422 replies to this topic

[Ted Wayz]

Tesunie, on 05 June 2017 - 01:02 PM, said:

A few can be used as a tool. Too many, and you don't have enough of the right tools, like having nothing but Allen Wrenches and no wrenches or screwdrivers in your toolbox.

I think what you mean to say is too much of any build on a team and the team suffers.

Too many brawlers would suffer.

Too many snipers would suffer.

Too many of anything...unless you adapt your strategy to the mix and use the builds to your advantage.

Too many brawlers unless you set up a fist fight.

Too many snipers unless you maintain your rotation at long range.

Too many lurmers unless they mix range and maintain LOS.

Get my point?

[Tesunie]

PhoenixFire55, on 05 June 2017 - 12:54 PM, said:

None of this is in any way an intent of such convergence system. If it happens to be a positive effect of it then so the better. However the general idea is such because it makes sense, and only because of that, not because of buffing arm hardpoints or whatever.



This is plain and simple BS, adding one value (i.e. current arm weaponry convergence distance) into transferred data hardly changes anything. The calculations required to be performed by a server are indeed more complicated, but then again .. rent an actual fkn server, not a casio calculator.



Again, BS. Nothing was specified. The only reason given was that server couldn't keep up with calculations. That's it. Minimally Viable^TM at its finest.

If you want it to "make more sense", than having torso mounted weapons being fixed and unable to move... isn't true to the lore of BT. In BT, the weapons could all move and could focus onto a location for better accuracy. Even the torso mounted weapons had little motors that could help align the weapon better onto target. However, this took time.

In the books (considered lore), the pilot would need to keep their reticule on target until it turned gold, giving a solid lock. Once a lock was solid, all weapons were converged into a single spot by the targeting computer. However, this was typically very hard to do, and alpha striking such a shot was very likely to cause hindrances from heat produced by all that fire power in such a short time. (TT mechanics assume that a pilot is not shooting "all their weapons at once", but those weapons within a ten second time span.)

So, by actual in game/universe lore... having it so torso weapons couldn't converge would not make a lot of sense. Now, game play wise it may help balance out pin point damage by inducing spread, but I don't think it would really be all that great as a balancing concept. (My opinion.)


The more calculations, the more data that needs to be transmitted. I think you underestimate how much data that really may be. To give an idea on what that would be, think about how many weapons a mech may have, and/or also how many shots said weapon can give. I know of people who (no comment here) have create an LRM100 mech. That means every salvo is 100 missiles sent into the air. Now, given extremes, say every mech in the match has those styled mechs. That's upwards of 2,400 possible weapon calculations. Now, a server also plays more than a single match on it, so for every match it could be having that kind of load placed on it. All that adds up given time. Then include latency, HSR, Packet Loss, positioning checks for mechs (which remember, each mech is a series of ten different hit boxes, all different shapes and sizes), etc.

Each data calculation and transfer adds up.

[Tesunie]

Ted Wayz, on 05 June 2017 - 01:10 PM, said:

I think what you mean to say is too much of any build on a team and the team suffers.

Too many brawlers would suffer.

Too many snipers would suffer.

Too many of anything...unless you adapt your strategy to the mix and use the builds to your advantage.

Too many brawlers unless you set up a fist fight.

Too many snipers unless you maintain your rotation at long range.

Too many lurmers unless they mix range and maintain LOS.

Get my point?

Too much of any one thing can be a problem, depending upon how it is played.

I often use mixed builds, with weapons for nearly every range (as in some long range weapons, and some for close range if needed). Because of this, I'm use to adjusting my tactics based upon my target. That one is all close range? I try to keep my distance. That one is all long range? I'll try to close in to mitigate that. I've taken my LRM mechs and charged into another LRM mech and done well. Why? I had more close range weapons than they did, as they boated and had none (or much fewer).

A team can counter any of their weaknesses depending upon how well they can work together. That being said, there are weapons that can do a job easier than another. I wont deny the weaknesses of LRMs (in this example), but at the same time I'm not willing to over look their possible uses and strengths.

