23 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

THUNDERWOLF

An unholy combination of 3 ER-PPCs on the highmount torso, while engulfing almost 80% of your heat gauge each grouped shot it produces a whopping 30 PPFLD + 15 Splash damage, with perfect convergence than the 2x PPC + Gauss Rifle, it's easier to use because of no charge time likewise it's all high-mount than the latter's gauss rifle situated at another point in the body.

Also that LT looks cool AF. Look at them triple barrels.

To go around the Ghost-Heat, it's chain-fired close range, but is grouped fire every long range, or when you think you have the luxury of being able to cool off. Medium Laser is there for backup, and is asymmetric for backup purposes. Modules are PPC range and Med Laser range, PPC has enough cooldown time, you're not supposed to shoot it when you're ready but when you're cool enough. Consumable is always UAV and Coolshot 9x9.

*Yes thunder is sound, but it's just a name since thunder is usually falsely associate with electricity. I'd call it Lightning Wolf, but T with "Thunder" works better with Timber Wolf.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 17 December 2016 - 02:45 AM.

[Kuaron]

So you care about convergence more than about having to chainfire your pinpoint weapons.

[The6thMessenger]

Kuaron, on 16 December 2016 - 08:16 PM, said:

So you care about convergence more than about having to chainfire your pinpoint weapons.

Still, depends. 810m is plenty of time to get to cover and cool down, so i have the luxury of shooting all 3 despite ghostheat. Chainfiring is just for closer ranges, otherwise i can still shoot 2 at once, and then the remaining 1 after. Didn't you read the 2nd paragraph?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 December 2016 - 08:22 PM.

[Stf Sgt Marblez]

Its beautiful...

[General Solo]

I ve run that during experiments

But the torso mount is pretty high, sort a hard to hide even if you twist.
An enemy can disable you qik

Thou if ur real ninja if can do ok I guess

Since the last patch went back to vomit

[W Winter]

1/10 you let the secret out please delete this

[B0oN]

Been there, done that, proven to not be very useful .
Same with the 3ERPPC HBR .

Both are just not good .

[The6thMessenger]

B0oN, on 17 December 2016 - 03:18 AM, said:

Been there, done that, proven to not be very useful .
Same with the 3ERPPC HBR .

Both are just not good .

Not if you play it right, i can get at about 800 damage with it.

[NRP]

I kill these things all the time. They seem too hot. Always shutting down when you put pressure on them.

[Kimberm1911]

The reason why Gauss plus PPC is so effective, is because it allows you to fire another weapon if things are running too hot. The Gauss rifle will not overheat you when fired, so it pairs perfectly with the ridiculously hot PPC's. This build isn't terribad, but it runs too hot when things get close. If you have a Gauss rifle. you have a 15 damage rifle that allows you to continue the fight even when hot. Dual ERPPC + Gauss is just a too effective combination. Convergence should never be an issue on a timber wolf if you know where your arms are.

[The6thMessenger]

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 01:21 PM, said:

The reason why Gauss plus PPC is so effective, is because it allows you to fire another weapon if things are running too hot. The Gauss rifle will not overheat you when fired, so it pairs perfectly with the ridiculously hot PPC's. This build isn't terribad, but it runs too hot when things get close. If you have a Gauss rifle. you have a 15 damage rifle that allows you to continue the fight even when hot. Dual ERPPC + Gauss is just a too effective combination. Convergence should never be an issue on a timber wolf if you know where your arms are.

No duh, i agree.

But this build highlights that ease of use, due to being of the same portion of the body, as well as the non-charge mechanics of the gauss. Yes it's not meta because of being too hot, but it's a lot more easy to use and easy to land so it capitalizes on that.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 17 December 2016 - 04:42 PM.

[Kimberm1911]

The6thMessenger, on 17 December 2016 - 04:22 PM, said:

No duh, i agree.

But this build highlights that ease of use, due to being of the same portion of the body, as well as the non-charge mechanics of the gauss. Yes it's not meta because of being too hot, but it's a lot more easy to use and easy to land so it capitalizes on that.

