478 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

Well, not exactly all at once - I'm told that the AMS switches targets about every half-second, so even if it engages the secondary volley, the increased missile kill is still worth it if you're firing waves of the same size. The problem is that you really do need a good-sized volley to make a boat arrangement work, and the Atlas has never supported that. Mixed armaments do work, on the other hand... but I have my doubts that it's truly optimal build.

Still, if any build really works for you, keep using it until it stops. =)

[Charons Little Helper]

By the time the 1st volley hits them - the 2nd will be about halfway through the AMS bubble. Therefore not as many missiles are taken out from the 2nd volley than if it were the only volley.

[1453 R]

*SIIIIIIIIIIIGH*

Pro Tip: If you were to fire, say...fifteen LRMs, and then fifteen LRMs again half a second after the first fifteen LRMs, then by the time the first 15 LRMs hit the target through its AMS protection, the second flight of LRMs would still be half a second away from the target, giving AMS time, however slight, to engage it. However - if you were to fire fifteen LRMs, and then fifteen more LRMs, but at the exact same time...then by the time the first 15 LRMs have hit the target through its AMS protection, guess what?

THE SECOND FIFTEEN WILL HAVE HIT TOO, WITH LESS TIME FOR AMS TO DEAL WITH THEM!

Seriously, people! Seriously, SERIOUSLY! Let me spell this out for EVERYBODY:

AMS. Is. Not. A. Gun.
It. Does. Not. Have. A.I.-dictated. Behaviors.
It. Is. A. Dome. Of. Missile. Death. With. A. Specific. Tic. Rate. And. A. Fluff. Animation.
SALVO. FIRING. NEVER. BENEFITS. YOU. EVER. AGAINST. AMS.
EVER

STOP TELLING PEOPLE YOU'VE FOUND WAYS TO FOX AMS INTO IGNORING HALF YOUR SALVO! IT ONLY LOOKS THAT WAY BECAUSE IT TOOK A BIGGER THAN NORMAL BITE OUT OF THE FIRST HALF!

[Charons Little Helper]

I know. I was talking specifically about an Atlas which - because of missile tubes - fires in 2 volleys - 21 & 9.

All I said was that fewer missiles would be taken out from the 9 then in a sole 9 missile volley.

This was said against someone saying that the additional missiles would gain me no benefit vs AMS.

Please actually read what I wrote before yelling at me for something which I didn't actually write.

[Nikkoru]

Void Angel, on 30 January 2014 - 09:11 PM, said:

Still, if any build really works for you, keep using it until it stops. =)

Even if it is an LRM Atlas build?

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;P

[Void Angel]

Heh.

1453 R, on 31 January 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:

STOP TELLING PEOPLE YOU'VE FOUND WAYS TO FOX AMS INTO IGNORING HALF YOUR SALVO! IT ONLY LOOKS THAT WAY BECAUSE IT TOOK A BIGGER THAN NORMAL BITE OUT OF THE FIRST HALF!

AMS kills at a certain rate of fire; I've seen this expressed as "AMS does dps, and each missile has so many hit points," but it really just works out to "missiles/second killed." It's quite possible that there is a detection tick, where the game checks for incoming missiles periodically. If that is so, it might be possible to exploit the tick to maximize dps. In this case, if AMS is locked onto Salvo A, there could be a slight delay before it locks onto Salvo B, creating a gap in its defensive fire.

However, it all depends on how often the tick happens, and how it works - if it's .5 seconds, as some people claim, then it's possible to game the system by firing a small initial volley, with a larger follow-on. If timed correctly, you could get fewer net missiles taken out of your attack. However, I'm not certain whether this .5 second figure I've seen referenced has been tested or not - and in any event the number of missiles saved from AMS is likely inconsequential compared to the benefits of missile saturation.

