184 replies to this topic

[vandalhooch]

Tesunie, on 04 May 2017 - 05:04 PM, said:

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

We all have bad days. It happens. I'm still not sure how having a bad day translates into "I'll go on the forums and pretend to be something I'm not."

Quote

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).

There is no "they." Each science teacher is an individual. The problem for US education is that the vast majority of science teachers have little to no experience actually doing any science. For a long time, many of them were allowed to teach sciences despite not even being a science major in college. So, most science teachers tended to teach science the way they were taught by earlier, barely-qualified individuals. To add to the mess, most students are first introduced to science by their elementary teachers who were not even required to take any sort of real science course in college. Many elementary teachers would even express attitudes of "hating math" or "not liking science" as a motivation to go into elementary education instead of secondary.

Quote

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.

My continuing criticism for your posts is not that you "messed up some technical terms," although that's what caught my attention initially. My criticism is for the fact that when your mistakes were pointed out you chose to double down on the bluff instead of folding. You came back with nonsense like "the theory of density" and "the law of relativity." That's not what people who make honest mistakes do. That's what liars do.

Quote

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.

What I and several others have already pointed out is that your "tests" were biased to give you the answer you wanted to be true, not what the real answer is. You don't know where the truth lies and neither do your opponents. The difference is that your opponents aren't trying to claim they have scientific evidence to support their side.

Real scientists spend years learning how to recognize bias in methodologies and how to properly design studies to reduce or ultimately eliminate that bias. You don't even seem to know what the term even means, let alone how to recognize it in yourself or others.

Quote

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".

There are mathematical techniques for determining what the "true" pattern is. They're called statistics. To properly use statistical techniques you need access to unbiased data (which your personal data is not) from many, many more pilots. You don't have such data and neither does anyone else. So, if you want to argue about what you think (read hypothesize) is likely to be true, have at it. Just don't go around claiming that you've looked at the question scientifically, because you haven't.

Quote

So, is my base premise of how a statement can be proven true of false that far off?

Not really. Your problem is that you don't understand what it really takes to test the statement in an unbiased manner.

Quote

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...

The vast majority of standardized testing in science are tests of basic knowledge in various subjects (biology, chemistry, geology and physics). There is little to no testing of a student's ability to "think scientifically" despite the lofty goals/claims of various pro-science education organizations. It takes years of dedicated training for humans to really "think like a scientist" and that ability would be typically confined to a specialized field because you need familiarity with a vast array of concepts, terminology and techniques for each scientific field. Physicists routinely end up looking like morons when they step out of their field and attempt to pontificate about the various concepts in evolutionary biology. What's interesting is that you rarely come across biologists writing letters to editors of journals in particle physics to discuss what's wrong with the standard model.

Quote

and I even guessed on a lot of the science section because it never was covered in classes. )

Most standardized tests of science are straight up vocabulary knowledge or being able to read data charts. You don't even have to understand what the topic the data chart is about in order to answer most questions about them. While doing well at both of those things can help you understand what scientists are talking about, it doesn't make you "good at science."

Quote

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.)

The short answer is: we do not have access to the kind of data you would need to answer the statement in any sort of "scientific" manner.

Edited by vandalhooch, 05 May 2017 - 10:18 AM.

[vandalhooch]

Tesunie, on 04 May 2017 - 05:33 PM, said:

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).

I assure you, I was there. I too demanded the head of Roadbeer as we stormed the gates of Sulferous Rift. I was witness to the repeated slaughter of Purple Turkey flocks when their LRM-heavy flocks were forced to face our Clan-honed sniper techniques. No, I wasn't the magnificent Scrublord you see today. I was busy apprenticing to the great Scrublords of the past.

Quote

- clip -

Edited by vandalhooch, 05 May 2017 - 10:28 AM.

[Xannatharr]

Please... just let this thread die!

Regards,

Xann

[vandalhooch]

Xannatharr, on 05 May 2017 - 10:27 AM, said:

Please... just let this thread die!

Regards,

Xann

Why? Is your browser broken? Did it force you to click on the thread?

[Xannatharr]

vandalhooch, on 05 May 2017 - 10:29 AM, said:

Why? Is your browser broken? Did it force you to click on the thread?

YES!

[Tesunie]

vandalhooch, on 05 May 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

What I and several others have already pointed out is that your "tests" were biased to give you the answer you wanted to be true, not what the real answer is.

