677 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

MischiefSC, on 10 July 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

No, they said the artemis clustering is what they're going to actually have. That's why they said to test everything with Artemis on; that's going to be the clustering for MRMs, Rockets and ATMs will have.

No the bonus was being applied twice. Because it was already built-in to the profile of ATMs but then you could take artemis and get double the effect. The spread is definitely going to be wider when the patch goes live.

"Artemis upgrade no longer improperly applies a bonus to MRM's, ATM's, and Rocket Launchers."

https://mwomercs.com...r-3pm-29jun2017

Edited by Khobai, 10 July 2017 - 02:08 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

MischiefSC, on 10 July 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

No, they said the artemis clustering is what they're going to actually have. That's why they said to test everything with Artemis on; that's going to be the clustering for MRMs, Rockets and ATMs will have.

Oh you didn't know? Artemis upgrade was NOT supposed to work on the ATMs, Rocket Launchers, and MRMs. But seeing that they are not going to fix it on the PTS, they simply increased the spread to account for the Artemis upgrade, for their target spread. That's why they encouraged the use of the Artemis, cause they "nerfed" them.

MischiefSC, on 10 July 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

Going to stop arguing the rest of it. Will go with 'I'll show you how you're wrong on the live server in actual practice' because currently we've go people pointing out the reality of how the game actually plays (thanks Quicksilver et al) and then the actual video recorded test matches (thanks AngrySpartan) which make the details I've been arguing pretty clear, which isn't enough for the unsupported armchair theorizing that is exactly like the LRM armchair theorizing ('They would dominate in comp if you just play them right').

We'll see what comes out in live, then we will put together some reasonable ways to test how LRMs and SRMs would compete with ATMs with the values suggested, we'll test it and when I prove (again, like I did on the PTS already) that it plays out like I've said, tested and shown already that it will, you guys can come up for new excuses why 'that test doesn't count because, err, the sun was in my eyes' or whatever it's going to be.

What, it's impossible for comp people to be wrong? Is QK the ultimate word? Is he god? Do you know what Argument from Authority Fallacy is? You give him such power, he could even say that he could snipe from 800m away with C-SPL, but would he be right? What about we judge the merits of the arguments on it's own, not by the one who gives them.

Also, you do know that you can make any weapon system shine, by using it right, right? Why the **** would ATMs be even an exception?

Wrong on what account? That ATM is worse than SRMs? My position is that SRMs are better at short-range that is it, of course it will dominate SRMs cause it has better range come on.

What video? This video?



Hell, you even gave the MDD so much freebies. He was shut-down and you have a clear shot, what do you do? you wait. He was running, what do you do, you stare him down. Hell look at your damage distribution even, you got cored, incoming ATMs you just stared right at him. Your aim is also terrible, you keep pulling to the right (left of the MDD). And guess what, that was not a brawl, that's just another might-as-well-have-been-a-lurm-boat running for his life, and a predator playing with his food. And the SRMs still won, not sure where you're going there but your own video just proved you wrong.

Oh you mean this thing?



Well here's the problem, not really a fair fight when the orion is 10-tons heavier and brought uac10. But hell, he was only able to shoot the ATMs once, and not even on brawling distance. Hell it was only won by his UAC10, a large part of the game the ATMs are not even used.

Don't you ******* lie, your videos proved nothing of the sort. SRMs still worked better at close range.

If you really wanna prove that ATM is better close range, then just use it close range where SRMs can compete with it. Because if you're using it outside of it's range already, you're not out-brawling it, you're out ranging it, no different than every other weapon in the game.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 11 July 2017 - 02:15 AM.

[Kaio Pryde]

ATMs just need what it was designed with, ammo switching, without ammo switching it is nothing more than another LRM launcher with some gimmicks added to it.

[MischiefSC]

I waited because we were testing weapon effectiveness and plowing a shut down mech wasn't useful.

His ping was 200 higher than mine, so I'm not aiming to his left, I'm aiming right at him. The damage distribution was all over because missiles - the point being they did enough to destroy him easily.

