28 replies to this topic

[Trauglodyte]

I just did some testing on River City: 1 PPC vs 1 ALRM 10 at 264m against a stock Atlas-D

• PPC: 58.75s kill time with the Atlas left at 82% intact
  
• ALRM 10: 1m 16.24s kill time with the Atlas left at 68% intact

Now, you've got to take into account that I don't have Fast Fire on the test server and the PPC has a 4s recharge time versus the LRM 10's 3.75s recharge. That means that I fired 15+1 PPC bolts (160 heat) compared to 21+1 LRM volleys (88 heat and 220 missiles). In real time combat, the Atlas won't have 94 CT armor but more like 114, give or take. And, I'm guaranteed to not get 16, plus an additional 2 (to combat the added armor), on the CT of any Atlas short of them being a d/c. Then again, I'm also guaranteed that I'm not going to fire 22, plus two more, LRM volleys only to have them hit thanks to the proliferation of AMS, ECM, and cover. Plus, let's be honest, facing off with an Atlas at 264m isn't conducive to mech health.

Anyway, the point is that it is going to take you another 20s in a world of open range and LOS with no missile counters to kill an Atlas with LRMs compared to the PPC. Then again, you're also building up about twice the heat with the PPC.

[DeadlyFred]

Use both.

Although thanks to the heat system in this game, more than a single PPC seems absolutely wasteful since they stack on heat so damn quick.

[Roadkill]

Trauglodyte, on 03 January 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

I just did some testing on River City: 1 PPC vs 1 ALRM 10 at 264m against a stock Atlas-D
...
Anyway, the point is that it is going to take you another 20s in a world of open range and LOS with no missile counters to kill an Atlas with LRMs compared to the PPC. Then again, you're also building up about twice the heat with the PPC.

You used the wrong ALRM - we've been comparing a PPC to an ALRM-15, not a -10.

Assuming 2/3 of your numbers for the ALRM-10, the ALRM-15 should kill the Atlas in ~51 seconds.

[Trauglodyte]

I used the ALRM10 due to weapon damage similarities. But, cause you're forcing my hand and bending my arm behind my back, all at the same time, I will redo it (later - I'm stomping robots right now).

[Roadkill]

Trauglodyte, on 03 January 2014 - 11:57 AM, said:

I used the ALRM10 due to weapon damage similarities. But, cause you're forcing my hand and bending my arm behind my back, all at the same time, I will redo it (later - I'm stomping robots right now).

Ah. Yeah, the reason to use the ALRM-15 is that it's a closer fit for tonnage/heat/crits/etc when you're comparing 2 of each. It's okay that the -15 does more damage than the PPC on paper because the PPC's damage is pinpoint while the -15's is spread.

[Mr 144]

Trauglodyte, on 03 January 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

I just did some testing on River City: 1 PPC vs 1 ALRM 10 at 264m against a stock Atlas-D

• PPC: 58.75s kill time with the Atlas left at 82% intact
  
• ALRM 10: 1m 16.24s kill time with the Atlas left at 68% intact

Now, you've got to take into account that I don't have Fast Fire on the test server and the PPC has a 4s recharge time versus the LRM 10's 3.75s recharge. That means that I fired 15+1 PPC bolts (160 heat) compared to 21+1 LRM volleys (88 heat and 220 missiles). In real time combat, the Atlas won't have 94 CT armor but more like 114, give or take. And, I'm guaranteed to not get 16, plus an additional 2 (to combat the added armor), on the CT of any Atlas short of them being a d/c. Then again, I'm also guaranteed that I'm not going to fire 22, plus two more, LRM volleys only to have them hit thanks to the proliferation of AMS, ECM, and cover. Plus, let's be honest, facing off with an Atlas at 264m isn't conducive to mech health.





Anyway, the point is that it is going to take you another 20s in a world of open range and LOS with no missile counters to kill an Atlas with LRMs compared to the PPC. Then again, you're also building up about twice the heat with the PPC.

Changing to the actuall discussed pair of ALRM15...
50.3 seconds to kill (single)
25.15 seconds to kill (pair)
PPC Pair...
29.4 seconds to kill (pair)

Actual combat of course has many other variables. Also, if you look back at my halfarsed testing the same way with "real" builds including ballistics (as most PPC builds use)...you'll see the time difference matching pretty well at 13s vs 15 s....which now starts falling into reasonable combat scenarios...not neccessarily an unbroken stretch of time...just how long total, as both builds can do it with heat being a non-factor (although the LRM build finished cooler).

