65 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Curccu, on 06 September 2017 - 11:29 AM, said:

Again. We, WDMC have used LRMs in Polar against other MRBC EU A-Division team and won.

I want to make clear that I'm not denigrating WDMC in any way - they dominated div B and have had good showings in div A.

MRBC EU is a bit of a mixed bag due to population though. There are teams that you absolutely smoked. Are you saying you could beat Drop5, SJR, etc. teams using that strategy? I'm familiar with the matches you're talking about and they were teams yoh also easily beat with direct fire. Again, any team that's playing in div A in any timezone deserves respect but there's a pretty wide gap in last season's stats on EU.

So take any of the top 4 teams across MRBC Div A, NA/Euro/Oceanic. Thats probably the tightest skill gap in teams you'll find. Are you saying that one of them taking LRMs (in whatever capacity) and one all direct fire, the odds are still even?

Because that's not what historical reference indicates. Please show me the match where any of the top teams got beaten by LRMs.

[L1f3H4ck]

MischiefSC, on 06 September 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

So I'm going to assume that you know better about how LRMs work than all the best players in the game, for the sake of argument. Because, to clarify, the overall contempt people have for LRMs is driven by the most competitive facets of the game and literally all the top performing people in the game have tested and reaffirmed this same data.

So make a team, with however many mechs with LRMs you want, however you want to do it. Then pick the map. I'm get a team of people using direct fire. Then we can do a match or best out of 3 or whatever you want.

Because without exception, universally, the already established math on why LRMs are inferior has been tested and proven. So why don't you actually do what nobody else has done and actually show LRMs are as good or better than direct fire.

You seem to think I have something to prove here. Btw, thread is about scout mode. Funny how you lurm haters have that chip on your shoulder, making you hijack all the threads to regurgitate your lurm hate. Whatever dude, my happines doesn't hinge on you agreeing with me.

[MischiefSC]

Ravenous Starling, on 06 September 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

You seem to think I have something to prove here. Btw, thread is about scout mode. Funny how you lurm haters have that chip on your shoulder, making you hijack all the threads to regurgitate your lurm hate. Whatever dude, my happines doesn't hinge on you agreeing with me.

Your happiness is irrelevant. It's spreading misinformation that's a problem. LRMs are, by design, objectively inferior. You can still kill mechs with them - you can kill mechs with a Atlas with an XL, LB5x and small lasers. That doesn't change it being comparatively inferior.

LRMs are horrible in scouting. That's part of the origin of the thread.

[Curccu]

MischiefSC, on 06 September 2017 - 12:23 PM, said:

I want to make clear that I'm not denigrating WDMC in any way - they dominated div B and have had good showings in div A.

MRBC EU is a bit of a mixed bag due to population though. There are teams that you absolutely smoked. Are you saying you could beat Drop5, SJR, etc. teams using that strategy? I'm familiar with the matches you're talking about and they were teams yoh also easily beat with direct fire. Again, any team that's playing in div A in any timezone deserves respect but there's a pretty wide gap in last season's stats on EU.

So take any of the top 4 teams across MRBC Div A, NA/Euro/Oceanic. Thats probably the tightest skill gap in teams you'll find. Are you saying that one of them taking LRMs (in whatever capacity) and one all direct fire, the odds are still even?

Because that's not what historical reference indicates. Please show me the match where any of the top teams got beaten by LRMs.

Yes I think it's possible to take down any team in this game. In Polar.
We have lost to BSMC in scrim match, we got annihilated by LRMs
We had match against EON last MRBC season where we killed 7 of them and they killed 4 of us, we did lose the match by caps because of few reasons but I think you are referring the killing part.
Video should be available though MRBC site.

Then again not sure what is the point talking about can you defeat the best 48 players out of 32k player of the game with with LRMs, in this thread.

[TWIAFU]

Ravenous Starling, on 05 September 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

You're just bad at using them then. Everything you said about them just shows that you don't understand them at all.

This is the one of THE most funny, ill-informed, and downright laughable comments I have seen in a long time.

YOUR the LRM guy that sits 800m away, telling the team to "Lock Targets" for you, and still on your first LRM mech while the rest of the team is on 3rd doing sub 200 damage.

Or you the guy playing a Stealth Armor LRM5 Javelin going full derp.

You and your LRMs are an asset - to the enemy.

Edited by TWIAFU, 07 September 2017 - 03:27 AM.

[Carl Vickers]

Scouting rant thread turns into lurm rant thread lol

Simple fact, lurms both suck and blow at the same time, even though it isnt physically possible, compared to direct fire.

