94 replies to this topic

[General Solo]

Resistance is Futile, Nothing can stop da Lerm threads.
Do we know the answer?......Yes
Will it change anything?.........No

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 09 September 2017 - 03:21 PM.

[N0ni]

5 - 6 - 7 - 8, watch me keep my lasers straight.


Had to be done. @OP

[Nightbird]

What's there to test? LRMs are good in the hands of newbies, against newbies, bad in the hands of anyone against skilled people, and fun in the hands of skilled people against newbies.

[General Solo]

Could be hard to find good players to play lerms,
coz most good players don't play lrms, so how will they be any good at em.
I seen a similar experiment, wid lrms last year or so.

The players were good but their Lerm fu was weak, their lerm builds were bad (Atlas really?)

Not saying lerms are better, just saying finding good lrm pilots could be an issue.

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 09 September 2017 - 03:55 PM.

[Lances107]

I am just going to say it, knowing its going to go in one ear, and out the other as it were. LRMS should only be used by experienced players. When you used correctly, meaning knowing the true ranges of actually hitting something, and being able to shoot over people in close proximity they are deadly. There is also finer points of sharing armor and what not to learn. Even if you have players who properly know how to use them, you should be bringing no more then 3 maybe four for fire support. Although four may be pushing it. It is highly dependent on the mode/map, and what the drop caller feels needs to be done. It is a highly niche weapon. The problem, and the reason why this dead horse never dies, is it is a favorite among rookie pilots. As a result has a unending wave of threads on it.

[MischiefSC]

Ruar, on 09 September 2017 - 03:16 PM, said:

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.

Not going to argue that point here as I've argued it repeatedly before. I agree with you.

However the argument is still there, so let's test it and be sure. Everyone is happy to say LRMs are just as good. Okay, so let's test it.

[General Solo]

@OP

Rather than making it a test, make it an event instead.
Call it the September 2017 Lerm vs Direct fire invitational Challenge.

Lermer's set most of the conditions and the direct fire team have to counter em.
Could be fun, community building
Maybe even educational.

[Asym]

I came into MWO to do nothing but LRM's.... I am a support pilot but I don't run pure LRM boats..... I'm only a tier 3 just about a 2 and I'm not competitive in any way.

I'm not sure this IDF test will prove anything though..... Even on Polar, if the enemy team wants to "get inside" of an LRM engagement, they just use ECM and AMS and NASCAR everything.....

I've volunteer to help.

[MischiefSC]

Lances107, on 09 September 2017 - 03:32 PM, said:

I am just going to say it, knowing its going to go in one ear, and out the other as it were. LRMS should only be used by experienced players. When you used correctly, meaning knowing the true ranges of actually hitting something, and being able to shoot over people in close proximity they are deadly. There is also finer points of sharing armor and what not to learn. Even if you have players who properly know how to use them, you should be bringing no more then 3 maybe four for fire support. Although four may be pushing it. It is highly dependent on the mode/map, and what the drop caller feels needs to be done. It is a highly niche weapon. The problem, and the reason why this dead horse never dies, is it is a favorite among rookie pilots. As a result has a unending wave of threads on it.

So let's test it and record it in the hands of good players.

So why don't you get a team together of the best experienced players who know how to use LRMs. 2, 3, 4 LRM boats, however you feel is best. I'll help arrange an equal sized, weight class matches team of just direct fire. You pick the map.

I'm inclined to agree with no AMS but that will invite the "but nobody even took AMS" complaint. Maybe say max 1/2 of team can take counters, ECM or AMS? So 3 mechs in 8v8, 4 in 12v12.

The goal is that it's fair. I'm also not saying it has to be representative of "comp" play. Just a reasonable test on even terms of direct fire vs LRMs. Can LRMs compete vs direct fire in some maps.

Pick the people. We can build the LRM team first and build the direct fire team around that skill level.

[Maker L106]

Raur hit most of the issues. The LRMs need a rework but I can almost guarantee you how this plays out.

DF Team takes out Narcmando or whatever other NARC specalists you run. > LRM team loses hard

LRM team has enough Narc tonnage to build an entire mech out of > DF team loses IF they engage in the open for to long.

And that's just "LRM General ideas"

IS / Clan LRMs are whole different topic and for the sake of argument here I'm assuming IS.

