677 replies to this topic

[Kijiro Bugboy]

Tesunie, on 20 November 2017 - 09:26 AM, said:

I'm presuming that you mean "Poptarts or light hunters"?

I'll make mention that I tend to do LRM jump shooting (with other direct fire weapons). I can do this with CLRMs as easily as I can IS LRMS. If I could get into using ATMs, I could use them there as well. Only problem I have is when the IS LRMs shoot out of a low tube count hard point, because it's slower than CLRM stream fire.

For the most part, ATMs currently in the game do decent against light mechs from my observations. One of the reasons is because they tend to (for some reason) aim and hit legs more than the rest of the mech, especially on more mobile targets.


Some of the reasons I've not been able to convince myself to change over and use ATMs over CLRMs has been weight, crit slots taken, heat produced, cooldown and hard minimum range. Overall, I've had very good luck with CLRMs, but haven't had much luck with ATMs as of yet (but I'll admit I haven't used them very much yet... I need to correct that). I just keep finding them too hot on the mechs I try them on. (I was trying for an ATM Kit Fox a short while ago with reasonable laser backups. It was too hot, something it didn't share with it's LRM counterpart test build.)

I think the main problem with LRM's right now is actually how susceptible they are to AMS. It's stupid that a 1.5 ton platform can nullify a ~7-ton platform when accounting for ammo. Right now I believe they have the same missile health as other missile weapons, and considering how much damage can be done per ATM missile and how few missiles there are for the weapon's tonnage and slottage, that simply won't suffice. Their missile health needs to be at least twice as much as other launcher types, preferably more.

Edited by Asriel Dreemur, 21 November 2017 - 09:12 AM.

[Tesunie]

Asriel Dreemur, on 21 November 2017 - 09:10 AM, said:

I think the main problem with LRM's right now is actually how susceptible they are to AMS. It's stupid that a 1.5 ton platform can nullify a ~7-ton platform when accounting for ammo. Right now I believe they have the same missile health as other missile weapons, and considering how much damage can be done per ATM missile and how few missiles there are for the weapon's tonnage and slottage, that simply won't suffice. Their missile health needs to be at least twice as much as other launcher types, preferably more.

Or, that could just be an "inherent weakness" of the system, which could be a consideration when removing the hard minimum range... Just as a thought.

Otherwise, yeah. We've been saying that ATM missile health and the systems susceptible to AMS has been an issue since it's test server iterations...


I mean, besides the small 3 damage per missile range bracket, I have as of yet to see a reason to take ATMs on my builds. For the same weight between an ATM9 and an LRM20, I can have an LRM system that shoots out more missiles (less susceptible to AMS), deals more damage on average for more range brackets, produces less heat, reloads faster, has no hard minimum range (so still reasonable if things get close)... ATMs really only shine in a small bracket of range where they do 3 damage permissile that is also outside SRM effective ranges (because SRMs produce less heat, don't ripple fire, shoot more often, is less susceptible to AMS...). Add in that hard minimum range, and it's really only good for a small bubble of maybe a couple hundred meters...? (Not sure on the exact range brackets, so I can't give exacts.)

This is why I proposed a soft minimum range. Similar to the CLRMs, where their damage will drop off within 120-90(or whatever) meters, but not just be completely ineffective like they are now... It would still keep SRMs a powerhouse up close, yet let the ATMs remain viable as an "advanced tactical missile", instead of an "alternative LRM system with only a small moderate better performance in a closer range bracket and worse performance everywhere else especially up close"...

[lazorbeamz]

ATM are fine they provide a crushing damage potential per ton

36 dmg per 7 tons is better then srm, lrm, mrm, ac, lasers. everything

Edited by lazorbeamz, 23 November 2017 - 07:24 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

lazorbeamz, on 23 November 2017 - 07:22 AM, said:

ATM are fine they provide a crushing damage potential per ton

36 dmg per 7 tons is better then srm, lrm, mrm, ac, lasers. everything

So what? SRM does 56 in 7 tons. Not to mention that 36 damage is only between 120m and 270m. I could not understand why would you even include MRMs, ACs, Lasers, and "everything", when they have discrepancies with range brackets that they are supposed to work.

The discussion is about ATM's minimum range, rooted on a supposedly "jack-of-all-trades" weapon, that would work at ALL ranges. Unfortunately we got a gimmicky LRM instead, and no not because it has damage falloff it means it's jack-of-all trades, it's one that supposed to be useful at all ranges, including short-range, and if you must know that minimum range is hampering it's usefulness close-range.

[Quandoo]

They are perfectly fine. ATM 48 Nova is the most overpowered mech right now - if played right. Had 1420 dmg currently. You have to combine ATMs with 2xAC20, it will change everything.

If you remove min range those things will be overpowerd as hell. People just dont use them right or lack the skill to do so.

