23 replies to this topic

[1453 R]

So. First of all, Sarna links for everyone involved:

Sarna on the ATM system in general

Sarna’s ATM-3 stat page
Sarna’s ATM-6 stat page
Sarna’s ATM-9 stat page
Sarna’s ATM-12 stat page

Got it? Good. Okay. Here we go.

Clan FutureTech is, principally, characterized by three weapons systems – heavy lasers, HAGs (Hyper-Assault Gauss weapons), and Advanced Tactical Missiles, typically known as ATMs. These three weapons are the primary ‘advanced’ armaments of the Clan technology base for a very long time. Other weapons come available here and there, but usually only as experimental systems or rare one-offs, or as very lightweight gear we’re not likely to get. But when a woman thinks “Clan FutureTech”, these three weapons are what comes to mind.

The problem, of course, is that ATMs’ entire schtick is the ability to make use of multiple situation-specific ammunition types which can be switched between on the fly. Piranha has thus far proven 100% incapable of doing switchable ammo, which many players assumed meant that weapons such as ATMs and the Inner Sphere’s MMLs, which are equally 100% dependent on switchable ammo, are off the table.

I don’t believe this needs to be the case, and in any case I felt like typing a lot, so huzzah. In this thread I intend to provide a general overview of what ATM numbers mean for people less familiar with tabletop than even myself (and I am by no means familiar with it, I just have a decent idea how the numbers translate) and discuss possible fixes, implementations, and balance ideas for one of the most interesting weapon systems in BattleTech.

First of all, numbers.

The ATM-3 weighs 1.5 tons and takes up two critical slots in a ‘Mech.
The ATM-6 weighs 3.5 tons (goddamnit Jordan) and takes up three critical slots in a ‘Mech.
The ATM-9 weighs 5 tons (goddamnit Jordan) and takes up four critical slots in a ‘Mech.
The ATM-12 weighs 7 tons (god DAMNIT Jordan) and takes up five critical slots in a ‘Mech.

ATMs are lock-on missiles stated to come with an integrated Artemis VI fire control system, and as such are most directly comparable to (currently implemented) ALRMs or Streak SRMs. Obviously, this means they cannot accept external Artemis VI targeting systems. I don’t know if they’re compatible with NARC or TAG, but I feel like someone is going to tell me really quick I was correct, thanks QSK! To confirm: ATMs are NOT compatible with TAG/NARC in TT. Anyways. ATMs can fire any of three distinct ATM warhead types: Standard, Extended-Range, or High Explosive.

Standard ATM warheads have a 450-meter maximum range and a 120-meter minimum range. They deal 2 damage per warhead.
Extended-Range ATM warheads have an 810-meter maximum range and the same 120-meter minimum range as Standard warheads. Because they trade payload weight for extra booster fuel, they only deal 1 damage per warhead.
High Explosive ATM warheads have a 270-meter maximum range, but no minimum range. They deal 3 damage per warhead.

One ton of ATM ammunition, of any type, offers 60 warheads (with the exception of the ATM-9, which is given 63 warheads for the purposes of more logical TT performance). In TT, any given ATM ammo bin is declared as being Standard, ER, or HE prior to combat. The player can choose which ammunition type he intends to fire at any point in his attack before firing it (I assume), under the assumption that the ‘Warrior can flip whatever cockpit lever lets him switch between bins on the fly.

What Does All This Actually Mean?!

In short?

Numerically, ATMs are total crap!

Assuming all shots fired are HE rounds, one 60-warhead ton of ATM ammunition is worth 180 damage. One 100-warhead ton of cSRM ammunition in MWO is worth 200 total damage, meaning SRMs outdamage ATMs even under optimal ATM conditions. cLRMs, dealing 1 damage per 120-warhead ton of ammunition, deal exactly double the damage-per-ton of ATM ER ammunition, weighing in at a pithy 60 points of damage per ton if fired exclusively as ER.

ATMs also do not compete well DPS-wise with either dedicated missile type. An ATM-3 is a 1.5-ton weapon, identical in weight to a cSRM-6. This may shock you, but an ATM-3 fires three ATMs per salvo. If firing HE warheads, this equates to 9 total damage, while an SRM-6 will land a possible 12 damage at the same range for the same weight.

