679 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Mcgral18, on 14 February 2016 - 01:28 PM, said:

Myth Lynx VS LRM Atlas...now that's a question: Which is worse for the team?
Opportunity cost is probably the biggest factor there.

And as someone who prefers running lights, the Mist Lynx is the bigger opportunity cost.

Edited by Mystere, 14 February 2016 - 01:31 PM.

[Wild Pegasus]

Putting someone in a meta-mech when they don't know (or don't care to learn) how the meta works only hamstrings your team more than if they show up in an inefficient build they know how to use comfortably. There's been more than a few matches that fell right apart because the guy in their magic OP laserbarf Timber Wolf never torso twisted, ran right into brawling range and mashed his alpha strike button till it fell off.

That said, there are some assaults that can use a hybrid-LRM build effectively but the Atlas really isn't one of them. The only variant that has good enough missile quirks for LRM use is the AS7-K (20% cooldown), but you pretty much have to commit to boating with it because there's really nothing else you could do with that Atlas that a Jagermech wouldn't do more efficiently, and anyone who LRM-boats will tell you that high mobility and a low profile are important (and the Atlas has neither) so it's not really worth the effort.

The Atlas really does its best work at the medium to short ranges, so including LRM's is sort of like putting a sniper scope on a shotgun. It's not actively hindering anything, but it's also not meant for such a thing and people are going to make fun of you for it.

[G3TxWr3cK3r3D]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 14 February 2016 - 01:05 PM, said:

Please do not respond to one fallacy by falling prey to another (or possibly the same one?).

Really, and which one is that? Holy schnikeys you people are hard headed.

[Marauder3D]

MeanFacedJohnny, on 14 February 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

You didn't read the whole post did you?

"Edit 3: So many people assume I stand back and lob lrms all day. I use lrms on the slow march to the fight to dish out what damage I can on the way. When I get to the fight, I can still use my lrms on far off targets while using my ac20 and lasers to fight those nearby. Also my speed is 52 not 48. Lrms don't become useless once you are in the thick of it, you can still use them to hit targets in the distance."

Actually, I did read your whole post!

I guess my point is, 52 or 48, slow is slow. No, LRM's dont become useless, but they are far, far less useful than a well piloted Atlas with 3SRM4 or 3 SRM6+A. Your build would be a good tabletop build. It has bracketed firing weapons and you cover your ranges. However, MWO is very, very different than BattleTech.

LRMs as a weapon are in a very iffy place in game, and have been for ages. If you lived through LURMpocalypse 1.0 or 2.0, you've seen them in their most OP state. Right now, they are pretty useless as weapons. If you use SRMs even modestly well, you'd be better off.

I do think you have the right to play your game, man. Hopefully I get to see you win the day sometime in your Atlas. Best of luck to you.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

G3TxWr3cK3r3D, on 14 February 2016 - 01:34 PM, said:

Really, and which one is that? Holy schnikeys you people are hard headed.

The one where you attack the person (either through derision or name-calling in this case) instead of actually making an argument (or instead of trying to remain civil).

To wit- you talked down to him, and now you've added an insult on to your question of 'what fallacy am I committing?'

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 14 February 2016 - 01:38 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Play and have fun. Always rule #1.

What's important to remember though is it's a team game - you're always on a team. Each match. You affect your teams success. When one person under-performs it affects everyone on the team so yeah, they have a vested interest in seeing their teammates do better.

Do your thing, it's a game. However the only real "solo play" in the game is the trial area and training grounds. Every time you drop in a match your decisions impact the success of 11 other people on your team, so yeah. They might have an opinion on those choices.

[XFellDragonX]

VinJade, on 14 February 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

Dragon
There is a difference between what we are talking about and those who are just flat out bad.
I have heard most likely everything the OP has when I started using an Adder with just LRMs,and if the OP had to put up with what I did, then yes it is Harassment.

Nice try at trying to twist something when you know very well what I am talking about.

So now we're are doing more assumption I don't care if you got "Harrased" for using a bad build (LRM adder sounds bad too lol) what I'm getting at is just because someone disagrees with you, it isn't harassment.

It's the Internet unless I follow you on all the social media sites you have an account on and constantly send you messages calling you a *** and telling you to kill yourself or somethung, then yeah that's minor harassment.

Saying someone's build is bad on an online PvP mech shooter, is NOT harassment. Whatever happened to "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me".

cry about the meanies on the Internet more lmao

[VinJade]

Sam the thing is the Atlas is a basic jack of all trades and not really a master of any and it should be treated as such.
also those that like to do the bland cookie cutter all energy thing will be hit this next patch with the range nerf for energy weapons across the board.

besides unless the sucker is mounting all energy/Ballistic style weapons that give it range it would be then to slow to get in close for those srms people seem to have a love relationship with not to mention the large bore ACs.

