94 replies to this topic

[Maker L106]

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.

Was stating more that people don't understand the concept actively than anything else. But yeah, getting people to put their heads down is pretty useful. How you do it is essentially what makes the difference. I find the most effective method is for a mech to leave cover and either not return to it (cause dead) or be stripped of usefulness very quickly.

To say nothing of the fight you win / lose in the heat economy. but that's another topic for another thread.

[General Solo]

Sometimes people play lrms cause they get sick of the same weapons or they like the challenge of doing good with an average weapon system and stretching it to the nth degree.

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 10 September 2017 - 11:53 PM.

[Vellron2005]

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

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?

Sign me up for Team LRM!

Can possably bring another good LRM boater with me..

Out of the 12, we need 8 dedicated LRM boats, and 4 spotters.. Suggest best out of 3 matches wins?

P.S.

I was actually a part of such drops before, although the other team probably wasn't dedicated direct fire.. to be honest, I never saw what they brought, cose' they dropped 2 seconds after our spotter locked them.. it was 3 drops with the results of 12:0, 12:3, and 12:2 for the LRM team, played in QP..

This was before the skill tree and the LRM Supernova.. so it would be fun to do it again..

Although, times have changed since then, many new mechs and strategies now.. would be fun to see..

PM me for specifics.. I am EU zone, can play in the afternoons usually..

Edited by Vellron2005, 11 September 2017 - 12:29 AM.

[Lykaon]

Brain Cancer, on 10 September 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

I mean, I'll sit there as "the missile guy" and walk away with 3-4 kills.

It's brutal, it's inelegant. I run in a 20FPS horror that makes people cringe at the screenshots.

But there's maps like River or Crimson that will basically shut down LRM use, which is why I mix with ATMs for more stopping power.

And there's cases where I get high AMS density on enemy teams, so I mix LRMs with my ATMs to flood my way through the flak.

If it's both at once, I've had games where so much of my firepower is negated (last time was a Kit Fox firing it's triple AMS through a tunnel wall) that despite accurate aim, I can end a game with double digit damage-below 200 damage.

The best weapons will always be simple to use, have lowest time between targeting and a successfully aimed and arrived shot, and deliver (or be able to minimize) as little spread damage as possible. This is why of the missile weapon types, SRMs by far are considered the top of the list, MRMs fail on spread, Streaks are slow to deliver and auto-max-spread, and LRMs/ATMs are lock time, slow AND spread shots.

And lasers are king.

AMS priority is missiles fired at the mech carrying the AMS first and any missiles in range of AMS second.

So here is a trick to use when using a pair of LRM carriers in a team. One LRM mech is a heavy launcher platform with large launchers 15s or 20 with artemis the other is an LRM5 spammer.

Put the LRM5 spam (chain fire) on the triple AMS mech and then target freely with the heavy launcher mech. it's the most ammo efficient way I can think of cutting through multi AMS on a single chassis.

[Brain Cancer]

Having to 2v1 a passive defense system to game it sounds just a mite awkward, doesn't it? Given, in my dream world people would track that stream of AMS fire, pounce on the offending robot, and burn it's BRRRRRT off with prejudice.

I've been known to use a single missile shot to scout for enemy concentrations. Fire long, if something starts picking at the salvo, you found the bad guys.

[Lily from animove]

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?

Wouldn#t bet a cent without knowing the pilots first. But I guess even ecm potatoes cna beat lrms.

[InvictusLee]

I'm super late to this thread, but LRM Boat here. Ready to help xD

[C E Dwyer]

We already know the result, so why test it.

A full team of organised LRM boats will always lose against and organised direct fire team.

This doesn't make LRM boats bad.

LRM boats are not supposed to be used this way, so what's the point, in testing this format, the B33f youtube isn't proof one way or another.


LRM's are a support weapon, which when used on the correct mechs, in the correct ratio, with a good pilot possibly in conjunction with a narc'er are an asset.