At LRM range, the largest possible ATM launcher is the ATM-12, which deals 12 damage from a 7-ton launcher with ER payload. The same weight of cLRM launcher, two cLRM-15s, deals 30 damage in the same shot. That’s…rather significant. Like holy buckets that’s a one-sided fight! Assuming a more weight-efficient quartet of ATM-3s (6 tons to 7)…well, then three cLRM-10s also gives you 30 damage to 12 damage. Barf.

ATM ER ammo loses really, really badly to standard LRMs, and ATM HE ammo loses to SRMs if not as badly as ER loses to LRMs. Standard munitions have no Clan equivalent, but are still a very sad 120 damage per ton of ammo, matching LRMs (at half the range) but losing egregiously to SRMs.

On the face of it, there seems to be very little reason to use ATMs at all. Sure, you can have one launcher that covers the entire range gamut, but it’s s susceptible to ECM interference as LRMs/Streaks are, and ER ATM salvos are a huge waste of both time and ammunition weight. Extremely inefficient, and that’s if you play perfectly and never shoot the wrong ammo at the wrong time. Good luck with that part!

So how do we overcome all of these limitations? To recap what those limitations are:
-Switchable ammo has proven extremely difficult for Piranha to do
-ATMs are SUPER inefficient in terms of total damage per ton of ammo
-Prone to “SHOOT I forgot to switch bins!” user error even if Piranha can finally do switchable ammo, further reducing damage efficiency
-Larger and bulkier than all other Clan missiles systems on a tube-for-tube basis, by far
-ER ammo sucks all the rocks
-Lock-on missiles’ “stare at them until the salvo hits” bad gameplay design

That’s a lot of limitations! But it’s not an insurmountable list. I believe I’ve got a prototype method for implementing ATMs that would make the weapons at least partially viable, and which furthermore could be extended, in part, to Streak SRMs to make them behave better and more consistently, especially against larger targets.

I call it the 1453R Make ATMs Suck Less Plan 2017, and it has three main components:

1.) Flight Path
2.) Damage Dropoff
3.) Weighted Bone Targeting

Step One: Flight Path.
ATMs are not LRMs. They do not, to my knowledge, come with indirect fire capability, and if they do in TT I don’t care. ATMs deal enormously less long-range damage than LRMs do…so let them do that much lesser damage more easily and consistently. ER (and Standard) ATM ammo should fly the same general way Streak SRM ammo does – straight at the target via shortest-trajectory, at much higher velocities than LRM launchers do. When that guy seven hundred meters away fires ER-ATMs at you, he should have a pretty damn good chance of actually hitting you if you’re not equipped with AMS or already moving into cover. This gives ATMs a viable long-range niche where they can outperform LRMs, and helps them be slightly less irrelevant at higher levels.

Step Two: Damage Dropoff
ATMs do not come with three different ammo types, nor do players have to remember to switch what ATM style they’re firing. Instead, you just get ‘ATM Ammo’ the same way you get ‘LRM Ammo’ or ‘SRM Ammo’. That ammo delivers its damage in three discrete stages: from 0 meters to 270 meters, ATM Ammo deals 3 damage/warhead. From 271 to 450 meters, ATM Ammo deals 2 damage/warhead. From 451 meters to 810 meters, ATM Ammo deals 1 damage/warhead. This neatly solves both the “Piranha can’t do switchable ammo to save their lives” issue and the “CRAP I forgot to switch bins!” issue and encourages players to be more mindful of their positioning and range, at the same time. Firing close to the range cutoffs for each grade of ATM ammo means often dealing significantly less damage than you thought you would, though you will always get something out of an ATM shot. No accidentally firing ER ammo at 80 meters expecting HE instead.

Step Three (the important one): Weighted Bone Targeting
This is something I’d extend to Streak SRMs as well, but which came about whilst I was trying to think of a way to Make ATMs Suck Less that Piranha might actually do. ATMs, much like Streaks, target an enemy ‘Mech’s animation-rig bones when fired, which would normally make them absolutely worthless. What I propose, however, is that ATMs, Streaks, and maybe even regular LRMs to some extent switch to a system where the random determinant of which bone a given missile targets is weighted based on where the crosshair is pointing when that missile fires.

If you’re aiming at CT, then RNG is weight towards favoring CT bones or those closer to CT than to, say, the left leg. You can still roll weird results, but overall the system should favor delivering damage directly under, or at least closer to, your crosshair rather than simply slapping warheads all over wherever it bloody well pleases. The player is given some agency over where their missiles go, without entirely sacrificing the random distribution that is a big part of the balancing paradigm for auto-hitting NeverMiss-iles. ATMs’ integrated Artemis is represented by fast lock-on times and higher missile tracking strength than most other lock-on missile types, which also helps further differentiate the system.

