404 replies to this topic

[I_AM_ZUUL]

MischiefSC, on 26 April 2017 - 09:46 PM, said:

Dude, at the time the push started the enemy wasn't at D5. By the time the team got there 3 of us were almost to then end of the channel and got almost all the way back. It's a good thing however that the team pushed out the other side to flank; fortunately the other team stuck around D5.

D5 is ideal because when you get to the end the enemy has no cover and you do. Because deflecting down blocks your arms and low torso mounts but deflecting up lets you use both arm and torso weapons it's better to be in the low position than the high in narrow confines. A great example in FW is the 'pocket' on the channel on Boreal; you get into it and you can shoot people trying to poke over the hill at you before they can effectively shoot at you. Same concept in D5.

If you take the 'left' exit, yes it's shorter but you have no cover at the end and the enemy has cover on both sides.

The argument was about which channel was best to go out of. Yes, the best exit is always the one with nobody waiting. However D5 is the best exit if you're under and trying to get out. That or a split exit, which is essentially what we did. An enfilade isn't the same advantage in MWO that it is in real life because mechs are not infantry.

You didn't keep the team together; they pushed out the path with no resistance. Not a bad choice. If we'd all gone out D5 we'd have been fine if you stick to the wall and hustle to the exit; then you're coming up the ramp with cover (on both sides actually) while the guys up top can only make a run for it.

I didn't call the D5 push, someone else did and at the time the enemy was not at D5. The team was slow to get out and so adapted. That's pug queue. The 'short' exit though? Worst exit unless there's nobody up top waiting. You exit into open space to cross while the enemy has several points of cover.

Negative! In PUG, the "best" exit is ALWAYS E4 because it is the shortest pathway AND it has overhead cover from the walkway... it works for either spawn side since all that determines is which way you Flank once you leave, towards D5 or F5. Talking about "top" being covered as if it is relevant is sad, as an old school BT player the Level Change cones are baked into my mind but even playing this should have taught you what you are saying is irrelevant. As I said during the match... your plan works in a Group because of High Trust relationships & Good Discipline, in PUG you are dealing with Low Trust relationships & sketchy Discipline. That totally changes the dynamics of Game Theory, in practical application what it means is that your momentum will get stalled then the team will fragment when they get shot in the back with some finishing the maneuver & some will retreat back under to the supposed safety they started at. I am not saying that is even advantageous behavior but it is what will happen almost every time... it is a natural consequence of Low Trust relationships, so the best moves in PUG are ones that do not require High Trust actions (even though those are the best ones in a vacuum, like pushing across the water on the 4 line on Crimson Strait for Conquest/Domination advancing under suppression fire) because you will cause way more failures overall. Much like your misunderstanding about LRMs is that you are refusing to grasp the concept of "The best result possible not the best possible result" because those two things are rarely if ever the same.

Edited by I_AM_ZUUL, 26 April 2017 - 10:47 PM.

[MischiefSC]

I_AM_ZUUL, on 26 April 2017 - 10:45 PM, said:

Negative! In PUG, the "best" exit is ALWAYS E4 because it is the shortest pathway AND it has overhead cover from the walkway... it works for either spawn side since all that determines is which way you Flank once you leave, towards D5 or F5. Talking about "top" being covered as if it is relevant is sad, as an old school BT player the Level Change cones are baked into my mind but even playing this should have taught you what you are saying is irrelevant. As I said during the match... your plan works in a Group because of High Trust relationships & Good Discipline, in PUG you are dealing with Low Trust relationships & sketchy Discipline. That totally changes the dynamics of Game Theory, in practical application what it means is that your momentum will get stalled then the team will fragment when they get shot in the back with some finishing the maneuver & some will retreat back under to the supposed safety they started at. I am not saying that is even advantageous behavior but it is what will happen almost every time... it is a natural consequence of Low Trust relationships, so the best moves in PUG are ones that do not require High Trust actions (even though those are the best ones in a vacuum, like pushing across the water on the 4 line on Crimson Strait for Conquest/Domination advancing under suppression fire) because you will cause way more failures overall. Much like your misunderstanding about LRMs is that you are refusing to grasp the concept of "The best result possible not the best possible result" because those two things are rarely if ever the same.

