/facepalm. OK, first I'm going to have to break with my rule about not chopping posts, because this is very long and there are so many errors in argument. So, sorry in advance, and I shall interject into the quotation as little as possible. Quotations are spoilered because heck, this post takes up enough of the page as it is.
Spoiler
Cimarb, on 16 May 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:
Your reasons and what my response is:
It doesn't have the space for it.The Atlas' missile tubes are all in its right torso - this is true. It can be an issue, but since the primary target on 95% of the Atlai on the battlefield is the left torso, where 75% of any brawlers weaponry is, this is a similar issue to any other Atlas build and an advantage for LRM Atlas that does not conform to what the enemy expects.
You're wasting tonnage on excessive ammunition. This is subjective to your specific build, but I carry roughly 1000-1250 ammo on most of my boats. My Stalker has the most, Atlas in the middle, and Battlemaster the least, but they are all pretty close. I'm not sure what exact number you are using for this bullet, but I have no problem lasting most of the match, yet rarely have ammo left over unless I make a serious mistake. This really has nothing to do with the LRM build, as you could make the same argument for ballistic builds.
Every single alternative does it better. Yet not a single LRM boat can provide ECM coverage, so this is totally subjective to your goal.
Your energy hardpoints are very low. Very true. Using TAG requires a little more work, but otherwise means little to nothing in regards to the effectiveness of the build. In contrast to the Stalker, which has a slightly higher hardpoint, especially if you use the arm-points, which I don't think is a good idea when you can instead put your energy weapons there, the Atlas is able to keep TAG on opponents that are to the sides much easier, as you have side-to-side capabilities the Stalker does not. It's a compromise, but matters little to your effectiveness.
It doesn't have the tubes for it. This is the point of highest contention. If you believe that volley firing is the optimal way to fire your weapons, it is a valid point. If you have read about the explosion issue highlighted in the SRM threads, you would understand that explosions effect not only SRMs, but LRMs and even ballistics (per Karl, which was his reasoning for burst-fire being difficult to implement "well"). When you volley fire, especially with large tube counts, you are actually getting tons of missed hits due to the explosion issue. Even though you see everything explode and feel good about yourself, that huge explosion is doing significantly less damage than the same salvo would do chain-fired or from smaller tube counts. TL;DR small tube counts are actually better for your heat management as well as effective damage.
"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."
ECM is the single most important piece of equipment in the game currently. The two slots it takes up is equivalent to an ALRM5, yet you are saying that is not a worthwhile compromise?
Firstly, and in order:
Specious assumption that players who see you doing nothing but rain LRMs - and who can see what kind of ACs you have - are going to ignore the constant stream of missiles and go for your AC torso, presumably because they are stupid, is invalid. Your counter-point also does not even address the argument I made, and contains a a minor false assumption - any Atlas brawler with SRMs is actually carrying as much or MORE of their firepower on the missile side. Pinpoint damage is simply a priority because it can create more targetted weak spots and exploit them; this doesn't actually invalidate your point - it just highlights the inaccuracy of your reasoning.
The numbers I'm using are based on the demonstration mockup of the 1ML/TAG LRM boat atlas - like Dave Barry, I am not making that up. The only way I could make the build without an excessively large engine is with the massive expenditure of ammunition I described. You are correct in that I did not anticipate that someone would waste tonnage on excessive engine rating - kudos to you, but it doesn't really negate the point. You're still using tonnage for mobility that you don't really need (you're still not outrunning anyone) instead of firepower that could help you.
The fact that one variant of the Atlas can indeed mount ECM does not invalidate the fact that the offensive capabilities of all other alternatives are superior, which was the point being made. In fact, your claim that ECM trumps all those independently quantifiable factors is subjective, not my point.
So the fact that using TAG requires you to expose large parts of your 'mech to enemy fire isn't a drawback, but a "compromise?" Er, no. It's still a drawback.
Interesting that your point of highest contention is the point I valued as least vital, and thus decided to list last. You're also offering a personal opinion that the increase in damage you expect (wrongly; I'll get to that) is enough to offset the loss of damage from increased exposure to AMS and targets being more able to seek cover before your full volley arrives. Further, your objection revolves around a bug that no longer existed by the time you wrote your first response - so kindly spare me the condescending accusation of ignorance.