Trying to say that they're bad, because people abuse them with bad builds with a bad pilot in them, has never been a valid point of view, just as trying to say LRM's are a match winner is equally as bad.

But if you want to have fun with this experiment that proves nothing go ahead and do it.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Cathy, on 11 September 2017 - 05:24 AM, said:

LRM's are a support weapon, which when used on the correct mechs, in the correct ratio, with a good pilot possibly in conjunction with a narc'er are an asset.

It's like you didn't even read the OP...

[InvictusLee]

Cathy, on 11 September 2017 - 05:24 AM, said:

LRM's are a support weapon, which when used on the correct mechs, in the correct ratio, with a good pilot possibly in conjunction with a narc'er are an asset.

Trying to say that they're bad, because people abuse them with bad builds with a bad pilot in them, has never been a valid point of view, just as trying to say LRM's are a match winner is equally as bad.

Pokey teams who really dont know how or are unwilling to push, are always divided and picked off by LRM boats who do not need to see their target to kill them. Not the most effective way to destroy an enemy, but considering that the boat takes little to no dmg in the process, its not too bad. I'd say that two LRM boats that are completely ignored will eventually do the majority of the dmg/kills while the enemy is distracted.

Edited by November11th, 11 September 2017 - 05:32 AM.

[Valhallan]

OZHomerOZ, on 10 September 2017 - 11:41 PM, said:

Sometimes people play lrms cause they get sick of the same weapons or they like the challenge of doing good with an average weapon system and stretching it to the nth degree.

Yes, its the same reason we like furbies underdog winning is fun . IDC that other people laugh at my 45kph 1450 sensor range trollclops with 30LRMA and 24SRMA. It's FUN, win or lose im having fun, and that's the only reason to play games.

[Davegt27]

this is like us pugs every time we see KCOM on the other side in FP

at the start I type "crap" (short for oh crap its another organized team that will kick the crap out of us) but in the back of my mind
I am thinking is there some tactic I can us to maybe make an impact on these guys

last time we skittles agreed that if we got 18 to 20 kills we would declare ourselves winners

we got like 10

LRMs seem to be a sad sad weapon dropped on unknowing pugs by PGI to trick them into a miserable gaming
experience

[MechWarrior5152251]

LRMs only work in pug play, so this whole experiment is pointless, we know the direct fire team will win.

[Vellron2005]

Cathy, on 11 September 2017 - 05:24 AM, said:

We already know the result, so why test it.

A full team of organised LRM boats will always lose against and organised direct fire team.

This doesn't make LRM boats bad.

LRM boats are not supposed to be used this way, so what's the point, in testing this format, the B33f youtube isn't proof one way or another.


LRM's are a support weapon, which when used on the correct mechs, in the correct ratio, with a good pilot possibly in conjunction with a narc'er are an asset.

Trying to say that they're bad, because people abuse them with bad builds with a bad pilot in them, has never been a valid point of view, just as trying to say LRM's are a match winner is equally as bad.

But if you want to have fun with this experiment that proves nothing go ahead and do it.

Well, I wholeheartedly agree.. LRMs are definitely not meant to be used in such quantity.. And to be honest, regardless of which side looses, it really proves nothing..

But it would be extremely fun to do

I just wanna see some heavy rain shade fighting..

And only cose' I've seen it before.. and had great fun at it..

SO that's three LRM boats confirmed..

DevilWoman, November11th and myself..

Edited by Vellron2005, 11 September 2017 - 11:20 PM.

[Wildstreak]

Someone's bored.

[Athom83]

This test in not really valid for multiple reasons;

1) Maps.
They need to be randomized, or have a match or two on each, as if one side gets to pick a map then they will always chose one that they will have an advantage on.

2) Precondition.
Each team will know what their enemy is taking. The LRM side knows they are facing direct fire weaponry, so they will take T-Comps, BAP, and all skill nodes they wouldn't have otherwise taken as they have no fear of counterbattery fire. And the Direct fire side know they are facing LRM only teams, so they load up on builds and other that will directly combat LRMs without worry of spotter mechs, enemy brawlers and pushes, and other.

