624 replies to this topic

[SethAbercromby]

kamiko kross, on 06 May 2014 - 10:08 AM, said:

Most often games are decided by what the assaults do or don't do.

I fear most for those people to drop once 3/3/3/3 hits without breaking the launch module. Every Assault 'Mech counts and your team can't afford you to stay behind and watch your mates get slaughtered. The only reasons those boats might actually win a match would either by being carried by the rest of their team HARD or having enemies doing even dumber stuff than they are.

[Void Angel]

Cimarb, on 05 May 2014 - 05:39 PM, said:

@Void: I want to go back to my original post.



It very well could have ended there. I'm an "edge case" and it works for me. Instead, I got attacked by you and Laser because I disagreed with your opinion. Many pages later, and nothing has changed. I still enjoy my LRM-heavy DDC, I still do well with it, and I still help my team do well when I drop in it. I have explained why with the same reasoning as your original post, yet you ignored those because you claim they are merely my opinion...

OK, that's about enough of that. You know what hasn't changed since I started talking to you about this? Two things: you've repeatedly admitted the validity of my reasoning, but disagree based on your own personal performance; and you've accused me of "elitism," or "being irritated," or "attacking you." As if saying, "you're mean!" let you out of the argument you started. And yes, "I don't care what anyone says, I do well with my Atlas LRM boat" is an invitation for argument. You can't claim the right to not be challenged, especially when you challenge someone else's position.

Similarly, I did not use the "well, that's just your opinion" argument - that came from your side of the debate. My recourse to that kind of "reasoning" was to refute it as the self-contradictory non-thought that it is, and to combat the underlying idea in many of the objections to my guide - that opinions are all subjective and that it is therefore rude to actually claim your opinion to be correct. I've actually pointed out that we're all voicing opinions here - so saying that an argument is "just an opinion" is silly. The question is, "which opinions are backed by good reasoning from concrete facts. I'm not the one accusing people of "subjugating all of those around him to his own opinion."

Let me call your attention to some pertinent facts:

• This is a guide; by definition any guide tells someone what not to do. It may do so by implication, or it may do so directly - but it does so, or it is not a guide. This is completely opposite of a certain opinion, which you have endorsed.
  
• Guides are not for people who do not need them. I know people who can jump in just about anything and make it work - because they're excellent players and spend a lot of time working on the game. These people are, as you claim to be willing to accept, edge cases: they do not need the guide and it is not for them. Guides are for general consumption - and the personal results of self-confessed edge cases do not apply to them.

These two facts invalidate two of your arguments that keep on cropping up: that you can validly object to advice on the basis that it is cautionary; and that your personal experiences trump the concrete reasoning from facts presented in the guide itself, and in my defense of it. You've even come right out and said that you're in agreement with my reasoning - so why do you object? Well, you told me that, too:

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

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.

You're objecting - despite agreeing with my logic - on the basis of your feelings?! Are you for real?

This isn't about the accuracy or utility of my guide - this is about you being threatened! It's about how your feelings were hurt; how 1453 R was mean to you; how a guide on the forums threatens you! I'm not here to shore up your emotions; it is not my task to make you feel good about your build, or avoid "subjugating" your delicate ego by pointing out that a bad build you use well is still a sub-par build given the alternatives.

If you have any real objections to my opinion, I'm still waiting to hear them. But I'm not going to accept endless hand-waving and argument just because you feel bad that someone told you not to do something. I'm not nine years old; I doubt you are either - and in either case I am not your parent.

Edited by Void Angel, 06 May 2014 - 11:12 AM.

[Cimarb]

Void Angel, on 06 May 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

I'm still not sold on the necessity of LRMs for an Atlas or any 'mech - but I readily concede that there's a reasonable thought process for including them, something which has eluded certain of my detractors.

All I'm trying to point out here is that pure-boating LRMs is always an inferior choice compared the the alternatives - including other ways to build the Atlas.

Depending on your playstyle, LRMs can be a complete waste or very good for yourself and your team. Any build that boats one weapon exclusively (pure boating), such as an AC40/GaussJager without a single backup weapon, or any LRM boat without a couple lasers at the least, is asking for trouble, and those should be avoided. Having LRMs as your primary weapon on any build, though, is perfectly fine if that is optimal to you.

Thank you for a post that is constructive, though.

Water Bear, on 06 May 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

Taking a missile build on the Atlas is worse because the opportunity cost to your team is much higher. That is, the Shadow Hawk isn't contributing much less to the team than if it had 2 ac/5s compared to how much is lost when an Atlas switches from tanking to missile boating.