Also, gimp the DF team with ECM and AMS limitations? haahahhahahha no. I get that the hard counter won't help the LRM team obviously but when I'm in my nice tier 3 2 and 4 games I see about half a team equip ECM and of those no less than 3 have AMS of some kind. Usually laser but more on that later. The issue here is that these guys are typically in lighter mechs. I can only assume that the LRM team will get stomped by the DF team if these conditions are met... one Hellbringer covers this entire scope of issues all by itself. Bring the META HL setup and an entire team of 8-12 of those could just walk at 81+kph toward the LRM guys and absolutely dismantle them due to heat economy.

For a true "artillary" strategy like this you have way WAY more vaiables than the direct counters AND the weapon systems at play. Players, assuming the teams are co-ordinated and lets also assume the LRM boats can reposition (because if not you're a sitting duck waiting for death no matter how well protected). You won't see things like 100 Tube stalkers, often anyway. maybe once but its going to die after the first engagement unless the team supporting it can swat everything coming after it specifically. More importantly your LRM mechs should be capable of a small amount of direct fire as well AND ideally have the mobilit 100ish kph to move around promptly when needed, Huntsman, Stormcrow, Catapult /w max engine. 80 at a minimum imo. Jump jets are a plus but not mandatory.

This is just a very few of the things you have to consider and build around in order to even make them FUNCTIONAL. Its a very asymmetric setup which makes it harder to employ then DF teams tools. Also makes it have several lynchpins that if pulled, can make things far worse for the team. Think team rifleman vs team SMG / rifle or two / arty... similar concept... I guess a WoT reference would be 15 Mediums vs 5 heavies 2 mids 5 lights and 3 artys... the concept is similar. Due to "sameness" and simplicity the 15 mediums are likely to take the fight just based on their ability to mobilize when needed.

You cannot underestimate at ANY point with LRM's or anything like them the importance of you and your teams overall mobility.

[MischiefSC]

So have the DF team carry about your average pug match level of AMS and ECM.

I'm very much in the direct fire camp. I get all the issues and my expectation is that DF will win, as it's always won. I'm in KCom. We've played thousands and thousands of FW matches. There's probably not a night in the last few years there wasn't at least a 6+man dropping. Many nights we have more than 12, including visitors.

We've never lost a match to LRMs. Ever. In thousands and thousands of drops.

However I have this debate often on the forums. The argument is that the LRM players are not "doing it right".

Okay, so let's test it. Where's the LRM people coming to volunteer to do it right in a test environment. If everyone else is wrong, let's see it. Prove it.

Analytics is my profession. Testing, fairly, how one process of behaviors works relative to another process of behaviors. I'm absolutely game with going at this with an open mind, making sure those involved feel it's as fair as is reasonable and then playing it out.

Let's get some of the pro LRM folks here and actually play this out. Time to stand by your assertions.

[Kroete]

MischiefSC, on 09 September 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:

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.

When did you see 50% of the enemy mechs using ams?
3 is more realistic, maybe one of them with 2 or 3 ams mounted.

But if you talk about competive, no ams for the enemy.

About number of lrms boats, one, maybe two, more is a waste.

Edited by Kroete, 09 September 2017 - 05:08 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Kroete, on 09 September 2017 - 05:04 PM, said:

When did you see 50% of the enemy mechs using ams?
3 is more realistic, maybe one of them with 2 or 3 ams mounted.

But if you talk about competive, no ams for the enemy.

About number of lrms boats, one, maybe two, more is a waste.

I'm game with reasonable li.its to AMS. 2 or 3 and 2 or 3 ECM is fine. The makeup of the LRM team is entirely up to the LRM team.

[ccrider]

**** it, I'll be on the lrm team. But I get to run one of the brawler's and keep locks. Should be fun, even if I know I'm gonna get stomped. I mean, hell, I solo dropped 3 in a row last night knowing I was getting a kcom team; I'm a sucker for punishment.

[Tarogato]

Last time we did LRMs vs Meta, I was playing lights for the LRM team, and we were kinda sabotaged by how Envisage envisioned an LRM team. For one thing... he wanted ERPPC Cheetahs... also, he picked self-proclaimed "LRM experts", and the result was that the LRM team was at a skill deficit. The "Meta" team swapped over, took LRMs instead, and still won. So the results were inconclusive.


