677 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Tested the ATMs a bit today.

I'd say definitely reduce or remove the minimum range (and change it possibly to a damage drop off?). MAybe they also need more ammo per ton even then, but the ATMs are really not very practical at range due to their firing arc. They are closer to direct fire weapons in that case, except they are also relatively slow, so they will often miss a target that has gone back to cover (without target retention offering any help to you). So they will be used more for short range combat.

I would consider lowing their maximum range, however. They can't really use it, and lowering it below that of LRMs has the advantage of no name confusion - of course the long range missiles have the longest range of the available missile types!

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 30 June 2017 - 07:32 AM.

[Tesunie]

Here is something that could also be changed (I'll read what I missed overnight in a bit).

What if, under 100m range, ATMs had fewer "course correction points"? This would limit their ability to actually hit within 100m, which then would leave SRMs and SSRMs as king of close in brawl?

Just a thought on something else that could be altered to help balance the weapon. (Even if my belief is that it just needs minimum range removed...)

As I've said before, there are so many different ways to balance a weapon. No need to get stuck on a single idea.

[AngrySpartan]

Tesunie, on 30 June 2017 - 09:36 AM, said:

Here is something that could also be changed (I'll read what I missed overnight in a bit).

What if, under 100m range, ATMs had fewer "course correction points"? This would limit their ability to actually hit within 100m, which then would leave SRMs and SSRMs as king of close in brawl?

Just a thought on something else that could be altered to help balance the weapon. (Even if my belief is that it just needs minimum range removed...)

As I've said before, there are so many different ways to balance a weapon. No need to get stuck on a single idea.

As it was said many many many times before here - SRMs will still outperform ATMs without minimum range. Ability to target components, 400 velocity versus only 160, invisibility to ECM and higher AMS resistanse is enough to outperform ATMs.

I highly doubt ATMs will be OP without minimum range, but even if they will (as you said) there are many ways to fix that. Dropping minimum range is a requirement to actually start testing a weapon, not a balancing measure. ATMs with minimum range are not ATMs

Edited by AngrySpartan, 30 June 2017 - 09:49 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

AngrySpartan, on 30 June 2017 - 09:48 AM, said:

Ability to target components, 400 velocity versus only 160

The ability to target components doesn't really matter when missiles home in on center mass (allowing them to focus on components more than you realize, especially juicy legs). The reason SRMs have 400 velocity is due to the inability to track targets...so the velocity difference really isn't that big of a deal.

AngrySpartan, on 30 June 2017 - 09:48 AM, said:

I highly doubt ATMs will be OP without minimum range

How much you wanna bet? Push decs will almost surely use these over SRMs because they can actually be used while closing AND do more damage for the heat than SRMs. The only time ATMs actually begin to suffer is an actual brawl furball and even then, they would make mechs sitting on the outside of the furball fantastic.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 30 June 2017 - 09:56 AM.

[Yukikaze Alecto]

Definitely needs to lose the min range. Trying to get into that sweet spot for max damage is virtually impossible..

Although for added hilarity, add an ATM3 to a Direwolf's 'chin' CT mount on an Ultraviolet. Shows 4 tubes.

[AngrySpartan]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 June 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

The ability to target components doesn't really matter when missiles home in on center mass (allowing them to focus on components more than you realize, especially juicy legs). The reason SRMs have 400 velocity is due to the inability to track targets...so the velocity difference really isn't that big of a deal.

1. Targeting components is an essential part of wepon effectiveness, just compare SRMs and SSRMs. Which one is a meta brawling weapon? Hint: cooldown has nothing to do with that.
2. Center mass targeting? That's why LRMs are so "good"!!! Or is it because they have ridiculously slow missiles? Pick any reason you like. With minimum range ATMs are just repackaged LRMs.
3. I'll ask you another question: How many LRMs you need to spend to kill moving assault? How many SRMs? ATM will suffer the same weakness as LRMs, only with ammo issues on top of that.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 June 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

How much you wanna bet? Push decs will almost surely use these over SRMs because they can actually be used while closing AND do more damage for the heat than SRMs. The only time ATMs actually begin to suffer is an actual brawl furball and even then, they would make mechs sitting on the outside of the furball fantastic.

