Jump to content

Please Stop Telling Me How To Build.


679 replies to this topic

#161 Dahkoht

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Undertaker
  • The Undertaker
  • 126 posts
  • LocationPelham,AL

Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:44 PM

View PostG3TxWr3cK3r3D, on 14 February 2016 - 12:40 PM, said:

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.


I'm just in awe over your KeWl leet name.

You definitely know what you are talking about.

#162 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:44 PM

View Postpyrocomp, on 14 February 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

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)?


1) The Atlas's strengths are as a brawler. If you don't like brawling, then I suggest not trying to shoehorn the Atlas into a role it's not suited for. Merely choose a better mech for the style you want to play.
2) Atlas's can absorb more damage than just about any mech in the game and keep fighting. It's primary weapon groups are in the torsos, so it can lose a few components and be totally effective. The Atlas is a line-smasher. It's meant to lead a charge. You use SRM's because the mech is built for them, and because close range weapons are your best investment on slow mechs.
3) You didn't read what was said. So I won't address your non-point.
4) Again, didn't read what I said.
5) Yes, entire game is competitive. Every mode is 2 teams fighting against each other to win. That's the definition of competitive. And if you haven't been paying attention, in every competitive game with player choice, inevitably certain choices rise above others. There's a reason that metas exist. Its not to say you have to play the meta to compete. I choose not to, generally speaking. But I do choose builds that compliment the mech and my playstyle, and aren't intentionally designed to ignore what works.
6) Sub 300 damage is NOT an average output for a 100-ton mech. Smaller mechs and poor players may put up these numbers, but you should never be running that in something at 100 tons. These things can mount in excess of 70 alpha and can sustain that without overheating for a good while. If you're doing less than 5pts of damage per ton, you're lagging well behind the curve for your build, and are forcing other mechs to carry you. One shouldn't confuse being carried to a victory with a build contributing equally, just because your numbers seems similar to the average. A 100-ton mech should sit well over the average.

#163 Mcgral18

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 17,987 posts
  • LocationSnow

Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:44 PM

View PostQuickdraw Crobat, on 14 February 2016 - 12:39 PM, said:

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.


He doesn't want to modify his robot out of that terrible niche, why try to convince him?
He swapped the 20 for 10s, which is better, but going from bad to less bad isn't exactly good.


There's a lot of terrible opinion in this thread, that's all I'm saying.
Feel free to have your opinion. Don't expect me to agree with it.


Builds like the OP are what cause the massive number of sub 200 damage players, which means you cannot carry your team effectively, which means they cause your team to lose.

I don't want those players on my team. I want someone who cares, even a tiny bit, about winning.

Edited by Mcgral18, 14 February 2016 - 12:45 PM.


#164 IdolElite

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 175 posts
  • LocationFlorida, USA, Terra

Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:47 PM

View PostScarecrowES, 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.

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.


I will only respond to what i feel are our key areas of disagreement or ones that require clarification.

2) While i used the example of Laser Vomit, the intention was Meta or Cookie Cutter builds in general, not of a specific type. Atlases do have certain expectation builds that I'm sure you can find on Metamechs or certain Unit websites. My point though was that deviating from the build 'Optimum' shouldn't warrant another player jumping down your throat for ruining his fun.

3) OP actually responded to 3.

4) Again i think your point is more about skill vs build. A good Assault with some long ranged weaponry doesn't mean it's lingering 500+ meters from the fight. An Atlas like the OP's at 200-300 meters and below is still functional with the AC-20 and ER larges. Having seen the OP play I can assure you he wasn't dodging the fight. Now if you're the kind of player who goes, hey I've got ECM, ER Larges and LRM's I'm going to stay at 800 meters for 12 minutes and then wonder why we lost then I'd agree we have a problem, but again not with the build.

5) This is sort of like me going to a Florida State fan to enjoy the game and then a die-hard fan yelling at me because I'm not supporting the team enough. We all have different ways of enjoying MWO. You can't reasonably expect everyone to go into every match with their game face on in Quick Play. And certainly you don't have the right as some arbitrator of what constitutes a solid build to go lecturing someone. Yes it's a competitive game, but that in and of itself means different things to different people. Just because it's your opinion of competitive doesn't mean its right.

