76 replies to this topic

[Roadkill]

Jman5, on 14 July 2015 - 10:11 PM, said:

There is no evidence to suggest that people running lasers or ballistics are more accurate than someone running LRMs. Especially once you get beyond 300 meters.

Sure there is. It's a formula that I use and call Weapon Efficiency. LRMs are notably less efficient than direct fire weapons for most people. And by most I mean probably 90% of all players if not even more.

Weapon Efficiency is a measure of the percentage of potential damage that you actually do per shot fired. If weapons always did full damage when they hit (which none do, not even LRMs) then Weapon Efficiency would be the same as Accuracy. But weapons do reduced damage beyond optimum range, and some weapons (read: lasers) can count a hit even when only doing partial damage.

To compute Weapon Efficiency you first have to compute Damage Efficiency. Damage Efficiency is actual damage divided by potential damage per hit. I.e. (Damage) / (Hits * max weapon damage).

Example: I have 12,125 hits with the IS medium laser. Since the IS medium laser does 5 damage max, that could theoretically do 60,625 damage. But my stats say that I've actually only done 35,501 damage, so my Damage Efficiency is 35501/60625 or 58.56%.

Multiply Damage Efficiency by Accuracy to get Weapon Efficiency. For my IS medium laser, my Accuracy is 86.49% so my Weapon Efficiency is 50.65%.

My best LRM is the Clan LRM-5 by a fairly wide margin. It has a Damage Efficiency of 109,893 / (112,988 * 1) or 97.26%. It has an Accuracy of 48.00% for a Weapon Efficiency of 46.69%. My other LRMs all have accuracies of 40% or lower, with or without Artemis, so their Weapon Efficiencies are correspondingly lower.

Ergo, at least for me, the IS Medium Laser is simply a better weapon than the Clan LRM-5... or any LRM for that matter. I put more damage on target per shot. This is true for all direct fire weapons for me, and I suspect it is true for most people.

LRMs just aren't efficient weapons, and that's not even counting cycle time or weight/slots.

That's not to say that you can't do well with them - you and I are both proof that they can be used well. But to say that there's no proof that they're worse than lasers/ballistics simply isn't true.

[Throat Punch]

Roadkill, on 15 July 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:

Sure there is. It's a formula that I use and call Weapon Efficiency. LRMs are notably less efficient than direct fire weapons for most people. And by most I mean probably 90% of all players if not even more.

Weapon Efficiency is a measure of the percentage of potential damage that you actually do per shot fired. If weapons always did full damage when they hit (which none do, not even LRMs) then Weapon Efficiency would be the same as Accuracy. But weapons do reduced damage beyond optimum range, and some weapons (read: lasers) can count a hit even when only doing partial damage.

To compute Weapon Efficiency you first have to compute Damage Efficiency. Damage Efficiency is actual damage divided by potential damage per hit. I.e. (Damage) / (Hits * max weapon damage).

Example: I have 12,125 hits with the IS medium laser. Since the IS medium laser does 5 damage max, that could theoretically do 60,625 damage. But my stats say that I've actually only done 35,501 damage, so my Damage Efficiency is 35501/60625 or 58.56%.

Multiply Damage Efficiency by Accuracy to get Weapon Efficiency. For my IS medium laser, my Accuracy is 86.49% so my Weapon Efficiency is 50.65%.

My best LRM is the Clan LRM-5 by a fairly wide margin. It has a Damage Efficiency of 109,893 / (112,988 * 1) or 97.26%. It has an Accuracy of 48.00% for a Weapon Efficiency of 46.69%. My other LRMs all have accuracies of 40% or lower, with or without Artemis, so their Weapon Efficiencies are correspondingly lower.

Ergo, at least for me, the IS Medium Laser is simply a better weapon than the Clan LRM-5... or any LRM for that matter. I put more damage on target per shot. This is true for all direct fire weapons for me, and I suspect it is true for most people.

