373 replies to this topic

[Roland]

Roadkill, on 03 April 2014 - 02:18 PM, said:

And... you're wrong. You failed to predict that your spotter was going to drop the lock you needed - your skill was insufficient.

In the situation I described, there was NO WAY FOR YOU TO PREDICT IT. The spotter did the WRONG thing. Given that the spotter is another human being, who you have no prior knowledge of, you are not able to predict his actions.

Thus, the only skill you could have employed in that case, was magical mind reading.

Quote

You dismiss this and claim it isn't a skill, but it very much is. And it's not a skill that direct fire users need to have. The fact that you're only 40% accurate with your LRMs proves that you lack this skill, or at the very least you haven't perfected it.

Technically, I said I recalled that I was over 40% accurate with my LRM's, as you were claiming that only better players were achieving 40% hit rates with LRM's.

Quote

It's still a skill. It's one that can be taught, practiced, and perfected. It'd be pretty pointless for a FLD weapon user to do so because it's an irrelevant skill to him, but it's still a skill.

From playing in highly coordinated drops, I can tell you that predicting what your teammates are going to do is most definitely not an irrelevant skill. It's actually one of the most fundamentally important skills of a player in a coordinated lance, regardless of the roll you are performing.

[Wolfways]

Prezimonto, on 03 April 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

Cover will only get you so far on some maps, and if the other team has more LRM's you need a way to close the gap.

Alpine?
I accept that i'm not going to close the gap, at least early game, and defend my teammates until i feel it's time to push forward. If i could just easily get close on every map then there wouldn't be much point in having different maps . I basically feel like that now tbh We need more open maps. Battlefields instead of arena's.

Quote

Again teamwork will get you far, but it doesn't change the fact that with teamwork, in pug matches LRM's are in a good place right now. Without teamwork, where you're forced into the open as an LRM boat, LRM's are still a bad choice for a primary weapon.

Against good players cover means you need really good teamwork and spotting... which is a different category as well.

I'll consider them a good weapon when i start getting hit by them.

[Tombstoner]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

In the situation I described, there was NO WAY FOR YOU TO PREDICT IT. The spotter did the WRONG thing. Given that the spotter is another human being, who you have no prior knowledge of, you are not able to predict his actions.

Thus, the only skill you could have employed in that case, was magical mind reading.


Technically, I said I recalled that I was over 40% accurate with my LRM's, as you were claiming that only better players were achieving 40% hit rates with LRM's.


From playing in highly coordinated drops, I can tell you that predicting what your teammates are going to do is most definitely not an irrelevant skill. It's actually one of the most fundamentally important skills of a player in a coordinated lance, regardless of the roll you are performing.

Or any professional sport or military.... what about driving down the highway. Anticipating and working together as a team is a very valuable skill.

I can almost pick who on my team will chase the light mech into LRM range.

[Prezimonto]

And that's fine, as Bishop pointed out. LRM's can be brutal when used well on open maps, or worthless if the enemy team is sitting under bridges and between buildings. Cover is a great counter, but you can't always count on cover being around your team, unless you only play with teams you know, or provide enough leadership to heard the cats we call PUG players into the direction you want to go.

[Roadkill]

Asmudius Heng, on 03 April 2014 - 02:32 PM, said:

You are claiming you can predict how your team mates will act and think and how they will hold locks and believe that is a skill?

Yep. More or less.

Quote

While you can sometimes have a better idea if someone will hold a lock you cannot predict it and claim it as a skill.

Why not? Isn't predicting effects a skill?

If I could predict the movements of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, would you not consider that a skill? I'd most certainly get rich very quickly if I had that skill.

If I'm able to predict that my teammates will hold a lock more accurately than you are, won't I do more damage than you over time? To what would you attribute that extra damage if not to skill? Luck? But it can't be luck if I'm consistently doing it better than you, can it? It must be a skill.

Is it the same kind of skill as being able to lead a target? No, of course not. But that's precisely my point. It's a different kind of skill, and it's one that FLD users often don't even comprehend because they have very little use for it themselves.

Quote

There is skill in position and choosing who to fire on for best effect yes ... but saying that you lacked skill because your team mate who you have no control over loses a lock is facetious at best.

No. You lacked the skill needed to predict that your teammate was going to lose that lock. It's not about controlling your teammate. It's the skill needed to predict what your teammates are going to do so that you can make the best use of their locks.

[Roadkill]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

In the situation I described, there was NO WAY FOR YOU TO PREDICT IT. The spotter did the WRONG thing. Given that the spotter is another human being, who you have no prior knowledge of, you are not able to predict his actions.

