677 replies to this topic

[Jep Jorgensson]

Tesunie, on 04 July 2017 - 09:02 AM, said:

That wasn't what I was saying exactly... I was just saying that some things can't be directly translated from TT rules straight to MW:O. Many weapons have seen adjustments along the way for better balancing, such as Clan weapon ranges, pulse ranges, SL ranges, ML heat generated, weapon cooldown overall...

So, just like all other weapons we've seen implemented into this game, ATMs also will probably deviate slightly from their TT versions. This is an expected alteration. I'm by no means saying we can't bring in inspiration from lore and TT, but sometimes some weapons need to be altered for the better of the game or the weapon. ATMs having a minimum range may be such a factor, though I agree with you that I don't believe ATMs should have any minimum range at all, and I would love to test them without a minimum range. If, after live testing, it is seen as an issue, then it should be altered.

Basically, the minimum range I believe is a little premature in this testing stage... and feels completely unwarranted. But, enough people have been making good arguments and compromises in favor of a soft minimum range with other boosts to counter that soft minimum range that I wouldn't be too opposed to that as a consideration either. Even people in favor of retaining a minimum range seem to agree that it should be a soft minimum instead of the hard cut off we currently have. Of that, I think everyone here has agreed on.

Being a Clan Loyalist, I am very familiar with PGI's definition of "balance".

I did mention that ATM's are being nerfed from their TT values while other choice weapons have been massively buffed, did I not? How exactly could that actually be considered "balance"?

It is supposed to be a LOS weapon that we can brawl with and has the ability to sting (though lightly) at long range. What is so difficult about this concept?

Simply put, I do not want a crappy LRM imitation with an ATM label on it. That is a slap to the face of the original Lore and everyone who cares about it (which naturally excludes PGI).

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 04 July 2017 - 03:04 PM.

[Damnedtroll]

Gasoline, on 04 July 2017 - 01:29 AM, said:

In regards of boating ATMs. Not gonna happen... Since AMS eats through ATMs with no problem, an ATM boat will be totally ineffective whatsoever... I think dual AMS will be enough to nullify most salvos. Triple AMS will take you out of the match. Not even talking about weight, heat and ammo problems...

After that think about Thunderbolt missile, 1 missile per salvo doing 5 10 15 or 20 damage depending of the type... and be glad that we don't have them, lol

Edited by Damnedtroll, 04 July 2017 - 03:08 PM.

[Rusharn]

Yeah but with the Thunderbolt it could be very vulnerable to AMS / LAMS and it's single missile attack would prevent it to power through such a screen, which is much like one of the weaknesses of the ATM.

[Korvus Knull]

In the lore the ATM has built in artemis. Simple solution to min range problem. At 0 to 270 cluster fire like srms no lock required 3 point damage. After 270 lock up will occur at which 2 point damage will occur until 550m travel like lrms but in cluster similar to IS lrms. after 550 1 damage point to max range also cluster and speed increased to 260-280 mps. also ammo bumped to 90 per ton from 72. Otherwise IS MRMs are going to own, along with all those new weapon brawling advantages. < IS er med lazer has same duration as clan med pulse plus 200 more range, amazing!>

[Tesunie]

The6thMessenger, on 04 July 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

Yeah, i don't like that they're just introducing a mid-range monster of a weapon, cause lets face it ATMs are pretty good mid-range. Totally against the spirit of the weapon.

Actually, besides a small bracket (right now), ATMs at mid range are out performed by LRMs. Up close, ATMs would be out performed (currently, if they had no minimum range) by SRMs. At this moment, mostly due to minimum range, ATMs are out classed by LRMs most of the time, and up close by any form of SRMs. They can perform at mid ranges well, but so does LRMs for less tonnage. Of course, unless you are in that 3 damage band... But for the weight SRMs than start taking over.

For the weight of an ATM, I can place an LRM system and a reasonable amount of SRMs (hard point requirements pending). As someone else stated, ATMs would be useful on mechs with few missile hard points, where a flexibility of range may be more important than specialization of role, as well as where hard point counts are limited. If you can't spam the SRMs (or LRMs if desired), than a couple ATMs launchers may be a reasonable solution in those cases.