LRMs just aren't efficient weapons, and that's not even counting cycle time or weight/slots.

That's not to say that you can't do well with them - you and I are both proof that they can be used well. But to say that there's no proof that they're worse than lasers/ballistics simply isn't true.

The maths, they are too much! Begone with you heathen maths!

[Mcchuggernaut]

Roadkill, on 15 July 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:

LRMs just aren't efficient weapons, and that's not even counting cycle time or weight/slots.

That's not to say that you can't do well with them - you and I are both proof that they can be used well. But to say that there's no proof that they're worse than lasers/ballistics simply isn't true.

Efficient or not, they are very effective at suppressing the enemy and keeping their heads down if used wisely. I have a Warhawk LRM boat that I am VERY successful with (Granted, it's the best dedicated LRM boat in the game right now.), largely because of the sheer suppression effect I can have on an enemy team. On the right maps with a team that properly locks targets I can put up huge damage, get several kills, and stop enemy pushes cold. One of my favorite tactics is rapidly switching targets from just behind the front lines and launching a salvo at each target in rotation. People hear that missile warning and immediately run for cover, so I can make a bunch of enemy mechs stop shooting and run off to hide very quickly like that.

[Petard]

Mors Draco, on 14 July 2015 - 06:32 PM, said:

OOOooo We are showing off screenshots? Look at this malarkey...1000 damage and NO KILLS. Damn team full of kill stealing hippies I tells ya.

Hippies don't steal kills dude, they are the ones off on their own hugging trees and looking at flowers...."Maaan, I love you, tree, and this flower, Maaaan, look at this flower, look at dem COLOURS maaaaan, AAAAAAWESOME".

Unfortunately, some nights my team seems to be full of hippies, go figure...

[Jman5]

Using your numbers, I compared my LRM 10 Artemis with my ER Large Laser. The LRM 10 comes out to 50.79%, while the ER LL is 53.36%.

So I'm finding it hard to buy the argument that LRMs are these massively inefficient weapons compared to somewhat similar weapons. According to a previous poster he claims that 500 LRM damage is equal to a good player's 150 laser damage. or 3.33 : 1. However my numbers show it's 500 : 476.19 or 1.05 : 1. Practically identical.

Although, according to your formula, that would mean that my LB10x is one of the best weapons in the game.


The point I was trying to make with my statement on accuracy was that there is no evidence to suggest that people with direct fire are overwhelmingly responsible for the damage to the component that kills the opponent compared to LRM players. My experience 1v1ing and in the training ground tells me that if lasers were so efficient I wouldn't be coring them out faster with my LRMs.

[Idealsuspect]

Jman5, on 15 July 2015 - 01:54 PM, said:

Using your numbers, I compared my LRM 10 Artemis with my ER Large Laser. The LRM 10 comes out to 50.79%, while the ER LL is 53.36%.

So I'm finding it hard to buy the argument that LRMs are these massively inefficient weapons compared to somewhat similar weapons. According to a previous poster he claims that 500 LRM damage is equal to a good player's 150 laser damage. or 3.33 : 1. However my numbers show it's 500 : 476.19 or 1.05 : 1. Practically identical.

Although, according to your formula, that would mean that my LB10x is one of the best weapons in the game.


The point I was trying to make with my statement on accuracy was that there is no evidence to suggest that people with direct fire are overwhelmingly responsible for the damage to the component that kills the opponent compared to LRM players. My experience 1v1ing and in the training ground tells me that if lasers were so efficient I wouldn't be coring them out faster with my LRMs.

Pinpoint ....
You can headshot with lrms at 800 meters? Even at 200 meters maybe ?

Most of people playing lrms boat need 500 damage score in their whole match for get one kill if they are lucky .. Some people have better ping/lag setting which should help with get the kill but isn't due of skills or time you launch your missile ( what about lrms velocity? even AC20 are fast like lightspeed compared to lrms ).