6) I think you're expectations need tweaking. I'd give up half my mechs if it meant all the assaults on my team scored at least 300 every match. Honestly 300 from a light is great, 300 from a medium is pretty darn good, 300 from most heavies is a bit disappointing, 300 from an assault ain't bad, especially when they are usually the first ones targeted. Typically there's only a few people on your team who get upwards of 500 damage depending on the tonnage of the match. Should he feel lousy about himself if he's not in the top 3 of his team every round? Is that a reasonable expectation?

#165 XFellDragonX

    Member

  • Pip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 12 posts
  • LocationU.S. California.

Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:48 PM

I dare you guys to use this build OP is using, please tell us how well that goes If you can easily get 500 - 600 damage then I'll concede, I tell you right now though none of you will break 400 it would be extremely lucky.

I think the reason OP has ANY success at all is because he's at the point where you go from scrub land tier 4 and 5 to 2 and 1 and still has noobs who can't handle LRMs.

#166 Tiamat of the Sea

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:50 PM

View PostScarecrowES, on 14 February 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

6) Sub 300 damage is NOT an average output for a 100-ton mech. Smaller mechs and poor players may put up these numbers, but you should never be running that in something at 100 tons. These things can mount in excess of 70 alpha and can sustain that without overheating for a good while. If you're doing less than 5pts of damage per ton, you're lagging well behind the curve for your build, and are forcing other mechs to carry you. One shouldn't confuse being carried to a victory with a build contributing equally, just because your numbers seems similar to the average. A 100-ton mech should sit well over the average.


...I feel like I have to poke in on this one. Blame a certain degree of compulsiveness, if you like.



Two points.
  • PGI has gone to a lot of work to at least try to make each 'mech roughly equal. At the very least, they've tried to do away with the fact of Battletech that a 20-tonne 'mech is inherently a worse team member than a 100-tonne 'mech (situational modification notwithstanding) because there would be a lot less variety then. If we're measuring everything by raw damage (which I don't think we should, but if we are), then shouldn't the damage number be regardless of tonnage?
  • There's a point where you're wasting damage spraying nonvital components to rack up extra numbers. How do you elect to factor this in?

View PostMcgral18, on 14 February 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:


He doesn't want to modify his robot out of that terrible niche, why try to convince him?
He swapped the 20 for 10s, which is better, but going from bad to less bad isn't exactly good.


There's a lot of terrible opinion in this thread, that's all I'm saying.
Feel free to have your opinion. Don't expect me to agree with it.


Builds like the OP are what cause the massive number of sub 200 damage players, which means you cannot carry your team effectively, which means they cause your team to lose.

I don't want those players on my team. I want someone who cares, even a tiny bit, about winning.


So... why are you here (in this thread) then? You claim you're not interested in changing someone's mind, so.....?

#167 XFellDragonX

    Member

  • Pip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 12 posts
  • LocationU.S. California.

Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:50 PM

View PostDahkoht, on 14 February 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:


I'm just in awe over your KeWl leet name.

You definitely know what you are talking about.


wow nice argument lol

Kinda funny that's all you can come up with is to make a passing comment at his name, this community tho lmao

#168 MeanFacedJohnny

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 87 posts
  • LocationA flooded ass basement.

Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:50 PM

View PostMcgral18, on 14 February 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:


He doesn't want to modify his robot out of that terrible niche, why try to convince him?
He swapped the 20 for 10s, which is better, but going from bad to less bad isn't exactly good.


There's a lot of terrible opinion in this thread, that's all I'm saying.
Feel free to have your opinion. Don't expect me to agree with it.


Builds like the OP are what cause the massive number of sub 200 damage players, which means you cannot carry your team effectively, which means they cause your team to lose.

I don't want those players on my team. I want someone who cares, even a tiny bit, about winning.

300-600 is sub 200?

#169 Mcgral18

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 17,987 posts
  • LocationSnow

Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:51 PM

View PostXFellDragonX, on 14 February 2016 - 12:48 PM, said:

I dare you guys to use this build OP is using, please tell us how well that goes If you can easily get 500 - 600 damage then I'll concede, I tell you right now though none of you will break 400 it would be extremely lucky.

I think the reason OP has ANY success at all is because he's at the point where you go from scrub land tier 4 and 5 to 2 and 1 and still has noobs who can't handle LRMs.


