679 replies to this topic

[MeanFacedJohnny]

Lily from animove, on 15 February 2016 - 06:44 AM, said:

And the circle closes back to PSR. if PSR would be harsh and proper casuals like the OP would not meet the competitive crowd.

Only argument against this is that if I have a 1.4 w/l ratio consistently then eventually I will end up in a higher tier anyway playing against the competitive crowd. As long as anyone can keep a positive w/l ratio they will always move closer to the top tier, casual or no. The only thing that could be done is separate ranked and normal queues, but this usually ends up causing an even bigger divide and dispute. Not to mention longer wait times. Which nobody wants

Lily from animove, on 15 February 2016 - 07:30 AM, said:

until the moment you meet 11 othe rpeople like this getting stomped 12-0 10x in a row for not teamplaying, derping around, and doing basically nothign related to the point of the game just because "They play and drive how they want"

This idea is surely rather problematic in a team based MULTIPLAYER game, when you do what you entirely think "I could give a **** what anyone else thinks or says" Because when you keep following this mentallity to the max of 11 players doing so, well then you have a broken game concept,

Same as above, you didn't read. I don't go willy nilly doing whatever I want. I stay with the team, I tank the damage, I lead charges and I have a positive W/L. How is this a detriment to my team?

Ultimax, on 15 February 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:

I don't care if people don't play meta.

I don't even care if some goofball wants to ruin one of the most powerful brawlers in the game by putting LRMs on it - something that is objectively bad and has been proven so repeatedly.


But that Atlas better do well with its terrible choices, because if the rest of us are pushing and dying and the Atlas is almost totally unscathed still lobbing LRMs in a 100 ton assault mech with truckloads of structure quirks - then you are a leech, a parasite, a bad player the rest of us had to play around & had to make up for.


The rest of us had to carry harder, because that Atlas was "having fun" at the expense of our fun.


So again, feel free to play whatever you want. Its your mech.


If you are terrible, and your build doesn't properly contribute then expect your team mates to feel free to let you know.

Again someone who didn't read the whole post putting words in my mouth and making blanket assumptions...

Star Colonel Mustard Kerensky, on 15 February 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

Run a hunchback 4-J, it does what you're trying to do, but does it better than an atlas ever will.

That's why people are giving you crap, you're using a 100 ton mech to do something a 50 ton mech can do better.

Also the fact that it apparently took you 3 years to figure out 2 lrm 10s is better than one 20 and a 5.

I'm sorry if I don't spend my free time searching threads and guides to see what has more spread. I have fun with the build. Have stated multiple times I also run 'meta' mechs. I have a brawler build 'meta' Atlas. I play the game because I enjoy it. I do well enough at it. The 20's were less hot so I assumed they would be better for me. As also stated, I consider myself a casual player. In the 3 years I've played there have been spans of weeks at a time where I have not played a single game of mwo. So again, my apologies if I don't live up to your 'standards' of what makes this game enjoyable and that I don't spend my free time searching the most efficient tube use. As long as I'm winning more than I lose, and I have fun, I don't care. I guarantee PGI appreciates my patronage.

[pyrocomp]

Deathlike, on 15 February 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

Success is dictated by the victors.

If a team is outtrading you at range, you probably need to stop trading.

If a team is outbrawling you, you probably need to find more open spawn to reduce the effectiveness of the brawl.


Very often, an Atlas is melted quickly MAINLY because of one of two things. Either there is a firing line (and very often this is MIA in PUG play) or the Atlas is doing a horrible job of getting to the action. The success of an Atlas is greatly in part of being smart at getting to the battle, using cover as much as possible. Far too often some try to peak over the top or do walk in the middle of open ground - and this is what gets Atlases killed quickly and efficiently.

The other thing is that when an Atlas pushes AND the teammates are not pushing with it, then the Atlas falls much quicker. This is what often happens with bad teams as the race to self-preservation over being a good teammate often dictates failure.

It has little to do with Tiers, it has EVERYTHING to do with execution.

These are all known statements and valid points, but they do not touch builds, aren't they? If OP is outtrading the opfor in his build should he go brawling? Again, the OP has decent W/L and stable PSR meaning that he plays to the level, uses valid tactics? positiones and etc. So how the build undermines the team if W/L is constant? And to those matches this mech and this build is constant. Is the build to blame in those losses?

And again, the question 'why a single LRM rack bring you to the conclusion that the pilot of that mech is back row coward?' remains unanswered.

Tier matters, actually. Some things you can pull in T4 that you will not dare to try in T3 (like being on the flank in DWF).

