48 replies to this topic

[Artgathan]

An oft-cited requirement for LRMs (and sometimes SRMs) to be "effective" is to include Artemis on the builds that use them. I'm curious on collecting a little bit of data on the topic to see if players' stats support the notion that Artemis exists to make these weapon systems more viable.

To recap, the Artemis IV FCS:

• Decreases missile spread by 30%
  
• Decreases lock time by 50%
  
• Increases missile tracking by 50%

What does this mean? In theory, the accuracy of Artemis-equipped missiles should be higher than their non-Artemis equipped counterparts (assuming you have the same base accuracy with both systems, the tighter spread should mean more missiles land on-target. In the case of LRMs the fact that Artemis IV encourages direct-fire LRMs - ostensibly more accurate than indirect fire LRMs - should cause an even larger increase in accuracy).


Here's what I need from you to make this happen, in three easy steps:

• Open up your stats page
  
• Get the accuracy values for your Artemis and Non-Artemis LRM/SRMs
  
• Post those values here!

Here's an example:

• LRM15 + Artemis: 45.69%
  
• LRM15: 38.48%
  
• SRM6 + Artemis: 64.14%
  
• SRM6: 56.40%

Please only post comparisons if you have at least 100 games with each system (Artemis and Non-Artemis) - otherwise the small sample size might affect the data. Also, try to use "Current" and not "Archived" stats. If you don't have the 100 games in current though you can fall back on Archived.


Thanks!

[Dulahan]

I've honestly never used Artemis. It's never felt worth the weight to me, not when I can carry more ammo.

[_____]

I put Artemis on everything medium and up. The Artemis effect on LRMs is more dramatic but even SRMs get noticeable benefits.

[Lyoto Machida]

100 games in each under current stats? I don't have that in current or archived. Archived stats only kept Artemis for a short period of time before the wipe.

Archived:

LRM 10 (235 games): 34.56%
ALRM 10 (19 games): 35.32%
LRM 15 (423 games): 37.69%
ALRM 15(19 games): 34.11%
It doesn't make sense but that's what it is.

Current:

LRM 10 (25 games): 41.35%
ALRM 10 (58 games): 41.26%
LRM 15 (4 games): 41.97%
ALRM 15 (92 games): 39.13%

I'm about to pull Artemis from all my mechs haha.

Forgot SRMs (Archived):

SRM 6 (406 games): 41.69%
ASRM6 (10 games): 37.31%

Doesn't seem worth it to me based on accuracy alone but the reduced lock time helps.

Edited by Lyoto Machida, 08 April 2014 - 12:25 AM.

[No Guts No Glory]

Current

LRM5: 36.05%
ALRM5: 67.61%
LRM15: 33.86%
ALRM15: 38.34%

SRM6: 53.42%
ASRM6: 55.66%

Archived

LRM5: 26.57%
ALRM5: 33.04%
LRM10: 30.29%
ALRM10: 25.27%
LRM15: 31.31%
ALRM15: 28.41%

SRM4: 49.72%
ASRM4: 56.76%
SRM6: 48.98%
ASRM6: 59.01%

Judge for yourself, I guess.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I'm not sure if accuracy alone tells the entire story. The missile density is hard to quantify in stats, but it is something that should be considered.

Artemis or not, you might hit close to the same percentage of landed shots with SRMs or LRMs, but where the missiles hit can make all the difference.

Example:

Fire an SRM6 (without Art)...
1 Missile hits LArm, 2 Missile hits LH Torso, 1 Missile Hits Center Torso, 1 Missile hits Head...

Fire an SRM6 (with Art)...
3 Missiles hit LH Torso, 3 Missiles hit Center Torso.

Both scenarios hit had the same accuracy (100%) but the concentration of damage is much greater with Artemis due to the tighter grouping.

Now this is all hypothetical. With the accuracy numbers people are posting for both Art and no Art, the effects might not be as dramatic as the example. Still, I would think Art would make enough of a difference to run it (expecially if the tonnage was available).

