32 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Much of the atm is because it can be used at ALL ranges by the ammo switch. Yes you don't ammo switch right now, but it is usable at basically all ranges -- except up close.

What the **** PGI? Come on! That 180m minimum range just shat on the point of the weapon system -- that it can participate at ANY range.

What you should have done is put the 3 damage at 180m and below, 2 damage at 540m and below, then does 1 damage at 900m and below.

It's still usable at all ranges, but likewise the best range is mid-range at within 540m. Because 1 damage is a waste for 72 ammo/ton, and even if 3 damage at 180m, seriously that's laughably close.

[Evgenyd92]

So you want ultimate missile weapon! Why you need LRM or SRM, you have ATM!!! Forget about lore, it multiplayer game, so it must have BALANCE and no useless weapon. ATM with no minimum range - disbance.

Edited by Evgenyd92, 29 June 2017 - 11:19 PM.

[Carrioncrows]

Easy fix -

Flat Trajectory.

Problem solved and removal of minimum range.

Keeps lrm's "LRM-y"

[Khobai]

ATMs should have no minimum range. The whole point of ATMs is to be better at short range than LRMs. Which they cant do with an idiotic minimum range.

ATMs should also have a flatter trajectory and less max range than LRMs (they should have 810m max range not 1100m). This helps keep LRMs better at indirect fire and long range than ATMs.

Lastly ATMs should have more health per missile so AMS doesnt wreck them due to the low missile count and 90 missiles per ton instead of only 72. Because LRMs get 180 missiles per ton so ATMs should get 90 (average of 2 damage per missile = 180)

fixt.

Edited by Khobai, 29 June 2017 - 11:39 PM.

[Evgenyd92]

Khobai, on 29 June 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

ATMs should have no minimum range. The whole point of ATMs is to be better at short range than LRMs. Which they cant do with an idiotic minimum range.

ATMs should also have a flatter trajectory and less max range than LRMs (they should have 810m max range not 1100m). This helps keep LRMs better at indirect fire and long range than ATMs.

Lastly ATMs should have more health per missile so AMS doesnt wreck them due to the low missile count and 90 missiles per ton instead of only 72. Because LRMs get 180 missiles per ton so ATMs should get 90 (average of 2 damage per missile = 180)

fixt.

But then, they must worse on long range... And 1 AMS can't dealt with one ATM 9 (with both overload nodes).

Edited by Evgenyd92, 29 June 2017 - 11:44 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

But then, they must worse on long range..

hence:
"ATMs should also have a flatter trajectory and less max range than LRMs (they should have 810m max range not 1100m). This helps keep LRMs better at indirect fire and long range than ATMs."

Also ATMs weigh more than LRMs. So that needs to be considered as well when determining their overall power level. The more a weapon weighs the stronger its overall power should be.

ATMs should not necessarily be better at long range than LRMs. But they should be better overall because they weigh more.

Quote

And 1 AMS can't dealt with one ATM 9

but multiple AMS will wipe out an entire volley with ease, rendering them useless.

ATMs need more health per missile because they get lower missile volley count.

ATMs should get 1.5 health per missile instead of 1 health per missile.

Edited by Khobai, 30 June 2017 - 12:00 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Evgenyd92, on 29 June 2017 - 11:18 PM, said:

So you want ultimate missile weapon! Why you need LRM or SRM, you have ATM!!! Forget about lore, it multiplayer game, so it must have BALANCE and no useless weapon. ATM with no minimum range - disbance.

Balanced by being heavy, and low ammunition. Also high cooldown, shoots in streams, and requires target lock to function.

[Khobai]

Quote

Balanced by being heavy, and low ammunition. Also high cooldown, shoots in streams, and requires target lock to function.

well they shouldnt have low ammunition. ammunition should be normalized to 180 damage per ton. which would be 90 ammo per ton for ATMs (since their average damage is 2).

