184 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

MischiefSC, on 01 May 2017 - 10:37 PM, said:

This holds true even for you. You do reduce your teams odds of winning - relative to you playing direct fire as 'correctly' as you play LRMs.

Make sense? Better tools will do more with the same effort.

What if I said I used direct fire weapons for close to a year? Since the Crab came out till the Huntsmen came out, I almost used direct fire weapons exclusively. (Crabs and Novas.) So, I'm not unfamiliar with direct fire builds. Over half my Huntsmen builds are pure direct fire as is.

If I'm not playing direct fire correctly, than I don't know what I'm doing wrong with them. But, seen as even my LRM mechs use direct fire, and probably half their performance is reliant on them (probably half my damage is done by direct fire), I still maintain direct fire discipline, even as I LRM.

I propose it's that I mix the different aspects of the weapons I use well, something I rarely see from anyone else. I typically see players boating weapons of the same type, or weapons that have similar profiles (ERPPC and Gauss and LPLs and ERMLs as examples).

I mean, I honestly have not neglected my direct fire performance. I wallowed in T3 for a really long time when I used almost exclusively direct fire weapons, and then skyrocketed out of T3 and solidly into T2 when I decided to pick them back up again. Even now, I still typically play direct fire weapons more often than I do my LRMs, but yet I continue to perform better with LRMs overall.

I mean, maybe I am less skilled in direct fire weapons, but I don't think I am. I just, honestly, seem to just get better performance from my LRM mixed platforms than I do direct fire weapons. If I look at just the Huntsmen, the only version to have a better W/L over the LRM versions is my Hero, which still has mixed weapons between two ERLLs and and four SRM4s. Same chassis reduces variation of the chassis influencing the statistics (which is why I presented those stats specifically as a more reliable test platform, though the pattern persists elsewhere).

I'm not one to deny the possibility. I also realize I don't play competitively and I don't enter those higher tier competitive aspects of the game.

Kwea, on 01 May 2017 - 10:50 PM, said:

their place is in your mechlab, if you haven't sold them, not on a mech. You want to bring them, fine....but stop trying to say they are valid as a weapon system. They aren't.

There are close to 300 hours of top tier comp matches recorded over at MRBC. Go see how many of the top 4 teams bring any LRMS. Not because they can't play them, but because they aren't useful compared to direct fire you can aim.


wanna duel for accounts? I will take direct fire, on alpine, and you take LRMs.

I always wanted a tier 5 account...

Thing is, what the comp players bring or don't bring doesn't have as much bearing on the rest of the game play situations. You are talking about determining everything of this game down to maybe less than 10% of the players.

I understand why people look to those players for information, but that isn't the end all be all of this game. For over 90% of us, the game doesn't play "the same way" (not saying the game is different mechanically, but situationally). So, things that don't work in comp play can and often do work in non-comp play.

I also believe in people "experimenting" and finding things out for themselves. By all means, test what any comp player tells you, but that doesn't mean what works for them will hold true for you. Basically, I don't think people should just take their (the comp player's) word as pure truth, but it should be taking as consideration and good advice, but still tested for personal experience.


As for "dueling for accounts", I do believe this would technically be against the ToS for this game... (I know. I have no sense of adventure.)

On remark of the dual, it actually would not be conductive of LRMs in the form of this debate. The testing would be biased in favor of direct fire, not to mention LRMs are more of a team weapon. For one, you would already know what you would be fighting against, and could set up counter builds against it. For two, LRMs prefer working within a team, not solo. For their maximum effect, you need a minimum of four teammates (more is better) to assist within a fight. As more people are placed into the "dual" the results start to become more and more "questionable", as more and more variables are introduced. This dilutes the results of how impactful LRMs really are, but it's also the only way to show LRM's strengths as well...

---

I find LRMs are a weapon that can easily become bloated, and it's too easy to have too many of them on a team. A mech or even two with LRMs on them, if played well, can be an enhancement to the team (in my opinion). When most or all of the team are LRM boats, it's too much and tends to stop providing benefits for the team. It's kinda like wine. A little can actually improve overall health and improve heart health. Too much, and it can do some serious harm, such as to the liver, kidneys, etc.

I still would love to (in a non-competitive situation) explore the possibility of how a team may operate with almost every mech having a small limited amount of LRMs on them. Such as only a single LRM5-10 with 0.5 to 1.5 tons of ammo... Complimented by a build otherwise nearly identical to what would normally be run (for that player). Just to have some fun and see if an idea I had for a strategy may actually work... (just for curiosity sake, not to prove anything.)

Edited by Tesunie, 01 May 2017 - 11:25 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Doesn't matter how long you used them. I've played mostly direct fire for a good 4+ years and was painfully bad and out of practice with PPCs just last night. I'm mediocre with PPCs at the moment and I still have plenty of bad habits with autocannons. Good with IS AC5s and CUAC10s, can consistently perform well with lasers. What I really need is to just take the time to practice with peeps to get the lead time down. Also timing and positioning, etc.

