624 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

SaltBeef, on 30 April 2014 - 02:58 AM, said:

I figured with anything that carries over 1000 missiles + artemis is a boat. A Hunchback with 2 lrm 10's and 1200 missiles is a boat. But the 1st thing is to get rid of all those missiles damaging the other team as much as possible with them so that I then can close with and destroy them through thier damaged weak spots. I rarely deploy a missile boat in any form that does not have at least 3 or 4 med laser to defend itself with if larger expect a punch weapon too. The catapult A1 ( C ) is a boat 900 missiles and streaks to back it up Love that mech!! Yes, I am gonna buy it! I have a Kintaro with 1 lrm 20 lots of LRMs and streaks for defense. It is still a boat. I still close and brawl in the end. The only boats i dont like are light mech missile boats ,....well I have never tried them with LRM's they could be fun. Laser boat... missile boat ... autocannon boat....Narc boat... we are all afloat. Luv this game.

Heh, no... My missile boat has over twice your missile loadout, and twice your throw weight. 3-4 medium lasers are insignificant to your damage output - 4 medium lasers and a heavy autocannon aren't. "Boat" is a specific terminology in MWO - it means any build that relies on a certain weapon for the vast majority of its damage.

So your kind of build isn't what this thread is about, nor is the Catapult missile boat you're planning to buy.

[Charons Little Helper]

Void Angel, on 30 April 2014 - 09:23 AM, said:

"Boat" is a specific terminology in MWO - it means any build that relies on a certain weapon for the vast majority of its damage.

As an example of that point - I have a Griffin LRM boat - LRM15/10/5 & tag, and literally no weapons. Does quite well. But it can fire them all in one blob - and with its speed it can avoid most mechs. (admittedly - light eat it - have to peel them off on my buddies)

[Void Angel]

Kyynele, on 30 April 2014 - 05:00 AM, said:

I'll have to say all this discussion of morals and responsibilities is IMO out of place.

Not building a mech as per someone else believes it would be optimal doesn't mean you're not playing your part. IMO, if you build your mech to a purpose and play it accordingly, you're playing your part. If one chooses a mech that is bad for the purpose but plays it well, is he really much if any worse than a person who builds a mech great for it's purpose but plays it poorly?

There's not much else to aim for in the game than killing enemies faster than they kill your own team. How you choose to accomplish that is none of my business. I'd expect that to work both ways.

And the sad fact is that you can't count on the PUG team. That doesn't mean that I don't play for the team, I do try to provide my team the opportunity to do the right things. If they do, I'm happy - if they don't, I just have to try and carry a bit harder. Or in some rare cases spectate how the wrong thing they do actually works better than what I'd done.

I've driven both LRM-boat D-DCs and full meta D-DCs, scored 1000+ damages in both. I mention this only because the only time anyone has bothered to badmouth my build in the ingame chat was in the AC/PPC meta-Atlas. I think that's somehow amusing.

There's room for differences of opinion, which is part of why I didn't argue against ever putting any LRMs on an Atlas.The Atlas can also, like most other chassis, fulfill multiple roles - but there are good ways to do that and bad ways. To give you an example, I've seen people use two ER Large Lasers and an LB-10X shotgun stack on their Atlas. They'd sit in the back of any and all engagements, actually chain firing the shotguns at people while spamming the ER larges. They apparently got high-damage games a lot... but they got it by spraying shotgun pellets from 600m out while literally pulling back to hide behind the mediums and heavies; they were not effective in combat, they were just spamming out ammo that they'd saved by ditching missile launchers. This is a bad way to play an Atlas - or any mech. I'm not trying to support role-pidgeonholing with this example, just demonstrating that there are optimal and suboptimal ways to play. The example player wasn't doing his part - but he was playing his Atlas exactly as he designed it to be played.

