677 replies to this topic

[ExAstra]

The6thMessenger, on 01 July 2017 - 02:31 AM, said:

They should have went ahead and changed it to 0. Honestly that defeats the purpose of supposedly range generalist weapon.

Baby steps.

[AngrySpartan]

ExAstra, on 01 July 2017 - 02:32 AM, said:

Baby steps.

Byby steps indeed, however that aproach in this particular case prevents a very important thing:
It does not allow to test the weapon the way it should work. Instead of flexible weapon we have another set of LRM launchers, and why bother testing next gen LRMs?

Many players did the testing nonetheless: ATM ~ worse LRM as is.

Removing min range even for the sake of testing will allow to compare ATMs to SRMs and Streaks in the field, and only then it will be clear if it needs min range at all. Meaninsgless comparison until min range is out there

Edited by AngrySpartan, 01 July 2017 - 04:28 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Post change increases their usability, due to the increased standard damage zone and decreased minimum range zone. However, I still don't think a minimum range is required. I also don't think the weapon system needs more than 810 range. Why it has more still confuses me. Let the LRM have farther range. Not that it's usable, but it reduces name confusion, and at least the LRM can indirectly lob shots.

We're getting to the point, however, where I feel a more significant QOL for the system would be increasing both the missile HP and the velocity to somewhere between SRM and LRM. The current state has it that even 2 AMS can completely swat 5 ATM3s fired in a blob out of the air. That's a little nuts.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 01 July 2017 - 05:34 AM.

[ExAstra]

I can see where PGI is reluctant to remove the minimum range completely, though. Considering ATMs do 1 damage more per missile than SRMs with much larger lauchers available - making ATMs too strong or easy to use is essentially opening them up to completely replace SRMs given that the ATM can also do SRM levels of damage out to 570m.

I remain unconvinced that LRMs are strictly superior to ATMs and ATMs are inferior to SRMs. But I do think it will be a delicate balance to have ATMs be viable and attractive alternatives to LRMs/SRMs without having them completely invalidate one or both at the same time.

[Rusharn]

Played again and with all other stats remaining as they are (heat, velocity, etc.) 120m minimum range makes the weapon not viable. The weapon is hot, heavy, takes a high amount of crit slots, has low ammo per ton, is weak against hard missile counters, and a high cool down time. The other stats are ready limiting the weapon even if it has a high short range damage. The minimum range removes it's ability to be flexible as light mechs can often close the distance to enter minimum range dead zones. If a flexible weapon cannot engage all targets, it is no longer a feasible weapon system. With the advent of the IS Light engine and the increase of the IS brawling arsenal if the ATM is useless at any brawling range, then the weapon is useless.

[Pariah Devalis]

ExAstra, on 01 July 2017 - 06:33 AM, said:

I can see where PGI is reluctant to remove the minimum range completely, though. Considering ATMs do 1 damage more per missile than SRMs with much larger lauchers available - making ATMs too strong or easy to use is essentially opening them up to completely replace SRMs given that the ATM can also do SRM levels of damage out to 570m.

I remain unconvinced that LRMs are strictly superior to ATMs and ATMs are inferior to SRMs. But I do think it will be a delicate balance to have ATMs be viable and attractive alternatives to LRMs/SRMs without having them completely invalidate one or both at the same time.

Think of it this way: If you only have one hardpoint for missiles (for whatever reason), and if ATM had no minimum range, it would be an attractive option for a mech over SRM due to the existence of ATM6, 9, and 12. However, if you have multiple hardpoints, multiple SRM will outperform it in that role. More missiles, more damage, higher rate of fire, less crits taken, less tonnage taken, and also cannot be almost completely shut down by a single AMS. Lower damage per ton of ammo in a brawl vs the HE ATM ammo at 72/ton, but much higher damage placement efficiency than ATM.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 01 July 2017 - 06:46 AM.