For duel session i am ok i play usually on europa timezone morning.
When i play north america evening timezone ping are horrible like i should even give 600 damage and get 2 kills ( sometimes less ) when on my timezone i will get 5 kills for 600 damage ( yep sometime i stole and sometime others stole ) and with lrms it's worst but isn't due of lack of " skill "...

Well just respond to this which comp team use lrms .? Did lrms work on CW ... ? no thats a fact and there is reasons for.

Edited by Idealsuspect, 15 July 2015 - 03:37 PM.

[PurpleNinja]

No one here really knows how MM works, so your Dragon is just an aberration in a sea of pugs.

[Roadkill]

Jman5, on 15 July 2015 - 01:54 PM, said:

Using your numbers, I compared my LRM 10 Artemis with my ER Large Laser. The LRM 10 comes out to 50.79%, while the ER LL is 53.36%.

So I'm finding it hard to buy the argument that LRMs are these massively inefficient weapons compared to somewhat similar weapons. According to a previous poster he claims that 500 LRM damage is equal to a good player's 150 laser damage. or 3.33 : 1. However my numbers show it's 500 : 476.19 or 1.05 : 1. Practically identical.

You're right in that respect - while LRMs are inefficient, they're not as bad as a lot of people try to make them out to be. I haven't bothered to do all of my weapons, but I suspect that LRMs are the least efficient. But if it's just 50% to 46% that's not THAT bad.

In my case I did compare my worst direct fire (IS ML) with my best LRM. Most of my direct fire approaches/exceeds 60% WE while the rest of my LRMs (including Artemis) are all below 40% WE.

Quote

Although, according to your formula, that would mean that my LB10x is one of the best weapons in the game.

You must be a lot better with your LBX-10 than I am. Mine's 57.93% efficient. That's not all that great compared to some of my other direct fire weapons, though, but it does imply that it's better than lasers. (My AC/10 is 60.28% just as one example.) Of course that's not counting weight and crit slots and ammo, etc.

Quote

The point I was trying to make with my statement on accuracy was that there is no evidence to suggest that people with direct fire are overwhelmingly responsible for the damage to the component that kills the opponent compared to LRM players. My experience 1v1ing and in the training ground tells me that if lasers were so efficient I wouldn't be coring them out faster with my LRMs.

I suspect this is both true and not true at the same time for different people. People who can aim and who use heat efficient builds are likely far more effective with direct fire than with missiles. People who can't aim and/or can't make a heat efficient laser vomit build are probably more effective with a missile boat despite the fact that they're theoretically less efficient in that Mech.

You're coring out static targets with missiles faster because they're static targets. Your aim with lasers is affected by your movement, but the target isn't moving so the missiles don't spread as much as they should for a realistic comparison.

[Moomtazz]

JMan5, I've dropped with and against you many times and I know you are a solid player with all weapons. You're certainly not the type of no-skill LRMboat player I enjoy deriding. However it seems like you do significantly better with LRMs in the quirked 4J than the Warhawk. Do you think the 4J quirks are giving a false sense of LRM effectiveness?

[Jman5]

Idealsuspect, on 15 July 2015 - 03:35 PM, said:

Pinpoint ....
You can headshot with lrms at 800 meters? Even at 200 meters maybe ?

Most of people playing lrms boat need 500 damage score in their whole match for get one kill if they are lucky .. Some people have better ping/lag setting which should help with get the kill but isn't due of skills or time you launch your missile ( velocity even AC20 are fast like gauss compared to lrms ).

For duel session i am ok i play usually on europa timezone morning.
When i play north america evening timezone ping are horrible like i should give 600 damage and get 2 kills ( sometimes less ) when on my timezone i will get 5 kills and with lrms it's worst but isn't due of lack of " skill "...

Well just respond to this which comp team use lrms .? Did lrms work on CW ... ? no thats a fact and there is reasons for.

I'm on right now. I saw you on, but when I came back from dinner you were off. I'll be messing around for another hour or so if you want to get on. If ping is a problem for you, I have the PTR patched and can play there. I know private lobbies work, but I'm not sure if it connects to Euro or US servers.

