183 replies to this topic

[Roadbuster]

Phades, on 21 January 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

You would do better with the 8-R instead of the T or the V. LRM or SRM wise, it is a better platform. =/

I know that the 8R is preferred by most players, but I wanted to play the less used variants.
The 8T is a very good mech, the 8V needs a bit to get used to and you have to take care of your right side which contains alot of your weapons.
I run the 8V with 1x LRM15, 2x SRM6, 1x ER-PPC and 3-Medium Lasers, AMS, Artemis, DHS and a STD engine. It's very versatile, can provide good suppression fire and packs a nice punch at close range.

Edited by Roadbuster, 21 January 2013 - 11:08 PM.

[NRP]

Upon a suggestion from BunnyWabbit, I tried the following 8Q build:

STD285
6 LLs
Endo
16 DHS
HE = 1.09

Totally viable. I group the LLs in twos, so heat is very manageable, even on Caustic. Basically, you can fire groups of two LLs fairly steadily. An alpha takes you to about 70% heat on Caustic, so only do it if it's a sure kill.

[Abivard]

After reading your post I looked for awesomes, I played 8 drops.
Saw awesomes on 2 drops, Only one drop had more than 3 ecm mechs on a team, 2 drops had no ecm mechs enemy, and we dropped one no ecm either side. Stalkers, catapults, cataphracts, atlas, hunchback,spider most common mechs seen.
My 4 man was dropping towards the heavy side so the light builds were not as prevalent. ECM was a factor in battle, but not a deciding factor. Gunnery, Skill and tactics alongside teamwork were the telling points in all matches.

When we lost it was due to superior skill, tactics and Luck. never under estimate Luck, but skilled folk make their own Luck.

Luck is OP and damn well should stay that way too!

[GalaxyBluestar]

NRP, on 21 January 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

Upon a suggestion from BunnyWabbit, I tried the following 8Q build:

STD285
6 LLs
Endo
16 DHS
HE = 1.09

Totally viable. I group the LLs in twos, so heat is very manageable, even on Caustic. Basically, you can fire groups of two LLs fairly steadily. An alpha takes you to about 70% heat on Caustic, so only do it if it's a sure kill.

try
STD290
5medlaser 2 medpulselaser
Endo
38 SH
maxed armour
HE = 1.37? i've sold it off ages back
but max dps is 4.63 as apposed to 3.94.

it takes only a second to move closer if range bothers you and the enemy will do the same to you anyways packing ac20's srms etc. a great harraser with chain fire.

[FerretGR]

stemnin, on 21 January 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

I gave up on the 8Q, and when something is done either to DHS or LPL/PPC we're still going to be inferior in firepower to like a Stalker (I love my 3F too!).

As I mentioned in my first post, one of my teammates and I had a disagreement about the quality of the Awesome vs. the Stalker, and this is where it began (the implication that the Stalker replicating the loadout leaves no reason to take the AWS). The first thing we tried to do was pit them against each other in a match, me with my 8Q with 3PPCs, 1LL, 1MPL, and him with his Stalker with whatever (a couple of PPCs, whatever). I did a respectable 2 kills, 3 assist, 660 dmg, but he did 3 kills, 4 assists, 1100 damage so round 1 to him. Although 660 with 2 kills isn't exactly suckville. Anyhow, the trashing of the Awesome continued, so I proposed the only true test: zellbrigen. One AWS vs. one STK.



Looks like torso twist and arm movement and maneuverability count for something

Edited by FerretGR, 22 January 2013 - 05:37 AM.

[Ivanzypher]

I use my Awesome nearly every match. By far my favourite mech. My favourite variant being the 8Q with PPCs, but I love my SRM 8R almost as much. My newest variant is the 9M.....meh. It's ok I guess, but nothing on the 8Q.

Everyone likes to bash the Awesome, but I doubt most of them have even driven an Awesome. Is it the best mech? No. Is it prefectly usable, and very powerful in the right hands? Yes. The only buff it could use is a slight rejig of the torso hitboxes. Maybe shrink the centre a bit, expand the side inwards. Would be fine then.

