677 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

Oh, god, not more "higher crit chance". That's the kiss of death for a weapon system. It's not like crits in other games, getting more ATM crits isn't very valuable at all. That's a terrible buff.

[AngrySpartan]

corpse256, on 29 June 2017 - 11:33 PM, said:

well they do have a firing arc but the issue is that now your going to make them SSRMs but without required lock. I like the laser targeting idea but I don't know if at this point that is possible to implement. I feel would make the weapon harder to use but be a good reward to give critical hits in success of use and range. Maybe to fix the major issue with the ATMs is to give it a Higher cit chance and 90m bracket and lower those chances at longer ranges. Unless that is what they have now. But not so much that it gives it LBX crit hits which are very powerful.

No number games will make ATMs act differently - they still will perform like LRM+.

Removing minimum range (as it is in canon!) will make it flexible weapon system (as it should have been from the start) and differentiate them from LRMs.

Edited by AngrySpartan, 29 June 2017 - 11:48 PM.

[corpse256]

again I don't see the point of removing that range cap just makes no sense. Then it becomes like any other weapon system. Would be a boring weapon to use with out that 90m range bracket. Just seems so extreme to me. So instead of having 1 advantage of missile weapon systems right now with this update you want 2 plus the heavy lasers? Is it just me or people wanting more firepower than IS again once more. I feel like the tech update with this type of change would upset the whole play styles of the clan vs IS balance because IS just has no legs up at this point except for MRMs and Rocket Launchers (which rocket launchers are a useful tool to fill up missile hard points that would not suite ammo builds). I mean come on you got Micro Pulse and Standard lasers which is about 1 point down from standard small and small pulse but slightly higher dps and weight saver I might add. You have all heavy laser types which pinpoint damage outputs are insane and need nerf badly already. And you have ATMs with what you guys seem to need a minimum range removal would just make sure clans win every fight again.

Like I've typed every time give and take. You can't have everything. Plus pulse lasers are still insanely powerful even with the weapon pass but slight dps decreases to compensate for IS tech. Like I said you guys might need some mega death cannons to go with that as well or X pulse lasers and how broken those are. Just maybe those broken arrow IV clusters back in the MW4 Mercs days. How bout a Ultra Nuclear Long Tom Launcher(UNLTL) would work great. Anyone want to play some MWO? nope got this UNLTL that just blows up the whole map in one shot!! FUN!!

Edited by corpse256, 30 June 2017 - 12:08 AM.

[corpse256]

AngrySpartan, on 29 June 2017 - 11:47 PM, said:

No number games will make ATMs act differently - they still will perform like LRM+.

Removing minimum range (as it is in canon!) will make it flexible weapon system (as it should have been from the start) and differentiate them from LRMs.

ya but LRMs kinda already do that so now your just making it an LRM compensation weapon. Well I would like to use LRMs but I don't like that damage debuff it has, well have no fear ATMs do pretty much the same thing? why? It would just be like again any other weapon in Mechwarrior no unique type of mechanic to give it a great feel and again as I typed before just be a LRM replacement. I wouldn't use ATMs if the minimum range was removed and stick to SRM builds because I would say to my self what the point does the same stupid thing but shot down faster than SRMs which happens now but hey at least got a useless weapon to be more...use like? I don't know about you guys but I like the 90m bracket its fine If it needs a crit buff or velocity buff to by pass LAMS or AMS then fine but just seems to me why use it at all if you don't have some type of risk reward take on it. You've got plenty of other weapons to use to sneak those suckers in. I think the problem is people are using it as primary weapon instead of a support weapon or a mix. Of course AMS and LAMS are going to block most of it but isn't that what its there for? Might as well throw missile counters out the window. Just like good old beta days.

[AngrySpartan]

@corpse256
Just this:


I just can't keep arguing with a person who clearly lives in "my own personal dilusions" territory.
From my point of view you have no idea what are you talking about (especially concerning heavy lasers) and we have fundamentally different ideas about fun and interesting gameplay, so no point to continue.
See you on the battlefield friend!

