Allow similar build threads?

New players don't stay new players for long. When I come here now I want to see what new things people are talking about and easy to find links to proven builds. That second part is really convenient, because once you've put your favorite build together in the mechlab 100 times from memory you just want a link.

 

Could you be a little more specific on which post you are responding to? 6 pages in it tends to get a little foggy LOL

 

Sorry, was responding to the original post and the survey. I like the idea of keeping the build forums clean, so which ever option you think would achieve that the best.

 

The MERGING seems to be winning and SoLo hasn't gotten back to us in a while with the next version so we will continue to use that until something better presents itself. Who knows they may eventually get an API from PGI and we can plug it in.

 

So is it possible now to rate (& see rated) suggested/tweaked (re) builds within a thread? I can only see Mergeceptions but the ratings of the individual versions of the same weaponloadouts disappears. Is it also possible to "mark" the top (re) builds or pin them on the top of the thread - as recommendations?

 

No. Same weapon loadouts get merged right now. No updates from SoLo. What you see is what you get until if/when that changes.

 

I'm against merging threads. Several reasons for this.

One, as already mentioned, you may have a similar weapons loadout, but different engines or support modules which ultimately changes the playstyle. When looking for a build, I ultimately look for something that fits my playstyle. For that reason I was never happy with poptard-builds, 5-star or not. So taking playstyle into consideration is important.

Second, when a build evolves the thread may become clogged with alternate builds. If the original poster doesn't modify the first post you might have to look for the up-to-date version somewhere down the thread, burried somewhere in the middle between all kinds of alternate build discussions. So, cleaning up the forum does NOT equal better overview.

Third, especially with all kinds of nerfs - "game improvements" - hitting the mechs, builds change. Yesterday's five-star may become today's "Marec has been killed by Marec". So one thing I always keep an eye on is WHEN the build was posted.
Merging threads will ultimately muddle that important information.

 

I disagree with your first point. Changing the engine so you can add an extra heat sink doesn't make it a new build. It is an improvement on the primary build. Removing 16 points of armor so you can up the engine isn't a new build it is a tweak on an existing build.

As for points 2 and 3 I am glad you made them; the onus is on the poster to maintani their builds and you guys to vote builds up and down. Unlike SOME people on this site (Blagg) I don't vote on every single build that comes along. I vote only on what I have tried and what I use and if the meta changes I go and vote the builds down; for instance Soy Sauce 2.0. I voted a 5 star build because it was stupid easy to kill things with and had almost no heat. I used this as my primary poptart. When the meta changed I went back and changed it to a 4 star build because I am able to time the gauss properly but it is no longer "the be all to end all".

Otherwise the forums would have 10,000,000 builds on them with a few tweaks in armor here and there or an engine size up or down. We still get guys coming here and posting the 6x MLas Jenner builds thinking they are the first ones to post it. How many of those do you want to see when you pop open the Jenner page?

 

1. I don't vote on every single build that comes along.
2. There are some builds you don't need to try to know its crap, or well-balanced (out of game-experience)
3. How do you know that i don't try the builds before voting? I got over 40 Mechs in my bays and almost every weaponsystem, engines etc. I dare to say i can test almost every build, which is posted.

 

This is true, there are 2 or 3 builds where I didn't see your name anywhere in the thread

[quote author=Blagg Zear link=topic=2220.msg21408#msg21408 date=1379017162]
2. There are some builds you don't need to try to know its crap, or well-balanced (out of game-experience)
[/quote]

This is also true.

[quote author=Blagg Zear link=topic=2220.msg21408#msg21408 date=1379017162]
3. How do you know that i don't try the builds before voting? I got over 40 Mechs in my bays and almost every weaponsystem, engines etc. I dare to say i can test almost every build, which is posted.
[/quote]

If I were handing out medals you would get one

 

Yes, Vergere. That's why we all invited you here. We all care about you and think that you have a problem.

 

Ahahahaha!!!

 

Don't be mean to Vergere, he's a delicate flower.
He's very........ Special.

 

*coughs and in a Star Wars voice*

Stay on topic! Staaaaay on topic!

 

Ok, just getting back to this topic here and sorry for my AWOL. I will be working on an update for this over the weekend. Hope to be finished by Sunday at the latest.

 

From the perspective of someone who doesn't build as much as he shops for builds (important distinction I think):

I like the fact that similar builds get merged into the same thread. For me the ideal situation is that builds with the same concept are all tucked neatly into the same spot so I can sift through them and find the one I like. Let's say I want a Thunderbolt with LRMs. Right now it is very easy to see which threads have LRMs, click them, and then wade through the tweeks in the threads to determine which one I like best. Yes I use the star rating system but it isn't particularly important once I've determined what threads hold details on the "conceptual mech" I was already looking for.

For a different idea: What about a sticky thread listing the best DIFFERENT builds? So basically a guide "If you want LRMs check this one out, if you want a laser boat look here, well rounded build here" etc? No? Probably a bad idea I guess.

 

It's not a bad idea, it's just difficult to make it happen, for various reasons.
(it already was discuss, I just can't remember where :/ )

 

The sheer fact that it would become a second job implementing and auditing them every single patch is chief among those reasons.