Quote

Well just respond to this which comp team use lrms .? Did lrms work on CW ... ? no thats a fact and there is reasons for.

I'm in QQ Mercs so mine does. We ended our Major League Mechwarrior season in 5th place with me using LRMs. And for the record I do bring LRMs to CW and do very well with them.

[Telmasa]

Jman5, on 15 July 2015 - 01:54 PM, said:

Using your numbers, I compared my LRM 10 Artemis with my ER Large Laser. The LRM 10 comes out to 50.79%, while the ER LL is 53.36%.

So I'm finding it hard to buy the argument that LRMs are these massively inefficient weapons compared to somewhat similar weapons. According to a previous poster he claims that 500 LRM damage is equal to a good player's 150 laser damage. or 3.33 : 1. However my numbers show it's 500 : 476.19 or 1.05 : 1. Practically identical.

Although, according to your formula, that would mean that my LB10x is one of the best weapons in the game.

The point I was trying to make with my statement on accuracy was that there is no evidence to suggest that people with direct fire are overwhelmingly responsible for the damage to the component that kills the opponent compared to LRM players. My experience 1v1ing and in the training ground tells me that if lasers were so efficient I wouldn't be coring them out faster with my LRMs.

I just have to chime in here - how would your LRM10A numbers hold up without all the time you've spent in the quirked-up Hunchback-4J, I wonder...?

edit: Moomtazz already said it, d'oh lol

Edited by Telmasa, 15 July 2015 - 04:17 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Roadkill, on 15 July 2015 - 10:26 AM, said:

Not at all. Elo is a mathematically proven ranking system. It can work equally well in 1-vs-1 games and multiplayer games, but that depends on how it is used.

Elo is not a flawed system. The way that PGI is using Elo is flawed. Sorry to be pedantic about it , but that's an important distinction.

You took the first part of what I said and ignored the rest of the sentence. Elo is flawed when it's used to rank an individual based upon a TEAM'S performance, and that is true, because Elo isn't designed to work that way. Pure individual rankings, it can do, team ranking, it can do, but to rank an individual based on the team's performance, it can't do. I know how it works, this isn't the first video game to use it, and it's always a problem for team games where individuals are ranked based on the team's performance, because it doesn't work for that.

Roadkill, on 15 July 2015 - 10:33 AM, said:

Screenshot or it didn't happen. ;-)

I had a game like that once. 700+ damage, 3 kills (no other kills on team), the rest of my lance and all of Bravo had less than 100 damage. Charlie had 2 in the 125-150 range and 2 just over 200. Roughly 1200 damage total from the rest of the team.

I thought I'd out-damaged the rest of the team, but when I actually added it up it wasn't even close. I'd really need a screenshot to believe that an entire team did < 500 damage... that's < 50 damage each and as much as we like to rant about it, < 50 damage really doesn't happen all that often not counting disconnects/afks.

Oh, it happened, I thought I was reading things wrong at first, but no, we had 6 people with 0 damage, the rest did not much better. 1 Disconnect, but the rest of them...I honestly don't know how it happened but it happened. Others have seen the same thing before, this isn't something new OR all that rare, sadly. F2P games do tend to get the lowest skilled online game players in droves, that's something I learned years ago playing them, that's something anyone who's played F2P games for a while can attest to I've literally seen players in the tutorial areas who couldn't figure out how to move their character around, and to get to that tutorial area, you had to move your character through a few areas first, areas that taught you how to move no less. The average player in most F2P games wouldn't have ever played games outside of Spade or Farmville, they know they aren't capable, so they'd never spend money to buy them, but F2P....ah...no money needed, so they play them. True, most of them don't stick around long, thank the gods, but some do and they never get much better, they simply do not have the dexterity and eye hand coordination to get better. Natural selection USED to weed those types out, not anymore, so there are more and more of them every day....scary thought huh?

