108 replies to this topic

[Karenai]

Victor Morson, on 29 June 2013 - 02:04 AM, said:

Artemis doesn't register when it should but I've never had it do anything for people behind hills in a while now. Besides if that were true then that makes indirect even worse.

How are faster lock on times, tighter spread and shorter dumbfire flight worse?
You can test is very easy. Take a mech without Artemis IV, and see how long you need to lock on targets. Now take a mech with Artemis IV and try again. You should notice faster lock on times even without line of sight.

[Moira]

Darren Tyler, on 29 June 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

I bet most of the people who voted "I already knew this stuff" are lying.

No offence meaned here, but Dear God every day 4h+ with LRM's does have it bonuses =)

Karenai, on 29 June 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

How are faster lock on times, tighter spread and shorter dumbfire flight worse?
You can test is very easy. Take a mech without Artemis IV, and see how long you need to lock on targets. Now take a mech with Artemis IV and try again. You should notice faster lock on times even without line of sight.

With BAP+Artemis and elite modded mech it should be aroound 1.5secs at max, with TAG under 1secs to get targetlock.

[gjnii]

Just thought I'd bust some mythbusting quick, since we're trying to clear up misinformation.
AMMO consumption

First off we're going to consider engagement in a light favorable to LRMS to give the OP as much benefit as possible:
- We're ignoring LRM lock times, and assuming weapon gets to use an entire ton of ammo without wasting time re-acquiring.
- We'll assume you have a full set of tubes for your missiles (so no time lost)
- We'll assume you always fire on cooldown (as opposed to say waiting for lrm5 and lrm 15's to sync or something)
- We'll also assume people NEVER fast-fire their UAC's. (so they appear less ammo hungry than they really are)


AC-2 (6 ton weapon)
75 ammo/ton
means 37.5 seconds/ton
proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 26.67%

AC-5 (8 ton weapon)
1.5 fire cycling
30 ammo/ton
means 45 seconds/ton
proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 16.67%

AC-10 (12 ton weapon) and LB-10X (11 ton weapon)
2.5 fire cycling
15 ammo/ton
means 37.5 seconds/ton
LB-10X proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 14.55%
AC-10 proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 13.33%

UAC-5 (9 ton weapon)
1.1 fire cycling
25 ammo/ton
means 27.5 seconds/ton
proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 24.24%


AC-20 (14 ton weapon)
4.0 fire cycling
7 ammo/ton
means 28 seconds/ton
proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 15.30%

GAUSS (15 ton weapon)
4.0 fire cycling
10 ammo/ton
means 40 seconds/ton
proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 10.00%


LRM-5 AR (3 ton weapon)
3.25 fire cycling (5 per cycle)
180 ammo/ton
means 117 seconds/ton
proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 17.10%
proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 25.64% (no ART)

LRM-10 AR (6 ton weapon)
3.75 fire cycling (10 per cycle)
180 ammo/ton
means 67.5 seconds/ton
proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 18.75%
proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 22.50% (no ART)

LRM-15 AR (8 ton weapon)
4.25 fire cycling (15 per cycle)
180 ammo/ton
means 51 seconds/ton
proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 14.70%
proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 16.81% (no ART)

LRM-20 AR (11 ton weapon)
4.75 fire cycling (20 per cycle)
180 ammo/ton
means 42.75 seconds/ton
proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 12.76%
proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 14.04% (no ART)

SRM-2 AR (2 ton weapon) or SSRM-2 (1.5 ton weapon)
3.5 fire cycling (2 per cycle)
100 ammo/ton
means 175 seconds/ton
SRM-2 proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 25.64%
SRM-2 proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 17.14% (no ART)
SSRM-2 proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 22.85%

SRM-4 AR (3 ton weapon)
3.75 fire cycling (4 per cycle)
means 93.75 seconds/ton
proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 21.33%
proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 32.00% (no ART)


SRM-6 AR (4 ton weapon)
4.00 fire cycling (6 per cycle)
means 68 seconds/ton (with the last shot being a little weak)
proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 22.06%
proportion of weapon weight in ammo needed to run for 1 minute: 29.41% (no ART)



So what did we learn....
Short Answer: LRMS aren't ammo hungry more than any other gun you fire a lot really.
Long Answer:

LRMS are ahead of ballistics when comparing how long a ton of ammo lasts you, even excluding time lost locking. On the other hand they're behind SRMS.

More importantly LRMS sit right in the middle of the pack in ammo to weapon weight comparisons WHEN including artemis (says something about PGI and what they expect you to have)

GAUSS is too good. No surprise there, as PGI nerfed its ROF but never touched its ammo count. sad to say but gauss makes a lot of sense as a suppression weapon.

