677 replies to this topic

[BallSabre]

Missile weapons were already shafted in just about every way and at every turn.

No double range mechanics

ECM is a hard counter for SOME reason

AMS just got huge buffs with skills and are becoming more common

TERRAIN, SLOW TRAVEL TIME!

Every other weapon system is pinpoint with skill.

And now they somehow managed to make ATMs look even worse than LRMs. First of all these are clearly just LRM's with less missiles and a changed flight pattern, this can be done in like one afternoon, I'm disappointed and kind of insulted. ATMs should be loud, big(missile), fast and exciting new main weapon for clan and not whatever this steaming pile is....

[o0cipher0o]

Considering the high damage value in short range, Min range should be reduced, not removed.
Dialing the min range back to 90m would be ok. In addition, the missiles also need aither a speed increas, a health increase, or both. Way too many missiles get shot down by AMS right now, and considering the high damage density the ATMs have, it hurts the damage potential a lot.

These weapons already have enough drawbacks for the high damage they deal in the close range portion: they weight more than the SRMs (ATM6, for example, wights 2,3 times the srm6, while doing onli 1,5 times its damage), occupy more slots (ATM6 3 slots vs SRM6 1 slot), and are a bit hotter.

I'd say upping th speed to 220/240ms and/or the missile's health by a third/half, togheteher with the min range reduction to 90 meters, would make the ATMs worth their weight and space, while keeping them in line with he specialized missile options.

[AngrySpartan]

I still can't comprehend the way of thinking PGI was following when giving minimum range to a brawling weapon.

In my head it's something like:
"How can we balance the weapon system that combine SRMs and LRMs in a single package?"
"Let's take SRMs and give them minimum range! Not lame enought? Let's turn them into LRMs again!"

[Pariah Devalis]

Based on the TT Range brackets, they should have a range spread of:

0-270 HE (3) - 271-450 Standard (2) - 451-810 ER (1)

I have no idea why PGI gave it 1100 range, nor why they retained so much of a ballistic trajectory on the missiles. Also, the minimum range function of the ATM makes no sense, whatsoever, given other options in SRMs. So on the high end of the range, it has too much range. On the low end, it doesn't have enough.

My recommendations are, if PGI is worried about brawling with ATM (which makes no sense, given SRM will remain superior to ATM in this role), to scale the damage up from 1 at 0 meters up to 3 at 270 linearly, then linearly scale them back down to 1 at 810, with the missile detonating beyond that point. Slope up, then slope down. In addition, take out all, and I do mean all of the ballistic trajectory of the ATM flight path and increase the speed of the ATM missiles to somewhere between LRM and SRM speeds.

If a linear damage decay between 270 and 810 is considered a bit much, at least break up the range brackets equally across the entire flight path, with NO MINIMUM RANGE WHATSOEVER. So 0-270=3, 271-540=2, and 451-810=1.

Further: If PGI insists on a minimum range mechanic, don't balance the ammo per ton on the least usable range bracket provided!!! Change the ammo per ton to 90 missiles per ton ammo. Normalized to 2 damage per missile, that comes out to 180 damage per ton. This puts it just below SRM and LRM, which is fine for a jack of all trades weapon that will be strictly worse for long range combat than LRMs and strictly worse for close range combat than SRM.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 29 June 2017 - 11:08 AM.

[davoodoo]

So how much ammo it got per ton?
normally atm12 got 5 shots per ton, atm 6 got 10 shots per ton, so tt values is 60 missiles per ton which given that all other ammo types have 1.5x times multiplier it should be 90 missiles per ton.

Also atm12=36dmg for 7 tons.
csrm6=12 dmg for 1.5tons or 48dmg for 6 tons or 36dmg for 7.5 tons with artemis.

also even cssrm6 got 12 dmg for 3 tons, at ~1.5times the range of atm or srm with 24dmg per 6 tons and neither got minimal range...

Edited by davoodoo, 29 June 2017 - 11:34 AM.

[Oblitum Infernos]

ATMs at the moment may be the worst implemented weapon in the game for a couple of reasons

1. The min range, if you try to as Chris "nerf all the things" lowry suggested, to make use of proper spacing you get no actual reward, the enemy just rushes you, and you die all those insanely heavy ATMs just plow uselessly into them doing no damage

2. the shallow angle, while touted during the live stream as a mechanism to allow for close range firing the angle actually makes these missles useless at long range, you will seriously never hit anything but cover trying to use a straight fire missile for long range bombardment

3. the weight also actually makes no sense, for 1 ton less than the weight of carrying an ATM12 you can carry 4 ATM -3s their weight doesn't stack up to make the tube to weight equal, unlike all other missiles.

