624 replies to this topic

[Artillery Witch Viridia]

I would rather have a decently built DDC missile boat taking up an assault/any slot on my team. Compared to any locust, Commando, and all but one spider build. Having the ddc to cut down on locks while being able to retaliate good dmg is viable to team play especially when you are playing pug Russian roulette and get no ECM. Most ecm lights don't or shouldn't stick with the bulk of the force as they are not built for long range engagement with exception to the 2 erll/ppc builds. Let's put this in perspective in the meta environment anything other kind of ddc vs building a long range support ddc is an easy kill. Having atlases as the first chassis I mastered and played since closed beta I know their strengths and weaknesses. With poptarting, and lack of brawler support on your team, and how maps are played with terrain disadvantages the atlas chassis suffers pretty hard going up against shd/ctf/vtr/hgn. Even in my Jagers I don't often see atlas as a threat anymore unless they were able to flank into range and have the brawler setup. They are more a gorilla armed, low hardpoint damage sponge that takes one or two more shots than another mech. In fact due to their size and speed it's just a barely mobile target regardless of the engine rating. They would take 60-80 dmg to the ct before they can back down a hill just to fire one shot. TLDR if you have brawler atlas on your team instead of missile boats expect to get pummeled by poptarts unless your team is ready to brawls or push with them. Otherwise you stand no chance in anything other than a close range engagement under the most favorable of terrain circumstances. Very rarely do you see a magical pug alignment where the brawling dream is alive.

[Alaskan Nobody]

ReXspec, on 16 May 2014 - 06:18 PM, said:

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 (mean 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?

/thows head back

You are missing my point.

I do not know how much of it is my fault - I never have been very good at getting my points across.

My point was - that what Cimarb has been doing has been standing up so that those exceptions are not forgotten.
Treating him the way everyone has - like his point is meaningless - amounts to cyberbullying.

Not as bad of bullying as it could be - pretty sure Cimarb is tough enough for that - but it is what it is.

Do I agree with his points?
Only as exceptions to the rule.

Does that make his points moot?
Does that mean he should not keep posting?

Very much no.

I have been a natural exception to a great deal many rules my whole life - and it SUCKS.
It sucks HARD.

As an example - most stimulants do not stimulate me - I used to take caffeine pills to fall asleep at night.

Does that invalidate any of those rules?
Not in the least.
Being aware of those rules, and being aware of why I am an exception helps to define that rule - to explain why that rule exists though.

You tell most people that caffeine is a stimulant and they accept it - if you told most people that science has proven that this bottle labeled "magic potion" would actually help them, they would accept it.

However - knowing why that "magic potion" works requires a knowledge of those times it doesn't work.

Getting back on the topic of the LRM-Atlas, most of the people who have argued against this thread have argued against it because they read it as LRM on an Atlas.

Bringing up Cimarb's builds and methods of using them - has helped to define the OP - and bring up the real problem.

Ultimately, my point is that it is just as important to talk about the exceptions as it is to talk about the rules.
To tell the exceptions to not talk..... is to act like the author of the LRM usage thread who is no longer among us in the forums.

[ReXspec]

Azoic23, on 16 May 2014 - 06:20 PM, said:

I would rather have a decently built DDC missile boat taking up an assault/any slot on my team. Compared to any locust, Commando, and all but one spider build. Having the ddc to cut down on locks while being able to retaliate good dmg is viable to team play especially when you are playing pug Russian roulette and get no ECM. Most ecm lights don't or shouldn't stick with the bulk of the force as they are not built for long range engagement with exception to the 2 erll/ppc builds. Let's put this in perspective in the meta environment anything other kind of ddc vs building a long range support ddc is an easy kill. Having atlases as the first chassis I mastered and played since closed beta I know their strengths and weaknesses. With poptarting, and lack of brawler support on your team, and how maps are played with terrain disadvantages the atlas chassis suffers pretty hard going up against shd/ctf/vtr/hgn. Even in my Jagers I don't often see atlas as a threat anymore unless they were able to flank into range and have the brawler setup. They are more a gorilla armed, low hardpoint damage sponge that takes one or two more shots than another mech. In fact due to their size and speed it's just a barely mobile target regardless of the engine rating. They would take 60-80 dmg to the ct before they can back down a hill just to fire one shot. TLDR if you have brawler atlas on your team instead of missile boats expect to get pummeled by poptarts unless your team is ready to brawls or push with them. Otherwise you stand no chance in anything other than a close range engagement under the most favorable of terrain circumstances. Very rarely do you see a magical pug alignment where the brawling dream is alive.

