162 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

Shar Wolf, on 04 February 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

Ammo has only a 10% chance of exploding if it is actually destroyed.
Between how few people actually are smart enough to shoot at the legs - and that low chance I have died from ammunition explosions exactly once.

Oh dear lord.

You realize that ammo stands a chance of exploding every single hit to the internals on the legs, right? I set ammo explosions off left and right, in particular in PUG games where people for whatever reason think like you that "nobody is going to shoot the legs!" and drop their ammo / fill them with ammo; the second I or anyone I play with sees that your legs aren't fully armored, it's like throwing blood to sharks, and you probably WILL explode.

Shar Wolf, on 04 February 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

Putting that 0.5 tons toward an AMS or more armor is frequently more useful for me - but that would depend largely on personal experience.

Your personal experience does not appear to be representative of how things actually work. AMS is all well and good but it's no excuse to suggest dumping ammo into legs is a good idea.

Shar Wolf, on 04 February 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

Doesn't matter what excactly you said - you said that a non-meta mech might be in any way viable - and so victor has written you off as one of the stupid masses that must be brainwashed educated about the truth.

Why do you think I have him on ignore?

Well you are endorsing very bad ideas in this post.

Shar Wolf, on 04 February 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

(BTW Vic - keep quoting me and you are only strengthening my case against you with the MODs)

Shar, you need to understand that if you post in a thread, people can reply to you. In particular if you are actively talking in that thread. I am not going to stop replying to you because you have decided you don't want to reply to me.

This is seriously edging into "He can't see me if I can't see him.. I know, I'll close my eyes!" territory. There's a discussion going on here and either you take part or you don't, but you can't go "Here are my thoughts, nobody better reply!"

This is really ridiculous at this point. I had thought you have moved beyond the "If you don't like what I have to say, I'll tell a mod on you!" stuff that derailed a whole page of this thread. Just stop it, man, it's not making you look good at all.

Shar Wolf, on 04 February 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

Oh - and the AC/2 is currently the best suppression weapon in the game - best range and rate of fire = Keep Your Head Down.

There's not a facepalm image big enough for this.

No, the AC/2 is not the best weapon in the game. It is far from the best suppression weapon in the game. It's not even in the same league as the AC/5 or UAC/5; it requires constant on-target damage which means you have to keep your torso locked in a single direction to get the best results out of it, and that means "you get cored by people with real weapons."

AC/2 might find a niche sometime in something like those ER LL Cicadas, but as a mainstream gun or "great suppression weapon?" Absolutely, positively not.

If you want suppression, you want ER LL, (U)AC/5, PPCs or even LRMs. Things that can pour on fire, severely hurt you, and make you not want to stand there and blow apart the guy making himself an easy target.

Shar Wolf, on 04 February 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

Keep Your Head Down = countering Pop-tarts.

Countering Poptarts = more chances to actually brawl.

So your thought is to put AC/2s on so that you can get picked apart on a charge and then.. brawl with your really long range weapon instead?

Shar Wolf, on 04 February 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

That doesn't mean that the brawlers should have AC/2 mind you (there are far better brawling weapons IMO) but rather brawlers should be grateful to those who are willing to bring and know how to use the AC/2

Brawlers should, like the rest of us, just kind of be like "Well, wish we had a better 'mech on our team" when they see AC/2s.

Let me tell you man, if I see someone popping AC/2s at me - the second I realize they are AC/2s and not AC/5s, I will keep moving straight into the hail of bullets to unload with about five times the firepower on them, because they are all sound and fury that ultimately signify nothing.

You might scare - in fact many people used to scare - newbies with all that, but ANYONE who knows what they were doing will shrug it off and realize it's an empty threat.

PS: If they ever undo Ghost Heat on the AC/2, which in no way needed a Ghost Heat limiter, the 6 AC/2 Jag might actually be decent, by virtue of number of guns / damage per shot. However with 3 AC/2s being the limit (and no reasonable way to micromanage more due to the fire rate) they are a bad joke best forgotten.

[Alaskan Nobody]

And once again: Victor proves his far below average intellect by yet again trying to start a conversation with someone he KNOWS is not bothering to read the drivel he types.

[Victor Morson]

Corbon Zackery, on 04 February 2014 - 08:37 AM, said:

None of the Highlander variants conform with the rules I laid out for Brawling. With no CT weapons these mechs when Brawling will lose there LT and RT leaving you with no weapons.

