51 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

2.4/2.0/1.6?

well the problem with 2.0 damage at medium range is that the ATM9 does less damage than the LRM20 at medium range

it really needs to do at least the same damage as LRMs at medium range

So it really needs to be more like 2.4/2.2/1.8 or 2.3/2.2/1.9

[BlackDeathLegion]

PGI has absolutely no idea how to use the ATM within MWO and NEVER will, but hey... keep rewarding them by buying those mech packs! Some day MELEE COMBAT will be in MWO? (sarcasm)

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 07 July 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

it really needs to do at least the same damage as LRMs at medium range

Why? That was the point, cause it's supposed to be a generalist weapon than specialist. If it does simmilar damage/ton at mid-range, when LRMs are not really even used long-range by responsible lurmers, not a lot is stopping us from abandoning good-old LRM boats.

[Khobai]

Quote

Why? That was the point, cause it's supposed to be a generalist weapon than specialist. If it does simmilar damage/ton at mid-range, when LRMs are not really even used long-range by responsible lurmers, not a lot is stopping us from abandoning good-old LRM boats.

because if LRMs are better than ATMs at both medium and long range, and can fire over obstacles and indirect fire too, theres not much of a reason to use ATMs. Youre better off just taking LRMs and lasers for short range.

ATMs should be better than LRMs at short range and about equal to LRMs at medium range. And LRMs should be better than ATMs at long range and about equal to ATMs at medium range.

and just to clarify, by medium range I mean 300m-600m. and by long range I mean 600m-900m

Quote

when LRMs are not really even used long-range by responsible lurmers

well long range missiles not actually being good at long range is an entirely seperate issue... atms shouldnt be punished because lrms dont do what theyre supposed to.

lrms need a much higher velocity to hit at long range. but they should gradually accelerate to that higher velocity to prevent them from being too good at shorter ranges.

Edited by Khobai, 07 July 2017 - 06:42 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 07 July 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

because if LRMs are better than ATMs at both medium and long range, and can fire over obstacles and indirect fire too, theres not much of a reason to use ATMs. Youre better off just taking LRMs and lasers for short range.

ATMs should be better than LRMs at short range and about equal to LRMs at medium range. And LRMs should be better than ATMs at long range and about equal to ATMs at medium range.

and just to clarify, by medium range I mean 300m-600m. and by long range I mean 600m-900m

As opposed in totally obscuring LRMs over what they do best, ATMs given no minimum range, would be already better to boat over LRMs due to not being as vulnerable close range.

ATMs need to be only a bit weaker than SRMs or LRMs at their respective range, but excels in out ranging them. That's how you balance a weapon that can do (damage) at any range.

Khobai, on 07 July 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

well long range missiles not actually being good at long range is an entirely seperate issue... atms shouldnt be punished because lrms dont do what theyre supposed to.

But consider this, would anyone even use LRMs when ATMs do same damage? After all having no close-range vulnerability, while has near the same mid-range performance, who on earth would pick LRM anymore? Indirect fire? We all know that LRMboats get their own locks, and we get locks by LOS so we might as well shoot our LRMs anyways.

[Oblitum Infernos]

ATM's will pretty much all ways be outclassed by LRMs at long and SRMs at short ranges for a couple of reasons really to start with ATM vs LRM you've got two big things to cover. One LRMs have a much much better firing arc when it comes to hitting someone 180m+ away, a lot of the time ATMs just ate it into whatever cover they could find if the other person so much as twitched up or down any variety of slope, this issue only got worse the farther away you got every cover in the game is safe from ATMs with their straight firing arc. Two LRM ammo/Tube number technically could split this into two more issues but it kinda relates so i'm covering it in one, LRMs are significantly less neutered by AMS then ATms are just due to how many missiles are put into the air in one sitting by the LRMS, this is coupled with much higher ammo per ton which means the LRMs can stay in the fight longer then the ATMs can too. As for SRMS vs ATMs it comes down to a real simple fact, missile speed and no lock on. Sure i could get 36 damage if i shoot at someone out in the open, away from cover, within the 120-270 range bracket, assuming there is no AMS nearby with the ATM 12, or i get anywhere between 0-270m and hit the person with all 6 SRMs from the biggest SRM on the market, but if we went with comparable weight i could be using SRM 24 with a ton of ammo for the same rough weight of just the ATM12 launcher without it's ammo. not to mention i have to avoid ECM with the ATMs and i don't with the SRMS, really the only weapon that the ATMs have a real threat of making useless is C-Streaks, but at the same time those are already a situational weapon used ( at least as far as i'm aware) primarily for hunting lights, usually by low pod-weight Mediums that wouldn't be able to use ATMs anyways due to their much higher weight, also C-streaks are still a much faster missile and better for using against lights that are likely to run AMS/LAMS

[Khobai]

Quote

But consider this, would anyone even use LRMs when ATMs do same damage?

because LRMs can indirect fire and ATMs not so much. And also LRMs would still do more damage at long range.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 08 July 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

because LRMs can indirect fire and ATMs not so much. And also LRMs would still do more damage at long range.