I believe this would be a simpler solution for Piranha to implement than many of the ground-up redesigns people keep coming up with, and would make both ATMs and Streaks far more useful against larger targets than they otherwise would be.

Given the longer range and higher velocity of 1453R-style ATMs, WBT could even allow them to be semi-useful out to something actually approaching their nominal range! LRM boats would be super sad but that’s okay!

The Final Product:
Ideally, ATMs become a usable all-purpose weapon capable of consistently delivering damage at any range, with more skilled users able to direct that damage more accurately where they want it to go without having to rip out the entire missile lock codebase and redo it from scratch. They don’t match the brawling power of SRMs, they don’t match the sheer saturation damage of LRMs, and their very low salvo counts make them exceptionally vulnerable to AMS (probably enough so to warrant a slight missile HP buff, but who knows), but what they can do is perform reliably* in a very broad range of situations and offer the player a flexible tool with which to bring harm to their enemies.

Your ATM launchers are never useless in the 1453R Make ATMs Suck Less Plan 2017. They live up to the spirit of the original tabletop weapon without requiring weird coding or breaking MWO wide open, and they offer a unique flavor and playstyle that cannot be matched by other weapon types in BattleTech. More importantly, you just can’t have Clan FutureTech without ATMs, so somebody needs to figure out a proper plan for them.

Do you guys think this is that plan? Do you disagree with my assessment or implementation? Anyone else have another interesting idea for implementing ATMs they want to bounce off the wall? Lemme know!

Edited by 1453 R, 20 January 2017 - 01:38 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

I don’t know if they’re compatible with NARC or TAG, but I feel like someone is going to tell me really quick.

They aren't since in TT that required specific ammo (semi-guided for TAG and narc-capable for NARC).

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

Standard ATM warheads have a 450-meter maximum range and a 120-meter minimum range. They deal 2 damage per warhead.

First step would be removing the stupid minimum range on these things.

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

Assuming all shots fired are HE rounds, one 60-warhead ton of ATM ammunition is worth 180 damage. One 100-warhead ton of cSRM ammunition in MWO is worth 200 total damage, meaning SRMs outdamage ATMs even under optimal ATM conditions. cLRMs, dealing 1 damage per 120-warhead ton of ammunition, deal exactly double the damage-per-ton of ATM ER ammunition, weighing in at a pithy 60 points of damage per ton if fired exclusively as ER.

I get you are trying to prove a point, but you really should be comparing cSRMs and cLRMs with artemis against ATMs rather than without.

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

That ammo delivers its damage in three discrete stages: from 0 meters to 270 meters, ATM Ammo deals 3 damage/warhead. From 271 to 450 meters, ATM Ammo deals 2 damage/warhead. From 451 meters to 810 meters, ATM Ammo deals 1 damage/warhead.

Not that I'm necessarily behind this (though this implementation could help out MMLs) damage in-between stages should be more fine-grained and ramp up. Slow but gradual increase to 2 damage between 810 and 451 meters with another ramp up to 3 damage between 271 to 450 meters.

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

ATMs, much like Streaks, target an enemy ‘Mech’s animation-rig bones when fired, which would normally make them absolutely worthless.

Is this something you are imposing on them? ATMs do not behave like streaks in lore until you get to the improved ATMs the society created. Normal ATMs behave like typical missiles (SRMs, MRM, LRMs).



That said, this has a risk of just replacing of LRMs because of their utility and the fact that they start doing more damage than LRMs at the range LRMs are most effective.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 20 January 2017 - 01:46 PM.

[1453 R]

(Space reserved to respond to QSK when he's done)

ALL RIGHTY. Lessee here:

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 January 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

They aren't since in TT that required specific ammo (semi-guided for TAG and narc-capable for NARC).

Fix'd. Thanks!

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 January 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

First step would be removing the stupid minimum range on these things.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to removing the minimum range in another implementation, but the minimum is sort of irrelevant in my plan given that you're never firing Standard or ER ammo inside their given optimums anyways. Any time you'd be in danger of min-ranging your ATMs, you'd be firing HE-equivalent payloads anyways.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 January 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

I get you are trying to prove a point, but you really should be comparing cSRMs and cLRMs with artemis against ATMs rather than without.