[MeanFacedJohnny]

Mcgral18, on 14 February 2016 - 01:28 PM, said:

Well...that's below two of my Myth Lynxes...

You might not choose to throw the game, but your build can do that for you (just like choosing a Myth Lynx instead of...pretty much anything else).


Myth Lynx VS LRM Atlas...now that's a question: Which is worse for the team?
Opportunity cost is probably the biggest factor there.

I won't pretend it's the best. Sure I can do more damage in my brawlers. It's the enjoyment is what I'm getting at. Just because other of my mechs can do more damage doesn't mean I have as much fun using them. I like my D-DC. I do well enough in it, and for the most part the majority of people I play with never give me grief about it. The few who do however, tend to be complete d*cks about it whether I do good or bad. I have a positive w/l ratio and k/d ratio, and enjoy using it. That's all that should matter. There is no one way to play this game. My D-DC is actually the only mech I have that even uses lrms. Until I get my Archer, I'll lrm boat the hell out of that.

[ScarecrowES]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 14 February 2016 - 12:50 PM, said:

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?

See? This is good argument making. Good points overall. Here's my response.

No matter how hard PGI might try to mitigate things, a 100-ton mech and a 20-ton mech will never be equal. And really, none of the systems in the game are designed to treat them as such. If a 20-ton and 100-ton could be considered equivalent, and capable of equal output, then there'd be no need to enforce team class make-ups or tonnage values. A team of 100-ton assaults and a team of 20-ton lights would be a fair match-up, right?

So no, no matter what PGI does, mechs of different tons should have different expected outputs. That's not to specify their value to the team. A light mech can't output the damage an assault can, but it has value elsewhere. This is why damage is less of a consideration to match score and rewards than it has been in the past. But obviously the degree to which damage output factors into the total value of a mech increases with mech weight. Larger mechs are focused more on damage output and have less value outside that compared to smaller mechs.

In those terms, larger mechs should always be expected to outperform lighter mechs when it comes to damage. And in that category, the heavier you are, the higher your damage output should be. The simple fact is, larger mechs can generally mount a spread of weapons capable of doing higher damage, and are generally more survivable. There is pretty much nothing PGI can ever do to change that. I've long argued against using damage as a primary scoring mechanic, because it undervalues other important team factors... but for assaults, no... damage is your whole goal here. As such, no... expected damage should go up by weight, and the generally accepted notion is that a mech should be built in a way to be able to output 10 damage per ton. That's not to say you'll always score 1000 damage in a 100-ton mech, but you should be trying to hit that mark in order to justify the tonnage investment your team has made into you.

As for the second point, this is actually an argument against the OP's build, and fits into a point I've been making about the inflated damage perception of LRMs. Because LRMs produce so much spread damage, little of the actual damage output goes into strikes that actually result in a mech kill. So when you see 600pts of damage on an LRM mech, it's probably work 300pts of damage on a mech doing direct damage when you consider the actual contribution of that damage to rendering kills.

Now, if you're rocking 600 damage, but are pulling in 3-4 KMDDs at the same time, obviously your damage figures are acceptable, as you're running very efficiently. But there's no doubt, then, that you're contributing. Noone is going to complain about a player "only" doing 600 damage in a 100-ton mech if he's getting the kills to go along with it. You're not going to get that with LRMs. And I do sincerely mean KMDD... I'm very glad the game makes that distinction now. Because it's an entirely different thing to lob LRMs at a mech that's already mostly dead and get a kill. It's a rare thing when you bring a mech down through LRMs alone.

But obviously, if the team felt the OP was contributing properly, you're not going to see them complain about his build. You're not going to complain about an Atlas rocking 4 kills a match.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

XFellDragonX, on 14 February 2016 - 01:37 PM, said:

So now we're are doing more assumption I don't care if you got "Harrased" for using a bad build (LRM adder sounds bad too lol) what I'm getting at is just because someone disagrees with you, it isn't harassment.

It's the Internet unless I follow you on all the social media sites you have an account on and constantly send you messages calling you a *** and telling you to kill yourself or somethung, then yeah that's minor harassment.

Saying someone's build is bad on an online PvP mech shooter, is NOT harassment. Whatever happened to "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me".

cry about the meanies on the Internet more lmao

What happened to that rhyme is that it's incorrect. Nonphysical abuse is, in fact, a thing. Please take a moment to remove the insults and invective from your actual arguments.

As a bonus, you'll find that your arguments (that is, the discussions you have attempting to convince others of your point of view) go more smoothly.