Edited by AngrySpartan, 30 June 2017 - 12:31 AM.

[50 50]

Making the missiles guided would be really interesting in my opinion.
Given the streaks and lrms need the lock on and effectively homing missiles.
SRMs are fire and forget.
It would be nice to have ATMs use a different approach.
I you had to manually keep your target on the enemy it becomes more of a skill weapon akin to lasers or ballistics.
Particularly with the ripple fire where it could be directed at components.
If necessary it could tie in with the TAG, but it would be different.
Under that circumstance the minimum range could be removed as one of the big counter factors is then having to spend so much face time aiming compared to the fire and then twist SRMs, or the indirect fire LRMs.
If you have to maintain your facing, it becomes risky.

By the way.
How about the new sound effects!
Liking those.

[AngrySpartan]

50 50, on 30 June 2017 - 01:40 AM, said:

Under that circumstance the minimum range could be removed as one of the big counter factors is then having to spend so much face time aiming compared to the fire and then twist SRMs, or the indirect fire LRMs.
If you have to maintain your facing, it becomes risky.

By the way.
How about the new sound effects!
Liking those.

Yep, somehow people think locks are a good thing, whereas it's just more facetime to fire your weapon. Not to mention ECM is a hard counter to guided weapons in MWO.

Edited by AngrySpartan, 30 June 2017 - 01:45 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

AngrySpartan, on 30 June 2017 - 01:44 AM, said:

Yep, somehow people think locks are a good thing, whereas it's just more facetime to fire your weapon. Not to mention ECM is a hard counter to guided weapons in MWO.

I mean, to be fair, you don't NEED to lock on with ATM. ... Except the speed of the missiles are so slow that all I can say is good luck hitting what you want to. >_>

[MischiefSC]

AngrySpartan, on 29 June 2017 - 11:47 PM, said:

No number games will make ATMs act differently - they still will perform like LRM+.

Removing minimum range (as it is in canon!) will make it flexible weapon system (as it should have been from the start) and differentiate them from LRMs.

By making them flat out superior both to LRMs and overall SRMs.

No.

I'd be game with them having a scaling down damage inside 180m like CLRMs do. Also faster, close to 300m/s but a flat ballistic trajectory.

That would make them different than LRMs and SRMs, a good mid range weapon that syncs with direct fire weapons.

I get the desire to just have a flat out superior weapon because in tabletop they consistently turned weapons into a linear progression.

This game doesn't work like that because a assets created by PGI at (great? Maybe?) expense they want to keep in the game. Also, well, FPS MOBA, not a turn based tabletop strategy game.

So that's not going to work.

[davoodoo]

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2017 - 03:56 AM, said:

By making them flat out superior both to LRMs and overall SRMs.

No.

I'd be game with them having a scaling down damage inside 180m like CLRMs do. Also faster, close to 300m/s but a flat ballistic trajectory.

That would make them different than LRMs and SRMs, a good mid range weapon that syncs with direct fire weapons.

I get the desire to just have a flat out superior weapon because in tabletop they consistently turned weapons into a linear progression.

This game doesn't work like that because a assets created by PGI at (great? Maybe?) expense they want to keep in the game. Also, well, FPS MOBA, not a turn based tabletop strategy game.

So that's not going to work.

I wonder how 12 dmg launcher with higher cd would be superior to 20 dmg launcher
But ok it cant do indirect fire which is only saving grace for lrms.

24 dmg at medium range for 7 tons, except streaks can do 24 dmg for 6 tons at that range.

How about short range? at 5.2 spread? why not pack 4xsrm6 for 6 tons yet again and do more dmg but they cant lock which doesnt matter at that range and they dont have minimum range.

Im really struggling to find niche for current atm which is a shame as i wanted to buy acw and build it around atms with ecm, now **** it, im sticking with nightstar.