Okay, you're wrong about the right exit. You're exiting to... where? It's about where there is and is not cover on the map. The north exit provides cover at the end of the channel from which to shoot the enemy team while the enemy team has none. So you have a slightly tougher push out (we're talking a travel time of a couple of seconds difference and you've got the 'L' wall as partial cover) but you come out into cover. 8 corners in fact from which your team can advance on the people who were up top - who now have 0 cover, save possibly dropping down into the cave you just left or going all the way around the ramps leading up to the actual top level.

I get that you're trying to use game theory to make it about what the likely outcome in a pug match will be. I'm saying that's irrelevant to what exit is best - obviously the exit that nobody is watching is the best exit regardless of all other factors. Pointing out that the west exit is bad in spite of the shorter walk is what you're missing.

The west exit is the shortest but takes you only into open spaces with no cover while the team up top has 6 corners from which to shoot at you. The south and exit also takes you into a cover position, the east exit gives you a short approach to cover in 2 points.

A fast exit into a bad position is inferior to a 3 second longer exit into a secure position with plenty of room for your puggles to spread out in cover and shoot at an enemy with no cover.

It's not about trust or discipline it's about where the exit is taking you. If the exit takes you into open space while the other team has cover it's a bad exit. Pugs or teams or whatever. It takes more team discipline to successfully exit the west channel because your only real option is a charge up an open ramp directly into the enemy and hopefully they're spread out enough that you'll overwhelm one side or suppress them into cover while you push.

That you don't get LRMs is a whole other issue. They're only useful against bad players. Full stop. That's because anything is useful against bad players. LRMs are probably better against bad players than any other bad weapons are good against bad players but that's about it. Slow, scattered damage that's only reliable if the target has bad situational awareness, no ECM and no AMS. Fast/instant damage that's focused and is reliable if you can aim is better. There's no magic there. No surprise. I'll make you the same offer I made others - I'll put up a mech pack prize if you want to arrange a duel between the best player you can get to take LRMs and the best player I can get to take direct fire. I'll even pony up a total of 4 basic mech packs to do it as 2 teams of 4. One takes direct fire, one LRMs. However you want to test it. What will you pony up?

Unless your argument is that LRMs are only good in pug queue against pugs.... which, again, just proves the point that they're only good when you can use them against bad players. Which has been the argument all along. I get that you don't want to believe it but that is irrelevant from the reality of the mechanics of the weapons.

[Ced Riggs]

LRMs are bad. If you defend LRMs, then you might be bad, too. That LRMs can rack up a lot of meaningless damage means little in effectivce gameplay. That LRMs can in theory support a team means little when any mech with facetime can do it better. Players don't make a weapon better or worse. Can't look at a cherry-picked scenario where LRMs are magically favoured to declare them good. Which they simply are not.

ATMs will change the "useless missile boats" thing for clam mechs.
MRMs will help the IS, too.

/thread

Edited by Ced Riggs, 27 April 2017 - 12:00 AM.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

MischiefSC, on 26 April 2017 - 11:43 PM, said:

Okay, you're wrong about the right exit. You're exiting to... where? It's about where there is and is not cover on the map. The north exit provides cover at the end of the channel from which to shoot the enemy team while the enemy team has none. So you have a slightly tougher push out (we're talking a travel time of a couple of seconds difference and you've got the 'L' wall as partial cover) but you come out into cover. 8 corners in fact from which your team can advance on the people who were up top - who now have 0 cover, save possibly dropping down into the cave you just left or going all the way around the ramps leading up to the actual top level.

I get that you're trying to use game theory to make it about what the likely outcome in a pug match will be. I'm saying that's irrelevant to what exit is best - obviously the exit that nobody is watching is the best exit regardless of all other factors. Pointing out that the west exit is bad in spite of the shorter walk is what you're missing.

The west exit is the shortest but takes you only into open spaces with no cover while the team up top has 6 corners from which to shoot at you. The south and exit also takes you into a cover position, the east exit gives you a short approach to cover in 2 points.

A fast exit into a bad position is inferior to a 3 second longer exit into a secure position with plenty of room for your puggles to spread out in cover and shoot at an enemy with no cover.

