Jump to content

Ams Is Way Too Strong


124 replies to this topic

#41 Nicholas Carlyle

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 5,958 posts
  • LocationMiddletown, DE

Posted 18 June 2013 - 01:39 PM

I love when founders come in with no understanding of the game mechanics and post in threads.

Good lord.

#42 Sybreed

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,199 posts
  • LocationQuebec

Posted 18 June 2013 - 01:46 PM

View PostNicholas Carlyle, on 18 June 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

I love when founders come in with no understanding of the game mechanics and post in threads.

Good lord.

I'm the exception to the rule right?!?!

Some founders are simply depressing to read...

And someone hit the nail on the head earlier. AMS forces boating (yet another mechanic forcing boating), which is, again, bad design at the core for a mechwarrior game.

Edited by Sybreed, 18 June 2013 - 01:58 PM.


#43 Aslena

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 138 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 02:04 PM

I missile boat quite a bit... well by boat I have 2xLRM20s on a stalker 3H... I don't always do the greatest damage however sometimes it's quite nice I have no problems with that part of it missiles are currently about perfect balance. I do however take quite a bit of offence to people saying they are EZ mode or whatever... To do decent with missiles you have to stick your face out there just like everyone else in the group unless you have a dedicated spotter. Then you have this constant red beam of light pointing you out to the enemy as well as whenever you launch missiles they leave an extremely obvious trail back to you. You get targeted first most always by everyone on the enemy team doesn't matter who else is on the field ect... your the prime target... once someone gets out of range of your LRMs you have to fight them with the basic damage output of a light mech with bad heat problems (which I quite enjoy doing....) so get your EZ mode crap out of here because if you think that you haven't really played one...

#44 Royce Mathers

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 03:11 PM

View PostCalos112, on 18 June 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

I think AMS is fine, it is annoying when 3 enemy mechs have it and splat all your LRMs down. What I think a proper solution would be to cut the ammo in half. 500 rounds instead of 1000. In the lore mechs were running out of AMS ammo quite often. Just my opinion.


this. Just as a missile boat has to spend a lot of tons on ammo---AMS should make them spend more on ammo if they want it to be effective for entire battle

#45 ExtremeA79

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 351 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 18 June 2013 - 03:14 PM

View PostSybreed, on 18 June 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

are... you ... trolling? I'm confused... am I forced to boat now?



No terrain, I saw them get shot in the air as soon as I fired them (was amongst the enemy team). I saw 2 AMS shooting 2/3 of the volley down before it could reach a target 500M away.



Boating is in lore and should not be discouraged. Boating LRM's is perfectly fine.
However if some mechs (stalker) boat weapons that they should not boat (PPC) on unrealistic numnbers (6) then it should be discouraged.

Edited by Darren Tyler, 18 June 2013 - 03:14 PM.


#46 LaserAngel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Angel
  • The Angel
  • 889 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 03:30 PM

View PostVictor Morson, on 18 June 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

2 Twin-AMS Stalkers are also uncrackable, almost.

* I say cluster, but the best defense is actually a line. If you can put 3 people in a direct line between you and the missile boat, pretty much no missile will get through - that's because the AMS will fire in a full "360 degree arc" and hit the missiles for twice as long as if they were going to stop in the middle of the range bubble (your 'mech).

EDIT: I'd vote to turn the AMS range, not damage, down - if they stopped intercepting flights from so far back they'd be fine.
Even with quad AMS in the field I've had a single LRM 60/70 break the shield while trying to hit a target behind of our Stalkers since we were in ECM. I've also found that LRM boats have a bad habit of targeting me with my dual AMS. Pick someone else without AMS.

#47 Sybreed

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,199 posts
  • LocationQuebec

Posted 18 June 2013 - 03:39 PM

View PostDarren Tyler, on 18 June 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:



Boating is in lore and should not be discouraged. Boating LRM's is perfectly fine.
However if some mechs (stalker) boat weapons that they should not boat (PPC) on unrealistic numnbers (6) then it should be discouraged.

BOATING IS NOT ONLY ENCOURAGED, IT'S THE ONLY VIABLE TACTIC

You can't tell me it's perfectly fine, in a Mechwarrior game, that boating is the only viable tactic? Plus, I made countless posts about why you can't use the canon boats to discredit the "boating argument" and I know a lot more people did the same.

And no one better starts with the "in real life you better specialize" crap cause this isn't real life, it's a video game about battletech and this game is nothing like BT. It's neither fun nor challenging.

