Jump to content

Effective Optimum Ranges Of Srms And Lbx (Due To Spread)


10 replies to this topic

#1 Tarogato

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 6,557 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 22 March 2017 - 05:16 PM

Posted Image


These are the optimum ranges to be at in order to consistently deal the maximum damage to a target the size of a turret (or in other words have all of the missiles/pellets hit the vast majority of the time). Probably ±10-20m depending on convergence of your mechs mounts. For reference, turrets are about the size of a Jenner's torso (specifically the body, not the thinner saucer section). Obviously, this is all relative, so if you're shooting an Awesome in the CT, you might as well septuple all of these ranges because you can't miss it, but if you're trying to leg an Arctic Cheetah then i would probably multiply all of these ranges by √-1.





Notes:
- PGI recently nerfed SRM4 spread. I saw a need to close 10 extra meters to achieve the same consistency as compared to before.

- SRM6 and cSRM6 seemed to have more spread compared to the last time I tested this 10 months ago. But artemis 6's seemed to have stayed the same. This could just be minor inconsistency in methodology, as the spread on 6's themselves is pretty aggressive and random.

- cSRM6 actually never consistently hits all six missiles, even when I closed to a distance of 2m (two meters!), but I didn't notice much improvement inside 40 meters, so that is the number I put on the chart. Oddly enough, I saw them hit 100% at exactly 64m for about 10-15 volleys in a row. Bizarre.

- tightness of spread seems somewhat irregular as it pertains to range. For instance, with cSRM2 I saw both missile hit fairly consistently at ~220m, but when I got closer, one of them tended to miss more often, and when I got to all the way to ~150m, I saw them both hitting consistently again, so I put 150m as the optimum range. This occurs with all SRMs, but I found it most noticeable with the cSRM2.

- I did not re-test clan LBs this time around, I used the values from 10 months ago - I don't believe PGI made any changes in that time, and I was starting to feel lazy after re-testing all the the SRMs and IS LB10.

- I still have not tested any mechs with spread quirks. Blah lazy. Maybe if enough people yell at me about it, I'll give it a go.



Methodology:

I equipped weapons in torso mounts reasonably close to the cockpit of mechs, and the mechs must not have spread quirks (for example, I tested SRMs on the Jenner IIC, Stormcrow, Wolverine, and Centurion). I test each weapon system for consistently landing all missiles/pellets on a turret in the Mechwarrior Academy, aiming slightly below dead center. Used a turret that I could approach on land without crossing water. If damage was inconsistent, I moved at least 10 meters closer and tested again. For each optimum range I found, I confirmed that full damage was applied ~10m closer, and that damage was noticeably less consistent from ~10m further away.
Past thread from 10 months ago.

#2 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 22 March 2017 - 07:00 PM

So basically:

Posted Image


I didn't think PGI would stick to TT rules that closely. :P

Edited by El Bandito, 22 March 2017 - 07:01 PM.


#3 chucklesMuch

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 1,424 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 22 March 2017 - 08:06 PM

Thanks for that Tarogato!

The effective optimal range difference between cSRM4a and SRM4a seems quite pronounced, like disproportionately so.




#4 Tarogato

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 6,557 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 22 March 2017 - 09:53 PM

View PostchucklesMuch, on 22 March 2017 - 08:06 PM, said:

Thanks for that Tarogato!

The effective optimal range difference between cSRM4a and SRM4a seems quite pronounced, like disproportionately so.


Yeah, I didn't see the degradation I was expecting with the IS SRM4a. Seems to be about what it was last time I tested it, no change at all. Maybe I didn't test carefully enough on either this or the previous session from 10 months ago.

Wouldn't mind seeing somebody else have a go and see if they come up with similar results or not.

#5 chucklesMuch

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 1,424 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 22 March 2017 - 11:33 PM

View PostTarogato, on 22 March 2017 - 09:53 PM, said:


Yeah, I didn't see the degradation I was expecting with the IS SRM4a. Seems to be about what it was last time I tested it, no change at all. Maybe I didn't test carefully enough on either this or the previous session from 10 months ago.

Wouldn't mind seeing somebody else have a go and see if they come up with similar results or not.


Mmm will need to try again when I'm not so tired (and more patient), as i was getting inconsistent results from the same ranges, I'm assuming its my aiming... but the missiles patterns also seemed to vary (again probably me, too tired after work)

#6 Spheroid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 5,060 posts
  • LocationSouthern Wisconsin

Posted 23 March 2017 - 12:10 AM

I did your experiment ages ago and came to the conclusion that there is almost no variation in missile spread over range. I suspect the flight path was made cylindrical as opposed to conical owing to the massive hit registration problems SRMs have suffered in the past.

If one really wanted to study the effect, one should cycle through the set of repeating salvo patterns at various ranges and overlay them in photoshop with some large target like an Atlas scaled to a common pixel size for comparison.

Edited by Spheroid, 23 March 2017 - 12:18 AM.


#7 Bilbo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 7,864 posts
  • LocationSaline, Michigan

Posted 23 March 2017 - 12:16 AM

With the IS asrm4 I always saw the one damn missile, well three of them I guess, running off high and to the right. The spread tonight never got outside of the errant missile. On the plus side, I don't recall seeing those three(? maybe one) errant missiles.

#8 Fiona Marshe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 756 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 23 March 2017 - 01:58 AM

The old (like closed beta old) waveform SRM flight path might be running on the server, whild thd client runs the strait pathing.

That could explain your variation. From memory, 64m and 100m were intersect points of the wave.

#9 BigBenn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 571 posts
  • LocationSioux Falls, SD

Posted 23 March 2017 - 05:22 AM

I's like to see SRM's have their range extended in the form of reduced damage. The "dead warhead" phenomenon at 270m is a bit over the top, imo. I'd like to see another 100-150m or so of scaled reduced damage.

SSRM's though... i'm not sure about. The jury is out on that.

LBX is fine, imo.

#10 Tarogato

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 6,557 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 23 March 2017 - 01:36 PM

View PostBigBenn, on 23 March 2017 - 05:22 AM, said:

I's like to see SRM's have their range extended in the form of reduced damage. The "dead warhead" phenomenon at 270m is a bit over the top, imo. I'd like to see another 100-150m or so of scaled reduced damage.

SSRM's though... i'm not sure about. The jury is out on that.

LBX is fine, imo.


Would make more sense for all missiles to just start scattering and falling to the ground after 270m because they ran out of propellant. But PGI probably couldn't code that.

#11 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 26,888 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 23 March 2017 - 01:40 PM

How are you getting ranges at 300m? Even with the range mod, that leaves you 3m short.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users