In order to test this properly,

1. two equal teams, reliable comp players only
2. "meta" team is not allowed to use LRM counters. They play it like it's any other match, not expecting LRMs.
3. teams swap sides (Team 1 vs Team 2)
4. players swap sides (Team LRM vs Team META)
5. at least two maps played (minimum 8 drops played, perhaps over a course of two evenings) - I would suggest one map is chosen by LRM team, and one is chosen by traditional map banning
6. spreadsheets required for organisational purposes - gotta know who's coming and who owns what mechs ahead of time, so that time isn't wasted on dropdeck planning during the match. I have many such spreadsheets, would makes things many times easier.

[MischiefSC]

Tarogato, on 09 September 2017 - 05:40 PM, said:

Last time we did LRMs vs Meta, I was playing lights for the LRM team, and we were kinda sabotaged by how Envisage envisioned an LRM team. For one thing... he wanted ERPPC Cheetahs... also, he picked self-proclaimed "LRM experts", and the result was that the LRM team was at a skill deficit. The "Meta" team swapped over, took LRMs instead, and still won. So the results were inconclusive.


In order to test this properly,

1. two equal teams, reliable comp players only
2. "meta" team is not allowed to use LRM counters. They play it like it's any other match, not expecting LRMs.
3. teams swap sides (Team 1 vs Team 2)
4. players swap sides (Team LRM vs Team META)
5. at least two maps played (minimum 8 drops played, perhaps over a course of two evenings) - I would suggest one map is chosen by LRM team, and one is chosen by traditional map banning
6. spreadsheets required for organisational purposes - gotta know who's coming and who owns what mechs ahead of time, so that time isn't wasted on dropdeck planning during the match. I have many such spreadsheets, would makes things many times easier.

I get the logic, but there's LRM counters in most matches. The goal isn't to recreate LRMs in a comp environment. Comp is a bit of a different animal. The assertion that gets made is that in a sub-comp environment (but still with competent players) LRMs are as good as direct fire on some maps.

Some ECM and AMS gets used in such environments and I don't think it's unfair to say they should be represented to some degree.

Also asserted is that the comp players "don't use LRMs right" so I'm comfortable with letting the comp team build the best team they can and then we try to match that skill level with direct fire. Even at a comp level you've got a bit of a gap so I don't think that's a disqualified.

As part of the assertion is that LRMs work when used correctly by people who know how I don't see where making each team play the others mechs is relevant but I'm happy to see it happen if people have time.

As the assertion is that you have to use them right and LRMs are seen as failures because even good players use them wrong and that they're only viable on the right maps and the direct fire assertion is that direct fire is better on any map with equal team skill and players that are not bad, I'm good with the LRM team picking the map and building the team skill threshold.

[Maker L106]

Gonna call this one now, DF team wins if LRM team has no back-line support (you read that right, Streaks @#$%^@$%@ do you use them?). LRM team wins if DF team fails to swarm properly. Which will be stopped by proper legging of fast mechs early on. It's not the assaults / heavies you have to worry about in this match up. Will come down to speed and offensive maneuverable mechs.


Then again, the "area of denial" type of gameplay is lost on so many these days.

Edited by Maker L106, 09 September 2017 - 06:12 PM.

[Deathlike]

Maker L106, on 09 September 2017 - 06:11 PM, said:

Gonna call this one now, DF team wins if LRM team has no back-line support (you read that right, Streaks @#$%^@$%@ do you use them?). LRM team wins if DF team fails to swarm properly. Which will be stopped by proper legging of fast mechs early on. It's not the assaults / heavies you have to worry about in this match up. Will come down to speed and offensive maneuverable mechs.


Then again, the "area of denial" type of gameplay is lost on so many these days.

Area of denial is much more effective with direct fire.

You'd be surprised how some people get scared by lasers and PPCs. Intelligent players will "deal" with LRMs (either avoid or mitigate as much damage as possible with cover). You can't really mitigate weapons like PPC and Gauss.

Edited by Deathlike, 09 September 2017 - 07:07 PM.

[Ruar]

Deathlike, on 09 September 2017 - 07:05 PM, said:

Area of denial is much more effective with direct fire.

You'd be surprised how some people get scared by lasers and PPCs. Intelligent players will "deal" with LRMs (either avoid or mitigate as much damage as possible with cover). You can't really mitigate weapons like PPC and Gauss.

I mitigate both the same way... I keep out of LoS or have some kind of terrain in between until I'm ready to fire. What's surprising is the number of people who can't be patient enough to let the other team come to you when you are in a brawling mech. There's no requirement to cross bad terrain in the first five minutes of the fight.

[8Ball-]

And the lurm team picks Crimson with a tunnel rush.