1. Your math doesn't take into account weight you may put into heatsinks or ammo.
2. ATMs trajectory is quite flat, you can't reliably shoot it over your teammates head like LRMs
3. ATMs velocity and locks = face time. With SRMs you can "sword and board", you can twist, you can protect yourself right after you pull the trigger.

[Tesunie]

Teer Kerensky, on 29 June 2017 - 10:38 PM, said:

Little bit tweaking and it's very fine weapon system.

I agree with your assessment. Seems spot on to what I was feeling about ATMs. Even without a minimum range, SRMs still have a superior spot for close range, LRMs are still better at mid to long ranges (and flexibility do to indirect) and ATMs would be a "Jack of all trades" but weak to AMS.

Wintersdark, on 29 June 2017 - 11:17 PM, said:

LRM's are better weapons at short range than ATM's are. They're better at long range, and mid range too. ATM's are only better in that incredibly tiny window. That window that even an Atlas can cross in the time it takes you to get a lock.

Possibly a slight exaggeration on how easy it is to cross that 90m bubble... But not far from the truth.

My best match I ended up having with my ATM Huntsmen I did close to 500 damage. Most of that done with the 4 ERMLs I had on the mech from how it felt. Once the enemy killed my three allies, and figured what I was running, they pressed right into that 180m deadzone and... Well I feel I did most of my damage with my lasers as the ATMs were useless for most of the game and extremely hard to actually keep non-distracted targets within that 90m range. (And even then, keeping distracted enemies in that range was rather difficult.)

corpse256, on 30 June 2017 - 12:03 AM, said:

again I don't see the point of removing that range cap just makes no sense. Then it becomes like any other weapon system. Would be a boring weapon to use with out that 90m range bracket. Just seems so extreme to me. So instead of having 1 advantage of missile weapon systems right now with this update you want 2 plus the heavy lasers? Is it just me or people wanting more firepower than IS again once more. I feel like the tech update with this type of change would upset the whole play styles of the clan vs IS balance because IS just has no legs up at this point except for MRMs and Rocket Launchers (which rocket launchers are a useful tool to fill up missile hard points that would not suite ammo builds). I mean come on you got Micro Pulse and Standard lasers which is about 1 point down from standard small and small pulse but slightly higher dps and weight saver I might add. You have all heavy laser types which pinpoint damage outputs are insane and need nerf badly already. And you have ATMs with what you guys seem to need a minimum range removal would just make sure clans win every fight again.

Like I've typed every time give and take. You can't have everything. Plus pulse lasers are still insanely powerful even with the weapon pass but slight dps decreases to compensate for IS tech. Like I said you guys might need some mega death cannons to go with that as well or X pulse lasers and how broken those are. Just maybe those broken arrow IV clusters back in the MW4 Mercs days. How bout a Ultra Nuclear Long Tom Launcher(UNLTL) would work great. Anyone want to play some MWO? nope got this UNLTL that just blows up the whole map in one shot!! FUN!!

Please, look at my tag. Does it look like I'm currently a Clan player? I'm a Seraphim unit member. We mostly reside in the IS (with occasional forays into Clan operations). Sure, I do have a fondness for my clan mechs, but I am actually considered about in game balance. When I play FP with my unit, no matter which side I'm on, I want it to feel like an even fight. Like I have a chance. ATMs having no minimum range doesn't sound like it would produce any issues, especially if I have AMS of some kind on my mech. (Recall that, though I would rather see no minimum range at all, I'm not referring only to that but any minimum range changes.)


Oh, and I see you took my joke concepts to heart. Lets start to really push for those Mech mounted Long Toms!
(No. Lets not do that.)

corpse256, on 30 June 2017 - 12:17 AM, said:

Might as well throw missile counters out the window. Just like good old beta days.

