624 replies to this topic

[Alaskan Nobody]

1453 R, on 19 May 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

Oiy. Don’t be like that, you know exactly what we’re talking about.
He’s just not willing to admit it, for whatever bizarre reason.

Oy, Don't be like that, you know exactly what I am (and HAVE BEEN) taking about.

Rex just wasn't willing to admit it, for whatever bizarre reason.


See?

Works both ways.

Unfortunately I am beyond tired of being told to shut up.

Have a nice life.

[1453 R]

Shar Wolf, on 19 May 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

Oy, Don't be like that, you know exactly what I am (and HAVE BEEN) taking about.

Rex just wasn't willing to admit it, for whatever bizarre reason.


See?

Works both ways.

Unfortunately I am beyond tired of being told to shut up.

Have a nice life.

Unfortunately Shar, I’m afraid I don’t really know what you’re talking about. I’m not sure what you want me (or Void, or Rex, or anyone else) to say? You seem to be campaigning for us to validate Cim’s builds and philosophies on the game and acknowledge him as a valid contributor to the thread with perfectly acceptable ideas. In that instance:

-We have validated Cim’s builds and philosophies as much as we’re able to. Void even went and edited the OP to better conform to the less-hostile tone Cim’s been fighting for the whole time.

-‘Valid’ contributions to the thread have grown thin since about page 5, but we’re still talking to the guy, aren’t we? He may not like what we’re saying, but that happens in a public discussion. I’ve been actively working on throttling back the Hellfire Preacher in me; what else can I reasonably be expected to do?

-The major disconnect seems to be that Cimarb feels like anyone can do perfectly fine in an LRM Atlas and wishes to encourage players to try it out for themselves and see how they do. At least that’s the only reason I can come up with for why he’s still here.

As this is absolutely, positively, 100% completely contradictory to the primary goal of this thread, folks me (and Void, and Rex, and the others) are going to argue otherwise, as vehemently and convincingly as we can. In Cim’s experience he can do just fine, so he doesn’t see why there’s a problem – in our experience, LRM Atlases are 100-ton boat anchors on a team.

When we say we’re not talking to Cimarb, we’re trying to draw a clean, unambigious break between Players like him, who’ve been around the block a few times and know themselves, their ‘Mechs, and the game well enough to experiment, and well enough to know how to win matches in unorthodox machines, and Joe Everyman, who doesn't know any of that crap. We’re not trying to dis him or shut him up, we’re trying to make it as clear as we can that Cimarb’s experiences and build/playstyle choices are not, and will not work, for everyone. We have openly acknowledged – again and again and again – that if something’s honestly, truly working for you, go ahead and keep doing it until it stops working.

Cimarb has spent the thread, in turn, trying to muddy up that distinction as much as possible. This is what QKD, Rex, Void, myself, and others have spent too-godawful-many pages trying to combat. It takes very unusual thought processes, tactics, and game decisions in order to not be an active detriment to the team in an LRM D-DC. By the very definition of the word ‘unusual’, these processes, tactics, and decisions are not the norm for Average MWO Player Guy. It is not a playstyle one can jump right into and be awesome at, and it is not recommended for the average player.

We don’t want Cim to shut up, go away, go die, or any of the other things we’ve been accused of in this thread. We don’t even want him to stop playing his LRM DDC. All we want – the only thing we want – is for Cimarb to stop trying to muddy things up, confusing the issue, and making like just any random I.D.-ot puglie can play this build. If they could, then there would’ve been no need for this thread in the first place, hmm?

Edited by 1453 R, 19 May 2014 - 11:28 AM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

1453 R, on 19 May 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

Unfortunately Shar, I’m afraid I don’t really know what you’re talking about. I’m not sure what you want me (or Void, or Rex, or anyone else) to say? You seem to be campaigning for us to validate Cim’s builds and philosophies on the game and acknowledge him as a valid contributor to the thread with perfectly acceptable ideas. In that instance:

Then you have completely missed my points - making every single post I have made beyond the very first one - an utter and complete waste of time.