That's just the stuff I know I do wrong. There's countless things I'm certainly doing wrong that I'm not aware of.

Why?

Because having used them doesn't mean I used them well.

That's the whole point. When you take an environment full of players at a relatively comparable skill level who are very competitive then you've solved for the player variance. 'Good' habits replaced with 'best' habits. In that environment we have confirmed, repeatedly, that direct fire wins over LRMs. If you're not seeing that it's going to be a product of your habits, not the weapon system.

Comp play is regular play. That's it. It's exactly the same. Just that everyone is expected to do really well and everyone involved is very competitive; that means they're looking for the best way to win. Because KCom has a wet bar, VIP seating and our own version of the Solid Gold Dancers we get some comp players swinging through to drop in FW. Emp, SJR, MJ12, etc. You know what's crazy?

They're just good players. All nice people, fun to play with who are, in fact, playing to have fun. One of the biggest misstatements I hear is that comp has nothing to do with QP. The only differences between comp and QP is that comp matches have a better attention to balance in their rules and the players are all of a much closer skill level. That's it. Those are huge things, compared to QP, however they are not things that actually affect the relative balance of weapons or builds or mechs. QP is hugely forgiving of bad builds and weapons because you've always got some derps on the other side to farm and you can count on both sides to make mostly poor tactical decisions. Comp is different because both teams are (usually, well, mostly, hopefully) derp-free and both sides tend to make very solid tactical decisions.

The value of weapon systems and mechs and builds however is the same in any environment. Comp is just better at showing it because all the other variables that let poor choices still shine are smoothed out.

Not saying you're a bad player, not saying you shouldn't play what you want and how you want. Not at all. I am however saying that weapon and mech performance is not subjective, it's objective. What you enjoy is subjective. What works better is objective. The variables involved in field performance are personal, not mechanical.

Mechanically, LRMs are inferior to direct fire. I'd love for LRMs to get fixed to be competitive to direct fire. I have no doubt every single person in comp would too. Different people may have different good and bad habits however and that impacts how they play different things but that doesn't change the objective value of the weapon systems.

[Leone]

Tesunie, on 01 May 2017 - 11:25 PM, said:

I still would love to (in a non-competitive situation) explore the possibility of how a team may operate with almost every mech having a small limited amount of LRMs on them. Such as only a single LRM5-10 with 0.5 to 1.5 tons of ammo... Complimented by a build otherwise nearly identical to what would normally be run (for that player). Just to have some fun and see if an idea I had for a strategy may actually work... (just for curiosity sake, not to prove anything.)

I'm game. I've only one or two mechs build along that line, but I could always tweak some of my more favourite mechs into something similar.

~Leone.

[Tesunie]

Leone, on 02 May 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

I'm game. I've only one or two mechs build along that line, but I could always tweak some of my more favourite mechs into something similar.

~Leone.

The problem would be finding enough people willing to actually try it, and then getting us all on together at the same time... We also should test in public queue GP, as then we'd be facing against opponents "not prepared" for the tactic and have as much of a "blind" testing as possible.

Could be interesting and fun, if nothing else.

[Pat Kell]

Tesunie, on 01 May 2017 - 07:31 PM, said:

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.

"not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research."

That was the definition of 'anecdotal evidence" pulled directly from your source and it applies 100% to what I said. It is your personal accounts of events rather than facts or research. They are facts in relation to your own experience but have very little to do with the over arching theme I am presenting. I think you may want to read that a bit more carefully. While I appreciate that there will be outliers to this conversation who, for some unknown reason, do better in LRM's than with direct fire, I can say with a fair amount of confidence that it's not because LRM's are better than direct fire weapons, rather there are numerous other factors at play that haven't been taken into account that could account for all of this. So, yea, anecdotal evidence and I absolutely know what it means.

[Tesunie]

Pat Kell, on 02 May 2017 - 05:28 PM, said:

"not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research."

That was the definition of 'anecdotal evidence" pulled directly from your source and it applies 100% to what I said. It is your personal accounts of events rather than facts or research. They are facts in relation to your own experience but have very little to do with the over arching theme I am presenting. I think you may want to read that a bit more carefully. While I appreciate that there will be outliers to this conversation who, for some unknown reason, do better in LRM's than with direct fire, I can say with a fair amount of confidence that it's not because LRM's are better than direct fire weapons, rather there are numerous other factors at play that haven't been taken into account that could account for all of this. So, yea, anecdotal evidence and I absolutely know what it means.

Then, who's data are we suppose to accept? Who's data isn't "based on personal accounts"?

Am I suppose to blindly take your data? Which is just as "based on personal accounts" as my own? Mischief's? The less than top 10% of players (comp players)? Those two videos of two comp teams, one dropping with LRMs and the other "knowing" that they are dropping against LRMs (which is rather biased)?