Your build has much less to do with your contribution than your ability with that build. If I bring a light or a brawler to a fight, I am likely to contribute very little. If I bring a sniper or LRM boat, though, I will be guaranteed to be one of the top contributors to our success almost every time (there are always exceptions, especially in PUGs). Some people use their Shadowhawks as brawlers, some as missile batteries (LRM skirmishes or SRM brawlers), and some like them as snipers/harassers. The build matters very little compared to the pilots skill with that build, and a proper guide would try to educate the player on HOW to play that build more effectively, not that they were bad players for doing so.

Void Angel, on 06 May 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

OK, that's about enough of that.

You're objecting - despite agreeing with my logic - on the basis of your feelings?! Are you for real?
...
This isn't about the accuracy or utility of my guide - this is about you being threatened! It's about how your feelings were hurt; how 1453 R was mean to you; how a guide on the forums threatens you! I'm not here to shore up your emotions; it is not my task to make you feel good about your build, or avoid "subjugating" your delicate ego by pointing out that a bad build you use well is still a sub-par build given the alternatives.

If you have any real objections to my opinion, I'm still waiting to hear them. But I'm not going to accept endless hand-waving and argument just because you feel bad that someone told you not to do something. I'm not nine years old; I doubt you are either - and in either case I am not your parent.

I have already stated my objections to your opinion, and why I feel they are incorrect in this case. You are correct in that the tube counts are lower on the Atlas than several other mechs, but I don't agree that it is a negative due to the benefits of chainfiring large amounts of LRMs constantly. It works and is optimal. This is also the same reason why having SRM6s fire out of single or dual tubes is the most optimal for damage.

You are more correct about the LRM hardpoint locations, as that is less than optimal, just like the missile hardpoint in a lot of mech's heads, but you can load a good assortment of backup weapons to compensate and since most Atlai load heavy ballistics over missiles, this approach does work as well. No Atlas loadout is without issues, since you have all your ballistics on one side, all missiles on one side, and a large chunk of your energy weapons are lost regardless of which side goes first.

My feelings were never hurt, and I stated in the first comment that I will play what I want to play regardless of what anyone thinks of it - I let my success on the field shut people up - but I have no problem debating the issue if you would like to continue it for pages and pages, because you are incorrect in your assessment of the build.

[Nikkoru]

Water Bear, on 06 May 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

The point that's really being debated is: It is unfair to your team to take a missile boat Atlas.

Consider the following. If someone takes a sub-optimal build on a Shadow Hawk, like an ac/2 and a bunch of medium lasers, no one gets that upset. Taking a missile build on the Atlas is worse because the opportunity cost to your team is much higher. That is, the Shadow Hawk isn't contributing much less to the team than if it had 2 ac/5s compared to how much is lost when an Atlas switches from tanking to missile boating.

For the same reason, in skirmish mode it's more irritating when a Jagermech takes 4 machine guns and 4 medium lasers than when a firestarter takes 8 flamers. The Firestart isn't as useful to the team as the Jagermech is, and the 8 flamer Firestarter isn't as useful to the team as the 8 medium laser Firestarter.

I'm not saying that everyone should take optimal or DPS builds. Whatever chassis you drive, you take joke builds (or builds that aren't good at your mech's intended role) at your team's expense.

Edited first paragraph.

If matchmaker factored in tonnage, this would be a very good point.

But it doesn't.

At the moment, if you take a locust or an atlas, a sub-optimal shadow hawk or a sub-optimal stalker, either way you are taking up the exact same space, which is one player slot out of 12.

Given that reality, I wonder why we don't have a guide to why you are hurting the team by bringing a locust instead of a jenner, or bringing a quickdraw instead of a shadow hawk?

Edited by Nikkoru, 06 May 2014 - 12:16 PM.

[Water Bear]

Nikkoru, on 06 May 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

If matchmaker factored in tonnage, this would be a very good point.

Do you know that it doesn't? If you do know, please provide the source, or at least tell me where you read it. If the MM does make an attempt at managing tonnage then a missile Atlas is all the worse a choice.

Nikkoru, on 06 May 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

Given that reality, I wonder why we don't have a guide to why you are hurting the team by bringing a locust instead of a jenner, or bringing a quickdraw instead of a shadow hawk?

Because a team of 12 atlases would probably fail. A team needs DPS mechs, tanks, scouts, and many others besides to function. And at the end of the day, some personal freedom in choice is necesarry for fun sake -- but some choices may come more at the expense of other players than others.

Edited by Water Bear, 06 May 2014 - 01:18 PM.