As I said from post 1, ATMs shouldn't be a boating weapon. Instead a great use of a missile hardpoint in concert with direct fire. It was awesome to be able to just aim direct fire and hold down the (staggered to avoid ghost heat) missile button for the missiles and the just did the damage.

I stared because I didn't have to twist - I rarely lost enough armor to make it worth reducing DPS to twist off and back.

The Orion won. And that's with getting close to begin with and him inside minimum range - still destroyed him, even 1 on 1, with min range, I was able to smash him so hard with 2 volleys that the UAC and MLs were enough to just burn him down.

We ran MDD vs Orion because he didn't have an SRM Orion ready.

However I'm absolutely happy to repeat it and smash you in a match after it drops, you take an SRM Orion and I'll take the ATM one.

[Rusharn]

So not only is your test already rife with flaws, you conducted it with someone running a 200 ping? That is less than an optimal condition to test any weapon system, and this is your irrefutable test showing the power of the doom ATM launcher? If they don't change the weapons characteristics then I'll see you crying on the field where one overloaded AMS or LAMS can stop all your launchers.

[The6thMessenger]

MischiefSC, on 12 July 2017 - 08:48 AM, said:

I waited because we were testing weapon effectiveness and plowing a shut down mech wasn't useful.

What, you think people in a brawl just waits for their enemy when they shutdown? Come on.

MischiefSC, on 12 July 2017 - 08:48 AM, said:

As I said from post 1, ATMs shouldn't be a boating weapon. Instead a great use of a missile hardpoint in concert with direct fire. It was awesome to be able to just aim direct fire and hold down the (staggered to avoid ghost heat) missile button for the missiles and the just did the damage.

And you think that's fair? We're trying to compare SRMs' performance short range vs ATMs'. But you know what, okay lets add ballistic weapon into the equation.

But then it's still not fair as the Mad Dog didn't have a UAC10 which comprises a good amount of firepower. What would have been fair is a UAC10 + 2x ATM9 vs UAC10 + 4x SRM6A, that way the only difference is the ATMs, we can isolate it's effects.

You didn't highlighted the power of ATMs over SRMs, no you just highlighted what wonders extra tonnage could get you in a brawl. I could do the same with a Dakka Kodiak vs Dakka Night Gyr.

MischiefSC, on 12 July 2017 - 08:48 AM, said:

I stared because I didn't have to twist - I rarely lost enough armor to make it worth reducing DPS to twist off and back.

Lol, that reference was at 0:52, where there was 156m distance between the two, or would have been the 3 missile/damage. Are you sure that ATMs are really that powerful at close range? cause you're more than willing to stare down 72 damage's worth.

MischiefSC, on 12 July 2017 - 08:48 AM, said:

The Orion won. And that's with getting close to begin with and him inside minimum range - still destroyed him, even 1 on 1, with min range, I was able to smash him so hard with 2 volleys that the UAC and MLs were enough to just burn him down.

Oh please other weapons are also enough to burn him down given enough time, and with armor differences it would have been plenty of time. Of course you were also using your UAC10s and ERML on those 2 volleys, accounting for 38.4% of the damage, and then we get to the difference of equivalent loadout tonnage, UAC10 is 10 tons + 15 tons of 3x ATMs + 2 ML, versus 10 tons of 4x SRMs + 4t of 4x SPLs , and mech armor.

We also get to the fact that you were using those weapons well before the SRMs were in range. Orion didn't out-brawled the Mad Dog, it out-ranged it.

Don't kid yourself, ATM's not that special there. Had it not been an Orion but a mad-dog as an ATM boat, the SRMs would have won.

MischiefSC, on 12 July 2017 - 08:48 AM, said:

We ran MDD vs Orion because he didn't have an SRM Orion ready.

PTS environment has lots of cash, GXP and MC. Don't you dare excuse yourself off this one.

MischiefSC, on 12 July 2017 - 08:48 AM, said:

However I'm absolutely happy to repeat it and smash you in a match after it drops, you take an SRM Orion and I'll take the ATM one.

As long as similar mech, SRM boat vs ATM boat, limited contact at 270m, sure.

