910 replies to this topic

[Dimento Graven]

Khobai, on 19 March 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:

How do you figure?

An LRM10 with 2 tons of ammo takes up the same tonnage/more crits than a PPC.

So an LRM15 should be better than a PPC. An LRM15 with artemis/tag should be WAY better.

What's your arbitrary measure on that?

Even in TT LRM efficacy was a totally random event. Not only did you have a to-hit roll to determine IF you even hit at all, but then a follow up roll that determined HOW MANY missiles hit, THEN more subsequent rolls to determine WHERE they hit.

"On par" with direct fire weapons, single or even DUAL racks of LRMs, was NEVER an actual "thing".

[WVAnonymous]

Khobai, on 19 March 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:

How do you figure?

An LRM10 with 2 tons of ammo takes up the same tonnage/more crits than a PPC.

So an LRM15 should be better than a PPC. An LRM15 with artemis/tag should be WAY better.

So I think I'm closer to Joseph Mallan's estimate of effectiveness, but I think we all agree they are roughly equivalent plus or minus 5 LRMs per salvo.

My assessment (aka my own biased opinion) also includes the fact that many maps are very hot, and PPCs lose some effective cycle time.

[ColonelMetus]

all these people making new lrm thread should just poost in her

[Cimarb]

ColonelMetus, on 19 March 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

all these people making new lrm thread should just poost in her

I already regret posting in here, so I hope they don't make the same mistake...

[KharnZor]

ColonelMetus, on 19 March 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

all these people making new lrm thread should just poost in her

Cimarb, on 19 March 2014 - 12:54 PM, said:

I already regret posting in here, so I hope they don't make the same mistake...

.......

[Lyoto Machida]

Cimarb, on 19 March 2014 - 12:54 PM, said:

I already regret posting in here, so I hope they don't make the same mistake...

Colonel Metus receives 50 cents for every post in this page (that isn't his) and receives a $20 bonus for every additional 10 pages past the first 10. He's trying to go to college, so look at it like spending money at a strip club to put a girl through school...educational donations.

[Komagn]

[Khobai]

Quote

But for that weight an LRM10 averages 7 damage per salvo or equal to a Large laser.

yes but its spread damage not pinpoint damage. spread damage is mostly worthless.

[Dimento Graven]

Khobai, on 19 March 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

yes but its spread damage not pinpoint damage. spread damage is mostly worthless.

Even if that value is a good value to use, you're typically not dealing with ONE LRM rack being fired at you. It's usually 2 or more, and the damage is typically spread to upper torso, so using your numbers that's at least 14 on a typical load out.

Doing 14 points of damage, salvo after salvo, after salvo is respectable, especially considering you typically won't be the ONLY person firing at that 'mech.

IF, you're doing it wrong: using only one rack, and firing at a 'mech no one else is firing at, at 800+ meters, without artemis, TAG, NARC, adv. targeting decay... Well... You can't reasonably expect lethality.

Even multiple racks, without all the add-ons, you can't expect lethality, and don't deserve to ask for buffs.

Loading up the add-ons AND using them intelligently by firing on targets already actively engaged by your teammates, crimany yeah, you WILL get completely different results.

So adding a flat 45% flight speed increase without considering how the weapon, when used properly, is ALREADY fairly lethal, pushes the over all rating of the weapon into OP territory.

[Khobai]

Quote

Even if that value is a good value to use, you're typically not dealing with ONE LRM rack being fired at you. It's usually 2 or more

Id still rather get hit by LRMs than PPCs. PPCs do more damage and the damage hits the same location.

People whining about all the LRMs are nuts. Its a huge improvement over poptarts with PPCs.

[KnowBuddy]

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 10:33 AM, said:

TAG makes an ECM'd target lockable up to 750m range. TAG lasts as long as someone is TAG'ing it. Please don't try and minimize its effect. If it's not working for you, your spotters are bad, an experienced spotter with TAG working with an experienced, properly equipped, LRM boat pilot was a DEADLY combination BEFORE the speed boost.

Now... Haysooos FRIGGIN marimba...