Jep Jorgensson, on 04 July 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

Being a Clan Loyalist, I am very familiar with PGI's definition of "balance".

I did mention that ATM's are being nerfed from their TT values while other choice weapons have been massively buffed, did I not? How exactly could that actually be considered "balance"?

It is supposed to be a LOS weapon that we can brawl with and has the ability to sting (though lightly) at long range. What is so difficult about this concept?

Simply put, I do not want a crappy LRM imitation with an ATM label on it. That is a slap to the face of the original Lore and everyone who cares about it (which naturally excludes PGI).

Guess one of the reasons I'm against any form of minimum range, but within the interest of balance and preserving SRMs role, I wouldn't be opposed to a possible different version of balance (soft minimum range with other weapon buffs).

TT is a great reference to draw upon, but I'm just saying that some things can't be taken right from TT numbers. I referenced several other weapons that no longer follow TT numbers, for the sake of better balance. MGs got a buff from TT, as they weren't exactly a mech to mech weapon otherwise. Same with flamers. I mentioned the pulse lasers ranges, and most of the laser weapons heat.

I also don't want ATMs to be an IS LRM system that only hits harder in a specific tiny range band. However, I don't think it's exactly fair to blame PGI for everything you don't believe is balanced. Over the time (especially after they kicked IGP out), I feel PGI has done a lot of work and placed good effort on trying to balance things out. Especially Clan tech. And I recommend you don't try telling me that Clan tech is "suppose to be superior", as that would be a very poor way to try and balance a PvP game that has equal numbered players on each side...

[MischiefSC]

Widowmaker1981, on 03 July 2017 - 06:46 AM, said:

SRMs can be aimed at components at short range, and with Artemis generally cluster damage pretty well. ATMs spread all over the place and require a lock on and as such are ruined by ECM in close (yes, they can be dumbfired, but their very low velocity makes that a really poor option). Thats enough reason for good players to take SRMs over ATMs already, nothing more needed.

Odd because the only serious 'good player' to comment on it, Quicksilver Kalasa, specifically said that if ATMs do 3 damage inside 180m there's no reason to take SRMs anymore.

[Tesunie]

MischiefSC, on 04 July 2017 - 07:25 PM, said:

Odd because the only serious 'good player' to comment on it, Quicksilver Kalasa, specifically said that if ATMs do 3 damage inside 180m there's no reason to take SRMs anymore.

I believe there still would be reasons to take SRMs. For the tonnage it can get the same amount of damage per shot and be less susceptible to critical hits as well. SRMs also have better cooldown and more damage per ton of ammo taken. Not to mention ATMs susceptibility to AMS (if missile health is kept as it is now). I believe that it wouldn't replace nor even displace SRMs in their role. I'd love to test it out with no minimum range and all other stats as is and actually see if your concerns would come to pass or not.

However, as you have presented good points in favor of a soft minimum range with added missile health and velocity, I think that would be a good compromise. The hard minimum range though? Still think that's too much. It really removes the viability of the weapon as a tactical choice, and by that I mean the different ways it could be used. It is suppose to be a weapon built to work well at nearly any range, but at the same time not have a special role to cater too. Right now, it isn't fulfilling that promise.

[Deathpig]

MischiefSC, on 04 July 2017 - 07:25 PM, said:

Odd because the only serious 'good player' to comment on it, Quicksilver Kalasa, specifically said that if ATMs do 3 damage inside 180m there's no reason to take SRMs anymore.

That's not an entirely fair statement because the decision would be based on the 'Mech's hardpoints, available space/tonnage, heat capacity, and role.

Fast 'Mechs with lots of hardpoints and little weight/space (Jenner IIc, Linebacker, possibly Stormcrow, etc.) would stick with SRMs.

Slower 'Mechs (less able to dictate their own range of engagement) that have more weight/space would be incentivized to use ATMs.

