4
(I knew I should have kept my "pros/cons" I wrote for the last post and deleted due to lack of relevance...)
I'm going to respond to each part...
Pat Kell, on 24 April 2017 - 06:55 PM, said:
No, LRM's simply spread damage too much to be as viable as other weapons, especially for people who can aim just a bit. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact. When LRM's hit, a certain percentage of them naturally miss (this is done so by design to reflect the fact that on average, in tabletop, only 12 of 20 missiles would hit. Sure, you can roll higher and have more hit but you could roll lower as well. The point is that PGI has went for the average of 12 missiles out of 20 hitting and while this may not be true of each volley or even accurate numbers, a certain percentage miss. Want a general idea of how bad they are? go check your stats page and see the hit %. It counts each missile as fired weapon and I would be shocked if you had much higher than a 30-35%) and hit the ground while the rest spread out across most, if not all the components of the mech they are aimed at. This forces your team to make up for your natural, game designed inability to focus specific components. Even LRMer's that are "good" nerf their team by spreading damage, taking too long to fire (again, designed into the game) and being easier to get into cover from vs direct fire weapons (if you are out in the open for exactly 1 sec, every direct fire weapon in range can hit you while LRM's have much longer travel times and while they can fire from cover you are A. likely to miss once you lose target lock and B. Lose the advantage of taking artemis once you lose sight of the mech). These are facts, not opinions, they are features designed into the game in an effort to avoid the LRMageddon we went through several years ago and they are in a place right now where most of the time, they are little more than an annoyance (that last part is an opinion though).
I see you talking a lot of "facts" out there... You try to mention the cons of the weapon, and none of the pros the weapon may have. You also are seeing it as Pros and Cons, where I many things are Pros, Pros/Cons and Cons. Yes, some pros can be cons and some cons can be pros.
Fun fact, you can't effectively shield a side torso from spread. So, spread may "widely distribute damage over a mech" and reduce out right killing power, it can also be used to take components your opponent is trying to hide, or even open up a component. I can't tell you how many times I took out the side torso of a damaged mech with LRMs when they were (rather effectively I might mention) shielding it with a healthier component. So spread can be a good and a bad thing at the same time, depending upon the situation and what the intended goal is. (LRMs have many such abilities, which are both pros and cons at the same time, depending upon how you use them. As most people seem to stop at indirect and long range... They never seem to be able to use the weapon to it's full potential. My opinion of course.)
As far as accuracy... How about one of 45-50% for all my Clan LRMs of all sizes (without Artemis even). Is 10-20% over you projected 35% much higher enough for you?
As far as "inability to focus specific components" is exactly why I always bring a reasonable direct fire assortment. There is a reason my Huntsmen A has five ERMLs, which last I recalled is rather respectable for a medium mech, which it then also carries a CLRM10 and a CLRM15. (Or my Prime that works better, with four CERLLs and two CLRM15s.) LRMs can open a hole and I can focus it off, or even reverse where I open a hole with my lasers (they try to shield) and take the component with my LRM's spread. It's become a rather staple tactic for me to do.
As for slow travel times, that can be mitigated with being closer in, which is why I tell people LRMs are best if used within 600m, closer to minimum ranges is better. If I catch someone within 300m, they get almost no warning and (as I take Adv. Target Decay) can't break the lock in time before they are hit. But, at the same time, I have the flexibility of helping allies farther out if I am out of position to otherwise aid them. Typically, as I move close to engage with more direct fire weapons that can focus fire. I'm still ducking in and out of cover, as fast as everyone else does. Sometimes though, I can even shoot indirectly and not have to even risk myself (though I don't sit back and indirect only, normally a couple of shots or when I'm near death will I indirect more).