[ShinobiHunter]

Just do whatever ever you enjoy and ignore whoever tells you to play meta. Sometimes peoe will have good ideas, so it's always good to be open, but if you like what you have, just keep rocking it. GL&HF

[Malachy Karrde]

I'd be happy to take on any Meta build assault any time 1 vs 1. And I'll be happy to kick their butt with my bad build. Argument over.

[XFellDragonX]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 14 February 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

What happened to that rhyme is that it's incorrect. Nonphysical abuse is, in fact, a thing. Please take a moment to remove the insults and invective from your actual arguments.

As a bonus, you'll find that your arguments (that is, the discussions you have attempting to convince others of your point of view) go more smoothly.

Did you really just say words on the internet harm people? I'm done.

Verbal harassment is whole different thing then calling someone's build in a video game bad, he's making the point that calling his build bad is harassment, that's not harassment, I gave an example of what Internet harassment is.

Besides unless you are getting harassed irl there's the magical thing called... "The Block Button". There's answers to everything.

Edited by XFellDragonX, 14 February 2016 - 01:48 PM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

ScarecrowES, on 14 February 2016 - 01:40 PM, said:

But obviously, if the team felt the OP was contributing properly, you're not going to see them complain about his build. You're not going to complain about an Atlas rocking 4 kills a match.

As much as I see your points for most of your post, I'm going to have to disagree with this on the basis of experience. I've been in matches where one player or another (occasionally me, more frequently others) has been derided for their 'mech build during a match as soon as allies deciphered the weapons loadout, and then turned out to do well. Those same people never apologize or take back their objections or insults (although at least some of them, I suspect, disconnected from match as soon as they died and did not wait for the results screen).

In fact, I'd like to point out that there's a difference between disagreeing with a build or making a single complaint, and insulting a player for having or trying that build- the latter being the specific thing both that the OP is referring to, and that I would argue most strongly needs to be removed from the mentality of this game's player group.

It's one thing to go 'Oh wow, that Atlas has only two PPCs for armament and you hugged the enemy? You should reconsider your build.'

It's another thing to keep commenting on it during the match, insulting the player, and generally going on beyond reason about how bad it is. Far too many players take it well beyond the point of a single complaint or comment and turn it into a personal attack against the person who has either made a mistake or just brought something the attacker personally disagrees with as a 'mech build.

[ScarecrowES]

ShinobiHunter, on 14 February 2016 - 01:45 PM, said:

Just do whatever ever you enjoy and ignore whoever tells you to play meta. Sometimes peoe will have good ideas, so it's always good to be open, but if you like what you have, just keep rocking it. GL&HF

Literally noone in this thread has suggested to play meta. So it will be an easy thing to ignore.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

XFellDragonX, on 14 February 2016 - 01:47 PM, said:

Did you really just say words harm people? I'm done.

Verbal harassment is whole different thing then calling someone's build in a video game bad, he's making the point that calling his build bad is harassment, that's not harassment, I gave an example of what Internet harassment is.

Besides unless you are getting harassed irl there's the magical thing called... "The Block Button". There's answers to everything.

Unless I misunderstand, he's not saying they just called the build bad, he's saying they went beyond that point.

And yes, words do harm people. Possibly not the way you think I'm saying they do, but they do.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 14 February 2016 - 01:50 PM.

[G3TxWr3cK3r3D]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 14 February 2016 - 01:37 PM, said:

The one where you attack the person (either through derision or name-calling in this case) instead of actually making an argument (or instead of trying to remain civil).

To wit- you talked down to him, and now you've added an insult on to your question of 'what fallacy am I committing?'

No, I only pointed out, that mocking my name is irrelvant and thus, not an argument. Me pointing that fact out is neither an ad hominem or any other fallcy. If what you say is true, then you are committing the same "fallcy" and that sword is turning now in your direction.

https://en.m.wikiped...oncontradiction

[Tiamat of the Sea]

G3TxWr3cK3r3D, on 14 February 2016 - 01:50 PM, said:

No, I only pointed out, that mocking my name is irrelvant and thus, not an argument. Me pointing that fact out is neither an ad hominem or any other fallcy. If what you say is true, then you are committing the same "fallcy" and that sword is turning now in your direction.

https://en.m.wikiped...oncontradiction

You talked down to him in your first fallacy related post when you called him 'boy' at the end of your sentence and opened with 'try', rather than saying 'Make an argument against what I'm actually saying, not my name.'

You then proceeded to call 'you people' (possibly me and others, possibly those previously arguing with you) 'hard headed', when there was no reason to do so.

In both cases, you were adding insults towards those you were arguing with, which are not actual arguments with their positions.

[Funkmaster Rick]

MeanFacedJohnny, on 14 February 2016 - 07:59 AM, said:

Just be respectful about it. Use tact, make your point without making an enemy.

This entire thread in a nutshell. Large chunks of this community could stand to absorb those two sentences right there. =)