On remark to my example, I admitted it was a poor example. Not an attempt to "lie" or anything. It was a post I made quickly to try and provide a brief example. I've already admitted that the example was poorly constructed, but I wasn't trying to be exact with my example. Just a generalized statement to keep things brief. No deception was done intentionally on my part. (Lying tends to need to have an intent behind it. Otherwise, it's probably just being misinformed.)


As for my tests, I think I did them in as unbiased a manner as I could, as it's data gathered from long term statistics while just playing this game on a normal basis. While I admit I do have a fondness for LRMs, I also enjoy playing just about all other weapons in the game as well, and use them as often (if not more often) than I do LRMs. I'd like to imagine (can't prove it really) that I use LRMs as well as I do most other weapons within the game.

Though it is gathered from personal experience and data, as you mentioned yourself we really don't have access to the appropriate data pools needed to confirm or deny any blanket statements. A lot of people reference to comp matches (and I understand their reasons), but I just like to point out that not all levels of play are relevant to what comp players do and can achieve.


Honestly speaking, if this was a thread explaining how bad Gauss is, and how it has a negative impact on a team's chances of winning, you'd find me on the other side there as well, as Gauss can be very powerful and useful. I don't have any specific data though for a Gauss build's performance to provide in that situation would be the only difference. (This reminds me, I should work on playing Gauss again. It's a weapon I know I don't use well yet, so I should go practice it again some more.)


My issue was never with the general statement, but with the accuracy of said statement. What may look like a minor change in the structure of the statement can really improve on how accurate it is. AKA: "LRMs can result in your team being more likely to lose" rather than "LRMs will result in your team being more likely to lose." One is more accurate and less absolute, the other is definitive and more absolute. (I would comment, I would have still posted up my statistics, and if it agreed with the statement, than so be it. In this particular case, it just so happened to disagree instead.)

[vandalhooch]

Tesunie, on 05 May 2017 - 11:04 AM, said:

On remark to my example, I admitted it was a poor example. Not an attempt to "lie" or anything. It was a post I made quickly to try and provide a brief example. I've already admitted that the example was poorly constructed, but I wasn't trying to be exact with my example. Just a generalized statement to keep things brief. No deception was done intentionally on my part. (Lying tends to need to have an intent behind it. Otherwise, it's probably just being misinformed.)


As for my tests, I think I did them in as unbiased a manner as I could, as it's data gathered from long term statistics while just playing this game on a normal basis.

I repeat, "fails to recognize bias in data."

Quote

While I admit I do have a fondness for LRMs, I also enjoy playing just about all other weapons in the game as well, and use them as often (if not more often) than I do LRMs. I'd like to imagine (can't prove it really) that I use LRMs as well as I do most other weapons within the game.

Though it is gathered from personal experience and data, as you mentioned yourself we really don't have access to the appropriate data pools needed to confirm or deny any blanket statements. A lot of people reference to comp matches (and I understand their reasons), but I just like to point out that not all levels of play are relevant to what comp players do and can achieve.


Honestly speaking, if this was a thread explaining how bad Gauss is, and how it has a negative impact on a team's chances of winning, you'd find me on the other side there as well, as Gauss can be very powerful and useful. I don't have any specific data though for a Gauss build's performance to provide in that situation would be the only difference. (This reminds me, I should work on playing Gauss again. It's a weapon I know I don't use well yet, so I should go practice it again some more.)

You don't have any data in regards to the LRM question, either.

Quote

My issue was never with the general statement, but with the accuracy of said statement. What may look like a minor change in the structure of the statement can really improve on how accurate it is. AKA: "LRMs can result in your team being more likely to lose" rather than "LRMs will result in your team being more likely to lose." One is more accurate and less absolute, the other is definitive and more absolute. (I would comment, I would have still posted up my statistics, and if it agreed with the statement, than so be it. In this particular case, it just so happened to disagree instead.)

The "can" version is a completely invalid hypothesis. It can't be refuted with any amount of data. The second statement is a valid hypothesis because it can be tested and refuted with data.

[Tesunie]

vandalhooch, on 05 May 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

I repeat, "fails to recognize bias in data."

[/size]

You don't have any data in regards to the LRM question, either.



The "can" version is a completely invalid hypothesis. It can't be refuted with any amount of data. The second statement is a valid hypothesis because it can be tested and refuted with data.

