311 replies to this topic

[Roland]

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 06:22 PM, said:

63 matches, 35 wins, 28 losses, W/L ratio 1.25, 49 kills, 55 deaths, KDR 0.89, damage 18,223, XP 39,111, Time played 4:04:10.

Roughly 289-290 damage per match.

You realize that's pretty terribad, right?

I mean, you're running with a K/D of less than 1. That's not a good build man. Those "battle tests" should be an indication to you that something is wrong with what you are doing.

And I'm telling you what's wrong.. You're wasting tonnage on LBX.

[Bishop Steiner]

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 06:22 PM, said:

Firebrand
63 matches, 35 wins, 28 losses, W/L ratio 1.25, 49 kills, 55 deaths, KDR 0.89, damage 18,223, XP 39,111, Time played 4:04:10.
Roughly 289-290 damage per match.

and....you consider those numbers indicative of a GOOD build?

OK then

SHADOW HAWK SHD-2D2 38matches 23wins 15losses 1.53W/L 48kills 20deaths 2.40KDr 13,862damage 52,565experience 04:01:51 364 ag damage.
BATTLEMASTER BLR-1G 48 26 22 1.18 50 31 1.61 17,685 55,072 04:50:52 368 average damage
VICTOR VTR-9K 59 30 29 1.03 75 33 2.27 22,109 61,173 06:01:18 374 average damage
ILYA MUROMETS 118 70 47 1.49 171 69 2.48 46,127 117,971 12:06:24 390 average damage (and should note, this build runs exclusively 2 ac10, 2 medium lasers.)

And these are my PUG mechs, and I am an average player.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 29 January 2014 - 07:10 PM.

[Kubernetes]

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 06:22 PM, said:

63 matches, 35 wins, 28 losses, W/L ratio 1.25, 49 kills, 55 deaths, KDR 0.89, damage 18,223, XP 39,111, Time played 4:04:10.

Lolwut? .89 kdr in a FIREBRAND? Good grief that's bad.

Btw, I would love if you would stand up and try to shoot at me for 15-20 seconds. I'll expose myself twice in 4 seconds and blow out your side torso before you can do any real damage.

[Asmudius Heng]

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 06:22 PM, said:

It is the operator not the tool.

So it is your fault you cannot use the AC10 or UAC5s well? Understood mate.

[Bishop Steiner]

Asmudius Heng, on 29 January 2014 - 06:57 PM, said:

So it is your fault you cannot use the AC10 or UAC5s well? Understood mate.

well, those do require aim, as you can't expect the spread to "improve" your accuracy.

[IceCase88]

Terribad yes... if you are only looking at one build and reading what you want to read. All of you failed to read or selective edited out the fact I ran a few other builds for several matches. I will refresh your memory or point out the obvious to you.

Quote

I have run several different loadouts with the Firebrand that were not successful. I tried the stock loadout for a few matches (AC2/PPC), 2 AC10 / 6 ML, 2 AC5 / LL, and 2 LBX / 6 ML. I am on my phone right now so I cannot do a screenshot and post it. Mech stats are:

I bolded and underlined the other loadouts I ran which were not successful for several matches. Try quoting everything and not selective quoting what fits your failed logic. Saul Alinksy would be proud of you.

After settling on the 2 LBX/6 MLs my stats improved considerably. That is the fact. Sorry if I don't immediately install "meta" builds in my mechs. I like to try different combos which work for me and the mech I using. I like variety, not vanilla. Experimentation and variety are fun for me. Not running the same vanilla build everyone else does.

My aim is fine. Those weapons combos did not feel natural or right for me or build.

Edited by IceCase88, 29 January 2014 - 07:22 PM.

[Roland]

You don't really understand this game very well.

[Asmudius Heng]

Nothing wrong with trying different builds mate, I do as well, but I also know when something is fun but sub optimal.

LBXs are that. Trying to argue they are as good as or better than other competing weapons when faced with visual and mathematical evidence to the contrary is not really going to work.

You can say i like LBX and they work for me - but you cannot say that Roland or others are just bad pilots because they cannot apply some space magic and make LBXs better than AC10s etc

[forcemac]

I have been amused by this thread. The LBX is a fun weapon that has both merits and detractors...all mentioned many times over. Personal preference is based on on your game style of play. I like playing the catapult so much that for the better part of the year, its the only chassis i have played ( mostly c1 or k2). I think i have upwards of 800k GXP just sitting on my two cats....i dont even care abou cbills or xp anymore.

I have used both UAC and LBX on my K2 will equal amounts of enjoyment/sucess. The thrill of a good burst of UAC5 is awesome and the bang bang pew of 2xlbx 4xML is also pretty gratifying on already damaged opponents, but frustrating when you find a fresh group and your assaults are all waiting for you get your face melted off. Just try to survuve the best u can place your shots...which is the key to this game everyone already understands.