My data was gathered in a blind manner. As in, my opponents didn't know if I was or was not bringing LRMs. My data is also unbiased, as I play direct fire as well as LRMs, unless you wish to say I've purposefully handicapped my direct fire results. I'm not bringing a "cherry picked" single game (which would be anecdotal and a "personal account rather than facts"), but instead presenting only mechs with over a hundred matches to their name to provide as reliable "long term" data as I could.

So, if my data is irrelevant, unreliable, and/or "not necessarily true" when we are discussing "generalized game play" (which is where my "tests" where done), who's data is? Am I just suppose to take your word for this information, and not test it myself?

[vandalhooch]

Tesunie, on 01 May 2017 - 10:02 PM, said:

Or... You could have done your own search and gotten the answer...
"A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon."
Or
"Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research."

Stop pretending you are some sort of expert on this. You couldn't even be bothered to read the very next sentence in the piece you quoted, could you?

"Like all hypotheses, a working hypothesis is constructed as a statement of expectations, which can be linked to the exploratory research ^[3] purpose in empirical investigation and is often used as a conceptual framework in qualitative research."

Quote

Things start out as a hypothesis, an educated guess. Then, after being tested (further researched), it turns into a theory.

No, they don't. And no amount of you quote mining sources you don't understand will make it true.

Quote

Furthermore:
Scientific hypothesis
People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis, often called an "educated guess"^[12][13] because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. However, some scientists reject the term "educated guess" as incorrect. Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem.
According to Schick and Vaughn,^[14] researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:

• Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
  
• Parsimony (as in the application of "Occam's razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
  
• Scope – the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
  
• Fruitfulness – the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
  
• Conservatism – the degree of "fit" with existing recognized knowledge-systems.

You going to pretend you understood any of that? A guy who claims that the "the theory of density" explains why balloons float?

Quote

So, the hypothesis is "LRMs decrease your chances of winning". "Decreases chances of winning" is essentially saying "results in a lower W/L ratio", as W/L ration is a provable rate of "winning". So, using what data I have available (my own stats), they are not in agreeance to the hypothesis presented, proving (at least with that specific wording and relation to the game overall) incorrect. If it was correct, than my mechs with LRMs should, as the theory would go, be lower than with my direct fire mechs. (Presuming that I have not manipulated the data otherwise and have a reasonable amount of the data. I feel one hundred plus matches per mech to be a reasonable collection of data for a specific chassis. Then I also have hundreds more if you include other mechs that also scored more than one hundred matches as well being included, instead of just a specific class, such as the Huntsmen.)


As for hypothesis/theory becoming scientific fact:
"In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts."

So, you cite a source that flat out contradicts your claim that hypotheses can eventually become facts.

Quote

Also, a little farther down on the same page of "scientific method", it labels the "steps" of the process.

• Formation of a question
  
• Hypothesis
  
• Prediction
  
• Testing
  
• Analysis

As of right now, we have a question, "Are LRMs useful for FW (or implied as any game mode)?" This leads to a hypothesis/theory "No. LRMs reduces your team's chances of winning". Prediction would be "taking any amount of LRMs will reduce your team's chances to win (your W/L ratio will be worse)". Then testing is "play the game with LRM styled mechs." Analysis would then be "Did LRMs negatively effect my W/L ratio?"


So, as the steps would go, my testing of the hypothesis generates an analysis that says "No, taking LRMs are not indicative of having any impact in your W/L ratio, and depending upon how it's used may actually even increase your team's ability to win matches (have a positive effect on W/L ratios)." I have tested the hypothesis, and these are my results, as evidence in my LRM mech's W/L ratios being universally higher than most any of my direct fire only mechs.

1 - You didn't test anything. You used the exact same biased observations for creating your hypothesis and "testing" it.

2 - Testing of a hypothesis does not "generate" an analysis. Stop trying to use words you don't understand. You aren't fooling anyone who has even a cursory understanding of how science is done.

Quote

Now, because the hypothesis has been proven incorrect, that doesn't mean it isn't done yet. The process very well continues, as the hypothesis may be proven wrong in some aspects, at least with it's current wording (all levels of play). For the scientific to actually be, you should be adjusting the hypothesis and retesting it to see if the results match the new theory. I have proven that, at least at some point to some extent, LRMs can be very useful for any game play that I have been in that is recorded by stats. That would be Quick play (solo/pug play) and Group play (premade groups). As stats don't separate these two modes of play, they are mixed together. As I play about equal amounts of both, my results apply to both to some extent. (I wish sometimes that we could break down stats even more.)

So, at least in some cases in normal game play, LRMs can be useful and can increase your team's chances of winning. However, that doesn't mean that, say, in high tier competitive play they may not be (as I did not test for those settings). But, in the term for generalize game play, the statement is wrong. Thus, if the hypothesis is reworked, it could instead say "LRMs decrease your chances of winning in high tier levels of competitive play", an area that I have not (and do not intend) to test. Unto which, it very much could be (and probably is) true.