The disrupt is what? I think at least 4 seconds (correct me if I'm wrong). At 500m that's only a bit over 2 seconds flight time. Artemis+TAG locks in half a second, so in under 3 seconds you've delivered a missile salvo on a PPC disrupted 'mech at 500 meters.

We disagree about the power of ECM since it really only affected TWO weapons, LRMs and SSRMs. LRMs wasn't as bad as everyone wants to make out because you could STILL fire LRMs at stationary targets without locks and hit them effectively.

Having been through 3 other LRM debacles from PGI, all of which were addressed via hot fix, I can tell you the resulting hew and cry is NOT without some actual standing.

We're obviously using our LRMs differently. I have no problem with using them effectively between 180 and 800m.

I can only think of a few SET equipable LRM counters:

ECM
AMS
having a fast 'mech

Everything else:
Cover

I could be having a 'senior moment' so if there's more than that, you let me know. Now, let's list what I can remember that ADD to LRM performance:

BAP
TAG
NARC
Artemis
Adv. Sensor Range
Adv. Target Decay
UAV

Maybe even more, it could be my 'senior moment' is making me forget them as well.

I can't agree with this, at all, since if they're within 250 meters having them in range of my LRMs, plus my other weapons, makes for an EXTREMELY deadly alpha... Well... We HAVE to be using LRMs extremely differently for you to say this.

Same response as above. Used properly they're incredibly effective at ranges up to 800 meters, beyond that and there's potentially enough time for AMS and target decay to significantly reduce their effectiveness. Of course you're talking about a weapon you can be firing at a target where you're completely out of site of the enemy and free from any risk too, so there's got to be SOME mitigating factors to it, no?

Too bad, if PGI doesn't do anything about this latest patch, that'd be the next best thing to do. For F's sake man, we don't even have any heavy chassis capable of ECM, that's just stupid.

Yeah tell that to the 36 people I killed with my missile boats last night... I'm sure they'd argue about the damage being done to them being as much as they thought it was...

Okay, I concede that you're most likely a much better 'Mech pilot than I am, and undoubtedly more skilled at using LRMs. (not sarcasm, I'm honest about my skill level or lack thereof)

There's all sorts of things which can add to the effectiveness of LRMs, and some of them are major GXP investments and moderate C-Bill investments. Why do you want to balance with these assumed to be present? I know I'm missing some of them. But other weapon systems don't have or don't need to be balanced assuming 3 Mods and 4.5 tons of additional equipment?

We've both been around the same amount of time, I've seen the things you have also and my memory is fine. I get being predisposed to overreaction... that's the name of the game around here, to be honest it's a bit excessive even if it has been warranted in the past. Just because I voice caution in making snap judgements doesn't mean I'm not watching carefully and patiently and trying to keep an open mind at all times.

I'd venture that the large majority of the "balance" efforts are made with the solo PUGger in mind, considering the recent "analysis" of drop data that was put forth recently by PGI. I PUG exclusively due to time and distraction issues, and combined with my distinct lack of skill in general, I'd have to say that the points you make about effectiveness in general just aren't bearing out in my experience. So YMMV I guess. Maybe the changes will be adjusted after things settle a little, but they were at least a step in the right direction in my opinion. Whether they were an overstep is up for debate and I'm reserving judgement on that question for now.

[Kjudoon]

Ghost Badger, on 19 March 2014 - 07:05 AM, said:

LRMpocalypse had splash damage. This doesn't. It put missiles on par with the direct-fire AC/PPC meta...in the right hands.

If they'd only buff up SRM's and make pulse lasers less than worthless, it'd be balanced ™.

Here's what I'd like to see next. Bump LRMs to 200m/s and 1.25 damage per missile (since we're not going to be improving their accuracy any time soon) and give SRMs their splash damage back to make up for not being faster than LRMs.

That'd probably be the end of what I'd want to do to LRMs then other than to start giving ECM equipment that effects Direct Fire weaponry so Missiles aren't the only ones screwed by it.

[Tombstoner]

ColonelMetus, on 19 March 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

all these people making new lrm thread should just poost in her

But my thread is special, unique and way more informative then those other threads.... and i want credit for being the first to mention that LRM's are OP....

