Hello dear Mechspecs-Techpriests, I started this poll because i want to know, what personal demands YOU have to give a 5-Star Rating for the builds you find here on mechspecs.com. I'm very interested on the common perception among us, when and how to rate builds with the best possible rating, because I see many builds here with ratings, which I agree, and many others, which i totally disagree. So pls enter your personal demands (5 votes possible) and maybe we can find out, what is expected from the crowd (us!) to be crucial for an excellent build. And if you have something to say about your opinion, pls don't hold back and discuss. Blagg
... It is 100% dependant on the build. There is no one thing to look for in a 5 star build, you weigh its strengths with its weaknesses, and determine how heavily the strengths balance. If the build has a distinct advantage over other builds, you give it 5 stars. This poll is silly. EDIT: The results of this poll will also encourage new build posters to pander to what other people want, and not necessarily what is better.
Voted Survivability, DPS, Cooling, Balance and personal experience, but in reality these stats depend on a mech's specific role and have to be weighted carefully. A vote about stats therefore can only reflect our users' personal preferences for mechs in general and the result shouldn't be taken as a guideline for new builds at all. I'll vote in this anyway and try to give you some insight and reasons why I voted how I did. And I am especially interested in other users' thoughts on these points and their arguments for chosing their prefered stat when taking part as well. Survivability is needed because a mech can't contribute when it's down. It's therefore logical to only mount XLs in chassis suited for them or when a very strong and specific build demands them. Example: XL280 in an Ilya / Chainsaw or XL325 in Soy's most recent 3D jump sniper. I generally prefer high DPS over a high alpha (=firepower) because I like to have full control when playing. This is a reason I usually don't use alpha strikes at all (with obvious excemptions of course). An alpha is fine for me when it's able to finish an opponent or at leas severly cripple him while there's no other threat, but I usually prefer not to wait for the CD of all of my weapons. Finally, firing big alphas usually heats a mech up pretty quickly. High DPS comes with the need of sufficient cooling, as a mech lacking in this regard won't be DPSing long enough to matter in a fight. A designated brawler will be destroyed quickly when shutting down amidst of opponents. An AC2/AC5 Jager won't deliver suppressing fire for long when shutting down behind a ridge. You get my point. High mobility is a very important point for me as well, and it's obviously more important on role-specific mechs or Lights and Mediums in general. I also prefer VTRs and HGNs when being assigned to play an assault, but generally spoken mobility is a close 6th place when trying to prioritize rating factors. The same goes for extra stuff like AMS or special equipment. I won't build a SHD-2D2 StreakHawk without a BAP for example, but I don't deem it necessary for a typical 3x AC5 Jager and so on. When creating loadouts I am usually aware to build a balanced mech when not aiming for a specific role. For example, I don't like lacking long range weapons on a well-rounded build. For similar reasons I don't like a 2x AC5 & 2x PPC build on the HGN-HM when pugging despite my love for that mech. In my eyes role specific builds like this are best when working in a group. Finally there's the personal experience when playing builds. Of course an experienced player can tell a lot about a mech's propable performance when seeing nothing but the stat sheet produced by the link to Smurfy. But this won't tell the whole story, as a pilot has to experiment whith a mech himself for being able to rate the build appropriatly - that is, taking the mech for more than just one walk, testing in both assault and conquest mode, using it's weapon groups intelligently and so on. An example fitting very well here is my long-time crusade on this side promoting my 'Tempest' build for both the HGN-733C and AS7-D / -D-DC featuring a deadly combination of UAC5s, PPCs and Streaks. The builds are carrying bad ratings both in the HGN and the AS7 sections, but I keep on using them because they are VERY powerful. I can only imagine the bad ratings are coming from people not liking their comparably low cooling efficiency. Cutting the (S)SRMs directly leads to the builds used for winning PGI's release event.
This is a very good demand. Thank you. I know what you mean, and it is not my intention to encourage new build posters to do so. In contrary i want to encourage new build posters to create excellent builds, using the results as something like a guideline only.
I vote builds after I play with them and get a feel for them. If I have good personal experience with it then I rate it five stars. If I fail on an epic level then it gets less than 3 stars. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder yes?
A dedicated build specialized in the area it excels on, while maintaining reasonable damage output and survival ability. A build that takes advantage the specific variant/chassis and allows it to perform better than most other builds in at least some specific ways. An yes, I would tweak it and test it again and again. I do understand sometimes a build fail to perform due to an extremly specific playstyle. A good 5 star build should not be something that is extremely hard to control and use. It should be tailored to a reasonable scope of situations. Yes, it might take skills to pilot, as with anything, but it should not be "builds that perform well only if you are on the lower side of river city night and you have exactly one spotter and three lights to lure your enemies to position between x and y" I rarely rate any build 5 stars (maybe less than 10 times ever), it has to be not just good, but one of the best of a worthy variant, if not the best (reason why I never give a Stalker 5N build a 5 star, you should not use that crap mech variant to start with).
