147 replies to this topic

[Sethliopod]

As uncomfortable as it is to sacrifice space on a light, it's also very likely your AMS will be more effective.
It's often that, as a light you will be in between the LRM launcher and the intended victim, and so your AMS will be reducing those missiles the entire time it passes over you, not just as they approach.

edit: Mine droppers?! That would be so awesome!!!

Edited by Sethliopod, 05 November 2014 - 08:25 AM.

[KraftySOT]

And ive never once in all my years of Battletech, seen a Bombadier, one of the premier LRM boats in the TT...and thought...I NEED TO HIDE BEHIND THIS LEVEL 2 COVER ALL GAME!!! AHHHHH!!!!

Yet...thats pretty much reaction to every LRM boat here. If not to avoid the stream of LRM5s...to avoid the FPS killing screen shake that comes with it.

[KraftySOT]

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Longbow

Like this...is a horrible mech.

In MWO, you strip out the lasers, drop in MOAR LRMS!!!!!

• LGB-12C A recent upgrade of the Longbow, the 12C variant is designed to maximize the 'Mech's fire support capabilities. The 'Mech has two LRM-20 launchers and two LRM-15 launchers, giving it an incredible bombardment capability and is capable of firing 40% more missiles down range than the base model. The 'Mech has three ER Small Lasers for close combat. The 12C variant is capable of doing this through the use of an XL engine that saves a great deal of weight. BV (1.0) = 1,342^[15][16][17], BV (2.0) = 1,686^[18]
  Theres your LRM boat Design in the TT...for less BV you get this:
  
  http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Thunder_Fox
  
  • TFT-L8 A Lyran Commonwealth variant, which shares a strong resemblance to the Thunder Fox's parent design, theBlue Flame. The L8 uses the Blue Flame's 275 rated XL Fusion Engine, which allows it reach 85 kph. The design's jump jet quantity is also increased to match its cruise movement. The design is mainly armed with a pair of Snub-Nose PPCs and an LB 10-X Autocannon^[7]. BV (2.0) = 1,513^{[8]
    Which s far superior.}

Edited by KraftySOT, 05 November 2014 - 08:33 AM.

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

KraftySOT, on 05 November 2014 - 08:23 AM, said:

Of course LRMs were pretty useless too other than niche roles like dropping mines, or shooting at stationary targets, lighting woods on fire at a distance. With the woods absorbing damage rule going, LRMs are even less useful.

It wasnt bad to have a few mechs with a launcher, but boats were terrible. Youd be better suited taking anything else really.

A gaggle of LRM20s might do 20 or 30 total damage, 18-28 if theres ams at play, 10-20 if theyre in woods.

They were strictly a support weapon or harassing weapon, with their real use not being evident until armor starts getting stripped down to internals. Theres a window of the eras where theyre not bad, but say in 3025 theyre utterly pointless. Its just something that will explode when punched, or never be used while youre kicking shins. Most mechs didnt even have the HS to fire them. Archers cant even fire both LRM20s with 10 HS. Crusaders have the same issue, so do catapults.

That said, SRMs arent fantastic either, even boated, like they are here. 3 SRM6s on a Shadowhawk in the TT, would not be running around splatting Direwolves. Maybe a lucky TAC...thats your only chance.

The Crusader makes me sad too. SRM6s become 4s..heats still a problem. LRM15s become 10s. Still a problem. Hey heres some JJs...damnit ok now were down to Streak 2s...

Mechs were just bad.

I loved my CRD-K, it could fire all day long and scored oh so many kills. LRM is a tricky weapon, but they can be effective, and good not only as a crit seeker, but for general softening of the enemy too. I played mostly 3025, and tried to always have LRM support in a lance. And for that role I never took an Archer or some other nonsense, there are many nice medium LRM mechs, but my favorite was CRD-K, its heat was really manageable in terms of TT.

[Tw1stedMonkey]

Kilo 40, on 05 November 2014 - 04:11 AM, said:

You are a special kind of stupid. To believe that there is no room at all between <10% limited time damage reduction and 100% full time immunity to lrms is mind boggling. There are dozens of possibilities, like shooting down 2-3x as many missiles but eats through ammo 3-5x faster maybe more and have a toggle switch so it won't last very long but is noticeable while it lasts, especially with multiple ams mechs.

[zortesh]

Reason not to take ams.

1: taking a counter to the easiest to avoid and mitigate weapon in the game is pointless, if it was a anti guass system, or a anti ppc system, it'd be worth it.
2: they repeatably give away your position with no ability to turn it off, lettting the enemy know the position of every mech on your team by firing one lrm5 is bad.
3: one and a half tons could be spent on many more useful things, heatsinks, beagle active probes, Armour, weapons, larger engine, stuff thats useful in every battle and not just sometimes.