I disagree with your assertion that this is easier to use. First, the insane amount of heat generated by 3x ERPPC's requires a very skilled pilot to manage. If you don't have someone who knows the limits of the mech, they will be much more prone to making grevious mistakes in the heat of of combat. Yes, it's a "long range" build, but we are playing in a long range meta. Shutting down at 700 meters will get you killed as quickly as shutting down at 200. I understand that the weapons are placed solely in one portion of the body, but this can be a disadvantage as much as an advantage. On a large mech like the timber wolf, where peaking isn't as easy as on a cicada, knowledge of how to twist and peek properly is necessary. If an unskilled pilot peeks with this, they run the risk of an experienced pilot crippling them quickly. At least with the Gauss/ERPPC builds you have another weapon to use if you lose the ERPPC's. In addition, I don't feel that the charge mechanic is as limiting as you think it is. Yes, it takes some getting used to, but it helps ammo conservation, and I would argue that learning trigger control on the ERPPC's is just as difficult to master. I've seen quite a few green pilots too trigger happy on the ERPPC's, and pay for it.

I am not saying this is bad, I just don't personally like it, and I think it is inferior enough to the meta Gauss/ERPPC's to make sure that any newer players realize that it is strictly worse.

[The6thMessenger]

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

I disagree with your assertion that this is easier to use. First, the insane amount of heat generated by 3x ERPPC's requires a very skilled pilot to manage. If you don't have someone who knows the limits of the mech, they will be much more prone to making grevious mistakes in the heat of of combat. Yes, it's a "long range" build, but we are playing in a long range meta. Shutting down at 700 meters will get you killed as quickly as shutting down at 200.

Well, i disagree on your disagreement. I specified that the "ease of use" stems on it's high-mount and the non-charge mechanic.

Hmm, think about it for a moment. 700 meters of death due to PPFLD, isn't that more of the high-tier issue? Usually the meta just kicks in the more experienced players are since they know how the meta works (with exception of AC Glint).

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

I understand that the weapons are placed solely in one portion of the body, but this can be a disadvantage as much as an advantage.

I agree, i never said that it was completely advantageous, it's just one advantage over another. It's a super-long-range build, it's not meant to be completely viable at all ranges during all times of match, it's just meant to land a devastating blow much easier than the Gauss-ppc without all the hassle of practice, also to be cool AF. It's like Direstar on a smaller scale, it's a non-meta semi-troll build. Yes to be effective, you have to worry more about your head and placement -- essentially the mech itself than landing a shot, but that's the point.

It's literally like a rail-gun (not the magnetic guns, but literally guns bolted down the table), they are there to be precise. You will never see SWAT or soldiers carry a rail-gun in duty, because unlike guns that are made to be carried, this gun is bolted at a table to make precise and accurate shots instead.

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

On a large mech like the timber wolf, where peaking isn't as easy as on a cicada, knowledge of how to twist and peek properly is necessary. If an unskilled pilot peeks with this, they run the risk of an experienced pilot crippling them quickly.

Exactly, experienced enemies, now where do you think it works?

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

At least with the Gauss/ERPPC builds you have another weapon to use if you lose the ERPPC's.

Yes captain obvious, stop explaining how PPC-Gauss works, i know it. I never contested the effectiveness of gauss-ppc, i contested it's ability to land shots and to make shots.

Sure that's 35 damage + 10 splash damage of a single compartment when you hit, as well as has better heat efficiency, but that is coupled with a mindful attention to the differences of the two weapons -- gauss aside from the charge mechanic which makes it not easy for low face-time, having faster projectile would mean that the reticle would be at a different point of lead than the PPC. It can be done by utilizing the double reticle of the unlocked arm, or simply partitioning your shot -- but that is exactly why this is a mindful shot to achieve.

3x PPC, all you have to do is achieve a proper lead, and with near perfect convergence that is 30 damage + 15 splash. Yes all your eggs are in one basket, but doing the same highmount with the PPC to the ppc-gauss, you have the same issue only not with all the eggs in one basket so you won't lose those 2x PPC. Likewise you have to be mindful of your heat and positioning more, but that is more of shift in attention. In comparision, you have to be mindful both of your mech's positioning and heat with the current gauss PPC in addition of how to land a shot. But with this build, it forgoes the extra mindful shot placement, in favor of more positioning and heat management -- specializing in it. "ease of use" in that context, since positioning and heat management comes at a bit more general field.