3) Limitations.
You impose artificial limitations to counter the preconditions of only a single side. This takes further away from a non-biased setting and stack it in the favor of one side. This also doesn't represent a "standard" match where there is a chance that most of your team may have ECM and/or AMS.

4) Composition.
Doing tests where one side is completely made of one type and the other is made of another is not the best way of representing anything because of the above reasons. A better way would be to randomize half of each type to be on each team (making each team composed halfy of each type). Then you compare the performance of everyone within the scope of their own team.

[MischiefSC]

Vellron2005, on 11 September 2017 - 12:23 AM, said:

Sign me up for Team LRM!

Can possably bring another good LRM boater with me..

Out of the 12, we need 8 dedicated LRM boats, and 4 spotters.. Suggest best out of 3 matches wins?

P.S.

I was actually a part of such drops before, although the other team probably wasn't dedicated direct fire.. to be honest, I never saw what they brought, cose' they dropped 2 seconds after our spotter locked them.. it was 3 drops with the results of 12:0, 12:3, and 12:2 for the LRM team, played in QP..

This was before the skill tree and the LRM Supernova.. so it would be fun to do it again..

Although, times have changed since then, many new mechs and strategies now.. would be fun to see..

PM me for specifics.. I am EU zone, can play in the afternoons usually..

Thank you for stepping up, I really appreciate it. PM sent.

Davegt27, on 11 September 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

this is like us pugs every time we see KCOM on the other side in FP

at the start I type "crap" (short for oh crap its another organized team that will kick the crap out of us) but in the back of my mind
I am thinking is there some tactic I can us to maybe make an impact on these guys

last time we skittles agreed that if we got 18 to 20 kills we would declare ourselves winners

we got like 10

LRMs seem to be a sad sad weapon dropped on unknowing pugs by PGI to trick them into a miserable gaming
experience

You want to get good kills vs KCom? Play super-aggressive. Hit the ground at a run, group up just before you get to the middle of the map and come crash into us. Teams that do that do well. Think of it like momentum - the team that's flat-footed gets rolled over or through. Teams that come heavy and push hard and go down in a blaze of glory (just like we do) do a lot, lot better. Do that, focus on doing the most possible damage before you go down and your team will probably smash two waves of us.

Athom83, on 12 September 2017 - 11:25 AM, said:

This test in not really valid for multiple reasons;

1) Maps.
They need to be randomized, or have a match or two on each, as if one side gets to pick a map then they will always chose one that they will have an advantage on.

2) Precondition.
Each team will know what their enemy is taking. The LRM side knows they are facing direct fire weaponry, so they will take T-Comps, BAP, and all skill nodes they wouldn't have otherwise taken as they have no fear of counterbattery fire. And the Direct fire side know they are facing LRM only teams, so they load up on builds and other that will directly combat LRMs without worry of spotter mechs, enemy brawlers and pushes, and other.

3) Limitations.
You impose artificial limitations to counter the preconditions of only a single side. This takes further away from a non-biased setting and stack it in the favor of one side. This also doesn't represent a "standard" match where there is a chance that most of your team may have ECM and/or AMS.

4) Composition.
Doing tests where one side is completely made of one type and the other is made of another is not the best way of representing anything because of the above reasons. A better way would be to randomize half of each type to be on each team (making each team composed halfy of each type). Then you compare the performance of everyone within the scope of their own team.

Please read the actual post. Nobody is saying one side needs to be all LRMs. You can't have premade teams with decks built around one of two specific strategies and have it play like it was random - not to mention we don't want to test random encounters.

