679 replies to this topic

[ScarecrowES]

MrMadguy, on 14 February 2016 - 03:01 PM, said:

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.

I will never go on record and patently say LRMs are straight up bad. They're bad for most people and most builds. But that's not to say they don't have their uses. Out of 40+ mechs in my current inventory, exactly 2 of them sport LRMs. And both sport LRMs as a complement to other weapons and on mechs more or less built for them. Neither of those two rely on LRMs to provide a large portion of their output. This is the only arraingement where I think LRMs work. My Warhawk, for instance, is a 1000+ damage and 3+ kmdd per match mech. I have 30 LRMs in 2 packs and 2ea LPL and MPL. Even without the LRMs, I'm packing a 40pt repeatable alpha at greater than 300m.

So you're never going to see me say LRMs are absolutely bad. But you will see me say that mounting LRMs on a mech when there are better options IS absolutely bad. Mounting LRMs on a mech not designed for them IS absolutely bad. Intentionally choosing an option that is much worse than other available options IS absolutely bad.

Otherwise, noone is telling the OP that HE is bad. Or that he shouldn't play the game. Noone's said either thing.

Mystere, on 14 February 2016 - 03:02 PM, said:

What about this?

Where one poster basically laughed hysterically at an obviously misguided and silly statement by another? I'm confused.

[Mystere]

Deathlike, on 14 February 2016 - 02:45 PM, said:

Bad builds are still bad.

You missed the point I am making.

[Bud Crue]

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

This is funny to me. This logic implies...actually, no it demands, that no new player ever be allowed to play the game. One must be always fully cognizant of what is "optimal" and have the resources to ALWAYS bring said optimal builds. Failure to do so is a reportable offense?

Good luck with that.

[wanderer]

Given his engine, he's at least trying to build to the engagement pattern.

It's a slow boat. He's packing mostly ERLL's and LRMs. This beats the tar out of the guys I watch in similar 300 STDs trying to brawl...while other assaults outdistance them going in reverse.

What I can't figure out is how the heck you fit enough ammo into that build. After armoring up and mounting what OP says, he's got a grand total of 9.5 tons (at most) of room for ammo split between his LRMs and AC, assuming he actually mounts two extra heatsinks in the engine and uses endosteel. That's got to tremendously limit your capacity to actually, y'know...keep firing.

[ScarecrowES]

Almond Brown, on 14 February 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

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.

It's a very good point. Difficult to generalize completely, of course, as you'd have to see the makeup of the team and exactly how everyone was contributing. But what you CAN tell is who the team feels is not contributing relative to expectation and why. But on a match-to-match basis, you're right...300 damage in a crappy build may very well be the very best score on the team. He could easily carry matches at 600 damage. But given that he's complaining about being called out frequently, you can expect he's probably not the guy carrying the team very often.

[4EVR]

Could it be that he's trading build efficiency for lower-skilled opponents?

My thinking goes like this: If the "bad" builds are sub-optimal, the player running them logically stays in the lower tiers for longer. So he's more skilled but runs builds that aren't as good compared to the archetypal meta-player in his tier.

So he's not "hurting" his team. His relative skill advantage makes up for the relative build disadvantage. Different path, same destination.

[Bilbo]

wanderer, on 14 February 2016 - 03:24 PM, said:

Given his engine, he's at least trying to build to the engagement pattern.

It's a slow boat. He's packing mostly ERLL's and LRMs. This beats the tar out of the guys I watch in similar 300 STDs trying to brawl...while other assaults outdistance them going in reverse.

What I can't figure out is how the heck you fit enough ammo into that build. After armoring up and mounting what OP says, he's got a grand total of 9.5 tons (at most) of room for ammo split between his LRMs and AC, assuming he actually mounts two extra heatsinks in the engine and uses endosteel. That's got to tremendously limit your capacity to actually, y'know...keep firing.

I carry 2 tons each for AC/20 and SRMs. Even in my best games, I am usually relieved of weapons before I can effectively use all the ammo. The lasers in the arms are almost always the last thing to go. I don't know how he's playing it, but if he's just using LRM's until everyone gets close enough to use the AC, he can probably pack plenty of ammo for everything.

[Bud Crue]

Grisbane, on 14 February 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

you are talking a totally different circumstance as a new player would be playing loaned mechs. of course those are not optimal. you are failing at picking apart the issue which is people with more than 100 games bringing **** builds. if you can't afford a good build on your spanking new mech, do what most of those who give a crap do an grind on your mech that is well built. if you are coming out of trials you should easily have the money to build at least 1 viable, optimal mech.

Oh, so no we are putting conditions and subtleties into this discussion. Cool.

So the presence of a few LRMs on an Atlas (an Atlas that also includes an AC/20 and other brawling accouterments) is not sub-optimal, but a "sh*t build" in your view. Very appropriate "picking apart" of the issue at hand. Well put indeed.

