167 replies to this topic

[Feral Clown]

Humble Dexter, on 01 August 2019 - 08:14 AM, said:

You are right, 2400 damage was my average and common enough "good win", on a loss it would be closer to ~2000, and on a premade stomp it would be a whole lot less, and closer to "a complete waste of time".
Basically 2400 damage was the kind of regular win score I was happy to reach, with less then 2000 damage being a bit of a fail for a win.
Today those "good wins" are bellow 2000 damage, and 2400+ has become more of a rare exception then a regular occurence.
As for my real average damage I have no idea : It totally depends on how many times my team gets stomped by a premade.
And as for my score, my mechs are consumables with limited munitions that I use up and eject a lot, even on a win, so I typically end my games with no more then 1 mech left, and the high damage does not translate into a high score : Keeping your mechs alive is what (artificially) translates into a high score, and is the ~only way I'm able to score over 1000 on a match.

Ok like I have said I have seen you 2400 that isn't in question. Match score in CW is nice but you're not wrong about spending your mechs. Every so often you get a great game and last in one mech, but in wave combat it isn't always wise.

Guess one of the problems is when you use the term average. Not trying to get hung up on it here but the reason I bring it up is because it appears you at times are going with what you feel but what may not be actually accurate.

I suggest you go into your mech stats and look at your most played mechs, take the damage and divide it by the number of games in it. No need to share it, my only point is I think the way you are assessing your play is not accurate. Just for an example I don't believe anyone is close to averaging 2400 attacking siege maps with lurms. While you're always quick to brush that off as just lrm haters, remember that units are running around doing this and are ineffective, and groups I play with would absolutely do it if it was something that worked.

Pretty sure you have gotten hung up on the damage you can rack up with lurms and no matter what people tell you, you right it off as hate.

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Well if it's not a LRM friendly map, it probably won't count as a "good win", and so I won't take it into account as one.

Stomping units have a completely different problem :
1) They are competing against each other for kills, rather then struggling to win. This might explain their nascar stomping.
2) To make it worse their excess amount of center torso pinpoint damage, results in a lower damage per kill.
3) Basically the stronger their full group is, the less total damage their group scores on a 48 kill win. The scores are high due to their low death toll, but their total team damage per 48 kills is not.

As a result it's not that difficult to outdamage them, because of both their low damage per kill, and the high damage spread in their team between each other. In fact the more they torso twist the more damage per kill you do on them, and the less their lesser opponents torso twist the less damage per kill they do. Now if you mix ~4 top players with ~8 bad ones in a team, that's when the damage and number of kills of those 4 top players will skyrocket, but that's because the 8 bottom players are scoring peanuts, and not because those 4 top players are managing to do more damage per kill.

In conclusion my score is nothing special, my kill rate is nothing special, and my death rate is rather high, but even without Premium I can still score over 900 Loyalty points on a good win, due to my unusually high "damage per kill".

Edited by Humble Dexter, 01 August 2019 - 02:27 PM.

[Nightbird]

Dexter's idea of average is probably his one best match in FP

[Feral Clown]

Humble Dexter, on 01 August 2019 - 02:17 PM, said:

Well if it's not a LRM friendly map, it probably won't count as a "good win", and so I won't take it into account as one.

Stomping units have a completely different problem :
1) They are competing against each other for kills, rather then struggling to win. This might explain their nascar stomping.
2) To make it worse their excess amount of center torso pinpoint damage, results in a lower damage per kill.
3) Basically the stronger their full group is, the less total damage their group scores on a 48 kill win. The scores are high due to their low death toll, but their total team damage per 48 kills is not.

As a result it's not that difficult to outdamage them, because of both their low damage per kill, and the high damage spread in their team between each other. In fact the more they torso twist the more damage per kill you do on them, and the less their lesser opponents torso twist the less damage per kill they do. Now if you mix ~4 top players with ~8 bad ones in a team, that's when the damage and number of kills of those 4 top players will skyrocket, but that's because the 8 bottom players are scoring peanuts, and not because those 4 top players are managing to do more damage per kill.

In conclusion my score is nothing special, my kill rate is nothing special, and my death rate is rather high, but even without Premium I can still score over 900 Loyalty points on a good win, due to my unusually high "damage per kill".

