910 replies to this topic

[Ngamok]

Oscar is a great movie.

[Zyllos]

Sandpit, on 26 November 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

we aren't. We're using double armor

This doesn't change any mechanics...

All it does is scale the time of engagements.

[Zyllos]

Cimarb, on 26 November 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

Artemis doesn't have less of an affect on different launcher sizes - it reduces the spread of all of them proportionally. The spread is more pronounced the bigger the launcher, though, so it's effect is much less needed on an LRM5 than it is on an LRM20, for instance. Due to the weight increase and extra slot per launcher, that reduced usefulness has a breaking point (for me) between the LRM5 and LRM10 level.

Do you have any actual facts about where each missile system places damage? If so, please share. If not, I call your bluff. With the law of averages and wider spread, LRM20s are much, much more likely to have a higher amount of damage to CTs than LRM5s do, per launcher.

Lastly, if you have a higher percent hit rate with LRM20s (I'm assuming you are basing this off of your own statistics, since I don't know what else it would be based upon), then that probably means you are much more liberal with your trigger when using the smaller launchers, which makes perfect sense. Lots of people use the 5-packs as warning shots and fire suppression, where 20-packs are much more expensive in ammo per salvo, so you will tend to hold your shots longer before committing them.

I only have empirical evidence.

Go to the training grounds and fire LRM/5s at a mech then fire LRM/20s at a mech.

Your starting and ending LRM ammo before/after the mech is alive/destroyed will be different, on average. If each swarm had the same chance of hitting a location, then there should be roughly the same number of LRMs needed to destroy a mech.

The only differences between the LRM/5 and LRM/20 should be the stats related to the launcher itself, not how well the LRMs actually deal damage to the target.

LRM/5 will have used MUCH less ammo, on average, to destroy a target than the LRM/20.

Edited by Zyllos, 27 November 2013 - 11:33 AM.

[Ngamok]

If you are firing LRM5s and the enemy has a few AMS, it will eat every rocket till the AMS runs out. I was shooting at a Jester and he had a Jester buddy near him. My 2xLRM10s and 1xLRM5 on my SHD-2H pretty much all died at 500m out. When they got closer to like 280m a few made it through. So 4xAMS pretty much negates 25 LRMs with room to spare because at 500m, I was able to watch them all get shot down.

[Zyllos]

Ngamok, on 27 November 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

If you are firing LRM5s and the enemy has a few AMS, it will eat every rocket till the AMS runs out. I was shooting at a Jester and he had a Jester buddy near him. My 2xLRM10s and 1xLRM5 on my SHD-2H pretty much all died at 500m out. When they got closer to like 280m a few made it through. So 4xAMS pretty much negates 25 LRMs with room to spare because at 500m, I was able to watch them all get shot down.

Yes, I do agree, 100%.

But different LRM launcher sizes should have differences between overall DPS, weight and critical slot efficiency, and ability to clear AMS, not the amount of ammo needed to kill a target.

On average, regardless of LRM launcher size, X number of LRMs is needed to kill this target. What modifies time to kill should be on the randomly selected hit locations, ability to bypass AMS, overall DPS, and enemy movement factors.

[Joseph Mallan]

Zyllos, Ngamok. Keep it up! This has become a good discussion. Thanks you!

[Charons Little Helper]

Ngamok, on 27 November 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

If you are firing LRM5s and the enemy has a few AMS, it will eat every rocket till the AMS runs out. I was shooting at a Jester and he had a Jester buddy near him. My 2xLRM10s and 1xLRM5 on my SHD-2H pretty much all died at 500m out. When they got closer to like 280m a few made it through. So 4xAMS pretty much negates 25 LRMs with room to spare because at 500m, I was able to watch them all get shot down.

If LRM5s are chain fired vs one AMS - 1 or so per launch will get though after the 1st one. While the 1st one will be wiped out, when chain fired the 2nd launch of LRMs will be within AMS range before the 1st is entirely blown away. Though if they were moving away from you, the extra time to target would keep even the occasional missile from hitting. (the inverse is also true)

[Sandpit]

Zyllos, on 27 November 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

This doesn't change any mechanics...

All it does is scale the time of engagements.

