112 replies to this topic

[Kaio-Kerensky x10]

arkani, on 15 February 2013 - 04:46 AM, said:

Sarcasm my friend, check the dictionary.
Like the kids say : "DuHHH"

I don't think you understand what sarcasm is or why the other kids make fun of you.

[Livewyr]

With the specific option of having a team mate take a specialized role different from your own, you don't have to cover it, so you can dedicate more firepower to your role, and they to theirs.

It just makes sense.

[Prophanity]

You'll always find min/maxing in every game frankly. It's just human nature.

As for balancing a mech load out to be effecient at all ranges, on paper it's fine but as a first person sim not so much.

Most of my builds are suited to one type of attack. My Atlas D has a 74 point alpha strike at 180 meters (maybe more, I can't remember the max range of MPLs), my K2 is a dual AC20 Cat (who ever called me a min max warrior the other night after having flattened you with it, your tears were delicious) and I've had very good success stories with both.
My Cat C4 on the other hand is not as succesful but has a vairety of weapons to handle a variety of encounters, 2 PPcs, 2 medium laers and 2 SSRM2s.

Boating and min maxing are currently, sadly, the best builds.

[Congzilla]

What the OP is mainly forgetting is that in lore the Battlemechs were a very small percentage of the military equipment being used. Most mechs were not actually designed to fight other mechs. The upcoming Jagermech is a prime example. The Jager's main purpose was as an anti-aircraft platform.

[Apoc1138]

arkani, on 15 February 2013 - 04:40 AM, said:

Specializations is a corner stone in anything miltary.

so AH-64D helicopters ONLY carry anti tank missiles? with no general purpose high explosive machine gun rounds and rocket pods?
how about the bradley M2A3, that doesn't come with 25mm cannon (AC/2), 7.62 or .50 cal (machine gun) and TOW launcher (LRM) ? and all of this on a 30 tonner... I'd swap out the AC/2 for 2 medium lasers or even a large laser personally, but not really practical in this day and age

just about every military vehicle has some kind of mixed capability... there are some specialised single capability ones sure, but by and large, the main ones in most active use are the mixed capability ones

Edited by Apoc1138, 15 February 2013 - 05:57 AM.

[Buffalo Six]

Snowblack, on 15 February 2013 - 04:02 AM, said:

It is strange. Mechs in the books and in the lore usually are equipped with a majority of different weapons. To have a fighting chance on most fights. They have LRM to soften up target, AC10 to hit hard and ML to finish off thing or to defend demselves in last resort.

Meaning mechs should be equiped to be allrounder or the like. Most mech in the lore are such except the specialist. Most Brawler mech have a large laser or LRM 5-10 to hit long.
Most Fire support mechs have an ML or SRM to defend themselves in trouble.

Usually I play with this playstyle. Some long range, some hard hitting stuff, and some Medium laser to save ammo. I cant say I dish out 1500 dmg in a game with LRMS or kill 3-4 mechs with SSRM2 or SRM6. But I always have an answer to whaterver I encounter. In most ranges.

But today the most powerful mech are the boats. They max out a certain range.
Like the SRM spaltcat, which does tremendous damage close range but nothing from 300m.
Or LRM boat which is defensless under 190m. They are supperb in their range but useless in others. They are specialist.

But in the lore there are few sush mech right? But in MWO most people build such things. Its not that bad but its strange for me. If its for a lance and its role I thinks it okay.

SO mix setup mechbuild OR MIN-MAX style? Are they bad or necessity?

You cant think of MWO like that in terms of TT. TT rules (at least the ones I played were BV based and stock mechs. Meaning you had a total BV for the lance or whatever and you picked the mechs to get closest to that number. You could take whatever variant of mech you wanted as long as it was available to your faction/unit.

MWO with its customization is basically like Solaris rules.....its all about burst damage and speed

[Kaio-Kerensky x10]

Apoc1138, on 15 February 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

how about the bradley M2A3, that doesn't come with 25mm cannon (AC/2), 7.62 or .50 cal (machine gun) and TOW launcher (LRM) ? and all of this on a 30 tonner... I'd swap out the AC/2 for 2 medium lasers or even a large laser personally, but not really practical in this day and age

The notorious deathtrap Bradley, hated by US soldiers everywhere.

I have completely lost track of whatever your point is.

[Congzilla]

Apoc1138, on 15 February 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

so AH-64D helicopters ONLY carry anti tank missiles? with no general purpose high explosive machine gun rounds and rocket pods?
how about the bradley M2A3, that doesn't come with 25mm cannon (AC/2), 7.62 or .50 cal (machine gun) and TOW launcher (LRM) ? and all of this on a 30 tonner... I'd swap out the AC/2 for 2 medium lasers or even a large laser personally, but not really practical in this day and age

just about every military vehicle has some kind of mixed capability... there are some specialised single capability ones sure, but by and large, the main ones in most active use are the mixed capability ones

If they were fighting only other helicopters I would imagine the loadout would be much more specialized. That is the issue comparing MWO to tabletop, MWO does not have all the other support units mechs were designed to fight. That being the case the only reasonable thing to do is fit your mech to specialize in killing other mechs.

