624 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

Void Angel, on 30 April 2014 - 09:53 PM, said:

Don't feel bad, I got the same response from him when I said it like that - long story.

As for point-by-point: I know! I want to do that, too. Makes you feel all logic-y and like you're proving them wrong - with their own words, by Socrates! But I found that it's really not profitable, so I am trying a more excellent way.

On-topic, part of my problem with all the subjective objections I hear is that I've given what I find to be solid, empirical reasons why it's not a good idea to pure-boat LRMs on an Atlas - and people just sort of hand-wave them away and cite personal experience. I have personal experiences too; they support my position. Even personal stats are subjectively interpreted - as I pointed out before, your and my stat bars only give empirical data about our skill sets. They don't trump the actual capabilities of the 'mech, or negate the empirical reasons why missiles alone are not optimal Atlas armaments.

Citing personal experience in response to the mathematical properties of the 'mech is a lot like saying, "Yeah, I know that these factors make this car less fuel efficient, but when I drive it, I get great mileage!" If you get better mileage with pure, boated LRMs than with mixed armaments, more power to you! But unless you can tell me why my empirical reasoning is wrong, it really is more likely that you're just not engaging the overdrive gear on the other car, as it were.

PS: While I did make mention in passing that I do not prefer LRMs on an Atlas, I am not making any argument here but the one against boating LRMs on Atlas chassis.

Other than giving "before and after stats", I'm not sure how you expect me to properly object to your opinion, though. You state empirical evidence, but it is faulty logic because, at least from my perspective, you have a very biased view on what is optimal. I can tell you from my own personal experience AND statistically, the LRM boat DDC is significantly more optimal for my playstyle than any of the direct-fire versions I tried. I am making use of every hardpoint available, maxing my tonnage and crit space, and succeed in it, just like I do with my Stalker and Battlemaster LRM boats, my GaussJager, and my DakkaPhract, in both group play and PUG.

Along your car analogy, I offer this: the Toyota Camry is the "most popular" passenger car in America. It is also consistently on the "most stolen" list. That does not mean, though, that the car is better than any other car, and in fact many other cars out perform it in almost every aspect. It just means that it is made in vast numbers and sold for relatively cheap, so there is a huge number of them available to be bought and stolen. It is "optimal" for a vast majority of people, then, but I don't care for one. I'd much rather have a car that I enjoyed driving, such as a Mustang, or that fit the needs of my family, such as our current Dodge Durango. Your opinion of optimal is likely VERY different, but that doesn't mean a lot of people can't agree with me and do very well in a Mustang or Durango.

giganova, on 01 May 2014 - 04:58 AM, said:

This thread would be fine if it were an actual guide, but as it stands, it's closer to indoctrination. The reason why the OP gets so many garbage responses is the manner in witch he composed himself in the first post. Present us with garbage, and garbage you shall receive.

I wouldn't be that harsh in how I stated it, but I agree with the sentiment. The OP would have been less antagonistic if it didn't start out with telling people that they should stop playing how they like. Anything good in the message was lost on me as soon as I felt like I was being attacked for liking to play my mech my way. I did try to be civil in my first few responses, but the attacks by 1453 quickly re asserted the "jerk" reaction I resisted initially.

[SaltBeef]

I do agree that an all Missile Atlas is a mistake , There are better chassis available , (Highlander). But a duel LRM launcher Atlas with brawl weapons is a smart way to protect your defenseless missile-boat. I run 4mans in pugs with a team mate who is all LRM and Tag and I lock the targets that he locks and keep lights off of his back. We have killed up to 8 enemy players a match quite often with just our lance.


I agree with void that an all lrm atlas is a joke but 30 or so is effective especially in alpine Peaks where you get left way behind faster moving pack.

Edited by SaltBeef, 01 May 2014 - 07:31 AM.

[1453 R]

Cimarb, on 01 May 2014 - 07:02 AM, said:

Other than giving "before and after stats", I'm not sure how you expect me to properly object to your opinion, though. You state empirical evidence, but it is faulty logic because, at least from my perspective, you have a very biased view on what is optimal

'Empirical' is perhaps not the best term. What is intended is that the objections laid out against LRM-boat D-DCs are built upon objective, verifiable facts: the 'Mech is poorly laid out for LRM work, with small tube count launchers all crammed into the same section of the 'Mech - which also happens to be the section of the 'Mech where its defining piece of gear is loaded. All factors which severely limit its ability to offer the sort of dense, crushing salvos which are supposed to epitomize the assault-weight missile boat. Anything less than the 50-tube Lurmaggeddon strikes things like Stalkers and Battlemasers are objectively better at delivering is almost entirely better done by a lighter 'Mech.

