50 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Rogue Three, on 09 March 2018 - 05:58 PM, said:

Hi, I'm a potato with a question! First off, let me reassure you that, barring events like the one with the stockings last Christmas, I don't bother with FP.

The first mech I ever bought I picked for no reason other than that it could carry 4 LRM 20's with Artemis without moving like a geriatric turtle. It is still my favourite mech, and the only one I can consistently get a 200 matchscore with in QP (unless we get roflstomped). Yes, I am fully aware that this is nothing stellar, but it's still the best I can do (feel free to reread those first two sentences at this point). The one and only time I ever saw a 250 match score in FP was the time before I got chewed out by my teammates for lurming and had dropped both an assault and a heavy with them in a conquest match on Caustic Valley. That match ended before I ever ran out of missiles with my second mech; all lasers overheated or just tickled my armour, nobody had AMS, it was glorious and fun (again: first two sentences; think of them as your security blanket).

However, my teammates were quite adamant that lurming is a no-no, so I bought and tried other mechs with other weapon systems. ATM's, SSRM's, all types of lasers and PPC's, nothing really in the ballistics department because by then I'd come to the conclusion that my aim and positioning are just too crappy. I simply cannot do anything useful face to face with another mech and lack the map awareness to reliably outmanoeuver them. I scraped the rest of my free mech together with 100's, the occasional 150 and a lot of 50's.

Now, tell me: the next time PGI lures me into FP with an event, which mech do you want me to bring? My trusty potato slinger, knowing that you have a 90% chance of my damage being average, or basically anything else, which means it's a toss-up between "the same damage with a different weapon" and "nothing, because the enemy saw me first"?

First and foremost what we'd like is to help you get good at shooting other weapons. Some of it's mouse settings; you want to drag them all down to 0 or close to it. There's a few things to learn to get good at shooting stuff.

For positioning, just stay with the team - stay in a tight ball with them. Shoot who they shoot but stay on the move.

The damage you do with LRMs is generally less useful; significantly less. If you're also not literally shoulder to shoulder with your teammates instead of back behind them a bit you're also hampering the team.

So, in answer to your question.... I'd still rather have you in a direct fire mech staying with the team with a range/weapon loadout dependent on map/mode.

[Horseman]

Rogue Three, on 09 March 2018 - 05:58 PM, said:

However, my teammates were quite adamant that lurming is a no-no, so I bought and tried other mechs with other weapon systems. ATM's, SSRM's, all types of lasers and PPC's, nothing really in the ballistics department because by then I'd come to the conclusion that my aim and positioning are just too crappy. I simply cannot do anything useful face to face with another mech and lack the map awareness to reliably outmanoeuver them. I scraped the rest of my free mech together with 100's, the occasional 150 and a lot of 50's.

Now, tell me: the next time PGI lures me into FP with an event, which mech do you want me to bring? My trusty potato slinger, knowing that you have a 90% chance of my damage being average, or basically anything else, which means it's a toss-up between "the same damage with a different weapon" and "nothing, because the enemy saw me first"?

Your teammates are right. The issue you're encountering is that LRMs subconsciously encourage you towards a more conservative playing style, while for other loadouts it's something that has to be learned.

Just because you're bad with other weapons right now doesn't mean you should avoid them, but that you should strive to improve.

[S O L A I S]

The biggest and most frustrating part for me when it comes to lurmers, is that there should be no player who identifies as one.

No player should identify as a sniper and sniper only either.

Players who are dropping in CW should have gained the experience in quick play, and should understand since CW has decks that you prepare in advance, that you pick and set up mechs appropriate for the map and conditions.

A player should have learned to use and be decent at most weapons and styles. They should by this point understand maps and basic tactics including what weapons and mechs are right for the situation. Such as on Seige maps you almost never bring lurms on attack. They really should be able to understand and listen when experienced players tell them to never bring lurms on Grim Portico or Crimson Straight.

It is reasonable and (can be) effective to bring lrm's to Polar, Alpine, Caustic and such.

I mean I love clan ppc's. Right now despite them being in a bit of a tough spot to make work (not unlike lrm's), when I can I bring them on long range maps. If only one or two guys is running them, then like lrm's, you can make them work. But I am not a ppcer who insists that they are great on Terra and I am some sort of expert that can make them work everywhere all the time.

