422 replies to this topic

[Vellron2005]

Hello all.

This is an open request to PGI, to give us some statistical data about "weapon effectiveness" and overall performance of various weapons.

It is aimed at getting some actual proof of the effectiveness or lack thereof of LRMs.

This love/hate LRMs has gotten to the point of racism, and it's making the community extremely salty, divided, bitter and unhealthy.

I would really like to see PGI intervene and step in, because we LRM users are seriously starting to feel bullied, both in-game and on the forums.

I don't know about you, but I'm kinda tired of all the LRM threads, and the bile being spat there, and also seeing this in-game.

The name calling and insults directed at LRM users are getting to the point of harassment, and despite numerous reporting for harassment and non-constructive behavior during matches, it's only getting worse.

I've seen friendships end and units broken over the LRM issue, and neither side can ever get any ground in the never-ending argument.

So please PGI, I emplore you, give us some statistical data about the usage of LRMs compared to other weapons:

1) Like how many kills do LRMs get compared to gauss, PPC, ERLL, Mediums lasers and such..

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?

6) Average LRM ammo spent vs damage dealt?

7) Average damage done / 5 LRM tubes?

8) Most frequent LRM launcher used?

9) Most frequent mechs with LRM's installed for Clans and for IS?

10) Average number of LRM missiles downed by AMS?

Let's settle this stupid argument with some ACTUAL DATA once and for all!

P.S.

Please, people, don't spam this thread with more love/hate LRMs bile.. plenty of threads already available for that. Voice your opinion of LRMs in one of those..

Here, only statistics and comments of statistics!

PGI please, give us the facts!

[Xiphias]

LRMs used in serious comp play: 0

That's the only proof of the lack of effectiveness you need.

[Lorcryst NySell]

Xiphias, on 01 June 2017 - 05:55 AM, said:

LRMs used in serious comp play: 0

That's the only proof of the lack of effectiveness you need.

LOL

I don't know "comp play" ... but I do know that at my lowly Tier 5 I've dropped in Quick Play with people I've recognized from this forum that were Tier 1 (yay matchmaking), and I've seen LRMs being used everywhere in Solo Queue, Group Queue and Faction Play for the 14 months I've been playing.

Every single one of my 1500+ matches had at least two LRM users on each side.

Not used, not good, under performing ?

Please. Stop being delusional.

Edited by Lorcryst NySell, 01 June 2017 - 06:07 AM.

[Roughneck45]

LRMs, by their design alone, cannot reach the potential that direct fire can. Its that simple.

LRMs punish mistakes. They decimate players that don't use cover properly, don't look for UAVs, and don't have a firm grasp of the radar mechanics of this game. The better your opponent gets the more dead weight LRMs become.

You could be the most skilled Lurmer in all of MWO and a player that knows how to use cover is going to avoid 90% of the damage you are putting out.

Edited by Roughneck45, 01 June 2017 - 06:14 AM.

[Xiphias]

Lorcryst NySell, on 01 June 2017 - 06:07 AM, said:

I don't know "comp play"

Exactly. When you do, please come back and have an informed opinion.

Quote

]
... but I do know that at my lowly Tier 5 I've dropped in Quick Play with people I've recognized from this forum that were Tier 1 (yay matchmaking),

Tier 1 means nearly nothing. There are a ton of terrible players in Tier 1.

Quote

and I've seen LRMs being used everywhere in Solo Queue, Group Queue and Faction Play for the 14 months I've been playing.
Every single one of my 1500+ matches had at least two LRM users on each side.

Not used, not good, under performing ?

Yes, players use LRMs. I never said that they didn't. What I did say is that in a competitive setting where real money was on the line no one was using LRMs.

Since you don't appear to be in the know let me give you some information.

PGI hosted the MWO World Championships in December with tens of thousands on the table in cash prizes. Guess how many LRMs you saw in the finals? A grand total of 0. There are also plenty of player run leagues such as MRBC where players play competitively and you won't see any LRMs in the top divisions. There are plenty of matches that you can watch if you want to have an informed opinion.

Quote

Please. Stop being delusional.

Please read what you wrote. Then follow your own advice.

[Lorcryst NySell]

I've admitted that I don't know what "comp play" is ... I'm now more enlightened.

Doesn't change the fact that I don't like my games and leisure time to turn into another job to earn money, but that's beside the point ...