Like any claim of workarounds or special tricks to fool the game engine, I'd ask to see testing before I accepted the claim. Since the question itself presupposes that the animation is directly linked to whether the AMS system is counting off missiles in the game (which, as Laser points out, is unlikely,) even video testing is likely to be inconclusive. I'm probably going to have to remain skeptical of this supposed technique. Unless definitive testing is done, any subjective increase in missile effectiveness is likely due to the tendency of smaller volleys to spread less and fall more on the torsos of the target.

Edited by Void Angel, 31 January 2014 - 11:53 AM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Void Angel, on 31 January 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

However, I'm not certain whether this .5 second figure I've seen referenced has been tested or not

Difficult to test (are there any mechs that have an AMS stock that you could shoot at in the Testing Grounds? cannot remember off the top of my head)

However - I would imagine that there is variance, similar to the variance that MG get from ping levels.

[1453 R]

The other thing to remember with things like gaming the tic rate is that doing so will likely only result in one, maybe two extra missiles getting through AMS coverage at best. As well, reliably timing salvos to land at precisely the correct intervals, against a distant, evading target with unpredictable ping, is...not a skill one is likely to be able to pick up.

Frankly, even if it was a possibility, I'd expect the variance in missiles intercepted to vanish into statistical noise over any real period of time. Even if it works, it would never work consistently enough to forego the reliable benefit gained from mass-firing all available tubes in a single salvo.

Edited by 1453 R, 31 January 2014 - 08:22 PM.

[Void Angel]

Precisely my point - and it'll be difficult to test. I'm pretty sure the Testing Grounds 'mechs don't have AMS; certainly most do not.

[Void Angel]

Now, a static tick is not the only way to do this kind of thing; my Shaman totems in World of Warcraft had a noticeable delay between when I put them down and when their buffs could be cast (nothing said, "Blizzard hates a Shaman" in Vanilla WoW like a sheep running back and forth next to a Grounding Totem - except Mana Tide Totem, that is... but I digress.) Still, even if the "tick" behavior is just a delay while the engine checks for a new incoming threat after the last missile in your first volley is done, the difference won't be substantial, because missiles killed by AMS is a linear function.

[Ruhkil]

JigglyMoobs, on 07 July 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

As I guy who plays DDC the most I prefer to have my lights and mediums in FRONT of me, but within 180 m so that they are under ecm cover. This way they won't interfere with my furious +backing (I do this alot) and can map out the enemy team without getting prolonged exposure to enemy fire or come under LRM fire.

Also, I prefer to use the terrain to keep out of sight of the enemy team until I'm ready to strike. It doesn't always work, but when it does, it can misdirect the enemy by giving them a false impression of how my teams' fire power is distributed.

Finally when I attack I prefer to attack after the mediums and lights so that I can mop up the distracted mechs quickly. This sounds like a bad deal for the lighter mechs attacking up ahead but what I find usually is that with so much fire power available to an Atlas I can take down or crit enemy medium and heavy mechs within seconds from almost any angle. The assaults are more of a problem, but they'll have a harder time hiting the faster guys anyways.

OMG this so much was playing as an atlas the team was following i passed the point of no return for battle and the 6 guys who were behind me sat behind some hills

[Void Angel]

There's a real phenomena of learned helplessness going on with regard to autocannons. If an AC/2 Jaegermech pops out of a canyon 400M away, people will say "oh noes! Dakka! Get to cover" instead of just shooting him to death because he can't possibly have enough heat sinks to run cool and still have enough ammo to last the match. Certain aspects of the current meta are causing people to be much less willing to expose themselves to fire of any kind - so instead of taking advantage of the enemy team's preoccupation, they hide, and think themselves on their prudence.

It seems to work, from their perspective. After all, that guy who just left cover got destroyed, but they're still in the fight. Since they've preserved their firepower, they feel like they're contributing (which may even be the case.) and if the match goes badly, it may seem reasonable to them to blame that jerk who ran out and got shot. In some cases, that jerk may well have been wrong, but many more times I see the team just watch as their assault's burn - and then blame someone else for the mess. It's legitimately hard for the campers to tell that what they're doing is wrong.