I know from my experience, the missile density seems tighter and the travel path more direct with Artemis. In my opinoin, I would run it if the setup will allow it.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Lyoto Machida, on 08 April 2014 - 12:18 AM, said:

Doesn't seem worth it to me based on accuracy alone but the reduced lock time helps.

A lot of it depends on which launchers you use.

15's and 20's spread so much that Artemis is a requirement.

5's and 10's see very little benefit.

But the reduced lock time tends to be pretty important for getting a shot off and having it hit.

I'd say the reduced lock lets you hit targets out to 500-600m, where without it, you are probably looking at 400-500m as your max range.

In the end, even when they were at 175ms...all I was doing was abusing bad players or people who hadn't played since LRM's were nerfed a year back.

If I want any sort of consistency, it's AC's/PPC's and some Lasers.

[Solahma]

LRM 15 (7 games) 23.74%
ALRM 15 (7 games) 31.13%

SRM 6 (Archived 48 games) 41.76%
ASRM6 (19 games) 53.24%

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Solahma, on 08 April 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:

LRM 15 (7 games) 23.74%
ALRM 15 (7 games) 31.13%

SRM 6 (Archived 48 games) 41.76%
ASRM6 (19 games) 53.24%

Just curious, do you use a lot of indirect fire?

[Khobai]

Artemis isnt worth the weight or crit slots. It really needs a buff.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Khobai, on 08 April 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

Artemis isnt worth the weight or crit slots. It really needs a buff.

LRM's just need a full rework, and ECM needs to not be part of the equation.

Paul said he was doing a full LRM rework at one point, which was pretty much a flat out lie, because all he really changed was the flight paths (again).

[Solahma]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 08 April 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

Just curious, do you use a lot of indirect fire?

When I take LRMs, I typically play indirect (std LRMs). My archived games have very little artemis LRM stats... However, I do direct fire with the Battlemaster 1S with Artemis as much as I can.

[Khobai]

Quote

LRM's just need a full rework, and ECM needs to not be part of the equation.

I agree they need a full rework. I would even be okay with LRMs being a utility weapon instead of a damage weapon and having different types of ammo for starting fires, dropping minefields, creating smokescreens, etc... Making them a full on utility weapon is one way they could compete with ACs/PPCs.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Solahma, on 08 April 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

When I take LRMs, I typically play indirect (std LRMs). My archived games have very little artemis LRM stats... However, I do direct fire with the Battlemaster 1S with Artemis as much as I can.

Ok, that makes sense, you hit 20% less, which would make sense if indirect firing.

I've managed to stay at about 40% with 10's and 5's. I have been staying away from the bigger launchers.

(See folks, 20% hit rate with indirect fire, it's not amazing)

Khobai, on 08 April 2014 - 08:15 AM, said:

I agree they need a full rework. I would even be okay with LRMs being a utility weapon instead of a damage weapon and having different types of ammo for starting fires, dropping minefields, creating smokescreens, etc... Making them a full on utility weapon is one way they could compete with ACs/PPCs.

I'm whatever at this point, I don't think there is any chance we get that sort of thing in the game.

We're lucky when they go in and change a value in an XML file.

[Pygar]

I'd say worth it- even 10% better is still better. I usually don't LRM, but I put together my first ever boat this last weekend... the stats say I have about 30% hit rate with Artemis LRMs- oddly, despite the low hit rate I did a lot of damage with them compared to other comparable weapons.... higher damage per match overall. (so must be that when they do hit, they hit hard)

Edited by Pygar, 08 April 2014 - 08:31 AM.

[Artgathan]

MeiSooHaityu, on 08 April 2014 - 07:55 AM, said:

I'm not sure if accuracy alone tells the entire story. The missile density is hard to quantify in stats, but it is something that should be considered.

Artemis or not, you might hit close to the same percentage of landed shots with SRMs or LRMs, but where the missiles hit can make all the difference.

Now this is all hypothetical. With the accuracy numbers people are posting for both Art and no Art, the effects might not be as dramatic as the example. Still, I would think Art would make enough of a difference to run it (expecially if the tonnage was available).