Oh man... a lot of factors going into these specific cases.

Let's assume a pilot who runs a fully armed D-DC, and the pilot who runs a missile-boat D-DC are of similar skill. The pilot in the fully armed, hybrid Atlas is more effective then the missile D-DC already because he can put damage on the missile atlas faster. Not to mention the fully armed Atlas (depending on it's build) has the potential to simply put more damage on the opposing Atlas whose main weapons are simply LRMs.

In addition to this, you have to realize that if an Atlas is "not a threat" I imagine several factors came into that. One factor being his effective range, another being how the Atlas pilots the Chassis, and another being how he has armed the chassis.
Even against poptarts, there are strategies to counter said poptarts. And the strategy against a poptart IS NOT to go in guns blazing in an atlas. Effective strategies I've seen against poptarts usually come in three flavors: Stay in a defensive position and force the pop-tarter to come to you, nail the pop-tarter while he is popping with your devastating alpha, or give the poptarter too many targets to shoot at; push up with your entire team.

The Atlas is a very strong chassis. And even with a semi-coordinated team, can give most "meta" builds or chassis a run for their money.

Edited by ReXspec, 16 May 2014 - 06:49 PM.

[ApolloKaras]

This is arguably one of the more productive threads I've seen in a while guys

Lets keep it that way lol

Also side note, I'm nominating Shar Wolf for a Nobel Peace Prize.

[Alaskan Nobody]

ReXspec, on 16 May 2014 - 06:39 PM, said:

Oh man... a lot of factors going into these specific cases.
In addition to this, you have to realize that if an Atlas is "not a threat" I imagine several factors came into that.

Another potential factor is how the enemy perceives the Atlas
There is a discussion going on in General on whether the Banshee is in every "practical" way stronger - with a lot of support for the idea.

ReXspec, on 16 May 2014 - 06:39 PM, said:

The Atlas is a very strong chassis. And even with a semi-coordinated team, can give most "meta" builds or chassis a run for their money.

Oooooh yeah.

Saxie, on 16 May 2014 - 06:42 PM, said:

Also side note, I'm nominating Shar Wolf for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Phhhh, not by a long shot - I try, but I have a temper.

This has simply been one of those situations where I have felt close enough to both sides to want to try to mediate.

There is a reason you do not see me with a moderators tag.
(though I have had people ask if I was )

In other news - Facebook has been watching...

[ReXspec]

Shar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 06:29 PM, said:

/thows head back

You are missing my point.

I do not know how much of it is my fault - I never have been very good at getting my points across.

My point was - that what Cimarb has been doing has been standing up so that those exceptions are not forgotten.
Treating him the way everyone has - like his point is meaningless - amounts to cyberbullying.

Not as bad of bullying as it could be - pretty sure Cimarb is tough enough for that - but it is what it is.

Do I agree with his points?
Only as exceptions to the rule.

Does that make his points moot?
Does that mean he should not keep posting?

Very much no.

I have been a natural exception to a great deal many rules my whole life - and it SUCKS.
It sucks HARD.

As an example - most stimulants do not stimulate me - I used to take caffeine pills to fall asleep at night.

Does that invalidate any of those rules?
Not in the least.
Being aware of those rules, and being aware of why I am an exception helps to define that rule - to explain why that rule exists though.

You tell most people that caffeine is a stimulant and they accept it - if you told most people that science has proven that this bottle labeled "magic potion" would actually help them, they would accept it.

However - knowing why that "magic potion" works requires a knowledge of those times it doesn't work.

Getting back on the topic of the LRM-Atlas, most of the people who have argued against this thread have argued against it because they read it as LRM on an Atlas.

Bringing up Cimarb's builds and methods of using them - has helped to define the OP - and bring up the real problem.