What you say still doesn't answer as to why I personally (and I agree it could be just me here) have better W/L ratios with my LRM mechs than I do with my direct fire mechs, and it isn't from a lack of trying on my part. (AKA: I'm not purposefully sabotaging my stats on my direct fire mechs for hundreds of matches just to make LRMs "look good". It just seems to be what is happening.) I believe you where the one that mentioned LRMs reducing your team's chances to win? If that was an absolute truth, than I honestly should not be seeing higher W/L in my LRM mechs. And, if I am an exception to the rule, then it isn't a pure "truth" or "fact". I can only work off the information that I've got. As I can't just gallivant into everyone's stats and compare them to specific builds... I can't say if I'm one of a few or not.
This is what ultimately I'm trying to figure out.
Pat Kell, on 24 April 2017 - 06:55 PM, said:
So, argue all you want about how LRM's are viable, even in non boating type load outs and all you are doing is simply ignoring the facts. By bringing LRM's, you are making it easier for your enemy to beat your team. I am not saying that you won't win or even win a fair amount but I am saying that, provided you can aim, you will be doing your team a favor by focusing on direct fire weapons rather than bringing any LRM's. You can say that my comment about making it easier for me to win is arrogant all you want but name calling does not refute the facts as I have stated them. Denying these facts only makes it easier for your enemy to beat you.
If this was true... than it doesn't explain my W/L record for my specific LRM mechs. Look at my direct fire Huntsmen I posted up. Each of those are lower than my LRM variant, with the exception of the Hero mech (which is also a bracketed build with weapons for any range. Two ERLLs for distance, and four SRM4s for close up).
You can continue to spout how "bad" LRMs are and how it decreases your team's chances at victory... But you saying that still doesn't refute what evidence I can see from my own personal stats. I can't ignore the only evidence I have to support your comments, as I don't have access to other sources of data. And so far, my data seems to be in conflict with your statement...
Pat Kell, on 24 April 2017 - 06:55 PM, said:
Oh and trying to say that your PSR has gone up since you switched back to LRM's is not an example of causation. You can lose matches and have your PSR go up as long as you do enough "good" things and being capable of using LRM's and doing a lot of damage is considered a "good" thing but you are still nerfing your team by bringing them. Anyone can raise their PSR by bringing LRM's and playing off the shoulders of friendly mechs, racking up good damage and kills and still lose the match. So your example is kind of meaningless.
But, people keep telling me T1 players don't use LRMs, and that as I confront higher skilled players and higher tiers of play that it would become impossible to continue to use them...? How is it then, that I'm so badly nerfing my team by bringing LRMs, that I continue to have a better W/L record with them? Especially seen as I'm not "boating" a specific weapon system/damage type?
You also, once again, assume that I'm sitting out back, like an LRM boat, and "leaching" off my teammates locks and "not sharing armor"... As this continues to be your responses back to me, I'm inclined to start believing you haven't been actually reading my posts.
I've mentioned it many times, I don't boat, I don't sit out back, and I certainly don't indirect only my missiles. Believe it or not, I bring a reasonable direct fire punch on my mechs. The LRMs are actually designed within my mechs to be a bombardment weapon, something to just spread a little, which leads more to a preference to LRM10-15s more than bloated LRM5s. Many of my builds also forgo Artemis as well as BAP, in favor of beefing up my direct fire capabilities as well. This tactic is specifically to counter the enemy's attempts to "shield side", as well as something to force them back into cover. If I annoy them with my LRMs, than I'm doing my job, as that's another aspect I take LRMs for.
I'll just continue to use what continues to work. It's obviously doing something for me, as I'm getting reasonable stats from using them. I don't overly care what my PSR actually is, but at the same time it's interesting to see what brings it up and what seems to make it stay steady. You do what works for you, and I'll just do what works for me.
PS: The PSR system is still weighted heavily on the wins. It's easier to go up with a win than it is on a loss. So, if my PSR is going up faster because I'm using LRMs more, which seems to be leading to more wins, isn't that suppose to be a good thing? I mean... people keep telling me that winning is fun (though I've had some losses that were a lot of fun), so why am I now being told to stop having fun, stop trying to win, and try to win and have fun using "this" method only? What's wrong with what I'm currently doing, which is fun for me AND resulting in more wins?
