14 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

This is my score with Quad LRM15 HGN-733 with 2 medium lasers for backup.



Nice damage right? No. We lost.

If I was using Gauss+2 PPCs like the rest of the bunch I would have won the match with half the damage dealt.
The enemy were not good, they always exposed themselves (just standing there) and I coulda gotten off so many alphas.
Instead I had to make do with slow traveling missiles that spread the damage everywhere. Spent all my 1440 missiles.

It is sometimes very frustrating to do well yet knowing that by being a sheep you coulda done even better.

Edited by El Bandito, 25 April 2013 - 11:05 AM.

[Mercules]

I don't think it was your damage that mattered... Add up the damage of your lowest 4 players versus their lowest 4 players. 258 point difference right there, enough to have ended the Hunchback at the very least. Some firepower from them might have made a very different game.

[NinetyProof]

Bottom Line: The Dev's said they were not working right.

So you are correct, and the people stating otherwise are just uninformed (aka: ignorant of the facts).

Once they finish Host State Rewind, they said they would tackle the "always target CT" issue, and they purposely lowered the damage / spread till those things are dealt with.

Missile are "not right" at the moment. They were nerfed. This is not opinion ... this is fact.

[El Bandito]

Mercules, on 25 April 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

I don't think it was your damage that mattered... Add up the damage of your lowest 4 players versus their lowest 4 players. 258 point difference right there, enough to have ended the Hunchback at the very least. Some firepower from them might have made a very different game.

That's the point. If I had the Sniper build I woulda won even with those teammates. Because the enemies were bad enough to sit still and be hit repeatedly by my LRMs.

Edited by El Bandito, 25 April 2013 - 11:00 AM.

[Mercules]

El Bandito, on 25 April 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

That's the point. If I had the Sniper build I woulda won even with those teammates. Because the enemies were bad enough to sit still and be hit repeatedly by my LRMs.

You can't predict what they would have done after being hit with PPCs. They may have looked at how much damage they took from the LRMs and decided it was exceptible.

Yes, LRMs spread damage out compared to PPCs, however, getting hit with one Salvo of PPCs may have caused them to stikc to cover or caused the Hunchie to decide that if you were going to snipe he would simply go cap and brought you EVEN less C-Bills XP.

You can't say running PPCs would have made the match end in a win. Too many variables that changes. You might have gotten the damage you did because some people decided they could stand there and take that... and were wrong.

[hammerreborn]

We're now arguing hypotheticals? I can do that too.

If you had a light with TAG the entire time you could have done even more concentrated damage that would have killed them all.

If you had better teammates you would have won.

If they had worse teammates you would have won.

This game is fun!

If you played a poptart you could have been shot out of the sky or focused first seeing poptarts are priorty targets meaning you could have done little damage at all!

That treb could have not been afk/dced and done more than 0 damage leading to a win!

That dragon could have had a clue and brought something that didn't suck!


Man, thats a lot of different ways you could have won that shows ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how you could have hypothetically done more damage with a different set of weapons than another. Unless you have a magical time machine to replay the match you're just talking out of your ***.

Edited by hammerreborn, 25 April 2013 - 11:35 AM.

[TruePoindexter]

El Bandito, on 25 April 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

If I was using Gauss+2 PPCs like the rest of the bunch I would have won the match with half the damage dealt.
The enemy were not good, they always exposed themselves (just standing there) and I coulda gotten off so many alphas.
Instead I had to make do with slow traveling missiles that spread the damage everywhere. Spent all my 1440 missiles.

It is sometimes very frustrating to do well yet knowing that by being a sheep you coulda done even better.

Being fair I don't think you can for sure say "We would have won had I run a direct fire mech." The entire game would have gone differently and it's impossible to say that it would have been a victory. It would simply have been a different game.

That said I do think this is a good example of how damage is not a good measure for effectiveness. Much of that damage was obviously not lethal in nature.

[El Bandito]

Mercules, on 25 April 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

You can't predict what they would have done after being hit with PPCs. They may have looked at how much damage they took from the LRMs and decided it was exceptible. Yes, LRMs spread damage out compared to PPCs, however, getting hit with one Salvo of PPCs may have caused them to stikc to cover or caused the Hunchie to decide that if you were going to snipe he would simply go cap and brought you EVEN less C-Bills XP. You can't say running PPCs would have made the match end in a win. Too many variables that changes. You might have gotten the damage you did because some people decided they could stand there and take that... and were wrong.

I get your point but this just proves that LRMs are pretty bad compared with the other "preferred" long range builds.

[Davers]

LRMs were always inferior to direct fire. The ONLY thing that made them even worth consideration is that they home in on the CT. Direct fire is, has, and always will be the counter to LRMs. When all the bugs are fixed with LRMs and the damage returned to 'normal', they will STILL be sub-optimal weapons compared to direct fire. Not that LRMs don't have a place, but that place is not in head to head competition with Gauss or PPCs.