[The6thMessenger]

MischiefSC, on 04 July 2017 - 07:25 PM, said:

Odd because the only serious 'good player' to comment on it, Quicksilver Kalasa, specifically said that if ATMs do 3 damage inside 180m there's no reason to take SRMs anymore.

What, it's impossible for QK to be wrong? What if he said that AC2 needs to have 2000% damage boost, would you agree to him because he's an authority, or disagree because what he "said" is just wrong? If it's the former, wouldn't it make sense to just agree to the sense of what he said, not what authority he supposed to hold? Also it already does 3 damage/missile under 180m to 120m. Is SRM already useless?

Anyways, maybe we should get video of SRMs vs ATMs brawl at 120-270m. Appropriately 4x SRM6 vs 4x ATM3 -- cause same tonnage.

[Tesunie]

The6thMessenger, on 04 July 2017 - 08:19 PM, said:

Anyways, maybe we should get video of SRMs vs ATMs brawl at 120-270m. Appropriately 4x SRM6 vs 4x ATM3 -- cause same tonnage.

That may not be a fair test for SRMs though, which normally want to be close for less spread and better accuracy, if you have each person "stand at range". If you just "play it out" right now, SRMs will probably just duck inside the ATMs range, making it a no contest fight. Staying in ATM favorable ranges (which isn't a bad test for the most part) doesn't actually see SRM's at their fullest potential. (Also, make sure each continues to shoot, even if one of the mechs shuts down from overheat, as that would also need to be considered.)

Though I would still be curious as to the results.

[The6thMessenger]

Tesunie, on 04 July 2017 - 08:38 PM, said:

That may not be a fair test for SRMs though, which normally want to be close for less spread and better accuracy, if you have each person "stand at range". If you just "play it out" right now, SRMs will probably just duck inside the ATMs range, making it a no contest fight. Staying in ATM favorable ranges (which isn't a bad test for the most part) doesn't actually see SRM's at their fullest potential. (Also, make sure each continues to shoot, even if one of the mechs shuts down from overheat, as that would also need to be considered.)

Though I would still be curious as to the results.

That's why i said 120m-270m. Maybe incorporate Artemis to simulate close-range tight pattern.

[Khobai]

Quote

Odd because the only serious 'good player' to comment on it, Quicksilver Kalasa, specifically said that if ATMs do 3 damage inside 180m there's no reason to take SRMs anymore.

And hes wrong. There are plenty of reasons to still take SRMs over ATMs even if ATMs have no min range.

1) SRMs can aim exactly where the damage goes instead of randomly spread out damage with a heavy bias towards hitting legs.

2) SRMs have a lower cooldown and thus higher DPS

3) SRMs have much faster velocity and are less susceptible to getting shot down by AMS

4) SRMs dont require a missile lock and can torso twist better since you dont have to maintain said lock

5) SRMs have better ammo efficiency

6) SRMs are generally more resilient against critical hits than an equal weight in ATMs

[Rusharn]

The problem with testing SRM verse ATM's right now is that SRM users want to close the distance to about 90m for the best concentration of missiles on the specific component they are aiming at, especially if you use faster mechs such as a Shadow Cat or Linebacker. The thing is that the 120-270 band is not the optimal fighting band for an SRM. This is one of the reasons why if the Hard capped minimum range was removed SRM's wouldn't be effected. Anyone who has tried to use cLRM's to engage moderately fast mech in the 90m band will know it is very difficult to get a lock, and even more so to get any number of LRM's to hit the target unless it is a heavy or an assault on their way to face hug you. Streaks get away with it, because of their crazy maneuverability allowing them to perfectly seek out the locked on target.

[Duvanor]

Rusharn, on 04 July 2017 - 09:55 PM, said:

The problem with testing SRM verse ATM's right now is that SRM users want to close the distance to about 90m for the best concentration of missiles on the specific component they are aiming at, especially if you use faster mechs such as a Shadow Cat or Linebacker. The thing is that the 120-270 band is not the optimal fighting band for an SRM. This is one of the reasons why if the Hard capped minimum range was removed SRM's wouldn't be effected. Anyone who has tried to use cLRM's to engage moderately fast mech in the 90m band will know it is very difficult to get a lock, and even more so to get any number of LRM's to hit the target unless it is a heavy or an assault on their way to face hug you. Streaks get away with it, because of their crazy maneuverability allowing them to perfectly seek out the locked on target.