Everyone knows the matchmaker is barely functional right? There's these forum threads, "Every Game is a Stomp," for example. So it's got to be Elo, or maybe they had more tonnage, or maybe you just get pugs that sucked to balance out your higher Elo and make the match (I swear I am not making these up.) And sometimes, that happens. More often, however, certain attitudes that have crept in due to the structure of the metagame are encouraging negative behaviors, and the people engaging in those behaviors have legitimate difficulty identifying what really went wrong.

[Wintersdark]

Void Angel, on 02 February 2014 - 02:44 PM, said:

There's a real phenomena of learned helplessness going on with regard to autocannons. If an AC/2 Jaegermech pops out of a canyon 400M away, people will say "oh noes! Dakka! Get to cover" instead of just shooting him to death because he can't possibly have enough heat sinks to run cool and still have enough ammo to last the match. Certain aspects of the current meta are causing people to be much less willing to expose themselves to fire of any kind - so instead of taking advantage of the enemy team's preoccupation, they hide, and think themselves on their prudence.

It seems to work, from their perspective. After all, that guy who just left cover got destroyed, but they're still in the fight. Since they've preserved their firepower, they feel like they're contributing (which may even be the case.) and if the match goes badly, it may seem reasonable to them to blame that jerk who ran out and got shot. In some cases, that jerk may well have been wrong, but many more times I see the team just watch as their assault's burn - and then blame someone else for the mess. It's legitimately hard for the campers to tell that what they're doing is wrong.

This is an awesome post.

Sadly, people have a really hard time looking at what happened in a battle objectively. I've long contemplated making a fairly long post about that - how to read what happened in a battle... But I've never been able to come up with a good way to word it. Attempts always end up much too long. I've come to the conclusion that there's just too much to cover to get it into post/article size. Well, at least by me.

Quote

Everyone knows the matchmaker is barely functional right? There's these forum threads, "Every Game is a Stomp," for example. So it's got to be Elo, or maybe they had more tonnage, or maybe you just get pugs that sucked to balance out your higher Elo and make the match (I swear I am not making these up.) And sometimes, that happens. More often, however, certain attitudes that have crept in due to the structure of the metagame are encouraging negative behaviors, and the people engaging in those behaviors have legitimate difficulty identifying what really went wrong.

I'm quite fond of those threads. "I lose 90% of my matches and it's all the matchmakers' fault!" followed by a chorus of "Yeah, me too! I keep getting dumped into battles with {Dezgra} teammates!". But that's just ridiculous - if that were actually happening, where's all the people who just win all the time specifically because the opposing team is chock full of morons? The poster, of course, is always the Super Awesome Player burdened by dead weight.

If the forums are any indication, the vast majority of the player pool is split equally between high and low Elo, with nobody in the middle.

Shar Wolf, on 30 January 2014 - 03:15 PM, said:

Only reason I can see for having an "X is worth firing" value is to counter AMS - that would depend on how many AMS you are trying to blow through - and would also require that "X" to be fired all at once.

I frequently use low tube count LRM's on my mechs (though not my Atlases), though I don't bother firing them through AMS. I wait for other LRM's to be firing and join in the fun, or find unprotected targets. As LRM's happen very rarely in the matches I'm in, much more often than not, enemy players aren't packing a lot of AMS either. On the odd occassion they do show up in a match, it's usually in a premade packing lots, so AMS saturation is a given.

Makes them a useful secondary weapon that performs quite well.

[Ruhkil]

Void Angel, on 28 January 2014 - 04:07 PM, said:

Some people are just splashing them in to have something to do while the sniper phase is going on... I don't know that I like those builds, but they're in the realm of possibility. It's the guys who load out with (I swear I am not making this up) 3 LRM15s, TAG, and a Medium Laser that really make me want to scream at them.