I get that, but the overall message remains the same - ATMs are super inefficient in terms of damage-per-ton. No amount of Artemis bonus is making up that LRM gap, for instance. The fundamental limitations of the ammunition and tube counts impose limits on what ATMs can do against similar weights/hardpoint counts of more dedicated missiles - and frankly more dedicated missiles should beat ATMs at their own dedicated range., elsewise ATMs just obsolete every other missile weapon the Clans have.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 January 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

Not that I'm necessarily behind this (though this implementation could help out MMLs) damage in-between stages should be more fine-grained and ramp up. Slow but gradual increase to 2 damage between 810 and 451 meters with another ramp up to 3 damage between 271 to 450 meters.

I can see this one swinging either way. I liked the flat transitions as a nod to the TT rules and a means of differentiating ATMs from regular weapons with linear dropoff, but they'd certainly be more effective with a linear 3 to 1 drop between 271 and 810 meters. That said, this would make issues with them outcompeting LRMs much more prevalent, as well.

Not that I actually consider that a strong drawback. Everyone knows LRMs need some serious redesign work, and if the introduction of ATMs shows them to be utterly noncompetitive (again) at their given ranges against weapons dealing less than half their nominal damage...well, maybe that's just the sort of kick in the nuts Piranha needs to get off their butts and fix LRMs.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 January 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

Is this something you are imposing on them? ATMs do not behave like streaks in lore until you get to the improved ATMs the society created. Normal ATMs behave like typical missiles (SRMs, MRM, LRMs).

That said, this has a risk of just replacing of LRMs because of their utility and the fact that they start doing more damage than LRMs at the range LRMs are most effective.

ATMs would have to follow either the deadfire missile paradigm of existing SRMs, the bone-targeting paradigm of existing Streak SRMs, or the clump-and-fail paradigm of existing LRMs. I figure they'd be more useful as lock-on missiles since ain't nobody is going to reliably hit deadfire missile attacks against moving targets at 800 meters I don't care how MLG you are, but this also necessitates reworking how lock-on missiles function.

You could give them a massively modified version of LRM clump-and-fail performance, flattening out their trajectories but letting them hit whatever, but frankly at that point what you've got are slightly faster LRMs. WBT lets you at least partially direct your fire where the crosshair is pointed without gutting Piranha's existing code, and also possibly fixes (Streak) SRMs. I would consider it the strongest of the three* alternatives insofar as missile flight path/style is concerned.

Edited by 1453 R, 20 January 2017 - 02:02 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 01:47 PM, said:

(Space reserved to respond to QSK when he's done)

I'm done.

[1453 R]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 January 2017 - 01:47 PM, said:

I'm done.

Okay. Heh, just making sure

[Kanil]

TT question: don't ATMs roll hit locations per missile? That makes the ER ones better at critting than the LRMs... (and they have longer range.)

Speaking of which, ATMs should probably have their range boosted up to 1k like LRMs. I do like the ammo merging/damage drop off plan, but I'm not sure we need more streak missiles -- the current ones we have aren't really great for gameplay. PGI could improve them, but will they?

[1453 R]

Kanil, on 20 January 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

TT question: don't ATMs roll hit locations per missile? That makes the ER ones better at critting than the LRMs... (and they have longer range.)

Speaking of which, ATMs should probably have their range boosted up to 1k like LRMs. I do like the ammo merging/damage drop off plan, but I'm not sure we need more streak missiles -- the current ones we have aren't really great for gameplay. PGI could improve them, but will they?

I'll let someone else speak to the TT part because I have no idea.

On the 1km range: I'm of the opinion that letting LRMs have a bit of range edge on ER-ATMs is acceptable. ATMs are more efficient inside their 800m range limit than LRMs are anyways (or at least they are in the 1453R Make ATMs Suck Less Plan 2017), so letting LRMs have the extra 200m range helps them retain some usefulness. Like I said to Quicksilver, LRMs should beat ATMs in an LRM duel and SRMs should beat ATMs in an SRM duel. If either case is not true, then either ATMs are mad overpowered or one or the other of the other missile types are mad underpowered.