Edited by Congzilla, 15 February 2013 - 06:05 AM.

[Broceratops]

when you have a mech that is overheating badly already, the standard BT mechnician will look at it, install a small laser on the head, and call it a day


it is okay to not take their design choices as best practice

[Apoc1138]

Seiga, on 15 February 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

That's because military vehicles need to be flexible. Mechs in MWO don't need to be flexible, in the current state of the game they just need to waltz up to optimal range and open fire with everything until the target is dead. Besides, things are much squishier in real life - the AH-64D carries rockets and a cannon along with antitank missiles because it's not constantly fighting giant robots with implausibly thick armor.

Congzilla, on 15 February 2013 - 06:04 AM, said:

If they were fighting only other helicopters I would imagine the loadout would be much more specialized. That is the issue comparing MWO to tabletop, MWO does not have all the other support units mechs were designed to fight. That being the case the only reasonable thing to do is fit your mech to specialize in killing other mechs.

Zharot, on 15 February 2013 - 06:04 AM, said:

The notorious deathtrap Bradley, hated by US soldiers everywhere.

I have completely lost track of whatever your point is.

the person I quoted was saying that "stock" variants make no sense in ANY sense in battletech - not just within MWO, he was basically saying that in the "real military" ALL vehicles are specialised and that mixed capability is a rarity

I totally agree with you as to why boating happens in MWO, but in defence of "stock" variants, there are some reasons why they were designed that way in the original game (based on real military vehicles needing to be flexible and having mixed capabilities)

Edited by Apoc1138, 15 February 2013 - 06:18 AM.

[Stormwolf]

Well the big difference between MWO and the lore is that we essentially have endless supplies of weapons/equipment along with customization options that pretty much make omni mechs redundant. And let's not forget, we make more money then any solo Mechwarrior in the lore.

The game is pretty much a sandbox, customization should be limited by available facilities and what parts you have access to. For instance it is rather unlikely that you will find any XL engines on Trellwan, but they will be able to repair damaged armor.

Edited by Stormwolf, 15 February 2013 - 06:46 AM.

[Roland]

If you are going to take a mech which fights at different ranges, then you need to have the skill to force an encounter at ranges which your enemy is not optimized for.

If you simply allow them to dictate the range of the fight, at their optimal range, then you are going to lose with your mixed range config.

[DaZur]

In TT and novels the "balanced Mech" design works because in both examples they are required to have the right "tools for the job"... i.e. be able to handle Mechs, mobile artillery, infantry and aircraft.

In MW:O we are strictly dealing with Mechs and as such the need to balance your Mech design is mitigated. Add to that the present map offerings which are small to medium... you have the right battlefield environment to encourage specialized Mech designs. (Min/Max).

I personally run two Mechs... I have a CTF-1x I have rigged to brawl (5Mlas + Gauss for distance and a std engine) and a CTF-IM rigged for sniper support (Gauss + 2 AC/5 + MPLas and XL)

As it stands right now I adjust my game-play to match my Mech. That said... By all accounts both of my Mechs will struggle on the impending Alpine map due to it's proposed size... I will likely have to re-visit both of their designs and revert to more conservative (balanced) designs, giving up my specializations so I am not at disadvantage as soon as my Mechs feet hit the ground.

Edited by DaZur, 15 February 2013 - 06:47 AM.

[Huntsman]

Some versatility is good, even in this game. For instance I prefer 5 SRM/5ML Stalker, with a little pinpoint weaponery that goes out to longer ranges, than I care for a Splat-cat.

Having said that, our threats in this game are exclusively other mechs, as is true with all mechwarrior PC games except MWLL to some extent. The purpose of a variety of weapons groups is to handle a variety of different threats. While this has a glimmer of truth in MW (some muchs are smaller and faster, others are bigger and slower...some mechs are better at long range, others at short range) they're not different enough to justify hugely divergent weapon systems, and there can be no doubt that if your weapon system don't have some sort of synergy to them, even if they aren't identical, then your mech is a very sub-optimal eclectic mess, and the pilot will feel like he's fighting his own ride as much as he's fighting the enemy.

While some leagues have 'stock only" build requirements, there's not much point in discussing what should be. As long as there's a mechbay folks are gonna build what they perceive as optimal, and typically this means stromg weapon synergy. I don't think you should go too far with restricting players in this sort of thing. The MW franchise is not nearly as boaty as it was in years past..in fact I that MWLL notwithstanding, it's the least boaty, less so than the hardpoints in MW4, and certainly less so than the older games where there were no hardpoints and you could just put anything anywhere. Your mech was nothing more than a big tin can of available tonnage.

Edited by Huntsman, 15 February 2013 - 07:01 AM.

