677 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

The6thMessenger, on 04 July 2017 - 08:19 PM, said:

What, it's impossible for QK to be wrong? What if he said that AC2 needs to have 2000% damage boost, would you agree to him because he's an authority, or disagree because what he "said" is just wrong? If it's the former, wouldn't it make sense to just agree to the sense of what he said, not what authority he supposed to hold? Also it already does 3 damage/missile under 180m to 120m. Is SRM already useless?

Anyways, maybe we should get video of SRMs vs ATMs brawl at 120-270m. Appropriately 4x SRM6 vs 4x ATM3 -- cause same tonnage.

Except I did a ton of testing with AngrySpartan and absolutely - even with the hard minimum ATMs rocked SRMs. The point is that while SRMs are usually a boated weapon ATMs dominate when mixed with direct fire weapons for mid range. At about 80 pts a volley you only need 1 or 2 shots on a closing mech to make finishing them at point blank pretty easy.

Happy to test it with you too.

[MischiefSC]

Khobai, on 04 July 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

And hes wrong. There are plenty of reasons to still take SRMs over ATMs even if ATMs have no min range.

1) SRMs can aim exactly where the damage goes instead of randomly spread out damage with a heavy bias towards hitting legs.

2) SRMs have a lower cooldown and thus higher DPS

3) SRMs have much faster velocity and are less susceptible to getting shot down by AMS

4) SRMs dont require a missile lock and can torso twist better since you dont have to maintain said lock

5) SRMs have better ammo efficiency

6) SRMs are generally more resilient against critical hits than an equal weight in ATMs

Except I'll likely blast 100+ damage on you with ATMs while you're closing. While testing SRM Mad Dog vs 4xatm6, 4xcerml Mad Dog at 120-270m the ATM Mad won by a mile. When I ran the ATM build in a 1 v 1 I did 599 damage. In a 1 v 1, because sometimes you partially miss or have to lead your target with SRMs and do 1/2 or less. Locking ATMs may lose a few missiles but are a good 75%+ damage delivered every time you pull the trigger.

I don't need a higher DPS if I can blow half of you off with 2 shots. I agree it needs to be functional inside 120m and it needs buffed vs AMS, plus a velocity boost. Also that SRMs would be better on lights. However I'll happily do the same tests vs SRMs (and LRMs) I did with Spartan again with you. Mix loadout, Orions a good example.

The ability to hurt you, badly, before you even close and the hit for over 100 damage/volley up close? That's not going to be balanced.

[Khobai]

Quote

Except I'll likely blast 100+ damage on you with ATMs while you're closing.

But hows that any different from any other weapon that outranges SRMs?

Gauss/ERPPC outranges SRMs. You could do 100+ damage with Gauss/ERPPC before an SRM user gets into range. Whats the difference?

When you use SRMs you accept the fact that you need to find a way close the distance without getting heavily damaged in the process. Youve always had to do that when using SRMs and ATMs dont change that fact. Thats the price you pay for SRMs being dominant in their range band.

And as far as ATMs go id say its a lot easier to close the distance against them than other weapons like gauss/ppc since you can shut ATMs down with things like AMS, ECM, radar dep, clever use of terrain, etc... So I wouldnt say its "likely" that youll blast me for 100+ damage before I get into SRM range because ill be doing everything I can to actively stop you from doing that while I close the distance; because thats what you have to do when youre using SRMs.

Quote

The ability to hurt you, badly, before you even close and the hit for over 100 damage/volley up close? That's not going to be balanced.

Why not? like I said other weapons can already do that, and do it better than ATMs.

Youre seriously exaggerating the effectiveness of ATMs. Theyre really not that good. Largely for the same reasons LRMs arnt good. And for other reasons too like not being able to indirect fire and requiring a flat trajectory LoS to the enemy. And being far more susceptible to being shot down by AMS.

And as ive been saying all along, if you remove the min range on ATMs, and theyre too strong, you can just lower the damage. Its not a big deal to do that. Its called balancing.

Edited by Khobai, 05 July 2017 - 08:58 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 04 July 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

1) SRMs can aim exactly where the damage goes instead of randomly spread out damage with a heavy bias towards hitting legs.

Except this isn't really true because convergence plays a HUGE part in this. Sure you can land shots at decent ranges with Mad Dogs and Griffins (because they have great mount locations), but Summoners or Stormcrows? Naw, and that's where lock-on missiles begin to play a larger factor (because they somewhat overcome that issue). Not to mention the fact that the velocity is still low enough that their effectiveness at hitting targets at range is still somewhat compromised.