[Dimento Graven]

KnowBuddy, on 19 March 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:

Okay, I concede that you're most likely a much better 'Mech pilot than I am, and undoubtedly more skilled at using LRMs. (not sarcasm, I'm honest about my skill level or lack thereof)

There's all sorts of things which can add to the effectiveness of LRMs, and some of them are major GXP investments and moderate C-Bill investments. Why do you want to balance with these assumed to be present? I know I'm missing some of them. But other weapon systems don't have or don't need to be balanced assuming 3 Mods and 4.5 tons of additional equipment?

Because if PGI is making adjustments to weapons without considering the already existing in-game factors, a weapon can be pushed well into OP territory.

It has already happened with LRMs, THREE TIMES, before this latest change, and has happened with Ultra AC5's, AC 5's, and SRMs and SSRMs as well.

You can't make/analyze changes in a vacuum, you have to take EVERYTHING already in place into consideration.

I'm not convinced that PGI has done that.

Quote

We've both been around the same amount of time, I've seen the things you have also and my memory is fine. I get being predisposed to overreaction... that's the name of the game around here, to be honest it's a bit excessive even if it has been warranted in the past. Just because I voice caution in making snap judgements doesn't mean I'm not watching carefully and patiently and trying to keep an open mind at all times.

I get what you're saying here, but, my judgment wasn't a 'snap' one.

I started the night playing my Firebrand, eventually noticing that the LRM usage was NOT tailing off, but in fact INCREASING as the night progressed.

I decided I'd better check into it myself.

My first match after having dusted off my LRM boat was to get 4 kills. My second match another 3, my third match, more kills and so on, by the end of the night and even after many much beers, I was still regularly EASILY getting kills.

My KD ratio on both the missile boats I piloted last night is well over 3.0, and at one point (before the beer) was over 7.0.

As much experience as I have with missile boats, I don't believe I'm THAT good.

The occasional good match like that is to be expected. Damn near every match I played last night was a "GOOD" match.

I suspect PGI has suffered the wrath of the laws of unintended consequences.

Quote

I'd venture that the large majority of the "balance" efforts are made with the solo PUGger in mind, considering the recent "analysis" of drop data that was put forth recently by PGI. I PUG exclusively due to time and distraction issues, and combined with my distinct lack of skill in general, I'd have to say that the points you make about effectiveness in general just aren't bearing out in my experience. So YMMV I guess. Maybe the changes will be adjusted after things settle a little, but they were at least a step in the right direction in my opinion. Whether they were an overstep is up for debate and I'm reserving judgement on that question for now.

That's a whole other discussion though, as the original intent of this game was 'community' warfare where organized TEAMS of players could participate in a strategic "thinking man's" shooter.

PGI has let themselves be led down the wrong path on that one, and IF PGI is going to balance this game towards the solo pug player... Well, they should right now, remove the ability to create 4 man pug teams in the public queues and ONLY allow single pug players, to do otherwise with a solo balance perspective is to invite havoc among the players.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 19 March 2014 - 01:59 PM.

[supertrieuper]

Since I focused on leveling my jagers over the better part of the last week, I can understand the issue some people have with the lrms. After being the guy who is sniping with dual gauss, LRMS are fine how they are, since it actually forces me to not feel comfy standing around popping guys freely. LRM speed might feel like a problem now, but I think everybody will adjust. Still, HOT DAMN does it suck to be that guy that eats those forty-odd missiles trying to run to cover!!

Also, I like that it will also allow my light to have some more role-versatility. My dual-ams firestarter feels better now.

I just hope folks boating pay more attention to where they shoot. Those tall ass buildings and boulders? Those are excellent cover. STOP WASTING YA LURMS(Unless you're on the other team. Feel free to fire away)!!!

edit: I have yet to run an lrm boat, so I have no idea first hand how big a difference the change has made, but I tend to avoid them because I like to crowd mechs and force myself into a brawling situation.

Edited by supertrieuper, 19 March 2014 - 02:15 PM.

[Tesunie]

Dimento Graven, on 19 March 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:

Even if that value is a good value to use, you're typically not dealing with ONE LRM rack being fired at you. It's usually 2 or more, and the damage is typically spread to upper torso, so using your numbers that's at least 14 on a typical load out.