What you say is true. But keep in mind that ATMs do not stream like LRMs. They are not exactly tight packed, but they do not come as a long stream either. So they have an edge over LRMs, but they have to remove the minimum range to see how effective they really are at very short distances.

[The6thMessenger]

Rusharn, on 04 July 2017 - 09:55 PM, said:

The problem with testing SRM verse ATM's right now is that SRM users want to close the distance to about 90m for the best concentration of missiles on the specific component they are aiming at, especially if you use faster mechs such as a Shadow Cat or Linebacker. The thing is that the 120-270 band is not the optimal fighting band for an SRM. This is one of the reasons why if the Hard capped minimum range was removed SRM's wouldn't be effected. Anyone who has tried to use cLRM's to engage moderately fast mech in the 90m band will know it is very difficult to get a lock, and even more so to get any number of LRM's to hit the target unless it is a heavy or an assault on their way to face hug you. Streaks get away with it, because of their crazy maneuverability allowing them to perfectly seek out the locked on target.

Duvanor, on 05 July 2017 - 04:00 AM, said:

What you say is true. But keep in mind that ATMs do not stream like LRMs. They are not exactly tight packed, but they do not come as a long stream either. So they have an edge over LRMs, but they have to remove the minimum range to see how effective they really are at very short distances.

I'm pretty sure that Artemis helps with the spread of SRMs, they are pretty reliable at 200m+, assuming you can aim true.

As for the ATMs, i wouldn't count them against SRMs at 120-270m band. Sure they do better damage, but at equivalent tonnage: ATM9 that does 27 damage and 5.4 DPS vs 2x SRM6A does 25.8 damage and 6.45DPS. And then we get to the stream fire that makes each volley easy to spread damage target and lock on requirement that puts on face-time for the user, whereas you can just shoot SRMs and then shield/torso twist afterwards -- instant damage out, and ample time to shield and torso-twist.

Although to be fair, i ran 4x ATM6 on PTS, and the stream's not that bad over 2x ATM12, still pretty spread everywhere, and the locking sequence could piggy back on the stare of the lasers, and could just get back every torso twist relatively fast, it's kind of surprising even. But hitting GH and being heavier than 4x SRM6A meant it ran far hotter, and higher CD meant less volleys. Damage-wise it can compete with brawlers on an alpha level, but it's just not really that sustainable. And while we can isolate components with SRMs like legs, the ATMs are spreading everywhere even hit, and THEN you consider torso twisting while shooting out the streams.

Ultimately, i think just comparing them with numbers is useless. We should also put that into context, and even consider roles the weapon could fulfill and builds they partake.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 05 July 2017 - 05:29 AM.

[Ruar]

I think as long as ATMs do three damage per missile they need to have a minimum range requirement. The fact you can stack multiple launchers and get alphas over 90 damage is a significant problem if a mech can just close the gap and fire. SRMs can't do as much damage launcher to launcher compared to ATMs so you can't stack SRMs like ATMs.

Yes, I know there is a tonnage and crit difference, but that doesn't really matter if a mech can stack 4x ATM9s and get a 108 alpha damage. The same mech with an SRM build would have 4x SRM6 and then other weapons to make up the weight difference resulting in a lower alpha than ATMs.

So that mech with 108 alpha just has to close the distance and fire which is the same strategy as the SRM user but so much more deadly.


The only way ATMs should have their minimum range removed is if they do less damage than SRMs at 270m or less. SRMs have to be the best missile choice from 0-270m which forces ATMs into some odd balancing decisions. Give them a minimum range is one simple solution and it has the added benefit of making that high damage sweet spot very difficult to maintain. Another option is get rid of the minimum range but shorten the total distance for the high damage. The problem with this option is how easy it is to close distance to maximize damage making it much harder to balance.