4. AMS /LAMS, this is more about flightspeed/health/missile numbers but it amounts to, one or two AMS systems eating your entire shot worth of missles before they can hit, so even if you got the magical "positioning" needed to actually have these missiles hit you wont because a single LAMS is going to remove 75-100% of your shot with how unbelievably slow these things are

but complaint without suggestion isn't helpful criticism so how should one fix this mess of a weapon

1. Tube to weight should be fixed, ideally by dropping the ATM6 by .5 tons of weight and the ATM 12 by 1 ton, this would put them all in line for tube - weight numbers

2. reduce or remove the Min range, and before it's brought up, no they would not immediately replace streaks or SRMS or LRMS why you ask? because Streaks are lighter, and faster missiles, with more shots per ton and more missiles per firing, much better for killing lights/mediums in close, SRMS are faster, immune to jamming and cluster better, not to mention weight and ammo per ton. LRMS have fantastic firing arcs, and the constant stream of clan LRMS are great for visual disabling or screen shake issues, also ammo efficiency and ammo per ton, and consistent damage at long ranges. ATMS would be a mid-to short range usable streak like that can actually harm heavies-assaults, great for bigger missiles boats but less able to splat due to lockon, Niche but not terrible

3. either raise missile speeds or raise missile health, to remain somewhat unique and allow the chance for people to get cover i'd want to say the second option, either 7-10.5 health, aka 2-3 shots per missile from AMS, meaning it'll likely take down 1-2 missiles from the ATM volley even up close, not crippling but still manageable

so in short, drop weight of ATM 6 and 12 slightly, Remove min range, raise health on each missile. should leave it in a Niche but usable position

alternate option to remove min, step down below 120, rather then no damage at close range make the steps in range go as follows 2DMG 0-120m /3DMG 121-270M/ 2DMG 271-540 /1 DMG 541-1100

[corpse256]

Do you seem to forget that the weapon system does more damage than LRMs? LRMs are a scatter damage, ATMs hit more on the ct. I don't get why people want an insanely powerful weapon even more powerful. Claners seem to get more upset if they don't get what they want. Shoot I use clan mechs a lot and I still wouldn't want a unbalanced weapon. Well it will just get changed back lower when they do a weapon pass on it when everyone abuses the weapon if you remove things on it. Good luck league gamers on fighting every battle mech that chooses to abuse a weapon system. I'm looking at you UAC 20 kodiaks!!

I don't think removing the minimum range would give the weapon any characteristics it would just make SRMs useless. I like big risk reward weapon systems. Just use your heavy lasers instead of whining about something like this weapon system. You can't have ATMs replace SRMs and PGI will never let that happen. What would be the point of SRMs then. The arc is fine anyways you don't need it to be a flat shot you still can get the flat shot without lock.

[Oblitum Infernos]

corpse256, on 29 June 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

Do you seem to forget that the weapon system does more damage than LRMs? LRMs are a scatter damage, ATMs hit more on the ct. I don't get why people want an insanely powerful weapon even more powerful. Claners seem to get more upset if they don't get what they want. Shoot I use clan mechs a lot and I still wouldn't want a unbalanced weapon. Well it will just get changed back lower when they do a weapon pass on it when everyone abuses the weapon if you remove things on it. Good luck league gamers on fighting every battle mech that chooses to abuse a weapon system. I'm looking at you UAC 20 kodiaks!!

I don't think removing the minimum range would give the weapon any characteristics it would just make SRMs useless. I like big risk reward weapon systems. Just use your heavy lasers instead of whining about something like this weapon system. You can't have ATMs replace SRMs and PGI will never let that happen. What would be the point of SRMs then. The arc is fine anyways you don't need it to be a flat shot you still can get the flat shot without lock.

they wouldn't replace SRMs, the weight alone ensures that, as does the SRMs immunity to ECM, and ammo per ton. Side note, you seem to be ignoring the likelihood of ATMS hitting cover, getting shot down, needing lock, prevalence of ECM and AMS, especially since LAMS wont need ammo, way easier to justify it now. you want to argue for them being great but they are not, they're a poorly designed weapon that doesn't have any reward for it's play right now

side note, i hate playing laser vomit, so no, i won't just use "my heavy lasers" and stop "whining" i like missile boats and missile boat accessories and will continue to argue for functional and fun missile systems

Edited by Oblitum Infernos, 29 June 2017 - 12:01 PM.