Thank you for justifying me stopping bothering trying to communicate.

[Void Angel]

WardenWolf, on 19 May 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

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.

That's not a boat, though - as you should know if you've read through the guide. ;] Boating any weapon means that you rely on that weapon system for at least the vast majority of your firepower - it's a very specific term. So, for example, my Hunchback 4P is a laser boat, but my Hunchback 4SP is not.

Shar 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.

There is no point in expanding the guide to discuss every variation of Atlas missile boat possible - as I pointed out twenty-two(ish) pages of argument ago, such discussions tend to devolve into "but I like my build" and "you can't make me!" objections. This is why I present general principles whenever possible and leave it up to my readers to apply them - the principle here is that building an Atlas so that LRMs are its only significant armament has such large opportunity costs, and so many drawbacks, that it's among the least optimal things you could possibly do with the chassis.

The rest of your point doesn't apply to really anything about the thread - I can only guess what verb you left out after "successfully." Currently, I'm going with "defenestrated," but that's a purely aesthetic choice. In any case, I've already addressed what constitutes a missile boat; I did it in the OP - and while the rules of fair debate have been violated by my opponent, the forum code of conduct has not. So, I'm not worried about moderation - but talking about reporting the thread to the mods because ReXspec and I don't want to give ground we cannot afford to cede is irresponsible.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Void Angel, on 19 May 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

There is no point in expanding the guide to discuss every variation of Atlas missile boat possible

THAT WAS NOT THE POINT.

[Void Angel]

That was exactly the point - you've been advocating for "discussing the exceptions," as a vehicle for explaining the guide. The problem with that is that it will result in even more endless argument from people who don't agree with my conclusions, misunderstand my arguments, and just will not let go.

I've dealt with nearly two dozen pages of that already. Do you really think I want to do it some more?

In point of fact, I did examine in some posts how the usage of Atlas missile builds affects its performance, and at one point was called a hypocrite in lieu of an answer to my logic. The guide stands on its own merits - it is not profitable or necessary to expand it in a way that will invite even more acrimonious debate than the thread has already garnered.

Edited by Void Angel, 19 May 2014 - 12:23 PM.

[1453 R]

I’m thinking that what Shar wants, Void, is less a matter of discussing the exceptions for their own sake as it is allowing the possibility of the exceptions in a more friendly and forthright manner. He seems to be arguing less the “LRM Badlases are Bad” point, and more the point where several of us have said to Cimarb “we’re not talking to you.”

I believe – though I cannot be certain – that Shar is interpreting this less as the “this guide was not written with you or players like you in mind as the target audience” version of we’re-not-talking-to-him and more as the “Nyah nyah, can’t heeeaaar you, now GO AWAY!” version of we’re-not-talking-to-him. It’s a humanitarian argument more than a technical one, thus the earlier accusations of bullying.

The problem, Shar, is that we have made as much allowance for Cimarb’s playstyle, preferences, and exception-to-the-rule skills as we possibly can. We’ve acknowledge that he gets good numbers; we’ve acknowledged that he can help his team win instead of hold them back (which is the major reason LRM Badlases and their pilots are being targeted in this thread), we’ve even acknowledged that he and those like him are perfectly free to ignore anything we say and continue to do whatever they like and whatever works for them.

Cimarb’s stance is that the ‘Mech itself is not inherently bad, it is the pilot in the ‘Mech that makes it bad; the last admission we could possibly make to acknowledge the arguments and evidence he’s presented – which has all been directly related to his own personal performance rather than reasoned analysis of the BattleMech itself – is that we’ve been bullscheissing this entire time and that the LRM Badlas is not in fact bad at all, and there’s absolutely no problems with piloting them.

