677 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 07 July 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

its not really powercreep since missile weapons were never really at the top of the list for meta weapons

Well, there have been times where SRMs have been fairly solid, but those have gone and went with a few nerfs (like the Oxide embiggening and the SRM4 spread nerf). Part of the problem is really going to amount to the fact that SRMs are unguided and without that guidance their usefulness at their max range hinges on their velocity. Bumping up their velocity just keeps them as better LBX. It is the easy fix for sure, but it isn't the fix that is needed, missiles should have unique behavior and the difference between LBX and SRM firing patterns just isn't big enough.

In the end it just makes me miss missile behavior from MW4 because they did AMS and missiles right for the most part (MRMs/SRMs being dumbfire was dumb though).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 07 July 2017 - 01:25 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

missiles should have unique behavior and the difference between LBX and SRM firing patterns just isn't big enough.

Well im not sure how youd make the behavior different unless you made SRMs into guided weapons like they are in tabletop.

I mean I suppose SRMs could fire either dumbfire or guided but with worse tracking/velocity and a chance to miss unlike Streaks. And in exchange they could carry a slightly heavier warhead that does more damage.

I dont really know what else you could do with them to make them different from LBX.

Edited by Khobai, 07 July 2017 - 01:31 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 07 July 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

Well im not sure how youd make the behavior different unless you made SRMs into guided weapons like they are in tabletop.

I mean I suppose SRMs could fire either dumbfire or guided but with worse tracking/velocity and a chance to miss unlike Streaks.

They should be lock-on, and honestly despite how MRMs are in TT, so should they. Missiles that are just direct fire weapons just seems silly to me, especially when there is a line of ballistics that are meant to do the exact same thing (even if not nearly as good or as strong).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 07 July 2017 - 01:36 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 July 2017 - 06:53 AM, said:

Actually, the DHS needed to make the SRM mech as heat efficient as an ATM boat ends up eating more tonnage AND space than the ATM launcher. Why do you think the ATM mech can't make use of coolshots either? They are still hot, just not as hot as SRMs......seriously, stop relying on exaggerations and actually do the math yourself.

Because you don't need to be as heat efficient as the ATMs, you just need to be heat efficient ENOUGH. There's a give and take to many weapons, like why people take 4x LRM10 over 2x LRM20 because they don't need the heat efficiency, they need the low cooldown. Again, the thing is that, they don't have to, and just compensate with whatever is in hand. People can stop firing once hot, they could just do that.

Give and take, to specific performance people want to achieve.

Why people take laser vomit over ACs, despite being hot? Or why do people take ACs over Laser vomit despite having to lead projectiles? If anything, you need to stop.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 July 2017 - 06:53 AM, said:

An ATM9 is the same tonnage as 2 ASRM6, so you should have 4 tons of ammo depending on whether you want to bother with JJs or not. KFX-PRIME

If i want to take a non-ECM missile-boat light, i'd take an adder.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 July 2017 - 06:53 AM, said:

12 v 12 also doesn't magically increase ammo needed either. If it does, it isn't by much, because guess what, the enemy isn't alone in having 4 more people and the more people on the field the less carrying you will see.

Surely better than doing only 432 damage max. And then you have to account for mid-range and long-range use.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 July 2017 - 06:53 AM, said:

Yes, and you don't get close to do it, that's a pretty key thing for doing flanks in lights especially is to always keep some distance so that you can get away safely. If you are walking to within 100m of a mech, more often than not, you are committed at that point which means trying to run only gets you shot in the rear. That's why SRMs are pretty much jokes for "hit-and-run" mechs because they don't have the range to actually do that.

Except 270m means they do. But even if i give that to you, that just falls on the ATM being able to deal with above 270m, which isn't really relevant.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 July 2017 - 06:53 AM, said:

Again, fringe roles isn't good enough lest we have all but one missile system be fringe use.

Again, problem of the SRMs above close range, it's irrelevant to our topic. Since we're comparing ATMs vs SRMs at close range.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 July 2017 - 06:53 AM, said:

That's if you hit with all those missiles at 270. One of these weapons is hitscan, one of these is a 400m/s projectile with inherent spread....if you can't tell why the ERSL does more efficient damage at 270m then I don't know what to tell you, I guess us comp players have no idea what we are talking about .

