677 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Valdorel, on 03 July 2017 - 08:11 PM, said:

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?

Honestly speaking? I find the longer range to be... completely irrelevant... About as irrelevant as LRM max range typically is (except LRMs can occasionally hit at those ranges). I don't see ATMs ever being able to even think about striking out past a range of 600m if even that. It can say 1000+ m if it wishes to all it wants. I don't see it ever being able to even consider such a thing... Not with how slow and how low they fly...

[Khobai]

Quote

Honestly speaking? I find the longer range to be... completely irrelevant... About as irrelevant as LRM max range typically is (except LRMs can occasionally hit at those ranges). I don't see ATMs ever being able to even think about striking out past a range of 600m if even that. It can say 1000+ m if it wishes to all it wants. I don't see it ever being able to even consider such a thing... Not with how slow and how low they fly...

Yeah I agree. But in the <1% of games where it might come up, I dont think ATMs should outrange LRMs.

[Tesunie]

Khobai, on 03 July 2017 - 08:37 PM, said:

Yeah I agree. But in the <1% of games where it might come up, I dont think ATMs should outrange LRMs.

Although I agree with you... The counter argument that opens up can become (and has been used) is that ATMs shouldn't out damage (per missile) SRMs at close range...

Mind, I think that their heavy weight and huge crit slots (with relatively low health components) combined with low missile count and low damage count per ton of ammo kinda balances that aspect out (as well as cooldown and better "aiming" abilities of SRMs)... But just to give a bit of insight into the other side's arguments.

Remember though that I honestly really want ATMs to have no minimum range at all with no other adjustments (at least for now). So I'm not voicing for keeping minimum ranges, but that doesn't mean I can't understand their view point.

[ArcAngel Ex007]

After playing these weapons for the last two days I have to agree the min range needs to be removed entirely. With the ammo per ton being less than SRM's and the damage step down being so short until they are useless like Andi Nagasia has already stated, these become out gunned pretty quickly.

To make this effective I believe there are a couple of options:
Make the damage curve less severe (ie higher damage for longer)
Set the minimum distance at 0 like all other clan missiles
set the ammo at around 120 per ton, that way it sits nicely in the middle and can be used as the weapon it was designed to be.

Any thoughts? Would anyone else agree with this?

[Gasoline]

Tesunie, on 03 July 2017 - 08:42 PM, said:

Although I agree with you... The counter argument that opens up can become (and has been used) is that ATMs shouldn't out damage (per missile) SRMs at close range...

Mind, I think that their heavy weight and huge crit slots (with relatively low health components) combined with low missile count and low damage count per ton of ammo kinda balances that aspect out (as well as cooldown and better "aiming" abilities of SRMs)... But just to give a bit of insight into the other side's arguments.

Remember though that I honestly really want ATMs to have no minimum range at all with no other adjustments (at least for now). So I'm not voicing for keeping minimum ranges, but that doesn't mean I can't understand their view point.

I totally agree.

Even with no minimum range ATM's wouldn't replace any other weapon system in the clan arsenal. S/SRMs and LRMs are more tonnage, heat and ammo efficient and have a way higher burst damage/dps. And please keep in mind that ATMs have inbuilt Artemis IV FCS. Increasing the spread with a maximum tube count of 12 seems even more ridiculous.

SRM6: 1 Slot, 1.5 tons, 4 heat, 12 damage, 16 full salvos (plus a few missiles left)
SRM6A: 2 Slots, 2.5 tons, 4 heat, 12 damage, 16 full salvos (plus a few missiles left)
SSRM6: 2 Slots, 3 tons, 4 heat, 12 damage, 16 full salvos (plus a few missiles left)
ATM6: 3 Slots, 3.5 tons, 4.5 heat, 18 damage, 12 full salvos (full damage between 120 - 270m)
ATM6: 3 Slots, 3.5 tons, 4.5 heat, 12 damage, 12 full salvos (270 - 540m)
ATM6: 3 Slots, 3.5 tons, 4.5 heat, 6 damage, 12 full salvos (> 540m)
LRM15: 2 Slots, 3.5 tons, 5 heat, 15 damage, 12 full salvos
LRM10A: 2 Slots, 3.5 tons, 4 heat, 10 damage, 18 full salvos

Just for comparisons sake:
MRM10: 2 Slots, 3 tons, 4 heat, 10 damage, 24 full salvos (full damage up to 450m)

[Jep Jorgensson]

