1453 R, on 30 April 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:
All righty then! Kid gloves off, match rules laid out. Let’s go a round or two, shall we? Always did like a good bare-knuckled debate.
Sweet – pointless dig. Given that not a one of us here has a picture of themselves up next to their name, any gender-specific pronouns are a 50/50. I picked the wrong one. Oh well. Was it really worth the jab?
No, we’re not. We’re telling them that what they’re doing is not optimal, and they could probably do better if they tried this other notion. Their intelligence or acumen at the game has nothing to do with it. The AtLRMas is a classic rookie trap, and I tend to treat it as such – if not as bad as that horrible STK-3F© - but anybody can decide to run a sub-optimal build for any reason. If your reason is “I like it and it works for me”, awesome. You do what you do, and this thread isn’t for you.
The problem is that you’re not actually expounding on why it works for you – you’re just telling Void and I and the others who agree with the OP that we’re all hidebound, elitist jerks who hate fun. Void laid out very clearly why AtLRMases are bad. Why would you say they’re good? You’ve shown your stats. Great – now let us know what your playstyle actually is. How do you manage to run a ‘Mech which is objectively terrible at doing LRM work as a successful LRM battery? In what situations does it work? You mention that you use it as an ECM shield for your other supporting fatties – do you use the ‘Mech in coordinated groups? If so, how do you think it would work in a strictly solo Puglandia environment, which is what the res of us are talking about?
Why is it solid when used correctly? How do you use it correctly? Is ‘correctly’ a way that can’t be emulated by a smaller ‘Mech with similar armaments? How is using a D-DC with LRMs and ECM any better than using a CPLT-C4 and an RVN-3L on your team instead for the exact same tonnage, each doing what they do best, and leaving a hundred tons of metal mountain to do what it does best?
I tried to be civil in my first 3 or so posts. You refused to listen, so I figured a jab or two would get your attention - apparently it worked.
Considering the VAST majority of MWO players are male, likely in the high 90 percentile, your choice was blatantly derogatory and you know that. I would say it was very worth it, but sinking to your level does make me a little queasy.
You are telling people what they are doing is not optimal, when it is only not optimal to you. I have played many, many matches in many, many mechs, and it just so happens that an LRM boat is optimal for me. Because this thread is telling people not to even TRY that approach, I think sharing my opposing view is important.
I'll try to keep it short as to the WHY, but I'm not very good at that. I started playing LRM boats heavily with my Stalker (5M mostly), and had hundreds of matches in it before I tried it in my Atlas when the LRM speed buffs were added. I still mainly played my Stalker, with 8/10 of my highest matches in the Faction Challenge being in the 5M and 1 each in the DDC and BLR-1S.
What I noticed, though, was that my W/L was way higher in the DDC. Sure, I was racking up tons of kills and damage in the STK, but I wasn't getting nearly as many wins. When you are playing 6-8 mechs for the daily XP bonus (even though they are mastered) each night on limited time, your W/L ratio really matters. So, when I started to play with a team finally, I chose to mainly use my Atlas during those times. I still PUG 80% or so of the time, but when I am in a team I tend to use the DDC to give as much help as possible.
That is the WHY I am using it, but my method of using any of my missile boats is the same. The DDC tube count doesn't really hurt my playstyle, as I chainfire all of my LRMs anyways. I find it helps with hit registration, though I didn't realize that was why I did so well with it until they announced the SRM explosion issue, which I am betting also affects LRMs (the difference being the sheer number of LRMs making it not as noticable as the relatively small number of SRMs in a volley).
Comparing the DDC to my two other missile boats (the 5M and 1S), I am losing one ALRM10 for ECM and 2-3 MLs for 2 MGs, plus a decent amount of armor and arms that are almost completely sponges. I play them all the same, though my DDC has slightly longer staying power because of a better ammo/launcher ratio (with the 1S being the lowest for this factor). 3-4 MLs do have more intimidating power than 1 ML + 2 MG, but the MG is great for targets I have opened up with missiles due to the increased crit chances.
