679 replies to this topic

[Tiamat of the Sea]

G3TxWr3cK3r3D, on 14 February 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

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

Try making an argument son.

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

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 14 February 2016 - 01:09 PM.

[VinJade]

Mc you do realize that the stock AS7-D does come with LRMs yes?
LRMs on any mech is great to soften up or deal damage to enemy mechs as you close.
The main problem is some seem to feel they are better than everyone else.

I say if you are 'very skilled' then you should be able to win in any mech even the OP's build.

so I say those who think they are the best, then they should have no problem winning even in a 'poor mech' like the OPs.

[MeanFacedJohnny]

Mcgral18, on 14 February 2016 - 12:51 PM, said:

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

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

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

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



I don't like anything about the build.

I do have artemis, as well as cdr and range modules. I neglected to mention that.

[ScarecrowES]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 14 February 2016 - 12:32 PM, said:

By the same rote, though, the fun of those other eleven does not trump that one pilot either.

When we're talking about something of concrete, measurable worth- lives, physical injury, psychological debilitation, et cetera, 'the needs of the many' works.

When you're talking about a consistent team- people who work or play together on a regular basis, you can expect the team to internally adjudicate such matters and come to a consensus- how much we care about winning versus how much we care about how we win (or lose).

When you're talking about a game where players aren't getting together beforehand as teams and coming to such a consensus, though, it becomes unreasonable to dictate that any member of that team adhere to any sense of enjoyment but their own. (Attempt to persuade or convince through actual argument or discussion, yes. Dictate, no.)

To wit, you've just said that he doesn't get to have fun playing the game because (you assume) the other eleven people on his team disagree with him about what 'fun' is.

I can't quite lay out the specifics of what's wrong with that, but it basically comes down to this- he has as much right to enjoy himself playing the game as they do.


Now, we can modify this by trying to stay reasonable- he should be trying to contribute (as that's the intent of the game), and he should be trying to ensure his team wins. Dictating the specifics of method, though, is pushing the boundaries of what's reasonable, for the reasons I laid out earlier in this post.

Do they have a right to complain? Sure. So does he (and he's exercising it). Do they have the right to insist that he is somehow wrong, bad, essentially evil for having a sense of fun that leads him to play with an intent that is not perfectly like theirs? Only so far as they can believe that and espouse that belief, I think. They cannot, though, reasonably expect him to stop having fun just because he enjoys things differently from how they do.

It's one thing to suggest or recommend changes to a 'mech build, playstyle, strategy, deck build, way of shooting a basketball, et cetera. It's something else to try to make someone a villain for not doing it the way you would, though.


I hope I'm communicating clearly here, I'm not sure the English language is quite suited to the meanings I'm trying to convey (or even language in general, necessarily).

You post strays as close to the overall tone I've been hoping to hold this conversation to. Unfortunately, I've had to be on the "jerk" side of the argument in order to hold it there, but I think you've expressed it well enough.

In the end, every player should get to enjoy the game. However, as you've expressed, no single player has the right to exercise his or her own enjoyment to the detriment of others. This is a point I've been trying to maintain throughout all off this.

A certain balance is always maintained in a community for the particular needs of each individual and the community as a whole. When that balance is not maintained, there will be conflict. Obviously, by the fact that the OP is the subject of conflict during matches, he's obviously found himself on the wrong side of that balance. And it's very easy to see why. In this case, he's put his own enjoyment ahead of the enjoyment of the other 11 members of his team by not being an equal contributor. And the community, in this case his team, has taken action to try to restore that balance.

As you say, both sides have a right to have their say, but clearly only one side is at fault here.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

VinJade, on 14 February 2016 - 01:10 PM, said:

Mc you do realize that the stock AS7-D does come with LRMs yes?
LRMs on any mech is great to soften up or deal damage to enemy mechs as you close.
The main problem is some seem to feel they are better than everyone else.

I say if you are 'very skilled' then you should be able to win in any mech even the OP's build.

so I say those who think they are the best, then they should have no problem winning even in a 'poor mech' like the OPs.

Vin, your argument base here is flawed.

The stock loadout of the Atlas is the loadout from tabletop. It is a loadout constructed in and for a system that operates significantly differently from Mechwarrior Online, particularly in elements such as all weapons firing at the same rate and durability being half what it is, as well as all equipment being destroyed by any single critical hit, and a significantly lower rate of heat accumulation.

It is not a loadout that the Atlas was given because it works well for MWO. Please do not base your argument on it.

[IdolElite]

Mcgral18, on 14 February 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

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

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


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



Sorry I don't like you throwing matches.

Maybe it could be his tier as people are saying, or maybe he's lied about his damage, but I've seen him in 2 matches, I know he did upwards of 400 damage in one and i didn't notice him doing poorly in the other. I defend him because I think player skill is more important than an optimal build. As scarecrow stated, yes you ideally want both, but if someone has a build they like and do well in, just because they run the risk of being exploited by a weakness in said build that doesn't mean they are throwing the match.

I feel like the blanket statement of your build has this wrong therefore you are a terrible player/person is ignorant and intentionally bellicose.

