624 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

Giga's intellectual dishonesty has worn pretty fracking thin right about now.

"You made a guide why not to do something. That's indoctrination, not a guide!"

Uh, let's go back and cite the OP for reference; see, nothing in it is "indoctrination, nor have any of my responses been "you shut up and listen to me," as the term "indoctrination" implies. Here, let me link you the definition, so you can see why I object to the term. I've given concrete, nonsubjective reasons for my position, and you can't just hand-wave them away by saying, "but it works for me."

"You quoted your post! That's circular reasoning and indoctrination!"

It's like arguing with Red Mage, but with a bad attitude thrown in...

Edited by Void Angel, 01 May 2014 - 03:01 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

1453 R, on 01 May 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:

So why does everyone else do it so depressingly regularly?

Because there are frequently enough people who cannot aim well, that for them "Better builds" are actually worse.

It becomes one of those circular arguments the other guy was complaining about - this build is better if you are better because this build is better if you are better because......

Frankly, I despise the "This build is the best" attitude about like you seem to dislike the "it works for me" attitude.

Learning what works for you is very very important.
Maximizing what works for you is just as important.

People want to play LRM, that is great - it takes a lot more skill than most poptarts are willing to give credit for.

Unfortunately, if you want to specialize in LRM - there are better mechs for it than the Atlas.
On the other hand there are probably those people who cannot make those other mechs work - for example, I have not been able to score well in a Shadowhawk to save my life.
Every other medium I have played? Fine.
So even though the Shawk is "optimal" I get somewhat upset when people tell me to use it rather than my Hunchback or Centurion.

That make sense?

Void Angel, on 01 May 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

It's like arguing with Red Mage, but with a bad attitude thrown in...

Depending on the day you catch them on?
Any of those 4 (Or Black Belt, or any of Team Evil.....)

[Jacon Ceronia]

Beat a dead horse much?

Perhaps a little less ego, and a little more...cultivation?

Maybe it's time to start showing some of your own mind-blowing Atlas builds, and how to properly use them on the field of battle?

Just sayin'

Edited by Jacon Ceronia, 01 May 2014 - 03:07 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Jacon Ceronia, on 01 May 2014 - 03:06 PM, said:

Maybe it's time to start showing some of your own mind-blowing Atlas builds, and how to properly use them on the field of battle?

Just sayin'

There are already ~5 dedicated Atlas guides out there.


Just sayin'

[Void Angel]

The thing is, player skillsets are not static - unless you are literally developmentally disabled or have suffered an injury that has left you cognitively impaired, you can learn and improve your skills and playstyle. Some things, natural response time for example, can be only marginally improved through practice, but pointing a mouse and clicking on it - or learning to lead with an autocannon or PPC - is not one of these.

[Void Angel]

The problem with recommending Atlas builds is that it creates more problems than it solves:

• It creates even more "well, this works for me, no matter what the math says" arguments - as well as legitimate build differences based on personal play style.
  
• It side-tracks the discussion away from the simple purpose of the guide
  
• I'd also be duplicating the efforts of other threads.

I really prefer not to get into "this is how you build," discussions because it encourages cookie-cutter mentalities like the one that stuck me as a Resto Shaman in vanilla WoW (long story.) I'll gladly recommend builds to people looking for help, but getting into endless nitpicking arguments with people over the truly subjective aspects of 'mech design isn't worth my time.

I can, however, discourage a universally bad build decision without fostering a cookie cutter "meta or bust" mentality. If I could go back in time and tell Thomas Edison, "Hey, you asinine monkey, don't shoot your poor assistant full of X-rays; you'll kill all the tissue till his hand falls off," it wouldn't have stopped Edison from throwing other science at the wall to see what would stick. But since I can't go back in time, I've settled for the present.

Go throw some other science at the wall - Atlas LRM boats don't stick.

[SethAbercromby]

Shar Wolf, on 01 May 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

Unfortunately, if you want to specialize in LRM - there are better mechs for it than the Atlas.
On the other hand there are probably those people who cannot make those other mechs work - for example, I have not been able to score well in a Shadowhawk to save my life.