Right now, AMS helps against LRMs, are nearly useless against (S)SRMs, and, even if ATMs had no mimum range (of some sort) it still is "super effective" against ATMs. I feel this is actually fine, especially if ATMs had no minimum range...

ATMs launch fewer missiles per volley per launcher. They weight more than any other missile system for it's tube/damage count. It also eats up far more crits to equip. Doesn't it seem fair that it should be worth it's crit slots and weight? Well, right now it isn't. Something needs to be altered, and I don't think a crit chance is what it needs (or even describes what the weapon is suppose to do).

50 50, on 30 June 2017 - 01:40 AM, said:

Making the missiles guided would be really interesting in my opinion.
Given the streaks and lrms need the lock on and effectively homing missiles.
SRMs are fire and forget.
It would be nice to have ATMs use a different approach.
I you had to manually keep your target on the enemy it becomes more of a skill weapon akin to lasers or ballistics.
Particularly with the ripple fire where it could be directed at components.
If necessary it could tie in with the TAG, but it would be different.
Under that circumstance the minimum range could be removed as one of the big counter factors is then having to spend so much face time aiming compared to the fire and then twist SRMs, or the indirect fire LRMs.
If you have to maintain your facing, it becomes risky.

By the way.
How about the new sound effects!
Liking those.

Guided missiles (as in I'm presuming you are referring to "following your crosshairs" as guided) may add "more skill" to the weapon, but it would greatly increase the face time. What is it that people always say about extended face time?

Not to be offensive here, but no (if that is what you mean by guided). It would kill the weapon system making it completely useless. Though, if one could time it well, think of all the shots suddenly swinging around beside buildings, hitting targets in cover...


And yes. The new sounds. I noticed and liked them as well. Love the new missile and PPC sounds.

Duvanor, on 30 June 2017 - 05:15 AM, said:

One thing to consider is the ATM missiles behavior in controlled testing. People stated they hit the CT fairly accurate. I think they lock on the CT and then scatter around it with their spread. So they look quite effective on the testing grounds when you shoot some stationary target from the front or back angle. As soon as you start shooting from the side or at moving, twisting targets this changes quite a bit. Just a sidenote to consider for comparison to SRMs that can, in my opinion, target a mechs components more reliably.

But that's just my observation. Did anyone else test ATMs behavior on moving targets?

Edit: Forgot to type something for this one! Sorry. I just didn't like you enough to remember. (I joke.)

In testing grounds, they shredded mostly CT, though also splashed damage to every component on the target as well. In actual play, people could shield side the ATMs which they normally wouldn't have been able to do so well against LRMs (one of the reasons I like my LRMs). In a live match, I had a Catapult with a red CT internals. The ATMs wouldn't seem to hit that location for some reason... (then again, that red CT suffered four alphas of four ERML to his CT and it didn't stop him or deal any damage anywhere else... so that was strange to begin with...)

I would want to do more testing, but it does seem like ATM spread is about the same as non-Artemis LRMs, but instead of coming in more from the top (which helps counter twisting and side shielding), ATMs come in lower and thus are more susceptible to being shielded against.

Another reason why I do feel that minimum range should be removed, if not outright than in some other manner at least.

Edited by Tesunie, 30 June 2017 - 10:19 AM.

[Randal Kerensky]

I think the general concerns for the ATMs is well founded when it comes to minimum range, i honestly think under 90m is a good point to have them not detonate. as the current minimal range is just unrealistic.

i do think that it would be nice to see a slight change on how the missiles behave however. At the moment they act as LRMs shot at close range, they have a near flat trajectory which is nice... but i think it would be nice to see the minimum range implemented in an interesting way.

Considering they are advanced missiles... why not have the launch at 60 degrees, fly for 90m with an initial charge and then engage its primary motor and fly towards its target at a flat trajectory. i think it would mix up the missiles and have them behave in an interesting way... similar to a submarine launched missile (a two stage missile).

im curious what people think of this, it was just somet i thought would add a bit more spice. im looking forward to peoples opinions ^-^

[Tesunie]

Okay, and now I'm caught up.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 June 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

The ability to target components doesn't really matter when missiles home in on center mass (allowing them to focus on components more than you realize, especially juicy legs). The reason SRMs have 400 velocity is due to the inability to track targets...so the velocity difference really isn't that big of a deal.