You would almost think that the OP has not repeatedly stated that he...ENJOYS the particular build in question...and has in fact put forth significant time and effort into perfecting it for his particular style of play, and that he has other Atlas builds which are the dedicated brawler that you think is optimal (though given my lack of psychic powers it is possible that the OP's version of optimal and mine and yours are all different).

But since he (edit) has made all this clear, I'm not sure where you are going with this.

Edited by Bud Crue, 14 February 2016 - 03:40 PM.

[Mystere]

Night Thastus, on 14 February 2016 - 03:20 PM, said:

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.

I think you missed a subtle point.

I want that person reporting random people "just because" to be treated in the same manner as cheats. I do not want them around.

[Bud Crue]

As an aside to all this fun.

I know PGI is pushing the whole e-sports, comp team stuff. But if we buy the view that the only thing that matters is bringing "optimal builds" so that we can all maximize our opportunity to win at all costs, thenhow many mechs do you think PGI would have sold us. Logic dictates 1. The optimal mech with an optimal build (Timberwolf maybe?).

Why have ANY other mechs than this 1 single optimal creation? IMO: Variety perhaps? Personal preference? Because people come to the game because they like the BT lore and all the different mechs, and like building and playing different things? Naaahhh. Only 1 build is all we should ever want or need right?

Have fun with that crappy game.

[Pjwned]

The problem I see immediately with OP's build is using an AC20 along with 2 ER LL and LRMs.

That doesn't make sense. Just because you have 1 AC20 doesn't make you a fearsome brawler when all of your other weapons are made for anything but brawling, and when you're using your other weapons at longer range while not using the AC20 (because it's too short range) then the AC20 starts to be a waste of tonnage.

AC10 or a gauss rifle would fit much better.

[Baelfire]

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

A build that works is just that... a build that works. As long as you can get at least a W/L ratio of 1.0 or more nobody has a right to complain, because you are pulling your weight. It doesn't matter if there are better builds or even better mechs, because, well, your already pulling your weight and that is all you have to do. In the OP's case, however, we are not talking about a measly W/L of 1.0, his W/L is much better.

I don't know about you, but for me his W/L ratio of 1.41 seems to be good enough. Personally i have a W/L ratio of 1.12 and i do not consider myself a burden to my team, despite my own physical limitations.

I find it quite funny, that we talk about what an Atlas can do or not, if LRM's on a Atlas are bad or not, if 320 damage is good or bad, while we ignore the only stat that is really important for the discussion about his performance , his W/L ratio. At the end it doesn't matter how much better he could do with another build or mech, the only question that you have to ask yourself is: do you want the guy with 70% win rate in the blue or the red team?

Personally, i would prefer to be on the winning side.

Edited by Baelfire, 14 February 2016 - 03:53 PM.

[Dahkoht]

One very positive thing the OP and others can take out of this thread , is the number of people saying they are perfectly in the right being an *** and calling out bad builds and implying that they know what the OP should play is by far in the minority.

Both in likes , posts and count of people , there are far more people telling the OP to just have fun and play. Only the same few high fiveing each other on their posts of how they know best and being a ***** is ok in a game.

It's the same way in game , you'll notice the loud jerk berating others , then usually as soon as one person speaks up and tells them to be quiet or leave so and so alone , it's almost always followed by multiple others telling the jerk to be quiet if they are just going to be rude.

Have seen in repeatedly , rarely do I see more than one of said jerk type in a single match.

Overall the community is fairly nice and about playing and having fun , the super serious ones who think being a good leader in a game is being a jack-*** are the minority thankfully.

[Dahkoht]

Grisbane, on 14 February 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:

an optimal build is one that is optimal for the type of chassis it is on. the Atlas is only good at 1 thing, brawling. this is well known and you would have a hard time finding a top tier player saying otherwise. those tubes are wasted with LRM's, they would be better served with SRM 6's (DDC) or SRM 4's (AS7S) to fill it's role and lend better to the fight. so yes, it's a **** build. i enjoy winning, one would argue most on here are here to win. one part of winning is bringing the best possible build to the fight. playing a mech one person enjoys but detracts from the rest of the team's enjoyment is wrong. sorry, that build detracts from the rest of the team's enjoyment by denying them a proper Atlas.

Since when do you and the few others speak for "the rest of the team" ? I see far more of a majority saying play what you want and enjoy the game.

Looks like maybe you need a reality check , along with a couple others , that not only are you not "speaking for the team" , you aren't even speaking for a majority.

I see far more saying jerks and know-it-all's detract from their enjoyment over builds like the OP.

Most are here to play a game , enjoying it however they want , trying to win sure , but it likely would shock you that most that play in the solo quick queue don't stress about winning enough to even look at another person on their teams build.

The minority of you in this thread letting everyone else know just how serious business it is , remind me of the few in mmo's that freak out when someone doesn't have the ultimate gear score , and you think everyone things just as you.