In order to find an optimal way to play, you have to acknowledge the capabilities and limitations of the equipment you're bringing to the table - this includes your 'mech chassis, but it also includes your weapons. The strengths of the Atlas are its toughness and ability to mount large weapon systems, as well as ECM in the D-DC. Its limitations are low weapon mounts, slow speed, limited hardpoints, and a large profile with arms that don't block fire too well. These strengths and weaknesses provide an empirical basis for discussing what an Atlas should or can or cannot be build to do effectively, which most people view as the Atlas' acceptable range of "roles." I'm less... rigid... in my thinking - I just think that you should play to the strengths of the chassis rather than its weaknesses. That's what this post is about. =)

The discussions of morality are unavoidable, however, when someone comes to a guides thread and tells us how he's under no obligation to play for the team unless someone is standing over him with a punishment stick, so we should all just shut up about that.

1453 R, on 30 April 2014 - 06:31 AM, said:

Seriously though, Void...why do your threads always attract this kind of garbage? It's like they completely miss the point of the 'Guides and Strategies' part of the G&S forum...

Because I present complex arguments on sensitive issues - which allows people who are not careful readers to misunderstand, and bad thinkers to be offended to the point I have to ignore them (rimshot!) I also refuse to let badly supported contrary opinions pollute my thread unopposed; I don't want the error to spread; I wrote the post to curtail it! The only way to avoid it completely would be to post only about unimportant things.

HellionOni, on 30 April 2014 - 09:15 AM, said:

I have been playing this game for 6 months and let me tell you, the LRM atlas is by far the best mech I have ever piloted. It is the mech I always go back to when I am frustrated with my heavies. I tried the DDC but I have found I prefer the D with it’s 4 energy slots. I think that the extra medium lasers make it more effective than ecm when those noob lights come buzzing around.

I always laugh when those idiots in alpha lance go running off to their deaths while I sit back and rain fiery death. By the time they are all dead, I am free to use my fully healthy mech to walk over weakened enemies. Void Angel just needs to man up and stop hugging the enemy mechs. Play cautious, play smart, and love the LRM atlas, don’t hate the player hate the game.

Er, come back when you've got more matches under your belt, and we'll talk again. =) You should take note that adding extra guns to your LRM boat Atlas made it more effective to the point that you ditched ECM in their favor. You should also take note of your archived stats - the ones you're citing include the NARCpocalypse. LRMs were lackluster for so long that not only had people forgotten how to use them, they'd mostly pulled AMS off their 'mechs.

Edited by Void Angel, 30 April 2014 - 02:09 PM.

[Dauphni]

I see a lot of people describing the Atlas as a ‘tank’. It isn't. It's just as squishy as any other Mech. Yes, you're a hundred tons and you have more points of armour than anyone else, but that doesn't mean your job is to soak damage. Any Mech will melt very quickly under sustained fire. Rather, your strength is in the amount of dakka (of whatever type) you can throw onto the battlefield. Your job is to take overwhelming firepower to mow those opponents down quickly enough so they don't have the time to hurt your teammates, not take all the bullets for them. That is what the Atlas should do, and whether it does that in the brawl or as support doesn't really matter, as long as it is done. And that is where many Atlas LRMboats fail.

[Bilbo]

mogs01gt, on 30 April 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

We cant get any where with you. Roles are not opinions, roles for Mechs are set in stone or until the mech changes.

A Atlas is not a support mech. That ends the discussion. I think what also will help you is understanding LRM's are support weapons.

What other games do you play?

The role of the an Atlas is whatever the builder wants it to be. Outside of a group, if you want an Atlas to have a predetermined role you need to bring it yourself and purpose build it for that role.

[1453 R]

Bilbo, on 30 April 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

The role of the an Atlas is whatever the builder wants it to be. Outside of a group, if you want an Atlas to have a predetermined role you need to bring it yourself and purpose build it for that role.

So I could build an Atlas to be a swift, agile flank striker utilizing its enhanced mobility to skirt around the edges of the battlefield and deliver precise deathblows wherever I see an opportunity?