Differences of builds usually trades advantages over another, which in turn has disadvantages of it's own. I just highlighted the advantages, since it's the centerpiece of the build. Never did i contested the efficacy of gauss-ppc as a build, but just landing a shot. Why is that hard to understand?

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

In addition, I don't feel that the charge mechanic is as limiting as you think it is. Yes, it takes some getting used to, but it helps ammo conservation, and I would argue that learning trigger control on the ERPPC's is just as difficult to master. I've seen quite a few green pilots too trigger happy on the ERPPC's, and pay for it.

Charge mechanic, and difference in projectile speed, as well as difference of mount says hi...

Exactly, it takes some getting used to, this not. You just shoot it, and with proper leading you land a hit, no extra headaches to think of like the difference of gauss projectile speed and charge. Of course there is the heat.

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

I am not saying this is bad, I just don't personally like it, and I think it is inferior enough to the meta Gauss/ERPPC's to make sure that any newer players realize that it is strictly worse.

Amen, i agree, it takes experience to make it work, and i made it work. Yes it's inferior to meta, that's why it's non meta. I'm not a fan of the metacrutch, besides it's cool AF.

Again, the point of this is just to land shots easily more than actually being effective to the battle as a whole.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 17 December 2016 - 06:23 PM.

[Agent1190]

Just because something could be done doesn't mean it should be done.

The TBR is more valuable as a brawler/fighter rather than a sniper. I see a 3x PPC TBR as a waste of 75 tons.

[Kimberm1911]

Basically you are arguing that your build has one specific advantage over the Gauss/ERPPC (Meta) build, and you choose to ignore every other facet of a build. That is fine to do, but it's not a compelling argument. Regardless of whether or not your assertion is correct, your logic is very poor. It's foolish to make the argument that your build has one distinct advantage over the Meta, but nothing else. Why would you make that argument? Why bother claiming that your build has this one particular advantage, but none other? It's a waste of time, and you are ignoring the inherent benefits of the Meta builds in order to support the claim that your build is simply easier to hit with at long ranges. If your point is simply to present a build that works for you, that's fine, but you are arguing (According to what you stated in the original post) that this build is easier to use then the meta. You keep saying that, "I never said that this was better than the meta ... The point of this is to simply land shots more easily more than being effective to the battle as a whole." First, that's just an illogical statement to make. Regardless of whether it's correct, it's a pointless statement. I will again disagree with your original assertion. It is not easier to use, it is easier to land one off shots with. You are correct that it is easier to land one off shots with, but supporting your entire build on that fact alone is pointless and illogical. Landing one off shots is not worth forgoing the distinct advantages the meta builds have. I know you will come back by saying that, "I never claimed that this was better than the meta, only that you could hit more easily with it." I an aware of what you are saying, it's just illogical due to the fact that you intentionally ignore very important elements of good builds.

I am not arguing that you are not effective, or that individual players can not be good with this build, but I just don't see any logic behind what you are saying. It's fine that you want to show off an interesting build, but I just want it to be clear that, despite being technically correct based on flawed reasoning, your argument is illogical based on the premise that you ignore 90% of the factors that go into a good build.

[Kimberm1911]

Agent1190, on 17 December 2016 - 06:27 PM, said:

Just because something could be done doesn't mean it should be done.

The TBR is more valuable as a brawler/fighter rather than a sniper. I see a 3x PPC TBR as a waste of 75 tons.

The Timber Wolf makes a nice sniping platform. It does just about everything well. However, the meta is very slanted towards Gauss and PPC's right now, so it makes life easier to turn it into a hard hitting, "Designated marksman mech," rather then trying to use it as a brawler.

[The6thMessenger]

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

Basically you are arguing that your build has one specific advantage over the Gauss/ERPPC (Meta) build, and you choose to ignore every other facet of a build. That is fine to do, but it's not a compelling argument. Regardless of whether or not your assertion is correct, your logic is very poor.