[Jon Gotham]

I think Cimarb, the issue is not how much damage you do or anything like that with that approach to playstyle-but the effect you have on your smaller team mates. they have to do the job your Atlas is designed for.
Unless you can kill thier attackers super quick, they probably will get ruined because they can't tank as well as you can.

I currently run a Thunderbolt 5S lrm mech. I run x2 lrm 15+A but by george, I made sure I brought other weapons as well so if needed I can wade in and I make sure I'm rarely further than 300m from the fight so I can hit with all of my weapons or use my mech to take fire from a team mate if needed.
The impact of an assault hanging back has a larger effect than if something lighter does that. People are not discussing your personal performance at all-they are commenting on a play style that has a direct impact, often negative to smaller team mates.
That's all fella.

[Cimarb]

This isn't WoW - there is no such thing as a tank in this game...

It doesn't matter how much damage you can take. It matters how long you can survive. Those are not the same thing. Someone can "tank" in an ECM spider far longer than an Atlas, because they are "tanking" through avoidance. It doesn't matter how much armor you bring to a fight - if you just stand there "tanking", you will die, and die quickly.

Staying in the back and barraging the enemy with missiles as they try to approach is far more useful than charging into the enemy team "tanking" damage that I wouldn't otherwise even be taking.

[Water Bear]

Cimarb, on 06 May 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:

This isn't WoW - there is no such thing as a tank in this game...

It doesn't matter how much damage you can take. It matters how long you can survive. Those are not the same thing. Someone can "tank" in an ECM spider far longer than an Atlas, because they are "tanking" through avoidance. It doesn't matter how much armor you bring to a fight - if you just stand there "tanking", you will die, and die quickly.

Staying in the back and barraging the enemy with missiles as they try to approach is far more useful than charging into the enemy team "tanking" damage that I wouldn't otherwise even be taking.

When the enemy shoots your team, someone has to get shot. When they charge within 180 meters of your missile mechs, it would be nice if there someone in between their AC/20 and you. Some mechs do that job very well, and some pilots volunteer for the opportunity. The team usually benefits when done correctly.

[Opus]

Void Angel, on 06 May 2014 - 09:23 AM, said:

I am a bit confused, though; why imply that my post is useless - then agree with me?

Ummmm, not a useless debate bud...not that your post is wrong, more of an effort of futility, yada yada yada

there has been lrm spammers since early F&F beta .. ... .. every new MW seems to go through the phase like a 10 year old telling your moma jokes...

it has never changes

[SethAbercromby]

Cimarb, on 06 May 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:

This isn't WoW - there is no such thing as a tank in this game...

It doesn't matter how much damage you can take. It matters how long you can survive. Those are not the same thing. Someone can "tank" in an ECM spider far longer than an Atlas, because they are "tanking" through avoidance. It doesn't matter how much armor you bring to a fight - if you just stand there "tanking", you will die, and die quickly.

Staying in the back and barraging the enemy with missiles as they try to approach is far more useful than charging into the enemy team "tanking" damage that I wouldn't otherwise even be taking.

To behonest, I personally think that unless you are willing to take the charge and with that the consequence of enemy fire, you are not cut out to pilot an Assault 'Mech. Go for the Heavy class. They usually pack near equal amounts of firepower and are more mobile as well. You want to be Striker that's absolutely fine, but don't take that valuable Assault slot instead of someone that is willing to shoulder the responsibilities that come with it.

3/3/3/3 will present you with difficult times unless you are willing to adapt to the change.

[Water Bear]

Cimarb, on 06 May 2014 - 11:41 AM, said:

Your build has much less to do with your contribution than your ability with that build. If I bring a light or a brawler to a fight, I am likely to contribute very little. If I bring a sniper or LRM boat, though, I will be guaranteed to be one of the top contributors to our success almost every time (there are always exceptions, especially in PUGs). Some people use their Shadowhawks as brawlers, some as missile batteries (LRM skirmishes or SRM brawlers), and some like them as snipers/harassers. The build matters very little compared to the pilots skill with that build, and a proper guide would try to educate the player on HOW to play that build more effectively, not that they were bad players for doing so.

The OPs point is, if you want to bring LRMs then you should bring an LRM mech, not the Atlas. The reason why is outlined in his post.

It's not always a critically bad thing when you do a weird build, but it does have an effect on the rest of your team. This is another way to phrase what I said.

Edit: Also it sounds like what you are talking about is the effect of pilot skill, which is not really the same as build efficacy.

Edited by Water Bear, 06 May 2014 - 02:26 PM.

[Dauphni]

Brawling while taking hits is not the same as tanking though.

