Jump to content

Dear Atlas Missile Boats:

Plea

624 replies to this topic

#521 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,064 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 16 May 2014 - 09:27 PM

View PostCimarb, on 16 May 2014 - 03:52 PM, said:

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?

I don't know; did you miss the part where I pointed out that I'm not Laser? I've never dropped with him; I don't know what guild - if any - he's in; I have no contact with him outside the forums - and I've interceded on your behalf to keep the debate under control several times. What did you think "/facepalm, end of post" meant? No one is persecuting you for your convictions here - but that same martyr complex seems to make you both unable to let go, and unwilling to acknowledge points against you. Even when you tried to engage in argument, you ended up without one single valid point. For the sake of edification, "valid" does not mean "argument I agree with," it means "valid" - your attempts all committed logical errors and failed to address the points they were directed against. You responded with yet another insulting accusation - and an argumentum ad nauseum fallacy.

In fact, your arguments have become tiresomely... cyclical:
  • State your position and insist that your individual results invalidate the general case.
  • Dismiss opposing arguments and claims as irrelevant, because of your individual results - even though the opposing arguments deal with why your individual results do not trump the general case.
  • Declare that their position is "only an opinion," and insist that others must now convince you that your opinion is wrong in order to have a valid argument - a neat trick given that you've been systematically dismissing opposing arguments this entire time.
  • Insert claim that you're being "tag teamed," "attacked," etc. as desired; return to step one.
The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim, not the one who questions it. I've given you the proof of my claims; I've given the bullet points listed in the OP, which you failed to refute; I've given you illustrations of what I'm talking about, and you ignored those, too. I've already conceded that a sufficiently talented pilot can make an Atlas LRM boat work; I've conceded that you're a unique and special snowflake and that the guide doesn't apply to you as long as you (or anyone else) do well with your build. But that's not good enough; and the only concession left is to agree with your position that this is "not a real guide," and that the build isn't weak at all, it's just the pilots.



Now, Shar, I find myself troubled by your accusation of "cyberbullying."

Bullying, cyber or otherwise is the new compassionate social activist fad - and like PTSD, it's well and truly started to be overdiagnosed. Bullying really does happen, and should be curbed, but the emphasis on classifying the misbehavior is looking at the problem from entirely the wrong direction. We should be paying attention to how children should be treating others, not criminalizing/penalizing certain behaviors that are used to make others feel bad. The difference is that the former method focuses on a positive standard of behavior, while the second focuses on identifying behaviors that are deemed hurtful - the latter is far more abusable than the former, since the negative definition would logically encompass anything that might possibly hurt someone's feelings.

I don't think you understand what you're unleashing here - if someone feels bad because they're disagreed with, or because a guide was written that told them not to do something they're doing, or because the people that disagree outnumber them; and they then get to claim protection and consideration because they feel bad and that's hurtful... you have handed them the keys to all discourse. To borrow and paraphrase from one of my favorite authors, it seems very merciful to say that no one should ever have their feelings hurt or feel marginalized. Until you see what lies behind it: the demand that those with hurt feelings should be allowed to blackmail the universe; that until they shall consent to be comforted - on their terms - no one else can have an opinion; that theirs should be the final power - that misery should be able to veto truth.

People should always engage in argument politely - "passion" is no excuse - but there is a vitally important distinction between following the rules of public discourse and condoning an argument from pity.

#522 1453 R

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 5,578 posts

Posted 16 May 2014 - 10:17 PM

View PostReXspec, on 16 May 2014 - 08:35 PM, said:

And again, it is a question of relevancy. Exceptions should not be paraded or advertised.


Caveat: Exceptions should be paraded and celebrated in threads specifically talking about the exception. There's definitely room for being excited and sharing your success stories, but that needs to be what the primary focus of the thread is. Threads like this, trying to warn players away from an extremely problematical playstyle that requires specific knowledge, experience, and most importantly the ability to actively and consciously recognize certain behavioral trends in game and repeatedly, consistently buck them in order to not be actively harmful to a team's chances of victory...those aren't the place to try and assert one's creativity and individuality.

Joe Everyman cannot pilot an LRM Atlas effectively, and Joe Everyman's who we're talking to in this one.