Ultimately, my point is that it is just as important to talk about the exceptions as it is to talk about the rules.
To tell the exceptions to not talk..... is to act like the author of the LRM usage thread who is no longer among us in the forums.

Look, what we're looking for is relevancy here. We are simply NOT TALKING (or going to refer to exceptions) as the end-all, be-all of Joe Everyman. Though we will mention them and encourage people to push the limits of their abilities and their 'mechs abilties, we are talking about the guy, "Joe Everyman" who is most likely NOT going to be the exception. Who is struggling to grasp BASIC concepts. If Cimarb wants to advertise his success as an exception, that's fine, that's GREAT but a guide for newbies is not the right place to advocate exceptions.

We are advocating newbies here--that is the whole purpose of a guide. And it behooves the guide to mention that there ARE exceptions to rules, but again, advertising or sticking up for exceptions is not the place of a guide.

[Alaskan Nobody]

ReXspec, on 16 May 2014 - 06:47 PM, said:

Look, what we're looking for is relevancy here.

And discussing the exception to the rule we are discussing (and why it would be the exception...) is not relevant?
News to me.

[1453 R]

@Shar.

I don't expect someone trying to write an effective guide to how to get the most out of the TDR chassis to take into account the fact that one random screwball out there on the forums does better than should reasonably be expected with an XL-engine'd fire support version of the machine. Guides are written for Joe Everyman, not for random screwballs.

When I say that the edge cases don't need support, I do not mean that they need anti-support; i.e. being cut down, belittled, or actively bullied. I went through severe bullying myself, and I find it quite offensive that you're accusing me of it here. When I say that the edge cases don't need support, I mean that an edge case is generally his own support. I've been a Johnny/Spike my entire life - I play games like MWO specifically to become the edge case, or That Guy who managed to twist the meta build in a new and interesting direction, or to take the bad chassis and do things with it nobody figured it could do (one of the reasons I like my Thunder Hammer so much).

Rather than take offense that we're telling him and him personally to knock off what he does/likes (which we're totally not doing, and have been saying such for, like, twenty pages now), Cimarb should simply be taking pride in being that exception that proves the rule. He doesn't need super happy funtime kudos from the big mean nasty forum guys to do his job, do it well, and enjoy it, whereas us giving him those kudos dilutes and distorts the original purpose of the thread - which is to keep people who aren't exceptions to the rule OUT of terribad chassis they have no clue what they're doing with and which actively hurt their team when played in the manner such players ALWAYS play them in.

If Cim wants to put up a thread detailing his playstyle, his choices behind his configuration, and how/why he manages to win games in one of the worst rookie traps in the game, then sweetness. He can do that, and I'll leave it alone. Scout's honor. But Joe Everyman the Fresh MWO Player needs to know, unambigiously, that he has no chance whatsoever of replicating Cim's success. None. Even if he is one of those exceptions-to-the-rule in waiting, you have to KNOW THE RULES before you can effectively break them. You have to know the system, know how it works, and know why the weirdass thing you're doing works, know it back-to-front, with the background knowledge and experience that only time provides.

Joe Everyman fresh off his Cadet Bonus can't do that. He has no idea what he's doing, no idea why the things that work do, and no real idea what his playstyle even is. People steer Joe Everyman towards simple, widely applicable builds, or the conventional Standard Fits for a given chassis, because those are the choices that make the greatest amount of sense for the largest number of people. They're the things most likely to work for any given Joe Everyman.

Edge cases will eventually figure their own scheiss out and settle into their outlier playstyle son their own. They have to - nobody else is able to tell them how they do their thing. The best guide-writers can do is acknowledge that the edge cases are out there, and that they can/do break the rules, sometimes in ways that look to invalidate the rules...but that the rules are still there for a reason.

[ReXspec]

Shar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 06:45 PM, said:

In other news - Facebook has been watching...

What is "facebook" doing here? O.o

Shar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 06:49 PM, said:

And discussing the exception to the rule we are discussing (and why it would be the exception...) is not relevant?
News to me.

Again, there is a difference between informing people of something, and advocating or advertising something...