Most adults have other things to worry about , kids , family , career , health concerns etc , where they simply relax to play a game , and worrying about what weapon someone on their team has in a certain slot never even occurs to them. They simply play to have fun.

But a very small few , but vocal , minority of you can't grasp that.

[Bud Crue]

Grisbane,

As always these posts come down to a comp view vs the rest of us. Yes. I agree that in a truly competitive setting where honor and valor or the fate of the free world are one the line, then yes "optimal builds" whatever they are (building to the quirks?) is perhaps a requirement. The rest of the time...at least in an on line video game where I have no clue what any of my teammates are dropping in, or what my enemy is dropping in...I think I it is cool to play in whatever build I or they want. In such a setting I just don't think "optimal" is particularly relevant.

[Wild Pegasus]

Pjwned, on 14 February 2016 - 03:48 PM, said:

The problem I see immediately with OP's build is using an AC20 along with 2 ER LL and LRMs.

That doesn't make sense. Just because you have 1 AC20 doesn't make you a fearsome brawler when all of your other weapons are made for anything but brawling, and when you're using your other weapons at longer range while not using the AC20 (because it's too short range) then the AC20 starts to be a waste of tonnage.

AC10 or a gauss rifle would fit much better.

Gauss is never a good idea on an Atlas unless you like walking around with a time bomb strapped to your chest, but an AC/10 can work if you really want to commit to ranged fighting.

[Satan n stuff]

FupDup, on 14 February 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

People who use so-called "unconventional" builds (that word is seriously sugarcoated, but I'll keep it for now) might not draw as much ire if they were more willing to acknowledge the inherit deficiencies of their builds.

Problems happen when people try to defend their builds as actually being "really good guise, trust me," or "it's the player not the mech," or "I don't need tryhard noskill cheat hacks crutches for wimps," or "it's muh precious playstyle."


Basically, it's okay to run a sub-par mech as long as you ACTUALLY ADMIT THAT IT'S SUB-PAR. Issues come in when people try to make defenses or excuses for it.

What I'm saying is that you should call a spade...a spade.

There's a fair number of unconventional builds that actually do work really well and are optimized for their intended purpose. This isn't one of them. At the very least it needs a more optimized LRM loadout to be better at what it's designed to do.

[Bud Crue]

Just thought of something else. Champions. Champions are community developed and voted on. They are supposed to be built specifically to give new players everything they need to succeed with a specific mech. Yet, they are often not "optimum" Why is that? Could it be that within the community there is (gasp!) disagreement as to what is optimum and what it takes to win?

[ScarecrowES]

Bud Crue, on 14 February 2016 - 04:04 PM, said:

Just thought of something else. Champions. Champions are community developed and voted on. They are supposed to be built specifically to give new players everything they need to succeed with a specific mech. Yet, they are often not "optimum" Why is that? Could it be that within the community there is (gasp!) disagreement as to what is optimum and what it takes to win?

This is not exactly true. Not all champion mechs have builds different from their base loadouts, and many that are different are using PGI-created builds. We're not yet at the point where the majority of champion mechs have community-derived loadouts. The ones that ARE community-derived are about as optimum as you can get... or perhaps "meta" as you can get, if you prefer better distinction here.

[Gyrok]

Bud Crue, on 14 February 2016 - 09:23 AM, said:

So in a game, you're not allowed to have a bit of fun and try odd things? How odd.

Guy wants to bring some Lrms on an Atlas when he pugs. Maybe play more of a support role. Doing so he is affecting your team's game so detrimentally that you are all forced to "play around" his build. As a result he should expect to be berated about not only about his mech, his build and his play.

You know what...this is how I interpret that to be.

If you want to derp around with LRMs, ok, fine...bring a mech like an adder with a couple of 10s or 15s, a tag and a pair of ERMLs and play in the back and "make it rain"...whatever.

If you are bringing a 100 ton assault mech...you are a considerable amount of armor and guns that should be leading the charge, because that is what the Atlas does. For you to be sitting in the back lobbing LRMs, while you are handicapping the group by being significantly slower, and to prevent losing you, your team supports you...you are doing every single one of the other 11 players on your team a disservice by playing that mech that way...

The biggest offense in all of this is that a 100 ton assault mech requires attention of the team because it must be supported. So, now you are making the 100 ton assault mech baby sitting job as painful to watch as paint drying, and you literally contribute nothing to the push...which is your only function.

The only other thing I can say is this:

If you are dropping in that Atlas, please alert the rest of your team that you are a 48 kph LRM lobbing DDC so they can leave you behind when they nascar...because someone playing a 100 ton tank that selfishly deserves to get left behind while they kick and scream about people telling them, and rightfully so, that they are a drain on the team and contribute almost nothing.

Edited by Gyrok, 14 February 2016 - 04:14 PM.