679 replies to this topic

[Tiamat of the Sea]

ScarecrowES, on 14 February 2016 - 02:04 PM, said:

I totally get what you're saying here... but we're not talking about one bad player repeatedly calling out the OP in a match... we're talking about the player being repeatedly called out by different players over many matches. Now, I tend not to bring crappy builds, and have only rarely ever received negative comments on my play, so I honestly cannot speak to being on the receiving end of negative comments in this game. BUT... generally speaking if I'd have received the same comments from multiple people, I'd tend to at least consider the veracity of those comments and make adjustments as is necessary.

I think the crux of your argument is that there's a more tactful way to "suggest" to the OP that he make a change, and that if he chooses not to make a change away from factors that negatively affect his teammates, the team should just sorta... accept that. I wholely agree with the first part, but won't agree with the second. To expect 11 people to bare the burden of the 12th is unfair.

Your argument also seems to hinge on the idea that the OP would not have fun if he played his D-DC with a different build, or if he played a similar build on a different mech. That he MUST play THIS build on THIS mech to have fun. I think this is not at all the case, as he seems to have expressed to be perfectly capable of enjoying more standard brawling Atlai. So would he suddenly have a terrible time playing MWO if he were to use a more effective Atlas build? Or playing his preferred D-DC build on a mech more suited to it? Obviously not. In this case, we're looking at a fairly arbitrary choice on the part of the OP that has a negative impact on the team and has little positive impact on his own enjoyment. One could easily argue then, and rightly so, that the OP might actually enjoy things more if he were to use more effective builds. How would be counter that argument then? By saying it's his choice to enjoy or not enjoy? It's rather circular.

If he was receiving these comments only at the end of the match, I would be more inclined to say 'consider changing the build significantly', but the fact of the matter is that most people who make these complaints do so before the build can demonstrate its capability. I would almost bet money that the OP is receiving these comments in most cases before battle even begins or early in the fight, in which case those players are basing their comments on incomplete information, if not outright assumptions.


Another issue here is that you are assuming that he is negatively impacting his teammates. Frankly, neither of us has enough information to draw an actual conclusion as to his build's impact, unless you've been dropping alongside him recently on a regular basis while he pilots it and spent much of your attention on watching him play. I am trying not to assume either way, since I lack that kind of information. As for expecting the rest of the team to help hold him up, a situation similar to what you're describing is forced on players whenever someone brings a new 'mech which they aren't certain how to use to a match. By extension, should it then be considered verboten to bring a 'mech with no efficiencies into battle? What about a build that the player hasn't tested in an actual match yet? This isn't as big a step of difference as some would claim.


I'm trying to not assume that he won't have fun if he builds his D-DC differently- but I am trying to work off the info I do have, which is that he does have fun playing his D-DC that way.

He might well enjoy playing the 'mech more with a 'more effective' build. But there's a difference between modifying a build and building something completely different, and there's a difference between 'You should change your build.' and 'You suck, you loser. What a n00b. Go back to tier 5, your brain is garbage and so is what's come out of it.' Admittedly it's not the same difference, but it is a difference, and I'm starting to get sidetracked here, hang on.


Hang on.


Okay, so.... here's the thing. He's playing his D-DC this way because he enjoys playing it with the function it currently has. He's receiving disproportionate invective from players who likely are judging based on preconceptions rather than his actual performance and utility, and is asking that people stop harangueing him about it.

The fact that he's still not radically rebuild his 'mech indicates that there's something about his current build that he finds considerable value in. That means that better progress is liable to be made by modifying the current build, which is not what he's talking about people telling him to do. He's talking about people trying to dictate, if not exactly how he should build the 'mech, what kind of build he should be using- specifically, one that is definitively not the same kind as his current build.

This tells me that he wants the Atlas to function in a manner similar to that in which it already does, and there is nothing wrong with that.


Frankly, I don't think he should be altering (or considering altering) his build because he drops alongside people who think it's a bad build and refuse to provide constructive commentary. I also don't think he should be altering (or considering altering) his build because he drops alongside people who do provide constructive commentary.

I think considering altering your 'mech build is something everyone should always be doing with every 'mech and every build. Which means that, to me, it's a completely external concern, and not actually directly relevant to the issue. Whether or not he's considering changing his build is not the point. As far as my perception, at least, it's completely extraneous.

It's the behavior of those that think he should that is the issue here, which is to say, treating him as though he were somehow wrong and bad and evil for bringing it onto the field in the first place, and that the way that they would do it is necessarily the only good, right, just way.