What does that have to do with you saying we use TT armor? We don't, we use twice the armor able to be plopped on to a mech. It's not the same as TT

[Cimarb]

Zyllos, on 27 November 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

I only have empirical evidence.

Go to the training grounds and fire LRM/5s at a mech then fire LRM/20s at a mech.

Your starting and ending LRM ammo before/after the mech is alive/destroyed will be different, on average. If each swarm had the same chance of hitting a location, then there should be roughly the same number of LRMs needed to destroy a mech.

The only differences between the LRM/5 and LRM/20 should be the stats related to the launcher itself, not how well the LRMs actually deal damage to the target.

LRM/5 will have used MUCH less LRMs, on average, to destroy a target than the LRM/20.

While you are correct, you are also not using a good example to base it on.

Training grounds is against a stationary target. That means your weapon will hit exactly where you want it to hit, for as long as you want it to hit. LRM5s have a smaller base spread than a larger launcher, so it will hit a smaller area. That does not mean it will kill faster - in fact it is likely the opposite - but that it will use less ammo because you have less "splash" in the other areas you are targeting because of the spread difference. Training grounds ARE a great way to test the benefit of TAG, Narc and Artemis, though, because the less damage you get to extraneous components, the smaller the spread was. That is hard to judge in real time combat, because the speed and torso twisting of the enemy is going to skew the spread appearance.

The same can be said of any of the lasers. Two LL shots to the head will kill any mech, but try to kill with a headshot in actual combat where you are both moving. Quite a bit of difference.

[Ngamok]

Charons Little Helper, on 27 November 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

If LRM5s are chain fired vs one AMS - 1 or so per launch will get though after the 1st one. While the 1st one will be wiped out, when chain fired the 2nd launch of LRMs will be within AMS range before the 1st is entirely blown away. Though if they were moving away from you, the extra time to target would keep even the occasional missile from hitting. (the inverse is also true)

Yes. I am a big chain fire advocate. I do it on all my LRM mechs that carry 3-4 launchers 10's or 15's mostly because the AMS will shoot down most or all of the first cluster but 2-4 will have hits. That is until the enemy is far enough out and has enough AMS where most of the missiles die on their way there. I don't shoot at anything over 800m because it's just a waste unless I am trying to scare them into advancing. Like I said in my example, if they are really close, most of them will hit because AMS can't react fast enough to hit them all. In my SHD since it's only 25 rockets I am shooting, I fire them all instead of chain fire and ebcause the 5's cycle faster, I tend to shoot them before the 10s are ready anyways.

If you are a brave LRM boat, you're best off at 200-400m with getting more hits. But then of course you suffer from return fire and distance closure. Trade offs.

[OneEyed Jack]

Cimarb, on 27 November 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

That is a really long clip, and as funny as the movie is, I'm not sure what it meant. Judging by the beginning of the clip, as well as your highlighting of some words in the quote, I'm guessing you think what I said was an oxymoron. If so, you are wrong. Artemis affects every launcher by reducing the spread by a percentage. The larger the spread starts out, the more noticeable the reduction is, but that doesn't make the affect a completely different system between the two launchers. I don't know the exact reduction, but if it is a 10 meter spread for an LRM5, and Artemis reduces it by 10%, that is a 1 meter reduction. If it is a 30 meter spread for an LRM20, that same 10% reduction from Artemis is now a 3 meter reduction. That is probably not even close to the actual numbers, but it illustrates the point: a 10% reduction across the board is more noticeable the larger the starting size.

As another example, are lasers handled under a completely different system when used against lights than assaults? A laser, which does 10 damage, applies that 10 damage to a light and then 10 damage to an assault. When looked at in percentages of health, that 10 damage will be immensely more damaging to the light, who only has a small amount of armor compared to the assault. That doesn't make it a different system affecting the damage - it just means there is less armor to start out with on the light, so he percentage lost is much greater.

The post you were responding to didn't suggest it was a different system, and neither did I. But you did, in point of fact, contradict yourself. You claim there's "not less of an effect", then immediately say it's proportional. By definition proportional would mean that there is less of an effect. Not less of a percentage, but less total change. It's actually kinda what proportional means. You then go on to say it's "more pronounced." Again you're saying that there is a difference in defense of the argument that there isn't. Not technically an oxymoron, but I like the line.