Khobai, on 04 July 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

2) SRMs have a lower cooldown and thus higher DPS

They also have a higher HPD, which means lower sustained DPS (they also have a lower cooldown because they don't hit quite as hard).

Khobai, on 04 July 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

3) SRMs have much faster velocity and are less susceptible to getting shot down by AMS

The first one isn't a deal breaker because the whole reason SRMs HAVE a higher velocity is because they are unguided. Guided missiles being slower is acceptable and really isn't important at shorter range. However, the being susceptible to AMS is a legitimate issue.

Khobai, on 04 July 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

4) SRMs dont require a missile lock and can torso twist better since you dont have to maintain said lock

You can snap fire better with SRMs that's for sure, but you also have more limited range, so there is some definite trade-offs. Basically ATMs can stand outside the furball or brawl and shoot in, SRMs really can't which makes them much more flexible and potentially useful (since brawls are really only certain in low tonnage fights like scouting).

Khobai, on 04 July 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

5) SRMs have better ammo efficiency

True, but that isn't an advantage itself if I can spend the same amount of tonnage and end up more effective. At this point you are looking at specific trees and not the forest, which isn't surprising given who you are.

Khobai, on 04 July 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

6) SRMs are generally more resilient against critical hits than an equal weight in ATMs

This is such a minor issue it isn't even funny.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 05 July 2017 - 08:31 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 08:16 AM, said:

But hows that any different from any other weapon that outranges SRMs?

Gauss/ERPPC outranges SRMs. You could do 100+ damage with Gauss/ERPPC before an SRM user gets into range. Whats the difference?

When you use SRMs you accept the fact that you need to find a way close the distance without getting heavily damaged in the process. Thats the price you pay for SRMs being dominant in their range band.

Because ATMs and SRMs compete for missile hardpoints. Even beyond which ATMs met me build meavies that are reasonably heav viable with well over 100 damage alphas at 270m. Already an issue, if it's got no point blank drawback then it's overall superior.

Happy to test it with you. Pick a heavy, we'll stick to 120-270m. Or just play from any range, up to you.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 08:16 AM, said:

Why not? like I said other weapons can already do that, and do it better than ATMs.

Because they are power creep for missiles at that point....aren't you one of the main people that endlessly ***** about power creep?

[Tesunie]

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 05:34 AM, said:

SRMs have to be the best missile choice from 0-270m which forces ATMs into some odd balancing decisions.

They still would be from other factors, or would they have to be "best" as in "head and shoulders obvious choice" best or could they be "just slightly"?

There are also other aspects that could be used for balance, which I don't think have been considered. We could have ATMs track less (turn less) within 100m, making them harder to home in and hit. We could increase ghost heat multiplier and/or count. We could give then longer cooldowns or more heat.

Also, something that I haven't seen posted by you yet, what about ATM's weakness to AMS? Compared to SRMs, ATMs just get wrecked by AMS currently. Have you tested your theoretical builds with "80 pt alpha" against an enemy mech with AMS? How about a double AMS mech? Triple? Multiple mechs with a single AMS on them?

That's a 1-1.5 ton piece of equipment that nearly every mech can actually take on them. How much do those ATM launchers weigh again?

What about spread too? How does that impact that damage?


This is one of the problems with spread sheet warrior (which does have it's value and place). We can crunch the numbers, but that doesn't always reflect how good or bad something actually ends up being. Otherwise, a 20 damage weapon (LRMs) should be wrecking face. Stack that as x4 LRM20 and that's an 80 pt alpha as well. How threatening are LRMs perceived by most people?

[Gas Guzzler]

Am I the only one noticing that ATM boats can actually delete smaller mechs between 200-400m astonishingly quickly? I actually thought ATMs felt pretty solid. If they didn't have a min range, then they would insta-delete any light that approached them, probably faster than a streak boat. At longer ranges though, I felt that ammo was not being used very efficiently.

Of course, my experience was in an ATM48 SNV-A, but still.

If you want to complain about a new missile system being ******, complain about MRMs!

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 05 July 2017 - 08:30 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 08:35 AM, said:

And yet im not worried about ATMs. They have far too many downsides to really be a credible power creep threat.

Ah so selective power creep is okay. Only Khobai-approved power creep is acceptable.

[Khobai]

Quote

Ah so selective power creep is okay. Only Khobai-approved power creep is acceptable.

Its not really even power creep since ATMs arnt better than other weapons that exist in the game.