I don't think it's bad of him to want to have fun the way he has fun. To a certain degree, I guess he has a social responsibility to attempt to improve his 'mech, but mandating that he completely alter the way he uses it is no more reasonable or okay than mandating he never change it at all.

Frankly, given that I'm going to be starting to drive Atlas soon (in fact, Riflemen and Archers notwithstanding, they're one of the last two last chassis of the Inner Sphere 'mechs remaining for me to start earning XP on out of all those I intend to drive that currently exist in the game), I'd love to have a crack at modifying his build to make it more generally effective, but if he'd rather puzzle his own way through then that's fine also.


I think I've gotten sidetracked again.

Where was I trying to go with this?



Oh, and just because it's more effective doesn't mean it's more enjoyable, necessarily. Claiming that is based on a value of 'fun' that is not universal.


Er..... right. So.

He continues to use the 'mech the way it's built because there is value in it for him, so it is reasonable to argue on behalf of his keeping the 'mech to a similar nature of function while attempting to achieve a higher effectiveness. If there was equal value either way in terms of his play experience, then it is reasonable to expect he would have already changed the type of function. Since he hasn't, the most reasonable conclusion is that he enjoys this style of function better, and should be encouraged to improve it rather than replace it.

[Bilbo]

Since you can't really count on any specific behavior from your team mates in the public queues, giving someone grief for a mech build seems kind of silly to me.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

G3TxWr3cK3r3D, on 14 February 2016 - 02:33 PM, said:

The oness was not upon me to make any argument, when dealing with someone who only argued by fallcy. If I lace my argument, which was legitmate, in that I called out a person for their inability to make an argument, with a small jab back, then so what. Why don't lecture the person who only insults?

*onus
*fallacy
*legitimate


Because I thought you might listen.

[MrMadguy]

ScarecrowES, on 14 February 2016 - 02:30 PM, said:

There are a couple of very effective builds that work well for this mech. Ultimately, it comes down to focusing on the strengths of the chassis, which are in high-mount ballistics and energy as primary/c-primary weapons, and just the sheer number of energy slots.

You really can't go wrong with putting 2x CLPL in those high-mount left torso slots, and filling up on as many medium/small standard and pulse lasers as you dare mount. I keep my heat rating over 1.2 on this build even though I get the standard ghost heat penalty for having more than 6 smaller lasers on the mech. If I live the whole match, it's hard not to have 800+ damage games with this build. Hell, just the 26 damage from the LPLs is endless fun since those lasers are mounted so high. Otherwise, you can run the various ballistic/laser builds. I know it's all terribly meta, but really these are the most effective. EBJs are very squishy up close, so you don't usually want to invest in SRMs too much... but you're still better off with SRMs and lasers than LRMs if you're actually concerned about scoring.

What I mean under "hot" builds? It's when primary weapons and SRMs are mutually exclusive, because if, when you shoot your primary weapons, you already getting enough heat - then there is no point in shooting SRMs, as you'll reach heat cap and won't be able to shoot your primary weapons, when their CD will end, and they're more effective then SRMs in most cases - pinpoint instead of spread damage for example. That's when it's better to boat LRMs instead. Use LRMs any time, when you are not in direct combat. Use your primary weapons, when you are. It's also good against "rushers", such as Lights. When they see LRM rain, they usually expect free LRM boat kill, and become surprised, when they get pinpoint Alpha right into their face instead.

Edited by MrMadguy, 14 February 2016 - 02:50 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

VinJade, on 14 February 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

I think what it just comes down to is as Guy said its elitists Vs. Causal players.
and its hard to find a good in between for the two.
.

The problem is in how you define elitest. I fight hard against elitism in my unit, but for our sake that means specifying what mechs you must own, what builds you must use on those mechs, and how you must play. Elitism, for our purpose, is believing that there is only one acceptable means to achieve a desirable result.

In such a case, you're seeing not one ounce of elitism in this thread. Noone is telling the OP he has to go out and use a particular build or mech... merely that his chosen mech and build is ineffective... or sub-optimal if you wish. You've actually seen players try to tell the OP how to better optimize his current build, though acknowledging it will STILL be sub-optimal. You've seen players suggest better builds for the D-DC. You've seen players suggest better mechs to run the build the OP wants to play. But not once have you seen any player here say "play this way or get out."

To that end, the call of elitism is unfounded.

Further, to the mark of "casual"... it seems here you're seeking to define a casual as any person who wishes to buck the trends that lead to "meta" or hold themselves to a competitive standard. This is, of course, silly beyond measure. I'm positive there is a larger percentage of players who would call themselves "casual" and still want to remain competitive when they play.