EDIT:

View PostVoid Angel, on 16 May 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

I don't know; did you miss the part where I pointed out that I'm not Laser? I've never dropped with him; I don't know what guild - if any - he's in; I have no contact with him outside the forums - and I've interceded on your behalf to keep the debate under control several times. What did you think "/facepalm, end of post" meant?


Just to point this out, since it sorta snuck up on me:
-No team/guild/unit - heh, nobody likes me enough to invite me.
-This includes Void, who has indicated on a few occasions now that I should mebbe take myself off somewhere else for a while.
-Frankly, I don't even think he likes me much. Not that I've given him reason to, really.

My opinions and arguments are mine. Blame me for them, not anyone else.

Edited by 1453 R, 16 May 2014 - 10:25 PM.


#523 ReXspec

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 502 posts
  • LocationOrem, Utah

Posted 16 May 2014 - 11:35 PM

View PostShar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 08:46 PM, said:


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


Yeah but when you include an Atlas pilot who is as skilled as Cimarb, and who is running an Atlas that takes full advantage of the Atlases technical and tactical capabilities, then the relevance or tactical advantage the LRM Atlas has run's face first into a metal wall and gets crushed.

In other words, you run into the issue of Cimarb's build being simply outclassed or sub-optimal by the rival atlas 'mech. That is the point Void was trying to make without being a bully.

Edited by ReXspec, 16 May 2014 - 11:38 PM.


#524 ReXspec

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 502 posts
  • LocationOrem, Utah

Posted 16 May 2014 - 11:57 PM

View Post1453 R, on 16 May 2014 - 10:17 PM, said:


Caveat: Exceptions should be paraded and celebrated in threads specifically talking about the exception. There's definitely room for being excited and sharing your success stories, but that needs to be what the primary focus of the thread is. Threads like this, trying to warn players away from an extremely problematical playstyle that requires specific knowledge, experience, and most importantly the ability to actively and consciously recognize certain behavioral trends in game and repeatedly, consistently buck them in order to not be actively harmful to a team's chances of victory...those aren't the place to try and assert one's creativity and individuality.

Joe Everyman cannot pilot an LRM Atlas effectively, and Joe Everyman's who we're talking to in this one.


OMG I love you. ;.;

You've basically reiterated my point (though in a "nutshell" sort of manner).

Although, I think, at this point such a point is falling on deaf ears... errr... blind eyes... in the case of certain people...

I really, REALLY don't want newbies to come in here and choose an LRM atlas because of an appeal to emotion. ><

Seriously, there has been so much data and analysis that proves that particular configuration is sub-optimal. It's overwhelming!

Edited by ReXspec, 17 May 2014 - 12:04 AM.


#525 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 17 May 2014 - 08:11 AM

View Post1453 R, on 16 May 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

@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.


Someone called for my 'Bolt TDR-5S From The Blue?

....oh dear, things have gotten quite out of hand around here, haven't they? Goodness, be preoccupied for a day or so and come back to find- where has this thread even led everyone? This almost looks like the work of the Stanley Parable Adventure Line.

View Post1453 R, on 16 May 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

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.

(Snipped to avoid overlong post.)

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.


While it seems to me like Laser's slipping into hyperbole at points here, he does have a valid argument. You can make a similar case for virtually every situation where there's a 'standard' way of doing things; in steamfitting, where you're building power plants and factories and even things up to transcontinental pipelines (just to pull an example from the aether), there are a lot of standard ways of doing things like fastening pipes together that are carrying deadly chemicals.

These are the methods because they work all the time every time to the point that people don't get killed by chemical leaks.

Could some people do better with different methods? Sure. Would they be encouraged to do that? No. Is that right? YES. Because prompting people to try risky things results in risk, and risk in that sort of situation gets people killed far, far more often than it results in success.

This is, of course, a different situation. Nobody is actually physically dying (or mentally dying; no rutabegas here!) just because they tried an oddball method of play. But they are creating worse games for themselves, a worse experience if they don't acknowledge that they're doing something that is unlikely to work out well, and a worse play experience for the other eleven people on their side of the match.

