271 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

PhoenixFire55, on 29 March 2017 - 11:51 PM, said:

Look, you are once again missing the entire point. Of course you win against LRM teams because you never face good teams with LRM simply due to the fact there is exactly one map (maybe two) where LRMs work. No good team brings LRMs on a constant basis because of that. Once again as I've already said if all drops of RHoD/MRBC were on Polar or similar maps with no cover you'd probably see a different picture.

Not even PPC heavy. We roll LRM teams on Polar and Alpine every single day in brawl decks on Polar/Alpine. Every good team does, on every single map.

If all drops were on Alpine and Polar, in comp or FW or whatever, LRM teams would still lose to direct fire teams. Why don't you prove that's not the caee. There were over 40 recorded matches on Alpine/Polar for last season I could find, there are certainly more. Apparently you saw 2 and Ghogiel confirmed a troll match with one.

Burden of proof is yours. Take a good team and top leaderboards in FW or take it to MRBC and win all the heavy drops on Alpine/Polar with LRMs, for a couple of consecutive seasons. I don't mean as a surprise one-off, I mean go into it with LRMs every time on those maps like it's the optimal or even competitive meta.

Because that's never happened successfully and it doesn't happen successfully against good teams even in FW or group queue.

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 29 March 2017 - 04:25 PM, said:

No, no I am not. A pop tart can fire in a manner that it is difficult or impossible to fire back. It is that simple. While no one is saying that they do it the same, both can effectively fire behind cover.

I am also baffled why you are bringing up 'hypothetical LRMer that hugs cover all match'. You seem to have a strong predilection towards assumption and reading into what people say. Whether either player would hide behind anything for an entire match is irrelevant. Not part of the conversation at all. It was a simple and direct statement between two people about one particular function. That's it.

Again I don't know after our previous interactions why you are engaging me at all, as I really have very little tolerance for you. Again this is not going to be an exchange of ideas or discussion. I only do that with people I respect and for the most part people who are able to make a point, stay on topic, not get insulting, and especially not read into or assume a bunch of things not related. I actually think you accused me before of obfuscating. Anyways knock it off. Go your own way. Had enough of this kind of nonsense with another guy on here and do not want to continue.

Whoops I didn't read who posted before I replied. Had I noticed I wouldn't of bothered because I already know that you can not be wrong and your opinion is scripture.

I didn't realize it was MacCleary the all powerful and most wise of all.







Now...onto my point in as clearly as can be made. for the comprehension impared.

Poptarting in this context refers to a tactic used to employ a weapon system. It is not in and of it's self a weapon system. A tactic is by it's very nature limited in it's scope.

LRMs are a weapon system and as such can be employed under a variety of circumstances and used with a variety of tactics.(Including poptarting I may add)

The hard limitation of poptarting (using PPFLD weapons) is the area of projected threat is realivley narrow (limited by the field of view of the firing mech) The poptart also needs a flat unobstructed fire line to the intended targets.

This is a simple and well know fact. Poptarting will not work unless you have a target in range that can be hit by firing directly at it. And as such the area of projected threat is limited by these factors. It is much easier to evade the area of influance of a poptart than an LRM carrier (under neutral circumstances)

Conversely the LRM support mech has a projected area of threat not limited by the requirements of direct line of sight or an unobstructed flat trajectory. The limitations are range and lock aquisition. The area of influance projected by the LRM carrier is significantly larger than a PPC poptart for example. As is the volume of fire potential (this is based on specific builds and weapon payloads) For example a 2 PPC poptart can fire one salvo every 4 seconds under optimal circumstances.This tends to be actually in the area of 6 to 8 seconds due to timing the jump landing and relaunching. While the LRM carrier can fire on every cooldown as long as a lock is available so absolutely ever 3.25 to 4 seconds depending on launcher type.

So if we were to compare say a 5x LRM5 Kintaro with a 2 ER-PPC shadowcat poptart I would put money down on the KTO dishing more damage on available targets during a set time frame of say 33 seconds.

LRM DPS 1.54 per launcher (5 launchers) = 7.7 DPS x 10 (number of total volleys fired in timeframe) total damage inflicted will be around 200-250 dmg (accounting for missed projectiles)

C-ER-PPC 3.75 per PPC (2 PPC) - 7.5 DPS x 8 (number of total volleys fired in time frame) Total damage inflicted will be around 200-240 dmg (accounting for missed splash dmg)

Now this is assuming the poptart can fire every 4 seconds (cooldown of PPC) it can't and that it will not overheat in about 16 seconds of continuous fire (it will)

While the KTO will be able to fire on a locked target every cooldown so it can and will and also takes over one minute and seventeen seconds to overheat!

So in actual conditions using jump times and heat build the KTO will probably come close to it's max damage potential of 200-250 while the Shadowcat will probably fall to around 65-90 dmg (can't shoot continuously and will overheat splash damage, misses sometimes)

So I guess the question is do you want 65-90 pinpoint damage or 200-250 damage with dispersal?

If MacCleary is still reading you can check the math but why let something like facts get in the way of your word is law policies?



Oh and to address the very weird "hypothetical LRM" thing... I'm getting accused of making an assumption that the LRM boat was in fact using cover in order to draw a simularity between the hypothetical poptart and an LRM mech.

If MacCleary didn't mean for this to be taken as an assumption I am at a total loss as to why he would make a compareson between the two. One is a tactic the other a weapon system you apllied tactics to.

So if the LRM mech isn't turtling in cover and the poptart is using a tactic to maximize cover use then what was the whole post MacCleary?

Seriously can you explain how you made a compareson without the assumption in context being true? If you did indeed mean that the poptart was to be compared to any LRM boat executing any tactic then how about we compare the simularities betwwen

the color yellow
And
10th century infantry tactics

clearly the color yellow is better right?

Edited by Lykaon, 30 March 2017 - 05:47 PM.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 30 March 2017 - 05:42 PM, said:

Whoops I didn't read who posted before I replied. Had I noticed I wouldn't of bothered because I already know that you can not be wrong and your opinion is scripture.