An amusing run that demonstrates the power (and weakness) of my lbx setup.

(start at 8:00)





I think in the end to anyone reading this is find something that is fun and fits your play style. My k2....781 matches, 653/476 K/D.....probally 50/50 with LBX or UAC load.

Edited by forcemac, 29 January 2014 - 07:54 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Asmudius Heng, on 29 January 2014 - 07:18 PM, said:

Nothing wrong with trying different builds mate, I do as well, but I also know when something is fun but sub optimal.

LBXs are that. Trying to argue they are as good as or better than other competing weapons when faced with visual and mathematical evidence to the contrary is not really going to work.

You can say i like LBX and they work for me - but you cannot say that Roland or others are just bad pilots because they cannot apply some space magic and make LBXs better than AC10s etc

kinda the point.

I could give a {Scrap} what someone else wants to run.. Heck I like Locusts. But no matter how many times I get a good match out of one, I am never under the delusion it is actually a good mech. Do I enjoy it more than other Lights, and even drive it better than some? Sure. But on the whole, it's bad.

I just dislike people laboring under the delusion that mediocre is the new good.

[Deathlike]

All I'm going to say is... the stock build of virtually all hero mechs are pretty bad. The stock X5 and The Death's Knell are close enough to be OK, but then I look at the Pretty Baby and I weep.

[IceCase88]

Asmudius Heng, on 29 January 2014 - 07:18 PM, said:

Nothing wrong with trying different builds mate, I do as well, but I also know when something is fun but sub optimal.

LBXs are that. Trying to argue they are as good as or better than other competing weapons when faced with visual and mathematical evidence to the contrary is not really going to work.

You can say i like LBX and they work for me - but you cannot say that Roland or others are just bad pilots because they cannot apply some space magic and make LBXs better than AC10s etc

To each their own. The LBXs are sub-optimal for you not for me. Again, it is the operator not the tool. Just because you guys cannot run an optimal build with them does not mean I am, or anyone else, not capable of running an optimal build with it.

You can run the math all your want. You can keep theorizing, hypothesizing, and concrete thinking about it. It still does not change the fact people are able to make effective builds with the LBXs. It is okay to admit to weakness and a lack of skill in certain areas.

I am not saying anyone is a bad pilot because they cannot use the LBX. I am just saying they are bad at the LBX and it is okay to admit it. I am not particularly good with LRMs which is why I don't run them often. Saying people are bad pilots because they effectively use a weapon you think is terrible is the same.

It is okay to admit you are not good at a weapon. Just remember Stuart Smalley and recite his positive words...



Again... I am all for an increase in damage to 1.4 points per pellet. Makes my build even better and probably a new meta build.

[Bishop Steiner]

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 08:04 PM, said:

To each their own. The LBXs are sub-optimal for you not for me. Again, it is the operator not the tool. Just because you guys cannot run an optimal build with them does not mean I am, or anyone else, not capable of running an optimal build with it.

You can run the math all your want. You can keep theorizing, hypothesizing, and concrete thinking about it. It still does not change the fact people are able to make effective builds with the LBXs. It is okay to admit to weakness and a lack of skill in certain areas.

I am not saying anyone is a bad pilot because they cannot use the LBX. I am just saying they are bad at the LBX and it is okay to admit it. I am not particularly good with LRMs which is why I don't run them often. Saying people are bad pilots because they effectively use a weapon you think is terrible is the same.

It is okay to admit you are not good at a weapon. Just remember Stuart Smalley and recite his positive words...



Again... I am all for an increase in damage to 1.4 points per pellet. Makes my build even better and probably a new meta build.

oh, the loz at the thought that even that would bring the lb10x to meta status.........

oh the tears of mirth.

Well, when you finally DO have proof to back your claims that doesn't totally backfire on you, feel free to share. Until then, nothing to see here, move along.......... (SMH LOL)

[Asmudius Heng]

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 08:04 PM, said:

*post missing the point completely*

It is ok mate, i am leaving this conversation now - if all the proof brought to bear still leaves you basically insulting everyone who says the LBX is bad by questioning their skill instead of their logic then there is no saving you.

Have a great time with your LBX - not sarcastic either if it works for you great but don't think that it is our skill that stops us from seeing the LBX space magic.

[Roland]

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 08:04 PM, said:

I am not saying anyone is a bad pilot because they cannot use the LBX. I am just saying they are bad at the LBX and it is okay to admit it. I am not particularly good with LRMs which is why I don't run them often. Saying people are bad pilots because they effectively use a weapon you think is terrible is the same.