You cannot talk about stomping units with any experience or expertise because you don't have either.

You keep bringing up score, no else is and it doesn't matter.

You continually qualify things by doing mental gymnastics. Your not counting things is irrelevant, because the losses count to the other players that are stuck having to play with you.

Even with your lurms you are not out damaging good players on a regular basis, and by your own admission (high damage per kill) what you are doing is ineffective.

Even you are apparently able to recognise that their are maps that are not 'lrm friendly' but you do it anyways and that is the problem.

[Prototelis]

Don't you know?

LRMs are big brain weapons.

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Feral Clown, on 01 August 2019 - 03:28 PM, said:

You cannot talk about stomping units with any experience or expertise because you don't have either.

I have PLENTY of experience of my team getting stomped in CW, or the CW MatchMaker putting me in a group of nascar stompers who proceed to do all the stomping for me... Too much experience really.

[K O Z A K]

Ok I have to ask: wtf are nascar stompers? Since nascar means players running AWAY from the fight

[Feral Clown]

Humble Dexter, on 01 August 2019 - 10:32 PM, said:

I have PLENTY of experience of my team getting stomped in CW, or the CW MatchMaker putting me in a group of nascar stompers who proceed to do all the stomping for me... Too much experience really.

You're speaking to one of the oldest members of BCMC. While there may be some teams around that are known for pushing, there are no effective nascar stompers in CW. My unit is as far away from nascar as it gets with our bread and butter being trading. You continually show a lack of understanding the game and how it is being played around you.

On top of that being on the receiving end of stomps or being carried along does not equal being a part of a strong team on comms that play together all the time, or give you any understanding or insight. That you refer to nascar highlights that you have a low understanding of how successful people are playing the game. I can only assume you consider anything not camping behind a rock nascar.

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

So for me at least :
- A "Nascar" is a car race made of multiple laps around an oval shaped track : This MWO term doesn't come from me, but does a good job describing the many "nascar" QP matches where I've seen players race up to 5 laps around the central structure of the map.
- A CW "Stomping Nascar" is just an expression I use, to describe the CW (and sometimes Scouting missions), where one premade group (unit or not) makes the match so completely one-sided before it even begins... that instead of skirmishing they rush straight at the enemy team, competing against each other rather then against the weaker enemy team, to grab as many of the 48 kills that they can before their teamates do. Then they "nascar" back to the start of their racing track (the dropzone), and race back right through their next "lap" (or next "wave", if you prefer). They're basically "racing" to finish the game as soon as possible, with the enemy team qualifying as speed bumps, so it's a mix of both a "race" and a "stomp", in which they race through up to 4 "laps", hence my expression of "Stomping Nascar", or "4 lap Stomping Race" if you prefer.

So if you still don't know what a "Stomping Nascar" is, you haven't been playing CW much this year, as either the stomp racer or the stomped raced.

[Feral Clown]

Humble Dexter, on 02 August 2019 - 10:57 AM, said:

So for me at least :
- A "Nascar" is a car race made of multiple laps around an oval shaped track : This MWO term doesn't come from me, but does a good job describing the many "nascar" QP matches where I've seen players race up to 5 laps around the central structure of the map.
- A CW "Stomping Nascar" is just an expression I use, to describe the CW (and sometimes Scouting missions), where one premade group (unit or not) makes the match so completely one-sided before it even begins... that instead of skirmishing they rush straight at the enemy team, competing against each other rather then against the weaker enemy team, to grab as many of the 48 kills that they can before their teamates do. Then they "nascar" back to the start of their racing track (the dropzone), and race back right through their next "lap" (or next "wave", if you prefer). They're basically "racing" to finish the game as soon as possible, with the enemy team qualifying as speed bumps, so it's a mix of both a "race" and a "stomp", in which they race through up to 4 "laps", hence my expression of "Stomping Nascar", or "4 lap Stomping Race" if you prefer.

So if you still don't know what a "Stomping Nascar" is, you haven't been playing CW much this year, as either the stomp racer or the stomped raced.

No you making up terms that don't fit and are not used by anyone outside of yourself doesn't make it nascar especially when that term is already widely used in the community to describe a well known behaviour.