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

and you are ignoring the inherent benefits of the Meta builds in order to support the claim that your build is simply easier to hit with at long ranges.

You are ignoring the benefits of the high-damage alpha of a brawling build if you chose 2x ppc + gauss over 4x srm6a, you are choosing to ignore the benefits of high-dps and mid-range domination of dakka build over the 4x SRM6A -- builds excel over differing fields, you are basically ignoring the advantages of another build, when you choose a build aside from it. This is not that different.

No, the logic is fine.

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

It's foolish to make the argument that your build has one distinct advantage over the Meta, but nothing else. Why would you make that argument? Why bother claiming that your build has this one particular advantage, but none other?

Because it's fun. If meta works, why bother not running it in the first place right? It's sheer foolishness to not run when others does not work. Simple, it's fun, we get a kick out off it. It solves the issues of the build, on the position that the meta is irrelevant.

Again, i'm never contesting that it's better over the meta, i'm saying that it's better than the gauss-ppc on landing a hit, on the standpoint of the meta being irrelevant -- non-factor.

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

It's a waste of time

So is playing MWO.

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

If your point is simply to present a build that works for you, that's fine, but you are arguing (According to what you stated in the original post) that this build is easier to use then the meta. You keep saying that, "I never said that this was better than the meta ... The point of this is to simply land shots more easily more than being effective to the battle as a whole." First, that's just an illogical statement to make.

I don't think you know what "illogical" means, you didn't demonstrate why. The point is to present an alternative fun build that solves the issue of the gauss-ppc, without the constraint of the meta. It's just there to overspecialize, also to be fun.

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

Regardless of whether it's correct, it's a pointless statement. I will again disagree with your original assertion. It is not easier to use, it is easier to land one off shots with.

Yes, because you are the ultimate authority of what is logical and not. Maybe you should stop playing MWO and make money off being a philosopher.

Sarcasm aside, "regardless of whether it's correct" so you don't care whether it's correct or not. You just don't like it. Also "context", do you know what context is?

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

You are correct that it is easier to land one off shots with, but supporting your entire build on that fact alone is pointless and illogical.

Demonstrate why it is illogical.

I'd say it's dumb, but dumb =/= to illogical. The logic is fine, it's a build that specializes on one thing, it forgoes the advantages of a 2x gauss ppc to achieve said goal, and it does.

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

Landing one off shots is not worth forgoing the distinct advantages the meta builds have. I know you will come back by saying that, "I never claimed that this was better than the meta, only that you could hit more easily with it." I an aware of what you are saying, it's just illogical due to the fact that you intentionally ignore very important elements of good builds.

Like i said, illogical =/= dumb. Logic is fine, it achieves what it intends to do as it is better in landing shots, it's dumb because it's a needless improvement over the gauss ppc meta, over an issue that is fixed by immense practice. It needlessly forgoes the advantages of the meta, for an overkill goal.

But again illogical =/= dumb.

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

I am not arguing that you are not effective, or that individual players can not be good with this build, but I just don't see any logic behind what you are saying. It's fine that you want to show off an interesting build, but I just want it to be clear that, despite being technically correct based on flawed reasoning, your argument is illogical based on the premise that you ignore 90% of the factors that go into a good build.

Demonstrate the flawed reasoning? And why is it flawed? http://catpages.nwmi.../argument7.html

Gauss PPC is harder to use due to charge mechanic, difference in projectile speeds resulting in differences of leads, and differences of hardpoints causing imperfect convergence -- so here's a 3x ppc that solves all those problems.

I bet you run all meta builds right?

You don't, i do, the rest of us do. MWO does not revolve around you, granted you are entitled to your own opinion. But there is more to the game than just relying on meta, people all the time have fun with their own builds, and this is just another fun build.

The point of the game is to be enjoyed with it's features, with it's one of it's features being able to experiment with builds, you are totally ignoring one facet of the game that makes it fun. And that is "illogical" (dumb).

Edited by The6thMessenger, 17 December 2016 - 07:36 PM.