Dude, I'm saying YOU are bad with the LBX, and don't realize it because you don't recognize what it means to be good.
Seriously man, those stats you posted were freaking TERRIBLE. And you paid actual real money to drive that mech and do terrible in it. What's crazy is that you don't even realize it, and you think those stats are an indication of some sort of success?

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 29 January 2014 - 08:13 PM, said:

Dude, I'm saying YOU are bad with the LBX, and don't realize it because you don't recognize what it means to be good.
Seriously man, those stats you posted were freaking TERRIBLE. And you paid actual real money to drive that mech and do terrible in it. What's crazy is that you don't even realize it, and you think those stats are an indication of some sort of success?

Well he already tried to backtrack from that saying "HE DID RUN OTHER BUILDS" on that Chassis. So his empirical sample of 60 matches is apparently even smaller and weighted by an even higher level of fail on his previous build attempts.

I ain't one who buys into some of the KDrs people post around here (I know very few people with hundreds of matches in a chassis, with a KDr over 3.0 without a lot of 4 man and Sync drops propping those numbers, for instance.), and there IS even disparity in what is an ideal build to PUG in (where you cannot count on ANYONE, so for instance, LRM or PPC boats are just not wise) and 12 man (where builds can succeed much better being ultra specialized because of teamwork). But this is just...... not even close to a valid or even particularly coherent, defense.

Please, run what you like. But seriously, understand that you are not very good, and should probably not be giving "sage" advice that others might foolishly follow. Sorry to have to be so blunt about it, but since your entire defense hinges on the rest of us being "bad", it is what it is.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 08:04 PM, said:

It is okay to admit you are not good at a weapon. Just remember Stuart Smalley and recite his positive words...



probably a new meta build.

I want to do some drops with you. Seriously. Add me in game. Prepare to have your mind blown about "meta" in regards to this game.

Edit: I may have been trolled. In that case, a tip of the hat to you sir and your successful act.

Edited by mwhighlander, 29 January 2014 - 08:24 PM.

[IceCase88]

Roland, on 29 January 2014 - 08:13 PM, said:

Dude, I'm saying YOU are bad with the LBX, and don't realize it because you don't recognize what it means to be good.
Seriously man, those stats you posted were freaking TERRIBLE. And you paid actual real money to drive that mech and do terrible in it. What's crazy is that you don't even realize it, and you think those stats are an indication of some sort of success?

I guess Hooked on Phonics did not work for you. Apparently, you do not understand averaging or basic math as well. I will repeat the quote.

Quote

I have run several different loadouts with the Firebrand that were not successful. I tried the stock loadout for a few matches (AC2/PPC), 2 AC10 / 6 ML, 2 AC5 / LL, and 2 LBX / 6 ML. I am on my phone right now so I cannot do a screenshot and post it. Mech stats are:

I will lay it out in Layman's Terms. 63 matches. 3 builds before finding the successful build which is a total of 4 builds. Running a build for 10 matches before scrapping it equates to 30 of the 63 matches. Nearly half (47.6%) the total matches played for the mech. An unsuccessful build does not yield many kills, or damage, which is the reason why it is unsuccessful. Hence, the majority of the kills are with the LBXs and KDR improving. Conclusion, the 2 LBX/6 ML loadout is the superior one for my playstyle. It is the operator not the tool. You cannot use the LBX effectively and that is fine. Not sure why the vanity in not admitting you are not good with the LBX. Just because you are not good with a tool does not mean the tool is the sub-optimal part of the interaction. I am happy I could help educate you.

You can say it is luck and that is fine. However, look at the top Texas Hold'em Players. MIT, Stanford, and UCLA graduates with high GPAs/IQs. They are able to balance skill, luck, tactics, and strategy to win. If you think it is luck then I guess I am like them. Thank you.

lmao at the backtracking comment, Bishop. I do not attempt meta builds and one size fits all builds. I try a variety of builds to find unique and successful builds. That is fun for me. You like meta builds and that is fun for you. I am happy for you finding fun in that. I do not find it fun. I never said you were bad pilots just bad with the LBX which is okay to admit. I just state a build that works for me and the LBX works on the Firebrand for me. The insults are not warranted. gga

Edited by IceCase88, 29 January 2014 - 08:44 PM.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Ok nevermind. He doesn't actually understand how the game works very well then.

P.S. Some of us have been playing competitively in this franchise since 1999 with MW3 (and some even more than that with the battletech sim pods)


We know what we're talking about here. One side of the argument is wrong here.

Edited by mwhighlander, 29 January 2014 - 08:42 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

IceCase88, on 29 January 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

incoherent epeen ramble

all of which matters not since your own posted "proof" shows you are neither lucky, nor good.