You lack basic understanding of the game and you especially have no clue what you are talking about when you say teams are competing against each other for kills. It's just nonsense and how you are completely misconceiving what is happening in front of you. BCMC/Evil have not changed their tactics to what you are describing and we're not competing against each at all. If we were we'd leg Nightbird at the beginning of every match. Instead we are working together as a cohesive team as we always have, one that includes a unique to pretty us in not having a 'drop caller'. Your on the outside looking...well I don't know what you are looking at behind that rock but you do not have the skills or knowledge to accurately interpret or understand what it is we do and why we are successful.

Up until a couple of weeks ago I played CW with my guys every single day. I have played a lot more matches in CW than you have, and have actually been able to have success in doing it.

[Dimento Graven]

Lightfoot, on 28 July 2019 - 10:47 PM, said:

I am liking the new LRMs. Seems like Artemis is finally worth taking and you get rewarded for not hiding behind hills/objects. On the receiving end I didn't notice LRMs had changed, I just duck behind cover as usual.

Normally there are four or five LRM hate threads on the forums after LRMs get a minor buff.

Anyway, for the first time I feel like my LRMs are using Artemis.

Nah, bitching about LRMs only encourages the unskilled, steering wheel underhive, can't be bothered to aim by themselves nitwits to start complaining about how computer guided weapons aren't good enough, etc.

And soon, PGI performs a double-buff of the computer guided systems (buffing the weapons themselves while at the same time nerfing the counters) exacerbating the problem.

It's just best to let those guys who think that letting the computer deliver damage to a target until RNGesus finally delivers enough damage to a random torso location, that the target finally falls down, that this is somehow "skilled play". Theoretically they'll eventually get bored of having to put a little circle in a big square, waiting for the big circle, mashing a button, and waiting to see what happens, and move on to some other difficult game like, I dunno, "ball in a cup"..

There... Salty enough for you?

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Feral Clown, on 02 August 2019 - 11:19 AM, said:

Up until a couple of weeks ago I played CW with my guys every single day. I have played a lot more matches in CW than you have, and have actually been able to have success in doing it.

And how many times have you been in my solo groups ?

Well apparently not enough to know that the amount of stomp races has increased this year.

Not saying your personal experience is a lie, or that you're too dumb to know what you're experimenting : I am saying your personal experience isn't everyone else's, and there isn't a single unique experience to begin with.

Sure enough I've been randomly included in stomping groups myself, and in those groups my problem wasn't winning the game (guaranteed from the start, even if I go AFK), but getting kills before we run out of them. That's not your experience, but it's still mine.

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Feral Clown, on 01 August 2019 - 11:58 AM, said:

I suggest you go into your mech stats and look at your most played mechs, take the damage and divide it by the number of games in it. my only point is I think the way you are assessing your play is not accurate. Just for an example I don't believe anyone is close to averaging 2400 attacking siege maps with lurms.
...
Pretty sure you have gotten hung up on the damage you can rack up with lurms and no matter what people tell you, you right it off as hate.

So if I look at my stats, and divide "Damage Done" by "Matches Played" :
- For my favorite LRMer (2 per deck) : 1,024,236 / 1,349 = 759 average damage per mech (most of these are LRM mechs)
- For my favorite ATMer (3 per deck) : 1,311,577 / 2,719 = 482 average damage per mech (some of these are not ATM mechs)

So that's only an average of over 1,500 damage per CW deck for 4 mechs, although some of the mechs counted in those stats don't use any LRMs/ATMs, are only used in QP, or simply got discoed and did zero damage...

But for both ATM and LRM that did translate into an "average" of ~2400 damage for a "good game", and over 5,000 damage for a "best game". Up to January 2019 anyway.

The unusually high average score of 759 damage per LRM mech is because most of them "are" LRM mechs, and because up to last month I would only bring those LRM mechs to the top ~4 most LRM friendly of the ~19 CW maps. Meaning I didn't start bringing these LRM mechs to all of the many LRM unfriendly CW maps until last month (after many years of mostly never doing that).

On the ~15 other less LRM friendly CW maps (which includes ~5 of the 6 siege maps), initially I would bring Streaks and SRMs as primary weapons, that I replaced with ATMs on at least ~13 of the ~15 less LRM friendly maps as soon as ATMs were released, with energy and ballistic weapons serving mostly as secondary support weapons (used as primary weapons on only ~2 of the ~19 CW maps, plus scouting missions and Solaris).