I only rate builds that I personally use. To get a 5 star rating from me it has to perform well for me. I'll comment on some builds if I'm curious about something about them, the 6 MLas Jesters for instance. Some of the lower rated builds on the site actually do really well with minor tweaks. If I rate a build I nearly always comment on it.
Other - it has nothing to do with high damage, or high speed. The build should work out. "Working out" means it shouldn't be so hot that you can't use it on hot maps, or sacrifice too much for high performance in one area (unless it's THE key performance for the build). I'm wary of builds that try to be completist, as in filling every available hardpoint "because it is there", instead of using what works best. "Perfection is not achieved when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
i voted for following Priority: General Balance of all Stats I see the overall strength of a very good Balance between all the Stats as a necessity above very role-specific approaches. That means, even if i want to have a Sniper-Build, i try to have at least some Defense Options and good Cooling and Mobility, etc. E.g. a Mech with 6 PPCs is insanely powerful as Alphasniper, but has high disadvantages at Selfdefense against Lights, extremely bad Cool Efficiency and high Risk of OH, and maybe even low Armor. Glass-Cannon in MWO? doesnt work -> 2 Stars Rating. A Mech with 2 PPCs, 18 DHS, some Backupweapons and decent Mobility = 4-5 Stars Rating easily. Maybe there is hardly a "Jack of all Trades Device" for every Mech, but sometimes there are builds that seem to be like that and function extremely powerful, making you get 800+ Damage easily again and again = 5 Star Rating. E.g. Multiple-UAC5 builds with some Backuplasers and 200+ Bullets = all ranges, high Cool Efficiency, can snipe, can brawl, and if the build can provide some good Survivability, Mobility and extra Stuff (High Ammo, AMS, JJs) = Dreams seem to come to Reality!!! Look at the following build - in my opinion one of the most perfect builds http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=40&l=ebfb2b7fcdf6b4b9d314f8347345047f220bf5b6 Very good personal Experience Of course this is a very crucial requirement for a high rating. Theorycrafting is important, but how it works in practice is defining the meaning of an excellent build. High Cool Efficiency For me it is one of the most important thing when creating a build. If we don't have hot maps and/or don't get random maps everytime having no control of how to adapt our builds to the map condition, i would say high Cool Efficiency is not that important, because you can decide depending of the map temperature if you need High Cool Efficiency/High Amount of Heatsinks or not, but in my experience e.g. the Mordor Map is coming too often (maybe i'm just hallucinating, but sometimes i get this map again and again), so without good Cool Efficiency you can't give enough Damage Output, cannot contribute very much in teamfights. Exception would be the Lights, which should scout and most times chose Speed over Firepower. But generally your goal is to kill the enemyteam before the time runs out, so going too fast toward OH level is sooo annoying and fatal for your team. You can create powerful firepower builds with Multiple PPCs or LLas, but with less than 40% Cool Efficiency or 14- DHS, you can't really scare Ballistic Heavy Mechs. With High Cool Efficiency you can, whatever map comes! High Mobility Mobility is somehow equals Survivability for me. You can have max Armor, but with low Mobility you only die few seconds later. But with high Mobility you can avoid incoming damage and survive some more minutes and so contribute much more for the total Teamscore. Even Assaults should have Mobility at 65+ kph, if possible. That's why i've bought the STD350 for my AS7-D-DC. You can use the STD300 and load some heavy Equipment, but in 12v12 drops, you will need the Mobility more than Super High Firepower - you can avoid damage better, you can torsotwist better, you can hunt better and you can reach caps faster. Take in some JJs and you are almost invincible. other Demands, namely: Intelligent Usage of the Hardpoints e.g. IMO Usage of the Torso/Head.Hardpoints > Arms, maybe because i lose Arms faster than Sidetorsos, because i shoot from cover and TT a lot, and so take damage faster on the Arms. Heavy Weapons on Arms but no Torso.Weapons = helpless duck if broken wings Intelligent Positioning of the Extra Stuff Ammo in Legs > Head > Torso/Arms JJs in Sidetorsos > CT > Legs BAP & Heatsinks in Torso > Legs > Arms Intelligent Armor Distribution Max Torso, Torso Front/Rear Ratio 4:1 - 3:2 depending on the Weight Class Head/Arms/Legs can be lower, but should be able to take some damage [hr] Until we can chose ourselves the Map we wanna play (just like in other games) and until we have a better general crowd knowledge of gametactics + role.play, i stick to this priority. Atm i feel the need of using builds that come close to the "Jack of all Trades Device", because there are still too many inconsistencies in teamplay and game mechanics - too many players out there (i'm counting myself to them) who still need to experiment with all the many Mechs/Variants + Builds + Roleplay, so to work better as a team rather than going solofighting with little communication. For Comparison: In LoL i play specific characters with specific item-builds with specific roleplay and usually the rest of the team do it as well. They know exactly, what to chose and what to do. Most times at least. There are characters, which are designed to be e.g. a Tank (soaking huge amounts of damage) or AD-Carries (Dealing insanely high amounts of damage with functioning glass.cannon concept). I don't feel these concepts work here in MWO, not yet. An Atlas still can be killed in Solo.Fights easily, you don't necessarily need to have 2 or 3 guys for that. In LoL there are characters, which you really can't kill solo, if they go Tank. Period.