I did try to follow the 2016 World Championships ... and what I got from that is that the 'mechs were locked in the "before nerf' state, making the dual gauss + dual PPCs Kodiak 3 the only 'Mech worth fielding. Every other 'Mech was inferior.

Not because LRMs are bad, but because that KDK3+Gauss+PPC was simply too good.

The tremendous brokenness of the Kodiak 3 without nerfs made the whole process very boring in my opinion : peek, twitch-click your big PPFLD alpha, hide.

How is that varied ?

How is that strategic or tactical ?

How is that using cover to close the distance ?

How is that different from camping spawn points with a sniper in Counter Strike ?

And for the record, while I'm certifiably mad IRL, I'm not delusional ... that particular line was about the "never see LRMs anywhere" bit, since by personnal experience I can tell you that you DO see LRMs everywhere.

I said "personnal experience", and since I don't want my relaxation time to turn into another job, I'll stay as far away as possible from "comp play" for the foreseeable future.

People who want cash from a game will *ALWAYS* try to exploit the most easy, most efficient way of doing things.

That doesn't mean that other, less optimal options are bad.

And please don't tell me it takes more "player skill" to point-and-click the kind of PPFLD weapons than what you need to use your brain for when trying to be efficient with anything less than optimal, like LRMs ... I'm doing maths in my head when I use LRMs, plotting trajectories and flight time, finding clear firing lines and much more, while most of the players I've spectated using the meta gauss+ppc build just point and click (most of them wasting shots too), even when I *KNOW* they are better than me after checking their stats.

[James The Fox Dixon]

The bigotry is getting bad to the point that it violates the CoC of the game and forums. I would like to see those stats and for people to stop treating others terribly. The game never used to be this toxic and it shouldn't be.

[metallio]

Sub-optimal for the best twitch players on the planet means squat to the other 99% of the people who play a game.

The utility of LRMs is obvious. Their place as #2 to PPFLD in THIS GAME is also obvious. Their continued utility and situational superiority is also obvious. LRMs are the only indirect fire weapon in the game. In disorganized QP the ability to fire over your team mates heads is exceptionally useful. Close support LRM fighters do amazing work pounding a target that's on the enemy front lines while the direct fire mechs advance and reposition.

It's also FUN and requires more work to get big numbers than direct fire. I like it, I like playing it, and I find it terribly effective at least 3/4 games. Against exceptionally disciplined groups who are all very, very careful I'm usually limited to 3-400 points of damage. I'm still pretty happy with that, and it means I've kept them pinned down and limited their maneuver capabilities significantly. That's also fun.

So, if this was war we wouldn't have fancy game rules about cooldowns and damage drop-off, nor would there be quirks or map boundaries...it's not war, it's not even a decent war simulator, it's a fantasy robot shooting game and LRMs are FUN and they WORK. They just don't work quite as well as direct fire all the time, and I don't feel bad about it.

The people who are terribad with them and who stack a DDC full of them and hide behind a hill...they're not any better if they brought a warhammer with pulse lasers. I don't care about their mech choices because they're ineffective in whatever they play.

If your whole purpose in life is to sneer at other people's choices you're going to have a bad time...and I guess MWO is in a state where people are having a bad time because there's a lot of sneering going on over perfectly viable choices.

[Scyther]

In World of Tanks, it is fairly easy to get full statistics on the number of arty played, their win rate, kill rate, average damage, pay, etc.

All these numbers show them to be the worst performing class in the game (at least the last time I bothered checking).

None of these numbers has any effect whatsoever on the people who choose to play arty, the people who hate getting shot by arty, the people who like having arty 'backup' on the team, and the people who hate having arty on their team because they are the worst performing class in game.

Numbers don't help you counter peoples' personal opinions/feelings.

Edited by MadBadger, 01 June 2017 - 07:09 AM.

[Burke IV]

Xiphias, on 01 June 2017 - 06:21 AM, said:

Yes, players use LRMs. I never said that they didn't. What I did say is that in a competitive setting where real money was on the line no one was using LRMs.

Could you imagine if they had and then their team lost? nobody woulda dared and if they did their team would have stopped them. People repeated LRMs are terrible so often it became a self fulfilling prophecy, players were indoctrinated to feel cool and PGI seems to listen to it and eventually the game has become warped around the idea. If thats how it really is i think PGI needs to buff LRMs patch after patch until they account for around 30% of weapons used competativly. Thats balance isnt it?