I've seen all sniper teams do very well. I've also seen all brawler teams do very well. It's a matter of how they use those builds and play the match. (I've also seen each get stomped as well, so there is also that.)

Though I think you may be talking to the wrong one here.

[Vxheous]

Ted Wayz, on 05 June 2017 - 10:43 AM, said:

I used an assault lurm boat and you show overall stats. You are a genius.

Step 1: Go look at my season 11 assault stats.
Step 2: Post them here.
Step 3: Apologize.

Your W/L is still bad in your LRM assault. If it was actually capable of carrying games, it would be at least 1.0 (and that's still just 50% win). It still comes back to this point: LRMs don't do effective enough damage. That you were lrming up close is admirable, and that you finished mechs off with secondary weapons is great, but you still needed to use those secondary weapons to do so. No one denies that lrms can put up good damage numbers (which in turn increases matchscore). It's their effective damage, and effective damage/time that is questioned

Edited by Vxheous Kerensky, 05 June 2017 - 01:44 PM.

[Deathlike]

Tesunie, on 05 June 2017 - 01:02 PM, said:

It is very easy for a mech to become bloated/boated with LRMs. The temptation is strong with it. Just as a team can also easily become bloated as well.

A few can be used as a tool. Too many, and you don't have enough of the right tools, like having nothing but Allen Wrenches and no wrenches or screwdrivers in your toolbox.

There is a reason I do believe that LRMs can be useful within a more diverse build set, not as a boat and not as a bloated team of them. Use them on the front lines, be there to share armor, have the direct fire weapons to also join in selected component shooting. These are all good things to have and do. LRMs can, when in limited numbers, provide a way to support when you may be out of position, counter a bit of side shielding even, or just as an extra bit of relatively low heat/tonnage damage or as an alternative longer ranged punch to an otherwise very short range build (which can come in handy in QP matches).

I feel that much of the problem with LRMs and teams is how often and easily they become boated. They aren't often thought of as a compliment to something else, or as other tactical roles besides "long range" and "indirect". True, those are some strengths of the weapon, but they can do more things.


Personally, I let boat players hold for themselves. I'll help them if I can, but I'm not going to do everything possible to ensure their survival or match score. I'm going to play as I have to, and if an LRM boat/group get ambushed, I'm probably not going to go back and help them when they should have been with the team instead of out on their own out back...

AKA: I feel it is often a matter of how LRMs are being used, more than LRMs on their own as the fault. There are ways to use them effectively, and less effectively. Then again, isn't that true for all weapons?

PS: I keep seeing the words TD;LR. I know roughly what it means (the important notes/general concept/short version). However, I've often wondered what the letters actually literally stood for... Mind enlightening me please?

It's not about usage, it's just using LRMs period.

The reason why it's been said time and time again that the success of LRMs is due to incompetence on your opfor/targets.

When you reach a certain skill threshold, almost everything on the battlefield becomes protection vs LRMs as positioning becomes more prevalent, and LRMs will hit anything but actual targets... particularly where and when it matters most.

Ted Wayz, on 05 June 2017 - 01:06 PM, said:

Bad ones maybe.

Good ones do not need protecting. Good ones need to be a priority for the other team to remove.

BTW, usually the poop hits the fan when the direct fire cower behind buildings and slowly get surrounded. But don't worry, you can always blame lrm boats for being bad.

Sounds like once again someone is remembering a bad experience and covering all lurm boats with that blanket.

No, this is a consistent theme actually. If you play scared, you're going to die scared. If you play aggressively, LRM boats simply melt themselves scared.

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.

[VanillaG]

Tesunie, on 05 June 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Your convergence concept was actually discussed (not by PGI that I know of though). Many players were not overly thrilled by it, myself among them. It would give more value to arm mounted weapons and less to torso mounted, but how much so? Now what happens to mechs with hard points close together on the torso? Or mounts that get spread around? Now it would increase the amount of "mechs with bad hardpoint locations". This probably would not be wise.


