69 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

The6thMessenger, on 23 March 2019 - 04:50 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.

[Brizna]

There are many ways in which AMS can be implemented and most of them are correct when properly designed what I think this patch has shown is that we need some kind of diminishing returns as amount of AMS coverage increases. So a single AMS would destroy more missiles than each of two systems working together against the same volley but less than the two added together, obviously.

[Yiryi-Sa]

No. AMS is fine as it is; I admit I love the changes to both the missiles and AMS. However, with the AMS range increase, I really don't think the missile health change is necessary.

AMS could undergo a code rewrite so that it doesn't shoot through cover.

[Kroete]

The6thMessenger, on 23 March 2019 - 04:47 AM, said:

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

20% means 2 mechs with 5 ams are enough to counter every number of tubes.

First we need to find out how effective stacking ams should be.
Should be possible to totaly negate lrms or would it be more balanced if its more around 80%?

Then we need to find out how many ams should be needed to get that maximum.
Like saying you need 12 ams to kill 80% of each salvo (means more then 12 ams would not increase the numbers of killed missiles)?

Next step find the percent a single ams should kill.
Like 20% so its makes a differece if you take it?

Last step:
Find the numbers,
we have 1 ams with 20%
and we have 12 ams with 80%
How much should each ams increase between?

Like:
1 ams 20% (not that bad)
2 ams 30%
3 ams 35% (dimishing returns in work and still 1/3 of each volley negated by triple ams mechs)
4 ams 40%
5 ams 45%
6 ams 50% (the half of each salvo killed with only 2 triple ams mechs)
...
12 ams 80% (at least a single missile or 4 from the big lauchers should go trough)

The numbers are just examples, but they must be tuned after some play and i think that 80% is too much,
65% of max killable missiles for each salvo archivable by 8ams would give a better balance.

Edited by Kroete, 23 March 2019 - 05:38 AM.

[Athom83]

How about buffing AMS a little bit more, BUT then make it only works on missiles that are locked onto the mech that has the AMS mounted. This is closer to lore and TT. Then we could ad the "Advanced AMS" (ADS) that works exactly how AMS works now but is 3 tons 2 slots per unit.

[Prototelis]

No.

Leave auto-aim missile health low.

Buff actual aim missile health back to where it was.

[Athom83]

Prototelis, on 23 March 2019 - 08:33 AM, said:

No.

Leave auto-aim missile health low.

Buff actual aim missile health back to where it was.

Something like;

IS:
LRM; 0.7
SRM; 1.2
Streak; 1.0
MRM; 0.9

Clan:
LRM; 0.6
SRM; 1.0
Streak; 0.9
ATM; 0.8

And leave them flat per launcher size?

Edited by Athom83, 23 March 2019 - 08:44 AM.

[Prototelis]

Streaks especially can get ******, they need their health lowered even more.

[adamts01]

Athom83, on 23 March 2019 - 07:52 AM, said:

How about buffing AMS a little bit more, BUT then make it only works on missiles that are locked onto the mech that has the AMS mounted. This is closer to lore and TT. Then we could ad the "Advanced AMS" (ADS) that works exactly how AMS works now but is 3 tons 2 slots per unit.

This kills "support mechs", which are already a joke in this game. When I rarely bring a Kit Fox, I don't take AMS for myself (ECM), but for my potatoes during events.



OP: I think that %-based solution is awesome. It's gimmicky space magic, but it does solve a lot of problems.

[Grus]

No.

[FupDup]

Athom83, on 23 March 2019 - 08:44 AM, said:

Something like;

IS:
LRM; 0.7
SRM; 1.2
Streak; 1.0
MRM; 0.9

Clan:
LRM; 0.6
SRM; 1.0
Streak; 0.9
ATM; 0.8

And leave them flat per launcher size?

Clan LRMs and ATMs already shoot in streams to make them more vulnerable to AMS. Giving them lower health on top of stream fire is doubly punishing them.

[PhoenixFire55]

The6thMessenger, on 23 March 2019 - 04:47 AM, said:

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

No. The only thing that needs to change in the way AMS works is not shooting missiles through terrain and objects.

[Athom83]

FupDup, on 23 March 2019 - 09:35 AM, said:

Clan LRMs and ATMs already shoot in streams to make them more vulnerable to AMS. Giving them lower health on top of stream fire is doubly punishing them.

I mean, its not like the cLRMs are half the size for a given volley of missiles or anything. For the ATMs, yeah that was just a startoff guess of where it could be as I keep forgetting how few missiles there are per launcher (mainly because I only ever see them boated). I checked again and currently they're at like 1.2-1.3 HP per missile on the smallest launcher and 1HP on the largest, so possibly simplifying it to a flat 1.4Hp per missile for all launchers?

[Johny Rocket]

No way to tell where ams really is until they fix ams shooting through terrain.