Then either the situation you described was a straw man and irrelevant, or you should have predicted that your teammate was going to do the wrong thing.

Just because you don't understand the skill involved doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Clarke's Third Law comes to mind...

[Roadkill]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

From playing in highly coordinated drops, I can tell you that predicting what your teammates are going to do is most definitely not an irrelevant skill. It's actually one of the most fundamentally important skills of a player in a coordinated lance, regardless of the roll you are performing.

Yes, and the LRM boat driver has to lead his targets, too. It's just different than the way a PPC sniper has to lead his targets.

[Roland]

Roadkill, on 03 April 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

Then either the situation you described was a straw man and irrelevant, or you should have predicted that your teammate was going to do the wrong thing.

How exactly would you have predicted that he was going to do the wrong thing in the scenario I described (which was clearly not an irrelevant scenario, but was rather a case you will encounter on a routine basis in a PUG match)?

Please explain to me the source of your magical psychic powers, Professor X.

Quote

If I could predict the movements of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, would you not consider that a skill? I'd most certainly get rich very quickly if I had that skill.

But you can't.

It's not a skill. It's a magical psychic power, that you don't have, because it doesn't exist.

Just like being able to magically predict the actions of a random player.

[Trauglodyte]

Quote

Bishop and Roadkill

And you are both correct there. I wasn't saying that LRMs don't take skill but rather that the skills that they do take to use at a high level requires a person of high skill with an understanding that they operate in a completely different manner than DFWs. The 1% of the population base that is just badass at this game would be as good with LRMs as they would be with DFWs. The difference, though, lies in that front loaded damage is so much greater in overall effectiveness and speed of effectiveness than spread damage weapons. And, there is no matter of equipment that will ever rectify that which is a complete failing on the part of PGI. That being said, I believe that what really holds LRMs back is the presence of the inherent C3 systems and, thusly, indirect fire. If people had to utilize LRMs and Streaks like they have to use PPCs and ACs, we'd be talking about an entirely different discussion. But, alas, we are where we are in the game so the skillset needed to be badass with LRMs is much different and that is the basis of this argument.

The real travesty in all of this is that people seem to be incorrect in their assumption that, because they do their damage in an instant, they are somehow better than others. That is NOT to say that Roland, for example, falls into that camp or that anyone else does (admittedly, I only skimmed the last 2 pages of this topic assuming that the first 8-9 were the same arguments as before). But, indirect fire capable LRMs and general spread damage weapons in this game have a stigma of being crutch weapons for bads. I don't know that anyone asked for weapons to behave like this - we're using the tools in the toolbox. My question to people that look down on missile users is this:

Why do you refuse to accept other game styles when they're used in the same manner as you play?

[Roadkill]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

How exactly would you have predicted that he was going to do the wrong thing in the scenario I described (which was clearly not an irrelevant scenario, but was rather a case you will encounter on a routine basis in a PUG match)?

By paying attention and observing prior actions.

You postulate that you made the correct decision to fire the LRMs which then failed to hit because your teammate lost your lock.

I claim that you made the wrong decision because you missed.

You claim that a skill doesn't exist because you don't have it, so therefore it must be magic.

I paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced skill is indistinguishable from magic."

I honestly no longer understand what you think your point is, if you even have one. Is it just that you refuse to believe that there is any skill at all to using LRMs, even if it's different than the skills needed to use FLD weapons?

Answer Trauglodyte's question: Why do you refuse to accept other game styles when they're used in the same manner as you play?

[Asmudius Heng]

Roadkill, on 03 April 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

Why not? Isn't predicting effects a skill?

When it is actually possible to predict effects yes.

To believe you can predict when a team mate will hold a lock or not is not being very honest ... you are just trying to claim any action as a skill now to devalue what skill is.

I already said positioning and making the choice to shoot or not based on the situation IS A SKILL ... but you took it a step beyond what is within your control as a skill to the point now of falsehood to try and make a point.

-10 points for griffindor.

The difference here is usually the travel time of LRMs. in the time it takes to reach target there is so much that is completely out of your control that can happen you cannot claim any personal skill. There are too many variables and unseen things that no one can have a grasp of in a complex environment to be able to claim that if you hit the target it was your skill that did so or lack of skill that did not do so.

Your stock market example is similar. The market is so massivly complex and changes that can happen that you cannot predict. Good investors can read market trends and do well, but even the most skilled of stock market gurus can easily get lucky, or very unlucky despite their supreme skill.