As for the final paragraph, I haven't said that ECM isn't worth taking, nor can it reasonably be inferred from my statements. What I have said is that even having ECM on the Atlas D-DC isn't enough to make it a superior alternative to other missile platforms, because of the drawback of having to stick that ECM in a certain torso - interfering with your primary objective of boating missiles.
Every single objection you have raised here misses the point, relies on false information, or misconstrues my argument.
Spoiler
Quote
"Atlas missile boats, unless they isolate themselves, are frequently among the last to die - but 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."
Isolating from the group is the easiest way to die quickly, and also makes your ECM equipment the least effective possible, so this is a tactical issue, not build. When used correctly, your DDC missile boat should be just behind the main push, giving ECM coverage until the main force engages and then staying 200-500m behind the group for maximum use of your payload. It also allows you to move in and out to provide ECM coverage for your allies against the enemies' LRM assets as needed.
The goal of an effective team is to deal as much damage as possible while taking as little damage as possible. An Atlas taking damage is not helping the team anymore than any other mech taking damage. Allowing the enemy to focus their damage on your mech, even in brawling configurations, is going to end quickly regardless of what that mech is.
"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."
In several of your posts you have said that having LRMs is fine, but not to boat them. You have told people that having 20-30 LRMs is fine, but 35 is the maximum you can equip, so what is the difference? Backup weapons, possibly. If that is the case, you are boating LRMs, so the most effective LRM boats (Stalkers) only have 4 MLs, which is not much different and actually impossible on a DDC.
Your whole diatribe in the first two paragraphs here is based on one phrase, which I added to exclude demonstrably stupid tactics from my analysis. Nothing in it addresses the actual point being made, which is sadly par for the course with you.
This last bit is just rather sad. It's a fallacy of the undistributed middle: Having 20-30 launchers in a balanced build is fine; missile boats have about 30 launchers. Therefore, there is no difference between missile boats and a balanced build with 20-30 launchers. This is not even a coherent thought. You're assuming a step in logic to the effect that "the number of missile tubes is the only thing that makes a boat a missile boat," which is patently incorrect.
Spoiler
Quote
Empirical evidence, for that matter, is "verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic". What that means is empirical evidence is basically opinion. It is how you FEEL it works from past experiences. It isn't based on data (pure logic). Data is that great elusive thing where you show STATS that prove how effective something is, such as a series of high scores and damage that leads to a win...
Now that you have seen the pure logic evidence, you also have empirical knowledge because you have observed my results. Care to show yours to dispute my evidence?
Empirical evidence is not opinion, and you should not abuse words that way. Opinion is "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." You're committing the fallacy of equivocation here - taking "experience" to mean something other than what it does, particularly in the context I've used it in this thread. As you should be aware, the first rule of hermeneutics is, "no word has a meaning outside of context." You are arguing that the distinction I have drawn between the independently verifiable characteristics of the 'mech and your personal, non-representative results with that build somehow does not exist - because of a definition you got by typing the word into Google search. This is not even remotely valid. It is however, a deliberate attempt to play games with semantics in order to win by subversion what you have lost by merit - namely, an argument.
To be clear, I don't think you're deliberately committing most of these fallacies and errors - I think you just lack the philosophical training to engage in the kind of reasoning you're attempting here. The Undistributed Middle is a common error of amateur reasoners, for example. When you start with the assumption that since your view is (of course!) correct, then it can seem obvious that your opponent must have made grevious errors in logic or research in order to disagree with you. You set out to find them, bias confirmation sets in, and bam! You embarras yourself. I've done it myself, and it's always something you have to guard against - the question here is, will you learn from it? A word to the wise is sufficient...
When someone keeps insisting they are involved you either completely ignore them...
Or work them in.
Cimarb's insistence on heckling the subject whenever someone offers feedback on the OP is why we really have to keep dealing with his position. Laser points out that Cimarb has agreed with my reasoning and openly stated that it was how my position was phrased that induced him to endlessly offer objections for pages on end - and he has a point. But as long as Cimarb keeps on attacking, I have to defend myself, or give some poor newbie the idea that Cimarb has won the argument. In reality, Cimarb has yet to win a single point, but he's kept on repeating himself. It's called argumentum ad nauseum - simply harping on something until your opponent gets sick of it and goes away.