So that dedicated lurms or nothing guy is really the problem. It is that kind of all or nothing player that should be chased out of CW. They will always be putting themselves in situations where they are a detriment to the team they are on. Anyone who is all in, especially with a weapon that is extremely situational and possibly the worst in the game, doesn't belong in a team environment, due to simply failing the very basics of what being a part of a team even means.

[Yondu Udonta]

S O L A I S, on 10 March 2018 - 01:07 PM, said:

No player should identify as a sniper and sniper only either.

I identify as a sniper only and I bring my 1Gs to snipe everyone dead.

[Jman5]

This is just a thought, but what if bad players were just bad regardless of the weapons they bring? What if builds didn't matter nearly as much as how you use them?

This is a scary thought, but if this was true then players would no longer get a free pass just for piloting the "right" builds.

Edited by Jman5, 11 March 2018 - 08:19 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Jman5, on 11 March 2018 - 08:04 AM, said:

This is just a thought, but what if bad players were just bad regardless of the weapons they bring? What if builds didn't matter nearly as much as how you use them?

This is a scary thought, but if this was true then players would no longer get a free pass just for piloting the "right" builds.

You're a better pilot than me. Significantly better.

You play a trial Dragon.

I'll play a Deathstrike.

Then we'll play again; both of us in the meta hunchback of your choice.

If we repeat those matches repeatedly, in the one where I'm in a significantly better mech I'm going to win way, way more often than the one where we're in comparable mechs.

Solaris is going to be an even bigger example of this - even a bad player in a strong 1 v 1 meta mech will do *dramatically* better than one in a bad mech.

In 12 v 12 where you're only 8% of your teams performance it's harder to clearly measure the impact of a bad mech on a players performance.

In reality though it does matter. Significantly. It takes a pretty big gap in player performance to make up for good vs bad mech choices. I know people like to pretend otherwise but the reality is that mech choice and build has a strong impact on performance.

[naterist]

LordNothing, on 08 March 2018 - 04:31 PM, said:

its not so much the lermers as people bringing situational builds and not informing the team before the game starts. lerms are a weapon that needs a lot of coordination to work right in fp. people need to bring narcs, tags and extended sensor range. so if you just take a lerm boat without checking with your team first you are probibly going to not get the support equipment you need to function. the most valuable time to coordinate with your team is in lobby chat before the drop, and a lot of people waste it. its as easy as saying "im bringing lerms on wave x, pls bring narc/hold locks/bring scouts/etc". of couse they will immediately get presented with salt when they do that and will stop saying anything, and then you got unsupported lerm boats in your match.

THAT IS THE POINT WERE THEYRE SUPPOSED TO NOT BRING THEIR LERM MECH

[naterist]

Rogue Three, on 09 March 2018 - 05:58 PM, said:

Hi, I'm a potato with a question! First off, let me reassure you that, barring events like the one with the stockings last Christmas, I don't bother with FP.

The first mech I ever bought I picked for no reason other than that it could carry 4 LRM 20's with Artemis without moving like a geriatric turtle. It is still my favourite mech, and the only one I can consistently get a 200 matchscore with in QP (unless we get roflstomped). Yes, I am fully aware that this is nothing stellar, but it's still the best I can do (feel free to reread those first two sentences at this point). The one and only time I ever saw a 250 match score in FP was the time before I got chewed out by my teammates for lurming and had dropped both an assault and a heavy with them in a conquest match on Caustic Valley. That match ended before I ever ran out of missiles with my second mech; all lasers overheated or just tickled my armour, nobody had AMS, it was glorious and fun (again: first two sentences; think of them as your security blanket).

However, my teammates were quite adamant that lurming is a no-no, so I bought and tried other mechs with other weapon systems. ATM's, SSRM's, all types of lasers and PPC's, nothing really in the ballistics department because by then I'd come to the conclusion that my aim and positioning are just too crappy. I simply cannot do anything useful face to face with another mech and lack the map awareness to reliably outmanoeuver them. I scraped the rest of my free mech together with 100's, the occasional 150 and a lot of 50's.

Now, tell me: the next time PGI lures me into FP with an event, which mech do you want me to bring? My trusty potato slinger, knowing that you have a 90% chance of my damage being average, or basically anything else, which means it's a toss-up between "the same damage with a different weapon" and "nothing, because the enemy saw me first"?

what you need to do, is get those mechs you arent "good" with, and play them more often than anything else. you cant learn positioning and aiming in an lrm mech, you HAVE to learn it in a direct fire mech. work it again and again and again to get decent at it, then keep working it until you are good at it. it isnt just a magical skill that some people have and others dont. you need to aquire the skill through practice.