Jesus, just call this game "Icantusemorethan2weapongroups Online" already. There's another game for you guys, it's called Hawken.

This was so much more fun in CB a full year ago when none of that min maxing and boating crap was in.

Ugh, I hate getting so emotionnal like that, it's just a game I shouldn't even care :)

(but wait, I care cause I spent over 200$ on this and I don't like wasting my money on false promises)

Waiting on Star Citizen for now...

#48 One Medic Army

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,985 posts
  • LocationBay Area, California

Posted 18 June 2013 - 03:42 PM

I've said all along AMS should be implemented as something which shoots down a set fraction of a volley, rather than a set number of missiles.
It's harder to implement that way, however.

#49 Sybreed

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,199 posts
  • LocationQuebec

Posted 18 June 2013 - 03:45 PM

View PostOne Medic Army, on 18 June 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

I've said all along AMS should be implemented as something which shoots down a set fraction of a volley, rather than a set number of missiles.
It's harder to implement that way, however.

I honestly don't know how it could be coded, because the AMS would have to recognize a LRM 80 volley vs a LRM30 one and there's nothing really that differentiate the 2 besides the number of missiles. Again, I think PGI painted themselves in a corner.

#50 One Medic Army

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,985 posts
  • LocationBay Area, California

Posted 18 June 2013 - 03:53 PM

View PostSybreed, on 18 June 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

I honestly don't know how it could be coded, because the AMS would have to recognize a LRM 80 volley vs a LRM30 one and there's nothing really that differentiate the 2 besides the number of missiles. Again, I think PGI painted themselves in a corner.

The best thought I've had on the matter is to recognize a group of missiles as a single entity, and fire once at each with a spread, similar to an LBX round. Each missile hit is destroyed, and based on the relative densities of the missile and the AMS shot you could tune the percentage of missiles destroyed.
Of course, it would run into issues since the AMS currently deals the same type of damage as all other weapons. A non-aimed AMs spread would injure friendly and enemy mechs.

Fun fact, you can shoot down missiles with paired largelasers or an LBX10, each missile has 1 hit point for LRMs.
The reason the MG doesn't work is its damage is too low, an AMS actually deals over 3x the damage and its auto-aimed.

#51 Sybreed

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,199 posts
  • LocationQuebec

Posted 18 June 2013 - 04:00 PM

View PostOne Medic Army, on 18 June 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

The best thought I've had on the matter is to recognize a group of missiles as a single entity, and fire once at each with a spread, similar to an LBX round. Each missile hit is destroyed, and based on the relative densities of the missile and the AMS shot you could tune the percentage of missiles destroyed.
Of course, it would run into issues since the AMS currently deals the same type of damage as all other weapons. A non-aimed AMs spread would injure friendly and enemy mechs.

Fun fact, you can shoot down missiles with paired largelasers or an LBX10, each missile has 1 hit point for LRMs.
The reason the MG doesn't work is its damage is too low, an AMS actually deals over 3x the damage and its auto-aimed.

gee, sounds like we should use the AMS to shoot at mechs instead of missiles.

#52 Dreamslave

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 627 posts
  • LocationUpstate New York

Posted 18 June 2013 - 07:25 PM

It appears the enemy team worked together to nullify your LRM's, which is exactly what they should be doing in this game. Working completely as intended.

#53 One Medic Army

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,985 posts
  • LocationBay Area, California

Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:00 PM

View PostSybreed, on 18 June 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

gee, sounds like we should use the AMS to shoot at mechs instead of missiles.

AMS does 3.5 DPS, while the MG only does .9

Yup.

#54 Royce Mathers

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:37 PM

View PostOne Medic Army, on 18 June 2013 - 08:00 PM, said:

AMS does 3.5 DPS, while the MG only does .9

Yup.


lol and the AMS probably has more rounds per ton of ammo

#55 Fate 6

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,466 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:45 PM

View PostSir Wulfrick, on 18 June 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

I can assure you that on occasion when I'm forced to cross open terrain in my 48.5Kmh Atlas that the AMS is certainly not overly effective.

Are you sure that it was AMS that was taking down your LRM volleys and not terrain masking or loss of lock?

Oh noez, slow mech gets hit by support weapon? Sorry, working as intended. Your slowness is a weakness. Deal with it. You have like 800 armor anyway.

View PostDreamslave, on 18 June 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

It appears the enemy team worked together to nullify your LRM's, which is exactly what they should be doing in this game. Working completely as intended.

Working as "intended" just like PPCs are right now.

