422 replies to this topic

[Vellron2005]

After reading some of this topic I started, I am sooo sad to see how much outright hatred and bile is being spat here..

Even though this thread is a bit more factual than many LRM threads, It's still toxic to read..

Personally, I don't care if you love or hate LRMs, I don't care how good or bad they are for comp play, or QP or FP.. Its completely irrelevant..

What is relevant however, is the simple question: ARE YOU HAVING FUN? Because the second you guys get into the math and the bile, and the name calling, it stops being fun.

Why must some elitist LRM haters keep bullying everyone else? We don't call you names. We don't tell you what you should bring or how you should play. So what gives you the right to do that to us?

If somebody is using LRMs and isn't being satisfied by the results, they will seek help and training.. If they are having fun using LRMs, why are you ruining it for them?

This bile and toxicity needs to stop.

You play your comp play, and let others play their LRMs in peace..

And I STILL expect PGI to intervene and give us some actual factual statistical data and settle this once and for all..

(again, can someone tweet Russ about this? I don't use twitter myself)

[PhoenixFire55]

Vellron2005, on 06 June 2017 - 12:46 AM, said:

Why must some elitist LRM haters keep bullying everyone else? We don't call you names. We don't tell you what you should bring or how you should play. So what gives you the right to do that to us?

Yes you do. It always goes both ways. Might not be you specifically but if you carefully look through this thread there is about as much hate from LRM haters as there is from LRM hater haters.

For example, if you look through various posts about competitive events in general discussion you'll see about same amount of hate towards each other from people who respect and hate competitive scene. Just as there are for example people saying that LRMs should be viable in competitive play, i.e. telling us what we should bring and how we should play.

The competitive scene is never brought up because it is supposedly better or more important or whatnot. It is brought up because it is a measure of effectiveness of certain weapons and builds. If it isn't used in comp then its trash, period. If it is used somewhere else, it is still trash. If you choose to use trash then its your choice, but it is still trash. The fact that trash effectively kills even worse trash in PUGs isn't an argument in any sort of balancing discussion.

LRM haters don't hate on LRMs just because, they hate on LRMs because LRMs allow for an absolute parasitic gameplay that only benefits the guy using them and no one else. When I'm trading shots 300-400m away from the enemy and see a whatever mech right beside me sharing armor and pumping LRMs into the guy I'm shooting I won't ever say anything to him. Same time when I see a guy hiding 500m behing me and pumping missiles into dirt I will give him all the hate he deserves. Now the thing is, for each of the former there are hundreds of the latter.

When you don't have a clue about or refuse to play your mech in a way that doesn't rely on others making your build effective and yet insisting on bringing such a mech you deserve nothing but hate. Because the only thing you are is a useless parasite.

P.S. Any and all "me", "you" and whatever comments aren't aimed at anyone specifically and are merely used as a manner of speech.

[Vellron2005]

PhoenixFire55, on 06 June 2017 - 02:47 AM, said:

Yes you do. It always goes both ways. Might not be you specifically but if you carefully look through this thread there is about as much hate from LRM haters as there is from LRM hater haters.

You misunderstood..

LRM haters dump on LRM users.. LRM users don't dump on laservomit users or gauss users.. that's what I mean..

You say you won't dump on a guy who's lobbing LRMs while he's standing beside you, but if he's standing 500 meters behind and hitting dirt, he deserves hate..

Does then, by that same logic, a guy that fires ERLLs and overheats, or misses with gauss or PPC still deserve the same hate?

How about the light pilot that is off scouting, or capping, or running for his life in an attempt to pull off the enemy to chase the squirrel?

Why don't you give hate to the guy that has to not shoot when "you" stand still in the bottleneck and he can't shoot over you and is therefore also not doing damage and not sharing armor?

Or give hate to the guy who is flanking around and is missing half the battle by the time he gets into position?

That's the matter of fact.. you hate the guy using LRMs, because he's using LRMs, so you automatically assume he's a potato tubenoob because good players using LRMs are rare.

When in fact, the only people you should hate is BAD PLAYERS.

And BAD PLAYERS don't just use LRMs, they use every weapon in the game..

If you ask me, hate whoever you want, but don't berate and spit bile at a whole weapon system just cose' its used by bad players. And don't do it to people either. It's uncool to hate somebody based on prejudice.

LRM haters generalise. LRM lovers are only defending themselves, and, at least from what I've seen, don't hate anybody.

P.S.

Now I feel kinda ashamed for letting myself get dragged down into a Love/Hate LRMs discussion.. And I didn't start this thread for that.. You're not my favorite person right now

Edited by Vellron2005, 06 June 2017 - 04:50 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Vellron2005, on 06 June 2017 - 04:44 AM, said:

LRM haters dump on LRM users.. LRM users don't dump on laservomit users or gauss users.. that's what I mean..

I think that here I'm supposed to say that pretty much everyone dumps on LRM users and that LRM users don't have enough dump to dump everyone back or that they are so clueless that they don't even know who to dump on ...

Now lets pretend that never happened.

Vellron2005, on 06 June 2017 - 04:44 AM, said:

You say you won't dump on a guy who's lobbing LRMs while he's standing beside you, but if he's standing 500 meters behind and hitting dirt, he deserves hate..

Does then, by that same logic, a guy that fires ERLLs and overheats, or misses with gauss or PPC still deserve the same hate?

I said "hiding", not "standing". If ERLL guy stands in the same spot as an LRM guy he will also hit dirt since there is nothing but dirt between him and the enemy. Last I've checked LRMs is the only weapon that allows you to shoot without LoS, hence the comment. If ERLL guy is actually shooting something then he is facing the enemy just like I do and possibly getting shot just like I do. Even if he misses, when he aggressively does lots of trades early on and right till the end of the match he benefits his team.

