How should we rate builds?

Eyo.

Just kind of curious, as this seems to be something that isn't consistent. Should we be rating builds based on their effectiveness based on other builds on the same chassis? Or should we compare it to all builds in general?

I try to rate based on the build's effectiveness as a whole, but I don't know... How do you rate?

 

Well BM, I think it's kinda 50/50 - you get ratings sometimes where people will judge based on their own ideas about what a particular chassis SHOULD have versus how it might actually really perform. Weapon choices, speed preferences, cooling, armor - all that stuff gets weighed by the reader and measured against what the reader thinks is right or what their preferences are usually sight unseen and without a real test drive. Those ratings usually end up lower because... you know, you just aren't gonna make everyone happy with a given setup. People like what they like kinda thing...

And then the other half, you'll get people that will go into it with an open mind and give the build a shot and then really end up loving it for what it is, and that's usually where you get the higher scores. If enough people try it and have done well in it, that's usually your big stars there...

Me personally, I gotta drive it first. Even if it looks like a weird or maybe not what I would think might be optimal build, I don't necessarily judge it until I can try it firsthand for myself... then I just rate it from there... personally though I'd rather be the guy coming up with the new idea (as you can probably tell) so honestly I don't rate many... but I know from the feedback that I've had on builds that it'll be about 50/50 between people just judging the specs and people who actually take it out for a test...

 

Personally, giving it a very general rating of over 5 stars seems a little too "general" for my tastes.

Having multiple things to rate about it, eg. Ease of use, sustainability, damage potential and even survivability (relevant to the chassis. On mechs like the Catapult or Dragon, an XL Engine hardly makes a difference) perhaps could give a better opinion or view on how the mech andles or how and why it's good or not good enough.

 

I only rate builds that I have played personally. I can sit here all day long and say "This is good and that is good" but lazy boy generals do not make good mech warriors.

 

I rate builds based on the effectiveness compared to other builds on the same Variant! There will always be a Mech.Chassis with better Weapon.Hardpoints and better stats, so if i rate builds compared to all builds in general, i would say, there will only be a dozen of 5star-builds and the rest max.4stars. E.g. a Trebuchet can never have a build that can beat a Chainsaw-Massacre Build of an Ilya Muromets. But compared to all other build suggestions for a specific Variant, you can quickly find out (either theoretically or practically) how good a Variant.Build can perform. E.g. a TBT-5J without JJs and penta PPCs is definitely inferior to any other TBT-5J build with JJs and a cooler Weaponloadout. I don't need to test this build practically to say it's crap. On the opposite, it can be helpful to test a build practically, if the stats are fine, but you aren't sure if it performs better than other "good" or "excellent" builds to give it a 5-Star Rating. (quotation marks because these terms are used subjectively here).

Theoretically you can say a build is a "good" build, if you can find a good balance of all the important stats:

Firepower
Armor
DPS
Cool Efficiency/Number of Heat Sinks
Engine/Speed/Survivability
Extra Stuffs: ECM, AMS, BAP etc..
All the other important stuffs: Ammount of Ammo, Number of JJs, Weapontypes, Weaponrange etc..

I think, if you have a Build, which is showing very good stats on paper, it is at least a 4-Star-Build. Depending on the Ease of use and the Kill-Effectiveness AND depending on the recent Meta-Game, it can rise up to a 5-Star-Build.

It's a pity, that some "old" builds are still high-rated though they are not that superior now, and that other builds are simply not-rated or rated too little/low/wrong, though they are viable.


@ Michael
What do you think of having a "chosen" Jury at Mechspecs, that makes a choice of recommended Builds for each Chassis depending on the changing/recent Meta-Game after every major Game-Update/Patch. Maybe those recommended builds get a Marker or just locked on the top of a thread. You know, just like in Google Play Store to quickly find "current better" builds (based on the evaluation of veteran Mechspecs-players). I mention this, because e.g. i see on video-contests with public phone.call/sms voting, how many performers are overrated and other underrated, just like here at Mechspecs. With a jury, the quality on rating, can be improved.

