624 replies to this topic

[BOWMANGR]

Cimarb, on 16 May 2014 - 06:10 AM, said:

That is exactly why there are 23 pages on this topic already. You feel it is wrong, while others do not (such as myself).

I'm done arguing about it, as I have already stated my points several times in this thread, but suffice it to say, just because you don't like the build doesn't mean it's worthless to others.

OK, I'll bite.

Explain to me please how your huge armor (the best in the game) actually helps the team if you are sitting in the sidelines shooting missiles, a thing that other mechs can do faster, more reliably and with more missile tubes.

Having all that armor and NOT absorbing damage while doing something that other mechs can do better, is the definition of sub-optimal play. I don't know how to explain it better than that.

[Cimarb]

BOWMANGR, on 16 May 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

OK, I'll bite.

Explain to me please how your huge armor (the best in the game) actually helps the team if you are sitting in the sidelines shooting missiles, a thing that other mechs can do faster, more reliably and with more missile tubes.

Having all that armor and NOT absorbing damage while doing something that other mechs can do better, is the definition of sub-optimal play. I don't know how to explain it better than that.

And I'm not going to bite, because as I already said, I already explained it in the previous 23 pages. Happy reading.

[Void Angel]

His subjective experience trumps all empirical reasoning - he gets good matches sitting back and lobbing missiles from a boat Atlas, so therefore none of my reasoning is valid. He's been repeating this theme while dodging any attempt at dealing with my reasoning for over twenty pages now.

Cimarb, if you're not going to put up - shut up. Coming back to the thread to heckle, then refusing to engage in debate because you've "explained yourself" and now cannot be questioned is silly and non-productive.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Void Angel, on 16 May 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Cimarb, if you're not going to put up - shut up. Coming back to the thread to heckle, then refusing to engage in debate because you've "explained yourself" and now cannot be questioned is silly and non-productive.

I would take it as bumping the thread.

Yes. He still disagrees with you - but you will notice that he is not actively supporting the dissenters either

[Void Angel]

Tourgasm, on 15 May 2014 - 11:04 PM, said:

Ok I don't understand why you guys are complaining about atlas missle boats?

I run one, it's a AS7-D that works great it has 2 LRM 15's, 3 medium lasers and an A/C 2 on it. works like a dream. It's built like a tank and it moves just as slow.

That's not a missile boat. It's kinda close, and If you were asking me for build advice I'd recommend something much different - but that's not what this thread is about. I'm not concerned here whether or not you've got LRMs on your 'mech; I'm only concerned if you're using them for the vast majority of your firepower.

What this thread is about is the inarguable fact that the Atlas has severe shortcomings as a pure missile boat, for the reasons I listed in the OP and later in the thread. No one has been able to refute my reasoning, despite (cough,cough) repeating their subjective opinions over and over for pages and pages - and resorting to ad hominem, and other fallacies to support their position (that's using name-calling or accusations - e.g. "you'd say the opposite thing if you'd won," implying dishonesty and hypocrisy - as an argument, for those of you who don't speak Philosophy.) Indeed, if I wanted to list the fallacies I've been subjected to in this thread, I'm spoiled for choice.

[Cimarb]

Void Angel, on 16 May 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

His subjective experience trumps all empirical reasoning - he gets good matches sitting back and lobbing missiles from a boat Atlas, so therefore none of my reasoning is valid. He's been repeating this theme while dodging any attempt at dealing with my reasoning for over twenty pages now.

Cimarb, if you're not going to put up - shut up. Coming back to the thread to heckle, then refusing to engage in debate because you've "explained yourself" and now cannot be questioned is silly and non-productive.

Void, I gave as good of examples and "proof" as you did, numerous times, but all you and Laser wanted to focus on was that it was "opinion" because you didn't agree with my reasoning. That's not my fault, and doesn't mean I have to continue repeating myself.

Shar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

I would take it as bumping the thread.

Yes. He still disagrees with you - but you will notice that he is not actively supporting the dissenters either

I had actually stopped posting twice, as I got tired of arguing with brick walls, but the conversation changed to similar but less antagonistic subjects, so I contributed to them. It's sad that it then bumped his OP, but I'd rather have a good conversation about something than worry about something 20+ pages back.

[Void Angel]

M0rpHeu5, on 16 May 2014 - 06:55 AM, said:

Missile boat with ECM wrong? I am not supporting missile boat atlai but this doen't mean it's a bad idea.

