Jump to content

Ams Rework - Percent Missile


3 replies to this topic

#1 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,104 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 23 March 2019 - 04:50 AM

View PostThe6thMessenger, on 23 March 2019 - 04:47 AM, said:

Currently, PGI implemented different health values, and this is to make smaller launchers less vulnerable to AMS, although poorly executed with just low health all around.

Now here's my concern, the AMS still have additive DPS of 3.5, in which either it can be overwhelmed by LRMs, or it can just overwhelm AMS. This means that either problems is simply answered by boating AMS or LRMs, which the LRM-boats would just further use to justify their poor builds that maximized tube count.

What if AMS, would instead down a fixed percentage of missile? This would mean that the AMS becomes more powerful as more missiles are thrown at it. With 20% of missiles downed for about 1s of influence, this means that at 5 missile volley only 1 missiles are downed, but at 20 missile volley, it would down 4 missiles instead.

While this seems like how the current missile-health system is applied, the problem is the inconsistency. Such as a single LRM20 would be less useful versus 4 LRM5s. Simmilarly, there could be a technique which negates the vulnerability of larger launchers by firing smaller launchers first, which defeats the purpose.

How it would work, mechanically, perhaps there could be invisible dedicated AMS that tracks and only interacts (by that i mean shoot down) with a single and specific LRM volleys and would leave the other clusters alone. If it's an LRM5 volley then it's DPS is 2, up to LRM20 which it's DPS is 8.


So what do you think? Is it a better AMS system?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 March 2019 - 07:27 AM.


#2 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,586 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 23 March 2019 - 07:54 AM

View PostThe6thMessenger, on 23 March 2019 - 04:50 AM, said:


So what do you think? Is it a better AMS system?


This sounds familiar...


Anyway, I would have it where the AMS percentage would hit a cap, and would have diminishing returns the more are added until the cap.

The point would be, every launcher of every size no matter the volley size, AMS performance would become stabalized, be unable to be "overwhelmed", nor would it "be a perfect shield" to smaller volley.

I believe that every launcher should be able to get at least a single missile through no matter how much AMS is there, as the cap. Otherwise, missiles remain in a constant state of "what else was taken to the battlefield". No other weapon system has this "consideration", but then again no other weapon system can shoot indirectly.

#3 KursedVixen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 3,247 posts
  • LocationLook at my Arctic Wolf. Closer... Closer...

Posted 24 March 2019 - 10:22 AM

ATms in BT were not able to do indirect fire.... they were more like super SRms from what i can read.

#4 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,586 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 24 March 2019 - 03:11 PM

View PostKursedVixen, on 24 March 2019 - 10:22 AM, said:

ATms in BT were not able to do indirect fire.... they were more like super SRms from what i can read.


Clans never really desired indirect combat, honor and all. But, they didn't mind missiles that could be useful in a wide variety of situations. So, I don't believe the ATMs were designed nor able to shoot indirectly. Then again, they had to choose the ammo to load, and their close range ammo had no minimum range too... So, things just are a little different between.

I will say though, AMS should still have an effect on ATMs, as they do all missiles.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users