What you also don't understand is that people use these asymetrical designs as a pro, not a con, now; they will use the "dead side" as a pure meat shield, and after every single shot will try to present that to the enemy. It makes a huge difference.

That said, Highlanders aren't the best brawlers out there, I'll agree to that...

Corbon Zackery, on 04 February 2014 - 08:37 AM, said:

AWS 9M is a very good baseline for a Assault Brawler since it has both 2 energy and 2 missile hard-points in the CT. This gives you flexibility with the 2 CT slots.

Oh God no! The AWS 9M is a good baseline for being the best variant of a horrendous chassis, but nowhere near a Victor, Battlemaster, Atlas or even Stalker. In fact lacking ballistics, it's absolutely one of the worst brawlers you could possibly chose.

What you're talking about is a Zombie build. You can zombie a Shadow Hawk with it's head mounted launcher, for example. Zombie builds are great and it's always cool to see 'mechs that can do them.

It doesn't mean every 'mech with CT weapons is a good brawler, though!

Corbon Zackery, on 04 February 2014 - 08:37 AM, said:

Remember Brawling is all about close range combat so it is very easy to target very specific spots on a mech since your at point blank range during the engagement.

Or, it's actually harder due to the close proximity and high speed, depending on how fast you're going.

But yeah. The AWS 9M is a very, very bad 'mech (despite being the only Awesome I own) today; it had a brief niche before the Victor but now no way; even though the Victor can't zombie it will shred this wide-as-a-house-with-no-teeth-to-back-it-up design.

Shar Wolf, on 04 February 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

And once again: Victor proves his far below average intellect by yet again trying to start a conversation with someone he KNOWS is not bothering to read the drivel he types.

And once again Shar Wolf proves that his "ignore list" and my place at the top of it is hot air, heh. Plus I am replying for the conversation, not for you, Shar. I have zero hope of ever convincing you of anything, but I am not going to let you spout wildly inaccurate things in the thread without, you know, offering a counter viewpoint.

EDIT: I also like how the guy claiming harassment over and over has called me stupid twice now, and I've never insulted him, just talked against his tactics.

Buckminster, on 04 February 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

But it's also like saying that a rally race driver will be good in a Formula One car. "Superior" equipment is rubbish if it doesn't jive with the pilot's style.

Doesn't change the fact the guy in the car that moves 50 mph slower than the competition is going to be screwed even if it's his style, though.

Edited by Victor Morson, 04 February 2014 - 12:44 PM.

[Buckminster]

Victor Morson, on 04 February 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

Doesn't change the fact the guy in the car that moves 50 mph slower than the competition is going to be screwed even if it's his style, though.

Only if the competition is pure speed. There's a reason people don't take Formula One cars to rally races.

[Victor Morson]

Corbon Zackery, on 04 February 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

If your building a Brawler some standard rules apply to the mech you select.

1. You want a mech with CT Weapons
2. You want a mech with a standard eng.
3. You want to maximize your armor to ensure long term survival.

So will use Smurfy to give you a example.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...5eccba7468be057

So this Cent is set up with close to max armor. Standard eng. double heatsinks, All ammo is CASE.

You can lose 90% of your mech LA RA, LT RT, LL and still keep fighting.

This is actually a really kind of sub-par Centurion for two major reasons: Arm mounted guns on the Cent get blown off fast. The only Cent you even want to consider them is the AL, because you can slap a few lightweight guns on there and won't be totally wrecked foreffective firepower when lose it.

Second if you are in a brawler Cent with an engine smaller than 270, you're making a huge mistake. A 200 engine is way way way too small; any good brawler 'mech could absolutely run circles around this thing and blow it apart six ways from Sunday.

Try the 3 SRM6+Artemis 2 ML Standard Engine/Endo+Ferro build sometime for a Centurion, with very low or no arm armor. While the Cent has fallen behind the curve badly, it's still highly durable and way way way superior at brawling to what is presented here.

Buckminster, on 04 February 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

Only if the competition is pure speed. There's a reason people don't take Formula One cars to rally races.

The bottom line is if your style is a Locust or Awesome, you are in a lot of trouble, heh.

Also it was a metaphor. We could change it to "It's like saying your style is a World War 2 light tank on a battlefield with modern armor." Sure it might be your comfort zone, but you're not exactly doing yourself favors driving it.

