677 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

It isn't, BUT, SRMs still aren't really prime brawling weapons. Honestly in MRBC drop 1, the only SRM mechs are the lights and that is just because cSPLs got hammered and there is no small laser class that really fulfills that role. Mediums and some of the heavier lights on the other hand can make use of MPLs on both sides sufficiently.


They spread, but it all depends on the hitboxes. For example the Night Gyr almost always dies through the legs when dealing with LRMs because of how huge they are and there isn't anything you can do to really protect them. Some mechs like the Whale or King Crab can't really use their arms to sponge and their torsos are large enough that they don't take any damage to the legs which means, all torso damage. So again, the spreading really isn't that terrible, not nearly as bad as some make it out to be (they are still far better than Streaks).


I never said it wasn't a legitimate, but the difference in hitboxes can make or break hitting legs. With cSPL boats, the level of accuracy made concentrating on legs easy. With the inherent spread of SRMs though, skinny legs means wasted damage potential that could've been used to hit the torso and potentially XL check something which is why during the SRM meta hitting torsos made more sense (especially against rear torsos). Terrain can also dictate which is better to focus on. The best thing to aim for really ends up being situational in the end and certain weapons do have their advantages with one or the other.


Let me make this clear, you can aim for components, but unless you have a mech like the ASN-23 or GRF-3M, or are hugging their butt, you are not able to concentrate damage as much as you seem to think you are. A Splat Timby is not landing all 24 SRMs on a single component at 200m with any reliability on all except maybe a weird hitbox like the side of a Stalker or Mad IIC. So sure, you can aim at specific components, but you aren't landing as much concentrated damage as you seem to think unless you close a significant distance and that is important to understand. Very few mechs can pull off what the GRF-3M or ASN-23 can at 200m with SRMs.


You are getting better accuracy (that is shots landing) than an SRM at those ranges. Sure you don't have the precision that some SRM mechs do, but having reliable accuracy is more important than reliable precision even at 270m (to a point mind you).


You over value the important of precision over accuracy at 200m+


Less effort applied would be ATMs because you can shoot missiles on the approach, because again, SRMs are not very accurate due to their slow velocity and convergence issues for most mechs. If I can maul my opponent before he can even use his weapons effectively, I've won. Sure precision is nice, but if I'm spitting out enough volume of damage then that doesn't matter as much (this is the reason streaks are so effective against lights).


The only reason it isn't as true is because there are effective enough laser boats that can deal enough effective damage to outweigh the volume of damage the SRMs spit out and because they can deal that damage at a farther range typically.


I never did, but missing those shots on harder to hit targets rather than simply going through the path of least resistance is also very important. It is all about which is easier to do.

Did you play much with ATMs on the PTS? Honestly if I kept even 1 damage/missile at point blank, health vs AMS and hopefully a velocity boost they were very beefy. Ironically they make a great area denial weapon - you cover an approach in your sweet spot range and you force someone to eat a huge alpha they can't really dodge to close. On "alley" maps like Frozen City there's no way to cross cover before they hit you at 300-400m or so. If someone tries to corner you out you can back up or flank. Even with the 120m min they were not terrible - just not viable vs an aggressive player. With some minimum range performance the ability to vomit a huge amount of damage on someone wanting to close mid, especially in a narrow space, seems really effective.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MischiefSC, on 05 July 2017 - 05:21 PM, said:

Did you play much with ATMs on the PTS?

Not as much as I would like, but I'm well aware of how strong they could potentially be if the min range was removed completely and health was fixed. Even without a velocity boost I can guarantee they would always be used instead of SRMs except on maybe MRBC drop 1 or scouting where brawls are easier to force.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

It isn't, BUT, SRMs still aren't really prime brawling weapons. Honestly in MRBC drop 1, the only SRM mechs are the lights and that is just because cSPLs got hammered and there is no small laser class that really fulfills that role. Mediums and some of the heavier lights on the other hand can make use of MPLs on both sides sufficiently.

So what if they are not prime brawling? They are still component of a legitimate brawling build. Likewise they can still brawl better than ATMs.

And what, don't you think we can't use MPL and SRMs at the same time. My TBR could go 6x MPL + 2x SRM6A which is surprsingly powerful.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

They spread, but it all depends on the hitboxes. For example the Night Gyr almost always dies through the legs when dealing with LRMs because of how huge they are and there isn't anything you can do to really protect them. Some mechs like the Whale or King Crab can't really use their arms to sponge and their torsos are large enough that they don't take any damage to the legs which means, all torso damage. So again, the spreading really isn't that terrible, not nearly as bad as some make it out to be (they are still far better than Streaks).

Sure, but the thing is that this matters a lot less when you can aim, and you can aim with SRMs and even use lasers to boot, cause SRM builds are less demanding to the tonnage budget.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

I never said it wasn't a legitimate, but the difference in hitboxes can make or break hitting legs. With cSPL boats, the level of accuracy made concentrating on legs easy. With the inherent spread of SRMs though, skinny legs means wasted damage potential that could've been used to hit the torso and potentially XL check something which is why during the SRM meta hitting torsos made more sense (especially against rear torsos). Terrain can also dictate which is better to focus on. The best thing to aim for really ends up being situational in the end and certain weapons do have their advantages with one or the other.

But fact is, you can aim. And whether you could efficiently take down an opponent, especially on a brawl can win or lose the game. When you could have done 144 damage all over the torso, you could have just put 51.6 damage on one exposed XL engine. Don't you just wave that off.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

Let me make this clear, you can aim for components, but unless you have a mech like the ASN-23 or GRF-3M, or are hugging their butt, you are not able to concentrate damage as much as you seem to think you are. A Splat Timby is not landing all 24 SRMs on a single component at 200m with any reliability on all except maybe a weird hitbox like the side of a Stalker or Mad IIC. So sure, you can aim at specific components, but you aren't landing as much concentrated damage as you seem to think unless you close a significant distance and that is important to understand. Very few mechs can pull off what the GRF-3M or ASN-23 can at 200m with SRMs.

Oh okay sure you can aim, sure it's spread. But isn't that better when all you could do is spread with ATMs? Even then, isn't the point of brawls and SRMs is close range? Therefore it's valid to assume combat happening under 200m?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

You are getting better accuracy (that is shots landing) than an SRM at those ranges. Sure you don't have the precision that some SRM mechs do, but having reliable accuracy is more important than reliable precision even at 270m (to a point mind you).

The thing is that, practicing and skill you can minimize that. You can have both accuracy and precision, with enough skill, you can't have both on ATMs as you forfeit the ability to direct your streams precisely.