Considering that you're doing 36 heat, for 33.75 damage for 1.8s that can be torso twisted, and unless you want excess heat you partition 12 ERSLs and if you think 1.8s is not long for a laser duration, 1.5s of C-ERLL made it bad and it can do long range. Versus SRM24a 51.6 damage for 24 heat, that is blasted out in an instant. Yes not every mech has good convergence like the HBK-IIC-B, but isn't hardpoint and hit-box difference kind of why there are meta builds? That some builds on some mechs are not meta? Lasers may be hitscan yes, but that just assist with the ease of use. Considering veterans, which you are, comp people would be, they should have amassed enough experience playing the game, and have enough skill to compensate with SRMs' volley.

Oh please, you're comp person therefore you're right? Comp people can't make mistakes? Can't get heads up their asses? All I've been doing is being reasonable with you, but you gotta pull this ****.

But you know what, we're done. You win. Even if you say C-SPL for 800m sniping, cool whatever you say.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 07 July 2017 - 02:52 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Deathpig, on 07 July 2017 - 12:38 PM, said:

So like... the entire IS large laser family?

Other than LPLs there hasn't been any use for IS large lasers since the 5 LL Stalker (which was uber quirked).

Also completely apples to oranges.

What keeps making me face palm is the number of people who don't get that a 75 ton mech with a 120 point brawling alpha that's reasonably heat sustainable is totally okay 'because it spreads damage'. The Scorch, which is part of why the MAD IIC got nerfed to absolute immobility, has an 88 pt alpha with vastly more spread, worse heat and shorter range and is still a beast up close. ATMs that do 3 points from 0 to 270m would pretty effectively be the whole point and focus of the game; every build would be around either exploiting that or trying to avoid it. It would make them stupidly, utterly broken - or more to the point mean that everyone takes AMS all the time until nobody bothers to use them.

If you buff SRMs to compete with that much firepower you're just breaking the game twice. You've got a locking weapon that can do some sort of damage out to long range and then the best damage delivery in the game from mid up to brawl, and due to locking stacks just great with ballistics (and even energy, if you can manage the heat).

Fortunately this is the same sort of argument like 'we should just make the Clans like TT, totally OP and play 10 v 12' sort of argument that, in addition to being divorced from reality is not something PGI would ever make the mistake of doing.

Whatever else I can say about PGI I just don't see them making that sort of mistake, like 3 damage ATMs up to point blank.

The real question is will they give them the buff vs AMS and some sort of damage inside 120m to make them really and truly viable from pug queue to comp play that would have something from the whole Civil War update that's actually worth taking over existing tech (aside from LFE, HMG and some narrow niche stuff for stealth armor and rockets). Because MRMs, Heavy Lasers, the new PPC and Gauss, RACs? Unless they hit live reasonably different from what we saw in the PTS they're going on the same shelf with LB 5X and IS smalls/SPLs. Most of them are less viable than LRMs and that's a serious statement.

[Khobai]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 July 2017 - 01:36 PM, said:

They should be lock-on, and honestly despite how MRMs are in TT, so should they. Missiles that are just direct fire weapons just seems silly to me, especially when there is a line of ballistics that are meant to do the exact same thing (even if not nearly as good or as strong).

MRMs arnt just direct fire anymore. they follow the reticle now.

which makes them semi-guided unlike SRMs which are unguided. kindve weird because SRMs should be guided and MRMs shouldnt be guided at all. MRMs are just dumbfire rockets.

And MRMs following the reticle is a small nerf since you cant torso twist after firing them. But its not a big nerf because you had to wait for them to all stream out before you could torso twist anyway.

Edited by Khobai, 07 July 2017 - 07:21 PM.

[Deathpig]

Then why bother adding them in the game in the first place? So they can be worse than LRMs in long range and sort of slightly better inside this really narrow window that's impractical in real circumstances to maintain, and then utterly useless up close?

