677 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Damnedtroll, on 03 July 2017 - 08:41 AM, said:

They need to arc more for long range or follow terrain...

On the part remaining... I'm going to have to say... NO.

If ATMs arched more or followed terrain, than that would be the same features (or better) than LRMs, and would thus start to remove LRM's specialization within it's own specialization.

Right now, a lot of people are afraid if ATMs had no minimum range that they would replace (S)SRMs. I don't believe this would be the case, but it is a valid concern. Having ATMs attempt to replace LRMs probably would create much of the same thing.

We aren't looking for ATMs to replace any weapon systems at all. Many of us want a viable "tactically flexible" weapon that "isn't as good as, but useful in it's own way" to other missile systems. Something that can work similar to LRMs and/or (S)SRMs at any given time while not being exactly more powerful/useful than those options in their own specialty. The problem is how to achieve this without making "king of all missiles" as a weapon system... (which then would invalidate (S)SRMs and LRMs, which we don't want to do.)

[Twinkleblade]

I tried something with dumbfiring ATMs. When fired they follow the torso movement but midair will instantly correct flightpath towards intial point where you aimed at when you fired them. Thats kinda interesting but makes these weapons useless when dumbfired.

Edited by Twinkleblade, 03 July 2017 - 09:44 AM.

[Rusharn]

I have not had much luck in dumb firing the ATM's as well.

[Steinkrieg]

Rusharn, on 03 July 2017 - 10:42 AM, said:

I have not had much luck in dumb firing the ATM's as well.

Yes, they are really a "IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US" dumb fire weapon, like say with that Atlas is charging you and you can get a good volley on it around 200m away.

[Scout Derek]

Tesunie, on 03 July 2017 - 09:41 AM, said:

On the part remaining... I'm going to have to say... NO.

If ATMs arched more or followed terrain, than that would be the same features (or better) than LRMs, and would thus start to remove LRM's specialization within it's own specialization.

Right now, a lot of people are afraid if ATMs had no minimum range that they would replace (S)SRMs. I don't believe this would be the case, but it is a valid concern. Having ATMs attempt to replace LRMs probably would create much of the same thing.

We aren't looking for ATMs to replace any weapon systems at all. Many of us want a viable "tactically flexible" weapon that "isn't as good as, but useful in it's own way" to other missile systems. Something that can work similar to LRMs and/or (S)SRMs at any given time while not being exactly more powerful/useful than those options in their own specialty. The problem is how to achieve this without making "king of all missiles" as a weapon system... (which then would invalidate (S)SRMs and LRMs, which we don't want to do.)

Pretty much sums up why I don't want Min range removed.

But it could definitely use more health for the weapon itself and it's missiles a tad bit. AMS munches them up with ease.

[Andi Nagasia]

Scout Derek, on 03 July 2017 - 11:33 AM, said:

Pretty much sums up why I don't want Min range removed.

But it could definitely use more health for the weapon itself and it's missiles a tad bit. AMS munches them up with ease.

Agreed, as ive said earlier, the 120m Min Range i feel is good to go Live with,
the Spread im also not worried too much as that can also be changed later as well,
what ATMs need is SRM missile health or perhaps even more, as they go only 160m,

[Jep Jorgensson]

Andi Nagasia, on 03 July 2017 - 11:40 AM, said:

Agreed, as ive said earlier, the 120m Min Range i feel is good to go Live with,
the Spread im also not worried too much as that can also be changed later as well,
what ATMs need is SRM missile health or perhaps even more, as they go only 160m,

They are still crap for multiple reasons already stated. As is, I cannot think of a single valid reason why I would choose these abominations over regular SRM's at short range or LRM's at medium and long range. Can you tell me how exactly they could actually be considered and viable weapon that is worth all the drawbacks? And please, be as detailed as possible.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 03 July 2017 - 12:33 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

Jep Jorgensson, on 03 July 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

They are still crap for multiple reasons already stated. As is, I cannot think of a single valid reason why I would choose these abominations over regular SRM's at short range or LRM's at medium and long range. Can you tell me how exactly they could actually be considered and viable weapon that is worth all the drawbacks? And please, be as detailed as possible.