I didn't realize it was MacCleary the all powerful and most wise of all.







Now...onto my point in as clearly as can be made. for the comprehension impared.

Poptarting in this context refers to a tactic used to employ a weapon system. It is not in and of it's self a weapon system. A tactic is by it's very nature limited in it's scope.

LRMs are a weapon system and as such can be employed under a variety of circumstances and used with a variety of tactics.(Including poptarting I may add)

The hard limitation of poptarting (using PPFLD weapons) is the area of projected threat is realivley narrow (limited by the field of view of the firing mech) The poptart also needs a flat unobstructed fire line to the intended targets.

This is a simple and well know fact. Poptarting will not work unless you have a target in range that can be hit by firing directly at it. And as such the area of projected threat is limited by these factors. It is much easier to evade the area of influance of a poptart than an LRM carrier (under neutral circumstances)

Conversely the LRM support mech has a projected area of threat not limited by the requirements of direct line of sight or an unobstructed flat trajectory. The limitations are range and lock aquisition. The area of influance projected by the LRM carrier is significantly larger than a PPC poptart for example. As is the volume of fire potential (this is based on specific builds and weapon payloads) For example a 2 PPC poptart can fire one salvo every 4 seconds under optimal circumstances.This tends to be actually in the area of 6 to 8 seconds due to timing the jump landing and relaunching. While the LRM carrier can fire on every cooldown as long as a lock is available so absolutely ever 3.25 to 4 seconds depending on launcher type.

So if we were to compare say a 5x LRM5 Kintaro with a 2 ER-PPC shadowcat poptart I would put money down on the KTO dishing more damage on available targets during a set time frame of say 33 seconds.

LRM DPS 1.54 per launcher (5 launchers) = 7.7 DPS x 10 (number of total volleys fired in timeframe) total damage inflicted will be around 200-250 dmg (accounting for missed projectiles)

C-ER-PPC 3.75 per PPC (2 PPC) - 7.5 DPS x 8 (number of total volleys fired in time frame) Total damage inflicted will be around 200-240 dmg (accounting for missed splash dmg)

Now this is assuming the poptart can fire every 4 seconds (cooldown of PPC) it can't and that it will not overheat in about 16 seconds of continuous fire (it will)

While the KTO will be able to fire on a locked target every cooldown so it can and will and also takes over one minute and seventeen seconds to overheat!

So in actual conditions using jump times and heat build the KTO will probably come close to it's max damage potential of 200-250 while the Shadowcat will probably fall to around 65-90 dmg (can't shoot continuously and will overheat splash damage, misses sometimes)

So I guess the question is do you want 65-90 pinpoint damage or 200-250 damage with dispersal?

If MacCleary is still reading you can check the math but why let something like facts get in the way of your word is law policies?



Oh and to address the very weird "hypothetical LRM" thing... I'm getting accused of making an assumption that the LRM boat was in fact using cover in order to draw a simularity between the hypothetical poptart and an LRM mech.

If MacCleary didn't mean for this to be taken as an assumption I am at a total loss as to why he would make a compareson between the two. One is a tactic the other a weapon system you apllied tactics to.

So if the LRM mech isn't turtling in cover and the poptart is using a tactic to maximize cover use then what was the whole post MacCleary?

Seriously can you explain how you made a compareson without the assumption in context being true? If you did indeed mean that the poptart was to be compared to any LRM boat executing any tactic then how about we compare the simularities betwwen

the color yellow
And
10th century infantry tactics

clearly the color yellow is better right?

Funny how you mention comprehension but continue to read what is not there. Nothing to do with my being right or thinking my position is unassailable. You jumped into a conversation and went off topic. It is difficult to try and respond to erroneous assumptions and unpleasant when on top of that the person is insulting. I expect at some point you will stop trying to engage me as I won't play your game but for now you seem to be stuck trying to push an agenda and poorly arranged argument.

Edit: To help you with what exactly you are struggling to understand as far as your assumption, to be incredibly clear for you to follow. One guy said lrms can fire behind cover. I said a good pop tart can effectively do the same thing. That's it. Since you are not getting it or not able to accept that the conversation doesn't make sense with you insisting on the right to assume....well anyways, it has absolutely nothing to do with either style hiding and only firing behind cover. That was not mentioned. That wasn't the point. It did not apply to the conversation.

Then you go onto talk about dps....oh gees. Not on topic. Am sorry you are struggling with this and that you can't stop yourself. Sorry that no one is going where you want the conversation to go and you are effectively typing it to no one. Now I could pick apart everything you said piece by piece but you are an evangelist and everything you have said has been smashed down so thoroughly in so many other threads that it would be pointless. You clearly have a very poor grasp on this game by what you are continuing to try and insert into conversations. How would anyone get through to someone who is arguing that lurms are in fact better than the meta.... Nope I can't see you ever gaining understanding if you have gone this long without being able to pick up on it.

Edited by MacClearly, 30 March 2017 - 06:49 PM.

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 30 March 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

Funny how you mention comprehension but continue to read what is not there. Nothing to do with my being right or thinking my position is unassailable. You jumped into a conversation and went off topic. It is difficult to try and respond to erroneous assumptions and unpleasant when on top of that the person is insulting. I expect at some point you will stop trying to engage me as I won't play your game but for now you seem to be stuck trying to push an agenda and poorly arranged argument.

Edit: To help you with what exactly you are struggling to understand as far as your assumption, to be incredibly clear for you to follow. One guy said lrms can fire behind cover. I said a good pop tart can effectively do the same thing. That's it. Since you are not getting it or not able to accept that the conversation doesn't make sense with you insisting on the right to assume....well anyways, it has absolutely nothing to do with either style hiding and only firing behind cover. That was not mentioned. That wasn't the point. It did not apply to the conversation.

Then you go onto talk about dps....oh gees. Not on topic. Am sorry you are struggling with this and that you can't stop yourself. Sorry that no one is going where you want the conversation to go and you are effectively typing it to no one. Now I could pick apart everything you said piece by piece but you are an evangelist and everything you have said has been smashed down so thoroughly in so many other threads that it would be pointless. You clearly have a very poor grasp on this game by what you are continuing to try and insert into conversations. How would anyone get through to someone who is arguing that lurms are in fact better than the meta.... Nope I can't see you ever gaining understanding if you have gone this long without being able to pick up on it.

