97 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

Just ignore Blackhawk; I did. Either he's very dishonest, or extremely sloppy in his thought, to the point of contradiction. Every time he tried to rebut my criticisms, he wound up misrepresenting what I said in the form of "oh, so you [incorrect assertion here,]" and I eventually slapped him on Ignore. I don't like doing that, but he'll never be an asset to any conversation if that's his idea of intelligent argument.

On-topic, It's definitely not necessary to slavishly put something into every single hardpoint, for a number of reasons, some of which have already been remarked upon:

• Heat. Any build has to balance these factors against damage potential. You can slap twelve ER Medium Lasers on a Nova, but should you? Not in MWO, because it's too hot by far. If weapons you intend to use together are too hot to use effectively, you'll find that less is more when you swap some out for heat sinks.
  
• Tonnage and Space. Similarly, overstocking even heat-efficient weapons can cost you too much in terms of opportunity cost - sure, I can put 3 AC/5s on my ShadowHawk, but at the cost of being able to use an XL engine, and thus a lot of engine, armor, ammo, and/or heat sinks. I'd be better off ditching the third AC and going with an ERPPC or something, for more alpha, speed, ammo, and probably even still heat efficiency.
  
• Cognitive Efficiency. You've only got so much brain-power to go around, so grabbing a PPC, two ER Large Lasers, an AC/2, and a Gauss Rifle may fill out your hardpoints on Hypothetical 'Mech X, but they're going to be really hard to use effectively, since they all have radically different ballistic/firing characteristics. If you wanted to go with a long-range build, you'd be well-advised to pick two of those weapons go with those, rather than try to juggle lead times, laser durations, and a charge-up mechanic all at once.

That being said, you do need to make good use of your tonnage for weapons; if your 100-ton killing machine's armaments could be comfortably fit onto a Catapult, you're probably wasting someones time - likely your own.

[Tesunie]

Void Angel, on 23 September 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

so grabbing a PPC, two ER Large Lasers, an AC/2, and a Gauss Rifle...


That being said, you do need to make good use of your tonnage for weapons; if your 100-ton killing machine's armaments could be comfortably fit onto a Catapult, you're probably wasting someones time - likely your own.

Is there a mech that can actually field all of that at once!?! (I had to say it.)


I've been accused of not using my 3F effectively enough. One of the points given was "You have the close range weapons of a Jenner, with the LRMs of a Catapult in one mech". However, the point was, I can have those two weapon range groups on one mech, and fill in a different role from the two. (Jenner = Striker, fast mech. Catapult = Support mostly mech. Stalker = Guard mech for support units, able to support as well, and limited brawling abilities.) (Yes, this is a little off what you are saying, but I do get what you mean. If all you have on your Atlas are two ERLLs... you probably could be doing something a little better with that tonnage...))

[_____]

Really Void Angel, I've proved you wrong before with video evidence in your other thread. Given that you've been playing for a lot longer than I have and I've never seen you once on any of the leaderboard challenges, it says a lot about how poorly you take criticism. Carry on

[Tesunie]

BlackhawkSC, on 23 September 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

Really Void Angel, I've proved you wrong before with video evidence in your other thread. Given that you've been playing for a lot longer than I have and I've never seen you once on any of the leaderboard challenges, it says a lot about how poorly you take criticism. Carry on

Wait... I thought you were ignoring replies other than the OPs? What happened to that?

[_____]

Tesunie, on 23 September 2014 - 06:01 PM, said:

Wait... I thought you were ignoring replies other than the OPs? What happened to that?

Do you read?

Quote

My replies are for OP

Meaning my first 2 posts which were related to OP's build.

[Tesunie]

BlackhawkSC, on 23 September 2014 - 06:32 PM, said:

Do you read?

Meaning my first 2 posts which were related to OP's build.

But yet you ignore my posts (no problem there), say it's because it's directed to the OP (still no problem there, people don't have to respond to every post I make), but you respond to Void (in a rather negative manner) who also responded to the same post I did (just a little more harshly than I did). But you told me that:

BlackhawkSC, on 23 September 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

Did I ever respond to your posts? No. My replies are for OP and if somehow I touched his or someone else's nerve, I'm afraid I really can't help you there. My posts are meant for constructive feedback, if you don't like the way it's written, you're welcomed to ignore it.

So, which is it? Ignore posts "you don't like" or "respond to them"? Just asking...