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 12:07 AM, said:

well they shouldnt have low ammunition. ammunition should be normalized to 180 damage per ton. which would be 90 ammo per ton for ATMs (since their average damage is 2).

Kind of the point really. 72 ammo/ton is better, cause at 144 damage/ton at 2 damage, it's still around normal ac ammo/ton. Yet can be pushed up to 216 at really really really close range -- damn that's even close to 215 damage/ton for SRMs.

The only perk the SRMs have over ATM is that they would have better damage over 180m. Assuming that's it my configuration of 0m - 180m - 540m - 900m distribution.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 30 June 2017 - 12:19 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Kind of the point really. 72 ammo/ton is better, cause at 144 damage/ton at 2 damage, it's still around normal ac ammo/ton.

except ATMs are not autocannons so why would it use autocannon ammo damage per ton?

If anything ATMs should use LRM ammo damage per ton which is 180.

180 divided by an average of 2 damage per missile is 90. So ATMs should get 90 ammo per ton.

Quote

damn that's even close to 215 damage/ton for SRMs.

SRM ammo per ton needs to be increased as well. Every other weapon got about a 50% ammo per ton increase. SRMs got screwed out of it. SRMs should get 144 ammo per ton.

Edited by Khobai, 30 June 2017 - 12:27 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 12:21 AM, said:

except ATMs are not autocannons so why would it use autocannon ammo damage per ton?

ACs seems sustainable at those amounts already.

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 12:21 AM, said:

ATMs should use LRM ammo damage per ton which is 180.

Why? because it's missiles?

Counter point. Balance.

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 12:21 AM, said:

SRM ammo per ton needs to be increased as well. Every other weapon got about a 50% ammo per ton instead. SRMs got screwed out of it.

Are you sure that it's not the magazine nodes that gave the ACs extra ammo?

[Khobai]

Quote

Counter point. Balance.

except it balances nothing by giving ATMs less ammo. that is a weak argument.

ATMs arnt even a good weapon. there is no valid reason why they should have less ammo. especially given how much tonnage they weigh.

If anything their way heavier tonnage compared to LRMs is a compelling argument for why they should get 90 ammo per ton instead of only 72.

Quote

Are you sure that it's not the magazine nodes that gave the ACs extra ammo?

yes im sure

for example in tabletop an AC20 gets 5 ammo per ton and an AC10 gets 10 ammo per ton

but in MWO an AC20 gets 7 ammo per ton and an AC10 gets 20 ammo per ton

and magazine nodes increase that even further


LRMs get 120 ammo per ton in tabletop which is increased to 180 per ton in MWO.


while in tabletop an srm6 gets 90 ammo per ton. and in MWO an srm6 only gets 100 ammo per ton.

SRMs dont get the same 40%-50% (or 100% in the case of the AC10) increase that autocannons/LRMs get.

So yeah SRMs should have their ammo per ton increased to either 132 or 144 per ton. Since 132 and 144 are both divisible by 4 and 6.

Edited by Khobai, 30 June 2017 - 12:42 AM.

[Evgenyd92]

If I remember right. Ammunition, weapom weight, weapon slots and so on come from Lore with no difference. And you can open 2 missile pack nodes. I don't see problem with ammunition.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 12:30 AM, said:

except it balances nothing by giving ATMs less ammo. that is a weak argument.

ATMs arnt even a good weapon. there is no valid reason why they should have less ammo. especially given how much tonnage they weigh.

except it balances nothing by giving ATMs less ammo. that is a weak argument.

ATMs arnt even a good weapon. there is no valid reason why they should have less ammo. especially given how much tonnage they weigh.

If anything their way heavier tonnage compared to LRMs is a compelling argument for why they should get 90 ammo per ton instead of only 72.

Wrong. It balances ATMs with LRMs.

ATMs would be a better choice over LRMs aside from indirect-fire, and as you know LRM boats get their own locks and artemis works better with LOS, shoot within 400m-600m too. And then factor in Fire-and-Forget.