Personally I think ATMs should be focused on being the clan version of MRMs. They should do 1.8 damage from 0-270m, 2 damage from 270-540, and 1 damage from 540-850. Adjust health, velocity, and shots per ton to provide a solid medium range weapon with some ability to be used at short and long range. Yeah, it's not the TT version of ATMs but it's a better fit for MWO. Honestly, the constant comparison to TT stats is killing MWO because it just doesn't translate. TT numbers should be the starting baseline and adjustments made for whatever makes the most sense to work in this game.

[The6thMessenger]

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 05:34 AM, said:

Yes, I know there is a tonnage and crit difference, but that doesn't really matter if a mech can stack 4x ATM9s and get a 108 alpha damage. The same mech with an SRM build would have 4x SRM6 and then other weapons to make up the weight difference resulting in a lower alpha than ATMs.

Again it does, tonnage is important. Lighter weapons means you could also allot more heatsinks and perhaps other weapons. Yes they can excel on alpha, but suck more on something else like sustainability and heat efficiency. Also availability on mechs with even more limited tonnage space. The entire mech roster of MWO aren't really soley made up of those that can do 4x ATM9 either. So for the rest, tonnage and crit DO matter.

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 05:34 AM, said:

So that mech with 108 alpha just has to close the distance and fire which is the same strategy as the SRM user but so much more deadly.

Alpha-wise? yes? Everything else? Not really. Heavier weapon would have meant less heat-sink, less ammo, and less other weapons, therefore wouldn't be able to brawl effectively. Stream-fire meant the damage would have been spread everywhere, and again wouldn't be able to brawl effectively. Time to lock can be piggy-backed on the laser stare, but when it's already hot -- and with the ATMs heavy builds over SRMs it would be frequently hot -- you can't just add your lasers.

Again you're just looking at this from a really really narrow perspective. As if you're not even taking account of torso twisting and arm shielding, integral to close range combat to maximize durability. Like i said, if you don't want people thinking that you don't know how to play the game, don't talk as if you don't know how to play the game, nor argue as if you don't know how to play the game.

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 05:34 AM, said:

The only way ATMs should have their minimum range removed is if they do less damage than SRMs at 270m or less. SRMs have to be the best missile choice from 0-270m which forces ATMs into some odd balancing decisions.

Like doing only 3 damage under 180m, and 2 damage onward, giving the SRMs advantage at 180-270m band? That's literally what my suggestion did, yet you just slapped it right off.

SRMs has to be the best choice? That should also encompass an intended performance. Like if it's a brawler, of course SRMs would be picked by a brawler, you wouldn't see brawlers pick LRMs or Gauss Rifles do you just because they have better damage out? There's also again, the tonnage differences that would make SRMs far more available, and better choice. Considering that you also need good heat efficiency and backup weapons, that already lighter weapon package that could encompass heatsinks, ammo, and extra backup lasers, it's already more than enough reason versus ATMs.

Now if you're thinking of using SRMs as backup weapon instead, wouldn't ATM be a better choice because the equivalent weight of the SRM is pulling it's weight ABOVE 270m - assuming minimum range is removed.

Hows about weight too? There's also light mechs and medium mechs to consider. Wouldn't it make sense for them that the best missile weapon at 0m-270m is an SRM than ATMs, cause they can have more tubes and more ammo, for such limited tonnage, therefore more ammo and more heat?

Honestly you talk as if MWO was only built by heavy and assaults mech capable of boating heavy weapons, and talk as if because that SRMs would be extinct. No there are lighter mechs too, and it would make sense that they still go after lighter weapon systems, and because of that SRMs are still useful.

A kitfox can boat 4x SRM6, witih 6 tons of ammo, with max armor, even 2 MGs with 2000 ammo, and 2 JJs to boot. So it can work, but it couldn't obviously boat 4x ATM9, hell even 4x ATM6 can only be done with 2.5t of ammo with literally 0 armor and no JJ.

Right tool for the right job, it's not just range. But hey, if you're still so keen on insisting that. Go and demonstrate that ATMs are better at brawling over proper SRM builds. Have them cap the combat range to 120 - 270m to make it fair.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 05 July 2017 - 06:36 AM.