The issue with HSR and delayed convergence was the amount of calculations that would need to be performed. Each one is a bit more data needing to be streamed over the internet. The more data, the more harsh lag and packet loss can become. So now, instead of mostly calculations based on "were is your reticule pointed" and calculating back estimated ping to determine where you most likely hit (hence it's called "Host State Rewind"), you now would have more calculations as to each individual weapon, where it was converged to be at a given point on top of ping lag calculations for each said weapon that fired...

It isn't a "Lame excuse". It was rather clearly spelled out on the technical reasons why the old delayed convergence didn't work with HSR when HSR was released into the game. It's as much a technical hardware issue, as it could possibly be software coding. Could they optimize their coding? Maybe. But you also need to consider the hardware problems as well. Keep in mind too that this game needs to be able to adequately run on many different platforms and internet connection types. So do keep that in consideration with your expectations.

You could fake out the convergence by using a reducing cone of fire for each torso location. For example, the center torso and arms are a perfect circle around the reticle and the left and right torso are circles to each side of the the reticle but overlap, basically looking like a Venn diagram. The starting size of the circles can determined by speed, heat, and/or targeting computers. You then start to adjust the circles based on weapons lock, heat, speed, and/or quirks/skill tree. Essentially you need to keep track of the size of the various cones in HSR and you then have the ability ability to spread the damage across various target locations based on a proportion of the circle covering the specific location.

To be clear, you would absolutely be able to dump all damage into a single location with low speed, low heat, and a target lock. Without those you would potentially be spreading the damage into adjacent locations or even missing.

[MischiefSC]

VanillaG, on 05 June 2017 - 11:49 AM, said:

Comp play is just like group play, not PUG play. In the PUG play you have 23 other people with random loadouts that might listen to VOIP if someone decides to try to herd the cats. In group play you have a small number of people on comms and with somewhat synergized loadouts that will actually listen to what the leader says. Comp play is group play taken to the next level just as group play is PUG play taken to the next level.

The one thing that comp play lets you do is totally min/max the team and loadouts for a very specific situation. The comp scene would be different if the team had to supply a roster with a list of specific mech and loadouts and have to use those mechs for the entire season regardless of the map or mode. The would drastically change the loadouts because they would have to become more generalized and not as hyper-specialized like they are now.

I mean it's the same as in what works in one works in the other. The loadouts are the same. There's a bit more value in sustainability in pug queue than comp but what works it what works.

The point is that the players are what is different - what works for the mechs isn't. The 'specialized loadouts' in comp play are the same mechs you see all the time in every other gamemode.

There's no magic tricks. Stuff doesn't work different. The only thing special about comp play is that everyone on both sides (ideally) is a good player with a good mech.

Hence the point that LRMs don't work in comp play - they only work when there's potatoes to farm, because they're only useful against bad players.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Deathlike, on 05 June 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

It's not about usage, it's just using LRMs period.

The reason why it's been said time and time again that the success of LRMs is due to incompetence on your opfor/targets.

When you reach a certain skill threshold, almost everything on the battlefield becomes protection vs LRMs as positioning becomes more prevalent, and LRMs will hit anything but actual targets... particularly where and when it matters most.

Come watch me play... I will teach you that nowhere is safe from me. LRMs do not have broken pixel perfect convergence or the myriad of other ways PGI has failed at the most fundamental level possible to properly implement the Ruleset correctly. So when saying that something can not be exploited therefore it is worthless... that is why I find the "comp" scene a gross caricature of the game I want to be playing which is Battletech and would settle for a properly implemented Mechwarrior. Solo queue as least is not 24 people are agreeing to only use the most abusable exploited mechanics that PGI failure has created... there are much better game systems if that was the kind of game I wanted to play.

I routinely kill lots of good players which disproves you point they only work on "bad players"... If I recognize your name it either makes you a priority target for me cause you are good or a total ignore cause you are epic level terribad.

[MischiefSC]

Ted Wayz, on 05 June 2017 - 01:06 PM, said:

Bad ones maybe.

Good ones do not need protecting. Good ones need to be a priority for the other team to remove.

BTW, usually the poop hits the fan when the direct fire cower behind buildings and slowly get surrounded. But don't worry, you can always blame lrm boats for being bad.