Of course not. There’s no possible way an Atlas could ever play as a skirmisher; the chassis is entirely unsuited to the role. The same argument, to a less ridiculous extent, can be applied to the role of LRM Lobber. The Atlas is physically capable of mounting multiple LRM launchers. Does this mean that it can be a top-class LRM platform? No, it does not, for reasons already laid out. There are other machines which do LRM work much better than the Atlas can, and there are things the Atlas can do better than anything else in the game. Building to do other ‘Mechs’ work whilst ignoring your own is not sound strategy, and the purpose of this guide is to point out why.

The “Play whatever you like because this is a game” does not hold any water whatsoever in this forum. If that’s your reasoning for doing whatever you’re doing, cool. The rest of us are discussing the subject in terms of doing what is optimal for the given chassis in a given situation, and will continue to do so.

[Bilbo]

1453 R, on 30 April 2014 - 10:48 AM, said:

So I could build an Atlas to be a swift, agile flank striker utilizing its enhanced mobility to skirt around the edges of the battlefield and deliver precise deathblows wherever I see an opportunity?

Of course not. There’s no possible way an Atlas could ever play as a skirmisher; the chassis is entirely unsuited to the role. The same argument, to a less ridiculous extent, can be applied to the role of LRM Lobber. The Atlas is physically capable of mounting multiple LRM launchers. Does this mean that it can be a top-class LRM platform? No, it does not, for reasons already laid out. There are other machines which do LRM work much better than the Atlas can, and there are things the Atlas can do better than anything else in the game. Building to do other ‘Mechs’ work whilst ignoring your own is not sound strategy, and the purpose of this guide is to point out why.

The “Play whatever you like because this is a game” does not hold any water whatsoever in this forum. If that’s your reasoning for doing whatever you’re doing, cool. The rest of us are discussing the subject in terms of doing what is optimal for the given chassis in a given situation, and will continue to do so.

Again, if you want an Atlas to play a specific role...Build and bring it. Obviously, an Atlas can't be built to be a fast anything. It can be built as both an indirect and/or direct fire support mech, which is what my post was in response to anyway.

[Orbit Rain]

Saxie, on 30 April 2014 - 09:10 AM, said:

Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone is 'doing it wrong'. I just believe that tonnage is better used elsewhere is all

If I put on my 12-man with tonnage limits hat, then absolutely! : D And as we go forward with 3/3/3/3, I'm going to be thinking more about whether my build(s) work well for pugging. As the game parameters have changed, different builds have had their time to shine. I'm glad it *does* change up!

[giganova]

Dear Atlas pilots: "Stop it!"
Atlas pilots: "Make us!"

[1453 R]

Knock it off, Giga. You're not even trying to be constructive anymore. Just take yourself elsewhere and leave the thread to people who actually ant to discuss the topic at hand.

[Krazok]

Well, there should be such a thread for every senseless loadout. For Example if I see light mechs with 2 PPCs. Lights with two PPCs are useless against other lights, just stay within 90m.
Or Catapults with 6 LRM 5. Stay within 180 and they are useless. It is not just Atlas loadouts which make absolutely no sense.

Just my two cents,
KRazok

[Meta 2013]

Hello All,

To add my2 cents ... First the point of the thread from Void was ... there are better missile platforms than an atlas d-dc, Yes, I agree 100%. Also stated there are more effective missile platforms, again I completely agree. and his other point, you hurt your team, I disagree with that one, not completely, but a little. When I first bought all of my atlases, I went through the normal trying to find a build that is both effective, and fun to run.

The RS found its load out fast, and was never changed until the gauss nerf, and ghost heat. The D, well I still change it, the DDC, I put 2 15's, an ultra 5, and 2 er large lasers on it. Kept it that way until last week. 400+ matches with it, some of which have been just outstanding. It is not a stand alone be all end all, its a support mech, that is how I configured it, and choose to run it. I do use its ECM to help push and give cover to the heavy brawlers if we have a team that can do that. Most of the time, I try to fire at targets I can see, and probably 75% of the time, my direct fire weapons take the kill, just use the missiles to strip down armor at range. I try and use the missiles to help disorient a guy engaging my teammates directly, so I like that it streams out vs a 20 tube launcher.