[Xoco]

It's the same for every game until they have enough players.

If you measure skill in number, let's say you're a 90.
The ideal case is you're popped into a game where everyone are 90s.

Without enough players, another possibility is to create two teams with average skill of 50s.
Which mean you (90) + another player (10) /2 = 50 = , while the other team could be 2x50.
The two 50s would quickly overwhelm the 10, then gang up on you. Once it's 2v1, even superior skill can't save you too much.

[Jman5]

Moomtazz, on 15 July 2015 - 04:00 PM, said:

JMan5, I've dropped with and against you many times and I know you are a solid player with all weapons. You're certainly not the type of no-skill LRMboat player I enjoy deriding. However it seems like you do significantly better with LRMs in the quirked 4J than the Warhawk. Do you think the 4J quirks are giving a false sense of LRM effectiveness?

That's the main reason I have been playing the warhawk and direwolf. To judge whether or not LRMs are viable without Quirks or even without boating.

Also I feel the need to defend my warhawk's honor. My average damage is practically identical to my hunchback 4J's. And I have much more practice with the latter.

[Idealsuspect]

Jman5, on 15 July 2015 - 05:02 PM, said:

That's the main reason I have been playing the warhawk and direwolf. To judge whether or not LRMs are viable without Quirks or even without boating.

Also I feel the need to defend my warhawk's honor. My average damage is practically identical to my hunchback 4J's. And I have much more practice with the latter.

Direwolf can't be consider as a real lrms boat, this thing carry more laser than lrms.... a dire wolf should be an AC boat even a gauss boat but it can't carry more than 2 missiles point also a lrms boat ( or streak/srms boat ... its abusive word for this mech )...
I guess nobody will call the jenner 2K " lrms boat " with one missile hardpoint but an oxide should be a lrms boat or srms boat of course.
I have a adder lrms boat, stormcrown lrms boat for exemple lrms dedicated task.

In fact i am pretty sure you can't prove anything without using the overquirked 4J.

Jman5, on 15 July 2015 - 04:03 PM, said:

I'm on right now. I saw you on, but when I came back from dinner you were off. I'll be messing around for another hour or so if you want to get on. If ping is a problem for you, I have the PTR patched and can play there. I know private lobbies work, but I'm not sure if it connects to Euro or US servers.

Ping is always a problem when you don't use auto-aiming weapons well i havent DL Public Test Release and will not spent hours and time into download it for a duel we all know the obvious result
But don't worry we play this game since years we will find a hour for do this soon...

[Roadkill]

Kristov Kerensky, on 15 July 2015 - 04:27 PM, said:

You took the first part of what I said and ignored the rest of the sentence. Elo is flawed when it's used to rank an individual based upon a TEAM'S performance, and that is true, because Elo isn't designed to work that way. Pure individual rankings, it can do, team ranking, it can do, but to rank an individual based on the team's performance, it can't do. I know how it works, this isn't the first video game to use it, and it's always a problem for team games where individuals are ranked based on the team's performance, because it doesn't work for that.

It's just math. Elo works fine for rating an individual based upon a team's performance, but it takes longer for the ratings to settle down. After a couple of years and several thousand games, my Elo rating even in a team environment should be very accurate. Should be.

But that assumes that it's being given proper data to work with. The problem in MWO is that the Matchmaker tries to make balanced matches, which means that Elo isn't being given a chance to work properly. If every game is essentially a 50-50 coin flip, your Elo rating isn't being given the chance to settle down.

[Roadkill]

Jman5, on 15 July 2015 - 05:02 PM, said:

Also I feel the need to defend my warhawk's honor. My average damage is practically identical to my hunchback 4J's. And I have much more practice with the latter.

I can vouch for Jman's Warhawk. I would argue that it's actually slightly more lethal than his 4J, but then you'd expect that from an 85-ton Mech compared to a 50-ton Mech, even when that 50-ton Mech is crazily overquirked.