677 replies to this topic

[davoodoo]

Im yet to see anyone actually making flexible build in mwo that isnt just heavy ballistic dakka.

[Rusharn]

Even with 120m minimum range with the other values of velocity, spread, missile hp, weight, heat, crit slots and shots per tone remaining as they are there is no reason to take the weapon system. It is too hot and has to low ammo per ton to keep up sustained fire. The high damage only comes in at 270m, outside of that LRM's have just as much damage for less heat and has the ammo and number of shots per volley over power AMS. Under 270m ATM's are effected by ECM which either requires the mech to carry an Active Probe or ECM where SRMs are lighter, cooler, more shots per ton of ammo, with Artemis SRMS have tighter spread and are not effected by ECM.

If the weapon system is going to be competitive something needs to change. If the stats remain the same then the minimum range limitation must be removed. If the minimum range limitation remains then the stats need to be improved must likely resulting in the weapon being lighter, cooler and getting more ammo per ton.

My opinion is, that removing the range limitation is the best way for the ATM's to compete against the other missiles and fit into their own niche as a flexible hybrid system: With a high short range alpha while being able still engage reasonably at medium range with the balancing characteristics of being heavy, taking more crit slots than other missile systems, being hot, and having low ammo per ton.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Rusharn, on 30 June 2017 - 02:11 PM, said:

Artemis SRMS have tighter spread and are not effected by ECM.

Actually, iirc, ASRMs lose their spread bonus when fired in an ECM field.

[AngrySpartan]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 June 2017 - 02:12 PM, said:

Actually, iirc, ASRMs lose their spread bonus when fired in an ECM field.

Not in MWO apparently.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

AngrySpartan, on 30 June 2017 - 02:18 PM, said:

Not in MWO apparently.

Pretty sure that was the case in MWO at some point.

[davoodoo]

Well srms arent actually dumbfire in tt.

Edited by davoodoo, 30 June 2017 - 02:27 PM.

[Rusharn]

If I understand it correctly, the spread is only negated if you are in the 90m disruption bubble of the ECM unit.

[AngrySpartan]

Rusharn, on 30 June 2017 - 02:34 PM, said:

If I understand it correctly, the spread is only negated if you are in the 90m disruption bubble of the ECM unit.

MWO isn't a TT. In TT only Angel ECM can lock streak properties of the missiles (even than they act as a regular SRMs), in TT ECM can't lock LRM to the point it can't fire at all, so let's just stick to MWO stuff.

Food for though: just had a game with 4xATM6s on a MAD DOG. 16-20 missiles were constantly shot down by a single LAMS on KDK)) for the moment we were just staring at each other while LAMS did it's job. Range - about 200, opposite ramps on top of HPG platform.

Edited by AngrySpartan, 30 June 2017 - 03:56 PM.

[Jep Jorgensson]

AngrySpartan, on 30 June 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

Thank you for sharing, hilarious story))

True story too.

Andi Nagasia, on 30 June 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

supposedly the Min Range on ATMs being reduced to 120m today,
i suggest we all get on and test out the new Ranges,
(Patch notes said to be coming shortly)

Please test the new Ranges and Revote, Thank you,

Anything more than 0 min is useless, plain and simple. I am just going to stick with my LRM's.

[Elrodvoss]

I have not gone through all the replies in this post, but here is my 2 cents.

I have not played since patch on friday, but ATM are lopsided.

over 1000 range base?
180 min range?

I understand that putting ammo switching may be difficult to introduce, but still.

They should have like 800 meters for base range (less then LRM)
They should have slightly less damage then SRM at close range. (assume SRM is 2 per missile, so 1.75-1.80?)
They should be a straight shot. So no arcing. Leave that with the LRMs.

ATM is a jack of all trades style of system. It should not excel past the original equipment.

But a min range just seems like a gross misstep.

Maybe make them "hot loaded". If you get a crit on the launcher and you still have ammo, then you take full internal damage like with a limited ammo explosion. That may be enough risk/balance to justify zero min range.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Elrodvoss, on 30 June 2017 - 08:55 PM, said:

I have not gone through all the replies in this post, but here is my 2 cents.