Sounds like once again someone is remembering a bad experience and covering all lurm boats with that blanket.

So, again. Why don't you and ZUUL get some of the best LRM players you know and put a team together and Deathlike or myself or whoever will get a good direct fire team together and we'll scrim.

Or build a team and go beat players in a competitive environment like comp play.

I see all these quotes from the Magical Lurm Geniuses who never seem to actually play out that way when dropped against equally skilled teams with direct fire.

Let's test it. I'd love to get some Put Up or Shut Up on this topic but, not surprisingly, nobody ever does.

[InspectorG]

Vellron2005, on 01 June 2017 - 05:50 AM, said:

...



2) How much damage dealt compared to other weapon systems?

3) How many top-damage dealers are LRM users compared to non-lrm users?

4) How does all of this relate to PSR Tiers?

5) What does PGI think about LRM boats, and LRMs in general?

2) Wrong metric, see #3.

3) Top damage can = ammo explosions or WASTED damage. Good players need LESS DAMAGE TO KILL A MECH.

​4) Inflated inefficient damage BOOSTS score moving inefficient play faster along the Level-Up-Bar to T1. You too can be a T1 player if you LRM enough, sooner than a newb learning to properly jumpsnipe. Skill ceilings and all that...

5) I would wager PGI sees LRMs as 'noob-tubes' in CoD. A means for new/bad players to feel good doing something. This is not intended as a slight to newbs/bads.

[Ted Wayz]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 05 June 2017 - 01:36 PM, said:

Your W/L is still bad in your LRM assault. If it was actually capable of carrying games, it would be at least 1.0 (and that's still just 50% win). It still comes back to this point: LRMs don't do effective enough damage. That you were lrming up close is admirable, and that you finished mechs off with secondary weapons is great, but you still needed to use those secondary weapons to do so. No one denies that lrms can put up good damage numbers (which in turn increases matchscore). It's their effective damage, and effective damage/time that is questioned

Yes, because I don't travel in group play like you. And yet when I try I managed a better K/D and the same match score as you using a LRM assault in Puglandia. How does that happen? I mean I wasn't carried at all.

I had to use secondaries because I continually ran out of missiles. Maybe 1 of my kills were with secondaries.

So yeah, apology accepted.

This season I am screwing around to see my highest score WITHOUT causing damage. But I am sure that when I post my K/D and W/L will be brought back up and I will have to "tryhard" and remind everyone how easy this game is.

[Ted Wayz]

MischiefSC, on 05 June 2017 - 06:00 PM, said:

So, again. Why don't you and ZUUL get some of the best LRM players you know and put a team together and Deathlike or myself or whoever will get a good direct fire team together and we'll scrim. Or build a team and go beat players in a competitive environment like comp play. I see all these quotes from the Magical Lurm Geniuses who never seem to actually play out that way when dropped against equally skilled teams with direct fire. Let's test it. I'd love to get some Put Up or Shut Up on this topic but, not surprisingly, nobody ever does.

Guess you haven't been keeping up. The best teams have a mix of loadouts. My whole point all along is that good LRM boats do not hurt a team. Unfortunately there are not many good LRM boats because it actually takes skill to use LRMs.

I am sure you could find a whole host of good direct fire people (although I do not think I have ever scored less than Deathlike in our drops. Ask him.) because it is so easy to point and click. But the true test is to have teams that are fairly similar and see if LRMs are the difference between victory and defeat.

Do you get it yet, or will we have another repeat challenge post that shows you don't? I am guessing the latter.

[Vxheous]

Ted Wayz, on 05 June 2017 - 07:00 PM, said:

Yes, because I don't travel in group play like you. And yet when I try I managed a better K/D and the same match score as you using a LRM assault in Puglandia. How does that happen? I mean I wasn't carried at all.

I had to use secondaries because I continually ran out of missiles. Maybe 1 of my kills were with secondaries.

So yeah, apology accepted.

This season I am screwing around to see my highest score WITHOUT causing damage. But I am sure that when I post my K/D and W/L will be brought back up and I will have to "tryhard" and remind everyone how easy this game is.