[Avatara]

I would view the current battles more as Solaris game matches, than full on planetary invasions. Reason being is the small maps with the out of bounds are arena size and the small teams fit them. If it were more of a war scenario, you would have to worry about ammo, repairs, long lasting damage, different unit types, etc. So for that you would generally take a more balanced weapon load out. In a quick Solaris match, you take what ever will down the enemy quickest.

[Gammanoob]

*Map Design : Maps are not diverse enough to require very varied loadouts, the small size of them leads to a focus on brawling and high alpha set ups
*Enemies ; We are only facing other mechs, our builds are focused on killing other mechs
*Lack of Economics : Once you buy a mech or weapon there is no cost associated with its use so we end up using the best equipment we have all the time

Edited by Gammanoob, 15 February 2013 - 07:04 AM.

[Loxx]

Apoc1138, on 15 February 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

so AH-64D helicopters ONLY carry anti tank missiles? with no general purpose high explosive machine gun rounds and rocket pods?
how about the bradley M2A3, that doesn't come with 25mm cannon (AC/2), 7.62 or .50 cal (machine gun) and TOW launcher (LRM) ? and all of this on a 30 tonner... I'd swap out the AC/2 for 2 medium lasers or even a large laser personally, but not really practical in this day and age

just about every military vehicle has some kind of mixed capability... there are some specialised single capability ones sure, but by and large, the main ones in most active use are the mixed capability ones

What??? Seriously bad analogy. You're comparing apples and oranges.

At any rate, allow me to enlighten you on modern US military equipment.

Actually yes, they do - tank killing is the Apache's primary role which it assumed from the Cobra (AH-1) that carried TOW's. It was designed in the mid 80's to counter-act the superior Soviet tank numbers. The chain gun the Apache carries is for soft target engagement is because we're not going to waste a $40,000 hellfire (which it only carries 16) on a aluminum armored BTR, BMP, or BRDM. It "can" carry Hydras but this is RARELY the case because it just isn't cost effective to throw 12 dumbfire missiles at a time at some target while exposing yourself to any ADA threat. That's what we have Arty and mortars for.

The M3 IS NOT a TANK KILLER. It can, under the right circumstances but that's not its primary role. The M3's primary role is infantry movement which it assumed from the M113 (.50 cal mounted - later TOW's) because it was found
1. M-113 armor was too thin with a weak 6 cylinder engine and couldn't keep up with the M1A1 like it could with the M60 tanks.
2. It provided NOTHING to the combat firepower of the unit since M1's were destroying targets @ 4+ klicks. A third more range of engagement than the M113. A TOW's Maximum range is 3750m if I remember correctly.
3. The 25mm bushmaster is lighter and can carry more ammo while remaining combat effective against light/medium armor without leaving a **** load of wire laying all over the battlefield to get caught up in the tracks of the other vehicles disabling them. Furthermore, just because they HAVE TOW's doesn't mean it's role is that of a tank killer - that's what we have tanks for.
4. Both carry 2 tow missles in firing position which means that a soldier would have to expose himself during battle to reload. with the MB they could remain combat effective for a longer period without stopping to reload.

Remember in this game we are only seeing the Mech battle. We aren't seeing the combined arms battle of infantry in EXO suits, Tanks, and aircraft.

[Viper69]

Mechs in the books were built to fight everything including infantry,armor, mechs and aerospace. Our mechs only fight mechs so we dont need to use anti infantry weapons.

You have to remember a lot of mechs were garrison duty or quelled civillian uprisings. Ppcs against infantry is a waste of space but the machineguns it carrys is not. So it gets armed to cover all the bases.

[Apoc1138]

Loxx, on 15 February 2013 - 07:05 AM, said:

What??? Seriously bad analogy. You're comparing apples and oranges.

At any rate, allow me to enlighten you on modern US military equipment.

Actually yes, they do - tank killing is the Apache's primary role which it assumed from the Cobra (AH-1) that carried TOW's. It was designed in the mid 80's to counter-act the superior Soviet tank numbers. The chain gun the Apache carries is for soft target engagement is because we're not going to waste a $40,000 hellfire (which it only carries 16) on a aluminum armored BTR, BMP, or BRDM. It "can" carry Hydras but this is RARELY the case because it just isn't cost effective to throw 12 dumbfire missiles at a time at some target while exposing yourself to any ADA threat. That's what we have Arty and mortars for.

Remember in this game we are only seeing the Mech battle. We aren't seeing the combined arms battle of infantry in EXO suits, Tanks, and aircraft.

I think you need to re-read my comment AND the one I responded to

someone said that military kit often DOESN'T carry more than one weapon type, all I said was that often real military kit has more than one weapon type, you've repeated this back to me again but told me I'm wrong, even though you pretty much just copied what I said

(by the way, go look at photos of AH's in Afghanistan and you'll see them carrying Hydras... often in fact ONLY carrying Hydras... oh, and none of the vehicles you listed have aluminium armour either)

Edited by Apoc1138, 15 February 2013 - 08:50 AM.

[Gammanoob]

You guys are both right, so you can stop trying to win an internet argument now.