And before you whine about wanting different mech with different tonnage rating, and call me out. No, we have to make the mechs in the experiment as similar as it could get, as to isolate the effects of the ATM to really know if ATM is the deciding factor. That's how experiments work.

Rusharn, on 12 July 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

So not only is your test already rife with flaws, you conducted it with someone running a 200 ping?

Now i think about it, maybe even me fighting him wouldn't be a definitive test. I'm a native to Oceanic, so i have 230 Ping on N.A servers.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 12 July 2017 - 02:37 PM.

[DaManBearPig]

Oblitum Infernos, on 29 June 2017 - 11:49 AM, said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree completely with this
Hopefully PGI sees this

[MischiefSC]

He made a mistake and overheated. That's not indicative of weapon performance, it was a one-off pilot error. Exploiting it would have accomplished nothing in terms of testing weapon balance.

We were talking in chat in the private lobby - it was 330 am where I was, we were both tired and didn't want to spend 5 more minutes building mechs, had already done it for 30 minutes before we started. We did test ATM MD vs SRM MD - the need to account for the 120m minimum range made the match debatable for value. Also the point of ATMs in the theory being tested was that they're an addition to direct fire, not just a SRM replacement. A test based on builds other than what you would really play are not useful. For giggles we also ran the SRM/LBX Scorch vs a UAC/ATM Scorch. Was also one-sided.

The ping isn't that big a deal for a duel. Hoststate rewind and all.

I didn't have to twist because I was trading 120 damage for 72 damage. To manage heat there's also some stagger fire going on. Still worth it due to the huge damage output.

When the patch goes live I'll take a ATM Orion vs your SRM Orion and I'll destroy you, unless the made some significant balance changes.

[The6thMessenger]

MischiefSC, on 12 July 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

He made a mistake and overheated. That's not indicative of weapon performance, it was a one-off pilot error. Exploiting it would have accomplished nothing in terms of testing weapon balance.

And taking advantage of pilot error is part of your average brawling scene. That's why we use heat efficient weapons. Hell, we have flamers for ****'s sake -- heat is part of the game, you have to take account for it.

If ATMs come off hot like that (to be fair C-ERMLs were the one making it overheat), then it just lost points for trying to out-brawl SRMs.

MischiefSC, on 12 July 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

We were talking in chat in the private lobby - it was 330 am where I was, we were both tired and didn't want to spend 5 more minutes building mechs, had already done it for 30 minutes before we started. We did test ATM MD vs SRM MD - the need to account for the 120m minimum range made the match debatable for value. Also the point of ATMs in the theory being tested was that they're an addition to direct fire, not just a SRM replacement. A test based on builds other than what you would really play are not useful. For giggles we also ran the SRM/LBX Scorch vs a UAC/ATM Scorch. Was also one-sided.

Still made your test invalid -- do you know what is Test Validity? What experiment you conducted is not measuring what it's supposed to measure, all you did is waddled out for ****'s and giggles. And that's on the both of you regardless, being lazy is no excuse.

So your build is -- obviously -- for mid-range engagement instead? All this time you calibrated your builds not for brawling? Not for out-brawling with SRMs but out-ranging them. If it's not a replacement for short range combat, since it obviously suck at it, then it's not better over SRMs at close range, exactly the point i was making several posts ago. ATMs are not brawling weapons, they don't excel at close range combat over SRMs. And again, if you're battering SRMs way above their range, you're not out-brawling them, you are out-ranging them.

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

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.

Don't make me laugh. It just gives you the edge on range, but less to close-range combat. If you think you're building a brawler out of ATMs, no it's not a brawler. It' just an ATM boat that's not as screwed by close-range as LRMs are.

MischiefSC, on 12 July 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

I didn't have to twist because I was trading 120 damage for 72 damage.

Lol no, your alpha is 61.6 with AC10 + 4x SRM6A. Even then, yes you have to torso twist to maximize your durability, as every other brawlers do torso twist and maximize their durability. After all, it's not just 1v1 on QP, there's 12 enemies, so a brawler must maximize his durability so he could efficiently deal with the other enemies. Haven't you ever played as a brawler before? If you don't want people thinking that you don't really know what you're talking about, then don't talk as if you don't know what you're talking about. Jesus.