 

This has been suggested before and it is a slippery slope. One mans trash is another mans treasure right? Who is to say that I'm qualified to rate builds for everyone? Who is to say you are qualified to rate builds for everyone? Know what I mean? I guess we could hold like elections for the "Committee" but is that something people would realistically want?

Then once the builds are considered "Meta" I can easily pin them to the top of each forum yes.

 

That would be nice and a step in that direction!

 

Again, it is subjective. Find me 3 or 5 guys (so there are no ties) that can decide upon what is Meta and it is something I can work with. Find me 3-5 guys that EVERYONE agrees with and that is even better.

 

I rate them based on how the build performs at its task. If not explicit purpose is given, I assume that the build is designed to throw pain downrange. That'll get you to 4 stars. I'll only rate something at 5 if there's I can't squeeze additional performance out of it.

 

Semi-hijacking this thread for some "if it's a spam build, just rate it down with a 1-star" comment.

Since I check on this site using the "unread posts" button it's possible that I'm just getting the condensed version of it but ... anyway, here's my rant:
When the Boar's head came out the "unread" list practically exploded with "Boar's Head" builds. A lot of those posted by the same people. A lot of them using similar loadouts as other mechs. A lot of them posted within a really short time frame. And some just minor variations of another.

Is there some e-peen contest going on that I've been unaware of ? Or is it so important to get in a build first even if you never actually tried it, grabbing the spoils from someone who would actually test drive the thing ?

Lately I was under the impression that whenever a new mech comes out, all possible weapon combinations will be posted immediately and without any testing a all, just for the sake of posting it first. I think that it is not beneficial for the quality of the builds to just spam them. And it does take a bit of the fun away for other mech builders to discover some nice working build he came up with after some testing and tweaking, just to find it posted as no. 3 of a series of 10-minute posts on the first day the mech was out (

 

Unfortunately I think you are right in some regards.

There ARE people who do post as many builds and variations as they can and I was thinking about this yesterday "Are they just posting shit so that they can have their name 'forever up in lights' or are they posting things that they have tested thoroughly before hand" and I could come to no solid conclusion one way or the other.

I think some posts are more along the lines of "I can fit this on a mech" and "I can fit that on a mech" and "this sounds good" without actual testing.

Sadly there is no way to limit people from doing that other than to NOT allow people to post on new builds for 24-48 hours after they are released but then that hurts the site overall. It is a Catch 22 situation.

 

I say this as nicely and succintly as possible - I think a lot of the builds people post on this forum are utter rubbish, but if it's something they find FUN or META, then who am I to judge, or you, or anyone else for that matter.

Just give your opinion on it and move on, trying to undermine something is kinda pointless in a game catering to customization. Cuz at the end of the day, the cream will rise to the top no matter how you stir the pot ok? The best builds will eventually be found out - if it takes a while, good job whoever made it, that's some conservative rogue meta at work.

The reality is that when a legit build is posted, you should be reading what people are actually SAYING about the build and WHO is saying it. That helps give insight into whether something is legitimate, finished, being critiqued by others, considered meta worthy by others, explanations of how to use, etc. I think most of the shit people say in the discussions of builds is pretty standard junk that may or may not provide some insight but some folks have a lot of good things to say with regards to build X or build Y.

W/e.

Just rate builds, if you feel the need to justify it, then follow up your 'rating' with a 'post'. Wow, novel concept eh???