Replacing all Streaks and most SRMs with ATMs is what almost instantly doubled my "good wins" from ~1,400 damage to ~2,400 damage, because I was just using those new ATMs as Streaks/SRMs as I was used to, but with MUCH better results. On the other hand ATMs kind of suck at LRMing so I kept using my LRMs for the top ~4 LRM friendly CW maps (don't use ATMs for LRMing).

And yes I am addicted to my "damage per match" stat : That's the only stat I need to look to determine how well I performed in a match, and not "Score", "K/D", "win/loss", "suicide%" or anything else. Meaning if a weapon is destroyed I'll gladly eject a half-damaged mech on a win to restore my DPS with my next mech right away, if that allows me to increase my "damage per match" without throwing the game away.

My idea is to "consume" a mech every ~7 minutes (or every attack wave), and if I end a game with more then 1 mech left it means I wasn't aggressive enough to do more damage instead... or that I wanted to boost my "score" instead of my damage by ending with less dead mechs, but for the sake of a score based event rather then for increasing my "score" or "K/D" stats. And yes that's totally selfish but bear with me the "score" based events are few and far apart

Summary :
1) Before ATMs : 15%LRM 75%SSRM/SRM 10%other, up to ~1,400 damage on a common game
2) After ATMs : 15%LRM 75%ATMs 10%other, up to ~2,400 damage on a common game
3) After the 2019 LRM balance patch : 15%LRM 75%ATMs 10%other, up to ~2,000 damage on a rare game
4) After the ATM optimal range nerf to 245m : 100% LRM for one month, up to ~1,600 damage on bad LRM map
5) After next Wednesday : 0% LRM/ATM in Clan vs IS CW (will continue to use them outside Clan vs IS CW)

And if you add just part1 and part2 you get : 15%LRM 37.5%SSRM/SRM 37.5%ATM 10%other
That's my MWO weapon history summed in one line.

Edited by Humble Dexter, 03 August 2019 - 04:55 AM.

[Prototelis]

So let me get this straight.

Your only metric for performance is how well you sandbag your own team using the easiest to use weapon in the game.

Big brain strats indeed.

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Prototelis, on 03 August 2019 - 04:03 AM, said:

So let me get this straight. Your only metric for performance is how well you sandbag your own team using the easiest to use weapon in the game.

The main metric on my personal performance within the Team is my "damage per match".

Meaning that if I join an OP stomping CW group that wins all it's matches even if I go afk on them, stand at the back of it, LRM all match and don't lose a single mech : Both my "Score" and my "K/D" will go through the roof, I'll land at the top of any leaderboard based or "Score" or "K/D%", BUT my high "Damage per Match" stat will drop through the floor, so no thanks.

Is that sandbagging my team ? Well in my book that's more like "lemme through I've got damage to do".

And the easiest and most broken weapon in MWO is : AMS. I mean what other weapon automatically locks onto it's target 360° and shoots it through walls ?

Edited by Humble Dexter, 03 August 2019 - 05:14 AM.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

Humble Dexter, on 03 August 2019 - 05:04 AM, said:

Is that sandbagging my team ?

in short: yes. and you don't care.

here's a fun little metric for you: check if the other 11 are
a) in front of you
b.) by your side
c) behind you.

if b.) or c) ---> check again and read the map the right way
if a) yes, you are sandbagging AGAIN.

btw: are you the summer substitute for elrond2001 or something? all this arguing in circles.. you guys got a club with rotating people who 'have to post in lurmfarmdefense'?

anyway - done here. it's like fighting windmills.

[Feral Clown]

Humble Dexter, on 03 August 2019 - 03:27 AM, said:

So if I look at my stats, and divide "Damage Done" by "Matches Played" :
- For my favorite LRMer (2 per deck) : 1,024,236 / 1,349 = 759 average damage per mech (most of these are LRM mechs)
- For my favorite ATMer (3 per deck) : 1,311,577 / 2,719 = 482 average damage per mech (some of these are not ATM mechs)

So that's only an average of over 1,500 damage per CW deck for 4 mechs, although some of the mechs counted in those stats don't use any LRMs/ATMs, are only used in QP, or simply got discoed and did zero damage...