So you did mean to compare a LRM boat that is firing indirectly and using cover and a poptart? so I was correct in my assumption?

Now I'm confused as to why you needed to attack my assumption of your compareson if as you have now clearified I was correct.

See you make no sense I assumed this was what you meant then you attack my assumptions...for um...being correct?

Unless I'm wrong again and I am not taking into account what you meant and not what you just said. Your lack of consistantcy is puzzling and I'm sure it's not just me.

Seems I get attacked for being wrong and being correct ? or is it that at this point you are just attacking my posts without any rhyme or reason to it?

As to going off topic you made a claim that a poptart (nonspecified build) would do better than an LRM boat (non specified build and no specified tactic but I assummed you meant firing indirectly from cover).

So since the topic YOU put forth was about damage output (this vs that) I fail to see how it's not on topic. Can you explain to the rest of the class how defining and detailing damage outputs of actual examples is not on topic? I would love to see how you can explain how poptart vs LRM boat in the context you implied was not about damage? Or are you so bad at explaining yourself that you didn't even mean to compare the two as they pertain to dealing damage and maybe you meant the pretty painjobs or the PPC sparkles or something?

I then threw out some numbers based upon actual builds in use. (5x LRM 5 Kintaro vs 2 ER-PPC Shadowcat) By comparing DPS of the weapon systems and referencing cooldown timers and heat efficencies I proved you were in fact lacking in factual confirmation of your claim.

Since I set forth a scenarie where both mechs had similar circumstances. Both had viable targets that could be hit and both mechs had a 33 second time period to execute attacks in.

My estimates (based on actual weapon performances and not just my opinion) indicate that the Shadowcat "poptart" would deal less than one half the damage of a the Kintaro LRM carrier.

Now I didn't make up the weapon DPS scales or cooldowns or heat efficiency I used the actual values of actual weapons (not just my opinion like some people) The math has your argument lacking in factual backup.

So unless your argument was that less than 50% of a potential damage output was preferable to the full potential damage output your argument is flawed.

Please point out ONE time you smashed anything down? I am going to have to call B.S. on this because one of the utterly perposterous things you claim is you can create a coherent argument.

You havn't doe this yet from what I have seen. A typical exchange with you goes down like this

MacClearly makes a baseless claim without any point of fact or substantiated data.

Someone disagrees and counters with some data.

MacCleary fall back to ad hominem attacks or strawman tactics. Stil lfailing to provide any substantiated data to support his argument.

Someone points out his lack of data or his failure to support an argument but instead spew vitiol and attacks and...

MacCleary does some more ad hominem or strtawman and still fails to support an argument


Sort of like you just did just now.

You are pretty much the worst at arguing a point that I have seen in a very very long time and I work in a nightclub and routinely have to argue with people who are litterally falling down drunk...yet somehow they can seem to occationally make a substantiated point you however are a failure at supporting an argument with anything but insults deflections and outright delusions.

Prove to me /us that your poptart vs LRM boat has any basis in reality give some numbers maybe some specific builds something other than MacCleary thinks so so believe or else he will be mean to you.

Edited by Lykaon, 31 March 2017 - 12:42 AM.

[Lykaon]

MischiefSC, on 30 March 2017 - 04:06 PM, said:

Not even PPC heavy. We roll LRM teams on Polar and Alpine every single day in brawl decks on Polar/Alpine. Every good team does, on every single map.

If all drops were on Alpine and Polar, in comp or FW or whatever, LRM teams would still lose to direct fire teams. Why don't you prove that's not the caee. There were over 40 recorded matches on Alpine/Polar for last season I could find, there are certainly more. Apparently you saw 2 and Ghogiel confirmed a troll match with one.

Burden of proof is yours. Take a good team and top leaderboards in FW or take it to MRBC and win all the heavy drops on Alpine/Polar with LRMs, for a couple of consecutive seasons. I don't mean as a surprise one-off, I mean go into it with LRMs every time on those maps like it's the optimal or even competitive meta.

Because that's never happened successfully and it doesn't happen successfully against good teams even in FW or group queue.

An entire team of LRMs is pretty much like a military deploying only mortor teams. It's just not flexable enough to handle many circumstances. The inherent weaknesses with LRMs are far to easilyi exploited to count on them for the entirety of your strategy.

But on a side note, about a year or so ago I was on a 12 man group and we were getting a bit bored and a bit intoxicated so we decided it's LURM time. so 9 mechs built as LRM carriers and 3 Raven 3Ls with NARC/TAG.

We played if I recall 10 games and every one was a hilarious and easy victory except one. We ran across a very good close quarters team.What had been a string of 12-2 12-0 matches was ended with a 12-8 outbrawled on Alpine Peaks.

We had at the time the optimal map (no Polar then) we had practice in the previous matches utterly crushing other 12 man teams and then these brawlers show up and we hadn't the flexability to deal with them.

Edited by Lykaon, 31 March 2017 - 01:03 AM.

[MacClearly]

@Lykaon;

Since you are really struggling I will try to help using a different format.


So you did mean to compare a LRM boat that is firing indirectly and using cover and a poptart? so I was correct in my assumption?

No. Not that the above statement is wrong it is the previous hypothetical you brought up about a lurmer hiding all match. It has become confused along the way I guess as you are trying to engage with weak arguments, someone who won't engage you.

Now I'm confused as to why you needed to attack my assumption of your compareson if as you have now clearified I was correct.

So this one is tricky because I can't make the blind see.... I get that you are confused though as you have tried to carry on some sort of interaction with someone unwilling to engage you or take your wrong and pointless arguments where you want them to go. Quite simply you wrote a wall of text, which included a hypothetical, that was unrelated to the point. That point being that the lurmer could fire from cover and a poptart had a similar ability to not take return fire. You either agree with this, or disagree. Yet you went into behaviour and then erroneous argument about effectiveness. This was especially revealing as anyone thinking that the lurmer is actually more effective than the meta poptart, does not understand the game or is unfamiliar with it.