Furthermore, the D-DC makes a very poor user of TAG; its energy hardpoints are limited, they're very
low-slung, and they're also wide of the 'Mech's centerline. You can't hill-hump with it, you have to hang half your DropSHip-sized self around corners to get both the TAG and the launchers clear to fire if you want to try and corner-peek, and you lose fully half of your possible direct-fire energy armament in order to even try it.

The 'Mech is very large, extremely ponderous, and makes the second most inviting target in all of MWO (the first being any/all Awesomes). Atlases draw enemy fire like magnets, and they do not have the speed or agility to escape any threats they may draw. Sacrificing the BattleMech's ability to engage enemies inside 180 meters transforms the machine into an almost irresistible lure for enemy attacks - with no threat of superheavy ballistics or powerful energy weaponry (or both!) to punish an attacker for closing with the biggest, baddest pile of metal on the enemy team, an LRM-boat Atlas is going to be a huge priority for enemies without any means whatsoever of defending itself or avoiding harm.

These are objective, verifiable facts about the Atlas as a chassis. It has bad launchers, it's crap with TAG, and it can't afford to not be able to brawl because an Atlas with no close-in capability is like the deep-fried turkey on the Thanksgiving dinner table - absolutely everybody wants a piece of that sweet, tender, defenseless bird.

Your experience with the D-DC missile boat is apparently as part of organized 4-man drops. This is a crucial point; this guide, and any guide Void writes, are intended to be read from the point of view of a solo-dropping PUGlie. This should likely have been mentioned in the original post, but is also a point that has been raised several times. Organized groups can get away with some sub-optimal choices because they're designing their composition to cover for those choices. You do well because your teammates are expecting the support you bring, and they're also prepared to cover your otherwise-crippling inability to defend yourself. The exact same 'Mech, in a solo PUG situation, would not do even remotely so well because of the objective facts about the chassis Void laid out in his initial post.

Unless you can provide equally clear and unambiguous facts as to why the Atlas is not a failure as a purely missile-centric chassis, there's really nothing you can do. Personal experience, even posted statistics, is all subjective - it's the reason I refuse to post my own stats in any given thread, good or bad. Again, it goes back to why I don't trumpet about my favorite weird 'Mechs from the rooftops - my experiences in them are subjective, and dependent upon my own foibles and quirks. Just because I can make them work better than they should is no reason to claim that they should be the new standard fit for the chassis. If your personal experience is telling you that an Atlas with nothing but LRMs (I'm sorry, but a pair of MLs and a pair of machine guns alongside your tubes counts as 'nothing but LRMs' on an Atlas)is a good idea, then go with it.

Do not, however, expect anyone else to accept your personal experience as anything but one anecdote among many, as it is my personal experience that people who pilot LRM Atlases drag down teams and do not even remotely pull their substantial weight in matches I've been in. if we both discard our personal experiences as being unique to us and not globally applicable, I still have an objective analysis of the Atlas' strengths and weaknesses as a chassis to back up my argument.

What've you got?

[Clownwarlord]

Hmm srms or lrms? Well srms just recently have had work done on them so before lrms where the go to for those slots. On my DDC I have an AC20 2 medium lasers and 25 lrm tubes (I use the break up because it does break up the heat making it manageable).

At the current time with my build lrms are the long range weapon to use to help get the bulk of an atlas closer about 200 to 400 meter to use Ac20 and medium lasers. After that so long as I do not get to close 180 meters I will still also be able to use missiles. Also when you are that close shit gone to hell does it matter about ams? AMS sucks in my opinion and at the current time lrms when fired in alpha (all tubes together even if broken up) overwhelm the 5 missile loss due to ams. So your 6 + 6 + 10 still adds up to 22 tubes launch in a wave soak up 4 ams. Also I have noticed more and more mechs not using ams and more using lrms so in effect what little ams the enemy has either my missiles are taking the damage and some one else's is making it through or vice verse.

Sounds more like a cry baby argument to me. Although I will agree a missile boat assault sitting 500 meters away is just asking to get its ass kicked by a light no matter how much it cries for help. Hence why I try to fight 200 to 400 away from enemy with my allies on the front.

Edited by clownwarlord, 01 May 2014 - 07:59 AM.