[Kimberm1911]

The6thMessenger, on 17 December 2016 - 07:23 PM, said:

You are ignoring the benefits of the high-damage alpha of a brawling build if you chose 2x ppc + gauss over 4x srm6a, you are choosing to ignore the benefits of high-dps and mid-range domination of dakka build over the 4x SRM6A -- builds excel over differing fields, you are basically ignoring the advantages of another build, when you choose a build aside from it. This is not that different.

No, the logic is fine.

Well, obviously you don't understand context, which was one of the complaints you leveled against me in your diatribe. That's very hypocritical of you good sir. We aren't discussing brawling, SRM builds, Light builds, etc. etc. We are clearly discussing longer range sniper builds. We are, clearly within the context, discussing the inherent benefits/disadvantages of longer range sniper builds as it pertains to the two builds we had listed previously. Bringing up other kinds of builds that are within the game is stupid. It's a false comparison. We are clearly discussing the build you are defending, and the Meta build (Gauss/ERPPC). As you like to say, your logic is dumb.

You then bring up the meta being irrelevant. Which really serves no purpose.

You then claim MWO is a waste of time. Sure, I won't bother with this.

You then state, "You don't know what illogical is, you didn't demonstrate why?" Not demonstrating why something is illogical does not inherently mean that your statement IS logical by the virtue of me not giving supporting evidence. But, here is why I am claiming it is illogical, just so you can sleep at night. I am claiming that it illogical for you to ignore all of the inherent benefits of the meta, simply to focus on one "benefit" of the build you are offering, on the premise of the third definition of logical. Which is, "Natural or sensible given the circumstance." I am claiming that your assertion, "The point of this is to simply land shots more easily ... more than being effective to the battle as a whole," is illogical on the basis that it is not sensible given the circumstances of the game. The point of MWO, is to be effective within the circumstances of the game in order to achieve a pre-set victory condition.You stated, in your own words, that it is not effective within the battle as a whole. Not being effective within a battle defeats the entire purpose of a build in MWO. Especially if your build is as one dimensional as yours is. That would mean, due to the fact it would not be sensible to run an ineffective build like yours, that your build is inherently illogical.

You then go on to state that, "Regardless of whether or not it's correct, so you don't care whether [I'm] correct or not, you just don't like it." No, my point was that your statement that it is easier to get perfect convergence on the first shot is correct, but that it's illogical due to the fact that the argument itself, "Which is that it's easier to use, than the meta," is flawed. I demonstrated my reasoning in the previous paragraph, and will give the rest of my grievances in the next.

The main problem with your build, which you are choosing to ignore, is context. Given a perfect scenario, your build could function as you intend. However, it is not even effective with what you are intending it to do, which is to provide a better convergence and ease of use to the player. You will only get one shot with your build before you need an obscene amount of time to cool off. This means, that while you are waiting around to shoot, you are being totally ineffective during the battle. Which is not sensible given the circumstances of the game." If you were to look at your build within the context of the game, you would see that you would need to stagger the fire of your PPC's in order to actually use them within a battle. With the slow projectile speed, this means that it actually will become more difficult as the battle progresses to hit the enemy mechs. As you HAVE TO stagger fire the PPC's if you actually want to shoot more than once during the battle. While yes, the Gauss PPC's have imperfect convergence, you can fire all three at the same time, multiple times before overheating. So while they may not have the perfect convergence of triple PPC's on the first shot, they will on subsequent shots due to the fact that you would have to stagger fire the PPC's. The charge mechanic is not nearly as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. I would argue that it would take longer to learn how to properly manage the heat on the triple PPC build, then it would to learn how to master the charge on the Gauss. In terms of difference of projectile lead, again, your build is more effective on the first shot, and that is it. When you become forced to stagger your fire due to heat, the ability to fire the PPC's and Gauss at the same time proves superior.

Also, whether or not I run meta builds is irrelevant to the argument. I play the game because I enjoy it, that is the point of the game. However, you are claiming that this build is easier to use than the meta, and that is just simply not the case. You are entitled to your opinion, but as this is an open forum, so am I. This game is a difficult game, with a steep learning curve. My guess, is that newer players need all the help they can get trying to make effective builds. This build is not effective or easier to use. I am just trying to show that.