On the Streak-like behavior: with crosshair-oriented target weighting, I'm thinking Streak-like behavior is the best we're going to get with lock-on missiles. You cannot have deadfire long-distance missiles - how often are you going to hit deadfire LRM shots near LRMs' maximum range against a target that isn't literally asleep? The warheads just move too slow, even a Dire Whale can evade long-range deadfire missiles. Given this, some sort of missile lock or guidance is required for the weapons to have any point, and LRM guidance is by far worse than Streak guidance. So we fix Streak guidance to take player aim into account and apply it to both Streaks and ATMs. And also possibly LRMs, depending on. Who knows.

And if Piranha's not willing to improve anything then there's really no point to discussions like this one, so for the purposes of the thread I'm going to assume PGI's willing to do at least some minimal amount of fix-work.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 01:47 PM, said:

I get that, but the overall message remains the same - ATMs are super inefficient in terms of damage-per-ton.

Extendeds are compared to cALRM20s, sure (though ATMEs do have a 180m range advantage which is around 30% better range, not that it wholly makes up for it, but not something you can wholly ignore), but ATMHEs compared to cASRM6s are not which is mainly why that comparison is sort of faulty (not to mention the ATM3 creates half the heat of the ASRM6 which means it is twice as heat efficient).

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 01:47 PM, said:

I can see this one swinging either way. I liked the flat transitions as a nod to the TT rules and a means of differentiating ATMs from regular weapons with linear dropoff, but they'd certainly be more effective with a linear 3 to 1 drop between 271 and 810 meters. That said, this would make issues with them outcompeting LRMs much more prevalent, as well.

I don't want it to be linear, but a curve. That said, these will outperform LRMs regardless of the mechanic, it just makes more sense to have the ramp up rather than have it magically jump damage between 1m.

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 01:47 PM, said:

Not that I actually consider that a strong drawback. Everyone knows LRMs need some serious redesign work, and if the introduction of ATMs shows them to be utterly noncompetitive (again) at their given ranges against weapons dealing less than half their nominal damage...well, maybe that's just the sort of kick in the nuts Piranha needs to get off their butts and fix LRMs.

A rework of missile mechanics wouldn't change the fact that ATMs are still more versatile and powerful than cLRMs with this.

[1453 R]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 January 2017 - 02:15 PM, said:

Extendeds are compared to cALRM20s, sure (though ATMEs do have a 180m range advantage which is around 30% better range, not that it wholly makes up for it, but not something you can wholly ignore), but ATMHEs compared to cASRM6s are not which is mainly why that comparison is sort of faulty (not to mention the ATM3 creates half the heat of the ASRM6 which means it is twice as heat efficient).

In terms of total weight, I can imagine, yeah. That said, ATMs still pack less damage per ton of ATM ammo than SRMs do, which means more ammunition required to get the same damage potential from your launchers. it may not be a huge difference, but whether you have a single 'ATM Ammo' type with inherent dropoff or have to take different types of ATM ammo bin and remember to switch between them, you're not getting nothing but HE damage numbers out of your ATM ammo unless you're using them like bad SRMs.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 January 2017 - 02:15 PM, said:

I don't want it to be linear, but a curve. That said, these will outperform LRMs regardless of the mechanic, it just makes more sense to have the ramp up rather than have it magically jump damage between 1m.

A rework of missile mechanics wouldn't change the fact that ATMs are still more versatile and powerful than cLRMs with this.

We shouldn't tie ATMs to the current garbage performance of LRMs. LRMs are bad and need to be rebuilt; if we're introducing ATMs at all, we shouldn't do so in a way that will make people say "ATMs are bad and need to be rebuilt" a month after release. Versatility should absolutely be the ATM system's strength - they win in medium-range fights because they're the only medium-range missiles Clans have, they beat SRMs at LRM range and they beat LRMs at SRM range. Considering how heavy they are and their super-low tube count making them very vulnerable to AMS/LAMS, they need to have some real bite to them when they do hit or they'll end up as forgotten as LRMs are.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

In terms of total weight, I can imagine, yeah. That said, ATMs still pack less damage per ton of ATM ammo than SRMs do, which means more ammunition required to get the same damage potential from your launchers.

That just means you need to pack more ammo and less DHS. It gets even worse when you start stacking launchers as well as the ATM12 is the most efficient compared to cASRM6 combos especially considering hardpoint usage.
ATM12 (HE)
5 slots + 4 slots for ammo
7 tons + 4 tons of ammo
36 damage
8 heat

3 cASRM6
6 slots + 3-4 slots of ammo
7.5 tons + 3-4 tons of ammo
36 damage
12 heat

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

We shouldn't tie ATMs to the current garbage performance of LRMs. LRMs are bad and need to be rebuilt;

Again, that is because of mechanics (which all missiles need, not just LRMs), but damage profile wise if we allowed that flexibility they would be handily better than LRMs. LRMs would have a 180m window where they are more useful if using the plateau damage model. The rest of the time they would be outclassed.

