, meh.

Edited by Koniving, 23 March 2018 - 07:56 AM.

[barnmaddo]

IMO having some extra back armor isn't a bad thing for newer players. Their situational awareness is worse and new players tend to spread out and flank all over the place, so they are far more likely to take some hits to the back, and having slightly weaker front armor just encourages them to play cautiously and not charge into heavy fire expecting to face tank everything.

Maybe if you're in Tier1 and have a great team you don't need much back armor, because it's all tightly packed battle balls where you'll never be out of position and your team will always have your back.

[Alexander of Macedon]

barnmaddo, on 26 March 2018 - 03:41 AM, said:

IMO having some extra back armor isn't a bad thing for newer players. Their situational awareness is worse and new players tend to spread out and flank all over the place, so they are far more likely to take some hits to the back, and having slightly weaker front armor just encourages them to play cautiously and not charge into heavy fire expecting to face tank everything.

Maybe if you're in Tier1 and have a great team you don't need much back armor, because it's all tightly packed battle balls where you'll never be out of position and your team will always have your back.

You only "need" back armor if you're so lacking in situational awareness that people will be able to sneak into your rear quarter and shoot repeatedly without you noticing, or if you're in a slow-*** 100tonner that will inevitable be swarmed by shin-humping lights. Not trimming rear armor down to 6-10pt = having a major disadvantage in all exchanges.

[barnmaddo]

Alexander of Macedon, on 26 March 2018 - 02:03 PM, said:

You only "need" back armor if you're so lacking in situational awareness that people will be able to sneak into your rear quarter and shoot repeatedly without you noticing, or if you're in a slow-*** 100tonner that will inevitable be swarmed by shin-humping lights. Not trimming rear armor down to 6-10pt = having a major disadvantage in all exchanges.

That's not true, you also need back armor if your team is spread out across half the map and there's enemies attacking you from all sides. Anyways being spread out and lacking situational awareness are things that 99% of Tier 4/5 players struggle with, so yes they do "need" more than 10 points of back armor.

[Eisenhorne]

barnmaddo, on 26 March 2018 - 03:42 PM, said:

That's not true, you also need back armor if your team is spread out across half the map and there's enemies attacking you from all sides. Anyways being spread out and lacking situational awareness are things that 99% of Tier 4/5 players struggle with, so yes they do "need" more than 10 points of back armor.

No, new players need to get used to putting 5-6 armor on the back of their mechs and paying attention to their surroundings. If they rely on having tons of back armor as a crutch to save them, then how can they improve?