[Dahkoht]

I'm still waiting for the "pro" who challenged anyone to get 400-600 in that build , to respond to Atlas Overlord's video showing 700+ in Tier 1 with that exact build.

Strangely , he hasn't returned.

[Deathlike]

pyrocomp, on 15 February 2016 - 01:21 PM, said:

These are all known statements and valid points, but they do not touch builds, aren't they? If OP is outtrading the opfor in his build should he go brawling? Again, the OP has decent W/L and stable PSR meaning that he plays to the level, uses valid tactics? positiones and etc. So how the build undermines the team if W/L is constant? And to those matches this mech and this build is constant. Is the build to blame in those losses?

I don't talk about builds because you can build whatever you want, but if you really suck @ executing it at higher levels of play, it's probably not as good as you'd think.

Just because it works now doesn't mean it'll reliably work later. That is the biggest error many people make in this game, and thus should not be endorsed or propagated to others.

Not all losses are for the same reason, but if the Atlas with LRMs is the next to last thing I see, it's probably a good shot it is the culprit (deservedly or not).

Quote

And again, the question 'why a single LRM rack bring you to the conclusion that the pilot of that mech is back row coward?' remains unanswered.

Again, I gave you the answer, and you refuse to accept it and it's not my problem.

Even if it were NOT the case, many people are looking for competent teammates. Any time a teammate does something totally out of whack, will get blamed. It's just the nature of things... fair or unfair.

Quote

Tier matters, actually. Some things you can pull in T4 that you will not dare to try in T3 (like being on the flank in DWF).

Tier doesn't matter in the traditional sense (mostly because it's an XP bar, but some people intentionally tank - perhaps they like clubbing seals).

Tier doesn't guarantee execution, talent, skills, intelligence, or anything. Only by actually executing consistently, efficiently, and effectively is when people "validate" your Tier (1) status. That's the only metric that anyone that cares about high tiers give a damn about.

In the solo queue, there is literally next to zero trust with your teammates (unless we're doing the old school solo+Elo based tournies where competent players find each and every way to steal kill and farm damage for themselves). Only with random acts of "being a good teammate" is when a roflstomp occurs (with the occasional opfor "I wanna do my own thing").

Sure, you can get away with the dumbest of builds in the solo queue, but noone would suggest it being a "good idea" in the group queue (or comp matches) because it doesn't help actually people in getting better (and I'd like to think people who want to get better get the right info, not the ones spouted here).

You can build however you want, but if it's bad, people will call you out. If you play bad and people call you out for playing bad, well, it's on you to show that you aren't as bad (and not blame others for your misfortune).

Edited by Deathlike, 15 February 2016 - 01:34 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Dahkoht, on 15 February 2016 - 01:32 PM, said:

I'm still waiting for the "pro" who challenged anyone to get 400-600 in that build , to respond to Atlas Overlord's video showing 700+ in Tier 1 with that exact build.

Strangely , he hasn't returned.

I for one, do not want to willingly use a **** build.

Good builds can't get me wins (see 1100 damage, 6 kill loss on earlier pages), let alone absolute **** ones.

The PUG LIFE is unforgiving, while RNGeesus can shine upon whomever, as much as it can **** on them.

[Ultimax]

MischiefSC, on 15 February 2016 - 11:24 AM, said:

I always find the hyperbole funny in these threads. Like somehow putting effort into finding out what works and why is some sort of hack or exploit.

The meta isn't some clique or fashion statement. It's just a reduction of what works best most consistently.

That's it. It's a identification of what the most efficiently successful designs and methods are.

The Pants Before Shoes meta isn't some restrictive cultural policy designed to oppress the Shoes First masses for exercising their getting dressed creativity. You put your pants on before your shoes because it works better. Putting your shoes on first is just stupid. If someone tells you that it's just more comfortable for them you're going to realize that they're just being dense.

What works best I'd what works best. It's not a conspiracy, it's not some plot to steal your fun. This is compounded by the fact that this is not a single player game - you deciding to put on shoes before pants slows your whole team getting dressed. Saying "I still get dressed just fine" is pretty goofy, pants THEN shoes is just better. You can get into why but that doesn't change that it's better.

The other big problem is that because some people don't understand why some things work better than others they don't believe anyone else has figured it out either. This gets compounded again when you have people who think anyone who understands something better than them is a bully or trying to trick them.

My only regret is tat I have but one like to give for this post.

pyrocomp, on 15 February 2016 - 12:26 PM, said:

Nobody, especially the guys that are vocably against that build, had cared to answer that quetion - where that conclusion comes from.

