137 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

Well, if a single AMS could brign down a lrm 20, and if it had like 3 charges doing so before having to reload, then it would probably have a niche for a short moment of "rush over the open" as a tactic. but atm, it's stupid easy to avoid lrm's and the amount of srms and other missiles brought down is near worthless to invest tonnage fir such a thing.

However if you want to g to noobtown where rains tose white things bring the

Protector of he Noobsault https://mwo.smurfy-n...6837b7d45ee9c5e

[Jman5]

Nightbird, on 04 March 2019 - 06:49 AM, said:

Well, it's not that simple, there is strike damage, and also in the past, free damage from arms (with ST loss) and ammo explosion damage.

Alternate damage numbers are irrelevant with the method I provided. You're subtracting total damage of the LRM X from total damage of the LRM X prior to playing the game. So the only damage added to that weapon stat page is damage done from that specific LRM. The only thing you have to do is mark your ammo used.

The only problem is if you're using multiple LRM types in one mech.

Quote

I guess both our stats aren't usable, since the stats page is borked.

I was thinking about it and there is a way to use the weapon stat page to arrive at an accuracy stat in a less manually intensive way. However it can only work from now on as you would have to archive your current weapon stats in a spreadsheet.

Quote

Artemis stats isn't useful because most people do not use it.

Citation needed. You keep making these claims about what weapons people use or don't use or what percent of LRMs are missing without providing any actual evidence. I look at my stats and nearly all my LRM artemis numbers vastly overrepresent all but the LRM 5s and Clan LRM 10. Just because you and your 12-man group in FP don't run artemis doesn't mean most people don't.

To be frank, if you still believe at this point that only 25% of your lrms are hitting, I wonder why you're so disdainful about Artemis. 4 LRM 20s is north of 50 tons with ammo and you can't find 4? LRM 20 Artemis has less spread than an LRM 5. If you can't fit it for slot space reasons I would just go for 15s.

I'm just going to repeat myself again. 25% hitrate does not make sense. It would require you to bring 4,000 rounds of ammo just to squeak out 1000 damage. That's about 14.5 tons and that is with both ammo skills.

Look here is your own game


We can work out the estimated hit rate here.

You started the video a tiny bit late, but it's likely you're running 19 tons of ammo (5,244). At the end of that match your total damage was 2877.

2,877/5,244 = 54.8% accuracy with LRM 15s and 20s.

Yes there was lots of NARC around, but it provides worse spread reduction than artemis. So you can say that some of your shots were simulating artemis I guess. I'm fairly sure you missed with that airstrike but we can throw in 100 damage for it if it makes you feel better which still leaves you at 52.3% accuracy.

So we're back to what I've been saying from the start. 40-50s percent is a reasonable accuracy accounting for LRMs.

Edited by Jman5, 04 March 2019 - 10:09 AM.

[Nightbird]

Jman5, on 04 March 2019 - 10:06 AM, said:

So we're back to what I've been saying from the start. 40-50s percent is a reasonable accuracy accounting for LRMs.

Your stats come from the time period when Artemis provided a 30% spread reduction regardless of line of sight or not. Also, my stats are not representative of the general population's accuracy, as all my targets are NARCed. You're not a good choice either being a very skilled player. We're more or less the upper limit of a bell curve, so the average is a lot lower. I still think 25-33% is a good estimate for where the average player is at for LRM accuracy, unfortunately I don't have stats to prove that and you don't have any either. I'm OK with walking from this discussion due to inability to produce stats, are you fine with or if you see another way I'm game.

[P]

God damn ams chewing up all my ATM what are you talking about

[OmniFail]

Mercs that don't bring AMS are parasites because they are not sharing tonnage.

[Grus]

OmniFail, on 04 March 2019 - 12:06 PM, said:

Mercs that don't bring AMS are parasites because they are not sharing tonnage.

O.o wat?

[Prototelis]

lol.

Either buff ams to compete with huge tube counts or nerf the **** out of huge tube counts.

Then you'll see more ams.

[VonBruinwald]

Prototelis, on 04 March 2019 - 03:23 PM, said:

nerf the **** out of huge tube counts.

An easy way to do that is to apply "ghost spread" based on how many tubes you fire in one go:

Fire 5/10 missiles 3m radius,
Fire 15/20 missiles 4m radius,
Fire 25/30 missiles 5m radius,
Fire 35/40 missiles 6m radius,
Fire 45/50 missiles 7m radius,
etc...

Don't want spread, chain-fire.

[Prototelis]

Personally, I believe IDF lrms should be a cone of fire effect, or AOE damage. We have "splash" damage on artillery, IDF should work like that and blanket a small cone around the intended mech.

Want to get all the missiles to actually hit your target? Make sure you're looking at them.