The "Us vs Them" mentality you're expressing doesn't work here.

Telling the OP that his build is bad isn't elitism. And excusing an unwillingness to be competitive as a factor of "casualism" is a joke.

The argument here isn't even about whether or not the build is bad. We all know it is. There is nearly 100% consensus on this fact, even amongst those defending his right to use it. The arguement, of course, is about, knowing the build is bad, should he be using it anyway because he derives slightly more fun out of using that build than other ones, and whether his slight more fun takes priority over the fun of the rest of the team.

[Trauglodyte]

I want to address a few things in the OP's initial post:

1- This is a game that you invest your time to play and you've admitted to having spent $300+ on the game so play it like you want; if the internet trolls don't like it, slap them on the ignore list,

2- Putting LRMs on an Atlas isn't a bad thing as long as you don't over tube the mech by installing a launcher with more tubes than you've got on the mech and/or trying to turn it into an LRM boat; a single LRM5 or 10 is great as an approach weapon, given the lack of speed on the Fatlas,

3- don't put long ranged lasers, whether it be ErLLs or PPCs on the Atlas because the low level of hard points means that you'll be burning the dirt more than hitting a target.

At the end of the day, you can do whatever you want to do with your mech. You bought them, you tweaked them, now you play them. BUT, don't immediately block out what everyone is saying. A 1.1 KDR is barely good and, given that stat, it shows that you're not the most lethal Atlas driver in the game. That could be because of skill or it could be because of the build. My thought is that you put in a 350 STD engine, change the lasers out to be Medium Pulses, downgrade the LRM to a 10 rack, and slap the other two missile hard points full of ASRMs. Use your decent speed to get into position to bulldoze people that don't move and utilize the LRM as a stop gap measure until you're in lethal range. It won't kill mechs, often, but it'll help supplement what you're trying to do. Aside from that, enjoy the game and let the hosers winge all they want.

[Deathlike]

Mystere, on 14 February 2016 - 12:59 PM, said:

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.

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

Bad builds are still bad.

At some point in Tier climbing (especially in the group queue), people with bad builds tend to get raked over the coals when first spotted, or in this case... the last guy in the match that is nowhere near the action to immediately get wrecked shortly afterwards... being laughed at on coms for having such a build.

I fear Atlas builds and pilots that have a clue to what they are doing... not the poor builds+pilots that simply get mauled at do effectively nothing when better competition is facing them.

In the case of missiles in general... you can do a lot of damage, but it's almost meaningless if your team still ends up on the wrong side of things, thinking that such damage translated into actual kills. It may "seem impressive" that you gain lots of damage with LRMs, but anyone who knows better doesn't take such things seriously due to the nature of the weapon itself.

It's fine you don't agree - you'll hit the proverbial wall eventually, and will be beaten savagely because of thinking it is good, when people that know better will eventually change your mind... one way or another.

[ScarecrowES]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 14 February 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

snip

We're in agreement on most points, and even the overall tone of the argument. It's nice you've actually bothered to be reasoned about how you feel on the matter, which is a nice change.

There are points that I can't agree with, of course. I suppose I have a character that runs high on social responsibility and group duty, and grew up in parts of the US that emphasize that causing unnecessary ills to others in pursuit of your personal gain is shameful. I tend to not forget the better parts of my character when I step into the anonymity of the internet, even for the sake of a game. I know many don't feel the same. Selfishness runs rampant in an environment largely devoid of consequence. I find this generally distasteful, so I fight it whenever I see it.

[Bud Crue]

Wow, you guys are still going at it.

Hey, in case the try-hards are interested: My 2AC2 IV-4 that I mentioned back on page 4 or 5 was a total blast. Won both matches I played with it. Will send gman and email. Hopefully he will get metamechs updated to reflect the awesome-sauce of this absurd build. Then you "comp" guys can run it too (and maybe even have fun) without feeling like you are taking away from your team. Think I will drop a couple LRM 5s into it on the next go. Y'know, for fun.

[Bilbo]

Grisbane, on 14 February 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

I'm on the side with those that say the Atlas shouldn't be carrying LRM's at all. In MWO it's a frontline brawler. if you want a LRM carrying mech, bring an Awesome, Catapult, Stalker 5M, or Mad Dog. Don't waste valuable team tonnage by denying your team a viable 100 tonner. if you are going to bring an Atlas, you need to be the anvil of your team, like the Dire is the sledgehammer of any team it's on.


i won't tell you how to build your mech, but at the same time i you are going to purposely gimp your team by bringing **** builds. i consider that purposeful misconduct against team mates and you should be reported for it

Bilbo, on 14 February 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

Since you can't really count on any specific behavior from your team mates in the public queues, giving someone grief for a mech build seems kind of silly to me.