Also, that last paragraph sounded a bit whiny. "MWO does not revolve around you." Well, I never made that claim. "The point of the game is to be enjoyed with all its features ... you are totally ignoring one facet of the game that makes it fun." No, we just weren't arguing about that. We were arguing about whether your build was more effective at what you claimed it was effective at. Which it isn't.

But, if you really should know, I hate fun, and I want to go back to the days of the hellish poptart meta. Where noobs would be killed in seconds, and the Highlander Master Race ruled. Ah..... Those were the good old days. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAH

*Disappears into a cloud of black smoke.

[The6thMessenger]

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

We are, clearly within the context, discussing the inherent benefits/disadvantages of longer range sniper builds as it pertains to the two builds we had listed previously. Bringing up other kinds of builds that are within the game is stupid. It's a false comparison. We are clearly discussing the build you are defending, and the Meta build (Gauss/ERPPC). As you like to say, your logic is dumb.

Looks like someone missed the point -- there is a give and take in every build, one build means forgoing the advantages over another. Those were examples, it's ad reductio absurdium. And is actually a legitimate argument, as it shows the ridiculousness of the logic of the argument when applied somewhere else.

Sure it's on the context of long range sniping builds, but still it stands, there is a give and take with different setups, and to say that it's illogical to opt to one build because of the preferred advantage, disregarding the advantages and shouldering the disadvantages, is just flawed reasoning.

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

You then bring up the meta being irrelevant. Which really serves no purpose.

Other than an axiom, a starting point.

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

You then state, "You don't know what illogical is, you didn't demonstrate why?" Not demonstrating why something is illogical does not inherently mean that your statement IS logical by the virtue of me not giving supporting evidence.

Never said i did. But it's not worth anything without it. That's like saying Abraham Lincoln is a vampire hunter, and saying no proof or argument, yet you want us to take it as fact.

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

But, here is why I am claiming it is illogical, just so you can sleep at night. I am claiming that it illogical for you to ignore all of the inherent benefits of the meta, simply to focus on one "benefit" of the build you are offering, on the premise of the third definition of logical. Which is, "Natural or sensible given the circumstance." I am claiming that your assertion, "The point of this is to simply land shots more easily ... more than being effective to the battle as a whole," is illogical on the basis that it is not sensible given the circumstances of the game.

The point of MWO, is to be effective within the circumstances of the game in order to achieve a pre-set victory condition.You stated, in your own words, that it is not effective within the battle as a whole. Not being effective within a battle defeats the entire purpose of a build in MWO. Especially if your build is as one dimensional as yours is. That would mean, due to the fact it would not be sensible to run an ineffective build like yours, that your build is inherently illogical.

That's more of word play than actual definition of "logic". But i would ask you, what's the point of running brawling builds, when there is more than just of 270m within the game? What's the point of being effective within 270m, but ineffective elsewhere? What's the point of dakka builds when they would suck at close range and long range?

Could it be that roles have something to do with it? That builds fall on a niche?

Still, by that logic, every build becomes illogical (not sensible) due to their overspecialization (one dimensional) and being insensibly ineffective everywhere else. Generalized builds would be illogical because while they are not bad at every role, they won't be good at every role.

You know what is flawed reasoning? It's in the lines of "you are wrong because i hate you", that is a nonsequitur. "Evolution is false because 6 million people disagree." or "the bible is true because the bible says so." etc. among logical fallacies, this does not fall into one of them.

The logic (being the reasoning) of the build is fine, it starts on an axiom, and with correct premise and conclusion. PPC - Gauss has different mount, different speed, and has charge mechanic, compared to 3x PPC, it's harder to land a shot. Here is a 3x PPC that does away with the Gauss and therefore easier to use.

But it's not illogical (not having sound reason), it's logically bad, due to the qualities unfit for the larger scope of the game and having rationalized to come to such conclusion, basically the problems you explained with it -- which i already know.

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

You then go on to state that, "Regardless of whether or not it's correct, so you don't care whether [I'm] correct or not, you just don't like it." No, my point was that your statement that it is easier to get perfect convergence on the first shot is correct, but that it's illogical due to the fact that the argument itself, "Which is that it's easier to use, than the meta," is flawed. I demonstrated my reasoning in the previous paragraph, and will give the rest of my grievances in the next.

