679 replies to this topic

[ScarecrowES]

IdolElite, on 14 February 2016 - 11:49 AM, said:

I've actually seen the OP in game and someone did try and tell him he was wrong.

Now, are people really that concerned about a build being slightly less than optimal hurting the overall team effort? This is a lousy argument.

1) Player skill is in most cases more important than Mech build. Why don't all those Direwhales get a thousand damage every round with their guass and laser builds? Instead half the time they are dead by 100 damage.
2) The implication is if I'm not playing Meta laser vomit in all my mechs I'm wasting everyone's time?
3) Am I to assume by eliting new mechs/testing new builds I'm also torpedoing the team?
4) Most of the games you lose during PUG matches aren't because one mech wasn't pumping out that extra .5 DPS, it's because you got outmaneuvered and overrun.
5) He's not playing competitive matches, and if he was I'm sure he'd do what he could to build his mech to support his 12 man premade team.
6) He's not playing badly for Quick Play. I wish my whole team scored upwards of 300 damage most games, you know what you call that? A win.

Now, if you do see someone who's build you have questions about, then by all means ask a question or offer advice, but those of you who have said already are correct, it's the way everyone goes about it that's wrong.

*edit* As i sat here catching up on the thread, more and more issues with that BS people spit about him hurting the team occurs to me, for the sake of brevity I'm not going to post it, just thought it was worth mentioning that you who believe that are still offending me.

To your points

1) I agree skill can trump build... but if given the choice, as every player is, why not have both?
2) Literally noone in this thread arguing against the OP has once mentioned the need to run a laser meta build. It's not even possible on an Atlas. The only ones bringing up "meta" are those trying to justify the build.
3) Not if you have a reasonable expectation that you can produce good results with the build anyway. Or stop using it once you see it's not working. Spending 2+ years using the same bad build and receiving poor results, as the OP has, is not nearly the same situation.
4) Agreed. However, being "outmaneuvered and overrun" as you say is often a factor of players not playing their mechs and builds to their strengths... such as when a highly robust 100-ton assault mech with ECM stays in the back and lobs LRMs and can't stay with the team because it's engine is too small. The teams being outplayed are the ones incapable of standing up as a team. An Atlas like the OP uses is incapable of standing up with the team.
5) All modes in MWO are competitive by their nature. There is no such thing as a non-competitive match in MWO. Even solo-queue quick play is competitive. That some players seem to think that playing solo-queue somehow changes the point of the game is... special.
6) He actually is while using a 100-ton assault mech. If we generalize about the entire team make-up and say, overall, 300-600 is not bad, you're incorporating numbers from all mechs which are inherently smaller than it, and thus should be expected to perform worse. 300pts of damage in a 30-ton mech in quick play solo queue is pretty standard fair. Not for a 100-ton mech though.

But to your greater point overall... no... I think the point here is that... if the OP insists on using bad builds, he should expect to get called on it. You can't harm your team and expect not to hear about it.

The Atlas Overlord, on 14 February 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:

1) Ignore this guy. Claiming someone has to do 100 damage per ton is just moronic. If you end the match and you did over 400 damage, you carried your weight. If you end the match and did over 600 damage, you made up for someone that couldn't break 200. If you end the match and actually get over 1000 damage (like this guys is suggesting an assault should do every single game... god what a moron) then chances are you're the only reason your team won (or maybe you got really lucky).

2) What kind of stupid petulant ***** will try to justify ruining the game for someone else b/c "It's ruined for me if I don't".

You literally didn't read a thing I said... congrats on posting absolute rubbish.

[Deathlike]

Spr1ggan, on 14 February 2016 - 12:04 PM, said:

These are the same people that call us "farmers" or "seal clubbers".

The results are usually nom nom nomworthy.

[VinJade]

Actually they should leave the OP alone as they don't have a right to tell him how to play the game the way he wishes.

I pilot a Stalker and I do anywhere around 200-450*+ damage a match, more or less depending on the map.

My mech is a support unit and fills that role nicely.

the OP's build is a jack of all trades and a master of none and that is fine.

*I can actually break 800 on a good map.

spelling errors fixed.

Edited by VinJade, 14 February 2016 - 12:15 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

VinJade, on 14 February 2016 - 12:13 PM, said:

Actually they should leave the OP alone as they don't have a right to tell him how to play the game the way he wishes.

In point of fact... they do have that right, actually. He can choose to ignore the community, of course, and go his own way, but as such, the community has a right to try to correct a problem just as he supposedly has a right to BE that problem.