This is how the Scientific Method works. Observe an occurrence. Make a hypothesis on why it happens. Predict what will happen in your tests. Test the hypothesis. Analise the results/data from the tests. Does it prove true? Yes, keep testing. No, refine hypothesis and start predicting and testing again.

You don't have data. You have confirmation bias.

Quote

I'm sorry. I was trying to provide a quick example of a process. Maybe I shouldn't have done so...

I was trying not to bring exact scientific examples, as I don't feel we needed every aspect of science to prove or disprove a single point in a video game discussion.

Says the guy who started his first post with "The thing is, I'm going off a scientific like view of this,"

Quote

I mean, I can pull up more references and stuff, but seriously why. Gravity, relativity, density, how hot the sun is, how far away pluto is... I kinda figured those exacts were not exactly relevant to this discussion. So forgive me for trying to provide a quick example of how a scientific process works...

That isn't what you did. You gave us evidence that you are only faking your knowledge about science and how science works.

Quote

So, what you are saying here is that I have purposefully taken actions to try and make my results appear counter purposefully? Over hundreds of matches? Just so I can try to counter this statement?

...

Really?

My statistical data (which is pure mathematical information presented from my personal performance in matches) honestly doesn't have much bias.

We can add "doesn't know what biased data is" to the long list of things you got wrong so far.

Quote

It's very clear on what it's saying, which is that I (for reasons mentioned before several times) seem to experience a better W/L ratio (win more often) when I take LRMs onto the battlefield. This data doesn't have to match everyone else's data for it to be true. Nor does it have to match everyone else's data to prove the presented hypothesis to be "not wholly accurate". I can get good performance from LRMs due to the manner in which I use them. Results from others may vary, probably due to the manner in which they use their weapons instead.

"Seem to experience" and "actually experience" are two separate things.

[Tesunie]

vandalhooch, on 03 May 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

Stop pretending you are some sort of expert on this. You couldn't even be bothered to read the very next sentence in the piece you quoted, could you?

"Like all hypotheses, a working hypothesis is constructed as a statement of expectations, which can be linked to the exploratory research ^[3] purpose in empirical investigation and is often used as a conceptual framework in qualitative research."

So? The Scientific law of Gravity (and relativity) were always known? No one hypothisied any of it? Or theorized any of it?

I'm not even going to bother any farther, as apparently we are just going to throw quotes and definitions at each other. I'm not even reading the rest.
Doesn't matter anyway. I'm still going to use LRMs if I feel like it. They still carry a provable better W/L ratio for me on nearly all mechs I take them on. So... It doesn't matter what anyone else says about them, as I can use them well.

Bye now. This is what you wanted, right? To bend words and mince tiny details that are, overall, irrelevant to everything else?

[vandalhooch]

Tesunie, on 03 May 2017 - 07:00 PM, said:

So? The Scientific law of Gravity (and relativity) were always known? No one hypothisied any of it? Or theorized any of it?

A law is a mathematical description of how things work. A theory explains why laws exist and how they work.

I can use the law of gravity to calculate how much time it will take an object dropped from a specified height to reach the ground. I need the theory of general relativity (there's no law of relativity) to explain why the object seems to fall.

Quote

I'm not even going to bother any farther, as apparently we are just going to throw quotes and definitions at each other. I'm not even reading the rest.

How very scientific of you.

The difference is that I actually understand what the quotes mean and you are faking it.

Quote

Doesn't matter anyway. I'm still going to use LRMs if I feel like it. They still carry a provable better W/L ratio for me on nearly all mechs I take them on. So... It doesn't matter what anyone else says about them, as I can use them well.

Bye now. This is what you wanted, right? To bend words and mince tiny details that are, overall, irrelevant to everything else?

No, I wanted to call out a liar and a fake when I saw one.

[Tesunie]

Why bother? No one reads anything anyway. Which is why my evidence is "inconsequential". But man, all those high level comp players, yeah them? Anything they say is compete perfection and never should be questioned.

Not that anyone will see this anyway:
A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe.
https://www.google.c...=scientific+law

And here:
https://en.wikipedia.../Scientific_law
Many laws take mathematical forms, and thus can be stated as an equation...
Like theories and hypotheses, laws make predictions (specifically, they predict that new observations will conform to the law), and can be falsified if they are found in contradiction with new data.



I still ask the question though, even if we can put all this stuff behind us... Who's data are we suppose to use that is relevant to LRMs and their ability to affect W/L? Are we only looking for data from high tier players (when the statement was about all levels of play)? Only the data that "agrees" with the statement? Only the data gathered from FW play? Only GP? QP?

I'm still not getting a response as to who's data is relevant and who's isn't?


FYI: I'm NOT a scientist. I've also never once said that LRMs are superior to direct fire weapons. However, my statements seem to fall on deaf ears no matter how many times I may say it... So why bother anymore?

