679 replies to this topic

[Tapdancing Kerensky]

Feel free to take whatever bad terrible mech builds you like. That's totally your right as a punter.

But don't get upset when people laugh at you because you take a terrible build.

[Bishop Steiner]

Tapdancing Kerensky, on 15 February 2016 - 11:46 PM, said:

Feel free to take whatever bad terrible mech builds you like. That's totally your right as a punter.

But don't get upset when people laugh at you because you take a terrible build.

Why get upset? I usually do better than most people in match in their meta builds, so I tend to be the one laughing

[Sjorpha]

ScarecrowES, on 15 February 2016 - 05:32 PM, said:

Given that he's underperforming for the chassis in his chosen build (again, 300-600 damage is not good for an Atlas), and the build he touts in this topic is the version he seems most comfortable with, I'd have to ask, then, why he underperforms and/or is unhappy playing more traditional and effective builds for the Atlas.

Personally, I can attest to the fact that there ARE builds out there that work very well in limited use that feature both LRMs and other viable long/short range weapon combos. Hell, I have a Warhawk-B with 3 lurms, 2 LPLs and 2 MPLs. That fits right into the wheelhouse of what the OP seems to want. The difference is, of course, that my Warhawk is capable of consistantly putting up 1000+ damage games, with 3-4 kills per match...

If you are being correctly matchmaked, and are playing with and against players of averagely equal skill to your own, then your average damage should be about 250-400, with slightly less than 1 kill.

It's hyperbole to claim that you have to do 600+ and several kills to do your part, because simple maths tells us what the actual averages must be.

The average kill per match is necessarily less than one, because there are less people being killed than there are players in a match. The average damage therefore is a little bit less than what it takes to kill a mech, like 300 or so. It doesn't go up with skill either, these are the averages in comp matches between the best players.

The only way to consistently put out extremely high average numbers is by carrying bad players, which can obviously only be true for players that are either very good so they are always among the best on their team, or they are still undertiered and rising quickly.

It's ok to place that kind of pressure on yourself if you like having that kind of goal, but it's hyperbolic to tell other people they should be putting up averages that would be totally unrealistic for anyone playing with and against equally skilled players.

[MrMadguy]

Sjorpha, on 16 February 2016 - 12:24 AM, said:

If you are being correctly matchmaked, and are playing with and against players of averagely equal skill to your own, then your average damage should be about 250-400, with slightly less than 1 kill.

It's hyperbole to claim that you have to do 600+ and several kills to do your part, because simple maths tells us what the actual averages must be.

The average kill per match is necessarily less than one, because there are less people being killed than there are players in a match. The average damage therefore is a little bit less than what it takes to kill a mech, like 300 or so. It doesn't go up with skill either, these are the averages in comp matches between the best players.

The only way to consistently put out extremely high average numbers is by carrying bad players, which can obviously only be true for players that are either very good so they are always among the best on their team, or they are still undertiered and rising quickly.

It's ok to place that kind of pressure on yourself if you like having that kind of goal, but it's hyperbolic to tell other people they should be putting up averages that would be totally unrealistic for anyone playing with and against equally skilled players.

Some players don't understand, what relative skill means. They think, that they will always perform well - right to 100% Tier 1. You are good - only if you perform well on 100% Tier 1. In all other cases it just means, that you're among bads and there is nothing honorable in stomping bads. And current best stabilization average match looks like this. Do you really think, that 200-250 match score is enough? For me such match doesn't feel good enough to have all matches like this forever.

[Omi_]

I get what you're saying about being able to build whatever mech you want and play however you want. Unfortunately, there isn't really a way to do this without inevitably having an effect on the players around you. The problem with boating LRMs on an Atlas, is that there's some equivalent to the Atlas on the other team that most likely isn't boating LRMs. Not that you shouldn't take LRMs, but too many will cut away from your space for other things. I would say LRM20+5 is slightly on the side of "boating", especially on an Atlas which doesn't have the tubes to fire 20 LRMs all at once (but incurs the spread penalty of the weapon anyway).

Personally, I would recommend nothing bigger than an LRM10, as larger launchers spread their damage around more and get less done. If I were going to use LRMs on an Atlas, I would take a single LRM5 so that I could cause the secondary effects of LRMs (forcing warnings, shooting over small cover), though even if I wanted to focus on damage, I would prefer many LRM5s anyway for their ability to converge on a smaller area.

[MrMadguy]

Hornsby, on 16 February 2016 - 12:42 AM, said:

I get what you're saying about being able to build whatever mech you want and play however you want. Unfortunately, there isn't really a way to do this without inevitably having an effect on the players around you. The problem with boating LRMs on an Atlas, is that there's some equivalent to the Atlas on the other team that most likely isn't boating LRMs. Not that you shouldn't take LRMs, but too many will cut away from your space for other things. I would say LRM20+5 is slightly on the side of "boating", especially on an Atlas which doesn't have the tubes to fire 20 LRMs all at once (but incurs the spread penalty of the weapon anyway).