Until you realize that responsible Lumers don't lurm long range, they do mid-range. Until you realize that responsible lurmers get their own lock via their own LOS. Until you realize that allied lock are unreliable, that's why we're (prescriptively) supposed to get our own locks.

LRMs are bad because it's success is mostly hinged on targets being bad pilots, than users being good lurmers. Needing to retain lock means some spotter would have to watch that target above 600m for you, and with such slow missiles give them ample time to actually get to cover. Imagine how much time you have to get to cover when LRMs are fired from 900m away? Isn't that LRMs already have difficulty in landing by needing constant lock? You're hinging LRM's future on fields they weren't even good at in the first place.

LRMs should excel at mid range DPS and damage if they ever were to be a choice over ATMs, because they suck at what's left for them by the ATM; indirect fire and long range.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Khobai, on 07 July 2017 - 03:56 PM, said:

Well an easy comparison is this:

ATM9 = 5 tons
x2 CSRM6+A = 5 tons
LRM20 = 5 tons

So an ATM9 should do less damage than x2 SRM6+A (24 dmg) at short range
and an ATM9 should do less damage than x1 LRM20 (20 dmg) at long range

So if ATMs have no min range, they should do 2.3 damage at short range, 2.1-2.2 damage at medium range, and 1.9 damage at long range and thats more or less perfect. That makes them viable at all range bands without being better than SRMs or LRMs.

turns out my initial estimate of 2.5/2/1.5 mightve been a bit too high for short range and too low for long range.

At 540+ meters, an LRM 20 does 20 damage, max. And ATM 9 does 9 damage, max. Forget that?

ATM's are supposed to be missiles meant for short-mid range devastation with a light sting at long range but requires LOS to lock-on to its target.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 08 July 2017 - 09:51 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Khobai, on 07 July 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

well the problem with 2.0 damage at medium range is that the ATM9 does less damage than the LRM20 at medium range

it really needs to do at least the same damage as LRMs at medium range

So it really needs to be more like 2.4/2.2/1.8 or 2.3/2.2/1.9

I would rather swap the short and mid range value and "squeeze" them a bit, reduce the long/short values and increase the mid.

It's about how something is used. If the weapon is strongest point blank that's where you gravitate to use it. We've got a huge number of weapons from ballistics to lasers that give you good reason to close and a reasonable number (Gauss, ppc, erlls, LRMs) that promote staying at long range. Having a weapon that shines at mid range, especially a missile setup, would add a new dynamic. It would have a significant impact on LOL trading and HOW you push to a brawl and HOW you handle setting to receive a push.

Having ATMs a solid, powerful mid range weapon that's weaker up close or further away would actually add a new dynamic to the game and give us one thing out of the whole tech jump that really impacts balance and gameplay. The rest is all sub mediocre QP grade potato weapons and a way to buy a couple of extra tons for your STD IS mechs.

[Khobai]

Quote

Until you realize that responsible Lumers don't lurm long range, they do mid-range

Like I said just because LRMs dont do what theyre supposed to doesnt mean ATMs should suffer for it

LRMs stand for long range missile. If theyre not good at long range thats a fault with LRMs. It just means LRMs need to be better at long range.

Quote

It's about how something is used. If the weapon is strongest point blank that's where you gravitate to use it.

Except if youre only using ATMs point blank theres no reason not to use SRMs instead.

The whole point of ATMs is to be viable at all ranges.

Edited by Khobai, 08 July 2017 - 06:31 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 08 July 2017 - 06:29 PM, said:

Like I said just because LRMs dont do what theyre supposed to doesnt mean ATMs should suffer for it

LRMs stand for long range missile. If theyre not good at long range thats a fault with LRMs. It just means LRMs need to be better at long range.

And like i said, LRMs are not good at long range anyways. I'm gonna repeat that over and over till you get that to your head. Besides, PGI has a game to balance, whether LRMs are meant for "long range" is irrelevant. PGI needs to fit it in the game while being relevant at the same time else such weapon system is pretty pointless. Also at 1.6 damage/missile, and with lower ammo count, it's still pretty bad long range. ATM9 the quivalent of LRM20, still does only 14.4 damage long range.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but we all know that NK is far from "Democratic".

[Khobai]

Quote

And like i said, LRMs are not good at long range anyways

Again thats a problem with LRMs not ATMs.