I have not played since patch on friday, but ATM are lopsided.

over 1000 range base?
180 min range?

I understand that putting ammo switching may be difficult to introduce, but still.

They should have like 800 meters for base range (less then LRM)
They should have slightly less damage then SRM at close range. (assume SRM is 2 per missile, so 1.75-1.80?)
They should be a straight shot. So no arcing. Leave that with the LRMs.

ATM is a jack of all trades style of system. It should not excel past the original equipment.

But a min range just seems like a gross misstep.

Maybe make them "hot loaded". If you get a crit on the launcher and you still have ammo, then you take full internal damage like with a limited ammo explosion. That may be enough risk/balance to justify zero min range.

Lore says no.

http://www.sarna.net...actical_Missile

[Andi Nagasia]

Elrodvoss, on 30 June 2017 - 08:55 PM, said:

I have not gone through all the replies in this post, but here is my 2 cents.

I have not played since patch on friday, but ATM are lopsided.

over 1000 range base?
180 min range?

I understand that putting ammo switching may be difficult to introduce, but still.

They should have like 800 meters for base range (less then LRM)
They should have slightly less damage then SRM at close range. (assume SRM is 2 per missile, so 1.75-1.80?)
They should be a straight shot. So no arcing. Leave that with the LRMs.

ATM is a jack of all trades style of system. It should not excel past the original equipment.

But a min range just seems like a gross misstep.

Maybe make them "hot loaded". If you get a crit on the launcher and you still have ammo, then you take full internal damage like with a limited ammo explosion. That may be enough risk/balance to justify zero min range.

well they have 120m Min Range now, which feels much better,

even though ATMs have 1100m Range at anything past 500 they do around 1Damage,
so a ATM9 vs LRM20(Same Size Weight) the LRM will do 20Damage 180-900m, ATM does 1Damage Past 500m,
so i really dont see them replacing LRMs, as they do less than half damage LRM20damage past 50% of their range,

[Tesunie]

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

LRMs are a joke outside of QP and playing against bads. Indirect fire is not a 'perk', it's a trap to get someone to leave their teammates to get focused.

Are you sure you wish to stick to that phrase? I say this because last night I ran matches with some of my unit mates in GP (a version of QP). We came across EMP as my last match. Can you guess who was running his LRM Huntsmen? I did 500+ damage, a kill and lots of assists. My team (which was about a lance of Seraphim and other randoms) actually fought them down to just one mech left. Emp won, but we almost had them. (For the record, they had about two lances of Emp.)

I wouldn't discredit LRMs too much... As I have said before it is all in how you intend to use them.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 June 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

And the bolded part is incredibly important, because the other missiles are BARELY more effective at what they do best than ATMs. It's what allows ATMs to be great push weapons, if they lose the min range that is. The only time SRMs will be seen is pretty much when you can always force the brawl (like MRBC drop 1) and even then it will be only used on lights pretty much (because medium SRM boats have troubles).

You say this, but despite two AS2s being only "barely" less effective than a single AC5, people laugh at dual AC2 builds but will take a build with an AC5 more serious (of course, with other components as well). You have really competitive players taking things with probably a 10% bonus over another weapon, because a specific weapon is better than another by a tiny bit. (Reason SRM4s were always taken, and SRM6s (even with A) was left at home for some time.)

If ATMs are only even slightly weaker than SRMs in their role, people will choose SRMs over ATMs more often.
If ATMs are only slightly weaker than LRMs in their role, people will choose LRMs over ATMs more often.

They don't need to be "so weak you don't even bother taking them" for other weapons to be "worth taking". And yes, I'm perfectly fine with LRMs and SRMs out performing ATMs slightly in their specialty roles, but ATMs should be able to bring enough to the table to remain a middle option that contains enough merit to still be a reasonable choice. Right now, they lack that (as of my last testing with the hard 180m ranges, as I have not tested the 120m range).

---

On the note the new minimum range being reduced, I don't think it will be enough. It will help improve it, but I still think 120m hard minimum range is still going to be too detrimental. Of course, I'll have a more refined opinion if I can test this, but that is my preliminary consideration till I can do those tests...