It's not that a missile boat with ECM is wrong. It's that an Atlas, despite having ECM, is a very poor missile platform, for all the reasons I described in the original post, as well as others. Anything else can do it better, for example - and if you don't take supplementary weapons, you're either carrying excess ammunition, or a larger engine than you need. In either case, your build improves its firepower by adding guns instead of ammo or engine weight.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Cimarb, on 16 May 2014 - 11:57 AM, said:

I had actually stopped posting twice, as I got tired of arguing with brick walls, but the conversation changed to similar but less antagonistic subjects, so I contributed to them. It's sad that it then bumped his OP, but I'd rather have a good conversation about something than worry about something 20+ pages back.

You will notice I have not been contributing much to the debate either.

If I remember right (forgive me for not digging up and double checking) Void did not object to your builds

Just that you thought of them as missile boats.
Rather like how Victor did not consider any of my builds missile boats - but for slightly different reasons


...Actually for about the same reason.

You carry enough backup weapons that you did not qualify as the kind of boat he was referring to, not to mention that you are not afraid to use your mechs armor to aid the team when needed, which went a long way toward exempting you from his ire.

On the other hand - when you see someone trying to boat LRM (usually by Victors guide - which is still floating around quite visibly) in an AS7-D or AS7-K or whatever.....

That is painful.
Even on the DDC it works sub-optimal!

But once again, to be sure it doesn't get lost - your build, and your play style with said build - is not what Void is referring to.

[Void Angel]

Cimarb, you can claim your argument is authoritative until you're blue in the face. Unfortunately for you, your misrepresentation is false-to-fact. I made a claim, and supported it with evidence; you put up your personal experience as a trump card, and never dealt with any of my facts. I told you that your opinion did not trump independently verifiable facts, and explained to you why I found your personal statistics to be sufficient to refute my evidence. You responded by repeating yourself, over and over, and subsequently attempting to redirect the argument away from the evidence and toward your implicit claim that my "feeling" and your "feeling" are competing opinions - and that it's wrong of me to insist on my opinion over yours, particularly when you have good personal results.

That post-modernist redirect just isn't going to work on me, as you have been, well, not learning for most of the 24 pages of this thread. I don't require that you agree with me; I don't even ask that you follow the guide - if it's working for you, don't change it. But I do require that your argument be sound before you ask me to accept it.

Enough hypocrisy - you can't have it both ways. Either throw in the towel and wash your hands of the subject, or continue to post and deal with the countervailing evidence - or at least answer questions about the objections you raise. Popping in whenever the OP comes up and saying "I'm done arguing about this, but you're wrong, here's an argument why, and I'm not obliged to defend it any more" is not OK. If you're "done arguing about it," stop the frack arguing about it.

[ReXspec]

What I find interesting is that the party that is against missile boat atlases has presented a lot more empirical information on why the atlas is a sub-optimal missile boat in this thread (i.e. numbers, scenarios, builds, etc.), while the other party has presented (at best) well-thought-out blurbs on why Missile-boat atlases can work.

I know this may sound like an appeal to reason, but I'd like to think the side that is BEGGING for players NOT to build and pilot Missile-boat atlases has made an overall better case for hybrid or variety-build atlases.

Void Angel, on 16 May 2014 - 12:18 PM, said:

Cimarb, you can claim your argument is authoritative until you're blue in the face. Unfortunately for you, your misrepresentation is false-to-fact. I made a claim, and supported it with evidence; you put up your personal experience as a trump card, and never dealt with any of my facts. I told you that your opinion did not trump independently verifiable facts, and explained to you why I found your personal statistics to be sufficient to refute my evidence. You responded by repeating yourself, over and over, and subsequently attempting to redirect the argument away from the evidence and toward your implicit claim that my "feeling" and your "feeling" are competing opinions - and that it's wrong of me to insist on my opinion over yours, particularly when you have good personal results.

That post-modernist redirect just isn't going to work on me, as you have been, well, not learning for most of the 24 pages of this thread. I don't require that you agree with me; I don't even ask that you follow the guide - if it's working for you, don't change it. But I do require that your argument be sound before you ask me to accept it.

Enough hypocrisy - you can't have it both ways. Either throw in the towel and wash your hands of the subject, or continue to post and deal with the countervailing evidence - or at least answer questions about the objections you raise. Popping in whenever the OP comes up and saying "I'm done arguing about this, but you're wrong, here's an argument why, and I'm not obliged to defend it any more" is not OK. If you're "done arguing about it," stop the frack arguing about it.

