VulcanXIV, on 01 March 2019 - 06:25 PM, said:
I have just come to a realization that i've been suspecting for quite some time, after replying what i'm about to say in the reddit hub.
You sir, are fake news. You're a myth. The tier1 e-peen of ams being useless is. a. myth. Day after day after day people ***** about lrms in this SURREAL rhetoric about how PGI is buffing skill-less play. No, what you're REALLY saying is that LRM's are becoming strong enough to fear (despite such boaters already winning games practically 90% of the time), the thought of sacrificing 1-3 tons of minmaxing to the AMS gods TERRIFIES you.
Despite the tier1 e-peen constantly spouting that skill is the COMPLETE AND ONLY counter to lrm boats, people just ignore the common prevalence of 100-ton potatoes on their team who can't even use their entire mech properly. When did enemies/friendlies wasting an entire mech as an lrm boat become any different than the equally skill-less potatoes who can't even use their meta build properly or are using derpy builds? FAKE. NEWS.
FAKE
NEWS
The day everyone stops gasping at ams is the day LRM's become well and truly countered by definition, and then we can focus on working as a team to kill the heavily minmaxed clan laser vomit and heavy gauss fafnirs with communication and teamplay. One might even dare say that this ams-blasphemy is a symptom of the trashy alphawarrior online meta we have, where you either run a minmaxed monster that carries the entire team or you're just a waste of tonnage.
Literally ever single avenue of tier 1 e-peen preaching in this game is completely and utterly two faced.
LRM boats useless huh? They win the game constantly.
AMS useless you say? Yet people praise the kitfox martyrs or silently take advantage of the lucky situation that half their team is running ams and the enemy lrm is completely invalidated.
LRM's getting buffed into skill-less godhood, people raising pitchforks and quitting the game you cry? Oh, but skillful cover-usage COMPLETELY AND IRREFUTABLY invalidates LRMs. shuuuut the fuuuuuuck upppppp dude
I for one absolutely adore setting aside tonnage for ams. Utility is FUN and is the spice of life in ANY game. Even I sometimes remove ams completely in order to minmax my damage, but that's because I buy into the fake news every now and then that minmaxing your build is law (when in reality the only time that matters is when people are running absolutely boring meta trash and are expecting to single-handedly win the game).
I HEREBY ANNOUNCE THE AMS UPRISING.
So what your saying it you don't want a logical and correct answer to your question, rather you just want to just believe want you want. Ok, it is what it is.
But lets analyze this a bit. AMS is only a counter to really two weapon systems in the game. LRMs and ATMs. It is slightly effective against other missiles but doesn't really counter too much damage from MRMs, SRMs and Streak. Further AMS is very effective against ATMs due to their smaller missile count countering up to probably 15-18 ATM missiles fired at the mech protected by AMS. For LRMs I would say it can counter maybe 10-15 missiles tops.
So against the typical load out of an ATM equipped mech, AMS would definitely be a must mount type of defensive system. Against LRMs, usually fired at you in groups of 60-80, well not so much. It reduces the damage but 40-60 missiles are still going to get through and ravage your mech. So against an LRM threat lets say it is about 20% effective.
Now consider that as is, your AMS only counters maybe 1 mech firing ATMs at you and then only about 20% of one mech firing LRMs at you. It does nothing or little to nothing to counter Lasers, PPCs, ACs, SRMs, MRMs, etc weapons that make up about 80% of the loadout of weapons you will be facing in each match.
So now start using your brain and figure out just how much protection over the course of 100s of matches your really your going to get from equipping an AMS compared to the total amount of damage you take from other sources of damage that aren't ATMs or LRMs and what does it end up being 5-10% damage maybe? Heck I have went entire matches without being hit by one LRM or ATM which might even bring this number down lower.
Also like many people point out, unless your caught out in the open, generally speaking just finding a bit of cover negates 80% of incoming LRM fire and you even get a few second warning that LRMs are inbound in order to help facilitate you getting into the cover. This also works for ATMs to a lesser degree as well.
Now ask yourself how many times you wished you had 10% better heat dissipation. How many times would that be the difference between getting a kill or getting killed yourself? How much more damage per match would you be able output on average? How much more XP and C-bills per match would you earn? To me this is what makes having a few extra heat sinks more important than having AMS.
Now maybe my calculations are wrong but each and every time someone debates whether to mount AMS or not, they have to do this mental calculation and decide what gives them the most advantage. To me having better heat management gives me a much greater overall advantage than mounting AMS simply because the advantage of AMS is highly situational and in most cases only provide a very limited benefit but having better heat management is something I will always use despite the presence or lack of cover, despite the prevalence of missile usage or non-usage.
Sorry to say, this isn't fake news, rather it is just decision making based on thinking about the advantages and disadvantage and then trying to make the best decision you can. Obviously since not everyone or even the majority mount AMS, other people, at all levels and tiers, feel the same way I do about it.
Edited by Angel of Annihilation, 02 March 2019 - 01:03 PM.
4
