677 replies to this topic

[Longshotcanada]

So the min range on atms make C-Larms a better weapon system mathematically for damage over all ranges exceeds the atms for tonnage. the ammo ratio for ton is also low making c-lrms far better choice.

also having a issue with the laser anti missile system is it actually firing ? or hitting the atms?

Kirk

[AngrySpartan]

corpse256, on 29 June 2017 - 01:15 PM, said:

Of course LRMs would out perform in a one v one but its a very nice support weapon. but maybe if i was running ECM you would have no chance.

You said it, not me. LRMs outperform ATMs. I'll just qoute Winterdark's post above:

Wintersdark, on 29 June 2017 - 07:11 AM, said:

And when LRM's are outclassing a weapon, there's a problem.

[Hal Greaves]

corpse256, on 29 June 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

Just used ATMs in a match they are fine as is. I'm not having any issue with the weapon. Get good with ATMs?


Thank you for sticking up to the idea of the weapon system I was starting to feel lonely.

No offense, but you have no clue what you are talking about.

The weapon is an effective usability window of -90- meters, where they are superior to LRMs or SRMs. Outside of that the dmg/ton and dmg/heat is abysmal and there is no actual reason to take these over the more specialized missile system. They do worse DPS, they run way hotter, they have terrible tracking and they are far more vulnerable to AMS fire.

Not everybody plays QP solo queue. The minute you play against people that have half a brain is the minute you'll see how bad the implementation is on this weapon system. Removing the minimum range won't make them some superpowered hyperweapon, it would essentially balance them a bit better against the other options you have far better than what they are now.

Edited by Hal Greaves, 29 June 2017 - 01:38 PM.

[Lightfoot]

Unless they elevate over objects when they have no Line of Sight, something advanced LRMs would do, then the minimum range has to go because they are turned into a short range missile on the average map. Too many nerfs.

MWO's ATMs seem like a giant leap backwards over LRM tech. They are supposed to be smarter LRMs, not dumber.

Edited by Lightfoot, 29 June 2017 - 01:47 PM.

[Kin3ticX]

min range of PPCs is dumb but thats none of my business

[Andi Nagasia]

corpse256, on 29 June 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

Do you seem to forget that the weapon system does more damage than LRMs? LRMs are a scatter damage, ATMs hit more on the ct. I don't get why people want an insanely powerful weapon even more powerful. Claners seem to get more upset if they don't get what they want. Shoot I use clan mechs a lot and I still wouldn't want a unbalanced weapon. Well it will just get changed back lower when they do a weapon pass on it when everyone abuses the weapon if you remove things on it. Good luck league gamers on fighting every battle mech that chooses to abuse a weapon system. I'm looking at you UAC 20 kodiaks!!

im sorry, but this statement is False,
right not LRMs have 4.2Spread(LRM5-10) & 5.2Spread(LRM15-20)
with Artemis(-35%) thats 2.73Spread(LRM5-10) & 3.38Spread(LRM15-20)
-
Currently ATMs have 4.2Spread(ATM3-6) & 5.2Spread(ATM9-12)
so in fact they are just as accurate as LRMs and much less so with Artemis,

also them doing more damage, yes this is true between 180-360(where ATMs do 3-2.23 Per Missile)
past that they are useless when Compared to LRM20, if that LRM20 has Artemis then its 180-270 on ATM viability,
ATM9.........4Crits, 5Tons, 5.2Spread, 180Min Range, does >20Dam per Volley under 360m,
C-LRM20...4Crits, 5Tons, 5.2Spread, 180Min Range, does =20Dam per Volley 180-900m,
also with Artemis(+1Crit / +1Ton) C-LRM20 gets 3.38Spread, which would you Pick,

corpse256, on 29 June 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

I don't think removing the minimum range would give the weapon any characteristics it would just make SRMs useless. I like big risk reward weapon systems. Just use your heavy lasers instead of whining about something like this weapon system. You can't have ATMs replace SRMs and PGI will never let that happen. What would be the point of SRMs then. The arc is fine anyways you don't need it to be a flat shot you still can get the flat shot without lock.

