624 replies to this topic

[WarZ]

Void Angel, on 26 April 2014 - 10:53 PM, said:

Even ECM is of dubious value

That is where you are wrong and is what makes the DDC so effective like that. Besides you dont have to be overloaded with massive missile volleys for them to be extremely effective. A modest loadout of missiles such as the atlas can run is more than enough damage to cause havok. Much less the effect of suppressing your enemies and making them hide, all the while NOT giving them missile locks of their own. And as an atlas you do indeed have the ability to take other powerful weapons in addition to the missiles.

They work quite well.

Theres a team that runs 4 ddc missiles atlases as a lance. They are a royal pain to fight against. Jump sniping meta lances are tougher to fight, but that missile ddc lance is quite the pain.

[Alaskan Nobody]

SethAbercromby, on 01 May 2014 - 06:54 PM, said:

They still waste their potential. When I see the missile warning, I'll move for cover as well as reasonably possible and if only the fist half of the missiles hit while the rest flings past me or into a building, that is what I consider wasted potential. A single salvo LRM20 volley might not get CT seeking but when it does hit, you are guaranteed to hit with a good portion of your salvo for much more damage on the same target. LRm5s are awesome because they don't waste ammo. You don't care if the full salvo misses, because they don't consume nearly as much ammo as a wasted more than half of your 6, 6, 3 LRM15 volley. If you absolutely want LRMs in your 6 tube launchers, using LRM5s is more space efficient, less ammo consuming and allows for larger backup weaponry than attempting to force a LRM10 or LRM15 in there.

I just don't see any good reason to not take tube count into consideration. I personally think that just putting as many large LRM launchers as possible into as many Missile hardpoints is wasteful in terms of ammo efficiency, tonnage and space allocation. Catapults provide excellent Missile platforms, because they offer large tube counts for a lot of hardpoints (A1, 2x20, 4x10 tubes, 80 total; C4, 2x20, 2x10 tubes, 60 total). Speaking of which, did somebody say Lurmageddon?.

Just putting the bigger ones in because bigger is better - yeah.
On the other hand the LRM5 is the only missile weapon I have over 50% accuracy with (followed by the one mech I have an LRM20 on - and that one was because 1ALRM20 weighs one ton less than 2 ALRM10)- so I may be rather biased.

Edited for clarity - that one LRM20 being my DDC Atlas.

Edited by Shar Wolf, 01 May 2014 - 07:56 PM.

[Void Angel]

WarZ, on 01 May 2014 - 07:07 PM, said:

That is where you are wrong and is what makes the DDC so effective like that. Besides you dont have to be overloaded with massive missile volleys for them to be extremely effective. A modest loadout of missiles such as the atlas can run is more than enough damage to cause havok. Much less the effect of suppressing your enemies and making them hide, all the while NOT giving them missile locks of their own. And as an atlas you do indeed have the ability to take other powerful weapons in addition to the missiles. [emphasis added]

They work quite well.

Which is why I'm arguing against missile boats - by definition the ones that are ignoring those powerful weapons. As I said in my very first post, and many times after, "It's not my purpose in this post to insist that no one should never put any LRMs on an Atlas as part of a larger build." My issue is with builds that rely on squirting out missiles for a very long time with no other significant armaments. If you're using a Catapult's firepower and just hauling a trailer of ammo around, you're not getting the most out of that 100-ton 'mech.

[Cimarb]

Void Angel, on 01 May 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:

Because how your driving practices impact fuel economy (this metaphor is going to collapse any second now) compared to your other automobiles is not the question. The question is, "does driving this particular vehicle in a certain way cause its gas mileage to suffer?" The answer is, "Yes, for all of these reasons, among others." If you then disagree by saying, "But I get great mileage driving this car that way compared to my other cars," the question isn't "how am I wrong?" The question is either, "what is wrong with the reasons given for low fuel economy" - or else, "what am I doing in my other cars that causes their performance to be equal to this one?"

We're not even talking about sub-optimal v. optimized builds here. I'm warning people away from a build that simply does not fulfil the potential of the chassis - after seeing it show up over and over and over in matches, underperforming and being a boat anchor to the team.