Besides, sure you can land shots reliably due to homing, but again those are pretty spread all over right? What would you see more threatening? 2x Gauss + 2x ERPPC, or LRM80A at 400m? assuming you could land either perfectly. Wouldn't it be the 2x gauss-ppc because it focuses 50 damage? so what if an LRM80A does 80 damage per volley? It's spread all over, the enemy is just doing it's job by maximizing it's mech's durability and waste YOUR time.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

You over value the important of precision over accuracy at 200m+

No i don't. If anything, you undervalue precision over accuracy. Since we're getting personal now, i have to ask. Do you not know how to spread damage or torso twist? Would you brawl with 2x ATM12 over 4x SRM6A? Torso twist and shield and stuff?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

Less effort applied would be ATMs because you can shoot missiles on the approach, because again, SRMs are not very accurate due to their slow velocity and convergence issues for most mechs.

If I can maul my opponent before he can even use his weapons effectively, I've won. Sure precision is nice, but if I'm spitting out enough volume of damage then that doesn't matter as much (this is the reason streaks are so effective against lights).

Pfft, even Gauss, ACs, Lasers can do that. Anyone that outrange SRMs. Hell even right now, SRMs are outranged, but i have to ask why is that it's still prevalent regardless? Why do brawling builds with extremely limited range flourish anyways?

Of course ATM would have effectiveness over range, but we are discussing under it. Keep in mind, we're talking about SRMs at their best, vs ATMs at isolating components, and that inevitably limits us to what range SRMs can do -- close range. Please stop going at an escape hatch, pretty disingenuous.

If there is anything i agree, is that ATM works on most cases as it's a generalist weapon (minus minimum range), whereas SRMs work only at short range but excels at it.

But why you seem to think that short-range combat never happens, is beyond me. A competent brawler knows when to commit, and just when to poke, knows how to use terrain as cover and advance to the enemy. On a 12v12 there are other players to also worry about that a brawler can use for distraction to get to you. I don't understand why you seem to think that everyone else just stand in the open like potato. You (rhetorical you) don't balance by potato.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

The only reason it isn't as true is because there are effective enough laser boats that can deal enough effective damage to outweigh the volume of damage the SRMs spit out and because they can deal that damage at a farther range typically.

Again, if it's not true. Why the comparison? You mean you went all the way to argue using false premises? Wouldn't your conclusion be inevitably false too? That's how deductive reasoning works.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

I never did, but missing those shots on harder to hit targets rather than simply going through the path of least resistance is also very important. It is all about which is easier to do.

Oh sure, it's easier to do. But the game isn't just built upon tiny legs, nor big legs right? Likewise the game isn't just shoot your enemies to death, coordinated teams usually par better than uncoordinated teams. Tactics are involved in this game too.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 05 July 2017 - 05:58 PM.

[MischiefSC]

ATMs are brutal - if you have the tonnage. I couldn't get anything really solid on a medium or light. The power of them is when you start getting into the 18+ tubes range, so you're hitting so hard the spread doesn't matter. On a medium an ATM build that's even vaguely heat/ammo sustainable was within 10 pts of a more sustainable SRM alpha or even laservomit.

Heavies and assaults though? Dear god you could see someone taking a Highlander IIC. On purpose. Because 9x4 ATMs plus 2 LPLs is heat manageable 130 pt LOLpha.

Missile Kodiaks. Maybe even missile Snovas. I can't help but laugh a bit. Can we call it the Skilllander? Locking missiles no skill OP Clan ATMs. Boy, there's a weapon name that's just begging for some NSFW interpretation, especially if it's solidly viable.

TBRs, Orions, i had great luck with 4x6, 4xcerml MDD, honestly ATMs are the only thing in the whole lineup that's really looking to me like a significant change. Maybe UAC20s for IS in some pure comedy niches. The rest is fluff and traps for bads.

Skill-lander. Skill-rion! Every mech is sexier with enough ATM? Yeah, this has potential.

[The6thMessenger]

MischiefSC, on 05 July 2017 - 06:08 PM, said:

ATMs are brutal - if you have the tonnage. I couldn't get anything really solid on a medium or light. The power of them is when you start getting into the 18+ tubes range, so you're hitting so hard the spread doesn't matter. On a medium an ATM build that's even vaguely heat/ammo sustainable was within 10 pts of a more sustainable SRM alpha or even laservomit.

But not every mech has the tonnage. You can't equip 4x ATM9 on a Kit Fox, when you can equip 4x SRM6. Having all that weight, of course they're brutal, that weight is their balancing factor.

MischiefSC, on 05 July 2017 - 06:08 PM, said:

Heavies and assaults though? Dear god you could see someone taking a Highlander IIC. On purpose. Because 9x4 ATMs plus 2 LPLs is heat manageable 130 pt LOLpha.

Missile Kodiaks. Maybe even missile Snovas. I can't help but laugh a bit. Can we call it the Skilllander? Locking missiles no skill OP Clan ATMs. Boy, there's a weapon name that's just begging for some NSFW interpretation, especially if it's solidly viable.

TBRs, Orions, i had great luck with 4x6, 4xcerml MDD, honestly ATMs are the only thing in the whole lineup that's really looking to me like a significant change. Maybe UAC20s for IS in some pure comedy niches. The rest is fluff and traps for bads.

Skill-lander. Skill-rion! Every mech is sexier with enough ATM? Yeah, this has potential.

At least they would be less stupid that assault LRM boats. Jesus those potatoes.

To be fair, a lot of other mechs are doing things they can't do before, so 130 lolphas are expected downsides.

[Tesunie]

You guys did it again. Stop posting when I'm at work!

Breaking this up by page responses (encase I have more to respond to).

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.

If I'm correct, don't ATMs deal less damage at long range, about the same at that mid range band, and about the same as SRMs in the short range band?

ATMs role shouldn't be a "mid range specialist", but instead should be a "can do any range, but have no specialty". It's suppose to be an advanced tactical missile, useful in many tactical situations. Not exactly "king" of any specific tactic.

MischiefSC, on 05 July 2017 - 09:28 AM, said:

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.

I'm going to go off my Huntsmen build, which is what I tested in PTS. I replaced the two LRM15s on it directly to ATMs for my testing. I know it runs under tonnage due to the larger crit spaces of the ATM, but it gave me a direct comparison between LRMs and ATMs behavior. I replaced my LRM15s with ATM6s I believe? So, lets compared those stats, shall we?

AMTs had the same velocity as LRMs last I recalled, and in testing people noticed that ATMs and LRMs hit their targets at the same time despite the higher arc of LRMs. They also each prefer locks to be used. ATMs have the same or larger spread.

Damage wise I'm talking 30 points of damage for the LRMs and another 28 points of damage from the ERMLs for a total of 58 damage. I currently do this in the live game, and do very well with it. This can boil down to 30/58/58-28 damage range bands (as LRMs decrease damage at short range depending upon distance from target).

The ATM deals 12/24/36 damage, including ERMLs into the mix for 28 damage and it basically can play out as 12/52/64, and don't forget current dead zone minimum range, meaning I have a fourth bracket of 28 damage only. (12/52/64/28 if you may?)