Also, if the devs increase the max engine size of the Awesome, I will literally fly to Canada and punch someone in the face. I spent way too long saving up for all those engines to have to regrind for one a few sizes up.

[Aldon]

I love the awesome. IMO it takes an experienced player to make it awesome. If I am tired or not playing my best I get killed very often.

When I am "in the zone" they are my favorite mechs and I do very well.

The Atlas or Stalker are different. You can just sort of roll through drops and do fairly well even if you aren't playing your best.

[Lightfoot]

RickySpanish, on 21 January 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

Earlier this evening I snuck my 8R round the back of two catapults and a 9M. I brutalized all three one after another with my SRM shotgun, and proceeded to completely shatter the rest of their team. It was the most shockingly beautiful display of violence I've seen in this game since the first time an 8R ripped my Ilya to shreds at point blank, and I fell in love. The next game got me killed, but not before I'd stripped everything off of two Stalkers and killed a couple of cataphracts and became the last man standing.

I can assure you that if the Awesome lives up to its name in the hands of a merely novice pilot such as myself, it is capable of being an utter terror in the hands of an expert, fully elited.

They must have been noobs to allow you to do that. A good team would have chewed you up in 10 seconds.

When comparing mechs for balance it is irrelavent to point to one situation where a mech is successful because you could just as easily point to one where it is not.

For balance you compare it to toughness and loadouts of mechs near it's weight. That's the Stalker and the Cataphract, maybe the Atlas. All those mechs are much tougher than the Awesome and they all surpass the Awesome in loadouts even on the Mechlab damage graph. My very tough Catphract with just a ST 275 engine, never overheats, does 67 damage on the mechlab scale while my best Awesome does 56 and overheats all the time. Cataphract also manuvers better. Move up to the Stalker and the loadouts are extremely better with more options. No stupid 4 hardpoints in the CT here, no that's reserved for the 11.5 million CBill AWS-9M, no hardpoint in the Head either. Stalker even gets extra critical slots and it is a monster to take down, better hope you outrange it or can stay behind it.

So there is your balance point, somewhere between the Cataphract and the Stalker who are both tougher and weild more punch than the Awesome. Basically we are saying make the Awesome tougher I think, if possible give it special cooling ability. Although more hardpoints in usable locations is an option, I don't think they will do that.

[slayerkdm]

Certainly it seems the least played mech. Also, if my team has Awesomes and the other team has Atlas, not going to be good day for us.

[Ivanzypher]

My last match in my Awesome 9M. Sorry for doubting you mister 9M :-P

(Shameless boasting ahoy)


Oh, that was with Large Pulse Lasers aswell. So much for them sucking.

Edited by Ivanzypher, 22 January 2013 - 10:11 AM.

[The Silent Protagonist]

Ivanzypher, on 22 January 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

My last match in my Awesome 9M. Sorry for doubting you mister 9M :-P

(Shameless boasting ahoy)


Oh, that was with Large Pulse Lasers aswell. So much for them sucking.

I concur. The Awesome is a quality mech and should be appreciated as such.

[FerretGR]

Lightfoot, on 22 January 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

My very tough Catphract with just a ST 275 engine, never overheats, does 67 damage on the mechlab scale while my best Awesome does 56 and overheats all the time. Cataphract also manuvers better. Move up to the Stalker and the loadouts are extremely better with more options. No stupid 4 hardpoints in the CT here, no that's reserved for the 11.5 million CBill AWS-9M, no hardpoint in the Head either. Stalker even gets extra critical slots and it is a monster to take down, better hope you outrange it or can stay behind it.

So there is your balance point, somewhere between the Cataphract and the Stalker who are both tougher and weild more punch than the Awesome. Basically we are saying make the Awesome tougher I think, if possible give it special cooling ability. Although more hardpoints in usable locations is an option, I don't think they will do that.