If ATM's are not un-nerfed (right out of the gate, I might add), I will not use them, period. Everything else aside, I am sick and tired of PGI setting themselves up as Gods and picking what weapons should be good and which ones should suck. ATM's suck our loud. While most other weapons got buffed with double ranges, ATM's are being severely discriminated against and nerfed to $hit before they are even released! To make matters worse, they are some here who are actually willing to accept the nerfed version of them, just because. By all rights, ATM's should not only not have a minimum range, but also have its three ranges all doubled (like the meta gauss and ERPPC's). I know that last part will never happen (they did shortchange LRM range after all), but that is all part of what I meant by picking which weapons will be good and which will be bad. Even if the minimum range was taken away and all three of its ranges doubled, does anyone seriously think that ATM's could ever become meta? Of course not. That would still be impossible and everyone knows it (though many will never admit it).

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 03 July 2017 - 10:30 PM.

[Tesunie]

Jep Jorgensson, on 03 July 2017 - 10:29 PM, said:

Even if the minimum range was taken away and all three of its ranges doubled, does anyone seriously think that ATM's could ever become meta? Of course not. That would still be impossible and everyone knows it (though many will never admit it).

Actually, I have to disagree with you on this one.

Homing missiles that can deal 3 damage to 540m (if you want full double at full damage)... That would be rather powerful. Unless you mean half damage (which, considering they deal 2 damage at the "double" range), which only be 2.5...

This weapon is too complex to consider trying to give it double range. And LRMs (and SRMs as well most likely) would gain almost no benefit for dealing damage at twice it's range. (FYI, LRMs should have an in game max range of around 600m if I've heard correctly, so a range of around 1000m isn't too bad... If they had the velocity to actually reach out that far reasonably so, but that's a different argument altogether. Oh, and they deal FULL damage out to 1000m, instead of half damage.)

[Jep Jorgensson]

Tesunie, on 03 July 2017 - 11:37 PM, said:

Actually, I have to disagree with you on this one.

Homing missiles that can deal 3 damage to 540m (if you want full double at full damage)... That would be rather powerful. Unless you mean half damage (which, considering they deal 2 damage at the "double" range), which only be 2.5...

This weapon is too complex to consider trying to give it double range. And LRMs (and SRMs as well most likely) would gain almost no benefit for dealing damage at twice it's range. (FYI, LRMs should have an in game max range of around 600m if I've heard correctly, so a range of around 1000m isn't too bad... If they had the velocity to actually reach out that far reasonably so, but that's a different argument altogether. Oh, and they deal FULL damage out to 1000m, instead of half damage.)

With fewer rounds fired, less ammo, more heat, same spread, speed and missile toughness of LRM's despite firing only 60% of the rounds LRM's fire, I would have to disagree with you. A single AMS system could nerf an ATM boat into uselessness. So how exactly is that OP?

Also, LRM max TT range is actually 630 meters. Look here for details. ATM's are supposed to out-range everything, including gauss and ERPPC's. MWO doubled their ranges while only giving LRM's less than half again of its TT range. You want LRM's and ATM's at their TT ranges? Fine. Do it. But that means you will have to do it for everything else as well. So hop to it. You have a lot of programming to do.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 03 July 2017 - 11:51 PM.

[Tesunie]

Jep Jorgensson, on 03 July 2017 - 11:43 PM, said:

With fewer rounds fired, less ammo, more heat, same spread, speed and missile toughness of LRM's despite firing only 60% of the rounds LRM's fire, I would have to disagree with you. A single AMS system could nerf an ATM boat so how exactly is that OP?

Also, LRM max TT range is actually 630 meters. Look here for details. ATM's are supposed to out-range everything, including gauss and ERPPC's.

As much as I to like taking ques from TT rules and such, I'm also going to have to remind that this game isn't TT and it can't operate under the same exact rules and work.

I'm not saying we can't look to how things operate from there, but at the same time we can't expect everything to literally be a direct translation from one to the other.

Weapon ranges. Weapon heat. Etc. All those have been adjusted to better suit the game as a whole. Otherwise, Clan LRMs would have no minimum range at all, but I feel that the soft minimum range it has now is reasonable and prevents it from replacing SSRMs or SRMs. Just as an example.

[AngrySpartan]

Just some food for though, considering how "linear" scaling works for clan LRMs and PPCs.
Clan LRMs - 0,00001 damage at 89m or less. I usually ran out of ammo before I can kill a Cataphract on testing grounds. So it's effectively minimum range of 90m.
Heavy PPC - 7-8 shots to strip Atlas arm from armor at 91m. 35(!) shots at 44m. Been testing it on patch day, so may mess the numbers by a a bit, but you have the idea.