Between these two exact replicant builds, the LRM one runs cooler, deal more damage in a larger field of zone and is only out performed (barely) at the closer ranges by ATMs. Not to mention the LRMs ability to be able to support indirectly when needed, which ATMs lack, and it's better resistance to AMS... (Granted the ATM build is running under by 1.5 tons. Wasn't a lot of time to try and optimize it better.)

Yet you think ATMs would be so destructive despite them having fairly similar mechanics as LRMs do. ATMs have an advantage on their arc in some situations. You said the advantage of ATMs was the ability to be mixed with direct fire weapons. Yet, I noticed that wasn't a strength for LRMs whenever it is mentioned, even when I try to present that strength? So, if it's such a benefit for ATMs, what keeps it from being a benefit for LRMs? It's often been said that LRMs spread too much, dealing too much "useless damage", but ATMs have the same spread if not more. So why is that not an issue here?


I'm seeing too many contradictory statements between LRMs (considered near useless by players) and ATMs (alright to too powerful), despite LRMs having more advantages more often for a larger range bracket... That's not even comparing it to SRMs.



To compare the ATMs to SRMs, I used my Huntsmen Pakhet. With 4 SRM4s and 2 ERLLs, I was able to fill this one's tonnage up completely with ATMs. I switched the SRMs for ATM3s, which I believe cost me some ammo or DHS to achieve (can't see as the PTS is down right now).

So I traded out a 32 damage close range punch for a 12/24/36 for the missiles. It runs hot enough still that I can't shoot the ERLL and the missiles at the same time (the original build couldn't either except as a damage boost occasionally). So, overall I didn't "gain" anything meaningful besides a bit more range missile options and 4 extra points of close in damage, with a higher heat, lower cooldown and less ammo, not to mention spread.


So far, I wasn't feeling they were a replacement to either weapon system in my testing. But I'll also have to admit I didn't have a lot of time on the PTS. Not as much as I would have liked. So I wasn't able to do as much as I would have liked, but I did get enough play in to have a reasonable impression on the weapon, at least in relation to "trading out" on other builds.

[MischiefSC]

Tesunie, on 05 July 2017 - 06:29 PM, said:

You guys did it again. Stop posting when I'm at work!

Breaking this up by page responses (encase I have more to respond to).



If I'm correct, don't ATMs deal less damage at long range, about the same at that mid range band, and about the same as SRMs in the short range band?

ATMs role shouldn't be a "mid range specialist", but instead should be a "can do any range, but have no specialty". It's suppose to be an advanced tactical missile, useful in many tactical situations. Not exactly "king" of any specific tactic.



I'm going to go off my Huntsmen build, which is what I tested in PTS. I replaced the two LRM15s on it directly to ATMs for my testing. I know it runs under tonnage due to the larger crit spaces of the ATM, but it gave me a direct comparison between LRMs and ATMs behavior. I replaced my LRM15s with ATM6s I believe? So, lets compared those stats, shall we?

AMTs had the same velocity as LRMs last I recalled, and in testing people noticed that ATMs and LRMs hit their targets at the same time despite the higher arc of LRMs. They also each prefer locks to be used. ATMs have the same or larger spread.

Damage wise I'm talking 30 points of damage for the LRMs and another 28 points of damage from the ERMLs for a total of 58 damage. I currently do this in the live game, and do very well with it. This can boil down to 30/58/58-28 damage range bands (as LRMs decrease damage at short range depending upon distance from target).

The ATM deals 12/24/36 damage, including ERMLs into the mix for 28 damage and it basically can play out as 12/52/64, and don't forget current dead zone minimum range, meaning I have a fourth bracket of 28 damage only. (12/52/64/28 if you may?)

Between these two exact replicant builds, the LRM one runs cooler, deal more damage in a larger field of zone and is only out performed (barely) at the closer ranges by ATMs. Not to mention the LRMs ability to be able to support indirectly when needed, which ATMs lack, and it's better resistance to AMS... (Granted the ATM build is running under by 1.5 tons. Wasn't a lot of time to try and optimize it better.)

Yet you think ATMs would be so destructive despite them having fairly similar mechanics as LRMs do. ATMs have an advantage on their arc in some situations. You said the advantage of ATMs was the ability to be mixed with direct fire weapons. Yet, I noticed that wasn't a strength for LRMs whenever it is mentioned, even when I try to present that strength? So, if it's such a benefit for ATMs, what keeps it from being a benefit for LRMs? It's often been said that LRMs spread too much, dealing too much "useless damage", but ATMs have the same spread if not more. So why is that not an issue here?


I'm seeing too many contradictory statements between LRMs (considered near useless by players) and ATMs (alright to too powerful), despite LRMs having more advantages more often for a larger range bracket... That's not even comparing it to SRMs.



To compare the ATMs to SRMs, I used my Huntsmen Pakhet. With 4 SRM4s and 2 ERLLs, I was able to fill this one's tonnage up completely with ATMs. I switched the SRMs for ATM3s, which I believe cost me some ammo or DHS to achieve (can't see as the PTS is down right now).

So I traded out a 32 damage close range punch for a 12/24/36 for the missiles. It runs hot enough still that I can't shoot the ERLL and the missiles at the same time (the original build couldn't either except as a damage boost occasionally). So, overall I didn't "gain" anything meaningful besides a bit more range missile options and 4 extra points of close in damage, with a higher heat, lower cooldown and less ammo, not to mention spread.


So far, I wasn't feeling they were a replacement to either weapon system in my testing. But I'll also have to admit I didn't have a lot of time on the PTS. Not as much as I would have liked. So I wasn't able to do as much as I would have liked, but I did get enough play in to have a reasonable impression on the weapon, at least in relation to "trading out" on other builds.

So you're saying you just tried to make ATMs into LRM replacements. Of course it failed. Also, on a medium.

Swap the SRMs on an Orion for ATMs. Swap LRMs out of, say, a Super Nova (if you're the sort of sick ******* who puts LRMs on a Super Nova ) for ATMs and add some lasers.

You guys are trying to compare bad builds to justify how ATMs are not that strong. You get over 18 tubes and the math starts to shift dramatically. Take whatever Mad Dog LRM boat you want, I'll take 4xATM6, 4x CERML and I'll destroy you. So you've got at most 60 LRM tubes, which are splattering damage in 1pt increments over various parts of my mech. I'm puking up 72 pts of missiles and 28 pts of lasers in 2-3pt increments on yours. "BUT MUH DPS!" DPS is only relevant if it's a long time to get to the tasty center of the Tootsie Pop. If I'm hitting you for 80-100pts, then 80-100 pts again, you're probably missing a ST. Because of flat, fast flight path I absolutely can (and repeatedly did) snake those shots in vs LRM boats and get back into cover before the LRMs hit at 400m, shrugging off at least part of the return fire. Even in the open what you're missing is how tight the grouping is on ATMs.