I like how ATMs work. You get punished if you aren't paying attention to what mechs are on the field. They get punished if they're being too aggro and let someone move into the bubble.

Streaks are ********. They completely defeat the point of highly maneuverable mechs, and they literally aim for the user. You can have all the juke skills and cooldown timing skills in the world and still get smacked down by someone standing still 400 meters away with a laser pointer and a fistfull of C.streaks.

I feel like streaks should have a crappy turn radius and move slower. You should be able to avoid them through maneuvering, especially at a 90 degree angle.

That preserves the "OH **** STREAKS" nature of the weapon, forces the light mech to disengage/move away/otherwise not make it to optimal range or take extreme damage, and punishes lights that run straight at people (like you see many PIR pilots do). They could even have REALLY short lockon times to compensate for this.

Edited by Prototelis, 04 March 2019 - 04:00 PM.

[Lily from animove]

streaks are ******** they are forced spread, just don't turn to the side when streaks are incoming otherwise your arm and ST will eat too many because evertyhign that spreads to CT, the other arm and other ST will hit the side you show..

They only have one purpose if boated, killing IS lights extremely fast that twist away




regular srm's would have wrecked that BJ

Edited by Lily from animove, 04 March 2019 - 04:29 PM.

[Prototelis]

That blackjack would have been dead if the user could put them lasers on the CT. I fail to see the point here.

[Lily from animove]

Prototelis, on 04 March 2019 - 04:38 PM, said:

That blackjack would have been dead if the user could put them lasers on the CT. I fail to see the point here.

sure but thats not the point, there were flying 36 srm's towards that BJ and it hardly changed the color of the open CT. It is a bad system to even begin with when it comes to do whats needed: kill stuff efficiently. And there is no reason not to use srm's instead because you WILL kill stuff with it unless you aim as bad as that guy with his lasers.

[Jman5]

Nightbird, on 04 March 2019 - 11:54 AM, said:

Your stats come from the time period when Artemis provided a 30% spread reduction regardless of line of sight or not. Also, my stats are not representative of the general population's accuracy, as all my targets are NARCed.

You would have to show me the patch notes where this was altered because as far as I am aware, Artemis never provided spread reduction for indirect fire.

Quote

You're not a good choice either being a very skilled player. We're more or less the upper limit of a bell curve, so the average is a lot lower. I still think 25-33% is a good estimate for where the average player is at for LRM accuracy, unfortunately I don't have stats to prove that and you don't have any either. I'm OK with walking from this discussion due to inability to produce stats, are you fine with or if you see another way I'm game.

We're free to end replying to each other here. I'm not trying to demand responses to every post I make. I would like to end this with one final point. Whenever I get into these discussions where I am defending or advocating for something that doesn't fall into the sphere of meta I go through the exact same argument every time year after year. It's honestly infuriating and hypocritical.

No matter what evidence I provide or experience I personally have it's never good enough. People demand specific data which I then I try hard to provide. Then the goalpost is moved and it's not good enough, or nitpicked to death. By the end, it all doesn't matter and gets summarily dismissed by just saying: "Well Jman you're just good at the game so your stats don't count and nothing you say matters." You demanded to see my weapon stats, then accused me of doctoring them, then when it still didn't show what you wanted it was tossed out as immaterial.

Yet this same level of skepticism with its impossibly high bar is never leveled for things under the sphere of meta. Where is the analysis and preponderance of evidence that shows that the Madcat MKII with a dakka build is one of the best Clan Assaults out there? There is none. It came out, some good players loaded it up and liked it and that's all it took. Nobody stops them and says their performance is irrelevant because they would do well in anything. Nobody demands data.

In this thread I showed you three separate pieces of evidence that all point toward 40-70% hitrates. For each piece you have come up with a separate excuse for why it's not valid. Yet, without a single shred of evidence you have concluded that 25%-33% hit rate is a good average number for average LRM users. Wanting more evidence to paint a more complete picture is totally understandable. I'm not married to the numbers I have observed. I'd love to have more evidence and if it showed that average people were getting 25% hit rates on average I would adjust my range of hit-rates from 40-70 to 25-70 depending on the player/situation. But so far the only evidence has not shown that.

I can think of several different ways we can come up with new evidence. For example, get someone "average" who plays LRMs to post their weapon stats and then a week or so later post the updated ones. We can work out the hitrate for that week. However from everything I have seen in this discussion and previous ones, nothing that is produced will matter. The goalpost will just be moved when it doesn't show 25%-33%.

To the OP if you're still reading this I do want to apologize for hijacking the thread on this tangent, but it was ultimately done to try to prove the value of AMS.

Edited by Jman5, 05 March 2019 - 11:44 AM.

[Marauder3D]

Nightbird, on 04 March 2019 - 11:54 AM, said:

Your stats come from the time period when Artemis provided a 30% spread reduction regardless of line of sight or not.