Kind of hard to be an anvil if no one is willing to be a hammer. The only place where it might be acceptable to tell someone how a mech should be built is within a unit while dropping in large groups. You simply have no idea what your team is prepared or willing to do otherwise. Trust me, bringing an Atlas built to brawl is not a whole lot of fun when nobody on your team is willing to close on the enemy under any circumstance.

[MrMadguy]

ScarecrowES, on 14 February 2016 - 02:43 PM, said:

In such a case, you're seeing not one ounce of elitism in this thread. Noone is telling the OP he has to go out and use a particular build or mech... merely that his chosen mech and build is ineffective... or sub-optimal if you wish. You've actually seen players try to tell the OP how to better optimize his current build, though acknowledging it will STILL be sub-optimal. You've seen players suggest better builds for the D-DC. You've seen players suggest better mechs to run the build the OP wants to play. But not once have you seen any player here say "play this way or get out."

Elitism - is deciding, what is absolutely good and what is absolutely bad, when you don't have a right to do it. You are saying "LRMs are absolutely bad" or "Using LRM20 on 10 tubes hardpoint - is absolutely bad". The problem is in fact, that this decisions aren't absolutely bad. They may be just a few % worse. This few % may mean something on world-wide tournament, but they doesn't mean anything in average pug match. Telling, that those, who just 1% worse then you, are absolute bads and doesn't deserve playing this game - that's, what I call elitism. Also your opinions - aren't absolute truth. They're just your subjective opinions - nothing more. Even gamedevs may make mistakes. If you don't like LRMs or don't know, how to use them - it doesn't mean, that they are bad. It's your problem - it's you, who should L2P in this case.

Edited by MrMadguy, 14 February 2016 - 03:06 PM.

[Mystere]

ScarecrowES, on 14 February 2016 - 02:43 PM, said:

To that end, the call of elitism is unfounded.
...
The "Us vs Them" mentality you're expressing doesn't work here.
...
Telling the OP that his build is bad isn't elitism.

What about this?

[Barantor]

I've seen people do well with crazy builds, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I've seen folks in meta builds that can't hit the broadside of an Awesome at 50m.

Majority time I see someone complain about someone else's build in game, it is because they are mad they got owned and are going around their own team complaining.

I always love how on this forum if you say your mech has an lrm then it is automatically 'boating lrms from backfield'. Kinda funny that this community doesn't change even over years....

I remember when it was dumb to have large pulse lasers on anything... lol.

Edited by Barantor, 14 February 2016 - 03:03 PM.

[Night Thastus]

Are you allowed to build whatever you want? Sure.

But if you drag the team down with a piss-poor build and pull crap-*** damage, I'm certainly going to call you out on it.

If you're in an Atlas with LRMS, you're wasting everyone's time.

From the quirks to the weapons to the design it is built for face-tanking and brawling. In a PUG drop, we need that Atlas to absorb a lot of damage and be the head of a push. As well as use massive 4x SRM-6 + Artemis + AC/20 to obliterate bigger targets like Dire Wolfs before they can do any serious harm.

If you put a crappy build "My build is 2 ER Lrg lasers, an AC 20, LRM 20, LRM 5, and ECM."

I'm going to call you out in-game for it. That build has extremely limited direct-fire capability. Once you get up-close and in a brawl (or have a light circling you) you have an AC/20 and 2 ER Larges. That is *not* enough to take down hardly anything. If you get lucky you'll kill a circling light, but you'll be useless in a brawl.

As well, you can't fire all of those LRMs at once because the Atlas doesn't have the tubes for it. It has one section with 10 tubes and three sections with 6 tubes. That means that the LRM-20 will fire in two groups of 10 if you placed it correctly. If you didn't, it'll fire in four groups of 5, being even *less* effective.

The LRM-20 in general is a poor weapon. People have done extensive testing to show that a single LRM-15 due to reduced spread and cooldown will always outperform an LRM-20 in any scenario. It's just the way the game is. There's also a huge tonnage, slot-requirement and heat gap for the LRM-20, making it super inefficient.

If you did an LRM-10 (which would fit) and say, 3 LRM-5's, I think I'd be more OK with it. Not happy, but I'd see the logic.

The problem is your attitude. You'll see that huge LRM-20 and dual ER-larges and think you can sit in the f*cking back all day.