What kind of tests were you doing, just seeing how fun they are? Because that's not representative of what's supposed to happen outside of the PTS.

MischiefSC, on 12 July 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

When the patch goes live I'll take a ATM Orion vs your SRM Orion and I'll destroy you, unless the made some significant balance changes.

You have TBR instead? I don't have an Orion. I could buy one, but I have to make time and master it.

Also I'm gonna show you how to properly brawl.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 12 July 2017 - 06:39 PM.

[Tesunie]

MischiefSC, on 12 July 2017 - 08:48 AM, said:

As I said from post 1, ATMs shouldn't be a boating weapon. Instead a great use of a missile hardpoint in concert with direct fire. It was awesome to be able to just aim direct fire and hold down the (staggered to avoid ghost heat) missile button for the missiles and the just did the damage.

So, you used basically the same exact abilities as I do with my LRM mechs which mix LRMs with other direct fire weapons, with a weapon system that weighs more, takes more crits, has longer cooldowns, same or larger spread, shoots out fewer missiles (making it more susceptible to AMS), etc... and you find that it would be too powerful where as my builds are a laugh and a joke?

I'm sorry. I'm hard pressed to take this seriously, unless someone re-evaluates their consideration on LRM's usefulness. You literally are totting the same exact concepts I've been doing for some time now in live games just with ATMs instead of LRMs and you are claiming it as OP (or of fearing it may become OP). And the only real difference between the two is angle the missiles shoot at (to be mostly fair). I don't believe that the flatter movement profile of ATMs make them that much better over LRMs.

Remind me again what it is that makes LRMs "one of the worst weapons in the game" again? Wasn't it something about dependency on locks? Large spread? Stare time? Slow travel speeds, missile velocity? ATMs have all that, with the penalty of not being able to indirect fire as easily. So I'm not certain what it is you feel is making ATMs more powerful at the mid range envelop over LRMs.

Then, for close up, we've already shown that SRMs will still have what appears to be some rather significant advantages over ATMs, even if minimum range was altered somehow.


Although, we all still agree that the hard minimum range needs to be removed, and maybe some other aspects shifted with ATMs. I'm just wanting to point out that you've bashed me for my mixed LRM builds, but that now you seem to claim it's good for ATMs for much the same reasons I see it being a good strategy for LRMs.

MischiefSC, on 12 July 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

For giggles we also ran the SRM/LBX Scorch vs a UAC/ATM Scorch. Was also one-sided.

As 6thmessanger has mentioned, you should have builds where the only difference are the ATMs if your test is about ATMs. LBx vs UACs? That's a large deviation from your testing weapons. Those are now completely two different builds.

Here, I'm going to have to agree with 6thmessanger. It shouldn't have been too hard to have that Orion copy/pasted from one player to another (right down to the exact armor distribution even) on the test servers. We all had more than enough of anything we would need to test it. Could have even played them without skills, just for added simplicity. Then, the only difference (besides familiarity with the build) would have been the missiles. One test with LRMs, one with SRMs each time vs the ATMs. Direct replacement of the missile systems only.

Anything else, and it's honestly going to give you contaminated results.

Not to mention, we can't accurately test SRMs vs ATMs, because SRMs like to get as close as possible, and ATMs have that minimum range right now. SRMs would want to operate inside that minimum, and would be harmed by not being able to do so. Very much like any test 1v1 with LRMs will negate a portion of the LRM potential, as they will rarely if ever get any indirect shots in those engagements.


Did anyone do any tests with SRMs, ATMs and LRMs vs AMS? At different ranges? That could have been another aspect for consideration as far as balancing the missiles. Would ATMs out perform SRMs at closer ranges still if AMS was involved? How about with LRMs vs ATMs with AMS involved? How does that alter the balance of the weapons?