Edited by Victor Morson, 04 February 2014 - 12:49 PM.

[Denolven]

Victor Morson, on 04 February 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

Also it was a metaphor. We could change it to "It's like saying your style is a World War 2 light tank on a battlefield with modern armor." Sure it might be your comfort zone, but you're not exactly doing yourself favors driving it.

You still don't get what I was talking about. You keep saying "this hammer is the best tool ever", like it's a prayer. I didn't talk about the part where your hammer IS the better tool, I talked about the part where it isn't. It's not about comfort zones, it's about acknowledging that this other part exists, which you refuse to. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you are missing the other half of the picture.

Anyway, if you are that resistant to reality (this weird place where there is no absolute 100% and no absolute 0%), there's little point in continuing my little subtopic. Have fun with your game as long as it works for you.

Edited by Denolven, 04 February 2014 - 01:55 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Denolven, on 04 February 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

You still don't get what I was talking about. You keep saying "this hammer is the best tool ever", like it's a prayer. I didn't talk about the part where your hammer IS the better tool, I talked about the part where it isn't. It's not about comfort zones, it's about acknowledging that this other part exists, which you refuse to. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you are missing the other half of the picture.

You are missing the point. This isn't praise for the hammer as a tool, it's simply stating that a modern, metal hammer beats a stone tied to a stick at the same job.

[Buckminster]

but you wouldn't use a 20 lb sledge to drive a tack.

[Victor Morson]

Buckminster, on 04 February 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

but you wouldn't use a 20 lb sledge to drive a tack.

That analogy doesn't work as I'd happily use a Victor to thrash a Locust.

[Buckminster]

And your reading comprehension doesn't work.

"What is the best hammer?"
"A sledge!!!!"

"but I need to drive a tack"
"NOT IF THERE'S A HOLE IN YOUR WALL!!!! SLEDGE!!!!"

But as usual, if it doesn't fit your world view, you ignore it.

[Victor Morson]

Buckminster, on 04 February 2014 - 07:40 PM, said:

And your reading comprehension doesn't work.

"What is the best hammer?"
"A sledge!!!!"

"but I need to drive a tack"
"NOT IF THERE'S A HOLE IN YOUR WALL!!!! SLEDGE!!!!"

But as usual, if it doesn't fit your world view, you ignore it.

And what you are failing to understand is that every problem here IS the same. I'm not saying "You don't need light 'mechs, just top tier assaults." Why? Light 'mechs are meant to do a DIFFERENT thing than a typical brawling 'mech.

However, a better 'mech is a better 'mech, for it's class. Just as a Jenner is ALWAYS better than a Locust or how an Awesome is ALWAYS inferior to a Victor, we are comparing 'mechs meant for the same task.

The Hunchback brawler and Shadow Hawk brawler are not apples and oranges. They are good apples and slightly moldy ones.

[luxebo]

Victor Morson, on 04 February 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

To be honest I'd still recommend a Centurion over the Hunchback if "ease of use" was the only factor; The 3x SRM6/2 ML build is incredibly solid as a very, very hard to kill, cheap and easy to use 'mech, as long as someone tells them how to open their missile bay doors! (Stupid lack of documentation).

Well, when SRM's get normalized yeah (Hit Registration sadly hurts it bad). Plus Atermis and all these other things would be needed to be taken in consideration as well.

[Buckminster]

Victor Morson, on 04 February 2014 - 08:00 PM, said:

And what you are failing to understand is that every problem here IS the same. I'm not saying "You don't need light 'mechs, just top tier assaults." Why? Light 'mechs are meant to do a DIFFERENT thing than a typical brawling 'mech.

And this is the fundamental issue. In your binary view of MW:O, it IS all the same thing. Some of us see it with a little more grey area than that.

[Victor Morson]

Buckminster, on 04 February 2014 - 08:10 PM, said:

And this is the fundamental issue. In your binary view of MW:O, it IS all the same thing. Some of us see it with a little more grey area than that.

See all the gray area you like, if two pilots are in the same ballpark of skill, X mech will wreck Y consistently and entirely every time.

There is no scenario in which a FrakenAwesome will walk out of a fight with a Meta Victor if the Meta Victor pilot is awake and/or sober.

EDIT: And yes, it pains me to say that because the Awesome is among my favorite CBT 'mechs and the Victor..... not so much. But TT is not MW:O or we'd all be using Awesomes and Stalkers 24/7.