[sycocys]

Can't say much for in-game, but most of the threads I've read the majority of people want LRMs to be a good weapon and many are just not beating around the bush about them being bad compared to just about every other weapon system in the game.
Then the higher skilled players just get fed up and annoyed by low skill players carrying on about how effective LRMs are against other low skill players - which they should, its just not a good thing to balance from the bottom.

Additionally the majority of people proposing changes/buffs/nerfs/whatever to LRMs have such a narrow field of vision to the changes they want and totally ignore 9/10ths of the systems mechanics that they should be ribbed a bit.

[Admiral-Dan]

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

Let's settle this stupid argument with some ACTUAL DATA once and for all!

I would love to see this data for every weapon, while I don’t think this would settle this argument.

[Vxheous]

AlphaEtOmega, on 01 June 2017 - 07:18 AM, said:

I would love to see this data for every weapon, while I don’t think this would settle this argument.

It won't because a statistical damage number does not reflect effective damage. LRM boats can (and often do) generate a decent damage number for an average player, but it's overall effectiveness is sub-par. Proton was lrming with a Supernova awhile back (not sure if he's still doing it) for sh*ts and giggles, and putting up 1800 damage in a quick play and still losing the match. He could have easily done ~1K damage in a direct fire mech and most likely would've won same match.

Edited by Vxheous Kerensky, 01 June 2017 - 07:24 AM.

[Lorcryst NySell]

sycocys, on 01 June 2017 - 07:16 AM, said:

<snip> which they should, its just not a good thing to balance from the bottom.<snap>

I'll have to disagree with you on that point.

Balancing from the upper level leads to powercreep.

If everything has to perform at least as well as "the best thing", then everything is the best thing, you need another balance pass to even the odds, leading to not everything being the best thing, so another balance pass, etc.

I think that balancing a game on the worst thing is better, since you don't have an arms race to the best thing ...

But I also think that balance is a myth, never really reachable due to player's styles of play, lag spikes, FPS drops and the other myriads of problems online games have.

Same thing in tabletop miniature gaming.

If anything, making the "lowest tier" weapons/options viable should be the baseline for balance.

Balance means everything has a place. Not "we need to make everything better so the epeen warriors feel good".

Vxheous Kerensky, on 01 June 2017 - 07:24 AM, said:

It won't because a statistical damage number does not reflect effective damage. LRM boats can (and often do) generate a decent damage number for an average player, but it's overall effectiveness is sub-par. Proton was lrming with a Supernova awhile back (not sure if he's still doing it) for sh*ts and giggles, and putting up 1800 damage in a quick play and still losing the match. He could have easily done ~1K damage in a direct fire mech and most likely would've won same match.

Did he play alone against 12 players ?

No, eh ?

So he neither won nor lost the match, THE TEAM did that.

[Edited to add]

And with 1k of direct fire pin point damage, you can still lose a match. Been there, seen that.

My best damage score is around 875, I got 3 kills (2 solo) and a whole bunch of assists in that game, another player broke the 1K damage threshold, and we lost.

We were the only two players doing more than 150 damage on our team though, and the OpFor was well coordinated and took our team apart 'mech by 'mech.

So, again : Team > Meta > skills.

Edited by Lorcryst NySell, 01 June 2017 - 07:42 AM.

[Burke IV]

How do you define skill? is it the fastest narrowest easiest way? or is it all weapons all of the time? Isnt narrowing teh game down to stuff like alpha sniping really just making it simple so everybody can manage?

[Lorcryst NySell]

Burke IV, on 01 June 2017 - 07:32 AM, said:

How do you define skill? is it the fastest narrowest easiest way? or is it all weapons all of the time? Isnt narrowing teh game down to stuff like alpha sniping really just making it simple so everybody can manage?

I define skill as being able to gimp yourself and still being able to play a good game.

Like when I played my Night Goblins in 6th/7th edition Warhammer, they were the worst choice in the worst Army Book, and I still won games with them.

Accepting a handicap and still being good is skill.

Twitch clicking at anything that moves is reflexes.

[Vxheous]

Lorcryst NySell, on 01 June 2017 - 07:31 AM, said:

I'll have to disagree with you on that point.

Balancing from the upper level leads to powercreep.

If everything has to perform at least as well as "the best thing", then everything is the best thing, you need another balance pass to even the odds, leading to not everything being the best thing, so another balance pass, etc.

I think that balancing a game on the worst thing is better, since you don't have an arms race to the best thing ...

But I also think that balance is a myth, never really reachable due to player's styles of play, lag spikes, FPS drops and the other myriads of problems online game have.