[Wintersdark]

It should be noted that ATM's cannot even begin to compete with LRM's, not at all. As soon as you pass 500m, you're getting 72 damage per ton ammo max. You're going to hit LESS with ATM's than LRM's because ATM's are more vulnerable to AMS, and ATM's can't arc over intervening obstacles. You're basically never going to see more than 24 tubes on a mech, and that's a heavy ATM load on an assault, so it's largely the same as a single LRM20 before you factor in the added losses ATM's suffer. Nobody anywhere fears one LRM20.

Any firing of the ATM's at 500+m removes the potential for that ammo to be spent in better circumstances, so basically firing ATM's at 500+m is an "emergency only" measure, or one wherein you're heavily sacrificing mech capabilities to carry a lot of extra ammo.

[MischiefSC]

Pariah Devalis, on 01 July 2017 - 05:32 AM, said:

Post change increases their usability, due to the increased standard damage zone and decreased minimum range zone. However, I still don't think a minimum range is required. I also don't think the weapon system needs more than 810 range. Why it has more still confuses me. Let the LRM have farther range. Not that it's usable, but it reduces name confusion, and at least the LRM can indirectly lob shots.

We're getting to the point, however, where I feel a more significant QOL for the system would be increasing both the missile HP and the velocity to somewhere between SRM and LRM. The current state has it that even 2 AMS can completely swat 5 ATM3s fired in a blob out of the air. That's a little nuts.

Scale damage inside 120m steeply down to 0.25 damage/missile at 0m. That's going to put it at 1-1.5 for most of brawling range. 3 damage/missile at 120m is brutal and useful. Also yes to speed increase. If I'm going to be using them at 400m in concert with direct fire I need to be able to put them on the same target in the same window.

My big concern is that if ATMs are not fast enough to be viable for that then they're only good for boating, like LRMs and SRMs. The hope is to have them viable as a missile weapon you can stack with Clan direct fire weapons.

[Rusharn]

Continuing to play on PTS and ATM's are useless against any light or brawler of any speed. You cannot keep the distance open especially as the IS mediums, heavies and assaults are a lot faster and more maneuverable than their clan counter parts. In combination with the other reductions to the Clan maneuverability if this weapon has any drop off of damage or a minimum range, while maintaining all other current stats no pilot would take this weapon. With the addition of the IS Light engine, brawling weapons, and MRM's there is zero reason not to fully remove the Minimum range. As it is the low velocity acts as a type of minimum range allowing fast lights and mediums to easily dodge the majority of incoming missile, especially at the closer ranges.

Edited by Rusharn, 01 July 2017 - 08:44 AM.

[Rusharn]

As a side note, ATM's like Streaks practically require an active probe be equipped if ECM is not already present on the mech. Another reason to take Srms over ATMS is to avoid the active probe tax.

Edited by Rusharn, 01 July 2017 - 08:58 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Rusharn, on 01 July 2017 - 08:49 AM, said:

As a side note, ATM's like Streaks practically require an active probe be equipped if ECM is not already present on the mech. Another reason to take Srms over ATMS is to avoid the active probe tax.

Upside, it's fairly easy to slot in a half ton LAP, assuming you have the crit space for it.

[Rusharn]

Pariah Devalis, on 01 July 2017 - 09:00 AM, said:

Upside, it's fairly easy to slot in a half ton LAP, assuming you have the crit space for it.

Too bad one of the downsides of ATM's is they take more crit slots than most of the other lock on weapons.

[Andi Nagasia]

i feel perhaps ATM Velocity(and LRMs for that matter) should be increased to 240,
also i would love to know what the Missile Health for ATM Ammo,

[MischiefSC]

Rusharn, on 01 July 2017 - 08:43 AM, said:

Continuing to play on PTS and ATM's are useless against any light or brawler of any speed. You cannot keep the distance open especially as the IS mediums, heavies and assaults are a lot faster and more maneuverable than their clan counter parts. In combination with the other reductions to the Clan maneuverability if this weapon has any drop off of damage or a minimum range, while maintaining all other current stats no pilot would take this weapon. With the addition of the IS Light engine, brawling weapons, and MRM's there is zero reason not to fully remove the Minimum range. As it is the low velocity acts as a type of minimum range allowing fast lights and mediums to easily dodge the majority of incoming missile, especially at the closer ranges.

