94 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

On another topic the viability of LRMs vs direct fire came up again, as it often does.

So not wanting that argument in this thread. I want to set up a test. 2 teams, one using LRMs (in whatever capacity) the other only direct fire. The LRM team decides if it's 8v8 or 12v12 and picks the map. If at all possible the LRM team builds first and the direct fire team tries to build at an approximate player skill level. However both teams need to be comprised of "good" players - people who can perform at a high level in a team.

Then we have a best out of 3 or best of 5. Shooting for early October to ensure scheduling.

Matches need recorded and posted by 1 person on each team.

I'm game with reasonable limitations on how many countermeasures get brought - I'm thinking max 50% of direct fire team can have AMS, max 3 ECM but whatever seems reasonable.

The goal is to determine if LRMs can perform comparatively to direct fire in a match between two teams of skilled players, regardless of map.

Not trying to start an argument here just test the actual performance in a reasonable test environment.

Any volunteers for putting together the LRM team? Again, not wanting to start an argument. Just want to test the relative performance of LRMs (in whatever capacity, be that 2 or 12 LRM mechs on the team) vs a dedicated direct fire team on any map, whatever team would be seen as best for the use of LRMs.

So who's game?

Edited by MischiefSC, 09 September 2017 - 02:08 PM.

[Deathlike]

I already know the result, but I'll leave it to people wanting to deal with science and Polar Highlands (or Crimson Strait for that matter).

[Luminis]

Can I put my money on team direct fire now or will the betting be done on short notice?

[MischiefSC]

Luminis, on 09 September 2017 - 01:20 PM, said:

Can I put my money on team direct fire now or will the betting be done on short notice?

No betting, nopreconceptions or assumptions. The LRM team decides what map and team deck setup is best so there's no issue with "but you're doing it wrong". Goal is to get as fair and reasonable a test as possible.

Still need someone to get the LRM team going. Volunteers?

[InfinityBall]

A team that knows, when its building its mechs, that it's going to be facing LRM boats?

[Archangel.84]

[Lorcryst NySell]

I could volunteer for the LRM side, seeing as LRMs are one of my best weapon systems due to my physical limitations (my body and my computer are not top notch), but I'm afraid that I cannot usually perform at a high level ... see said limitations.

[MischiefSC]

InfinityBall, on 09 September 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

A team that knows, when its building its mechs, that it's going to be facing LRM boats?

If LRMs are only effective when totally ambushing the other team it doesn't really count - I could say the same of numerous bad builds.

However it's reasonable to limit use of counters. 12 ECM mechs with AMS isn't a fair test either. As I said, about 1/2 with AND or less and max 3 ECM (out of 12, or 2 out of 8). The existing counters are part of LRM balance just like TAG and NARC are.

So both teams build the best deck they can within reasonable parameters and then we test how they perform in an environment where the LRM team picks the map.

[Dread Render]

"An"... you declare an LRM war, not a.

[InfinityBall]

MischiefSC, on 09 September 2017 - 02:05 PM, said:

If LRMs are only effective when totally ambushing the other team it doesn't really count - I could say the same of numerous bad builds.

However it's reasonable to limit use of counters. 12 ECM mechs with AMS isn't a fair test either. As I said, about 1/2 with AND or less and max 3 ECM (out of 12, or 2 out of 8). The existing counters are part of LRM balance just like TAG and NARC are.

So both teams build the best deck they can within reasonable parameters and then we test how they perform in an environment where the LRM team picks the map.

Ok, so how are you restricting the builds of the other side, to be fair? Only 3 people with laser vomit?

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Didn't someone record the fight last time this happened?

EDIT: oh yeah here it is:

Davegt27, on 08 September 2017 - 03:36 PM, said:

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

Edited by Dakota1000, 09 September 2017 - 02:13 PM.

[The Basilisk]

So you want a fight where the LRM team preselects the map and what the enemy team does not has to bring and....wait what ???
Thats like: "Ok Mr Klitschko I'll box you but only if I got brassknuckles and you tie both arms on your back and wear a bag over your head.

You basicly say LRMs can only win when they aren't countered like it happens normaly when playing against a decent team ?

Or whats is the message here ?

[MischiefSC]

InfinityBall, on 09 September 2017 - 02:09 PM, said:

Ok, so how are you restricting the builds of the other side, to be fair? Only 3 people with laser vomit?

I must not have been clear.

There's no real limits on the LRM team aside from them needing to take at least 2 LRM mechs. They get to decide if it's 8v8 or 12v12 depending on team size they can put together and we'll work out a fair tonnage distribution based on their needs.

The direct fire team is limited to half or less with AMS and 2 or 3 ECM mechs.