So, when you suggesting damage ramp up for ATMs, keep in mind how it works. Even with it ATMs will have effective minimum range, not to mention how hard it is to hit something with guided missiles at point blank range.

[leony]

Here is what I think.
I won't talk about numbers, ATM(advanced tactical missile) ok a definition of a weapon that should have all ranges: no minimal range but less effective than srms, medium range making it better than srms and lrms, and long range but less effective than lrms. That's it!

Edited by leony, 04 July 2017 - 01:04 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

leony, on 04 July 2017 - 12:24 AM, said:

Here is what I think.
I won't talk about numbers, ATM(advanced technology missile) ok a definition of a weapon that should have all ranges: no minimal range but less effective than srms, medium range making it better than srms and lrms, and long range but less effective than lrms. That's it!

Well, no numbers just doesn't as cut WITH numbers. After all:

William Thomson said:

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.

Numbers present a bit of objectivity to stand on, something one cannot just wave-off.

I know i repeat this over and over. But by jove, i'm gonna repeat it till it's done. For example:

My range would be at 0m-180m-540m-900m

Between 0m-180m, you won't be screwed by not having a decent close-range damage, but to only use the weapon under 180m is just not a good idea. It takes too much time to get in range, and enemies can get outside of it pretty easily. You could have done more damage by shooting from 540m as you get to 0m. However it does answer the "Backup weapon" portion, the part where you're not screwed over by range, like SRMs above 270m or LRMs below 180m. SRMs also does better damage at 180-270m too, with better heat efficiency for a brawl.

180m - 540m, 4x LRM10A does better DPS than a 2x ATM12 of the same tons. So if you're going to stay above 270m anyways, why even bother with an ATM boat? Go LRM boat.

540m - 900m, yes you still do damage, but at 72 ammo/ton, it's dreadfully inefficient and is particularly wasteful. Not to mention that your DPS just goes down versus a normal LRM with spotter. It's only usable due to being fire-and-forget, but honestly it's just wasteful that a responsible LRM boat would just get closer instead.

So at either range, it doesn't do anything particularly well, but as a weapon system at it's totality, it won't screw you over with range like other missile systems do.

leony, on 04 July 2017 - 12:30 AM, said:

ATM : "advanced tactical missile"
Sorry my bad, but to me it means the same.

You can edit your post. No need to reply to the thread again.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 04 July 2017 - 12:40 AM.

[Gasoline]

Jep Jorgensson, on 03 July 2017 - 11:43 PM, said:

Also, LRM max TT range is actually 630 meters. Look here for details. ATM's are supposed to out-range everything, including gauss and ERPPC's.

That's actually the whole purpose behind the ER ammo of the ATMs. They're supposed to be a flexible weapon system that has a potential to outrange anything on the battlefield, but with a hefty drawback of doing just 1 point of damage per missile.

What I forgot in my last post. Please don't give the ATM a Streak-like flight pattern, because those are actually Improved ATMs (iATM) which are not developed until 3070.

What's interesting is, that ATMs have the same velocity as LRMs on paper. Now observe them ingame. Fire an LRM and an ATM simultaneously. The ATM with it's lower arc hits the target at the same time the first LRMs hit. So the velocity calculation doesn't include any arcing. That's why they feel so slow.

In regards of boating ATMs. Not gonna happen... Since AMS eats through ATMs with no problem, an ATM boat will be totally ineffective whatsoever... I think dual AMS will be enough to nullify most salvos. Triple AMS will take you out of the match. Not even talking about weight, heat and ammo problems...

[AngrySpartan]

Gasoline, on 04 July 2017 - 01:29 AM, said:

In regards of boating ATMs. Not gonna happen... Since AMS eats through ATMs with no problem, an ATM boat will be totally ineffective whatsoever... I think dual AMS will be enough to nullify most salvos. Triple AMS will take you out of the match. Not even talking about weight, heat and ammo problems...

What's the point of NOT boating ATMs than, if you still want to use them? If many launchers could not penetrate AMS bubble, what's the point of using one or two?
Low health/low amount of missiles in salvo makes them inefficient against AMS, yes. Should be adressed as well for sure.

[Karyuudo]

When I saw that the ATMs were coming out for the Clans, I was very excited. Now that I have thoroughly tested them in the PTS, I am disappointed. Here is what I would suggest PGI consider doing to make these weapons a more viable choice for the Clans. As it is, they are almost a moot addition to the Clan arsenal due to the effectiveness of the Clan SSRMs and LRMs.