This is not an admission I can make. I am unwilling to say that because I would be lying. I cannot truthfully state that I have no problem with people running LRM Badlases because I have a huge problem with them, due to the fact that ninety-nine LRM Badlas pilots out of a hundred are complete derps who have no idea what they’re doing. The LRM Badlas is inherently disadvantaged compared to other configurations of the chassis; this is an undeniable fact that derives from the deep limitations of the ‘Mech’s hardpoint layout and the fact that it thusly has more tonnage than it can effectively use on nothing but LRM systems. As we have pointed out – again, and again, and again, and again, and again – it’s not that LRMs in the ‘Mech are bad. It’s that there’s simply no good reason not to use a significant direct-fire armament in addition to the Atlas’ maximum missile-throwing capability, since it easily has the tonnage and critical spaces to do BOTH.

The pilot’s honed and practiced ability to overcome his equipment and still contribute to his team does not actually have any bearing on whether or not the equipment itself is faulty. All of Cimarb’s arguments have been rooted in his own observed performance in the ‘Mech, while other players have cited direct, factual evidence such as spreads of Smurfy builds showing the tonnage issues, as well as rational analysis of verifiable facts such as the ‘Mech’s concrete, unchangeable hardpoint layout.

We cannot directly answer Cimarb’s arguments as we have never seen his performance, save for one match Void had against him which is itself hotly contested as evidence in about as loathsome a manner as I have ever seen.

I would honestly welcome a set, premeditated challenge – a private 12-man drop with Void at the head of one team and Cim at the head of the other, with both teams made up of players who know better than to hang their Atlas out to dry. No single match can truly be conclusive as evidence, but I would still be very interested in seeing what happens when a hundred tons of armor, gristle, and anger decides instead to force half its weight in medium ‘Mechs to take the shock of frontline combat in its place while it stays safe in the back – and while the other team’s hundred tons of armor, gristle, and anger is right at the forefront of combat, assaulting the enemy with intent to obliterate.

I would gladly volunteer some premium time to set up such a match, should enough other pilots be interested in seeing the outcome of such a challenge.


EDIT::

Put it this way – if both ‘Mechs weren’t designed for second-row fire support duties, I’d be willing to spot Cim thirty-five tons in a Trial of Equals to prove that my Thunder Hammer there – and other ‘Mechs in the 45-65 ton range – make for better, more potent second-line fire support ‘Mechs than the biggest, most powerfully up-armored colossus (currently) in the game. However, a duel between LRM fire support units is about as entertaining and meaningful as a grade school nerd slapfight, and would also prove nothing except what everyone in the thread – even Cimarb – has known all along: an LRM Badlas with no team around it to soak up the aggression it can’t deal with itself is just about the most helpless thing in MWO.

But I’m still totally willing to facilitate a team drop. Lance-on-lance, or even full companies – whichever the folks involved want to do, because I want to see it. I want to see this impossible team-wiping game-winning deathmaster with my own eyes, since any sort of logical or rational argument continues to fall on deaf ears.

You want to base your entire stance on your personal performance, Cim? Let me see it, then. As a certain infamous Captain once said…

Edited by 1453 R, 19 May 2014 - 01:33 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

1453 R, on 19 May 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

I believe – though I cannot be certain – that Shar is interpreting this less as the “this guide was not written with you or players like you in mind as the target audience” version of we’re-not-talking-to-him and more as the “Nyah nyah, can’t heeeaaar you, now GO AWAY!” version of we’re-not-talking-to-him.

That would be a lot closer than any other intrepretation.

Considering that we have (I believe) established that having LRM on your Atlas is itself not bad - just the boating of them.

Having said that - if I was fairly new and came across this thread - and saw almost ANY of Rex's posts - I would very much believe that he was calling anyone who put any LRM on their Atlas a moron.

He has already repeatedly stated that it is not worth even talking about any build even remotely like Cimarbs.
(read in the way of newer people: anything with any LRM)

Thus - I was asking for a somewhat friendlier approach to it, because lets face it:
This is a game where right or wrong, you mention a mech or weapon and people assume you are only talking about boating because boating is the only thing worth talking about.