A wise man once said, "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence."

Appeal to personal experience only goes so far in a setting such as this where there is a HUGE demographic of players who use a variety of 'mechs and have run into a variety of situations.

That said, I believe there are always exceptions. But Missile-boat atlases performing well in a match is the exception rather then the rule. The missile-boat atlas has been empirically proven to be a sub-optimal performing 'mech when compared to Atlases that use other builds that take advantage of it's enormous firepower potential and armor or other Chassis that are actually designed for the indirect fire support role.

Edited by ReXspec, 16 May 2014 - 12:35 PM.

[1453 R]

ReXspec, on 16 May 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

A wise man once said, "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence."

Appeal to personal experience only goes so far in a setting such as this where there is a HUGE demographic of players who use a variety of 'mechs and have run into a variety of situations.

That said, I believe there are always exceptions. But Missile-boat atlases performing well in a match is the exception rather then the rule. The missile-boat atlas has been empirically proven to be a sub-optimal performing 'mech when compared to Atlases that use other builds that take advantage of it's enormous firepower potential and armor or other Chassis that are actually designed for the indirect fire support role.

People've been saying this for twenty pages now. It is indeed wisdom, and should be paid all due heed. However, because somebody hurt somebody else's feelings in the OP, no amount of reason, logic, or analysis - or indeed, no amount of 'do whatever works best for you, fine, but this is the Guides forum and we're interested in what works best when applied to Joe Everyman the Average MWO Player, not what works in specific for [Player Name]' - has had an impact. It is likely best to just let it go. And to be aware that a certain pilot, if spotted in an Atlas, is going to be a drag on the team and to avoid counting on said pilot in said 'Mech. Especially if one is in one of the lightly-armored medium 'Mechs that LRM Atlases assume are there to meatshield for a minute or two against the enemy team's heavily-armed direct-fire assaults so that LRMs may be fired from the safety of 800 meters away behind a cliff.

[Cimarb]

Your reasons and what my response is:

• It doesn't have the space for it.The Atlas' missile tubes are all in its right torso - this is true. It can be an issue, but since the primary target on 95% of the Atlai on the battlefield is the left torso, where 75% of any brawlers weaponry is, this is a similar issue to any other Atlas build and an advantage for LRM Atlas that does not conform to what the enemy expects.
  
• You're wasting tonnage on excessive ammunition. This is subjective to your specific build, but I carry roughly 1000-1250 ammo on most of my boats. My Stalker has the most, Atlas in the middle, and Battlemaster the least, but they are all pretty close. I'm not sure what exact number you are using for this bullet, but I have no problem lasting most of the match, yet rarely have ammo left over unless I make a serious mistake. This really has nothing to do with the LRM build, as you could make the same argument for ballistic builds.
  
• Every single alternative does it better. Yet not a single LRM boat can provide ECM coverage, so this is totally subjective to your goal.
  
• Your energy hardpoints are very low. Very true. Using TAG requires a little more work, but otherwise means little to nothing in regards to the effectiveness of the build. In contrast to the Stalker, which has a slightly higher hardpoint, especially if you use the arm-points, which I don't think is a good idea when you can instead put your energy weapons there, the Atlas is able to keep TAG on opponents that are to the sides much easier, as you have side-to-side capabilities the Stalker does not. It's a compromise, but matters little to your effectiveness.
  
• It doesn't have the tubes for it. This is the point of highest contention. If you believe that volley firing is the optimal way to fire your weapons, it is a valid point. If you have read about the explosion issue highlighted in the SRM threads, you would understand that explosions effect not only SRMs, but LRMs and even ballistics (per Karl, which was his reasoning for burst-fire being difficult to implement "well"). When you volley fire, especially with large tube counts, you are actually getting tons of missed hits due to the explosion issue. Even though you see everything explode and feel good about yourself, that huge explosion is doing significantly less damage than the same salvo would do chain-fired or from smaller tube counts. TL;DR small tube counts are actually better for your heat management as well as effective damage.

"In general, the only thing the Atlas clearly has going for it as a missile boat is that it is somewhat tougher than the alternatives. Even ECM is of dubious value, since it comes at the cost of restricting throw weight - if your weapons for a 100-ton death machine could fit comfortably on a Catapult, you're doing it wrong."

ECM is the single most important piece of equipment in the game currently. The two slots it takes up is equivalent to an ALRM5, yet you are saying that is not a worthwhile compromise?