The build lacks TAG and Artemis (from what I gather) making that system entirely pointless.
BAP wouldn't really be an improvement

The speed doesn't allow for fast positioning, having the profile of a Whale, with less than half the effective firepower.

The ERLLs are low mounted, making him expose everything to shoot them (bad)
The AC20 has no synergy with anything.

Heat wise, probably not great, but there's only 3 weapons he can use at short range, and he isn't exactly to survive very long there, so probably not an issue.



I don't like anything about the build.

#170 XFellDragonX

    Member

  • Pip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 12 posts
  • LocationU.S. California.

Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:55 PM

View PostMcgral18, on 14 February 2016 - 12:51 PM, said:


The build lacks TAG and Artemis (from what I gather) making that system entirely pointless.
BAP wouldn't really be an improvement

The speed doesn't allow for fast positioning, having the profile of a Whale, with less than half the effective firepower.

The ERLLs are low mounted, making him expose everything to shoot them (bad)
The AC20 has no synergy with anything.

Heat wise, probably not great, but there's only 3 weapons he can use at short range, and he isn't exactly to survive very long there, so probably not an issue.



I don't like anything about the build.


Which is what I'm saying, it's a subpar build, either OP is lying about his damage or scrubs in tier 4 and 5 are just being like they are as usual.

If you really wanted to boat LRMs there are way better options, better yet don't boat LRMs in an Atlus.

#171 Dahkoht

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Undertaker
  • The Undertaker
  • 126 posts
  • LocationPelham,AL

Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:56 PM

Shouldn't all the elite , bad-*** , hardcore , I base my worth on a video game ,I don't know how to give helpful tips and only know how to be a jerk , experts, in this thread not care a bit what the OP is doing ?

Because they should all have max'd out tier 1 and never see him or anyone like him because they are all on super hardcore teams playing only in competitive private matches right ?

:)

#172 VinJade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,211 posts

Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:57 PM

the thing most people seem to forget though about the Atlas, it is a jack of all trades, it is a range fighter, short range combat, and hth fighter.

The LRMs weaken the armor and then the AC rips it open while lasers eat the insides.

The Classic Atlas with LRMs, SRMs, Medium Lasers, & Assault cannon are there for a reason. it is a balanced mech.

all the OP did was just strip out the SRMs in favor of another LRM rack and nothing more than that. in the end he didn't truly change it's role just expanded it's Long range role a little more.

Edited by VinJade, 14 February 2016 - 12:59 PM.


#173 Mcgral18

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 17,987 posts
  • LocationSnow

Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:58 PM

View PostMeanFacedJohnny, on 14 February 2016 - 12:50 PM, said:

300-600 is sub 200?


Go into your stats, and get the average damage (which wouldn't be entirely accurate, as I'm sure you've used other builds), and get back to me.

My WubShee is sitting just below 600 average damage per match, without exaggerating. 598 average damage, to be exact, with 984 matches played in it.

How does your Frankemech compare to my exclusively short range XL400 Assault?

#174 Xetelian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 4,393 posts

Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:58 PM

Another "I build what I think is fun" thread
Only thing that you've accomplished with this post is learning that LRM 20s is a bad idea on Atlas DDC and 2 LRM 10s is better

Take it a step further and learn how to use SRMs effectively, especially since that ac20 gets destroyed easily

AS7-D-DC

This is my favorite build the 2 UAC5s work better for me than a single AC20 does because it has longer range and a double tap is the same damage as a single ac20 shot.

Most people take that right shoulder out as a priority because thats where the ballistic is but with SRMs you still have a splat cannon to destroy people with after losing half your mech.

#175 IdolElite

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 175 posts
  • LocationFlorida, USA, Terra

Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:59 PM

View PostMcgral18, on 14 February 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:


He doesn't want to modify his robot out of that terrible niche, why try to convince him?
He swapped the 20 for 10s, which is better, but going from bad to less bad isn't exactly good.


There's a lot of terrible opinion in this thread, that's all I'm saying.
Feel free to have your opinion. Don't expect me to agree with it.


Builds like the OP are what cause the massive number of sub 200 damage players, which means you cannot carry your team effectively, which means they cause your team to lose.

I don't want those players on my team. I want someone who cares, even a tiny bit, about winning.


You basically just said Meta builds or GTFO. There isn't one way to play the game. If he finds success and enjoys the match why bother him about LRM's, and why be a **** about it? Which was really the original point he made with the first post.