It was not always their personal skill that make them make or lose money on many of their invetsments.

If you lose a lock mid flight it was not always your personal skill level that caused this.

I am not disagreeing that positiong and choosing targets wisely is not a skill but you are muddying the water by saying the actions of others over a length of time in a complex environment is a personal skill.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

How exactly would you have predicted that he was going to do the wrong thing in the scenario I described (which was clearly not an irrelevant scenario, but was rather a case you will encounter on a routine basis in a PUG match)?

Please explain to me the source of your magical psychic powers, Professor X.


But you can't.

It's not a skill. It's a magical psychic power, that you don't have, because it doesn't exist.

Just like being able to magically predict the actions of a random player.

Only if you expect it to be 100% prescience. But Be able to watch and tell developing trends, which is what Market Analysts do, and only "succeed" if they predict correctly far more than they predict wrongly, IS a legit and definable skill, as is basic battlefield psychology, where in short order, one can often get a feel for which players on either team will play aggressive, break if pushed, cower, be unreliable, etc.

One reason I seldom do more than lob a 10 shot volley at a time early in the match, is because it allows me to gauge variables as much as possible, before committing. And no, even with a good "read" one will not be 100%.

But tell me, which DFW do you have 100% accuracy with? Guess that's not a skill either then? Or do you need to make snap judgements before taking a shot, too? Yes? OK. So do LRMs, but the number of variables are much higher than on DFWs. But a "good" LRM shot, can indeed read and decide who to trust for locks a good bit of the time. (of course, clunky as it is, actually communicating, even by text with your recons, can help immeasurably in this).

Trying to take his argument to ridiculous black and white extremes doesn't weaken his argument, but your own, as it exposes all the generalizations you are making.

[Thunder Lips Express]

Corwin Vickers, on 29 March 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

I was/am totally serious.

LRMs suck. People who bring them today after having time to feel out the change, suck. People who think LRMs are good suck.

I feel the same way about a LRM boat as I do about people who bring LPL and LB10xs. F___ that guy for handicapping my team.

They may be ok if you bring a launcher or two for range or indirect fire for that rare occasion when it would be better than another ton of ammo or a heatsink and that might change after the slow them down. Who knows, we'll have to see how it feels.

your e-peen is thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis big!

[Roadkill]

Trauglodyte, on 03 April 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

But, indirect fire capable LRMs and general spread damage weapons in this game have a stigma of being crutch weapons for bads. I don't know that anyone asked for weapons to behave like this - we're using the tools in the toolbox.

I suspect that it derives from this:

1) LRMs have a steep learning curve. You can get pretty decent with them VERY quickly. This makes it seem like LRMs are "easy mode."

2) LRMs can be fired indirectly from a position of safety. This is actually a pretty sucktastic use of LRMs, but because it exists many people assume it's OP and whine about it. It also lends weight to #1 because even pretty bad players can make decent use of LRMs if they're being assisted by a skilled spotter.

3) BECAUSE PGI. I mean, seriously, does anyone actually believe that buffing LRMs, buffing NARC, and having an LRM boat Stalker as a Trial Mech at the same time could possibly be a good idea? <SethMeyersVoice> Really, PGI? REALLY? </SethMeyersVoice>

4) Reinforcing both #1 and #3, people come to the forums in droves to post screenies of their 1000+ damage LRM boat games. Nevermind that good players could easily post just as many (or probably more) screenies of their 1000+ damage PPC/AC5 games. Nevermind that a good chunk of the people posting 1000+ damage LRM boat screenies are the same people who could post them from PPC/AC5 boats but don't because they have so many that it just isn't interesting. Nevermind that the only reason 1000+ damage LRM boat games are notable is because they were nearly impossible before. Nope. It's now possible to do 1000+ damage in an LRM boat, so therefore OMGLURMAGEDDON!!!eleven!

[Roadkill]

Asmudius Heng, on 03 April 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:

The difference here is usually the travel time of LRMs. in the time it takes to reach target there is so much that is completely out of your control that can happen you cannot claim any personal skill. There are too many variables and unseen things that no one can have a grasp of in a complex environment to be able to claim that if you hit the target it was your skill that did so or lack of skill that did not do so.

Your stock market example is similar. The market is so massivly complex and changes that can happen that you cannot predict. Good investors can read market trends and do well, but even the most skilled of stock market gurus can easily get lucky, or very unlucky despite their supreme skill.

It was not always their personal skill that make them make or lose money on many of their invetsments.

If you lose a lock mid flight it was not always your personal skill level that caused this.

