466 replies to this topic

[Kroete]

Bombast, on 15 March 2018 - 02:04 AM, said:

1) No statistical check, at this point, has been favorable to LRMs. They perform worse than just about anything else over a large enough number of matches to be relevant. Full stop.

Lets look at the jarls list:
Place 2952 of 53608 players, by using mostly lrms.

Please show me a statistic why they are perform worse than just about anything,
when i can be at the top 10% with lrms if they are that worse then you claim, after more then 1900 matches?

cougurt, on 15 March 2018 - 02:11 AM, said:

.... and it's a simple fact that they aren't.

They are good enough catch up with more then 90% of the playerbase.

Edited by Kroete, 15 March 2018 - 02:30 AM.

[cougurt]

Kroete, on 15 March 2018 - 02:15 AM, said:

Lets look at the jarls list:
Place 2952 of 53608 players by using mostly lrms on heavys and assaults.

Please show me a statistic why they are perform worse than just about anything,
when i can be at the top 10% with lrms if they are that worse then you claim after more then 1900 matches?

your position on the jarl's list is determined entirely by your average match score. being in the top 10% is only really indicative of how horrendously bad the majority of the playerbase is.

[Kroete]

cougurt, on 15 March 2018 - 02:29 AM, said:

your position on the jarl's list is determined entirely by your average match score. being in the top 10% is only really indicative of how horrendously bad the majority of the playerbase is.

Please show me an evidence why lrms are bad,
if you can catch up with more then 90% of the playerbase with them.

Just a little statistic or at least some numbers?

Edited by Kroete, 15 March 2018 - 02:32 AM.

[cougurt]

Kroete, on 15 March 2018 - 02:31 AM, said:

Please show me an evidence why lrms are bad,
if you can catch up with more then 90% of the playerbase with them.

my evidence is that they see little to no use at higher levels of play, for a number of very good reasons. they're serviceable enough for solo QP, but they're not competitive.

[Kroete]

cougurt, on 15 March 2018 - 02:37 AM, said:

my evidence is that they see little to no use at higher levels of play, for a number of very good reasons. they're serviceable enough for solo QP, but they're not competitive.

I talk about qp, because this is the qp forum,
if you want to talk about cw, group or comp-play, please do it in the matching forum part.

Again, give me some evidece or numbers,
claiming that they are bad in the 2-5% of higher level play
does not exclude them for being good against the remaining 95-98%.

Edited by Kroete, 15 March 2018 - 02:51 AM.

[Curccu]

Kroete, on 15 March 2018 - 02:49 AM, said:

I talk about qp, because this is the qp forum,
if you want to talk about cw, group or comp-play, please do it in the matching forum part.

It says GENERAL DISCUSSION, not QP.

[Kroete]

Curccu, on 15 March 2018 - 03:04 AM, said:

It says GENERAL DISCUSSION, not QP.

Question 1:
Where do you post, if you talk about Competive play?
O Factionplay
O General Discussion
O Competive Play

Edited by Kroete, 15 March 2018 - 03:13 AM.

[El Bandito]

Kroete, on 15 March 2018 - 02:15 AM, said:

Lets look at the jarls list:
Place 2952 of 53608 players, by using mostly lrms.

Please show me a statistic why they are perform worse than just about anything,
when i can be at the top 10% with lrms if they are that worse then you claim, after more then 1900 matches?

That's cause Jarl's list chiefly count match score for ranking. And dealing damage is the easiest way to increase matchscore. Your spread damage from behind your team ensured you to have decent damage, thus matchscore. On the other hand, your KDR is merely average, and your WLR, while better than average, is not impressive at all.

My LRM only Archer dealt average of 630 damage and has 2.63 KDR, and 1.69 WLR over 231 matches, and even I know LRMs are sub par compared to DF weapons, unless you group up with competent spotters.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 March 2018 - 03:25 AM.

[Curccu]

Kroete, on 15 March 2018 - 03:13 AM, said:

Question 1:
Where do you post, if you talk about Competive play?
O Factionplay
O General Discussion
O Competive Play

Answer 1:

Here or Competitive play depending of context of what I post.
In this case you claim LRMs are good as any other weapon in the game and cougurt claims they are not, and that's why you don't see them in comp play. (unless it's polar and not even then very often.)