Thread can now be closed before we got another 20 odd pages of this that has been all done before. GG

Edited by Carl Vickers, 07 September 2017 - 03:36 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Curccu, on 07 September 2017 - 12:53 AM, said:

Yes I think it's possible to take down any team in this game. In Polar.
We have lost to BSMC in scrim match, we got annihilated by LRMs
We had match against EON last MRBC season where we killed 7 of them and they killed 4 of us, we did lose the match by caps because of few reasons but I think you are referring the killing part.
Video should be available though MRBC site.

Then again not sure what is the point talking about can you defeat the best 48 players out of 32k player of the game with with LRMs, in this thread.

Not talking about the best 48. I've seen the videos of the matches, all the MRBC matches. LRMs get taken in Div B, C et al more regularly and they make the periodic showing in Div A. Almost universally they lose. Taking a couple of one-offs and saying that's indicative of how they perform is incredibly disingenuous.

So I'm saying why not test it. One side uses some LRMs, however you feel is best to deploy them, one side takes all direct fire and we play on polar. Best out of 3, or 5, or whatever everyone involved has the time and energy for.

Would love to see it tested because saying 'this one time when one side happened to take LRMs and the other team absolutely misjudged, didn't scout or expect LRMs and just went marching into the open in a push or took a bad position and got rained on so thus LRMs are good' isn't a viable argument about how viable LRMs are. If you took only IS mechs with small lasers but the other team marched into a confined area, got caught in a choke point and demolished in their Gauss/PPC boats at 80m, was that because IS small lasers are so amazing or because this one time this one side played completely into the other teams hands?

Let's test it. Best people with LRMs you can put together, 8man or 12man or whatever vs the best people with direct fire. I'm guessing none of this is going to include that 'best 48 people in the game' who are likely a bit busy for that right now seeding for MRBC.

This topic keeps coming up, both for scouting and elsewhere, and nobody has been willing to stand up for the 'LRMs can work as good or better than direct fire' side. If we do this and the LRM side dominates I'll happily change my tune. If the math doesn't come out the way I expect I'll turn on a dime and adjust to the facts as tested. I'll probably want to do it more often to find out how else that can be applied.

But I don't think it will. Because I think that in an even match in overall terms of players skill and with competent players on both sides and the 'caught with your pants down' random luck accident is accounted for, LRMs are inferior overall to direct fire.

So you want to put a team together? I'll put a team together to play whatever time works for you and we'll schedule from there.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Is this a bad time to mention that, as a Clan CW/FW/FP pilot, the only builds I have ever struggled against in Scouting are ERLL builds, most notably Cicadas, precisely *because* I build mine to brawl?

Just saying, organised fast & long range builds can work (at least against spuds like me )

[Curccu]

MischiefSC, on 07 September 2017 - 08:02 AM, said:

Not talking about the best 48. I've seen the videos of the matches, all the MRBC matches. LRMs get taken in Div B, C et al more regularly and they make the periodic showing in Div A. Almost universally they lose. Taking a couple of one-offs and saying that's indicative of how they perform is incredibly disingenuous.

So I'm saying why not test it. One side uses some LRMs, however you feel is best to deploy them, one side takes all direct fire and we play on polar. Best out of 3, or 5, or whatever everyone involved has the time and energy for.

Would love to see it tested because saying 'this one time when one side happened to take LRMs and the other team absolutely misjudged, didn't scout or expect LRMs and just went marching into the open in a push or took a bad position and got rained on so thus LRMs are good' isn't a viable argument about how viable LRMs are. If you took only IS mechs with small lasers but the other team marched into a confined area, got caught in a choke point and demolished in their Gauss/PPC boats at 80m, was that because IS small lasers are so amazing or because this one time this one side played completely into the other teams hands?

Let's test it. Best people with LRMs you can put together, 8man or 12man or whatever vs the best people with direct fire. I'm guessing none of this is going to include that 'best 48 people in the game' who are likely a bit busy for that right now seeding for MRBC.

This topic keeps coming up, both for scouting and elsewhere, and nobody has been willing to stand up for the 'LRMs can work as good or better than direct fire' side. If we do this and the LRM side dominates I'll happily change my tune. If the math doesn't come out the way I expect I'll turn on a dime and adjust to the facts as tested. I'll probably want to do it more often to find out how else that can be applied.

But I don't think it will. Because I think that in an even match in overall terms of players skill and with competent players on both sides and the 'caught with your pants down' random luck accident is accounted for, LRMs are inferior overall to direct fire.

So you want to put a team together? I'll put a team together to play whatever time works for you and we'll schedule from there.