"Atlas missile boats, unless they isolate themselves, are frequently among the last to die - but this is not a good thing. What it means is that the enemy has been killing targets whose ratio of firepower to toughness is much higher than an Atlas LRM boat: Consider an AC/40 Jaegermech, or an Ultra AC/5 Illya Muromets build. Either of those 'mechs are considerably easier to kill, and bring much more direct firepower (i.e. they will kill you faster than an LRM boat.) So by removing your Atlas from the front lines, you've removed the option for the enemy to shoot at you, the hard target, rather than your glass cannon supports."

Isolating from the group is the easiest way to die quickly, and also makes your ECM equipment the least effective possible, so this is a tactical issue, not build. When used correctly, your DDC missile boat should be just behind the main push, giving ECM coverage until the main force engages and then staying 200-500m behind the group for maximum use of your payload. It also allows you to move in and out to provide ECM coverage for your allies against the enemies' LRM assets as needed.

The goal of an effective team is to deal as much damage as possible while taking as little damage as possible. An Atlas taking damage is not helping the team anymore than any other mech taking damage. Allowing the enemy to focus their damage on your mech, even in brawling configurations, is going to end quickly regardless of what that mech is.

"It's not my purpose in this post to insist that no one should never put any LRMs on an Atlas as part of a larger build - though I don't think such builds are optimal right now, and the most experienced players I know will agree with me. But boating LRMs through that chassis is simply a Bad Idea for empirical reasons. You may feel that you get high damage numbers with your Atlas LRM boat, but you'd get better numbers and performance from the superior alternatives I mentioned - and your team would be better off."

In several of your posts you have said that having LRMs is fine, but not to boat them. You have told people that having 20-30 LRMs is fine, but 35 is the maximum you can equip, so what is the difference? Backup weapons, possibly. If that is the case, you are boating LRMs, so the most effective LRM boats (Stalkers) only have 4 MLs, which is not much different and actually impossible on a DDC.

Empirical evidence, for that matter, is "verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic". What that means is empirical evidence is basically opinion. It is how you FEEL it works from past experiences. It isn't based on data (pure logic). Data is that great elusive thing where you show STATS that prove how effective something is, such as a series of high scores and damage that leads to a win...



Now that you have seen the pure logic evidence, you also have empirical knowledge because you have observed my results. Care to show yours to dispute my evidence?

[Cimarb]

Shar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 12:05 PM, said:

If I remember right (forgive me for not digging up and double checking) Void did not object to your builds

Check my image in the above post. I run the exact build he is calling out, and have the proof that it works quite well. In fact, the DDC that beat him in the one match I have had with him was that exact same build (I spectated it after Void killed my Stalker up until we won the match).

I'm not offended by the original post - I just disagree with it. All of the crap talking that has came from Laser (1453 R) and Co. Is offensive, but I can get over that because I know I am right. It's not the BUILD, it's the PILOTS they have encountered. When used by a pilot that is effective in it, I also know the result, since I saw it first hand in that match.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Cimarb, on 16 May 2014 - 01:15 PM, said:

I'm not offended by the original post - I just disagree with it.

o7

[1453 R]

Cimarb, on 16 May 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

Isolating from the group is the easiest way to die quickly, and also makes your ECM equipment the least effective possible, so this is a tactical issue, not build. When used correctly, your DDC missile boat should be just behind the main push, giving ECM coverage until the main force engages and then staying 200-500m behind the group for maximum use of your payload. It also allows you to move in and out to provide ECM coverage for your allies against the enemies' LRM assets as needed.

I have, never even once, seen an LRM Atlas do this. Never. Not once. Not even for a second. They are always, always, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYSALWAYSALWAYS 700+ meters away from the fight, behind a cliff, hurling the same weight of missile armament I can fit into a Trebuchet at every red box they see, whether it's a good shot or not. Never once have I seen an LRM Atlas pull a Locust's weight, let alone its own. I have seen them demand that I push - despite the fact that I'm in an XL Blackjack. Because they need someone between them and the enemy, holding the enemy's attention and protecting their missile-huckin' self, for their build to not collapse in on itself harder than a neutron star.

IT'S AN ATLAS THAT NEEDS PROTECTION FROM A BLACKJACK. WHAT THE ACTUAL HELL.