I have average stats, I am an average player, with a lot of drops, and understanding of how the battle flow usually goes on most maps, and what "normally" does not work with the norm/average pug drops for my elo bracket. For those average matches this build has proven to be effective. I Don't run this to be a 5 kill a match mech, it will get those matches, just on pure luck an timing of shot engagement. My goal in any missile mech is to strip armor till I see component destructs, and then pull off and move to the next fresh threat. I figure I'll get my kills, no need to waste missiles on a mech the close-in guys can easily kill.

This mech has average stats: 1.63 win ratio, 2.33 kdr, averages 436 damage per match. Average player, average stats. put a better player in it, and it will have better stats. Most importantly, I enjoy running it... in the role I have chosen for it. If I want raw fire power I bring my D.

Now the last thing, Void, in a higher elo bracket, your statement about hurting my team by runnin missiles may very well be correct, and I can understand why, but for the majority of matches I get dropped in, this works out well most of the time.

Meta

[1453 R]

Krazok, on 30 April 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

Well, there should be such a thread for every senseless loadout. For Example if I see light mechs with 2 PPCs. Lights with two PPCs are useless against other lights, just stay within 90m.
Or Catapults with 6 LRM 5. Stay within 180 and they are useless. It is not just Atlas loadouts which make absolutely no sense.

Just my two cents,
KRazok

If there was a ‘Don’t Do This’ thread for every possible bad loadout in MWO, there’d be no room in the forums for anything else.

This particular issue is an unfortunately common one, something a lot of players have been seeing far too much of in recent days. Myself included. Missile-boating Atlases standing at the back seem to happen all the time now; the intent of this thread is to hopefully curtail this as it’s a mistake.

On another note: dual-PPC lights (or Cicadas) aren’t trying to fight other lights. Lights make bad light-hunters anyways. A dual-PPC light, or DuaLarge light, is intending to be a powerful threat against enemy fatties, and the right such build in the right hands can be a legitimate force on the battlefield. The difference between those builds and an LRM-centric Atlas is that there are ‘Mechs which are provably, objectively better at being LRM-centric than the Atlas is, while there aren’t usually any other ‘Mechs that can match both the focused punch and mobility of a dual-PPC or DuaLarge light/Cicada.

As for the A1, it’s always* been a suboptimal LRM chassis. Not really news to anyone – that thing’s heyday has come and long since gone. May it never return.

[Cimarb]

1453 R, on 30 April 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

Knock it off, Giga. You're not even trying to be constructive anymore. Just take yourself elsewhere and leave the thread to people who actually ant to discuss the topic at hand.

Your post is just as un constructive as the one it is quoting, though.

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. Sure, I can do more damage in my Stalker, but I am more of a benefit to my team with slightly less missiles on my DDC because I also bring ECM coverage for the rest of the support mechs. I get flack all the time about having MGs on my DDC, but again, it works for me as a backup system so I continue to use them.

Optimal builds only matter if you are in competitive matches, and most "new players" are not doing that yet - if they are, their lack of skill is the issue, not the less-than-optimal build they brought. So, instead of telling Atlas pilots to "stop it", why not encourage them on the best ways to PLAY it so they become better players, not just bad players failing in an optimal build?

[Galenit]

mogs01gt, on 30 April 2014 - 05:13 AM, said:

This looks like more trolling or stupidity! How can people not grasp the fact that certain mechs have roles that they must fulfill. If you want to play a different role, get a different mech!

They implemented roles?
Real roles for mechs?
The long promised and expected different roles for mechs?

Please tell me with witch patch did this come?

I am glad that i can finally see the d jaegers take their role and be a aa-mech as their role was in tt.
And all the anti infantry lights we can see now on the fields.

Maybe i should give them some money for bringing the rolemodel ingame they talked that long about?

[1453 R]

Cimarb, on 30 April 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:

Your post is just as un constructive as the one it is quoting, though.