As a final note, arguing about "scientific method" is being rather pointless about the actual debate that was going on, and that debate was rather LRMs impact W/L ratios, of particular note (considering the title) in FP. Sounds easy enough to test, take some LRM builds (they don't even have to be boats) and play the game. Does it actually impact your W/L ratio? However, all previous "tests" I've seen referenced has been with boats, but that isn't part of the "working hypothesis"/statement being tested.

[vandalhooch]

Tesunie, on 03 May 2017 - 07:43 PM, said:

Why bother? No one reads anything anyway. Which is why my evidence is "inconsequential". But man, all those high level comp players, yeah them? Anything they say is compete perfection and never should be questioned.

Not that anyone will see this anyway:
A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe.
https://www.google.c...=scientific+law

And here:
https://en.wikipedia.../Scientific_law
Many laws take mathematical forms, and thus can be stated as an equation...
Like theories and hypotheses, laws make predictions (specifically, they predict that new observations will conform to the law), and can be falsified if they are found in contradiction with new data.

You don't have the slightest clue as to what any of that means. You don't know that it supports your opinion about how science works or if it confirms my position. All you know is that it seems to have used some of the same words that you used.

Quote

I still ask the question though, even if we can put all this stuff behind us... Who's data are we suppose to use that is relevant to LRMs and their ability to affect W/L? Are we only looking for data from high tier players (when the statement was about all levels of play)? Only the data that "agrees" with the statement? Only the data gathered from FW play? Only GP? QP?

I'm still not getting a response as to who's data is relevant and who's isn't?

Unbiased data would come from many, many players selected at random from the population you are interested in examining. Their data would be collected without them knowing what question you want to investigate or what your null and alternate hypotheses are.

Your "data" was not randomly selected and you are definitely aware of your own opinion as to the question. Biased, worthless datum.

Quote

FYI: I'm NOT a scientist.

But you feel qualified to lecture a bunch of strangers, who could actually be scientists for all you know, about how science works? Wouldn't it be easier to not try and bluff your way through this?

Quote

I've also never once said that LRMs are superior to direct fire weapons. However, my statements seem to fall on deaf ears no matter how many times I may say it... So why bother anymore?

As a final note, arguing about "scientific method" is being rather pointless about the actual debate that was going on, and that debate was rather LRMs impact W/L ratios, of particular note (considering the title) in FP. Sounds easy enough to test, take some LRM builds (they don't even have to be boats) and play the game. Does it actually impact your W/L ratio? However, all previous "tests" I've seen referenced has been with boats, but that isn't part of the "working hypothesis"/statement being tested.

Claiming that you approached the question "scientifically" when you don't seem to have the faintest clue what "scientifically" actually means is just dumb. Repeatedly trying to quote things that you think support your initial bluff is just more dumb piled on top. A mountain of dumb, if you will.

[Pat Kell]

Tesunie, on 02 May 2017 - 08:50 PM, said:

Then, who's data are we suppose to accept? Who's data isn't "based on personal accounts"?

Am I suppose to blindly take your data? Which is just as "based on personal accounts" as my own? Mischief's? The less than top 10% of players (comp players)? Those two videos of two comp teams, one dropping with LRMs and the other "knowing" that they are dropping against LRMs (which is rather biased)?

My data was gathered in a blind manner. As in, my opponents didn't know if I was or was not bringing LRMs. My data is also unbiased, as I play direct fire as well as LRMs, unless you wish to say I've purposefully handicapped my direct fire results. I'm not bringing a "cherry picked" single game (which would be anecdotal and a "personal account rather than facts"), but instead presenting only mechs with over a hundred matches to their name to provide as reliable "long term" data as I could.

So, if my data is irrelevant, unreliable, and/or "not necessarily true" when we are discussing "generalized game play" (which is where my "tests" where done), who's data is? Am I just suppose to take your word for this information, and not test it myself?

No, you are supposed to take a broad gathering of data from multiple people at multiple tiers and form your opinions based on that. Granted, if it works for you, great, but it rarely works for many people except the lower tiered players. Hopefully as they progress through the experience bar, they can adapt to the fact that more and more of their opponents are going to eat them alive instead of quitting because their awesome weapon no longer works as well as it did and it makes them mad.

The sad fact is that the higher up in tiers people go, the less likely you are to see LRM's work well because there are simply better weapons out there. It isn't true of everyone as there are always people who break the mold but they are extremely rare. Using your own personal experience to try to discount the experiences of nearly 99+% of the player base is what makes your own personal experience anecdotal and unreliable. Tier 5 people bring LRM's because they see others use them effectively against other tier 5 players. A few less in tier 4, same with Tier 3 and even fewer yet with tier 2. By the time you get to tier one, which is where everyone will eventually get if they play enough and can adapt just a little, almost no one ever brings LRM's unless they have a comp or health issue or are just trolling people. I don't base that solely off what I have seen, I base it off what a vast majority of the players bring to matches and what they say does and doesn't work. They all tend to agree that LRM's are not as good as direct fire weapons. Again, I have heard that you do quite well with LRM's and you may be one of those few that can make them work well, you are just not the norm though and well likely never be the norm because of the way that LRM's work. Nothing wrong with that, it just is what it is.