[Jman5]

MischiefSC, on 11 March 2018 - 12:23 PM, said:

You're a better pilot than me. Significantly better.

You play a trial Dragon.

I'll play a Deathstrike.

Then we'll play again; both of us in the meta hunchback of your choice.

If we repeat those matches repeatedly, in the one where I'm in a significantly better mech I'm going to win way, way more often than the one where we're in comparable mechs.

Solaris is going to be an even bigger example of this - even a bad player in a strong 1 v 1 meta mech will do *dramatically* better than one in a bad mech.

In 12 v 12 where you're only 8% of your teams performance it's harder to clearly measure the impact of a bad mech on a players performance.

In reality though it does matter. Significantly. It takes a pretty big gap in player performance to make up for good vs bad mech choices. I know people like to pretend otherwise but the reality is that mech choice and build has a strong impact on performance.

I think you're stretching the intention of my point a bit much there. I was not saying that dropping in an unpracticed, unskilled trial mech without consumables is going to put them on par with a mech that is 50% heavier, fully skilled, and customized, and well practiced.

What I am saying is that if you put a bad player in a good mech it is not going to suddenly cure his badness. If you bring a LRM boat and play it correctly you can be an effective player. In fact I don't think it's a sure thing that they will even play better. IMO many meta mechs are not well suited for casual players. Giving them a build that's technically weaker but much easier to handle can allow them to do much better.

I've been thinking about how to word this right, because it's the reason why I always pop into these kinds of threads. It's not that builds don't matter. They do and not all builds are created equal. The problem comes when you're devoting too much time and effort toward figuring out which build is slightly better than another. This game is full of people who do nothing but theorycraft about mech builds and then take those lovingly crafted mechs and get obliterated because they didn't spend any time figuring out how to use them effectively.

I also don't think the difference between a super tier 1 meta mech and a solid second-string build is really all that large. For example according to the only meta list I know the Firestarter 9A is a trash-tier mech. Yet it's all I've played this season and I'm doing really well. While I appreciate your kind words, I don't think I'm so good that I could do as well as I am if the Firestarter really was game-ruiningly bad.

[Rogue Three]

MischiefSC, on 09 March 2018 - 07:35 PM, said:

First and foremost what we'd like is to help you get good at shooting other weapons. [...] I'd still rather have you in a direct fire mech staying with the team with a range/weapon loadout dependent on map/mode.

Horseman, on 10 March 2018 - 12:42 AM, said:

[...] The issue you're encountering is that LRMs subconsciously encourage you towards a more conservative playing style, while for other loadouts it's something that has to be learned. [...]

naterist, on 11 March 2018 - 02:43 PM, said:

what you need to do, is get those mechs you arent "good" with, and play them more often than anything else. you cant learn positioning and aiming in an lrm mech, you HAVE to learn it in a direct fire mech. [...]

Thanks, I appreciate your replies, and I'll keep it in mind if ever I end up in FP again.

S O L A I S, on 10 March 2018 - 01:07 PM, said:

[...] Players who are dropping in CW should have gained the experience in quick play, and should understand since CW has decks that you prepare in advance, that you pick and set up mechs appropriate for the map and conditions. [...]

This, and the parts I quoted above, really made me think. There is nothing about QP that teaches or even prepares you for this. To the contrary, I'd say that the current system actively discourages practicing new weapons systems in QP:

• Whichever mech you pick, you're stuck with it no matter which map gets chosen. This encourages you to stick to comfort picks that you can make work more or less anywhere, whereas with new weapons you're fairly likely to end up on maps that make you feel useless. Let me tell you about the joys of trying a medium pulse laser Supernova for the first time on the Polar Highlands... but since you have no direct control over the weapon/map mismatch, it is much more likely that you avoid it by simply not taking that mech into QP again.
  
• When you play something new, you're likely to do less damage than usual until you get the hang of it, so in QP your matchscores suck. This is negative feedback, and no matter how many times you tell yourself that it is normal, it still affects you. It should be the case that QP is the fun mode where you go to try out new things, but the fact of the matter is that if you put the new mech/loadout in your FP dropdeck, you'll be able to cushion the blow with the other three mechs and not feel quite as bad (not just about your performance, but also about letting down the people you're playing with).
  
