Pat Kell, on 29 April 2017 - 10:54 PM, said:
That is not what I am saying at all. I'm saying that by taking LRM's you are running the risk of running into a good team that can deal with them and make them almost useless. Sjorpha said it very eloquently is his post about win-more strategies. You simply have to do more work with LRM's than other weapons in order to kill a mech because of the natural spread of the weapon. Bringing LRM's doesn't mean you are going to necessarily win or lose a match, it just is a small factor in determining the overall winner of any given match. Skill, experience, team work are all things that weigh more heavily in my opinion but if you want to win more often, you should not be bringing LRM's because you are adding a certain something to you team that makes it harder to win. There isn't really anything to argue about here. LRM's make it harder to win in general especially as the skill level and other more significant factors increase.
You're anecdotal evidence about your W/L ratio going up in LRM's is irrelevant because you are unable to ascertain why it is going up. You could be getting group up with people who were going to win the match regardless of your drop deck decisions. Your enemies could be, by and large, unaware of how to properly deal with LRM's. You could be better at LRM's than you are at direct fire weapons (or using a mixed bag of weapons, whatever the case may be), or it could be any number of things that cause this. The bottom line is that because you weren't tracking all available data, you are essentially trying to disprove my statement by using correlation rather than causation. In any type of situation where skill, teamwork and experience are essentially the same, I would be willing to bet that the team that focuses solely on direct fire weapons would win against the team with LRM boats or a mixed bag of weapons more often than not and the higher the skill level, teamwork and experience of both teams, the more likely the direct fire weapon teams will win. At the top tier level of play, I think that teams that would typically lose against a team such as EMP, would actually have a significantly higher chance of winning if EMP was forced to bring LRMS. All things being equal, LRM's are weaker overall than most direct fire weapons and if that is the only difference in the two teams, you have essentially nerfed your team to some degree and are more likely to lose that match. The more LRM's you bring, the more you nerf it and the more likely you are to lose.
For one, you guys like to toss the word "
anecdotal" around a lot, and I don't think you know what that word means. It means that something is irrelevant or untrue. My stats are relevant and true when discussing how much something may or may not impact a match. Unless of course you are going to accuse me of altering my stats, not presenting "true" stats, or that I have in some manner sabotaged my results to favor LRM stats over direct fire stats, and that I have purposefully done so for over hundreds of matches in the game.
As you are discussing "taking LRMs makes your team more likely to lose", to confirm or deny that we need to look at long term W/L ratios, which is in fact "how often/likely" one is to win or lose. Thus, my actual W/L ratios between LRM based mechs and non-LRM based mechs are actually very relevant to the current "theory". If LRMs (even an LRM5 if I recall what someone said correctly) seriously was more likely to make your team to lose, than my stats should seriously back that claim up. By that definition/theory, my LRM mechs (after hundreds of matches played) should have a worse W/L (indicating a less likely chance of winning) than my Direct Fire only mechs. However, this is not what my data is showing, and instead it is showing the exact opposite of that.
In my case, all evidence seems to present that LRMs in general play (as in, QP, GP and FP) indicate the exact opposite, that LRMs make me more likely to win.
As for WHY my W/L is higher with LRMs... I actually HAVE said (many times already) my "secret recipe" to success. However, it's been brushed off and ignored so many times already that I just started to say "Don't know then, maybe it's just me". However, for clarity sake, I shall repost information about LRMs.
- Boating. I don't. It is the number one thing I see people, even comp players, try to do. They want to "min/max" LRMs, but they don't realize that by doing so they not only grant more strength to that aspect, but they amplify it's weaknesses as well. This leads to many possible advantages becoming a disadvantage, which I'll present shortly.
- Indirect only. A lot of people see LRMs as only being useful for long range indirect firepower. This is one aspect of LRMs, but there are other aspects no one seems to want to see. So, in the effort to "min/max" their performance, they boat, then bloat their team, and try to have "dedicated spotters/NARCers". Every "comp" test has always seemed to be against LRM bloated opponents, not opponents using them sparingly and in conjunction with other aspects of a build/teammates. You know, that "sharing armor" thing for one point?
