116 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 10:55 PM, said:

200 match score and 300 damage is below average, especially for Tier 1. To be winning more battles than you lose at Tier 1, you need to be doing somewhere over 250-260 average matchscore and 400-450 average damage.

(Snip the rest)

Guess what? On my LRM Huntsmen, I deal 451 damage average per match. That same Huntsmen (over 144 matches of testing since they split up the (S) variant from the Prime) has a positive K/D and W/L.

Oh, and I like to do this far more scientifically than just a general goal per tier. My Huntsmen deals 9 damage per ton invested into the match, per match. What is on average considered as "good" with this scaled system is 5 damage per ton per match.

Also, if you are expecting every player to deal 400+ damage per match... you do realize there is only so much damage to be had in a single match? Just like you can't expect a player to all get 3+ K/D... because there is only a set limited number of kills in a match. Oh, and it is easy for a player to almost kill a target and have someone else tap that target and kill it, removing the kill from your pool, even if you earned it and soloed that mech down to almost death by yourself.

You may far too many generalized uninformed statements about others. For instance, what proof do you have that I am so bad with direct fire weapons?
Linebacker Prime, two HLLs and three ERMLs. Average damage per match 390. Can't give average match score, as that isn't recorded in stats. W/L 0.6. K/D 0.7. Pure direct fire build...
That "bad" Vangaurd build (which has stats from several different builds): Average damage per match 336 (recall bad hit boxes). W/L 0.72. K/D 0.76.
Zeus 9S, two LLs, four ERMLs, MRM10. Average damage per match 323. W/L 0.83. K/D 0.38. (This is considered a poor mech in the game, correct?)
Mad Dog Prime, twin LRM20s, four ERMLs. Average damage per match 480. W/L 0.8. K/D 1.02.

So far, it would appear as though my direct fire builds average about the same effective damage scores as my LRM builds. But, seen as we are talking about pure damage only... Yup. I reached your goal with my LRM mechs.

So, shall I rely on unreliable individual weapon stats? What kind of accuracy do I need to have to technically hold my T1 ranking I already earned in the game? If anything, my problem with direct fire builds are... I can't be as sneaky with them. All too often in T1 group play, I get one shot. Just yesterday my Uziel 3P got all but one shot KOed by an Annihilator...

[Kroete]

Tesunie, on 28 April 2018 - 07:43 AM, said:

On the remark of ATMs, I'm just going to say that it probably doesn't have the same pit fall habits that LRMs can produce because they are so difficult to shoot indirectly. This leads to players actually still moving with their team, rather than "sit out back at long range and shooting only indirectly".

Otherwise, I do stand by my previous remarks. LRMs are under-rated because too many people boat them, hide in the back, try to indirect fire only and "not get hit", which leads to fewer targets for the enemy to be concerned with and asks for a single mech to sneak up on the boat and rip it apart while it's alone and undefended. This isn't the best way to play LRMs, or honestly any weapon system. Best place to be for most people is shoulder to shoulder with the rest of their team. Not slinking in the back almost 1000m away. On this front, ATMs can't support this poor combat behavior.

ATM were great at indirect too, until the artemis/arc nerf, at their best range together with a uav, but pgi needed to nerf some more skillshots from atms and lrms.
I miss the old lrms, you could do trickshots and hit the back of the enemy in front of you or curve them around some cover and the effect of the spiraling artemis lrms looked great. But thats long ago with a long list of nerfs to lrms.

[Tesunie]

Kroete, on 28 April 2018 - 09:02 AM, said:

ATM were great at indirect too, until the artemis/arc nerf, at their best range together with a uav, but pgi needed to nerf some more skillshots from atms and lrms.
I miss the old lrms, you could do trickshots and hit the back of the enemy in front of you or curve them around some cover and the effect of the spiraling artemis lrms looked great. But thats long ago with a long list of nerfs to lrms.

Oh, I recall the days you could shoot without a lock, get a lock on any target and all your LRMs in the air would seek in on that target. Oh the fun things one could do then. (Among other things.) I kinda wasn't here so much for the Artemis spiral, but I've seen it in videos, and it did look impressive. I recall the X missile flight formation... and the "schooling fish" formation...

[Zergling]

Tesunie, on 28 April 2018 - 08:14 AM, said:

Guess what? On my LRM Huntsmen, I deal 451 damage average per match. That same Huntsmen (over 144 matches of testing since they split up the (S) variant from the Prime) has a positive K/D and W/L.

You aren't averaging anything close to that in your overall stats, especially not in recent Seasons, so you are cherry picking good stats.

That'd be like me pointing at my Summoner M and F stats:
SMF-F = 1.94 W/L, 2.81 K/D, 647 average damage
SMF-M = 2.06 W/L, 3.91 K/D, 579 average damage

But that's not at all representative of my real average play level, especially not my recent play.

Tesunie, on 28 April 2018 - 08:14 AM, said:

Oh, and I like to do this far more scientifically than just a general goal per tier. My Huntsmen deals 9 damage per ton invested into the match, per match. What is on average considered as "good" with this scaled system is 5 damage per ton per match.

Tthat scaled system is quote ignorant of the actual average matchscore and damage of each weight class.


Go look at average match scores for Season 2, 3 and 4 here.

Damage to Match Score scales at approximately 1.5 to 1, so the average damage in Season 4 per weight class was:
Lights = 249
Mediums = 300
Heavies = 316
Assaults = 343
All weight classes = 307

The overall average match score and average damage has gone up since then (by about 15%), but this demonstrates the difference in average damage output between weight classes as being nowhere near as extreme as your 'scaled system'.

Tesunie, on 28 April 2018 - 08:14 AM, said:

For instance, what proof do you have that I am so bad with direct fire weapons?

Your overall and recent Season stats.

Tesunie, on 28 April 2018 - 08:14 AM, said:

Linebacker Prime, two HLLs and three ERMLs. Average damage per match 390. Can't give average match score, as that isn't recorded in stats. W/L 0.6. K/D 0.7. Pure direct fire build...
That "bad" Vangaurd build (which has stats from several different builds): Average damage per match 336 (recall bad hit boxes). W/L 0.72. K/D 0.76.
Zeus 9S, two LLs, four ERMLs, MRM10. Average damage per match 323. W/L 0.83. K/D 0.38. (This is considered a poor mech in the game, correct?)
Mad Dog Prime, twin LRM20s, four ERMLs. Average damage per match 480. W/L 0.8. K/D 1.02.

So far, it would appear as though my direct fire builds average about the same effective damage scores as my LRM builds. But, seen as we are talking about pure damage only... Yup. I reached your goal with my LRM mechs.

Remember when I said you shouldn't be relying on damage for player performance? You have negative W/L in all of those mechs, which means you are playing badly.

You're also trying to cherry pick again.

Tesunie, on 28 April 2018 - 08:14 AM, said:

So, shall I rely on unreliable individual weapon stats? What kind of accuracy do I need to have to technically hold my T1 ranking I already earned in the game?