• Pilot tier is for some inexplicable reason linked to QP. I don't care how many veteran players tell me that it's a worthless system, it is still the big thing on the front page that judges my overall worth as a player. Which makes me care a lot more about sucking in QP than in FP. There's no way I would've ground out those stockings at 50 and 100 match scores if doing so had sunk my tier to the bottom of the pit.

I realise that it sucks for those of you who love FP, but I think these are why you end up with new players who enter it with the mindset of "this is my favourite loadout so this is what I want to play", even (or maybe especially) if that loadout is the red-headed stepchild of weapons systems.

[MischiefSC]

Jman5, on 11 March 2018 - 06:42 PM, said:

I think you're stretching the intention of my point a bit much there. I was not saying that dropping in an unpracticed, unskilled trial mech without consumables is going to put them on par with a mech that is 50% heavier, fully skilled, and customized, and well practiced.

What I am saying is that if you put a bad player in a good mech it is not going to suddenly cure his badness. If you bring a LRM boat and play it correctly you can be an effective player. In fact I don't think it's a sure thing that they will even play better. IMO many meta mechs are not well suited for casual players. Giving them a build that's technically weaker but much easier to handle can allow them to do much better.

I've been thinking about how to word this right, because it's the reason why I always pop into these kinds of threads. It's not that builds don't matter. They do and not all builds are created equal. The problem comes when you're devoting too much time and effort toward figuring out which build is slightly better than another. This game is full of people who do nothing but theorycraft about mech builds and then take those lovingly crafted mechs and get obliterated because they didn't spend any time figuring out how to use them effectively.

I also don't think the difference between a super tier 1 meta mech and a solid second-string build is really all that large. For example according to the only meta list I know the Firestarter 9A is a trash-tier mech. Yet it's all I've played this season and I'm doing really well. While I appreciate your kind words, I don't think I'm so good that I could do as well as I am if the Firestarter really was game-ruiningly bad.

1 v 1s really taught me the value of the right mech. If, for example, I'm in a very good brawling mech and someone significantly better than me is in a 2nd string brawling mech I'm going to win 50/50. Maybe more. However if we're both in top performers I'll lose 75 or 80% of the time.

This is even more relevant when player skill is really low because the performance of the mech is an even bigger piece of their total value. Now it is fair to argue that something like a Deathstrike that is very powerful due to aim/accuracy for damage on target isn't as huge a help something like, say, a MRM or Splat Cyclops vs a LRM Cyclops or bad assault mech? Absolutely. Huge difference for a lower skill player. Even more so in FW where just getting in a position to shoot is usually going to keep them up with their teammates where they're way more useful.

I get what you're saying; that a bad player is going to be bad regardless, so let him bring LRMs. I also get that the decision making ability that drives good decisions in the mechbay is the same one that drives good decisions on the field (more or less), so someone who's bad at the game is also less willing (generally) to take good mechs.

Bad players in LRMs just keeps them bad and with bad habits. I'll take 200 damage from direct fire weapons over 350 damage from LRMs to the enemy any day, especially since it keeps them at the front where they're useful.

[Evil Elmo]

Ragnar Baron Leiningen, on 06 March 2018 - 12:09 PM, said:

But more important than that it’s unfair to cancer. Because unlike potato slingers, cancer actually Kills.

I LOLed.

[r4zen]

Yondu the Ravager, on 11 March 2018 - 05:59 AM, said:

I identify as a sniper only and I bring my 1Gs to snipe everyone dead.

J1000, is that you?

[Leone]

Rogue Three, on 11 March 2018 - 06:45 PM, said:

Thanks, I appreciate your replies, and I'll keep it in mind if ever I end up in FP again.

Take some of that with a grain of salt. Personally, I've found lrms were a great way to learn positioning, since you've gotta take both yours and the opfors into account. As for aiming, it's a rough thing to learn if you're not already great at it. Takes a bit of keeping your cool under fire, which for me took alot of taking fire to learn.

Anyways...

Rogue Three, on 11 March 2018 - 06:45 PM, said:

I don't care how many veteran players tell me that it's a worthless system, it is still the big thing on the front page that judges my overall worth as a player. Which makes me care a lot more about sucking in QP than in FP.