Even ignoring artemis, they're still not as hungry as the "hungry" ballistics like AC-2 and UAC-5, even when you ignore their lock time and the fact that those guns can be used at greater ranges.

MYTHBUSTING DEBUNKED, MYTH REINSTATED. LRMS ARE AVERAGE AMMO HUNGER.

[Rascula]

Some very good info here folks, keep up the good work.

[Victor Morson]

gjnii, on 29 June 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

MYTHBUSTING DEBUNKED, MYTH REINSTATED. LRMS ARE AVERAGE AMMO HUNGER.

You are making one vital, massive misunderstanding when you leap to this conclusion.

Yes, they would be comparable for ammunition if they worked much the same way that, say, a UAC/5 does. Where as long as you are in range and aiming, you're likely to hit and if you miss, it's a directly controllable situation.

With LRMs, people like to keep touting "indirect fire" as a strength - if you actually attempt to take advantage of this, you will be be burning ammo like no tomorrow for very minimal damage. A UAC/5 simply does not have the option (unless I suppose you are firing it at very extreme range) to use the same ammunition for 1/10 damage shots.

In fact, given the way locks will arrive and leave through no control of your own, attempting to use indirect at all will require almost non-stop fire (again, unlike other weapons), the vast majority of which will miss because the locks fade in and out.

Even when you are directly targeting a single 'mech with clear LOS, however, the ammunition has additional concerns. Because you can't focus it, often times you will end up wasting 5, 6, maybe even 7 salvos attempting to finish a critical 'mech, because your missiles - without splash - can't get the killing blow on the critical location. The same situation where a UAC would be able to hold it's shot and hit the critical area, an LRM is forced to simply fire and fire and fire until it gets lucky.

And thus, for these two major reasons, LRMs burn ammo way, way, way faster than any other weapon system even if the actual "Pull the trigger and hold it down full auto!" ammo expenditure is similar. Effectively it comes down to the fact the LRMs need to fire more - a LOT more - to maximize effectiveness, in particular if they are going to even remotely utilize their supposedly powerful indirect mode.

Edited by Victor Morson, 29 June 2013 - 12:23 PM.

[Appogee]

Thanks Gjnii for posting those interesting facts and calcs. They are a good input to the thread.

[Unbound Inferno]

gjnii, on 29 June 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

MYTHBUSTING DEBUNKED, MYTH REINSTATED. LRMS ARE AVERAGE AMMO HUNGER.

Interesting find, but I'll challenge that with the addition of indirect missile fire.

You don't fire your Gauss or AC into a wall between you and a target intentionally, so your ammo lasts longer on the pretense that you don't fire as frequently.

LRMs as a whole fire ALOT more than any other ballistic category if they can, meaning ammo is in very short supply as a whole.

Sorry, your debunking has been debunked.

EDIT: Victor Morson beat me to it while i was AFk before posting. lol

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 29 June 2013 - 01:53 PM.

[gjnii]

1) I never suggested they should be used heavily as indirect fire, though they certainly can at reduced efficiency... something ballistics cannot.
I indicated directly in the post that they were NOT a suppression weapon based on ammo, and SHOULDN'T be fired for effect.

Even so, they're still perfectly acceptable for ammo use.
The UAC-5 vs LRM 15 ART illustrates this perfectly.
Assuming you the weapons tonnage in ammo for each
you'd get a little over 4 minutes of UAC fire,
vs 6 minutes and 48 seconds for fire. Almost 7 minutes.
That's a LOT less ammo hungry.

Yes if you're using them as a suppression and indirect fire weapon you will need more ammo.
The same is true if you're just laying out ac2 or gauss rounds continuously into the dirt at the top of a hill to try and scare people back into cover.
Unlike the ac2 rounds chewing up ground your missiles may even do some damage occaisionally.

In direct LOS use they still deal significant damage and with a low ammo consumption and long staying power. The damage is spread, but thats true for SRMS's as well. They also can have difficulty reliably hitting a specific mech point.. but they are MUCH hungrier in proportion to their size.

LRMS are also seeking, as you pointed out, seeking does have disadvantages but it has advantages too.
I believe overall this benefits them... Users of LB-10X can attest to the effects of 400m on a spread weapon.
You have a little more reticle flexibility, but you can't target a specific area, something most other weapons can do.

This doesn't change the fact that LRM's get an extra 30% of proportional firing compared to Ammo hungry weapons like AC2, AC5, SRM4 or SRM6 (the latter two can also have trouble finishing a target due to their spread, but are far hungrier).


EDIT: to make this clearer still. I'm not saying LRM's are overpowered by the extra ammo, just that they have enough extra compared to most weapons that they are not ammo hungry.
And compared to ammo hungry weapons they can be fired significantly more. not quite double but more than 50% extra.

Edited by gjnii, 29 June 2013 - 02:13 PM.