It's a bad build, usually used by bad players.

The reason they chose the Atlas is because they want as much armor as possible.

The reason they took multiple, not one but multiple LRMs is because they intend that to be the focus of their build and their "playstyle".


Which translates to hiding, like a coward, most of the match in the biggest, toughest mech they could find.


They like to pass it off as "playing support" - but there are better mechs for that - with better tube counts, better quirks for LRMs - they don't actually care about that.

They aren't going to share their armor with the team by trading. They aren't going to push the front line offensively to help control the flow of the match or share the burden of locking targets.


They are going to leech and hide.


They care about trying to live as long as possible by hiding with 100T of armor - because they are probably not very good at the game.


The worst part is this build choice cripples their ability to get better, and matches where they "did fine" just works towards their confirmation bias that what they are doing is the right thing.

[Gyrok]

pyrocomp, on 15 February 2016 - 01:21 PM, said:

And again, the question 'why a single LRM rack bring you to the conclusion that the pilot of that mech is back row coward?' remains unanswered.

Actually, I answered this about 10-15 pages ago.

The nature of LRMs as a weapon system dictates that you not be in the front because of the minimum range, constant face time for holding a lock while you launch, etc.

Standing in front of everyone while you do that is playing a bad build poorly.

Dahkoht, on 15 February 2016 - 01:32 PM, said:

I'm still waiting for the "pro" who challenged anyone to get 400-600 in that build , to respond to Atlas Overlord's video showing 700+ in Tier 1 with that exact build.

Strangely , he hasn't returned.

Atlas Overlord is a T4 player...how did he do that in T1?

[Alienized]

im amazed that people ignore that selfishness can ruin the fun for the 11 other people in the team.

*i want to drive what i want* is not the way to go at all.

*i want to have fun without screwing up my team* is it all along.

bad loadouts are bad. fact.

[pyrocomp]

Deathlike, on 15 February 2016 - 01:33 PM, said:

Again, I gave you the answer, and you refuse to accept it and it's not my problem.

Even if it were NOT the case, many people are looking for competent teammates. Any time a teammate does something totally out of whack, will get blamed. It's just the nature of things... fair or unfair.

Nay. It is the first time in this thread that somebody openly stated that crowd wants everybody to play to their fun and their ideas of how someone must behave (and later to blame anybody but himself), and everybody must agree on someones ideas. Now, this is the answer. Really, mostly other posts tried to convince that the build is objectively bad, or that it is objectively bad to use LRMs, while it is all the way subjective. Now, I got my answer (mostly to make somebody openly admit that there is nothing objectively bad in using LRMs if you can use them in casual play in this game).

[mogs01gt]

Ultimax, on 15 February 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

My only regret is tat I have but one like to give for this post.
It's a bad build, usually used by bad players.The reason they chose the Atlas is because they want as much armor as possible.
The reason they took multiple, not one but multiple LRMs is because they intend that to be the focus of their build and their "playstyle".
Which translates to hiding, like a coward, most of the match in the biggest, toughest mech they could find.
They like to pass it off as "playing support" - but there are better mechs for that - with better tube counts, better quirks for LRMs - they don't actually care about that.They aren't going to share their armor with the team by trading. They aren't going to push the front line offensively to help control the flow of the match or share the burden of locking targets.They are going to leech and hide.They care about trying to live as long as possible by hiding with 100T of armor - because they are probably not very good at the game.The worst part is this build choice cripples their ability to get better, and matches where they "did fine" just works towards their confirmation bias that what they are doing is the right thing.

I love you!! greatest post ever!

[Deathlike]

pyrocomp, on 15 February 2016 - 01:44 PM, said:

Nay. It is the first time in this thread that somebody openly stated that crowd wants everybody to play to their fun and their ideas of how someone must behave (and later to blame anybody but himself), and everybody must agree on someones ideas. Now, this is the answer. Really, mostly other posts tried to convince that the build is objectively bad, or that it is objectively bad to use LRMs, while it is all the way subjective. Now, I got my answer (mostly to make somebody openly admit that there is nothing objectively bad in using LRMs if you can use them in casual play in this game).

But, if your fun is ruining mine, that is a problem.

The build is bad, especially at higher levels of play. I don't care too much if LRMs are on my team, but if we lose AND you did nothing with your LRMs, well, I'm probably going to say something about it.

Of course, try to run a 6+ man and run into teams like SJR, 228, and the like - the guy that brings LRMs in the group will be told to stop bringing them (and other bad builds) because these things are further magnified (you are hindering the team, no matter how you try to justify it).