Vellron2005, on 06 June 2017 - 04:44 AM, said:

How about the light pilot that is off scouting, or capping, or running for his life in an attempt to pull off the enemy to chase the squirrel?

Scouting how? ... Chase the squirrel how? It depends. He can play chase the squirrel 2km away from his team then blame his team that it didn't push (when they literally had zero chance to) or he can do the same in the right moment of an actual ongoing engagement. However that all is still irrelevant, since either way he is both shooting the enemy and is getting shot.

Vellron2005, on 06 June 2017 - 04:44 AM, said:

Why don't you give hate to the guy that has to not shoot when "you" stand still in the bottleneck and he can't shoot over you and is therefore also not doing damage and not sharing armor?

If I was the first to arrive at said bottleneck then its his problem. Maps are big, go find a different place to shoot or make this one work for both of us. And for the record ... I never stand still, let alone in any sort of a bottleneck.

Vellron2005, on 06 June 2017 - 04:44 AM, said:

Or give hate to the guy who is flanking around and is missing half the battle by the time he gets into position?

Oh, this one is getting lots of hate, don't you worry.

Vellron2005, on 06 June 2017 - 04:44 AM, said:

That's the matter of fact.. you hate the guy using LRMs, because he's using LRMs, so you automatically assume he's a potato tubenoob because good players using LRMs are rare.

It is fairly obvious if he is a potatoe tubenoob after the first one or two volleys he launches. But then again, it is usually obvious that a guy is a potatoe in whatever build within a first minute of the match even without any contact with the enemy by just looking where he goes and what he does. Non-potatoes kinda know that tho.

Vellron2005, on 06 June 2017 - 04:44 AM, said:

When in fact, the only people you should hate is BAD PLAYERS.

I do, but I don't think I should. In fact I don't hate "bad players", I hate bad players who refuse to contribute to the team and thus refuse to become better.

Vellron2005, on 06 June 2017 - 04:44 AM, said:

If you ask me, hate whoever you want, but don't berate and spit bile at a whole weapon system just cose' its used by bad players.

LRMs are trash, period. It has nothing to do with bads and what they are doing. I'm not going to hate you if you are using trash, I'm going to hate you if you are using trash in a way that actively hurts your team.

Vellron2005, on 06 June 2017 - 04:44 AM, said:

LRM haters generalise. LRM lovers are only defending themselves, and, at least from what I've seen, don't hate anybody.

LOL ... sure. As if we've never seen "waa waa I was staring at the big bad mean Gausscat while ma lurms were flying and he killed me PGI plz nerf nao" threads since 5 years ago. Input your favorite bogeyman meta instead of Gausscat ...

There are "hate" threads regarding all common builds, you just choose not to see them. But as someone else properly stated LRMs attract bads like nothing else, because bads rely on any kind of parasitic gameplay, and LRMs just offer the easiest one.

Vellron2005, on 06 June 2017 - 04:44 AM, said:

Now I feel kinda ashamed for letting myself get dragged down into a Love/Hate LRMs discussion.. And I didn't start this thread for that.. You're not my favorite person right now

I'm no ones favorite person ever. At least not on the forums. Don't feel too bad.

[Vincent DIFrancesco]

Here, I have a couple ideas.

Do you like LRMs? Use them.
Do you think LRMs are worthless? Don't use them.
Do you think opponents who use LRMs are bad? Go kill them and show them how bad they are.
Do you think LRMs are overpowered? Use them a bunch and show PGI how OP they are.
Do you use LRMs but still seem ineffective? Either work on how you use them or try something else.

Do you think bashing people in and out of game and forums is actually beneficial to the game as a whole? Wake up and stop being part of the real problem with this whole thing. Try to remember it's a game, not a career or a lifestyle.

Shoot things. Avoid getting shot. Have a little fun.

[Vellron2005]

PhoenixFire55, on 06 June 2017 - 05:15 AM, said:

I'm no ones favorite person ever. At least not on the forums. Don't feel too bad.

Yeah.. Well.. I'm done arguing about this, not cose' I think you and others like you are right, or cose' I have no more arguments (I could go all day), but cose' this is not the place for this, there are a 100 other threads for that, and cose' I don't feel like talking to a wall today..

With you LRM haters, it's getting to the point of like talking to a wall while an angry woman is hitting you with a broomstick..

it's just not worth it arguing with somebody who has their mind made up and generalizes to the point of "LRMs are just trash".

Call me naive, but I'm still hoping PGI will give us some hard data and end this pointless bile..

[I_AM_ZUUL]

PhoenixFire55, on 06 June 2017 - 02:47 AM, said:

The competitive scene is never brought up because it is supposedly better or more important or whatnot. It is brought up because it is a measure of effectiveness expolitable in a broken manner of certain weapons and builds. If it isn't used in comp then its trash, period. If it is used somewhere else, it is still trash. If you choose to use trash then its your choice, but it is still trash. The fact that trash effectively kills even worse trash in PUGs isn't an argument in any sort of balancing discussion.

FTFY

If it is not used in comp... that just means it is not a broken system that PGI failed to do correctly. Cause that is all that is found in comp... broken munchkin builds & mechanics that are directly traced to PGI not implementing the Rules from Total Warfare & Tactical Operations correctly. They are utter trash that would wiped off any Battletech board by even the most novice 11 year old if you brought those loadouts... but sure, it is all "intelligent play".

[PhoenixFire55]

Vellron2005, on 06 June 2017 - 05:32 AM, said:

With you LRM haters, it's getting to the point of like talking to a wall while an angry woman is hitting you with a broomstick..

And once again, it is exactly same with you LRM users.

I_AM_ZUUL, on 06 June 2017 - 06:10 AM, said:

FTFY

If it is not used in comp... that just means it is not a broken system that PGI failed to do correctly. Cause that is all that is found in comp... broken munchkin builds & mechanics that are directly traced to PGI not implementing the Rules from Total Warfare & Tactical Operations correctly. They are utter trash that would wiped off any Battletech board by even the most novice 11 year old if you brought those loadouts... but sure, it is all "intelligent play".