1) Make ATMs the Mid-range Clan powerhouse answer to the IS MRMs (which are a very good addition to the IS line-up) Give them a faster projectile speed than the 160m/s currently in the game (LRM speed). But not as fast as SSRMs (400m/s?). I'm suggesting around 280 or 300m/s. Right down the middle.
-Clan SSRMs are faster and more accurate at shorter range, let them keep the role of king of short-range missile warfare (PGI, please consider lowering their cool-down though now that the IS has a full suite of SSRMs). Clan SSRMs are group-shot, ATMs are not. If ATMs shot 3 rockets at a time versus one, the relationship would change between them and SSRMs and it would greatly affect balance against IS MRMs.
-Relationship to IS MRMs: ATMs are guided. MRMs, though more numerous, are unguided. ATMs top out at around 500m for mid-range damage @ 2/missile. MRMs are at 450m and damage is 1/missile. This is up to 24 damage vs. the MRM's cap of 40. Both systems are single-fire. IS MRMs travel a lot faster than ATMs do now. Increasing ATM travel speed would make them a viable Clan competitor.
-Given these parameters and respective features, ATMs could be, with little tweaking, well poised to be on par with IS MRMs as role-players for mid-range missile warfare.

2) Decrease or remove the minimum range, If PGI elects to keep the minimum range, it needs to be lowered, like many are saying, to 90 meters or less. Give the damage profile of the ATMs, from 0-90 (or fewer) meters, a graduated damage slope. 0-90 (or fewer) meters = 0-3 damage/missile. 90 (or fewer)-270 meters = 3 damage/missile.

3) Shorten the maximum range of the ATMs. At 1100 meters, most mech's sensors can't even target a mech at that range. If a mech's sensors are skilled out in the Skill Tree, then this is very possible. But even at that range, the ATMs are a bit of a lame duck because of their sluggish travel time. Moreover, for ATMs to work well, they require line of sight due to their relatively level trajectory. LRMs are much more friendly to indirect fire and hitting targets behind cover with their higher travel arc.
-Clan LRMS go out to 900 meters or so. Let them keep that spot as king of long-range missile warfare and indirect fire. This role for LRMs is further augmented by their greater damage/weight ratio.
-If ATMs have a shorter top-end range of, say, 810 meters or so (stock range for an ER PPC), and they travel faster as mentioned above, suddenly their more level trajectory makes a lot more sense and any Clan mech can still use them effectively.

4) In Lore, ATMs are built with Artemis IV on-board. I'm not seeing this in the PTS with the current spread of the weapons. The bulk and weight of ATMs over LRMs would make more sense if it were apparent that their spread was showing the influence of Artemis IV on-board without having to change the mech's guidance system.

With these changes, ATMs will be:
-A clearly viable addition to the Clan missile arsenal.
-king of mid-range missile warfare for the Clans to compete with the IS MRMs.
-still leave SSRMs as a better choice for short-range warfare and LRMs as a better choice for long-range warfare.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Tesunie, on 03 July 2017 - 11:54 PM, said:

As much as I to like taking ques from TT rules and such, I'm also going to have to remind that this game isn't TT and it can't operate under the same exact rules and work.

I'm not saying we can't look to how things operate from there, but at the same time we can't expect everything to literally be a direct translation from one to the other.

Weapon ranges. Weapon heat. Etc. All those have been adjusted to better suit the game as a whole. Otherwise, Clan LRMs would have no minimum range at all, but I feel that the soft minimum range it has now is reasonable and prevents it from replacing SSRMs or SRMs. Just as an example.

LRM's replace SRM's and SSRM's? Even without the soft min range (which is BS) have you seen their tracking ability within that range? It sucks out loud to the point of being useless. How could you not know that? As for ATM's, they are currently a suck-a$$ version of LRM's so again, not replacing SRM's and SSRM's.

[Tesunie]

AngrySpartan, on 04 July 2017 - 12:06 AM, said:

So, when you suggesting damage ramp up for ATMs, keep in mind how it works. Even with it ATMs will have effective minimum range, not to mention how hard it is to hit something with guided missiles at point blank range.

Not if they ramp up from 1 to 3 damage in that soft minimum range bracket. They would still be effective right up to "face hugging" ranges, but not as effective as other weapons.

Though, for the record, knowing how homing weapons seem to work at "in your face" ranges (I've been using LRMs for a long time), that is why I don't think ATMs with no minimum would be an issue. I've had people dodge an entire LRM volley fired at close range (under 100m) simply for moving horizontal to me. They just couldn't turn fast enough to track. (Which was fine. And yes, I know minimum range on LRMs, but when they still deal damage and you need to just deal what damage you can, anything will work.)