[Tesunie]

Pat Kell, on 03 May 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

No, you are supposed to take a broad gathering of data from multiple people at multiple tiers and form your opinions based on that. Granted, if it works for you, great, but it rarely works for many people except the lower tiered players. Hopefully as they progress through the experience bar, they can adapt to the fact that more and more of their opponents are going to eat them alive instead of quitting because their awesome weapon no longer works as well as it did and it makes them mad.

The sad fact is that the higher up in tiers people go, the less likely you are to see LRM's work well because there are simply better weapons out there. It isn't true of everyone as there are always people who break the mold but they are extremely rare. Using your own personal experience to try to discount the experiences of nearly 99+% of the player base is what makes your own personal experience anecdotal and unreliable. Tier 5 people bring LRM's because they see others use them effectively against other tier 5 players. A few less in tier 4, same with Tier 3 and even fewer yet with tier 2. By the time you get to tier one, which is where everyone will eventually get if they play enough and can adapt just a little, almost no one ever brings LRM's unless they have a comp or health issue or are just trolling people. I don't base that solely off what I have seen, I base it off what a vast majority of the players bring to matches and what they say does and doesn't work. They all tend to agree that LRM's are not as good as direct fire weapons. Again, I have heard that you do quite well with LRM's and you may be one of those few that can make them work well, you are just not the norm though and well likely never be the norm because of the way that LRM's work. Nothing wrong with that, it just is what it is.

This I'm relatively fine with, but then shouldn't the statement be less generalized and more specific? I mean, saying "Bringing LRMs into a comp match typically reduces your team's chances of winning", or even "For the average player, bringing LRMs into a match reduces your chances of winning", be more accurate of a statement? I'm about saying an accurate statement, more than anything else.

Granted, I agree that LRMs are not "all powerful". Far from it. I just find them useful, and I know a lot of people tend to not use them well. And yes, even Comp players I've seen use them seem to not use them to their full extent (which is fine, they have better tricks to use anyway).


Basically, I'm more worried about a blanket statement that essentially called LRMs "useless", when I find them far from. I encourage players to experiment, and one way to do that is to use it, whatever that may be. Then determine for yourself how effective you where and never stop experimenting. The key is to not stop with one aspect, but continue to learn and experiment with more. Eventually every player (in my opinion) should probably have used every weapon at least a little. Best way to find how to play against them is to know how they work. Right?

I think part of this issue is with me, as the "LRM hate" has been rather strong as of late. This is in matches, in the forums... Everywhere. I have actually stopped telling people completely that I have any amount of LRMs (I say it more as an "if you have a target, call it out and I'll do what I can" more than a "get lock plz"), as the hate from some members of my team just pours right on out. Sometimes, they even take actions to purposefully try and sabotage me in those cases (little do they seem to realize I actually don't normally need their locks). Then you have the enemy, who will (as of late) express their hate of LRMs being used against them...


Basically, it's like if people got angry with you for bringing Gauss builds, and then said that bringing those weapons "decreased your chances of winning". Then every time you tried to tell them "ah... no it doesn't" they kept blowing you off, quoting charge up mechanics, low ammo count, and heavy weight as all counters and drawbacks to taking them... They aren't seeing the benefits. Long range, pin point, accurate, low heat, fast velocity, etc. I'm sure you'd probably want to counter that statement as well. (And lets face it, a lot of players in T5 probably can't utilize a Gauss very well. Basically, inverse of LRMs in the tiers.)

Every weapon has it's pros and cons. It's all a matter of playing to their pros and accepting or playing away from the cons when you can.

[theUgly]

Tesunie, on 03 May 2017 - 08:45 PM, said:

This I'm relatively fine with, but then shouldn't the statement be less generalized and more specific? I mean, saying "Bringing LRMs into a comp match typically reduces your team's chances of winning", or even "For the average player, bringing LRMs into a match reduces your chances of winning", be more accurate of a statement? I'm about saying an accurate statement, more than anything else.

Granted, I agree that LRMs are not "all powerful". Far from it. I just find them useful, and I know a lot of people tend to not use them well. And yes, even Comp players I've seen use them seem to not use them to their full extent (which is fine, they have better tricks to use anyway).


Basically, I'm more worried about a blanket statement that essentially called LRMs "useless", when I find them far from. I encourage players to experiment, and one way to do that is to use it, whatever that may be. Then determine for yourself how effective you where and never stop experimenting. The key is to not stop with one aspect, but continue to learn and experiment with more. Eventually every player (in my opinion) should probably have used every weapon at least a little. Best way to find how to play against them is to know how they work. Right?

I think part of this issue is with me, as the "LRM hate" has been rather strong as of late. This is in matches, in the forums... Everywhere. I have actually stopped telling people completely that I have any amount of LRMs (I say it more as an "if you have a target, call it out and I'll do what I can" more than a "get lock plz"), as the hate from some members of my team just pours right on out. Sometimes, they even take actions to purposefully try and sabotage me in those cases (little do they seem to realize I actually don't normally need their locks). Then you have the enemy, who will (as of late) express their hate of LRMs being used against them...