Yes but at the basic level, the Atlas is just a bad 'Mech to use for LRM-centric builds. No matter how you try to argue it, the fact remains that you are trying to shove your missiles through 22 tubes at best.
Stalker 3F? 32 tubes (at least somewhat reasonable).
Stalker 5M? 38 tubes (not much better).
Stalker 3H? 52 tubes (Surprisingly rare on the field).
Battlemaster 1S? 50 tubes.
Awesome 8R? 60 tubes.
Highlander 733? 50 tubes.

If you want a heavily armored Missile boat, there are much better options available just among the Assault class 'Mechs.

[ApolloKaras]

Jacon Ceronia, on 01 May 2014 - 03:06 PM, said:

Beat a dead horse much?

Perhaps a little less ego, and a little more...cultivation?

Maybe it's time to start showing some of your own mind-blowing Atlas builds, and how to properly use them on the field of battle?

Just sayin'

http://mwomercs.com/...emo-how-to-ddc/


This guy.

[Alaskan Nobody]

SethAbercromby, on 01 May 2014 - 03:19 PM, said:

Yes but at the basic level, the Atlas is just a bad 'Mech to use for LRM-centric builds. No matter how you try to argue it, the fact remains that you are trying to shove your missiles through 22 tubes at best.

That was my point (and Void's)

There are advantages to the smaller tube counts (moreso if there is little to no AMS present)
But as said back on page one - the Stalker does that (and bigger tube counts) more readily.

Haven't really looked at Highlanders or Victors yet though.
(yes - there are people who run Victor LRM boats - some that even score very well with them)

What I have seen of Highlanders trying it puts me in mind of the same issues with Atlas (and the same few advantages)
IE: All the weapons are in one spot - so you can shield them with the other side - but you lose them crazy-fast if you do not shield well.


Of course - even Stalkers and Awesome are at certain disadvantages when LRMing - but that would be another story.

[Munin Ravensong]

1453R You hit the problem with your argument on the head with your first line. "A more efficient car DRIVEN IN THE SAME PLACE, IN THE SAME WAY, BY TH SAME DRIVER, gets better mileage. Of course if you buy that "efficient" car and drive with the pedal on the floor, you won't see that amazing gas mileage. Last time I checked, our mechs are driven in DIFFERENT WAYS, by DIFFERENT people, with DIFFERENT goals - thus we are allowed to run DIFFERENT LOADOUTS on our mechs. That's why gas mileage on cars has the disclaimer "actual mileage may vary"

I don't do well with the meta-builds, they require more precision and skill than I've developed at this point. I also get stuck and hung up on things a lot while moving. Thus in MY hands, a more standoffish build gets me better "mileage" than the meta builds.

You also jumped my ass WITHOUT BOTHERING TO READ MY ENTIRE POST, otherwise you would have noticed where I said that if someone is trying to make a "competitive" build, they SHOULD listen to the "competitive" players.

So, do we resort to name calling like children now? (oh wait you already did) Or should we use logical debate?


Personally I'm starting to believe that you're the sort who thinks "anyone who doesn't play my way and agree with me is stupid" which is exactly why your arguments fall apart under logical scrutiny in real world conditions.

Also SHOW ME WHERE I insisted you guys were wrong and asked the original guide be re-written.

IN FACT, IF YOU BOTHER TO ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS, you'll find that I'm not an advocate of "boating" LRM's to the exclusion of other weapons ON ANY MECH - I merely pointed out that what's "efficient" for you might not be what's "efficient" for others.

Is it silly to go "full boat" lrms on an atlas, yes it is. Can a DDC lrm boat be hilariously effective under the right circumstances? Yes it can.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that your argument has to be "either or" or the logic trap of "if it's not my side of the argument it's wrong". Both of those logic traps will send your argument down a never ending spiral of increasing emotional attatchment to your point of view, resulting in your current "ME RIGHT - YOU STUPID", debate platform, which will undermine the credibility of your actual debate platform.