well i dont think C-SRMs would become useless with ATMs having 0Min range,
ATM3........2Crits, 1.5Tons, 4.2Spread, 180Min Range, does =9Dam per Volley under 270m,
C-SRM6...1Crits, 1.5Tons, 5.0Spread, no Min Range, does =12Dam per Volley 0-270m,
also with Artemis(+1Crit / +1Ton) C-SRM6 gets 3.25Spread, so which would you Pick,
And im not even going into velocity(SRM=400m/s)(ATM=160m/s) & ECM(ATM=Dead)

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 29 June 2017 - 01:58 PM.

[MischiefSC]

They're in all ways superior to IS LRMs, which also have a minimum range.

The problem is that people want ot be able to one-shot someone with 90+pts at point blank or have 3x firepower missile launchers to brawl with.

No. It's a terrible idea.

LRM 36 with no damage fall off inside 180m. LOL. HAHAHAHA. No.

[Deathpig]

Well, that would be a relevant comparison if Clans could equip IS LRMs.

[MischiefSC]

Deathpig, on 29 June 2017 - 02:17 PM, said:

Well, that would be a relevant comparison if Clans could equip IS LRMs.

ATMs are a high-power mid-range LRM. You let them work inside 180m and you've got no reason to take SRMs save that you just don't have the tonnage for ATMs. It also makes them the flat out best brawling weapon in the game. 2x ATM12s is just shy of comparable to 3 LB20X, for a fraction of the tonnage. 2x ATM12s with no minimum range is the firepower of 6xSRM6 - but without ghost heat and they lock on target.

The minimum range is what makes them viable. You want to give them a velocity boost? Sure. That makes sense. You want to get them on target quickly before the enemy closes to within 180m.

However, IS LRMs have had 0 damage inside 180m since they were released. Giving ATMs triple damage LRMs inside that same range in return for a small range reduction is just flat out silly.

[Andi Nagasia]

MischiefSC, on 29 June 2017 - 02:13 PM, said:

They're in all ways superior to IS LRMs, which also have a minimum range.

The problem is that people want ot be able to one-shot someone with 90+pts at point blank or have 3x firepower missile launchers to brawl with.

No. It's a terrible idea.

LRM 36 with no damage fall off inside 180m. LOL. HAHAHAHA. No.

um IS-LRMs are better than C-LRMs, Volley fire makes them amazing,
an IS-LRM10+A hits like a LBX10 at half the Weight Costs, but less Velocity and requires a lock,
ive been using IS-LRM20+A as a Psudo LBX20 when Peppering Targets, and they do amazing,

yes C-LRMs, are Half the Weight, but they are also half the use due to their stream Fire,
which forces you to Stair longer, and it devoured by AMS(probably more so when LasAMS comes out)
also yes C-LRMs do damage under 180, but at 120m they only do 0.1damage a Missile,


ive already shown how ATMs wont out pace SRMs or LRMs in my above Posts,
so it they wont out pace those 2 weapon systems then how can they be OP if those others arnt OP?

[Tesunie]

corpse256, on 29 June 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

Just used ATMs in a match they are fine as is. I'm not having any issue with the weapon. Get good with ATMs?

I also have had reasonable effectiveness with ATMs, but when compared next to my abilities with LRMs there wouldn't even begin to be a comparison. In this case ATMs are just inferior options compared to LRMs at every range by that tiny sliver where ATMs get 3 damage. As I stated before, for the amount of weight and crit slots ATMs take, I could litterally (provided I have enough hard points) take an LRM system as well as an SRM system or two and do both of ATM's abilities almost equally if not better, with far fewer of ATM's current weaknesses.