As for the Scorch and your Orion IIc, you can-- RIGHT NOW-- make an Orion IIc that has an Ultra 10 and 4 LRM20s. That's *100!* 'alpha.' This 'Mech should, by your description, absolutely devastate small countries. How come it's not dominating the meta? It can leverage it's full damage potential at a SIGNIFICANTLY greater range than an ATM 'Mech could. You could scale it down to ALRM 15s (only 80 alpha, but at double the range of the Scorch) if the tighter grouping is a real concern in 'mid-range' fighting.

Why isn't this already meta if it's so powerful?

[Tesunie]

I'm mostly trying to maintain responses only to comments directed at me, or that I think I have something to add. As we keep going mostly in circles, I see no real reason to continue. We aren't going to change each other's minds, and PGI will do what they will do.

However, I would like to see people post on things that everyone seems to agree on in relation to ATMs. One aspect that we all agree on, if even in different ways on how to solve it, seems to be that the hard minimum range needs to go. How or why seems up to heated debate, but is this something we all actually do agree on? (I'm talking the hard "no damage" minimum range being removed. Not necessarily all forms of minimum range.)

Puresin, on 06 July 2017 - 10:55 AM, said:

It's time to make the clans clan and IS the IS.

I'm sorry... but NO.

This is a video game, not live war. In live war, you would be completely correct. However, as this is a game, we need some semblance of balance between the two sides. If you defend this with "give IS more mechs over Clan teams", that wouldn't address how MM works, and the MM system in this game can't create matches with uneven teams, as then any form of actual MM (besides complete random) would not work, or not well at any rate.

Even if I don't believe it to be true (at least not without testing it personally and seeing if it is true), there has been some very good points presented in favor of making sure ATMs don't out perform SRMs when actually up close. Some form of minimum range will probably be needed for that to work (via their theory).

Though I may disagree with them on how SRMs and ATMs will develop a relation with each other, I'm not going to ignore their perspective when they present reasonable evidence to support their claim. I may disagree with the interpretation of said evidence, but it's reasonable none the less.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 July 2017 - 10:59 AM, said:

They had worse damage, but even if they had better damage values, the main problem was the 55m difference in optimal ranges. cSPL were able to get away with 165m optimal because of their insane damage capabilities that you could justify it well enough.


Not sure where you got that SRMs are considered strong in comp play, brawling pretty much disappeared with the cSPL nerf. SRMs just aren't reliable enough to replace mechs like the 10 cSPL Nova of old.


The advantage of being more useful at range is more important at least for a majority of comp scenarios because 110m optimal range is extremely limiting.

I've actually have played some Comp play before. The enemy team often would brawl with SRMs and/or CERSL/CSPL if they were set up to brawl. Maybe it has shifted since then, but I've seen SRM builds as highly ranked builds in what comp play I've seen. So I highly doubt what you say is completely true. It appears from what I've seen that SRMs are very much in the "meta" of this game. Just like the Huntsmen is ranked very highly on the Meta Mech chart last I was aware.

Of course, the meta being what it is, is always likely to change at the slightest shift... So maybe current meta has shifted away from SRMs for the moment.

Steinkrieg, on 06 July 2017 - 11:02 AM, said:

I switched from 7 SSRM4 + 2 ERMLAS to the 8 SRM6 build. Sure, my fluff damage was better in the Streak boat, but I could not kill heavies and assaults efficiently. Why? S-P-R-E-A-D on the SSRMs. Two weeks ago, a unit mate and I got into a brawl with a King Crab and a Thunderbolt in a corner of Grim Plexis when we tried a wide flank push. The plan was to got light mech hunting. He was on a splat Jenner IIC and I was on the Streak boat Huntsman. I put out over 600 damage against those two mechs, but my unit mate got both of the kills. Sure, I helped open up the armor for his targeted shots, but the fight lasted about two minutes instead of the 30 seconds it would have if my load out had been 8 SRM6.

The same thing will happen with ATMs vs SRMs.

By the way, if you like Huntsman, you should try my brawl build out. UAC20, 4 ERSLAS, 3 SRM6. It's nasty as all hell.

Though I won't disagree about the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of SSRMs... I never mentioned SSRMs in the section you quoted... So I'm not all too certain as to why you mentioned SSRMs...