See you make no sense I assumed this was what you meant then you attack my assumptions...for um...being correct?

No. I have always objected to you assuming things. You also repeatedly ignore that you went into an unrelated scenerio and the attack was about your assumption about behaviour. You don't get that the conversation you interjected on was simply about mechanics. Again it seems you want to lead the conversation to be about which is more effective. I have refused to do so with you. Have also made it clear that you should not try and engage with me because I am not going to play your game, but you seem to be impervious to that.

Unless I'm wrong again and I am not taking into account what you meant and not what you just said. Your lack of consistantcy is puzzling and I'm sure it's not just me.

Yes it is you. When things have not gone your way in a conversation you have been insulting. I have consistently said I don't want to engage you because of it and I have consistently ignored your faulty logic and poorly laid out arguments to remind you that you are basically arguing with yourself. I am sorry you are puzzled, but I don't know how to be more clear about not wasting my time with your arguments.

Seems I get attacked for being wrong and being correct ? or is it that at this point you are just attacking my posts without any rhyme or reason to it?

No that is not correct. You are not being attacked at all. You are being told to go away. While it is sort of interesting that you feel 'your posts' are under fire, you forget that you interjected on a conversaton and tried to engage with someone who outright and in plain english said that they did not want to interact with you. The reason has been spelled out to you numerous times yet you glaze over it. Again to reiterate for you, you have been insulting and unpleasant to try and have any dialogue with. You make foolish assumptions and poorly thought out arguments and become unpleasant when this is brought up.

As to going off topic you made a claim that a poptart (nonspecified build) would do better than an LRM boat (non specified build and no specified tactic but I assummed you meant firing indirectly from cover).

Oh. I see, you still think that your in a bubble made up scenerio is somehow applicable. It's not. I made a comparision about firing behind cover. I said that a poptart with pinpoint damage is more effective. The effectiveness isn't up for debate, especially with you. Builds are irrelevent as well as specific scenerios. No tactic or build needed to be specified. Hard to see why you don't get that and why you insist instead on assuming, but I don't really want to deal with you so it really doesn't matter.

So since the topic YOU put forth was about damage output (this vs that) I fail to see how it's not on topic. Can you explain to the rest of the class how defining and detailing damage outputs of actual examples is not on topic? I would love to see how you can explain how poptart vs LRM boat in the context you implied was not about damage? Or are you so bad at explaining yourself that you didn't even mean to compare the two as they pertain to dealing damage and maybe you meant the pretty painjobs or the PPC sparkles or something?

Oh I am begining to understand why you are failing to see but it is hardly relevant. To be clear, you interjected on a converstion not directed at you. You did so with someone who outright said they want no interaction with you. Then you made up a scenerio and threw in unrelated assumptions about behaviour and what not. Now you seem to be struggling with my not engaging you in the debate you want to have. If you can't understand and need to convolute my simple and direct statement to someone else, I can' (won't) help you.

I then threw out some numbers based upon actual builds in use. (5x LRM 5 Kintaro vs 2 ER-PPC Shadowcat) By comparing DPS of the weapon systems and referencing cooldown timers and heat efficencies I proved you were in fact lacking in factual confirmation of your claim.

Yes that was part of your argument. It also included a bunch of assumptions. It is laughable that you actually are deluded enough to think that you proved anything by the very hokey and outright silly scenerio. Of coarse I am not going to argue with someone who thinks a lurming Kintaro will out perform Shadow Cat in their created little perfect world scenerio, where the Kintaro is actually able to land it's shots. So much of what you said would have to occur in a vacuum against a stationary target. It's a joke. It is even more hilarious that you took something as simple as a poptart being able to fire without taking damage, and that PPFLD is more effective to being disproved by your outright assinine story.

Since I set forth a scenarie where both mechs had similar circumstances. Both had viable targets that could be hit and both mechs had a 33 second time period to execute attacks in.

My estimates (based on actual weapon performances and not just my opinion) indicate that the Shadowcat "poptart" would deal less than one half the damage of a the Kintaro LRM carrier.

Sure it would. That is why all of the top players are using lrm Kintaro's in the garbage dps build you specified.

Now I didn't make up the weapon DPS scales or cooldowns or heat efficiency I used the actual values of actual weapons (not just my opinion like some people) The math has your argument lacking in factual backup.

No my argument stands. Poptarts can pop up, and fire, and not take damage. PPFLD, is a more effective way to kill. You can try and go on with a goofy argument against this, but you are arguing against the meta, and against what can be seen in MRBC or even FW. This is the problem when you assume and when you invent silly scenerios that would have to occur in a vacuum. Not sure who would argue with that the meta is wrong and you are correct.

So unless your argument was that less than 50% of a potential damage output was preferable to the full potential damage output your argument is flawed.

You lack the capacity or understanding to declare my argument wrong. Your silly made up scenerio assumes too many things. You are also arguing that lurming is better or more effective than PPFLD which is currently the meta. The evidence is everywhere that you have no point.

Please point out ONE time you smashed anything down? I am going to have to call B.S. on this because one of the utterly perposterous things you claim is you can create a coherent argument.

I have repeatedly smashed down you penchance for assumption. Mostly I have not engaged or attacked you ridiculous scenerio as it was irrelevant. Again though, lurms are not supperior to the meta. The smashing comment if you reread it, also refer not specifically to me smashing down a specific argument. It is a reference to the fact that there are many threads about the effectiveness of PPFLD and the ineffectiveness of lurms. There really is no one arguing that lurming is better or more effective than PPFLD. Common knowledge in fact, that lurms are one of the worst weapons and PPFLD is the meta. Go ahead and try and argue against that, it just won't be with me as I have no time for that debate or the flat earth debate which is in the same kind of ballpark.

You havn't doe this yet from what I have seen. A typical exchange with you goes down like this

MacClearly makes a baseless claim without any point of fact or substantiated data.