well first off i said i think the 120m Min Range is good to go live,
i still think their Velocity and Missile health really need to be increase to them to be more effective,

assuming they have 240m Velocity, a 50% speed increase, they would have more Range Viability,
i would also support LRMs having their Velocity increased as well to this level,

also giving ATMs SRM Missile Health(or even more as to their Low Velocity)
ATMs need to be able to survive past 1AMS system, which is paramount to their utility,
no weapon system should be 100% useless vs a 1-1.5Ton Piece of Equipment,

i would like to test these Changes with ATMs first before another decrease in Min Range,
should the Min Range for ATMs be reduced Further? perhaps, but i would also like to look at other stats as well,

[AngrySpartan]

Andi Nagasia, on 03 July 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:

well first off i said i think the 120m Min Range is good to go live,
i still think their Velocity and Missile health really need to be increase to them to be more effective,

assuming they have 240m Velocity, a 50% speed increase, they would have more Range Viability,
i would also support LRMs having their Velocity increased as well to this level,

also giving ATMs SRM Missile Health(or even more as to their Low Velocity)
ATMs need to be able to survive past 1AMS system, which is paramount to their utility,
no weapon system should be 100% useless vs a 1-1.5Ton Piece of Equipment,

i would like to test these Changes with ATMs first before another decrease in Min Range,
should the Min Range for ATMs be reduced Further? perhaps, but i would also like to look at other stats as well,

Agree with those buffs for ATMs, that's out of the question.

Next PTS session would likely be the last before the release however, and if not now, than it would be never most likely. PGI is not known for the last minute changes in their mind, and it's not a lot of time loft before the patch. I'd love to see all these buffs to be in place and min. range removed for the next session.

Anyway - huge damage is the main ATM point of imbalance. Nerf it slightly and there will be no need for minimum range anymore.

Edited by AngrySpartan, 03 July 2017 - 01:03 PM.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Any min range is still $hit. These are supposed to be missiles we can brawl with close in and nobody can brawl properly with a 120 meter min range.

The buffs are good.

Another thing I want noted is that while other weapons got an automatic buff in range from their Lore values (max range was doubled), some of you guys seem to be perfectly happy with PGI nerfing this one weapon type to below that of its Lore value. Why is that? Why are you fine with other weapons being buffed up from their Lore values while this one is nerfed? If you guys want this weapon to adhere to its TT value, then fine. Do it. But then you have to do it for everything else as well. Otherwise it would be flat out discrimination and upset the Lore balance. Is that what you guys want?

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 03 July 2017 - 01:22 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Damnedtroll, on 02 July 2017 - 06:36 AM, said:

At least the ATM let you shoot at long range until you get in the sweet spot.

SRM is nothing, nothing, getting lurmed, nothing, half dead, nothing, alpha strike with a lot of damage but sometimes you cannot do it before getting mauled bad...

Presently an ATM is more or less a SRM with a LRM build in backup weapon that make you able to shot in all situation.

You'd think that, but you'd be wrong.

Firing an ATM at long range nets you a whopping 72 damage per ton, and every single missile you fire deprives you of missiles you could fire at two or three times that damage per ton rating.

You CAN shoot at long range, but it's stupid to do so. If you're planning on firing at long range, you bring LRM's too. The only time you should be firing at long range with ATM's is when you've already won a match and you're just chasing down leftovers (at which point you're just wrapping stuff up and the match is in the bag anyways).

Exposing yourself to get shots (due to the relatively flat tragectory ATM's have) when you're burning ammo so fast is a terrible idea.

Tesunie, on 03 July 2017 - 09:41 AM, said:

On the part remaining... I'm going to have to say... NO.

If ATMs arched more or followed terrain, than that would be the same features (or better) than LRMs, and would thus start to remove LRM's specialization within it's own specialization.

Right now, a lot of people are afraid if ATMs had no minimum range that they would replace (S)SRMs. I don't believe this would be the case, but it is a valid concern. Having ATMs attempt to replace LRMs probably would create much of the same thing.

We aren't looking for ATMs to replace any weapon systems at all. Many of us want a viable "tactically flexible" weapon that "isn't as good as, but useful in it's own way" to other missile systems. Something that can work similar to LRMs and/or (S)SRMs at any given time while not being exactly more powerful/useful than those options in their own specialty. The problem is how to achieve this without making "king of all missiles" as a weapon system... (which then would invalidate (S)SRMs and LRMs, which we don't want to do.)