Well then... who's data? The data we can't get? If so, than no one should be making such a statement, as then no one can back up that data.

So, in the end, no matter how we go around this, no one has the data to throw such statements around. So why are people still doing so? Because they believe that they are correct. And on that note, than no one can oppose that statement nor support it.

So then, what is there to even debate? No one can prove anything, as all our data gathered will have the possibility of being biased/personal. On top of that, I don't really think my data is bias. If it was, than are you proposing that I have somehow purposefully sabotaged my direct fire mechs stats for hundreds of matches over the course of years (or at least months in the case of my Huntsmen stats)? How is that data biased, when I've just been playing this game with no intention of proving if something is or is not better at getting W/L. If that was the case, than I would have had to of known that threads like this would become a thing and already be trying to gather data in a biased way to validate my W/L.

Now, I will admit that my data is personal, as they are my stats being shown and not others (or everyones). As you mentioned already, we don't have access to other data. So, what data is there to support the claim otherwise, that would not be biased nor personal? I also ask, how is my data biased?

[vandalhooch]

Tesunie, on 05 May 2017 - 03:33 PM, said:

Well then... who's data? The data we can't get? If so, than no one should be making such a statement, as then no one can back up that data.

Correct. No one can claim to have scientific evidence either way. You can have a personal opinion as to which hypothesis is more likely to be true but we simply don't have the means to definitively answer the question.

Quote

So, in the end, no matter how we go around this, no one has the data to throw such statements around. So why are people still doing so?

Because people have opinions and other people disagree with those opinions.

Quote

Because they believe that they are correct. And on that note, than no one can oppose that statement nor support it.

So then, what is there to even debate? No one can prove anything, as all our data gathered will have the possibility of being biased/personal. On top of that, I don't really think my data is bias. If it was, than are you proposing that I have somehow purposefully sabotaged my direct fire mechs stats for hundreds of matches over the course of years (or at least months in the case of my Huntsmen stats)?

The bias is the fact that you used your own results to formulate your hypothesis. You can't turn around and re-use the same data to then test that hypothesis.

Observation: All my shoes are red.

Hypothesis: All shoes are red.

Test: Check all my shoes.

Analysis: All my shoes are red.

Conclusion: My hypothesis is correct. All shoes are red.

Quote

How is that data biased, when I've just been playing this game with no intention of proving if something is or is not better at getting W/L. If that was the case, than I would have had to of known that threads like this would become a thing and already be trying to gather data in a biased way to validate my W/L.

If you are attempting to determine if bringing a LRM boat increases the probability of someone losing a match versus not bringing a LRM boat, you need a far wider sample than just yourself.

Quote

Now, I will admit that my data is personal, as they are my stats being shown and not others (or everyones). As you mentioned already, we don't have access to other data. So, what data is there to support the claim otherwise, that would not be biased nor personal? I also ask, how is my data biased?

There is no data to answer the question either way . . . thus continuous argument.

As to your personal stats being biased, I covered that above.

[Tesunie]

Sorry for late reply. Life got busy and I knew this would probably take some time (though I will try to be short).

vandalhooch, on 05 May 2017 - 08:40 PM, said:

Correct. No one can claim to have scientific evidence either way. You can have a personal opinion as to which hypothesis is more likely to be true but we simply don't have the means to definitively answer the question.



Because people have opinions and other people disagree with those opinions.



The bias is the fact that you used your own results to formulate your hypothesis. You can't turn around and re-use the same data to then test that hypothesis.

Observation: All my shoes are red.

Hypothesis: All shoes are red.

Test: Check all my shoes.

Analysis: All my shoes are red.

Conclusion: My hypothesis is correct. All shoes are red.



If you are attempting to determine if bringing a LRM boat increases the probability of someone losing a match versus not bringing a LRM boat, you need a far wider sample than just yourself.



There is no data to answer the question either way . . . thus continuous argument.

As to your personal stats being biased, I covered that above.

Here is the crux of my problem, a lot of people display their opinion of LRMs as "facts". I see it all over the forums where they pop into LRM threads and bash that LRMs aren't good and don't take them (instead of often times just answering the person's questions about LRMs, maybe with a discouragement attached). They plaster their "opinion" as pure fact, back it up with their own stats/screens/videos of them killing an LRM boat or videos/examples of "comp teams" and if anyone seems to counter their approach (be it with general statements or by pointing out that not everyone is playing in those high tier competitive situations) get called out to "prove it". Then, like in this thread, get called out on not providing evidence "sufficient" to prove anything.

