For future reference

Gee, you guys are no fun XD
I agree with a lot of the people vouching for LRM5s. They have use, yet a single LRM5 is nigh ineffective, even if your target doesn't have AMS.

 

You get kill assists, make people take cover - the point is, there is a meta game, and some things you carry for your team, not for yourself.
There is only one criteria: Does it do what you want ? If yes then it's a five by five, no matter what anyone else thinks. I say it again, poptards. I don't like the playstyle, and I never did it, and I sure wouldn't have rated them 5. That didn't make the poptard builds unworthy of a 5-star because they were actually doing exactly what they were supposed to do.

If we would just use standard builds then we could just as well go with the stock mechs. Half the fun is using crazy builds and make them work. Those "never put this on a that" is hitting a nerve - reminds me a lot of those WOW-Kids who don't let people join a raid if they don't bring the "officially approved" gear.

 

see this is a good point

Thing is I'd generally avoid rating builds that pander to a play-style I don't like or use. for instance soy's CTF-3D is pure poptart and (was) a 5-star build for what it is.

Also I love running stupid and 'cheese' builds, in fact one of my most rated and commented builds on this site is a really stupid mech ( http://www.mechspecs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1407.0 ).
But our 'job' here is to rate how good builds are, we each do it on our own criteria. I don't rate mechs I don't know, also if I play a mech one way, I won't down-rate a build just because it panders to a different style.

Now my initial post was inflamatory, and I'm unapologetic about that. I'm also glad we are having this discussion.


Re: LRM+BAP I stand by this, too often I see mechs with lrm+bap with the comment "to counter those pesky ecm lights", hey if you had said "for faster lock" maybe, just maybe I won't rate you 1-star.

 

lol Really gotta waste those pesky buggers with some bottle rockets!

If anyone wants to be an LRM boat and uses BAP for anything other than max-range radar/targeting, they are wasting tons. I agree. I use BAP as a Module booster more than anything. I rarely think about detecting shut down mechs or countering ECM. My goal is the quickest and longest range sensors I can accomplish.

 

Ooh ooh! I have an avatar now, so maybe my post won't be ignored. BAP doesn't make targeting faster, it makes information acquisition faster. At least that's how it worked when I used it, and what the wiki says. Now, it's been quite a while since I've used BAP so it might have changed since then and the wiki could be outdated.

I do believe this is the biggest misconception out there about BAP. +sensor range GOOD, ECM jamming GOOD, target info acquisition MEH.

 

IDK , I don't use bap unless I have streaks.

Also - if you are right then I stand by my first statement. if you are wrong then I stand by my first statement. Though I was under the same impression as you.

Welcome to the forums first time poster

 

It increases sensor range as well, which gives the illusion of faster target lock.

(Ref: http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/ )

 

So many of my builds don't follow most of these rules, and I use them to good effect. Not all of them are perfect, but they adhere to my playstyle, which is more important than the paper specs (to me).

I completely agree. 5-star comment.


Namely, I've taken a couple of builds from here and tested them out and liked them, others, I haven't. So far, most of the builds that I've enjoyed the most and do the best in, are already posted. I'm sure I'll put together a build soon enough that no one else has. I just have to find it, hehe.

Edit::Clarification

 

On BAP. Personally I think BAP is useful for only the following situations:
1) For your streaks, counter ECM.
2) For LRM boats, if you want the longer sensor range and counter scout's ECM jamming when they hop around you.
3) For those scouts that would want to counter enemy ECM, though I rarely do that.

1 and 2 are legit and solid, 3 is a bit effy if you ask me, but I have seen people using them really well.

Disagree. Not always true. Example being LRM boats. You chain fire them, the heat penalty is not activated even though the build has it.

Cool Efficiency is generally true though, but in the case of those almost 30% borderline builds, sometimes the model my include LRM which brings the CE down, but LRM is not really part of an Alpha. Personally though, I will not run a build that is below 30% CE if I can help it.

[quote author=Blagg Zear link=topic=3546.msg21494#msg21494 date=1379068372]
- any build that has Speed < Stock Speed -1star
- any build that has Speed < 48,6 kph -2 stars
- any build that has Armor < 90% -1 star
- any build that has Armor < 85% -2 stars
- any build that doesnt use JJ, though available -1 star
- any build that uses more than 1x TAG -2 stars
[/quote]
2+ Tag should be an automatic 1-0 star build, just stupid.
The armor thing have special cases too, on those models that has useless arm parts that cannot do effective arm shielding they may be fine being stripped.
The Stock Speed thing, There can be exceptions if the stock speed is already the MAX speed of the model series (due to weight class limit and things). Also BIG EXCEPTION if the stock is an XL ENGINE!

[quote author=Blagg Zear link=topic=3546.msg21494#msg21494 date=1379068372]
- any build that uses XL Engine & Ammo in Sidetorso -2 stars
- any build that uses STD Engine & puts Ammo in Sidetorso without CASE -2 stars
[/quote]
Gauss ammo are always fine. In fact that it my be EVEN BETTER to have them in side torso in the event of XL, crit padding.

 

Seriously, there is no need for a "rating system".
I would only expect 2 things from people who rate builds:
- Rate it AFTER you actually tried it out yourself. A theorycraft rating based on your likes and dislikes helps noone.
- No "push" ratings for people you know or like. No "downgrade" ratings for people you don't know or dislike. If there's something you like or dislike about a rating you didn't try: leave a comment. But don't rate.

 

This.

