677 replies to this topic

[Ruar]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 09:10 AM, said:

12v12 generally turns into a brawl at some point too. After some degree of trading has occurred.

But also ATMs cant indirect fire, so you have to expose yourself to snipers to fire them, thats really bad in 12v12.



Except if youre going to stay at long range with ATMs there is no reason not to be using LRMs instead.

The only reason to use ATMs is if youre going to brawl.

Really... because no one else has to expose themselves to fire either?

And it's not like there are flanks or anything in a 12v12 where people aren't looking that lets you pop out and get off a shot or three without taking any fire in return.

I'm trying not to be too sarcastic here, but it kind of seems like you picture fights as two groups in a line shooting at each other without maneuvering to edges or anything.

ATMs don't take that long to lock, the missiles fly fast enough to score damage, and they are a pretty nice support weapon. They probably won't be the primary weapon because of the ammunition limitation, but that's ok. As a support weapon they let you engage all over the place which is an amazing thing.

And like I said, I can easily see getting rid of the minimum range as long as the damage is reduced below SRM levels to compensate.

[Khobai]

Quote

Really... because no one else has to expose themselves to fire either?

LRMs can indirect fire. I do it all the time.

[MischiefSC]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

But 3 damage isnt set in stone. You can remove the min range and tweak the damage.

However the min range does need to be removed.



Except 4v4 is not 12v12. In 12v12 it will be a lot harder to keep enemy mechs suppressed and prevent them all from getting within 120m. ATMs will be significantly weaker in 12v12 and will be completely unviable if they keep that awful minimum range. Also unlike LRMs you cant indirect fire, you have to expose yourself to snipers to fire ATMs. Again Im thinking about their viability in 12v12.

I'm all for damage tweaks and having the minimum range removed. Having played them tons and tested them quite a bit I'm in favor of 1 damage at 0 meters, scaling up to 2.5 or 2.7 at 120, that stays out to 270, then scaling down to 0 at 810m. Velocity boost up to 200 or 250, plus SRM health per missile.

That, for me, would make them a great mid range weapon and my go-to for missile hardpoints on heavies and assaults save for fast brawlers. It would still be vulnerable vs SRMs and long range fire but I feel that would make a completely viable weapon for missiles.

[Tesunie]

MischiefSC, on 05 July 2017 - 08:43 AM, said:

I've tested them vs SRMs quite a bit now. Even with the flat 0 damage inside 120m it's really easy to blow 100-150 damage on someone before they get to 120m. A lot on the legs. Honestly even if they go live as is I'll probably still use them on a few builds in pug queue and expect to see more people start taking AMS, until that makes ATM irrelevant.

They puke up just stupid, stupid amounts of damage in that 120-300m sweet spot. Even out to 500m they're not terrible. It's just that inside 120m they're worthless and against AMS worthless, so overall not useful in any serious sense.

Wow are they ever going to be the spud farmer weapon of choice though.

What is it many people have said about LRMs and high damage scores? Why does that apply to them and not to ATMs?

Of course, what you recommend as being "powerful" for ATMs (combining with direct fire weapons) to make higher alpha shots where all weapons can hit I've been doing with LRMs for a long time now. So, overall, it already can be done. But also recall, whenever I mentioned this elsewhere, I'm often ridiculed for use LRMs at all and told how bad LRMs are. So, why is that not applying here, with a weapon system that locks, homes, spreads, etc very much like LRMs do?

Just some food for thought.

[Gas Guzzler]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 09:15 AM, said:

you didnt notice how often they crash into terrain? ATMs have a super flat trajectory compared to LRMs and are virtually incapable of clearing any terrain. Which means you either need unobstructed line of sight or substantial elevation over your target.

Ohhh you meant the arc, not the targeting capability. Yeah I used them indirectly quite a bit.. I thought it was fine.

[Ruar]

MischiefSC, on 05 July 2017 - 09:16 AM, said:

I'm all for damage tweaks and having the minimum range removed. Having played them tons and tested them quite a bit I'm in favor of 1 damage at 0 meters, scaling up to 2.5 or 2.7 at 120, that stays out to 270, then scaling down to 0 at 810m. Velocity boost up to 200 or 250, plus SRM health per missile.

That, for me, would make them a great mid range weapon and my go-to for missile hardpoints on heavies and assaults save for fast brawlers. It would still be vulnerable vs SRMs and long range fire but I feel that would make a completely viable weapon for missiles.

If they did that kind of damage there is no reason to take SRMs. A better solution would be 1.5 damage from 0-270, 2 damage from 270-570, and 1 damage from 570-800.

[Gas Guzzler]

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

If they did that kind of damage there is no reason to take SRMs. A better solution would be 1.5 damage from 0-270, 2 damage from 270-570, and 1 damage from 570-800.

Nah that is too weak honestly.

[Ruar]

Gas Guzzler, on 05 July 2017 - 09:19 AM, said:

Nah that is too weak honestly.

Increase velocity to 300, boost health to 13, tighten up the spread a bit, and increase the ammunition per ton to 100.

Would they still be too weak?

[Khobai]

Quote

Ohhh you meant the arc, not the targeting capability. Yeah I used them indirectly quite a bit.. I thought it was fine.

Against experienced players they will be even easier to dodge than LRMs because they dont come in at a high angle. So literally any terrain you duck behind will block them.