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. Sure, I can do more damage in my Stalker, but I am more of a benefit to my team with slightly less missiles on my DDC because I also bring ECM coverage for the rest of the support mechs. I get flack all the time about having MGs on my DDC, but again, it works for me as a backup system so I continue to use them.

Optimal builds only matter if you are in competitive matches, and most "new players" are not doing that yet - if they are, their lack of skill is the issue, not the less-than-optimal build they brought. So, instead of telling Atlas pilots to "stop it", why not encourage them on the best ways to PLAY it so they become better players, not just bad players failing in an optimal build?

*Sigh*

First of all, “I agree with everything the OP said, but I’m going to trash the post anyways because I don’t like the way they said it,” is a pretty terrible way of going about things. Void was encouraging people towards the best ways to play an Atlas – by pointing out in a clear and concise manner why this particular way of piloting the ‘Mech is not one of the best ways to do it.

If I can outperform your 100-ton assault ‘Mech in its intended role (LRM bombardier) with a medium ‘Mech (and I can. Trust me, I very much can), then perhaps it’s time to rethink your 100-ton assault ‘Mech? Because simply getting good numbers yourself isn’t a sign of a good design. That’s what’s so infernally insidious about these blasted LRM Atlases and why it’s so hard to convince players that no, they’re not a great use of the chassis – the players driving them all think that the things are the bee’s knees because they, themselves, see good damage numbers from their match-long LRM vomitus, and they also live longer because they’re a giant pile of armor standing as far away from any source of incoming damage as they can.

They think “I’m doing good damage, I’m living longer – what’s not to love?!” and gleefully AtLRMas away…never realizing that they’re seriously hurting their team’s chances for victory. Their W/L goes down, down, down, and they blame bad teams who always end up dying before they do…and never mind trying to find out why their teams always end up dead on the ground in front of them and if, perhaps, their extremely sub-optimal use of a significant portion of the team’s tonnage is at least partially to blame.

You do better, your team does worse. And unfortunately, proper Atlas builds/driving take time to learn, during which you do worse and your team does worse. Nobody ever quite manages to get to the point where they discover why the AC/20 and SRM Atlas used to be the single most dominant machine on the field, and get to the point where they do well and the team does even better. It takes old hand Atlas drivers to get that kind of performance these days, which leaves the rookies wondering WTF we’re talking about and perpetuating the spiral of Terrible AtLRMases.

It’s immensely frustrating to watch since there’s so blasted little any of us seem to be able to do about it.

Edited by 1453 R, 30 April 2014 - 12:16 PM.

[SethAbercromby]

PGI was quite clever. The only Atlas capable of using LRM20 and Dual SRM6 is the D-DC and cannot equip ECM if you wish to equip Artemis as well. ECM helps against LRM strikes which makes the D-DC less AMS dependent and equipping an BAP instead is more reasonable.

Now, if you want to use Artemis Missiles and still keep the dual LB facewrecker, the AS7-D might fit the bill. I completely ran out of space to really do anything, but feel free to improve on the design.

Salvos of 2x10 are pretty effective because the gap between them is much closer than with chainfired LRM10s and don't suffer as much from the massive spread of one salvo of 20. However, one launcher is more than enough to give the Atlas some long range punch until it gets close enough to make use of its ability to take a massive pounding and just destroy others up close. SRMs will be much more important from that point on. LBs are just evil, especially combined with SRM6s.

[Bilbo]

1453 R, on 30 April 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

*Sigh*

First of all, “I agree with everything the OP said, but I’m going to trash the post anyways because I don’t like the way they said it,” is a pretty terrible way of going about things. Void was encouraging people towards the best ways to play an Atlas – by pointing out in a clear and concise manner why this particular way of piloting the ‘Mech is not one of the best ways to do it.