 

The 24h delay won't prevent someone to post an untested build after 24h, or even after 3 months (but I'm all for not allowing posts about unreleased mechs).
My suggestion would be to include, with each build, a description: why this particular loadout? how it is better (or simply different) than the similar builds? what playstyle does it fit? what are its strengths and weakness? etc... It should be the basic information we should have on every build posted. The poster has build the mech, and played with it enough games to tell if it's good or bad and if it needs to be tweaked, he should be able to answer those simple questions. A gameplay video is also always nice, but we can't sak than since not everyone can make them (for lots of reasons).
Take this post for example. He's new and don't know how to embedded smurfy's codes, but who cares. More importantly he explains how he pilots it, and also makes an interesting comparison (I never though of it this way) with the classic "boomjag". That is value for the forum, much more than all the builds posted with not more than a line of "this is my new build I dealt 3500dmg with it last night".
But since we're not nazis and too much obligations could be counter productive, I'm not asking to refuse all those non-introduced builds (though you have my support if you decide to do it). But a solution could be to accept those threads but only as provisional threads, and trash them as soon as someone post the build properly introduced.

(kind of out of topic, sorry about that)
(about the original subject, +1 to what Soy just wrote)

 

I like the suggestions you make. I asked something similar in a previous thread

http://www.mechspecs.com/forum/index.php?topic=3604.0

,if we should add some more extended information about the build-suggestions, whenever we post a new build. But somehow the question didn't find the approval as I expected.

I asked that Question, because i posted a build for the LoL-Community at mobafire not long ago - a site to post builds, just like Mechspecs. And i sometimes wish, we would have some similar Quality in our Build-posts. The Difference there is, that you have some guidelines to follow before posting a build. Such things like creating a Table of Content with several Sections about several aspects about the build (General Reasoning of Weapon-Choice, Gameplay-Guide, Teamwork, etc), and using some BBCode to present your Build/Guide nicely. The Rating there is much tougher than here - you get simple upvotes or downvotes, the total of all upvotes & downvotes leads to your Overall Rating. And the Community there is much harsher than here - you need a very good presentation and reasoning before getting any Votes. And with a simple build and no information about it at all, you can expect instant downvotes, although your weapon-choice might be very good!

My suggestion was to introduce some guidelines here at Mechspecs as well to rise up the Quality of Build-Posts. But as I could see, there is just little response to this idea. I know, that most of us find it more fun to just simply post a smurfy-build due to a crazy idea without taking more time to post any other viable information. It is more difficult to write a high quality build+guide. E.G. for my LoL.Guide at Mobafire I took almost a week to finish it, but then the result is something, that doesnt need to hide from other guides.

We need to decide, if we want simple Weaponloadout-Builds or extended Build-Guides. I like the latter and personally I would then make every effort to write good extended build+guides here as well. But i would only do this, if we have a consensus about the guidelines, so that we can follow them fairly. If we all prefer the simple version as it is right now, i am ok with it - i don't complain, but simply rate with 1-3 stars with reasoning whenever i see Spam.

Blagg

 

This.

Ok let me put it in personal terms, as well:

I don't post a serious meta build here without a video showcase and every single aspect of the mech hammered into place. I've watched other members in the community go forward with stuff I've briefly publically mentioned like combos or rough builds or such, and had no problem with it, cuz that's their prerogative. My prerogative is presenting an entire mech build in its entirity, not only the numbers but the reasoning and approach, as well. If it's not 100% how I envision it, it's not ready to really run down the street holding up above my head yet.

Is it always a finished product, not really - it's always subject to changes due to meta shifts or balance changes. But point is, I think a lot of people post half-assed shit around here. No disrespect. It adds to the depth and breadth of mechspecs. Cuz in reality someone can post some half-assed shit, and one of us gives it a good look, and come up with something much more compelling or efficient as a result. So that shit is always good. But personally? Personally. I wouldn't post a legitimate build I play in any serious capacity without fully presenting it as such. Otherwise, what is the point?

It's like if I posted a ton of league matches with absolutely no commentary - what the hell would be the point, you have to explain certain things otherwise the premise is underrepresented or misunderstood. Not everybody is gonna get it when you go "oh dude yeah a ppc an lbx a few spls, total rape, what else is there to say". Give some friggin context. And not scrub context or smoke context, real context that is applicable to your place in the game. Make a compelling case why, get your cuticles messy in the dirt and go hands-on to really give people a sense of what a mech is supposed to do.