P.S. Void Angel, thanks for actually debating the subject & actually pointing out errors made in the logic of both sides.


Edit *ditched IE and can now input SPACING in my posts*

Edit 2 * added PS

Edited by Munin Ravensong, 01 May 2014 - 03:41 PM.

[Jacon Ceronia]

Shar Wolf, on 01 May 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:

There are already ~5 dedicated Atlas guides out there.

You miss my angle. 11 pages of chest thumping with no guidance. It's all rhetoric and fallacy.
People that love to hear the sound of their own tune more than any attempt to aid the blind.
I feel like I'm on capital hill, rather than discussing the merits of a game.

[Void Angel]

You're welcome. =)

My problem with the subjective-performance argument is that this is the guides forum: to extend the analogy, we are here discussing how to avoid poor gas mileage in a car. I'm giving the specs of the car and telling people, "this is why your gas mileage will be low with this model if you drive this way." What I'm getting back is, "Sure, whatever, but when I drive this car that way, I get better gas mileage than any of my other cars!" This is not a valid argument, which is why I have not accepted it.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Jacon Ceronia, on 01 May 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

I feel like I'm on capital hill, rather than discussing the merits of a game.

Funny, we are feeling about the same way you claim to be.

We have given our facts - repeatedly.
Everything the Atlas can do with a dedicated missile load - other mechs can do better.


How about we think about this logically.

We have given our "opinions" as people keep putting it.
In response however, we have gotten nothing but.... how did you put it?

Jacon Ceronia, on 01 May 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

pages of chest thumping

The only Guidance this thread was meant to bring was that the Atlas makes a relatively lousy missile boat.

If you need more than 2 sentences to tell you that.
(1 to state the fact - another to point out that X, Y, and Z mechs all do it better)
Might want to got talk to your kindergarten teacher and apologize.


I digress though - back to thinking about this logically.
We have given our facts - as the accuser, it stands to you to prove us wrong (and without the, as you put it, chest thumping rhetoric and fallacy)

We are waiting....

[1453 R]

That's it.

I'm done.

I'm out.

I've had it.

These people are being deliberately and maliciously obtuse. Munin's vomitous mess up there isn't even arguing against the point I'm trying to make. He's just p!ssed off because I'm not all nice and fwuffy and let's make fwiends and go to Pywoland, evewybody! with every post I make. Because apparently making the bad man say sorry is more important than actually having a coherent argument to present.

You know what? If you jackalopes want to go out there with an Atlas armed with 35 ALRMs and nothing else, do it. Do it up. Do it hard. Have a blast, tell yourselves as loudly as you want that you’re Beating Up the Big Nasty Evil META by rocking it OG-style and sticking it to the Man with your super-awesome original build, and doesn’t that 1453-R jerkbag feel dumb naow because you just landed 700 damage and 3 kills, HUZZAM! How’s that for a terrible ‘Mech, huh 1453?! Yeah, suck it! SUCK IT HARD 1453, YOU META-HUMPING BASSHOLE! LONG LIVE THE LRM ATLAS!

Here’s a clue from me to you – that 1453-R jerkbag has been a Johnny-Spike his entire life. My greatest passion in MWO, as in every TCG, every Armored Core game, every buildy MMO, every everything I’ve ever done, is to make my own unique ‘Mechs/decks/cores/characters/things that still manage to win games. My greatest joy is to make things that are both mine and good. To do that requires the ability to actually tell Good from Bad, a skill I’ve honed across dozens of games in multiple media types for nearly two decades, and you know something? That PERSONAL EXPERIENCE is telling me that an Atlas with 35 ALRMs and no guns is, surprisingly enough, objectively worse than an Atlas with 35 ALRMS AND ALSO GUNS.