ATMs arnt in any danger of suddenly becoming the new meta and pushing the power level of mechs through the roof.

ATMs suffer from most of the same pitfalls as LRMs. They will more than likely be bad for the same reasons LRMs are bad. And even if they somehow prove to be better than LRMs, theyre still going to be at best either mediocre or below average compared to other weapons.

Again ATMs being too good is not really my concern. I am far more concerned about them being minimally viable than too good.

Edited by Khobai, 05 July 2017 - 08:43 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

Except this isn't really true because convergence plays a HUGE part in this. Sure you can land shots at decent ranges with Mad Dogs and Griffins (because they have great mount locations), but Summoners or Stormcrows? Naw, and that's where lock-on missiles begin to play a larger factor (because they somewhat overcome that issue). Not to mention the fact that the velocity is still low enough that their effectiveness at hitting targets at range is still somewhat compromised.


They also have a higher HPS, which means lower sustained DPS (they also have a lower cooldown because they don't hit quite as hard).


The first one isn't a deal breaker because the whole reason SRMs HAVE a higher velocity is because they are unguided. Guided missiles being slower is acceptable and really isn't important at shorter range. However, the being susceptible to AMS is a legitimate issue.


You can snap fire better with SRMs that's for sure, but you also have more limited range, so there is some definite trade-offs.


True, but that isn't an advantage itself if I can spend the same amount of tonnage and end up more effective. At this point you are looking at specific trees and not the forest, which isn't surprising given who you are.


This is such a minor issue it isn't even funny.

I've tested them vs SRMs quite a bit now. Even with the flat 0 damage inside 120m it's really easy to blow 100-150 damage on someone before they get to 120m. A lot on the legs. Honestly even if they go live as is I'll probably still use them on a few builds in pug queue and expect to see more people start taking AMS, until that makes ATM irrelevant.

They puke up just stupid, stupid amounts of damage in that 120-300m sweet spot. Even out to 500m they're not terrible. It's just that inside 120m they're worthless and against AMS worthless, so overall not useful in any serious sense.

Wow are they ever going to be the spud farmer weapon of choice though.

[MischiefSC]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 08:37 AM, said:

Its not really even power creep since ATMs arnt better than other weapons that exist in the game.

ATMs arnt in any danger of suddenly becoming the new meta and pushing the power level of mechs through the roof.

ATMs suffer from most of the same pitfalls as LRMs. They will more than likely be bad for the same reasons LRMs are bad. And even if they somehow prove to be better than LRMs, theyre still going to be at best either mediocre or below average compared to other weapons.

Again ATMs being too good is not really my concern. I am far more concerned about them being minimally viable than too good.

1 damage/missile inside 120m and SRM health, plus ideally a velocity boost and they're VERY viable. 3 damage inside 120m and it's OP AF.

[Khobai]

Quote

3 damage inside 120m and it's OP AF.

But 3 damage isnt set in stone. You can remove the min range and tweak the damage.

However the min range does need to be removed.

Quote

I've tested them vs SRMs quite a bit now. Even with the flat 0 damage inside 120m it's really easy to blow 100-150 damage on someone before they get to 120m.

Except 4v4 is not 12v12. In 12v12 it will be a lot harder to keep enemy mechs suppressed and prevent them all from getting within 120m. ATMs will be significantly weaker in 12v12 and will be completely unviable if they keep that awful minimum range. Also unlike LRMs you cant indirect fire, you have to expose yourself to snipers to fire ATMs. Again Im thinking about their viability in 12v12.

Edited by Khobai, 05 July 2017 - 09:08 AM.

[Ruar]

Tesunie, on 05 July 2017 - 08:28 AM, said:

They still would be from other factors, or would they have to be "best" as in "head and shoulders obvious choice" best or could they be "just slightly"?

There are also other aspects that could be used for balance, which I don't think have been considered. We could have ATMs track less (turn less) within 100m, making them harder to home in and hit. We could increase ghost heat multiplier and/or count. We could give then longer cooldowns or more heat.

Also, something that I haven't seen posted by you yet, what about ATM's weakness to AMS? Compared to SRMs, ATMs just get wrecked by AMS currently. Have you tested your theoretical builds with "80 pt alpha" against an enemy mech with AMS? How about a double AMS mech? Triple? Multiple mechs with a single AMS on them?

That's a 1-1.5 ton piece of equipment that nearly every mech can actually take on them. How much do those ATM launchers weigh again?

What about spread too? How does that impact that damage?


