STK-5S "Terminator" (2x LL, 2x ML, 2x SRM6+A, 2x SRM4+A, 2x AMS, STD300)

Thread in 'STK-5S' started by Blagg Zear, Jul 19, 2013.

  1. Blagg Zear

    Blagg Zear Star Lord

    5,001
    578
    199


    Well, after the SRM Buff the only Reason to go Brawling with this Variant!

    For more Alpha.Firepower, but 1ton less Ammo:



    Blagg
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2014
  2. Blagg Zear

    Blagg Zear Star Lord

    5,001
    578
    199
    If you vote then pls comment/explain what you would change to optimize. Else its a trollvote
     
  3. The Verge

    The Verge Moderator Staff Member

    4,367
    497
    231
    I can understand why you put the LL in the side torso's instead of the Arms. The arms get killed almost as easily as your side torsos. I personally would put them in the arms, due to their higher placement, for a bit of hill-side sniping. But otherwise, a good build. 4-5
     
  4. Cpt Chattahah

    Cpt Chattahah Min-Max Maniac

    2,280
    303
    63
    Somebody's bitter! ;)

    I gave 4/5 because I think two AMS is just WAAAAAY over kill. Most teams you're on, even in a PUG drop, will have a few AMS and ECM to help out. The extra weight of AMS and 2 tons of ammo is a bit too much defense for my style. I'd rather kill. :D SO. That said, I would drop an AMS, one ton (or Tonne as you EUs say) of AMS ammo, upgrade to all SRM6 and fire them off in two weapon groups. BUT... That's just my playstyle. You certainly know what you're doing and if this works better for you, stick it!

    (My version)


    Chatt.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2014
  5. Cpt Chattahah

    Cpt Chattahah Min-Max Maniac

    2,280
    303
    63
    (by the way, I have played a few matches with friends running 2xAMS, and, it is CRAZY to watch an entire salvo get wasted in mid-air)
     
  6. Blagg Zear

    Blagg Zear Star Lord

    5,001
    578
    199
    Yeah you are right. For better shooting over the hill its better to place them in the arms and since the arms on the stalker are small its no problem. Its good to have constructive feedback from ya
     
  7. Blagg Zear

    Blagg Zear Star Lord

    5,001
    578
    199

    Yeah thats the reason why id buy the 5S. Otherwise its a 3F and to build it the exact same way was not my intention, but everything you said makes sense. The second AMS is a nice to have which can easily be dropped for something else.

    Blagg

    p.s. i dont like simple votes either good or bad without feedbacks. Its neither constructive nor fair. Thats why i always comment my votes.
     
  8. TheWatchman

    TheWatchman Dispossessed

    Good build. A little bit of ranged ability, backed up by enough missiles to raise a small country to the ground, check. Pretty fast, check. With dual AMS, check. Plenty of armour, check (you can tell I'm struggling to fault this, right?).

    I find that although the new heat penalties restrict being able to create 'mega builds', it does add a certain design challenge that I'm starting to enjoy. The SRM damage buff brings them back to canon damage levels (if only they'd do that for LRMs too, though that would actually reduce LRM damage. Never mind).

    Even with my zero practical experience, I'm pretty sure this build would do well on the battlefield and probably has already. I can't say that my tinkering would suit your combat style, particularly as you like running Artemis with your SRMs, however it does offer more ammo and speed, at the cost of half a ton less armour.



    If you don't like putting that much ammo in the arms, switch the SRM6s to the torsos and the SRM4s plus two tons of ammo to the arms, put the remaining ammo in the legs and fill the arm critical slots with DHS.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2014
  9. noneofcon

    noneofcon New Member

    3
    0
    2


    How does this loadout look? the BAP for ecm mechs but loses the artemis.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2014
  10. Cthulu Jr.

    Cthulu Jr. Well-Known Member

    229
    0
    24
    I gave this 3/5 stars because it seems rather wasteful.

    First, to establish some context, I'll post how I would do this;



    Ever since they fucked up the heat, especially for energy weapons, the cooling efficiency rating is worth far less now than it used to be. In order to properly gauge how much heat any build will generate, you have to gauge the heat for each individual weapon group, then figure out the chances of you firing them at the same time.

    So for this build, with 2x PPCs and 4x SRM6's, it says on the picture that cooling efficiency is 23% overall. However, the cooling efficiency for each group is very high-43% for the PPCs and 50% for the SRMs. Because of the long max/effective range and 90m minimum range on the PPCs, and the 270m max range on the SRMs, the chances of you firing both weapon groups at the same time is very small; thus, it is feasible to create a build like this, where the basic numbers do not actually give an accurate picture of how hot this mech will run. Despite immediate appearances, this is quite a cool-running mech, and there is no special need to employ complex heat-saving techniques.

    That's why I say your build is kind of wasteful-you created a mech that looks good at first glance, but it's a build that can definitely be made better.

    As for specifics;

    1) I REALLY do not like standard lasers; despite their instant travel time, having to hold them on a single location in order to do maximum damage means that they are quite inefficient as energy weapons go, especially since it gets more difficult to hold them on target at longer ranges. The scaling beam durations means it's not really a big deal for small and medium lasers, but large lasers are very inefficient; they are quite possibly the worst medium/long range weapons in terms of damage-per-shot efficiency, especially if you try to snipe. That's why I prefer PPCs as long range energy weapons-they have a small blast radius, they travel VERY quickly, and they deal their full damage to the target in an instant-thus, it's much easier to nail the same location repeatedly. The ability to eliminate ECM at long ranges is nice too.

    2) SRM6s go through ammo very quickly; the optimum is 2 tons of SRM ammo per SRM6, but it's wise to have as much ammo as you can, failing that. Your build can only manage 20 full SRM salvos (plus a little), while mine can manage 25.

    3) My heat sinks are less vulnerable-although it may not seem like much, it can really ruin you when a substantial portion of your heat sinks are critical-ed and destroyed. If possible, it's always preferable to make an effective build where all your heatsinks are in the center torso, and I think I succeeded.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2014
  11. Blagg Zear

    Blagg Zear Star Lord

    5,001
    578
    199

    Well if you really want to talk about Cool Efficiency - i take out the SRMs of my build, i got 53%, i take out the Lasers, i got 79%. Why? Simply because i have 16 DHS and you only 10. My Build vs your Build - Bet who wins in a 1v1 at Mid-Close Range? ;)
    If you like PPCs go for it, but with 10DHS? Definitely too hot to fire very much, because you need to wait damn long to cool down. I run dual PPCs in my AWS-8V with 18 DHS and still i wish Id have more DHS. And I dont have to tell you, that with Quad SRM6 and 10 DHS, you cant Alpha Much due to the latest Heat Penalty Rule. So I dont believe that you can perform better with your proposed Build. ;)

    Ow btw, i would rather go for this, if i want PPCs:



    But nice try mate! :rofl:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2014
  12. Cthulu Jr.

    Cthulu Jr. Well-Known Member

    229
    0
    24
    In other words, you want video proving my point.

    To be honest, I'm not going to bother right now-they keep fucking up the game mechanics, especially the heat and money stuff, and I don't see the point in proving something that will become useless a week or two later.

    Once they make the full release (which I think is in mid September), then I'll post a video here. Until then, we'll put this debate on hold.
     
top-fast
top-fast
top-fast
top-fast