If you compare LRMs to ATMs and LRMs seem to be better, then nerf LRMs since they are just anoying rookie weapons ruining proper gameplay. Move up radar deprivation up in tree and reduce lock on times by distance. The further away lurmers are, the faster they lose locks.

Edited by Quandoo, 24 November 2017 - 05:30 PM.

[Tesunie]

Quandoo, on 24 November 2017 - 05:04 PM, said:

They are perfectly fine. ATM 48 Nova is the most overpowered mech right now - if played right. Had 1420 dmg currently. You have to combine ATMs with 2xAC20, it will change everything.

So? How did you fit ATM48 AND dual AC20 (according to your post) on an Nova?

And you think LRMs should be nerfed because "(LRMs are) ruining proper gameplay"? I


I'm seeing something a little odd with your post...

[J a y]

Being in an IS unit, we target ATM boats well before we target pinpoint, LRM, or brawler mechs. Mechs like the ATM scorch, ATM supernovas, ATM nova cats, and ATM mad cat IIs are significantly more threatening than almost anything else the clan fields. Dramatically reducing or removing the minimum range on ATMs will do nothing but guarantee that they will be able to instantly kill any mech in two shots.

[Khobai]

Quote

Dramatically reducing or removing the minimum range on ATMs will do nothing but guarantee that they will be able to instantly kill any mech in two shots.

not if the damage is also reduced which is what everyone asking for no min range has been saying.

[Ghastly]

Khobai, on 27 November 2017 - 07:31 PM, said:

not if the damage is also reduced which is what everyone asking for no min range has been saying.

And even then they'll still be ridiculous. Scaling damage down linearly, for example like a lot of people are saying, means if you get a shot at a heavy's back at 100-meters, you could still potentially one-shot them. I don't think I'd ever run streak SRMs on anything ever again, if ATMs had no minimum range, scaled damage or not.

[Tesunie]

Ghastly, on 28 November 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

And even then they'll still be ridiculous. Scaling damage down linearly, for example like a lot of people are saying, means if you get a shot at a heavy's back at 100-meters, you could still potentially one-shot them. I don't think I'd ever run streak SRMs on anything ever again, if ATMs had no minimum range, scaled damage or not.

For all I care, ATMs could step down at 120m (current minimum range) from 3 damage per missile to 1 damage per missile. I just feel ATMs should do SOME damage at point blank range.

And, as far as SSRMs compared to ATMs, reload speeds, heat, ghost heat, ammo counts, etc could all be adjusted and looked at instead as possible balancing points. Not to mention that SSRMs are fire and forget weapons, where as ATMs are not, as well as spread...

I do believe a compromise can be found between what we currently have and what many of us feel the weapon should have. So far, I've seen very few people here being unreasonable.

[Khobai]

Quote

I just feel ATMs should do SOME damage at point blank range.

Yep. Even LRMs do more damage under 120m

Its completely wrong that ATMs do less damage than LRMs under 120m

Id be okay with ATMs staying as is but doing 1.5 damage under 120m (1 is too low, they need to do more than LRMs). Id also be okay with ATMs just doing 2 damage at all ranges.

But either way the min range has to go.

Edited by Khobai, 28 November 2017 - 02:49 PM.

[Tesunie]

Khobai, on 28 November 2017 - 02:46 PM, said:

(1 is too low, they need to do more than LRMs).

Do recall that at a range of 120m (or closer), CLRMs will be dealing something along the lines of 0.7 to 0.5 (or less) damage per missile. So 1 damage per ATM missile within 120m wouldn't be too bad. It'd be more than LRM damage at those ranges for the most part.

[Khobai]

Quote

Do recall that at a range of 120m (or closer), CLRMs will be dealing something along the lines of 0.7 to 0.5 (or less) damage per missile. So 1 damage per ATM missile within 120m wouldn't be too bad. It'd be more than LRM damage at those ranges for the most part.

An LRM20 doing half damage per missile still does 10 damage

an ATM9 doing 1 damage per missile only does 9 damage (13.5 damage if they did 1.5 per missile)

both weigh 5 tons so its a fair comparison

ATMs really need to do at least 1.5 damage under 120m to outdamage LRMs

Edited by Khobai, 28 November 2017 - 03:15 PM.

[Tesunie]

Khobai, on 28 November 2017 - 03:14 PM, said:

An LRM20 doing half damage per missile still does 10 damage

an ATM9 doing 1 damage per missile only does 9 damage (13.5 damage if they did 1.5 per missile)

both weigh 5 tons so its a fair comparison

ATMs really need to do at least 1.5 damage under 120m to outdamage LRMs

LRMs scale down, depending upon how close you are (I'm sure you know that). I'm not sure what damage LRMs exactly do at 120m personally, but as it gets closer, they get even worse. So, ATM's dealing 1 damage within 120m might not be a bad thing in comparison to LRMs...

But I have to be honest, I wouldn't complain to ATMs having more damage within their minimum range than less... I do feel they could use it.

