51 replies to this topic

[Lucian Nostra]

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.

problem with your comparison is your lumping artemis into the weight of SRMs which is wrong to do. so 3xSRM6 - 36 dmg 4.5 tons vs atm 9, 27 dmg 5 tons. SRMs still have an advantage even if ATMs are 3 dmg from 0-180

And ill stop you before you come back with some "have you seen the shot spread without artemis?" because have you seen the shot spread on ATMs??

2xsrm6+a will still have the advantage because that 24 dmg will actually go where you want it to vs ATMs smacking legs and arms when you wanna blast the chest. or you can go for the shotgun effect without artemis for more dmg and still mostly hit upper body vs ATMs

Edited by Lucian Nostra, 09 July 2017 - 03:16 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

problem with your comparison is your lumping artemis into the weight of SRMs which is wrong to do

I didnt think people actually used CSRM6s without artemis. I mean the spread is pretty terrible without it.

Quote

And ill stop you before you come back with some "have you seen the shot spread without artemis?" because have you seen the shot spread on ATMs??

Youre right. the shot spread on ATMs is certainly a HUGE disadvantage compared to SRMs.

But SRMs come in small launchers and you need a lot of missile hardpoints for them. Whereas its much easier to stack a large number of ATMs on a mech because of the bigger launchers. So even though ATMs have a much worse spread, the upper damage potential on ATMs is much higher because you can have more missiles for the same number of hardpoints. I mean you have to somehow balance the fact you can have like four ATM9s on a mech. Thats why 3 damage per missile is pretty insane.

Edited by Khobai, 09 July 2017 - 03:31 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 09 July 2017 - 03:20 PM, said:

But SRMs come in small launchers and you need a lot of missile hardpoints. Whereas its much easier to stack a large number of ATMs on a mech. So even though ATMs have a much worse spread, the upper damage potential on ATMs is much higher because you can have more missiles for the same number of hardpoints.

Counter point. ATMs are heavier.

[Khobai]

Quote

Counter point. ATMs are heavier.

Absolutely. But its not a matter of weight its a matter of hardpoints.

You cant take the same weight in SRMs that you can ATMs because there arnt any mechs that have enough missile hardpoints to let you do it

The most you can have on a clan mech is what? 6 SRM6s? Thats 72 damage.

You can easily surpass 72 damage with ATMs. x4 ATM9s is 108 damage if its 3 damage per missile.

So thats why 3 damage per missile is insane and why their damage has to be lowered to like 2.3-2.5 per missile.

Edited by Khobai, 09 July 2017 - 03:40 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 09 July 2017 - 03:36 PM, said:

Absolutely. But its not a matter of weight its a matter of hardpoints.

But its not a matter of hardpoints, it's a matter of weight. At equal weight of an ATM, you can get moar lasers, SRMs, heat-sinks.

Why do you get to choose which part matters? Can't we consider every aspect instead?

[Khobai]

Quote

But its not a matter of hardpoints, it's a matter of weight. At equal weight of an ATM, you can get moar lasers, SRMs, heat-sinks.

I had already compared the weight a few posts earlier. SRMs are better for weight. That was established.

But theres more to it than just weight. The number of hardpoints does matter. Because you can never take an equal weight in SRMs that you can in ATMs due to no mech having enough missile hardpoints.

So if youre strictly comparing SRMs to ATMs, the SRMs can never do as much damage on the upper end that ATMs can. Thats why ATMs shouldnt do 3 damage per missile. Because the upper end damage potential is too high.

Yeah you can spend the weight on other things. You just cant spend it on more SRMs for lack of hardpoints. And the whole comparison we were doing was SRMs vs ATMs.

Edited by Khobai, 09 July 2017 - 04:12 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 09 July 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

I had already compared the weight a few posts earlier. SRMs are better for weight. That was established.

But theres more to it than just weight. The number of hardpoints does matter. Because you can never take an equal weight in SRMs that you can in ATMs due to no mech having enough missile hardpoints.

Yes, but you can take SRMs on a lighter platform with extra ammenities versus Artemis. No i wasn't just disregarding hardpoints like that, but rather i want to prompt considering those as well.