Underlined to point out where you are wrong. Match score is a great way for gauging your individual success in a free for all style setting. It does not care if you help your team by denying caps to the enemy in conquest, or if you manouver the enemy into fighting in a subpar area by dint of placement and effective suppressive fire. I cannot know if you pushed your team to glory and greatness by virtue of an aggressive playstyle and tenacious placement. I cannot tell the difference between an atlas that leads a push and twist well, tanking over 500 damage in incoming fire, and one that fires missiles from the back an gets cored out by a light.

It tries, but it cannot judge your overall worth, just give you an approximation.

We tell you it is a worthless system because those new folk who try to follow it and game the system end up being the worst kind of players. You can use it, yes,to give you an idea of how well you did, but do not follow it slavishly. I cannot stress enough how much I'd rather take a tier five newbie who gets 200 damage and needs to work on positioning and aiming than a tier one player who gets 1000 damage but needs to work on positioning and teamwork.

The tier five I can take aside an work on those skills with. The tier one is more often'n not a lost cause. By all means, cherry pick your advice, test it all and take that which works for you, but if you take anything from me, let it be this; Matchscore is but a guideline. Take what you can from it, but don't let it teach you bad habits.

~Leone.

[Throe]

This is not entirely fair. You can still get kills with LRMs. Just because it's the *least* effective way to secure kills, doesn't mean it's completely ineffective. Besides, we're making progress in the fight against Cancer every day in RL. The most recent development I've heard about is that fasting up to 48 hours before and 24 hours after chemotherapy treatments can reduce damage to host tissues by a significant margin.

[Damnedtroll]

Willard Phule, on 08 March 2018 - 09:09 PM, said:

Easier to simply announce to the team "Please for locking of the targets, I am a nutless coward of an LRM potato. Completely unable to do anything unless someone else is facetanking damage to give me locks."

At least it's honest.

I'm saying ''please lock for target'' when i'm in a laser boat.... situation awareness is the key at winning.

Edited by Damnedtroll, 12 March 2018 - 02:56 PM.

[Throe]

Jman5, on 11 March 2018 - 08:04 AM, said:

This is just a thought, but what if bad players were just bad regardless of the weapons they bring? What if builds didn't matter nearly as much as how you use them?

This is a scary thought, but if this was true then players would no longer get a free pass just for piloting the "right" builds.

While there is some truth to your supposition(some players are worse than others), it's also true that most builds *don't* matter as much as how you use them.

Now, granted, we can definitely look at *some* builds and say confidently that they are terrible and not worth bringing to a fight, but the sheer vastness of possibility in MWO dictates that there will be *many, many* builds which are viable in a match *as long as the pilot understands how to use the build*.

It just so happens that LRMs are one of the best weapons to use in lower tiers. They're great for generating damage(which is a core metric for grinding CBills). They're great for getting kills against targets who don't know how to use hard cover, or for killing folks who are out of position and nowhere near any cover(soft or hard), both of which are plentiful in Tier 4 and 5. Add to this the fact that they are still occasionally brought to certain Faction Play matches, and you'll end up with a significant portion of newer or "bad" players who routinely use LRMs, both because it's rewarding to do so, and because it seems like they're used regularly to great effect in higher tiers of play.

Anyway, there's no such thing as a "free pass" for piloting a certain build. What works for one player won't necessarily work for another without a significant amount of practice or preexisting experience/skill.

[Yondu Udonta]

r4zen, on 12 March 2018 - 11:37 AM, said:

J1000, is that you?

LRM boat cyclops.

[Grus]

Vellron2005, on 09 March 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

I mean if we are worried about "safeplace"'s in this game i do believe that is located at the DZ... right up until it gets pushed in the first wave. *cough* KCOM *cough*

[Pain G0D]

I am proud to call myself a lurm worm . Been lurking and lurm ing since I joined LURM.W.O

Between both my accounts my lurm boats include . Kit fox , shadowcat , timber wolf, Maddog , mad cat , stalker , awesome , catapult .

Also have lurm hybrids mechs usually swopping large lasers for smaller lasers to add more lurm ammo.
King crab , black lanner , mad cat , mauler or Laurler as I call him . Silly lurm haters think if you lurm them a few times that you are lurm boat so they charge into your lasers or auto cannons .

Yes I made this post so you guys can lurm from my wisdom .

Edited by Pain G0D, 14 March 2018 - 02:44 PM.