ATMs do have some advantages (and disadvantages) vs SSRMs. ATMs grouping will be more center of mass (much like LRMs), where as SSRMs will spread based on locking random components of the mech. So SSRMs often are more spread than ATMs are. However SSRMs move faster and turn better, so they can hit their target more often, especially if it's a fast mech. Also, currently as of last testing, SSRMs also was less effected by AMS, compared to ATMs.


Personally, I kinda like my 4 MPLs and a LPL Huntsmen build. I haven't made a smurfy for the build yet, but it can hit hard. I still seem to out perform it with my LRM Huntsmen though, but I think that's because of the tactics I use as well as better ability to pace myself... Your AC20 build looks like it may run hot, at least to someone not familiar with the build.

[MischiefSC]

Deathpig, on 07 July 2017 - 07:45 PM, said:

Then why bother adding them in the game in the first place? So they can be worse than LRMs in long range and sort of slightly better inside this really narrow window that's impractical in real circumstances to maintain, and then utterly useless up close?

As for the Scorch and your Orion IIc, you can-- RIGHT NOW-- make an Orion IIc that has an Ultra 10 and 4 LRM20s. That's *100!* 'alpha.' This 'Mech should, by your description, absolutely devastate small countries. How come it's not dominating the meta? It can leverage it's full damage potential at a SIGNIFICANTLY greater range than an ATM 'Mech could. You could scale it down to ALRM 15s (only 80 alpha, but at double the range of the Scorch) if the tighter grouping is a real concern in 'mid-range' fighting.

Why isn't this already meta if it's so powerful?

Because LRMs have a firing arc and... wait for it...

almost no damage inside 180m. Way less than even 1 damage/missile.

If LRMs had a flat trajectory (making them faster) and full damage inside 180m they would be more useful.

ATMs would still be superior. Why you ask?

Because LRMs deliver their damage in 1 point increments, which creates a wider spread. ATMs deliver it in 3 pt increments with fewer total missiles. The result is that the damage is way more concentrated.

For example take a look at the video AngrySpartan put up of some of the test matches he and I ran. See the LRM vs ATM test match at ~300m? The one where I did 599 damage to him, reducing him to just a bit of structure on half his mech? See how my mech hadn't even had barely had its armor breached on one side? Or, well, any of the matches involving LRMs at all? See how the ATMs just *dissolved* hit mech from 120-300m while his LRMs (with Artemis mind you and line of sight) just spattered armor damage on me?

Did you see the SRM vs ATM matches? With Orion IICs? The mech with ATMs just needed 2 hits to leave the SRM Orion half-dead before it even got to SRM range and even at SRM range, SRMs still need aimed - independently of the ballistics and lasers, where ATMs didn't. Whichever of us at the ATMs didn't really need to 'twist' other than in response to the other shooting, we could just aim the direct fire weapons and hold down the ATMs, which would always deliver the bulk of their (massive) payload, even at 300m (or more if you don't mind the lost damage/shot).

Here's the difference. I actually tested ATMs a whole bunch in 4 v 4 matches and then specifically with people in 1 v 1 matches in the exact same mech just trading ATMs for SRMs/LRMs. ATMs always won from 120m to 350m. When you get closer to 500m or more the LRMs win, if you could get into 120m (for example I managed it, barely, with a fully survival specced Roughneck and we agreed to not shoot until 300m) with SRMs you can win but even that wasn't easy.

If ATMs had 3 damage inside 120m it would be stupidly OP. Hell, you give me 3 damage ATMs inside 120m and they can keep the low health vs AMS - they're a better brawling weapon than SRMs overall because of the increased accuracy (while still getting most missiles to target) at mid range, at least on bigger heavies and assaults.

If you give ATMs what they really need, more health and ideally a velocity boost, then they need some viability inside 120m but less than SRMs have.

If the PTS was still up I'd say let's go drop matches and you can take SRMs or LRMs or whatever and I'll show you what that roflstomping looks like again, for you, like everyone else who actually tested it saw. Barring that I'm happy to wait until they come live and I'll show you. Because your armchair ignoring the math (120 damage alpha at 300m or less with no deadzone is OP AF) doesn't compete with actually showing it.