The whole laser thing makes no sense, because lasers don't have a spread and no one suggested it was a different system, just a different level of effect.

And I don't know what you're seeing, but the clip I linked is 5 seconds long.....

[ColonelMetus]

if lrm are fine, then why is this at 20 pages

[Whatzituyah]

ColonelMetus, on 27 November 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

if lrm are fine, then why is this at 20 pages

Its debatable basically.

[Lightfoot]

The LRM launchers are well balanced really. While the larger launchers use more ammo to damage mechs, they do it much faster. LRMs don't seem to be OP either as sometimes I do well with them and sometimes not. They seem good for softening up targets, but in the end you will lose if you are just boating LRMs. So they seem to be effective, but bad for boating and unlikely to finish mechs off.

That seems about perfect to me based on what players have objected to about LRMs, boating, and having them be support-only weapons.

A good measure is that players seem split with most comfortable with LRMs as they are. I find I am always able to just dodge LRMs unless a scout mech has me locked for LRM bombardment. Last time I was badly damaged by LRMs was several weeks ago so nowhere near the threat posed by the direct-fire weapons.

Edited by Lightfoot, 27 November 2013 - 09:08 PM.

[Cimarb]

OneEyed Jack, on 27 November 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

The post you were responding to didn't suggest it was a different system, and neither did I. But you did, in point of fact, contradict yourself. You claim there's "not less of an effect", then immediately say it's proportional. By definition proportional would mean that there is less of an effect. Not less of a percentage, but less total change. It's actually kinda what proportional means. You then go on to say it's "more pronounced." Again you're saying that there is a difference in defense of the argument that there isn't. Not technically an oxymoron, but I like the line.

The whole laser thing makes no sense, because lasers don't have a spread and no one suggested it was a different system, just a different level of effect.

And I don't know what you're seeing, but the clip I linked is 5 seconds long.....

I'm on an iPad, so maybe it kept looping - the video didn't show and I know it was playing something for several minutes, lol.

Anyways, I didn't contradict myself, but I do see how you took it that way. Artemis has the same affect on every missile launcher - it is a percent reduction in spread. That percent doesn't change regardless of what launcher it is affecting. That is the important part, as whoever I was responding to said that it used a completely different system for LRM5s. The other part of the equation is that 10% of 100 is 10, while 10% of 200 is 20; the system (10%) did not change, but it is proportional to the number it is affecting.

I don't think I said lasers spread damage, but they do damage over time, which is similar. Autocannons should be like lasers, doing damage over time, while PPCs should be like LBXs, doing spread damage.

[Koniving]

ColonelMetus, on 06 November 2013 - 09:48 PM, said:

please, stop the flooding before you ruin LRM for everyone, or. nerf LRM flooding

MOAR!

Spamming LRM-15s!
ROFLpult



ROFLwalker


Enjoy! (Reduced thresholds would stop this spam by reducing the potential of the ROFLpult by half, and thusly the performance of the ROFLwalker would be cut by close to half. So would reduced firing rates, but to make up for reduced firing rates, damage for the LRMs would have to raise.)

[Sandpit]

ColonelMetus, on 27 November 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

if lrm are fine, then why is this at 20 pages

Because 12 people think they're not

[Troa Barton]

The food chain has been "balanced" with no PPC's, LRM boats have free reign again. Direct fire > LRM's
Its a power vacuum people.

[KharnZor]

Sandpit, on 27 November 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

Because 12 people think they're not

I'm glad you had the nerve to post about this.

[Victor Morson]

Koniving, on 27 November 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

Enjoy! (Reduced thresholds would stop this spam by reducing the potential of the ROFLpult by half, and thusly the performance of the ROFLwalker would be cut by close to half. So would reduced firing rates, but to make up for reduced firing rates, damage for the LRMs would have to raise.)

This is an absolutely terrible, terrible build.

You know what else would stop it? Learning to kill these things.

I am absolutely not kidding when I say I can routinely obliterate these 'mechs in a Shadow Hawk with a third the missiles routinely.

Edited by Victor Morson, 28 November 2013 - 02:16 AM.