I had decent success as a harraser with my Kintaros and Shads, full of LRM5s, but having twice the salvo and immensely more armor works a lot better for me than the speed of the mediums provides. That is why I prefer my assaults for LRM boats.
The comparison between a DDC and CPLT/RVN combo is worthless, since I can only bring a single mech. Two mechs are almost always going to be better than a single one, but unless you are doing private matches with uneven numbers balanced by weight (say 400 tons max weight, but any distribution of 4-12 mechs), that issue is moot.
Void Angel, on 30 April 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:
Laser, thank you for your enthusiastic support - however, I feel the need to offer a word of advice:
Don't chop up posts.
I know, it's tempting, because you want to nail down exactly what your opponent is saying that you find objectionable; the problem is that chopping up the post does several Bad Things:
- It runs the risk of misinterpreting what the original poster was trying to say by harping too much on specific semantics. Yes, semantics are important - semantics is what words mean - but we often do not have or take the time and effort to pull out a thesaurus and make sure we have just the right words put together in just the right way. It makes more sense to respond to the general opinion, and only quote highlights to accentuate key points (and call the OP's attention to your response.)
- It starts up a vicious cycle of people responding to chopped up bits of a post with longer rebuttals, which are then chopped up for longer counter-rebuttals, which are then chopped up into counter, counter rebuttals...
- That way lies MaDnEsS
Dissecting posts in this way is a temptation of mine as well, but I found it to be too unwieldly, prone to rabbit-trails, and overly aggressive. If you fall into the easy trap of nitpicking (or seeming to nit-pick) your opponent's reasoning, both of you will become increasingly frustrated and start saying silly and or insulting things.
Kinda like now. 
For the record, while I did refer to you in one sentence, the vast majority of my argument has been with 1453. I tried the whole 'civil' thing, and I'm hoping to get back to it, but I did get a much more significant response when I stopped being civil - it's sad how that worked.
On that subject, I am going to try your above suggestion, as I think it is very sound. I generally like to do point-for-point, and it will be hard to brake that habit, but anything I can do to improve my communication skills is worth trying, so thanks!
Also, I just realized where you got Laser from... the space in his name threw me off...
1453 R, on 30 April 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:
I do much better than I should in my crazy hybrid PPC/LRM XL-Engine’d Thunderbolt 5S(P); it’s one of my best ‘Mechs despite having no logical reason to even exist, let alone work. The difference between me and [NAME] is that I don’t wander into other people’s threads, when those folks are trying to tell people how to make the chassis work in the general sense of “this should do the trick most of the time for most of the people” and say “NO UR RONG I DU THIS NSTED AND IT WRKS GR8 4 ME.” I understand that my own performance in the mutant bastardizations I bring to the field is independent of how good/bad those ideas actually are, and thus I mostly keep them to myself unless asked, or unless someone is specifically asking “what whacky, off-beat ideas do you have for this ‘Mech?”
If your wacky, crazy hybrid TDR works well, you should share that, and if someone says it is horrible, you should defend it - just like I am doing with my DDC build. The only difference between a mutant bastardization and the next meta is how effective you can be with it. If no one had ever paired PPCs and ACs, we wouldn't have the current meta, for instance.
I'm not saying it works for everyone, but telling people they are doing it wrong without even seeing HOW they are playing OR their results is disrespectful. Explaining how they could use their build better is a much more worthwhile investment of your time, and if you happen to throw in some pointers of a replacement weapon that might work better, then that is even better!
BTW, I never said anything in leet-speak, so how about we stop with the veiled insults.
mogs01gt, on 30 April 2014 - 06:09 PM, said:
soo your increase of stats has nothing to do with the fact that LRMs got buffed? Still has zero do to with the topic that the OP presented.
You didn't read my post very well. I used it pre-buff as a direct-fire DDC, just like the OP is suggesting. Post-buff, I switched it to LRMs. The LRM buff therefore had zero influence on the comparison.
6