[50 50]

I'm starting to see that the ATMs can be used in combination with the LRMs and SRMs but it's awkward.
Just tried out a MDD running 2x LRM 10s, 2x ATM 6s and 2x SRM 6s.
Can kind of manage three ranges in there with the LRMs combining with the ATMs at long to mid range. SRMs with the ATMs at mid to short, then just the SRMs at close.

It's..... interesting.
The ATM flight path is in between the LRMs and SRMs and with the different speeds of the weapons I was finding that the missiles would hit the target at around the same time.

Not sure it's that great really and I feel it would be more interesting the ATMs had a different mechanic to them.

[Ashnod]

minimum range on atm's made me throw up in my mouth a little bit

[Metafox]

I'd also prefer an ATM balancing mechanic that doesn't involve minimum range. I was kind of hoping that ATMs could provide an optional replacement for SRMs. Minimum range aside, SRMs seem to be more effective than ATMs at brawling, while ATMs can still deal moderate damage at medium range. Based on their stats, brawling range is where ATMs really stand out. Unfortunately, having a minimum range is too big of a liability in a brawl, so we end up with a weapon that can't play to its strength. This is mostly theorycrafting, of course, but I get the impression that ATMs were designed without a clear idea of how they'd actually be used during gameplay.

[Mike Barnes]

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

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

At current a Uller. Freaking vatborn swine don't even know how to name their 'mechs properly, grumble, grumble who names a 'mech after an infantile animal anyway grumble...with trip ams nullifies like anything.

I do think the missile grouping should definitely be tighter maybe 4.9 for the 9 and 12, 4.0 for the 6 and , and the min range reduced 90m would be cool with me on the receiving end I think. I also have an idea for the missile speed; stick with me here. So I like to think of the missile burning it's payload to go farther, and that's why they do less damage. (I know as a total TT junkie I speak the heresy). So here's what I think should happen, It only burns its primary stage out to 270 meters and is a big *** heavy missile because of it, so it has a speed of 160, after 270 it burns its primary stage and first payload for a missile speed of 240, then after 450( I think this is the drop off between 2 and 1 damage) it burns another payload and increases speed to 320. This way it doesn't take six years to get to a distant target, but also doesn't insta splat at close ranges.

[AngrySpartan]

Mike Barnes, on 01 July 2017 - 01:38 AM, said:

It only burns its primary stage out to 270 meters and is a big *** heavy missile because of it, so it has a speed of 160, after 270 it burns its primary stage and first payload for a missile speed of 240, then after 450( I think this is the drop off between 2 and 1 damage) it burns another payload and increases speed to 320. This way it doesn't take six years to get to a distant target, but also doesn't insta splat at close ranges.

Would have been cool to see that, but at this rate it would take six years for PGI to programm it. The only thing they did with varying range stats was damage and that is just a number. As far as I understand this - changing velocity on the fly will require visual adjustments to missiles as an objects and their animation.

Second point against - this would invalidate LRMs, unless they will receive velocity buff (IMHO LRM mechanic changes overdue for a couple of years already)

[ExAstra]

I have found the reduction in ATM minimum range to be quite welcome to the ATMs. I was running an ATM30 Huntsman both before and after the patch. Before the patch, I would usually do around 80-150 damage at most and generally feel absolutely useless to the team in a 4v4 (LOS required, countered by AMS entirely because the ATMs must be chain fired, HMG spam meant everyone was at most 20m away and well under minimum range, stupid high spread even on the tiny little ATM3s).

After the patch I've started seeing the damage numbers climb up to 250-400 at best. I think that's not too bad for a 4v4 match. The missiles are more viable than they were before as a primary weapon now. However, the matches where I hit those numbers are also devoid of people trying out LAMS or using AMS at all. AMS still wrecks ATMs. Either the missiles need more health, they need a higher velocity, or the minimum range needs to be reduced further.

Or a combination.

[The6thMessenger]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 June 2017 - 10:20 PM, said:

well they have 120m Min Range now, which feels much better,

They should have went ahead and changed it to 0. Honestly that defeats the purpose of supposedly range generalist weapon.