Your 2.31 K/D to my 2.29 K/D is splitting whiskers. Your 0.87 W/L to my 3.0 W/L is different story. You also only played 28 games in an assault to my 108 games as an assault. Far harder to maintain a high average with more games unless you consistently perform

Edited by Vxheous Kerensky, 05 June 2017 - 09:02 PM.

[Tesunie]

Deathlike, on 05 June 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

It's not about usage, it's just using LRMs period.

The reason why it's been said time and time again that the success of LRMs is due to incompetence on your opfor/targets.

When you reach a certain skill threshold, almost everything on the battlefield becomes protection vs LRMs as positioning becomes more prevalent, and LRMs will hit anything but actual targets... particularly where and when it matters most.

It's all about usage.
Trying to snipe with a small laser is about usage, not the weapon.
Trying to shoot a Gauss with a tap instead of charging it, or overcharging it all the time and never shooting is about usage, not the weapon.
Using LRMs as a boated weapon, only shooting indirectly, hiding in the back is about usage, not the weapon.

There are ways to use LRMs more effectively. It often isn't "the easiest thing to do", but it can be done. I've often dropped with the Seraphim as a team, and I've seen and come against comp teams filled with big names. Even then, I normally run fairly well even with my LRMs against them. There are even some of them that can no longer claim that they have never been killed my LRMs. I'm not a pro at this game either. I just seem to do better with LRMs than a pure direct fire mech. Then again, I don't boat LRMs, which may be what leads to some of my success.

My point is far more so that, not all of us play and are at those top levels of comp play. I'm in Tier 2, and still effectively using LRMs. I play GP and QP, with a healthy enough portion of FP. Notice none of those game modes state "comp play". It's not something I tend to play, and I play to have fun, earn C-bills and try to be as effective for my team as I can.

To be honest, I did play Comp play for a very short time. My unit had a comp team, and they needed some help. I did... alright.


Basically, I'm not saying LRMs are great, but what I'm saying is that not everyone plays on a comp level of play. So, saying LRMs are useless in the game is a false statement. LRMs are useful. Maybe not in top tier comp play, but just about everywhere else they can be useful, or a detriment to the team. Almost as much as just about any other weapon in this game. (Trust me, I've seen people take meta builds, and use them poorly. Sniping with an ERSL/SPL Cheetah for example...)

MischiefSC, on 05 June 2017 - 06:00 PM, said:

I see all these quotes from the Magical Lurm Geniuses who never seem to actually play out that way when dropped against equally skilled teams with direct fire.

This may be the key portion of your statement. Not all of us are equally skilled. Just like how I've been saying not all of us play at comp levels of play. Some of us can actually even use LRMs rather effectively for our level of play.

Here is what I would actually do if you challenged me and I "could make a team using anyone". I would find around ten of the best direct fire players in the game, then have maybe two players who have some LRMs on their mechs (not boated). See how that would fair against a similar opposing team who has no LRMs at all. (Or even the same team, with only a few LRMs on several mechs, but not all.)

Biggest problem with anything like this, is that if one team knows it's fighting this specific loadout of an opposing team, than they have the possibility of using tactics and gear to specifically counter that other team. So, to actually get more accurate testing, you'd have to have a list of teams with pre-established builds. randomly assign the teams so no one knows whom they may be dropping against. This would prevent one team from preparing a specific defense against another.

But... then things really get complicated and such...

[Xiphias]

Ted Wayz, on 05 June 2017 - 01:10 PM, said:

I think what you mean to say is too much of any build on a team and the team suffers.

Too many brawlers would suffer.

Too many snipers would suffer.

Too many of anything...unless you adapt your strategy to the mix and use the builds to your advantage.

Too many brawlers unless you set up a fist fight.

Too many snipers unless you maintain your rotation at long range.

Too many lurmers unless they mix range and maintain LOS.

Get my point?

Brawlers are better when you have more of them. Generally true for snipers too. A full PPC Gauss deck or a pure brawl deck can absolutely wreck face in the pug queue. It's a mixture that usually becomes the problem. Comp is often about picking a archetype and maximizing it in the deck (occasionally adding in a bit of variation). Mixed decks are usually a bad idea. LRMs are actually one of the few loadouts that get worse in greater numbers instead of better.