I think the key point Cimarb is trying to make here- on the basis of a tiny but important part of the original post- is one that has already been acknowledged by the 'other side' of the argument: there are methods of play that actually result in a functional, highly contributing missile boat Atlas. The problem is twofold. I'll get back to this in a minute.

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

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.


And this is a huge contributing element. In fact, I would go as far as to say that this issue is not restricted to new players. I am a part of the Skye Rangers- I have dropped with people who've been playing since the beginning of the Closed Beta. And I am afraid I have to admit, honestly, that there is at least one pilot (probably more) in the Rangers who refuses to use LRMs because they are 'easy mode', gets absolutely hacked off at LRM-boating enemy pilots because they're playing 'easy mode', and is running around with at least one Founders 'mech.

Unfortunately, that particular point has been belabored fruitlessly; nobody who thinks that LRMs are 'easy' weapons seems willing to concede that they are not just the easiest 'homing' 'fire-and-forget' weapons in the game, regardless of how much is made of the arguments about it. So I'm going to leave that part of it alone for now and just say this:

A significant number of people are of the opinion that LRMs are an extremely easy weapon to use effectively, and this contributes to the frequency of things like LRM-boat Atlases and CPLT-C4s with one medium laser, one tag, and two ALRM-20s (among other stuff I've seen). While that is not necessarily a bad thing, a predominance of the pilots using these 'mechs are not very good at using them.

View PostVoid Angel, on 16 May 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

Now, Shar, I find myself troubled by your accusation of "cyberbullying."

Bullying, cyber or otherwise is the new compassionate social activist fad - and like PTSD, it's well and truly started to be overdiagnosed. Bullying really does happen, and should be curbed, but the emphasis on classifying the misbehavior is looking at the problem from entirely the wrong direction. We should be paying attention to how children should be treating others, not criminalizing/penalizing certain behaviors that are used to make others feel bad. The difference is that the former method focuses on a positive standard of behavior, while the second focuses on identifying behaviors that are deemed hurtful - the latter is far more abusable than the former, since the negative definition would logically encompass anything that might possibly hurt someone's feelings.

I don't think you understand what you're unleashing here - if someone feels bad because they're disagreed with, or because a guide was written that told them not to do something they're doing, or because the people that disagree outnumber them; and they then get to claim protection and consideration because they feel bad and that's hurtful... you have handed them the keys to all discourse. To borrow and paraphrase from one of my favorite authors, it seems very merciful to say that no one should ever have their feelings hurt or feel marginalized. Until you see what lies behind it: the demand that those with hurt feelings should be allowed to blackmail the universe; that until they shall consent to be comforted - on their terms - no one else can have an opinion; that theirs should be the final power - that misery should be able to veto truth.

People should always engage in argument politely - "passion" is no excuse - but there is a vitally important distinction between following the rules of public discourse and condoning an argument from pity.


Frankly, I consider the fact that 'cyberbullying' (Really? A separate entire classification because it's online? What is that? What even is that? Bullying is bullying, we don't need to tack on prefixes. Holy cow.) has even been brought up to be a detriment to the topic as a whole.

This topic has been getting out of hand in a number of ways for quite a while now (one instance I personally derailed pseudo-incidentally), but at no point has anyone actually been engaged in bullying that I can detect. Admittedly, it's possible that the people conversing here have been following each other to other topics and heckling each other about this one, or engaging in attempts to force one another into negative situations (and how can you even do that, this is an internet), and if anyone's gotten at all close to doing so, it's Cimarb, who refuses to concede the point (please note that I am not saying he should or should not, that is not my goal or intent with this paragraph- only that he hasn't) that the guide is meant for 'Stan McAverage Mechpilot' and not to tell 'Leonard Reallygood Missiler' (see what I did there?) to stop doing the thing that he's actually remarkably good at. This is because the topic was not started by Cimarb and Cim has repeatedly claimed to be done on the basis that 'the other side isn't any good and will never see the light' and has then returned to the topic to argue more.

There are places where that behavior- righteous or not- will get you banned for trolling (which, let's be honest, is a form of bullying), regardless of whether or not it actually is trolling in that particular instance.



All of that said, I was saying something about a twofold problem? Give me a moment here, I've lost track a bit.....


Right, okay.