SRMs are used in comp. Pray tell us what is wrong with SRMs please? ...

Wiped out? Not so much. Dual-Gauss-Dual-PPC mech works just as well in TT. SPL boating lights are more than common. So are SRM boats and laservomit boats. If anything clan laservomit would only work better in TT since double heat sinks are actually double heat sinks and not one-point-two-heatsinks.

I've brought up the matter of instant pinpoint convergence since 5 years ago. That is the core of more than half of all MWO balancing problems

[Xiphias]

Tesunie, on 05 June 2017 - 10:04 PM, said:

Q: Was all those "comp" players?

Not quite all, but I think 90%+ were comp players.

Quote

First, I guess I should ask what the last sentence was referring to, K/D or W/L?

As for the rest, I actually have very low K/D, but my W/L I think is reasonable. Now, I've been told it's "irrelevant" before upon the grand scheme of the debate upon LRM effectiveness, but I'll just say it here and let you make of it as you may.

I consider having a KDR and WLR that are both greater than one (over a sufficient amount of matches) the minimum to be "okay". If you have a WLR of less than one it means you are actively increasing your team's chances of losing through your presence. If you have a WDR of less than one it means that on average you are not carrying your weight individually. Of the two I think WLR is more important to be above one, but that is a pretty easy stat for players to farm if they drop in groups .

Edit: To be clear. I don't mean this in an insulting way, it's just the metric that I use to measure where a player stands skillwise. There's nothing wrong per se with being bad or playing for fun.

Quote

By the way, has anyone else found their individal mech stats to seem like they may not be correct? Or is it just me wishfully thinking I didn't master a mech in only 5 matches... (I'm gonna guess a lot of forgotten FP matches, which don't touch your mech stats...)

The stats page is somewhat unreliable. I think WLR and KDR are fine, but I seem to remember weapon stats being messed up. Not sure exactly, but I wouldn't trust them too much.

Vellron2005, on 06 June 2017 - 12:46 AM, said:

After reading some of this topic I started, I am sooo sad to see how much outright hatred and bile is being spat here..

Even though this thread is a bit more factual than many LRM threads, It's still toxic to read..

Personally, I don't care if you love or hate LRMs, I don't care how good or bad they are for comp play, or QP or FP.. Its completely irrelevant..

What is relevant however, is the simple question: ARE YOU HAVING FUN? Because the second you guys get into the math and the bile, and the name calling, it stops being fun.

Why must some elitist LRM haters keep bullying everyone else? We don't call you names. We don't tell you what you should bring or how you should play. So what gives you the right to do that to us?

If somebody is using LRMs and isn't being satisfied by the results, they will seek help and training.. If they are having fun using LRMs, why are you ruining it for them?

This bile and toxicity needs to stop.

You play your comp play, and let others play their LRMs in peace..

And I STILL expect PGI to intervene and give us some actual factual statistical data and settle this once and for all..

(again, can someone tweet Russ about this? I don't use twitter myself)

Not sure if this is partially directed at me or not, but I'll address it anyway.

As I've said in this thread, I'm fine with players playing to have fun and bringing LRMs if they want to. That said, if someone is trying to argue that LRMs are a great weapon system I'm going to have to argue with them because it simply isn't true. LRMs are better than lasers and PPCs if the pilot using them cannot hit the target with lasers and PPCs. That said, as soon as the pilots start getting better and more coordinated LRMs lose more and more effectiveness.

Players can play what they want for fun and I will respect that. They shouldn't think that their opinion on the effectiveness of a weapon system is as valid as someone who has a more well rounded understanding of the game though.

Vellron2005, on 06 June 2017 - 04:44 AM, said:

You misunderstood..

LRM haters dump on LRM users.. LRM users don't dump on laservomit users or gauss users.. that's what I mean..

There are plenty of people that hate on weapon systems other than LRMs. Do you know why we have hover jets? It's because people hated and complained about "no skill poptarts". Do you know how many people have whined and complained about light mechs being too good?

I will sometimes complain in match when a LRM boat loses a game for my team. I'll also complain when it's a fresh Gauss+PPC mech in the back that loses the game or idiot assaults who run off capping in conquest. My issue is with bad players. As a whole I find that my personal experience is that their are more bad players running LRMs and bracket builds than running PPFLD meta builds. That's going to make it look like LRMs are getting more hate because there are more bad players to complain about.

Also, if you've read this thread have you not seen the LRM users claiming that LRMs are "high skill" and that laser vomit and the like are simply "low skill" easy mode weapons? I'd suggest reading Zuul's posts for some easy ones.

I think LRMs make the game less fun as a whole for a number of reasons, but that's not relevant to this topic and I accept that some people find them fun. I've limited the focus of my discussion to the topic of effectiveness based on the data we as players have access to.

Edited by Xiphias, 06 June 2017 - 07:41 AM.

[metallio]

Xiphias, on 06 June 2017 - 07:38 AM, said:

As I've said in this thread, I'm fine with players playing to have fun and bringing LRMs if they want to. That said, if someone is trying to argue that LRMs are a great weapon system I'm going to have to argue with them because it simply isn't true. LRMs are better than lasers and PPCs if the pilot using them cannot hit the target with lasers and PPCs. That said, as soon as the pilots start getting better and more coordinated LRMs lose more and more effectiveness.

Some of it is semantics but...LRMs ARE great weapon systems, they're just not relatively more effective than PPFLD.

As you say above, they're great for the unskilled masses who don't shoot very well. Since that's one heck of a lot of people...I don't know what to say about it other than ok sounds great?

LRMs aren't currently an effective comp weapon. The closer I got to T1 the more apparent this became even in quick play...but even against T1 players working hard they were almost always still effective at some level. They just weren't as effective as PPFLD.