Well this post includes so ******* much of stupid, being narrow-minded and not wanting to understand what I have been trying to say that I have no extra time/interest to continue conversation about this matter with you.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Only read the OP so far, but yeah, I saw a lot of ER lasers and RACs a few days ago when I was trying to get in some scouting matches. I was driving out in my 4 ASRM6 Bushwacker like usual, we actually have some talk on the team, an enforcer, wolfhound, and javelin. One guy said he was new to scouting so he needed the 50 tonner armor, and so I just said, to just stick with me and we'll beat the enemy.

Half way to meeting the enemy the Javelin has run off, the enforcer is hiding in a bush, and the Wolfhound is giving me a little bit of backup poking with some ERMLs while I'm fending off a Viper, Nova, and Hunchback. I died while being attacked on all sides, but killed the hunchback, ripped all the armor off the vipers legs, and ripped off one of the Nova's sides and legs but he survived with one opened up leg.

I go into spectate wondering where that SRM Javelin went, and it turns out he was running 7 ERML, the Enforcer was running an ERLL build, and the Wolfhound was running 6 ERML, leaving me as the only brawler on the team. At least the remaining 3 allies picked off the broken up enemies, but it really is sort of annoying to have to die that way, having some trust that you'll get backup only to have it ripped away.

Another time on polar we had a crab, 2 bushwackers including me, and the wolfhound again. The enemy team seemed to be running ERML+HLL mixes on hunchbacks and huntsmen with a ERML Ice Ferret running around infront of them. They were only 400m off and so I ran up against them thinking I'd get at least some back up, but instead I once again run in, kill one enemy, and cripple the others while tanking damage only for everyone else to just stand there and watch, then once I die the bushwacker starts spraying a couple RAC5s over the enemy, the MPL Crab that decided he didn't feel like brawling and the Wolfhound helped slowly finish off the remaining enemies, not going for the heavily damaged or opened legs at all, and instead just spreading damage all over the enemy torsos even though I suggested to fire on legs to kill them quick.


So that was two times in one sitting in which I go in as the tank for my team, absorb a load of damage, distract the enemy, and not only that, but actually kill and cripple multiple enemies, all to be sacrificed for no reason. Its times like that that make me feel like just busting a skirmisher build and using the team as meatshields instead of sharing the armor.

[Viral Matrix]

HallowOne, on 04 September 2017 - 08:20 PM, said:

Dont get me wrong I love a easy win because they decided to bring 3 LRM boats and something else but its teaching newer clan members not to rely on tactics and just hope that the enemy has a lower IQ than you. I have also noticed in the last few weeks ( i'm sure the events play a part) that we have more members who do know understand the idea of scouting. They just run off and get all the intel they can and bring in the drop ship for the enemy. Ive lost more that way in the last month or so than losing the fight.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, and I'm no expert at CW tactics, but I thought if you could grab 10 intels as Defender you stop the enemy from being able to call in the dropship, since they need 11 intel to call it in?

Exactly how does one, "bring in the drop ship for the enemy." ? Thanks for any explanations.

[Jurosik]

Viral Matrix, on 07 September 2017 - 05:23 PM, said:

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, and I'm no expert at CW tactics, but I thought if you could grab 10 intels as Defender you stop the enemy from being able to call in the dropship, since they need 11 intel to call it in?

Exactly how does one, "bring in the drop ship for the enemy." ? Thanks for any explanations.

No you wont stop anything by collecting 10 intel.
First collectors need only 10 intel to call dropship but if you collect 11 as defender you will bring drop ship for enemy team.

The idea behind this mechanic is to get 10 intel and guard the rest or atleast some of them so enemy cant collect 10 they need. But even doing this wont stop enemy dropship as timer will appear automaticaly at 3:30 no matter how many intel collectors got!

[L1f3H4ck]

TWIAFU, on 07 September 2017 - 03:26 AM, said:

This is the one of THE most funny, ill-informed, and downright laughable comments I have seen in a long time.

YOUR the LRM guy that sits 800m away, telling the team to "Lock Targets" for you, and still on your first LRM mech while the rest of the team is on 3rd doing sub 200 damage.

Or you the guy playing a Stealth Armor LRM5 Javelin going full derp.

You and your LRMs are an asset - to the enemy.

No, I'm never ever that guy. That's the kind of bad lurmplay that gives LRMs their bad reputation.

[MischiefSC]

Curccu, on 07 September 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

Well this post includes so ******* much of stupid, being narrow-minded and not wanting to understand what I have been trying to say that I have no extra time/interest to continue conversation about this matter with you.

Narrow minded? I'm just asking to test it. To which the response, always, has been 'you're being unreasonable and I don't want to talk about it'.

If LRMs are as good or better than direct fire in some circumstances as you've said and gets said regularly, lets test it. You can pick team sizes and the map.

