18 replies to this topic

[ArmageddonKnight]

AMS needs buffing. Even with 2 AMS on a mech (the few that allow 2) it still cant do ****** all against even a single LRM setup mech. If a double AMS equiped mech isnt doing anything then that makes a single AMS even more worthless.

AMS needs a major buff to help give AMS setups a chance against the noob freindlyness of LRM builds.

Yes ECM works as a countermeasure..but that requirs u to be in range and be able to equip one. And if ur within ECM range, ur not gunna be worrying about LRM's due to their minimum range.

Im not saying AMS needs to be able to effectivly create a impenetrable anti LRM bubble around u...but it deffinatly needs to be able to take out more missles than it is now becouse atm AMS is a waste of space.

Not to mention the whole issue of real life AMS being ALOT more efficient than the ones in game..i know the lore states tech was lost.. but im not even an engineer and can think of 2 very primative AMS systems that i could design that would do a better job than the current in game one.
FLAK, and Flare Countermeasures both of which with some ingame 3049 twists could easily handle more LRM's than current AMS machine guns.

Buff AMS please. A buff to AMS looks and sounds better than a nerf to LRM's. It shouldn't promt as big a outcry from the LRM noobs as a nerf to LRM's would.

*Just a note: I got nothing against LRM's when used in unison with other weapons. What i do have an issue with is pure LRM boats that just sit back and profit from the current lack of any good anti missile system..

[DegeneratePervert]

I'd like a slight buff to AMS, maybe give it 10% more effectiveness. Other than that, use cover dude.

[Postumus]

I could see two ways of buffing AMS - either increase its effectiveness in terms of missiles destroyed per second, or by ensuring that it provides a certain level of coverage, say 20% of all LRM damage. The first option would make small amounts of incoming LRMs, say the number you would expect from a single LRM5, effectively duds, while failing to prevent any missiles beyond that number from hitting. The second option could potentially prevent a lot more damage, if large volleys are lobbed. 20% of 50 LRMs is 10, double my hypothetical coverage number for the first option, and this is a pretty standard load for LRM boats today. The second option would not penalize people for chain firing missiles, or for using single, smaller LRM pods. I'm not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing, its just good to think about the effect any change to AMS would have on gameplay and build behavior.

Edited by Postumus, 12 March 2013 - 11:23 PM.

[John MatriX82]

I've written this elsewhere:

AMS shooting artemised LRMs: add a chance that since the missiles are so close to each other, each missile taken down triggers and damages a bit the nearby ones, with increasing chances to nullify most of that salvo. Those using AMS will have their lives saved and it's a good trade off vs artemis, otherwise when I'm in a cent or a TBT I get killed with one salvo too easily.

AMS shooting non-artemis LRMs: since they are spread wide open, chances of obtaining splash damage are nigh, but the lrm concentration won't be tremendously dangerous as it is now with artemis, if you're in a medium you get cored or die in a single salvo.

[Syllogy]

Wait...

People complain about ECM because it "makes LRMs worthless", but they also want an AMS buff? ...

[John MatriX82]

ECM is still OP but to an Extent or when you meet teams relying on it entirely.

Self Tagging LRMboats render it nearly useless AND Artemis is now broken nearly as it was in its first implementation.. and those mechs without ECM, that are the majority, are left with nothing to effectively protect from the LRM spam, therefore a feel to have a buff to the AMS system is legit to me.. unless they don't nerf the damn missiles and the ECM.

[Syllogy]

John MatriX82, on 13 March 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

ECM is still OP but to an Extent or when you meet teams relying on it entirely.

Self Tagging LRMboats render it nearly useless AND Artemis is now broken nearly as it was in its first implementation.. and those mechs without ECM, that are the majority, are left with nothing to effectively protect from the LRM spam, therefore a feel to have a buff to the AMS system is legit to me.. unless they don't nerf the damn missiles and the ECM.

Wait... ECM is OP, but TAG makes ECM useless? .... You just made a balanced statement about ECM.

Edited by Syllogy, 13 March 2013 - 08:19 AM.