[MeanFacedJohnny]

ScarecrowES, on 14 February 2016 - 12:08 PM, said:

To your points

1) I agree skill can trump build... but if given the choice, as every player is, why not have both?
2) Literally noone in this thread arguing against the OP has once mentioned the need to run a laser meta build. It's not even possible on an Atlas. The only ones bringing up "meta" are those trying to justify the build.
3) Not if you have a reasonable expectation that you can produce good results with the build anyway. Or stop using it once you see it's not working. Spending 2+ years using the same bad build and receiving poor results, as the OP has, is not nearly the same situation.
4) Agreed. However, being "outmaneuvered and overrun" as you say is often a factor of players not playing their mechs and builds to their strengths... such as when a highly robust 100-ton assault mech with ECM stays in the back and lobs LRMs and can't stay with the team because it's engine is too small. The teams being outplayed are the ones incapable of standing up as a team. An Atlas like the OP uses is incapable of standing up with the team.
5) All modes in MWO are competitive by their nature. There is no such thing as a non-competitive match in MWO. Even solo-queue quick play is competitive. That some players seem to think that playing solo-queue somehow changes the point of the game is... special.
6) He actually is while using a 100-ton assault mech. If we generalize about the entire team make-up and say, overall, 300-600 is not bad, you're incorporating numbers from all mechs which are inherently smaller than it, and thus should be expected to perform worse. 300pts of damage in a 30-ton mech in quick play solo queue is pretty standard fair. Not for a 100-ton mech though.

I never said I've been using this build the whole time I've played. I have tweaked it many times, and still do here and there. This is just what I find works best for me, and I have the most fun with.

[VinJade]

Actually crow they don't have a right.
it is not:
their mech
their game*
their Computer
their money
their connection
ect

it is their opinion only nothing more and nothing less.

I have seen people who believe it is their business many times in my life, be it work, games, ect.

This is a game and games as long as they do not tk and try their best then they are playing the game right.

*and no it isn't their game, they do not own it, pgi does and they are not breaking any rules playing the way they are.

Edited by VinJade, 14 February 2016 - 12:25 PM.

[Dahkoht]

Not sure what the ignore limit is , if there is one , but simply ignore the idiot know it alls who take the time to be an *** in a game.

Eventually you'll have the biggest whiners , complainers , and "experts" silenced and both voice and team chat become all friendly and helpful people.

Nothing wrong with people giving friendly tips , but anyone who "tells you what you shouldn't use" just deserves a quick ignore and them let them whine to themselves.

[ScarecrowES]

King Alen, on 14 February 2016 - 12:22 PM, said:

It is only a problem to a small part of community.

It's a problem to the whole community. Some members just choose not to care. Some clearly do care, though. Enough care, apparently, that the OP is consistently made aware of the breadth of that care. I suppose, then, it becomes an issue of conscience... knowing that a negative action is universally disliked by a community, and only tolerated by some... would you still engage in negative action anyway?

[pyrocomp]

ScarecrowES, on 14 February 2016 - 12:06 PM, said:

To your points

1) I agree skill can trump build... but if given the choice, as every player is, why not have both?
2) Literally noone in this thread arguing against the OP has once mentioned the need to run a laser meta build. It's not even possible on an Atlas. The only ones bringing up "meta" are those trying to justify the build.
3) Not if you have a reasonable expectation that you can produce good results with the build anyway. Or stop using it once you see it's not working. Spending 2+ years using the same bad build and receiving poor results, as the OP has, is not nearly the same situation.
4) Agreed. However, being "outmaneuvered and overrun" as you say is often a factor of players not playing their mechs and builds to their strengths... such as when a highly robust 100-ton assault mech with ECM stays in the back and lobs LRMs and can't stay with the team because it's engine is too small. The teams being outplayed are the ones incapable of standing up as a team. An Atlas like the OP uses is incapable of standing up with the team.
5) All modes in MWO are competitive by their nature. There is no such thing as a non-competitive match in MWO. Even solo-queue quick play is competitive. That some players seem to think that playing solo-queue somehow changes the point of the game is... special.
6) He actually is while using a 100-ton assault mech. If we generalize about the entire team make-up and say, overall, 300-600 is not bad, you're incorporating numbers from all mechs which are inherently smaller than it, and thus should be expected to perform worse. 300pts of damage in a 30-ton mech in quick play solo queue is pretty standard fair. Not for a 100-ton mech though.

But to your greater point overall... no... I think the point here is that... if the OP insists on using bad builds, he should expect to get called on it. You can't harm your team and expect not to hear about it.