Nobody 'earns' T1 ranking; everyone that plays at a level above the bottom 10% will eventually reach Tier 1 if they play enough battles.

Tesunie, on 28 April 2018 - 08:14 AM, said:

If anything, my problem with direct fire builds are... I can't be as sneaky with them. All too often in T1 group play, I get one shot. Just yesterday my Uziel 3P got all but one shot KOed by an Annihilator...

Then you are playing and/or building your mechs wrong. Why did you expose yourself to take that kind of damage? And did you put an XL on your Uziel?

Edited by Zergling, 28 April 2018 - 07:21 PM.

[Dragonporn]

Zergling, on 28 April 2018 - 03:01 AM, said:

Lol, Streaks are really only useful for killing lights. Against anything heavier than a medium they are just terrible because of how they spread damage everywhere.





High damage with less spread than LRMs and Streak SRMs, while having the ability to do damage beyond 270 meters (unlike regular SRMs).
They are best used like regular SRMs; a player using them should focus on brawling, but they are able to still be relevant beyond brawling range.

They also have the advantage of packing a lot of firepower into a limited number of missile hardpoints; an assault mech only needs 3 or 4 missile hardpoints to focus entirely on ATMs.

Not exactly. You can control S-SRM spread with chainfire trick, and they definitely don't spread as much as SRM even with Artemis do, plus no enemy lag shield. In very mobile Light or Medium, you can maybe not so fast but reliably wreck Heavy or even Assault. But yes, it kills Lights flat out. Weapon system is highly underrated.

On ATMs, I still don't see how it's good for brawling. Lock-on takes time, and you need to keep minimal distance at all times, which no enemy with even minimal understanding will let you. I'd take SRMs or MRMs any day of the week over ATMs for brawling.

[Zergling]

Dragonporn, on 28 April 2018 - 04:05 PM, said:

Not exactly. You can control S-SRM spread with chainfire trick, and they definitely don't spread as much as SRM even with Artemis do, plus no enemy lag shield. In very mobile Light or Medium, you can maybe not so fast but reliably wreck Heavy or even Assault. But yes, it kills Lights flat out. Weapon system is highly underrated.

Streak SRMs have a special spread pattern that seeks all body components of a mech (except the head), so significant amounts of damage gets wasted on arms and legs.
Against light mechs, that is actually a benefit. But against heavy and assault mechs, it means they simply can't do enough torso damage to drop those mechs fast enough.

I mean, look at Solaris, where brawling dominates. Streaks absolutely smack lights down hard in that mode, but in exchange anyone running Streaks is at a severe disadvantage against heavy and assault mechs, so few (if any) players in the higher Elo rankings use them.

Dragonporn, on 28 April 2018 - 04:05 PM, said:

On ATMs, I still don't see how it's good for brawling. Lock-on takes time, and you need to keep minimal distance at all times, which no enemy with even minimal understanding will let you. I'd take SRMs or MRMs any day of the week over ATMs for brawling.

They are more of a flexible brawling weapon. A weapon that can do lots of damage up close (just not as much as SRMs), in exchange for ability to engage at longer ranges.

I honestly don't prefer using them over energy/ballistic, SRMs or MRMs, but they are definitely preferable to LRMs or Streak SRMs.

[Tesunie]

Zergling, on 28 April 2018 - 03:54 PM, said:

You aren't averaging anything close to that in your overall stats, especially not in recent Seasons, so you are cherry picking good stats.

That'd be like me pointing at my Summoner M and F stats:
SMF-F = 1.94 W/L, 2.81 K/D, 647 average damage
SMF-M = 2.06 W/L, 3.91 K/D, 579 average damage

But that's not at all representative of my real average play level, especially not my recent play.

I've been going for overall life of the mech on mechs that I know haven't changed their builds much or at all, as well as specifically mechs that have preferably 100+ matches. This is to help show specific build performance, rather than "well, this mech once had this build on it... so some of the stats are from there... then I changed...".

In recent seasons, I've been playing with 3-5 T5 players who are all but brand new to this game. I'm the only T1 in the group, and there is only so much I can do when facing a team of Emp (for example). I also have to admit a love of experimentation, and for some time I've been experimenting with different mech configurations. Typically, I've been found in my dual AMS Panther to try and help protect the newer players I've been helping.

I could post all my individual mechs, but I think that would be long, irrelevant and really detracting from the topic. On top of the fact I have a lot of mechs with stats that have very few matches... some only 3 matches! (Thoughs 3 match mechs strangely have good stats...)

I also posted mechs with builds I feel comfortable with. As I said before, I do like to experiment, so looking at my overall stats include that data. And I sometimes try out some crazy builds just to see if it might work. (Hey, what happens if I do 8 flamers! Oh... That wasn't doing much... (No, I haven't done this, but it is temping.))

Zergling, on 28 April 2018 - 03:54 PM, said:

Tthat scaled system is quote ignorant of the actual average matchscore and damage of each weight class.


Go look at average match scores for Season 2, 3 and 4 here.

Damage to Match Score scales at approximately 1.5 to 1, so the average damage in Season 4 per weight class was:
Lights = 249
Mediums = 300
Heavies = 316
Assaults = 343
All weight classes = 307

The overall average match score and average damage has gone up since then (by about 15%), but this demonstrates the difference in average damage output between weight classes as being nowhere near as extreme as your 'scaled system'.

Never said it was perfect, but it can make a good goal to aim for. 200 damage for a Locust can be 250 or more match score, considering protected light boosting match score. I'll also comment (from my experimentation with dual AMS Panthers and Wolf Hounds as of recent) that a light with AMS can really get a boosted match score with even less damage dealt. Protected light, lance in formation as well as missiles destroyed can really bring up that match score.

In reverse, an assault under my scaling should be trying to look for a 500 damage result (if possible) for a 5 damage per ton per match record. Even then, it's not a perfect system, but can make for reasonable goals to aim for.

Zergling, on 28 April 2018 - 03:54 PM, said:

Remember when I said you shouldn't be relying on damage for player performance? You have negative W/L in all of those mechs, which means you are playing badly.

You're also trying to cherry pick again.

Only so much a single player can do with 23 others in the match. If my team decides to ignore all calls and spread out into groups of 2-3, and/or even heaven forbid have disconnects or team damagers/killers... There is only so much I can do.

I will comment, I typically seem to have a positive W/L on my LRM based mechs... Which (considering the topic here) leads me to believe still that LRMs are not useless.

Zergling, on 28 April 2018 - 03:54 PM, said:

Nobody 'earns' T1 ranking; everyone that plays at a level above the bottom 10% will eventually reach Tier 1 if they play enough battles.

I went from crawling up the tiers from T4-T3 with direct fire weapons, which was what I was practicing at the time. When I decided to go back to LRMs, I power blasted through the ranks to T1, and I am now solidly within T1. Maybe I should work on direct fire practices again (here is a hint, I already am), but I don't think I'm as bad as you seem to imply with direct fire weapons. (Though, there is always room for improvement.)