Quote

Increase velocity to 300, boost health to 13, tighten up the spread a bit, and increase the ammunition per ton to 100.

Would they still be too weak?

Yes. Because 1.5 damage per missile is crap. LRMs would do more damage at that point because of the higher missile count.

Edited by Khobai, 05 July 2017 - 09:23 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

Increase velocity to 300, boost health to 13, tighten up the spread a bit, and increase the ammunition per ton to 100.

Would they still be too weak?

I'm not gonna pretend to know after making those changes. I just know the only reason I find them useful now is there ability to chew up armor between 120m-3or400m.

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 09:22 AM, said:

Against experienced players they will be even easier to dodge than LRMs because they dont come in at a high angle. So literally any terrain you duck behind will block them.

Not as much of an issue when being used at short to mid range. Lets release them into the 12v12 environment before making such judgements, shall we?

[Ruar]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 09:22 AM, said:

Yes. Because 1.5 damage per missile is crap. LRMs would do more damage at that point because of the higher missile count.

But LRMs would be less effective from 270-570m. Which means ATMs would be the best mid-range missile system for clans. Gee, it's almost as if it was being given a role or something.

[MischiefSC]

Tesunie, on 05 July 2017 - 09:17 AM, said:

What is it many people have said about LRMs and high damage scores? Why does that apply to them and not to ATMs?

Of course, what you recommend as being "powerful" for ATMs (combining with direct fire weapons) to make higher alpha shots where all weapons can hit I've been doing with LRMs for a long time now. So, overall, it already can be done. But also recall, whenever I mentioned this elsewhere, I'm often ridiculed for use LRMs at all and told how bad LRMs are. So, why is that not applying here, with a weapon system that locks, homes, spreads, etc very much like LRMs do?

Just some food for thought.

Except an 80 damage alphas from missiles plus another 30 from direct fire is a whole other animal. Spamming 40 damage missile alphas for the whole match to inflate your score isn't the same as blasting someone for 220 damage in two alphas at 300m before they close to brawling, where you've still got 30-40 pt direct fire weapons to mop them up.

The flat trajectory and high damage are the difference. 80 damage vs 40 and 1/3 the travel time.

Edited by MischiefSC, 05 July 2017 - 09:35 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Not as much of an issue when being used at short to mid range. Lets release them into the 12v12 environment before making such judgements, shall we?

Yes but according to everyone here, 12v12 is standoffish, and people stay at long range and poke.

Im just pointing out that its a disadvantage for ATMs if you cant close the distance. Because theyre just way worse LRMs at long range.

Quote

But LRMs would be less effective from 270-570m. Which means ATMs would be the best mid-range missile system for clans. Gee, it's almost as if it was being given a role or something.

Except the role of ATMs is to be useful at all range bands not just midrange.

MRMs are an example of a midrange missile system. ATMs are not supposed to be the clan version of MRMs.

ATMs are supposed to be a tactically flexible and versatile weapon thats decent at all ranges. With the balancing points of being weaker than SRMs at short range and weaker than LRMs at long range.

Edited by Khobai, 05 July 2017 - 09:34 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

But LRMs would be less effective from 270-570m. Which means ATMs would be the best mid-range missile system for clans. Gee, it's almost as if it was being given a role or something.

Nope. Even 2 damage would be BARELY more damage than LRMs. 24 vs 20? And the LRMs take up less slots?

[Ruar]

Gas Guzzler, on 05 July 2017 - 09:30 AM, said:

Nope. Even 2 damage would be BARELY more damage than LRMs. 24 vs 20? And the LRMs take up less slots?

But LRMs would be slower, arc, and have less health.

[Gas Guzzler]

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 09:34 AM, said:

But LRMs would be slower, arc, and have less health.

Like I said, the appeal of ATMs is the short to mid range (120+ m) damage potential. If they don't have that, they go to the trash heap just like LRMs.

Slightly better than LRMs at mid range is not a good place to be. At all.

I think ATMs should be more or less where they are for the release, with a possible missile hit point increase.

MRMs need help.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 05 July 2017 - 09:37 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Like I said, the appeal of ATMs is the short to mid range (120+ m) damage potential. If they don't have that, they go to the trash heap just like LRMs.

yep

even if we accept that 3 damage is too much, they still need to do a minimum of 2.5 damage at short range and 2 damage at medium range.

[Ruar]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 09:29 AM, said:

ATMs are supposed to be a tactically flexible and versatile weapon thats decent at all ranges. With the balancing points of being weaker than SRMs at short range and weaker than LRMs at long range.

I'm glad you edited that because the response was too easy. And if something is weaker than SRMs at short range, and weaker than LRMs at long range... exactly what range is that missile system supposed to excel? Medium range perhaps.....

[Khobai]

Quote

I'm glad you edited that because the response was too easy. And if something is weaker than SRMs at short range, and weaker than LRMs at long range... exactly what range is that missile system supposed to excel? Medium range perhaps.....

Nope.

Viable at all ranges is not the same thing as specialized at medium range.

[Gas Guzzler]

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 09:38 AM, said:

I'm glad you edited that because the response was too easy. And if something is weaker than SRMs at short range, and weaker than LRMs at long range... exactly what range is that missile system supposed to excel? Medium range perhaps.....

I like the ability to wreck face at 120m+ with the downside of an SRM boat countering you within that range. That makes sense. I could get on board with something like 1 damage per missile from 0-120m though.