In my personal experience, since personal experience isLRM Atlases are the single biggest, most team-damaging, self-destructive noob traps in this game. The presence of one on a team is even more damaging to a team's chances of winning than if that slot was filled with a disconnect - pilots waste time, energy, and effort trying to escort the thing, or waiting for their Big Armor to start the push and only realizing that they were waiting on a fat, slow Trebuchet to start the push after they died in a seething firestorm of frustration and regret and go to spectate that Atlas and find out what the hell was wrong with it. The damn things have actively cost me games, and never even once done a single thing to help me win a game.

Is it so wrong that I would advise pilots to just not do it until they've grown into the game to the point where they can make informed decisions for themselves? You can be as magically awesome in the blasted things as you want. You have also self-identified yourself as the edge case. WE'RE NOT TALKING TO YOU, DAMNIT

Edited by 1453 R, 16 May 2014 - 01:29 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

1453 R, on 16 May 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

WE'RE NOT TALKING TO YOU, DAMNIT

Intentionally or otherwise, he identifies with the group we are discussing though.

For good or ill, his position needs to be fitted into the discussion.

[Cimarb]

1453 R, on 16 May 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

WE'RE NOT TALKING TO YOU, DAMNIT[/i]

If you are talking about the build, you are talking to me. If you are talking about the horrible pilots you have encountered, then I have no problem with it and would wholeheartedly support an educational guide on HOW TO pilot this build.

It's not the build's fault - because it is sound - it's the pilot's fault.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Cimarb, on 16 May 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

It's not the build's fault - because it is sound - it's the pilot's fault.

Perhaps that is the direction we need to work on taking this then.

As the resident expert (or whatever level you feel yourself to have obtained) Atlas oriented missile specialist, perhaps you aught to pull together a guide for those who wish to follow in your footsteps?

[1453 R]

Shar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 01:40 PM, said:

Intentionally or otherwise, he identifies with the group we are discussing though.

For good or ill, his position needs to be fitted into the discussion.

Realistically? No, it honestly doesn’t. It was back in the single-digit pages where Cim openly admitted that he’s one of those edge cases to which the general rules don’t apply, and thus forfeited his point in the debate. He’s not even really arguing that the ‘Mech isn’t a terrible idea for most folks – he’s put out because Void didn’t make nicey-nice and add “Unless you’re one of those cool folks who can do just fine in the thing” to his post.

That was not added because then every single Derpatologist in MWO would assume that caveat was in there specifically and solely to refer to them and thus defeat the entire purpose of the plea. And also because there is literally no logical reason to play an ALRM-35 Atlas over an ALRM-35 + Autocannons and Lasers(!) Atlas, as the ‘Mech has the raw tonnage to do literally everything it’s physically capable of doing with ALRMs and also still bring significant direct-fire weapons to the fight!

And for the final freaking record, let’s deal with this “What is a boat?!” nonsense. The Breakpoints:

Is 30-35% (rough estimate) of your Atlas’ firepower in its LRM batteries?
Then you’re not a boat.

This is just about right, actually. An ALRM-20 over a couple of Streaks or ASRM-4s, next to an AC/20 and a few medium lasers, makes a splendid addition to an Atlas’ armament. There’s really not much reason not to, in this day and age. Sad it may be, but it’s also true.

Is 45-55% of your Atlas’ firepower in its LRM batteries?
Then you’re still not a boat.

Okay…so you’ve got an ALRM-20 and an ALRM-10 in your missile torso, but you’ve also got a pair of large lasers, or a biggish autocannon and a couple of mediums. I’d say you’re probably overdoing the missiles a bit, but I can’t really blame you in this day and age. The game is what it is, and at least you’re looking the enemy in the face when you’re hitting them with the big beamers or the biggish boomgun.

Is 90+% of your Atlas’ firepower in its LRM batteries?
Then you’re a boat, and you’re doing something wrong because it’s actually, physically impossible to spend the Atlas’ entire effective tonnage allotment for weapons (taking into account endo, maxed armor and a reasonably-sized engine) on LRM systems alone without making a mistake somewhere. Either too much ammunition, too much engine (at the deliberate cost of everything else) or some bizarre notion of bringing eight out-engine DHS and a Beagle Probe on something that wouldn’t ever overheat anyways.

There is literally zero reason for an Atlas to concentrate more than about half of its total firepower into LRM systems. None whatsoever. Not when they can have the same armament and also direct-fire weapons.

It continues to boggle my mind that people can’t seem to understand this point.

Edited by 1453 R, 16 May 2014 - 03:07 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

1453 R, on 16 May 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

Realistically? No, it honestly doesn’t.

Realistically? Yes, it honestly does.

When someone keeps insisting they are involved you either completely ignore them...

Or work them in.