Zergling, on 28 April 2018 - 03:54 PM, said:

Then you are playing and/or building your mechs wrong. Why did you expose yourself to take that kind of damage? And did you put an XL on your Uziel?

In that case, I had a "I thought I was sneaking beside them" and found out "oh, they are all... Hi guys. Don't mind me..." and found my CT just gone. (I had taken enough CT damage to have light orange armor, and then was one shot by an Annihilator with at least twin heavy Gauss.) That match, completely poor position on my side... and then just taking massive damage from pin point damage weapons... (If it had only hit a side torso, I would have survived.) That build also had no JJs... so I couldn't perform my more favored tactics... Jump shooting. (Can I say jump sniping if it's at mid to reasonably close range?)

[Horseman]

Tesunie, on 28 April 2018 - 08:14 AM, said:

You may far too many generalized uninformed statements about others. For instance, what proof do you have that I am so bad with direct fire weapons?

You just confirmed it yourself.

Quote

Linebacker Prime, two HLLs and three ERMLs. Average damage per match 390. Can't give average match score, as that isn't recorded in stats. W/L 0.6. K/D 0.7. Pure direct fire build...
That "bad" Vangaurd build (which has stats from several different builds): Average damage per match 336 (recall bad hit boxes). W/L 0.72. K/D 0.76.
Zeus 9S, two LLs, four ERMLs, MRM10. Average damage per match 323. W/L 0.83. K/D 0.38. (This is considered a poor mech in the game, correct?)
Mad Dog Prime, twin LRM20s, four ERMLs. Average damage per match 480. W/L 0.8. K/D 1.02.

W/L below 1 means that statistically you're more often a detriment than an asset for your team in these mechs.
K/D below 1 means that you don't focus your fire on targets as much as you should be doing and statistically, other teammates have to finish mechs you damaged (also that you're dying too often - which indicates you need to learn to play more cautiously).
0.38 K/D and 323 average damage in an assault says you're either using it incorrectly or have a bad build on it (possibly both - some of my Mediums have more firepower than that).

Quote

So, shall I rely on unreliable individual weapon stats? What kind of accuracy do I need to have to technically hold my T1 ranking I already earned in the game?

T1 is nothing but a participation award. As long as you're not completely abysmal, you eventually reach it.

This said, your performance has taken a nosedive since Season 16: https://leaderboard....h.php?u=Tesunie

Edited by Horseman, 29 April 2018 - 02:05 PM.

[Zergling]

Tesunie, on 28 April 2018 - 08:56 PM, said:

I could post all my individual mechs, but I think that would be long, irrelevant and really detracting from the topic.

There's no need; I can see your overall stats.

Tesunie, on 28 April 2018 - 08:56 PM, said:

As I said before, I do like to experiment, so looking at my overall stats include that data.

So do I. I play a great many mechs that are considered below average or even terrible, as do many players way better than me.

Tesunie, on 28 April 2018 - 08:56 PM, said:

Never said it was perfect, but it can make a good goal to aim for.

It's not a good goal at all. A Locust doing just 200 damage is NOT helping its team win.

Eg, last time I played Locusts, it took scoring over 400 damage/battle and 1.50 Kills/Battle to have a W/L over 1.0.

Tesunie, on 28 April 2018 - 08:56 PM, said:

In reverse, an assault under my scaling should be trying to look for a 500 damage result (if possible) for a 5 damage per ton per match record.

An assault doing 500 damage is helping its team far more than a Locust doing 200 damage.

It isn't remotely comparable.

Tesunie, on 28 April 2018 - 08:56 PM, said:

Even then, it's not a perfect system, but can make for reasonable goals to aim for.

Here's a better system:

Lights = 300 damage
Mediums = 350 damage
Heavies = 350 damage
Assaults = 400 damage

That's the average damage/battle those mechs should be achieving across the entire playerbase.

Tier 1 players typically have to score more than that if they want to achieve a W/L above 1.0. Eg, 500 damage in an Assault mech will achieve barely higher than 1.0 W/L for a Tier 1 player.

And LRM boats have to score even higher than that, because their damage simply isn't as effective at scoring kills as most other weapons.

Tesunie, on 28 April 2018 - 08:56 PM, said:

Only so much a single player can do with 23 others in the match. If my team decides to ignore all calls and spread out into groups of 2-3, and/or even heaven forbid have disconnects or team damagers/killers... There is only so much I can do.

Yes, but a single player can still achieve a W/L over 2.00 in a 12v12, even in the solo QP queue with completely random teammates.

I can't achieve a W/L that high, but I can consistently achieve a W/L over 1.00.

Tesunie, on 28 April 2018 - 08:56 PM, said:

I will comment, I typically seem to have a positive W/L on my LRM based mechs... Which (considering the topic here) leads me to believe still that LRMs are not useless.

LRMs are not useless, but they are worse than other weapon systems. That isn't up for argument; as I've repeatedly said, PGI admitted to intentionally making them that way.

That you score better with LRMs than direct fire energy/ballistic supports my earlier conclusion: your skills with direct fire weapons are deficient.

Tesunie, on 28 April 2018 - 08:56 PM, said:

I went from crawling up the tiers from T4-T3 with direct fire weapons, which was what I was practicing at the time. When I decided to go back to LRMs, I power blasted through the ranks to T1, and I am now solidly within T1.

That's a problem with LRMs; they boost damage without making a player better at the game, which increases their average matchscore with corresponding PSR gains.

It results in players reaching Tier 1 considerably sooner than they would have otherwise done, resulting in them getting clubbed by more experienced players that have learned how to play better.

Tesunie, on 28 April 2018 - 08:56 PM, said:

In that case, I had a "I thought I was sneaking beside them" and found out "oh, they are all... Hi guys. Don't mind me..." and found my CT just gone. (I had taken enough CT damage to have light orange armor, and then was one shot by an Annihilator with at least twin heavy Gauss.) That match, completely poor position on my side... and then just taking massive damage from pin point damage weapons... (If it had only hit a side torso, I would have survived.) That build also had no JJs... so I couldn't perform my more favored tactics... Jump shooting. (Can I say jump sniping if it's at mid to reasonably close range?)

The Uziel is very squishy mech, and apart from maybe the 6P, fairly underpowered as a result.

Poptarting works at all ranges, but if you poptart in front of a bunch of enemies that are anticipating your poptart, it is likely you will still take a lot of damage.

Edited by Zergling, 29 April 2018 - 12:54 AM.

[Tesunie]

Horseman, on 28 April 2018 - 10:54 PM, said:

This said, your performance has taken a nosedive since Season 16: https://leaderboard....h.php?u=Tesunie

Guess what happened around season 16...
I did mention that I've been playing almost constantly with 2-5 T5 players, most of which are new to the game. (Like my girlfriend.) I don't know if it counts very much, but I've also been going through some health issues for some time now.

I also see my pension for experimentation just wrecks my stats... because I also started experimenting with AMS builds.