Yes, PPCs can snap-shot, but target delay and such makes it relatively just as easy to get in one volley per 4 second PPC window as well when we're not referring to ranges past 400-ish meters. and the target has intermittent exposure. Plenty of matches where at those ranges it starts becoming an alpha/dps/focus go-for-broke scenario as well....aka "push".

As a last point...In practice, I think opponent torso twisting hurts the PPC user more than the LRM user, as spread is spread (although possibly not optimum) while a component miss is a complete miss. User defensive twisting can easily be done by both...I don't know why bad Lurmers can't time the decay delay and swing the reticule past to reset the counter each twist.

DeadlyFred, on 03 January 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

Use both.

Although thanks to the heat system in this game, more than a single PPC seems absolutely wasteful since they stack on heat so damn quick.

And for those reasons...and others...either should be paired with ballistics for heat management....not each other. I did run a CTF-2X with ALRM30 + 2xERPPC....but those days of fun are long gone thanks to rediculous heat.

Roadkill, on 03 January 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

Ah. Yeah, the reason to use the ALRM-15 is that it's a closer fit for tonnage/heat/crits/etc when you're comparing 2 of each. It's okay that the -15 does more damage than the PPC on paper because the PPC's damage is pinpoint while the -15's is spread.

I chose the ALRM30 as a reference vs 2xPPCs because both are common uses, and both are 2nd in respective categories. 20's and ER's are just too fringe...while 10's are a tad to small in practical use unless boating imo. 4xALRM5's vs 2xPPCs would be a fun one...but I didn't want to encourage "CT seeking, screen shaking exploiting" nonsense into the conversation

[Void Angel]

Turist0AT, on 02 January 2014 - 04:53 AM, said:

I dont know, Ive seen allot of LRMs lately, Matches are won by one team spraying down the other with missiles. Dare i say PPCs vs LRM are ballanced? 20 pinpoint vs 33 spread, one that requers LOS other does not. I would have said PPCs but just that recent games have me reconcider.


(PUG, not that cheese fest 12 man)

I think the resurgence of LRMs in common use is more due to the effects of the AC/PPC meta. Players leave cover at the wrong time/place and get plastered - thus becoming afraid to stray far from cover at all. This causes the long-range engagement phase to legthen, which in turn makes LRMs more attractive. Looking at it from another end, the preponderance of long-range builds leaves fewer dedicated brawlers on the field to... remonstrate... with LRM-centric builds.

[Sephlock]

Every mech except the X-5 is AMS capable and some can have dual ams. There are 12 mechs on the enemy team, and they'll tend to cluster. Each AMS can shoot down 5 missiles/volley.

ECM will stop you from locking on unless you are taking Tag, in which case your range is cut down a bit (although that shouldn't matter too much considering that you shouldn't be firing at max range), and you'd better pray that neither your target nor any enemy with ECM gets too close to you.

And you'd also better pray that your teammates have ECM set to counter mode, and that there are more of those teammates nearby than there are enemies with ECM (or about as many, if you have BAP).

Oh, and lets not forget that the near-mandatory tag laser you're taking? That takes up a third slot. So we're really comparing 2x ppcs (two slots) vs 2x missile launchers + 1x tag laser, and that's not considering artemis, etc...



Good luck with that.

[Trauglodyte]

OK, dropped an ALRM15 on my Cent and redid the test: 1m 10.59s and the Atlas ended up at 66% upon death. Now, I brought up which mech that I did the testing on because my first ALRM10 test was on the Cent. It should be noted that the CN9-AL only has two missile sets of 10 tubes each so this second test came out in groups of 10 and 5. Still, I should also note that the ALRM10 had very little waste while the ALRM15 had anywhere from 1-3 missiles missing the target entirely.

Now, for poops and giggles, I redid the test by dropping a normal LRM15 on my X-5 (2 tubes). The result was a dead Atlas at 76% health in 1m 28.8 seconds. So, in another 20ish seconds, I was able to drop the Atlas while doing a lot less spread damage with a system that should have had more spread but didn't because of the limited number of tubes (ie, ghetto artemis). Kind of funny.