DrxAbstract, on 06 July 2017 - 01:42 AM, said:
You're the one that considers a switch from 4xASRM6 to 2xASRM4, 2xASRM6s a 'downgrade', when SRM4s were recently nerfed specifically because they performed better than SRM6s in most circumstances. Considering they are one piece of the whole picture that makes the AS7-S work, and not the 'centerpiece' of it, along with lower spread and reduced heat generation, I see them as a sidegrade at the very worst.
It's a downgrade in firepower for a build meant to have about as much short range firepower as possible, and for the AS7-S in particular yeah the 4x ASRM6
kind of are the centerpiece of the build because you might as well use another Atlas variant instead otherwise e.g the D-DC; if you want to do that to fit a LFE in then go ahead but that build obviously has some different goals in mind.
Especially at the cost of also dealing with engine damage penalties
and losing endo steel it comes out to be a piss poor way of using the LFE for that build.
Quote
Even the D-DC would have to exchange one of its launchers, since you brought it up, which is completely beside the point and not the topic, which you've clearly lost track of.
I don't recall saying it had to be 3x ASRM6 with the D-DC, I just said you might as well use the D-DC with ECM; you're already downplaying the SRMs so 2x ASRM6 1x ASRM4 with ECM (or even 3x ASRM4) wouldn't be an issue since the build is resigned to less than maximum SRM firepower for that chassis anyways.
Quote
Reading comprehension clearly isn't your strong suit...
What I gave, and it's pretty clearly stated in that same post, was a direct baseline build to baseline build translation of the AS7-S layout you presented, wherein I outlined what there was to work with and, again very clearly stated, a couple of quick and dirty directions it could be taken at a glance that were, in my opinion, potential ways in which an LFE would be an improvement for that specific build. At no point did I suggest or imply that it was my build, what I would do with it, nor what I thought people should do.
You've been saying the LFE is so great for that build because it can save a pittance of tonnage while ignoring the reality of engine damage penalties and other factors, and now you're clarifying to me you wouldn't build it that way nor should anybody else.
The only point that you seem to be making is to be a contrarian. You bring up some piss poor, inefficient way of building the mech with a LFE instead of STD and apparently it's such a piss poor build that nobody should build it that way nor would you build it that way yourself.
Really makes me reconsider my position heavily...oh wait it doesn't.
Quote
As far as your choices not being valid: Try actually presenting something other than "LFE stoopid, you wrong", because the conversation has been specifically about how LFE could improve that specific AS7-S build and thus far all you've done is argue the STD Engine, which was completely beside the point.
I told you both the pros of using a STD engine for that build and the cons of using a LFE for that build
and I argued the latter extensively by refuting all the restrictions placed on that build by using a LFE just to save a pittance of tonnage, so I can only conclude that you either have selective memory or brain damage.
Quote
1. I never said you should go from 350 to 360--I very clearly stated it as a possibility. Give it a rest.
Why even bring it up then? If it's such a lousy way to use up the tonnage by using a LFE, which is already a piss poor way of building the mech, then either make that more clear or don't bring it up.
Quote
2. Going from a 350 to a 325 could be utilized in several useful ways, like more ammo, heat sinks, etc. Mobility is no longer tied to Engine Rating, which makes having a 350 for the, now defunct, agility boost much less of a priority... Unless you honestly believe 4 KPH is worth 6 tons of extra goodies.
Show me a 325 build then, because I can't make one that isn't either too hot by fitting in something like a LPL in the CT--which goes against the theme of the build anyways since LPL is inefficient for brawling--or running out of room with 2x MPL in the CT and significant tonnage left over.
If you have to get rid of endo steel to make room then there goes 5 (out of 6) of those tons you're trying to save by using a smaller engine, which is even less benefit than your options that you already effectively conceded as garbage; I guess if you think 1 ton is worth sacrificing 25 engine rating though then go nuts.
Quote
Sidestepping the overwhelming ignorance of this statement; You're talking about spending 4 Skill Points to boost ammo less than one full ton a piece where they could otherwise be spent further improving the range/cooldown/heat generation of said massive firepower and utilizing other aspects of the Mech Lab to get more ammo.
That's not a problem when you only need a small boost in ammo and when the tonnage & crit slots required for that extra ammo are better spent elsewhere
and when the build is hardly lacking in heat/range/cooldown by taking nodes along the way to more ammo capacity, which in the case of my build is all true.
Quote
Pretty sure you meant to word that differently.
How? You said that adding lasers detracts performance from the rest of the build by requiring tonnage & heat, which is exceedingly
obvious that yeah there's a tonnage & heat cost for adding lasers, and my point was that it didn't detract from the rest of the build enough to not take a couple of lasers; I figured that it went without saying that the lasers add firepower and that's why you would take them.
I
never indicated in any way that medium lasers don't take tonnage and use heat, probably because that's objectively not true, but apparently I need to explicitly acknowledge that fact to you for some extraordinary reason, meanwhile you put words in my mouth like a disingenuous tool.
Quote
If you bothered to read what you said and what I responded to, it was concerning the un-used Energy slots on the Mech. Ad-hominem otherwise.
1) I just went back and read that again and you just pulled that out of your *** because that wasn't
at all clear.
"You act like using those energy hardpoints doesn't require tonnage and heat that detracts from the performance of the primary weapon bundle, which it does."
No indication of which hardpoints you meant, and as for what
I said, I would suggest that
you go back and read what
I said, because I was talking about both sets of hardpoints and
primarily I was talking about the CT hardpoints; either that or you're being intentionally nebulous so that you can change the meaning of "un-used energy slots."
2) If you're going to bring up ad-hominem then at least do that where it makes sense, rather than throwing it around as a buzzword, because what you quoted there wasn't ad-hominem at all.
Quote
Firstly, the LFE is going to be added to the game, no ifs, ands or buts. The method in which it is implemented is, unlike the engine itself, subject to change... There is a difference between the two, ya know. Glad to know you can't make that distinction.
Secondly, it doesn't take a math wizard to realize the CXL Penalty disproportionately affects IS Mechs primarily because IS Mechs carry far fewer Heat Sinks on average than Clan Mechs and that while pure IS Energy builds may be affected similarly to their Clan counterparts, IS Ballistic, Missile and Hybrid builds are getting the short end of the stick if the LFE goes live with the exact same penalty as the CXL.
Maybe you should have joined in on that other discussion I mentioned earlier then, hmmm? Because I already covered why it's a bad idea to reduce the engine damage penalties for LFE.
Quote
Or I could post the numerous screenshots of my 'ammo laden' builds actually doing 1500+ Damage. Would you like to see the 3-4K Damage FP games? Perhaps I should just be as petty and arrogant as you and leave the conversation with something akin to "Maybe you should put up better numbers on the Leaderboards before running off at the mouth."
I'll admit that was a
much too broad statement actually since I'm aware that there are a number of entirely ammo dependent builds that can put out crazy damage, e.g 4x C-UAC10 KDK-3, so that actually
was really stupid to say since I clearly didn't think about what I said enough.
A number of those builds aren't brawlers though, or if they are then they are pure SRM boats with a lot more speed, a lot more agility, and a smaller profile which makes them a lot more suitable than the Atlas for what you seem to have in mind.
The rest of what I said about ammo efficiency after a certain level of firepower (at least in the context of that build and other similar builds, anyways) and you suggesting bad builds does still apply though.
Edited by Pjwned, 06 July 2017 - 08:05 PM.
5
