stjobe, on 30 August 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:
That attitude is why we still have people complaining about getting killed by LRMs.
If not for yourself, take it to help your team.
If not for yourself, take it to help your team.
Sorry, THATS the poor attitude. AMS is a waste except maybe on an assault that has extra weight to spare. In all my play, i have never once equipped AMS.
The BEST way to keep teammates from getting killed from LRMs is to aggressively/intelligently attack and deplete the other teams numbers thus reducing their damage output.
Which pug is more likely to win? The one with a three kill lead? Or the team with more AMS?
Some builds do not have room for AMS anyway you cut it.
So if i roll in my Hunchback G with 3ml and an AC20, should i use an AMS at the expense of AC20 ammo?
How many enemies will AMS kill?
LRMs are at best a support weapon, they are inefficient. They require a lock, much travel time, and spread damage.
Compare that to Dual Gauss+ppc, AC+ppc, etc, the META
How many LRMs were used in comp play?
People cry about LRM because they dont understand whats happening to them. Carrying an AMS blankie to bed at night wont solve the problem.
Learning to use cover, keep moving, apply pressure, THAT fixes the problem.
Example:If your team is deathballed up behind the ridge and no eneimes are in sight, and you are getting LRM'ed to death...
The FIRST problem is the deathball sitting there DOING NOTHING.
Second problem is the lone Raven sitting behind you providing locks.
AMS wont solve either.
AMS give the illusion of safety. That is false, you are never safe. The better attitude is: how much efficient damage can i inflict before i die.
And besides, if everyone used AMS, the LRM users would cry that AMS is OP, making a less useful weapon even less useful.
You still get QQ.
Why not just encourage people to become better players and not rely on a crutch?