They hit in 3 pt increments instead of 1 pt. A 60 pt LRM rain probably loses 10 pts to the dirt and spreads 5-10 pts over the rest of my mech. A 72 pt ATM rain usually only lost 6 pts to the dirt and put 20 pts on 3 locations, or close to. Then I've got 28 pts of lasers to exploit whatever the biggest hole is. Then shoot it again.

You guys keep trying to gloss this over but the real ATM mechs, the big heavies and assaults, will be boating 40-60% more damage per alpha than your LRM or SRM boats.

I probably did 50 or so matches, including private matches to test stuff. 1 health per missile vs AMS (or whatever it is) and 0 damage inside 120m made them situationally worthless and as such a useless weapon for any serious play but great for spud farming. However, those two issues fixed and left with a 2 or better damage inside 120m?

Then SRMs are for lights and game balance is incredibly broken because I would play that against anything but another mixed ATM mech and consistently destroy it, because 100 > 60, up close and far away.

Edited to add:

Also, Tesunie, <3 you man you're a nice guy but SRMs and ERLLs on a Pakhet... I.... really? That's so terrible. I know you're going to try and justify it and it works for you and etc etc but really and truly. It's terrible. Every other Pakhet is now looking around defensively and saying 'Hey, it's cold in here! My mom said it's a good size!' because they all lost three sizes this day and I don't mean like The Grinches Heart.

ATMs are like the UAC20 of missiles. You can sorta put them on mediums and lights but it's just never going to be optimal.

Edited by MischiefSC, 05 July 2017 - 07:09 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 05 July 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

So what if they are not prime brawling? They are still component of a legitimate brawling build. Likewise they can still brawl better than ATMs.

And what, don't you think we can't use MPL and SRMs at the same time. My TBR could go 6x MPL + 2x SRM6A which is surprsingly powerful.

That build is more of a mid range poke than a brawler. Brawlers, typically have much higher sustained DPS. True brawlers like the Mangoyle, Splat Cats, and Novas of yore would brutalize that mech because of their better sustained DPS in an actual brawl. It is important to understand the difference between the two. Your MPL build could easily be replaced by an ATM build because they do similar things, they aren't true brawlers because they don't have knife fighting range nor the DPS that goes with that, BUT, they have more DPS than a longer ranged build.

The6thMessenger, on 05 July 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

Sure, but the thing is that this matters a lot less when you can aim, and you can aim with SRMs and even use lasers to boot, cause SRM builds are less demanding to the tonnage budget.

There is only so much you can predict when leading targets. There is a difference between learning how to aim, and being able to accurately predict the future and SRMs take more of the latter with shots at longer ranges. Using lasers with SRMs is also typically bad because of how much they impact your heat which is why splat builds typically use flamers instead. There are always exceptions (Splat Timby with 6 SPL and 4 ASRM6 being the main exception) but thats generally because they can't mount more SRMs, not because they really need those lasers.

The6thMessenger, on 05 July 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

But fact is, you can aim. And whether you could efficiently take down an opponent, especially on a brawl can win or lose the game. When you could have done 144 damage all over the torso, you could have just put 51.6 damage on one exposed XL engine. Don't you just wave that off.

Sure, but being able to do 144 damage all over the torso is pretty powerful especially if you can do it more reliably than doing 51.6 damage to the exposed XL. Consistency is what is important and if ATMs bring more consistent effective damage than SRMs in good at hands at knife-short range, then that is what will be used. Not to mention you act like you can't position yourself ever to focus a side torso, how a mech is twisted matters to ATMs especially for any mech with hitboxes like the Jenner/Stalker or even humanoids since again, they focus on center mass so if you put that exposed section between you and center mass, chances are good you will focus on that section.

The6thMessenger, on 05 July 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

Oh okay sure you can aim, sure it's spread. But isn't that better when all you could do is spread with ATMs? Even then, isn't the point of brawls and SRMs is close range? Therefore it's valid to assume combat happening under 200m?

Not all combat will be happening, and again, the ability to always force combat to be under 200m is pretty much relegated to MRBC drop 1 and scouting. Like I said, in those situations sure, SRMs will potentially be useful except for that typical 1-2 overwatch mechs, but outside of that, that isn't the case where you can always force that fight. That's where short-mid range poke come into play (think the old Boomcat, MPLs, MLs, and LPLs for the most part). ATMs thrive at that range and their ability to demolish brawlers is something Mischief has been trying to show off with the 1v1s.

The6thMessenger, on 05 July 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

The thing is that, practicing and skill you can minimize that. You can have both accuracy and precision, with enough skill, you can't have both on ATMs as you forfeit the ability to direct your streams precisely.

Not unless you can predict the future. Don't get me wrong, there are some predictions you can accurately make, but even at high level play, people misjudge shots and miss with SRMs, especially outside 150m. Again, it's about consistency and reliability.

The6thMessenger, on 05 July 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

Besides, sure you can land shots reliably due to homing, but again those are pretty spread all over right?

Again, how spread it is depends on hitboxes and lots of "spread" damage is still better than no damage.

The6thMessenger, on 05 July 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

2x Gauss + 2x ERPPC, or LRM80A at 400m? assuming you could land either perfectly. Wouldn't it be the 2x gauss-ppc because it focuses 50 damage? so what if an LRM80A does 80 damage per volley?

Depends on the situation. Are we talking about limited cover on the close and IS LRMs? Cuz if they are IS LRMs, honestly the ALRM80 is probably as scary if not a little bit more depending on my cover. I've seen what AWS-8Rs can do with ALRM60, I don't underestimate the damage it can do, it can be brutal in the mid-range area if given the time to do damage.

The6thMessenger, on 05 July 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

No i don't. If anything, you undervalue precision over accuracy. Since we're getting personal now, i have to ask. Do you not know how to spread damage or torso twist? Would you brawl with 2x ATM12 over 4x SRM6A? Torso twist and shield and stuff?

If I could force the brawl easily, like MRBC drop 1, probably 4 ASRM6 unless there is need for an overwatch mech, outside of that though, the ATM12s would be better because being able to do damage on the close and do SRM levels of damage inside 270m is absolutely insane. Sure torso twisting is great, but if I'm spitting out enough damage, it won't matter, I've already put you on the defensive and that means I control the tempo of the match and that is a HUGE advantage.

The6thMessenger, on 05 July 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

Pfft, even Gauss, ACs, Lasers can do that. Anyone that outrange SRMs. Hell even right now, SRMs are outranged, but i have to ask why is that it's still prevalent regardless? Why do brawling builds with extremely limited range flourish anyways?

They don't flourish right now honestly, without the cSPLs,brawling took a step back. The point is, we are adding another weapon that pretty much outranges SRMs and pushes them even more into a serious niche. That's my problem.