[Cimarb]

1453 R, on 01 May 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

These are objective, verifiable facts about the Atlas as a chassis. It has bad launchers, it's crap with TAG, and it can't afford to not be able to brawl because an Atlas with no close-in capability is like the deep-fried turkey on the Thanksgiving dinner table - absolutely everybody wants a piece of that sweet, tender, defenseless bird.

Your experience with the D-DC missile boat is apparently as part of organized 4-man drops. This is a crucial point; this guide, and any guide Void writes, are intended to be read from the point of view of a solo-dropping PUGlie. ....The exact same 'Mech, in a solo PUG situation, would not do even remotely so well because of the objective facts about the chassis Void laid out in his initial post.

... If your personal experience is telling you that an Atlas with nothing but LRMs (I'm sorry, but a pair of MLs and a pair of machine guns alongside your tubes counts as 'nothing but LRMs' on an Atlas)is a good idea, then go with it.

...If we both discard our personal experiences as being unique to us and not globally applicable, I still have an objective analysis of the Atlas' strengths and weaknesses as a chassis to back up my argument.

I do just fine with the TAG in my arm, actually. It allows me to TAG enemies that are otherwise outside of my torso twist range, which is the downside of the otherwise great Stalker TAG spot. You apparently don't read my responses very well, as I already addressed why the tube count doesn't bother me at all, and as an LRM boat, if I am letting enemies get close to me without my team near enough to assist, I deserve to be Thanksgiving dinner - that is why you make sure to keep near your team, even/especially when PUGing.

My Stalker has 4 MLs as a backup. My BLR has three MLs as a backup. My GaussJager has 1 ML as a backup, and my DakkaPhract has two MLs as a backup. I am successful in every one of them, even when out of primary ammo. Again, if I let the enemy get in close to me, where my primary weapons are without ammo or within minimum range, I have done far more wrong than have a poor loadout.

As far as the 4-man assumption, you again failed to read my WHY, which I spent the time detailing just because you asked for it. Please go back and read it, specifically where I said that I PUG at least 80% of the time, even now.

Lastly, your "objective analysis" is anything but. I carry 35 missiles on my DDC and enough ammo to last the entire fight if I don't do something stupid (like try to brawl or get cut off from my team). It works for me, and I have explained why with stats, strategies, and as much "objectiveness" as you have (meaning little to none). This has now became an argument between someone that can succeed with a certain loadout and someone that either can't succeed with it himself or has never played with someone that could and seems to think it is ok to subjugate all of those around him with his own opinion.

Edited by Cimarb, 01 May 2014 - 08:06 AM.

[Void Angel]

OK, for reference:

Void Angel, on 26 April 2014 - 10:53 PM, said:

STOP IT.

The Atlas is a very poor missile platform for a variety of reasons:

• It doesn't have the tubes for it. You've only got one 10-tube and two 6-tube hardpoints on your D-DC; the other Atlases have less. This is why your missiles come out in a messy stream - which makes them more vulnerable to AMS, gives your target more opportunity to spread damage and seek cover, and slows their rate of fire (your launchers don't start to recycle till the last missile is away.)
  
• It doesn't have the space for it.The Atlas' missile tubes are all in its right torso - right next to the ECM on the D-DC. This means that you can have, at most, 35 missiles per salvo on that chassis, or 40 on the D or RS - unless you're deliberately gimping yourself by forgoing ECM and/or Artemis. This is an insufficient throw weight around which to build a 100-ton Battlemech.
  
• Your energy hardpoints are very low. The Atlas' energy hardpoints are at about waist-level. You're shooting from the hip, which means that you have to expose a very large portion of your silhouette to use TAG (even if you use a corner, you have a very broad 'mech; same thing applies.) Since TAG is a critical tool for you to be able to get good effects with your missiles, this is a serious drawback.
  
• Every single alternative does it better. Seriously: every single one. No matter what chassis you choose (most choose the D-DC,) there is a Stalker that does it better; or a Highlander; or a Battlemaster; or an Awesome. Only the Victor and Banshee are outclassed by the Atlas as a missile platform; all the other chassis have at least one variant that has better hardpoints and tubes.

In general, the only thing the Atlas clearly has going for it as a missile boat is that it is somewhat tougher than the alternatives. Even ECM is of dubious value, since it comes at the cost of restricting throw weight - if your weapons for a 100-ton death machine could fit comfortably on a Catapult, you're doing it wrong.