Oh, and that thread you are talking about? The one with "no" LRMs on an Atlas? It doesn't have anything to do with "no" LRMs, but about not "LRM Boating" with an Atlas. The theme of that thread is to basically direct people into being informed about mechs supporting certain roles better than others, and that one should consider the role of said mech when they create their custom version of that mech. In the case of the Atlas, it is not very effective as an LRM boat. It doesn't have very large tube counts, and it's weapons hardpoints/armor/mech-class-type lean it towards a different role.

Void doesn't say to not have any LRMs, but to not LRM boat with an Atlas. My personal stance is to not LRM boat at all, unless you are in a coordinated group who can protect you as you support them. In PUG land? Most LRM boats from my experience become fast mech food (though not all, as some people can pull it off).

[_____]

Is "You" the same as "I"? Understand English?

The original post I responded to was having LRMs on a brawler. Void doesn't want LRMs on an Atlas which he thinks should be a front line mech. The idea of his thread is that the mech should be built for its role, and the role of OP's mech in this case is a brawler.

About LRM boats in PUG land. I've too many of these examples to upload to Youtube, but here's one for you

[Tesunie]

BlackhawkSC, on 23 September 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

Is "You" the same as "I"? Understand English?

I'm starting to wonder what your comprehension skills are, or writing skills at that matter. You're being very belligerent and rude to just about everyone here. I'm not saying you don't have a point, but you aren't exactly going about saying your point in an effective and polite manner. (PS: Smiley emotes don't help to take the condescending and hurtful tone out of what you are writing. It's still rude and it can still hurt people's feelings.)

As far as "Brawler with LRMs", I have a very effective Battlemaster 1G build. It's a brawler, with some long range abilities and LRMs on it. I've also ran Dragon's with LRMs before, using my LRMs at times in the same exact manner as the person you were talking to. It ran well, and sometimes those 5 LRMs I shot out into the air saved me from running smack into the enemy gun line. I also often shot the LRMs in support of my team while I ran a flank or was running away and evading enemies. The tactic can work. (OP probably should have announced his Dragon was more of a Striker than a Brawler, but the concepts are similar enough.)

As far as LRM Boating, no. I'm not going to watch a 12 minute video to even see what you are talking about there. However, as I stated before, I'm not saying it can't be done in PUGland, just that I don't recommend it is all. Just like I agree with Void on an LRM Atlas*. I don't recommend it, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done. However, just because it can be done doesn't mean it might not be more effective on a mech built to use LRMs better (such as the Stalker, Awesome or Battlemaser 1S). (*And I'm referring to an LRM Boat Atlas, not a few LRMs onto an Atlas build, which can work very well.)

If you wish to debate Void's Atlas thread, please provide me a link so I can personally read it over a bit... However, I believe I have read that thread already and I don't recall it saying what you seem to be telling me it says...

[Void Angel]

Tesunie, on 23 September 2014 - 02:26 PM, said:

Is there a mech that can actually field all of that at once!?! (I had to say it.)

Oh, Sure. It's just a bad loadout. =)

PS: Dear Atlas Missile Boats is probably the thread he's referring to. I seem to recall some bad thinker posting cherry-picked videos that didn't prove what he thought they did, but I could be wrong - the attempt at argument was... forgettable. So many people like that on the internets, and they all hate me. =) Some enemies are a compliment.

Seriously, though; you'd be better off just consigning him to the ignore bin of history.

Edited by Void Angel, 24 September 2014 - 12:01 AM.

[Tesunie]

Void Angel, on 23 September 2014 - 11:48 PM, said:

PS: Dear Atlas Missile Boats is probably the thread he's referring to.

So, let me get this right, he's arguing that you said no missiles on an Atlas, when it says clearly "Atlas Missile Boats" right in the title?

...

And why are we typing so small...

[_____]

LRM boats meaning having LRMs as the primary weapon and primary damage dealer? I'm pretty sure my video proved you wrong. Let's not even go there about cherry picking, a game like that was not uncommon. For you though I'm pretty sure you couldn't even cherry pick a match worth showing if you had ran a similar loadout - which of course you wouldn't since you brush them off to be ineffective.

Edited by Mal, 28 September 2014 - 02:41 PM.
Removed indirect name and shame

[Tesunie]

BlackhawkSC, on 24 September 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

LRM boats meaning having LRMs as the primary weapon and primary damage dealer? I'm pretty sure my video proved you wrong. Let's not even go there about cherry picking, a game like that was not uncommon. For you though I'm pretty sure you couldn't even cherry pick a match worth showing if you had ran a similar loadout - which of course you wouldn't since you brush them off to be ineffective.