Though, looking over my mech stats seems to indicate that I average 250-350 effective damage over a long time average. (True, I looked at my mechs as noted before that I feel comfortable in, consider finished and have long stats with the same build.)


I mean, I'm not trying to make excuses. I just simply play the game. If I do good, I do good. If I don't, I don't. *Shrug*

Though, with the mention of W/L, I do still carry better W/L with my LRM based mechs...

[Tesunie]

Zergling, on 28 April 2018 - 11:51 PM, said:

LRMs are not useless, but they are worse than other weapon systems. That isn't up for argument; as I've repeatedly said, PGI admitted to intentionally making them that way.

That you score better with LRMs than direct fire energy/ballistic supports my earlier conclusion: your skills with direct fire weapons are deficient.





That's a problem with LRMs; they boost damage without making a player better at the game, which increases their average matchscore with corresponding PSR gains.

It results in players reaching Tier 1 considerably sooner than they would have otherwise done, resulting in them getting clubbed by more experienced players that have learned how to play better.

Okay... let me bring this whole subject back to your original discussion and theory. You theorized that LRMs are "bad weapons".

Here is what I'm going to state, I get that 1.0 W/L in my LRM based (not even boated) builds. My abilities with direct fire weapons is very much irrelevant, and not actually connected to the subject. Nor is my overall stats connected to your thesis.

IF LRMs are so bad, then I should (overall) get better W/L in them (by your definition). A less effective build that incorperates less effective weapons and are "built poorly" should, in theory, maintain a low W/L by your theory. Correct? Then... explain how I seem to be an outlier in this? Why is it that I maintain an influential presence with my LRM mechs that I apparently don't seem to have with direct fire weapons IF LRMs are just that bad.

If LRMs are as bad as you insinuate, should I take a hit to my W/L when I use them? Why is it that I can managed to have such an influence that I actually seem to help my team win and "not be a detriment" to them? (Seen as, you have implied that taking LRMs makes you a detriment to your team.) It should not matter how well I attempt to use them, or my perceived skills, according to the general consensus. IF of course, LRMs are as bad and hopeless as so many people seem to claim.


For the record, I'm not trying to claim LRMs as "best weapon", but I don't believe they are so bad as to not be considered as a viable option. I believe I've made that stance rather steady and clear this whole time.

Zergling, on 28 April 2018 - 11:51 PM, said:

The Uziel is very squishy mech, and apart from maybe the 6P, fairly underpowered as a result.

Poptarting works at all ranges, but if you poptart in front of a bunch of enemies that are anticipating your poptart, it is likely you will still take a lot of damage.

I tend to try and NOT pop up in a location that the enemy is expecting. So when I have JJs, I tend to see better performance overall for myself. I like to try and think outside the box when I play and do the unexpected. Sometimes it works... Sometimes I'm in the wrong spot at the wrong time...

I do like the Uziel, but it took a lot of work to get something that worked for me. So far, I've been loving my AC10, two LPPCs and two ERML build. Previous attempts (as in, when it first came out and here or there over time)... were not as successful. I knew it wasn't a tank, but getting enough weapons to feel like it could do something... Ouch. (Plus new tech coming out at the same exact time might not have helped much.)

[Zergling]

Tesunie, on 29 April 2018 - 08:04 PM, said:

You theorized that LRMs are "bad weapons".

It's not a theory, but a fact. This comes from PGI themselves.

Tesunie, on 29 April 2018 - 08:04 PM, said:

IF LRMs are so bad, then I should (overall) get better W/L in them (by your definition). A less effective build that incorperates less effective weapons and are "built poorly" should, in theory, maintain a low W/L by your theory. Correct? Then... explain how I seem to be an outlier in this? Why is it that I maintain an influential presence with my LRM mechs that I apparently don't seem to have with direct fire weapons IF LRMs are just that bad.

It's quite simple: direct fire weapons require higher skill to use than LRMs, and you simply aren't meeting the skill requirements to use them more effectively than LRMs.

With more skill, you would be performing better with direct fire weapons.

[Tesunie]

Zergling, on 29 April 2018 - 08:15 PM, said:

It's not a theory, but a fact. This comes from PGI themselves.


It's quite simple: direct fire weapons require higher skill to use than LRMs, and you simply aren't meeting the skill requirements to use them more effectively than LRMs.

With more skill, you would be performing better with direct fire weapons.

Thread title, again. "LRMs = Not Helpful?"

In relation to that very title, the very subject of this thread, the whole topic of it... If one is maintaining a 1.0+ W/L, does that not show a neutral to positive influence within a match? Is that not what you have said yourself, but also what another person here stated? So, by that statement, can LRMs be helpful?

I've achieved a W/L of 1.0 or better on specific LRM builds that I feel comfortable in, for over a hundred matches (these are builds that have not changed for much of their recorded stats, to provide more accurate data). I also still maintain a positive W/L in my global stats (on the website profile) across all my mechs and play.

I mean... A short list of LRM builds with around or over 100 matches.
Huntsmen Prime(S): Four ERMLs, two LRM15s. W/L 1.32 over 144 matches. (Since (S) variant data was separated from their base model. More matches actually played, but stats where mixed with other builds not on the (S).)
Hunchback 4J: Two LRM10s, five MLs. W/L 1.17 over 116 matches.
Griffen 3M: LRM15, three SSRM2s (now SRM4s) and two MLs. W/L 1.30 over 85 matches.
Arctic Wolf Prime(S): Four ERMLs, two LRM10s. W/L 1.56 over 41 matches. (I'd prefer more matches...)
Huntsmen A: Five ERMLs, LRM10, LRM15. W/L 1.21 over 124 matches.
Mad Dog Prime: Four ERMLs, two LRM20s. W/L 0.80 over 80 matches.
Nova D: Five ERSLs, TAG, two LRM15s. W/L 0.97 over 57 matches. (Short of my goal again, sorry. Most a "because I can" build. Wasn't meant to be serious.)
Thunbderbolt 5S(P): TAG, two LLs, two LRM10s (current). W/L 1.35 over 87 matches. (This build has shifted several times over it's stat life span. Results may not be accurate to posted build.)

That's it for LRM based mechs with matches recorded of at least over 50, preferably closer to 100. Literally all of my LRM based mechs I used that often. No mech with reasonable match count held back.


For the record, I have no problems re-practicing direct fire again, and have already been doing it for a while. However, I will remind again we are talking about usefulness of LRMs. Not about my own personal abilities with direct fire. I'm only using my own stats for LRM use and on specific builds I use because... it's the data I have available to me. I can not account for other people's use of LRMs, nor can I account for their use or lack of use in comp play (as very few people actually play at that level).

I mean, I could do the same for direct fire builds I have with around 100 matches, with the build descriptions if desired. Many of them also maintain a W/L of around 1. And do note, not all of my posted builds/stats above have a W/L of one, so I did not cherry pick the best. That's literally all my LRM builds I use with as reasonable of a match count as possible.


* Bolding was only to try and present information in a more clear manner. Trying to be condensed on the space I took, but it looked like it all blended together to me...