If you need to take, say, a 12 ERSL Nova's arm off to reduce (or even remove) their ability to damage you, ATMs aren't going to help with that much, especially if they shield the wounded arm with their body. You may get lucky... And the velocity difference makes a huge impact on ATMs relation to AMS. Not to mention time to get a lock which does mean more face time.

ATMs, even with no minimum range, wouldn't replace my SRMs nor my LRMs on my mechs. With minimum range, I probably wont use them at all. If they have no minimum range, I'd probably make a few completely new builds built around the ATMs as a different flavor of mech, more than as a replacement. I still find it hard press to see ATMs replacing my LRMs on my builds... They don't offer the same flexibility of tactics my LRMs do, at least with that minimum range. WIthout the minimum range, then it becomes another missile system with a different set of tactical flexibility, instead of maintaining indirect capabilities (an option I like to have for LRMs even if I'm always trying to get my own locks) I would instead gain a little versatility no matter the range of engagement. It would be not better or worse than my LRMs, but different. Same for SRMs, which would still do more than ATMs at closer ranges and are lighter.

Yukikaze Alecto, on 30 June 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

Although for added hilarity, add an ATM3 to a Direwolf's 'chin' CT mount on an Ultraviolet. Shows 4 tubes.

Weapon meshes are not yet functional for any of the new weapons (as far as I know). It's a known bug right now with the PTS. Just FYI here is all.

[Lightfoot]

ATM's are supposed to be advanced LRMs, but they are more like dumb LRMs. Most ridiculous is they don't even clear ground obstacles like low hills, railings, low structures. They are just too nerfed. They are not Tier 2 weapons. LRMs are apparently way more advanced and much more versatile than ATMs.

You have to make the Tier 2 weapons better than Tier 1. You may have to make the mechs tougher, but you can't have Tier 2 weapons be no-shows buried in nerfs.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

AngrySpartan, on 30 June 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

1. Targeting components is an essential part of wepon effectiveness, just compare SRMs and SSRMs. Which one is a meta brawling weapon? Hint: cooldown has nothing to do with that.

There is a distinct difference between how SSRMs and ATM/LRMs handle however. SSRMs go out of their way to target specific sections and rarely concentrated. LRMs/ATMs concentrate center mass often clustering shots no different than SRMs. With SRMs you can shoot things other than center mass. So while targeting is essential, you comparing SSRMs to ATM targeting is not apt because they DONT function the same.

AngrySpartan, on 30 June 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

2. Center mass targeting? That's why LRMs are so "good"!!! Or is it because they have ridiculously slow missiles? Pick any reason you like. With minimum range ATMs are just repackaged LRMs.

First, I don't like minimum range on ATMs (for that matter I don't like minimum range period), that said, I don't like ATMs being able to do more damage than SRMs at short range (very few SRM boats can effectively be used even at their "optimal" range). LRMs also don't do increasing damage as they close range and the minimum range ruins their capacity at pushing (without that min range, IS LRM boats like AWS-8Rs would be absolute terrors). It has nothing to do with slow missiles, well the reason they aren't used outside of 600 very well partially is. As for center mass targeting, it is why Night Gyrs get vaporized when caught out by LRMs, because they pretty much take all the LRMs in the legs (arrow in the knee if you will) so yes, in some cases it does actually really well.

AngrySpartan, on 30 June 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

3. I'll ask you another question: How many LRMs you need to spend to kill moving assault? How many SRMs? ATM will suffer the same weakness as LRMs, only with ammo issues on top of that.

The difference is ATMs have ramping damage, and you have to close the distance with SRMs (which can be difficult depending on the average weight) where as with ATMs you don't have to close the distance to even start doing damage. The ability to do damage on the close is pretty important and very much a part of the reason you didn't see SRM brawl pushes before they nerfed cSPLs (you saw cSPLs).

