LRM 20's are garbage. As any decent lurmchucker can tell you, the extra tubes basically end up being useless scatter around the target vs. a 15 and aren't worth the extra tonnage, especially with the slower ROF. Artemis makes a 15 manageable, but the improvement of an ALRM20 vs. an ALRM15 is still the same issue.
5
Lrm !science!
Started by VirtualRiot, Sep 09 2015 01:02 PM
82 replies to this topic
#81
Posted 11 September 2015 - 12:07 PM
#82
Posted 11 September 2015 - 01:05 PM
Lightfoot, on 11 September 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:
LRM-5's are for Light mechs or back-up. LRM-10's are for Medium mechs or back-up. 15's and 20's are for Heavy and Assaults. It's driven by hardpoints available and tonnage of the launcher. Artemis will greatly improve results with the 15's and 20's.
There still is no reason to ever take a 20 when you can take a 15, Artemis or not.
#83
Posted 11 September 2015 - 01:44 PM
VirtualRiot, on 09 September 2015 - 01:02 PM, said:
Question:
Which set of LRMs is the most effective? Four LRM 5, 2 LRM 10, 1 LRM 20.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypothesis:
Since all sets of LRMs launch 20 missiles, they should be similarly effective by salvo size (ex. 1 salvo of 4 LRM 5 should be as effective as 1 salvo of 1 LRM 20). They will be dis-similar in time to kill as LRM 5 has shorter cooldown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experiment:
Tested the various combinations on a GRF-2N on Frozen city against the same target @210m. All tests were preformed with Artemis IV FCS. All variables were equal apart from the LRMs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results:
4x LRM 5: Target destroyed in 14 seconds using 5 volleys.
2x LRM 10: Target destroyed in 20 seconds using 6 volleys
1x LRM 20: Target destroyed in 49 seconds using 11 volleys.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
4x LRM 5 displayed ~350% faster kill time vs 1x LRM 20 and 143% faster kill time vs 2x LRM 10.
4x LRM 5 used 2.2 times less ammo to kill that target vs 1x LRM 20 and 1.2 times vs 2x LRM 10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Thoughts:
LRM 10 and 20 spread should be reduced to have a similar salvo kill time versus LRM 5.
Which set of LRMs is the most effective? Four LRM 5, 2 LRM 10, 1 LRM 20.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypothesis:
Since all sets of LRMs launch 20 missiles, they should be similarly effective by salvo size (ex. 1 salvo of 4 LRM 5 should be as effective as 1 salvo of 1 LRM 20). They will be dis-similar in time to kill as LRM 5 has shorter cooldown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experiment:
Tested the various combinations on a GRF-2N on Frozen city against the same target @210m. All tests were preformed with Artemis IV FCS. All variables were equal apart from the LRMs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results:
4x LRM 5: Target destroyed in 14 seconds using 5 volleys.
2x LRM 10: Target destroyed in 20 seconds using 6 volleys
1x LRM 20: Target destroyed in 49 seconds using 11 volleys.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
4x LRM 5 displayed ~350% faster kill time vs 1x LRM 20 and 143% faster kill time vs 2x LRM 10.
4x LRM 5 used 2.2 times less ammo to kill that target vs 1x LRM 20 and 1.2 times vs 2x LRM 10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Thoughts:
LRM 10 and 20 spread should be reduced to have a similar salvo kill time versus LRM 5.
No thank you the LRM'S have been nerfed to ground far enough as it is.
4 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users