EDIT 2: I also think the Shadow Hawk is a terrible piece of trash in TT, heh.

EDIT 3: And the winner of my first annual "Made the best transition from TT to MWO" award goes to the Jenner for running pretty much the same kinds of guns, filling the same role, and actually performing on par with it's counterpart. Bravo Jenner, you beat the odds.

Edited by Victor Morson, 04 February 2014 - 09:03 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Final thought: there is "very weak" weight limits in PuGs so by Victor's "brilliant" logic you are very badly hurting your team if you take anything but a Poptart Highlander.

/Thread_by_Victor

Edit: ANY other mech being brought (unless Meta-built out the wazoo) will automatically mark you as one of the worst pilots in the game, and he will spare no expense to tell the world about how horrible a pilot you are.

Edited by Shar Wolf, 04 February 2014 - 09:10 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Shar Wolf, on 04 February 2014 - 09:04 PM, said:

Final thought: there is "very weak" weight limits in PuGs so by Victor's "brilliant" logic you are very badly hurting your team if you take anything but a Poptart Highlander.

/Thread_by_Victor

Nah. Even in an unlimited weight game you want some base cap/rescue/anti-light forces and some flanker forces to be truly effective.

It just shows that you continue to misunderstand what you attack. Weight counts for a ton, but ALL assaults is also a bad idea unless you plan to park right on your base for 15 minutes.

PS: I've spent half this thread endorsing lights, mediums, heavies AND assaults so yeah. There's that, too.

EDIT: How's that ignore list workin' out for you buddy? It still enabled OK?

Edited by Victor Morson, 04 February 2014 - 09:09 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Victor Morson, on 04 February 2014 - 09:06 PM, said:

It just shows that you continue to misunderstand what you attack. Weight counts for a ton, but ALL assaults is also a bad idea unless you plan to park right on your base for 15 minutes.

Since I knew how you would respond (and in fact set you up for this JACKASS)

Outside of conquest

SIT ON YOUR BASE ******.

Now those fast mechs have 0% advantage over you.

IN conquest

Bring a buddy or two... oh wait!
Those fast mechs cannot fight you so well now can they?



Edit:
If the meta is so strong that those "lesser" mechs hurt your team that badly - then the meta is all you need.

If the Meta is NOT so strong... then every argument you have made is falls flat on it's face.

Welcome back to the ignore list: I will not be responding to any other quotes you make from me - beyond adding them to the tally of harassment marks for the people at support - feel safe though - since I planned on responding to the stupidity of your last post, it is not counted on that list.

Flankers? Anyone who has suggested building anything along those lines has been mocked by you for not building a Poptart instead.

Edited by Shar Wolf, 04 February 2014 - 09:17 PM.

[Denolven]

Guys, can you please stop b.tchslapping each other?

Victor Morson, on 04 February 2014 - 08:59 PM, said:

See all the gray area you like, if two pilots are in the same ballpark of skill, X mech will wreck Y consistently and entirely every time.

Dude, the world is based on probability. You live in an illusion; there is no "every time", unless you are a mathematician and only look at infinity and nothing else (which is effectively what you are doing).
I wonder how you failed to see that, as you are clearly not a dumb person.

Edited by Denolven, 05 February 2014 - 01:39 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Shar Wolf, on 04 February 2014 - 09:12 PM, said:

Since I knew how you would respond (and in fact set you up for this JACKASS)

Help, help, I'm being harassed. heh

Seriously man, you are getting extremely furious and irate because I have a dissenting opinion about robot tanks on the internet. I would highly recommend you take a break from the forums and relax for a bit or something man. Or at least these threads.

PS: What did you set me up for? If anything I could claim I set you up, because you have ranted at me for 4 straight pages how hard you are ignoring me while replying to me steadily. This is getting into bad comedy territory and it should really stop.

Shar Wolf, on 04 February 2014 - 09:12 PM, said:

Outside of conquest

SIT ON YOUR BASE ******.

Now those fast mechs have 0% advantage over you.

You're right, this is an oft mentioned problem with playing pug games (in particular pug 12 mans) where you always stand the chance of hitting a "All assault, sit on the base" tonnage. It's an uphill battle to win one of those and it only happens if the other team is really bad, which they often are, fortunately.

But still, you're talking about a problem with the game design. Assuming that you hit a normal unit that is moving around the map and NOT camping with 12 assaults, you'll want some mixed classes.