Once again, the whole point of this test is the assertion that LRMs are as good as direct fire on some maps. That's the assertion. Because LRMs have a couple of hard counters that people however don't always use it's reasonable to set some limits based around the direct fire team having a balance of AMS/ECM that approximates what 'most teams' in group queue/FW would bring. The LRM team gets to pick the map because the assertion is not that LRMs are ALWAYS a match for direct fire - just on some maps. Ergo the LRM team gets to pick the maps they feel enables them to match the performance of direct fire.

One more time, because this seems to get missed a lot, nobody is saying the LRM team has to be all LRMs. Just a minimum of 2 mechs carrying LRMs. Every other fact of that teams makeup is left to the LRM team to decide.

Both teams absolutely will be aware of the other, approximately - that's inevitable to have a test. One of the criteria being tested is that, according to the tested assertion, 'most people' which includes 'most comp players' do not 'play LRMs right'. So the LRM team needs to be comprised of people who 'play LRMs right'. Can't be random teams.

It's been tested many times by many teams. The point this time is to do so in a way that can be shown and reviewed and does its best to solve for skill disparity and tries to give LRMs all the benefits of the doubt required to cover the 'on some maps' and 'if played right' criteria.

[Wil McCullough]

When is this happening? If i can find the time i don't mind participating for science.

I'm hoping that players' biases don't override their desire to win though. Wouldn't be cool to have guys throw their mechs away carelessly on the lurm team because they believe lurms will lose and self-actualize it

Edit:
I'm retracting my name from participation.

Looking at the responses here, it's already pretty clear the results of this experiment will have no effect on convincing anyone of anything. I can already tell. The same excuses are gonna get lobbed around and etc etc.

Edited by Wil McCullough, 13 September 2017 - 02:57 AM.

[50 50]

Awkward test but happy to participate and help out depending on when you would like to run it.
You probably also do not need anything more than 1 v 1 to test this and to rule out potential differences in player skill and individual mech differences some of the other conditions might need to be set.
ie: Both the same mech.
Both stationary.
Both in direct line of sight at a set distance.
(You can pretty much determine the outcome of this without doing the test however)

Might I suggest some variations to the test/s?

That being:
1. Both teams full lrm no other systems.
2. Both teams still full LRM but have one team also use TAG, the other team also use NARC.

That gives a bit more of a base line to work from as we can get a TTK measure and then also determine the difference between assistance from TAG vs NARC.

It should then be possible to run lance by lance test replacing a set of mechs.
AMS is the counter to the Missiles.
TAG/NARC is the counter to ECM.
So do something like:
3. Two teams full direct fire to get the TTK base line.
4. One team replaces a lance with LRM boats no supporting systems, the other team replaces a lance to include mechs with AMS.
5. Can then increase that to 2 and then 3 lances.
6. Can add ECM into the mix on direct fire side, but at the same time start using TAG/NARC on the other.

While this does not represent battlefield testing, for a straight up comparison you get a better idea before adding in other factors that cannot be controlled or measured.
Might be quicker to do a set of matches 1 v 1 to get some base figures before changing to a team test.
Still need to use identical mechs though and possibly even weapons of equivalent damage. ie. AC10 vs LRM 10

Then you might be able to get some reasonable team battlefield testing done where skill, positioning, terrain advantages, teamwork etc all come into play. Those factors provide an unmeasurable variation to the testing.
But... whatever. That might all be a bit too elaborate.

[Davegt27]

Quote

You want to get good kills vs KCom? Play super-aggressive. Hit the ground at a run, group up just before you get to the middle of the map and come crash into us. Teams that do that do well. Think of it like momentum - the team that's flat-footed gets rolled over or through. Teams that come heavy and push hard and go down in a blaze of glory (just like we do) do a lot, lot better. Do that, focus on doing the most possible damage before you go down and your team will probably smash two waves of us.

cool sort of like face tanking a KDK-3 or a Dakka Dire wolf

the only way the other LRM event happened was some guy started talking smack on some TS (I am guessing that's what happened)
and the try hards said "oh yeah" lets see

to get things off the ground you have to be a true believer in LRMs and come in
talking crap