That said, I WILL NOT advocate or advertise exceptions to rules. Especially in a guide for newbies. That is liable to get people killed, or get them to ragequit.

However, that DOES NOT MEAN I will bully or belittle people who are exceptions.

Edited by ReXspec, 16 May 2014 - 06:59 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

1453 R, on 16 May 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

@Shar.

You are still missing the point.

It is as much about what the people you are talking to hear as it is what you say.

The problem we have been having for 20+ pages is that Cimarb - justified or not - is hearing people say his build is garbage.

Is that what you guys have been saying?
No......


And yes.

ReXspec, on 16 May 2014 - 06:55 PM, said:

That said, I WILL NOT advocate or advertise exceptions to rules. Especially in a guide for newbies. That is liable to get people killed, or get them to ragequit.

However, that DOES NOT MEAN I will bully or belittle people who are exceptions.

World of difference between advocating them...

And discussing them.

Just like there is a world of difference between Cimarb hearing us say his build is junk.


And us actually saying it.

[xXBagheeraXx]

5m is honestly the best assault class missile boat in game...in any configuration you can have at least 4 medium lasers, and tag with 2 lrm racks and 3 streaks, or 4lrm racks with narc, whatever suits your fancy. Ive seen battlemasters and highlanders boat them pretty well too but, they usually don't have as many support weapons, (especially the battlemasters) AND run xl engines, which i hardly ever do in assault mechs besides the victor.

This was probably going to be my second DDC, and the only one that I would mount lrms on.

[ReXspec]

Shar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

You are still missing the point.

It is as much about what the people you are talking to hear as it is what you say.

The problem we have been having for 20+ pages is that Cimarb - justified or not - is hearing people say his build is garbage.

Is that what you guys have been saying?
No......


And yes.




World of difference between advocating them...

And discussing them.

Just like there is a world of difference between Cimarb hearing us say his build is junk.


And us actually saying it.

Okay. Let me rectify that.

If you want me to split hairs and be obsessive compulsive about semantics, fine.

For a normal player (who is not an exception) the build is sub-optimal. Period. That is a fact it is "built into the numbers," (so to speak) and that is what we're trying to tell new players.

Exceptions to that rule are NOT "built into the numbers" of the Chassis. It is fine to try to be an exception yourself, but there are better ways of going about being a badass exception then building a missile Atlas right off the bat and assume that you'll kick ass with it and be able to advertise on guide threads (like this one) about how a sub-optimal build kicks ass for you.

[Alaskan Nobody]

ReXspec, on 16 May 2014 - 07:11 PM, said:

For a normal player (who is not an exception) the build is sub-optimal. Period. That is a fact it is "built into the numbers," (so to speak) and that is what we're trying to tell new players.

I did not believe I was splitting hairs on semantics - as that is one of those problems I keep actively coming across.

As for "Normal" players - I rather doubt that your definition quite fits
But that would be based on my "normal" added with all the people we have had arguing against us.
And thus has as much chance of being wrong as yours does.

As for trying to be the exception - I would not know how easy that would be any more than I would know how easy putting the UI for the game together is.
I never "tried" to be an exception - it either happened or it did not.

















/sigh
Ultimately - (I believe) part of the core problem is that a lot of new players come in - look at the LRM (those that notice how to use them anyways) and assume it is an easy mode.

Add to that a very real tendency in humanity to assume "Bigger is Better!" and we get the LRM Atlas.

Add to that guides such as Victors - which encourage the kind of LRM boating that only helps a dedicated and coordinated team.....


Discussing how to use LRM with your Atlas becomes neither off topic nor semantics.

[ReXspec]

Shar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

I did not believe I was splitting hairs on semantics - as that is one of those problems I keep actively coming across.

As for "Normal" players - I rather doubt that your definition quite fits
But that would be based on my "normal" added with all the people we have had arguing against us.
And thus has as much chance of being wrong as yours does.

Oh my f*cking despair...

Goddamn MOTHERF*CKING, [redacted], [redacted], [redacted].

-takes a deep breath.-

Okay... I meant "normal" players as in players who don't fall within the demographic of "exceptions to rules."