[Tesunie]

I wanted to add, do not get me wrong. I agree that there is a chance that a no minimum range 3 damage per missile ATM has the potential to be a balancing issue, and could possibly play negatively towards SRM balance. I would rather be able to test this myself, but as we are stuck at whatever PGI decides to do instead, we can't seem to go about testing such a possibility.

I seek balance for the weapon system, while having it provide a reasonable void that missiles have been lacking for a while. I'm not looking for a king missile to take above all other choices, but I would love to have a multi-ranged missile that can "hold it's own" at any range without being a master of any specific thing. Yes, that means I want ATMs to still remain useful in a brawl (as it should be) even if not optimal. I also want it to remain useful at long range, even if it's not optimal there.

ATMs should fill in where LRMs and SRMs tend to slack a bit, very much like what I want MRMs to do. We've long been hurting for missiles that work well within a more flexible engagement range. Right now (without ATMs), we have SRMs for brutally short range, and LRMs for mid to long range and indirect. There is no missile to cover the gap between mid and "brutally short" ranges very well right now. ATMs should be that missile, which can operate at those "any ranges", without being better than things that specialize in it.

(Just saying, so my position is clear.)

[KursedVixen]

Well that basically nullifies any use of the atms within the HE range of 0 the ATM was suppose to work within 0-9 hexes with HE ammo.

[Duvanor]

Hmm, looks like they killed ATM.

Damage 2 according to patch notes and optimum range still 270m.

90 Missiles per ton, speed 200 and a tighter spread are all fine, but 2 damage up to 270m and then... something less. And still 120m minimum range.

[ChapeL]

https://mwomercs.com...ll-off-weapons/

[Duvanor]

Yeah, saw it already, but thanks. That's a lot better. If they made the missiles a bit more durable ATMs should be a solid weapon choice.

[Tesunie]

I don't see anything that says ATMs deal damage within minimum range, do they still have a hard minimum range as far as we know? Or did I miss something?

I'd be fine with a soft minimum range for ATMs, but if it's a hard minimum I think it's still going to suffer too much.

[Duvanor]

Looks like hard minimum of 120m. Damage reduction occurs between 270m and 320m from 3 to 2 damage and between 500m and 550m from 2 to 1 damage. Nothing about damage below 120m so far. But higher missile speed and decrease of spread will probably make ATMs very dangerous.

[Tesunie]

Duvanor, on 14 July 2017 - 09:44 PM, said:

Looks like hard minimum of 120m. Damage reduction occurs between 270m and 320m from 3 to 2 damage and between 500m and 550m from 2 to 1 damage. Nothing about damage below 120m so far. But higher missile speed and decrease of spread will probably make ATMs very dangerous.

I still feel (and I could be wrong) that as long as ATMs have a hard minimum range, they probably will have a poor showing in live 12v12 combat. But, I guess we shall see, now wont we?

The slow damage ramp (up or down) between range bands makes a lot of sense actually, though it wasn't something we saw needing adjustment. Certainly a nice addition, if unexpected.

[Duvanor]

Tesunie, on 14 July 2017 - 10:41 PM, said:

I still feel (and I could be wrong) that as long as ATMs have a hard minimum range, they probably will have a poor showing in live 12v12 combat. But, I guess we shall see, now wont we?

The slow damage ramp (up or down) between range bands makes a lot of sense actually, though it wasn't something we saw needing adjustment. Certainly a nice addition, if unexpected.

I am willing to give ATMs a try. With 15% range bonus from skill nodes we can deal 3 damage per missile between 120m and 310m. That's not too bad. Thinking about a Supernova A currently. 2 ER PPCs for long range and close combat pinpoint damage to chase lights away, a laser AMS and a bunch of ATMs could be fun. But would be a very hot setup.

[Rusharn]

We'll see if the added missile velocity helps enough against AMS, but that minimum range being set at 120m is the big nerf on the weapon system. I think we will only see it the faster clan mechs such as the Shadowcat, Linebacker and Stormcrow, and on low missile hard point mechs as a secondary weapon like on the MAD-IIC-B. I am really disappointed that PGI is going to hold hard to that minimum range as it pretty much cripples the weapon for use on slower mechs.