[John MatriX82]

Syllogy, on 13 March 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

Wait... ECM is OP, but TAG makes ECM useless? .... You just made a balanced statement about ECM.

lol yes, I believe ECM "powers" should be reduced to render it an alternative to AMS and to reduce it to a tool to allow silent infiltrations behind enemy lines, totally taking away many of its side effects (destruction of SA for pugs; ecm cover to allied mechs; no more counter/distrupt modes), this followed by a reduction of the TAG to shorter ranges (450m).

The problem is always of balance. When you run into teams with 2-3 3Ls and 2 or more DD-C then LRM-spam is hard to achieve rendering LRMs nearly useless, even with self-tagging.

When you meet some groups of people tired of using "I need only ECM omg omg" mechs, then LRM spam is tremendous and AMS could get a buff.

[Syllogy]

My own feelings about ECM aside, there are other Information Warfare suites that are incoming.

Until then, PGI sees the telemetry data that no one else does.

I stand at the position of either seeing how/if PGI changes ECM based on that Telemetry OR seeing what other IW suites bring to the table.

[Fooooo]

Syllogy, on 13 March 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Wait...

People complain about ECM because it "makes LRMs worthless", but they also want an AMS buff? ...

Not exactly.

I myself dislike ECM because I lose my teams markers mainly.

Thats pretty much about it as I can deal with the rest fairly easily. It doesn't mean I like the other parts of ECM, but I can live with them.

As for why I think most want an ams buff / adjustment ?

1. Its fairly useless unless stacked by all 8 mechs, and those 8 mechs happen to stand near each other. (which most don't take because ECM does a better job imo)

2. It negates the LRM5 totally and somewhat the LRM10, when fired in a single salvo, and so makes carrying just 1 of these useless on all the mechs that traditionaly did that. Basically it removes a possible "strat" from faster mechs that do carry a single one of these launchers.


I think most would agree that it does need some type of change.

I feel the % amount of incoming missiles (if the AMS can somehow detect how many are incoming to you, and you alone) is a good way to adjust them. You could even remove the stacking part of AMS if this was done also.....not that it would be something I would go for right away.

Add to that, ECM could also be adjusted differently then. (If the devs put ECM in to negate LRMS that is...which hopefully we will find out with the ECM CC post.)

Edited by Fooooo, 13 March 2013 - 09:23 AM.

[StalaggtIKE]

Syllogy, on 13 March 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Wait...

People complain about ECM because it "makes LRMs worthless", but they also want an AMS buff? ...

Well, there is a difference between a device that requires ammo to shoot only some of the missiles down vs a device that magically makes you non-selectable as a target.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 13 March 2013 - 09:27 AM.

[Gevurah]

Moreover AMS being effective against SSRMs would effectively equalize the light mech field.

[ArmageddonKnight]

A % of imcoming missiles would indeed be good. Though probably a bit of a pain to code.

However it will work much better than an overall boost. Becouse im pritty sure most people dont mind LRM's, its just the LRM boats people hate. LRM's in small amounts are perfectly acceptable. 2x LRM5 on a mech, or 2x LRM 10's ,or 1 LRM 15, or1 LRM 20 ... seem perfectly acceptable.
It is when u see Boats with the equivalent to a LRM 50 spamming missiles..AMS cant to ****** all against it.

A % destroyed would help ALOT.

Say u set it 'up to' 32.5% per AMS when say ..40+ missles are within 400 meters detection (200meters personal attack range, 100 meters for defense of freindly mechs).
A double AMS mech (of which i beleve there r only 2) could take out 65% of incoming missles causing alot of greif to the people who use cookie cutter noob freindly LRM boats, and yet not punishing ,to hard, those who use LRM's in moderation ..bassicaly those who for example stick a single LRM 15 or 10 on their mech for a bit of long range dmg.

So say u have Double AMS adding 'up to' 65% coverage with a minimum coverage of 30% .

LRM Boat 50 missiles - 65% = 17Left.
LRM Boat 40 missiles - 65% = 14 left
LRM boat 30 missiles - 40% = 12 left
Non boat 15 missles - 30% = 10 left
Non boat 5 missiles - 30% = 3 left

To stop people creating 100% anit LRM bubbles using multiple mechs with AMS u could reduce the radius that AMS defends freindly mechs. Currently i think its 200m, maybe reduce it to 100m.
Anyway im just spinning idea's here. The goal is to make LRM's still usfull in moderation but less effiicent when boating wihtout actually nerfing the LRM themselves. bassicaly requiring some kind of buff to AMS of which i think all mechs can atleast equip1.