Personally, I would recommend nothing bigger than an LRM10, as larger launchers spread their damage around more and get less done. If I were going to use LRMs on an Atlas, I would take a single LRM5 so that I could cause the secondary effects of LRMs (forcing warnings, shooting over small cover), though even if I wanted to focus on damage, I would prefer many LRM5s anyway for their ability to converge on a smaller area.

That's why MM is here. If you drag your team down - your rating should be decreased and you should start playing against team, where "some equivalent to the Atlas on the other team, that most likely IS boating LRMs". As simple, as that.

Edited by MrMadguy, 16 February 2016 - 12:50 AM.

[MischiefSC]

MrMadguy, on 16 February 2016 - 12:50 AM, said:

That's why MM is here. If you drag your team down - your rating should be decreased and you should start playing against team, where "some equivalent to the Atlas on the other team, that most likely IS boating LRMs". As simple, as that.

That's not the MM though, it's the population.

If there was enough players in the right weight classes of mechs and the right PSR level all available at the same time and not needed to fill out other matches the MM would absolutely love to have a pure T4 match; 12 T4 on one side, 12 T4 on the other.

The problem is that we don't have anything like the population required for that. Not even close. We don't even have the population to consistently and effectively try to fill 2 T2s per team, 5 T3s per team4xT4 and 1xT5. The MM as designed starts with wanting to get an ideal and homogeneous setup but it looks at numerous matches all trying to build at once and tries to slot them based off who's actually in queue. Then add in tonnage variance and you start to hit real issues.

If 2k people are playing MW:O at once, 500 of them in CW and 500 in group queue that only gives you 1k players to build quickplay matches with. Not everyone is looking for matches at any given time; many are in mechlab, training grounds, building groups and dicking around. Think about how much time you spend outside of matches while logged into MW:O in a day.

Then you've got people de-selecting servers like Europe and Oceanic. Given that each match is 7-15 minutes but it tries to build within 120 seconds it's generally got less than 10% of the population available to build matches at any given time, at peak, best case scenario. More realistically it's going to be about 5% and that's still generous.. So out of 100 people it's got to find 24 who roughly match for tonnage split into two groups of 12 and roughly match for PSR.

If we had 20,000 players on at peak you'd have drastically better matchmaking and you can look at things like drilling PSR down on individual chassis, even different loadouts to tweak you to the best, most precise build so that in your favorite mech your PSR is higher, especially in your best loadout while when you're trying to level that new terribad chassis you're considered way lower. For right now though that's irrelevant - you're lucky to get something sorta kinda close-ish.

[TexAce]

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.

Lol if you are playing with that attitude in pug land, you will have a very bad time. He can drive whatever he wants there. Even a 6 flamer stalker. And there is nothing you can do about it. Suck it up.

Edited by TexAce, 16 February 2016 - 01:57 AM.

[MrMadguy]

MischiefSC, on 16 February 2016 - 01:13 AM, said:

That's not the MM though, it's the population.

If there was enough players in the right weight classes of mechs and the right PSR level all available at the same time and not needed to fill out other matches the MM would absolutely love to have a pure T4 match; 12 T4 on one side, 12 T4 on the other.

The problem is that we don't have anything like the population required for that. Not even close. We don't even have the population to consistently and effectively try to fill 2 T2s per team, 5 T3s per team4xT4 and 1xT5. The MM as designed starts with wanting to get an ideal and homogeneous setup but it looks at numerous matches all trying to build at once and tries to slot them based off who's actually in queue. Then add in tonnage variance and you start to hit real issues.

If 2k people are playing MW:O at once, 500 of them in CW and 500 in group queue that only gives you 1k players to build quickplay matches with. Not everyone is looking for matches at any given time; many are in mechlab, training grounds, building groups and dicking around. Think about how much time you spend outside of matches while logged into MW:O in a day.

Then you've got people de-selecting servers like Europe and Oceanic. Given that each match is 7-15 minutes but it tries to build within 120 seconds it's generally got less than 10% of the population available to build matches at any given time, at peak, best case scenario. More realistically it's going to be about 5% and that's still generous.. So out of 100 people it's got to find 24 who roughly match for tonnage split into two groups of 12 and roughly match for PSR.

If we had 20,000 players on at peak you'd have drastically better matchmaking and you can look at things like drilling PSR down on individual chassis, even different loadouts to tweak you to the best, most precise build so that in your favorite mech your PSR is higher, especially in your best loadout while when you're trying to level that new terribad chassis you're considered way lower. For right now though that's irrelevant - you're lucky to get something sorta kinda close-ish.

It doesn't change anything. Lack of players decreases quality of matches? Ok. I understand. But, I perform very poorly and still advance - that's, what is plain wrong. Lack of players isn't valid excuse for forcing all players into Tier 1. PSR - is just a proof, that casual players are punchbags in this game. PGI literally forces me to play Meta 'Mechs/Builds instead of playing, like I prefer to play. I know, that Highlanders are crappy, but I play them just because I like their visual appearance. I don't play Medium and Lights - just because they are all ugly. We lack players now, but with this system we won't bring new players into this game - we will drive away those, we have.