That isn't a good sign. They really need to have either no minimum ranges or drastically reduced minimum ranges. Either that or much faster velocity, faster cool down, and/or far less spread (and probably and not or).

corpse256, on 29 June 2017 - 01:15 PM, said:

Of course LRMs would out perform in a one v one but its a very nice support weapon. but maybe if i was running ECM you would have no chance.

I'll one up that. I'll take one of my own LRM builds against your ECM mech... and even if I don't come out on top I'll probably do significantly more damage against you with my LRM build than if I used an ATM build. (Literal switching between ATMs and LRMs, everything else exact.) You can even remove your ECM (disable it) for the ATM build to give it a handicap, and it still probably wouldn't help much...

Deathpig, on 29 June 2017 - 12:38 PM, said:

Pray tell, what build are you EVER going to put ATMs on (as they exist right now)?

As they exist right now? None. If they had that minimum range looked into or some other buff (maybe)... I could think of a few. Some heavy missile mechs might like the option to have flexibility of range but a stronger punch the closer they get. I could see Jenner IICs possibly enjoying that, as well as Shadowcats and even the up and coming Arctic Wolf (looking forwards to that one). Instead of being stuck at either close range or long range missiles, it would be nice to have a multi-range missile, even if it isn't as optimized for a specific role as it's counterparts would be.

However, as current? No. Those build considerations would be dead. Still basically stuck to the same choices, long range or short range only. (Actually, LRMs are more mid range, but that's a different subject.)

[AngrySpartan]

MischiefSC, on 29 June 2017 - 02:22 PM, said:

ATMs are a high-power mid-range LRM. You let them work inside 180m and you've got no reason to take SRMs save that you just don't have the tonnage for ATMs. It also makes them the flat out best brawling weapon in the game. 2x ATM12s is just shy of comparable to 3 LB20X, for a fraction of the tonnage. 2x ATM12s with no minimum range is the firepower of 6xSRM6 - but without ghost heat and they lock on target.

The minimum range is what makes them viable. You want to give them a velocity boost? Sure. That makes sense. You want to get them on target quickly before the enemy closes to within 180m.

However, IS LRMs have had 0 damage inside 180m since they were released. Giving ATMs triple damage LRMs inside that same range in return for a small range reduction is just flat out silly.

Somehow IS mechpilots survived 'vastly superior' clan LRMs and when IS got MRMs you complain about making 1 of 2 new clan weapons relevant.

1. ATMs only better than LRMs at 180-270m, after that tonnage cooldown and ammo count makes them inferior to LRMs.
2. ATMs will never be upper duper superior brawling weapon. Because lock time, ECMs, AMS and velocity. SRMs are far superior to ATMs, especially IS SRMs.
Just read the topic, half of the answers here have those arguments explained.

When do you people start to look at the picture as a whole and not to a particular part that you don't like?

[Deathpig]

MischiefSC, on 29 June 2017 - 02:22 PM, said:

ATMs are a high-power mid-range LRM. You let them work inside 180m and you've got no reason to take SRMs save that you just don't have the tonnage for ATMs. It also makes them the flat out best brawling weapon in the game. 2x ATM12s is just shy of comparable to 3 LB20X, for a fraction of the tonnage. 2x ATM12s with no minimum range is the firepower of 6xSRM6 - but without ghost heat and they lock on target.

The minimum range is what makes them viable. You want to give them a velocity boost? Sure. That makes sense. You want to get them on target quickly before the enemy closes to within 180m.

However, IS LRMs have had 0 damage inside 180m since they were released. Giving ATMs triple damage LRMs inside that same range in return for a small range reduction is just flat out silly.

Right now, ATMs are 'high-powered LRMs' in a 90m window. Outside that window, they go from worse to garbage.


As for the 'no reason to take' we can argue weight, slots, hardpoints, heat, cooldown time, face time, spread, and a host of other reasons to prefer SRMs to ATMs. But at least there would be a discussion! Right now, there isn't one-- ATMs are (in their current state) unusable garbage.