[Deathpig]

Fair enough, but I've seen movies of ATMs sucking in actual 4v4s, I've seen them screwed by ECM, and I've seen your examples of doing well.

This entire update seems like a giant waste of time to me, TBH.

[Khobai]

Quote

If ATMs had 3 damage inside 120m it would be stupidly OP.

Yeah 3 damage is a bit much.

I compared an ATM9 to x2 SRM6+A and x1 LRM20 since theyre all 5 tons.

The numbers I got for where ATM damage should be is 2.3/2.2/1.9 for short/med/long in order to be viable in all three range bands without being better than SRMs at short or better than LRMs at long. Thats also assuming no min range.

Honestly they could probably even just dump the whole variable damage mechanic and just make ATMs do a flat 2.1 damage at all ranges and they would be fine.

Edited by Khobai, 08 July 2017 - 04:38 AM.

[MischiefSC]

I would rather ATMs do lower damage at 0-120m and peak damage at 270m, then fall off again out to 810m. That's going to make them primarily a mid range wrapon. If damage peaks at brawling then you're talking about SRMs I can use put to mid range, that lock but are not as focused and a bit heavier than SRMs.

I would love ramping 1 at 0m up to 2.7 or so at 270, then down to 0 at 810m.

If the damage is just 2 then they're too hot and heavy IMO. They need a brutal "sweet spot" to be worth it.

Also, again, they gotta have more health. Without that then ATM just becomes AMS Tax Mandate.

With a minimum range and useless vs AMS they are not a "serious" weapon, like LRMs. Just a spud farming tool.

[Rusharn]

Reducing the weapon's damage at this point, with or without the minimum range, would regulate the ATM's as entirely useless. The weapon system has problems engaging any mech moving faster that 90 - 95 kph. Reduction of the damage would just make it as equally useless against slower more lumbering targets as ATM's performance is already very inconsistent when you have to account for terrain, ECM, AMS, and Stealth.

[MischiefSC]

Rusharn, on 08 July 2017 - 08:10 AM, said:

Reducing the weapon's damage at this point, with or without the minimum range, would regulate the ATM's as entirely useless. The weapon system has problems engaging any mech moving faster that 90 - 95 kph. Reduction of the damage would just make it as equally useless against slower more lumbering targets as ATM's performance is already very inconsistent when you have to account for terrain, ECM, AMS, and Stealth.

Had no issue at all vs fast mechs, no more than any/every weapon does. As a plus the missiles pick legs more often on fast mechs.

However fast mechs give up a lot for speed because ideally speed = armor in a lot of ways. No issue with fast mechs avoiding damage from locking weapons - otherwise toy screw lights even more.

None of which means they should have an insane brawling alpha.

[Tesunie]

MischiefSC, on 08 July 2017 - 07:04 AM, said:

I would rather ATMs do lower damage at 0-120m and peak damage at 270m, then fall off again out to 810m. That's going to make them primarily a mid range wrapon. If damage peaks at brawling then you're talking about SRMs I can use put to mid range, that lock but are not as focused and a bit heavier than SRMs.

I would love ramping 1 at 0m up to 2.7 or so at 270, then down to 0 at 810m.

If the damage is just 2 then they're too hot and heavy IMO. They need a brutal "sweet spot" to be worth it.

Also, again, they gotta have more health. Without that then ATM just becomes AMS Tax Mandate.

This sounds like another reasonable middle ground proposal. I could agree with this, as it follows with what ATMs are suppose to be, effective at all ranges, but not king of any specific range.

[The6thMessenger]

Tesunie, on 08 July 2017 - 12:58 PM, said:

This sounds like another reasonable middle ground proposal. I could agree with this, as it follows with what ATMs are suppose to be, effective at all ranges, but not king of any specific range.

Eh, again i'd remove the minimum range, and then just put the range distribution to 0m-180m-540m-900m.

Of course that 3 damage/missile at close range is still an insane amount of alpha when massed. So we could probably just retain the range distribution, but remove the minimum range, and redistribute damage to 2.4/2.0/1.6.

[MischiefSC]

I would say scale 1pt from 0 to 120 or even 270m, where it's like 2.7, then scale out to 0 at 810m.