Scouting with 4 mechs under FW restrictions, 8man teams of 2/2/2/2, 12man, whatever. One side has a couple LRM boats or a whole LRM team or whatever - the other is just direct fire.

I'm asserting that LRMs are flat out inferior to direct fire, you've asserted the opposite as have others. I'm saying 'lets test it, you get to pick team sizes and the map' in order to prove my assertion. Because we have this argument regularly and it's one that's been tested on a smaller scale and private scales many times and the math seems pretty one-sided but I'm all for putting it to the test.

Or is wanting to test peoples assertions unreasonable?

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Heh, reading about the LRM subthread in this reminds me of that time that one guy said that LRMs were good enough to beat meta builds, and tried to lead a team of non meta builds and LRMs vs meta builds, both sides with comp players on them aside from the guy saying LRMs were good.

He got rekt hard.

[L1f3H4ck]

MischiefSC, on 08 September 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

Narrow minded? I'm just asking to test it. To which the response, always, has been 'you're being unreasonable and I don't want to talk about it'.

If LRMs are as good or better than direct fire in some circumstances as you've said and gets said regularly, lets test it. You can pick team sizes and the map.

Scouting with 4 mechs under FW restrictions, 8man teams of 2/2/2/2, 12man, whatever. One side has a couple LRM boats or a whole LRM team or whatever - the other is just direct fire.

I'm asserting that LRMs are flat out inferior to direct fire, you've asserted the opposite as have others. I'm saying 'lets test it, you get to pick team sizes and the map' in order to prove my assertion. Because we have this argument regularly and it's one that's been tested on a smaller scale and private scales many times and the math seems pretty one-sided but I'm all for putting it to the test.

Or is wanting to test peoples assertions unreasonable?

The problem I have with this test of yours, is that a lot of "good" players are bad at using LRM. Sometimes some streamer set out to "embrace the cancer" or whatever and build some LRM100 Gyr or similar atrocity. Then they play exactly like the stereotypical LRM noob, sit back, wait for locks and hide, just to get eaten by a light, and they present that as further evidence that lurms are teribad.

I don't feel like writing another text wall, especially since I already did just that:
https://mwomercs.com...to-explain-lrms

But just to be very clear, I do not advocate bringing them into a scouting drop. Please don't.

[MischiefSC]

Ravenous Starling, on 08 September 2017 - 01:51 PM, said:

The problem I have with this test of yours, is that a lot of "good" players are bad at using LRM. Sometimes some streamer set out to "embrace the cancer" or whatever and build some LRM100 Gyr or similar atrocity. Then they play exactly like the stereotypical LRM noob, sit back, wait for locks and hide, just to get eaten by a light, and they present that as further evidence that lurms are teribad.

I don't feel like writing another text wall, especially since I already did just that:
https://mwomercs.com...to-explain-lrms

But just to be very clear, I do not advocate bringing them into a scouting drop. Please don't.

So the LRM team puts a team together based on people who are good at doing it. I'm all for doing the best job possible balancing skill level of players.

I'm all for the LRM team building first and then try to pick a comparatively skilled direct fire team. The whole point is to test the relative value of LRMs vs direct fire. That's it. The best way to do that is to solve for player skill as closely as possible. Also perfectly happy with the LRM team picking the map - the whole point is proving one assertion vs the other; either LRMs *can* be as good or better than direct fire (even just in select environments) or they can't. If the only time they can is when you completely catch the other team off guard, that's not a valid point as any weapon setup can be successful that way.

Two teams, map selected by LRM team (though both sides know which before building decks), one direct fire one using LRMs (in whatever capacity is deemed best) and best out of 3 or 5 or whatever people have time for.

That's about as fair and reasonable a test as I can think of.

[Davegt27]

Quote

Heh, reading about the LRM subthread in this reminds me of that time that one guy said that LRMs were good enough to beat meta builds, and tried to lead a team of non meta builds and LRMs vs meta builds, both sides with comp players on them aside from the guy saying LRMs were good.

He got rekt hard.

yep I remember it







Envisage was a noob that did not know, he disappeared after this

MWO - The Monitors: LRMs vs The Meta - Envisage Interview



MWO - The Monitors: LRMs vs The Meta - The Silken Interview

[MischiefSC]

'yes but they were not using them right'.

That's usually the response.

So lets do a test with the people who 'use them right' on the LRM side.

I don't think anyone sane is saying LRMs should be used in scouting. So let's test to see if LRMs have a use on an equal playing field against direct fire under select circumstances.

[Davegt27]

wont work

the game is controlled by PGI's computers
LRMs don't work because PGI does not want them to work
they have them under computer nerf because players cry about LRMs more then anything else