Cataphract:

Well, your best Phract has a 67 damage rating in the mechlab; my 8T has a damage rating of 66 and my 8R has 78, so by that measure the Phract is neither tougher nor does it wield more punch. As far as toughness goes, it makes more sense to look at the armor though: AWS has 494 vs. CTF's 434, 13% more armor. From my perspective, the CTF is neither tougher nor does it wield more punch. Speed is one difference, depending on chassis: The top speed for the 4X matches the 8-series AWS; the 9M matches the rest of the Phracts. Not enough to make one decisively better than the other in all cases, though I'll give you that the CTF has a better ability to turn. As for the overheating, I'd say the issue lies between the keyboard and the chair, or at worst, in your design choices. There's nothing inherent in the AWS causing it to overheat more than a CTF.

For me, there are two key differences that might lead someone to choose CTF over AWS: the size/hitboxes, and the use of ballistics. I can understand both of these choices, but I think of the increased toughness as a tradeoff for being forced to cover my massive frame a bit more, and I prefer lasers and missiles to ballistics, so that side of things is a no-brainer.

Stalker:

I'll concede that the Stalker has both more firepower available and more armor (but not by much; only 6% more); however, that firepower needs to be brought to bear, and that extra armor isn't going to help when the 9M gets behind it. While its speed matches the other chassis of AWS, it's nowhere near as maneuverable, it's got virtually no torso twist and can't move its arms. Again, all that extra firepower needs to be brought to bear; the AWS can hit the STK at angles at which the STK simply doesn't have the ability to fire effectively, thanks to its superior torso twist and excellent arm-mounted firing ability.

I will admit that I can't stand the STK for the reason I mention above. I thought the Atlas was like walking through mud until I tried a STK. No thanks.

I'm not trying to say that the AWS is objectively better than the CTF or the STK. I'm trying to say that with each mech there are a series of pros and cons.I see these three mechs as the closest comparisons to each other, and I see valid reasons, when compared to each other, to choose either one, based on personal preference and which pros and which cons we prefer.

Except the Stalker.

Edited by FerretGR, 22 January 2013 - 10:23 AM.

[BerryChunks]

Blue Hymn, on 21 January 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

Actually, it is surprisingly good, even with such armaments. Because of its high speed and maneuverability, it can quickly close in the distance to - let's say, for example, an Atlas - and loop behind its back. With the extra armor, it can weather through more damage, while blasting the rear end of the Atlas with consistent damage. It's flexibility at such speed enables it to also move faster than an Atlas' turning radius, which means you can continue harassing it while the enemy is having trouble to turn around to target the Awesome. A tag laser on the head allows me to paint the target for friendly mechs to focus on while harassing it, while the srms are concentrated close enough to keep the damage focused to where I aim.

The 9M variant I mentioned isn't meant to slug it out against othe assault mechs from far away -- it's meant to support other mechs who are under fire, inflict nasty damage from behind enemy mechs, and have the capability to chase down fast mechs when it is necessary.

Granted, I have not piloted a Hunchback yet, so I can't offer much comparison between it and the Awesome. xP

Im not sure where people are getting this "speed and maneuverability" from. Maybe if you put in a larger engine.

Serapth, on 21 January 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

I actually tend to get my highest damage output on a build that does exactly the opposite of what you describe.

A D-DC with 2xLL, 1xGauss and LRMs. Regularly gets 1000+ damage, and 3+ kills, unless its a complete roll of a match. Even in the face of a roll, it generally puts at least 200 damage on the board, which is tricky when you have a 4man premade focus firing on you.

If you are pugging, there is advantage to versatility. While 2xLL + Gauss is undergunned against a AC20/3SRM6+Lasers Atlas, it still holds it's own quite well. Especially as the other guy is generally quite beat up by the time we meet.

Damage numbers =/= combat effectiveness. If you're plinking a single point of armor from every point of every mech, you're not helping much. Large lasers tend to do that, especially at the farthest ranges of usefulness.

