677 replies to this topic

[Duvanor]

I did not say ATM was a weak weapon. Just pointing out that losing those big launchers will be hurting more than losing one SRM launcher. It is a minor balance issue, but it has some weight nevertheless.

[Khobai]

Quote

You can't guarantee that for all SRM ranges and all SRM mechs though. Sorry but this claim needs a serious asterisk beside it.

I pretty much can because my aim is very good. At least vs heavies and assaults. Granted against smaller mechs its harder to hit specific locations with SRMs.

Quote

Neither are SRMs, that is a fact.

It is a fact. SRMs place damage more efficiently than ATMs. You can aim SRMs you cannot aim ATMs. SRMs have less volley delay and a tighter spread as well. And better velocity. You can much better control where SRM damage goes than ATM damage.

Quote

I did not say ATM was a weak weapon. Just pointing out that losing those big launchers will be hurting more than losing one SRM launcher. It is a minor balance issue, but it has some weight nevertheless.

Agreed. Its a very minor advantage but a relevant one nonetheless.

Quote

but we cant say LRM20 vs ATM12 is a Fair Comparison, where LRM20 vs ATM9 is,

Right so using the LRM20 vs ATM9 comparison since theyre both 5 tons...

LRM20 does 20 damage at 180m. It is capable of doing linearly reduced damage below 180m.

ATM9 does 0 damage upto 120m. It does 27 damage at 120m-180m.

So the LRM20 is outright superior under 120m. And inferior to the ATM9 at 120-180m.

Does anyone else find that completely wrong? lol. god that min range needs to be removed.

Edited by Khobai, 05 July 2017 - 10:46 AM.

[Ruar]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

Well ATMs obviously shouldnt do SRM damage. Which is why I suggested lowering ATM damage to 2.5 damage if the ATM min range is removed.

That would give SRMs a clear damage advantage on top of the fact SRMs can be aimed at specific locations. There would be no question about SRMs being more lethal under 270m then.

So if SRMs do 2 damage per missile, and ATMs do 2.5 damage per missile, how are SRMS doing more damage? Especially since ATMs can be dumbfired for in close targets or guided for targets farther out.

And before you say it...yes, I know ATM spread is bigger than SRMs, but it's also concentrated on the CT and it's hard to miss with an ATM while SRMs are easy to misjudge. The spread pattern is a moot argument IMO because it's bugged right now and hitting legs far too often.

[MischiefSC]

Andi Nagasia, on 05 July 2017 - 10:24 AM, said:

well the Tests were good, watched them all, but i dont think they were fully conclusive(Stats vs Stats),
for instance the 2LRM20+A(12Tons) vs 4ATM6(14Tons) although the LRM20+A win in the Spread when in LOS,
as the second Video Shows that with Constant LOS the reduced Spread(i think LRM20+A has 3.38Spread)

i would like to have seen a 2LRM20(no A)(10Tons 5.2 Spread) vs 2ATM9(10Tons 5.2 Spread)
just to see Tonnage to Tonnage, and Spread to Spread, how the fight would go,

would also like to see a 6SRM6(no A)(9Tons) vs 6ATM3(9Tons) would be awesome to see,

It's not about ton for ton though. It's about "what the mechs look like and play like". Pick a heavy/assault. You take LRMs on the missile hardpoints or SRMs, I'll take ATMs and we'll see who wins. No AMS because we all agree ATMs are points without a health buff.

ATMs will destroy you inside 400m or cripple your SRM mech before you're in range.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Andi Nagasia, on 05 July 2017 - 10:37 AM, said:

but we cant say LRM20 vs ATM12 is a Fair Comparison, where LRM20 vs ATM9 is,
in a similar sense anyone can clearly say that a Gauss is better than a AC10 if you Ignore the Tonnage Differences,
im just saying we need to look at them with Like Tonnages, and Spreads, not to do this is abit disingenuous,

You compare damage/heat profiles.

For example, 2 cERML used to actually be worse if you could afford the initial tonnage of a cLPL because a cLPL was more heat efficient for the damage than 2 cERML + 4 DHS. That's important to understand because it is the reason ballistic boat assaults typically end up strong compared to energy/missile oriented assaults.

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

I pretty much can because my aim is very good. At leat vs heavies and assaults. Granted against smaller mechs its harder to hit specific locations with SRMs.

So again, that's misleading, you can hit SRMs against only 50% of the mechs in the game.

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

It is a fact. SRMs place damage more efficiently than ATMs. You can aim SRMs you cannot aim ATMs.