This thread is about weapon balance not any specific scenario or game type played in.

edit: quote typo.

Edited by Curccu, 15 March 2018 - 03:30 AM.

[Kroete]

El Bandito, on 15 March 2018 - 03:24 AM, said:

That's cause Jarl's list chiefly count match score for ranking. And dealing damage is the easiest way to increase matchscore. Your spread damage from behind your team ensured you to have decent damage, thus matchscore. On the other hand, your KDR is merely average, and your WLR, while better than average, is not impressive at all.

My LRM only Archer dealt average of 630 damage and has 2.63 KDR, and 1.69 WLR over 231 matches, and even I know LRMs are sub par compared to DF weapons, unless you group up with competent spotters.

KDR is merely average because iam to brave (or stupid, the line between is small) and stay mostly at the front.
Not impressive, maybe, but you should count in, that i still have problems after a stroke and play mostly drugged to reduce use of painkillers because athrosis and a chronic tenniselbow. And iam still doint better then 90% of the players by using lrms.

Edited by Kroete, 15 March 2018 - 03:36 AM.

[cougurt]

Kroete, on 15 March 2018 - 02:49 AM, said:

I talk about qp, because this is the qp forum,
if you want to talk about cw, group or comp-play, please do it in the matching forum part.

Again, give me some evidece or numbers,
claiming that they are bad in the 2-5% of higher level play
does not exclude them for being good against the remaining 95-98%.

this is the general discussion forum, and fittingly enough LRMs are bad in general. you can make your way to the top 10% on the jarl's list with almost anything if you know what you're doing. like i said, it only takes into consideration your average match score, which doesn't really tell you much by itself.

Kroete, on 15 March 2018 - 03:30 AM, said:

KDR is merely average because iam to brave (or stupid, the line between is small) and stay mostly at the front.
Not impressive, maybe, but you should count in, that i still have problems after a stroke and play mostly drugged to reduce use of painkillers because athrosis and a chronic tenniselbow. And iam still doint better then 90% of the players.

that speaks more to the skill level of the average player than it does the effectiveness of LRMs.

Edited by cougurt, 15 March 2018 - 03:35 AM.

[roekenny]

Just let the topic die (again) we all know lrms subpar and just getting baited if keep trying to get a potato to proccess this info. Just let the PIR-1s do their job and cull them in game as olny way they will learn.

[Kroete]

Curccu, on 15 March 2018 - 03:29 AM, said:

Answer 1:

Here or Competitive play depending of context of what I post.
In this case you claim LRMs are good as any other weapon in the game and cougurt claims they are not, and that's why you don't see them in comp play. (unless it's polar and not even then very often.)

This thread is about weapon balance not any specific scenario or game type played in.

edit: quote typo.

Not specific scenario or game type played would invalide your argument,
because compplay is a specific scenario or game type.

Overall they are still good enough to catch up with 90% of the playerbase.
Still waiting of a statistic or at least some numbers to show they are as bad as some claim.

Edited by Kroete, 15 March 2018 - 03:43 AM.

[El Bandito]

Kroete, on 15 March 2018 - 03:30 AM, said:

KDR is merely average because iam to brave (or stupid, the line between is small) and stay mostly at the front.
Not impressive, maybe, but you should count in, that i still have problems after a stroke and play mostly drugged to reduce use of painkillers because athrosis and a chronic tenniselbow. And iam still doint better then 90% of the players.

That's cause there are over 13,000 players that played less than 100 matches total across all 20 seasons. That's huge amount of inactives, or casuals who only occasionally play this game. They are not even worthy enough to be sticks to measure against. And thousands of people above them are still bad enough that they do not know how to properly build a mech.

Kroete, on 15 March 2018 - 03:35 AM, said:

Overall they are still good enough to catch up with 90% of the playerbase.
Still waiting of a statistic or at least some numbers to show they are as bad as some claim.

Go ahead and measure against me then. I used DF weapons since Jarl's list became active, so compare your LRM achievement against my non-LRM achievement. Take it from a guy who played 3 years of LRM boats, and switched to meta loadout once tiers were implemented--LRMs are sub par.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 March 2018 - 03:43 AM.