[BerryChunks]

FerretGR, on 22 January 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

Cataphract:

Well, your best Phract has a 67 damage rating in the mechlab; my 8T has a damage rating of 66 and my 8R has 78, so by that measure the Phract is neither tougher nor does it wield more punch. As far as toughness goes, it makes more sense to look at the armor though: AWS has 494 vs. CTF's 434, 13% more armor. From my perspective, the CTF is neither tougher nor does it wield more punch. Speed is one difference, depending on chassis: The top speed for the 4X matches the 8-series AWS; the 9M matches the rest of the Phracts. Not enough to make one decisively better than the other in all cases, though I'll give you that the CTF has a better ability to turn. As for the overheating, I'd say the issue lies between the keyboard and the chair, or at worst, in your design choices. There's nothing inherent in the AWS causing it to overheat more than a CTF.

For me, there are two key differences that might lead someone to choose CTF over AWS: the size/hitboxes, and the use of ballistics. I can understand both of these choices, but I think of the increased toughness as a tradeoff for being forced to cover my massive frame a bit more, and I prefer lasers and missiles to ballistics, so that side of things is a no-brainer.

Stalker:

I'll concede that the Stalker has both more firepower available and more armor (but not by much; only 6% more); however, that firepower needs to be brought to bear, and that extra armor isn't going to help when the 9M gets behind it. While its speed matches the other chassis of AWS, it's nowhere near as maneuverable, it's got virtually no torso twist and can't move its arms. Again, all that extra firepower needs to be brought to bear; the AWS can hit the STK at angles at which the STK simply doesn't have the ability to fire effectively, thanks to its superior torso twist and excellent arm-mounted firing ability.

I will admit that I can't stand the STK for the reason I mention above. I thought the Atlas was like walking through mud until I tried a STK. No thanks.

I'm not trying to say that the AWS is objectively better than the CTF or the STK. I'm trying to say that with each mech there are a series of pros and cons.I see these three mechs as the closest comparisons to each other, and I see valid reasons, when compared to each other, to choose either one, based on personal preference and which pros and which cons we prefer.

Except the Stalker.

As with any other metric, "firepower" in mechlab doesn't tell the whole story. LRMs get you massive Firepower rating, yet they're worthless in CQ.

[FerretGR]

Agreed. Just using the metric the previous poster used

[Lightfoot]

FerretGR, on 22 January 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

Cataphract:

Well, your best Phract has a 67 damage rating in the mechlab; my 8T has a damage rating of 66 and my 8R has 78, so by that measure the Phract is neither tougher nor does it wield more punch. As far as toughness goes, it makes more sense to look at the armor though: AWS has 494 vs. CTF's 434, 13% more armor. From my perspective, the CTF is neither tougher nor does it wield more punch. Speed is one difference, depending on chassis: The top speed for the 4X matches the 8-series AWS; the 9M matches the rest of the Phracts. Not enough to make one decisively better than the other in all cases, though I'll give you that the CTF has a better ability to turn. As for the overheating, I'd say the issue lies between the keyboard and the chair, or at worst, in your design choices. There's nothing inherent in the AWS causing it to overheat more than a CTF.

For me, there are two key differences that might lead someone to choose CTF over AWS: the size/hitboxes, and the use of ballistics. I can understand both of these choices, but I think of the increased toughness as a tradeoff for being forced to cover my massive frame a bit more, and I prefer lasers and missiles to ballistics, so that side of things is a no-brainer.

Stalker:

I'll concede that the Stalker has both more firepower available and more armor (but not by much; only 6% more); however, that firepower needs to be brought to bear, and that extra armor isn't going to help when the 9M gets behind it. While its speed matches the other chassis of AWS, it's nowhere near as maneuverable, it's got virtually no torso twist and can't move its arms. Again, all that extra firepower needs to be brought to bear; the AWS can hit the STK at angles at which the STK simply doesn't have the ability to fire effectively, thanks to its superior torso twist and excellent arm-mounted firing ability.