Tanking means you are out there, drawing all the fire so your teammates don't get shot. This will get you killed in approximately 2.6 seconds, and as soon as you're gone your buddies will be as well. This tends to happen to people who think ‘leading the charge’ is what an assault's job is.

On the other hand, brawling means that you get in your opponent's face and try to melt it off as fast as you can. If you come out with a couple scars of your own that's fine, as long as you gave more than you took. This game is ultimately all about exploiting advantages, and the bigger the Mech, the bigger the advantage you should be creating.

[IraqiWalker]

In summary, based on common sense and battle experience, an LRM only Atlas is BAD. There's no arguing around it.

You're taking 100 tons of steel, tankiness and firepower potential and reducing it to one of the worst LRM carrying mechs in the game, that has to stay behind, instead of in the front where it's assets can be used in an infinitely more beneficial way.

Let the BLR-1S do the LRM boating, let the STK chassis line do the LRM boating, let even the AWS chassis run the LRMs. Don't let the Atlas do it. That's just bad in ever way possible. Even if your team wins, if you had been in any other Atlas, more players on your team would have been alive at the end of the match.

Having LRMs as a support weapon while packing other weapons and being on the frontline is infinitely better.


EDIT: not one of the worst, but THE WORST LRM boat in the game.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 06 May 2014 - 02:50 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

IraqiWalker, on 06 May 2014 - 02:49 PM, said:

EDIT: not one of the worst, but THE WORST LRM (with more than 1 tube or launcher) boat in the game.

Fixed that - because I sometimes see people trying to dedicate to one weapon like that.
(how does an ALRM20+TAG Misery sound? /shudder)

[Void Angel]

Opus, on 06 May 2014 - 02:00 PM, said:

Ummmm, not a useless debate bud...not that your post is wrong, more of an effort of futility, yada yada yada

there has been lrm spammers since early F&F beta .. ... .. every new MW seems to go through the phase like a 10 year old telling your moma jokes...

it has never changes

You know the only thing keeping you from getting a horrible bacterial infection and dying right now is? Numbers. Specifically, the number of invading pathogens that are hitting your body as compared to the number of immune cells engaged in responding to them. You're getting hit with disease-causing microbes the entire time, but you only get sick if the number of microbes you're exposed to exceeds the infectious dose.

It's the same with advice on the internet. Yeah, you're gonna have some portion of the player base doing certain things which are bad news - like refusing to charge the bridge against the Alliance in Alterac Valley. Some people learn that you need to group up and ride across the bridge, or else the Alliance can hold it literally forever - there were AV matches that lasted an entire uptime - and some will heckle you even now for suggesting it. If you don't take any action, you get what you get out of the team; but if you actually put up a macro to suggest a cohesive strategy, you can influence people.

Now, you're not going to influence everyone - you have people like Cimarb who'll argue forever because you told them not to do something they want to do, or just heedless newbs that don't want to think about anything. But I don't need to sway those people; non-thinkers and critics will always refuse to listen - no matter what evidence they're shown. But most people aren't like that, and if I can influence enough people, I can influence changes for the better. Once I got that strat macro rolling, people would tell the hecklers to shut up - because they'd been trying to sync with my battlegrounds in order to stay with me, since we were winning.

Some people will always respond to an explanation of their error with "I want to go back to my OP," but they don't matter. The intransigent will always dig in their heels and try to get the bit between their teeth - and they'll try to bray louder than anything reasonable you might say - but in the end they're just the obstacles on other people's course, and folks can just go around them.

[Water Bear]

Uite Dauphni, on 06 May 2014 - 02:32 PM, said:

Brawling while taking hits is not the same as tanking though.

Tanking means you are out there, drawing all the fire so your teammates don't get shot. This will get you killed in approximately 2.6 seconds, and as soon as you're gone your buddies will be as well. This tends to happen to people who think ‘leading the charge’ is what an assault's job is.

Sometimes this is exactly what it means to tank as an Assault mech. I have seen more than a few games stall because all the XL engine DPS mechs couldn't convince themselves to go through a dangerous choke to reach an enemy force on the other side that we all knew we could destroy.

I drive my atlas through first, it dies horribly, but the DPS makes it through and we win. Music to my ears.

[Nikkoru]

Water Bear, on 06 May 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

Do you know that it doesn't? If you do know, please provide the source, or at least tell me where you read it. If the MM does make an attempt at managing tonnage then a missile Atlas is all the worse a choice.s.

PGI has stated so several times on this forum. You are welcome to look it up yourself.

There is talk of implementing a system where drops will contain 3 lights, 3 mediums, 3 heavies, and 3 assaults at some future time.

Given their track record, I'm not going to hold my breath. I mean, realm vs. realm was supposed to be part of the game at launch and we still don't have that, and may never have it...