AngrySpartan, on 30 June 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

1. Your math doesn't take into account weight you may put into heatsinks or ammo.

There is diminishing returns on the effectiveness of heat sinks, that's the whole reason ballistics are strong on assaults but horribly weak on lights. Eventually it becomes better to spend tonnage on a weapon that has better damage to heat even if it costs some more tonnage.

AngrySpartan, on 30 June 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

2. ATMs trajectory is quite flat, you can't reliably shoot it over your teammates head like LRMs

You will generally have higher ground in a mech like this, and your friendlies shouldn't be face hugging.

AngrySpartan, on 30 June 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

3. ATMs velocity and locks = face time. With SRMs you can "sword and board", you can twist, you can protect yourself right after you pull the trigger.

No one sword and boards with SRMs because you can't aptly protect one side in a furball (just ask anyone who does that on the GRF-3M when not running an iXL). Then of course there is the fact that generally if your focus firing a target, you are face staring anyway because brawling plays differently from poke fights. Then again it depends on the strat. Generally protecting yourself even with SRMs means you do 1 of 3 things:

• If you can't out maneuver, you just delay as long as possible, just go on the complete defensive posture and not even bother trying to shoot mechs and focus on spreading as much damage as possible.
  
• If you can out maneuver, double back and chase your tail away.
  
• If you can't out maneuver, stay focused on target and try your best to delay at the same time, depending on the tail this can be easier said than done. It also depends on the current score on whether this is an acceptable action.

Tesunie, on 30 June 2017 - 10:31 AM, said:

If you need to take, say, a 12 ERSL Nova's arm off to reduce (or even remove) their ability to damage you,

Which was a suitable method to deal with Nova's, but so is legging them. If you have enough volume of damage though, you can make up for the lack of ability to target and just make sure everyone is focusing on center mass as well. The ability to precisely rip off arms isn't always the best option (for example legs are easier for SRMs to focus on compared to arms on Novas).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 30 June 2017 - 10:59 AM.

[MischiefSC]

davoodoo, on 30 June 2017 - 04:18 AM, said:

I wonder how 12 dmg launcher with higher cd would be superior to 20 dmg launcher
But ok it cant do indirect fire which is only saving grace for lrms.

24 dmg at medium range for 7 tons, except streaks can do 24 dmg for 6 tons at that range.

How about short range? at 5.2 spread? why not pack 4xsrm6 for 6 tons yet again and do more dmg but they cant lock which doesnt matter at that range and they dont have minimum range.

Im really struggling to find niche for current atm which is a shame as i wanted to buy acw and build it around atms with ecm, now **** it, im sticking with nightstar.

Because if it's better at long range than LRMs and short range than SRMs it negates them. If it's solid at both and, again, doesn't spread or have the insane cooldown that streaks do, then it's an excellent weapon for missile hardpoints for the tonnage to go with ballistics or energy.

SRMs not being able to lock means you need to either take all SRMs or be unable to fire both direct fire and SRMs at the same point at once. This is a significant factor for degrading the value of SRMs as anything but a straight SRM brawler.

The ability to lock a target and shoot and have your damage all show about the same location (whatever torso/leg, some to the arms) as what you're shooting with direct fire is incredibly powerful. At ~300m doing 36 damage for 7 tons with a locking weapon that doesn't spread each missile to a different location like streaks is absolutely solid.

The ballistic flight path is a perk, not a drawback. You want a boated indirect fire weapon? Go with LRMs. You want brawling? Go with SRMs. ATM with a faster (~300m/s) velocity and nice flat path and damage that scaled by range and optimized for mid-range would be an excellent Clan weapon that might have use all the way up to competitive play.

It also needs to be stronger vs AMS, not weaker.

That would be a good weapon with its own niche and a hell of a lot more useful/viable than LRMs even in matches between good teams.