In this particular case, the "fact" was that "taking any amount of LRMs on your mech decreases your chances of winning". I may have jumped the gun a little, but I already assumed I was going to be called out to provide evidence to my claim. In this situation, I actually had statistical data over the years I've played MW:O that actually seemed in direct contradiction of that claim. This isn't to say these will be everyone's "average" results, but merely a showing that "it is possible" to get a good W/L rate even with LRMs on your mech, depending upon how you use them.


If anything, I think it was the other side that was saying "all shoes are red", but in this case it's because "all comp teams wear red shoes" (replace shoes with effectiveness of direct fire weapons). I'm the one walking in here and showing that there are actually other color of shoes as well, such as my green shoes (insert my LRM statistics instead of shoes). Meanwhile, I continue to be told that all shoes are red, and that my green shoes are irrelevant because I'm not one of a specific set of people, or not the majority, or not a comp player, or...

I'm only showing my set of statistical data, and coming to conclusions that they show me. As we've already determined that we can't see anyone else's data, we kinda need to come to our own opinions/conclusions. I don't exactly need a precise scientific method to read my own stats and determine that I can use some builds better than others, and to determine what may make those specific builds better in my hands than other builds might. I'm going for personal effectiveness here, accounting for the individual to make up their own mind on what does and does not work for themselves. One such way to do this would be to test it. Play with the weapon/build in question and see how well you individually handle it. But at the same time, I'm not trying to discredit "the meta" nor "what the comp teams play". But lets face it, the most meta of meta mechs isn't always going to work for everyone...


I would like to mention, you've fallen into the trap many people do with LRMs, and referred to boats. I have long since believed that boating LRMs do a lot to enhance their weaknesses far more than it does their strength (though they can work and I'm not knocking them). I'm also not the one here trying to make a case saying that LRMs are awesome, I merely was trying to point out that LRMs can work effectively, giving the correct skill set and intended use within a build/team. Rather that is only I can do it (I know I'm not), or rather everyone is able to do it wasn't really my argument here. Though I agree I would need a far larger sampling than just my statistical data to say that LRMs are comparable to other weapons (which I will note, isn't my intention here at all), I don't need a mountain of data to show that LRMs can be useful depending upon how you personally use them. See, here is the difference, I'm talking about individual results, not your average player results.



The debate on how effective LRMs are is something that will continue to go on. As you stated, there is not enough evidence to support one statement conclusively. Even then, as I've shown (which was all my intent here was) there are some players who can use them effectively (as I'm certain I am not alone here). We may be in the minority of LRM users, but we are here. I don't believe I really need a large pool of player data to determine that much, and as I stated, my own data was collected over hundreds of matches over months of playing. I also don't use strictly LRMs and actually do use direct fire weapons more than I do LRMs (meaning I should be more practiced with direct fire over LRM use).

However, if the term/debate is over boating LRMs, than my data would be completely irrelevant, as I don't boat LRMs.


Overall though, I haven't seen anyone else (besides myself) try and post any data up here (besides a few videos or screenshots in comparison to the potential of data provided over hundreds of matches averaged out). We could start to actively collect data, instead of dismissing it all as "inconsequential". (This also assumes that people are in the habit of running builds on mechs unchanged for hundreds of matches, or have ways to separate their data.) I do think it would be interesting to see, just for fun more than to actually try and make any specific points.


Anyway. I just wanted to make sure that I'm saying what I want to say here. So, short version, I'm more talking about an individual's performance more than the average player's performance. Thus why I was against the broad stroke statement against LRMs. In the average capacity for players, it may very well be true. But it can't be taken as an absolute either as there are some of us odd-balls out there that can stand in direct contradiction to the statement. (I hope this makes sense?)

[kapinga]

Pat Kell, on 20 April 2017 - 04:35 PM, said:

No you're not...


No they don't...


No, they do not have their uses...


No they are not an asset to they're team...