It's not about trust or discipline it's about where the exit is taking you. If the exit takes you into open space while the other team has cover it's a bad exit. Pugs or teams or whatever. It takes more team discipline to successfully exit the west channel because your only real option is a charge up an open ramp directly into the enemy and hopefully they're spread out enough that you'll overwhelm one side or suppress them into cover while you push.

That you don't get LRMs is a whole other issue. They're only useful against bad players. Full stop. That's because anything is useful against bad players. LRMs are probably better against bad players than any other bad weapons are good against bad players but that's about it. Slow, scattered damage that's only reliable if the target has bad situational awareness, no ECM and no AMS. Fast/instant damage that's focused and is reliable if you can aim is better. There's no magic there. No surprise. I'll make you the same offer I made others - I'll put up a mech pack prize if you want to arrange a duel between the best player you can get to take LRMs and the best player I can get to take direct fire. I'll even pony up a total of 4 basic mech packs to do it as 2 teams of 4. One takes direct fire, one LRMs. However you want to test it. What will you pony up?

Unless your argument is that LRMs are only good in pug queue against pugs.... which, again, just proves the point that they're only good when you can use them against bad players. Which has been the argument all along. I get that you don't want to believe it but that is irrelevant from the reality of the mechanics of the weapons.

You are exiting towards E4 hence what makes it the E4 door, then you flank either Right or Left depending on which side of the map you spawned on. Once you turn the corner you have at least Level 4 Walls if not Level 5 that provide 90m to 120m from the base of the wall that can not be shot down from the top of... so you advanced Under Cover and then have Walls that elevate the enemy too high to be able to fire upon you, therefore you can complete the full evolution without being fired upon and get re-situated for the push around the corner of either side towards F5 or D5. Many times you will catch 1 or 2 mechs standing there that can be rolled over, just like pushing under in the first place can accomplish... keeping your team together while the other team naturally shotguns themselves across the map with absolutely no cohesion. Keeping movement and cohesion is the most important part of a PUG match, as long as you can keep 8 people together then you will win 90% of your matches... trying to make a team do a maneuver that does not have them being shot in the front once they are already moving forward as a group at speed will fall apart way more than it works, even under ideal conditions you are going to have them fall apart 25% to 33% of the time. The fact you keep yammering on about LRMs only being "good" against bad players is because you have no real experience with good players using them... that is your lack of experience because I have had teams utterly wreck in Group & CW back when I was doing that kind of stuff. I do not dispute that there are clear advantages to using the D5 door but they are vastly outweighed by the disadvantages in Solo to Group Queue... since we were in Solo not Group then those are the pertinent ones to be used as factors.

Edited by I_AM_ZUUL, 27 April 2017 - 01:46 AM.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

xxxxxxxxxxx

Edited by I_AM_ZUUL, 27 April 2017 - 01:53 AM.

[Vellron2005]

Ced Riggs, on 26 April 2017 - 11:49 PM, said:

LRMs are bad. If you defend LRMs, then you might be bad, too. That LRMs can rack up a lot of meaningless damage means little in effectivce gameplay. That LRMs can in theory support a team means little when any mech with facetime can do it better. Players don't make a weapon better or worse. Can't look at a cherry-picked scenario where LRMs are magically favoured to declare them good. Which they simply are not.

ATMs will change the "useless missile boats" thing for clam mechs.
MRMs will help the IS, too.

/thread

Alas, I entirely disagree.. LRM's are just like any other weapon.. if you are good with LRMs, you will do good, if not, you won't..

With LRMs, I still get plenty of damage, kills, other achievements and such.. just like when I use ballistics or lasers..

The only difference between LRMs and other weapons is that if I'm using LRMs, YOU don't get to use me as your meat shield. Also I get to shoot at you, while YOU don't get to shoot at me..

And that's why you're pissed and call LRM's bad.

They are not bad.. LRMs are awesome

P.S.

The "I hate X, and if you defend X I hate you too" mentality is a great sign of a single-minded backwards thinking mind that makes your comments much less credible.

If you can't argue like a civilized person, and beat X with solid argumentation, and instead, attack those that defend X, your argument is invalid.

Edited by Vellron2005, 27 April 2017 - 02:24 AM.