[Ningyo]

@gjnii Nice data, and you do have a point, however if you take accuracy into account. Based on the way LRMs work it is nearly impossible to get an accuracy of over 60%, and 30-45% will be more common if you ever fire at lights or use indirect fire. Whereas most direct fire weapons an average player will hit 45-60% accuracy, and a good player might hit 80-90%

If you take this into account, then missiles are around 1.5 times as ammo hungry as your stats show making them one of the more ammo hungry weapons, I find UAC/5 to be as ammo driven, and maybe AC/2 but it is one of the top.


@ Volthorne Untrue, even without artemis if you regain lock your missles will start homing on target again. If does take longer to regain lock without artemis though so it may be more difficult for you to do. I do this very often, occasionally even purposefully to increase my odds of hitting lights, or to better fire around cover

(these are highly skilled methods that I usually fail at still. You lose track then regain right before they hit the ground, so missiles come in at a low angle in stead of from above. to get around cover it works if they are far from cover but moving toward it, then since it was aiming at them before you can regain tracking after the missiles have passed the cover and have them hit the mech from the opposite side).

Edited by Ningyo, 29 June 2013 - 02:30 PM.

[Appogee]

Sorry, I've lost track. Are we 'bunked' or 'debunked' at this point?

[gjnii]

I did compare LRM and SRM accuracy on my personal play stats, and it does bring them closer inline.

But I direct fire all the time anyway. I'm TERRIBLE about over-firing, I'll throw lrms at lights that are 600+ meters out without even hesitating...
I'd assumed people with better trigger discipline than I would have LRM higher accuracy.

Also something that maybe doesn't get talked about as much, but for me personally? I feel LRMS are a midrange weapon. like a large laser. something that works best in the 200-500 range. yes they can go further out, but they suffer an accuracy reduction instead of damage reduction like other weapons. This has a depressing effect on their listed accuracy ratings in a players stats.

Edited by gjnii, 29 June 2013 - 02:29 PM.

[Throat Punch]

Quote

Myth:LRMs are designed to "soften up targets" not kill them! They are a "support weapon!"
Truth:The LRM is tonned and crit'ed like a top tier weapon, which it has always been in BattleTech and MechWarrior. Anyone stating that it's role was to "soften up" targets in TT has probably never even played a good TT game in their life, but I don't want to derail about the board game. They've been great in every single MechWarrior incarnation.

Gonna have to agree to disagree with this one. I've played hundreds of table-top games, oversaw countless numbers of games in tourney's, was a game master for the official CBT forums "Fan Grand Council" and oversaw megamek matches that determined role play outcomes for their metagame, and was even part of a demonstration team on how to play table-top and I have always used and observed missile's as a heavy support weapon. Hell Mech's like the Catapult even state in their fluff texts that they provided fire support. Same thing with the Yeoman and Wraith. True, some front line mechs carried and used LRM's, but they were in my assessment mainly used to soften targets so other weapons systems, or mechs, could take them down easier. There are also countless examples of this in the fiction, but the validity of that is a debate for another day.

Other then that I agree with your very well written OP.

Edited by Morsdraco, 29 June 2013 - 02:32 PM.

[Appogee]

It's great to have someone with your experience on the forums.

Morsdraco, on 29 June 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

I have always used and observed missile's as a heavy support weapon. Hell Mech's like the Catapult even state in their fluff texts that they provided fire support. Same thing with the Yeoman and Wraith. True, some front line mechs carried and used LRM's, but they were in my assessment mainly used to soften targets so other weapons systems, or mechs, could take them down easier.

This is how I always used and saw them... the opportunity to do some early damage to targets while I was closing distance to use other weapons, or in some cases, dedicated boats like Catapults doing generalised damage to make the bralwers' jobs easier.

The opinion being advanced by the OP is that LRMs should be ''equivalent'' to other front line weapons because they have similar weight, slots and other requirements to those other weapons. But that will always be a matter of opinion, and opinions will likely vary.

[Ningyo]

Very true gjnii, they really are by far most effective between 200-500m, though up to 750m they are reasonably usable above that you are just throwing missiles in the air and hoping.

What can be a fun mech to play, and admittedly will likely get a lot better accuracy with them is a catapult A-1 with 2xALRM 15 + 4xSSRM. This can sill toss LRMs if you have no nearby targets, but mostly you use it as a brawler and try to stay between 190-270 range. With both LRM and SSRMs firing at a mech it will really go down fast. And you do not need to worry too much about lights rushing you, because what light pilot wants to rush someone with 4xssrm.

[Shalune]

blinkin, on 28 June 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

i like how you did this, BUT i don't entirely agree with some of your conclusions. in an entirely PUG environment i think you are completely right. however LRM are probably the most team work intensive weapons in the game. as a result their abilities are magnified greatly when you have a friend or two on skype, i think they are more effected by this than anything else in the game.