- Distance. A lot of people, even comp players "trying to prove/disprove LRM use" still tend to keep a lot of distance between themselves, their teammates and the enemy targets. This leads to longer travel times, less armor sharing, less personal target locks, etc.
- Static. Most people who use LRMs become static elements, almost like turrets or battery emplacements. Compiled with points 1-3...
- Lack of direct fire. I wish to emphasize this portion, as many people who bring LRMs take nothing but LRMs, or a bare bones defense weapons. This lack of direct fire precision aspect means that LRM spread becomes an issue. Now, because they are so dependent upon LRMs to deal their damage, they have to count upon massive DPS to overcome the spread.
- Spread. They only enhance it as a weakness when they take nothing but LRMs (you know, "min/maxing" them?). This leads to many issues, and some of their downfall when bloated on a team.
Here is the thing, I've noticed that I play LRMs massively different from probably over 90% of the other players who use LRMs. This is what I do different, which is very likely the case for my increased W/L score (AKA: leaves me actually more likely to be on the "winning team").
- I don't boat LRMs only. I bring significant direct fire weapons, for precision damage as needed.
- I don't hide out back. I'm on the front lines, shoulder to shoulder with everyone else on my team. So, I "share armor" with my team. I don't depend upon LRMs for all my damage, only a portion of it.
- I'm not afraid to go where LRMs don't work so well. This is because I bring reasonable direct fire weapons with me.
- Spread. This is where I find it as an advantage. I've said it before, so I'll just say it again. Spread can be as much of a weakness as it can be a strength. Spread is the counter to side shielding and torso protecting. It's hard to protect a side torso at cherry red from a spread of LRM damage. This is also why I find LRMs blend well with direct fire weapons. My direct fire can open holes, and my LRMs can finish the job. (Or even reverse just as often.)
- I get close to people. I'm not afraid to press into the 180m distance of LRMs, though I'd rather keep people at my average combat zone of 200-400m. At those ranges, they are not likely at all to avoid my LRMs.
- Balance. I've worked hard at finding that balancing point to be able to blend different weapons for any specific mech/build. This goes for all my mechs, not just LRMs. There is a point where too many LRMs are too many, and a point where I may not even have enough on a given design.
- Multi-range engagement. Sometimes, LRMs find their way only a build as my long range alternative. This lets me approach the enemy at my own choosing in those builds.
As another note, all my stats are relevant in "generalized" play, where they are recorded. This means it excludes FW, as matches in that game mode do not contribute to your stat pools. I don't play in top tier competitive games. I can also say, some people from even Emp can no longer say "I've never been killed by LRMs". I can say I have personally defeated (with my team) some rather high tier comp players. I've also had my face stomped in before by them with everyone else on my team.
I'm not a top player in this game. I'm not even going to pretend I am, not even try to enter into that scene of game play. This isn't saying I'm not trying to improve my game play, but I know my skills are not there.
So. What information from my stats is missing? What piece of data do you need? I can post W/L of all my mechs, and mention which ones had LRMs and which ones don't (I'll even post their builds if that helps you any). I can also even post up my stats for my weapons. It's all statistical data, and everything I can add to prove anything as far as being data relevant to the topic. Just be ready for if that data continues to counter your theory, and recall your theory is about "all levels of play", which includes QP, GP, FP and competitive play. I've got information for two out of four (as FP stats don't register on your stat page last I knew).
Pat Kell, on 29 April 2017 - 10:54 PM, said:
You have disproven nothing because I wasn't stating an absolute in the sense that you WILL lose, I said it REDUCES you're overall effectiveness as a member of a team and when all things are equal (I know that's nearly impossible to account for) bringing LRM's REDUCE your chance of winning. You can't just pull you own personal stats off the stats page and prove that statement false as proving it false would be extremely difficult with an enormous amount of testing being done. But what you can do is watch the highest and the lowest tiers of play to see what general types of weapons are brought and what tends to happen. At the lower tiers, LRM's tend to do ok because people don't have the skill, experience and teamwork mentality to be able to make them essentially useless. At the higher tiers, LRM's will perform well less and less often.