Tesunie, on 23 September 2014 - 07:51 PM, said:

As far as LRM Boating, no. I'm not going to watch a 12 minute video to even see what you are talking about there. However, as I stated before, I'm not saying it can't be done in PUGland, just that I don't recommend it is all. Just like I agree with Void on an LRM Atlas*. I don't recommend it, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done. However, just because it can be done doesn't mean it might not be more effective on a mech built to use LRMs better (such as the Stalker, Awesome or Battlemaser 1S). (*And I'm referring to an LRM Boat Atlas, not a few LRMs onto an Atlas build, which can work very well.)

You said something about me and English?

And your first post in the other thread:

BlackhawkSC, on 27 April 2014 - 12:08 AM, said:

I wouldn't "boat" LRMs, if the definition is only carrying LRMs and a few backup weapons. But a couple of launchers in your Atlas can be pretty effective. You're slow, so your teammates will have targeted the enemy way before you. So while you're getting your slow a** to where they are, you can launch a few missiles as support. You're also often waiting for the right time to make a push, so you can also launch a few salvos while you're behind cover.

Missiles are especially important on an RS and K because if you want to fully utilize your weight, the lack of a second ballistics slot leaves a lot of weight open - unless you want to carry heavy and high heat PPCs and LPLs, in which case you need more heatsinks and you don't have the slots for those.

Sounds like we where (are?) in agreement? So... What's the argument here?

[_____]

Tesunie, on 24 September 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

Sounds like we where (are?) in agreement? So... What's the argument here?

Quote

I wouldn't "boat" LRMs, if the definition is only carrying LRMs and a few backup weapons.

But you can do this

Quote

LRM boats meaning having LRMs as the primary weapon and primary damage dealer?

In context, my response to Void's thread, the "boat" means something like 3xLRM15, 2xLRM20 and that's pretty much it, which was why the "boat" was emphasized. That's maybe most people's definition of boat. I don't like those "boats". However Void pointed out builds like ALRM35 + lots of ammo + lasers as backup + 325 or bigger engine, which is similar to what I had built originally in my RS, as being ineffective. Some will still call those boats, including me, even though they have significant support firepower. I actually lowered the launcher size later on so that I can fit even more ammo.

Actually I don't know if he's even played with the Atlases in the mechlab. If he did he'd realize that with ALRM35 or even 40 and a ****load of ammo + std 325 you can still fit ballistics in the RT.

Edited by BlackhawkSC, 24 September 2014 - 01:58 PM.

[Tesunie]

BlackhawkSC, on 24 September 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

In context, my response to Void's thread, the "boat" means something like 3xLRM15, 2xLRM20 and that's pretty much it, which was why the "boat" was emphasized. That's maybe most people's definition of boat. I don't like those "boats". However Void pointed out builds like ALRM35 + lots of ammo + lasers as backup + 325 or bigger engine, which is similar to what I had built originally in my RS, as being ineffective. Some will still call those boats, including me, even though they have significant support firepower. I actually lowered the launcher size later on so that I can fit even more ammo.

Actually I don't know if he's even played with the Atlases in the mechlab. If he did he'd realize that with ALRM35 or even 40 and a ****load of ammo + std 325 you can still fit ballistics in the RT.

The build he referenced has only a single med laser (and TAG) as it's non-LRM weapons, hardly even considered secondary weapons at that point for a 100 ton mech.

I've seen many Atlas builds as Void described in his thread in action. They sometimes work, but the people who use such builds would honestly probably be better served in a different assault mech with more tubes available.

As i had stated though:

Tesunie, on 23 September 2014 - 07:51 PM, said:

I don't recommend it, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done. However, just because it can be done doesn't mean it might not be more effective on a mech built to use LRMs better.

[_____]

Tesunie, on 24 September 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

The build he referenced has only a single med laser (and TAG) as it's non-LRM weapons, hardly even considered secondary weapons at that point for a 100 ton mech.

I've seen many Atlas builds as Void described in his thread in action. They sometimes work, but the people who use such builds would honestly probably be better served in a different assault mech with more tubes available.