[Zergling]

Tesunie, on 29 April 2018 - 09:02 PM, said:

In relation to that very title, the very subject of this thread, the whole topic of it... If one is maintaining a 1.0+ W/L, does that not show a neutral to positive influence within a match? Is that not what you have said yourself, but also what another person here stated? So, by that statement, can LRMs be helpful?

Above a certain level of a skill, players will perform better with non-LRM weapons. Sure people can score with LRM weapons, and good players can even score good with them, but if they don't suck with direct fire they absolutely will score better with direct fire.

Tesunie, on 29 April 2018 - 09:02 PM, said:

I've achieved a W/L of 1.0 or better on specific LRM builds that I feel comfortable in, for over a hundred matches (these are builds that have not changed for much of their recorded stats, to provide more accurate data). I also still maintain a positive W/L in my global stats (on the website profile) across all my mechs and play.

You only have a 1.01 W/L over all Seasons on the Leaderboard, and in the last 4 Seasons you only have a W/L of 0.78.
Make all the excuses you want, but that is not 'good', 'fine' or 'doing well'. A good player will have W/L substantially over 1.00.

Hell, I'm not even 'good' myself, but I've still managed 1.30 W/L over the Seasons of the Leaderboard.
Over the last 4 months I haven't even been trying to play well (doing stuff like yolo rushes and deliberately playing bad builds), yet I've still managed a 1.12 W/L over those 4 months.

Tesunie, on 29 April 2018 - 09:02 PM, said:

I mean... A short list of LRM builds with around or over 100 matches.
Huntsmen Prime(S): Four ERMLs, two LRM15s. W/L 1.32 over 144 matches. (Since (S) variant data was separated from their base model. More matches actually played, but stats where mixed with other builds not on the (S).)
Hunchback 4J: Two LRM10s, five MLs. W/L 1.17 over 116 matches.
Griffen 3M: LRM15, three SSRM2s (now SRM4s) and two MLs. W/L 1.30 over 85 matches.
Arctic Wolf Prime(S): Four ERMLs, two LRM10s. W/L 1.56 over 41 matches. (I'd prefer more matches...)
Huntsmen A: Five ERMLs, LRM10, LRM15. W/L 1.21 over 124 matches.
Mad Dog Prime: Four ERMLs, two LRM20s. W/L 0.80 over 80 matches.
Nova D: Five ERSLs, TAG, two LRM15s. W/L 0.97 over 57 matches. (Short of my goal again, sorry. Most a "because I can" build. Wasn't meant to be serious.)
Thunbderbolt 5S(P): TAG, two LLs, two LRM10s (current). W/L 1.35 over 87 matches. (This build has shifted several times over it's stat life span. Results may not be accurate to posted build.)

You are still cherry-picking; those battles only come up to around 734 battles and a 1.20 W/L. Given you have over 2700 battles on the Leaderboards and only 1.01 W/L there, those are way above your true average; all those other stats you are discounting are part of your real average that such cherry-picking disguises.

Eg, if I just look at my Summoner F/M stats for an example of how I perform with direct fire builds, I have a 2.00 W/L, but I wouldn't use those stats as an example of how I normally perform, because they are hilariously above that level.
If I instead look at the stats for all new mechs I've bought since I started playing again in late 2016, I end up with a 1.32 W/L, close to the 1.30 W/L I have for all Seasons combined on the Leaderboard.

Aside from that, it's irrelevant how well you score with LRMs; if you knew how to effectively use direct fire weapons, you would be scoring even better, because the only players that score better with LRMs are those that don't know how to use direct fire weapons effectively.

Tesunie, on 29 April 2018 - 09:02 PM, said:

However, I will remind again we are talking about usefulness of LRMs. Not about my own personal abilities with direct fire.

You bought your personal abilities into this discussion when you claimed you perform better with LRM builds than direct fire, to argue against the established fact of LRMs being weaker than other weapons.

Tesunie, on 29 April 2018 - 09:02 PM, said:

I can not account for other people's use of LRMs, nor can I account for their use or lack of use in comp play

It isn't just in comp play they are regarded as non-competitive, but in all play above 'potato' skill level.

And you can't explain that, because you are refusing to believe the factual opinions of high skill players and PGI; you are completely discounting all expert opinion because it disagrees with your personal experience, despite it being plainly obvious your personal experience is highly flawed.

Tesunie, on 29 April 2018 - 09:02 PM, said:

I mean, I could do the same for direct fire builds I have with around 100 matches, with the build descriptions if desired. Many of them also maintain a W/L of around 1.

Your previous quoted stats for direct fire builds are less than impressive; come back when you've achieved something like my Summoner F/M stats.



EDIT: I'm honestly sick and tired of this whole argument. You're arguing against the expert opinion of high skill players and PGI that LRMs are bad, with the claim that they aren't because of your personal experience.
You don't have some special skill that allows you to make LRMs work, that the top 1% players somehow don't possess; you simply don't know how to use direct fire weapons effectively, which makes LRMs look better in comparison.
In other words, the only reason you think LRMs aren't bad, is because you aren't using the better weapons correctly. If you were using direct fire weapons correctly, it would be plainly obvious to you that LRMs are a bad weapon.

You claim personal experience as evidence to argue against the fact of LRMs being bad, but the flaws in your personal experience are why you came to a flawed conclusion to begin with.
You can keep on arguing against that, or whatever other irrelevant point you want to niggle about, but all you are doing is sounding like someone that just wants to argue and can't ever admit to being wrong.
You can keep on arguing against that, or whatever other irrelevant point you want to niggle about, but all you are doing is arguing against indisputable facts: LRMs are bad, direct fire weapons are better, and frankly I've enough time arguing against a brick wall.

Edited by Zergling, 30 April 2018 - 05:30 AM.

[Tesunie]

Zergling, on 29 April 2018 - 11:05 PM, said:

Above a certain level of a skill, players will perform better with non-LRM weapons. Sure people can score with LRM weapons, and good players can even score good with them, but if they don't suck with direct fire they absolutely will score better with direct fire.

Can LRMs be helpful? Are LRMs not helpful to a team? Reminding again the very subject of this thread. The thread isn't "Can players well skilled with direct fire weapons be more helpful than those that use LRMs". It's basically asking, "Can LRMs help your team in matches".

As such, yes. Yes they can still help the team to win matches, assisting the team and influencing the match results... depending upon how they are used.

Zergling, on 29 April 2018 - 11:05 PM, said:

You only have a 1.01 W/L over all Seasons on the Leaderboard, and in the last 4 Seasons you only have a W/L of 0.78.
Make all the excuses you want, but that is not 'good', 'fine' or 'doing well'. A good player will have W/L substantially over 1.00.

Hell, I'm not even 'good' myself, but I've still managed 1.30 W/L over the Seasons of the Leaderboard.
Over the last 4 months I haven't even been trying to play well (doing stuff like yolo rushes and deliberately playing bad builds), yet I've still managed a 1.12 W/L over those 4 months.