The6thMessenger, on 05 July 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

Of course ATM would have effectiveness over range, but we are discussing under it. Keep in mind, we're talking about SRMs at their best, vs ATMs at isolating components, and that inevitably limits us to what range SRMs can do -- close range. Please stop going at an escape hatch, pretty disingenuous.

Except I'm still talking under 270m, even at max range, SRMs are not that accurate or precise (outside a few special cases). That's kinda the point, I would rather have accuracy and some level of precision over meh accuracy and a little bit more precision because I have better range which is pretty important.

The6thMessenger, on 05 July 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

But why you seem to think that short-range combat never happens, is beyond me. A competent brawler knows when to commit, and just when to poke, knows how to use terrain as cover and advance to the enemy. On a 12v12 there are other players to also worry about that a brawler can use for distraction to get to you.

12 v 12 makes brawling more risky because it means more sightlines are covered which makes surprise less of a factor, and that's pretty huge for defeating brawlers, being able to react in time to appropriately respond to it. Distractions are split pushes and require perfect timing to execute correctly. You are acting like being able to know when to commit is all you need when it isn't. If a team has an adequate power position, closing without taking enough damage is near impossible. This is why you rarely if ever see teams like EmP actually flat out brawl, because it isn't the strongest strat and can be defeated by power positions or mobile firing lines.

The6thMessenger, on 05 July 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

Again, if it's not true. Why the comparison? You mean you went all the way to argue using false premises? Wouldn't your conclusion be inevitably false too? That's how deductive reasoning works.

It really is true, the day of the laser balance patch was when it became MUCH harder to force brawls in higher tonnages than things like MRBC drop 1 and scouting. Brawling relied pretty heavily on cSPLs to be relevant in the meta.

The6thMessenger, on 05 July 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

Oh sure, it's easier to do. But the game isn't just built upon tiny legs, nor big legs right? Likewise the game isn't just shoot your enemies to death, coordinated teams usually par better than uncoordinated teams. Tactics are involved in this game too.

Easier is typically better, again, consistency is important and easy typically translates to consistent/reliable.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 05 July 2017 - 07:11 PM.

[Ruar]

I think trying to do a direct swap for LRMs won't really work. ATMs have more weight and are better for limited hardpoint mechs rather than something that can boat missiles. ATMs also need a build focused on medium range engagement rather than long or short range. Putting ATMs with ERLL is just a bad idea. Of course I think putting SRMs with ERLL is a bad idea too. ATM builds should be reinforced with medium range weapons or short range weapons to fill in the minimum range gap.

ATMs will be one of the weapons that will need watching and adjustment when they hit live. They need more changes and testing but that won't happen now.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

That build is more of a mid range poke than a brawler. Brawlers, typically have much higher sustained DPS. True brawlers like the Mangoyle, Splat Cats, and Novas of yore would brutalize that mech because of their better sustained DPS in an actual brawl. It is important to understand the difference between the two. Your MPL build could easily be replaced by an ATM build because they do similar things, they aren't true brawlers because they don't have knife fighting range nor the DPS that goes with that, BUT, they have more DPS than a longer ranged build

Fair enough. Although 2x SRM6A is 5t, that's only an ATM9. Or if i were to split it, i need 2 more tons to make even 2x ATM6s.

But if you acknowledge that ATMs couldn't brawl, why even compare it to SRMs close range? So what if ATM12 does 36 streamed damage, versus 25.8 damage of the SRMs up front, followed by torso-twist and arm-shield.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

There is only so much you can predict when leading targets. There is a difference between learning how to aim, and being able to accurately predict the future and SRMs take more of the latter with shots at longer ranges. Using lasers with SRMs is also typically bad because of how much they impact your heat which is why splat builds typically use flamers instead. There are always exceptions (Splat Timby with 6 SPL and 4 ASRM6 being the main exception) but thats generally because they can't mount more SRMs, not because they really need those lasers.

Sure thing, but regardless they would still par better on ATMs on the role SRMs undertake. Yes we also rely on luck, but that's where our experience comes in, we rely less on luck and make it happen.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

Sure, but being able to do 144 damage all over the torso is pretty powerful especially if you can do it more reliably than doing 51.6 damage to the exposed XL. Consistency is what is important and if ATMs bring more consistent effective damage than SRMs in good at hands at knife-short range, then that is what will be used.

Yes, both ARE powerful, no question about that. But rather what would the situation demands, especially in a brawl.

That's a big "If", when the SRMs can deal with "if" better. The homing missiles means the success of you is hinging on your enemy making a mistake, than you doing something right, like LRMs.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

Not to mention you act like you can't position yourself ever to focus a side torso, how a mech is twisted matters to ATMs especially for any mech with hitboxes like the Jenner/Stalker or even humanoids since again, they focus on center mass so if you put that exposed section between you and center mass, chances are good you will focus on that section.

So we balance by individual mechs now? We should nerf ATMs to the ground because Jenners/Stalkers suck at it, cause they're the only mechs in MWO that matters. Sarcasm aside.

Yes you can position yourself to focus on a side torso, but so can the enemy as they present it when shielding. Hearing incoming missiles mean they know preemptively to get into cover, or just twist. And if you're committed to a brawl, unless the enemy shuts down you have to worry about your enemy not letting you get to his -- whatever, by shielding or torso twisting.

Yes how a mech twist matters, but that's the thing the ATM can be spread by intervention. SRMs with single volley, you could only shield with it cause every other missiles hit at relatively the same time.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

Not all combat will be happening, and again, the ability to always force combat to be under 200m is pretty much relegated to MRBC drop 1 and scouting. Like I said, in those situations sure, SRMs will potentially be useful except for that typical 1-2 overwatch mechs, but outside of that, that isn't the case where you can always force that fight. That's where short-mid range poke come into play (think the old Boomcat, MPLs, MLs, and LPLs for the most part). ATMs thrive at that range and their ability to demolish brawlers is something Mischief has been trying to show off with the 1v1s.

Of course not all combat happens under 200m. Of course it’s situational, come on. But again, weapons do have roles, niche to fulfil.

Again, of course ATMs would demolish SRMs outside of their range, come on. That’s true for other weapons that out range it, for other roles that outrange brawlers.

But short-range ability, within SRMs range, that’s where should we remain if we ever to compare.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

Not unless you can predict the future. Don't get me wrong, there are some predictions you can accurately make, but even at high level play, people misjudge shots and miss with SRMs, especially outside 150m. Again, it's about consistency and reliability.

But again, that’s the thing, skill. Sure ATMs are far easier to use. But if anything, that just discourages combat within 150m, than ATMs actually excelling at close-range combat.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

Again, how spread it is depends on hitboxes and lots of "spread" damage is still better than no damage.

But then again that’s just your enemy effectively maximizing his durability, and then wasting your time. He’s just doing his job; he’s just padding your score.