Sites the build do what you claim it does? Does it do it as well as--if not better than--the existing great builds? Generally, I won't run (and therefore not rate) a build unless the player describes their thought process. At peak volume, it seems like there can be dozens of new builds a day. I try to spend a good hour with a build (and try to further optimize it) before I'll rate it. If you ignore my questions about a build, I'll probably not pay it ... and therefore not rate it. Then there are needling things. Like running a STD engine with ammo and not using CASE when you have the tonnage to do so. As Blagg said, armor weapon and ammo distribution is one thing that separates 4 and 5 star builds. I frame it this way. A mech needs to be built with taking damage in mind. Can the 'mech run without an arm (or a side torso for STD engines). For instance, you could put 3xAC/2 in one arm of the JM6-DD and nothing in the other, but it'd be a bad idea.
Personal experience and the feel of the build are pretty much the drivers for any ratings I give. If I'm doing consistently really well in it, then it's probably gonna be a 5-star build unless there is something really nagging or something that can obviously be improved there... I think it's still totally possible for a decent build to not 'fit' a pilot and then maybe you get some lower ratings because of that, but even if I was continually getting stomped in a build, I would like to think that I'm experienced enough to know the difference between whether it's how I'm playing or a string of bad pug matchups or the build itself... I don't know that I'd give a 5 to a build I couldn't compete well in, but taking all things into account I wouldn't say that how I do in it is the ONLY thing either... it just counts for a lot I think... Hope this made sense...
I'll usually rate something 5/5 stars for two reasons: 1) To me, the build looks like it takes full advantage of the Mech's hardpoints, layout, and advantages. A 5-star build is the Mech built to its fullest (within that role) and 2) If I enjoy playing it. It's clearly subjective for everyone, but that's what I'm looking for in a build when I rate something 5 stars.
sums up my thought. I don't like all mechs, and I don't like all playstyles, but I've played enough (343 hours by PGI stats) to generally understand the role of the mech and the best attention to design to rate it a 5 vs 4 (I don't even bother rating if I feel it's 3 or below).
Personally, for me, it has to have the perfect balance of ammo, heat control, damage, and fit the role the designer intended. I don't give them out often, but when I do it's pretty much I lean back, look at the build, and just go. Yep.
I generally run light and medium mechs. So mobility and heat efficiency are probably tied as my two top concerns. Survivability is basically the same as mobility for me although I do love my zombie Centurion. DPS and firepower are basically the same thing for me (but I understand the difference for heavier mechs). Extra stuff depends on the role but if a mech can mount JJs I want to keep at least 2 on it. As far as role vs balance go... I believe balanced mechs are essential. Niche mechs are good and they will always have their time in the spotlight. But a well balanced mech is a thing of beauty in the right hands. TL;DR My favorite mech in MechWarrior 4: Mercs was the Uziel. If you've ever been in one you know why. We won't ever get the Uziel in MWO and it makes me very sad.
And there are many different trains of thought on things like that. I always think that the head is the first spot to place my ammo, followed by the CT, since you would be dead anyways ifyou get hit in those places. Legs and CASE protected side torso comes after that. (I do know some lore abiding idiots that refuse to put ammo in the head) Armor distribution... I prefer to check on the ttl armor value instead. Users should config the armor distribution to there own needs, even things like pug and teamplay makes a difference. As for weapon distribution... it depends on chassis. Some of them are focused on a few bodyparts anyways, and trying to deliberately diversify would actually be negative. I guess it is the general feel of ths build and how it plays out that truely matters in the end, when it comes to the 4 to 5 stars great divide.