[Tesunie]

MischiefSC, on 29 June 2017 - 02:22 PM, said:

ATMs are a high-power mid-range LRM. You let them work inside 180m and you've got no reason to take SRMs save that you just don't have the tonnage for ATMs. It also makes them the flat out best brawling weapon in the game. 2x ATM12s is just shy of comparable to 3 LB20X, for a fraction of the tonnage. 2x ATM12s with no minimum range is the firepower of 6xSRM6 - but without ghost heat and they lock on target.

The minimum range is what makes them viable. You want to give them a velocity boost? Sure. That makes sense. You want to get them on target quickly before the enemy closes to within 180m.

However, IS LRMs have had 0 damage inside 180m since they were released. Giving ATMs triple damage LRMs inside that same range in return for a small range reduction is just flat out silly.

I think you forgot to consider spread, aiming ability, cooldown, damage per ton of ammo/ton invested... CSRMs would actually, per ton invested, still be the better brawling system. They still hit harder, still can aim better (homing can be a double edged sword), and shoot more often. All that and they still weigh less and take less crit slots than an equivalent ATM. Don't forget to mention vulnerability to AMS (which may help bring AMS into a better place).

If you are worried about ghost heat concerns from CSRMs, than that would have to be something addressed as a corresponding ghost heat limited relative to damage for the ATMs as well.

Andi Nagasia, on 29 June 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

um IS-LRMs are better than C-LRMs, Volley fire makes them amazing,
an IS-LRM10+A hits like a LBX10 at half the Weight Costs, but less Velocity and requires a lock,
ive been using IS-LRM20+A as a Psudo LBX20 when Peppering Targets, and they do amazing,

yes C-LRMs, are Half the Weight, but they are also half the use due to their stream Fire,
which forces you to Stair longer, and it devoured by AMS(probably more so when LasAMS comes out)
also yes C-LRMs do damage under 180, but at 120m they only do 0.1damage a Missile,

I actually have to disagree (and agree) here. The weapon systems operate similarly, but each has their own advantages and disadvantages. I tend to find CLRMs are more useful overall, but IS LRMs are more likely to deal better damage per individual volley.

Each has their pros and cons. I don't feel one is straight up better over the other in practical uses. It's more of a matter of what do you want to use it for, and how you use it.

(PS: I also tend to use LRMs as more of a carpet bombing effect than for pin point damage. Many of my LRM builds don't have Artemis, because I actually want that little bit of spread and I use the saved tonnage for other things... like direct fire aspects.)

[davoodoo]

MischiefSC, on 29 June 2017 - 02:13 PM, said:

They're in all ways superior to IS LRMs, which also have a minimum range.

The problem is that people want ot be able to one-shot someone with 90+pts at point blank or have 3x firepower missile launchers to brawl with.

No. It's a terrible idea.

LRM 36 with no damage fall off inside 180m. LOL. HAHAHAHA. No.

arc5w says hello or streakcrow.

96 damage is nothing if half of it misses ct or entirety of light mech.
Oh and want me to show you tt 96 dmg HEAT NEUTRAL alpha? this isnt really that special in tt despite armor being half of what it is here.

Edited by davoodoo, 29 June 2017 - 02:55 PM.

[AngrySpartan]

Removing ATMs minimum range is not even the balancing question (though there are a lot of arguments here in favor of it). It's the question of ATMs being a NEW weapon system. ATMs should combine SRMs and LRMs qualities in a single package, it should be a flexible weapon, that works ok at any range.

Right now it's just repackaged LRMs which PGI is trying to sell as ATMs. Minimum range is completely against the nature of a weapon in lore, TT rules, etc.

So what is the point of having another kind of LRMs in game?