I will admit that I can't stand the STK for the reason I mention above. I thought the Atlas was like walking through mud until I tried a STK. No thanks.

I'm not trying to say that the AWS is objectively better than the CTF or the STK. I'm trying to say that with each mech there are a series of pros and cons.I see these three mechs as the closest comparisons to each other, and I see valid reasons, when compared to each other, to choose either one, based on personal preference and which pros and which cons we prefer.

Except the Stalker.

I know I can load up LRMs on my Awesomes and get the damage up to the 70's, but most of the damage from LRM is wasted, hitting places it doesn't need too. When my Cataphract shows 67, it's all hitting one spot.. I hope.

Armor point values mean very little, it's hitbox size that determines how fragile a mech is. The Awesome's CT hitbox is as big as a barn door. You know the hitbox size is seperate from what you see in the game, right? That's why the Atlas doesn't explode on the first crossfire encounter. That's why it staggers through wave after wave of multiple alpha strikes. If all those attacks hitting the visual CT were hitting the hitbox CT the Atlas would be toast. No one would use it. The actual equation you want is armor points divided by hitbox size = durability.

[NRP]

My 8R brawler wrecks Cataphracts and is a decent match for most Atlases. Full health stalkers are about the only thing I won't 1v1 at this point. Once I get better at maneuvering, I think the 8R has the punch to take one down.

[Tice Daurus]

I am an Awesome master of the 8Q, the 8T and the 9M. I'm also thinking of trading my 8T for an 8R.

I've run awesomes for months now. And if you know how to pilot one, you can be highly effective as a mech killer. But it still stands to reason that the Awesome still has it's problems. The main problem...speed.

The 8 series is nerfed with only a 290 engine. That's less than a 1 MP upgrade. At best, the Awesome should be allowed to go to at least a 320 engine. I'm not advocating for an 400 engine, although that would be great to have, but I'm not holding my breath that this will ever happen again. But to give it at least a 320. That's fair. Nerfing the Awesome to a 290 handicaps the Awesome badly. Otherwise if you do see an Awesome, all you will ever see is 3 variants, the 8Q, 8R and the 9M.

However...the thing that will SAVE the Awesome is coming soon...PPC/ER PPC heat nerfs and EMP effect for the PPC/ER PPC which would give HUD disruption and possible electrical damage to equipment. This...PLUS if they can fix the advanced zoom would do WONDERS for the Awesome.

[Lightfoot]

NRP, on 22 January 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

My 8R brawler wrecks Cataphracts and is a decent match for most Atlases. Full health stalkers are about the only thing I won't 1v1 at this point. Once I get better at maneuvering, I think the 8R has the punch to take one down.

The 8R is impressive until it meets a bigger or better piloted SRM boat. Still I have taken them out in Cataphract and a Centurion actually. Hard to miss the CT on the Awesome. SRMs are good on anything though. Don't evaluate the Awesome based on what 4xSRM6 do. That's the SRM6.

All I am really pointing out is that the Awesome is too easy to kill to be an Assault. To even be in MWO really. It dies like a slow moving medium mech.

[Solis Obscuri]

I picked up an AWS-8Q the other night (one I hadn't tried before), boated it up with PPCs and DHS, and had a blast piloting it - made a great direct-support platform. There was at least one occasion of frozen city whre I held at least half the enemy team at bay below the crashed dropship with a barrage of PPCs. I one-shotted a pair of Ravens back-to-back as they ran over hte crater rim in Caustic Valley. I only got melted by LRM Stalkers a couple of times (more often I beat them into retreat with concentrated fire), and by brawlers a couple times - it's definitely suboptimal in close, but at range this thing is a champ. Lots of fun to pilot.

So now that I've officially converted... I'm trying to decide what to do next. I don't much like the 8R, tried it in OB and hated it, I like the stock 8V, but I wish it had two arm energy hardpoints and 2 torso missiles... that would be more flexible from my perspective. The 8T is probably a good bet, though - I wish it had more impressive looking arm weapons, but the hardpoint layout is pretty sweet.