AMS breaks missiles and forces people to boat. You can't have a balanced loadout with a single LRM like so many stock mechs do because PGI has allowed AMS on every mech and made it strong enough to shoot down most of an LRM10 volley. AMS is like ECM_0.0.1. It was put in before LRMs were fixed at all, and it continues to mask the problems with missiles (and make them worse).

#56 Sybreed

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,199 posts
  • LocationQuebec

Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:56 PM

View PostFate 6, on 18 June 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

Oh noez, slow mech gets hit by support weapon? Sorry, working as intended. Your slowness is a weakness. Deal with it. You have like 800 armor anyway.


Working as "intended" just like PPCs are right now.

AMS breaks missiles and forces people to boat. You can't have a balanced loadout with a single LRM like so many stock mechs do because PGI has allowed AMS on every mech and made it strong enough to shoot down most of an LRM10 volley. AMS is like ECM_0.0.1. It was put in before LRMs were fixed at all, and it continues to mask the problems with missiles (and make them worse).

you make an interesting point.... before, only the Atlas-K had an AMS slot and only a few mechs were supposed to be able to fit one. Now, all mechs can just put AMS when they see fit.

that's probably a source of the problem. AMS should perhaps be limited to a few specific chassis so it's not as omnipresent as it is right now. It's so easy to have 1.5 or 2.5 tons to spare and go: meh, i'll just put an AMS in there.

#57 ExtremeA79

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 351 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 18 June 2013 - 09:18 PM

View PostSybreed, on 18 June 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

BOATING IS NOT ONLY ENCOURAGED, IT'S THE ONLY VIABLE TACTIC

You can't tell me it's perfectly fine, in a Mechwarrior game, that boating is the only viable tactic? Plus, I made countless posts about why you can't use the canon boats to discredit the "boating argument" and I know a lot more people did the same.

And no one better starts with the "in real life you better specialize" crap cause this isn't real life, it's a video game about battletech and this game is nothing like BT. It's neither fun nor challenging.

Jesus, just call this game "Icantusemorethan2weapongroups Online" already. There's another game for you guys, it's called Hawken.

This was so much more fun in CB a full year ago when none of that min maxing and boating crap was in.

Ugh, I hate getting so emotionnal like that, it's just a game I shouldn't even care :P

(but wait, I care cause I spent over 200$ on this and I don't like wasting my money on false promises)

Waiting on Star Citizen for now...


Ok, first off, there is absolutely no reason you should be spewing emotion on the forums. You don't talk to people. You have time to think, edit, change your respond before posting it. Even after that there is a little edit button as well. At least try to make yourself seem sane even if you aren't.

And I never said mechs should be specialized, the jumping to conclusions is ridiculous. I don't bring stuff out from real life, I bring it from battletech lore. Battle mechs didn't specialize because of how long it took to change a load out for a specific mission and the cost. Most battle mechs are made to be well rounded for this. Of course there are still boats. (Catapult, jagermech, hunchback)
Omnimechs however are specialized because of how quick it is to change your load out for a mission.


Boating is not the only viable tactic. I use trebutchet, raven, Jenner, and a lot more mechs and don't boat and I am more successful on them than mechs that do boat like jagermech and catapult. Though catapult is really close to how successful I am on my raven.

If we want non canon boating removed, and the ability to boat ridiculous amounts of a weapon that should turn a mech into a molten slag, I think hard point sizes would do very well.

#58 Neon Samurai

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • LocationDa Swamp

Posted 18 June 2013 - 09:25 PM

LRMs are about as close to balanced as I've seen in MWO, and AMS is fine. If you're emptying LRMs on a group of targets hoping for significant damage, you might be disappointed, because they decided to forego some damage and fit AMS. This is working as intended.

I agree to some extent that it encourages boating, but so many other factors do as well, that you might as well say it's just another small reason to boat.

#59 TELEFORCE

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ardent
  • The Ardent
  • 1,579 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 09:47 PM

AMS seems fine to me. It shoots down some missiles, and some still get through. Dual AMS are twice as effective, as they should be IMO.

#60 zazz0000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 232 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 09:49 PM

Seems like people are at a stalemate here....

So here's a thought:

Reduce number of rounds per ton of AMS ammo?

A single ton carries you through a match too well, I've never had to toggle AMS off to conserve it.
Maybe like 250/ton? So that sooner or later you can soften up those defenses?

(I actually neither boat LRMs nor have AMS equipped on all of my mechs, so I might be considered "unbiased" :P )





3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users