Shar Wolf, on 04 February 2014 - 09:12 PM, said:

IN conquest

Bring a buddy or two... oh wait!
Those fast mechs cannot fight you so well now can they?

Except slow 'mechs can't respond to the points in time, meaning you will need fast 'mechs and fast 'mech hunters to deal with other fast 'mechs that are capping points. You can't just "bring a buddy" and roll all assaults. An all assault team will get obliterated in conquest; even rolling a heavy conquest config against a lighter one is doomed. So .... yeah, wayyyy off base here.

Shar Wolf, on 04 February 2014 - 09:12 PM, said:

Edit:
If the meta is so strong that those "lesser" mechs hurt your team that badly - then the meta is all you need.

If the Meta is NOT so strong... then every argument you have made is falls flat on it's face.

And we're still off the rails, I guess. I have repeatedly listed Jenners, Shadow Hawks, Cataphracts, Victors and Highlanders as the "main line" meta 'mechs, with Spiders, Black Jacks, Laserbacks, Trebs, Griffins, K2s and Jags filling niche roles. I have never once claimed "all you need are assaults." That is not the meta.

Shar Wolf, on 04 February 2014 - 09:12 PM, said:

Welcome back to the ignore list:

LOL!

I made a joke about this and yep, you're doing it again. This is hilarious. It's like a skit from South Park has come to life and is standing there screaming at me over and over and over "I'm ignoring you so hard right now! See? I'm totally ignoring you! DO YOU WANT ME TO IGNORE YOU SOME MORE?"

My God man. Either ignore me or just kindly stop talking about this list of yours, will you?

Shar Wolf, on 04 February 2014 - 09:12 PM, said:

I will not be responding to any other quotes you make from me -

I don't care. My responses that quote you aren't for you, they're for the discussion. You don't seem to understand that.

Also if you don't break this rule within 2 pages I'll eat my hat, but I bet you do it before we even leave page 7. The common quote "You sound like a broken record" applies here; do I need to seriously go back and quote all the times you've told me how hard you're not paying attention to me while replying to me, and insisting I can't reply back because I'd be harassing you?

Or how I'm "harassing you" while you've called me an idiot and an a-hole pretty much?

Are you the one actually trolling here? Because if so, bravo, sir. That was well played.

Shar Wolf, on 04 February 2014 - 09:12 PM, said:

beyond adding them to the tally of harassment marks for the people at support - feel safe though - since I planned on responding to the stupidity of your last post, it is not counted on that list.

Say it with me now - please - replying to people in a public internet forum is not harassment. I've offered no personal attacks against you or anything about you. I've offered counterpoints to bad strategies you've presented. That is it. I'm not even replying, again, because I care to change your mind or keep talking to you, but rather, so those bad ideas don't spread because nobody said "No, you're wrong."

Shar Wolf, on 04 February 2014 - 09:12 PM, said:

Flankers? Anyone who has suggested building anything along those lines has been mocked by you for not building a Poptart instead.

heh, that sure is the meta (of july 2013).

And yes, flankers. Ranging from ERLL Ravens to AC/5 PPC Shawks ot even skirmishers or PPC Cicadas, they're proving rather useful these days.

Again you attack (with obvious hatred) something you don't fully understand.

Denolven, on 05 February 2014 - 01:35 AM, said:

Dude, the world is based on probability. You live in an illusion; there is no "every time", unless you are a mathematician and only look at infinity and nothing else (which is effectively what you are doing).

That sentence could only make me think of:


I was speaking in practical terms, though. If you gave one guy a sword and another guy an assault rifle and then made them duel from across a large room, I can say pretty much with certainty - from every practical standpoint - that the guy with the sword is pretty much always going to have a bad day unless the other guy is a really bad shot.

And so it is with good 'mechs and bad 'mechs. A bad pilot in a good 'mech can lose to a good pilot in a bad 'mech, but a good pilot in a good 'mech will typically roll a good pilot in a bad 'mech. Try saying that three times fast.

Edited by Victor Morson, 05 February 2014 - 01:50 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Denolven, on 05 February 2014 - 01:35 AM, said:

Guys, can you please stop b.tchslapping each other?

I'd love to cut it out but when Shar Wolf puts you on his ignore list, he just won't stop talking to you. I was ready to end a rather pointless debate ages ago.

Edited by Victor Morson, 05 February 2014 - 01:52 AM.