Doing 14 points of damage, salvo after salvo, after salvo is respectable, especially considering you typically won't be the ONLY person firing at that 'mech.

IF, you're doing it wrong: using only one rack, and firing at a 'mech no one else is firing at, at 800+ meters, without artemis, TAG, NARC, adv. targeting decay... Well... You can't reasonably expect lethality.

Even multiple racks, without all the add-ons, you can't expect lethality, and don't deserve to ask for buffs.

Loading up the add-ons AND using them intelligently by firing on targets already actively engaged by your teammates, crimany yeah, you WILL get completely different results.

So adding a flat 45% flight speed increase without considering how the weapon, when used properly, is ALREADY fairly lethal, pushes the over all rating of the weapon into OP territory.

I'd beg to differ about a single launcher (or a few smaller ones) not being fired at a single target. Many games still, I'm one of a few LRM users on my team (even after the patch, which is kinda surprising). I've found them to be effective for me, but there were many many times that it was frustrating to see most of my missiles land on the ground next to my target because "they walked very slowly perpendicular" to me. Don't get me started on the 'Pop over the hill, they shoot me, I shoot back, they duck behind cover again and my LRMs do nothing", or even the "lock a fast mech. Watch him run behind a teammate. What and cringe as my LRMs slam into my teammate because they move so slowly"...

For the record, a couple smaller launchers, or a single big launcher, seems to be fairly effective for me:
Stalker 3F: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...1b0fed418ebb28e
Thunderbolt 5S: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...1e01d025e505557
Griffin 3M: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...c4acc2e2546a287
Shadowhawk 2H: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...f9634c0c93c9903
Hunchback 4SP: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...bb0bc827b009caf
Locust 3M: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...0aed9ef87384ab3
Raven 4X: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...98482fb6aa1c943
(All these builds seem to preform very well on the battlefield, in real live fire. I could post the stats for you, but some of them would need to be adjusted as I ran them for a while with builds that didn't work very well (Locust, Stalker to name a couple).)

Just saying that, sometimes, a little can go a long ways.

Also, as far as someone dedicating the weight to a ton of LRMs, do consider the disadvantages of it, such as ECM, getting within the 180m minimum range, dependance upon locks, spread damage, weight to damage (not overly all that good), etc.

My current new accuracy for the ALRM20 was at 34%. My old one was at 29%. Each ton of ammo is 180 missiles. It weighs 8 tons, and I have dedicated 4 tons to ammo.
An AC5 I had an accuracy of about 60%. Each ton of ammo is 30 shots. It weights 8 tons and can work well at 3 tons of ammo, but for equal weight we shall give it 4 tons of ammo. (Also shoots faster and cooler from my recollection.)
Lets do some math here.
Formulas used:
Accuracy% x shots per ton of ammo x damage per shot = damage per ton of ammo.
Damage per ton of ammo x 4 tons of ammo = Damage for 4 tons of ammo.
Damage for 4 tons of ammo/12 tons (weight of weapon and ammo combined) = Damage per ton of total weapon system.

LRMs with new changes: 67.32 damage per ton of ammo. 269.28 damage for 4 tons of ammo. 22.44 damage per ton.
Old: 57.42 per ton of ammo. 229.68 damage for 4 tons of ammo. 19.14 damage per ton.
AC5: about 90 damage per ton of ammo. 360 damage for 4 tons of ammo. 30 damage per ton.

So far, the math says that the AC5, for the same weight is out preforming my LRM damages ton for ton. Include factors such as spread or pin point damage and... well... I'm sorry. This buff for LRMs is not all that detrimental.
(Warning: The accuracy percentage of my LRMs for the new patch is still kinda coming in. Only played 5 matches total so far. Numbers subject to change.) (All tested with the above mentioned Griffin build.)



Also, LRMs from the last two "LRMagadons" problems:
-(1st) Artemis made LRMs hit mostly/only the head hitbox of many mechs. LRM headshot, wasn't intentional.
-(2nd) LRM splash damage (combined with a large head box of release of the Jagermech) was causing LRMs to head shot or massive damage the CT of mechs by a multiple of the missiles that hit. AKA: A single LRM was doing close to 5 damage total, which was not the intent. Thus, and LRM5 system was dealing close to 20 damage on it's own. Add in an LRM boat of 70 LRMs (a commonish build back then) and... 70 x 5 = 350 damage, mostly applied to CT or head. One volley death.