Atlas missile boats, unless they isolate themselves, are frequently among the last to die - this is not a good thing. What it means is that the enemy has been killing targets whose ratio of firepower to toughness is much higher than an Atlas LRM boat: Consider an AC/40 Jaegermech, or an Ultra AC/5 Illya Muromets build. Either of those 'mechs are considerably easier to kill, and bring much more direct firepower (i.e. they will kill you faster than an LRM boat.) So by removing your Atlas from the front lines, you've removed the option for the enemy to shoot at you, the hard target, rather than your glass cannon supports.

It's not my purpose in this post to insist that no one should never put any LRMs on an Atlas as part of a larger build - though I don't think such builds are optimal right now, and the most experienced players I know will agree with me. But boating LRMs through that chassis is simply a Bad Idea for empirical reasons. You may feel that you get high damage numbers with your Atlas LRM boat, but you'd get better numbers and performance from the superior alternatives I mentioned - and your team would be better off.

"Indoctrination?" Really? If your definition of "indoctrination," is "warning people away from a practice which you feel is bad," I can only respond that you should not abuse words this way. Far from trying to prohibit questions and critical thinking, I've presented concrete, verifiable facts about the chassis. What I'm getting back, even from constructive posts, is variations on a theme: "Yes, the Atlas doesn't have the tubes or critical space, and the hardpoints are very low, and all the alternatives are better - but my subjective experiences, or statistically insignificant stats, or some video I saw, etc, trumps all of that, so I don't have to deal with any of it. I'll just cite my experienc/stats/etc, and state my opinion instead."

I feel a little like Simon Tam:

Edited by Void Angel, 01 May 2014 - 08:06 AM.

[Cimarb]

SaltBeef, on 01 May 2014 - 07:22 AM, said:

I agree with void that an all lrm atlas is a joke but 30 or so is effective especially in alpine Peaks where you get left way behind faster moving pack.

The DDC can only pack 35 missiles (with Artemis), so there isn't much if a difference. I agree they are effective, though.

[Void Angel]

But there's a huge difference between boating those 35 missiles and bringing a significant amount of other armaments to the table.

[Meta 2013]

so long story short, I am looking at the ddc setup .. while I was more than happy with the 2 er large lasers and the ultra 5 for direct fire, I do agree with what someone said about a 20 being more than enough for armor stripping given the speed the 2 10 vollies come out vs 2 lrms 10's.

The biggest problem for me is I cannot use gauss anymore with the timing. yeah sure I can fire it, but to many times I end up hitting a teammate who crosses or something, its just not a good thing for me to try and use gauss anymore.

I don't like slow clunky standard engines for the AC 20 to fit, have those on my other atlases, this one I try and keep faster to keep up with brawlers and keep them under ecm cover. ECM atlas has to be able to cover and with pugs many times has to be the pusher, I don't sit in the back and lob lrm's, you are correct in how much of a waste that would be.

Again after trying many different builds ...20's dual lbx,dual 5's paired with 6's or 4's you end up with no long range ability for maps like alpine or caustic. I don't want to be firing at targets 800 900 meters out that fade in and out, I use the lrms in combination with the direct fire at 200 to 600 meters, where they have good punch, and allow for me to engage when the blob is dense and no direct shots can be had.

For now I am looking to go to a single 20 launcher or maybe just one 15, and adding some 4's to help the close in punch.
The end result is I am trying to look at other builds to add some better close in fire power. So thank you for bringing this up.

Meta

[Void Angel]

You're quite welcome.

[giganova]

Circular argument is circular. You seem to think that the only role for the Atlas is a brawler, which is hardly the case. I don't have time to point out all the fallacies to your statements, they are numerous. It's a counter-intuitive nature. You say to yourself: "Oh boy, I have a 100 ton mech with a crap-load of armor! I'll be an unstoppable juggernaut on the front lines!" However, an Atlas is a huge, slow-moving target that instantly gets focus-fired in the front lines, negating the very advantages you had hoped to exploit.

Solution: don't be in the front lines, your survivability will increase in orders of magnitude, and your damage output does not have to suffer. What's the perfect weapon system for long-range engagements where you may not always have line-of-sight to your target? That would be LRMs, folks...

The Atlas is a mobile command bunker. LRMs are the gloves that fit.

Edited by giganova, 01 May 2014 - 10:48 AM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

giganova, on 01 May 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

Circular argument is circular. You seem to think that the only role for the Atlas is a brawler, which is hardly the case.