It seems like everyone is arguing around each other and it'd be awful nice if people would stop working really hard to be @sses to one another? I know I think that the haters are the biggest sinners here but it's not like most people disagree with some general statements like "at higher tier play LRMs aren't as effective as other weapon choices most of the time" but even the professionally managed arguments that are mostly polite drill down to trying to tell people they're wrong for even playing with something they enjoy...so why are you doing that?

LRM effectiveness is as obvious as it gets as you crawl up the ladder. It doesn't need long drawn out charts or anything else to be clear and you're not teaching anyone about it. At lower tier play LRMs are blisteringly effective. At higher tier play they're nearly ineffective. If you tell lower tier players they're wrong to use the things...you're going to get raised eyebrows and people who don't listen to what you say because they KNOW that LRMs are effective. If you tell higher tier players that LRMs are OP...you'll also have your opinion discounted because those players KNOW that LRMs are a losing gamble.

Both of those things are situational and instead of shrugging and acknowledging it we're being d!cks to one another trying to prove a point that changes depending on the situation. Even in comp play there have been teams that have carefully organized to use spotters, NARC, etc and beaten the tar out of their unsuspecting opponents...but those teams don't do it all the time or take it to comp play because when LRMs are expected at that level victory becomes much less certain and PPFLD is a known quantity that just works no matter what tactics the enemy uses.

If things worked differently in MWO and LRM boats were exceptionally mobile and were the fastest mechs in the game they could reposition and extract themselves from brawl rushes and if they were faster and effective against peekers and if they did damage up close and had tighter groupings...then they'd be the weapon of choice.

They don't, so they're the weapon of choice for people learning the game. LRMs are what make the game fun for a hell of a lot of people who are having trouble competing in the mixed tier queue that PGI gave us because even if they're only doing 200 damage it's way better than the 90 they're managing when trying to fight on the front line against more experienced players. Hiding and lobbing missiles means they survive more than a few seconds after contact with the enemy. It means they can play the game, and it means they live long enough to learn positioning and how to shoot.

LRMs are exceptionally important to this game because of the learning curve and because they're fun. You all trash talking them does nothing more than upset people for no "good" reason. Those players will learn in time.

You act like parents who are arguing with a three year old about how intellectually rewarding a simple cartoon is. The kid is right that it's the thing for them right now, and you're right that it's not interesting to you right now. Why in the hades would you call the kid names because he hasn't gone through the process of growing up?

Because we're all adults here? I mean, besides the point that we aren't all adults I'm sure, it doesn't change that immediate ramp up to the learning curve on MWO and after that it's a heck of a slog until you reach higher tiers. The vast, vast majority of players appear to play on that long slope up and slog through those tiers below tier 1. At that level LRMs are important. You can't change that. You shouldn't WANT to change that. When they get their XP bar up to T1 they'll know what to do with LRMs, what to do about them, and when to bring them. You don't need to preach. So don't. You're arguing against something that works great for most of the players in the game. The high end where it doesn't work doesn't need you to tell them about it.

Even good players get stuck in lower tiers. I'm no comp player but I've gone up against plenty of the people I see on the comp lists when I see them playing in QP and won. Would I beat them one on one? I doubt it but I don't think it'd be an easy kill either...yet I played low tiers for ages. This game, for me, is all about tinkering and not comp play. I love slapping an AC/20 on a Raven. I think urbanmechs are fun as F***. I like boating missiles, boating flamers, putting a 400XL in an Atlas, and anything else that looks stupid as hell and seeing if I can make it do something interesting. THAT is my game, and it means that all of those fail configurations that are fun for me to run a few rounds in count against me. Mechs that I do well in start out as me tinkering until I find the combinations that I like playing before they start getting me better than 1.0 KDR...and then I stop playing with them because I'm not tinkering anymore. That means that all of my stats look like trash. It also means that I don't train up to the level of the comp players so I'm not as good as them, but I'm still good enough to smash faces with them and win almost as often as not as an individual.

And I like LRMs. They're fun. Not for least because higher tiers don't expect them. I don't make any excuses for it either, because I paid for this d@mn game and I'm going to play it for fun or for wins when I feel like it. When I'm in a mood and want to stomp face I pull out my Marauder and make some broken mechs. Yay. It doesn't mean that the enemy needs trash talked about them. Nor me when I overextend and get stomped by a lance when I'm alone.

The fact that this argument goes on with the level of vitriol you pour out at all is an embarrassment to all of us who play this game. The fact that it has gone on this long and continues even longer is beyond the pale.

Please, when someone does something you don't agree with, tell them politely that you disagree and why, and then shrug it off. If you're right then they'll learn some day, and maybe you're wrong about half the things you say while you're trying to make the point that you ARE right about it. Get over it and back to the game. PGI isn't going to change LRM mechanics because of this forum and if they do you comp players will make adjustments. It's the thing you take pride in isn't it?

Look, the main reason I mention any of this is that the fight doesn't start with the LRM user. It starts when someone trash talks the LRM user. Please stop. There's no point, no nice reason, and no utility. Let them learn and let them play and go do your thing without losing face for yourself by being an @ss.

Edited by metallio, 06 June 2017 - 09:05 AM.

[Tesunie]

Vellron2005, on 06 June 2017 - 12:46 AM, said:

And I STILL expect PGI to intervene and give us some actual factual statistical data and settle this once and for all..

PGI probably wont do it, for several reasons. One of which is that they can't be paying attention to all threads at once. Another is the time it would take to gather and format that data into comprehensible forms, among other reasons.

Best you can do is try to ask for as large of a player base to submit their personal stats with mech builds attached to specific stats. This way it can be seen how effective specific builds tend to be. However, this wouldn't include different levels of play, player skill sets, etc.

Xiphias, on 06 June 2017 - 07:38 AM, said:

Not quite all, but I think 90%+ were comp players.