But for both ATM and LRM that did translate into an "average" of ~2400 damage for a "good game", and over 5,000 damage for a "best game". Up to January 2019 anyway.

The unusually high average score of 759 damage per LRM mech is because most of them "are" LRM mechs, and because up to last month I would only bring those LRM mechs to the top ~4 most LRM friendly of the ~19 CW maps. Meaning I didn't start bringing these LRM mechs to all of the many LRM unfriendly CW maps until last month (after many years of mostly never doing that).

On the ~15 other less LRM friendly CW maps (which includes ~5 of the 6 siege maps), initially I would bring Streaks and SRMs as primary weapons, that I replaced with ATMs on at least ~13 of the ~15 less LRM friendly maps as soon as ATMs were released, with energy and ballistic weapons serving mostly as secondary support weapons (used as primary weapons on only ~2 of the ~19 CW maps, plus scouting missions and Solaris).

Replacing all Streaks and most SRMs with ATMs is what almost instantly doubled my "good wins" from ~1,400 damage to ~2,400 damage, because I was just using those new ATMs as Streaks/SRMs as I was used to, but with MUCH better results. On the other hand ATMs kind of suck at LRMing so I kept using my LRMs for the top ~4 LRM friendly CW maps (don't use ATMs for LRMing).

And yes I am addicted to my "damage per match" stat : That's the only stat I need to look to determine how well I performed in a match, and not "Score", "K/D", "win/loss", "suicide%" or anything else. Meaning if a weapon is destroyed I'll gladly eject a half-damaged mech on a win to restore my DPS with my next mech right away, if that allows me to increase my "damage per match" without throwing the game away.

My idea is to "consume" a mech every ~7 minutes (or every attack wave), and if I end a game with more then 1 mech left it means I wasn't aggressive enough to do more damage instead... or that I wanted to boost my "score" instead of my damage by ending with less dead mechs, but for the sake of a score based event rather then for increasing my "score" or "K/D" stats. And yes that's totally selfish but bear with me the "score" based events are few and far apart

Summary :
1) Before ATMs : 15%LRM 75%SSRM/SRM 10%other, up to ~1,400 damage on a common game
2) After ATMs : 15%LRM 75%ATMs 10%other, up to ~2,400 damage on a common game
3) After the 2019 LRM balance patch : 15%LRM 75%ATMs 10%other, up to ~2,000 damage on a rare game
4) After the ATM optimal range nerf to 245m : 100% LRM for one month, up to ~1,600 damage on bad LRM map
5) After next Wednesday : 0% LRM/ATM in Clan vs IS CW (will continue to use them outside Clan vs IS CW)

And if you add just part1 and part2 you get : 15%LRM 37.5%SSRM/SRM 37.5%ATM 10%other
That's my MWO weapon history summed in one line.

Just to reiterate for you, I am not buying what you are selling. You were around for years where you were full in on lurms every time you played.

Clear nothing is going to get through to you and you will continue to justify why it is ok for you to bring lurms 24/7. You have displayed and overt disdain for any team you're on and despite being one of the worst players in CW you have deluded yourself otherwise.

You can't win games, you play is not effective, any time you rack up damage you are doing so as a leech. Players just like you are what not just myself, but a good deal of the CW community loath. It's palpable that you can't understand what better players tell you and that you believe utter nonsense you have told yourself.

Truth is no matter what mental gymnastics you do, you are far from averaging 2400 damage and by your own admission you avoid playing good teams, which means you are not good enough or competent enough and instead have to rely on playing the worst players you can so you can farm damage.

[The6thMessenger]

Humble Dexter, on 03 August 2019 - 05:04 AM, said:

The main metric on my personal performance within the Team is my "damage per match".

Damage can only predict so much. 1000 damage from a direct-fire would have a lot more weight versus 1000 damage from Lurms, and people can just pad damage.

And how would you account for a proper push spearheaded by a proper assault that is backed by a proper team, that did less than your damage, but won the game? Why would we give credit to a Lurmer that gave nothing but their missiles, versus a teammate that gave their mechs up to win?

Personally, I go for win-rate, as an umbrella that catches everything else. I get that it's affected heavily by poor matchmaker, but if you're above 1.00, you are at least winning half your battles and doing something right..

