Jump to content

Ams And You


51 replies to this topic

#41 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 6,575 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 22 November 2016 - 04:03 PM

View Postjss78, on 04 November 2015 - 08:54 PM, said:


This part I don't quite get. Why is AMS more useful if more people carry it? That suggests that there's an exponential return, that two AMS shoot down more than twice as many missiles. The best I figure it's a linear return -- two AMS destroy exactly twice as many missiles -- or possibly slightly diminishing return if more AMS's shoot at the missiles than would've been needed to destroy all misiles.

Bah, someone else already explained why returns are exponential with more AMS - I'll just add that it's similar to armor reduction % in WoW. Adding more points of armor value yields increasingly small increases to your percentage of physical damage reduced - but the gains are linear, not decreasing, because each point of armor gives you the same amount of increased time to kill at any given level of hit points (assuming you're not getting one-shot.)

As someone else explained, this is also why LRMs are terribly hard to balance: any superiority in either weight of fire or AMS coverage will render the other proportionally ineffective. If you have AMS superiority, LRM damage throughput is low to none; if you have LRM superiority, the AMS is spitting in the wind. So you have to tune LRMs for some arbitrary level of AMS in addition to all the other variables like player skill, common tactics, and map variance. But AMS systems are optional, as are LRMS - so the proper risk-reward balance between the two will vary over time.

As they stand now, though it's impossible to balance LRMs against AMS. Since weapon preferences demonstrably change with tier level, the proper balance will be different depending on which segment of the player base is being measured. This means that while you can get a sort of ballpark going that works for most people, LRMs are actually impossible to balance for everyone.

All of this means that the value of AMS is linked directly to the prevalence of LRMs in your games. If you find that you're seeing a lot of LRMs in your matches, you should take AMS if your build can spare the tonnage. In this instance it is not more useful to spend that 1.5 tons on heat sinks, armor, or some hypothetically faster engine. You should take AMS in this case even if you don't feel that you have problems with LRMs. Because frankly, your teammates will - so unless you want to carry them when they take excessive damage (and then die or hide forever,) vaccinate your @#$% Battlemechs.

On the other hand, if you rarely see LRMs, AMS is a pure luxury. It's only a ton and a half, which might be chump change or a significant part of your available weight, depending, but it's not really needed. Also bear in mind that even if you do see LRMs a lot, certain builds simply cannot support AMS with minimal loss of effectiveness (due to space limitations or extreme heat requirements.) If your Hunchback 4P laser brawler is running too hot with AMS, you should take it off, even if you see LRMs blot out the sky every day - mine can't fit AMS, and I don't feel bad for not bringing it on that particular Battlemech.

Edited by Void Angel, 22 November 2016 - 04:03 PM.


#42 Jman5

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 4,914 posts

Posted 23 November 2016 - 08:21 AM

View Post50 50, on 22 November 2016 - 01:42 PM, said:

The simple point being made is that 1.5 tons is not much of a sacrifice to provide some protection. Yes it does come at the expense of other options, but it is always the choice of the player.

View PostVoid Angel, on 22 November 2016 - 04:03 PM, said:

On the other hand, if you rarely see LRMs, AMS is a pure luxury. It's only a ton and a half, which might be chump change or a significant part of your available weight, depending, but it's not really needed.


I know this might come off as splitting hairs, but I have frequently seen these numbers used whenever AMS gets discussed. 90% of the time you really don't need a full ton of AMS ammo for 1 AMS. Equipping only half a ton gives you 1000 rounds and means the total cost of AMS is only 1 ton.

On the off chance you get one of those games where it seems half the enemy team is packing LRMs, you have the ability to ration your ammo by turning it off whenever you're confident the LRMs are just going to smack into the ground. By taking an active role in managing your AMS you can really extend how far those 1000 rounds take you.

#43 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 6,575 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 23 November 2016 - 11:08 AM

It's true that you can only take a half ton, but the difference is minimal for most builds that can afford AMS.

I've found that if the match goes so long that I could use all my ammo, it's because my team is playing camper games - and the more missiles I can shoot down in that situation, the better off we'll all be when the team finds manhood again and finishes the fight.

#44 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,145 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 24 November 2016 - 07:15 PM

It's those matches where you might have 3 or more tons of ammo for the AMS and use all of it that you know it's paid for it's weight.

#45 Kali Rinpoche

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 639 posts
  • LocationCrossing, Draconis March

Posted 24 November 2016 - 07:34 PM

AMS is a good thought for later in events when puppies turn to LRMS to finish the events.

#46 Lily from animove

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 13,891 posts
  • LocationOn a dropship to Terra

Posted 25 November 2016 - 02:11 AM

View PostFox With A Shotgun, on 04 November 2015 - 09:07 PM, said:


It's because the return is actually inversely proportional to the number of LRMs hit. If the idea of AMS is to increase the lifespan of a mech. Consider the following case:

Volley of 20 LRMs, 20 volleys @ 1s apart (i.e. approx 240m distance, or the max range of an AMS):\
0 Mechs carrying AMS: 0 missiles shot down/volley = 20 missiles hitting/volley. 400 missiles hit.
1 Mech carrying AMS: 4 missiles shot down/volley = 16 missiles hitting/volley. 320 missiles hit.
2 Mechs carrying AMS: 8 missiles shot down/volley = 12 missiles hitting/volley. 240 missiles hit.
3 Mechs carrying AMS: 12 missiles shot down/volley = 8 missiles hitting/volley. 160 missiles hit.
4 Mechs.... 16 missiles shot down = 4 missiles hitting, 80 missiles hit in total.
5 Mechs+, all missiles shot down.