Edited by AngrySpartan, 29 June 2017 - 02:58 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Andi Nagasia, on 29 June 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

um IS-LRMs are better than C-LRMs, Volley fire makes them amazing,
an IS-LRM10+A hits like a LBX10 at half the Weight Costs, but less Velocity and requires a lock,
ive been using IS-LRM20+A as a Psudo LBX20 when Peppering Targets, and they do amazing,

yes C-LRMs, are Half the Weight, but they are also half the use due to their stream Fire,
which forces you to Stair longer, and it devoured by AMS(probably more so when LasAMS comes out)
also yes C-LRMs do damage under 180, but at 120m they only do 0.1damage a Missile,


ive already shown how ATMs wont out pace SRMs or LRMs in my above Posts,
so it they wont out pace those 2 weapon systems then how can they be OP if those others arnt OP?

Tell you what. You take a IS heavy and I'll take a Clan heavy. Take ECM and AMS if you like. We'll both bring LRMs and you can see which is actually better. Build it however you like but LRMs need to be the 'primary' weapon. Can even make it tonnage balanced; you take a Catapult and I'll take an EBJ. Clan LRMs are significantly better even with the 'volley fire' effect of IS missiles. 45 tubes vs 60-80 tubes not only exceeds that difference but the lower tonnage = more DHS which = more sustained fire and room for other weapons.

ATMs however have a huge, huge advantage over SRMs. They lock. In brawling that's hugely critical as it means I don't have to lead the target; it means that I can be shooting accurately with my lasers and shooting ATMs at the same time and doing damage in about the same place. If Streaks worked like ATMs they would be OP; however they lock different mech locations and so auto-spread damage significantly. While ATMs and LRMs spread damage it's far more directed.

ATMs, as is, are very viable for mid-range. With CERMLs or even CLPLs or ballistics they let you stay on target with your weapons and stack on a hugely damage/ton efficient source of damage with them. With the flatter, faster trajectory they're reasonably viable for that job. Giving them no minimum range would make them superior to either other weapon, SRMs or LRMs, in most situations as you can use them in both mid and brawl range and sustain ballistic/laser accuracy.

[Duvanor]

MischiefSC, on 29 June 2017 - 02:22 PM, said:

ATMs are a high-power mid-range LRM. You let them work inside 180m and you've got no reason to take SRMs save that you just don't have the tonnage for ATMs. It also makes them the flat out best brawling weapon in the game. 2x ATM12s is just shy of comparable to 3 LB20X, for a fraction of the tonnage. 2x ATM12s with no minimum range is the firepower of 6xSRM6 - but without ghost heat and they lock on target.

The minimum range is what makes them viable. You want to give them a velocity boost? Sure. That makes sense. You want to get them on target quickly before the enemy closes to within 180m.

However, IS LRMs have had 0 damage inside 180m since they were released. Giving ATMs triple damage LRMs inside that same range in return for a small range reduction is just flat out silly.

I am kinda repeating myself here but:
Please read my 4th post in this thread https://mwomercs.com...no-reduced-yes/ and than tell me why exactly ATMs are better than LRMs/SRMs, even if you remove minimum range or make their damage drop off from the 120m on the medium and long range ammo would have in TT. Especially considering that ATMs are more prone to AMS. If my numbers are wrong, please point it out. If they are not, please stop bringing IS LRMs in here. They are no option for Clans.

By the way, calling something high power that actually does less damage and is more prone to countermeasures than the weapon it is supposedly a high power version of makes no sense.

Even if they removed minimum range I doubt I would exchange the 4 SRM6 + Artemis launchers on my Huntsman and Scorch for ATMs because reload time, missile spread, missile speed and vulnerability to AMS and ECM would not justify the higher range.

We can talk about ATM getting OP if PGI removes minimum range completely, increases the amount of missiles per ton of ammo, increases the health of the ATM missiles and removes the ballistic flight path. If they then set missile speed to 300 we have certainly a weapon that is OP. But nobody asks for all these changes. Just make it a all purpose weapon like it is meant to be by removing minimum range and straighten the flight path. Then they are fine with enough weaknesses.