Basically, it's like if people got angry with you for bringing Gauss builds, and then said that bringing those weapons "decreased your chances of winning". Then every time you tried to tell them "ah... no it doesn't" they kept blowing you off, quoting charge up mechanics, low ammo count, and heavy weight as all counters and drawbacks to taking them... They aren't seeing the benefits. Long range, pin point, accurate, low heat, fast velocity, etc. I'm sure you'd probably want to counter that statement as well. (And lets face it, a lot of players in T5 probably can't utilize a Gauss very well. Basically, inverse of LRMs in the tiers.)

Every weapon has it's pros and cons. It's all a matter of playing to their pros and accepting or playing away from the cons when you can.

You seem like a nice guy, so i will keep it polite .
Do you believe that respect is due when it's earned ?

With this post you are asking top ranked people in FW
to actually read what you have typed and say to themself
"Hmm , maybe this guy knows what he's are talking about".

And then again, they click on your stats and see 51 FW games
against their thousands of dropps .. half of which they have drop called .

The reason why you do better in LRM mechs is because you
dont have to expose yourself directly to the oposite team
and can stay behind a rock , let somebody else frontline for you
double time while you peak and poke with the lasers and spraying LRMS.

The above is exactly why you are weak link in your team.
Somebody else is getting focused down double time.
Not to mention that as soon as the enemy dc sees your built
you automatically drop in the list as a prime target.

There is no need for anybody to answear you question of
why you are winning more when you are LRMIng ,,
cause when people look at your real stats which is 51 FW games and
the first thing to mind is " just another inexperienced pug with a big mouth
that uses LRMs trying to tell us something about a game that we dont know"

If you are looking for attention,, keep going,, people are giving it to you as it seems.
But if you really believe of what you are saying you better stop..
you are speaking to people in this forums that have achieved all in this
game and earned their respect times over long time ago .

[Tesunie]

Okay, before I respond to anyone else (I'll read your post theUgly, honest), I feel something needs to be said.

vandalhooch, on 03 May 2017 - 07:55 PM, said:

..

First, yesterday was NOT a good day for me. It started with going into work and immediately having two people get caught trying to steal from my work place. From there, I had someone try to "pull a fast one" on me (like I didn't see you open that box and "magically" place more things in it, right?), and then my day (before I got home and responded here) ended with a customer yelling at me for an item breaking when he misused it (I mean, you really should bring a flag inside if you are expecting high winds, you don't have to, but if you don't and your flag holder breaks...). Then your comment of "No, I wanted to call out a liar and a fake when I saw one" (probably not the best line to use) was just more fuel to the fire of that bad day.

So, yeah. It's not an excuse (though I hope you understand), but I wasn't exactly in the best frame of mind to be debating anything. So for that I'd like to say I'm sorry for my remarks yesterday.

Yes. After some late night reading and stuff, yes. A Scientific Law is typically expressed as a mathematical formula (but not always, or so the site said). And it appears that the US schools of the 90's (I'm starting to show my age now) really did mess up that whole Hypothesis to Theory to Law/Fact thing (because that is exactly how they taught it, but then again they did a bout of "creative spelling", which worked wonders... not).


Overall though, I'd like to think that the base concept I was trying to say is similar, even if I messed up some "technical terms". Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, and I'm going to type this in as laymen terms (so as to avoid using the wrong term again) as I can.

The basic method essentially is to have an observation. You notice something happening and try to explain it. From there, you make a "statement". In this case here the statement was "bringing LRMs reduces your team's ability to win". From there, you create tests to confirm or deny said statement (otherwise, collecting data of some kind). After looking over the results of the tests and doing enough to get reasonable spread of data, you confirm rather the original statement is true or not.


Now, I'll give that a statement can have "degrees of truth". In this case, I believed that the LRM statement was not "wholly true". It probably runs true for the "average" player (as I've seen what many people consider "good" LRM play, and it often makes me cringe), but I felt that there are cases which that statement may not be accurate to. (This is when I started to look at my own data, as it's the only data I honestly can obtain.) For myself, the statement doesn't seem to apply. So, the statement may be "mostly true", but there are cases (such as myself apparently) where the statement is "mostly false".


So, is my base premise of how a statement can be proven true of false that far off? If so, please (and I do request non-linkage to other sights, as that was a lot of reading and wasn't always going very far it seemed) explain to me where I am incorrect and (once again as plainly as possible) please explain how the method is suppose to work. (Because, apparently school got it way wrong, even though in some required state testing I broke their science section with a maxed out chart... and I even guessed on a lot of the science section because it never was covered in classes. )


I don't like presenting incorrect information. I don't do it often (which is why I was so stubborn). But I will admit when I'm wrong (especially when I've cooled those jump jets off with a much better overall day than I had yesterday). So, please inform me (now that I'm not an angry ball of rage).