This "3rd" LRMagadon is "LRMs doing closer to the damage they are suppose to, but still less than many other weapon systems in the game" issue. Sorry. Not LRMagadon. I'm calling it "LRMs are balanced again" instead of being "underpowered". Seen as I've heard, and agreed, that before this patch, LRMs were like throwing wet noodles at your opponents most times... (They still really spread the damage around and are not focused.)


(If you want, post up your LRM and ballistic stats, and I'll do the math like I did for my own numbers.)

[Khobai]

Quote

Here's what I'd like to see next. Bump LRMs to 200m/s and 1.25 damage per missile (since we're not going to be improving their accuracy any time soon) and give SRMs their splash damage back to make up for not being faster than LRMs.

id rather see LRMs go more in the direction of utility than damage. We need different types of LRMs like thunder lrms, incendiary lrms, swarm lrms, etc...

The point of LRMs isnt to be a damage weapon. Its to be a swiss army knife weapon that can deploy a variety of different munitions.

[Sephlock]

Lyoto Machida, on 19 March 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

Colonel Metus receives 50 cents for every post in this page (that isn't his) and receives a $20 bonus for every additional 10 pages past the first 10. He's trying to go to college, so look at it like spending money at a strip club to put a girl through school...educational donations.

I gotta try that as a write-off the next time I do my taxes...

Khobai, on 19 March 2014 - 03:15 PM, said:

id rather see LRMs go more in the direction of utility than damage. We need different types of LRMs like thunder lrms, incendiary lrms, swarm lrms, etc...

The point of LRMs isnt to be a damage weapon. Its to be a swiss army knife weapon that can deploy a variety of different munitions.

Don't autocannons also have a lot of alt ammo types? What about them?

[Khobai]

Quote

Don't autocannons also have a lot of alt ammo types? What about them?

the non-ultra autocannons can use different ammo types. but thats because theyre outright worse than ultra autocannons. In MWO the non-ultra ACs and ultra ACs are more or less equal.

[Dimento Graven]

Tesunie, on 19 March 2014 - 02:32 PM, said:

...
For the record, a couple smaller launchers, or a single big launcher, seems to be fairly effective for me:
Stalker 3F: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...1b0fed418ebb28e

Dual LRM15s+Artemis+BAP

Quote

Thunderbolt 5S: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...1e01d025e505557

1 LRM20+Artemis+BAP

Quote

Griffin 3M: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...c4acc2e2546a287

1 LRM20+Artemis+BAP

Quote

Shadowhawk 2H: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...f9634c0c93c9903

1 LRM10+Artemis+TAG

Quote

Hunchback 4SP: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...bb0bc827b009caf

1 LRM10+Artemis

Quote

Locust 3M: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...0aed9ef87384ab3

1 LRM5+Artemis

Quote

Raven 4X: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...98482fb6aa1c943
(All these builds seem to preform very well on the battlefield, in real live fire. I could post the stats for you, but some of them would need to be adjusted as I ran them for a while with builds that didn't work very well (Locust, Stalker to name a couple).)

Just saying that, sometimes, a little can go a long ways.

1 LRM15+Artemis

You seemed to have missed my point. The LRMs by themselves are weak. The LRMs, plus the add-ons (BAP, TAG, NARC, Artemis, Adv. Target Decay, Adv. Sensor Range, Adv. UAV) are MUCH more powerful (ESPECIALLY when you start stacking more than one on a 'mech). PLUS you don't have to carry ALL the add-ons yourself to benefit from them. You have a bud, or some other pug, drop with TAG or NARC and you get to benefit from his usage. Another bud, or pug drops with BAP, Adv. Sensor Range and you can keep your target as long he can. Another bud, or pug drops with UAV and suddenly you've got carte blanche on the enemy team.

In MWO you can't balance ANY weapon, especially in a vacuum, you have to consider all the modules and add-ons that can be brought to bear, and how they stack, to try and avoid those 'unintended consequences' we've seen so SO many times before.