I've been wondering, how long is a season? I've already made it rather clear I've been helping lots of new players recently, for about the last six months I want to say? When in group queue with 3-5 T5 players, fighting T1 teams, sometimes comp ones like EMP, there is only so much I can do in those cases. (Though, even in my Alt account, it's lower tier ranking doesn't seem to help, as we still drop against those players. But we already know group queue has fewer MM elements.)

This conversation also, for the record, isn't "how is Tesunie's overall stats".

Zergling, on 29 April 2018 - 11:05 PM, said:

You are still cherry-picking; those battles only come up to around 734 battles and a 1.20 W/L. Given you have over 2700 battles on the Leaderboards and only 1.01 W/L there, those are way above your true average; all those other stats you are discounting are part of your real average that such cherry-picking disguises.

Eg, if I just look at my Summoner F/M stats for an example of how I perform with direct fire builds, I have a 2.00 W/L, but I wouldn't use those stats as an example of how I normally perform, because they are hilariously above that level.
If I instead look at the stats for all new mechs I've bought since I started playing again in late 2016, I end up with a 1.32 W/L, close to the 1.30 W/L I have for all Seasons combined on the Leaderboard.

Aside from that, it's irrelevant how well you score with LRMs; if you knew how to effectively use direct fire weapons, you would be scoring even better, because the only players that score better with LRMs are those that don't know how to use direct fire weapons effectively.

I am cherry picking. Yes. I am specifically picking out my LRM builds with 40+ matches (I was aiming for closer to 100 matches), as we are discussing if LRMs can be helpful in matches. We aren't talking about "is Tesunie helpful in matches", so I picked only the LRM based data, instead of "all" the data. If you are looking at soil samples across a farm, you don't take samples from the forest on the other side of town. You take as many samples as you can on the farm... All I've been doing here. I'm not interested in "soil" samples from across town in a "forest".

So, if I've only played 734 matches in mechs with LRMs with over 40 matches, and I have 2700 matches played total on the leaderboards... That probably is more of an indicator of about how often I actually use LRMs. (Since the leaderboards came up, for the record. My Stats go back farther than those Leaderboards.

I could have included in those stats literally every LRM based build, but I figured that mechs/builds with fewer than 40 matches in them was probably not enough data yet. Even the 40 match ones I posted was a lower data pool than I wished to have included, till I realized how few of my LRM based mechs have more than 40 matches on them...

Zergling, on 29 April 2018 - 11:05 PM, said:

You bought your personal abilities into this discussion when you claimed you perform better with LRM builds than direct fire, to argue against the established fact of LRMs being weaker than other weapons.

I brought in my stats just to show that LRMs can be helpful to the team. Then people prodded about direct fire weapons, so I provided that data to try and complete the image.

My data still shows that LRMs can be helpful to a team. That was the point of bringing my stats in, as I can't account nor see any other data to base anything else upon.

Zergling, on 29 April 2018 - 11:05 PM, said:

It isn't just in comp play they are regarded as non-competitive, but in all play above 'potato' skill level.

And you can't explain that, because you are refusing to believe the factual opinions of high skill players and PGI; you are completely discounting all expert opinion because it disagrees with your personal experience, despite it being plainly obvious your personal experience is highly flawed.

You just can't bring yourself to say that some players may be able to use something better than the normal player, can you? Instead, you fall back to "high skilled" players and "PGI".

I have already made admissions about LRMs. If you refused to see them in my previous posts, which I made clear at least twice... I can no longer help you with that. Go back up and read my very statement about LRMs.

Zergling, on 29 April 2018 - 11:05 PM, said:

Your previous quoted stats for direct fire builds are less than impressive; come back when you've achieved something like my Summoner F/M stats.

Well, if you want to cherry pick...
Awesome 8Q: No idea what build was on it. I don't even own the mech anymore. W/L 2.0.
Cicada 3C: Gauss and a ML. Made to be a Hollander, for fun only. W/L of 2.0.
Griffin 5M(L): 4 LMGs, MRM10, MRM20 and two MLs. W/L of 4.0.
Kif Fox S: W/L 2.0.
Linebacker A: I believe two LRM10s and four ERMLs (could be wrong). Actually has 29 matches played. W/L 2.22.
Panther 10K: W/L 4.75 over 23 matches! (Really low data pool.)
Stalker 3F: Two LRM15s, four MLs and two SSRM2s. W/L of 1.90 and a K/D of 2.90. (Really old build.)
Hunchback 4P(C): W/L 1.5 and a K/D 3.00! (Over an amazing 5 matches!)
Arctic Wolf Prime(S): Mentioned again. 41 matches. W/L 1.56. Already mentioned that. How about K/D 1.40 too?

Some of that is cherry picking my stats. Doing that, I can match your Summoner F/M stats. If I leave off how many matches are played, it can make me look far more impressive than I am. Many of those mechs have 4-20 matches on them... Hence I didn't include them in my numbers. Hence, I "cherry picked" my LRM based mechs. I did so not to "make" myself "look better", but rather to show that those are specific stats for my LRM based mechs with reasonable play times. I could have included my Stalker 3F into that pile, with it's whoomping 29 matches... Or the Linebacker A with only 29 matches as well...

What I did, for the record, isn't "cherry picking", it's called "providing relevant data". This topic is about LRMs usefulness. Including all my stats doesn't specifically show how impact LRMs might be. Seen as I average a positive W/L with my long standing LRM based mechs across the board, I'd have to still conclude that LRMs can be useful and impactful in a match in a positive manner. Maybe not for everyone, but it is possible.

FYI: Cherry picking is when someone produces specific cases. For example, if I posted a specific match where I did great, or posted only a specific mech I do great in, that would be cherry picking. The fact that I posted as many builds that had LRMs on them that had reasonable length of data makes it so it wasn't cherry picking. There is a very distinct difference here.

Zergling, on 29 April 2018 - 11:05 PM, said:

EDIT: I'm honestly sick and tired of this whole argument. You're arguing against the expert opinion of high skill players and PGI that LRMs are bad, with the claim that they aren't because of your personal experience.
You don't have some special skill that allows you to make LRMs work, that the top 1% players somehow don't possess; you simply don't know how to use direct fire weapons effectively, which makes LRMs look better in comparison.
In other words, the only reason you think LRMs aren't bad, is because you aren't using the better weapons correctly. If you were using direct fire weapons correctly, it would be plainly obvious to you that LRMs are a bad weapon.

You claim personal experience as evidence to argue against the fact of LRMs being bad, but the flaws in your personal experience are why you came to a flawed conclusion to begin with.
You can keep on arguing against that, or whatever other irrelevant point you want to niggle about, but all you are doing is sounding like someone that just wants to argue and can't ever admit to being wrong.
You can keep on arguing against that, or whatever other irrelevant point you want to niggle about, but all you are doing is arguing against indisputable facts: LRMs are bad, direct fire weapons are better, and frankly I've enough time arguing against a brick wall.