For Christ sake, I JUST SPLIT HAIRS OVER TERMINOLOGY AND SEMANTICS JUST NOW! ><

Shar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

As for trying to be the exception - I would not know how easy that would be any more than I would know how easy putting the UI for the game together is.
I never "tried" to be an exception - it either happened or it did not.

Well, you could start by rolling with a completely absurd build and see if you kick ass with it. That will let you know if your an "exception" to the "meta" REAL quick. :|

Shar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

/sigh
Ultimately - (I believe) part of the core problem is that a lot of new players come in - look at the LRM (those that notice how to use them anyways) and assume it is an easy mode.

Add to that a very real tendency in humanity to assume "Bigger is Better!" and we get the LRM Atlas.

Add to that guides such as Victors - which encourage the kind of LRM boating that only helps a dedicated and coordinated team.....


Discussing how to use LRM with your Atlas becomes neither off topic nor semantics.

Apart from nearly derailing my point, you have a point yourself and are correct.

Edited by ReXspec, 16 May 2014 - 07:35 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

ReXspec, on 16 May 2014 - 07:31 PM, said:

Apart from nearly derailing my point, you have a point yourself and are correct.

If it is any help - several times I felt like that GiF myself - I knew we were not on the same page - but was not sure where we had lost eachother (told you I was not much good at this )

As for rolling in absurd builds....I have lost most of them, but I still have a few saved on Smurfy
(armor and ammo allocation is not precise - but those are some mechs I regularly score near the top of my team in)
(case in point - I have never been outscored by another medium in that Grid Iron)
As I said - I never really had to try to not fit in.


Getting back on topic though.
Those normal players do not always benefit from just being handed what works
They may not have the patience or interest in those exceptions, but at that point they are shooting themselves in the foot.
As an example - WoW is a lot more theorycraftable than MWO - during WoTLK I ran an Affliction Warlock during what few raids I managed to sneak into.
At that point - sheer math was as much against the Affliction warlock as the AC/5 is to the AC/2.
Everything the Aff-lock could do - an equally skilled Destruction Warlock could do better.
My raid did not complain though - because I knew the timing for Affliction, and regularly outscored the Destro locks in the raids. (a point I am rather proud of - while being aware that it is as much or more a mark against the other warlocks)
I was in fact - one of the top ranked players in every raid I dropped in (didn't raid regularly due to my Jonah status)

Sitting down with one of them and discussing why my warlock kept outscoring him helped him raised his stats.
Pissed off the other warlocks (there were ~4 of us total) but they were not willing to learn why I kept outscoring them - Destro was mathematically stronger, and so that is what they stuck with.

When possible I feel that we need to drag some of those people outside their comfort zones to learn how to maximize what they are doing - that does not necessarily mean to hand them a meta or overly non-meta build - just to actually talk about why it works.

Sometimes you need to bring up those exceptions (as Cimarb has been doing) other times, it would be a distraction.

Unfortunately, we do not always (in fact rarely) have access to the ways the people we are trying to help learn. (case in point - me and you are only starting to crack the surface on each others precise perspective on all of this)

Which means we need to not throw out those exceptions (however much we may want to) as even those "normal players" have a need to understand them ....


Should they wish to improve.

Edit:

I had a 'smart' comment about the bit I left quoted that I was going to end with - and by the time my rambling got to the end (and rambling it very much was there for a while) I had forgotten it.

Edited by Shar Wolf, 16 May 2014 - 07:48 PM.

[Geeks On Hugs]

An Atlas missle boat? You haven't got the tubes!

[Alaskan Nobody]

Geeks On Hugs, on 16 May 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:

An Atlas missle boat? You haven't got the tubes!

Lower tube count can be advantageous - especially if there is little to no AMS on the other side.

[ReXspec]

Geeks On Hugs, on 16 May 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:

An Atlas missle boat? You haven't got the tubes!

That is one of the MANY issues with Atlas missile boats...

[ReXspec]

Shar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

If it is any help - several times I felt like that GiF myself - I knew we were not on the same page - but was not sure where we had lost eachother (told you I was not much good at this )

As for rolling in absurd builds....I have lost most of them, but I still have a few saved on Smurfy
(armor and ammo allocation is not precise - but those are some mechs I regularly score near the top of my team in)
(case in point - I have never been outscored by another medium in that Grid Iron)
As I said - I never really had to try to not fit in.