[Khobai]

AMS only weighs like 1.5 tons

Its amazing that some people think its fair for it to nullify dozens of tons of launchers

There is nothing fair or okay with that.


AMS should be changed so it only fires X number of shots at each incoming volley instead of constantly firing at each volley. That would be closer to how it works in battletech. Although X should vary depending on volley size to help make smaller launchers more worthwhile. Also missile health should all be the same. That change would make it impossible for a single AMS to wipe out an entire volley on its own. You would need multiple AMS to kill a volley then. Which is how AMS should be.

Edited by Khobai, 24 March 2019 - 12:30 PM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 24 March 2019 - 12:21 PM, said:

AMS only weighs like 1.5 tons

Its amazing that some people think its fair for it to nullify dozens of tons of launchers

There is nothing fair or okay with that.

1. AMS carrying is heavily restricted by hardpoints. You don't have the choice to mount 20+ tons of AMS. There is no AMS equivalent to an LRM80 Supernova or LRM90 Nova Cat (no, quad AMS Corsairs aren't on the same level and the quad AMS Piranha is a joke variant).

Going purely by raw tonnage means that a quad AMS mech wouldn't even be able to destroy a single LRM10 volley (5 tons not counting ammo).


2. AMS cannot attack enemy mechs. Equipment that cannot directly damage your opponent really needs to be enticing so that you don't just pack more items that can kill people because that's what this game is about. Mounting AMS means that you reduce your ability to kill people.


3. The majority of missiles getting destroyed don't require any level of precision aiming and can attack targets without exposing the user. Such weapons are pretty hard to have sympathy for because of how they can bypass such essential mechanics.

SRMs and MRMs on the other hand do require full exposure and at least some amount of aiming so they need more HP per missile.

[Khobai]

FupDup, on 24 March 2019 - 12:30 PM, said:

1. AMS carrying is heavily restricted by hardpoints. You don't have the choice to mount 20+ tons of AMS.

your point is irrelevant.

because you dont even have the option to take equipment that counters other weapons like lasers or autocannons. the very fact you can only have 1 AMS still makes it better at countering missiles than having NOTHING that counters lasers or autocannons. Furthermore there are mechs that can have 3-4 AMS.

only missiles are singled out for having equipment that counters them. and theres not a whole lot of justification for it considering missiles weapons arnt even that great.

FupDup, on 24 March 2019 - 12:30 PM, said:

AMS cannot attack enemy mechs.

As ive said many times, AMS should be able to switch modes and function as an extra machine gun or small laser. Theres rules for it in battletech. That would help make AMS useful even in situations where there are no missiles.

FupDup, on 24 March 2019 - 12:30 PM, said:

The majority of missiles getting destroyed don't require any level of precision aiming and can attack targets without exposing the user. Such weapons are pretty hard to have sympathy for because of how they can bypass such essential mechanics.

I disagree with that. Because LRMs still require LoS. Maybe not from the user but someone has to have LoS on you for you to get hit with LRMs. Someone is exposing themselves to make the LRMs possible, if you dont punish them for it thats your failing. Or if you dont shoot down the UAVs thats again your own failing.

And other weapons bypass essential mechanics too. Why are you singling out LRMs? Gauss bypasses heat. Lasers bypass travel time. And so on. So why isnt there equipment that counters those weapons? Theyre bypassing essential mechanics too. Wheres my reflective and reactive armor?

Edited by Khobai, 24 March 2019 - 12:42 PM.

[dwwolf]

Christ in heaven......people are complaining about STREAK SRMs of all things ?

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 24 March 2019 - 12:30 PM, said:

your point is irrelevant.

because you dont have the choice to take any equipment that counters lasers or autocannons.

Maybe because those weapons require precision aiming and full exposure.

[Khobai]

FupDup, on 24 March 2019 - 12:31 PM, said:

Maybe because those weapons require precision aiming and full exposure.

Again IDF LRMs do require exposure. Just not from the user. But someone has to spot for them, expose themselves to use a NARC, or launch a UAV which can be shot down. In all cases you can punish or shut down the LoS.

Also LRMs dont grant precision. They spread their damage all over. Thats the downside for them not requiring precision.

Your argument is incredibly flimsy. I can easily turn it around and say that weapons that provide precision are better because they grant you the ability to place most or all of your damage in a single location. And I would be right because being able to place your shots is far more lethal than spreading damage around randomly. Youre already rewarded more for using precision weapons.

And again other weapons are bypassing fundamental mechanics. clan gauss for example is a huge offender. It not only bypasses the heat mechanic by not generating heat proportional to its damage. But it also weighs a full 3 tons less than its IS counterpart with zero appreciate downside. Yet youre complaining about LRMs? lol...

So again wheres my reflective and reactive armor? Wheres the defensive tech that protects against the weapons that are ACTUALLY killing people?

Edited by Khobai, 24 March 2019 - 12:52 PM.