I toyed with having a single lrm 15 to help with long range damage and to help "suppress" the enemy as i plodded forward but it did not really do too much

[1453 R]

The Atlas just doesn't work as a long-range platform - its tube limitations are quite severe, and all of its direct-fire hardpoints are down around its knees. In a close fight, it's obviously able to carry enough tonnage of weapons and armor that its low-mounted hardpoints don't matter (much), but at a distance the Atlas is never going to be at its best. It's generally best to just accept this and move on. The Battlemaster's cockpit-level (or above!) shoulder-mounted energy batteries are much better for people looking to do assault brawling but with long-range support options. Some large lasers (or PPCs, for the ballsy) shoved on up in there give the Battlemaster plenty to do at a distance without really compromising its short-range potential. Much.

[Void Angel]

If only I could get the weapons I want on those upper mounts reliably...

[Void Angel]

Original post archived as of 17MAR14, in preparation for revision of the guide.

Spoiler

"Or, how to cooperate with a PuG."

One of the main advantages of dropping with your own premade group is that of simple communication. You can grab a handy vent server or simply call each other on Skype - giving you a drastically improved ability to communicate information to your team.

However, much of the benefit communication entails is in its turn built on a more basic skill - situational awareness and cooperation. It doesn't matter what you say to each other if no one is going to listen.

Thus we have the fine art of PuG cooperation: The purpose of this microguide is to outline a few simple rules which will greatly increase the effectiveness of any PuG that uses them.

Rule One: Follow the Fracking Atlas.
Stay together and support the heavy hitters. Really, just follow and support any big 'mech, preferably one with ECM. If you're in a big 'mech, group up with other big 'mechs - you may need to resort to talking to them, or just follow along if they're not up to using their words. Remember that the rest of the team relies on you to be the linchpin of the battle. The reason we all stick together is because the effectiveness of firepower is greater when it is massed - "the more you use, the less you lose." If you split off and run into their main body, you'll do a lot less damage to them than they will to you - and you'll be dead or crippled, your firepower lost to the team. So stay together and don't let them cut you out of the pack.

Rule Two: Be Their Eyes.
As a special exception to Rule One, it's vitally important that light 'mechs scout out the flanks, especially after the fight is joined. Light 'mechs require more situational awareness than any other class, not only because are they the most vulnerable if bushwhacked, but because these 'mechs are often the only ones who can respond to some events - like other scouts capping the base while their heavier elements tie up our team. Maintain tactical awareness; if you can spot an enemy 'mech for the LRM jockeys, it may be a Bad Idea even to fire at them yourself. Always be on the prowl, but don't get too far away from the team unless you have a specific reason; your maneuverability can be very helpful in dragging down heavy foes.

Rule Three: Cull the Weak.
Always try to focus fire on one person whenever possible. Certainly you can't ignore any target that's attacking you - even a Commando will core you fairly quickly if you just let him stand behind you and pound your rear armor in. However, don't get tunnel visioned on trying to kill him. If your opponent breaks off, do not pursue him unless he's damaged heavily and no focus fire target exists. The more firepower you can put on a single target, the faster that target will die, and the less damage he'll be able to do to our team.

Rule Four: Support the Team.
This rule is quite simple; we are a team. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and we need to help one another. Don't be too far away from the team for help to reach you - even if you're a Gauss Rifle sniper or LRM maniac. As noted above, if you can spot an enemy 'mech for the LRM jockeys, it may be a Bad Idea even to fire at them yourself. If a brawler sees that some light 'mechs with ECM are doing the Cheater Dance (see also: Lag Shields,) around an LRM boat, go chase the lights off if you can at all spare the time. Cooperation requires tactical judgement -it would be a bad idea to let an Atlas walk through your lines while you chased scout 'mechs - but it is the most important element in any PvP game.