[quote author=Marec link=topic=3546.msg21639#msg21639 date=1379139336]
- No "push" ratings for people you know or like. No "downgrade" ratings for people you don't know or dislike. If there's something you like or dislike about a rating you didn't try: leave a comment. But don't rate.
[/quote]

Anyone doing this, and yes I can check in the database, will be banned outright; no questions and no appeals.

 

THIS. If you prefer not to associate someone just don't rate it.

Also, just don't rate if you are unsure about a build, unless it is a really stupid build or when the flaws are way too obvious (like a hunchback with 9x TAG 3x BAP, there is no way in hell this would be useful. or things like that 6x ERLLas build with only 10 SHS)

Oh, when you retry some build and feel differently about, please come back and rerate if you have time! Same goes for extra comments for the builds and extra ideas. All those effort goes into developing a better build.

 

This needs to happen more. The last 3-4 builds ive made just got automatic 1 star builds with no comments or anything and i know for DAMN sure they are at least 3 star builds. Especially when ive seen 4 star builds that have a guy using 1 lrm 10 with over 2500 ammo and no rear armor.

The "up-rating" for people needs to fucking stop to. Theres a few people i've noticed that no matter what build they make they just get automatic 4-5 star builds, regardless of actual quality.

Theres also the issue of several people that just fucking like EVERYthing they come across. come on guys...not every damn mech in the game is 4-5 stars.

The rating system, in my eyes, is not for us...its for everyone else. Sure we put stuff up here for our own personal use and to help get tweaked but dont give a build 5 stars just because they crit padded and used all the slots up. Its got to be a legit damn near tourny build to receive the 5 star level or what the hell is the point? If everything is 4-5 stars then the power of the higher ratings means nothing.

 

The above post outlines the problems of putting power in the hands of the people at large (with regards to ranking systems).

It really is a Catch 22 system. If I only have say 10 people closed "council" to rate builds then chances are those people are exceptional players and would rate the mech based on how it was in THEIR hands; how would a new player get a feel for that when they take something that is clearly out of their league. If I kept the rating system open then anyone could come and 1 star someone they personally didn't like or 5 star someone they did.

Unfortunately, due to this "blind system", some people have been doing just that. I have set aside an hour a day to scan through builds in the database and pull out who rated what. I have actually started to correlate the data and I'm a little surprised at what I am finding; a few folks are very clearly friends LOL.

Sadly those guys are gonna find themselves unable to rate ANYTHING here in the future if not outright banned.

If you rate something EXPLAIN WHY

 

Don't mean to offend, but maybe it isn't even necassary to rate builds? When I'm searching builds I only scan the topic names for something I would like. I don't consider the rating because 2 star builds could really fit my playstyle while 5 stars don't.

You'll always have problems you mentioned above with rating builds. Why not remove it completely?

 

Is it possible to modify the rating system so that a rating is not displayed until, say, 3 people actually rated it ? That might prevent builds being thrown into obscurity by a first "one-star-didn't like what you wrote the other day" rating.

 

Hmm. I didn't realize that was a requirement to rate builds. I view myself as an experience BJ-1 and BJ-3 pilot, so I was rating some builds based upon how I thought they would perform based upon how those mechs handle in various combat situations.

I apologize for this and will stick to builds I have actual hands-on experience in the future!

I will also add that contrary to some people who have responded, I do find a value in the star systems. With many pages of builds, I always look at the highly rated builds first when initially picking up a chassis. It is a great starting point, especially when there is detailed discussion within the build threads themselves. Once I've had a mech for a while, then I really start to look at some of the more lowly rated builds or more out there builds.

 

It is not something I can do myself and the ratings coder is busy with RL right now so I wouldn't hold breath or anything. It is the system we have to work with currently.

 

Well, some builds you don't really need to explain why after you try it. Like after the first time I try the chainsaw Ilyabuild it is just OMFG this is great! And really, I think it is a waste of space if I would just post "OMG THANKS" But yeah, I cannot find anything I need to do to enhance and upgrade the build.

Others are just so standard and expacted that you don't really need to explain anything. Like you don't need to explain anything about the Jenner with max engine and 6x MLas... it is great, it is expacted, and it JUST WORKS WELL.

 

yeah, stars are worthwhile and the system is good. with more votes comes more of an averaging effect so you don't want to limit votes. Also, I don't agree with the 'try it before you rate it.' If you've been playing long enough, the stars don't even mean that much because you should know what sounds feasible and there are plenty of 3/4's that I personally find better than 5's (that have like 1/2 votes on it).

Rarely is the 1st post the 'best' of that general loadout anyway. It's a starting point that other people can improve on in subsequent posts. I can't count the number of times I see open slots but DHS still tucked into the engine instead of crit padding, or gauss ammo in legs, or ams in the head instead of other ammo (rarely do you run out of ams before running out of your first ton of weapon ammo so why would you want to have an explosive there?).

Also, if there are only 1 or 2 votes, it really doesn't mean anything and I can only imagine most people would take that into consideration unless you're a complete beginner.

Lastly, I should probably make this it's own post, and I might come back to the idea, but I've been under the approach for the last few months that I look at the mech and their variants holistically and think about what's best for 1 variant could hold true for the other variants, but why play the same mech in a different variant? When you have SOO MANY mechs like most of us do, as we've been playing for a while, I don't need to follow the meta, I can play the mechs as PGI has roughly intended and still do the best I can to make them work in the framework they were made with to begin with - THOSE are the builds I really look at first.