Khobai, on 09 July 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

So if youre strictly comparing SRMs to ATMs, the SRMs can never do as much damage on the upper end that ATMs can. Thats why ATMs shouldnt do 3 damage per missile. Because the upper end damage potential is too high.

Yeah you can spend the weight on other things. You just cant spend it on more SRMs for lack of hardpoints. And the whole comparison we were doing was SRMs vs ATMs.

That's like why AC20 does 20 damage, but an ac2 just does 2 damage. The thing is that, the upper end deserves to do high damage, cause they are heavier.

I will admit, i do think that it is too high. But I wouldn't calibrate it for SRMs, I will do so with respect to the general overall balance, taking account of every other weapon as well.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 July 2017 - 04:30 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

That's like why AC20 does 20 damage, but an ac2 just does 2 damage. The thing is that, the upper end deserves to do high damage, cause they are heavier.

Right but im not saying they shouldnt do more damage because theyre heavier. im just saying they shouldnt do 3 damage because 3 is too much. I feel 2.3-2.5 is around where ATMs need to be.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 09 July 2017 - 04:33 PM, said:

Right but im not saying they shouldnt do more damage because theyre heavier. im just saying they shouldnt do 3 damage because 3 is too much. I feel 2.3-2.5 is around where ATMs need to be.

Then stop comparing them to SRMs at that respect.

Also my magic number would be 2.4/2.0/1.6

[Pariah Devalis]

Can't help but feel like the concept of "higher rate of fire" got lost somewhere, here, as well. Even if the comparable weapon systems have a lower overall damage per trigger pull, if the rate of fire is fast enough, as it is with SRM, you have a higher DPS potential.

You've got to look at the tonnage investment, the weight investment, the clustering, the ammo-damage/ton, weapon damage/ton, heat generation, and projectile speed. Instead, I see a lot of people looking at just one or two facets, here. Could we please stop cherry picking things and take a more holistic approach to the comparable weapon systems? Is that really too much to ask?

Also, yes. A mech with only one or two M hardpoints might benefit more from ATM than SRM. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. I actually like that it can theoretically give a hardpoint starved mech some new options. However, the more hardpoints available, the less benefit the ATM provides.

Given many omnis can take between 4 and 6 M hardpoints, there isn't exactly a shortage of missile hardpoints to go around. ATM being as hot, heavy, and slow firing as they are will result in the carrier making larger and larger sacrifices to invest in multiple large ATM launchers. Sacrifices far and away more than what they would need to make with either an LRM or SRM for their respective range brackets.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 09 July 2017 - 05:08 PM.

[Lucian Nostra]

Pariah Devalis, on 09 July 2017 - 05:05 PM, said:

Can't help but feel like the concept of "higher rate of fire" got lost somewhere, here, as well. Even if the comparable weapon systems have a lower overall damage per trigger pull, if the rate of fire is fast enough, as it is with SRM, you have a higher DPS potential.

You've got to look at the tonnage investment, the weight investment, the clustering, the ammo-damage/ton, weapon damage/ton, heat generation, and projectile speed. Instead, I see a lot of people looking at just one or two facets, here. Could we please stop cherry picking things and take a more holistic approach to the comparable weapon systems? Is that really too much to ask?

Also, yes. A mech with only one or two M hardpoints might benefit more from ATM than SRM. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. I actually like that it can theoretically give a hardpoint starved mech some new options. However, the more hardpoints available, the less benefit the ATM provides.

Given many omnis can take between 4 and 6 M hardpoints, there isn't exactly a shortage of missile hardpoints to go around. ATM being as hot, heavy, and slow firing as they are will result in the carrier making larger and larger sacrifices to invest in multiple large ATM launchers. Sacrifices far and away more than what they would need to make with either an LRM or SRM for their respective range brackets.

This is true, a ATM 9 would yield you around 5.4 dps, while trip srm6 gives 9 dps, almost double to brawling potential, it also runs hotter at 3 heat per second vs 1.4.

Again SRM6s even without artemis will give you a better grouping as you can land the majority in the chest while the ATM is gonna spread. 2 srm6+a will cost the same weight, give a better dps nearly the same heat per second and a far superior damage application.

The Alpha will be higher if boated for sure but we're talking about 108 dmg alphas spread like LRMs.. out to 270 meters

[zeves]

well the real question is, who is going to tweet the answer to Russ.?