I consider having a KDR and WLR that are both greater than one (over a sufficient amount of matches) the minimum to be "okay". If you have a WLR of less than one it means you are actively increasing your team's chances of losing through your presence. If you have a WDR of less than one it means that on average you are not carrying your weight individually. Of the two I think WLR is more important to be above one, but that is a pretty easy stat for players to farm if they drop in groups .

Edit: To be clear. I don't mean this in an insulting way, it's just the metric that I use to measure where a player stands skillwise. There's nothing wrong per se with being bad or playing for fun.


The stats page is somewhat unreliable. I think WLR and KDR are fine, but I seem to remember weapon stats being messed up. Not sure exactly, but I wouldn't trust them too much.

I have actually seen those videos. It's actually commonly brought up as to why "LRMs suck so much" fairly often. On those videos, my remark would be that the LRM users made a lot of mistakes from what I saw, and they could have played their LRMs more effectively. Such as hiding in the open water on Crimson. All that seemed to do was just let the enemy direct fire mechs poke out and snipe. Would have been moderately effective against a brawler team though, maybe...

But then again as I said comp play doesn't always reflect how the rest of this game is played. I also feel that a lot of people don't use LRMs very effectively. I wont claim to be a great player, but even as a T2 pilot, I still seem to be finding that my mixed loadouts with LRMs on them seem to typically out perform my pure direct fire mechs. As an example, my Huntsmen stats I posted, the only Huntsmen I have (even from those I didn't post) that exceeds my LRM Huntsmen A's W/L is my SRM and ERLL Pahket. This pattern is repeated through just about all of my stats (though I try to avoid stats of mechs with less than 100 matches recorded for a more accurate average to appear). Maybe this wouldn't be true for everyone, but at least for myself I seem to actively help my team win more often when I am using some limited forms of LRMs over almost any of my direct fire mechs. (I will also mention, I play more for fun, but that doesn't mean I also don't play to win.)


Oh, I'm not insulted at all. I just disagree with K/D as "a good statistic to show skill", but it seems we are in agreement with that. W/L is a better metric to use, though I like to try and look at as many points of data as possible to try and get the bigger picture. If I could, I'd even want to see average match score with specific mechs, and I'd love to even know which of my weapons did more damage/component destructions. However, that data is not readily available.

I guess I should explain why I don't like using K/D for much, my reasoning is reliability of it. I find it far too easy for myself to do all the heavy work, then have an ally swoop in and get that last hit on a target and "get the kill". Even if I got KMDD, they still got the kill. In a team based game, it also doesn't matter who gets that kill, as long as an enemy mech drops. For an example, if my entire team is shooting at target A, it starts to become a round of luck as to who will actually get that killing shot. I've even ignored an enemy who was a stick with no weapons, to redirect my fire at someone else who had weapons and could shoot my allies. Sure, I could have padded/boosted/whatever my K/D rate by going for the useless stick, but instead I left that to someone else if they wanted as I dealt with a more appropriate target.

But, your view of K/D is about the same as my use of Damage Per Match Per Ton. It's all just how you personally see performance. (I don't use just DPMPT, but if's a nice efficiency scale.) When I am comparing builds via DPMPT I look for an average of 5 damage per ton, and I do make account for LRM spread into it. Like, for my Huntsmen A which has 5 ERMLs, an LRM10 and an LRM15, I account for probably over half the LRM damage being "spread" (which can be helpful). So, when I calculate it's DPTPM, I'm actually looking for an efficiency of 5.5 to 6.5 instead of 5. A pure LRM boat, I'd be looking for an efficiency of 7-8 instead because of such spread from the weapons (which should tell you something). As I never run boats, I never expect that much damage out of my mechs.

The efficiency system I use (which is based on damage, and damage isn't everything) is to help gauge a mech based on how much you commit. For example, a Locust that does 100 damage is technically being as efficient at dealing damage as an Atlas that did 500 damage (each are 5.0 DPMPT). If a Locust pilot can maintain a 5 or greater efficiency, than for the weight they brought in they are "pulling their own" as an average. This looks at an average, not individual matches, as my system accounts for the occasional "oops, bad match/one shot dead" occurrences we all know happens.


An unreliable stat page is a problem, if it's true. It could also be that I played more FP matches at that time, and FP matches don't leave any stat recordings onto your stats page, at least for individual mechs. Weapon stats seem to be all over the place, like I have an CSRM2 system brought into 0 matches, but yet has stats, damage and hits... Though if I go to archives, I get all sorts of weird stats for my mechs...


PS: I liked your post for your comments directed to me. Didn't read too heavily on comments not directed at myself.

Edited by Tesunie, 06 June 2017 - 09:46 AM.

[Vxheous]

Tesunie, on 06 June 2017 - 09:45 AM, said:

PGI probably wont do it, for several reasons. One of which is that they can't be paying attention to all threads at once. Another is the time it would take to gather and format that data into comprehensible forms, among other reasons.

Best you can do is try to ask for as large of a player base to submit their personal stats with mech builds attached to specific stats. This way it can be seen how effective specific builds tend to be. However, this wouldn't include different levels of play, player skill sets, etc.



I have actually seen those videos. It's actually commonly brought up as to why "LRMs suck so much" fairly often. On those videos, my remark would be that the LRM users made a lot of mistakes from what I saw, and they could have played their LRMs more effectively. Such as hiding in the open water on Crimson. All that seemed to do was just let the enemy direct fire mechs poke out and snipe. Would have been moderately effective against a brawler team though, maybe...