Cimarb's insistence on heckling the subject whenever someone offers feedback on the OP is why we really have to keep dealing with his position. Laser points out that Cimarb has agreed with my reasoning and openly stated that it was how my position was phrased that induced him to endlessly offer objections for pages on end - and he has a point. But as long as Cimarb keeps on attacking, I have to defend myself, or give some poor newbie the idea that Cimarb has won the argument. In reality, Cimarb has yet to win a single point, but he's kept on repeating himself. It's called argumentum ad nauseum - simply harping on something until your opponent gets sick of it and goes away.
Problem as I see it - is that while Cimarb agrees with you - he still feels somewhat picked on.
Rather like how I reacted to Victor's opinion on my CN9-A build (back at the peak of it's "zombie"hood)
While he agrees and sees your point (to a point at least) he really wants to make sure that that (brain-fart) exception to the rule (?) (terminology knowledge failing)
..... >.<
I hate it when I get started on something like that and my brain fails me (and that post before last was so good)
Point being (I hope?) made clear with the above comparison?
>.<
I can't really satisfy his emotional needs at the expense of the guide - I've already taken an enormous amount of time and effort conscientiously trying to explain why his reasoning fails. I've even granted that sure, some people can do well with a sub-par build, and that if it works for you, don't change it over something you read on the internet until it stops working.
The problem is, he doesn't want to the be exception that proves the rule; he wants the rule to be declared arbitrary. This is really a philosophical conflict between a worldview which holds that you are the final arbiter of the validity of your beliefs, and the worldview that believes in an actual reality that can be explored through reason - a battle between post-modernism, and the truth.
Cimarb's LRM DDC is in the same bucket as my 300XL, ALRM-25-and-ERPPC Thunderbolt 5S(P) – a weird ‘Mech that Joe Everyman would do poorly with (trust me, you’d blow with my Thunder Hammer), but which somehow clicks with him in a manner that cannot be readily explained or described. It works for him very well the same way my Thunder Hammer is one of my best ‘Mechs despite being a great raging schnitpile of fail as compared to the typical body of knowledge in the playerbase.
Here’s the problem – Guides cannot accommodate weird edge-case Player Customs. You can’t tell someone what their weird, only-works-for-them ‘Mech is – they have to find it themselves, and they can only really do that after they’ve gotten a good solid handle on how the game works and what they can/can’t do within it. The purpose of the Guides forum is to present solid, factual knowledge of what works for Joe Everyman, such that players can see what the conventional builds and strategies are, how they work, and in that way learn the Rules of the Game prior to figuring out how each individual player can, in their own way, break them.
They say that Picasso was a master conventional painter before he did the stuff he’s really famous for. He had to learn the rules of his craft before he could properly transcend them, and the same idea applies here. If guides aren’t written with Joe Everyman in mind as the target audience (whichever Joe Everyman applies for a given guide), then they’re worthless.
Everybody has to learn how to break the rules for themselves; the best we can do to help them is tell them what the rules are. CImarb does not seem to understand this, thus twenty-three pages of bullscheissen.
It is very likely that I am reading it weird (I have been in a rather odd state of mind lately)- but it seemed more to me that he was standing up more for those edge cases than outright bullscheissen as you termed it.
Which would be why I suggested he work on his own guide for it.
As far as feeding emotional states (and this may be going into me reading things weird lately) but from my reading at least, you two have been getting far more emotional about this than he has.
When you start with the assumption that since your view is (of course!) correct, then it can seem obvious that your opponent must have made grevious errors in logic or research in order to disagree with you. You set out to find them, bias confirmation sets in, and bam! You embarras yourself. I've done it myself...
Large words don't make you sound smart, they just make people tired of reading and agree out of exasperation. The snippet above is all you had to post.
Show me the STATISTICS and RESULTS that prove me wrong. Otherwise, you are just spouting opinion, and a very mistaken one at that from my perspective.
I realize that you and Laser feel I am assaulting you, but that is not the case and I feel the same way in return, especially since the two of you are tag-teaming me. Did you miss when I said these?
Cimarb, on 02 May 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:
Have a great vacation, and despite disagreeing with you, I do welcome the debate and your much more reasonable, if still a little irritated, responses.
Cimarb, on 30 April 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:
I appreciate trying to educate new players on optimum builds, but I have to disagree about this build because I find it very optimal for how I play.
It is very likely that I am reading it weird (I have been in a rather odd state of mind lately)- but it seemed more to me that he was standing up more for those edge cases than outright bullscheissen as you termed it.
Which would be why I suggested he work on his own guide for it.