Anyway, my point still stands, if there were a tonnage limit, your argument would carry some weight, but at the moment it doesn't. Everyone takes up the same "space" no matter what they pilot, which is one slot out of twelve.

Wether they bring a locust or an atlas, they are still only taking up one slot.

[IraqiWalker]

Water Bear, on 06 May 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

Do you know that it doesn't? If you do know, please provide the source, or at least tell me where you read it. If the MM does make an attempt at managing tonnage then a missile Atlas is all the worse a choice.

The MM actually factors in tonnage. Have you never calculated tonnage on both teams at the end of a match? 9 times out of 10 you'll end up matched against a team that has roughly the same tonnage (give or take 100 tons), there are fringe cases where you are just extremely out-tonned. Also, even with 3/3/3/3 (which will be properly implemented real soon I believe) the MM will still try to match tonnage per weight class. So yes, an LRM boating Atlas is going to be even worse than it already is.


EDIT: corrected phrasing in the first sentence.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 06 May 2014 - 07:27 PM.

[Cimarb]

Uite Dauphni, on 06 May 2014 - 02:32 PM, said:

Brawling while taking hits is not the same as tanking though.

Tanking means you are out there, drawing all the fire so your teammates don't get shot. This will get you killed in approximately 2.6 seconds, and as soon as you're gone your buddies will be as well. This tends to happen to people who think ‘leading the charge’ is what an assault's job is.

Exactly.

The rest of the stuff that I could be responding to, I'm going to pass and call this thread dead. Have a great time tanking and leading the charge at 56 kph - I'll be having fun raining LRMs down on you

[YueFei]

Uite Dauphni, on 06 May 2014 - 02:32 PM, said:

Brawling while taking hits is not the same as tanking though.

Tanking means you are out there, drawing all the fire so your teammates don't get shot. This will get you killed in approximately 2.6 seconds, and as soon as you're gone your buddies will be as well. This tends to happen to people who think ‘leading the charge’ is what an assault's job is.

On the other hand, brawling means that you get in your opponent's face and try to melt it off as fast as you can. If you come out with a couple scars of your own that's fine, as long as you gave more than you took. This game is ultimately all about exploiting advantages, and the bigger the Mech, the bigger the advantage you should be creating.

Tanking doesn't mean drawing all the fire from the entire enemy team. Ideally you still want to limit your exposure to as few of the enemy as possible. But given that with any direct-fire weapons (pretty much all weapons except LRMs) you need to gain line-of-sight to get a shot through, you also potentially give the enemy a shot at you.

While light mechs can do a pretty good job of drawing fire and dodging quite a bit of it at long range, as you go against better and better pilots, light mechs really can't mix it up at close range for very long before getting 2-shotted. And I've seen the way that smarter teams don't spend much effort shooting at Lights that try to nip at them from farther out, just twist to spread damage while focusing on trucking the slower enemies in front of them who *can't* get away.

When it comes to a hard push where there's only 1 barrier between opposing forces, it very much helps to have that massive armor in front tanking the initial hits, whether you're the one doing the pushing, or you're the one getting pushed on. Only Light mechs really have the speed to get away from a push that happens at point-blank range, and even then against really good marksmen you still might not escape.

Proper torso twisting really is the HUGE difference between an Atlas that dies in 3 seconds, and an Atlas that lasts 20 seconds under fire. You can die from ~160-ish damage to the CT, or take 100+ through an arm, and then another 110+ through a shoulder, another 100+ from the other arm, and 320+ damage soaked through the dead shoulder (50% damage transfer mechanic) and absorb another 100+ damage on the other shoulder, for a total of 730+ damage before dying. That's over 4 times the damage, but it's more than just surviving 4 times as long, because enemies firing at you start to overheat as they run out of heat capacity, and their DPS takes a dump.

And nothing says you have to push or stay at the front and tank until you are *dead*. Good teams rotate their hurt mechs out of the line of fire. They bail each other out of tough spots, and even step in between hurt teammates and the enemy in order to save them. As long as a teammate still has weapons, even if all his armor is gone, it's better to protect him and rotate him to the back where he can still pump shots into the fight from behind healthier teammates.

Tanking is the ability to mitigate damage to yourself and to your team as much as possible. The smaller, lighter mechs on your team can't take as many hits and lose their firepower faster. The XL-engine-equipped DPS mechs on your team do 0 DPS when they are dead. But if those mechs are the only ones willing to engage the enemy directly, you risk losing all that DPS fast, instead of spending the heavier armor of your Assault mechs to buy more time for them to dish it out.