But then again as I said comp play doesn't always reflect how the rest of this game is played. I also feel that a lot of people don't use LRMs very effectively. I wont claim to be a great player, but even as a T2 pilot, I still seem to be finding that my mixed loadouts with LRMs on them seem to typically out perform my pure direct fire mechs. As an example, my Huntsmen stats I posted, the only Huntsmen I have (even from those I didn't post) that exceeds my LRM Huntsmen A's W/L is my SRM and ERLL Pahket. This pattern is repeated through just about all of my stats (though I try to avoid stats of mechs with less than 100 matches recorded for a more accurate average to appear). Maybe this wouldn't be true for everyone, but at least for myself I seem to actively help my team win more often when I am using some limited forms of LRMs over almost any of my direct fire mechs. (I will also mention, I play more for fun, but that doesn't mean I also don't play to win.)


Oh, I'm not insulted at all. I just disagree with K/D as "a good statistic to show skill", but it seems we are in agreement with that. W/L is a better metric to use, though I like to try and look at as many points of data as possible to try and get the bigger picture. If I could, I'd even want to see average match score with specific mechs, and I'd love to even know which of my weapons did more damage/component destructions. However, that data is not readily available.

I guess I should explain why I don't like using K/D for much, my reasoning is reliability of it. I find it far too easy for myself to do all the heavy work, then have an ally swoop in and get that last hit on a target and "get the kill". Even if I got KMDD, they still got the kill. In a team based game, it also doesn't matter who gets that kill, as long as an enemy mech drops. For an example, if my entire team is shooting at target A, it starts to become a round of luck as to who will actually get that killing shot. I've even ignored an enemy who was a stick with no weapons, to redirect my fire at someone else who had weapons and could shoot my allies. Sure, I could have padded/boosted/whatever my K/D rate by going for the useless stick, but instead I left that to someone else if they wanted as I dealt with a more appropriate target.

But, your view of K/D is about the same as my use of Damage Per Match Per Ton. It's all just how you personally see performance. (I don't use just DPMPT, but if's a nice efficiency scale.) When I am comparing builds via DPMPT I look for an average of 5 damage per ton, and I do make account for LRM spread into it. Like, for my Huntsmen A which has 5 ERMLs, an LRM10 and an LRM15, I account for probably over half the LRM damage being "spread" (which can be helpful). So, when I calculate it's DPTPM, I'm actually looking for an efficiency of 5.5 to 6.5 instead of 5. A pure LRM boat, I'd be looking for an efficiency of 7-8 instead because of such spread from the weapons (which should tell you something). As I never run boats, I never expect that much damage out of my mechs.

The efficiency system I use (which is based on damage, and damage isn't everything) is to help gauge a mech based on how much you commit. For example, a Locust that does 100 damage is technically being as efficient at dealing damage as an Atlas that did 500 damage (each are 5.0 DPMPT). If a Locust pilot can maintain a 5 or greater efficiency, than for the weight they brought in they are "pulling their own" as an average. This looks at an average, not individual matches, as my system accounts for the occasional "oops, bad match/one shot dead" occurrences we all know happens.


An unreliable stat page is a problem, if it's true. It could also be that I played more FP matches at that time, and FP matches don't leave any stat recordings onto your stats page, at least for individual mechs. Weapon stats seem to be all over the place, like I have an CSRM2 system brought into 0 matches, but yet has stats, damage and hits... Though if I go to archives, I get all sorts of weird stats for my mechs...


PS: I liked your post for your comments directed to me. Didn't read too heavily on comments not directed at myself.

That's where looking at average match score also comes into play. While everyone has games where they do all the work and someone else "secures" the kill, over time, a good player will get enough killing blows themselves that their K/D will be decent. Average match score factors in solo kill/kmdd/assists/damage/etc so players that tend to have a higher average match score over time tend to be more effective for their team (again it's a trend, and there are outliers).

While I agree with the idea that LRMs are more effective at lower tiers of play (simply because that weapon system punishes bad positioning more than any other weapon system), I disagree with the idea that direct fire is less effective at lower tiers of play. Direct fire could be less effective in the fact that a lot of people can't shoot straight (and that could simply be that they never adjusted their in-game mouse sensitivity), but once mouse settings are properly set up, direct fire is almost always superior. Case in point, I recently dropped a Banshee with XL 380 and 5LPL in a tier 4 match (my alt is tier 4) and I did 2K damage in a quick play match, just shredding LRM torsos left right and center. Also no airstrikes dropped because the alt account is dirt poor, just old fashioned direct fire at 450m.

Edit: Just to prove I'm not making this up (I censored all names including my alt):

Edited by Vxheous Kerensky, 06 June 2017 - 10:56 AM.

[metallio]

So you're saying that low tier people who can't hit the broad side of a barn will shoot better once they learn to shoot better and you think they'll all do that before they're out of the tier? Right?

And that they won't be happier with their performance using a weapon that doesn't require aiming? Or just won't do better?

...and just for kicks you're showing off your 2k+ damage on people who can't shoot and barely even understand the movement mechanics because it proves the power of direct damage over LRMs as if they were a full 12 man team of LRM boats?

I'm missing your point here unless it's just more of the same showing off.

[Tesunie]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 06 June 2017 - 10:45 AM, said:

That's where looking at average match score also comes into play. While everyone has games where they do all the work and someone else "secures" the kill, over time, a good player will get enough killing blows themselves that their K/D will be decent. Average match score factors in solo kill/kmdd/assists/damage/etc so players that tend to have a higher average match score over time tend to be more effective for their team (again it's a trend, and there are outliers).

While I agree with the idea that LRMs are more effective at lower tiers of play (simply because that weapon system punishes bad positioning more than any other weapon system), I disagree with the idea that direct fire is less effective at lower tiers of play. Direct fire could be less effective in the fact that a lot of people can't shoot straight (and that could simply be that they never adjusted their in-game mouse sensitivity), but once mouse settings are properly set up, direct fire is almost always superior. Case in point, I recently dropped a Banshee with XL 380 and 5LPL in a tier 4 match (my alt is tier 4) and I did 2K damage in a quick play match, just shredding LRM torsos left right and center.