Your whole viewpoint is a little off in this whole entire argument. I've never once claimed LRMs to be some kind of hidden super weapon. You've mentioned yourself a positive W/L means you have a tendency to have a positive influence in your matches. The definition of being "helpful" is to have a positive influence on something, in this case your matches.

So, which is it? Is a positive W/L being helpful or not? On that very specific note, which you keep wanting to try and do an action called "raising the bar"* to explain it away, I have very much shown that LRMs CAN have a positive influence on matches. Thus, LRMs CAN be helpful. The rest of my data pertaining to non-LRM weapons is actually very irrelevant. My tier (which is still T1 by the way) is also irrelevant. How well other players can leverage direct fire weapons is also irrelevant. What happens to be "the best weapon in the game" is also irrelevant.

If, your statement that W/L relates to player influence on their matches is to be considered as true, than if players can leverage a weapon system to gain a positive W/L rating with builds including those weapons is possible, then it concludes that those weapons can be "helpful" and can influence a match in a positive manner. You refute this, you refute your own previous statement.

Now, the very flaw with the above statement about W/L is assuming everyone plays QP and that it can show their average influence. Include GP, and things can start to get more hazy. For example, if you are a horrible player, but you are teamed up with the best players in the game in a 12 man group, and they win all their games despite your influence... does your now positive W/L ratio actually represent your skill and actual influence in your matches? (Yes, I'm providing you your own counter argument here.)


*Raising the Bar: This is a process where a bar or goal is set for someone to reach. If they can reach it, they prove their point. However, as soon as it appears that the party might reach that goal, the opposing side decides to "raise" the bar to achieve the goal so it is just out of reach again. If the proving party comes close to that bar again, the opposing side finds some other, more difficult, goal to raise the bar too.

For example: O = Opposition. P = Proving party
P- "LRMs can have a positive influence on matches, depending upon how you use them."
O- "No they can't. LRMs are bad weapons. ATMs are the way to go, or basically any other direct fire weapon."
P- "I seem to do well with LRMs."
O- "If you have at least a 1.0 W/L, you are having a positive influence on your matches."
P- "Well, based upon my LRM stats, I have a positive W/L with them. Thus, I must be having a positive influence on my matches."
O- "Nope. Your overall stats from the leader boards disagree with this."
P- "Um, even my overall stats, which include data that isn't relevant to LRM use, is still a 1.0 or higher."
O- "Nope. If you where a good player, you'd be able to maintain at least a 1.30 W/L rate, oh and your poor K/D shows that your team often needs to finished your targets for you." (Random distraction from the point.)
P- "Um, my LRM based mechs with reasonable matches played tend to have a 1.20 W/L rate..."
O- "Nope. Now I'm going to raise the bar again... You are cherry picking those stats, so you are only showing your best."
P- "Okay, here are my stats. They still average that high."
O- "Okay, I'm now calling out that it's only 734 matches out of your 2000+ total matches played. Thus, it's cherry picked. This is why I don't show my Summoner stats (shows them anyway)."
P- "I presented only my LRM based mechs with over 40+ matches. Was hoping for more 100+ matches data, but that's what I've got. All of them."
O- "Well, you are so bad with direct fire builds. If you were better with direct fire builds, you'd realize how bad LRMs are." (Another distraction, and raising the bar again.)
P- "I excluded those direct fire builds, because this isn't about my stats. It's about LRMs and if they can be helpful."
O- "Well, the (mysterious) high skilled players (which excludes you P) say it's a bad weapon. Even PGI says it's a bad weapon. Thus, it doesn't matter what your W/L might be." (Raises the bar again, trying to take it so high no one could beat it.)
P- "... Back to your original bar height, my LRM based mechs, over a long course of performance, has achieved a W/L above 1.0. Thus, by your bar, I must have a positive influence on my matches when I use LRMs. I have met this goal."
O- "But you failed to meet the goal. PGI and high skilled players have already concluded they are bad. So, you lose and you are annoying me."

Hey. This example seems familiar. Did I miss anything?

Edit: Small errors in the post.

Edited by Tesunie, 30 April 2018 - 11:35 AM.

[Tesunie]

Another "raising the bar" argument in this thread so far...

O- "A build isn't doing good unless it deals X amount of damage average per match."
P- "Just taking from one of my favorite LRM based builds that hasn't changed since it's stats got recorded (over 100 matches), and adjusting for effective damage by dividing estimated LRM damage by half, I meet that goal." (Raised the original bar for fairness.)
O- "You can't gauge LRMs based on damage." (Raises the bar.)
P- "I divided my LRM damage to account for spread. This takes into account effective damage, and I estimate half my specific build posted damage to be LRM, and the other half the direct fire. Thus, I subtracted a quarter of the total damage per match to account for effective damage. You wanted to gauge weapons (such as ATMs) based on damage. I even refined it to effective damage levels accounting for the spread..."
O- "Well, LRMs are still worst weapon in the game, as admitted by PGI and higher skilled players."


Hum... Does this also look familiar? I even raised the original bar myself, and still beat it. But yet, the bar got raised again in the argument.

It's really hard to make a jump when the opposition keeps wanting to raise the bar higher and higher because they don't want to let you succeed...

[Brain Cancer]

ATMs are wonderful things and teach all kinds of good habits. Heck, my favorite babies are my Supernova-A's. Yes, plural. (and thanks to anonymous nice forumite, I even have a Boiler from the flash sale)

ATMs bite harder as you get closer, and are effective at ranges you should also be LRMing at- 600m or less. They do have the 120m deadzone, slightly smaller than the IS minimum range for LRMs of 180.

Range skill nodes are helpful not because they add maximum distance, but because they extend the points at which ATMs deal 3 or 2 damage. Maxed out, you're hitting 3's at a bit past 300m and 2's out a bit past 600m.

They fire flat. This means if you flick them just over the top of a hill or ramp at opponents from a bit lower, you will kneecap them. Otherwise, they're slightly faster than LRMs (200 vs 190 base velocity). Speaking of, velocity, even the dinky amount the skill nodes give is worth it. At the least, you want to invest heavily in the left side of the Firepower skill tree.

It's perfectly OK to mix LRMs and ATMs on a Clan missile boat, though hybrids trade damage potential for a little more flexibility in getting missiles to target(and more missiles to punch through AMS). Do use a few E hardpoints for backup- even if you can't aim them, at close range they'll at least sting a bit fired center-mass. Alternatively, ATM/Streak is OK too, especially on faster chassis. Bully lights mercilessly. Bring at least a light active probe, if not a full one.

LRMs have a responsibility, though. Every second of the game that you have range, you should either be firing, calculating a clean trajectory and then firing, or repositioning so the next salvo hits sooner and faster. And if you have (and you should) Artemis, looking for spots you can peek for the spread reduction if at all possible, or to flick your other missiles (or fire secondaries) to add more pressure and keep the DPS flowing, and to draw some fire (if you aren't, you're not close enough).

You can't focus damage most of the time in an LRM boat. Compensate as best you can by delivering it in quantity at a consistent pace, balancing between tube count and what you can sustain without rapidly cooking the ride.