The real problem here that has sparked and resparked the argument that occupies the majority of this thread is twofold.


First of all, the thread's title and the start of the original post are functionally a large-font blanket statement: Atlas missile boats are bad and should not be played. This is functionally misleading, because it is not actually what Void was trying to communicate. While I do not necessarily agree with Cimarb's belief that this requires constant, repeated railing against the idea that an Atlas DDC makes an inferior missile boat in the majority of situations (including the pilot as part of the situation), I do agree with the idea that the lead of this guide should be changed. Be it 'Atlas missile boats are not great builds', 'Most of you people driving this don't seem to know what you're doing', or 'Missiles in general are getting misused and because of the way the game displays numbers at the end of the match you don't even realize'- or even something completely else, I really think the opening statement should be less blankety.

Opening statements of an argument set the tone of the whole thing and establish the way that those observing and participating in the argument are going to receive what is said during the argument, and the current opening statement of this 'guide' (in quotes because I'm not sure this fits my personal definition of a guide, not because of mockery or anything else) sets an attacking tone. As a result, it is unlikely that anyone is going to let the opening post change their mind on something (the purported intent of this thread existing to begin with) because it is natural when attacked to defend oneself.

At the same time, though, that having been done wrong does not in any way invalidate what Void is trying to say or request, no matter how hard one argues to the contrary. The first problem is one of intent and the results of poorly chosen words (which is not bullying and I just don't even what).


The other fold of this is going to take some following me a moment here, but I'm sure I'm going somewhere useful. Unlike that ridiculous Adventure Line.

Cimarb succeeds and contributes considerably with his LRM-boat Atlas. (This is not a Truth, this is an assumption I'm making. I don't have the data to confirm this as a Truth, but I feel okay making this assumption for the moment, because it's not actually necessary to the final point.) This is cool and good for Cimarb, who should not feel bad about doing so. This is not cool and good for players who have not devised the 'mech building methods that suit their own natural actions and reactions mid-match, and then see someone like Cimarb doing a good job in an LRM-boat Atlas and go 'He's doing great, I should do that also because clearly it works.'

The reason this is not cool and good for these players is that for a considerable portion (likely a vast majority) of these players, they are not going to succeed and contribute considerably with an LRM-boat Atlas. Unfortunately, because of several elements (the way the game is constructed, the way the end-of-match scores are displayed, individual viewpoint, the fact that you have to be fairly good at something in order to be capable of recognizing whether or not you are actually good at it, and probably a few things I've forgotten or otherwise not noted), these pilots are not aware of how much of a boat anchor they're being. Even if they are aware that they're losing regularly, they are unlikely to have the right kind of self-consciousness to know when they're doing poorly or well and what they're doing wrong when they do something wrong- particularly because they're always going to see certain numbers.

The intent of this thread is to discourage these people from running Atlases as missile boats just because they saw someone else make it work, on the grounds that the Atlas chassis (in general, and the DDC in specific) is much better suited to either a more diversified weapons load, a different weapons load, or at least a missile load with more than just some emergency backup weapons, assuming that pilot variance is not a thing. This is true, because missile hardpoints, critical hit slot limitations, an Atlas' vast tonnage capacity, and the ability to distract enemies by soaking shots that they could have been putting into frailer allies are all things. (I will disagree vehemently on the tube-count thing, but that really belongs in a missile-use general topic, not in an Atlas-specific topic.)

Cimarb, however, for whatever reason, believes that he does well in his missile-boat Atlas. Please note that I am using the word 'believes' because Cimarb does believe this, not because it is untrue. It is entirely possible to believe in the truth. The important part of this statement is not whether or not Cimarb's belief is true, but rather that Cimarb holds this belief; because whether or not Cimarb is of a correct belief has nothing to do with the fact that Cimarb acted on this belief.

Now that I've clarified that: Cimarb believes that he does well in his missile-boat Atlas. He also believes that there are other people out there who could do just as well in missile-boat Atlases of their own. (This belief is in all likelihood correct supposing that there are enough people playing this game. I have no idea how many 'enough' is, but I consider it highly probable that 'enough' is considerably less than the number of people who play Mechwarrior Online.)