The fact that you're arguing this at all is baffling to me. There is a ton of evidence out there for you to see but you are so blinded by your own personal experience with them that you can't see any other possibility. The saddest part is that you are in these forums, trying to argue for the viability of a weapon that is, in general, worse that direct fire weapons and new people are going to come here, read this and think that there is something too it. Granted, some people need to learn on their own but if people are coming here looking for ways to do better, feeding them full of this "LRM's has a place in QP or CW" is just flat out wrong. If they just want to play and have fun, fine bring whatever you want but telling people that are looking to improve and have a better win/loss experience that "LRM's are a viable weapon system" is setting them up for failure as they try to improve their skill level. It will teach them bad habits, give them a false sense of teamwork and overall cause them to blame others for their own failures. "I mean seriously...the guy on the forums said that LRM's are viable, I am breaking 1k damage every match with them in CW but my pugs (read meatshields) just keep doing sub 800 damage and we get rolled. They must be the bad ones right?"...no, that is wrong.
... I'm Tier 2...
Not T5, 4 or 3. And I'm rocketing up through T2 even. (Of course, it's also been stated that the PSR tiers are more like an experience bar. So there is that to consider.)
Oh, and "reduce your chance of winning" also means "have a lower W/L score". The statements are universally interchangeable and essentially the same phrase said in different ways. So, yes. I have a higher W/L with my LRM mechs. I tend to also play LRMs different than most other LRM users. When the average LRM user sits out back firing only indirectly (which is one of the worst ways to use LRMs), you can say I'm not your average LRM user.
Your statement does cover "all levels of play", not just "competitive play only". I personally feel that I don't need to "bow down and accept" everything the comp players do or say. I have the ability to test what they say and do, so I do. I take what they say under consideration, but I've also got to consider what my own personal performance is saying as well.
As for your last paragraph, I have never once said that. LRMs ARE viable for FP, but don't boat them. Of course, if someone only glosses over everything, than maybe they didn't read everything I said. I've never once claimed LRMs as "the best weapon in game", but it also isn't worst either. It's mostly different from direct fire weapons, but also isn't "the best" either. It's just in the middle. I mean, I've had people say (comp players as well) that CERMLs are garbage, but I find them very useful.
Pat Kell, on 30 April 2017 - 01:17 PM, said:
Maybe...I do know that one time, KCom was doing a min max LRM drop. 9 LRM's and 3 narcers in QP and we came up against an SJR team. They stomped the living bejesus out of us. Now I admit that they would probably have beaten us anyway if we were direct fire but it wouldn't have been like 12-2 like it was with LRMer's. They just stayed near cover, popped out, shot us and then laughed with glee as our incoming LRM's slammed into their cover. Anytime, we tried to move around their cover, they just shot us and continued to move with us. It was a perfect example that the more skilled a team is, the less likely you are to be able to effectively use LRM's. But, what the heck, give it a shot, maybe KCom is just full of people who have no idea how to effectively use LRM's.
The problem I see there (again) is LRM bloating. 9 LRM boats (I'm presuming) and 3 NARCers... The most typical pit fall I see everyone fall into. Boat the LRMs and try to shoot them indirectly only...
This is a boring story I've gotten tired of hearing. I hear it as every example when LRMs are being discussed, like it's the only way LRMs can be played. It's really sad that the only way people seem to consider using LRMs is "poorly". And yes, I find many comp players seemed to have forgotten how LRMs seem to work... One I had to mention to them that LRMs were not fire and forget weapons... As he posted a video of him using LRMs (to prove how bad they are), and he kept dropping locks while LRMs where still in flight (and hiding and shooting indirectly, boated, far back...)
MischiefSC, on 30 April 2017 - 02:41 PM, said:
I'm thinking the special way to run LRMs successfully is to only launch to training area. Maybe that's the mistake.
I press the Play button personally. End up getting reasonable results...
Xannatharr, on 01 May 2017 - 03:33 PM, said:
Or get your own damn locks.
Agreed. LRM users should be trying to get their own locks. Any LRM user who complains about a teammate dropped a lock is having unreasonable expectations (and probably sitting too far back). I personally would rather lose a lock, than lose an ally. A still alive ally is better than a lock that cost them their mech...
4
...trolls will be trolls. What are ya gonna do.