Same thing in tabletop miniature gaming.

If anything, making the "lowest tier" weapons/options viable should be the baseline for balance.

Balance means everything has a place. Not "we need to make everything better so the epeen warriors feel good".



Did he play alone against 12 players ?

No, eh ?

So he neither won nor lost the match, THE TEAM did that.

Do you realize how much damage 1800 damage is in a quick match? It takes ~250 (might be higher average now with skill tree) average damage to kill a mech, which includes the mech being able to shed damage onto arms/side torsos and not getting completely CT cored every shot. Proton's damage would have theoretically equalled the amount of 7 mechs killed by himself, which means his 11 teammates combined would only have to account for 5 kills. It didn't happen, because that 1800 damage was spread over so many mech components that it was basically an inflated number.

Lorcryst NySell, on 01 June 2017 - 07:36 AM, said:

I define skill as being able to gimp yourself and still being able to play a good game.

Like when I played my Night Goblins in 6th/7th edition Warhammer, they were the worst choice in the worst Army Book, and I still won games with them.

Accepting a handicap and still being good is skill.

Twitch clicking at anything that moves is reflexes.

Pretty much every good player in this game can do this, play a bad mech, and still do well, so yeah, it does show skill. This doesn't give bad players playing a bad mech an excuse that because they are playing a bad mech and doing bad, that they are actually more skilled than what their results are. Same case in point as above, Proton is one of the best players in this game. He can play any mech, and put up amazing numbers in it, which clearly shows skill.

Edited by Vxheous Kerensky, 01 June 2017 - 07:43 AM.

[cazidin]

Let's say that PGI elected to give us weapons data on that single system - nevermind the consequences of people thusly demanding OTHER weapons data, it won't stop the flow of NERF LRMS or CHANGE LRMs or FIX LRM threads. Those will continue to exist until LRMs are returned to a point of obsolescence.

Why have they returned? Radar Deprivation and ECM got nerfed hard with the skill tree and AMS apparently stopped working.

[I_AM_ZUUL]

Roughneck45, on 01 June 2017 - 06:12 AM, said:

LRMs, by their design alone, cannot reach the potential that direct fire can. Its that simple.

LRMs punish mistakes. They decimate players that don't use cover properly, don't look for UAVs, and don't have a firm grasp of the radar mechanics of this game. The better your opponent gets the more dead weight LRMs become.

You could be the most skilled Lurmer in all of MWO and a player that knows how to use cover is going to avoid 90% of the damage you are putting out.

You keep on believing that... either you are pinned in place and can not effectively fight my teammates (meaning I am doing my job as Support by just desultory keeping a single flight of missiles in the air at all times, I put a single 5 on some mechs to do that purpose alone) or you get melted when exposed (meaning I am doing my job.) MWO has skewed peoples understanding of what Direct-Fire is supposed to mean with its pixel perfect convergence application, and somehow people can not grasp such a simple concept as Role Warfare but PGI really seems to hate the entire concept of that and has done everything possible to remove it from the game. I still have over a 40% Accuracy with the most inaccurate weapon in the game & a large percentage of that +55% was NEVER intended hit the target anyways.

Edited by I_AM_ZUUL, 01 June 2017 - 07:53 AM.

[Lorcryst NySell]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 01 June 2017 - 07:38 AM, said:

Do you realize how much damage 1800 damage is in a quick match? It takes ~250 (might be higher average now with skill tree) average damage to kill a mech, which includes the mech being able to shed damage onto arms/side torsos and not getting completely CT cored every shot. Proton's damage would have theoretically equalled the amount of 7 mechs killed by himself, which means his 11 teammates combined would only have to account for 5 kills. It didn't happen, because that 1800 damage was spread over so many mech components that it was basically an inflated number.



Pretty much every good player in this game can do this, play a bad mech, and still do well, so yeah, it does show skill. This doesn't give bad players playing a bad mech an excuse that because they are playing a bad mech and doing bad, that they are actually more skilled than what their results are. Same case in point as above, Proton is one of the best players in this game. He can play any mech, and put up amazing numbers in it, which clearly shows skill.

Oh, I know that 1800 damage is huge. I also know that Proton is one of the best players.

And I also know that in that particular case, the other 11 players in his team were sitting on their hands.

1800 spread damage means everything in the OpFor is either open, cored, or cherry red. So no one capitalized on that and finished off the damaged 'mechs ~> loss.