[Acehilator]

Ruar, on 26 April 2017 - 09:27 AM, said:

I'll be honest... I paused when you said LRMs can support scouts against other light mechs. We both know that LRM users rarely fire at locks on fast lights. Friendly fire, losing locks, and the inability to hit quick moving targets all contribute to the reluctance to fire at lights.

Then there is the fact you completely swept terrain to the side as if it doesn't matter.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. You see LRMs one way, I see them another. You've justified your opinion in your mind and simply negate anything that runs counter.

And for rear line mechs, I have no clue what you are talking about that I'm saying. I don't like assaults in a support role, period. LRMs... snipers... it doesn't matter. Assault mechs should be up front assaulting. Some heavy mechs can sit back and snipe, but it's a better job for mediums. Heavies should be up front with the assaults. Please stop trying to twist things to suit your opinion because it's not what I said and it's annoying seeing you make up straw man arguments.

IMO there are roles on the battlefield and different mechs are better suited for filling those roles than others. Unfortunately the game is designed so people can ignore roles and play however. Which leads to inefficient builds and poor play. That doesn't mean the community should be accepting of such decisions and we should try to help people understand why their choices are less than optimal. It shouldn't lead to harassment, but criticism is definitely warranted.

I said "can", not "omgwtfscrambletodoit* ... when one of your Lights and one of the enemy team decide to do the circle of death, shooting LRMs at said Light is 100% viable. And yes, terrain is not THE big factor people claim. If more maps would be like River City, sure. But as it is currently... it helps leading the push to end up where you want. And when everybody is sitting in cover afraid to even poke, your direct fire mechs are not shooting anything too. If poking is going on, you always have people with bad positioning you can successfully reach with LRMs. Also funny you accuse me of the same thing you are doing

But sorry if I lumped you into the "LRM mech in the back = bad, sniper mech in the back = don't care" crowd... that description fits 95% of people, I assumed you were one of them, my mistake.

Regarding optimal choices... I think you are severely underestimating the influence of playstyle and personal preference on the final result you can achieve in game. I only realized it this year, how big of a factor this is.

And sure, agree to disagree... it's not like this results was ever in question.

MischiefSC, on 26 April 2017 - 11:24 AM, said:

6 MGs, 2lpls, 2xsrm6a. It's an MG King Crab. I have still gotten 800+ damage matches and the damage it does is more focused than the LRMs on your Awesome. Think about that for a second.

That you're best results are using LRMs is a statement about how you play the game. Play how you want and have fun. However buy your own admission LRMs are for pug queue, not group, fw or comp. That's because they're only useful against bad players. That's the whole crux of the argument. You want to bring LRMs or streaks and farm bads in pug queue, okay. Have fun. However those are bad weapons against good players and direct fire is better. One doesn't negate the other. Play, have fun. LRMs are derping, that's okay. Pug queue is the derp queue. However direct fire is better.

You want to test that, sure. Happy to. Even in pug queue - you do 50 matches in the best LRM boat, the Awesome, and I'll do 50 matches in one of the best direct fire mechs - 5 LPLs. We'll see who wins the most out of their 50. Sound fair?

Did I not get the memo that in MWO we as the community now label mech builds after their lowest damage weapon, which is also the least used one on your build? It is not a MG King Crab, stop being silly please.

I didn't say anything about testing, but for the lolz... I started leveling it from scratch in T2, but sure, use your mastered Battlemaster 2C. Here are my stats for the first 40, it is going to be a while to get the last 10 done, Dawn of War 3 releases today.

AWESOME AWS-8R 40 25 15 1.67 59 20 2.95 25,066 89,917 05:08:23

62,5%

[Erronius]

Vellron2005, on 27 April 2017 - 02:14 AM, said:

The only difference between LRMs and other weapons is that if I'm using LRMs, YOU don't get to use me as your meat shield

If you're going to make the conscious decision to not share armor, then maybe you should also make the conscious decision to not take an assault mech so that all of that armor is essentially wasted.

[CDLord HHGD]

Jesus the tears were delicious.

[Skipmagnet]

I am still waiting for proof of a TK due to having LRMs. I don't think it's ever happened.