[Kroete]

El Bandito, on 15 March 2018 - 03:40 AM, said:

Go ahead and measure against me then. I used DF weapons since Jarl's list became active, so compare your LRM achievement against my non-LRM achievement. Take it from a guy who played 3 years of LRM boats, and switched to meta loadout once tiers were implemented--LRMs are sub par.

You are better, but 90% are still worse.
Do you think that less then 0.01% can invalidate 90%?

Do you realy want to compare an official disabled and drugged man with you as evidence that a weapon is bad?
If you claim they are bad show me a statistic or some numbers, your comparemend of you and me is like vellron showing some matchsummaries as evidence.

If you want to claim they are bad, they need to be that bad that you cant catch up against the majority of the players.
i claim that their are not that bad, because you can still catch up with the majority of the players.

If you would claim lrms are not good in compplay or cw i would not contradict you.
But compplay and cw are only a very small part of mwo, they are not much more then a statistical sough.

Edited by Kroete, 15 March 2018 - 04:07 AM.

[El Bandito]

Kroete, on 15 March 2018 - 03:59 AM, said:

You are better, but 90% are still worse.
Do you think that less then 0.01% can invalidate 90%?

Do you realy want to compare an official disabled and drugged man with you as evidence that a weapon is bad?
If you claim they are bad show me a statistic or some numbers, your comparemend of you and me is like vellron showing some matchsummaries as evidence.

If you want to claim they are bad, they need to be that bad that you cant catch up against the majority of the players.
i claim that their are not that bad, because you can still catch up with the majority of the players.

If you would claim lrms are not good in compplay or cw i would not contradict you.
But compplay and cw are only a very small part of mwo, they are not much more then a statistical sough.

Never said that you can't beat 90% of the total population of MWO with LRMs. What I said was LRMs are sub par. Here, let me give you a great evidence, by comparing myself, to myself. This is my stats when I ran mostly LRM boats, prior to tiers (which was implemented September 2015) and Jarl's list.




This is my current stats, after I stopped using LRMs as my main and started usingmeta builds.




The improvement is undeniable after I stopped using LRMs--and this is back when LRMs were far more powerful than today! Not only that, I will bet you a mech pack that if you start practicing with meta weapons, instead of these sup-par LRMs, you score will improve as well--and then your eyes will finally open.

[Ghogiel]

[Kroete]

El Bandito, on 15 March 2018 - 04:21 AM, said:

Never said that you can't beat 90% of the total population of MWO with LRMs. What I said was LRMs are sub par. Here, let me give you a great evidence, by comparing myself, to myself. This is my stats when I ran mostly LRM boats, prior to tiers (which was implemented September 2015) and Jarl's list.
....
The improvement is undeniable after I stopped using LRMs--and this is back when LRMs were far more powerful than today! Not only that, I will bet you a mech pack that if you start practicing with meta weapons, instead of these sup-par LRMs, you score will improve as well--and then your eyes will finally open.

When i can use them (sometimes i still have blury sights), i stop it after 3-4 matches, its too boring.
Sure its a lot easier to score good with the meta, but boring.
I have a lot more fun to use a "bad" weapon and do ok with,
its a lot more challenging against all that couters.
Too bad they reduced the skill ceiling by nerfing artemis and lockarc.

I dont say they are good,
but saying lrms are bad is also false,
they are still good enough to fight against the majority of player.
If someone claims they are bad, they should bring some evidence with numbers.

Edited by Kroete, 15 March 2018 - 04:32 AM.

[Curccu]

Kroete, on 15 March 2018 - 04:31 AM, said:

I dont say they are good,

OP does say they are good, and that is why we have 18 pages of this shi tuff.

Kroete, on 15 March 2018 - 04:31 AM, said:

If someone claims they are bad, they should bring some evidence with numbers.

El Bandito just posted his own numbers.

[Kroete]

Curccu, on 15 March 2018 - 04:39 AM, said:

OP does say they are good, and that is why we have 18 pages of this shi tuff.

Are they bad if you can catch up with them against 90% of the players?
Are they good, if they are only bad against only 10% of the players ?

Curccu, on 15 March 2018 - 04:39 AM, said:

El Bandito just posted his own numbers.

His numbers showed that he can do better with meta then lrms.
Nothing less, but also nothing more.