As far as feeding emotional states (and this may be going into me reading things weird lately) but from my reading at least, you two have been getting far more emotional about this than he has.
The edge cases – the legitimate edge cases – don’t need standing up for. They know who they are, they know what they’re doing, and they know full well to ignore guides that tell them to stop. As Void and I both have said, many, many times.
As for emotional issues…yeah. One of my biggest failings as a debater is that I tend to get passionate about my positions in such a debate, and I also get very easily frustrated by what I perceive as deliberate obtuseness. These two traits combine to bring out the fire-and-brimstone in me, which helps less often than I wish it would. Especially when the solution seems so blindingly obvious to pretty much everyone else.
The edge cases – the legitimate edge cases – don’t need standing up for. They know who they are, they know what they’re doing, and they know full well to ignore guides that tell them to stop. As Void and I both have said, many, many times.
You. Would. Be. Surprised.
The amount of negative feedback I got for being an edge case very nearly drove me from the game - and I can take a comparative lot of that. (had practice most of my life)
As for the debate issue - you will notice that this is one of the only places I have tried to mediate?
As for emotional issues…yeah. One of my biggest failings as a debater is that I tend to get passionate about my positions in such a debate, and I also get very easily frustrated by what I perceive as deliberate obtuseness. These two traits combine to bring out the fire-and-brimstone in me, which helps less often than I wish it would.
I'm the same way. I try to temper it as much as I can, but it happens. I do apologize for letting your comments get to me and snapping back, for what it is worth.
Especially when the solution seems so blindingly obvious to pretty much everyone else.
Forgot to comment on this bit.
One of the biggest battles I have fought in my life has been this concept - yes it may be obvious to you, and obvious to the other people talking.
That doesn't cover "pretty much everyone else" by a large margin though.
For the record - I am still very much on your side of the fence, last time I dropped I had an LRM Atlas get upset that my Locust(!) was not willing to take the hits for him.
One of the biggest battles I have fought in my life has been this concept - yes it may be obvious to you, and obvious to the other people talking.
That doesn't cover "pretty much everyone else" by a large margin though.
For the record - I am still very much on your side of the fence, last time I dropped I had an LRM Atlas get upset that my Locust(!) was not willing to take the hits for him.
Heh…that last bit is the real kicker. I follow TiNaT and FtFA as much as I (reasonably) can when I’m out puggin’ it up, and I’m usually right there on the wing when my team’s Fatlases are ready to kick it on up over that hill. I may be a few hundred meters behind them in my Thunder Hammer, but you’d better believe I’m angling for a good field of fire on anything those Fatlases can see and doing my absolute damnedest to put up the best fire support for the frontliners I can. That 200-500m bucket Cimarb’s talking about is where Thunder Hammer lives when the battle is finally properly joined – and I’ve been known to swing in closer when things are going badly for a Fatbro somewhere and he needs some heat taken off him. What use are those colossal mutant gorilla arms on my Thunder Hammer if I don’t get them shot off in the name of victory?
(Side note: this is why the only arm-mounted weapon on ‘Hammer is its TAG. SCREW the LA ballistic slots. How people can load their primary weapons in arms even easier to shoot off than Catapult ears…@_@)
But I can’t do any of that if mah Fatbros are all six hundred meters behind me plugging LRMs from behind a cliff. I have more armor than the mediums, which often means I’m doing a lead-from-the-frontish sort of thing where I’m dancing just outside my LRM minimum range trying desperately to bait my team into springing forward and picking up the slack…but any time I need to do that, my fire support ‘Mech tends to not give as well as it gets and our team pays for the lack of frontline Fatbros. Sometimes I can squeak it out, go on a serious burn and pick up the early pressure advantage I need to convince my team to get stuck in, but most every time that happens I’m falling back from the front with an orange chest and more attention than I like.
It’s beyond frustrating, especially when you see nineteen tons of armor standing behind a cliff hucking missiles at bad targets. Heh, makes you wonder why you even bother playing sometimes.
It is very likely that I am reading it weird (I have been in a rather odd state of mind lately)- but it seemed more to me that he was standing up more for those edge cases than outright bullscheissen as you termed it.
Which would be why I suggested he work on his own guide for it.
As far as feeding emotional states (and this may be going into me reading things weird lately) but from my reading at least, you two have been getting far more emotional about this than he has.