[Kroete]

MischiefSC, on 26 April 2017 - 11:43 PM, said:

I'll make you the same offer I made others - I'll put up a mech pack prize if you want to arrange a duel between the best player you can get to take LRMs and the best player I can get to take direct fire. I'll even pony up a total of 4 basic mech packs to do it as 2 teams of 4. One takes direct fire, one LRMs. However you want to test it. What will you pony up?

A team of lrm only is bad,
you know it, we know it.
But you still try to use it as argument?

[Amsro]

eyeballs, on 27 April 2017 - 05:46 AM, said:

I am still waiting for proof of a TK due to having LRMs. I don't think it's ever happened.

I've killed a team mate that was face hugging a enemy mech I was LRM'n.

I've also used an enemy mech as armor while being lrm'ed , best team kill to watch ever.!!

Gotta love a bit of comedy in this game.

On a side note, the hurt is real as this thread has somehow made it to page 18.

[D VA]

MischiefSC, on 26 April 2017 - 07:39 AM, said:

If you're up front with LOS at least you're sharing armor, which is good.

That is actually the wrongest thing ever happens with whole team if you got Cyclo-10Q armed with 6xLRM10 in LOS combat. Only "Long Tom" friendly punch is the more tilt'iest. Walker who are build around LRM's and are walking field artillery must play NLOS... if they not,... Team is doomed. Cause... that LURMer just have an huge poster over him saying: - "I HAVE A TONS OF TNT IN MAH... BASEMENT, HAVE MAH LEG!!!"
I saw many such LURMers in LOS combat who got splitted in particles by average Wub-Wub-Superknob'a wearing 6xCLPL in a GG-WP-EZ style passing by.

LRMs are fire support, and if FS carry that your team brawlers are just doing hilarious bad.

Edited by ChemicaL X, 27 April 2017 - 08:01 AM.

[Erronius]

Wild ALT ACCOUNT appears!

[D VA]

Kroete, on 27 April 2017 - 07:01 AM, said:

A team of lrm only is bad,
you know it, we know it.
But you still try to use it as argument?

Team must have all kind of muppets... just in case if stick finally did do a shot.

Erronius, on 27 April 2017 - 07:57 AM, said:

Wild ALT ACCOUNT appears!

Not so... I mostly watch free circus from aside. But that thread need a bit of High-Octane)))))))

[D VA]

Erronius, on 27 April 2017 - 03:23 AM, said:

If you're going to make the conscious decision to not share armor, then maybe you should also make the conscious decision to not take an assault mech so that all of that armor is essentially wasted.

Let's be honest... half... HALF KARL!!!... of all Assault Mechs are just NLOS/Large Range Weapons carrier platforms.
But... apartly I agree with you, especially if I see LURM-Boating on everything from 65 to 80 tons, except "Sagittarius".

Edited by ChemicaL X, 27 April 2017 - 08:11 AM.

[kesmai]

will it ever end???

Edited by kesmai, 27 April 2017 - 08:12 AM.

[D VA]

Vellron2005, on 27 April 2017 - 02:14 AM, said:

The "I hate X, and if you defend X I hate you too" mentality is a great sign of a single-minded backwards thinking mind that makes your comments much less credible.

Agree. But it ain't making things better and not driving community from toxic towards caustic at least.)))))
The thing is that people chase frags, nor teamplay. Teamplay not benefits for "low elo", does not brings C-Bills at their pocket. Support and reward teamplay, you'll see the difference. Till that... thing are fine even if being pretty salty and tilted)))

kesmai, on 27 April 2017 - 08:11 AM, said:

will it ever end???

Nope, if only... you get last stage of c*ncer. And I'll pray you'll not, ever.

Edited by ChemicaL X, 27 April 2017 - 08:28 AM.

[D VA]

Ced Riggs, on 26 April 2017 - 11:49 PM, said:

LRMs are bad. If you defend LRMs, then you might be bad, too. That LRMs can rack up a lot of meaningless damage means little in effectivce gameplay. That LRMs can in theory support a team means little when any mech with facetime can do it better. Players don't make a weapon better or worse. Can't look at a cherry-picked scenario where LRMs are magically favoured to declare them good. Which they simply are not.

ATMs will change the "useless missile boats" thing for clam mechs.
MRMs will help the IS, too.