Someone disagrees and counters with some data.

That is quite the stretch you have tried to make. So lets review. I said that a poptart who does it correctly can, fire while not taking damage. Just as a lurm boat can. I also said that PPFLD is more effective than the damage of lurms. That is simply an accepted statement of fact accepted by pretty much everyone. Hence it being the meta. More evidence of PPFLD effectiveness and lurms ineffectiveness can be seen by watching recordings of high level MRBC or the previous WC. Also evident is the lack of lrms. Now what you countered with was some data mixed into a foolish scenerio ripe with assumptions.

MacCleary fall back to ad hominem attacks or strawman tactics. Stil lfailing to provide any substantiated data to support his argument.

You still seem to be repeatedly glazing over that you were in fact the one who was insulting and that the converstion was not with you. Also I have repeatedly told you that I would not play your game and why and you still insist on trying to argue and do so extremely poorly. Rife with assumptions and ridiculous scenerios. Poptarting and PPFLD effectiveness do not need supporting evidence. It is substantiated all over the place. Trying to argue that lurms are in fact better is just stupid. Unbelievalbly so.

Someone points out his lack of data or his failure to support an argument but instead spew vitiol and attacks and...

MacCleary does some more ad hominem or strtawman and still fails to support an argument


Sort of like you just did just now.

I am not trying to attack you. For the very most part I have told you that I want to have nothing to do with you and don't want to interact with you. At this point you are bordering on harassment. If continued I will report you before I lose my cool and get in trouble myself for doing so.

You are pretty much the worst at arguing a point that I have seen in a very very long time and I work in a nightclub and routinely have to argue with people who are litterally falling down drunk...yet somehow they can seem to occationally make a substantiated point you however are a failure at supporting an argument with anything but insults deflections and outright delusions.

I don't have to support my assertion about the effectiveness of PPFLD or poptarting. It is common knowledge. It is also funny because I have actually called you out for being insulting and now you feel insulted....

Prove to me /us that your poptart vs LRM boat has any basis in reality give some numbers maybe some specific builds something other than MacCleary thinks so so believe or else he will be mean to you.

Fine, my proof. Go to YouTube. Look up MRBC div A matches or World Championships. Watch a bunch of them. You don't need numbers, you can get all you need by seeing that PPFLD is dominating and there are zero usage of lurms. The builds are all common but you can get more detail on metamechs if needed to suit your curiosity.

Now, as far as being mean. I have really tried to be civil with you despite you being condescending and insulting. I again have repeatedly told you that I did not want to interact with you. I don't want to have any conversation with you what so ever. None at all. If you do try despite me telling you this in a straightfoward manner, I am not going to play into your argument or scenerio. Basically you are trying to hold the conversation hostage but it is actually I who has the gun here. It makes no sense to try and continue to engage me when I have told you this again and again. It is pointless and now you are very much into harassing behaviour. Eventually I will actually get insulting and probably get in trouble for it, so before that happens I am telling you that if you choose to continue after repeatedly being told to stop I will get PGI's moderators to get you to knock it off. Maybe you can find someone here who will actually debate what you want, but it won't be me.

Edited by MacClearly, 31 March 2017 - 05:24 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

MischiefSC, on 30 March 2017 - 04:06 PM, said:

Not even PPC heavy. We roll LRM teams on Polar and Alpine every single day in brawl decks on Polar/Alpine. Every good team does, on every single map.

Wow such amaze, you roll potatoes on Polar and Alpine. That hardly proves anything.

MischiefSC, on 30 March 2017 - 04:06 PM, said:

If all drops were on Alpine and Polar, in comp or FW or whatever, LRM teams would still lose to direct fire teams. Why don't you prove that's not the caee. There were over 40 recorded matches on Alpine/Polar for last season I could find, there are certainly more. Apparently you saw 2 and Ghogiel confirmed a troll match with one.

Burden of proof is yours. Take a good team and top leaderboards in FW or take it to MRBC and win all the heavy drops on Alpine/Polar with LRMs, for a couple of consecutive seasons. I don't mean as a surprise one-off, I mean go into it with LRMs every time on those maps like it's the optimal or even competitive meta.

I'm not going to bother to "prove" anything within the ret@rded conditions you suggest. First because I'm not a unit leader, and secondly even if I had a team that would have agreed to use nothing but LRMs all the time then it would have become pretty fkn obvious after just a couple drops, thus any opponent with at least half a brain would have started to bring ECM and AMS effectively muting LRM boats. That in turn would have been a perfect opportunity to switch a deck and easily roll relatively inferior ECM/AMS mechs, but that clearly doesn't interest you.

MischiefSC, on 30 March 2017 - 04:06 PM, said:

Because that's never happened successfully and it doesn't happen successfully against good teams even in FW or group queue.

And once again silly argument is silly ... Neither FW or group queue allows you to pick maps, and since the dominant majority of existing maps aren't suited for LRMs nobody takes LRM dropdecks into these modes. Nobody but bads that you supposedly roll with your brawl deck.

Edited by PhoenixFire55, 31 March 2017 - 11:24 AM.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 31 March 2017 - 11:08 AM, said:

Now these are your posts. Follow them if you can it can be difficult with all the contradictions.

So you say I was wrong in my assumption. Ok I counter with that I couldn't be unless you're and idiot who doesn't know what they mean when they type. I made an assumption that you meant LRM in cover compared to Poptart using cover because of the specific line "will not only have the same advantage"

I assumed you meant cover use thus your statement must imply an LRM boat in cover.

If you did not mean cover use then what did you mean? your lack of coherency is very confusing to people who can read AND comprehend.

And you actually said the poptart "he will be doing more effective damage" and "he will perform much better than a Lurmer"

So you actually made the claim that the poptart will perform better and not as you reiterated "the same thing"

Is this a retraction of the previous statements or again a lack in coherency in your "argument" .

This is where I applied some math and compared DPS outputs under a shared hypothetical situation within a defined time frame with specified builds to counter argue (with some supporting facts) that the LURMer will inflict significantly MORE damage than a similarly weight classed poptart.