Being able to aim them doesn't make them inherently better because there are other factors like range, guidance, velocity, and spread that come into play that very much determine there efficient damage placement (a missed shot means a lot less efficient damage). SRMs have a variable optimal range because of varying levels of convergence (a SRMmoner isn't really doing that much effective damage ever due to convergence and spread) and the fact that for an direct fire weapon, 400m/s is still stupidly slow. The reason they got by before cSPL boats came into fashion was their raw damage was pretty much hard to counter if it got in range. Closing that range is much harder than it used to be, and ATMs are much better at not only doing damage while closing, but outpacing SRMs within that 300-120m window.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 05 July 2017 - 10:48 AM.

[Andi Nagasia]

MischiefSC, on 05 July 2017 - 10:40 AM, said:

It's not about ton for ton though. It's about "what the mechs look like and play like". Pick a heavy/assault. You take LRMs on the missile hardpoints or SRMs, I'll take ATMs and we'll see who wins. No AMS because we all agree ATMs are points without a health buff.

ATMs will destroy you inside 400m or cripple your SRM mech before you're in range.

im just saying if you only had 9Tons free on a mech would you go 6SRM4 +3Ammo,
or would you go 2ATM6 +2Ammo, assuming you only had limited Tonnage,

im just looking at ATMs with all Mechs not just the ones with Tonnage to Spare,
how will they work on mechs that may not have alot of tonnage to work with, like the ADR, KFX, SHC?
or should they only be used if you have tonnage to take bigger Launchers?

[Khobai]

Quote

So if SRMs do 2 damage per missile, and ATMs do 2.5 damage per missile, how are SRMS doing more damage?

SRMs get more missiles per ton

so even though the missiles individually do less damage they get more missiles per ton compared to ATMs and thus do more total damage

for example x3 SRM6+A for 7.5 tons would get 18 missiles x 2 damage each or 36 damage with 4.0 cooldown

while an ATM12 for 7 tons would only get 12 missiles x2.5 damage each or 30 damage with 5.0 cooldown

combine that with the fact SRMs can be aimed and ATMs cant be aimed, and SRMs are undeniably more lethal under 270m.

Quote

Being able to aim them doesn't make them inherently better because there are other factors like range, guidance, velocity, and spread that come into play that very much determine there efficient damage placement

except SRMs are superior in all those other factors.

They have better velocity and better spread and you can aim them where you want them to hit (this is a huge disadvantage of guided weapons- you cant aim them).

Theres also the fact you dont have to maintain a lock with SRMs so you can torso twist more effectively after firing them. SRMs arnt shot down as easily by AMS. multiple SRM launchers are more resilent to being critted out than larger ATM launchers. And SRMs get more efficient ammo per ton.

so yeah all those other factors do make them inherently better.

the only reason ATMs are even in contention with SRMs is damage. But if the damage of ATMs is reduced from 3 to 2.5 then theyre no longer close to eachother.

So if the cost of having no min range is for ATMs to go down to 2.5 damage, im fine with that.

Edited by Khobai, 05 July 2017 - 11:00 AM.

[Tarogato]

ATMs need two things right now, as I can see it:


1: replace ATM minimum range with interpolationToNextRange="exponential" so that it behaves identical to cLRMs.

2: increase HP on ATM missiles/projectiles so that they can better withstand AMS.

[Ruar]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

SRMs get more missiles per ton

so even though the missiles individually do less damage they get more missiles per ton compared to ATMs and thus do more total damage

for example x3 SRM6+A for 7.5 tons would get 18 missiles or 36 damage

while an ATM12 for 7 tons would only get 12 missiles or 30 damage

Why wouldn't I mount 3x ATM6s on my three hardpoints though and get 45 points of damage?

And does potential damage sitting in ammo storage on a dead mech really matter when my opponent killed me first because they were doing more damage?

[MischiefSC]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 10:44 AM, said:

You compare damage/heat profiles.

For example, 2 cERML used to actually be worse if you could afford the initial tonnage of a cLPL because a cLPL was more heat efficient for the damage than 2 cERML + 4 DHS. That's important to understand because it is the reason ballistic boat assaults typically end up strong compared to energy/missile oriented assaults.


So again, that's misleading, you can hit SRMs against only 50% of the mechs in the game.



Being able to aim them doesn't make them inherently better because there are other factors like range, guidance, velocity, and spread that come into play that very much determine there efficient damage placement (a missed shot means a lot less efficient damage).

In testing I found that overall ATMs put the damage on the target more reliably. Especially at 120m-270m the need to lead targets (and thus **** your convergence) hurt SRM damage output significantly. ATMs are able to consistently puke up 70-100 damage (depending on the mech/build) every trigger pull. Sure, it spreads a but but you also have other weapons (depending on build) in addition to that.