It deals 3 damage/missile close range, at a similar LRM40A TBRS lrmboat would have 24 total ATM tubes (4x ATM6) that translates at 72 damage close range, 48 mid range, 24 long range. As you know, proper LRM boats mostly shoots only at mid-range, long range is for extreme cases like polar highlands with reliable allied locks.

Considering those, i find it hard to justify using LRMs over ATMs at all other than fringe indirect fire support builds that does not utilize Artemis -- like a potato lurmer.

You know what's weak? You insisting a lot, without justification.

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 12:30 AM, said:

yes im sure

for example in tabletop an AC20 gets 5 ammo per ton and an AC10 gets 10 ammo per ton

but in MWO an AC20 gets 7 ammo per ton and an AC10 gets 20 ammo per ton

and magazine nodes increase that even further


LRMs get 120 ammo per ton in tabletop which is increased to 180 per ton in MWO.


while in tabletop an srm6 gets 90 ammo per ton. and in MWO an srm6 only gets 100 ammo per ton.

SRMs dont get the same 40%-50% (or 100% in the case of the AC10) increase that autocannons/LRMs get.

So yeah SRMs should have their ammo per ton increased to either 132 or 144 per ton. Since 132 and 144 are both divisible by 4 and 6.

I find that really really hard to agree upon. This is not table top, this is MWO, which is an FPS. Biggest difference? You can aim. But even aiming, LRMs are spread everywhere in addition of retained target lock and long-*** air-time that allows it to be easily countered. SRMs, can be aimed, even concentrated. Short range and faster missile means harder to shoot down with AMS nor easy to find cover once already going at you.

The way the game is made allowed SRMs to be balanced even at small amount of ammo. Quite simply, compared to it's peers it works fine with less ammo, and is not as bad as LRM with the MWO adjustment.

And then as if LRMs and SRMs don't have their own nodes to increase their ammo count. Jesus SRMs' ammo can be boosted to 120 .

That's not even a weak argument, that's bad.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 30 June 2017 - 12:56 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Wrong. It balances ATMs with LRMs.

you have still failed to adequately explain why ATMs should have less ammo per ton than LRMs when ATMs weigh twice as much. ATMs should be way better weapons overall because they weigh twice as much.

Its like you expect ATMs and LRMs to be equal even though ATMs weigh much more. That makes no sense.

The more a weapon weighs the better it should be overall. ATMs should be stronger than LRMs. Not necessarily stronger at long range. But stronger overall.

Right now ATMs are abysmally weak considering their tonnage. They need numerous buffs including an ammo per ton buff.

Quote

That's not even a weak argument, that's bad.

saying srms should get a 50% ammo increase because every other weapon got a 50% ammo increase is a pretty good argument actually. its called consistency, something this game is sorely lacking.

Edited by Khobai, 30 June 2017 - 01:00 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Evgenyd92, on 30 June 2017 - 12:46 AM, said:

If I remember right. Ammunition, weapom weight, weapon slots and so on come from Lore with no difference. And you can open 2 missile pack nodes. I don't see problem with ammunition.

Most of the ammo in this game has deviated from TT values significantly.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 12:54 AM, said:

Its like you expect ATMs and LRMs to be equal even though ATMs weigh much more. That makes no sense.

The more a weapon weighs the better it should be overall. ATMs should be stronger than LRMs. Not necessarily stronger at long range. But stronger overall.

Aside from the idiotic 180m minimum range - and disregarding that, it's already better than the LRM overall. Lets face it, the LRMs are it's own worst enemy, and the ATM -- without 180m minimum range -- solves most of those gripes like Fire and Forget, no minimum range.

Hell the fire and forget alone is nice, factor in the fact that you do SRM-ish damage close-range. LRMboats are beaten by people getting close, ATMs don't have that.

What are you basing from? Tubes or tonnage? ATM6 has 3.5 tons, that is an LRM15 or LRM10A. At the LRM's perscriptive range of around 500, atm6 deals 12 damage which is just between LRM15 artemised which is ****, and then LRM10A which is tolerable to good.