You made a baseless claim that this was off topc I may add rather than counter with anything of actual substance...because you suck at supporting your arguments apparently.

Can you follow now? I have laid it out as simply as possible for you using your own quoted posts.

Clearly you did mean to compare an In cover LRM boat vs a Poptart unless you are actually lacking in any capacity to draw a simularity and were just randomly typing words like a million chimps with a million typewritters and accidently made sentences that could be interpreted as a point attempting to be made.

So I countered a presented opinion (should have paid attention that it was yours I failed that I guess) That I felt was not accurate.

I present an argument detailing why I felt it wasn't an accurate opinion and you,as per ussual have continued to fail to present any coherent counter just ad hominem and strawmman .


Honestly I didn't even read the rest of your post after I discovered this gem.It was enough for me to annihilate your argument. I guess I should read the rest of your reply as I'm sure it's filled with plenty of ammunition to assassinate your argument because you use your keyboard like a shovel. Digging your hole deeper with every keystroke.

That's great if you think you have won. You now have proven that the meta is wrong and you are in fact correct. Good for you.

Now, stop trying to interact with me at all. Knock it the f off. It is harassment at this point. You want to call people stupid and talk in circles while arguing that lurms are better than the meta, do it with someone else. I am simply going to report you so that I don't get into trouble when I lose patience with you.

Edited by MacClearly, 31 March 2017 - 12:02 PM.

[DivineTomatoes]

13 pages all because Baby Cucks wanted to troll.

[oldradagast]

One more from yesterday. Atlas-DDC on my team with:
- 3 LRM15's
- 2 machine guns
- 1 small laser
- 1 small pulse laser.

Lunacy like that is why people hate LRM's. Well, that and when they die to them since it can be frustrating and make you feel "stupid" for dying to a "noob weapon." LRM's aren't really "noob weapons" if you want to use them well, but they feel that way and have that reputation.

[MischiefSC]

PhoenixFire55, on 31 March 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

Wow such amaze, you roll potatoes on Polar and Alpine. That hardly proves anything.



I'm not going to bother to "prove" anything within the ret@rded conditions you suggest. First because I'm not a unit leader, and secondly even if I had a team that would have agreed to use nothing but LRMs all the time then it would have become pretty fkn obvious after just a couple drops, thus any opponent with at least half a brain would have started to bring ECM and AMS effectively muting LRM boats. That in turn would have been a perfect opportunity to switch a deck and easily roll relatively inferior ECM/AMS mechs, but that clearly doesn't interest you.



And once again silly argument is silly ... Neither FW or group queue allows you to pick maps, and since the dominant majority of existing maps aren't suited for LRMs nobody takes LRM dropdecks into these modes. Nobody but bads that you supposedly roll with your brawl deck.

You're literally pointing out why LRMs are bad. You can't really take them except when it's an ambush surprise against a bad team.

I drop with KCom. We drop brawl to mid range 90% of the time, every/any map. We don't have to hide that, nor does any direct fire unit or strategy. LRMs are passable when it's a surprise and the other team makes a bad mistake (or 3). Direct fire always works on every map regardless of the other team.

That is, and has always, been the whole point. LRMs are useful only relative to the other team. Direct fire is useful relative to the skill of the team using it. LRMs literally are only consistently good against potatoes and when you get lucky against an otherwise good team playing poorly AND you're putting a+ effort into it. Direct fire is always useful against any caliber of team so long as you're good with it.

[SQW]

oldradagast, on 31 March 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

One more from yesterday. Atlas-DDC on my team with:
- 3 LRM15's
- 2 machine guns
- 1 small laser
- 1 small pulse laser.

Lunacy like that is why people hate LRM's. Well, that and when they die to them since it can be frustrating and make you feel "stupid" for dying to a "noob weapon." LRM's aren't really "noob weapons" if you want to use them well, but they feel that way and have that reputation.

The problem is with the potato wasting an assault slot, not the weapon. The fact he/she is in an Atlas means it's down hill whatever weapon is being mounted. I've seen people missing 3 alphas against a retreating assault mechs at <100m and KDK-3s doing 50dmg due to being blind/drunk so at least your team might get some dmg out lrms.

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 31 March 2017 - 11:41 AM, said:

That's great if you think you have won. You now have proven that the meta is wrong and you are in fact correct. Good for you.

Now, stop trying to interact with me at all. Knock it the f off. It is harassment at this point. You want to call people stupid and talk in circles while arguing that lurms are better than the meta, do it with someone else. I am simply going to report you so that I don't get into trouble when I lose patience with you.

Now we are discussing meta? or is this a another strawman?I thought we were discussing poptart vs lrm boat?

Oh wait it is another strawman because this is the first time you have mentioned "the meta" in our interactions.

FYI the generally accepted "meta" isn't poptarts it hasn't been since...um like three years not after the jumpjet nerf,ghostheat and reticule shake (as well as gauss charge mechanics). I believe we are onto " laser vomit" as the meta now.

I actually never called you stupid not directly I implied that you make yourself look stupid.

And if you want to argue LURMs are better than the "meta" you would do so by presenting data to support an argument not typing out baseless claims and lambasting anyone who disagrees with you.

But since I have not argued that lrms are meta or superior to the meta (that was your transparent attempt at a strawman) I have not presented any such view point because to be 100% clear I do not think that LRMs are meta or even competative with most other weapon systems under a wide array of circumstances.

I will argue they (LRMs) have some very unique properties that can be leveraged to a team's advantage however.

As for "harassment" ...

"Don't bring none don't get none"

I encourage you to review your posting history and you may be suprised to discover that you are a puffed up internet bully who can't take as well as they dish it. And I have actually been presenting counter arguments to topics not ad hominem or strawman deflections. You just seem to be incapable of countering with anything but unfocused (off topic) aggression.

At this point I will conceed that "poptarts" are the "meta" and you were totally not belligerent to anyone ever and you are totally undeserving of being called out for being a hypocrite. You are obviously someone of deep thought and level emotions who can clearly and concisely present a valid argument to support any claims they made.