Edited by MrMadguy, 16 February 2016 - 01:55 AM.

[smokefield]

Quote

. He can drive whatever he wants there. Even a 6 flamer stalker. And there is nothing you can do about it. Suck it up.

thing is...this situation will autocorrect itself in time. He may play subpar builds as long as it is matched agains weak players and he does something with that build. IF..yes IF...it will start to be put against better and better players that build will start to show its weaknesses and will subperfom...and eventually it will do crappy on the battefield...and that will be the moment when he will go looking for a "better" build ....and all this discussion will become irrelevant.

[Robot Kenshiro]

Holy bahjezzballs!! This thread..... dang.... I play lrm atlas...i play lrm direwolves.... it is what it is...bad build good build. Whatever.... youre gonna go into the old books and tell all the mechwarriors of old that their lrms are useless?.... but hey they're books....and hey this is a game. And hey itz pug que so its whatever goes it pug que. CW and tourny stuff well there you go. Different story all together.
So many good valid arguments and so many harsh ones too. All in all guys... ive seen someone in a nova trolling 12 TAG LASERS and machine guns...... so whose worse?.....on a side note....i LOL'd x1000 at the troll tag build. Chill guys.
See yas on the battlefield o7

Edited by Robot Kenshiro, 16 February 2016 - 04:40 AM.

[WarPickle]

Turn off chat it's only full of whiny tryhard douchebags who think they know everything.. usefull info rarely ever happens in chat.. Run what you like and if others don't like it they can go play a different game filled with whiny brats..

This game does not change your real life in any way and if it does you should go seek therapy Run what you like and what works for you... as for the ones saying you gimp your team... it's pre gimped by the butthurt little babies who spend more time typing in chat telling you how to play than they spend playing... and 9 out of 10 times the ones bitching are the ones who already died and are blaming the team for their mistakes....

[MrMadguy]

smokefield, on 16 February 2016 - 04:10 AM, said:

thing is...this situation will autocorrect itself in time. He may play subpar builds as long as it is matched agains weak players and he does something with that build. IF..yes IF...it will start to be put against better and better players that build will start to show its weaknesses and will subperfom...and eventually it will do crappy on the battefield...and that will be the moment when he will go looking for a "better" build ....and all this discussion will become irrelevant.

You mean PSR XP Bar? You know, on all game forums hardcore elite fanboys usually say "Players choose to be bad only because game allows them to do it: remove their ability to make this choice and game will become perfect". They forget, that we always have a choice. We always may choose not to play this game. Removal of choices won't make this game better - it will make this game dead.

Edited by MrMadguy, 16 February 2016 - 05:09 AM.

[smokefield]

psr its an artificially measure put there just to have some form of classification between players ranks. dont mind that.


as for the rest...i have no idea what you wanted to say....

[MrMadguy]

smokefield, on 16 February 2016 - 05:21 AM, said:

psr its an artificially measure put there just to have some form of classification between players ranks. dont mind that.


as for the rest...i have no idea what you wanted to say....

He tried to say, that we should be forced to play against better players, so we'll have an incentive to improve. PSR XP Bar actually accomplishes this goal. Improve or GTFO.

[smokefield]

psr does that but the way its calculated has little to do with skill itself.

[Zolaz]

Bad players make bad choices. If you want to be a surat, be a surat. Dont be surprised if someone calls you a surat.

[Bud Crue]

So for the last 30 pages, the main premise put forth by the "comp" crowd seems to be that: A player bringing a non-optimum build into a match is exhibiting a failure to respect their fellows, and is in fact an affirmative act at "being bad"; and that such an act should necessitate ridicule and derision in order to make the offending player aware of their deficiency. Shockingly, some of you have even gone so far to assert that a player bringing a non-optimum build is a reportable offense of the TOS.

In light of all this I must ask a simple question: Why does the game have a mechlab which allows the individual player to create different builds with their mechs if only one optimum build is allowed into the game according to you?

I suspect the answers are irrelevant and that we are in fact playing wholly different games. To clarify I play a game called:

MECHWARRIOR ONLINE.

A Battletech Game

[Glaucon]

Since I disabled all chat and voip my MWO experience good much better. MWO has the most toxic playerbase of all the online games I have played in the last 10 years. Its shocking really.

[Gyrok]

Bud Crue, on 16 February 2016 - 06:00 AM, said:

I suspect the answers are irrelevant and that we are in fact playing wholly different games. To clarify I play a game called:

MECHWARRIOR ONLINE.

A Battletech Game

This was never actually a Battletech Game...ever...at all.

As for the rest of it.

There is not "one optimum build per chassis". However, bringing LRMs is a deficient build on basically any mech...so do not bring LRMs.

The rules of courtesy for scrub queue:

1.) When bringing lasers, the smaller the laser, the more you need to be effective.

2.) LRMs are terrible, and you should feel terrible for bringing them

3.) Gauss is good, Gauss is great...

4.) Wub is love, wub is life

If you can stick to that...you should be in good shape. Just remember, only 2 rules per mech, more than that is a kitchen sink build.