[Ignatius Audene]

Humble Dexter, on 03 August 2019 - 05:04 AM, said:

The main metric on my personal performance within the Team is my "damage per match".

Meaning that if I join an OP stomping CW group that wins all it's matches even if I go afk on them, stand at the back of it, LRM all match and don't lose a single mech : Both my "Score" and my "K/D" will go through the roof, I'll land at the top of any leaderboard based or "Score" or "K/D%", BUT my high "Damage per Match" stat will drop through the floor, so no thanks.

Is that sandbagging my team ? Well in my book that's more like "lemme through I've got damage to do".

And the easiest and most broken weapon in MWO is : AMS. I mean what other weapon automatically locks onto it's target 360° and shoots it through walls ?

Psst... bye joining a group your damage and maybe K/d goes down. In good groups dmg is around 1200-1400 for every player. More means, that your focus/ aim is off. Only W/L rises.

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Feral Clown, on 03 August 2019 - 03:08 PM, said:

Just to reiterate for you, I am not buying what you are selling. You were around for years where you were full in on lurms every time you played.

Clear nothing is going to get through to you

Just to reiterate my official MWO stats PROVE that I'm only ~15% LRMs, clear enough even the most basic hardcore facts are not getting through to you. Because you're so religiously entrenched in your own pre-conclusion that no fact demonstrating the exact opposite will reach you.
Basically your reasoning is : MWO stats must be wrong because they don't support what I always thought.

With that kind of religious reasoning the Sun would still be rotating around the Earth, because the Earth is God's creation placed at the center of the Universe. And if something proves otherwise just get rid of it.

The6thMessenger, on 03 August 2019 - 03:58 PM, said:

Damage can only predict so much. 1000 damage from a direct-fire would have a lot more weight versus 1000 damage from Lurms, and people can just pad damage.

I agree that one pinpoint damage is worth 2+ spread damage : But I'm into damage per match, so I'd rather do 0kill and 300 spread damage, then 1 kill and 150 pinpoint damage.

Ignatius Audene, on 03 August 2019 - 11:11 PM, said:

Psst... bye joining a group your damage and maybe K/d goes down. In good groups dmg is around 1200-1400 for every player. More means, that your focus/ aim is off. Only W/L rises.

That means by joining an "OP" group, my damage DROPS to 1200-1400, and that's because there's no random potato allowed in the group so every player in the group is doing at least 1200-1400 damage, and also because more pinpoint damage = less damage per mech killed, and there's only 48 enemy mechs to kill no matter how good your team is.

This is about the total damage a team does to kill 48 enemy mechs : The more hand-selected OP your team is, the less total damage it does to achieve those 48 kills, since most of that damage is going straight into the torso (front or back), so the less total damage there is to share around the group.

Also my W/L is almost completely down to my team :
- If I join a random groups there's a 50/50 chance I get a win, if I get more wins then loss it's down to pure luck.
- If I join a hand selected group of the best available players, my W/L will soar up but not because of how good or how bad I am, but simply because my team is filled with top players that would stomp any match even if a whole lance went AFK.

On the other hand some top players have a very high "kills per match", and those are the kind of players who make their own luck in an otherwise balanced match.

And you don't need a learderboard to tell you who those highly disruptive individual players who can change the outcome of a match are : Those are the few players your team tells you to focus on killing first.

Like Primo : He's well known as a "extra super long range stand 200m behind the new lrm players hiding at the back" sniper... Well it doesn't matter how unpopular and controversial he is for both teams : He's still the guy who can make the difference between a win or a loss, so the moment he pops up in an enemy team you're told to focus on removing him from the match as soon as you can, before he gets a chance to turn the match in his team's favor. And while I don't like the personality of that guy, I can only acknowledge that someone that dangerous has to be one of my team's priority targets, well over any random other guy in his team, 99% percentile or not.

Those few game changing players may not even know how popular their name has become as a primary target to deal with first, but everyone who's been in their opposing team has learned it's important to spot their specific name in the enemy team's list. And sure enough few if any LRMers make it to their short VIP list of priority targets to focus on, because typically you just stomp the brawlers first and deal with their LRMers last.

Edited by Humble Dexter, 04 August 2019 - 10:28 AM.