Because he holds this belief (as I was saying, the belief is the important part, not its accuracy) Cimarb has come here to indicate that it is possible to do well in a missile-boat Atlas. The problem here is that this advocacy should not be needed.

It should not be needed because, as is the point of the original post of this thread, just because you saw someone do it and it worked does not, in fact, mean that you can do it and make it work. However, that point keeps getting bypassed in arguments back and forth- arguments that are not flying against each other, but rather at right angles to each other!

One side is arguing that missile-boat Atlases can contribute significantly to a battle.

The other side is arguing that players should not be encouraged to specifically run missile-boat Atlases because there are builds the chassis is better suited to that are more likely to work for more players.

Neither side can convince the other that they are right because these arguments are not opposites so there is no ground to actually give.

Since neither side can win the tug of war they aren't actually having with each other, both sides are getting frustrated and trying to find ways to pull the other in their direction, both sides are getting emotional, both sides are resorting to stranger and stranger arguments (like the whole bullying thing), and both sides are eating up huge page counts basically yelling at each other to no actual purpose.



Given this, I would like to move that two things be done.

First of all, Void, please change the opening to your original post so that it is not phrased in an offensive (and by offensive I mean in the terms of an offense, i.e. an attack, not offensive 'I am offended by what you have said') manner, and be wary of such in the future; it will help you avoid playing tug-o-war with the wall off to the left of people who are trying to protect themselves.

Second, we should all try to be clear on the following: Just because anyone could and may do a thing does not mean everyone can and should do a thing, and recognizing this is very important to ensuring that you and the people around you have a good time (which is what we all play this game for anyway).

I think this would help immensely and maybe get things resolved so that the topic can be constructive.

Now that I've spent the first hour of my day on this, I'ma go have a shower and breakfast. Hopefully things will be calmer when I get back.

-QKD-CR0

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 17 May 2014 - 08:19 AM.


#526 Charons Little Helper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 824 posts
  • LocationRight behind you!

Posted 17 May 2014 - 08:15 AM

View Post1453 R, on 13 May 2014 - 03:04 PM, said:

And also the Timber Wolf has been robbed, having to carry those big ol' super-shootable LRM-20 racks on its shoulder when they're not really much more than LRM-5s with delusions of grandeur.


Except that they weigh about half as much as their IS counterparts and have a soft min range rather than 180m hard min.

#527 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,064 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 17 May 2014 - 08:41 AM

View PostQuickdraw Crobat, on 17 May 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

Far too many things to quote; use the linkback arrow, but it's a worthwhile read.


I fear you may be wrong on a certain point - which I shall not identify for the sake of not having to argue about it if it's no longer an issue.

However, your summary of my position is overall correct, and I thank you for the time it took you to write that post. At your suggestion, I've removed the header and appended a new section to the end of the guide.

Edited by Void Angel, 17 May 2014 - 09:22 AM.


#528 Alaskan Nobody

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 10,358 posts
  • LocationAlaska!

Posted 17 May 2014 - 08:17 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 16 May 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

Now, Shar, I find myself troubled by your accusation of "cyberbullying."

This is very much a case where I do not believe that any bullying was meant - and if you guys actually felt like you were bullying you would be greatly shamed.

Having said that though - the way the conversation was turning in regards to whether or not Cimarbs case should even be talked about was turning into bullying.

IE: "You have no place even talking here!"
Sure sounds like bullying to me.

View PostQuickdraw Crobat, on 17 May 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

(Really? A separate entire classification because it's online? What is that? What even is that? Bullying is bullying, we don't need to tack on prefixes. Holy cow.)

They added that tag because it gets treated different by everyone involved - including the bullies.

IE: while the results are the same - the practice is different.

Pardon for the brevity - those posts deserve more of a response.

However - I am wiped right now (spent the day scrubbing a quonset hut - really? that word isn't in their wordlist?) and that is about all I am up to giving. B) :)

#529 Alaskan Nobody

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 10,358 posts
  • LocationAlaska!

Posted 17 May 2014 - 08:25 PM

View PostReXspec, on 16 May 2014 - 11:35 PM, said:

In other words, you run into the issue of Cimarb's build being simply outclassed or sub-optimal by the rival atlas 'mech. That is the point Void was trying to make without being a bully.