For me this sums to:
1) Cause the builds require different sets of skills? Or I just do not like brawling (really, we have different roles/styles).
2) People say that there should go SRMs instead of LRMs (as if that Atlas will be to the front lines faster to soak that damage people insist it's purpose is).
3) So never ever to jump into a new mech? Ever tried to go from elited RVN to not-even-basiced DWF? Try.
4) outmanuevered often means to get enemy team from your back. There are literally no time to reposition and those assaults are almost usually left alone. This is NASCAR and not the pilots problem. It's more of the team not playing for it's strength. Really, argument goes both ways. NASCAR is a manuever executed usually by both teams. You still can be outpositioned, but that's rare.
5) If each and every mode of MWO is competitve then the whole game is competitive? If it is competitve it should have standartized bulds and team compositions and such to remove that random factor to 'value skill'. Are you sure that this is MWO?
6) 280-320 is and average damage per mech on a win. He does above which is sufficient for assault. Claims that everyone in a match should do 550 at least are... well, where the hell we can get that much of HPs one enemy mechs? Independently remove armor and internals of each arm, the one leg, the armor of what remains, then try ST and after, if the victim is still with us proceed to another CT and to make CT and remaining leg cherry-red? Sound like a waste of damage. Really. Check the average damage per team in matches, is it near 5000 (that will be 420 dmg per mech)?

[Karamarka]

I cry about LRM atlas because it just means I have to carry that guy

Its no fun playing a game where its expected YOU WILL CARRY.

Half my matches are some dude suiciding in a light before 14:00, or some1 else doing 20dmg in an assault. It just means we have to pick up the slack or lose horribly. Now i have to play the same mech 6 times for the x2 xp because I lose every time to outside circumstances, and mastering takes forever.

I don't really care what your build is if it never shows up in my games lewl or you actually do good.

Edited by Karamarka, 14 February 2016 - 12:34 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

VinJade, on 14 February 2016 - 12:24 PM, said:

Actually crow they don't have a right.
it is not:
their mech
their game*
their Computer
their money
their connection
ect

it is their opinion only nothing more and nothing less.

I have seen people who believe it is their business many times in my life, be it work, games, ect.

This is a game and games as long as they do not tk and try their best then they are playing the game right.

*and no it isn't their game, they do not own it, pgi does and they are not breaking any rules playing the way they are.

You're absolutely right. The OP can do what he wants... and thus, again, he should expect to be called out for going against the grain. He'll either learn to accept the constant call-outs, he'll change his build and tactics to better fit into his teams, or he'll get angry and stop playing. One way or another, the community will out. Just saying.

[MeanFacedJohnny]

ScarecrowES, on 14 February 2016 - 12:26 PM, said:

It's a problem to the whole community. Some members just choose not to care. Some clearly do care, though. Enough care, apparently, that the OP is consistently made aware of the breadth of that care. I suppose, then, it becomes an issue of conscience... knowing that a negative action is universally disliked by a community, and only tolerated by some... would you still engage in negative action anyway?

It's not everybody as you try to make it sound. It is usually one player in a game that will make the comment. Not everybody, like you are assuming. Which you have been doing a lot of. So let's not pretend everyone is complaining about it in every game I play. Just enough here and there that I felt the need to say something about it on the forums. All goes back to that old adage, If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all. Or better yet, use tact: make a point without making an enemy. If someone doesn't like my build, that's fine. If they want to recommend other things, that's fine. But there is no reason to be disrespectful about it.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

ScarecrowES, on 14 February 2016 - 11:25 AM, said:

This particular line is a fundemental crux of the problem. If this were a one-on-one game, you'd be entirely justified in seeking enjoyment purely from the process and not the result. But it's not. It's a multiplayer game. There are 11 other players on your team, and chances are most of those players are playing to win. As you said, winning is not the ENTIRE source of enjoyment derived herein. If a player isn't enjoying the process, then the result will be pointless.

However... the enjoyment of the process should NEVER come as a detriment to the result. Whether or not you derive a large percentage of your enjoyment from winning, you should still enter the match with the full intent to win. If you enter a match knowing you're intending to do so merely for your own enjoyment, and damn the result... that's merely selfish on your part. You're harming the enjoyment of the process and result for 11 other people.

I think a lot of the ire you see in this thread stems from the idea that one player's enjoyment somehow trumps the enjoyment of the other 11.

By the same rote, though, the fun of those other eleven does not trump that one pilot either.

When we're talking about something of concrete, measurable worth- lives, physical injury, psychological debilitation, et cetera, 'the needs of the many' works.

When you're talking about a consistent team- people who work or play together on a regular basis, you can expect the team to internally adjudicate such matters and come to a consensus- how much we care about winning versus how much we care about how we win (or lose).