[CaptainDeez]

1453 R, on 31 January 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:

*SIIIIIIIIIIIGH*

Pro Tip: If you were to fire, say...fifteen LRMs, and then fifteen LRMs again half a second after the first fifteen LRMs, then by the time the first 15 LRMs hit the target through its AMS protection, the second flight of LRMs would still be half a second away from the target, giving AMS time, however slight, to engage it. However - if you were to fire fifteen LRMs, and then fifteen more LRMs, but at the exact same time...then by the time the first 15 LRMs have hit the target through its AMS protection, guess what?

THE SECOND FIFTEEN WILL HAVE HIT TOO, WITH LESS TIME FOR AMS TO DEAL WITH THEM!

Seriously, people! Seriously, SERIOUSLY! Let me spell this out for EVERYBODY:

AMS. Is. Not. A. Gun.
It. Does. Not. Have. A.I.-dictated. Behaviors.
It. Is. A. Dome. Of. Missile. Death. With. A. Specific. Tic. Rate. And. A. Fluff. Animation.
SALVO. FIRING. NEVER. BENEFITS. YOU. EVER. AGAINST. AMS.
EVER

STOP TELLING PEOPLE YOU'VE FOUND WAYS TO FOX AMS INTO IGNORING HALF YOUR SALVO! IT ONLY LOOKS THAT WAY BECAUSE IT TOOK A BIGGER THAN NORMAL BITE OUT OF THE FIRST HALF!

If you fired two simoultaneous 15 missils salvos from 2 adjacent tubes at a target running across your FOV, those missiles from the furtherest tube will begin to align themselves along a linear flight trajectory behind the first as they track the target lateraly. The only time two salvos fired simoultaneously hits at the same time is if the target was at an equidistant point from both launchers and only moved closer or further away.

Ex. To hit a target moving laterally to your right simoultaneously with both salvos you would need to delay firing your right tube by a small delay(depending on distance) to give missiles launched from the left tube the headstart they need to converge with the right salvo. This is why lights can often avoid the bulk of a 30+ salvo, it's almost always a drawn into a line of missile by the time it's near the target due to lateral tracking. However, if you knew the flight time well enough in theory a pilot could stagger shots such that volleys on moving targets might be closer together assuming the targets movements remained relatively unchanged.

[1453 R]

While true, the point is that the usual stutter-fire thing, and the folks who think firing an LRM-20 out of a Stalker’s 6-tube SRM port actually increases their salvo damage, are both dumb. Your best bet is still to gangfire your launchers against AMS, in an attempt to provide maximum salvo density and overwhelm the system’s ability to chew through your entire salvo. Stagger-firing or stutter-firing your launchers – unless you’re a math savant able to calculate the precise launch times to account for target movement between asymmetrically mounted launchers, which I am almost entirely certain you aren’t (‘You’ being a generic ‘person reading this post’, not you in specific, Deez) – will almost always result in a net loss of DPS.

There is no exception – exceptionally fast enemy ‘Mechs, which are usually best engaged by staggered fire to try and land at least some damage via a constant stream of low-level fire, are pretty much completely nonviable targets for LRM machines if they’re equipped with an AMS. The Atlas and its minions have no bloody business firing LRMs at an FS9-S, or anything at all with a designation starting with COM, SDR or LCT. Forget the LCT-3M – if you haven’t seen Point Blank AMS yet, go look it up on YouTube and laugh. Or cry.

If those ‘Mechs take significant damage from LRM fire, you got lucky/they messed up. All there is to it. Anything else under an AMS umbrella, you engage with massed fire, not piecemeal stutter streams. Which is also why the Stalker is a terrible LRM boat and the STK-3F© is a travesty that should never have been born.

Edited by 1453 R, 18 March 2014 - 05:02 PM.

[Void Angel]

Well, actually LRMs are better against lights now that the missile speed is faster, but they're still sub-optimal targets unless you get the light running toward or away from you.