Quit boating them. It's like boating LRMs, it's a bad idea.

Even with the 180m range I ran them with a uac10, 2ml on a Orion and was doing 400-800 damage consistently against any adversary. In a 4v4 that's a crap ton of damage. With damage falloff they would make that build brutally good. They don't need 3 damage/missile at point blank.

[Pariah Devalis]

MischiefSC, on 01 July 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

Quit boating them. It's like boating LRMs, it's a bad idea.

Even with the 180m range I ran them with a uac10, 2ml on a Orion and was doing 400-800 damage consistently against any adversary. In a 4v4 that's a crap ton of damage. With damage falloff they would make that build brutally good. They don't need 3 damage/missile at point blank.

Will admit, as a supplemental weapon system, they're not terrible. But they were, at least originally, intended to be a primary weapon system. However, in my KDK-4, 2x ATM9 pair nicely with 4x ERMLas and 2x UAC10. I mean, I could make those ATM12, but the heat generation and ammo issues are not worth it.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 01 July 2017 - 09:09 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Pariah Devalis, on 01 July 2017 - 09:08 AM, said:

Will admit, as a supplemental weapon system, they're not terrible. But they were, at least originally, intended to be a primary weapon system. However, in my KDK-4, 2x ATM9 pair nicely with 4x ERMLas and 2x UAC10. I mean, I could make those ATM12, but the heat generation and ammo issues are not worth it.

Same with the Onion. ATMs represent, to me, an opportunity to make mixes builds viable on Clan mechs. A solid direct fire oriented missile weapon that's optimized for mid range but works at long and brawl? SRMs don't. LRMs don't in a useful sense. ATMs as a damage kicker at mid range and flexible? A great choice for mechs with the tonnage.

[Rusharn]

MischiefSC, on 01 July 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

Quit boating them. It's like boating LRMs, it's a bad idea.

Even with the 180m range I ran them with a uac10, 2ml on a Orion and was doing 400-800 damage consistently against any adversary. In a 4v4 that's a crap ton of damage. With damage falloff they would make that build brutally good. They don't need 3 damage/missile at point blank.

Then you weren't fighting any light pilot worth their salt. In my Pirates Bane I've been tearing apart pretty much any clan heavy or assault mech, especially if they are using ATM's. I don't think I've ever been hit by an ATM in my Pirates bane.

[Andi Nagasia]

MischiefSC, on 01 July 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

Same with the Onion. ATMs represent, to me, an opportunity to make mixes builds viable on Clan mechs. A solid direct fire oriented missile weapon that's optimized for mid range but works at long and brawl? SRMs don't. LRMs don't in a useful sense. ATMs as a damage kicker at mid range and flexible? A great choice for mechs with the tonnage.

well i feel the 120m Min Range is a good starting point to go live with,
if it need to go down further then if can with much more feed back from a 12v12 environment,

however the Velocity really need a boost(with LRMs) and it need to have SRM Missile Health,
(not sure if it already does, doesnt feel like it but that could also be a Velocity Problem as well)

[AngrySpartan]

MischiefSC, on 01 July 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

Quit boating them. It's like boating LRMs, it's a bad idea.

Even with the 180m range I ran them with a uac10, 2ml on a Orion and was doing 400-800 damage consistently against any adversary. In a 4v4 that's a crap ton of damage. With damage falloff they would make that build brutally good. They don't need 3 damage/missile at point blank.

LRMs without boating them or bringing your own NARC is a bad idea as well. Especially for IS.

And as you said, "it's like LRMs". Do we need another LRM weapon? I definetely don't. That's what ATMs are now - LRMs, only worse. There are ways to fix it, easiest - to remove the damn minimum range.

[Guile Votoms]

Gotta love all those clan tears over how ATMs are not the new über-streak-lurms that you can boat.

It's a new weapon system and it's a pretty good one, but it will require some practice.
It's not supposed to replace streaks, srms or lrms but simply offer a new option.

They need minimum range or they'd just become straight up better than all other missile weapons.