Look at LRM builds, sure it’s easy to get high score of 800. But then you factor in the spread, ever wonder how meaningful such damage are really?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

Depends on the situation. Are we talking about limited cover on the close and IS LRMs? Cuz if they are IS LRMs, honestly the ALRM80 is probably as scary if not a little bit more depending on my cover. I've seen what AWS-8Rs can do with ALRM60, I don't underestimate the damage it can do, it can be brutal in the mid-range area if given the time to do damage.

But let’s face it, a gauss PPC mix is scary because it opens up components and can kill you faster. While LRMs are just scary because they’re shaky and blinding.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

If I could force the brawl easily, like MRBC drop 1, probably 4 ASRM6 unless there is need for an overwatch mech, outside of that though, the ATM12s would be better because being able to do damage on the close and do SRM levels of damage inside 270m is absolutely insane. Sure torso twisting is great, but if I'm spitting out enough damage, it won't matter, I've already put you on the defensive and that means I control the tempo of the match and that is a HUGE advantage.

Again, brawl. That means it’s just you fighting close range. Outside of it, it’s irrelevant, its moot. That’s not a close range encounter where SRMs have the fair chance. Even UACs, Lasers and LRMs could do that outside of it.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

They don't flourish right now honestly, without the cSPLs,brawling took a step back. The point is, we are adding another weapon that pretty much outranges SRMs and pushes them even more into a serious niche. That's my problem.

I’ve seen them time to time, especially on brawler builds. I’ve ran them time to time, and won too. But okay, lets agree that they're not as popular.

But with what you are saying, that sounds more like removing or keeping min range is irrelevant, as this is personally the problem of SRMs at all, than ATMs being objectively better at close range.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

Except I'm still talking under 270m, even at max range, SRMs are not that accurate or precise (outside a few special cases). That's kinda the point, I would rather have accuracy and some level of precision over meh accuracy and a little bit more precision because I have better range which is pretty important.

Sure they aren’t pin point, but they are reasonably so. And being already a lot more precise, accurate, controllable, makes them invaluable in a brawl, over the ATMs. That’s the point. With Artemis, they are still reasonably tight too.

And then we come to the stream-fire, versus the volley fire of the SRMs. Even if you are doing enormous damage to care about accuracy, all that does is waste your time and keep your TTK high.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

12 v 12 makes brawling more risky because it means more sightlines are covered which makes surprise less of a factor, and that's pretty huge for defeating brawlers, being able to react in time to appropriately respond to it. Distractions are split pushes and require perfect timing to execute correctly.

True. But of course, on other instances like a legitimate push where the brawler isn't necessarily the one focused on. Granted that doesn't happen often on PUG. But that doesn't mean it can't.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

You are acting like being able to know when to commit is all you need when it isn't. If a team has an adequate power position, closing without taking enough damage is near impossible. This is why you rarely if ever see teams like EmP actually flat out brawl, because it isn't the strongest strat and can be defeated by power positions or mobile firing lines.

No it’s not, I pointed out that tactics are also part of the game. Of course we’re going to consider those, of course we’re going to consider our team when committing.



And you’re acting as if people are incapable of strategizing, and putting things on their favour. Of course certain strategies can be countered; of course teams CAN get power positions. But in the end, right tool for the right job, it’s situational but it is a legitimate strategy.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

It really is true, the day of the laser balance patch was when it became MUCH harder to force brawls in higher tonnages than things like MRBC drop 1 and scouting. Brawling relied pretty heavily on cSPLs to be relevant in the meta.

Oh now, it’s true? When before you said “it was originally” true. Where’s the consistency on you?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

Easier is typically better, again, consistency is important and easy typically translates to consistent/reliable.

Oh please, it’s easy to just lurm. But actually landing them on competent players is another story.

But hey you know what, you said “typically” sure. But not in this case, not on the band where SRM reigns.

Close range no, ATMs do not prevail, but the only thing it has going over SRMs is that it doesn’t need to engage close-range where SRMs can. And again, that sounds more like the personal problem of SRMs as a whole being outranged by everything else, something that remove-retain ATM minimum range is largely irrelevant to. Minimum range or not, either way SRMs are losers in terms of range outside of 270m, and is already replaced by ATMs.

You can't kill that which is already dead.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 05 July 2017 - 08:15 PM.

[Deathpig]

PGI is going to release whatever PGI is going to release at this point. Going around in circles on the same argument is basically pointless now, especially since it appears no one is changing anyone's mind.

[The6thMessenger]

Deathpig, on 05 July 2017 - 08:14 PM, said:

PGI is going to release whatever PGI is going to release at this point. Going around in circles on the same argument is basically pointless now, especially since it appears no one is changing anyone's mind.

Well, i did realized that now SRMs are in trouble thanks to QK. But really SRMs are just better at close range over ATMs, it's just that ATMs don't have to engage at the range of SRMs.

[Tesunie]

MischiefSC, on 05 July 2017 - 07:05 PM, said:

So you're saying you just tried to make ATMs into LRM replacements. Of course it failed. Also, on a medium.

Swap the SRMs on an Orion for ATMs. Swap LRMs out of, say, a Super Nova (if you're the sort of sick ******* who puts LRMs on a Super Nova ) for ATMs and add some lasers.

I'm a medium mech pilot, who's specialty has been the Huntsmen since Oct (Huntsmen's release). What else did you expect? Of course I'm going to try and place the new shinys on my mechs. And of course I'm going to take my best builds via statistics and try a conversion. We wanted to compared ATMs, and the only weapons similar to them in the clan arsenal are LRMs, SRMs and SSRMs. As I have no build that incorporates SSRMs, so I dealt with what I already had. Not enough time otherwise.

And for the record, I don't own any Orions nor any Super Novas. I have long since discovered that my survival times are rather short in anything less than a medium mech it appears. So, I avoid heavier mechs unless they can behave like a medium mech. Even then, I have... mediocre results in such heavy mechs. Though, I would imagine if I had a Super Nova, I probably would try it with LRMs and see if they worked, but I'd remember to bring significant direct fire (probably laser) weaponry, so I can charge in with my team if ever needed.

MischiefSC, on 05 July 2017 - 07:05 PM, said:

You guys are trying to compare bad builds to justify how ATMs are not that strong. You get over 18 tubes and the math starts to shift dramatically. Take whatever Mad Dog LRM boat you want, I'll take 4xATM6, 4x CERML and I'll destroy you. So you've got at most 60 LRM tubes, which are splattering damage in 1pt increments over various parts of my mech. I'm puking up 72 pts of missiles and 28 pts of lasers in 2-3pt increments on yours. "BUT MUH DPS!" DPS is only relevant if it's a long time to get to the tasty center of the Tootsie Pop. If I'm hitting you for 80-100pts, then 80-100 pts again, you're probably missing a ST. Because of flat, fast flight path I absolutely can (and repeatedly did) snake those shots in vs LRM boats and get back into cover before the LRMs hit at 400m, shrugging off at least part of the return fire. Even in the open what you're missing is how tight the grouping is on ATMs.