[MischiefSC]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 June 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

The ability to target components doesn't really matter when missiles home in on center mass (allowing them to focus on components more than you realize, especially juicy legs). The reason SRMs have 400 velocity is due to the inability to track targets...so the velocity difference really isn't that big of a deal.


How much you wanna bet? Push decs will almost surely use these over SRMs because they can actually be used while closing AND do more damage for the heat than SRMs. The only time ATMs actually begin to suffer is an actual brawl furball and even then, they would make mechs sitting on the outside of the furball fantastic.

If my Orion IIC was pushing 116 damage at 80m and even moderately heat sustainable it would be utterly totally broken OP AF. The fact that inside 180m the 81 damage worth of ATMs is gone is the only thing that makes it not OP AF.

If I could brawl with ATMs at 3 damage/missile I'd never take SRMs on Clans again. Rip people up at 300-600m with CERMLs or LBX + ATMs, then close to a brawl and puke up 100+ pt alphas from 60-75 ton mechs running over 70 KPH?

They need *some* functionality inside of 180m, even if it's strongly degraded. They need to be faster because you need to consistently hit targets at mid range with minimal exposure time and they need to be stronger vs AMS and you've got a weapon that syncs pretty well with other weapons. Tweaking those three things, how viable at point blank, strength vs AMS and velocity (time to target) and you might even make them viable in a real sense. Certainly way more so than LRMs for skilled (not sure I would say comp) play.

[Tesunie]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 June 2017 - 10:58 AM, said:

Which was a suitable method to deal with Nova's, but so is legging them. If you have enough volume of damage though, you can make up for the lack of ability to target and just make sure everyone is focusing on center mass as well. The ability to precisely rip off arms isn't always the best option (for example legs are easier for SRMs to focus on compared to arms on Novas).

(Not responding to comments directed at other people here. Let them do their own talking.)

You kinda missed the point here. Sure, SRMs register damage better against legs, but if a Nova has one arm nearly gone, I'm going to aim for it and try to reduce their attack power coming back. That can be a point between life and death.

Also, not everyone is working in a set group, so sometimes you are on your own. You can't get everyone to focus on center mass as well, or legs...

The concept was more so that SRMs can direct where their damage goes, compared to SSRMs, LRMs or even ATMs (even if they had no minimum range). This excludes the "face hugging with the launchers sitting on a component to prevent the missiles from spreading", which isn't exactly something we should balance a whole weapon system on that single aspect. If anything, a minimum range of 20m would negate that possibility (if it's a concern).

Also consider, ATMs take up a lot more weight than LRMs or SRMs, as well as crit locations. They are large and heavy, and currently don't even perform near either weapon system, and it shouldn't given it's abilities, but it should be a viable choice alternative, not what it is now.

As I said, I'm looking to make ATMs viable. No better than SRMs or LRMs, but an alternative choice. Right now, they really kinda are not an alternative choice at all.

[MustrumRidcully]

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

Because if it's better at long range than LRMs and short range than SRMs it negates them. If it's solid at both and, again, doesn't spread or have the insane cooldown that streaks do, then it's an excellent weapon for missile hardpoints for the tonnage to go with ballistics or energy.

It would even be okay to be better than LRMs at long range or better at short range then SRMs, because it is a much heavier weapon. The question will be how much damage/DPS per ton you get out of the different options, taking into account heat and ammo requirements.

SRMs are very light compared to ATMs, and still pack a nasty punch.
I could totally see a minimum range of 90m be a way to give the SRM a bit more of an edge here, but the current minimum range is not really practicl.

In regards to LRMs, I think there isn't really a big contest - the LRMs flight trajectory is just so much better for long range combat, it will be able to clear a lot of cover (including allies) that would block an ATM. And of course, the damage drop off will make the LRM be more damaging at the longer range. (Though I still wouldn't mind lowering the ATM max range to below that of the LRM.)