Edited by davoodoo, 30 June 2017 - 04:21 AM.

[LordNothing]

copypasta implementation.

they took lerms and just tweaked some values. it was supposed to be a direct fire implementation but i can still hit targets indirectly.

Edited by LordNothing, 30 June 2017 - 04:22 AM.

[AngrySpartan]

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2017 - 03:56 AM, said:

By making them flat out superior both to LRMs and overall SRMs.

No.

I'd be game with them having a scaling down damage inside 180m like CLRMs do. Also faster, close to 300m/s but a flat ballistic trajectory.

That would make them different than LRMs and SRMs, a good mid range weapon that syncs with direct fire weapons.

I get the desire to just have a flat out superior weapon because in tabletop they consistently turned weapons into a linear progression.

This game doesn't work like that because a assets created by PGI at (great? Maybe?) expense they want to keep in the game. Also, well, FPS MOBA, not a turn based tabletop strategy game.

So that's not going to work.

And here we go again...make a favor, read these posts again first:
Duvanor's, Andi Nagasia's, and his comparison with LRM20, mine comparison with SRM6+A.

Even without minimum range It's not even comparable with LRMs and SRMs at what they do best. And ATMs are very far from overshadowing both existing missile weapons.

You've been posting in the topic before and I still can't see any arguments why exactly removing ATM min range will break the game. Arguments, facts, numbers if you prefer. "My own personal dilusions" doesn't count as an argument I am afraid.

Edited by AngrySpartan, 30 June 2017 - 05:01 AM.

[Duvanor]

One thing to consider is the ATM missiles behavior in controlled testing. People stated they hit the CT fairly accurate. I think they lock on the CT and then scatter around it with their spread. So they look quite effective on the testing grounds when you shoot some stationary target from the front or back angle. As soon as you start shooting from the side or at moving, twisting targets this changes quite a bit. Just a sidenote to consider for comparison to SRMs that can, in my opinion, target a mechs components more reliably.

But that's just my observation. Did anyone else test ATMs behavior on moving targets?

Edited by Duvanor, 30 June 2017 - 05:17 AM.

[AngrySpartan]

Duvanor, on 30 June 2017 - 05:15 AM, said:

One thing to consider is the ATM missiles behavior in controlled testing. People stated they hit the CT fairly accurate. I think they lock on the CT and then scatter around it with their spread. So they look quite effective on the testing grounds when you shoot some stationary target from the front or back angle. As soon as you start shooting from the side or at moving, twisting targets this changes quite a bit. Just a sidenote to consider for comparison to SRMs that can, in my opinion, target a mechs components more reliably.

But that's just my observation. Did anyone else test ATMs behavior on moving targets?

Tried couple of times, but since 4v4 always ends up in a brawl (that damn 180m minium!) it's hard to judge their effectiveness. At range it still spread damage exactly the same way as LRMs, and it is as difficult to hit competent players with that.

Played 5-6 games against them - multiple ATM Stormcwows, 2LPL+2ATM9 Timbers, ATM Maddogs. Single AMS and proper cover usage and ATMs barely scratched me. At 180m it was done as expected.

[davoodoo]

Duvanor, on 30 June 2017 - 05:15 AM, said:

People stated they hit the CT fairly accurate.

Actually during my testing, ive got more kills due to kneecapping than actually blowing ct.

[Wintersdark]

Pariah Devalis, on 30 June 2017 - 03:42 AM, said:

I mean, to be fair, you don't NEED to lock on with ATM. ... Except the speed of the missiles are so slow that all I can say is good luck hitting what you want to. >_>

the ballistic flight path hurts you here too.

I wish ATM's had a flat flight path. It'd give LRM's a good place (arcing over intervening terrain etc) and allow ATM's to be direct fired (almost making them more flexible weapons; fire with or without lock)


But as they stand, hitting with dumbfired ATM's is really hard if your target isn't a motionless potato.