At first glance this looks like a linear relationship, which it is if you consider damage reduction. But what it really does is if you consider the original goal of AMS (extending life expectancy under missile rain), the time-to-kill (TTK) increases inversely. If we take the mech to be made of one part, just to simplify things, and it is 320 hp worth of mech, and that the complete barrage of 20x20 LRM is 20 seconds long, which can repeat after 20 seconds:

0 Mechs with AMS = 400 missiles hit = 16 seconds to kill
1 Mech with AMS = 320 missiles hit = 20 seconds to kill
2 Mechs with AMS = 240 missiles hit = 26.67 seconds to kill
3 Mechs with AMS = 160 missiles hit = 40 seconds to kill
4 Mechs with AMS = 80 missiles hit = 80 seconds to kill
5 Mechs with AMS = all missiles shot down = infinity seconds to kill.

This is why the more mechs you have, the more effective AMS is. TTK is inversely proportional to the amount of damage taken per unit time; and if you can reduce that damage taken per unit time closer to zero, you can drive up TTK to stupid high levels.

Also, I messed up my calculations. 1 ton of AMS ammo = 2000 shots. 9 shots of AMS kills 1 LRM, so 1 ton of AMS drops about 220 LRMs.

the tonnag
e invested into ams also makes your opponent live longer in return since AMS isn't doing damage. and more thna 90% of games end up by team deathmatch conditions.

#47 Jman5

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 4,914 posts

Posted 25 November 2016 - 12:35 PM

View PostLily from animove, on 25 November 2016 - 02:11 AM, said:

the tonnage invested into ams also makes your opponent live longer in return since AMS isn't doing damage. and more thna 90% of games end up by team deathmatch conditions.


A couple points I would like to make. First of all there is no certainty that you are trading firepower for that 1 ton of ams w/ ammo. There are all sorts of ways to find 1 ton without disrupting your firepower. You could downgrade your engine for instance. You might remove BAP, etc...

Second, simply living longer in a fight will have the effect of increasing your damage. Let's use an exaggerated example to illustrate what I mean. If you had 1 mech that does 100 damage a second but he only lives for 5 seconds, he will do 500 damage. If you have a mech that does 60 damage, but he lives for 10 seconds, he will do 600 damage. This is why you don't see people stripping all their armor and putting in more guns. Spending tonnage on defense actually increases your damage over the course of the game because you can spend more time shooting.

Edited by Jman5, 26 November 2016 - 12:06 PM.


#48 panzer1b

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 29 January 2017 - 08:55 PM

Once you get into T1 AMS (and lurms for that matter) are both a waste of tonnage. Radar derp, ecm, and plain positioning skill renders lurms moot, and ams doesnt do jack against srms (if they aim and are in range u are gonna take basically full damage becauise the ams can maybee kill 1 missile)...

Not that im going to diss AMS entirely, but id much rather have 1.5t more of actual weapons (which will help me remove the lurmboats from the field faster) then something super situational like AMS.

If you are actually concerned about lurms the first best thing at a low tier is ecm. Once you move up and have money to spare get radar derp, it is the single best thing against lurms as it instantly breaks locks and is essentially a giant middle finger to the lurmboat. Still, as you get even better in skill, you will learn how to use cover and position properly to minimize or even completely eliminate the ability of a lurmboat to hurt you.

TLDR, dont waste your tonnage on AMS...

#49 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 6,575 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 29 January 2017 - 09:30 PM

Incorrect.

If you are seeing LRM monkeys with sufficient frequency, it's worthwhile to take AMS; and, as I myself and others have pointed out, you'll see them less and less as you progress up the tiers. However, as the success of your team relies on more than each individual's performance, if you are seeing LRMs with any frequency the minor tonnage investment is always worthwhile if you can fit it without messing up your build (e.g. your laser boat really needs that extra heat sink or two in order to get in another alpha.) You're seeing LRMs at your play level because most players at that level have not yet learned to counter the weapon system. Thus, because this is a team game and you cannot magically gift your teammates with a clue, give them AMS coverage instead - vaccinate your dang Battlemechs.

TLDR: if someone is new enough to ask about AMS, don't misinform them by telling them to pretend they're a veteran.

#50 Dee Eight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 6,271 posts

Posted 30 January 2017 - 12:01 AM

There is no "once you get into T1" anymore. There are insufficient players in the QP queue to have ONLY a T1 players game outside of planned group matchs. PGI has officially said that the matchmaker is now mixing a four tier spread (so 1 thru 4). Unofficially a number of us have had matches with all five tiers represented. Its unofficial because PGI won't admit that our screen caps of the end match screens are proof, even when new players are talking in the chat about how its only their second match since installing the game, and actual known T1s are in the player lists as well.

Thus... not using AMS because YOU are T1, if you're in the solo queue...is just plain dumb...since chances favor you playing with folks who are 4s, and they probably DID bring LRMs to use against you.

#51 Brandiment

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Dragoon
  • The Dragoon
  • 35 posts

Posted 04 February 2017 - 07:58 AM

AMS is actually a good thing to have, its only 1.5 tons that could save you the same or more amount of armor from a LRM boat that has a murder on for you. Even if it only shoots down 5 missiles that is 5 missiles that did not hit you. I have been packing AMS since this game was in its infancy and it has saved me on more than one occasion. This, however is coming from a guy who has been packing as many LRMs into a mech as possible since the dark rains of catapult spam. No denying it **** works, but if you think you are super l33t pro 360 quickscope then don't put it on its your mech, and I could care less if you get nuked by the LRM gods.

#52 G4LV4TR0N

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Solitary
  • The Solitary
  • 907 posts

Posted 05 February 2017 - 01:40 AM

So how is AMS after recent patch changes? Any comments?





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users