I am not disagreeing that positiong and choosing targets wisely is not a skill but you are muddying the water by saying the actions of others over a length of time in a complex environment is a personal skill.

You just contradicted yourself and proved my point.

Predicting how a teammate is going to behave is complex and hard. You claim it is so hard that it cannot possibly be a skill.

Predicting the stock market is also complex and hard. But then you refer to "the most skilled of stock market gurus" and "their supreme skill."

So which is it? Is something that is supremely complex and difficult to do, such as predicting the behavior of a teammate in a complex game situation, a skill or not?

I claim it is a skill. Behavioral psychologists will agree with me.

Note that as you point out regarding the stock market, something being a skill does not make it deterministic. Even the most skilled stock market gurus make mistakes. But they also make crap-tons of money, so their skill wins out more often than not. A skilled LRM boat driver is still going to make mistakes. A skilled PPC sniper is still going to make mistakes. But both are still skillful players.

[Roadkill]

I choose to recognize both kinds of skilled players. For whatever reason, Roland doesn't seem to be able to recognize that such a thing as a "skilled LRM boat driver" exists.

[Roland]

Roadkill, on 03 April 2014 - 03:06 PM, said:

By paying attention and observing prior actions.

You postulate that you made the correct decision to fire the LRMs which then failed to hit because your teammate lost your lock.

I claim that you made the wrong decision because you missed.

I claim that your decision did not have an impact on the outcome in that situation, but rather, it was the decision of the spotter... and you had no way of predicting what he was going to do in that case.

Quote

You claim that a skill doesn't exist because you don't have it, so therefore it must be magic.

I'm claiming that it's not a skill because NO ONE HAS IT.
You do not have magic psychic powers that allow you to predict the actions of others... because, if you did, then you would be far better served using those magical skills to predict the actions OF YOUR ENEMY, and thus guaranteeing your team victory in every game.

But you don't have that ability... Just like no one else has it.

Quote

I paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced skill is indistinguishable from magic."

Psychically predicting that a random pug is going to keep his lock on one target rather than changing it is not a skill. It's a fantasy that you apparently believe in.

Quote

I honestly no longer understand what you think your point is, if you even have one. Is it just that you refuse to believe that there is any skill at all to using LRMs, even if it's different than the skills needed to use FLD weapons?

Certainly what you are attempting to argue is most certainly not a "skill" that you have.. You aren't able to predict the actions of random pugs on your team.

Quote

Answer Trauglodyte's question: Why do you refuse to accept other game styles when they're used in the same manner as you play?

What makes you think that I "refuse to accept other game styles"? Because I don't believe in your silly arguments about made up "skills"?



On some level, what I think you are trying to talk about, is the ability to predict your teammates movements and operate in a coordinated fashion with them... And as I already explained, THIS is certainly a skill. It's achieved through practicing with those players, and understanding how they play. Having done exactly this myself, I can most definitely attest to its existence. I fully understand how that works.

And yet, you are trying to take this to a silly degree, where you then have that kind of insight into RANDOM players.. indeed, even into BAD players, such that (despite never having seen them before) you are somehow predicting that they will take the wrong action, and thus are able to adjust your own actions to account for that? No dude, you aren't doing that. Because that's ridiculous.

And finally, as I explained.. the ability to predict to some lesser degree what other players will do (especially coordinated teammates) is something which has nothing to do with LRM's.. It's merely a GENERAL skill that all pilots have. So even there, it doesn't really support your position anyway.

Edited by Roland, 03 April 2014 - 03:41 PM.

[Mystere]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

Please explain to me the source of your magical psychic powers, Professor X.

It's not Professor X.

Edited by Mystere, 03 April 2014 - 03:46 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

Trauglodyte, on 03 April 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

That being said, I believe that what really holds LRMs back is the presence of the inherent C3 systems and, thusly, indirect fire.

C3 systems don't affect indirect fire.

Quote

C3 COMPUTER (MASTER/SLAVE)
The C3 computer system can link up to twelve ’Mechs or vehicles together—utilizing a series of C3 Master and C3 Slaves—in a communications network that will share targeting information.

To make an attack using a C3 computer network, calculate the to-hit number using the range to the target from the networked unit nearest the target with line of sight. Use the firing unit’s modifiers for movement, terrain effects, minimum range and so on. A weapon attack using a C3 network must conform to standard LOS restrictions and cannot fire beyond its maximum range, though a well-placed lancemate may allow the firing unit to use his weapon’s short-range to-hit number at long range.

