51 replies to this topic

[kazlaton]

After finishing the challenge, I went back to check out my stats. Since I spent about half the matches in a LRM boat, and the other half in direct fire (lasers and UACs) I figured it would be interesting to compare the stats. These were my stats, your mileage may vary.

total matches 61
LRM matches: 27
LRM matches that qualified: 9
9/27=.3333 = 33.3% percent chance that bringing a LRM boat will result in a qualifying match.
Direct fire matches: 34
DF matches that qualified: 15
15/34=.4411 = 44.1% chace that bringing direct fire will result in a qualifying match.

So that means LRMs are only 75.6% as effective as direct fire. (.3333/.4411=75.56).
And that number would have been lower, but for 11 of those matches I had a dedicated spotter (narc Raven).

Did anyone else do something similar? What were your results?

TL/DR
LRMs are weak, and there was some math.

[RiggsIron]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaa....

Yeah maths. As if the exact same players were all on both teams in the exact mechs for all those fights. On the same maps.

My anecdotal evidence of getting opened up by 3-4 LRM boats in 80% of matches challenges your blanket "lrms are weak lol' statement.

And the fact that 95% of matches everyone has to hide under cover because of MASSIVE lrm fire doesnt affect the battle at all right?

...cause they are weak see.

Edited by RiggsIron, 23 November 2014 - 10:22 PM.

[YueFei]

RiggsIron, on 23 November 2014 - 10:17 PM, said:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaa....

Yeah maths. As if the exact same players were all on both teams in the exact mechs for all those fights. On the same maps.

My anecdotal evidence of getting opened up by 3-4 LRM boats in 80% of matches challenges your blanket "lrms are weak lol' statement.

And the fact that 95% of matches everyone has to hide under cover because of MASSIVE lrm fire doesnt affect the battle at all right?

...cause they are weak see.

In any sport, a double-team leaves 1 man open.

If you were being triple or quadruple-teamed by LRM boats, and the rest of your teammates who were "open" as a result did nothing, that's a problem with player timidity, not game balance with LRMs.

[PhoenixFire55]

Only thing you (more or less) proved is that YOU are worse with LRMs than DF.

RiggsIron, on 23 November 2014 - 10:17 PM, said:

As if the exact same players were all on both teams in the exact mechs for all those fights. On the same maps.

If you'd had this then it wouldn't be "more or less", but it'd still be YOU.

[Joseph Mallan]

kazlaton, on 23 November 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

After finishing the challenge, I went back to check out my stats. Since I spent about half the matches in a LRM boat, and the other half in direct fire (lasers and UACs) I figured it would be interesting to compare the stats. These were my stats, your mileage may vary.

total matches 61
LRM matches: 27
LRM matches that qualified: 9
9/27=.3333 = 33.3% percent chance that bringing a LRM boat will result in a qualifying match.
Direct fire matches: 34
DF matches that qualified: 15
15/34=.4411 = 44.1% chace that bringing direct fire will result in a qualifying match.

So that means LRMs are only 75.6% as effective as direct fire. (.3333/.4411=75.56).
And that number would have been lower, but for 11 of those matches I had a dedicated spotter (narc Raven).

Did anyone else do something similar? What were your results?

TL/DR
LRMs are weak, and there was some math.

For you. It means they are that effective for you only. You need samples from at least 24 more people to even set up a baseline to begin from. Then another 100 to get a preliminary feel.

[kazlaton]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 November 2014 - 04:12 AM, said:

For you. It means they are that effective for you only. You need samples from at least 24 more people to even set up a baseline to begin from. Then another 100 to get a preliminary feel.

Of course. That's why I said these are only my stats, and was wondering if anyone else had done something similar.

[kazlaton]

RiggsIron, on 23 November 2014 - 10:17 PM, said:

My anecdotal evidence of getting opened up by 3-4 LRM boats in 80% of matches challenges your blanket "lrms are weak lol' statement.

I'm not trying to be offensive here, but unless you are fighting 80% of your matches on Caustic and Alpine, you just need to learn the cover better. There is cover from LRMs on every map.