[stoolsoftener]

So, lemme get this straight you all want a weapon system that locks on, has range like an LRM, gets damage buffs up to minimum range, and then has 1 damage per missile at short range, effectively nullifying streaks. Basically no downside to running them. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. I could get behind upping the missile health to help them punch through some AMS but thats it.

[Tesunie]

stoolsoftener, on 28 November 2017 - 08:52 PM, said:

So, lemme get this straight you all want a weapon system that locks on, has range like an LRM, gets damage buffs up to minimum range, and then has 1 damage per missile at short range, effectively nullifying streaks. Basically no downside to running them. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. I could get behind upping the missile health to help them punch through some AMS but thats it.

ATMs do have a range similar to LRMs, but like LRMs also have a rather low velocity as well as a lower firing arc, making them less useful at longer ranges.

ATMs also, per ton and crit slot, shoot out less missiles at the ranges of LRMs, effectively dealing less damage at those ranges (even in the ranges it's dealing 2 damage per missile, LRMs still out damage them).

ATMs also have fewer missiles per ton of ammo taken, making it rather ammo starved. This entices you not to use them within the single damage per missile bracket. It also makes you not want to use them even in their two damage range bracket, though it often wont be significant enough at those ranges to not use them though.

Don't forget it's vulnerability to AMS still, as each missile has the same health as an LRM missile, which I will refer to the first statement about low missile tube count of ATMs compared to LRMs.


Then, we can compare it to SSRMs, which are fire and forget weapons, and don't tend to arc over their intended target or fail to track well enough to hit faster targets (instead of dirt).

On top of that, if ATMs where given 1 damage per missile within 120m, a single SSRM 6 (for tonnage comparison) would out damage it's ATM tonnage counterpart. It would take an ATM12 to compare to a single SSRM6 launcher in damage.


All this also excludes considerations such as heat produced (most times, ATMs produce more heat per system), cooldowns (once again, ATMs tend to take longer to cool down), Ghost Heat limits, etc.

I believe that ATMs wouldn't invalidate SSRMs, LRMs nor SRMs if they had a soft minimum range instead of a hard minimum range. As of current, it's very difficult to consider taking ATMs over LRMs for myself. I also have a hard time considering them over SRMs. I don't even really use SSRMs, but even then...

[Khobai]

Quote

So, lemme get this straight you all want a weapon system that locks on, has range like an LRM, gets damage buffs up to minimum range, and then has 1 damage per missile at short range, effectively nullifying streaks. Basically no downside to running them. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. I could get behind upping the missile health to help them punch through some AMS but thats it.

uh atms dont have the same range as lrms. because their firing angle sucks and they cant indirect fire at all like lrms. atms are unlikely to even be viable past 500m if theres any kindve cover on the map.

and if atms had ammo switching, you could always just switch to the ammo type with no min range anyway. so I dont understand the opposition to atms having no min range. canon atms had no min range when you fired the short range ammo type. so why should atms in MWO have a min range? it makes no sense.

and why should LRMs do better damage than ATMs under 120m? that also makes no sense.


so yeah ATMs should do at least 1.5 damage under 120m. They should have 50% increased missile health too.



also its my belief that SRMs/SSRMs need their damage buffed anyway. should be 2.3 dmg for clan missiles and 2.5 dmg for IS missiles.

Edited by Khobai, 01 December 2017 - 11:34 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

stoolsoftener, on 28 November 2017 - 08:52 PM, said:

So, lemme get this straight you all want a weapon system that locks on, has range like an LRM, gets damage buffs up to minimum range, and then has 1 damage per missile at short range, effectively nullifying streaks. Basically no downside to running them. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. I could get behind upping the missile health to help them punch through some AMS but thats it.

Lol, just lol. As if Long range is what gives LRMs it's thing -- no it's the direct fire. Even then, LRMs are just bad weapons, that direct-fire weapons could have better result with same inputted skill.

And consider that the ATM would do 1 damage per missile at the same "long range" of the LRMs above 540m, when it has less missiles per volley. The ATM9, of the same weight as the LRM20, does 9 damage when the LRM20 does 20 damage at +540m. For the same weight, it does 18 damage between 271m - 540m -- which is still less than 20 damage of the LRM20. Why would you need to point out that "has range like an LRM" is clearly ********.

ATMs aren't fire and forget, they don't seek bones, or shoot all at once but in stream.

To be fair, the close-range damage is actually a concern we've raised. If anything, you should be ashamed for not reading the posts, and understanding where we're coming from. We've suggested 2.4/2.0/1.6 damage/missile, even down to 2.0/1.5/1.0 damage/missile, at the trade of no minimum range.

No downside? Well, kind of, that's the point. ATM is supposed to be this jack-of-all trades weapon, only we got a gimmicky LRM. It's only downside is low ammo count and being a heavy weapon.