[Ruar]

6th, I'm not doing this again. You keep wanting to minimize the effect of ATMs at 3pt damage on mechs capable of carrying multiple launchers. Yes, it's a narrow scope but it's also pretty much a worst case setup that has to be considered. If ATMs were limited to no more than two launchers per mech I wouldn't say anything about them, but they aren't limited and the potential for very high alpha exists. You just can't play that off is a non-issue. Especially considering high alpha is so much of a problem in the game they created ghost heat as a limiting factor.

I stand by my assessment that as long as 3pt damage exists for ATMs, and mechs have the capability of generating 90+ damage alphas, then there has to be some kind of minimum range mechanic to prevent short range abuse. If ATMs were somehow limited to SRM level alphas then the only reason to keep a minimum range would be as a balance factor against SRMs.

[The6thMessenger]

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 06:39 AM, said:

You keep wanting to minimize the effect of ATMs at 3pt damage on mechs capable of carrying multiple launchers. Yes, it's a narrow scope but it's also pretty much a worst case setup that has to be considered.

I stand by my assessment that as long as 3pt damage exists for ATMs, and mechs have the capability of generating 90+ damage alphas, then there has to be some kind of minimum range mechanic to prevent short range abuse.

So is 11 ERPPC Direwolf, but it's totally untenable to nerf ERPPC to the ground, just because of some worst-case setup. Realistically it's not going to be as abused, because the ones able to boat 4x ATM12 are the slowest mechs that couldn't get in range quickly and efficiently to spam and abuse the 144 alpha at 180m in the first place. And the fastest one at 81.8 KPH, the SCORCH is paywalled which is also a bad but still limiting thing, and is realistically just one mech.

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 06:39 AM, said:

If ATMs were limited to no more than two launchers per mech I wouldn't say anything about them, but they aren't limited and the potential for very high alpha exists. You just can't play that off is a non-issue. Especially considering high alpha is so much of a problem in the game they created ghost heat as a limiting factor.

If ATMs were somehow limited to SRM level alphas then the only reason to keep a minimum range would be as a balance factor against SRMs.

I don't play it off, i just consider it on the scale of everything else. You know what else is a balance factor? Tonnage, even crits, you just keep disregarding that. Again, i will repeat this for you. This affects availabilty, such as for lighter mechs that wouldn't even be remotely efficient when boating ATMs of the same tube count. Also heatsinks, ammo, even backup weapon that equivalent tonnage would be alloted to the ATMs instead, resulting in less backup weapons, ammo, and heatsinks and then heat dissipation and capacity.

Give and take.

To be fair, yes i do think that damage is too high, i'd even prefer it to just 2.4 damage. But we just have to account for everything else.

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 06:39 AM, said:

6th, I'm not doing this again.

Obviously not, you don't really have anything. But hey if you really don't want to discuss, which is this place for, you can always abandon thread and abandon sub-forum. Cause otherwise you're just loitering, and getting in the way of people who actually want to have decent discussions.

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 06:39 AM, said:

[...] I stand by my assessment [...]

Unfortunately with all of what you just said to me at the last thread, and this thread right here, it's hard to take you seriously. Disregarding tonnage and crits like that landed you smack-dab on the "not-even-wrong". And then you just have to not consider torso twisting and arm shielding on SRMs vs ATMs, dafuq are you even thinking?

[Ruar]

I own a few clan mechs so tried out a few different builds to see what I could get. I can put 2x ATM12s with 6 tons of ammo, 5x micro pulse lasers, and six DHS on my Ebon Jaguar. That gives me 87pts of alpha with 1.44 heat. If I wanted more range I can swap out the micro pulse for ERSML and fewer DHS and deal with the added heat.

Imagine if there was no minimum range and I could run my 80KPH heavy to close range and start dealing out repeated 87pt alphas. Aiming at that range isn't a problem so I don't have to wait for a lock.


There's just no reason to remove the minimum range when ATMs are doing 3 damage per missile.