677 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

in Lore ATMs had 3 Ammo types,
HE(Short Range) 0-270 3Damage,
Standard Range 120-450 2Damage,
Extended Range 120-810 1Damage,

in MWO it was stated PGI wanted to Mix all the Ammo Types into 1,
which was a good idea, but many had Fears this would force a Min Range on them,
it seems they not only gave ATMs a Min Range but also gave them LRMs Min Range,


MWO ATMs have 120m-270mRange-1100mMax
so they only do 3Damage in 150m between 120m-270m,
and at 500m they do less damage then LRMs for their Weight,

in this ATMs are only effective between 120-450m after which their useless,
as past 450m they will do less Damage then an LRM20(Same Crits/Tons as ATM9)
they also Share LRMs Spread(which cant be Artemis improved like LRMs can)
they Share C-LRM Velocity which makes them much less viable past 450m,
their Low Missile Count & Stream fire, which makes them AMS vulnerable,
their low Ammo Count(72), which makes them inferior to LRMs at range,

all in all i think giving ATMs Min Range has hurt them greatly,
so i feel that the Min Range need to be removed to better help them as a system,

Quote

=LRM to ATM Comparison=
ATM9.........4Crits, 5Tons, 5.2Spread, 180Min Range, does >20Dam per Volley under 360m,
C-LRM20...4Crits, 5Tons, 5.2Spread, 180Min Range, does =20Dam per Volley 180-900m,
also with Artemis(+1Crit / +1Ton) C-LRM20 gets 3.38Spread, then theres the ECM Problem,

=SRM to ATM Comparison=
ATM3........2Crits, 1.5Tons, 4.2Spread, 120Min Range, does =9Dam per Volley under 270m,
C-SRM6...1Crits, 1.5Tons, 5.0Spread, no Min Range, does =12Dam per Volley 0-270m,
also with Artemis(+1Crit / +1Ton) C-SRM6 gets 3.25Spread, then theres the ECM Problem,
And and Finally Velocity(SRM=400m/s)(ATM=160m/s),

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks

Edit- Min Range reduced to 120m

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 30 June 2017 - 03:41 PM.

[Twinkleblade]

We wouldn't have this problem if we had ammo switching...
However it seems like a 90m deadzone is the most appropiate course of action right now.

[Andi Nagasia]

Twinkleblade, on 28 June 2017 - 03:38 PM, said:

We wouldn't have this problem if we had ammo switching...
However it seems like a 90m deadzone is the most appropiate course of action right now.

i would support this, as to test,
180m Min Range is abit much for this weapon system,
due to all its short Cummings, especially its Ammo/Ton

[Nema Nabojiv]

actually if there was no range it would be a no-brainer choice.

On the other hand 'highest damage in closer range' is totally counter-intuitive to having a min-range deadzone, so i dunno

[The Pug Commander]

yes if you cant use them up close then why bother with them. they need to be some where around 90

[Andi Nagasia]

Nema Nabojiv, on 28 June 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

actually if there was no range it would be a no-brainer choice.

On the other hand 'highest damage in closer range' is totally counter-intuitive to having a min-range deadzone, so i dunno

well assuming your comparing ATM9 vs LRM20(both have same Crits/Tonnage)
at 180(Min Range for Both ATM/LRMs) ATM9 does 36Damage to a LRM20s 20Damage,
but at 360(90m past their Optimum) they will be doing 20Dmage to LRM20s 20Damage,
past that LRMs only get better, also LRMs have better Ammo Efficiency,
(at 360m an ATM9 has 144Dam/Ton Vs an LRM20 has 180Dam/Ton)

[Brain Cancer]

It's an LRM clone coding here, right down to the 180m deadzone. This is inelegant and inappropriate.

1) Change the deadzone to a 120m damage reduction instead. Reduce damage from 270m and normalize it across the missile range so that ATMs hit 1 damage at 810m, 2 damage at 540m, and 3 damage at 270m (and then decline from 120m-0m.).

2) Reduce the range to TT levels- that is, 810 meters. ATMs have LRM velocity, which makes them incredibly inaccurate at range anyway. No need for a snail-missile with a 6.8 second flight time from launch to impact at 1100m.

3) Improve clustering. ATMs include Artemis automatically as part of the launcher, and should benefit from lock time boosts as well.

[Duvanor]

Nema Nabojiv, on 28 June 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

actually if there was no range it would be a no-brainer choice.

On the other hand 'highest damage in closer range' is totally counter-intuitive to having a min-range deadzone, so i dunno

It would not be a no-brainer choice. LRMs are more ammo effective in long range fights. Streak SRMs have better locks and standart SRMs have better reload time.

Edited by Duvanor, 28 June 2017 - 04:43 PM.

