Telemachus Rheade, on 24 April 2017 - 10:50 AM, said:
1. What is your tier? (not being a smartass, just an actual matter for comparison on the viability of lurms)
2. Individual stats of one player do not mean lurms are good.
2. Depending on whether you are tier 1 or 2-5, the viability of lurms change (lower tier players may not utilize cover as well as higher tier players, may not own radar dep modules, may not be shooting down UAVs, and/or may be running lurms themselves).
4. Your teams might be winning IN SPITE of you bringing lurms.
5. The reason why your LURM mechs have a better win/loss ratio may merely be because you underperform in non-lurm mechs and perform on par with your tier in lurm mechs. So it's not a matter of your lurm mechs having a high win/loss ratio as much as your non-lurm mechs having a low win/loss ratio.
6. You may be the exception to the rule? (the answer to this would depend on tier/matchmaker)
-------------------
The point is, just because your INDIVIDUAL mechs have higher win/loss ratios does not mean that lurms are suddenly more viable or on parity with direct fire weapons.
As it has been mentioned before in this thread, lurms as a weapon system severely gimps you and your team of multiple tactical options (direct fire poking, armor sharing, no-need-for-locks, dps loss from lock wait times etc etc.)
I have no problems answering questions:
1. I've been in T2 for some time, and I actually was wallowing in T3 for some time as I was practicing direct fire weapons. Started to use LRMs again, and skyrocketed to T2. The PSR bar actually continues to go up now that I'm using LRMs again... (Not that I'm not using direct fire mechs, mind.) I am getting far more matches now where, even on a loss, I'm getting a PSR = result if not even a + result.
2. And what people say about LRMs and how most people seem to use it doesn't make them bad either. I'd say they are different and "good", just not "great". I find it all depends upon the build and how you use what you've got.
3. (I mean, second 2.
) I run them in FP, QP and GP. In FP and GP, PSR tier doesn't hold much to any weight, and I tend to drop with other players whom are T1 when I am in GP and FP. You are right that PSR tier may have some influence on my opponents that I see, but T2 is respectable, and from the looks of things I should soon be T1.
4. For over hundreds matches? Half and half probably mixed between GP and SP now? And previous mechs/stats are SP only and showing the same results for hundreds of more matches? It's being a common thing I'm seeing across all my mechs, even from before I joined the Seraphim and committed to playing FP and GP matches with them. At some point, this either becomes "too much luck" or "the stats level out to show at least something". And yes, I recognize that it could very well be me and how I happen to use LRMs. After all that data, I'd have to conclude (at least for me) that my team's aren't winning in spite of my "hindering" them, and at some point I'd have to assume I'm having some kind of influence on the matches. (Though, I do also know that 1 out of 24 people doesn't mean I'm always going to have an impact on every match. There is only so much one person can do. So there is that I guess.)
5. But, that still runs counter to what many people have been saying, in this thread and many others. If direct fire weapons are so vastly superior to LRMs, than in theory I should always perform better with direct fire weapons. Now, I admit and acknowledge that direct fire does have it's advantages and LRMs aren't always easy to use, but I feel they are just "different" to each other, and each have advantages and disadvantages over the other. How well this weighs out might depend upon how each weapon is being used and is intended on being used.
6. If I am an exception to the rule, than their statement of LRMs reducing W/L potential (as a solid fact) would have to be false, or at least "less true". I wont say that I'm an ace, but when it comes to LRMs I seem to just see better overall performance personally. It isn't from lack of trying with direct fire weapons, as I gave them a lot of time when PSR first came out (I was placed in T4 and quickly went from there to T3). I only recently in the past few months (probably in November) went back to LRMs as a serious manner. I went from hovering half way into T3 to blasting my way right into T2 and now I'm already reasonably far into T2. (My opening PSR bonus for the new system was basically spent with lasers mostly. PSR crawled then, and now it's noticeably going up very fast since I picked LRMs back up again. Not that I really stopped using them, I just didn't bring them as much back then.)
The problem is, LRMs may "gimp" your team in some aspects, but it does open up other tactics to your team. Having a two vs two situation, well now it can be three (or maybe 2.5) vs two because the LRM mech can support their team while moving in for other weapons (direct fire). There is a reason I always advise to bring reasonable direct fire weapons. No. Two ML/SLs don't exactly count in my book (depending upon the mech of course and the intended manner of play).
The thing is, I'm willing to see the strengths as well as the weaknesses of LRMs. They have a lot of utility that no other weapon in the game can do, but it costs them in other aspects. I'd also mention, if fired within 600m (the closer the better), they become really good, and almost become "fire and forget" at closer ranges. Get a lock quick while shooting other weapons, then end with LRMs raining on their heads. And don't forget about their suppression abilities (no one stands out in the open when they get missile incoming warnings).
So, in the end, it may literally be how I use LRMs. I will say that whenever I watch another LRM mech (typically a boat) after I've died... they normally make me shudder and cringe at how they use them. So, maybe compared to the average LRM user the statement may be true, but I'm just saying that there many be places for LRMs if they aren't used in the more typical fashion.
4
your arguement remains bad.