The ability to counter them is also greatly magnified by teamplay and higher skill levels. If you are not sticking very close to your group you will get picked apart by enemy lights, if you stick with your group you share their firing lanes and are just less efficient at killing things. LRMs are a joke in organized play. They can perform very well in low ELO pug brackets, especially with spotters.

[El Bandito]

Shalune, on 29 June 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

The ability to counter them is also greatly magnified by teamplay and higher skill levels. If you are not sticking very close to your group you will get picked apart by enemy lights, if you stick with your group you share their firing lanes and are just less efficient at killing things. LRMs are a joke in organized play. They can perform very well in low ELO pug brackets, especially with spotters.

Exactly. More people know how LRMs work, more they find out just how easy it is to deal with.

I never died to LRMs in my last few weeks of matches. Just a simple torso twist allowed my red internal Highlander-733 (without AMS) to survive full volley from a Catapult-C4--no less than 40 LRMs. Most of my deaths were by PPCs or AC20s.

Edited by El Bandito, 29 June 2013 - 06:06 PM.

[Johnny Reb]

I am a fan of lrm mechs, I run them in all weight classes, minus lights. I think the OP gives alot of good info on LRMs, especially the point that the most important thing to be an effective lrm mech is position(edit 1: when I say position the ability to understand then get better position is paramount!). That said, I disagree with some of it. First, I think Assault lrms are a viable option. However, I am not a fan of the Stalker or Atlas D-DC as a lrm platform. I prefer the Highlander 733, the combo of 4 lrm15 + arty and JJ is a great boat that can jump over terrain fall back and let advanced target decay do the rest (within 500-180 closer better).

The second thing I disagree with is that tag is essential. Don't get me wrong tag is extremely useful to not only tighten spread but to uncloak ecm covered mechs, even more so in the faster mechs. The essentials, for me, to an effective lrm setup are artimis, advance sensor range and bap (its both identify and sensor range modules in 1.5 equipment). Tag and to me JJ (more so come terrain changes) are not essential but highly desired. Then if I got the slot, seismic is helpful to alert me from pesky lights.

Third, I think indirect fire is effective in so far that I JJ up getting quick los when firing then drop down to let adv. decay do its thing. I see little to no damage difference between that or a target in los the entire time unless I have a tag on them also.

I also like the place lrm's are at now. Other than that, nice post OP and lets make it rain so the enemy can die in the shade.

Edited by Johnny Reb, 29 June 2013 - 11:05 PM.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

lrm's are easy mode if you have critical thinking skills, understanding of the meta, and good spatial awareness (not to mention teammates that can tag for you on occasion)

so basically, yes, to good players who play with other good players they are easy mode, just like all of the other overpowering builds at the moment.

the major problem here is good players, much like in any exhibitional game or sport, make everything look just so damn easy regardless of its true nature because they spend time and effort to understand the game and get good at it, thus making their tools that much more effective.


so in short, lrm's are easy to use, but not as easy as dual ac/20 and ppc stacking due to the requirement for a target lock. And this means if you wish to avoid getting hit by lrm's run ecm or at the very least stay out of the open in regards to their trajectory, and you will be surprised at how ineffective lrm's become against you.

This also goes for snipers and it should always be #1 priority if you're attacking them to deliberately pick the most entrenched and cover rich route possible to deny them the advantage their range brings them. Sure they might still hurt up close but at least you'll be able to fight back - inside their comfort zone at that.

Edited by Battlecruiser, 29 June 2013 - 09:49 PM.

[Lightfoot]

I agree. LRMs are the hardest to use weapon system, under-perform at present, require boating. Also have a hit detection bug since the hot-fix on 6/20.

I think indirect fire LRMs are about right, they just splatter around. However, when you have Artemis, BAP, TAG, and LoS they are too weak. They need to be a solid deterrent at this point if you have LRM30 or more and a valuable addition to a direct fire loadout if LRM30 or less are used.

I really don't want to spend the match LRM sniping, I want to move into the battle and mix it up, knowing that my Artie, BAP, TAG-ed LRM20-30 will not be worthless in LoS combat like it is now.

[gjnii]

I wouldn't mind a nudge to LRM's, but I'm curious to see where things sit with 12v12... I think the ammo inefficiency of ballistics will become a lot more obvious in larger engagements.
Well except the Gauss, which frustrates and concerns me. I don't want to see Gauss/PPC come out better in 12v12 instead of worse, as its already heavily used and highly effective, plus its a direct counter to lrms, as mentioned previously. Its absolutely true that fast, precision, burst-sniping is pretty direct counter to slower/larger LRM mechs, so hopefully that means some adjustments once we see that hasn't changed in 12v12.