If I ever could, I wouldn't mind taking your challenge. You could even be in your Orion, I'd bring one of my two Huntsmen builds. You'd be surprised what a little medium mech can do with enough cover to work around, or over. Can't even say I'd win, but I'd certainly be avoiding any long direct engagements, and hopefully preventing damage via careful engagement ranges. I'd certainly be trying to deal as much damage on the way out, even if I don't win. I think I could hold my own at least...

Actually, all I'd have to do to gain an advantage against you is try to close to within your minimum range. Sure, I'd be mitigating my own LRMs, but if I can sneak into that 120m range, we then have equal weapons (Mad Dog) or at least I've compromised pieces of your build. Then it comes to accuracy, endurance and approach. Of course, we can talk all we want. An engagement like this could still go either way.

MischiefSC, on 05 July 2017 - 07:05 PM, said:

They hit in 3 pt increments instead of 1 pt. A 60 pt LRM rain probably loses 10 pts to the dirt and spreads 5-10 pts over the rest of my mech. A 72 pt ATM rain usually only lost 6 pts to the dirt and put 20 pts on 3 locations, or close to. Then I've got 28 pts of lasers to exploit whatever the biggest hole is. Then shoot it again.

You guys keep trying to gloss this over but the real ATM mechs, the big heavies and assaults, will be boating 40-60% more damage per alpha than your LRM or SRM boats.

I probably did 50 or so matches, including private matches to test stuff. 1 health per missile vs AMS (or whatever it is) and 0 damage inside 120m made them situationally worthless and as such a useless weapon for any serious play but great for spud farming. However, those two issues fixed and left with a 2 or better damage inside 120m?

Then SRMs are for lights and game balance is incredibly broken because I would play that against anything but another mixed ATM mech and consistently destroy it, because 100 > 60, up close and far away.

ATMs have the same (or worse) spread as compared to LRMs or SRMs. So, in theory, the same amount of damage should be landing in roughly the same spots. I understand less arc means more direct, but I don't believe that ATMs would lose less damage to misses. It's also been observed that LRMs and ATMs travel at the same rate, despite their arc differences. This means that they apparently hit their target at the same time. I have not had the chance to confirm this, so I'm going off a little hearsay.

Most Heavies and Assaults already do... A quad UAC10 vs a single UAC10 and some lasers? Or Maybe even double UAC10 Hunchback? Heavier mechs tend to have more tonnage to invest into weapons. It's been a thing in this game for a while. ATMs I don't believe will make or break that as it is.

We've already agreed that ATMs need more health per missile, hard minimum range removed, and/or shorter range damage being adjusted in some manner. I can't disagree with that so far, as there seems to be enough compromise to maintain SRM's abilities in comparison. I do wonder though if a more sever ghost heat limit, longer cooldown or something else even may be better for overall weapon balance possibly... Things that have really been kinda glossed over in this thread overall.

MischiefSC, on 05 July 2017 - 07:05 PM, said:

Edited to add:

Also, Tesunie, <3 you man you're a nice guy but SRMs and ERLLs on a Pakhet... I.... really? That's so terrible. I know you're going to try and justify it and it works for you and etc etc but really and truly. It's terrible. Every other Pakhet is now looking around defensively and saying 'Hey, it's cold in here! My mom said it's a good size!' because they all lost three sizes this day and I don't mean like The Grinches Heart.

ATMs are like the UAC20 of missiles. You can sorta put them on mediums and lights but it's just never going to be optimal.

Don't laugh at the build too much. It actually seems to have my best stats overall from all Huntsmen (that I can track). Best K/D, W/L, Damage per ton per match... It seems to get the job done for me just fine. Then again, I'm typically a multi-range attacker, utilizing an enemies weakness against them. If I find someone who can out brawl me but have no close long range weapons, I'll just keep my distance. I seem to do reasonably well at it. I'll also mention that I wont say I'm the best player either. Probably average to maybe above average at best. I use what works for me.

I found ATMs worked reasonably well on my Medium mechs in the PTS. Can't say exact averages, but once I got use to the weapon I was doing 200-600 damage a match. I know I got 600ish damage in a match at least... But honestly, I can do that with my LRM build as well, and it would have been a lot less effort to keep people outside that minimum range, which is what ended up getting me killed after all my other teammates died...

I think ATMs will work fine on Medium mechs, especially if the hard minimum was removed. Would give the option of a little engagement flexibility to some lighter mechs, if they wish to pay the cost of being less efficient at any single role. But as you said about the minimum range yourself "made them situationally worthless and as such a useless weapon for any serious play", though I'm sure some people will still be able to get them work.


Edit: Typed in backwards words... Corrected with a strike and italics, encase it mattered, Though, I think people knew what I was meaning.

Edited by Tesunie, 05 July 2017 - 08:54 PM.

[Tesunie]

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 07:13 PM, said:

I think trying to do a direct swap for LRMs won't really work. ATMs have more weight and are better for limited hardpoint mechs rather than something that can boat missiles. ATMs also need a build focused on medium range engagement rather than long or short range. Putting ATMs with ERLL is just a bad idea. Of course I think putting SRMs with ERLL is a bad idea too. ATM builds should be reinforced with medium range weapons or short range weapons to fill in the minimum range gap. ATMs will be one of the weapons that will need watching and adjustment when they hit live. They need more changes and testing but that won't happen now.

It was a comparison more than an actual attempt to utilize ATMs to their fullest in the case of the second build. With the Huntsmen, I tend to run out of crit slots before weight, making ATMs more difficult to place onto the build. I needed the one crit heavier weight of the ERLLs to utilize the weight better. Was tempted to use a HLL, but the crit demands just wouldn't take. I also only used that build a couple times before the PTS finished.

They really need to stop running PTS sessions when an event is going on... That is mostly what limited my time there testing stuff. And I'm sure I wasn't alone on that either.

[Ruar]

Tesunie, on 05 July 2017 - 08:47 PM, said:

It was a comparison more than an actual attempt to utilize ATMs to their fullest in the case of the second build. With the Huntsmen, I tend to run out of crit slots before weight, making ATMs more difficult to place onto the build. I needed the one crit heavier weight of the ERLLs to utilize the weight better. Was tempted to use a HLL, but the crit demands just wouldn't take. I also only used that build a couple times before the PTS finished.

They really need to stop running PTS sessions when an event is going on... That is mostly what limited my time there testing stuff. And I'm sure I wasn't alone on that either.

I see ATMs as more of a medium missile than long range. I would pair them with MPL and use the weight savings to bump up the launcher size and add some ammo. This also pairs nicely with the minimum range allowing you to put damage down from 800m down to 0.