Edit: Just to prove I'm not making this up (I censored all names including my alt):

I tend to take actions that, though perilous to myself, seem to be helpful to winning a match. I believe this is part of why I maintain reasonable W/L scores, even though I have rather poor showing of K/D. I do so wish that Match Score was recorded on your mech stats. Then I could really get another aspect of efficiency logged in. Sadly, that isn't the case.

As far as tiers and LRMs, I think it's a lot about how you use things. For example, I'm T2, when I was T4 LRMs where easier to use. I've really had to ramp up my game and how I use all my mechs to get them to continue to perform well. (the intent of the PSR system, right?) I find that it often is taking me more skill to use LRMs more effectively as I move up in rank. It's taking more effort to continue to do well as my level of opponents increases. Though, I do find it odd that I still seem to be showing better results with LRMs than direct fire, despite the increased difficulty in their effective use. (Key word here is effective use.)

I concentrate more on efficiency and results than I do upon what other players say is good or not. I believe I've stated before that I do take comp players advice seriously and do consider it. However, I also don't blindly follow what other people tell me, and instead I test the results myself to see how well it applies to me. In the aspect of LRMs (at least for my level of play and how I've been using them), I find what the comp players say doesn't align with my results. So, as long as I continue to get good results (and have fun), I'll continue to use LRMs. Of course, I also bring enough direct fire with my LRMs to always be a threat, so I'm not neglecting my direct fire discipline either.

I find LRMs are an odd weapon. I believe it was mentioned before that they are one of the few weapons that you can actually have too many of them, and that their performance starts to level off once a specific critical mass has been reached. Basically, there is easily such a thing as too many LRMs, where as many other weapons don't suffer from this effect. But yet there is a balancing point where LRMs are useful without being over saturated. I work hard on my mech builds to find that balancing point between direct fire (because it is very important and I wont deny that) and my LRM payloads. It's something I've been doing back when I first started playing this game, as my first mech was the 4J back when it was a trial rotation of stock mechs. It just kinda stuck with me as something that seemed more effective than boating only LRMs (something a lot of players do).

I believe that LRMs can be effective at nearly every level of play, depending upon how they are used. They are more effective at lower tiers, and require more effort at higher tiers to maintain a level of efficiency. Where as, in counter point, once you learn how to position and aim, direct fire weapons always maintain a level of efficiency at all levels of play. It's this fluctuation that seems to cause so much debate. Not to mention how many people will boat LRMs and then stand in the back shooting indirectly only (admit it, this is the most common tactic to do with LRMs, and probably the least effective means to use them).


I mean, I respect people's opinion. As someone else stated, if you like LRMs, than play them. If you don't, don't use them. Should be as simple as that.

[Vxheous]

metallio, on 06 June 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

So you're saying that low tier people who can't hit the broad side of a barn will shoot better once they learn to shoot better and you think they'll all do that before they're out of the tier? Right?

And that they won't be happier with their performance using a weapon that doesn't require aiming? Or just won't do better?

...and just for kicks you're showing off your 2k+ damage on people who can't shoot and barely even understand the movement mechanics because it proves the power of direct damage over LRMs as if they were a full 12 man team of LRM boats?

I'm missing your point here unless it's just more of the same showing off.

I'm saying low tier people that can't shoot usually have their mouse settings set up improperly. I'm also saying that anyone that can shoot and have map awareness will make a mockery of lrm boats. My screenshot was also directed to the posts on previous pages saying that "comp" builds don't work in low tier play (yes, yes they do). It's also directed at the fact that there are players out there that think good player/comp players only play group queue and wouldn't survive or be able to perform in solo queue (lolz)

Edited by Vxheous Kerensky, 06 June 2017 - 11:38 AM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

The last time PGI increased velocity of LRMs and changed the arcs of fire, we had a lrmageddon,

They adjusted velocity by 15 to "fix" that, from 175 to 160. The problem wasn't the extra speed, it was the center-torso (earlier, head) seeking missiles. But hey, they nerfed it all because Paul's response to an issue is to break something if enough people complain (see poptarting and what happened to jump jets). The real LRMgeddons have always been about missiles that end location-seeking (CT, head) due to lousy testing, and the fixes have all been about keeping LRMs from HIGHER arcs,not flatter ones. People were whining about velocity because combined with the screwy arcs,they were getting clusterbombed into torso death and LRMs were actually reasonably accurate, thus they couldn't avoid the potato with his LRM 90 Catapult turning them into flaming donuts. The arc fix removed that capacity,the velocity nerf was just kicking the now no-longer-busted system down back into trash tier for accuracy.

A horizontal shot (or a flatter arc) isn't going to magically pulp your cockpit or gut your engine compartment, nor is it coming in so high you're going to get rear armor hits. THAT was the sort of screw-ups that generate LRMgeddons.

Let's just consider how little 15 velocity is. Heck, 40 velocity. If you added 40 velocity, you'd still get a missile 50% slower than an SRM that's supposed to travel about 300% of the range. An AC/20 round is still more than three times faster than a 200-velocity LRM (at 240, it's still more than twice)- and again, it's expected to reach a target further away.

The AC/10 has a blistering 950 velocity, smaller AC's even more so. An AC/5, gets 1150 velocity, which means it's shell literally travels the entire range in under a second, which that 720m LRM launch takes...four.

Before you figure in lockon time. You'll even shoot the LRM user twice with that AC before the first LRMs get to you. A Clan ERLL, the king of long burn time will finish it's entire burn at range before your missiles got there to hit back. And the guy poking with his four second PPC recharge will just about be ready to simply blast you again around the time your LRMs reach his cover. That's how slow and inaccurate LRMs are...and that's versus weapons with superior pinpoint damage capacity to begin with.