Edited by ArmageddonKnight, 13 March 2013 - 10:31 AM.

[LegoPirate]

a single ams system costs 1.5 tons. (.5 for the ams itself and 1 for ammo). a double system costs 2 tons (3 if you add extra ammo). this is roughly equal tonnage to an LRM5 rack, which is exactly what an ams system can handle effectively.

i dont think 2-3 tons of equipment should effectively counter significantly heavier amounts of weaponry. when it does, it becomes ecm, and everyone is aware of how silly ecm is right now.

that being said, i think an ams hit counter somewhere would be nice. a counter that counts how many missles locked onto you that ams has shot down in the last X number of seconds.

i think the real problem is that most people cant tell whether that ams is really doing anything, hence the counter.

Edited by LegoPirate, 13 March 2013 - 11:28 AM.

[ArmageddonKnight]

If u think its tonnage should be increased with the buff's then i dont think people will mind. Remember as it stands u can only equip 1 per mech ..2 on the special varients. So its VERY limited. Tonnage and space used is effectivly a mute point with such restrictions. Ether the AMS is buffed, or restrictions r lifted so we can fit more than 1 or 2.

[Cyke]

Well, there's another variable to tweak that no one's brought up.. the ammo-per-ton of AMS ammo (and ammo consumption rate).

For a drastic example, we could make AMS much more effective, shooting down significant portions of even huge missile volleys.. but at the same time, make the AMS eat tons of ammo like popcorn, so you need to carry 3 or 4 tons of ammo to make it last.

However it may become an insane arms race in the meta, between carrying more LRM ammo vs more AMS ammo. I honestly have no idea whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.

[FrostCollar]

Cyke, on 13 March 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

Well, there's another variable to tweak that no one's brought up.. the ammo-per-ton of AMS ammo (and ammo consumption rate).

For a drastic example, we could make AMS much more effective, shooting down significant portions of even huge missile volleys.. but at the same time, make the AMS eat tons of ammo like popcorn, so you need to carry 3 or 4 tons of ammo to make it last.

However it may become an insane arms race in the meta, between carrying more LRM ammo vs more AMS ammo. I honestly have no idea whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.

If this were the case you'd probably see more PPCs, Gausses, ERLLs, and AC/2s being used at long range instead. AMS could stand to be better, but it's always been something that mitigates the effects of missile attacks, not something that blocks them entirely. Well, except if have a large number of them but if you've got 10+ AMS units within 90m of each other you deserve some sort of reward.

Edited by FrostCollar, 13 March 2013 - 12:35 PM.

[Cyke]

Well, I did say that was an extremely drastic example


Alternatively, we could have a complex percentage-based solution like what ArmageddonKnight suggests on this thread, where it significantly cuts down missiles from truly humongous boated volleys, but it always allows some LRMs through no matter how small the volley.
It makes sense, because such tightly packed volleys make the missiles easier for the AMS to score hits, but small volleys of only a few missiles have lots of empty space between them.

And then (and here's the important part) we make the AMS gobble ammo at the same high rate whether it's a huge LRM volley, or just a small one.
In doing so, we force the AMS player to need to visually check how many missiles are approaching, and make a judgment call on whether to activate his AMS or not. Because the ammo is now highly limited, and it always consumes ammo rapidly, if it's only a small swarm of incoming missiles it might be worth it to just take the damage.. and save the AMS ammo for big volleys.

Technically this will be a "buff", since it's now more useful than before, but will require actual attention and judgment from the players who use it, both on the battlefield and in the MechLab (deciding how much ammo to carry).
Thus, we add a layer of tactical decision-making and defensive resource management to a simple piece of equipment like AMS.

Edited by Cyke, 13 March 2013 - 02:39 PM.

[EvangelionUnit]

Syllogy, on 13 March 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Wait...

People complain about ECM because it "makes LRMs worthless", but they also want an AMS buff? ...

as long as people can lock on to something and shoot it, its all fine ?!