Taking bad builds will get people to comment on it. The question is whether you accept that the build is bad.

Edited by Deathlike, 15 February 2016 - 01:52 PM.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Gyrok, on 15 February 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

Atlas Overlord is a T4 player...how did he do that in T1?

Watch the video

[Lugh]

Roughneck45, on 15 February 2016 - 12:55 PM, said:

Because people will perceive it as a bad build. Doesnt matter if you had the best game of your life.

LRMs are pretty polarizing weapons. They can be devastating against new players and a complete waste of tonnage against experienced ones.

They can be pretty devastating against even experienced players who have:
1) forgotten their derp module because they have been leveling a lot of mechs lately
2) Hadn't seen LRMs all match rush forward to close distance and get caught out from cover in the open with no where to go.
I've seen tier 1-5 players all make this mistake.
3) They are never a waste of time when you are providing your own lock, which means keeping with the team AND still raining on the opponents when your gorilla arms are going to tear out some nubbins(who just cut you off because that KILLISMINEMINEMINE) takes away your lane.
4) They aren't a weapon to be boated. They are a supplement to other 'better' direct fire weapons and if used as such can be used at ALL levels of play. Especially since the ecm nerfage. The evidence that they are performing better is in every game you play. And yes it's a pain in the *** to sit next to a wall high enough to block them and wait for the incoming messages to cease so you can go OVER the wall and get in his/her face and rip it off, but that serves a purpose too, it's called suppression. It's the MWO equivalent of an MG34 chattering away to cover the advance of the closer range SMG infantry.

[pyrocomp]

Gyrok, on 15 February 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

The nature of LRMs as a weapon system dictates that you not be in the front because of the minimum range, constant face time for holding a lock while you launch, etc.

Standing in front of everyone while you do that is playing a bad build poorly.

Isn't this a subjective view on how you would've played that? Really, I might be a bit off doing this but this look pretty much like those tests to find what's on peoples mind asking them to think for the next guy. Revealing. Not sure that this works here. Hope it is not working here (just many sad things were being said). But really, the question how to play and what can you do with this of that weapon system is about you, it is not that easily transferred on the next guy. He can pull matches in this build better than in a meta-build (that he has), so should he choose to cripple his team underperfoming (learning is a different thins, but few volunteered an advice and almost nobody volunteered to help, much to mock the 'mentorship' thread out there) in a meta-mech or choose to perform well in non-meta-mech? Crowd loudly says that it is the first. I do not dig to that logic.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Deathlike, on 15 February 2016 - 01:52 PM, said:

But, if your fun is ruining mine, that is a problem.

When people try to justify the harassment of others, it's a sad day.

Seriously... just stop and read that sentence.

Then realize it's an adult that typed it.

Then stop and read it again.

Edited by The Atlas Overlord, 15 February 2016 - 02:00 PM.

[pyrocomp]

Deathlike, on 15 February 2016 - 01:52 PM, said:

But, if your fun is ruining mine, that is a problem.

This is why we have rules, agrements and such. This is a video game and anything that is not against those rules are allowed. Unfortunately, those trolls use very this loop-hole. They have their fun. So at this point you can either try to prove the moderator that this particular player is a troll and is greiving. Else ToS, CoC etc. kindly asks you to be polite. Where is it wrong? Any offender with those 'lost because of you' claims is no better (the situation is symmetrical albeit the OP has a foot for report).

EDIT: misprints

Edited by pyrocomp, 15 February 2016 - 02:03 PM.

[pattonesque]

VinJade, on 14 February 2016 - 01:39 PM, said:

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.

you keep repeating this and it suggests that you don't know how the Atlas is played

literally everything about the two best variants (-S and -D-DC) suggests the robot is built for slugging it out at close range. It has low-slung hardpoints, can't effectively boat lasers, isn't fast enough to poke, but it has massive structure bonuses, can use AC20s and a lot of SRM6s (both of which sync with a close-range brawler playstyle), and its big arms and thin CT mean that you can spread damage better than just about any other 'mech in the game.

it is absolutely a brawler and building it as a "jack of all trades" is basically turning your 100-ton murdermech into a 'mech that is worse at short range than a Hunchback-4G and worse at LRMing than a Hunchback-4J

Dahkoht, on 14 February 2016 - 07:05 PM, said:

I'm still waiting for the "pros" to explain how Atlas Overlord just did what they said can't be done ?

The excuses taking that long to work up ?

long story short, any old junk works in the solo queue in lower tiers

Edited by pattonesque, 15 February 2016 - 02:16 PM.