[DarkMetalBlade]

Radar Dep. >>>> AMS

At least it is the case for me more than half the time.

[El Bandito]

DarkMetalBlade, on 05 November 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

Radar Dep. >>>> AMS

At least it is the case for me more than half the time.

Those two are not mutually exclusive BTW. You can have both--Radar Derp for yourself and AMS for the team, as well as for yourself. Radar Derp is not going to help when you or a teammate nearby, when spotted by UAV.

zortesh, on 05 November 2014 - 02:56 PM, said:

Reason not to take ams.

1: taking a counter to the easiest to avoid and mitigate weapon in the game is pointless, if it was a anti guass system, or a anti ppc system, it'd be worth it.
2: they repeatably give away your position with no ability to turn it off, lettting the enemy know the position of every mech on your team by firing one lrm5 is bad.
3: one and a half tons could be spent on many more useful things, heatsinks, beagle active probes, Armour, weapons, larger engine, stuff thats useful in every battle and not just sometimes.

I can give you six reasons why you should take AMS in pugs.

1. Longer survivability for you, allowing you to deal more damage.

2. Longer survivability for your teammates, allowing them to deal more damage.

3. AMS has more impact than one extra heatsink. In fact, in the current LRM friendly pug meta, an AMS with a ton of ammo is going to make much more impact than anything you can put instead--with the exception of BAP.

4. Armor can be maxxed, but AMS can further enhance it. It is statistically proven that a ton of AMS ammo can potentially save 4-5 tons of armor from LRMs, even if half the bullets miss. Would you like to cram in extra 4-5 tons of armor with the cost of 1.5 ton? I know I would.

5. AMS HAS ON-OFF TOGGLE. You don't want to reveal yourself or waste AMS ammo? You can turn it off.

6. Enough AMS can and will discourage the enemy LRM boats from shooting towards your direction, and force them to look for easier pickings--such as mechs with no AMS. It is a deterrent, and unlike ECM, it has no hard counters.


With the ammo buff, the pros of AMS heavily overweigh the cons of equipping it in pugs. It is up to you to stay ahead of the curve, or be stuck in last patch mentality. I am simply here to give a wake-up call.

Edited by El Bandito, 05 November 2014 - 05:27 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Meh I still dont need it to avoid LRMs because Ive learned how to play the game.

That thing that ppl will tell you isnt the problem when you tell them to do it because QQ LRM QQQQQQQQ AND I play Assaults AND I dont just play in the back

But this is all impossible for ppl to do today XD

Quote

in pugs.

ah, theres yer problem

KraftySOT, on 05 November 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:

And ive never once in all my years of Battletech, seen a Bombadier, one of the premier LRM boats in the TT...and thought...I NEED TO HIDE BEHIND THIS LEVEL 2 COVER ALL GAME!!! AHHHHH!!!!

Yet...thats pretty much reaction to every LRM boat here. If not to avoid the stream of LRM5s...to avoid the FPS killing screen shake that comes with it.

Cause this aint TT stop using that excuse and get over it

[RalphVargr]

My dual AMS mechs are the Aegis cruisers, guarding the heavies. How about a SAM SRM for those annoying UAV's and third person drones?

[zortesh]

El Bandito, on 05 November 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:

Those two are not mutually exclusive BTW. You can have both--Radar Derp for yourself and AMS for the team, as well as for yourself. Radar Derp is not going to help when you or a teammate nearby, when spotted by UAV.




I can give you six reasons why you should take AMS in pugs.

1. Longer survivability for you, allowing you to deal more damage.

2. Longer survivability for your teammates, allowing them to deal more damage.

3. AMS has more impact than one extra heatsink. In fact, in the current LRM friendly pug meta, an AMS with a ton of ammo is going to make much more impact than anything you can put instead--with the exception of BAP.

4. Armor can be maxxed, but AMS can further enhance it. It is statistically proven that a ton of AMS ammo can potentially save 4-5 tons of armor from LRMs, even if half the bullets miss. Would you like to cram in extra 4-5 tons of armor with the cost of 1.5 ton? I know I would.

5. AMS HAS ON-OFF TOGGLE. You don't want to reveal yourself or waste AMS ammo? You can turn it off.

6. Enough AMS can and will discourage the enemy LRM boats from shooting towards your direction, and force them to look for easier pickings--such as mechs with no AMS. It is a deterrent, and unlike ECM, it has no hard counters.


With the ammo buff, the pros of AMS heavily overweigh the cons of equipping it in pugs. It is up to you to stay ahead of the curve, or be stuck in last patch mentality. I am simply here to give a wake-up call.