[MechaBattler]

I agree with Fupdup. They should lower the min range to 90.

[corpse256]

If you were to lower the range I think 110 or 100 would be better than 90. I think 90 is too close for this powerful weapon. IS wouldn't have much of a chance to counter something so lethal specially if you run stormcrows with this weapon system. IF it is 90 they would have to lower down the velocity of the weapon to give AMS a fighting chance against a weapon like this. Then the weapon would be practically useless outside other ranges though.

Edited by corpse256, 29 June 2017 - 12:21 PM.

[Wintersdark]

corpse256, on 29 June 2017 - 12:17 PM, said:

If you were to lower the range I think 110 or 100 would be better than 90. I think 90 is too close for this powerful weapon. IS wouldn't have much of a chance to counter something so lethal specially if you run stormcrows with this weapon system. IF it is 90 they would have to lower down the velocity of the weapon to give AMS a fighting chance against a weapon like this. Then the weapon would be practically useless outside other ranges though.

Not so. SRM's are still more powerful brawling weapons than ATM's without a minimum range. While SRM's are capped at 2 damage, they're far smaller, lighter, and can be snapshot. The ATM's require a lock, which is time on target in a brawl (bad).

A Stormcrow is substantially better with SRM's than no-min range ATM's - higher alpha, more damage per ton of ammo, etc.

This is fine though, as in this case the ATM's are multipurpose weapons. Less effective brawling, but able to be used at range as cut-rate LRM's too.

[Tesunie]

corpse256, on 29 June 2017 - 12:17 PM, said:

If you were to lower the range I think 110 or 100 would be better than 90. I think 90 is too close for this powerful weapon. IS wouldn't have much of a chance to counter something so lethal specially if you run stormcrows with this weapon system. IF it is 90 they would have to lower down the velocity of the weapon to give AMS a fighting chance against a weapon like this. Then the weapon would be practically useless outside other ranges though.

CSRMs for the same tonnage deals more damage, has better cool down, can control where it is going to hit (more or less) and doesn't require a lock on. ATMs require a lock on, has low damage per ton of ammo, longer cool down, seeks (advantage and disadvantage), shoots out very few missiles (which means AMS counters it better), weighs more, takes up more crit slots...

I'm sorry, but between ATMs and CLRMs... I'm going to continue to use CLRMs. There is currently no reason to even look at ATMs, unless I want more weaknesses than strengths. They have a smooth flight path and overall mechanics, but that minimum range alone removes any real viability from it. For the same tonnage of an ATM, I'd be better off taking a smaller/lighter LRM system and pair it off with an SRM system, and I've get more results from it. As in, instead of an ATM12 for 7 tons, I could fit an LRM15 for 3.5 tons and an SRM4 for 1 ton (No Artemis needed). Still leave me plenty of room for ammo. If I have the slots, I could even do an LRM15 and two SRM4s... I'd have about the same fighting strength as a single ATM12 for almost the same tonnage. I'd have a little less power in some aspects, but I would suffer far fewer of the ATM's weaknesses. Counting crit slots? Still comparable to each other I believe.

(I will note, I haven't double checked my tonnages here, so I could be off.)

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pariah Devalis, on 29 June 2017 - 11:07 AM, said:

If a linear damage decay between 270 and 810 is considered a bit much, at least break up the range brackets equally across the entire flight path, with NO MINIMUM RANGE WHATSOEVER. So 0-270=3, 271-540=2, and 451-810=1.

They could just reduce the contrast, so 0-270=2.5, 271-540=2, and 451-810=1.5

This way the retain flexibility but aren't too powerful/weak at the extreme ends.

Wintersdark, on 29 June 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

Not so. SRM's are still more powerful brawling weapons than ATM's without a minimum range. While SRM's are capped at 2 damage, they're far smaller, lighter, and can be snapshot. The ATM's require a lock, which is time on target in a brawl (bad).