Edited by Duvanor, 29 June 2017 - 03:21 PM.

[Tesunie]

Duvanor, on 29 June 2017 - 03:19 PM, said:

Even if they removed minimum range I doubt I would exchange the 4 SRM6 + Artemis launchers on my Huntsman and Scorch for ATMs because reload time, missile spread, missile speed and vulnerability to AMS and ECM would not justify the higher range.

Don't forget about the extra crit spaces. Don't know about you, but normally my Huntsmen run out of crit slots before tonnage if I'm not careful. As it is, if I convert my LRM Huntsmen to an ATM version (literal direct switching of weapons) I lose 1.5 tons of ammo (or is it 0.5 tons of ammo and 1 DHS, not sure at the moment...) and I run the mech 1.5 tons lighter than max only because I ran out of crit slots.

So I don't know about your Huntsmen conversion, but the extra crit slots... Another stab at the ATMs for some mechs.

[MischiefSC]

Duvanor, on 29 June 2017 - 03:19 PM, said:

I am kinda repeating myself here but:
Please read my 4th post in this thread https://mwomercs.com...no-reduced-yes/ and than tell me why exactly ATMs are better than LRMs/SRMs, even if you remove minimum range or make their damage drop off from the 120m on the medium and long range ammo would have in TT. Especially considering that ATMs are more prone to AMS. If my numbers are wrong, please point it out. If they are not, please stop bringing IS LRMs in here. They are no option for Clans.

Even if they removed minimum range I doubt I would exchange the 4 SRM6 + Artemis launchers on my Huntsman and Scorch for ATMs because reload time, missile spread, missile speed and vulnerability to AMS and ECM would not justify the higher range.

We can talk about ATM getting OP if PGI removes minimum range completely, increases the amount of missiles per ton of ammo, increases the health of the ATM missiles and removes the ballistic flight path. If they then set missile speed to 300 we have certainly a weapon that is OP. But nobody asks for all these changes. Just make it a all purpose weapon like it is meant to be by removing minimum range and straighten the flight path. Then they are fine with enough weaknesses.

Again. You're completely missing the point.

The fundamental balancing factor for SRMs as a brawling weapon is that they don't lock, so if you've got a ballistic or laser weapon setup plus SRMs (which many do, or can) you have to aim them separately to get accurate hits or get the enemy to come straight at you for an extended period. This breaks synergy with SRMs and forces you to either use all SRMs or deal with having to aim 2 different places for 2 different weapons, like the SRM + SPL TBR as a famous (and still very effective) example.

Streaks spread their damage all over a mech by their nature and have an insane cooldown. They are not a brawling weapon against anything but lights.

ATMs however DO lock, have a pretty ballistic flight path meaning that they would be the best possible brawling weapon because they would keep synergy with direct fire weapons.

That means my Orion IIC with LB20X, 2xMPL and 3xATM9 has an alpha of 116 at a 1.19 heat management and 6 total tons of ammo and runs 70kph.

Brawling alpha of 116, with about the same spread as SRMs on they lock so I'm getting even better accuracy and synergy with my direct fire weapons.

Having a 180m minimum range breaks synergy between the ATMs and the big brawling weapons like LB 20X. Sure, I can still take that god awful monster in to brawl - however inside 180m I'm missing the bulk of my fire. Probably better going with a pair of UAC5s, 2 CERMLs and staying at mid range. It's still a flat out stupid amount of DPS but at least someone can close to point blank and deal with me.

Otherwise it's a bit too much. The ballistic flight path is what makes ATMs good; you've got a locking, ballistic path missile to stack with ballistic weapons like, well, ballistics and lasers. That's where ATMs shine - augmenting direct fire. That's what makes them better than LRMs.


Edited -
after playing the Orion above I switched to 2x CERMLs and added 2 more tons of ATM ammo.

I say increase velocity and ammo/ton. Leave the minimum range.

Edited by MischiefSC, 29 June 2017 - 03:41 PM.