As 1453 R said, the exception (or as you say, "Edge cases") don't need to be supported. They are the random factor in this equation that either results from chance or (the more likely scenario) results from someone who knows what they're doing and are intentionally pushing the boundaries of their 'mech.
I believe Void can agree with me when I say he is not trying to discourage the willingness to experiment, but what he is stating is that if a newbie atlas pilot decides to believe he can challenge conventional meta or tactical thinking as far as purposing an Atlas goes, he is in for a a world of hurt until he can acquire the experience and the knowledge to effectively push the tactical boundaries of his 'mech.
What Void was trying to separate (at the very beginning, I might add) was the difference between the exceptions and Joe Everyman. Joe Everyman is most likely not going to know how to effectively push the boundaries of his 'mech. Nor is he even going to know what the optimal builds for the Chassis are. Therefore, if Joe goes in guns (or in this case, missiles) blazing, he will get destroyed--mercilessly.
What the real shame is here is that Joe Everyman is most likely going to go with a missile-atlas because Cimarb made a long-winded appeal to emotion and gave the impression that he bravely went against the meta and excelled because of it. And now the newbie is going to think, "Well, if he can do that, I can do that to!" Not realizing that there are probably many factors involved in Cimarbs victories or expertise with his missile-boat atlas.
We're not bullying Cimarb here. That is not what our goal is. We are passionate about this, however, because we don't want to see Joe Everyman get destroyed. We don't want to see Joe Everyman complain about how the Atlas is "underpowered" just because his missile-boat was stomped. Nor do we want to see another exception (such as Cimarb) try to advertise or imply to brand new players that defying the "meta" in such a way with the Atlas chassis won't be a horribly painful, and arguably unnecessary, experience.
You don't have to go with a missile-boat Atlas right off the bat to be an experienced badass; an exception to the "meta." You can reduce that painful experience by playing your 'mech to its maximum technical capability.
But like Cimarb, I am growing more than tired of saying it.
(again)
Well... why? Their really is no short, or non-painful method of becoming an exception to a rule. Not to mention, defying chance can't exactly be taught unless you're teaching the player to be prepared... in that case, you would probably be telling that player to play his 'mech to it's maximum potential and not gimping himself by focusing on a single strategy or piece of equipment.
Kind of like what me, Void, 1453 R and other users on this thread are doing right now. lol
It is true that there is no short or non-painful method of become the exception.
However, not everyone chose to be so, or even wants to be so.
However - to treat them the way you treat the non-exceptions - HURTS.
As in - eventually driven to suicide type hurts.
And I am not joking or kidding about that.
I take some exception to your last sentence, as that is not what you are trying to do.
But if no one stands up for those exceptions.
Those exceptions cease to exist - and not because they are no longer exceptions.
Welcome to the very real world of intentional or otherwise cyber bullying.
As I stated before, as cold as our arguments may be, WE ARE NOT OUT TO BULLY ANYONE.
We are essentially URGING the newbies not to go out and kill themselves with builds that could only work if you are an exception to the rule.
The beautiful thing about exceptions is that, because exceptions are based almost entirely on chance, they crop up on their own!
Don't get me wrong, it's AWESOME when it happens, but we don't want every newbie that is seeking advice on this this forum to come on and automatically believe that they are the exception. Especially when they haven't even played the game that much.
You can't know you're good at something until you've tried it, sure, but you can only beat your head against a wall so much before you realize that doesn't work or that it doesn't work as well as as you thought!
But intentional or not - treating the exceptions like the non-exceptions CAN BE.
Thank you for missing the point - allow me to repeat it, with added emphasis:
Edit:
Once again - I am not arguing against your points - just the general methods.
Well, you're responding to me, so I can only assume that response was directed to me and other's who put up similar arguments.
Plus, I think you are mixing terms here...
There is a difference between bullying and public discourse; argumentation.
One attempts to insult or intentionally offend the opposite party by way of informal fallacy such as strawman making, ad hominem, and name-calling.
Public discourse (or argumentation) involving critical thinking attempts to push an ideal and oppose other opposing ideals by using reasonable analysis, evidence, and non-fallacious conclusion. I have not seen us (meaning me or the aforementioned individuals) use fallacious logic used in bullying. Sure, we were cold and passionate in that argumentation, but why should that be a reason to be offended?
And again, we were not discarding exceptions to rules. This argumentation is not directed toward exceptions. It is directed toward Joe "newbie" Everyman.
6