I agree that accuracy doesn't necessarily tell the whole story and that missile density is hard to quantify. The presented examples in your post are a good example of this.

That said some sort of accuracy difference should be attributable to Artemis (and here's why I think this is the case): given that some number of SRMs/LRMs miss the target (this is more obvious in larger volley sizes, but even an SRM6 will throw one or two missiles off target), Artemis should reduce the number of missiles that naturally miss the target (since they're tightening the missile spread). For instance, if I take two shots against identical targets, one with Artemis and one without, the theory is that the shot with Artemis should land more missiles on average than the shot without.

However (and this is a large caveat) this assumes that players will behave the same way with Artemis IV and non-Artemis IV equipped missiles. For instance, if you only indirect fire with non-Artemis LRMs, but you only direct-fire when you have Artemis equipped LRMs then your results are meaningless because you're not taking the same shots (IE: you're engaging in an activity that inherently changes the accuracy).

For this reason I think the SRM data will be more inherently reliable as Artemis doesn't affect the way that SRMs are used (unlike LRMs and Artemis, where a different play-style is encouraged).

What I've seen in my experience is that Artemis is mildly useful for LRMs (chiefly due to the lock-time bonus) and borderline useless for SRMs (Artemis increases the weight of an SRM6 by 33%, but does not increase the effectiveness by 33%). I was curious to gather more data because I have a hunch that Artemis weapons should be more accurate than their non-Artemis counterparts. That said, the accuracy bonus should be roughly equivalent to the weight difference between the two launchers (IMO).

[Fut]

Khobai, on 08 April 2014 - 08:15 AM, said:

I agree they need a full rework. I would even be okay with LRMs being a utility weapon instead of a damage weapon and having different types of ammo for starting fires, dropping minefields, creating smokescreens, etc... Making them a full on utility weapon is one way they could compete with ACs/PPCs.

If they were a "Utility Tool" instead of a typical weapon, they wouldn't be competing with ACs/PPCs at all - they wouldn't even be playing the same game anymore (that game being "destroy your enemy").

It'd be cool to see different ammo types for LRMs, but I don't think they should be negated as an actual weapon. Standard LRMs should be a functional viable weapon system. Different ammo types would be bonus usage with some give/take (ie. Less damage dealt, but starts area-effect fire that increases heat of those in the area...etc).

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Pygar, on 08 April 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

I'd say worth it- even 10% better is still better. I usually don't LRM, but I put together my first ever boat this last weekend... the stats say I have about 30% hit rate with Artemis LRMs- oddly, despite the low hit rate I did a lot of damage with them compared to other comparable weapons.... higher damage per match overall. (so must be that when they do hit, they hit hard)

Damage is a very deceiving stat.

I've done 900 damage with mechs that are essentially Streak Boats. You might at the end of the match think "DAMN I DID GOOD", but it is so spread out, that it really doesn't reflect what one would call "Good damage".

The problem happens with LRM's, especially with the larger launchers and double that when you fire indirectly.

You might do a good amount of damage, but it is so spread out that it's not actually "Good damage".

Whereas when I use a PPC/AC combo, the damage is almost all good, because unless it's a light mech, I'm hitting a torso with every shot and putting 25-35 damage into it.

[Trauglodyte]

Archived:

LRM15 - 34.95% (46030 fired)
ALRM15 - 37.48% (9300 fired)

Current:

LRM10 - 46.98% (3910 fired)
ALRM10 - 37.28% (2430 fired)
LRM15 - 40.69% (2625 fired)
ALRM15 - 39.67% (5551 fired; how did I fire "1"?)

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Trauglodyte, on 08 April 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

Archived:

LRM15 - 34.95% (46030 fired)
ALRM15 - 37.48% (9300 fired)

Current:

LRM10 - 46.98% (3910 fired)
ALRM10 - 37.28% (2430 fired)
LRM15 - 40.69% (2625 fired)
ALRM15 - 39.67% (5551 fired; how did I fire "1"?)

47% is super solid, that's some good LRM discipline.