The potential in YOUR eyes, maybe. I have saw many, many, MANY bad players in all sorts of "optimized" builds, and I have also saw many really good players in oddball builds wiping the floor with horrible loadouts.

I had someone tonight tell me I had too many LRMs in my DDC. When the match ended, I had slightly over three times his damage (951 vs 300), 2.5 times his kills (5 vs 2), and survived longer, though we lost because I ran out of ammo and my arms were blown off (so no energy regardless of loadout).

It isn't about comparing my cars. It's about comparing how I used to drive my car (direct fire atlas) vs how I am currently driving my car (LRM atlas). I am getting better gas mileage than I was before (in the same car), as well as better gas mileage than the "optimized" cars around me. So, whether you guys like it or not, I will continue to drive my car the way I like to, and also encourage other people to do the same.

SethAbercromby, on 01 May 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

Tube count always matters. And the 5M is not optimal for boating because it has 3 6 tube launchers. Unless you put LRM5s in there, you are reducing the potential of your launchers. They will eat the same amount of ammo for less effective results. The more time it takes your launcher to shoot out its full number of missiles, the easier it gets to move as a target to minimize incoming damage. The 3H can use 2 LRM20 launchers at their full potential, each of them generally more effective than two LRM15s smacked into 6 tube launchers in actual combat because the damage is much more difficult to avoid as a target. The two 15s have higher potential damage, but the likelihood of them producing damage at their full potential against a moving target is much lower.

The only reason to use a LRM20 in a 10 tube launcher in my opinion is when it is your ONLY LRM launcher and there is no 20 tube option available (if you have the option of 15, use an LRM15). The Atlas profits more from the LRM20 than from an LRM10 but can still use the smaller launcher ports for SRMs, making much better use of the available tube count.

I really wish people would actually read my comments. Tube count doesn't matter BECAUSE I am chainfiring anyway. With how explosion registration is working right now, I am far more effective chainfiring than everyone around me volley firing. I thrive off of continuous, heavy bombardment. When that issue is fixed, I may have to change tactics and might even agree with you, but currently chain firing is the more "optimal" approach.

[Void Angel]

So again we're back to empirical reasons (including the availability of superior substitutes) why the Atlas doesn't work well as an LRM boat v. "But I do better this way." If you can't deal with the actual reasons instead of insisting, again and again and again, that your subjective experiences trump measurable facts, you're reduced to the level of a certain Monty Python skit.

Even given the fact that long-range combat is overpowered in general right now, despite the nerfs to various guns, a pure LRM boat Atlas with no other significant arms is still at a disadvantage.

PS: You generally don't want to use two ammo-hungry weapon types together on a 'mech if you can help it, Seth - mixing LRMs and SRMs, for example - because of the opportunity cost of the separate kind of launcher and the difficulty of fitting enough ammo for both weapons to sustain firing.

[Void Angel]

PPS: I'm gone for the next three days, so you'll all have to live your lives without me. Don't be too sad. =)

My final word is this: subjective experience does not trump objective fact. Any argument that doesn't deal with those facts isn't an acceptable reason to overturn my conclusion.

[SethAbercromby]

Cimarb, on 01 May 2014 - 08:20 PM, said:

I really wish people would actually read my comments. Tube count doesn't matter BECAUSE I am chainfiring anyway. With how explosion registration is working right now, I am far more effective chainfiring than everyone around me volley firing. I thrive off of continuous, heavy bombardment. When that issue is fixed, I may have to change tactics and might even agree with you, but currently chain firing is the more "optimal" approach.

And chainfiring doesn't magically improve the potency of your individual launchers. You are just adding more launchers that do the same thing. I'm using Chainfire on my LRM40 Catapult C4. The difference? Each launcher fires a solid volley of ten. A Stalker spamming its missiles might look impressive to some but to me that is just wasteful use of ammunition. You could get nearly the same performance out of 2 LRM10s and 3 LRM5s and could still mount a considerable amount of backup weapons.

This here for example is something I threw together spontaneously as a mock-build. Even with a very comfortable 9 tons of ammunition, you still have enough tonnage for an ER for long range direct fire harassment, 2 medium lasers for short range defense, some TAG redundancy and a BAP. Also, 13 tons of armor I was too lazy to distribute.