Getting back on topic though.
Those normal players do not always benefit from just being handed what works
They may not have the patience or interest in those exceptions, but at that point they are shooting themselves in the foot.
As an example - WoW is a lot more theorycraftable than MWO - during WoTLK I ran an Affliction Warlock during what few raids I managed to sneak into.
At that point - sheer math was as much against the Affliction warlock as the AC/5 is to the AC/2.
Everything the Aff-lock could do - an equally skilled Destruction Warlock could do better.
My raid did not complain though - because I knew the timing for Affliction, and regularly outscored the Destro locks in the raids. (a point I am rather proud of - while being aware that it is as much or more a mark against the other warlocks)
I was in fact - one of the top ranked players in every raid I dropped in (didn't raid regularly due to my Jonah status)

Sitting down with one of them and discussing why my warlock kept outscoring him helped him raised his stats.
Pissed off the other warlocks (there were ~4 of us total) but they were not willing to learn why I kept outscoring them - Destro was mathematically stronger, and so that is what they stuck with.

When possible I feel that we need to drag some of those people outside their comfort zones to learn how to maximize what they are doing - that does not necessarily mean to hand them a meta or overly non-meta build - just to actually talk about why it works.

Sometimes you need to bring up those exceptions (as Cimarb has been doing) other times, it would be a distraction.

Unfortunately, we do not always (in fact rarely) have access to the ways the people we are trying to help learn. (case in point - me and you are only starting to crack the surface on each others precise perspective on all of this)

Which means we need to not throw out those exceptions (however much we may want to) as even those "normal players" have a need to understand them ....


Should they wish to improve.

Edit:

I had a 'smart' comment about the bit I left quoted that I was going to end with - and by the time my rambling got to the end (and rambling it very much was there for a while) I had forgotten it.

Dem builds... no those aren't absurd builds. I'm talking about absurd builds like a Raven that uses an LRM 20 on it's single missile silo. Basically builds that fall well outside the mech's design parameters (much like a missile boat atlas does). Use builds like that, and then tell me if you are a badass with those builds. Then I think it would be safe to say you are an exception to the "meta."

And again, it is a question of relevancy. Exceptions should not be paraded or advertised. Informing new players of exception can be valuable, but to an extent. A guide should not simply give a newbie hope on becoming an exceptional badass, but needs to give steps on how to get to that point.

To say, "Well, I used <x absurd build> and it worked!" adds nothing to a guide. At the very most, it lets newbie's know it IS possible, but it gives them no information on how that build was effective, and why other builds are simply more effective.

Edited by ReXspec, 16 May 2014 - 08:43 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

ReXspec, on 16 May 2014 - 08:35 PM, said:

To say, "Well, I used <x absurd build> and it worked!" adds nothing to a guide. At the very most, it lets newbie's know it IS possible, but it gives them no information on how that build was effective, and why other builds are simply more effective.

That was my point - you cannot say "I used <x meta build> and it worked" anymore than you can say "I used <x absurd build> and it worked" and for the same reasons.

You have to explain why it works - which sometimes (and in my experience frequently) requires bringing up builds that many would consider absurd
(you may have not considered mine absurd - but I generally receive feedback on them similar to what you have been giving Cimarb)

But as you said - it is (in part) a question of relevancy.

The full question aught to be - "What is relevant and why?"

To which I hold that Cimarbs builds are relevant -as they show that exception to the rule - in part because of how he uses them.

The sheer math of LRM deal X damage alpha, and Y DPS is only half the story.

Example - the Hunchback - yes that hunch is a tempting target - but the oil barrel on the other side is a much more vulnerable one (especially if they are mounting an XL)
Even if the Hunch is the greater target - it is easier to armor than any other medium's side torso in the game - making it - by default, the toughest side torso of any medium in the game - even over the (Meta!!11!) Shadowhawk.



TLDR: Builds like Cimarbs are very relevant, if they help explain why something does or does not work.