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

Versatility should absolutely be the ATM system's strength - they win in medium-range fights because they're the only medium-range missiles Clans have, they beat SRMs at LRM range and they beat LRMs at SRM range.

The problem is that utility could easily make them outclass those specialists given the fact you would have infinite flexibility whereas in TT you were limited based on planning.

[RestosIII]

'reads the original post'



Ayep. I agree with all of that. I have nothing else to add.

[MacClearly]

Struggling to see what they would add to the game? Jack of all trades master of none. Already seems in this game you are better off due to the size of the maps and limited types of engagement, specializing in one weapon or using weapons that complement each other. So personally in your plan I would like to see why I would want to take ATM's...other than for jokes in poor taste.

Either that or they would need damage values that don't follow lore to be worthwhile per ton and I am not sure how that would go over.

Please don't get me wrong, as one benefit (especially since right now I am in a Timby with four srm 6 and four med pulse as we speak) is my brawling build having more use and not waiting around during the first seven minutes of a match. It would have to be worth it though for me to not just run say a rack of lrm 10 to poke. Just struggling to see it being what I would choose over what we have.

[1453 R]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 January 2017 - 02:44 PM, said:

That just means you need to pack more ammo and less DHS. It gets even worse when you start stacking launchers as well as the ATM12 is the most efficient compared to cASRM6 combos especially considering hardpoint usage.
ATM12 (HE)
5 slots + 4 slots for ammo
7 tons + 4 tons of ammo
36 damage
8 heat

3 cASRM6
6 slots + 3-4 slots of ammo
7.5 tons + 3-4 tons of ammo
36 damage
12 heat

A'ight, point granted. Nevertheless, lesser levels of SRM-stackery compare more favorably to ATMs, and Piranha's also fully capable of flipping some numbers around on us at need. Heh, one is also able to not take Artemis in order to make up a great deal of tonnage at the cost of warhead inaccuracy, especially in close where deadfire missiles are at their strongest compared to locking warheads. You could also play with cycle times to control DPS, a'la deadfire SRMs vs. Streaks, if that helps bring ATMs into line.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 January 2017 - 02:44 PM, said:

Again, that is because of mechanics (which all missiles need, not just LRMs), but damage profile wise if we allowed that flexibility they would be handily better than LRMs. LRMs would have a 180m window where they are more useful if using the plateau damage model. The rest of the time they would be outclassed.

MWO LRMs have a 1000m effective range, while ATMs would still be stuck at 810 meters. They do equivalent damage at 451 meters and out on the plateau model though admittedly ATMs are by designed intended to work better in direct engagements, and the LRMs are capable of indirect fire (for what that's worth). As well, ATMs are much more vulnerable to AMS due to their very low salvo volumes, and with LAMS possibly coming at the same time as ATMs, LRMs could be considered more useful for their ability to saturate and punch through AMS more effectively than ATMs can. I'm thinking that's a weakness that can't be dismissed so easily, either.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 January 2017 - 02:44 PM, said:

The problem is that utility could easily make them outclass those specialists given the fact you would have infinite flexibility whereas in TT you were limited based on planning.

I don't trust Piranha to get switchable bins right. I just flat-out don't . Even if they could, I'd probably push for a single scalable ammo type simply because straight ER-ATMs are completely useless. Utterly outclassed by LRMs in every conceivable way. ATMs would effectively be dual-ammo systems; HE and Standard, with ER being a pretty strict noob trap. Switchable bins also contributes to control bloat, in that we have to bind and remember another key to press to cycle through our missile types. Considering all the other buttons we have to find room to bind, I'm somewhat in favor of saving any New Button functions for features that really, really need it, a'la M.A.S.C. and the like.

Heh...I will freely admit that I want ATMs to be powerful. I want them to be a very serious consideration for people looking for a primary missile armament, and given how game-breakingly powerful MRMs are going to be, I'd rather err on the side of slightly overtuned and correct them later than have them come into the game anemic and unworthy of their inclusion. Switchable bins is a lot of finicky and a lot of f***-up potential for a weapons system that will, on the whole, usually be perceived as weaker overall than SRMs due to the general hatred of/inefficiency inherent to 'generalist' designs/weapons. Someone would have to find a really damn good alternate implementation of ATMs to get me to throw my weight behind switchable "pick the right missiles pre-fight or you're done" ATM ammo bins.