[Dragonporn]

@Zergling
I don't know at what range S-SRMs "seeks components" but at ~100m I'm usually able to successfully core opponent while making circles around it, literally with the similar damage to other components as I would do with SRMs (if perfect hits with no packet loss or frame skipping). Tested 6s mostly.

Again, on ATMs. They really feel like poor man's MRMs (since Clans have no access). 200 speed is brutal deal breaker (MRMs - 475, SRMs - 400), both for brawling and for long range attacks. I can't count how many times opponent managed to simply dodge incoming locked-on missiles in anything faster than Assault. If you keep locks with LRMs, even without Artemis, only fast light can avoid hits, but in most cases, legs will be getting damaged, which is extremely useful against Lights and even Mediums in any case.

With locked-on Alpha of x2 ATM9 + x1 ATM12 Lights I shot somehow managed to survive full hit in a rear, which shouldn't technically be possible. Another weird thing I noticed is that with dumbfire they somehow lay way more tightly than with locks (wtf?), but again, with piss poor speed, most opponents manage to twist, spreading damage all over, while with MRMs or SRMs this is very unlikely to happen. Along with that excessive heat and and projectile speed coupled with hp and quantity has no chance to break through even light AMS coverage, while bigger LRMs have no trouble getting through even heavy AMS coverage. And minimal range is still a pain, since you don't normally fight dummies.

[Zergling]

Tesunie, welcome to ignore list. I'm not wasting anymore time on your nonsense.

Dragonporn, on 30 April 2018 - 03:40 PM, said:

@Zergling
I don't know at what range S-SRMs "seeks components" but at ~100m I'm usually able to successfully core opponent while making circles around it, literally with the similar damage to other components as I would do with SRMs (if perfect hits with no packet loss or frame skipping). Tested 6s mostly.

Again, on ATMs. They really feel like poor man's MRMs (since Clans have no access). 200 speed is brutal deal breaker (MRMs - 475, SRMs - 400), both for brawling and for long range attacks. I can't count how many times opponent managed to simply dodge incoming locked-on missiles in anything faster than Assault. If you keep locks with LRMs, even without Artemis, only fast light can avoid hits, but in most cases, legs will be getting damaged, which is extremely useful against Lights and even Mediums in any case.

With locked-on Alpha of x2 ATM9 + x1 ATM12 Lights I shot somehow managed to survive full hit in a rear, which shouldn't technically be possible. Another weird thing I noticed is that with dumbfire they somehow lay way more tightly than with locks (wtf?), but again, with piss poor speed, most opponents manage to twist, spreading damage all over, while with MRMs or SRMs this is very unlikely to happen. Along with that excessive heat and and projectile speed coupled with hp and quantity has no chance to break through even light AMS coverage, while bigger LRMs have no trouble getting through even heavy AMS coverage. And minimal range is still a pain, since you don't normally fight dummies.

I went and tested 5x Streak SRM6 + TAG + Active Probe on a Stormcrow in testing grounds, Crimson Strait, firing in chain fire.
Firing against the front of the Atlas at 100 meters, it took a total of 450 missiles (and 900 damage) to kill it, which is a total of 75x Streak SRM6 firings.

Doing the same with 4x ATM6 + TAG + Active Probe at ~125 meters range (also firing in chain fire), and it took a total of 108 missiles (for 324 damage) to kill it, which is a total of 18x ATM6 firings.

Time for a single Streak SRM6 to cycle 75 times = 450 seconds
Time for a single ATM6 to cycle 22 times = 90 seconds

Time for 5x Streak SRM6 to cycle 75 times = 90 seconds
Time for 4x ATM6 to cycle 22 times = 22.5 seconds

So this proves how Streak SRMs are completely terrible against heavy and assault mechs. ATMs completely crap all over them.
That doesn't mean Streaks are a useless weapon though; they do have a useful niche as an anti-light mech weapon.


Also, 4x LRM10 with Artemis + TAG + Active Probe at ~185 meters versus the Atlas. It took a total of 340 missiles / 340 damage / 34x LRM10 firings to kill it.

Time for a single LRM10 to cycle 34 times = 136 seconds
Time for 4x LRM10 to cycle 34 times = 34 seconds

So the ATM6 has 33.82% less time-to-kill versus Artemis LRM10 at short range. That is honestly less than I expected, which I guess is due to the ATM spread nerfs.


EDIT: oh, those tests were done without any Missile Spread skill nodes. I'm not sure if those have any effect on Streak SRMs, due to them not having a normal spread pattern.

Edited by Zergling, 30 April 2018 - 09:55 PM.

[Tesunie]

Zergling, on 30 April 2018 - 08:06 PM, said:

Also, 4x LRM10 with Artemis + TAG + Active Probe at ~185 meters versus the Atlas. It took a total of 340 missiles / 340 damage / 34x LRM10 firings to kill it.

Time for a single LRM10 to cycle 34 times = 136 seconds
Time for 4x LRM10 to cycle 34 times = 34 seconds

So the ATM6 has 33.82% less time-to-kill versus Artemis LRM10 at short range. That is honestly less than I expected, which I guess is due to the ATM spread nerfs.

Agreed with ATM values at their 3 damage range. What about their 2 damage range? Also consider amount of ammo per ton of ATMs when you do this. Also, CSSRMs can strike within the 2 damage zone, how do the two compare in that zone? Is the SSRM spread so bad (I know it's bad against non-light targets, but sometimes damage is damage..) at that range as to still leave it so out classed?

I'm only asking for fairness, because you probably aren't going to always get those perfect 3 damage missile ranges off all the time, and most battles will probably flex a bit between 3 and 2 damage increments. (Hence, your own results being less than 3 damage average per ATM missile hitting.)

Of course, if the ATMs at 2 damage values are presented, I will note that true ATM performance will probably lay in the middle between the two values presented, I'm just curious how that data may line up with ATMs performance in it's 3 damage zones.

My sarcasm also wants to know how fast ATMs can kill a target inside 120m ranges... just to point out a strength of SSRMs (and LRMs) over ATMs... Because we all know someone will be able to get there. Just like how people do with LRMs. Maybe you might kill them before they get there... Maybe you wont...


Also a strange question, why mention the AP for this test? It does nothing for missiles, unless ECM is nearby trying to jam the works. But seen as testing grounds, that wouldn't happen. Guessing a direct "this was the build" placement, more than to have anything to do with the testing itself? I only ask because a lot of people seem to believe that APs help missiles in some other way. You'd be surprised at the number of players who think APs help their missile lock speeds...

(Only reason I'm not testing this at the moment is I'm about to go to bed... and you may have the time to get it done.)


ATMs will be a hard weapon to discuss, mostly because it doesn't do a set damage all the time. It's different range brackets really leads to a lot of possible variance. You almost have to present two or three sets of data for ATMs alone, one for each damage bracket... And also realize that the data presented will be a combination of all sets of data, most likely the 2 and 3 range data pools...