[mogs01gt]

kazlaton, on 23 November 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

After finishing the challenge, I went back to check out my stats. Since I spent about half the matches in a LRM boat, and the other half in direct fire (lasers and UACs) I figured it would be interesting to compare the stats. These were my stats, your mileage may vary.
total matches 61
LRM matches: 27
LRM matches that qualified: 9
9/27=.3333 = 33.3% percent chance that bringing a LRM boat will result in a qualifying match.
Direct fire matches: 34
DF matches that qualified: 15
15/34=.4411 = 44.1% chace that bringing direct fire will result in a qualifying match.
So that means LRMs are only 75.6% as effective as direct fire. (.3333/.4411=75.56).
And that number would have been lower, but for 11 of those matches I had a dedicated spotter (narc Raven).
Did anyone else do something similar? What were your results?
TL/DR
LRMs are weak, and there was some math.

I played the two mechs I had a high chance of surviving. My Cicada 3m(2ERLL) and KTO18(LRM5boat). It was difficult securing kills for sure but I had a high win ratio.

Edited by mogs01gt, 24 November 2014 - 06:42 AM.

[kazlaton]

mogs01gt, on 24 November 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

I played the two mechs I had a high chance of surviving. My Cicada 3m(2ERLL) and KTO18(LRM5boat). It was difficult securing kills for sure but I had a high win ratio.

I know what you mean. I did the first half of my direct fire matches with IS mechs, but then switched over to the timberwolf for the extra XL survivability. So which one worked better for you?

[Water Bear]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 November 2014 - 04:12 AM, said:

You need samples from at least 24 more people to even set up a baseline to begin from. Then another 100 to get a preliminary feel.

PGI, like any game dev, does have access to enough data to determine statistical correlation / relevance for these kinds of things. I always wonder if they do.

Anyway you're absolutely right, the OP is only providing anecdotal evidence that tells us only about his performance. I don't understand why every screenshot of a score screen ever posted on this forum doesn't get the same reaction.

[Krivvan]

The majority of more experienced players have already known for quite a while that Direct Fire weapons have a far higher potential than LRMs. Hence why you don't see LRMs in comp matches.

[topgun505]

Right now the new map is rather high in the rotation and that map is rather horrid for LRM use. I suspect that probably scues your results some.

[mogs01gt]

kazlaton, on 24 November 2014 - 07:06 AM, said:

I know what you mean. I did the first half of my direct fire matches with IS mechs, but then switched over to the timberwolf for the extra XL survivability. So which one worked better for you?

The 3M. ECM cover allowed my teams to win. I simply had to play super aggressive to get kills.

[orcrist86]

I played must matches in a thunderwub. Did OK. Last match was a timby

I played must matches in a thunderwub. Did OK. Last match was a timby

[Angel of Annihilation]

kazlaton, on 23 November 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

After finishing the challenge, I went back to check out my stats. Since I spent about half the matches in a LRM boat, and the other half in direct fire (lasers and UACs) I figured it would be interesting to compare the stats. These were my stats, your mileage may vary.

total matches 61
LRM matches: 27
LRM matches that qualified: 9
9/27=.3333 = 33.3% percent chance that bringing a LRM boat will result in a qualifying match.
Direct fire matches: 34
DF matches that qualified: 15
15/34=.4411 = 44.1% chace that bringing direct fire will result in a qualifying match.

So that means LRMs are only 75.6% as effective as direct fire. (.3333/.4411=75.56).
And that number would have been lower, but for 11 of those matches I had a dedicated spotter (narc Raven).

Did anyone else do something similar? What were your results?

TL/DR
LRMs are weak, and there was some math.

This is a weak argument and shows the lack of understanding of LRMs that most people have on top of just being plain wrong.

First to qualify you have to have got a win and survived the match which doesn't really have anything to do with using a LRM boat or not. Rather it mostly depended on your team being able to win or not.

Secondly, where the lack of understanding occurs is that LRMs aren't really designed to kill, rather they are designed to soften up the enemy in order to make them more vulnerable to being killed. The fact you are getting as many direct kills as you are shows how strong LRMs are, not how weak they are.