MacClearly, on 20 January 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

Struggling to see what they would add to the game? Jack of all trades master of none. Already seems in this game you are better off due to the size of the maps and limited types of engagement, specializing in one weapon or using weapons that complement each other. So personally in your plan I would like to see why I would want to take ATM's...other than for jokes in poor taste.

Either that or they would need damage values that don't follow lore to be worthwhile per ton and I am not sure how that would go over.

Please don't get me wrong, as one benefit (especially since right now I am in a Timby with four srm 6 and four med pulse as we speak) is my brawling build having more use and not waiting around during the first seven minutes of a match. It would have to be worth it though for me to not just run say a rack of lrm 10 to poke. Just struggling to see it being what I would choose over what we have.

Case in point

Mostly the point is that ATMs are a cool idea that I'd like to see brought into the game in a way which really highlights the cool idea. Ironically, insofar as I'm aware the TT guys would agree with you - I recall a few folks mentioning that ATMs were generally held to be a waste of space in a TT fight, with either regular LRMs or regular SRMs both being preferable to ATMs. That's one of the reasons I'm attempting to push their versatility with my given plan - I don't want them to be dead-letter weapons, and there's a lot of 'Mechs that can't come into the game without ATMs in the game. So make them the assault rifle of Clan missiles - they beat SMGs at range, they beat sniper rifles in close, they beat both at medium range, but they're much less ammo-efficient than either and lose outright in the SMG/sniper's preferred range bracket.

[Mawai]

Wouldn't it just be easier to have ATM ammo have 60 shots/ton and then allow the player to select the effect of the ammo when firing? The player could switch the same ton of ammo between the three ammo types.

Picture it this way, perhaps the ton of ATM ammo contains 60 casings plus containers of propellant and explosive. When the pilot switches the type of ammo requested, the loading system automatically adjusts the propellant/explosive mix in each missile ... customizing it for the intended use.

The ATM isn't quite as good as an SRM at short range and isn't quite as good as an LRM at long range ... what it allows for is the flexibility to switch from an LRM to MRM to SRM mode using the single ton of ammo. Perhaps that would be sufficient balance by itself?

P.S. I think PGIs problem with switchable ammo was trying to have two different ammo containers for the same weapon ... on the other hand, I think it should be pretty straight forward to swap the EFFECT of the one ammo type based on a switch set on the client (it would have a default initial mode) and sent to the server. They do something similar with missile bay doors so I don't see why switching the effect of ammo would be a big deal.

P.P.S. The main reason to go with either LRMs or SRMs in TT is that they perform better ... but that also assumes that you are able to dictate the engagement range. In TT, the brawlers often rush in with long range mechs supporting ... this doesn't necessarily work in MWO since the brawlers will often get cut to pieces if they just try to rush in ... in table top, the random nature of damage allocation gives them a decent chance of surviving. If ATMs were almost as good as both LRMs and SRMs while providing the MRM option ... they might find a role without any of the other suggestions.

Edited by Mawai, 20 January 2017 - 03:30 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

Heh, one is also able to not take Artemis in order to make up a great deal of tonnage at the cost of warhead inaccuracy, especially in close where deadfire missiles are at their strongest compared to locking warheads. You could also play with cycle times to control DPS, a'la deadfire SRMs vs. Streaks, if that helps bring ATMs into line.

If we are talking about missile reworks, don't expect SRMs to be exempt from it, since they need it to so they work with NARCs. So I wouldn't hinge too much on that.

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

MWO LRMs have a 1000m effective range

Supposedly this is only with indirect fire (which how does that even work), that said, it would be brought down to 630 like it should be if they rework missiles (since indirect firing LRMs never increased their range and they aren't exactly useful at that range anyway).

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

As well, ATMs are much more vulnerable to AMS due to their very low salvo volumes, and with LAMS possibly coming at the same time as ATMs

That depends on missile health they give them, since it shouldn't be more effective, that is more of an artifact of translating to MWO. LAMS will also not be as good as people think given how hot it could be compared to normal AMS. I mean, AMS needs a rework just like missiles do.