I've personally had a lot of success in most of my mechs, and some of the variants are just pure bad for whatever reason, but at no point did i feel like i was dragging the team down. *with the exception of a few lights*

[Marauder3D]

When I read the title of the topic, I seriously thought to myself, "whatever you want is fine as long as it isn't a LRM Atlas."

I'm only Tier 2, but I've been playing since closed Beta. So I have some experience. Here is my reasoning:

1. This is a team game. As someone said above me: Yes, it is your mech, but this is a team game. As a team game, you need to meaningfully contribute.

2. So, because this is a team game, and you have every right to bring whatever you want to a match--your teammates have the right to chime in on your build and mech choices.

3. LRM's on an Atlas are unfortunately in the laughably bad category. You don't have the tubes, the speed to reposition, or the TAG to use them well on that build. You already have ERLL to reach out at range on your mech. Why the LRMs when trip SRM 4 would make you a shortrange threat when coupled with the AC20?

Conclusion: sure man, take your build and carry me to victory. But remember in a team setting, no one wants an Atlas sitting in back lobbing LRMs while my medium mech has to lead a push instead of you.

Keep having fun though.

[pyrocomp]

ScarecrowES, on 14 February 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

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

1) Along the OPs answers there is a statement of 'all XP and C-bills spent on LRM10 modules'. Guess he cannot go simply getting another mech. Plus he stated that he enjoys riding Atlas and not the other mech. So should he go against his fun? Really, will those possible 10-tons matter? I doubt as MM currently does little (but some limitations there stand) to match the weights.
2) If you are on the way to those lines LRMs allow you to add damage before you got there. And with that love for NASCAR. Really in some matches I never catch the front line in DWF while never stopping. And again, OP directly said that he goes to the front line and is not sitting behind. So what's the difference? Except that enemy can backtrack and keep 300 m distance? SRMs are not that always usefull.
3) and 4) I read it, do not claim I didn't. You could've been not very clear and I could've misunderstood some (as this is not my native language), but the that claim is a litle too much.
5) The OP has all the right to go with those LRMs, no? Just along same lne and same logic? And he tries to be competitive in that build (however he can).
6) first it's 300-600 on average, which means 450 average and 4.5 dmg/ton. So all to your specs. Every 100-tonner can do 70 pt alpha, not that those build are good. You can even get 105 pt alpha from DWF but that build is awful. And again, PGI made an effort to make all mechs to be on the same board damage-wise to make them all viable in game. Really, not yours 5pt per ton (of who would ever run lights). So it is 300-400 minimal in assault if you were not abandoned and the match gone well (even with a loss). The OP states he had it in hid build. So what's the point and where those sub-300 dmgs came from?

[ScarecrowES]

VinJade, on 14 February 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

actually Crow if he is always getting bombarded it is called harassment.



and Harassment is against the TOS.

Ummm, no... when you're being told the same thing over and over by different people, it's not harassment. When you constantly find yourself at the center of a problem, perhaps the problem is you.

[Dahkoht]

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.

Again , agree.

I'll take 11 friendly people playing the game over an elitist jack-*** any day.

My life's good enough as it is , don't need the game to prove it more.

[VinJade]

yeah the fault rest with the ones who have harassed the OP.
the Community as a whole isn't always right.

Actually Crow it is harassment regardless of why it started.

Edited by VinJade, 14 February 2016 - 01:19 PM.

[Mcgral18]

MeanFacedJohnny, on 14 February 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

I do have artemis, as well as cdr and range modules. I neglected to mention that.

Range modules are the better part of worthless for LRMs (Artemis doesn't work outside LoS, and 6+ second travel time is a lot of time for people to move 5 meters to the left)

Artemis does give you lock time bonuses within LoS (but adds a ton to each launcher, making the 5 a questionable choice).


Other question still applies. Does your Frankenmech beat a purpose build short range mech? Without an ability to hit hard past 400M?
Its ability to reposition (due to giant engine) removes some big downsides.

A 350ish Atlas is the better choice, for ~60 Kph.

[Parnage Winters]

Dear Op
Small Lasers are Red,
LRMs are bad
I can't make a Rhyme but your build is bad.
You can run what you want, but don't tell me not to laugh.
-Love and cuddles, Parn

[XFellDragonX]

VinJade, on 14 February 2016 - 01:15 PM, said:

yeah the fault rest with the ones who have harassed the OP.
the Community as a whole isn't always right.

Really? So expressing my opinion on a bad mech build is somehow harassment? By that definition you shouldn't express your opinion against me cause its harassment. Bad argument.

[MeanFacedJohnny]

Mcgral18, on 14 February 2016 - 12:58 PM, said:

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

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

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

Average 320 apparently. I'm sorry if that isn't up to your standards. To me it is decent enough and as long as I enjoy myself and don't throw games I don't see the issue.

Xetelian, on 14 February 2016 - 12:58 PM, said:

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

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

AS7-D-DC

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

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

I have an srm brawler atlas. I have mostly brawler mechs tbh. It just so happens my DDC is my favorite and the one I tend to have the most fun in.