Seriously, I hate being this contrarian to everything you said but honestly, everything you just said is wrong and will end up making new players believe that there is a place for them is this game using LRM's...Granted, people can bring whatever they want and I am sure there are people who are willingly to lose 5 games in a row and blame it on their teammates just so they can win 1 game in an LRM boat and boast about how they carried the team or were somehow vital to winning that match. I am telling you from 4+ years of playing this game that you are wrong. I have multiple posts up about it detailing out my argument on why LRM's nerf your team so I won't bore you with it again. But hey, bring what you want, go have fun and when you decide you want to really try to win on a better than average level, dump the LRM's and taste the power of direct fire weapons.

excuse me but here are my stats in my lrm boat. drops 1207, wins,614,losses,567,ratio,1.08,kills,824,deaths,826, ratio, 1.00 so i think you dont really know what your talking about. i use tag so i can spot my own targets, i like to fire inside 700 m and no i dont ask for target locks , i get my own wich means im not hiding behind something unless it's for cover. oh and it's lrm 5's modulated to the max. dont look like a team nerf to me! just sayin!

[kapinga]

tesunie,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,point taken apparently you do know what your talking about, individual stats is all that there really is.
Salute,O7

[Pat Kell]

kapinga, on 19 May 2017 - 12:11 PM, said:

excuse me but here are my stats in my lrm boat. drops 1207, wins,614,losses,567,ratio,1.08,kills,824,deaths,826, ratio, 1.00 so i think you dont really know what your talking about. i use tag so i can spot my own targets, i like to fire inside 700 m and no i dont ask for target locks , i get my own wich means im not hiding behind something unless it's for cover. oh and it's lrm 5's modulated to the max. dont look like a team nerf to me! just sayin!

You're right, I am a noob whose stats can't possibly compare to those. I have bowed out of this conversation several pages ok and will continue to bow out. Good Luck.

[Deathlike]

Pat Kell, on 19 May 2017 - 03:55 PM, said:

You're right, I am a noob whose stats can't possibly compare to those. I have bowed out of this conversation several pages ok and will continue to bow out. Good Luck.

The best way to put it is if people ran into comp units all the time while running lurms... they will quickly be reminded why LRMs get mocked.

Some people have to keep burning their hands over the stove until they stop touching it.... and then some people keep enjoying it and at that point you can't help them.

[Positive Mental Attitude]

Those are actually impressive numbers for lrm users.

[VitriolicViolet]

allright a lot of people seem to be confusing 'lrms are bad and useless' with 'lrms arent the best option most of the time'.
there are only few people in the game who are actually consistently good with lrms. these people are a very small perecnt of users.

For most people direct fire is more likely to have a good outcome. lrms are very situational, meaning that they work in specfic instances. also as others have said for a lot of players lrms encourage behaviour which isnt the best for team cohesivness.

a lot of people also post their own stats being 'well i can do it so your wrong' but its fairly meaningless, i can do complex math in my head quite easily but it doesnt mean brains are better than calculators it just means that i can do that well but for most people a calculator will be faster.

so by all means use lrms just know that in all likely hood you would do better with direct fire.

[vandalhooch]

Tesunie, on 19 May 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

Sorry for late reply. Life got busy and I knew this would probably take some time (though I will try to be short).

Here is the crux of my problem, a lot of people display their opinion of LRMs as "facts". I see it all over the forums where they pop into LRM threads and bash that LRMs aren't good and don't take them (instead of often times just answering the person's questions about LRMs, maybe with a discouragement attached). They plaster their "opinion" as pure fact, back it up with their own stats/screens/videos of them killing an LRM boat or videos/examples of "comp teams" and if anyone seems to counter their approach (be it with general statements or by pointing out that not everyone is playing in those high tier competitive situations) get called out to "prove it". Then, like in this thread, get called out on not providing evidence "sufficient" to prove anything.

No one has the data to claim that bringing LRM's will decrease the likelihood of winning a match. What they can point out and what we do have access to is that competitive teams in the various leagues don't bring LRM's. That's a statement that can be verified because most of those leagues require the teams to submit recordings of their matches.

Whether or not that fact sways your opinion or not is up to you. As to all the rest, yes you can point out that they don't have any actual properly analyzed data to support their hypothesis either. However, I don't recall ever seeing someone claim to have done "scientific analysis" that supports that position.

Quote

In this particular case, the "fact" was that "taking any amount of LRMs on your mech decreases your chances of winning". I may have jumped the gun a little, but I already assumed I was going to be called out to provide evidence to my claim. In this situation, I actually had statistical data over the years I've played MW:O that actually seemed in direct contradiction of that claim. This isn't to say these will be everyone's "average" results, but merely a showing that "it is possible" to get a good W/L rate even with LRMs on your mech, depending upon how you use them.