When you're talking about a game where players aren't getting together beforehand as teams and coming to such a consensus, though, it becomes unreasonable to dictate that any member of that team adhere to any sense of enjoyment but their own. (Attempt to persuade or convince through actual argument or discussion, yes. Dictate, no.)

To wit, you've just said that he doesn't get to have fun playing the game because (you assume) the other eleven people on his team disagree with him about what 'fun' is.

I can't quite lay out the specifics of what's wrong with that, but it basically comes down to this- he has as much right to enjoy himself playing the game as they do.


Now, we can modify this by trying to stay reasonable- he should be trying to contribute (as that's the intent of the game), and he should be trying to ensure his team wins. Dictating the specifics of method, though, is pushing the boundaries of what's reasonable, for the reasons I laid out earlier in this post.

Do they have a right to complain? Sure. So does he (and he's exercising it). Do they have the right to insist that he is somehow wrong, bad, essentially evil for having a sense of fun that leads him to play with an intent that is not perfectly like theirs? Only so far as they can believe that and espouse that belief, I think. They cannot, though, reasonably expect him to stop having fun just because he enjoys things differently from how they do.

It's one thing to suggest or recommend changes to a 'mech build, playstyle, strategy, deck build, way of shooting a basketball, et cetera. It's something else to try to make someone a villain for not doing it the way you would, though.


I hope I'm communicating clearly here, I'm not sure the English language is quite suited to the meanings I'm trying to convey (or even language in general, necessarily).

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 14 February 2016 - 12:35 PM.

[Ted Wayz]

Slow LRM boats are slow, But if it works for you.

[VinJade]

actually Crow if he is always getting bombarded it is called harassment.

Quote

ha·rass (hə-răs′, hăr′əs) tr.v. ha·rassed, ha·rass·ing, ha·rass·es
To subject (another) to hostile or prejudicial remarks or actions; pressure or intimidate.

and Harassment is against the TOS.

[Dahkoht]

ScarecrowES, on 14 February 2016 - 12:26 PM, said:

It's a problem to the whole community. Some members just choose not to care. Some clearly do care, though. Enough care, apparently, that the OP is consistently made aware of the breadth of that care. I suppose, then, it becomes an issue of conscience... knowing that a negative action is universally disliked by a community, and only tolerated by some... would you still engage in negative action anyway?

Actually it's usually the whiny , bitchy , minority that throws a fit in solo pug queues.

I bet you'd be surprised to find that most that play in the solo queue dislike the bitchy ones more than any mech build.

So no , his build is not "universally" disliked , but the majority of players probably don't like the self proclaimed "experts".

[Mcgral18]

So this is what the Underhive sounds like...

• people defending underengined Atlai
  
• calling people who don't gimp their builds Meta Tryhards
  
• calling LRMs decent weapon systems
  
• defending Frakenmechs as effective

Thank Mecha Cthulu for that EXP bar...I won't see half of them. And if they keep using those builds, maybe I never will.


There are enough sub-200 damage mechs on the field. Yours just screams something that reliably falls into that category, being unable to kill things up close, while simultaneously not being able to kill something at range.
All while being saddled with poor speed, unable to relocate.

Truly, a piece of art.


Now, call me a Meta Tryhard because I do not actively build Terribad mechs, and enjoy being able to kill what I see. I'll laugh when you can barely scratch my paint as you've lost a ST.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

McGral, you aren't even making an argument. Your post pretty much amounts to 'I think you're stupid, piss off you idiot.'

I find it difficult to believe you could expect anyone to modify their actions based on that.

[G3TxWr3cK3r3D]

pyrocomp, on 14 February 2016 - 11:45 AM, said:

Might just be a good team he plays with. And a team that makes him usefull. So no problem here. If your playstyle is to run full forward... Well, we had a thread about NASCAR not a single time.


Google for 'handicap'.

No, you Google it and make your point, I'm not going to make your argument for you.

To those that whine, about the "elitists" players who criticize the OP, please, your unearned moral superiority is hypocritical. You get as much sanctimony from making that argument then those who are voicing their opinions against the OP.

[VinJade]

and the community as a whole are fools if they think the way you do scarecrow.
this is a game, there will be winners and there will be losers(and some times ties), but the most important thing about a game more so Battletech/mechwarrior is to have fun.

sure winning would be nice all the time but losing is not the end of the world.

though I have to wonder if the ones whining the loudest is because they care way to much about the psr?

if that is the case then it is just another strike against it.

Edited by VinJade, 14 February 2016 - 12:45 PM.