While this is partially true, at the edge of the brawl, ATMs would be absolutely brutal at 3 damage because you can afford to keep the lock. So I would be careful in assuming that they would simply not cut it. They would also be brutal for push decs because of their near SRM damage output at short range AND ability to hit outside of that range for appreciable damage.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 29 June 2017 - 12:34 PM.

[corpse256]

Wintersdark, on 29 June 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

Not so. SRM's are still more powerful brawling weapons than ATM's without a minimum range. While SRM's are capped at 2 damage, they're far smaller, lighter, and can be snapshot. The ATM's require a lock, which is time on target in a brawl (bad).

A Stormcrow is substantially better with SRM's than no-min range ATM's - higher alpha, more damage per ton of ammo, etc.

This is fine though, as in this case the ATM's are multipurpose weapons. Less effective brawling, but able to be used at range as cut-rate LRM's too.

not really you can fire ATMs without lock. It doesn't have the SSRM feel to it. The weapon has options.

[Tesunie]

corpse256, on 29 June 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

not really you can fire ATMs without lock. It doesn't have the SSRM feel to it. The weapon has options.

They would still be better with a lock, and they do still arch upwards (unless you are face hugging, but that would be a different problem). Unlocked ATMs will probably skill miss at mid ranges, and at close ranges they still run a chance of swooping too high up and over a target.

Of course, I haven't played to their unlocked abilities, as with a minimum range at 180m, it would be hard to hit with them unlocked...

[Deathpig]

Wintersdark, on 29 June 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

Not so. SRM's are still more powerful brawling weapons than ATM's without a minimum range. While SRM's are capped at 2 damage, they're far smaller, lighter, and can be snapshot. The ATM's require a lock, which is time on target in a brawl (bad).

A Stormcrow is substantially better with SRM's than no-min range ATM's - higher alpha, more damage per ton of ammo, etc.

This is fine though, as in this case the ATM's are multipurpose weapons. Less effective brawling, but able to be used at range as cut-rate LRM's too.

This argument makes no sense. You aren't going to use ATMs as long-range cut-rate LRMS, because they have no arc (so you won't hit anything). Having a jack-of-all trades weapon is great, except when you ALREADY have superior options for all of its uses.

At very close range, ATMs are worse than both Streaks and standard SRMs. At long range and medium range, they are worse than LRMs (slightly higher damage per missile at medium range, but less overall damage). In either case, they're some combination of worse tonnage/space/heat.

Pray tell, what build are you EVER going to put ATMs on (as they exist right now)?

None. Hence they are DOA.

The close range damage is what makes ATMs 'worth it.' Without it, they are objectively worse LRMs.
The close range damage is WHY they exist (at least from a TT balance perspective).
The close range damage is nearly worthless in MWO.
/end thread.

[FireStoat]

Brain Cancer, on 28 June 2017 - 04:11 PM, said:

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.

I like your proposal best and sincerely hope with all optimism that someone on PGI's staff has the ability to code it.
In my humble opinion, brawlers should feel that SRM's are best, old people should feel LRM's are best, and the ATM user should feel versatility at the cost of optimized damage at extreme ranges should be best.

[corpse256]

Just used ATMs in a match they are fine as is. I'm not having any issue with the weapon. Get good with ATMs?

FireStoat, on 29 June 2017 - 12:44 PM, said:

I like your proposal best and sincerely hope with all optimism that someone on PGI's staff has the ability to code it.
In my humble opinion, brawlers should feel that SRM's are best, old people should feel LRM's are best, and the ATM user should feel versatility at the cost of optimized damage at extreme ranges should be best.

Thank you for sticking up to the idea of the weapon system I was starting to feel lonely.

[AngrySpartan]

corpse256, on 29 June 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

Just used ATMs in a match they are fine as is. I'm not having any issue with the weapon. Get good with ATMs?

Yep, sure. Very convincing argument, 'X' is good because I had a good luck with it once! Get good with it!

Anyway numbers in the poll speak for themselves, the majority of the players feel that min range is a waste.

PS. I don't mind to make you change your mind by action. PM me in game for some private matches, I bet I'll take down any ATM mechs you'll bring to the field. In fact, I believe it's not a hard task even using LRMs.

[corpse256]

Of course LRMs would out perform in a one v one but its a very nice support weapon. but maybe if i was running ECM you would have no chance.

Edited by corpse256, 29 June 2017 - 01:16 PM.