If I can outperform your 100-ton assault ‘Mech in its intended role (LRM bombardier) with a medium ‘Mech (and I can. Trust me, I very much can), then perhaps it’s time to rethink your 100-ton assault ‘Mech? Because simply getting good numbers yourself isn’t a sign of a good design. That’s what’s so infernally insidious about these blasted LRM Atlases and why it’s so hard to convince players that no, they’re not a great use of the chassis – the players driving them all think that the things are the bee’s knees because they, themselves, see good damage numbers from their match-long LRM vomitus, and they also live longer because they’re a giant pile of armor standing as far away from any source of incoming damage as they can.

They think “I’m doing good damage, I’m living longer – what’s not to love?!” and gleefully AtLRMas away…never realizing that they’re seriously hurting their team’s chances for victory. Their W/L goes down, down, down, and they blame bad teams who always end up dying before they do…and never mind trying to find out why their teams always end up dead on the ground in front of them and if, perhaps, their extremely sub-optimal use of a significant portion of the team’s tonnage is at least partially to blame.

You do better, your team does worse. And unfortunately, proper Atlas builds/driving take time to learn, during which you do worse and your team does worse. Nobody ever quite manages to get to the point where they discover why the AC/20 and SRM Atlas used to be the single most dominant machine on the field, and get to the point where they do well and the team does even better. It takes old hand Atlas drivers to get that kind of performance these days, which leaves the rookies wondering WTF we’re talking about and perpetuating the spiral of Terrible AtLRMases.

It’s immensely frustrating to watch since there’s so blasted little any of us seem to be able to do about it.

The AC/20 SRM Atlas was the most dominant because there were no other assault mechs, games in general were more fluid, the longer range play hadn't really settled in, and SRMs were completely broken (and not in a bad way) . You can't expect a new player to use this build effectively without proper support. He isn't likely to get it unless he is part of a group, in which case he isn't likely to be here looking for help. You also can't expect them to use SRM's when they don't register as they should. The build is wonderful and I still use it. Unfortunately half of it's weapons don't work half the time. If the lock on reticule wasn't so large and in the way when I'm brawling I would have switched to LRMs long ago.

[Cimarb]

1453 R, on 30 April 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

Huge amount of presumption.

As I already posted earlier today, I have a better WLR (win-loss ratio) with my LRM boat DDC than I do with my STK-5M and BLR-1S, all of which have been purely missile boats since the stat reset. I am an asset to my team far more in my DDC than I am in my Stalker, which is the whole reason I switched that to my main mech.

Just as a qualifier, I want to point out that I'm not an inexperienced pilot with LRM boats either, as that is what I used to get to 8th place in Davion last competition. The DDC may not be the best missile boat, but it IS the most effective missile boat for team play, at least from my perspective.

I'm not trying to get into an ego war with you, though, and I'm not wanting to duel you in your bombardier because it wouldn't prove anything, as a duel in a missile boat is preposterously dumb to begin with. Dueling in general is useless, though, because it is about pilot skill more than anything, so proving which mech is better by a duel is completely ridiculous. I concede to your greatness and you can believe you would beat me all you want, but that doesn't mean the DDC is not an effective missile platform for me (and others, though I don't presume to speak for them).

[1453 R]

I didn't say anything about duels, Cimarb. What I said was that I could do better as a missile-centric LRM bombardier in my Trebuchet than (most any assault-weight pilot) could do in their missile-centric LRM bombardier Atlases or Stalkers or Battlemasters or whatevers. It's the primary reason I don't believe that any assault 'Mech is a great choice for a purely LRM-centric role - the advantages a Lurmisher has over an LRM bloatboat are numerous and significant.

If you must bloatboat, then all that people in this thread are saying is that there are far better choices for it than the Atlas chassis. You say your LRM-centric D-DC has the highest W/L of all of your LRM 'Mechs because you provide ECM cover for other support 'Mechs, right? Well, how much better would your W/L be in that 'Mech if you made use of the fact that the Atlas can carry a godawful huge direct-fire armament, much heavier and more powerful than any missile-centric armament it can carry is? You're putting machine guns in the D-DC's premier weapon slots and focusing on its least useful, most space-constrained hardpoints for the bulk of your armament - you don't see how this might be undercutting your capabilities at all?