Duvanor, on 30 June 2017 - 05:15 AM, said:

One thing to consider is the ATM missiles behavior in controlled testing. People stated they hit the CT fairly accurate. I think they lock on the CT and then scatter around it with their spread. So they look quite effective on the testing grounds when you shoot some stationary target from the front or back angle. As soon as you start shooting from the side or at moving, twisting targets this changes quite a bit. Just a sidenote to consider for comparison to SRMs that can, in my opinion, target a mechs components more reliably.

But that's just my observation. Did anyone else test ATMs behavior on moving targets?

I used them.a lot, found they spread heavily and like LRM's if the target twisted many missiles would simply miss.

[Durnaxe]

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2017 - 03:56 AM, said:

I get the desire to just have a flat out superior weapon because in tabletop they consistently turned weapons into a linear progression.

This game doesn't work like that because a assets created by PGI at (great? Maybe?) expense they want to keep in the game. Also, well, FPS MOBA, not a turn based tabletop strategy game.

It's not so much the desire to have a superior weapon, even thought that's what ATM's ended up being in the TT ,even IS's Multi-Missile Launcher did similar. However you are correct that this is still a video game and we don't want to obsolete weapons (except standard Clan AC's) which is easily doable with speed, velocity, and spread all of which seems perfectly reasonable at this time for the weapon if it had no minimum range.
You know what is absolute garbage in TT compared to this game? AMS. AMS is a massive waste of tonnage in TT yet in MWO it's great and shooting down LRM's and with the slow speed of ATM's completely wrecking them.

So while people want ATMS to lose the minimum range, its not like we want it to be so much better then SRMs and LRMs. Hell in TT Streaks SRMS defecate all over SRMs (and later, clan Streak LRMS do the same) yet in this game they are considered fairly aweful. You can make an OP weapon balanced/weak with tweaking without breaking the rules of which PGI wishes to follow and interpret for themselves.

Edited by Durnaxe, 30 June 2017 - 06:36 AM.

[Deathpig]

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2017 - 03:56 AM, said:

By making them flat out superior both to LRMs and overall SRMs.

The *only* way they would be superior to LRMs is that they did more damage inside 270m. In EVERY OTHER ASPECT they would be worse.

The *only* way they would be superior to SRMs is that they did more damage per launcher. In EVERY OTHER ASPECT they would be worse.

Your argument is nonsensical.

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2017 - 03:56 AM, said:

I get the desire to just have a flat out superior weapon because in tabletop they consistently turned weapons into a linear progression.

This game doesn't work like that because a assets created by PGI at (great? Maybe?) expense they want to keep in the game. Also, well, FPS MOBA, not a turn based tabletop strategy game.

Also, good to know you don't play TT BT, because ATMs suffer all the same problems we're talking about here in TT as well, except in TT you aren't limited to 'weapon hardpoints' (which might actually HELP them in comparisons) in building a 'Mech. The literal ONLY reason to use ATMs is for the short range damage-- you know, that thing you're whining about here.

So yeah, you *could* have a Turkina with 4 ATM-12s, but you could just run it with 8 LRM-15s. Guess which is actually more effective? The ATMs can do *144* damage inside 9 hexes! Oh, wait... the LRMs do 120 from 1 to 21 hexes.

(Same problem with heavy lasers in TT, btw... the ER Small/Medium are better than the heavy small/medium, and the ER PPC is leagues better than the heavy laser.)

[Barkem Squirrel]

As one ammo type there should be a draw back, but 180 m, no. maybe the 90 m min range like IS PPC's. Remember Gauss has a table top min range, but none in MWO, just the charging mechanism and did not have that initially.

[Deathpig]

There's already drawbacks: For example, less heat/tonnage/space efficient, no indirect fire from lack of arc, and more vulnerable to AMS.

If we can pick and choose a drawback, model it without the ER ammo (because that ammo is nearly useless in TT, and completely useless in MWO).