That's exactly why the claim "bringing LRM's CAN decrease your chances of winning a match" is a useless hypothesis to test. It takes only a single isolated instance to be verified. The proper claim that you and the others want to test is the claim "bringing LRM's WILL decrease your chances of winning a match." A single isolated case is insufficient to refute the claim. A proper refutation requires much more robust, unbiased, data set to answer.

Quote

If anything, I think it was the other side that was saying "all shoes are red", but in this case it's because "all comp teams wear red shoes" (replace shoes with effectiveness of direct fire weapons).

Given our lack of a proper data set for analysis, the consensus opinion of generally acknowledged experts is for many sufficient argument to accept the "LRM's are bad" hypothesis. If you think the experts are mistaken or are not really experts you are free to stay with your counter hypothesis. There's no statistical evidence to back either position.

Could those experts be wrong? Sure. Are those experts wrong? We can't know right now.

Quote

I'm the one walking in here and showing that there are actually other color of shoes as well, such as my green shoes (insert my LRM statistics instead of shoes).

There's a difference between claiming that "bringing LRM's eliminates your chances of winning a match" and "bringing LRM's will decrease your chances of winning a match." Your single counter example can refute the first claim but is insufficient to do the same to the second claim.

Quote

Meanwhile, I continue to be told that all shoes are red, and that my green shoes are irrelevant because I'm not one of a specific set of people, or not the majority, or not a comp player, or...

You might be right. Might be.

Quote

I'm only showing my set of statistical data, and coming to conclusions that they show me. As we've already determined that we can't see anyone else's data, we kinda need to come to our own opinions/conclusions. I don't exactly need a precise scientific method to read my own stats and determine that I can use some builds better than others, and to determine what may make those specific builds better in my hands than other builds might.

Where's your control for comparison? Where are all of the results of the exact same matches you dropped in with LRM's but without the LRM's? If you don't have those (you can't possibly have those), then you can't actually refute the claim that bringing LRM's DECREASED your chances of winning because you don't know what your win rate would have been without them.

That's why we need a larger data set than just one pilot's experience. With a large data set, proper controls can be established to account for other factors that might affect win rates like maps, tiers, time of day, solo v. group, quick v. faction play, etc . . .

A proper ANOVA (analysis of variance) would be able to give you a mathematical value telling you exactly how much LRM use affects the win rates of matches and whether that affect is significant, positive or negative. No data. No ANOVA. No answer.

Quote

I'm going for personal effectiveness here, accounting for the individual to make up their own mind on what does and does not work for themselves. One such way to do this would be to test it. Play with the weapon/build in question and see how well you individually handle it.

Biased data collection. Humans are incredibly bad at being unbiased in the manner you described. You will go into your "test" with an opinion about what the results will show. That will bias the way you play without you even being consciously aware of it. Seriously, scientists have done many studies showing that confirmation and observation bias are real things. That's why science uses specific protocols. The human biases have to be eliminated as much as possible if you want to discover what is "really" going on.

Quote

But at the same time, I'm not trying to discredit "the meta" nor "what the comp teams play". But lets face it, the most meta of meta mechs isn't always going to work for everyone...

Meta in most games are just aggregated opinions of players. It's subject to the same biases as individual opinion and even subject to a few more. Just look at the various phases that the NFL has gone through in regards to various offensive and defensive systems even though the basic rules of the game have rarely been altered in any way. It's fashion for people who think that they are not slaves to fashion.

Quote

I would like to mention, you've fallen into the trap many people do with LRMs, and referred to boats. I have long since believed that boating LRMs do a lot to enhance their weaknesses far more than it does their strength (though they can work and I'm not knocking them). I'm also not the one here trying to make a case saying that LRMs are awesome, I merely was trying to point out that LRMs can work effectively, giving the correct skill set and intended use within a build/team. Rather that is only I can do it (I know I'm not), or rather everyone is able to do it wasn't really my argument here.

Doesn't matter whether we are talking about boats or mixed builds. We don't have the appropriate data to answer the question in either case.

Quote

Though I agree I would need a far larger sampling than just my statistical data to say that LRMs are comparable to other weapons (which I will note, isn't my intention here at all), I don't need a mountain of data to show that LRMs can be useful depending upon how you personally use them. See, here is the difference, I'm talking about individual results, not your average player results.