/thread

What is "bad"? Your screen-shake? Your assault lance who got "sky-falled" to scrap metall by single 80-90 tonner carring 4-6x LRM 10-15? Being an "low-skill" weapon with "high-skill" positioning and situation awareness? Or just your aknowledge that you are getting tilted cause you got ain't none of mentioned skill at all?

Enjoy a while. Hope PGI will allow large premades in random and you'll see what is LAB(Large Energy Boating) squads or NLOS+LOXers brigades.

Edited by ChemicaL X, 27 April 2017 - 08:31 AM.

[Ced Riggs]

Vellron2005, on 27 April 2017 - 02:14 AM, said:

If you can't argue like a civilized person, and beat X with solid argumentation, and instead, attack those that defend X, your argument is invalid.

LRMs deal less damage per tonnage than other weapons.
LRM damage is not precise and cannot shoot of crucial components - such as legs on a light, or side torsos on a Marauder.
LRM damage is not meaningful, as it shears off pointless armor and inflates numbers without representing the actual impact.
LRM carriers avoid direct combat and face time, resulting in less armor sharing, and thus, less team damage resilience.
LRMs are easily avoided by hugging a wall, ECM, AMS.
LRMs have minimum effective ranges outside of most brawls and firing line engagements.
LRMs are not fully (or at all) useable in tunnels, under overpasses, etc.

Players do not make a weapon choice good, stats do. A good player does good with any weapon system, a bad player runs 4x zoom during a brawl with a light mech in sub 25 metres. That's an asasine statement without relevance. I've seen a Trebuchet with twin LRM15 and Medium Lasers fight on the edge of 185m distance and do very good, torso twist and put major damage on the enemy. Does that mean LRMs are good? No. The player was good. The player would have been better with SRMs, Streaks, or a different mech entirely. That player knew how to mitigate damage taken and maximize damage dealt with the options available. LRMs were still an inferior weapon to other options.

All these points have been made before, by numerous posters. Arguments have been countered with cherry-picked nonsense and fabricated dream scenarios. The end of the line is: If you think LRMs aren't bad, you are bad. LRMs are objectively inferior to other weapon choices. I am not calling anyone bad as character deconstruction. Skill is not a measurement of being polite. Some people aren't as good as others. Hell, I am in Tier 3 because I sucked at MWO for the longest time, and even if I am about to kiss Tier 2, I am still not good enough, and I still make many mistakes. And if I know that LRMs are inferior, easily countered weapon systems, eh, meh, maybe I am mediocre, but at least I am not 4x LRM launcher Spirit Bear bad.

And as for not being able to make an argument and resorting to defamation, I present this gem right here:

ChemicaL X, on 27 April 2017 - 08:24 AM, said:

What is "bad"? Your screen-shake? Your assault lance who got "sky-falled" to scrap metall by single 80-90 tonner carring 4-6x LRM 10-15? Being an "low-skill" weapon with "high-skill" positioning and situation awareness? Or just your aknowledge that you are getting tilted cause you got ain't none of mentioned skill at all?

What's this projection and fantasy football scenario you are drawing up here? Do you want to bait me into spin some yarn on how I hunt down every single LRM carrier and brag about how easy they are to kill? What is this, character defamation with some magical stories that almost never happen, unless no one has AMS/ECM/knows how to hug a wall in Tier 5? Come on.

Screen shake - okay, cool. I had five years of warning about LRMs, I am already at a wall or know where the nearest wall is. My assault lance has ECM, torso twists LRM damage into nothing or deserves to die for being bad players. Bad players don't make an inferior weapon good. I cannot take you seriously if you cherrypick your scenarios like that. The very concept of "THE BEST PLAYER" with LRMs versus "PUB TRASH" does not make LRMs good.

The player is good. Not the LRMs.

And even then, that LRM gets his locks how? Radar dep, ECM, AMS, walls, breaking LoS, etc. pp. - ad nauseam, until you come up with a (non-existant) response to those counter measures. Even if the assault lance simply walks towards the LRM boat, the LRM boat cannot take them out quick enough before being slapped around. Stop trying to make LRMs look good because that one time, in QP, someone gave you dream locks on absolutely braindead 40kph King Crabs.