Artemis never provided spread reduction for indirect fire, IIRC.

[Bud Crue]

Marauder3D, on 05 March 2019 - 11:58 AM, said:

Artemis never provided spread reduction for indirect fire, IIRC.

https://mwomercs.com...es-and-artemis/

Actually it once provided its benefits to both LOS and Indirect fire, assuming I read Chris’s OP explanation correctly regarding it once providing a “global boost” despite the old dev threads saying it required LOS. Frankly, I am still confused as to what Artemis does now, let alone what it used to do.

[Marauder3D]

Bud Crue, on 05 March 2019 - 12:13 PM, said:

https://mwomercs.com...es-and-artemis/

Actually it once provided its benefits to both LOS and Indirect fire, assuming I read Chris’s OP explanation correctly regarding it once providing a “global boost” despite the old dev threads saying it required LOS. Frankly, I am still confused as to what Artemis does now, let alone what it used to do.

Interesting. A few years ago when I was active, I knew that it provided boosts to only direct fire LRMs. I thought it had always been that way. And I was around for the LuRMaggedons. The second one, where every missile hit your cockpit area, was especially funny.

[Khobai]

The reason people dont use AMS is simple: if the enemy isnt using missiles it ends up doing absolutely nothing and being wasted tonnage. That makes taking AMS a gamble.

The way to fix AMS is also simple: allow AMS to switch modes and fire manually like a machine gun/small laser so it still has a use even when the enemy doesn't bring missiles. Then AMS always has a use and people will be more likely to bring it.

It might require some rebalancing of certain mechs, particularly the triple AMS ones like the Kitfox, but I still think its doable.


And this problem doesnt just affect AMS. It affects equipment like TAG/NARC too which are utterly useless if your own team doesnt bring missiles. Which is why TAG/NARC should also have alternate abilities that work independently of whether or not you have LRM boats on your team.

NARC should explode when its duration ends. The explosion should do 6-8 damage and cause a haywire effect to all mechs inside the explosion radius. So worst case scenario, if you have no LRM boats, NARC is still like a worse SRM launcher.

And TAG should have the ability to call in ARROWIV strikes. Each team could get like 3 ARROWIV strikes (or better yet add the NAGA and Catapult-3 with hardwired ARROWIV systems) that are shared between everyone on the team. Then theres a reason to bring TAG even if you have no LRM boats.

Utility equipment in MWO just needs to be better in general.

Quote

If we knew the map before we chose what build to play, I'd bet 50% or more mechs would bring AMS to Polar Highlands

I used to like the idea of picking mechs before the map. Because it makes sense youd know what planet you were landing on before you picked your mech.

But now I just want random maps. Because picking mechs after knowing the map would just make metagaming that much worse. And metagaming in MWO really doesnt need to be any worse...

Edited by Khobai, 05 March 2019 - 01:26 PM.

[Nightbird]

Jman5, on 05 March 2019 - 11:39 AM, said:

You would have to show me the patch notes where this was altered because as far as I am aware, Artemis never provided spread reduction for indirect fire.

Bud Crue, on 05 March 2019 - 12:13 PM, said:

https://mwomercs.com...es-and-artemis/

Actually it once provided its benefits to both LOS and Indirect fire, assuming I read Chris’s OP explanation correctly regarding it once providing a “global boost” despite the old dev threads saying it required LOS. Frankly, I am still confused as to what Artemis does now, let alone what it used to do.

It was never supposed to give spread reduction for indirect fire, but it did until OCT2018.

Jman5, on 05 March 2019 - 11:39 AM, said:

Rest

No one can provide accuracy stats because PGI screwed them up. Don't take it personally. I would have been fine if the stats were usable, but as you can see the accuracy calculation changed midway through. The only data we have is a few game you've played, do you personally see that as a good average for the entire playerbase?

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 05 March 2019 - 01:11 PM, said:

-snip-
And this problem doesnt just affect AMS. It affects equipment like TAG/NARC too which are utterly useless if your own team doesnt bring missiles.
-snip-

Narc still has non-missile uses for giving your team red doritos on enemies who are behind cover and for defeating ECM. TAG also defeats ECM and can counter Stealth Armor. That's not amazing, but it's better than taking AMS against an enemy team that has no missiles.

Edited by FupDup, 05 March 2019 - 02:13 PM.

[Scout Derek]

FupDup, on 05 March 2019 - 02:12 PM, said:

Narc still has non-missile uses for giving your team red doritos on enemies who are behind cover and for defeating ECM. TAG also defeats ECM and can counter Stealth Armor. That's not amazing, but it's better than taking AMS against an enemy team that has no missiles.

Just keep in mind BAP doesn't counter stealth armor, in case one decides to not bring TAG.