The numbers are all well and good but the key is how they PLAY. If you're any good at all you'll get 2-3 good hits on someone closing from 300m to 100m. Thats going to be about 200-250 damage. At 100m all the builds I've played still have about a 40 pt alpha inside 100m without the ATMs at all. Unless I'm arthritic, seizure-prone and playing with a joystick on stock settings vs someone like Proton then a 200-250 damage lead starting into a fight between equal chassis I've already got it sewn up, even if I'm down to a 40 pt alpha.

Let me keep shooting inside 120m with the same firepower or even ATM strength so my 120 pt alpha is "just" 90, and LOL. That's going to make me want to take SRMs - cuz ammo efficiency!

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

except SRMs are superior in all those other factors.

No they aren't. They don't have superior guidance which increases their effective damage at range for anything with horrible convergence (aka anything that isn't like the Mad Dog, Griffin, or Assassin) because of how leading impacts convergence compacted with spread. That convergence issue is partially what controls their effective range, (as long as their velocity, which again, 400 m/s for an unguided direct fire system is pretty freaking slow).

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

Theres also the fact you dont have to maintain a lock with SRMs so you can torso twist more effectively after firing them.

This is a nice advantage, but so is being able to fire more effectively at faster targets reliably at a decent range.

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

multiple SRM launchers are more resilent to being critted out than larger ATM launchers.

No one cares about this, this is like +0.1 towards SRMs.

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

And SRMs get more efficient ammo per ton.

Within 120-270m you aren't. ATMs do 212 for the damage if you are only firing within that range. Now, you probably aren't but the point is, ATMs aren't as inefficient per ton as people are making them out to be. If you are firing evenly between HE and M range then you are averaging around 178 damage per ton, which really isn't that much less and is more than made up for by the fact you won't need as many DHS to maintain DPS.

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

the only reason ATMs are even in contention with SRMs is damage. But if the damage of ATMs is reduced from 3 to 2.5 then theyre no longer close to eachother.

Actually, they are also more efficient for the heat which DOES matter.

MischiefSC, on 05 July 2017 - 10:59 AM, said:

In testing I found that overall ATMs put the damage on the target more reliably. Especially at 120m-270m the need to lead targets (and thus **** your convergence) hurt SRM damage output significantly. ATMs are able to consistently puke up 70-100 damage (depending on the mech/build) every trigger pull. Sure, it spreads a but but you also have other weapons (depending on build) in addition to that.

The numbers are all well and good but the key is how they PLAY. If you're any good at all you'll get 2-3 good hits on someone closing from 300m to 100m. Thats going to be about 200-250 damage. At 100m all the builds I've played still have about a 40 pt alpha inside 100m without the ATMs at all. Unless I'm arthritic, seizure-prone and playing with a joystick on stock settings vs someone like Proton then a 200-250 damage lead starting into a fight between equal chassis I've already got it sewn up, even if I'm down to a 40 pt alpha.

Let me keep shooting inside 120m with the same firepower or even ATM strength so my 120 pt alpha is "just" 90, and LOL. That's going to make me want to take SRMs - cuz ammo efficiency!

I could very easily see the Splat Timby and SRMmoner switching to ATMs because they can't always get close enough to reliably use that splat. SRMmoners especially because of how horrible the convergence is on them (a lot of players just play streaks instead, that's how bad the convergence is).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 05 July 2017 - 11:05 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

No one cares about this, this is like +0.1 towards SRMs.

But it still cumulatively adds up with all the other advantages

It may happen infrequently, but there will still be games where your big ATM12 gets critted out. And if you had SRMs instead theyd still be functional.

Quote

Actually, they are also more efficient for the heat which DOES matter.

Again thats misleading. Because SRMs place damage more efficiently than ATMs.

If ATMs are less heat but spread damage all over, while SRMs are more heat but put the damage in a small area of your choosing, it pretty much comes out as a wash in terms of heat efficiency.

Think of it in terms of PPCs vs Lasers. PPCs are less heat efficient than lasers but theyre far more efficient at putting all their damage into one location. Which is why lasers arnt outright better than PPCs.

Edited by Khobai, 05 July 2017 - 11:10 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

It may happen infrequently, but there will still be games where your big ATM12 gets critted out. And if you had SRMs instead theyd still be functional.

And yet people still use Gauss Rifles over other weapons, it's almost like it really doesn't matter that much. Especially given the differences between the ATMs and SRMs is less stark than Gauss vs other ballistics afaik.