Sure you have to play the builds to their strengths, but with the exception of a few maps like Polar you really can't do that with LRMs. If you have a critical mass. They get pushed and they fold.

Ted Wayz, on 05 June 2017 - 07:00 PM, said:

Yes, because I don't travel in group play like you. And yet when I try I managed a better K/D and the same match score as you using a LRM assault in Puglandia. How does that happen? I mean I wasn't carried at all.

I had to use secondaries because I continually ran out of missiles. Maybe 1 of my kills were with secondaries.

So yeah, apology accepted.

This season I am screwing around to see my highest score WITHOUT causing damage. But I am sure that when I post my K/D and W/L will be brought back up and I will have to "tryhard" and remind everyone how easy this game is.

Your W/L ratio is consistently below 1 (season 10 excepted). This means you are actively contributing to your team losing. It doesn't matter if you are solo dropping, you should be getting above a 1 to be consider competent. A 2.X KDR isn't tryharding it's messing around in the queue with varied builds. Dropping below a 1 for any reason is just bad. If you want to see what tryharding is look at my stats for Season 9 where I ran pure meta the whole month and just stat farmed. I played pure solo in lights (Arctic Cheetah) and pure group in mediums (Cicada 2B). That's what tryharding with meta looks like.

Ted Wayz, on 05 June 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

Guess you haven't been keeping up. The best teams have a mix of loadouts. My whole point all along is that good LRM boats do not hurt a team. Unfortunately there are not many good LRM boats because it actually takes skill to use LRMs.

I am sure you could find a whole host of good direct fire people (although I do not think I have ever scored less than Deathlike in our drops. Ask him.) because it is so easy to point and click. But the true test is to have teams that are fairly similar and see if LRMs are the difference between victory and defeat.

Do you get it yet, or will we have another repeat challenge post that shows you don't? I am guessing the latter.

The best teams don't have a mix of loadouts. They have specialized loadouts that all operate in the same general range bracket so that they complement each other. Occasionally you might see a ranged mech with a brawl deck. You'll never see brawl mechs in a ranged deck (other than lights). Specialized decks work the best because they do one thing really really well. Mixed decks do a lot of things average. That can work in pugs, but it isn't what the best teams run.

[Xiphias]

Ted Wayz, on 05 June 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

I am sure you could find a whole host of good direct fire people (although I do not think I have ever scored less than Deathlike in our drops. Ask him.) because it is so easy to point and click. But the true test is to have teams that are fairly similar and see if LRMs are the difference between victory and defeat.

Do you get it yet, or will we have another repeat challenge post that shows you don't? I am guessing the latter.

Tesunie, on 05 June 2017 - 08:28 PM, said:

Here is what I would actually do if you challenged me and I "could make a team using anyone". I would find around ten of the best direct fire players in the game, then have maybe two players who have some LRMs on their mechs (not boated). See how that would fair against a similar opposing team who has no LRMs at all. (Or even the same team, with only a few LRMs on several mechs, but not all.)

Biggest problem with anything like this, is that if one team knows it's fighting this specific loadout of an opposing team, than they have the possibility of using tactics and gear to specifically counter that other team. So, to actually get more accurate testing, you'd have to have a list of teams with pre-established builds. randomly assign the teams so no one knows whom they may be dropping against. This would prevent one team from preparing a specific defense against another.

But... then things really get complicated and such...

The closest thing we had to this was this thread: https://mwomercs.com...h-lrms-vs-meta/

Another new player who argued that LRMs used (but not boated) could be good if played by good players. It was tested with some of the top comp names and with some of the best LRM pilots at the time (JMan). The LRMs lost every drop except for the last one. In the last drop the teams switched and the team with LRMs won. However, a big part of why the LRM team won is that they other team focused the LRM mechs instead of the brawl mechs and the brawl mechs won the match. The LRMs never contributed in a meaningful way.