Ultimately though, your opinion is essentially the ultimate try hard statement. Now, do i do better in my Meta mechs? Generally yep, however, I'm not going to spend all my time in them. Sorry for ruining your team composition McGral, tier 2 edging towards tier 1, can't wait to offend you with my mere presence.

#176 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:59 PM

View PostSpr1ggan, on 14 February 2016 - 12:04 PM, said:

Posted Image

View PostDeathlike, on 14 February 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:


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

The results are usually nom nom nomworthy.


Laugh all you want.

Now, let us assume for a moment that a player who likes really bad builds somehow consistently wins. At worst, I'd say he's a lucky mascot and as such I have no problem having him on the team. His mere presence is good if we win a lot. Posted Image

But elitists don't ever see that, only practical people. Posted Image

Edited by Mystere, 14 February 2016 - 12:59 PM.


#177 pyrocomp

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,036 posts

Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:59 PM

View PostG3TxWr3cK3r3D, on 14 February 2016 - 12:40 PM, said:

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.

Ok, to you on handicap. The player can take a sub-optimal build to make a game harder for him to test his skill. There are two ways to get a challenge - find a stronger opponent or limit yourself in some benefits or get a worse starting conditions. Both are viable. This is not about OP but about your statement that the only way to play for a win is to get a strongest build possible and use it to be superior. Just in few days back there was a thread on groups tonnage. Really, you take a harder way to prove yourself or a simplier if it takes that. You mesure your own skill and you cannot claim the motivation behind another persons decisions. So now on the players that say 'ruined my game'. They chose the mechs and they play then well (assuming) and 11 of them are in a match with that Atlas that goes as normal (note, played a lot, PSR stable or, better, reasonable). This brings us to the situation that the match is balanced and if the team loses it's not for that Atlas that had performed as expected. If they got NASCARed - they ran forward, if that Atlas had SRMs instead of LRMs it wouldn't contribute. No difference. If they got pinned in place and thought that Atlas will lead the push, and the OP claims he does so, the team must support him. Fail means better opposing team or this team cowardace/bad positioning end etc. still not that Atlas. If that Atlas ran the wrong path and got focused then neither SRMs or LRMs helped, no foot to go over the build. So why the hech this team has any foot on criticizm? Why nobody rant on those 4 PPC WHKs on Therma or Tourmaline? Those overheat just at the moments notice and they are fine? Hot builds on hot maps are significantly less of an asset than that LRMs-instead-of-SRMs Atlas. If that Atlas is played as a brawler who cares? I was attacked in being 'dat darn snipper' over twin-gauss DWF unitl the close fight under platform on Crimson. I did my part of damage absorption, why ***** about my build if I have kills, damage and active push behind?

#178 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 14 February 2016 - 01:01 PM

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

It is only a problem to a small elitist and their "wannabe" copycat part of community.


FTFY. Posted Image

Edited by Mystere, 14 February 2016 - 01:02 PM.


#179 Mcgral18

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 17,987 posts
  • LocationSnow

Posted 14 February 2016 - 01:02 PM

View PostIdolElite, on 14 February 2016 - 12:59 PM, said:


You basically just said Meta builds or GTFO. There isn't one way to play the game. If he finds success and enjoys the match why bother him about LRM's, and why be a **** about it? Which was really the original point he made with the first post.

Ultimately though, your opinion is essentially the ultimate try hard statement. Now, do i do better in my Meta mechs? Generally yep, however, I'm not going to spend all my time in them. Sorry for ruining your team composition McGral, tier 2 edging towards tier 1, can't wait to offend you with my mere presence.


They don't need to be Meta, they just don't need to be Terribad.

Don't do everything poorly, at least TRY to do something well


His mech does not. His mech is a free kill to any competent opponent...which he may not have found yet. Even Tier 1 is full of Terribads because of this EXP bar, but it separates the new players (likely who the OP is facing) from the veterans. Just not all veterans are good.



Sorry I don't like you throwing matches.

#180 G3TxWr3cK3r3D

    Member

  • Pip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 16 posts

Posted 14 February 2016 - 01:04 PM

View PostDahkoht, on 14 February 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:


I'm just in awe over your KeWl leet name.

You definitely know what you are talking about.


http://www.nizkor.or...ad-hominem.html

Try making an argument son.





7 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users