[Gyrok]

pyrocomp, on 15 February 2016 - 01:54 PM, said:

Isn't this a subjective view on how you would've played that? Really, I might be a bit off doing this but this look pretty much like those tests to find what's on peoples mind asking them to think for the next guy. Revealing. Not sure that this works here. Hope it is not working here (just many sad things were being said). But really, the question how to play and what can you do with this of that weapon system is about you, it is not that easily transferred on the next guy. He can pull matches in this build better than in a meta-build (that he has), so should he choose to cripple his team underperfoming (learning is a different thins, but few volunteered an advice and almost nobody volunteered to help, much to mock the 'mentorship' thread out there) in a meta-mech or choose to perform well in non-meta-mech? Crowd loudly says that it is the first. I do not dig to that logic.

You know what...

There are objectively right and wrong ways to play a weapon system to their strength.

We can agree on this? Yes?

So, let us be hypothetical for a moment.

You are your 100T atlas, and you go pushing the charge into the enemy brawl deck with LRMs spewing from your LT.

Possible outcomes:

1.) Enemies are under 180m and receive zero damage.

2.) While you are waiting on your LRMs to lock, your STs are blown out and you become a stick because direct fire > LRMs

3.) You ignore using your LRMs to use your other weapons, in which case the LRMs are dead weight being wasted.

4.) As you approach, the enemy is under ECM cover negating your LRMs.

5.) As you approach, their lead mech in the brawl line has ECM, negating your ability to lock, or sacrificing your ECM coverage by switching to counter.

6.) The enemy is in cover, your fire LRMs wasting ammo, heat, and revealing approximate position and do no damage.

7.) You get lucky, the enemy has no ECM, no cover, no AMS, and also possess LRMs so they cannot use superior direct fire weapons against you as you amble your way into the fray at 48 kph, and they happen to be about 350-400m out while all the rest of that went right (not bloody likely, in other words...)

Now, let us examine the possible outcomes with SRMs:

1.) You turn the corner, fire, and miss with SRMs because reasons, wasted heat, ammo, etc.

2.) The enemy is under 300m and you splat them with SRM18-SRM24 (depending on your flavor of Atlas) + brawl weapons

3.) The enemy is far enough away that you have to cover some ground, thank god for ECM so no LRMs to worry about in your DDC.

See the difference?

[Deathlike]

The Atlas Overlord, on 15 February 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:

When people try to justify the harassment of others, it's a sad day.

Seriously... just stop and read that sentence.

Then realize it's an adult that typed it.

Then stop and read it again.

I'm not endorsing harassment. I'm endorsing people to bring good builds. It helps everyone out, even if the team loses.

It's a distinct difference.

pyrocomp, on 15 February 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

This is why we have rules, agrements and such. This is a video game and anything that is not against those rules are allowed. Unfortunately, those trolls use very this loop-hole. They have their fun. So at this point you can either try to prove the moderator that this particular player is a troll and is greiving. Else ToS, CoC etc. kindly asks you to be polite. Where is it wrong? Any offender with those 'lost because of you' claims is no better (the situation is symmetrical albeit the OP has a foot for report).

EDIT: misprints

The Report button is used for various things for various reasons... generally in the proper role. Then again, everyone uses it for dumb things. (Hear about the bad/dumb 911 calls? This is more or less the same.)

Up to a certain point, there should be a natural segregation of modes... people who bring anything and don't care about the consequences actually don't have a queue for them. They are lumped in with everyone else - particularly those that want to win (in some cases, at any cost). When players do not understand that your inability to be effective is tied to willing to not get better.. skill-wise or build-wise, then that's why these posts prop up.

Many try to justify this with the solo queue, but inevitably this is also why the same group of people tend to complain about the group queue - not understanding that a different commitment - a different expectation is required of them.... especially in a team based game.

When the team "gimps" itself (intentional or not), people will point you out. It's just human nature. If you're expecting to be successful on a consistent basis, there's no reason to "gimp" yourself unless you prefer the challenge. With that, you better put up or stop. The people that are complaining - well, you better answer them by putting up.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Deathlike, on 15 February 2016 - 02:16 PM, said:

I'm not endorsing harassment. I'm endorsing people to bring good builds. It helps everyone out, even if the team loses.

It's a distinct difference.

The first time sure, as long as you do it politely.

The second time and/or as soon as you're a douche about it and/or they communicate they're not interested in your advice....then you're right, it distincly becomes harassment.

Giving advice to people that ask for it is great.

Spouting hate b/c someone doesn't do what you want... that's just childish.

Edited by The Atlas Overlord, 15 February 2016 - 02:23 PM.