I don't know what I was thinking by countering such obvious genius with some simple pile of supporting facts and evidence.


Everyone listen up MacCleary is the bestest most smartest person on the whole MWo forums (maybe even the whole internet) he is so great he doesn't need to be troubled with such worry some things like supporting an argument or presenting facts or even being coherent.

All it takes is a few insults and condecending remarks and we will all know his greatness.


Grow up will you.

Don't start if you can't finish.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lykaon, on 31 March 2017 - 04:33 PM, said:

Grow up will you.

Don't start if you can't finish.

Not going to get into your little war, but in point of fact, laser vomit is also, "old meta" and in fact, PPC/Gauss and limited poptarting (especially with Night Gyr) is indeed returned as Lord Meta (unless that too has changed in the last couple of weeks).

Laser vomit is still relatively strong, especially on the IS side where the Grasshopper and BLR are top tier choices, but in the clans, the PPC/Gauss-sauce is king.

Carry on!

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 31 March 2017 - 04:44 PM.

[Lykaon]

MischiefSC, on 31 March 2017 - 02:43 PM, said:

You're literally pointing out why LRMs are bad. You can't really take them except when it's an ambush surprise against a bad team.

I drop with KCom. We drop brawl to mid range 90% of the time, every/any map. We don't have to hide that, nor does any direct fire unit or strategy. LRMs are passable when it's a surprise and the other team makes a bad mistake (or 3). Direct fire always works on every map regardless of the other team.

That is, and has always, been the whole point. LRMs are useful only relative to the other team. Direct fire is useful relative to the skill of the team using it. LRMs literally are only consistently good against potatoes and when you get lucky against an otherwise good team playing poorly AND you're putting a+ effort into it. Direct fire is always useful against any caliber of team so long as you're good with it.

Against well drilled coordinated teams the less LRMs you have the better off you are. There is a significant difference between comp and PUG.

You will never run into a well drilled and coordinated team in solo PUG play because of the very nature of solo pugs.

In solo PUG play I do use LRMs and to some good effect. In particular when it comes to herding or forcing movement of the enemy.

However,even against a well coordinated team some LRMs can be used to control movement or deny terrain. I wouldn't recommend anything more than a single non assault weight chassis being deployed with LRMs if you may face coordinated teams (like in Faction Warfare).

About the only reason to advocate LRMs when employed against well drilled teams is the envelope of projected influence of LRMs is (potentially) better than direct fire weapons. So if your team is also well coordinated and skilled in using supporting fire to herd movement or deny advances maybe a Kintaro or Maddog/Huntsman with racks of LRM5s. Certainly not a Atlas with multiple 15 racks.

[Tripzter]

One thing i find very annoying is that LRMs have an insane vertical drop so you still get hit even behind pretty tall buildings. Other than that i can deal with it.

[Lykaon]

Bishop Steiner, on 31 March 2017 - 04:44 PM, said:

Not going to get into your little war, but in point of fact, laser vomit is also, "old meta" and in fact, PPC/Gauss and limited poptarting (especially with Night Gyr) is indeed returned as Lord Meta (unless that too has changed in the last couple of weeks).

Laser vomit is still relatively strong, especially on the IS side where the Grasshopper and BLR are top tier choices, but in the clans, the PPC/Gauss-sauce is king.

Carry on!

My experiences have been that as you have said it's largely linked to the Night Gyr chassis.

By and large the Inner Sphere does not have mechs that can compete with Night Gyrs or Timberwolf S pods (baring ownership of NightGyrs).

So for I.S. we are still looking at "laser Vomit" as the go to strategy and "poptarting" becoming resurgent with the NightGyr for obviously clans only. (for a while we had the loyalty Summoner but that got "fixed" )

I would argue that since many of the comp clan mechs also use "laser vomit" and nearly all I.S. top tier comp mechs use "laser vomit" and only a select few clan chassis (and maybe one or two I.S.) use "limited poptarting" That the prevailing (most commonly encountered) "meta" is still "laser vomit".

Now add to that that jumping/aiming/charging gauss and landing without damage is pretty much expert level walk and chew gum and "laser Vomit" is just more accesable to more players.

Tripzter, on 31 March 2017 - 04:56 PM, said:

One thing i find very annoying is that LRMs have an insane vertical drop so you still get hit even behind pretty tall buildings. Other than that i can deal with it.

Ideally you want cover that is about one third taller than you mech and you NEED to be pressed right up against it.

Edited by Lykaon, 31 March 2017 - 05:16 PM.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 31 March 2017 - 04:33 PM, said:

Now we are discussing meta? or is this a another strawman?I thought we were discussing poptart vs lrm boat?

Oh wait it is another strawman because this is the first time you have mentioned "the meta" in our interactions.

FYI the generally accepted "meta" isn't poptarts it hasn't been since...um like three years not after the jumpjet nerf,ghostheat and reticule shake (as well as gauss charge mechanics). I believe we are onto " laser vomit" as the meta now.

I actually never called you stupid not directly I implied that you make yourself look stupid.

And if you want to argue LURMs are better than the "meta" you would do so by presenting data to support an argument not typing out baseless claims and lambasting anyone who disagrees with you.

But since I have not argued that lrms are meta or superior to the meta (that was your transparent attempt at a strawman) I have not presented any such view point because to be 100% clear I do not think that LRMs are meta or even competative with most other weapon systems under a wide array of circumstances.

I will argue they (LRMs) have some very unique properties that can be leveraged to a team's advantage however.

As for "harassment" ...

"Don't bring none don't get none"

I encourage you to review your posting history and you may be suprised to discover that you are a puffed up internet bully who can't take as well as they dish it. And I have actually been presenting counter arguments to topics not ad hominem or strawman deflections. You just seem to be incapable of countering with anything but unfocused (off topic) aggression.

At this point I will conceed that "poptarts" are the "meta" and you were totally not belligerent to anyone ever and you are totally undeserving of being called out for being a hypocrite. You are obviously someone of deep thought and level emotions who can clearly and concisely present a valid argument to support any claims they made.