Under the context -- using the "convergence" therefore it's about landing a shot, and on the context of the PPFLD, it's the combined hits of the weapons.

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

The main problem with your build, which you are choosing to ignore, is context. Given a perfect scenario, your build could function as you intend. However, it is not even effective with what you are intending it to do, which is to provide a better convergence and ease of use to the player. You will only get one shot with your build before you need an obscene amount of time to cool off.

This means, that while you are waiting around to shoot, you are being totally ineffective during the battle. Which is not sensible given the circumstances of the game." If you were to look at your build within the context of the game, you would see that you would need to stagger the fire of your PPC's in order to actually use them within a battle.

With the slow projectile speed, this means that it actually will become more difficult as the battle progresses to hit the enemy mechs. As you HAVE TO stagger fire the PPC's if you actually want to shoot more than once during the battle. While yes, the Gauss PPC's have imperfect convergence, you can fire all three at the same time, multiple times before overheating. So while they may not have the perfect convergence of triple PPC's on the first shot, they will on subsequent shots due to the fact that you would have to stagger fire the PPC's.

The charge mechanic is not nearly as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. I would argue that it would take longer to learn how to properly manage the heat on the triple PPC build, then it would to learn how to master the charge on the Gauss. In terms of difference of projectile lead, again, your build is more effective on the first shot, and that is it. When you become forced to stagger your fire due to heat, the ability to fire the PPC's and Gauss at the same time proves superior.

You would "argue", no you would claim.

Sensible =/= easy to use. I think you're confusing "use" to "work". Guns are easy to shoot (use), all you have to do is pull the trigger, and the bullet is off. Certain guns are not easy to (make it) "work", such as shotgun in a long-range sniping role, heavy machinegun in close-quarters battle, a sub machine-gun in anti-materiel role, etc. etc.

Again i have no qualms that PPC-Gauss is a superior build, i am not challenging it's effectiveness as a build, in terms of being an effective team-mate. But the main point is simply just landing a better shot, that is it, meta is irrelevant. It's not there to be an effective build, it's there for effective shot placement. Why is that hard to understand?

3x PPC is easier to use to land hits with, because of the gauss' charge mechanics, differences in mount placements, and differences in projectile speed -- that is it. What happens the rest of the game is irrelevant, that is it.

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

However, you are claiming that this build is easier to use than the meta, and that is just simply not the case. You are entitled to your opinion, but as this is an open forum, so am I. This game is a difficult game, with a steep learning curve. My guess, is that newer players need all the help they can get trying to make effective builds. This build is not effective or easier to use. I am just trying to show that.

This entire debocle is you misunderstanding the difference between an effective build, with effective shot placement. Sure it's hard to make it work, but it achieves the part where it's better at landing shots, that is it. Also misuse of "logic" -- using it differently when we're on a formal philosophical tone.

Like saying "theory" as a guess, when it means something else scientifically. "Evolution is just a theory."

Kimberm1911, on 17 December 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

Also, that last paragraph sounded a bit whiny. "MWO does not revolve around you." Well, I never made that claim. "The point of the game is to be enjoyed with all its features ... you are totally ignoring one facet of the game that makes it fun." No, we just weren't arguing about that. We were arguing about whether your build was more effective at what you claimed it was effective at. Which is isn't.

While sure, we are all entitled to our own opinion, the main issue with your statement is the apparent high-and-mighty tone you have is particularly distasteful.

Again, it's not supposed to be an effective build, it's supposed to be effective in landing shots, it's irrelevant whether it sucks at everywhere else and as a whole for the game. If you still don't get it, that's not my fault.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 19 December 2016 - 12:07 AM.

[Steel Raven]

Actually reminds me of the 2X Ultra AC/10 build.
Tried Something similar with the Hellbringer when the 4X ER LL wasn't giving me any kills. It's allot of fun but it also highlights the flaws of the PPC in this game when only 2/3s of you PPC hit, though it only thing that really hurts is loosing that Torso.