But no. Your playstyle is to take the biggest, baddest, most powerfully armed and tonnage-unrestrictive bruiser in the entire game and turn it into a pre-legged Catapult with a Locust bolted to its head. And you expect me to applaud your choice when you get seven hundred damage and three kills…but we still lose the game because the enemy had an Atlas with ALRMs AND an AC/20 AND lasers, and it got nine hundred damage and five kills because it was up in the thick of the scrum doling out Death with both hands and a shovel after it did the EXACT SAME THING you did just as effectively as you did it, and Lurmed at people while the battle was in the Lurmy phase!

Well you know? Maybe I’m going to incorporate calling out AtLRMases in-game for the worthless wastes of tonnage and drop space they are into my playstyle. After all, apparently someone can justify absolutely anything by saying “this is just my playstyle!” or “this is what works for me!” Well, it totally works for my playstyle to win games, and I’m so very terribly sorry that winning games doesn’t seem to be part of your playstyle – BUT KEEP YOUR ASTONISHINGLY UNDERGUNNED CATAPULTS-DO-IT-BETTER JENNER-BAIT JUNKHEAPS OUT OF MY DAMN MATCHES.

Catch you later, Void. I tried…gods above and below, I tried…

Edited by 1453 R, 01 May 2014 - 04:47 PM.

[Void Angel]

Or it could be that an excess of enthusiasm has caused your arguments to morph into a positive feedback loop of spiralling hostility which is producing undesirable responses from your audience. Just sayin.

Shar, I don't think he is disagreeing with the thread - he just sees people going back and forth with increasingly acrimonious arguments, and misattributes the source of the conflict.

Edited by Void Angel, 01 May 2014 - 05:03 PM.

[Cimarb]

SethAbercromby, on 01 May 2014 - 03:19 PM, said:

Yes but at the basic level, the Atlas is just a bad 'Mech to use for LRM-centric builds. No matter how you try to argue it, the fact remains that you are trying to shove your missiles through 22 tubes at best.
Stalker 3F? 32 tubes (at least somewhat reasonable).
Stalker 5M? 38 tubes (not much better).
Stalker 3H? 52 tubes (Surprisingly rare on the field).
Battlemaster 1S? 50 tubes.
Awesome 8R? 60 tubes.
Highlander 733? 50 tubes.

If you want a heavily armored Missile boat, there are much better options available just among the Assault class 'Mechs.

The mech I rode to the top of the last challenge was the 5M, which consistently got me 100+ scores all weekend long. Tube count is NOT the only thing that matters, and when you chainfire anyways, the tube count matters even less.

Void Angel, on 01 May 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

My problem with the subjective-performance argument is that this is the guides forum: to extend the analogy, we are here discussing how to avoid poor gas mileage in a car. I'm giving the specs of the car and telling people, "this is why your gas mileage will be low with this model if you drive this way." What I'm getting back is, "Sure, whatever, but when I drive this car that way, I get better gas mileage than any of my other cars!" This is not a valid argument, which is why I have not accepted it.

If you are driving a car a certain way, and I am driving that same car a different way that you don't agree with, but we are both getting the same gas mileage, why am I wrong?

You don't think building a mech a certain way is optimal, which is fine with me, but when you start telling other people not to do something just because you don't agree with it, it is my obligation to disagree, since I do quite well in it.

For instance, I just watched a video of Koniving in a Banshee that had 4 MLs, an LB10X, AC5, AC2 and MG. What an odd and "less than optimal" build.... yet he scored over 1000 damage before being killed. I'm not going to claim I could do even close to the same results as him in a loadout like that, but I'm not about to tell him he's wrong, because it is obviously working for him.

I honestly don't disagree with your reasons, Void, but I do disagree with the initial tone ("STOP IT"), continued emphasis on how poor of players anyone that tries an LRM Atlas build is, and pretty much everything that 1453 has posted just because his attitude irritates the tar out of me.

[Void Angel]

Cimarb, on 01 May 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

If you are driving a car a certain way, and I am driving that same car a different way that you don't agree with, but we are both getting the same gas mileage, why am I wrong?