I don't know what I was thinking by countering such obvious genius with some simple pile of supporting facts and evidence.


Everyone listen up MacCleary is the bestest most smartest person on the whole MWo forums (maybe even the whole internet) he is so great he doesn't need to be troubled with such worry some things like supporting an argument or presenting facts or even being coherent.

All it takes is a few insults and condecending remarks and we will all know his greatness.


Grow up will you.

Don't start if you can't finish.

LOL. What is your malfunction?

I have not started with you. You have followed me trying to engage with the weakest and most foolish arguments possible. You are a joke.

If you even had some basic skills at making a point without creating ridiculous and unrelated scenerios maybe I would engage. Again however I have told you over and over I won't because you are insulting and make stupid assumptions.

If you don't get that FLPPD is meta that is not my problem. Not suprising as you also think because a Kintaro can put out more dps than a Shadow Cat in some sort of bubble, is somehow relevant.

Again I have said the same thing over and over despite you trying to put your spin on it.

It doesn't seem to matter how many times I reiterate my point, it is lost on you and you talk about everything but.

Learn more about this game. Try and figure out why top teams are not using lrms and why your Kintaro argument is outright moronic.

Edited by MacClearly, 31 March 2017 - 05:25 PM.

[Barkem Squirrel]

Wow, this went to 13 pages quick.

I see a few things.

Some people see running LRMs as affecting their game by running a useless weapon system and they just get pissed off after they die to see you sipping the coffee and running the TAG.

Others well is is the same situation, but you kill them with LRMs and now they get to watch the rest of the match from a LRM boat cockpit. Due to them being sloppy.

Then there are the people with the short range LRM support. Share armor, constantly fire LRMs under 300 (maybe 200m) for those really good hits. (you should see a direwolf back off when hit with LRM 15's every half a second or even experience yourself in the target mech) Hell you can initially lead a charge in to the other team, and slow down as you need too in a LRM boat.

Then there is the 600 + m LRM boat sipping coffee and dunking donuts.

A decent LRM boat pilot for IS mechs should be able to take a clan Streak boat out and not really have a hard time, maybe a bit closer by 100 m, but that is it. Hell some people might even put some LRMs on a Streak boat, just to draw the lights in for the kill.

I have dropped with Kcon a few times, but the only problem I had was worrying about being TKed. The hard part was keeping up with the murder ball and hitting the targets before they died. This forced me to dead fire the LRMs.

Then there is group and solo play. Any time you can really use LRMs in the PUGs. Now the groups it can get interesting if LRMs are in Play. Some times it does surprise the other team, other times you try something screwy due to dropping with 4 LRM boats with Spotters and NARCers. 200 LRMs per group volley at one target normally does some damage.

One thing I have done with LRMs is going to private matchs with a few players that are way better than me, hell they even play at plus 20 fps. Still I could give them a headach, with the LRMs. I play at 6 to 14 fps and have got as high as 6th in one of the chassis challenges in a griffin. The problem is I like to fire at 300 or less meters with a quick bouncy mech. Now I am decent, have issues with internet connection (dam frontier), mech upper torso phasing from right to left (not turning, phasing violently at increasing speed) and still got 22nd in the Archer event with all those issues beyond playing at 6 to 14 fps.

LRMs can be good, by certain maps do hinder their use and the freaking hyper aggressive nuts jobs can ruin your day. (Some might even run right past you and let a slower mech kill you.)

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 31 March 2017 - 04:33 PM, said:

Now we are discussing meta? or is this a another strawman?I thought we were discussing poptart vs lrm boat?

Oh wait it is another strawman because this is the first time you have mentioned "the meta" in our interactions.

FYI the generally accepted "meta" isn't poptarts it hasn't been since...um like three years not after the jumpjet nerf,ghostheat and reticule shake (as well as gauss charge mechanics). I believe we are onto " laser vomit" as the meta now.

I actually never called you stupid not directly I implied that you make yourself look stupid.

And if you want to argue LURMs are better than the "meta" you would do so by presenting data to support an argument not typing out baseless claims and lambasting anyone who disagrees with you.

But since I have not argued that lrms are meta or superior to the meta (that was your transparent attempt at a strawman) I have not presented any such view point because to be 100% clear I do not think that LRMs are meta or even competative with most other weapon systems under a wide array of circumstances.

I will argue they (LRMs) have some very unique properties that can be leveraged to a team's advantage however.

As for "harassment" ...

"Don't bring none don't get none"

I encourage you to review your posting history and you may be suprised to discover that you are a puffed up internet bully who can't take as well as they dish it. And I have actually been presenting counter arguments to topics not ad hominem or strawman deflections. You just seem to be incapable of countering with anything but unfocused (off topic) aggression.

At this point I will conceed that "poptarts" are the "meta" and you were totally not belligerent to anyone ever and you are totally undeserving of being called out for being a hypocrite. You are obviously someone of deep thought and level emotions who can clearly and concisely present a valid argument to support any claims they made.

I don't know what I was thinking by countering such obvious genius with some simple pile of supporting facts and evidence.


Everyone listen up MacCleary is the bestest most smartest person on the whole MWo forums (maybe even the whole internet) he is so great he doesn't need to be troubled with such worry some things like supporting an argument or presenting facts or even being coherent.

All it takes is a few insults and condecending remarks and we will all know his greatness.


Grow up will you.

Don't start if you can't finish.

Oh just to make my point clear again.

Lurmers can fire behind cover. The person who brought this up to whom I responded to asserted that this unique ability allowed them to put out damage without taking damage in return.

I corrected him by pointing out that poptarting done properly also can do this.

Then I pointed out that FLPPD such as PPC's also have the benefit of more effective damage.

You interjected with abject nonsense.

So you really can't argue that poptarting and lurming can both fire and not receive damage in return.

You can try and argue that lurms are more effective because of dps, but again I won't have such a silly argument with you.

Again this conversation was between myself and another person, and being that you have some sort of stick up your arse, you followed me from another thread and tried to engage despite being told that I was not willing to do so with you.