[Kessi]

alright, i´ve read some interresting arguments in this discussion, so decided to share my opinion to:

ATMs should not have a minimum range, if PGI is to afraid that they would become op, they could simply cut the maximum damage range.

for example: 3dmg from 0m to 150m, 2dmg to 400m, and 1dmg to the max range.
or something like that.

to those who say: "why use SRM or Streaks then?"
simple, spread and travelspeed for SRM, also weight and heat is better.
and hitting lightmechs with a missile that is not essentially faster than the mech itself would be pretty hard tho.
there for streaks will always be the better lightkiller

next point LRMs will always outperform ATMs at longer ranges, because the much higher travelarc (unless you gonna hit the roof, like on crimson strait^^) , and better heat and weight on those ranges.

lets just say, there are many way to balance this system, but giving a minimum range to is is just ridiculous, makes this weapon system kind of pointless, and takes away the biggest advantage (one weapon usable at ALL ranges) from these ADVANCED tactical missiles.

[The6thMessenger]

Kessi, on 06 July 2017 - 04:10 AM, said:

alright, i´ve read some interresting arguments in this discussion, so decided to share my opinion to:

ATMs should not have a minimum range, if PGI is to afraid that they would become op, they could simply cut the maximum damage range.

for example: 3dmg from 0m to 150m, 2dmg to 400m, and 1dmg to the max range.
or something like that.

to those who say: "why use SRM or Streaks then?"
simple, spread and travelspeed for SRM, also weight and heat is better.
and hitting lightmechs with a missile that is not essentially faster than the mech itself would be pretty hard tho.
there for streaks will always be the better lightkiller

next point LRMs will always outperform ATMs at longer ranges, because the much higher travelarc (unless you gonna hit the roof, like on crimson strait^^) , and better heat and weight on those ranges.

lets just say, there are many way to balance this system, but giving a minimum range to is is just ridiculous, makes this weapon system kind of pointless, and takes away the biggest advantage (one weapon usable at ALL ranges) from these ADVANCED tactical missiles.

I did went on 0m-180m-540m-900m with no minimum range.

[Steinkrieg]

The Huntsman is most likely one of the only mechs that ATMs will look like they are performing halfway decent on if they do not change them. The Stormcrow might be one as well, but lacking the JJ, you run into LOS issues when supporting your team. I can see Huntsmans sitting at about 180m-200m behind the assault push, poptarting on builds that run 4 ATM6s + 4 ATM3s and be absolutely devastating...unless the push fails or a fast light gets in on you and then you're done. TBQH, I see myself trying that out once they launch, even if the min range is not removed, just to see how it works. If it doesn't, then I'll try 4 ATM6s + 4 SRM6s. That will at least give me some close range protection.

If minimum range is kept in the game, any mech that moves below 81 kph will not have the speed to keep ATMs in the sweet spot. Sure, you may get off one volley with a SNV, Orion, or WHK, but then a skilled brawler will be in your face and you have a whole lot of wasted tonnage in weapons systems that you could have put SRMs into. 5 seconds is a lot longer time than you think. If you're trying to hang back in those mechs to try to get that sweet spot, you're collapsing your brawl line and allowing the enemy to push.

So, yeah, I'll try to make the ATMs work. If they are implemented with no changes, I doubt they will. Ask any good brawler what missile weapon system they would take if all else remains as it is now. My bet is that not one of them will say "ATMs".

[Rusharn]

After running some tests with my wife we found the following:

An active probe is required. Using ATM's with out an Active probe is death against an ECM mech.

Stealth armor defeats ATM's If you fire with missile lock and the stealth mech engages stealth as the missiles approach they lose lock and miss the target. The stealth mech can simply close at will disengaging stealth within the 120m and engage.

ATM's are extremely vulnerable to machine gun fire, especially the new Hvy Machine guns. The moment any section with an ATM lost all armor, machine guns almost instantly destroyed every atm in the section. SRM's did the same thing and the effect was seen to a lesser degree with LRM's. Both missile systems had both the crit damage bonus nodes

The effectiveness of the weapon system seems to be be based around the speed of the target. The faster the target the more ineffective the ATM's become. The general threshold of effectiveness seem to been when the target hits about 90-95 KPH. Up to that speed ATM's can track the target given that the firer targets and fires when the target is in the open. It also is possible base on the speed and the maneuverability of the ATM mech to keep the target in that 3 point of damage range for multiple volleys. However once the target exceeds 90kph the missiles have issues tracking such targets often sharp turns can cause several missiles to miss from the larger launchers, or are just able to get to cover. Also such fast mechs have little trouble closing range and getting within the 120m deadzone regardless of the speed of the ATM mech.

More so we did several close firing tests to see how good the ATM's track within the 120M range. Mechs moving at the 90 KPH rate or faster where almost impossible to hit with the missiles within 120m, whether dumb fired or locked. The missiles just don't turn fast enough to score solid hits.

More so we tested AMS. A single ams system with both override nodes could often shoot down every missile from 3 x ATM3 launchers. it continues on that a single system could stop almost every missile from 2 x ATM 6's or 1 atm 12. After that the ATM's can start getting damage in but it is greatly reduced. No other missile system has this vulnerability. If missile velocity and missile health remains the same there is no reason for a damage reduction and to keep the Minimum range. If the speed and missile health changes then consideration of keeping the minimum range can be made. but as it stands now, ATM's lack effectiveness against a decent pilot in a fast mech.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 05 July 2017 - 08:03 PM, said:

Lots of stuff

So here is the deal, I'm going to simplify all my thoughts a bit:

• SRMs are not as accurate or as precise as people think due to natural spread, convergence, being unguided, and velocity. For example the kiss of death Jenner IIC has an effective range of pretty much 50m if not shorter because otherwise you spread all your damage all over the place once you start to have to lead. Not all mechs suffer the same way as the Mad Dog and Griffin are actually fairly precise with their SRM volleys, but the point is that SRM precision and accuracy varies. ATMs however do not have that variability similar to how lasers don't suffer similar concerns due to being hitscan.
  
• The average SRM mech is limited to a very short range, in snowflake situations where the main engagement is pretty much guaranteed to be a brawl, that isn't a problem. Those situations are so niche though that ATMs are almost always a better choice provided they did two things for them (buff missile health and remove min range) because the minor loss in efficacy at brawl range (around 0-~150m) is an acceptable sacrifice for being usable outside that range (even if it were just 150-270m) because range is that important when talking about doing a push to get into range even in comp where brawling is probably the most viable because of the coordination it requires. This is a similar reason to why iSPLs just did not compete with cSPLs because that longer optimal range mattered.

So yes, SRMs can beat ATMs without min range at knife fighting range, but how much you sacrifice to get that advantage is too much in a large majority of cases, large enough that I think changes should be made to ensure they don't have as large of an advantage.