Because how your driving practices impact fuel economy (this metaphor is going to collapse any second now) compared to your other automobiles is not the question. The question is, "does driving this particular vehicle in a certain way cause its gas mileage to suffer?" The answer is, "Yes, for all of these reasons, among others." If you then disagree by saying, "But I get great mileage driving this car that way compared to my other cars," the question isn't "how am I wrong?" The question is either, "what is wrong with the reasons given for low fuel economy" - or else, "what am I doing in my other cars that causes their performance to be equal to this one?"

We're not even talking about sub-optimal v. optimized builds here. I'm warning people away from a build that simply does not fulfil the potential of the chassis - after seeing it show up over and over and over in matches, underperforming and being a boat anchor to the team.

[SethAbercromby]

Cimarb, on 01 May 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

The mech I rode to the top of the last challenge was the 5M, which consistently got me 100+ scores all weekend long. Tube count is NOT the only thing that matters, and when you chainfire anyways, the tube count matters even less.

Tube count always matters. And the 5M is not optimal for boating because it has 3 6 tube launchers. Unless you put LRM5s in there, you are reducing the potential of your launchers. They will eat the same amount of ammo for less effective results. The more time it takes your launcher to shoot out its full number of missiles, the easier it gets to move as a target to minimize incoming damage. The 3H can use 2 LRM20 launchers at their full potential, each of them generally more effective than two LRM15s smacked into 6 tube launchers in actual combat because the damage is much more difficult to avoid as a target. The two 15s have higher potential damage, but the likelihood of them producing damage at their full potential against a moving target is much lower.

The only reason to use a LRM20 in a 10 tube launcher in my opinion is when it is your ONLY LRM launcher and there is no 20 tube option available (if you have the option of 15, use an LRM15). The Atlas profits more from the LRM20 than from an LRM10 but can still use the smaller launcher ports for SRMs, making much better use of the available tube count.

[Alaskan Nobody]

SethAbercromby, on 01 May 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

Tube count always matters. And the 5M is not optimal for boating because it has 3 6 tube launchers. Unless you put LRM5s in there, you are reducing the potential of your launchers.

Only if there is any AMS out there.

If there is little-no AMS, LRM5s (or larger launchers in small tubecounts) become one of the most effective missile launchers in the game as almost all the missiles will hit the CT of an Assault (and most heavies)

Void Angel, on 01 May 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

Shar, I don't think he is disagreeing with the thread - he just sees people going back and forth with increasingly acrimonious arguments, and misattributes the source of the conflict.

In that case I apologize for my tone.

[SethAbercromby]

Shar Wolf, on 01 May 2014 - 06:20 PM, said:

If there is little-no AMS, LRM5s (or larger launchers in small tubecounts) become one of the most effective missile launchers in the game as almost all the missiles will hit the CT of an Assault (and most heavies)

They still waste their potential. When I see the missile warning, I'll move for cover as well as reasonably possible and if only the fist half of the missiles hit while the rest flings past me or into a building, that is what I consider wasted potential. A single salvo LRM20 volley might not get CT seeking but when it does hit, you are guaranteed to hit with a good portion of your salvo for much more damage on the same target. LRm5s are awesome because they don't waste ammo. You don't care if the full salvo misses, because they don't consume nearly as much ammo as a wasted more than half of your 6, 6, 3 LRM15 volley. If you absolutely want LRMs in your 6 tube launchers, using LRM5s is more space efficient, less ammo consuming and allows for larger backup weaponry than attempting to force a LRM10 or LRM15 in there.

I just don't see any good reason to not take tube count into consideration. I personally think that just putting as many large LRM launchers as possible into as many Missile hardpoints is wasteful in terms of ammo efficiency, tonnage and space allocation. Catapults provide excellent Missile platforms, because they offer large tube counts for a lot of hardpoints (A1, 2x20, 4x10 tubes, 80 total; C4, 2x20, 2x10 tubes, 60 total). Speaking of which, did somebody say Lurmageddon?.