The modern LRM, even with those improvements will still be only a critical danger to the potato and is handicapped versus anyone else. As it stands, it's been systematically gimped in response to repeated flight screw-ups that it hasn't benefitted from in ages.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

Unless LRMs was the dominant sanctioned #1 goto EmP/SJR option (which it won't anytime soon), LRM boats are cannon fodder vs anything remotely competent.

And they're nowhere near even a second,third,or fourth option. Or likely an eighth one, for that matter.

And yet, there are people who unironically call for LRM nerfs and scream bloody murder at the slightest potential improvements.

(Hint: Most competent LRM boats took velocity/cluster/ammo buff skills the moment the patch hit, because they're balms to some of the worst LRM problems as it is.)

A perfect way to determine whether a weapon is a failure is to look at comp (and to an extent, good group play in general).

If it's not even useful outside a near-vanishing niche, the weapon needs to be improved.

Quote

I believe that LRMs can be effective at nearly every level of play, depending upon how they are used. They are more effective at lower tiers, and require more effort at higher tiers to maintain a level of efficiency. Where as, in counter point, once you learn how to position and aim, direct fire weapons always maintain a level of efficiency at all levels of play. It's this fluctuation that seems to cause so much debate. Not to mention how many people will boat LRMs and then stand in the back shooting indirectly only (admit it, this is the most common tactic to do with LRMs, and probably the least effective means to use them).

LRMs punish pilot errors. Your skill as a missile boater can mean capitalizing on smaller errors (thus,you do more), but LRMs plateau well below the margin of error of most comp players.

That a terrible LRM boater is the most obvious failboat in the entire game only magnifies the issue, as these "punishers" do nothing beyond the baseline ability of their launchers. Their positioning to take opportunities is lousy, the windows required for use given their choices have to be huge, and their ability to respond to anyone closing those windows is pathetic.

Edited by Brain Cancer, 06 June 2017 - 11:59 AM.

[Tesunie]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 06 June 2017 - 11:36 AM, said:

I'm saying low tier people that can't shoot usually have their mouse settings set up improperly. I'm also saying that anyone that can shoot and have map awareness will make a mockery of lrm boats. My screenshot was also directed to the posts on previous pages saying that "comp" builds don't work in low tier play (yes, yes they do). It's also directed at the fact that there are players out there that think good player/comp players only play group queue and wouldn't survive or be able to perform in solo queue (lolz)

You presumed that we said that meta builds were not effective at lower tiers. I don't recall such a statement being said. I believe it was only stated that LRMs are more effective in lower tiers, as well as other builds and mechs that "don't work in comp" can work in other play levels of the game.

Brain Cancer, on 06 June 2017 - 11:44 AM, said:

Before you figure in lockon time. You'll even shoot the LRM user twice with that AC before the first LRMs get to you. A Clan ERLL, the king of long burn time will finish it's entire burn at range before your missiles got there to hit back. And the guy poking with his four second PPC recharge will just about be ready to simply blast you again around the time your LRMs reach his cover. That's how slow and inaccurate LRMs are...and that's versus weapons with superior pinpoint damage capacity to begin with.

The modern LRM, even with those improvements will still be only a critical danger to the potato and is handicapped versus anyone else. As it stands, it's been systematically gimped in response to repeated flight screw-ups that it hasn't benefitted from in ages.

I tend to shoot my LRMs as more midrange weapons, not long range. So, I consider the "effective" range of LRMs to be within 600m, and closer to minimum range the better.

If you are trying to shoot LRMs are their max range, that would probably be issue #1. Despite LRMs being termed as "Long Range Missiles", they are actually more like "MRMs", or "Mid Ranged Missiles". This leads me to question how the MRMs are going to be added into the game in a manner that wont invalidate LRMs completely... I look forward to seeing how this may be done. I suspect it will be by higher velocity and lack of a lock on system for MRMs, which will possible make them more desirable for more situations...

On top of that, I find using LRMs within a mixed build is helpful, as I tend to leave "parting gifts" after I jump snipe at mid ranges. This leads to my missiles normally hitting my target. Though I do still retain the ability to shoot at longer ranges and indirectly, if need be. However, most times, if I'm shooting you with my lasers, my missiles are soon to follow and typically within a 300m range. often, my opponents get little to no warning of the incoming missiles, at least not till they have already hit their target that is.

It's a matter of how you use it. If you are considering them as a 800+ range weapon, than those specific stats are going to look bad, because they aren't good at those ranges.

[metallio]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 06 June 2017 - 11:36 AM, said:

I'm saying low tier people that can't shoot usually have their mouse settings set up improperly. I'm also saying that anyone that can shoot and have map awareness will make a mockery of lrm boats. My screenshot was also directed to the posts on previous pages saying that "comp" builds don't work in low tier play (yes, yes they do). It's also directed at the fact that there are players out there that think good player/comp players only play group queue and wouldn't survive or be able to perform in solo queue (lolz)

LoL. Ok. I admit that I disagree with the inherent assumption that the low tier people are going to even figure out mouse settings or be able to shoot ok even if they did but that's a small thing.

I can also state unequivocally that low tier players don't have the presence of mind or knowledge to rush an LRM boat that's bombing them. They run, and if they don't run they die. YOU wouldn't do that, but all but the tiniest fraction of players at the bottom do. I absolutely agree that rushing LRM boats with direct damage weapons defeats them quickly. Did it yesterday (? I think) with a centurion missing one side and a red CT and still killed it with only two medium lasers. Clan LRMs do damage close up, but when you're in their face for real it's essentially zero...but if people all did what was best in a given situation they wouldn't be tier 5.

[Tesunie]

Brain Cancer, on 06 June 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

LRMs punish pilot errors. Your skill as a missile boater can mean capitalizing on smaller errors (thus,you do more), but LRMs plateau well below the margin of error of most comp players.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but...
I DON'T BOAT.

Trying not to go too large on that font, but I keep saying it and then things I say get tossed in with the term "boating" right afterwards...