Was this flawed? Sure, it wasn't a perfect sample, but is does show you what LRMs looked like when played with and against good players. I could only find recordings for three of the drops, but the LRM team got stomped in the first four matches, 12-0 or close to it. The non LRM team probably had a skill advantage, but even then they only just edged out of victory in the last match compared to the total blowouts in the other matches.

https://mwomercs.com...h-lrms-vs-meta/

Drop 1: 12-0
Drop 3: 12-0
Drop 5: 8-12

Listen to this commentary in the one drop the LRMs won: https://youtu.be/3-3ReuvWtLs?t=4m25s

[Lorcryst NySell]

PhoenixFire55, on 05 June 2017 - 12:18 AM, said:

You've just clearly displayed your total cluelessness by this one line of text ...

But please, keep educating us about something you have zero understanding of. Its the internet after all.

OK, I got the hint.

So I'm clueless. Not too proud to refuse it though.

So I'll shut up, and listen/read. But I'd like to learn more, and get better.

Would you be willing to help me ?

PhoenixFire55, on 05 June 2017 - 12:32 AM, said:

For starters not using lurms would help ...

Er, no, forgetting all I have said, and using the balance from the top down method, someone somewhere sometime should be using LRMs at least a bit, to provide constant, up to date data on the weapon, so adjustments can be made.

[Lorcryst NySell]

Tesunie, on 05 June 2017 - 01:02 PM, said:

PS: I keep seeing the words TD;LR. I know roughly what it means (the important notes/general concept/short version). However, I've often wondered what the letters actually literally stood for... Mind enlightening me please?

AFAIK : Too Long ; Didn't Read

[Tesunie]

Xiphias, on 05 June 2017 - 09:01 PM, said:

https://mwomercs.com...h-lrms-vs-meta/

Drop 1: 12-0
Drop 3: 12-0
Drop 5: 8-12

Listen to this commentary in the one drop the LRMs won: https://youtu.be/3-3ReuvWtLs?t=4m25s

Q: Was all those "comp" players?

I ask this because, once again, comp play is actually different from many other levels of play. If anything, everyone's arguments against LRMs just is an indication that LRMs need to be changed in some way to let them be both useful in "lower levels of play" as well as "useful in higher levels of play". However, what happens now is the age of argument of "LRMs are useless (in comp play)" to "LRMs are OP! (in lower levels of play)".

I'm not saying that LRMs are super great and should be used in all levels of play, just that comp play is not all levels of play. What doesn't work at all in Comp play, can basically typically be used in just about all other levels of play.

The way I use LRMs specifically I've never actually seen done by anyone else yet (though I'm sure I'm not the only one to use them in such a way). I have no idea if it could work in those higher levels of play, or if I'd just get my face melted off. Personally, I don't have much desire to find out either way. All I can say is, at my level of play I seem to be able to use LRMs effectively enough, which kinda leaves me to make a note on this (even if it wasn't directed at me):

Xiphias, on 05 June 2017 - 08:46 PM, said:

Your W/L ratio is consistently below 1 (season 10 excepted). This means you are actively contributing to your team losing. It doesn't matter if you are solo dropping, you should be getting above a 1 to be consider competent. A 2.X KDR isn't tryharding it's messing around in the queue with varied builds. Dropping below a 1 for any reason is just bad.

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.

My stats for my Huntsmen (I'll present three of them):
Huntsmen A: Stats from matches played with that build (excluding a few trial builds previously which actually would hurt it's overall stats.)
124 Matches. W/L is 1.21. K/D is 0.89. Damage per match is 324, which results in a Damage per match per ton invested of 6.4. (DPMPT is just a general gauge on damage effectiveness per ton.)
Huntsmen B: Started off with an UAC10, but then UAC changes forced it to go with an LBx. Was enough to get onto the Huntsmen Leader board, but has otherwise remained unchanged. Seemed about as effective before as after the change.
117 matches player. W/L 0.83. K/D is 0.68. Damage per match is 276, with a DPMPT of 5.52.
Huntsmen Pahket: Started and has never stopped using it's build. Ended up being exactly what I wanted on the first try.
138 matches played. W/L of 1.40. K/D of 0.93. Damage per match is 321, which is DPMPT of 6.43.
Huntsmen P: Just has Dual ERPPCs on it. (I know, not typical... but it's what it ended up getting somehow. I'm weird.)
75 matches played (not up to 100 yet). W/L of 1.06. K/D of 0.72. Damage per match of 308. DPMPT is 6.17.