Then you aren't actually addressing most of the claims of your opponents in this discussion. They are for the most part claiming that bringing LRM's decreases your chances of winning. Your single counter example can't possibly refute their claim.

Quote

The debate on how effective LRMs are is something that will continue to go on. As you stated, there is not enough evidence to support one statement conclusively. Even then, as I've shown (which was all my intent here was) there are some players who can use them effectively (as I'm certain I am not alone here). We may be in the minority of LRM users, but we are here. I don't believe I really need a large pool of player data to determine that much, and as I stated, my own data was collected over hundreds of matches over months of playing. I also don't use strictly LRMs and actually do use direct fire weapons more than I do LRMs (meaning I should be more practiced with direct fire over LRM use).

If you aren't interested in refuting your opponent's actual claim then you are guilty of engaging in using a straw man fallacy.

Quote

However, if the term/debate is over boating LRMs, than my data would be completely irrelevant, as I don't boat LRMs.

Overall though, I haven't seen anyone else (besides myself) try and post any data up here (besides a few videos or screenshots in comparison to the potential of data provided over hundreds of matches averaged out). We could start to actively collect data, instead of dismissing it all as "inconsequential". (This also assumes that people are in the habit of running builds on mechs unchanged for hundreds of matches, or have ways to separate their data.) I do think it would be interesting to see, just for fun more than to actually try and make any specific points.

Telling people to collect their data and having them know why you want it immediately introduces bias to the data being collected. Seriously, you should look at the lengths psychologists have to go to hide the true intent of their studies from the subjects of their experiments. With humans being such a social species, knowing you are being analyzed and knowing why you are being analyzed significantly alters your behavior. It's an unavoidable aspect of studying humans.

Quote

Anyway. I just wanted to make sure that I'm saying what I want to say here. So, short version, I'm more talking about an individual's performance more than the average player's performance. Thus why I was against the broad stroke statement against LRMs. In the average capacity for players, it may very well be true. But it can't be taken as an absolute either as there are some of us odd-balls out there that can stand in direct contradiction to the statement. (I hope this makes sense?)

It makes perfect sense. It's also irrelevant to what most of your perceived opponents are saying.

Edited by vandalhooch, 19 May 2017 - 06:55 PM.

[Poptimus Rhyme Wallace]

I was wondering...?

How does "Getting easy KMDDs" in anyway, support any claims of being superior?

If you inflate your stats by clubbing seals, your stats on the "Leaderboards" are hardly indicative of any sort of skill are they?

yes, yes I know its not topic relevant i was just amazed at that one statements self-contradiction

[Tesunie]

Deathlike, on 19 May 2017 - 04:20 PM, said:

The best way to put it is if people ran into comp units all the time while running lurms... they will quickly be reminded why LRMs get mocked.

Some people have to keep burning their hands over the stove until they stop touching it.... and then some people keep enjoying it and at that point you can't help them.

The thing is here, not everyone plays on that level. Comp players make up a really rather small portion of the population. To be honest, I rarely come into contact with them (and when I do, it doesn't matter what weapons I have on, I tend to get my face ripped off). So, for some levels of play, sure. But there are more to the game than comp level of play.

And even with that being considered, some people can still use LRMs. I have found that, even when fighting comp teams, I still seem to do more work with my LRM mechs than I do my direct fire mechs (as an average). Doesn't mean this is true all the time, or for all players.

If I am planning to drop against a comp team (please, if I do, have a coffin sized for my corpse) within a comp team of my own, I will state I probably would leave the LRMs home. But for fun and "average" play, I don't see any reason not to bring some LRMs. (Of course, I'll mention that I don't boat them...)

Poptimus Rhyme Wallace, on 20 May 2017 - 03:00 AM, said:

I was wondering...?

How does "Getting easy KMDDs" in anyway, support any claims of being superior?

If you inflate your stats by clubbing seals, your stats on the "Leaderboards" are hardly indicative of any sort of skill are they?

yes, yes I know its not topic relevant i was just amazed at that one statements self-contradiction

I didn't see that claim. Did I miss something? In which side of the topic is this addressing?

[Kroete]

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

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.

You can still do good with lrms in tier 1.
No problem holding wl/kd over 1.

But you need to work for it with lrms,
its a lot easier with direct fire,
but much more boring.

Dont know after the patch, just starting to skill the first mech ...

Edited by Kroete, 20 May 2017 - 01:24 PM.