[kutkip]

Duvanor, on 28 June 2017 - 04:32 PM, said:

It would not be a no-brainer choice. LRMs are more ammo effective in long range fights. Streak SRMs have better locks and standart SRMs have better reload time.

And they both don't require facetime, so yeah they should remove minimum range entirely. they never be as effective as SRM by a long shot anyway.

[Ragedog4]

ATM Min Range Removed? No. Reduced? Yes.

I play all kinds in this game and I think the Reduction should happen and understand why. However 200 is a HUGE stretch. However drop it between 180-120 and I would understand. Perhaps the 3-2-1 dmg would change too with that reduction.

(Also I notice everyone before me is all Clan, funny, lets get some IS guys to comment to plz)

Edited by ragedog4, 28 June 2017 - 05:20 PM.

[Duvanor]

ragedog4, on 28 June 2017 - 05:19 PM, said:

ATM Min Range Removed? No. Reduced? Yes.

I play all kinds in this game and I think the Reduction should happen and understand why. However 200 is a HUGE stretch. However drop it between 180-120 and I would understand. Perhaps the 3-2-1 dmg would change too with that reduction.

(Also I notice everyone before me is all Clan, funny, lets get some IS guys to comment to plz)

No, the damage and corresponding ranges would not change. Those are TT values. And what do you mean by reducing it to 180-120. It is at 180 at the moment. We have a heavy launcher that fires 3 to 12 Missiles that fly really slow and reload for a long time. Unlike SRMs, AMS will be able to take down a lot of these missiles. Plus they are not as accurate as Streaks or Artemis SRM/LRM despite the fact ATM launcher have always Artemis.

So please, IS player, tell us what in your opinion justifies that minimum range?

[TheSprinkle]

At current, a KFX with 3 AMS completely nullifies an ATM12. That seems excessive.

[Duvanor]

It is the same as 12 LRM missiles unless they give ATM missiles more hit points since they look bigger.

Edited by Duvanor, 28 June 2017 - 07:17 PM.

[Wintersdark]

That's the thing. Even in the situations where ATM's are actually better (the close but not close range) they're suffering more damage loss than LRM's do, as a much larger chunk of damage is removed per missile destroyed.

I'm extremely disappointed in ATM's.

[RAM]

Nema Nabojiv, on 28 June 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

actually if there was no range it would be a no-brainer choice.

Only someone with no brain would take them currently; even without ANY minimum, a combo weapon is never as good as dedicated weapons.

A Linear decrease from 3 damage per @ zero range to 0 damage per at max range.


RAM
ELH

[Tesunie]

Wintersdark, on 28 June 2017 - 07:03 PM, said:

That's the thing. Even in the situations where ATM's are actually better (the close but not close range) they're suffering more damage loss than LRM's do, as a much larger chunk of damage is removed per missile destroyed.

I'm extremely disappointed in ATM's.

I like how ATMs are more direct fire compared to LRMs. Their overall mechanic is actually rather sound... Except for that minimum range issue.

I'd be impressed with them as an alternative choice, if it wasn't for the minimum range. Might as well remove the 3 damage per missile aspect completely at this point, as the band to get that off is so small... It might as well not even exist.

As things are in this PTS right now, I'll always take an LRM system over an ATM. This is not good news...


ATMs flight paths are really nice. They would be more direct fired multi-purpose missile for Clans. But right now, they can't even fill in that role, as LRMs do it better.

[ShadeofHades]

\

TheSprinkle, on 28 June 2017 - 06:16 PM, said:

At current, a KFX with 3 AMS completely nullifies an ATM12. That seems excessive.

Heck, within 180m, a KFX with 0 AMS nullifies ATM.

I propose that we either:
a) drop the minimum range to 45-90m
drop the A from ATM. There is nothing Advanced about these missiles, but they would certainly require more tactics to actually USE than any other missile system we have in game. (And would certainly outdo LRMs as least useful/most seen as 'baddie weapons', but hey)

[Scanz]

just added ammo type

[Vellron2005]

ATM's having min range is not good, for a close-in weapon with that many hard counters and drawbacks, it is ridiculous to have min range..

[corpse256]

see what people don't realize is that ATM12s are insanely powerful at proper range. Also somewhat outside they are better to take than LRMs. Few reason why you would take LRMs over ATMs as mentioned above this post your ammo is very short with this weapon system so requiring more tonnage to take a powerful missile system is going to have to be a choice. Minimum range shouldn't be removed then you'll have everyone in the whole game just taking this weapon and abusing it. Plus that would take the skill out of the use of the weapon. This weapon system should be high risk high reward weapon. Just like the rocket pods, high risk high reward. Same with the heavy lasers. You decide to take more fire power it should take more skill to use those weapons and more tonnage.