Whether or not Cimarb's build is actually outclassed is part of the question though.

#530 ReXspec

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 502 posts
  • LocationOrem, Utah

Posted 17 May 2014 - 08:33 PM

View PostShar Wolf, on 17 May 2014 - 08:25 PM, said:

Whether or not Cimarb's build is actually outclassed is part of the question though.


Again, if you pit an exception, a pilot of similar skill against Cimarb he would probably be beaten (notwithstanding things that could potentially go wrong). And if Void's (and other users) numbers and analysis are to be believed, that is certainly the case.

#531 Alaskan Nobody

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 10,358 posts
  • LocationAlaska!

Posted 17 May 2014 - 08:38 PM

View PostReXspec, on 17 May 2014 - 08:33 PM, said:

And if Void's (and other users) numbers and analysis are to be believed, that is certainly the case.

....and yet - the only numbers Void has thrown up have had little to do with Cimarb's build.


Not to mention - that if the exception is actually an exception - then it is by definition - not automatically worse than the default option.
Thus! - will not automatically lose given equal skill.

THAT is why it is important to discuss the exceptions.

Understand yet?

#532 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,064 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 17 May 2014 - 10:35 PM

The numbers, game mechanics, and illustrations I've presented have applied directly to Cimarb's build - that's why he's unhappy with my post and refuses to acknowledge its actual right to exist.

Again, I have to point out to you that you are literally hovering on the precipice of madness. If telling someone they are wrong, and responding to their arguments on the matter, is "bullying," then the first person to feel sad owns the discussion. Every discussion - but only if they're losing. Only if their failure to adequately defend their position makes them feel bad. This is why I cringe every time the term "bullying" comes up - as defined by many of the people who use it, it becomes an unassailable tool for blackmail to shut down any discourse that tells someone their beliefs are wrong. You can't live that way - and no one should be asked to. That kind of thought control actually fits the "bullying" category, as Quickdraw pointed out.

This is a social space, but it is not a space for socializing - it's the guides section. Because it is an open forum, if I, Cimarb, or anyone else disagrees with a guide, they have the right to criticize it, within the forum rules for right conduct and the rules of public discourse and debate. I have kept both the forum code and the rules of polite debate - Cimarb has not. He has leveled baseless accusations, engaged in straw men, used fallacious logic, and engaged in personal attacks. I have not reciprocated on any of these levels, nor violated any of the rules, nor acted with malice of any kind - yet I'm an "accidental" cyberbully?

Again, if you adopt a a negative standard for my behavior based solely on someone else's feelings, you've handed the keys to all discourse to the unhappy. They feel bad about someone else's actions, so they get to shut down the conversation. Indeed, if Cimarb's case is an example, they get to have the debate conceded to them on the basis of their feelings - that's the only concession I have not yet made, and Cimarb continues to argue, so whether you've thought it through or not, that's what you're asking.

You're trying to exercise compassion, and that is commendable - but you've confused an appeal to pity in argument with the deliberate need for help. The vulnerable, fragile, and weak deserve compassion and understanding - but they do not have the right to blackmail the universe.

Edited by Void Angel, 23 May 2014 - 03:15 PM.


#533 ReXspec

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 502 posts
  • LocationOrem, Utah

Posted 17 May 2014 - 10:50 PM

View PostShar Wolf, on 17 May 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

....and yet - the only numbers Void has thrown up have had little to do with Cimarb's build.


Not to mention - that if the exception is actually an exception - then it is by definition - not automatically worse than the default option.
Thus! - will not automatically lose given equal skill.

THAT is why it is important to discuss the exceptions.

Understand yet?


Refer to Void's above comment.

His response is essentially mine.

Edited by ReXspec, 17 May 2014 - 10:50 PM.


#534 Cimarb

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,912 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationA hop, skip and jump from Terra

Posted 18 May 2014 - 02:55 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 17 May 2014 - 10:35 PM, said:

This is a social space, but it is not a space for socializing - it's the guides section. Because it is an open forum, if I, Cimarb, or anyone else disagrees with a guide, they have the right to criticize it, within the forum rules for right conduct and the rules of public discourse and debate. I have kept both the forum code and the rules of polite debate - Cimarb has not. He has leveled baseless accusations, engaged in straw men, used fallacious logic, and engaged in personal attacks. I have not reciprocated on any of these levels, nor violated any of the rules, nor acted with malice of any kind - yet I'm an "accidental" cyberbully?