[Jep Jorgensson]

Duvanor, on 30 June 2017 - 05:15 AM, said:

One thing to consider is the ATM missiles behavior in controlled testing. People stated they hit the CT fairly accurate. I think they lock on the CT and then scatter around it with their spread. So they look quite effective on the testing grounds when you shoot some stationary target from the front or back angle. As soon as you start shooting from the side or at moving, twisting targets this changes quite a bit. Just a sidenote to consider for comparison to SRMs that can, in my opinion, target a mechs components more reliably.

But that's just my observation. Did anyone else test ATMs behavior on moving targets?

I did with one of my guys. My findings are here.

[AngrySpartan]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 June 2017 - 10:58 AM, said:

very few SRM boats can effectively be used even at their "optimal" range

No offense, but I stopped taking your words seriously after that part. Nonetheless, I'll comment the parts I still remember:

ATMs (without minimum) can deal more damage than SRMs? On paper - yes. In the field, hell no.
1. You'll barely will be able to match the SRM DPS with ATMs. e.g Mad Dog - 6 SRM6+A (that SRM boat you think can't work at it's optimal range) - 72 alpha every 4 seconds. ATMs (4ATM6+2ATM3) - 90 alpha every 5 seconds.
2. There is damage and there is effective damage. 36 SRMs hitting single side torso is scary. 30 ATMs blocked by cover, shot down by AMS and spreading all over the mech is hilarious.
3. Closing the distance with SRMs isn't difficult at all. It's difficult to take down more than a single mech with you though.
4. Center mass, center mass, etc. Just go and kill assault mech solo with LRMs. Than get back here and say how much ammo has you spend? ATMs do more damage but they have twice less ammo than LRMs, so again - you don't want to waste them when they do only 1 or 2 damage.

BTW. SFE Griffin 3M and Centurions says hello! And IS has LFE now.

Edited by AngrySpartan, 30 June 2017 - 11:35 AM.

[P10k56]

The horror of minimum range.
Ask fat slow IS lurmboat how it feels.

[davoodoo]

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

Because if it's better at long range than LRMs and short range than SRMs it negates them. If it's solid at both and, again, doesn't spread or have the insane cooldown that streaks do, then it's an excellent weapon for missile hardpoints for the tonnage to go with ballistics or energy.

SRMs not being able to lock means you need to either take all SRMs or be unable to fire both direct fire and SRMs at the same point at once. This is a significant factor for degrading the value of SRMs as anything but a straight SRM brawler.

The ability to lock a target and shoot and have your damage all show about the same location (whatever torso/leg, some to the arms) as what you're shooting with direct fire is incredibly powerful. At ~300m doing 36 damage for 7 tons with a locking weapon that doesn't spread each missile to a different location like streaks is absolutely solid.

The ballistic flight path is a perk, not a drawback. You want a boated indirect fire weapon? Go with LRMs. You want brawling? Go with SRMs. ATM with a faster (~300m/s) velocity and nice flat path and damage that scaled by range and optimized for mid-range would be an excellent Clan weapon that might have use all the way up to competitive play.

It also needs to be stronger vs AMS, not weaker.

That would be a good weapon with its own niche and a hell of a lot more useful/viable than LRMs even in matches between good teams.

However its not, its worse than counterparts at every range and when it comes to flexibility streaks are better.

It doesnt work as indirect fire weapon because of low trajectory and lower dmg.
It kinda works as direct fire medium range weapon, but then streaks are just better dmg/ton and hit trajectory ruins it(more on it below)
It doesnt work as short range weapon because minimum range which isnt problem for streaks and even if it had 0 minimum range srms can do more dmg per ton as even without artemis they have better spread.

At brawl even if youre terrible shot lock is hindrance, not help. You need to face enemy to get lock and youll quickly lose it again as you twist resulting in dps loss furthering favoring unguided srms. Even at medium range you should actually have no problem hitting anything heavier than 45 tons.
Now finally atm lock is horrendous above 270m it sends half the missiles flying into enemy legs while rest is spread around torsos with occasional arm hit, at least streaks and even lrm actually concentrate fire at ct, but atms for whatever reason do not.

Edited by davoodoo, 30 June 2017 - 11:51 AM.