Quote

Also, as far as someone dedicating the weight to a ton of LRMs, do consider the disadvantages of it, such as ECM, getting within the 180m minimum range, dependance upon locks, spread damage, weight to damage (not overly all that good), etc.

My current new accuracy for the ALRM20 was at 34%. My old one was at 29%. Each ton of ammo is 180 missiles. It weighs 8 tons, and I have dedicated 4 tons to ammo.
An AC5 I had an accuracy of about 60%. Each ton of ammo is 30 shots. It weights 8 tons and can work well at 3 tons of ammo, but for equal weight we shall give it 4 tons of ammo. (Also shoots faster and cooler from my recollection.)
Lets do some math here.
Formulas used:
Accuracy% x shots per ton of ammo x damage per shot = damage per ton of ammo.
Damage per ton of ammo x 4 tons of ammo = Damage for 4 tons of ammo.
Damage for 4 tons of ammo/12 tons (weight of weapon and ammo combined) = Damage per ton of total weapon system.

LRMs with new changes: 67.32 damage per ton of ammo. 269.28 damage for 4 tons of ammo. 22.44 damage per ton.
Old: 57.42 per ton of ammo. 229.68 damage for 4 tons of ammo. 19.14 damage per ton.
AC5: about 90 damage per ton of ammo. 360 damage for 4 tons of ammo. 30 damage per ton.

So far, the math says that the AC5, for the same weight is out preforming my LRM damages ton for ton. Include factors such as spread or pin point damage and... well... I'm sorry. This buff for LRMs is not all that detrimental.
(Warning: The accuracy percentage of my LRMs for the new patch is still kinda coming in. Only played 5 matches total so far. Numbers subject to change.) (All tested with the above mentioned Griffin build.)

Which is why only considering the specific numbers you're using, without a significant sampling, without knowledge of how to properly use the weapon is a bad way to try and balance (or justify a bad buff) a weapon.

The END RESULT should be what specifically matters, and is actually KEY to judging the value of a change.

In this instance, I played 8 games with a Firebrand that I have well over 80% accuracy with dual gauss (yeah I know 80% is kind of low, but I was drinkin' cut me some slack), and got 7 kills and 7 deaths. In my LRM boat, which had an almost 33% accuracy with LRM10's, I got double the kills in the same 8 games. I continued playing, a total of 20 games and had 36 kills, an entire battalion's worth of 'mechs.

The END RESULT is telling me LRMs are probably OP now.

Quote

Also, LRMs from the last two "LRMagadons" problems:
-(1st) Artemis made LRMs hit mostly/only the head hitbox of many mechs. LRM headshot, wasn't intentional.
-(2nd) LRM splash damage (combined with a large head box of release of the Jagermech) was causing LRMs to head shot or massive damage the CT of mechs by a multiple of the missiles that hit. AKA: A single LRM was doing close to 5 damage total, which was not the intent. Thus, and LRM5 system was dealing close to 20 damage on it's own. Add in an LRM boat of 70 LRMs (a commonish build back then) and... 70 x 5 = 350 damage, mostly applied to CT or head. One volley death.

This "3rd" LRMagadon is "LRMs doing closer to the damage they are suppose to, but still less than many other weapon systems in the game" issue. Sorry. Not LRMagadon. I'm calling it "LRMs are balanced again" instead of being "underpowered". Seen as I've heard, and agreed, that before this patch, LRMs were like throwing wet noodles at your opponents most times... (They still really spread the damage around and are not focused.)

We disagree WILDLY on the number of LRMageddons and the actual causes of those.

This is, in fact, the 4th LRMageddon.

Before this last patch LRMs were very effectively, WHEN USED PROPERLY (and even when used by a half-assed no skill *********, were still pretty good), and after this patch have been pushed beyond where they need to be.

LRMs DO NOT, EVER, need to be on par with direct fire weapons.

Why?

Because NO OTHER WEAPON system allows you to fire from behind cover, without ever actually seeing the enemy yourself, or them ever seeing you. There's an INCREDIBLE risk-v-reward factor to balance in there.

Quote

(If you want, post up your LRM and ballistic stats, and I'll do the math like I did for my own numbers.)

No need, I can look at the numbers and see the problem for myself.