[hammerreborn]

El Bandito, on 25 April 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

I get your point but this just proves that LRMs are pretty bad compared with the other "preferred" long range builds.

How did it prove that LRMs are pretty bad? You did 1k damage. You lost because the match was essentially a 6v8

[El Bandito]

hammerreborn, on 25 April 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

How did it prove that LRMs are pretty bad? You did 1k damage. You lost because the match was essentially a 6v8

If I had 1K damage using Gauss+PPCs, enemy team would be dead--cored through their CT most likely. The only reason I did so much damage that game was because the enemy team didn't know the concept of hiding behind building. I know a bad enemy team when I see one, but unfortunately, our team was short a man.

Edited by El Bandito, 25 April 2013 - 12:39 PM.

[El Bandito]

Davers, on 25 April 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

LRMs were always inferior to direct fire. The ONLY thing that made them even worth consideration is that they home in on the CT. Direct fire is, has, and always will be the counter to LRMs. When all the bugs are fixed with LRMs and the damage returned to 'normal', they will STILL be sub-optimal weapons compared to direct fire. Not that LRMs don't have a place, but that place is not in head to head competition with Gauss or PPCs.

That makes sense, though I have great success hitting poptarts with LRMs without exposing myself by using our lights.

[Triple Patte]

1. Use anecdotical evidence.
2. Extrapolate arbitrarily on a large number of variables
3. ??????????????
4. Profit!

[NinetyProof]

Davers, on 25 April 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

When all the bugs are fixed with LRMs and the damage returned to 'normal', they will STILL be sub-optimal weapons compared to direct fire.

Well, you never know what the Dev's will set the numbers at ... but theoritically speaking, based upon TT numbers ... then again ... this is PGI we are talking about so all bets are off.

Davers, on 25 April 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

Not that LRMs don't have a place, but that place is not in head to head competition with Gauss or PPCs.

Actually, the LRM's are the counter to Gauss / PPC. Gauss / PPC require direct line-of-sight and LRM's do not (at least not continual and not even by the boat). Guass / PPC require not only LoS, but they require predictive aiming ... much harder to hit a moving target at distance, then it is for the moving target to lock on and fire LRM's.

Most Guass / PPC boats are slow ... most LRM boats are fast ... so the Guass / PPC boats that are forced into a distance / mobile fight are going to get torn up by "proper LRM" fire. LRM's, once fixed, should also make pop-tarts less brazen as they tend to use low cover with long periods for a lock on / tag and frequently coming back up to allow for re-acquisition of missile lock (if it was lost in the first place).

Currently we have no choice but Guass / PPC for long distance damage because LRM's are so bad. Long term? All depends on how much they fix / buff the LRM's ... especially supporting things like NARC. Time will tell.

[Davers]

El Bandito, on 25 April 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

That makes sense, though I have great success hitting poptarts with LRMs without exposing myself by using our lights.

NinetyProof, on 25 April 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

Well, you never know what the Dev's will set the numbers at ... but theoritically speaking, based upon TT numbers ... then again ... this is PGI we are talking about so all bets are off.


Actually, the LRM's are the counter to Gauss / PPC. Gauss / PPC require direct line-of-sight and LRM's do not (at least not continual and not even by the boat). Guass / PPC require not only LoS, but they require predictive aiming ... much harder to hit a moving target at distance, then it is for the moving target to lock on and fire LRM's.

Most Guass / PPC boats are slow ... most LRM boats are fast ... so the Guass / PPC boats that are forced into a distance / mobile fight are going to get torn up by "proper LRM" fire. LRM's, once fixed, should also make pop-tarts less brazen as they tend to use low cover with long periods for a lock on / tag and frequently coming back up to allow for re-acquisition of missile lock (if it was lost in the first place).

Currently we have no choice but Guass / PPC for long distance damage because LRM's are so bad. Long term? All depends on how much they fix / buff the LRM's ... especially supporting things like NARC. Time will tell.

Most LRM boats are slow. The 'premier' LRM boats have always been the Atlas D-DC and Awesomes all using 3+ LRM15s with Artemis.

If LRMs scattered like they are supposed to, instead of mostly hitting CT, then any sniper could go toe to toe with you and win. Direct damage is better than scattered damage.

Unless LRM speed is considerably increased a jump sniper can fire and get behind cover and wait out for your volley to miss.

Since your spotter has to maintain LoS, then they are in danger of being the next target. Any plan that requires your opponent to be a bad shot isn't a really solid plan.

I am not saying LRMs are useless (Well, in concept. Currently they are underperforming even with the broken targeting.). But I really don't see them as the cure for snipers. But damage and targeting hopefully be fixed in May, and they are looking at increasing their speed. LRMs have the dubious honor of being the most 'tuned' weapon in MW:O after all.