Edited by SethAbercromby, 01 May 2014 - 09:31 PM.

[Munin Ravensong]

Seth, that's a sexy peice of machine there, almost makes me think I chose the wrong stalker.

Void Angel, lets leave Monty out of this - before I must say NI! at you, or refer you to video of my silly walk ;-P

If I fit lrms on a DDC, up to the tube count, which back up weapons shift me to which roles? (And yes I admit that the reason my LRM's are going to be primary at first is a pebcak issue)

Edited by Munin Ravensong, 01 May 2014 - 09:58 PM.

[SethAbercromby]

Munin Ravensong, on 01 May 2014 - 09:55 PM, said:

Seth, that's a sexy peice of machine there, almost makes me think I chose the wrong stalker.

Really? my personal favorite is still this 3H. Only 2 MLs for self defense but I think I left common sense at the door when I came up with this.

You can also have some fun with the 3F (actually a 5S in this case), but the selling point of this variant is arguably not its Missile hardpoints.

[SethAbercromby]

Munin Ravensong, on 01 May 2014 - 09:55 PM, said:

If I fit lrms on a DDC, up to the tube count, which back up weapons shift me to which roles? (And yes I admit that the reason my LRM's are going to be primary at first is a pebcak issue)

Use one LRM20 for long range punch and then use your weapons for a more brawler-centered role. The Atlas feels most comfortable when it gets right into the enemies' face. You could use dual SRM6+dual LBX to pound any armor into nonexistence. There wasn't any real space for a useful addition to put into the energy hardpoints I just went for a decent amount of ammo and full armor.

[Dauphni]

Really, when LRMboating, what you want is the largest amount of small launchers you can fit with Artemis, plus some backup weapons and of course TAG. This is because small volleys are a lot more accurate than large ones, but multiple simulaneous volleys don't "stack". A 6x5 cloud is going to do a lot more significant damage than a 2x15, because the grouping is tighter, so you hit CT more and therefore waste a lot less ammo. It also fires faster for even more stopping power.

This illustrates why the 5M is a more effective LRM carrier than the 3H, and it goes for the Atlas even moreso. Again, it's fine if you take a few LRMs as a secondary weapon system, but the Atlas just doesn't work right as a dedicated carrier.

[giganova]

I'm the unreasonable player for not wanting smaller, cowardly mechs to use me as a meatshield? Do your own dirty work.

[Cimarb]

Void Angel, on 01 May 2014 - 08:43 PM, said:

PPS: I'm gone for the next three days, so you'll all have to live your lives without me. Don't be too sad. =)

My final word is this: subjective experience does not trump objective fact. Any argument that doesn't deal with those facts isn't an acceptable reason to overturn my conclusion.

Have a great vacation, and despite disagreeing with you, I do welcome the debate and your much more reasonable, if still a little irritated, responses.

When you get back: you have only provided "objective facts" in that you stated your view of things. Smaller tube count, in my view, is not a hindrance. Similarly, the rest of your objective facts are actually subjective, because it is your opinion on them.

I told you why I feel otherwise, but you want to keep using the excuse that it is my opinion, when you are using your own opinion to begin with.

[giganova]

Calling the subjective opinion an objective fact does not make the subjective opinion an objective fact.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Cimarb, on 02 May 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

I told you why I feel otherwise, but you want to keep using the excuse that it is my opinion, when you are using your own opinion to begin with.

I remembered this though last night as I was falling asleep.

It could very well be that you are the exception to the rule (I spent months being told that there was no way I could consistently achieve the scores I did with my Centurion - the one Victor hated so much)
That doesn't mean the rules don't stand - just that you are the exception.

If you are the exception - then wear it proudly - and work your butt off to maintain it.
Just have to keep an eye on the possibility that you are the exception - and that the rule stands for a reason.

[Cimarb]

Shar Wolf, on 02 May 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

I remembered this though last night as I was falling asleep.

It could very well be that you are the exception to the rule (I spent months being told that there was no way I could consistently achieve the scores I did with my Centurion - the one Victor hated so much)
That doesn't mean the rules don't stand - just that you are the exception.