That leaves SRMs relevant. If ATMs are max damage point blank then you've got a good brawling weapon you can still use out to long range, which just makes it flat out better than SRMs, which are lighter but max out at 270m and are only useful at point blank. This would make ATMs as good or better than SRMs to brawl, plus useful out to long range.

Quit trying to make Super-SRMs. The focus needs to be mid range and if someone gets in close with SRMs they should clearly wreck you.

[The6thMessenger]

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 01:54 PM, said:

I would say scale 1pt from 0 to 120 or even 270m, where it's like 2.7, then scale out to 0 at 810m.

That leaves SRMs relevant. If ATMs are max damage point blank then you've got a good brawling weapon you can still use out to long range, which just makes it flat out better than SRMs, which are lighter but max out at 270m and are only useful at point blank. This would make ATMs as good or better than SRMs to brawl, plus useful out to long range.

Quit trying to make Super-SRMs. The focus needs to be mid range and if someone gets in close with SRMs they should clearly wreck you.

It's not even a good brawling weapon right now, even if we remove minimum range. Lock and stream-fire would just jeopardize an ATM user. No, just no.

[Tesunie]

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 01:54 PM, said:

Quit trying to make Super-SRMs. The focus needs to be mid range and if someone gets in close with SRMs they should clearly wreck you.

The6thMessenger, on 09 July 2017 - 02:27 PM, said:

It's not even a good brawling weapon right now, even if we remove minimum range. Lock and stream-fire would just jeopardize an ATM user. No, just no.

I liked each of your posts, because each of you are correct. ATMs have the potential of being stronger than SRMs at point blank range, but I also feel that they currently (excluding minimum range for the debate) have enough differences to let SRMs remain more potent than ATMs when up very close.


However, something I did feel needed to be mentioned with that, I don't believe SRMs should "clearly wreck" someone with ATMs in a brawl, but the SRMs should have some advantage to make it better in a brawl. (AKA: It doesn't have to be literally one sided engagement, but it should favor at least to some marginal extent a specialist weapon within it's specialty.) There are many ways to solve this, a soft minimum range is but a single option out of many tools we can choose from. It's also probably the easiest tool to use as well.

SRMs should have their place, but so should ATMs. ATMs can't be so drastically out performed by all other missiles or they will be useless. At the same time, they can't out perform all other missiles drastically either or they become the "king of missiles". Some middle ground needs to be reached between the two states, and right now we all feel this is lacking in some manner.

Edited by Tesunie, 09 July 2017 - 02:52 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Tesunie, on 09 July 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

I liked each of your posts, because each of you are correct. ATMs have the potential of being stronger than SRMs at point blank range, but I also feel that they currently (excluding minimum range for the debate) have enough differences to let SRMs remain more potent than ATMs when up very close.


However, something I did feel needed to be mentioned with that, I don't believe SRMs should "clearly wreck" someone with ATMs in a brawl, but the SRMs should have some advantage to make it better in a brawl. (AKA: It doesn't have to be literally one sided engagement, but it should favor at least to some marginal extent a specialist weapon within it's specialty.) There are many ways to solve this, a soft minimum range is but a single option out of many tools we can choose from. It's also probably the easiest tool to use as well.

SRMs should have their place, but so should ATMs. ATMs can't be so drastically out performed by all other missiles or they will be useless. At the same time, they can't out perform all other missiles drastically either or they become the "king of missiles". Some middle ground needs to be reached between the two states, and right now we all feel this is lacking in some manner.

This, really. Right now, LRM's are simply.better in almost all circumstances, and good knows how people wail at how bad LRM's are. Man, all the people who cried about how bad my lrm/ersl brawler was.

And yet, outside of a narrow window, ATM's are objectively worse - worse than LRM's at mid range, long range, and even very close range - they're only better then LRM's or SRM's in a very narrow window. And they're only better in that window by a very little bit.

Meanwhile, they have all the disadvantages of LRM's, all the reasons people say LRM's are bad. Now, I'm totally willing to admit I'm wholly wrong, but I just can't grok the ATM fear from people who mock LRM's so hard.