[Yosharian]

I take the piss out of people who run LRMs on an Atlas for two reasons: firstly, it's funny to laugh about that ****. Secondly, I long for the day when LRMs are completely revamped and it actually becomes a smart move (as it should be) to stick even one LRM20 on an Atlas as a support/backup/utility weapon.

If you'd read any of my rebalance threads you'd know how much LRMs would change if I was in charge of them.

So if you see a comment or post taking the piss out of your LRMs, don't take it too personally. There are some rabid anti-LRM commenters though.

[MeanFacedJohnny]

Marauder3D, on 14 February 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

When I read the title of the topic, I seriously thought to myself, "whatever you want is fine as long as it isn't a LRM Atlas."

I'm only Tier 2, but I've been playing since closed Beta. So I have some experience. Here is my reasoning:

1. This is a team game. As someone said above me: Yes, it is your mech, but this is a team game. As a team game, you need to meaningfully contribute.

2. So, because this is a team game, and you have every right to bring whatever you want to a match--your teammates have the right to chime in on your build and mech choices.

3. LRM's on an Atlas are unfortunately in the laughably bad category. You don't have the tubes, the speed to reposition, or the TAG to use them well on that build. You already have ERLL to reach out at range on your mech. Why the LRMs when trip SRM 4 would make you a shortrange threat when coupled with the AC20?

Conclusion: sure man, take your build and carry me to victory. But remember in a team setting, no one wants an Atlas sitting in back lobbing LRMs while my medium mech has to lead a push instead of you.

Keep having fun though.

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."

Edited by MeanFacedJohnny, 14 February 2016 - 01:26 PM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

ScarecrowES, on 14 February 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

You post strays as close to the overall tone I've been hoping to hold this conversation to. Unfortunately, I've had to be on the "jerk" side of the argument in order to hold it there, but I think you've expressed it well enough.

In the end, every player should get to enjoy the game. However, as you've expressed, no single player has the right to exercise his or her own enjoyment to the detriment of others. This is a point I've been trying to maintain throughout all off this.

A certain balance is always maintained in a community for the particular needs of each individual and the community as a whole. When that balance is not maintained, there will be conflict. Obviously, by the fact that the OP is the subject of conflict during matches, he's obviously found himself on the wrong side of that balance. And it's very easy to see why. In this case, he's put his own enjoyment ahead of the enjoyment of the other 11 members of his team by not being an equal contributor. And the community, in this case his team, has taken action to try to restore that balance.

As you say, both sides have a right to have their say, but clearly only one side is at fault here.

I'd tend to disagree. What is most wrong here is not his sense of enjoyment or the sense of enjoyment of the other members of his team, what is wrong here is that while he has chosen to express his dissent in a more positive manner (explaining himself, his reasoning, and his process), he has done so because he has experienced, consistently, others expressing their disapproval in a nonconstructive manner (insults and degradation rather than offers for assistance, questions, or reasoned arguments).


Further, I'd like to restate one of my main points- no player nor group of players has the right to decide whether or not others get to experience the game in an enjoyable fashion.

It doesn't matter how many of them and how many of him there are. This is not a thing we can base on quantity.

I'd like to emphasise this, reasonably, which is to say, 'in a reasonable fashion', not 'in a morally good fashion', not 'in an orderly fashion', not 'in a just fashion'.

Reasonably, he cannot be expected to change a build that has worked for him and continues to work for him to something radically different in a single step just because someone else's sense of fun doesn't match his. If he's continuing to experience positive results (insults and yelling aside), it would be unreasonable to expect him to change his actions, particularly if they currently bring him enjoyment. It would be especially unreasonable to expect him to stop having fun because of this disagreement, just as it would be especially unreasonable for those players who hate his build to start liking it because he does.



Is he using his Atlas to the pinnacle of performance? Beats the hell out of me. I don't know what his decision making process is once the match starts, I don't know his reflexes and aim, I don't know his precise loadout, I don't know what teammates and enemies he typically sees, I don't know what his actual typical battlefield effectiveness is (and if anyone insists that it can be measured by damage numbers alone, I'm going to have to disagree about that quite strongly).

Is he wrong for using it in a way that many others don't? No.

Is he wrong for wanting to be allowed to develop his build in his own way at his own pace? No.



Part of the problem here is the question of what is 'trying to win'? More specifically, how do we quantify it and measure it against fun?

This being a team-based competitive game, it would be unreasonable of him not to try to win. However, it is unreasonable to expect that every player using an Atlas should try to win the exact same way, to say nothing of every player playing the game.

Frankly, from here, it only gets ontological.




At any rate, I.... what was my point? Oh, right.

He's not wrong for trying to play differently. They're not wrong for trying to play the same. However, deciding that he is wrong and bad and disallowed from fun is unreasonable, and at best morally questionable.

[Mcgral18]

MeanFacedJohnny, on 14 February 2016 - 01:20 PM, said:

Average 320 apparently. I'm sorry if that isn't up to your standards. To me it is decent enough and as long as I enjoy myself and don't throw games I don't see the issue.

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.

[VinJade]

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.

Mc
Yes I know that the games are different however my point is still valid, LRMs not the best but they can cause damage while getting closer.

I personally don't like SRMs.