In that context can LRMs compete effectively with direct fire.

[MischiefSC]

The Basilisk, on 09 September 2017 - 02:19 PM, said:

So you want a fight where the LRM team preselects the map and what the enemy team does not has to bring and....wait what ???
Thats like: "Ok Mr Klitschko I'll box you but only if I got brassknuckles and you tie both arms on your back and wear a bag over your head.

You basicly say LRMs can only win when they aren't countered like it happens normaly when playing against a decent team ?

Or whats is the message here ?

Due to the numerous counters to LRMs you could bring 12 mechs with ECM and AMS, which in turn makes the test more about counters to LRMs. A moderate amount of counters like you would normally see in group queue or FW seems like a reasonable compromise.

Again - the assertion being tested is, in a reasonable environment on the most LRM favorable maps with two competent teams can LRMs compete in effectiveness with direct fire?

There's a lot of ways to game a LRM vs direct fire test. Want to have as balanced a test as possible.

[Ruar]

Your test has so many control measures it is no longer a test and more a scripted fight.

If I know I'm fighting an LRM team then I'll make sure to pack AMS, extra ammo, and ECM on every mech.

You can't setup a fight between an LRM team and a direct fire team and then start putting restrictions on the direct fire team to try and make it resemble a standard match. You'd have to do the same with the LRM team which means they use LRMs as support weapons and use direct fire as their main DPS.

We all know LRMs have some significant flaws as well as tremendous damage potential in the right circumstances. The problem is there is very little middle ground for LRMs. In the end PGI just needs to rebuild LRMs so they are a consistent weapon instead of being super crappy or super good.

[Novakaine]

[ccrider]

Hmmm, best bet would be like a narcer, 2 boats and 5 brawlers (linebackers probably for speed and durability) in an 8v8 and its still gimping the lrm team. Even with brawlers and narc for locks its looking bad for the lrm team.

[MischiefSC]

Ruar, on 09 September 2017 - 03:01 PM, said:

Your test has so many control measures it is no longer a test and more a scripted fight.

If I know I'm fighting an LRM team then I'll make sure to pack AMS, extra ammo, and ECM on every mech.

You can't setup a fight between an LRM team and a direct fire team and then start putting restrictions on the direct fire team to try and make it resemble a standard match. You'd have to do the same with the LRM team which means they use LRMs as support weapons and use direct fire as their main DPS.

We all know LRMs have some significant flaws as well as tremendous damage potential in the right circumstances. The problem is there is very little middle ground for LRMs. In the end PGI just needs to rebuild LRMs so they are a consistent weapon instead of being super crappy or super good.

The premise is simple. If LRMs only work when you catch someone by surprise then they're bad - because I can say the same of any terrible build or strategy. The assertation that's made and been made is that on select maps with players who can use them right and a team who works together they're as good as direct fire.

The only controls, at all, are that the direct fire team doesn't get to take 12 mechs loaded with LRM counters. That's it. The only restrictions are that the direct fire team takes limited LRM counters - just like you see in group queue and FW, where on maps where LRMs are likely you'll have a couple people with ECM and a few people with AND.

How is that unreasonable?

If LRMs are only good when the other team is bad, takes no counters, has nobody with ECM and isn't expecting LRMs but the other team is a complete LRM synergy deck on the right map then LRMs are bad - because of you have an equally skilled team with direct fire (say long range snipe/poke) who's set up an ambush and catches a team flat Footed they would destroy them as well.

So if LRMs are comparable to direct fire then they should be viable on an even footing. If they're not then we all agree LRMs are inferior but that they, like everything else, works against bad or I'll prepared opponents.

So. Is anyone willing to assert that LRMs are actually comparable to direct fire and stand that assertion up to a test or do we all say that LRMs are only useful when the opponent is bad or makes big mistakes and all the stars align for your side?

[Ruar]

The problem is the people saying "LRMs are just as good" are wrong. The entire discussion can end there.

LRMs are bad, except in a few circumstances when they become devastating. The trick to using them in comps is setting up the situation where they are devastating. The trick to preventing a team from going LRM derp on you is making sure you take the counter measures just in case, then fighting the fight your way.

There's no need for all of the testing, the truth of LRMs is already known. People just like to deny it though.

Edited by Ruar, 09 September 2017 - 03:17 PM.

[Deathlike]

At this point, I'd say the "fair"/realistic handicap on the non-LRM team is no AMS (because literally noone takes it in comp play) and limited amounts of ECM (2-3 mechs max, but that's usually limited to Lights most of the time).

Mech tonnages should be near equal for both sides (shared team tonnage) or some version of 3/3/3/3 could be enforced for both sides.