In comparison, I'll place my Nova B Stats up as well, which was used before the UAC changes.
112 matches. W/L of 0.58. K/D of 0.52. Damage per match of 245. DPMPT is 4.91.
Nova D: I know, an LRM Nova. You just KNOW I'm crazy now... (or I just like LRMs from time to time.)
57 matches (is under 100). W/L is 0.97. K/D is 0.87. Damage per match is 343, which is 6.87 DPMPT.

And my Linebacker Prime. (All Linebackers have under 100 matches played. Sorry.)
81 matches played. 0.93 W/L. 0.68 K/D. Damage per match is 346. DPMPT is 5.33.
Linebacker A: I wasn't having fun with this mech, so I didn't play if often. Kinda surprised it got what stats it did...
29 matches (far lower than I thought, sorry). W/L of 2.22. K/D of 0.77. Damage per match 314. DPTPM is 4.83.

Crabs, which are all direct fire (duh). The stats here don't seem to match what I recall playing with these mechs, as all of them are mastered. The stats don't seem right...
Crab 27: Shares the same build as the 27B.
58 matches played. W/L 0.81. K/D 0.43. Damage per match 258. DPTPM is 5.18.
Crab 27B: Shares the same build as the 27.
60 matches played. W/L is 0.58. K/D is 0.63. Damage per match 309. DPMPT is 6.19.
Crab 27SL:
59 matches played. W/L 1.27. K/D 0.65. Damage per match 236.23. DPMPT 4.72.
Crab 20:
75 matches played. W/L of 0.88. K/D of 0.56. Damage per match 210.12. DPMPT is 4.20.

Stats on the 27 and 27B seem odd. Same build, yet vastly different results. Hum. I wasn't expecting that. Just trying to find mechs I recall playing a lot that could provide some stats...


I could keep going if people want. I don't mind sharing my mech stats and my builds for those stats. I've already excluded some mechs/stats, as they are too mixed with other designs, such as the Huntsmen Prime, which has had four different builds and I own two different chassis of them... Thus their stats would be intermingled.

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...)

[I_AM_ZUUL]

MischiefSC, on 05 June 2017 - 06:00 PM, said:

So, again. Why don't you and ZUUL get some of the best LRM players you know and put a team together and Deathlike or myself or whoever will get a good direct fire team together and we'll scrim.

Or build a team and go beat players in a competitive environment like comp play.

I see all these quotes from the Magical Lurm Geniuses who never seem to actually play out that way when dropped against equally skilled teams with direct fire.

Let's test it. I'd love to get some Put Up or Shut Up on this topic but, not surprisingly, nobody ever does.

How much more do I need to to show my total scorn for "comp" play because it is the exemplary of everything that PGI has failed to do because they can not read Total Warfare or Tactical Operations before you get that does not constitute an argument with me??? I am agreeing that in a very narrowly defined highly skewed set of abused exploitative conditions... you are correct. Since over 95% of the player population is NEVER going to be in that narrowly defined highly skewed set of abused exploitative conditions... it has no relevance in the macro sense, a few percent of the total population crowing about how good they can abuse flawed exploitative conditions is irrelevant. In summary... you do not matter to the whole of the player population.

I wish that the Group/Comp scene was a good expression of this game, unfortunately it is everything that is wrong with it rolled into one giant ball of PGI failures & basic human nature desires to exploit a system to the maximum capacity. There just happens to be way too much PGI failure for it to be a variant ruleset of the game that I would want to play... I dislike 3025 for being the most basic ruleset, it is like playing checkers in comparison to chess of the others but even 3025 is a more complicated tactical game then hide-poke with PPFLD of pixel perfect convergence on maps that never even change their spawn points.