If you are the exception - then wear it proudly - and work your butt off to maintain it.
Just have to keep an eye on the possibility that you are the exception - and that the rule stands for a reason.

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.

Like I said to Void earlier: I'm not really opposed to the reasoning he had, but almost completely to his approach. I don't care who thinks my build is "less than optimal", because it IS optimal for me. That doesn't mean I won't change the build up eventually as my playstyle (and the game mechanics) evolves, but don't tell me what to do - only my wife can do that.

Edit for bad speelchecker

Edited by Cimarb, 02 May 2014 - 11:40 AM.

[wanderer]

mogs01gt, on 30 April 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

Fact: Atlas is not a support Mech. Will you accept that?
Fact: LRMs are support weaons. Will you acccept that?

These are NOT opinions. These are cold hard facts!

Nope. They ain't facts, because if you're using those LRMs right, you're using the Atlas right. My one, long 8-kill fight? LRM 30 Atlas-RS. Those missiles meant I literally had shots on every unit on the field, and as it turned out, fatal ones.

Now, you strap the thing down with nothing BUT LRMs? You're doing it wrong. But a decent number of tubes means you, as the least mobile unit on the field can keep contributing while you get your klunky metal self into position to put your other guns on the field. I was putting missiles on them while plowing lasers into their chest for good measure, while I was moving up, when I was repositioning after a kill, and I didn't spend 15 seconds not shooting SOMETHING except at the end- when I had to go find the last guy who I'd clipped a leg off earlier.

Ideally, you're:

1) In a D-DC, because ECM (alternatively, an -RS if ECM is common, because arm mount energy hardpoints x4)
2) Getting up front where you can pew pew with your lasers along with the LRMs
3) Watching what Artemis-guided, streaming LRM salvos do to someone's torso when it's NARC'd/TAG designated while performing 2). Seriously, it's like dipping someone's armor in acid.

And if your opponents are too mobile to get the lasers on them and you're constantly out of LOS? Well, those LRMs mean you put damage down the line, instead of stomping around looking menacing and being utterly useless other than your ECM module. And late game, you're chock full of armor and with plenty of weakened targets.

Now, you're That Guy who puts 45 ALRMs on a -D-DC and DON'T pack ECM, or XL engine it and ignore ECM as well? Don't be That Guy. Boating that many missiles, a Stalker massively outdoes you. Go get in one.

[Votanin FleshRender]

As a newer player, especially one that was frequently and obscenely yelled at by spectating vets, I am very hesitant to call out teammates that are making mistakes. I very much try to offer contructive advice, and to phrase it in a non-antagonistic tone.

But, a couple of nights ago in Crimson, there's a big brawl going on in the city buildings right outside of the 'side' exit of the tunnel. My team gets hammered down, including me. Flipping through spectate, I come across a guy in an DDC standing on the dock, away from the fight, and the only thing on his Atlas are 3 LRM10 and an ECM. That's it, nothing else. He's just standing there shooting off rounds whenever he gets a chance a target, and he's still at 100%. No other wpns, so I can only assume he was carrying 15 tons of ammo. I tried suggesting that it wasn't the best way to help a team, but at the end of the match, he had 300+ damage and 2 kills... so to make matters worse, I'm sure he thinks what he's doing is working.

Personally, I don't think a DDC should have LRMs... the last thing you want your ECM doing is shooting missles off and showing the enemy where you are. Other Atlases, I'm kinda indifferent to, as long as you're not ONLY a missle boat.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Votanin FleshRender, on 03 May 2014 - 05:06 PM, said:

Personally, I don't think a DDC should have LRMs...

That bit gets debates quite a bit - (though you do have one of the only arguments there that isn't "because other weapons are better" )

I prefer to have at least 1 LRM on my Atlas, if only because I spend so much time just around a corner or hill that I could shoot over - but not through.

[mogs01gt]

There is a serious trend going on! I keep seeing more of these LRM Atlas's or simply Atlas pilots that sit back and not engage..Each match, most players have more damage then they do....


The issue really isnt the fact a DDC is using one hardpoint for LRMs, the issue is the pilots sitting back behind everyone else. How long does your teammates in lighter mechs have to wait for you to engage? Wait until our armor is at 75%???