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

I don't trust Piranha to get switchable bins right. I just flat-out don't . Even if they could, I'd probably push for a single scalable ammo type simply because straight ER-ATMs are completely useless.

The only difference between a scalable ammo type and different ammo type is you have to better prepare your ammo counts of which I prefer the latter.

1453 R, on 20 January 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

given how game-breakingly powerful MRMs are going to be

Quite an assumption, they weren't in MW4 so I'm certainly not going to assume they are here given PGI.

Mawai, on 20 January 2017 - 03:22 PM, said:

Wouldn't it just be easier to have ATM ammo have 60 shots/ton and then allow the player to select the effect of the ammo when firing? The player could switch the same ton of ammo between the three ammo types.

I like this solution a little bit better. At least you have to have some consideration about your range when you fire.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 20 January 2017 - 03:24 PM.

[RestosIII]

Mawai, on 20 January 2017 - 03:22 PM, said:

Wouldn't it just be easier to have ATM ammo have 60 shots/ton and then allow the player to select the effect of the ammo when firing? The player could switch the same ton of ammo between the three ammo types.

Picture it this way, perhaps the ton of ATM ammo contains 60 casings plus containers of propellant and explosive. When the pilot switches the type of ammo requested, the loading system automatically adjusts the propellant/explosive mix in each missile ... customizing it for the intended use.

The ATM isn't quite as good as an SRM at short range and isn't quite as good as an LRM at long range ... what it allows for is the flexibility to switch from an LRM to MRM to SRM mode using the single ton of ammo. Perhaps that would be sufficient balance by itself?

Except doing that would actually be more complicated, both for PGI and the user, than damage drop-off without any switching period.

[L1f3H4ck]

Numbers aside, having ATMs without switchable ammo types wouldn't feel right. Knowing that they had to rework the whole system because they weren't willing or capable of getting the original idea right? That would be sad indeed. It can't be that hard though, what with bay doors and ECM mode switching already working. The only weapon so far that could have used ammo switching was the LBX, and it kinda makes sense for it to not have that functionality, as it would make the regular AC10 flat out obsolete.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Frechdachs, on 20 January 2017 - 03:42 PM, said:

It can't be that hard though, what with bay doors and ECM mode switching already working.

Neither of those use resources like ammo though, which is why Mawai's suggestion makes the most sense out of all of them.

[1453 R]

A'ight.

So how do ATMs with switchable ammo types/effects, a'la Mawai's solution or the original "different ammo bins" idea from TT, actually stay relevant in the game?

You sacrifice the vast majority of your versatility because every single ton of warheads you devote to a non-HE bin is an enormous cut to your killing ability. Ideally you'd want as few ER warheads as possible, likely never more than 1 ton, perhaps 1 ton of Standard, and all the rest HE because getting caught in a close fight without HE rounds is vastly more dangerous/disastrous than getting stuck in a poke fight without ER or Standard. You're effectively loading yourself down with bad SRMs that have some token ability to poke beyond the normal SRM range while your scant handful of Standard/ER loads hold out, in a Different Bins system.

That was one of the biggest reasons why ATMs blew all the nuts in TT, as I recall. I never played it so I can't say for sure but I'm certain I've seen multiple TT players disparage ATMs as being very poor armament choices in the TT game.

As to Mawai's Reconfigure option...hm. It eliminates the ammo burden, you're no longer actually killing yourself with each load of non-HE rounds you bring, but I've got to wonder why folks are so dead-set on having a button to push. All it does is lessen the ability of ATMs to perform their function; you can't quickly switch between your various range brackets, and you'll also end up constantly firing the wrong loads and either wasting warheads fired at targets beyond their maximum range or dealing a whole lot less damage than you should be doing.

ATMs are already less efficient at range that LRMs and less effective at brawling distances than SRMs. Why make them fiddly and unintuitive to use on top of that?

[Hit the Deck]

PGI can just increase the ammo/ton as they have done with the other ammo-based weapons if needed.

My major concern is that PGI needs to diferentiate ATMs to SSRMs (Streak SRMs) and LRMs in mechanics, i.e. the lock-on targeting system. Another lock-on missile based weapon would not be fun, unless if we could somehow get switchable ammo.

Remember that there's already fly-by-wire guidance mechanics proposed for MRMs. If we go that route for ATMs then MRMs must be dumb fired.

Edited by Hit the Deck, 20 January 2017 - 04:40 PM.