Edit:
TLDR - there are large portions of this thread that read like a Rage thread or a hate thread.
If you want people to come to your way of thinking, raging at them and hating at them is not the way to do it.

Edited by Shar Wolf, 19 May 2014 - 02:52 PM.

[Void Angel]

And I've been rather consistent in trying to moderate the ragers (without actually having to report anyone.) I've certainly not "hated at" anyone - the most I've done is object to the accusations of others.

I've adjusted the language at the beginning of the thread, for all the people who just skim, then post. However, modifying the focus of the post any further isn't a good idea.

Edited by Void Angel, 19 May 2014 - 07:51 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Void Angel, on 19 May 2014 - 07:49 PM, said:

And I've been rather consistent in trying to moderate the ragers (without actually having to report anyone.) I've certainly not "hated at" anyone - the most I've done is object to the accusations of others.

YOU have, yes.

Edit: Changing the focus of the thread was never my point.

HOWEVER - this is a topic that by nature invites a lot of discussion on what does or does not qualify, and other than Cimarb..... who has really even tried?
(I apologize for bringing him up so much - but there really is no other real example of the other side of the situation in the thread)

Edited by Shar Wolf, 19 May 2014 - 09:03 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

My support for the very concept this thread generated (IE LRM boating on an Atlas is not a good idea) should never have been in question.

My support for the attitudes and manners in this thread on the other hand.....

/sigh

But I am more than tired of trying.

I am more than tired of caring.
To the point where I am ready to abandon the forums in their entirety.


Rest well everyone.

May you all find your happy place in life.

Edit: spelling.

Edited by Shar Wolf, 19 May 2014 - 09:30 PM.

[Void Angel]

Many people have discussed what does and doesn't qualify - they just haven't asked questions. There have been a number of people who've said, "I don't know, my LRM Atlas with dual AC/5s has enough brawling punch to protect it," and I've simply corrected their use of the term "missile boat." Other than Cimarb (whom you shouldn't feel bad for bringing up, since it's appropriate,) almost no one has continued to debate - they simply took the guide for what it was worth and moved on.

Take a break, man. Get some rest and don't let ragers on the forums have free rent in your head.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Void Angel, on 19 May 2014 - 10:44 PM, said:

Many people have discussed what does and doesn't qualify - they just haven't asked questions.

That was part of my point!

Go read through the thread again - and ask yourself if this has been a topic that has invited questions!

As for taking a break - sadly the forums have been my break. >.<

[Grimmrog]

What a long argument, but int he end, take it scientifically:

A theory is valid until disproved

And most of voids theories are already disproved in that thread.
On top of that, his arguments are brought up very very biased instead of being objective.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Grimmrog, on 21 May 2014 - 12:36 AM, said:

And most of voids theories are already disproved in that thread.

[1453 R]

Grimmrog, on 21 May 2014 - 12:36 AM, said:

What a long argument, but [in the] end, take it scientifically:

A theory is valid until disproved

And most of voids theories are already disproved in that thread.
On top of that, his arguments are brought up very very biased instead of being objective.

Oh ho ho HO! You want to play scientific-method games with me, Grimm? Sweet! Let’s go!

First of all, a theory is proven or disproven empirically through controlled experimentation, not random happenstance observation. Observation creates theories, it doesn’t disprove them. The closest we’ve gotten to a controlled experiment is my proposal for a semi-organized 12-man drop centered on each type of Atlas – a proposal Cimarb has notably ignored.

Second of all, in order to be considered valid, a scientific experiment must produce results repeatable by other scientists who follow the same formula and procedure as the original experiment. One man’s results do not prove or disprove a theory; a large number of scientists must be able to reliably reproduce the experimental results prior to those results being taken as conclusive. In this instance, someone using Cim’s build and Cim’s tactics should, accordingly, be able to produce the same numbers Cim does. Cimarb has yet to share his precise build, save in a single, difficult-to-follow GIF image designed to display his match numbers rather than his build, and has yet to give more than a cursory overview of his tactics. Without seeing a Smurfy breakdown and a tactical write-up, we can’t even try to reproduce the man’s results – results which Cimarb himselff has agreed are highly atypical and not easily reproducible.