(And... So much for keeping this short.)

[Tesunie]

theUgly, on 04 May 2017 - 10:47 AM, said:

The reason why you do better in LRM mechs is because you
dont have to expose yourself directly to the oposite team
and can stay behind a rock , let somebody else frontline for you
double time while you peak and poke with the lasers and spraying LRMS.

Okay. I do understand that there are people who play the game and FP a lot more than me. My unit doesn't always do FP. I've done a lot of FP before the Leader boards started to tally information, but as it wasn't exactly going anywhere, we kinda (as a unit) got a little board with it and sorta went to QP.

We still do play FP, but not nearly as much as we once did. We kinda got burned out I think when the Combine and Marik "Purple Dragon Island" event kinda happened. Our faction told us one thing, the faction itself was doing another... and NKVA was really being annoying at that time. Night Scorn earned a lot of respect from me during that time, or most of their members did at least (not to say names, and no, Vandalhooch was not on the list).


However, as far as your statement goes, it's kinda funny actually. Just last Tuesday (when my specific company does practices), we played CW. I was in my drop deck of pure Huntsmen. Due to some hiccup in my builds at the moment, I ended up taking my Prime and A out (I took what was giving the best results while I fix the rest), which each have some LRMs on them. (I normally limit my LRMs to only a single mech per FP drop, but this time I had two.) Not that it's super important, but we lost one match and won two others, which I feel is respectable considering things.

Anyway, your statement is kinda funny because at one point the topic came up over chat about another of our members (someone not from the company, just a unit mate filling in, not that it's important) having LRMs on their mechs. I chimed in that I had some on mine to. My commander was like "So long as you don't hang out back and you share your armor." I was just like ".... Boss... I'm in front of you and everyone else."


So, I can say with fairly good confidence that I do not tend to hide in the back and "spray and pray". Its a tactic. It can work. But honestly, "spray and pray" at every lock you get and shooting indirectly (nearly only or only) is honestly one of the worst ways to play LRMs (or any weapon really). I also tend not to boat, which I think is another point in my favor. I blend the different weapons into what seems to be an effective build. At least for me and my typical levels of play.

I will remark that I've never considered myself anywhere near the top level of players in this game. I know I'm not. I don't have the time, nor the tech/money to even try. I play this game simply for the joy of doing so, and no other reason. As such, I use what I feel I do well in, and what seems to statistically work for me, as well as what is fun to play. (I do like to crunch numbers too from time to time. If a build seems to be under-performing, I see if I can rework it.)


Strangely enough, I actually have been in competitive play before. I was suppose to be a "filler/reserve" but they ended up placing me in a lot anyway... No. In those Comp matches I played in, I did not (and would not) bring LRMs. They do work well and have a place in typical levels of play, but in higher ranked comp play (as much as I'd love to try), I would always respect my team and follow what my team leader says. (And that was how I discovered that Comp play is not for me.)

AKA: I feel LRMs are fine in typical play for the typical person. They can work well if one wishes to give them a try and seriously learn how they work. Thus, I don't feel that they necessarily have an inherent affect on W/L depending upon how they are used. My stats support this, at least for the manner in which I use them and the levels of play I am in. Seen as I'm in T2, and in theory I should be facing reasonably skilled opponents... As mentioned before "your mileage may vary" and I'm not saying LRMs are better or worse than direct fire. They are different and do have their flaws and strengths.

[Pat Kell]

Ok, this time I really mean it, I am out. I feel like all I am doing is giving you an avenue to promote a type of playstyle that a vast majority of people will never do properly and thus never do well in and I just don't want to do that anymore. You play what works best for you and I will do the same. Good luck in your future fights and I will hopefully see you out there sometime so we can have some fun shooting each other.

[SecretMantis]

Just going to put this out there: how many lurm loadouts did you see during MWO world championships and also in MRBC? Answer = zero.

[Reza Malin]

Carl Vickers, on 23 April 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

in a lurm scorch

My God. So much tragedy right there.

What a waste of a great mech.....that is half the trouble with LRM boats, you know how much more a lot of those chassis can do if they were refit for direct fire.

[Tesunie]

SecretMantis, on 05 May 2017 - 12:17 AM, said:

Just going to put this out there: how many lurm loadouts did you see during MWO world championships and also in MRBC? Answer = zero.

So, that covered Comp play. But what about the rest of the game modes/levels?

Now, I'm not saying LRMs are "all that", but they are useful. Not to mention not everyone plays competitively and most players are more casual and play to have fun with the game. No, this doesn't mean casual players aren't trying to get better, but we do want to have fun with the game while we are at it. So we play what we enjoy, as often times the meta isn't always enjoyable to use... Not to mention, LRMs do have their uses.

(And yes, I know. Many people will sit back at long ranges, hide behind the team, shoot indirectly, etc. It isn't the best way to use LRMs...)