The C3 network itself has no maximum range, but only units actually on the playing area can benefit from the network, and the C3 Master (or C3 Masters if using a company-sized network) must be on the playing area.

TAG: The C3 Master (but not the C3 Slaves) exactly duplicates the function of target acquisition gear (see TAG; p. 142).

LRM Indirect Fire: C3-equipped units spotting targets for or launching an LRM indirect fire attack use the LRM Indirect Fire rules (see p. 111), and gain no benefit from a C3 network.

Minimum Ranges: Minimum range is always determined from the attacking unit to the target.

Variable Damage Weapons: The range, to determine the Damage Value of a Variable Damage Weapon, is always determined from the attacking unit to the target.

Stealth Armor: Armor that inficts range modifiers against attacking units does not confuse a C3 network. While such additional range modifiers apply to the nearest attacking unit, they do not apply to any other units using the network to attack. However, some such systems (notably the Stealth Armor System, p. 142) include their own ECM system; in this case, an attacking unit must be outside the effective range of the ECM mounted on the target unit, or the attacker gets cutoff from the network.

Indirect LRM fire requires no LosTech, though in TT it does come with increased to-hit penalties which we do not have in MWO. Unless you consider really slow missile speed a to-hit penalty.

Quote

LRM Indirect Fire
Units armed with LRM-type weapons may fire those missiles indirectly. Indirect fire allows a unit without a direct line of sight to a target to attack that target, though a friendly unit must have a valid line of sight to the target (this unit is referred to as the spotter). An attacker with a valid LOS to a target cannot make an LRM indirect fire attack, even if that attack would have a better to-hit modifier.

Resolve LRM indirect fire attacks in the turn they are launched. The base to-hit number is the firing unit’s Gunnery Skill. Use the following modifiers:

• Range modifier based on the range between the target and the firing unit, including minimum range modifiers;
  
• +1 for indirect fire;
  
• All standard modifiers for target movement;
  
• All standard modifiers for attacker movement and a modifier for the spotter’s movement (infantry have no attacker movement modifier for spotting);
  
• Terrain modifiers based on line of sight from the spotting unit; this includes the +1 modifier if partial cover exists between the spotting unit and the target. (Regardless of whether partial cover shields the target from either the spotting unit or the attacking unit, Damage Value groupings from LRM indirect fire always strike the target and not the partial cover, even if they hit a leg location; see Partial Cover, p. 102.)

Finally, if the spotting unit makes any attacks in the turn that it spots for another unit, apply a +1 modifier to all of the spotting unit’s attacks, as well as a +1 modifier to the LRM indirect fire attack. If the spotting unit makes no attacks, do not apply these additional modifiers. The spotter can spot for any number of attacking units to a single target, but it cannot spot for multiple targets.

[Asmudius Heng]

Roadkill, on 03 April 2014 - 03:30 PM, said:

You just contradicted yourself and proved my point.

No - i made it very clear that there is a skill in choose targets for best effect based on what you believe will be your best bet.

The way you phrased it was that knowing the DECISION of the spotter (which may have or have not been in his control also) was a skill.

You are making extreme claims to try to prove a point and I was calling you on it. I am agreeing with you yet you are trying to win this margin point instead of say that perhaps the way you phrased something was going to a certain extreme.

Your decisions and choices as an LRM user are a skill, the choices of others are not a skill. Knowing the choices of others is not a skill since you cannot do it.

Making the best guesses based of the information you have is a skill ... but you said if you miss because the spotter lost a lock that is YOUR FAULT due to lack of skill.

This is false, it is no ones fault often, the spotter may have had good reason to stop spotting or an enemy may have stopped that for him. Your individual skill at the point of launching in a perfect situation and the subsequent loss of lock because of something out of your control is not a reflection of your skill as you have stated it.

Taking a random shot on a spotted enemy without any thought to see if it is a good choice, that is a lack of skill yes.

I am AGREEING with you for the most part but that one statement that someone elses actions is a relfection of personal skill the situation that Roland was describing was pushing the limits.

We are in agreement here and i stated that from the outset, just not in that siutation in the way you describe it.

Skill of direct fire weapons for maximum effect is mostly reflex skill, with a fair bit of decision making skills for best positioning.

Skill of LRMs is more about decision making skills for maxium effect and mkuch less reliant on reflex based skills.

"Skill" is not all encompassing it is multifacted - but there are something that are not a skill when you have no control because it is impossible to predict.

It would be a skill if i could headbut an out of control train and stop it .... but no one can claim i have this skill or anyone does because it is impossible. Therefore no one would actually say this is a skill - it has to be in the realms of possibility of action.