Lack of paying attention is lack of paying attention as well.

The point was not that the Atlas is only a brawler - but that sitting in the back lobbing missiles is not what the chassis is best at and using a less than optimal tool for the job.

Could he have phrased it better?
Very much.

Is his point wrong?
I have yet to see evidence of that.

Yes it can "boat" missiles - and it can score well with them - but frankly - I can score similar to that with an LRM boat Locust.
And you cannot scream that I am saying not to put LRM on it - because I keep LRM on just about every chassis I run.

[giganova]

I was paying attention. reposting the OP just makes it look like a circular argument and indoctrination. I don't need to read it twice.

[1453 R]

Meta 2013, on 01 May 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

so long story short, I am looking at the ddc setup .. while I was more than happy with the 2 er large lasers and the ultra 5 for direct fire, I do agree with what someone said about a 20 being more than enough for armor stripping given the speed the 2 10 vollies come out vs 2 lrms 10's.

The biggest problem for me is I cannot use gauss anymore with the timing. yeah sure I can fire it, but to many times I end up hitting a teammate who crosses or something, its just not a good thing for me to try and use gauss anymore.

I don't like slow clunky standard engines for the AC 20 to fit, have those on my other atlases, this one I try and keep faster to keep up with brawlers and keep them under ecm cover. ECM atlas has to be able to cover and with pugs many times has to be the pusher, I don't sit in the back and lob lrm's, you are correct in how much of a waste that would be.

Again after trying many different builds ...20's dual lbx,dual 5's paired with 6's or 4's you end up with no long range ability for maps like alpine or caustic. I don't want to be firing at targets 800 900 meters out that fade in and out, I use the lrms in combination with the direct fire at 200 to 600 meters, where they have good punch, and allow for me to engage when the blob is dense and no direct shots can be had.

For now I am looking to go to a single 20 launcher or maybe just one 15, and adding some 4's to help the close in punch.
The end result is I am trying to look at other builds to add some better close in fire power. So thank you for bringing this up.

Meta

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable build to me.

Earlier today, before I left for work, I went into Smurfy and outfitted a D-DC with ECM and an ALRM-20+ALRM-15, with 7 tons LRM ammo (following my general rule of 1 ton of missiles per 5 tubes for LRMs), as well as a left-arm TAG. This is the most tonnage I could reasonably expect to see someone devote to LRMs in their D-DC without getting just absolutely ridiculous with the ammo loadouts (and I would seriously debate the opportunity cost of taking the TAG, even, but that’s neither here nor there).

I had enough weight/tonnage left over to bolt an AC/20 w/3t ammo into the ‘Mech – it took every last critical slot I had (no RA laser), but I could do it. Alternatively, there was room for the dual machine guns, a Beagle to get extra sensor range, and a large pulse laser, with some extra engine-mounted heat sinks to help with the LPL. This was on a STD325 engine, which I figure is a fairly normal choice for the Atlas/good compromise between speed, heatsink capacity, and weight.

That’s the crux of my argument – unless you’re bringing 15+ tons of LRM ammunition (and if you're doing that you have other problems), there’s no way you can blow enough weight/slots on LRM launchers alone to be completely unable to bring anything else. Heck, enough juggling and shaving and you can bring the LRMs, an LB-X, and a regular large laser. Omit the TAG and you could easily bring a couple of large lasers alongside the meesailes. There is no reason to use nothing but LRMs on the largest chassis in the game. There just is not, not when its missile hardpoints are its weakest hardpoints. By all means use them! But don’t tell me that a 35-tube Atlas with one medium laser and two machine guns is a proper use of that monstrous thing.

Edited by 1453 R, 01 May 2014 - 11:00 AM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

giganova, on 01 May 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

I was paying attention. reposting the OP just makes it look like a circular argument and indoctrination. I don't need to read it twice.

Allow me to phrase it thus then.

It is no more circular (or indoctrinating) than your own argument.

[giganova]

Except I'm not claiming my opinion as fact. I can agree with most of the "facts" about the chassis. However interpreting them as being inefficient for the Atlas and equating that as being "bad" is an aesthetic opinion, not a guide.

[Alaskan Nobody]

giganova, on 01 May 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

However interpreting them as being inefficient for the Atlas and equating that as being "bad" is an aesthetic opinion, not a guide.

So if one car gets an average of 30 miles to the gallon of gas - but another gets 35-40 average - it is just an aesthetic opinion that the latter one is more efficient.

Gotcha.