This is one of the problems with spread sheet warrior (which does have it's value and place). We can crunch the numbers, but that doesn't always reflect how good or bad something actually ends up being. Otherwise, a 20 damage weapon (LRMs) should be wrecking face. Stack that as x4 LRM20 and that's an 80 pt alpha as well. How threatening are LRMs perceived by most people?

We can talk about best. If ATMs are just slightly behind SRMs for short range but out range SRMs at longer ranges then why take SRMs except in very tight builds where an ATM just won't fit? The flexibility to engage while the distance is closing and still present a potent in close threat is enough to kick SRMs to the curb.

I think SRMs have to be a clear cut better choice for in close use compared to ATMs. Easy comparison is how SRMs are much better for brawling than MRMs. If ATMs lose their minimum range then they are better than SRMs at brawling and at longer range.

Tracking doesn't matter at less than 100m because I can just snapshot without tracking. Especially if I want an extra second or two to roll armor. The only real answer is less damage than SRMs below 270m. Which puts ATMs doing something like 1.5-2 damage from 0-270.

Longer cooldowns and ghost heat are just bandaids when the real problem is damage as illustrated in my last point.

I have mentioned several times that I think ATM health needs to be increased. The small volley size is more susceptible to AMS and that needs to be compensated.

The last part is spread, and right now ATM spread is bugged. There is no way they are meant to do so much damage to legs. When I was testing them this morning there were a lot of misses compared to other missile systems. At the same time there is still a really good concentration on the CT so that has to be considered as well. I think the spread needs to be tightened in general but the center targeting area needs to be widened. So more missiles will hit the mech but they will be hitting both side torsos and the center torso about evenly.

The problem with ATMs is they are trying to do too much and suffer for it. People talk about being tactically flexible and then want enough velocity, tracking, tight spread, and health so ATMs can be the best missile system out there. I think PGI messed up when they released ATMs with 1100 range and put the expectation of long range into the players heads. ATMs should be about 850 at most and be most effective at medium range. Lowish damage short range, vulnerabilities of LRMs at long range, but hit a sweet spot at medium range. This can be done with changing the damage numbers, increasing velocity, adjusting spread as I mentioned above, and increasing health a little. Then ATMs aren't competing against SRMs and LRMs, they would have their own role with more flexibility than any other missile system. Even if that flexibility isn't used very often.

[Gas Guzzler]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

Except 4v4 is not 12v12. In 12v12 it will be a lot harder to keep enemy mechs suppressed and prevent them all from getting within 120m. ATMs will be significantly weaker in 12v12 and will be completely unviable if they keep that awful minimum range. Again Im thinking about their viability in 12v12.

LOLwut?

In 12v12 it will be much easier to stay at arms length. 4v4 is a brawl fest, 12v12 is a poke fest.

ATMs have it WAY better than MRMs, so I hope you are worried about MRM viability as well, lest ye be biased AF.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 05 July 2017 - 09:11 AM.

[Ruar]

Gas Guzzler, on 05 July 2017 - 09:07 AM, said:

LOLwut?

In 12v12 it will be much easier to stay at arms length. 4v4 is a brawl fest, 12v12 is a poke fest.

Yeah, I agree. 4v4 the range shrinks fast and every fight is a brawl. 12v12 I have time to adjust and pick my position. ATM users will be able to keep their distance much easier in a 12v12 if for no other reason they can flip targets to something in the appropriate range, fire off a shot, and keep moving.

[Gas Guzzler]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 09:10 AM, said:

But also ATMs cant indirect fire

Really? I didn't even notice that...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

But 3 damage isnt set in stone. You can remove the min range and tweak the damage.

However the min range does need to be removed.

I'm ok with min range being removed, but damage would HAVE to come down at short range.

I'm still of the opinion that the damage should scale from 2.5-1.5 with no min range as well as getting missile health increased so AMS isn't so strong against them.

[Gas Guzzler]

Khobai, on 05 July 2017 - 09:10 AM, said:

The only reason to use ATMs is if youre going to brawl.

I would classify them as good "push" missiles because the DPS is so high at short to mid range. You just want to stay towards the back of the push.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 July 2017 - 09:13 AM, said:

missile health increased so AMS isn't so strong against them.

Yeah I didn't notice this either, probably because nobody had AMS. If that's a thing then yeah I would like to see missile health increased a bit.

[Khobai]

Quote

Really? I didn't even notice that...

you didnt notice how often they crash into terrain? ATMs have a super flat trajectory compared to LRMs and are virtually incapable of clearing any terrain. Which means you either need unobstructed line of sight or substantial elevation over your target.