Effective Optimum Ranges Of Srms And Lbx (Due To Spread)
#1
Posted 22 March 2017 - 05:16 PM
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
Posted 22 March 2017 - 07:00 PM
I didn't think PGI would stick to TT rules that closely.
Edited by El Bandito, 22 March 2017 - 07:01 PM.
#3
Posted 22 March 2017 - 08:06 PM
The effective optimal range difference between cSRM4a and SRM4a seems quite pronounced, like disproportionately so.
#4
Posted 22 March 2017 - 09:53 PM
chucklesMuch, on 22 March 2017 - 08:06 PM, said:
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
Posted 22 March 2017 - 11:33 PM
Tarogato, 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
Posted 23 March 2017 - 12:10 AM
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
Posted 23 March 2017 - 12:16 AM
#8
Posted 23 March 2017 - 01:58 AM
That could explain your variation. From memory, 64m and 100m were intersect points of the wave.
#9
Posted 23 March 2017 - 05:22 AM
SSRM's though... i'm not sure about. The jury is out on that.
LBX is fine, imo.
#10
Posted 23 March 2017 - 01:36 PM
BigBenn, on 23 March 2017 - 05:22 AM, said:
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
Posted 23 March 2017 - 01:40 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users