Edit: spelling

Edited by Shar Wolf, 01 May 2014 - 11:24 AM.

[1453 R]

Giga wants to play his AtLRMas, and he’s not going to hear no for an answer. Which is cool, and totally within his rights. Plenty of perfectly reasonable players have loadouts they like and run that aren’t really all that good, and that’s just fine.

The difference between him and a reasonable player is that he wants players like Void and I to praise him for it and tell him that an Atlas with no significant armaments beyond its handful of LRM tubes is a perfectly legitimate, totally awesome baller-tastic idea that is just as useful and viable as a more conventional mixed-armaments Atlas. We can’t do that since it’s not true, and so he continues to make himself a nuisance in the hopes that we’ll break down and retract our opinion just to get him to go away.

Heh…problem is he’s picked the wrong thread for it. I can gnaw on a stubborn argument for weeks, and I will do just that if I have to. If logic and reasoned analysis isn’t part of one’s argument, then it’s not swaying me and I will continue to hold my ground. Because I want to see less terribad AtLRMases on the field, and more awesome folks with the big cannons and heavy beams they need to back up their tubes once the fight moves beyond the pokey-snipe phase.

[Munin Ravensong]

gas mileage argument was bad. Just like cars get better or worse mileage depending on how (and where) they are driven, a mech loadout's "efficiency" varies widely. I happen to get my best "mileage" out of LRM's backed by direct fire weapons that help me keep some damage output at close range. if a "sub optimal" mech build fits your play style and level of skill (my mech's problem is admittedly "pebcak") then drop that way. If you are trying to make a "competitive" mech build to get the kinds of numbers the better players can push - then you really SHOULD listen to the "competitive" pilots when they tell you about loadout principles. And a "joke" DDC lram build, that finds it's self in match with several other LRM boats can be an amazing force multiplier as long as the other lrm boats stick close (nothing like making it rain on the enemy when an atlas is holding an umbrella over your head keeping the enemy's rain off your own head)

[1453 R]

Munin Ravensong, on 01 May 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

gas mileage argument was bad. Just like cars get better or worse mileage depending on how (and where) they are driven, a mech loadout's "efficiency" varies widely. I happen to get my best "mileage" out of LRM's backed by direct fire weapons that help me keep some damage output at close range. if a "sub optimal" mech build fits your play style and level of skill (my mech's problem is admittedly "pebcak") then drop that way. If you are trying to make a "competitive" mech build to get the kinds of numbers the better players can push - then you really SHOULD listen to the "competitive" pilots when they tell you about loadout principles. And a "joke" DDC lram build, that finds it's self in match with several other LRM boats can be an amazing force multiplier as long as the other lrm boats stick close (nothing like making it rain on the enemy when an atlas is holding an umbrella over your head keeping the enemy's rain off your own head)

A more efficient car, driven in the same place in the same way by the same driver, gets more mileage. A pilot’s individual quirks, foibles, preferences and deficiencies are not actually meritorious arguments in G&S. The phrase “it works for me” has no place here. Matter of fact, I’ve swiftly come to despise that phrase in the context of a builds guide like this, as it defeats the entire frickin’ point of a builds guide in the first place and offers no meaningful arguments for either side of a debate. Seriously. Stop saying it. Now. Because it’s just not relevant. If whatever works for you works for you, then do that and ignore anyone who says otherwise. But don’t frogging ruin things for people who don’t know what works for them by demanding that the original post be rewritten to account for the fact that oh hey we think you’re completely wrong and you should say so in your original guide.

Does that not strike you as being incredibly silly?

This forum exists to help The Player, as in a generalization of all players to which a given guide applies, get better. Your own idiosyncracies as a player are on you to keep track of and account for. If every guide out there was written in the form of “Do this to be better, unless you’re like this or like this or like this or like this or like this or like this or like this…”, nobody would ever write any sort of meaningful advice in this forum again.

My own personal self? My aim is horrid. I can’t circle-aim to save my existence, and I’m a mediocre shot at best with my crosshair. I end up using beams and lock-on missiles much more often than spike-damage weapons simply because they help me account for the fact that my ability to hit things with a mouse-based interface, after a lifetime of console play, is shoddy. Does this mean I should walk into any old thread I like and demand that the original writer take my own personal quirks and deficiencies into account when they put up their work because I don’t particularly care for the tone of their post and I think that what I use is better for me?

Of course not. That would be stupid beyond comprehension.

So why does everyone else do it so depressingly regularly?