Whoa whoa whoa. I haven't been responding to anything for quite a while now, and even liked your original post now that you have revised it, but I'm not about to let that accusation go unanswered. This is despite my name being thrown around in darn near EVERY post since I stopped responding.

I haven't violated any forum codes or rules of public debate, not a single personal attack or baseless accusation, not engaged in "straw men" anything. My logic has been just as sound as yours, if not more so, because I have actual statistics and PROOF that supports my side of the discussion.

I have also stood alone in this stance against several of you attacking almost everything I say, and have conceded on some of the points you have made where they are applicable - such as the Banshee advice you gave.

This post I just quoted above, though, is a direct attack on me with absolutely no provocation from myself.

#535 Gyrok

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 5,879 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationPeriphery of the Inner Sphere, moving toward the core worlds with each passing day.

Posted 18 May 2014 - 04:52 PM

Guys, I think we can all agree that MechWarrior Joe Q. Public should not be running an LRM boat Atlas for the sake of their team.

Do exceptions exist? Certainly, there are exceptions to every rule; however, we should be making it a very well noted point that these exceptions are FEW and far between. Otherwise you end up with every Joe Q Public player thinking he is a special snowflake that can run a DDC missile boat well because his best damage comes in that mech, and he is proud of his consistent 250 damage games with 0.5 KDR and 5 kill assists per game. When in reality, a DDC should be doing minimum 350, and that number is only that low because I am allowing for the "tank" Atlas pilots who only get 6-8 shots off before they have soaked 4 mechs worth of damage and drop for the good of the team...(I know some of those, by the way, they do still exist).

Now, the point being made by one person is that his mech build is viable because he thinks it is, and he performs well in it.

The point being made on the other side is, that may be so, but it still does not mean it should be encouraged for anyone and everyone running a DDC.

Can we all agree to that and let the post reflect the reality that FAR too many people are running Atlas missile boats, and FAR too few are playing the chassis in the role it was intended for...(carrying 19 tons of armor should speak to what it SHOULD be doing...I expect them to do the math one day...but then...they are turning them into missile boats are they not?)

#536 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,064 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 18 May 2014 - 10:12 PM

View PostCimarb, on 18 May 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

Whoa whoa whoa. I haven't been responding to anything for quite a while now, and even liked your original post now that you have revised it, but I'm not about to let that accusation go unanswered. This is despite my name being thrown around in darn near EVERY post since I stopped responding.

I haven't violated any forum codes or rules of public debate, not a single personal attack or baseless accusation, not engaged in "straw men" anything. My logic has been just as sound as yours, if not more so, because I have actual statistics and PROOF that supports my side of the discussion.

I have also stood alone in this stance against several of you attacking almost everything I say, and have conceded on some of the points you have made where they are applicable - such as the Banshee advice you gave.

This post I just quoted above, though, is a direct attack on me with absolutely no provocation from myself.

...
Pointing out your behavior is not a "direct attack with absolutely no provocation." Allow me to refresh your memory:
Spoiler

View PostCimarb, on 02 May 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

I probably am the exception - I have no problem with that. Really the only reason I am arguing the point is because it really irritates me when people think their opinions matter more than others and try to prevent others from playing the game the way they want to.


This isn't a lie; though you've just called me a liar - I haven't made this up, though your affronted dignity has been conjured out of whole cloth. Your method of defending your position has been to challenge my very right to believe that mine has merit - that if it is confronted by a mutually exclusive viewpoint, I do not have the right to hold, much less defend it. That limitation does not apply to yourself, apparently; you feel free to take every liberty of which I have accused you, and think it your due as the "injured party." If I accept this post-modern proposition, I lose more than a single debate on the internet; I lose the right to ever fight for anything I believe - to oppose any evil, to contend for any faith. You attempt to seize the moral high ground - claiming to be "standing alone," against the "attacks" of others - yet your defense is to deny my right to stand at all.