Third of all – in the absence of hard, reproducible empirical data, logical analysis must of necessity take over. Logical analysis has been entirely absent from Cimarb’s arguments – the man has repeatedly asserted that he doesn’t need logical analysis of his machine to know what it does and what it’s good for. He’s discarded – not refuted or rebutted, simply flat-out discarded – every logical argument Void and I have made for the Atlas’ unsuitability as a missile platform and claimed merely that his high match numbers prove us wrong.

Has Cimarb ever explained – logically, rationally, and with easily followed reasoning rather than with gut-instinct feelings and pictures of match numbers – why stutter-fire missiles from a too-small launcher is ‘better for suppression’? Or why that improved suppression effect might be worth dealing with the inherent, objective weakness of each launch being significantly more vulnerable to AMS fire?

Has Cimarb ever explained – logically, rationally, and with easily followed reasoning rather than with gut-instinct feelings and pictures of match numbers – why launchers restricted to a single torso section of his ‘Mech, which puts a hard, ironclad limit on the number of tubes he can sling and thus the number of missiles he can put in the air, doesn’t hamper his effectiveness as an assault-weight missile carrier?

Has Cimarb ever explained – logically, rationally, and with easily followed reasoning rather than with gut-instinct feelings and pictures of match numbers – what advantage there is to be had in actively avoiding a direct-fire weapons compliment to support his LRM batteries, when the Atlas as a chassis easily has the tonnage and critical space to sling significant direct-fire weaponry alongside its maximum possible compliment of missiles as has been proven by several folks putting up Smurfy spreads?

All right. Now that we’ve dealt with that nonsense, let’s try another tack – how and why would you state that Void’s arguments are biased, Grimm? Frankly, the only individual in this argument with both the experience of the chassis and the cold reasoning to back up their claims as strongly as possible is Void. I happen to know that Void is a long-running Fatlas driver, and furthermore his reasoning and arguments are laid out clear as crystal for everyone to follow in the original post. Certainly there’s passion in his arguments, but passion is not the same as bias.

And finally! Beyond interjecting some exceedingly unneeded snark, what does that post of yours add to the conversation, Grimm? What reasoning do you have for disagreeing with Void, or accusing him of bias? What reasoning do you have for asserting – however stealthily and underhanded – that the LRM Badlas is a useable choice of loadouts for Joe Everyman? What has been disproven, and where was it so disproven? I’ve seen no disproof in this thread, and I very much challenge you to find some.

[ApolloKaras]

Grimmrog, on 21 May 2014 - 12:36 AM, said:

What a long argument, but int he end, take it scientifically:

A theory is valid until disproved

And most of voids theories are already disproved in that thread.
On top of that, his arguments are brought up very very biased instead of being objective.

lol waaaaaaaaat?

[Void Angel]

A theory is not valid until proven, actually - and the one who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. Since Grimmrog hasn't actually offered even an argument as to why his rather extraordinary claims even might be true, I'm not obliged to even answer him - I'm just going to treat his claim as the unsupported accusation that it is.

Laugh and move on; don't feed the trolls.

Edited by Void Angel, 21 May 2014 - 01:27 PM.

[Chimerahawk]

Petard, on 27 April 2014 - 01:18 AM, said:

SERIOUSLY?!!!....IMO, anybody that drives a DDC without ECM, in order to load a whole extra ton or 2 of missiles, just has to be borderline intellectually challenged...That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard of in months....

It's funny when those Atlas' get LRMd to death though.

[Void Angel]

PS: I ignored the force-on-force duel idea too, Laser. The sample size is too small to get good data; all it would accomplish is to muddy the waters. To get scientifically valid results, we'd need to have a large, statistically-representative sample of data - gathered from people who either weren't testing, or thought they were testing something else. Otherwise you have researcher bias problems, and your experiment can easily be skewed by such factors as who has the better team.