This is totally on point. ATM's, IMHO, should even have a totally flat flight path, direct from your launchers to the target. This is where LRM's should be a superior ranged system, as they allow indirect fire. There's also my previously mentioned ammo issue (1 damage per missile, 72 missiles per ton = stupid to use ATM's as LRM's) but it's more important that ATM's behave differently than LRM's to remain a "different feeling" weapon.

[Scout Derek]

Wintersdark, on 03 July 2017 - 02:38 PM, said:

You'd think that, but you'd be wrong.

Firing an ATM at long range nets you a whopping 72 damage per ton, and every single missile you fire deprives you of missiles you could fire at two or three times that damage per ton rating.

You CAN shoot at long range, but it's stupid to do so. If you're planning on firing at long range, you bring LRM's too. The only time you should be firing at long range with ATM's is when you've already won a match and you're just chasing down leftovers (at which point you're just wrapping stuff up and the match is in the bag anyways).

Exposing yourself to get shots (due to the relatively flat tragectory ATM's have) when you're burning ammo so fast is a terrible idea.

And to exactly make a balance between the two;

Simply take a ATM12 with a LRM15. Easily fixed now for damage.

12 tons of weapons, 5 tons of ammo for each one nets you 22tons, 60 shots of the LRM 15, 30 shots of ATM 12.

ATMs to be used for shorter range, LRM for both ranges. I can see it being a possibility, won't be pretty, but possible.

Edited by Scout Derek, 03 July 2017 - 02:42 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Jep Jorgensson, on 03 July 2017 - 01:21 PM, said:

Any min range is still $hit. These are supposed to be missiles we can brawl with close in and nobody can brawl properly with a 120 meter min range.

The buffs are good.

Another thing I want noted is that while other weapons got an automatic buff in range from their Lore values (max range was doubled), some of you guys seem to be perfectly happy with PGI nerfing this one weapon type to below that of its Lore value. Why is that? Why are you fine with other weapons being buffed up from their Lore values while this one is nerfed? If you guys want this weapon to adhere to its TT value, then fine. Do it. But then you have to do it for everything else as well. Otherwise it would be flat out discrimination and upset the Lore balance. Is that what you guys want?

Yeah, it REALLY should have a cLRM style exponential scaling down to zero, not a hard cap wherein they do zero damage. It's just too gamey and annoying to risk using them at closer ranges when stepping a meter forward drops damage from full to zero. I feel this about IS LRM's and PPC's, too, mind you. Damage scaling for all!

[Cy Mitchell]

Scout Derek, on 03 July 2017 - 02:41 PM, said:

And to exactly make a balance between the two;

Simply take a ATM12 with a LRM15. Easily fixed now for damage.

12 tons of weapons, 5 tons of ammo for each one nets you 22tons, 60 shots of the LRM 15, 30 shots of ATM 12.

ATMs to be used for shorter range, LRM for both ranges. I can see it being a possibility, won't be pretty, but possible.

If you are going to do that then why bother with the ATMs at all? Take the LRM launchers and pair it with SRM launchers. SRMs for short range overlap slightly with your LRMs for long range. Do nt have to worry about lock for the SRMs either so they are faster firing in close.

[Rusharn]

The ATMs as they currently stand, if they had minimum range removed, would have the following advantageous features; High Short Range damage, moderate mid range damage, LRM missile tracking, built in Artemis.

Their disadvantages are, if the minimum range is removed, are: low velocity stream fire makes missiles vulnerable to AMS, Low velocity stream fire with LRM tracking makes it difficult to score full volley hits on fast or maneuverable targets especially that are close, Stream fire allows damage from larger launchers to be spread easier through torso twisting aided by incoming missile warning, vulnerable to ECM requiring active probe for best effect, lowest ammo per ton putting a premium on space and weight, low shot's per ton require more frugal management of ammo during combat, largest crit requirement of the missile weapon systems, Hottest missile weapon system, longer then cool down other missile systems.

The ATM's have a lot of con's that off set it's high damage at short range and users of ATM's will be having to fight hard for every point of damage.