I will not sacrifice truth for the sake of pride - mine, or another's.

#537 1453 R

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 5,578 posts

Posted 19 May 2014 - 09:18 AM

View PostCimarb, on 18 May 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

I have also stood alone in this stance against several of you attacking almost everything I say, and have conceded on some of the points you have made where they are applicable - such as the Banshee advice you gave.


The number of people arguing for/against your stance has no bearing whatsoever on the content, correctness, or accuracy of that stance. This is also clearly an attempt to induce sympathy and make people who wrote/support the original post out to be big nasty bullies (see? There we go again!) picking on the scrappy underdog standing up for Truth and Righteousness. Or almost-universally bad Atlases. Badlases.

Anyways. I forget the technical name for Appeal to Popularity, but does it have an inverse stance, Void? I’ve never seen Appeal to Unpopularity as a debating stance before. Either way, it’s still fallacious.

#538 WardenWolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,684 posts
  • LocationTerra

Posted 19 May 2014 - 09:26 AM

I don't use it often anymore (I did far moreso before they forced ECM to the left torso), but I still like my Atlas missile boat in a well organized group (4-man). It has LRM20+15 (w/ Artemis), ECM, TAG, and 2 x AC5. That gives it a decent, low-heat punch alongside the LRMs, and I can pack plenty of ammo for both. It is the only missile boat that can have its own ECM, rather than depending on the team for that.

#539 Alaskan Nobody

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 10,358 posts
  • LocationAlaska!

Posted 19 May 2014 - 09:28 AM

View PostReXspec, on 17 May 2014 - 10:50 PM, said:


Refer to Void's above comment.

His response is essentially mine.

Thank you.

You win.

There is absolutely no point in discussing his builds or any like it.
There is no point in anyone asking if 2xALRM15 break the rule
There is no point in anyone asking if 3xLRM10 break the rule
There is no point in anyone asking anything about it - because you have successfully every variable that could possibly exist in relation to this topic, or any like it.

There is no point in adding anything to this thread - and thus the next step is to contact the Mods and have them lock it.

#540 1453 R

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 5,578 posts

Posted 19 May 2014 - 10:16 AM

View PostShar Wolf, on 19 May 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

Thank you.

You win.

There is absolutely no point in discussing his builds or any like it.
There is no point in anyone asking if 2xALRM15 break the rule
There is no point in anyone asking if 3xLRM10 break the rule
There is no point in anyone asking anything about it - because you have successfully every variable that could possibly exist in relation to this topic, or any like it.

There is no point in adding anything to this thread - and thus the next step is to contact the Mods and have them lock it.


Oiy. Don’t be like that, you know exactly what we’re talking about.

Asking clarification – “is my Atlas with 30ALRM and [Stuff] here okay?” is in no way bad or against the spirit of the thread. The one thing we’re trying to avoid is folks like Cimarb trumpeting “My ALRM35 Atlas with no secondary weapon systems gets 900 damage every match and single-handedly wins games!” from every soapbox they can find, because the number of people who can do that is enormously smaller than the people who are currently trying and failing to do that, and encouraging the nine hundred and ninety-nine derps that accompany every honest EttR in order to try and accommodate the EttR’s feelings is completely and utterly against the original intent of this thread. If we did that, Void may as well just have the entire damn thing deleted because it does nobody any good whatsoever.

I recall that it’s been mentioned several times that LRM launchers on an Atlas don’t invoke the Knock It Off response. I’ve even laid out a basic criteria for determining whether or not your Atlas counts as a boat without talking even once about tube counts – it has to do with what percentage of your Atlas’ firepower is in its tubes as opposed to the rest of its weaponry. We’re also all still here to answer actual questions and look over proposed configurations, but Cim needs to stop telling every rookie straight off their Cadet Bonuses that they, too, can be team-wiping game-winning ubermonsters in an Atlas with no secondary weapon systems whatsoever beneath its tubes. Because they totally can’t do that. You know it, I know it, Void knows it, QKD-CRO knows it, Paul knows it, Obama knows it, King Arthur knows it, and even Cimarb knows it.

He’s just not willing to admit it, for whatever bizarre reason.





20 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 20 guests, 0 anonymous users