As i had stated though:

He referred to a build, which from at least the sound of it, was completely silly and no one with any amount of experience would take. If his point was to discourage those kinds of builds, I don't know why he would even bother to make the thread because any noob who wants to become better would immediately find that build to be rather useless in a couple of games. But my issue was that he generalized it to a more common form which is what I just described.

And I've also said through a variety of channels, including the video I posted, that Atlases aren't the best IS LRM platform. But you shouldn't discourage people from playing that kind of boat, as long as you have decent support weapons and you know what range you should be standing at. I had a lot of fun with my LRM RS when it was configured that way. Now that I drop with groups more often than before, the lack of viability of LRMs in group play made me switch it to a brawler.

By the way, tube count is important depending on how you intend to use the LRMs. If you intend to rain and suppress, then 6 or 10 tubes can actually sometimes be better than 15.

Edited by BlackhawkSC, 24 September 2014 - 02:39 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Tesunie, on 24 September 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

As i had stated though:

Dude.
Stop feeding the troll.

[Tesunie]

BlackhawkSC, on 24 September 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

He referred to a build, which from at least the sound of it, was completely silly and no one with any amount of experience would take. No smurfy or any kind of description was given. But my issue was that he generalized it to a more common form which is what I just described.

And I've also said through a variety of channels, including the video I posted, that Atlases aren't the best IS LRM platform. But you shouldn't discourage people from playing that kind of boat, as long as you have decent support weapons and you know what range you should be standing at. I had a lot of fun with my LRM RS when it was configured that way. Now that I drop with groups more often than before, the lack of viability of LRMs in group play made me switch it to a brawler.

He sounds rather specific to me about the build (as far as weapons go):

Quote

A "pure" Atlas missile boat with a 325 STD, 35ALRMs, TAG, and a Medium Laser

And, to be fair and honest to you and Void, I have actually seen this exact build in PUG matches from time to time, and it generally seemed to preform poorly.

The point isn't that it can't be done, but rather that it honestly would be a build better served on other chassis. (As stated before already.)

We should discourage people from playing builds that are rather poor in implementation. We shouldn't prevent (or insult) them for playing them however. If it works for them, then I will by all means leave them be. I don't tell them not to play such builds when I cross them, I normally give suggestions on how they might wish to improve that build, unto which they may do what they wish once the suggestion is given. Hence why I said I don't support nor recommend LRM boating of any kind, but I'm also not going to say it can't be done (and done well) nor will I tell them not to do it. This Atlas build is one such case. I don't recommend it, for many reasons. That doesn't mean you can't play it if it is working for you. I just feel that one could do better with a different build. (Such as fewer LRM racks, more direct fire weapons. Atlases can work very well with LRMs, just not as an LRM dedicated boat. And I see boating as when most all of your weapons are of one type.)

I will admit that often times Void can come off as harsh (hence the "Stop it" comment at the top of his thread/post). However, he uses this as a tool to gain interest in his works, and later on softens the blow of the first section's intensity by explaining why he doesn't recommend it. If you read the last section (which has been changed slightly, but the message remained the same), he essentially ends with "I'm not actually telling you what you can/can't do, but wish for you to consider these points".

Shar Wolf, on 24 September 2014 - 02:42 PM, said:

Dude.
Stop feeding the troll.

But... I have all this troll feed! I don't want it to all go to waste...
(I'll probably stop responding to him now, as he's just contradicting himself and running along the same points that has already been proven isn't what is being talked about to start with...)

[_____]

Sure let's throw in the troll card so you can stop responding Up to you though.

Anyways as I said, that build is completely silly and if you do endo steel you'll have way more ammo than you can ever use up in a single match. Unless you hold down fire, in which case you'll stop firing because of heat? I thought there had to be more to that build. If not, then I really don't get the point of that thread because the players who actually want to get good - and those are the ones probably reading forums - will never play that build. You'll get "noobs" who play it, but you're not going to change their opinion with a forum post that they'll never read.

[Tesunie]

BlackhawkSC, on 24 September 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

Anyways as I said, that build is completely silly and if you do endo steel you'll have way more ammo than you can ever use up in a single match. Unless you hold down fire, in which case you'll stop firing because of heat?

I've seen people with two MGs with 4-6 tons of ammo on their mech (by the time I was spectating them). There is no way someone can go through that much MG ammo in a single match, but they take that much still. (As an example.)

[Void Angel]

I did warn you.

In teeny tiny letters! So the troll wouldn't hear. It doesn't like reading, and tends to skim things that are small.