1: I play exclusively in group queue, I take meaningful damage from lrms maybe 1 in 20 games, there super easy to avoid, again not worth it since i could bring more ammo to do more damage especially to coutner something thats rarely more then a mild inconvenience.

2: I will never hold the hands of an incompetent teamate, they learn not to stand out in the open and die, or i wont help them atall, heck if there gunna stand out in the open and die like fools the guass, or in current game massed ppc barrages will get them first.

3: don't know, don't play pug games, a medium laser would be more useful, heck id say a ton of ammo or a heastsink would also be more useful personally, especially since in most games the lrms aren't a threat to begin with, something mildly useful in every battle is better then something semi useful in 1 of 40 battles, heck theres only 2 maybe 3 if you push it maps here lrms are dangerous to begin with.

4: cept my armour is good versus things that are actully a threat, like lasers or autocannons or guass rifles, even ppcs, if it did anything to stop those, id take it, again it does not.

5: did not know they added that, you are right here.

6: Again, why do I care about a nigh insignificant threat? I could neuter the lrm boats by just shooting there spotter, or shoot them there after-all usually underarmoured and packed with explosives, hell if theres enough lrmboats to be dangerous, you can just lol charge and roll over there team becuase there low on directfire.


See heres the difference, you assume lrms are a threat and having protection from them is a bonus, i see lrms as a non-threat and see having ams and ammo and giving away a ton and a half of stuff for no effect, id think the same thing if ams ammo had 10,000 rounds per a ton.

[El Bandito]

zortesh, on 05 November 2014 - 07:40 PM, said:

1: I play exclusively in group queue, --

3: don't know, don't play pug games --

My PSA is chiefly for the pug queue, and if I didn't make that clear, then I apologize. So please kindly leave your group queue related comments out of this thread.

Edited by El Bandito, 05 November 2014 - 08:11 PM.

[Variant1]

Dear op i understand you wish to make people aware of ways to reduce damage from lrms, but ams is one of the worst reasons. Ams does reduce the amount of dmg you take from lrms but it does not counter it like cover. In a game that promotes different builds, said game should not force players to equip ams, it should be their choice not because some weapon is broken.


Some of those example are good for equipping ams but they have inherent flaws.

1.true, longer survivability from missiles but not any other weapon. However it also does not allow you to do more damage or earn rewards because A) there is no ams reward system yet and B. You are sacrificing tonnage to reduce the amount of damage you take from a specific weapon when said extra tonnage could be used for say heatsink/ammo/better weapon.

2. Sort of true, if the enemy has a lot of missiles then yes, but if the enemy is mostly balistics/lasers? then no.

3. This one is highly situational. If the enemy has many lrms boats then yes, but if they have any other weapon that is not missiles then that tonnage was wasted on potentially more useful equipment.

4. This one is wrong. AMS does not enhance armor it reduces damage from missiles. That means anything higher than lrm 5 will hit you or a lot of lrm 5 chain fired will still pass through the ams. Also where are the statistics proving it?

5. True

6. Also true it is indeed a deterrent


The pros do not outweigh the cons of ams not by one bit. Equipping ams wont save a pug unless the whole team has one and even then there are dual gauss/ppc builds that kills pugs just as easily. Ams should be a choice not something forced down our throats. Okay so lets say in theory every game everyone starts equipping ams to 'deal' with the lrm meta. There are 2 problems with that

1.The matchmaker pairs mechs by random not by equipment, so the whole ams team might go up against a team that doesn't have lrms, this means that tonnage was wasted which means the ams team is at a huge disadvantage. This means the game is based entirely on luck and not competitiveness.

2. With the new ams meta we now have lrm boats QQing on forums or worse, the people that know the meta will simply stick with the guass/ppc meta or any other weapon that isn't missiles making ams a waste of tonnage.

That picture highlights the main problem with lrms is that cover is a liability due to its insane arc, the sole reason its a pugstomper because pugs don't know what they are behind may stop bullets but not lrms. Another problem is that 2 maps in particular are biased towards lrms *cough*caustic/alpine*cough*. If we were to say make the indirect fire rely on tag narc instead of hit r to win then perhaps puging lrms would require more effort. Perhaps a 2 mode of fire for lrms, one for direct fire(line of sight, low arc but no min range) and other for indirect (tag/narc spotter only with min range and 0.5dmg per missile).

Edited by Variant1, 05 November 2014 - 08:13 PM.

[El Bandito]

Variant1, on 05 November 2014 - 08:11 PM, said:

Dear op i understand you wish to make people aware of ways to reduce damage from lrms, but ams is one of the worst reasons. Ams does reduce the amount of dmg you take from lrms but it does not counter it like cover. In a game that promotes different builds, said game should not force players to equip ams, it should be their choice not because some weapon is broken.