Prime example, I decided to drop in the Trial Warhawk a few games in preparation for its release on Tuesday and let me just say, LRMs were brutal without the ECM coverage that would normally be there thanks to the BAP upgrade. In one match I specifically remember on Bog, I was rounding one of the large plateaus with the intention of engaging the enemy cowering on the other side of it when suddenly from my flank a single LRM boat, probably an LRM 60 set up by the sheer amount of missiles I had coming in on me in single waves. Obviously I was caught out and had to turn around and get back around the curve of the Plateau in a slow assault so I ended up taking 4 full waves of LRMs before getting into cover. That is about 240 damage give or take and it took me from fresh armor to all orange across my entire Torsos and arms in about 12 seconds and from 800m away, behind cover and beyond any capability of being able to fight back. Needless to say, when I finally did get into direct fire range, I was taken out really fast.

This is the role of LRMs and why the are too strong without a good ECM screen that is now no existent due to the BAP buff.

Edited by Viktor Drake, 24 November 2014 - 09:03 AM.

[Roadkill]

kazlaton, on 23 November 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

total matches 61
LRM matches: 27
LRM matches that qualified: 9
9/27=.3333 = 33.3% percent chance that bringing a LRM boat will result in a qualifying match.
Direct fire matches: 34
DF matches that qualified: 15
15/34=.4411 = 44.1% chace that bringing direct fire will result in a qualifying match.

Total matches: 63
LRM matches: 30
LRM matches that qualified: 14
14/30 = 47%
Direct fire matches: 33
Direct fire matches that qualified: 6
6/33 = 18%

Appears that my results are pretty much exactly the opposite of yours. /shrug

Contrary to popular opinion, LRMs are not "easy mode" and require a significant amount of skill to use well. I happen to be a pretty good LRM support pilot, particularly in a mobile Mech where I can reposition strategically to best support my team.

[Roadkill]

Viktor Drake, on 24 November 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

This is the role of LRMs and why the are too strong without a good ECM screen that is now no existent due to the BAP buff.

Yep, just further proof that the root of all the missile balance issues is that ECM is vastly overpowered.

Before ECM was introduced, missiles were reasonable. Yeah, I know, there were a ton of things going on like hit reg, etc, but they were pretty well balanced.

ECM comes in... missiles are dead. Suck horribly. Completely useless. So they buff missiles (overbuff them horribly at one point), spend a couple of years trying to fine tune the balance, finally get it to a reasonable point again...

... and then they buff BAP. Suddenly, missiles seem too powerful again. But the real problem is the same one that has always been there - ECM is too powerful and completely distorts missile balance. Even a minor tweak to ECM causes wild swings in missile balance

PGI - the problem is and always has been your implementation of ECM, which combines 3 different technologies from the board game.

[BlackHawk K]

i agree with Viktor Drake on this.
Some of the newer maps are not as bad playing vs LRM fire. some of the older maps are terrible because of the lack of cover. in the early Beta days, LRMs had a lot lower arc then they do now. in those days ECM was OP. over time they started putting anti ECM tactics into the game. tag, then the PPC ECM shutdown, then they got NARC working and then, the UAV. while they did those changes they also changed how the arc of the missiles. now the missles come more strait down then they did before. On many of the older maps, good cover is harder to find. now with the new BAP, ECM really dosnt have a lot of protection it once did.

from my game play experience, then pendulum has swung completely the other direction on the ECM vs LRM topic.

you CAN deal with missles, in moderation. but it seems to me you get whole teams who takes them and find a spot you are forced to come from behind cover and just wait. mainly due to boredom most teams will attack. then the missile spam comes.

between the constant missile spam teams, the legging teams, constant arti/air strikes and sniping matches. i know i am starting to find this game very boring. we dont even have the ability to choose what type of map we get, to cater to the play style you want at the time.

i have played mechwarrior games since mechwarrior 2 dos version. and i have to say this is the first time i find myself looking for other games to play besides this one. unfortunately i have a lot of friends who are starting to feel the same way. most of us are just hanging around to see how CW turns out. if its just more the same, will probably just let people go around legging and LRMing each other and find something better.

[Brody319]

61 - 11 = 50. you said you spent 27 in an LRM boat
50 - 27 = 23 in a direct fire mech.

Uneven testing base. Data invalidated.

[kazlaton]

Brody319, on 24 November 2014 - 09:49 AM, said:

61 - 11 = 50. you said you spent 27 in an LRM boat
50 - 27 = 23 in a direct fire mech.

Uneven testing base. Data invalidated.

No, you misunderstood. 34 matches in a direct fire mech. 27 matches in a LRM boat. Of those 27, 11 of those matches had a spotter.