You can't. You're an assault mech. You take punches and you get your 'Mech in the frontlines.

EDIT: If you're positively stuck on lurms, here's an Atlas build that will pull it's own weight slightly more.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...67b2e3274a5d5a7

Edited by Night Thastus, 14 February 2016 - 03:10 PM.

[Mystere]

Grisbane, on 14 February 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

i won't tell you how to build your mech, but at the same time i you are going to purposely gimp your team by bringing **** builds. i consider that purposeful misconduct against team mates and you should be reported for it

That's bullcrap and you know it.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

ScarecrowES, on 14 February 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

We're in agreement on most points, and even the overall tone of the argument. It's nice you've actually bothered to be reasoned about how you feel on the matter, which is a nice change.

There are points that I can't agree with, of course. I suppose I have a character that runs high on social responsibility and group duty, and grew up in parts of the US that emphasize that causing unnecessary ills to others in pursuit of your personal gain is shameful. I tend to not forget the better parts of my character when I step into the anonymity of the internet, even for the sake of a game. I know many don't feel the same. Selfishness runs rampant in an environment largely devoid of consequence. I find this generally distasteful, so I fight it whenever I see it.

I, on the other hand, am constantly working to overcome a basically nonsocial nature. That said, I also trend strongly away from causing unnecessary ills to others, but it has to be understood that I consider both sides of this argument to be 'others'- i.e., 'other than me'. That means attempting to avert ills to the OP as well, who is also an 'other'.

There are other wrinkles as well, but the basic point is this-

I'm trying to be reasonable. I emphasize that because of the nature of it- the borderline between reasonable and unreasonable shifts constantly depending on circumstance. There's a point, particularly given that any given player is being partnered with eleven strangers every match in solo queue, where modifying your behavior based on a guess at the nature of eleven essentially random people becomes an exercise in futility, and an excessive degree of effort placed in attempting to predict what is, as far as I've ever been able to tell, essentially unpredictable- to wit, people.

Thus- consider the fun of teammates, but do not ignore or neglect your own. Where does this line lie?

Morally speaking, i'unno.

Ethically speaking, i'unno.

Fairness-wise? Beats the scrap out of me.

Reasonably speaking, though? As long as you're contributing significantly to the win, constantly considering how to improve that contribution, and willing to modify (not necessarily completely overwrite, but definitely modify) in the interest of such, I think you're going as far as you should.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 14 February 2016 - 03:08 PM.

[Almond Brown]

ScarecrowES, on 14 February 2016 - 02:43 PM, said:

stuff

and whether his slight more fun takes priority over the fun of the rest of the team.

LOL!

That would make a rather gross an assumption that "every one" of the 11 other Mechs on the Team are "optimal" or at least they are not non-optimal. Best be sure of that, as fact, before calling out any one individual for what you may or may not know them be to carrying.

P.S. Anyone who worries to much about the "builds" of others is, in fact, likely the truest detriment to the "fun" of all the others.

[Bilbo]

Grisbane, on 14 February 2016 - 03:03 PM, said:

so? do you try to win the majority of the time or just prepare for the few times your team is not carry-able? if you chose the latter you obviously have a lot to learn. the best way for an Atlas to win is to be trading on the front lines, soaking damage for the team, and spraying AC-20/SRM love juice all over any face that gets too close.. period

I try to win every game I play. I neither expect to be carried, nor do I expect to carry. I simply play each game as it evolves and adjust accordingly. I either win or lose and move on to the next one. It's not going to help me one way or another if I take the time to ***** at someone else for something I can't change in hindsight and probably won't change going forward.

[Mystere]

Grisbane, on 14 February 2016 - 03:11 PM, said:

no it isn't. bringing sub optimal builds is denying your team an optimal build. denying your team an optimal build is gimping your team.. on purpose, period. don;t like it go back to halo

Sigh. It's the "should be reported" part that is bull f*****g crap. Is that clear enough?

I really hope PGI treats the people abusing the in-game reporting feature just as harshly as cheaters. We could use such a ban wave.

[Night Thastus]

Mystere, on 14 February 2016 - 03:18 PM, said:

Sigh. It's the "should be reported" part that is bull f*****g crap. Is that clear enough?

I really hope PGI treats the people abusing the in-game reporting feature just as harshly as cheaters. We could use such a ban wave.

They ignore all and any reports unless it's against a specific player multiple times in a match across many, many matches. Only when they have a very large sum of evidence do they ask.

Some guy reporting random people once in awhile doesn't do jack. So I wouldn't be concerned.