If LRMs arnt good at long range then PGI needs to make them good at long range

They shouldve fixed LRM velocity before they even entertained adding ATMs to the game.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 08 July 2017 - 07:12 PM, said:

Again thats a problem with LRMs not ATMs.

If LRMs arnt good at long range then PGI needs to make them good at long range

They shouldve fixed LRM velocity before they even entertained adding ATMs to the game.

And again, PGI has to balance the game anyways. Whether you like it or not, LRMs have their place at mid-range, and to just squeeze in ATM there would obscure LRMs. Whether you like it or not, long range sucks ***, it's hard to hit people long range, allied locks are not reliable.

This ain't TT, this is MWO. You need to learn to accept that.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 08 July 2017 - 07:41 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Whether you like it or not, LRMs have their place at mid-range

Except if ATMs cant be better than SRMs at short range

And cant be better than LRMs at medium or long range

Then ATMs effectively have no role whatsoever.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 08 July 2017 - 09:40 PM, said:

Then ATMs effectively have no role whatsoever.

And that's the point. As generalist weapon, they are just supposed to be a weapon capable of participating combat at ANY range, but does not excel at any of it.

[Mjr Disaster]

"Except if ATMs cant be better than SRMs at short range

And cant be better than LRMs at medium or long range

Then ATMs effectively have no role whatsoever."

Which means they need to be the best choice at mid ranges, the damage can be ok, 3 out to ~400m, then 2 out to ~800, but if they are going to have such a flat path they need to be MUCH faster, and I agree with the linear regression in damage from 120 to 0m.

[Khobai]

Quote

And that's the point. As generalist weapon, they are just supposed to be a weapon capable of participating combat at ANY range, but does not excel at any of it.

Except youre way better off just taking LRMs and lasers for short range

Lasers are better than SRMs. Yet ATMs are worse than SRMs. So LRMs+Lasers gives you better short range and better medium and long range too.

ATMs dont outperform that combo so why would you ever take ATMs?

ATMs will not work as a pure generalist weapon as long as you can take specialist weapon combinations (like Lasers+LRMs) that outperform ATMs in all range bands.

ATMs need to be a generalist weapon thats also dominant at medium range, where SRMs and LRMs dont overlap. Thats the only way they wont be outright inferior.

Quote

Which means they need to be the best choice at mid ranges

Correct. ATMs need to be stronger than LRMs at medium range. Otherwise theres no reason not to take LRMs backed up with lasers for short range instead.

Quote

and I agree with the linear regression in damage from 120 to 0m.

absolutely not. then lrms+lasers are definitely the better option due to lasers not having a penalty under 120m. ATMs need to have no min range in order to compete.

Edited by Khobai, 09 July 2017 - 12:38 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 09 July 2017 - 12:24 AM, said:

Except youre way better off just taking LRMs and lasers for short range

Lasers are better than SRMs. Yet ATMs are worse than SRMs. So LRMs+Lasers gives you better short range and better medium and long range too.

ATMs dont outperform that combo so why would you ever take ATMs?

Considering that lasers are hotter, that's maybe it. Also fire-and-forget, easier to use, that means you'll be landing shots easier. LRMs are support weapons, ATMs are offensive weapons -- or at least they should be but can't because they still arc.

ATMs are active play, while LRMs are passive play.

Khobai, on 09 July 2017 - 12:24 AM, said:

ATMs will not work as a pure generalist weapon as long as you can take specialist weapon combinations (like Lasers+LRMs) that outperform ATMs in all range bands.

Yes it can, for much more active roles. LRMs are for support, while ATMs are for offense. Backup Lasers that are just meant to cover for the range LRMs couldn't participate means you have a set of weapon not really pulling it's weight. ATMs on the other hand, it pulls it's weight either way. The weight of that array of ER-SLs is pulled even outside of being a "Backup".

Khobai, on 09 July 2017 - 12:24 AM, said:

ATMs need to be a generalist weapon thats also dominant at medium range, where SRMs and LRMs dont overlap. Thats the only way they wont be outright inferior.

No it doesn't that's LRMs job. It needs to be a weapon with no real weaknesses, but no strengths either, or it risks obscuring a weapon already cemented in it's place.

Khobai, on 09 July 2017 - 12:24 AM, said:

Correct. ATMs need to be stronger than LRMs at medium range. Otherwise theres no reason not to take LRMs backed up with lasers for short range instead.

Lol no. Otherwise, you obscure LRMs.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 July 2017 - 01:03 AM.

[MischiefSC]

You take LRMs for indirect fire and as a "boating" weapon. ATMs are big, heavy and work as an addition to direct fire in the 120-300m engagement range, while not being useless out to 500m. They should also have some use inside 120m but nothing lime SRMs (or as tonnage/space efficient).

Playing ATMs like LRMs isn't going to work well.