[Andi Nagasia]

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

Because if it's better at long range than LRMs and short range than SRMs it negates them. If it's solid at both and, again, doesn't spread or have the insane cooldown that streaks do, then it's an excellent weapon for missile hardpoints for the tonnage to go with ballistics or energy.

but its not, and ive proven such with what ive posted before,
as it is right now, its weaker than SRMs, and Weaker than LRMs when not in 180-270,

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

SRMs not being able to lock means you need to either take all SRMs or be unable to fire both direct fire and SRMs at the same point at once. This is a significant factor for degrading the value of SRMs as anything but a straight SRM brawler.

you dont have to Always Alpha all the time, SRMs are best used with Lasers and Ballistics,
you dont ever want to Alpha SRMs and anything else at the same time it decreases your accuracy,
fire the SRMs twist, turn back fire your MLs Twist, SRMs off cooldown turn Back and fire then,.... Twist,
Brawling isnt about Alphaing only at close range thats not how Brawling works,

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

The ability to lock a target and shoot and have your damage all show about the same location (whatever torso/leg, some to the arms) as what you're shooting with direct fire is incredibly powerful. At ~300m doing 36 damage for 7 tons with a locking weapon that doesn't spread each missile to a different location like streaks is absolutely solid.

you know wish a Spread of 5.2 you can fire at a target that isnt moving and lose 2 ATMs(of 12) right?
go into training Grounds, find a JR7 and shoot at it with an ATM12, come back to me and tell me how many hit,

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

The ballistic flight path is a perk, not a drawback. You want a boated indirect fire weapon? Go with LRMs. You want brawling? Go with SRMs. ATM with a faster (~300m/s) velocity and nice flat path and damage that scaled by range and optimized for mid-range would be an excellent Clan weapon that might have use all the way up to competitive play.

i think in this case its a mixed bag, personally i like LRMs for their Arch,
however ATMs not having them is good i think as it makes them play diffrent,

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

It also needs to be stronger vs AMS, not weaker.

agreed, they need to have SRM health, or slightly less,

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

If my Orion IIC was pushing 116 damage at 80m and even moderately heat sustainable it would be utterly totally broken OP AF. The fact that inside 180m the 81 damage worth of ATMs is gone is the only thing that makes it not OP AF.

but its not,

Please note i lost 3-4Missiles off to the side of this Stationary AS7,
also note that 70Heat Alpha isnt sustainable, and wouldnt work in a Brawl,

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

If I could brawl with ATMs at 3 damage/missile I'd never take SRMs on Clans again. Rip people up at 300-600m with CERMLs or LBX + ATMs, then close to a brawl and puke up 100+ pt alphas from 60-75 ton mechs running over 70 KPH?

SRMs do more damage at less tonnage, you take ATMs if you have lots of tonnage but few Missile Points,
Again the damage spreads and even on a stationary target your losing at least 1 missile past the target,

MischiefSC, on 30 June 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

They need *some* functionality inside of 180m, even if it's strongly degraded. They need to be faster because you need to consistently hit targets at mid range with minimal exposure time and they need to be stronger vs AMS and you've got a weapon that syncs pretty well with other weapons. Tweaking those three things, how viable at point blank, strength vs AMS and velocity (time to target) and you might even make them viable in a real sense. Certainly way more so than LRMs for skilled (not sure I would say comp) play.

i agree they need to be faster, but i still feel they need to have their Min Range reduced to 90m,
it would allow them more viability, wail also allowing SRMs to stay much stronger at Close Range,
and LRMs will still be better then them past 270m which im ok with, as each has their use,
but the 180m Dead zone needs to go,

P10k56, on 30 June 2017 - 11:34 AM, said:

The horror of minimum range.
Ask fat slow IS lurmboat how it feels.

holds no relevence here as C-LRMs have a Min Range of 180m when they arnt supposed to,
and the ramp down Damage is a Joke as under 100m Missiles fly over the targets head,
and at 120m they do around 0.1damage per missile, so yes we do know what its like,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 30 June 2017 - 11:46 AM.