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

Again thats misleading. Because SRMs place damage more efficiently than ATMs.

No it's not because the idea that SRMs place damage more efficiently is misleading because it is entirely dependent on the scenario which you seem to keep hand-waiving away.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 05 July 2017 - 11:08 AM.

[Ruar]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 11:08 AM, said:

And yet people still use Gauss Rifles over other weapons, it's almost like it really doesn't matter that much. Especially given the differences between the ATMs and SRMs is less stark than Gauss vs other ballistics afaik.


No it's not because the idea that SRMs place damage more efficiently is misleading because it is entirely dependent on the scenario which you seem to keep hand-waiving away.

He also doesn't seem to realize not everyone is as capable with SRMs as he is. Someone who's not a pro level SRM user will see a much better damage result from ATMs.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

Think of it in terms of PPCs vs Lasers. PPCs are less heat efficient than lasers but theyre far more efficient at putting all their damage into one location. Which is why lasers arnt outright better than PPCs.

How often do people use PPCs on the IS side? I mean I would say PPCs are better than Large Lasers but that isn't really saying much because Large Lasers are the AC10 of the laser class as far as IS lasers go.

[Ruar]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 11:15 AM, said:

I dont think differences in player skill should really be a factor when balancing weapons though.

Thats why I dont think gauss chargeup properly balanced gauss because skilled players just play around it.

Yet you are using player skill, your skill, as a balancing factor for ATMs by saying SRMS are more accurate and capable. You assume everyone else is able to aim like you thus making SRMs stronger and balanced. What happens though when you are in the top 3% of SRM users and the other 97% can't get your level of accuracy? Are they still balanced at that point?

[Khobai]

Quote

Yet you are using player skill, your skill, as a balancing factor for ATMs by saying SRMS are more accurate and capable.

Im assuming both the SRM player and ATM player have equal skill.

Quote

What happens though when you are in the top 3% of SRM users and the other 97% can't get your level of accuracy? Are they still balanced at that point?

When balancing weapons it should be assumed all players are of equal skill level.

If you need to set a specific skill level then an average skill level should be used. A weapon should not have either a very high or very low skill ceiling.

Thats one of the big problems with LRMs they set the skill ceiling too low to use them. So the weapon has to be deliberately on the weaker side because its so easy to use that if it was any stronger it would be potentially broken like it was during LRMpocalypse. Increasing the skill ceiling of LRMs would allow them to increase the potency of LRMs, but for some reason PGI refuses to make them require more skill to use.

Edited by Khobai, 05 July 2017 - 11:31 AM.

[Ruar]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 11:24 AM, said:

Im assuming both the SRM player and ATM player have equal skill.

One has a homing lock, the other is dependent on player skill. How can you equate them to being equal?

As for LRMs... they don't raise the skill ceiling because the homing mechanic for indirect fire has the potential to be very overpowered. ATMs avoid this problem by being a direct fire only weapon.

Edited by Ruar, 05 July 2017 - 11:36 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 11:24 AM, said:

Im assuming both the SRM player and ATM player have equal skill.
When balancing weapons it should be assuming all players are of equal skill level.

Yes, but one should also be assuming some level of inconsistency with regards to aim, otherwise cSPLs should have never been used over cASRM6s.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 11:15 AM, said:

Yes it may be a minor advantage. But if a weapon has a lot of minor advantages they all add up.

Minor advantages sure do add up, you are just assuming that ATMs don't have their own.

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 11:15 AM, said:

Granted it may not be true in 100% of all situations. But if you have decent aim its mostly true that SRMs will place damage more efficiently than ATMs.

That's pretty false because SRMs even among good players have a limited range. Like I said, if SRMs are really that accurate we shouldn't have ever seen the cSPL become dominant in the first place.

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 11:15 AM, said:

Thats why I dont think gauss chargeup properly balanced gauss because skilled players just play around it.

Except you still can't use it like you used to be able to, the inability to do snapshots at any time is a pretty significant fact (you can't be constantly pre-charged). So actually the charge-up was a good change because it added limitations around Gauss.

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 11:15 AM, said:

I see snubnose PPCs pretty much every game on PTS. So I believe we will see more PPC for sure. The min range is the main reason people hate PPCs and the snubnose gets rid of that.

Snubnose also has half the optimal and damn near half the max. Snubnose PPC is a crappy PPC because the price you pay to get rid of the minimum range is HUGE. Sorry, but just because you see it on the PTS (you know, where you are supposed to experiment with the new tech) doesn't mean it will be used by the better players. I'd much rather take iMPLs over that weapon because the price for PPFLD is too much.