If PGI does not want to remove the minimum range then they will have to compromise in other areas if they want pilots to use the system and have the system be effective. If they do not remove the minimum range then I would suggest the following adjustments; significantly lower heat, more ammo per ton, significantly more velocity, tighter spread. If those stats are not improved then the minimum range will keep the weapon from being used.

[Wintersdark]

Rusharn, on 03 July 2017 - 03:13 PM, said:

The ATMs as they currently stand, if they had minimum range removed, would have the following advantageous features; High Short Range damage, moderate mid range damage, LRM missile tracking, built in Artemis.

Their disadvantages are, if the minimum range is removed, are: low velocity stream fire makes missiles vulnerable to AMS, Low velocity stream fire with LRM tracking makes it difficult to score full volley hits on fast or maneuverable targets especially that are close, Stream fire allows damage from larger launchers to be spread easier through torso twisting aided by incoming missile warning, vulnerable to ECM requiring active probe for best effect, lowest ammo per ton putting a premium on space and weight, low shot's per ton require more frugal management of ammo during combat, largest crit requirement of the missile weapon systems, Hottest missile weapon system, longer then cool down other missile systems.

The ATM's have a lot of con's that off set it's high damage at short range and users of ATM's will be having to fight hard for every point of damage.

If PGI does not want to remove the minimum range then they will have to compromise in other areas if they want pilots to use the system and have the system be effective. If they do not remove the minimum range then I would suggest the following adjustments; significantly lower heat, more ammo per ton, significantly more velocity, tighter spread. If those stats are not improved then the minimum range will keep the weapon from being used.

Indeed.

The problem here is that there's a large number of posters in this thread who have not actually used these in combat. In the testing grounds, sure, they can even seem OPish. On paper they look bloody awesome.

But on the battlefield? When you experience just how harsh AMS loses are? How you miss with half the missiles against smaller fast targets? When people can move out of that sweet spot?

Quite frankly, if one hasn't actually used them in combat, that person should educate themselves take their ignorant backsides out of the thread.

Hell, even in combat, you don't see how harsh a penalty that ammo/ton can be because you only need to fight 4 foes. But just reading the stats and shooting at static targets in the testing grounds totally masks the ATM's substantial weaknesses.

[Tesunie]

Scout Derek, on 03 July 2017 - 11:33 AM, said:

Pretty much sums up why I don't want Min range removed.

But it could definitely use more health for the weapon itself and it's missiles a tad bit. AMS munches them up with ease.

I want the hard minimum range removed. Though I would like for it to be completely removed, I wouldn't be opposed to it changing into a soft minimum range, scaling damage back the closer the target is. If it is soft minimum, I think ATMs could still use a little bit more of a boost. If it's complete removal, than everything else should remain the same as compensation to keep it balanced.

As I've said before, there are lots of ways to balance a weapon.

[Scout Derek]

Tesunie, on 03 July 2017 - 05:56 PM, said:

I want the hard minimum range removed. Though I would like for it to be completely removed, I wouldn't be opposed to it changing into a soft minimum range, scaling damage back the closer the target is. If it is soft minimum, I think ATMs could still use a little bit more of a boost. If it's complete removal, than everything else should remain the same as compensation to keep it balanced.

As I've said before, there are lots of ways to balance a weapon.

Of course, soft minimum range is probably one other way I'd go for balancing it.

[Valdorel]

ATMs were the weapon I was super hyped for above all else. Them having a minimum range completely ruins them imho.

Take away the min range and just give them range-based damage falloff at the points where the ATMs range categories should transition. And to keep it balanced drop the max range back to 810 where it's supposed to be. Why was it increased to be longer range than LRMs in the first place?

[Khobai]

Quote

Why was it increased to be longer range than LRMs in the first place?

Because ATMs have longer range than LRMs in tabletop.

But in MWO, ATMs and LRMs have to coexist side by side and one shouldnt be straight up better than the other.

So to keep ATMs in harmony with LRMs, they should have a lower max range.

Quote

Of course, soft minimum range is probably one other way I'd go for balancing it.

no min range is better.

soft min range still makes them completely ineffective in a range band where they should be effective.

lower the damage per missile if you have to, but get rid of the min range.

Edited by Khobai, 03 July 2017 - 08:35 PM.