No one is forcing you to equip AMS. Only reason I am writing this thread is because current AMS is just so worth its tonnage in pug matches. Would you equip ECM on any mech of your choice given the chance? Similar deal here.

Also, LRMs are not broken, they are just too effective as a psychological weapon, especially against an average pugger. I am offering them something that will mitigate their irrational fear of LRMs.

Plus, the whole "AMS is useless if the enemy team does not have LRMs" argument does not hold water, given the frequency of LRM usage in pug queue. I personally would rather have an AMS--if not for myself, then for my team--than to play without it. There is a very good reason quirked LRM mechs like HBK-4J is racking up those damage numbers. Lack of AMS awareness.

Variant1, on 05 November 2014 - 08:11 PM, said:

1.The matchmaker pairs mechs by random not by equipment, so the whole ams team might go up against a team that doesn't have lrms, this means that tonnage was wasted which means the ams team is at a huge disadvantage. This means the game is based entirely on luck and not competitiveness.

2. With the new ams meta we now have lrm boats QQing on forums or worse, the people that know the meta will simply stick with the guass/ppc meta or any other weapon that isn't missiles making ams a waste of tonnage.

MM does not differentiate between brawler and long range build and might lump together all the brawlers in one team, but people still bring their own specialized build in spite of it. Same story with AMS--you might face an all direct-fire team, but from my thousands of pug match experience, such instance is very low, to the point of being negligible. Especially with current LRM quirked mechs.

Finally, it is much better for people to QQ about AMS than people QQing about LRMs. Cause those peoples' threads are usually insufferably bad.

Edited by El Bandito, 05 November 2014 - 08:37 PM.

[RalphVargr]

AMS should be a true point-defense system, doing MG damage to anything it can see. Beagle should be required.

[InspectorG]

Kilo 40, on 04 November 2014 - 09:58 PM, said:

This right here everyone, is the mind of the average LRM whiner. He knows there are ways to deal with LRMs(radar dep, AMS, AMS overlaod, etc..), but he deliberately chooses not to use them, and STILL demands they get nerfed.

as I've said before, these people will never be happy until they are granted invincibility to LRMs 100% of the time.

Ssshhhh!

Its a secret to everybody:

up,up,down,down,left,right,left,right,b,a,select,start....LRM invincibility.

[GRiPSViGiL]

LRMs are to inferior to dedicate 1.5 tons to. I rather have 1 more DHS and .5 ton extra ammo or armor.

[El Bandito]

Variant1, on 05 November 2014 - 08:11 PM, said:

4. This one is wrong. AMS does not enhance armor it reduces damage from missiles. That means anything higher than lrm 5 will hit you or a lot of lrm 5 chain fired will still pass through the ams. Also where are the statistics proving it?

Oh, I'll show you the stats. I didn't just make it up.

http://mwo.gamepedia..._Missile_System

According to the site above, it takes around 9 AMS ammo to down 1 LRM. Therefore:

180 LRMs per ton
Times(*)
9 ams per missile
Equals (=)
1620 AMS rounds

Which means it takes 0.81 tons of AMS ammo (since AMS ammo is buffed to 2000)... to destroy the equivalent of 1 ton of LRM ammo.

It takes 32 armor points to make 1 ton or armor. 180 missiles theoretically deal 180 points of damage upon full contact, which translates to 5.6 tons of armor. Which means 1 ton of missile ammo can cause up to 5.6 tons worth of armor damage.
Since it takes 0.81 ton of AMS ammo to negate a full ton of LRM ammo, by investing in just 1 ton of AMS ammo, you can save potentially up to 6.9 tons of armor. That's what I call a good deal. If the full company takes 1 AMS each, it can potentially save the armor equivalent of FOUR Atlases (Max Atlas armor is 19 tons) from LRMs, and far more if it manages to shoot down NARC pod.

Granted, AMS does have the tendency to shoot at missiles that are not going to hit anything anyway, but even if 50% of the ammo is wasted, that's still 3.5:1 ratio, which is great! And as I mentioned, just by shooting down a NARC can literally save an entire mech on occasions.

Edited by El Bandito, 05 November 2014 - 10:37 PM.

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Be aware that LRM damage was reduced in this patch, they now do 1 damage per missile (down from 1.1), so 180 missiles is 180 potential damage.

[El Bandito]

Alexander MacTaggart, on 05 November 2014 - 10:25 PM, said:

Be aware that LRM damage was reduced in this patch, they now do 1 damage per missile (down from 1.1), so 180 missiles is 180 potential damage.

Oh yeah, lemme redo the math.