ATM12 at 7 tons, LRM20A at 6 tons, ATM12 does 12/24/36 damage. At mid range, at LRM's prescriptive range of 500, ATM does 24 damage over 20 damage of the LRM20A. ATM20A's damage per ton is 3.333333333333333, ATM12 damage per ton at mid-range is at 3.428571428571429. And then factor in that ATMs at their ideal state does 36 damage instead, and damage per ton at close range is 5.142857142857143, in which the LRM20A would have been screwed over instead.

ATM9 at 5 tons, does 9/18/27 damage. 3.6 damage/ton at mid-range, 4.8 at close range. LRM20 without arty is **** even with 4 damage/ton -- i wouldn't even call it "efficiency" due to being spread EVERYWHERE, ATM9 at the same tonnage is the clear choice.

ATM is weak? With 180m Minimum range, further confounded by low ammo/ton, it is. Remove the minimum range, it's a weapon system already justified by it's current ammo/ton.

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 12:54 AM, said:

you have still failed to adequately explain why ATMs should have less ammo per ton than LRMs when ATMs weigh twice as much.

Wrong, i did. You're simply not accepting it. You might as well block your ear canal with your fingers, and just say "la la la la i can't hear you, i'm right you're wrong" -- of course metaphor cause we're discussion on a message board.

Again it's balanced with worse ammo efficiency, because otherwise LRMs are just a completely inferior choice. Unless of course you wanna buff LRMs as well, which are equally fine but i don't see it happening.

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 12:54 AM, said:

saying srms should get a 50% ammo increase because every other weapon got a 50% ammo increase is a pretty good argument actually.

No it's not. What you're saying is practically "that kid on the other counter had two candy, so i too should have two candy" to your mother while on the supermarket buying grocery and she only let you take one.

We still have to consider the impact to the current balance and game play.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 30 June 2017 - 01:22 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Wrong, i did. You're simply not accepting it.

Because youre wrong. ATMs weigh nearly twice as much as LRMs so they should be far better than LRMs in nearly every way.


The only two things LRMs should be better at than ATMs are indirect fire and longer max range.

Quote

No it's not. What you're saying is practically "that kid on the other counter had two candy, so i too should have two candy" to your mother while on the supermarket buying grocery and she only let you take one.

not really.

because internal structure/armor was doubled for all mechs.

the whole point of weapons getting extra ammo was to help deal with that extra armor/structure.

which is why SRMs also shouldve gotten extra ammo like every other weapon did.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 01:11 AM, said:

Because youre wrong. ATMs weigh nearly twice as much as LRMs so they should be far better than LRMs in nearly every way.

*sigh, it's like arguing with a child, made of wall. I already shown you numbers that show you why you are wrong.

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 01:11 AM, said:

The only two things LRMs should be better at than ATMs are indirect fire and longer max range.

The same two things that LRMs are bad at, and not used at by reasonable and responsible LRMers unless on exceptional situations. You gotta give LRMs something more.

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 01:11 AM, said:

not really.

Yes it is.

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 01:11 AM, said:

because internal structure/armor was doubled for all mechs.

the whole point of weapons getting extra ammo was to help deal with that extra armor/structure.

which is why SRMs also shouldve gotten extra ammo like every other weapon did.

Except SRMs are actually powerful, that are able to be grouped at a single component close-range unlike the LRMs. C-SRMs does 12.9 damage total at 1.5 with arty, 2.5t with arty. Compare to C-LRM15 at 3.5t, C-LRM10 at 2.5t and 10 damage, that damage is spread everywhere. Srm's spread can be minimized by range, which is common with brawling range.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 30 June 2017 - 01:37 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Except SRMs are actually powerful

not really. CSRMs are pretty weak actually. ghost heat limits them to a max alpha of 36 damage. they have absurdly short range. they spread out pretty badly even with artemis.

clans can do far better with other less limited weapon combos.