The6thMessenger, on 04 July 2017 - 12:40 AM, said:

So at either range, it doesn't do anything particularly well, but as a weapon system at it's totality, it won't screw you over with range like other missile systems do.

That's what I'm looking for. SRMs do great damage up close and can be aimed. SSRMs are about the same, but can't be aimed but seek making them good light mech deterrents. LRMs have tactical flexibility for mid to longer ranges due to ability to fire indirectly or directly, but do poorly against closer ranged targets, also can't aim.

ATMs should be "Tactical" in a different way. Where LRMs have flexibility in ranged combat from indirect capabilities, ATMs flexibility should be it's ability to be useful at any range, but not "superior" at any of those specific ranges. Early game? They can help with mid to long range. Someone gets into your face? They can help with that situation too. Fighting against a good SRM build at close range? They should still rip your face off (presuming all things are even) but not after taking a reasonable amount of damage themselves. Long range vs LRMs? The LRMs should be able to out perform there, but ATM shouldn't be useless either.

Right now, ATMs are only a good mid range weapon that can cover longer ranges and useless when someone decides to get into your face. That gives it a huge weakness... and reduces it's "advanced tactical" flexibility on the battlefield.

[Tesunie]

Karyuudo, on 04 July 2017 - 04:05 AM, said:

4) In Lore, ATMs are built with Artemis IV on-board. I'm not seeing this in the PTS with the current spread of the weapons. The bulk and weight of ATMs over LRMs would make more sense if it were apparent that their spread was showing the influence of Artemis IV on-board without having to change the mech's guidance system.

There was a mentioning in the "PTS patch note" that MRMs and ATMs were benefiting from Artemis when they shouldn't have been, and that currently on the PTS you need to (are encouraged to) test those weapons with Artemis on your mech as that is the intended end results of how the weapons are intended to operate.

AKA: Put Artemis on your PTS mechs when testing MRMs and ATMs, as that is a known bug but those weapon values are what is going to be going into the game (except when live you shouldn't need Artemis on those weapons at all anymore).

Jep Jorgensson, on 04 July 2017 - 08:42 AM, said:

LRM's replace SRM's and SSRM's? Even without the soft min range (which is BS) have you seen their tracking ability within that range? It sucks out loud to the point of being useless. How could you not know that? As for ATM's, they are currently a suck-a$$ version of LRM's so again, not replacing SRM's and SSRM's.

That wasn't what I was saying exactly... I was just saying that some things can't be directly translated from TT rules straight to MW:O. Many weapons have seen adjustments along the way for better balancing, such as Clan weapon ranges, pulse ranges, SL ranges, ML heat generated, weapon cooldown overall...

So, just like all other weapons we've seen implemented into this game, ATMs also will probably deviate slightly from their TT versions. This is an expected alteration. I'm by no means saying we can't bring in inspiration from lore and TT, but sometimes some weapons need to be altered for the better of the game or the weapon. ATMs having a minimum range may be such a factor, though I agree with you that I don't believe ATMs should have any minimum range at all, and I would love to test them without a minimum range. If, after live testing, it is seen as an issue, then it should be altered.

Basically, the minimum range I believe is a little premature in this testing stage... and feels completely unwarranted. But, enough people have been making good arguments and compromises in favor of a soft minimum range with other boosts to counter that soft minimum range that I wouldn't be too opposed to that as a consideration either. Even people in favor of retaining a minimum range seem to agree that it should be a soft minimum instead of the hard cut off we currently have. Of that, I think everyone here has agreed on.

[Steinkrieg]

The only thing that could remotely possibly get away with boating ATMs is the Huntsman with it's decent speed, jump jets, and chain firing ATM3s. One of my buddies was on a Dire Wolf while I was on my Pahket in Steiner Coliseum. I was running 4 ATM6 and 4 ATM3. I got to the 'sweet spot' for 3 damage a missile, did a little jump up from behind cover to get lock, then alpha'ed. Almost shut down, but because of the arc on the ATMs, I blew off his left leg in that alpha salvo. That can't be 'working as intended'.

[The6thMessenger]

Tesunie, on 04 July 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:

Right now, ATMs are only a good mid range weapon that can cover longer ranges and useless when someone decides to get into your face. That gives it a huge weakness... and reduces it's "advanced tactical" flexibility on the battlefield.

Yeah, i don't like that they're just introducing a mid-range monster of a weapon, cause lets face it ATMs are pretty good mid-range. Totally against the spirit of the weapon.