Theorycrafting is for forum scrubs, real talk. I wanna see some action and I wanna discuss it, anything less is just a tease. Maybe some people have no problem showing off works-in-progress, or only showing one side of a work, if they're an artist, but for me, it's compromising on the idealism I'm attempting to seek out and display. I don't 'inherently' dislike any build posted that doesn't have a vid, oh no. I simply dislike any build thread posted that doesn't even attempt to convey what the fuck the mech is for besides "i rape in this mech". Like, yeah, thats nice... not to mention, if someone is trying to convince to try something out they did in a video game, they should actually be, you know, making an effort to persuade me that it's legit or whatever. 3 lines of 'i rape' or 'look at dmg in ss' means jack shit in reality. SHOW me, TELL me. Lets DISCUSS it lets WATCH it lets TRY it. This isn't a website to just plaster some piece of shit in a thread to get imaginary tech clout. That's a long staircase to the top, it doesn't work like that. Even the players that I respect and admire in this game aren't going to convince me to try their mech just cuz 'it rapes', not one time have I been swayed by that lazy shit.

 

I'm with Soy on the point he makes regarding discussion and feedback, that's always nice to have because... invariably someone makes a tweak or gives some advice or does something with a build that you maybe never considered. And that's just how you learn and grow I think... nothing worse than putting up a build you like and have done well with and it just kind of sits there and no one really gives you anything positive or negative to help you learn from it, you know??... I can deal with someone thinking it sucks, but like... you gotta TELL me you think it sucks for me to know that right??

 

In the Testing Depot i started to create a layout for an "extended" build+guide post

http://www.mechspecs.com/forum/index.php?topic=3712.msg23862#msg23862

What do you think about it? Good Idea? Bad Idea? Can be improved? Can be done in another way? Welcome something like this or not necessary at all? (asking this last question especially to the Newbs!)

Need feedback and lets discuss it. I think, if we have such "standardised" format and some veteran.players start to write such extended build+guides plus getting "high" Ratings for the provided Information, many of us would follow (just for the Rating & the Credits) rather than writing simple builds with little/no information.

C'mon tell me, what you think of this craziness!!!

 

You guys are free to include descriptions with your builds. In fact I encourage it. I do this with the USER BUILDS that I feature here on MechSpecs; it may not be what the "original" tech had in mind but it is my spin on the strengths and weaknesses for that said build; I encluded price, strenghts, weaknesses, and anything pertinent plus a video (if possible).

The best way to do things on a FREE based website is to lead by example. If you want these things to take place then by all means start posting your builds that way.

Another way that I can do things is simply start removing 4 and 5 star builds that have no content in them other than a smurfy link. This will start forcing those individuals to either go and add all that data or their builds go poof. It will also allow people who have seriously tested the build in question to post it thus inciting people to respond with feedback based on the OP.

Finally, I could always start charging a 2$ monthly subscription for people on this site as I am sure the people who pay for their time here would tend to be more serious with regards to what they share. I could make certain sub forums only viewable to subscribed members, much like the Benefactors area now but for build sheets.

There are numerous things that can be done. Lets start with you guys starting to lead by example and work our way up.

 

Blagg that is an incredibly comprehensive and complete template for builds. IMO it is too much for all the builds, BUT would be great for the "META" builds you all were talking about posting at the top. I think the summary and Pros & Cons should be on all builds regardless. There should probably be a requirement to disclose if the build has been played in MWO and when (for context due to game changes). The Hit Box section is great BUT that made me think (then do a quick look for) a section on this board that JUST has hitboxes posted (I didn't see it). A comprehensive list of hitboxes in a sticky Administrator moderated section would be a great reference. As a newb I would use a summary template like this and would appreciate some build posting guidelines (minimums). The obvious problem with the meta builds will be the changing meta.

 

http://www.mechspecs.com/forum/index.php?topic=634.0

I suppose I could update these on a regular basis. Wow, I really need to think about charging for access to this site as it becomes more and more a second job. Pooooooooooooooo on youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu, all ya'll!!!!