677 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 July 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

This is a similar reason to why iSPLs just did not compete with cSPLs because that longer optimal range mattered.


So yes, SRMs can beat ATMs without min range at knife fighting range, but how much you sacrifice to get that advantage is too much in a large majority of cases, large enough that I think changes should be made to ensure they don't have as large of an advantage.

IS SPLs were "bad" compared to CSPLs I thought due to damage/alpha values mostly. Or am I recalling different damage stats for clan lasers when compared to IS lasers?


As far as that last remark, maybe the explains why the meta Huntsmen build is currently 8 SRM6s... SRMs are considered a strong weapon last I knew in comp play and many other levels of game play as well. In this case, IS SRMs are considered better due to lower spread, though CSRMs aren't considered bad despite their wider spread because they weigh less.

I'm getting a feeling that you are trying to downplay SRMs to make ATMs seem so much better than they are (as of the PTS). Sure, ATMs have some advantages over SRMs, but so do SRMs have some over ATMs.

[Puresin]

whoa whoa whoa, IS have no right to have any say.......does anyone notice that IS SRMS do more damage than Clan Srms currently? I think the IS have had their way with this game. War is never about being even.......ask the americans did they drop the atom bomb then go back to the Japanese and say we're sorry this bomb was too powerful we'll make them smaller and less damaging?

It's time to make the clans clan and IS the IS.
get rid of the min range. I think it's only fair considering what has been done with srms already. there isn't supposed to be BALANCE. you are supposed to use skill.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tesunie, on 06 July 2017 - 10:30 AM, said:

IS SPLs were "bad" compared to CSPLs I thought due to damage/alpha values mostly. Or am I recalling different damage stats for clan lasers when compared to IS lasers?

They had worse damage, but even if they had better damage values, the main problem was the 55m difference in optimal ranges. cSPL were able to get away with 165m optimal because of their insane damage capabilities that you could justify it well enough.

Tesunie, on 06 July 2017 - 10:30 AM, said:

As far as that last remark, maybe the explains why the meta Huntsmen build is currently 8 SRM6s... SRMs are considered a strong weapon last I knew in comp play and many other levels of game play as well.

Not sure where you got that SRMs are considered strong in comp play, brawling pretty much disappeared with the cSPL nerf. SRMs just aren't reliable enough to replace mechs like the 10 cSPL Nova of old.

Tesunie, on 06 July 2017 - 10:30 AM, said:

I'm getting a feeling that you are trying to downplay SRMs to make ATMs seem so much better than they are (as of the PTS). Sure, ATMs have some advantages over SRMs, but so do SRMs have some over ATMs.

The advantage of being more useful at range is more important at least for a majority of comp scenarios because 110m optimal range is extremely limiting.

[Steinkrieg]

Tesunie, on 06 July 2017 - 10:30 AM, said:

As far as that last remark, maybe the explains why the meta Huntsmen build is currently 8 SRM6s... SRMs are considered a strong weapon last I knew in comp play and many other levels of game play as well. In this case, IS SRMs are considered better due to lower spread, though CSRMs aren't considered bad despite their wider spread because they weigh less.

I switched from 7 SSRM4 + 2 ERMLAS to the 8 SRM6 build. Sure, my fluff damage was better in the Streak boat, but I could not kill heavies and assaults efficiently. Why? S-P-R-E-A-D on the SSRMs. Two weeks ago, a unit mate and I got into a brawl with a King Crab and a Thunderbolt in a corner of Grim Plexis when we tried a wide flank push. The plan was to got light mech hunting. He was on a splat Jenner IIC and I was on the Streak boat Huntsman. I put out over 600 damage against those two mechs, but my unit mate got both of the kills. Sure, I helped open up the armor for his targeted shots, but the fight lasted about two minutes instead of the 30 seconds it would have if my load out had been 8 SRM6.

The same thing will happen with ATMs vs SRMs.

By the way, if you like Huntsman, you should try my brawl build out. UAC20, 4 ERSLAS, 3 SRM6. It's nasty as all hell.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Steinkrieg, on 06 July 2017 - 11:02 AM, said:

UAC20, 4 ERSLAS, 3 SRM6. It's nasty as all hell.

That's not really a brawler build. UAC20s are pretty crappy as are ERSLs (ERSL only for brawling really), they are both more short range poke weapons. The only really good brawl weapon left after the changes are LBX20s and SRMs. That said, short range poke seems to be preferred over brawling within the meta a little bit.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 06 July 2017 - 11:11 AM.

[Steinkrieg]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 July 2017 - 11:04 AM, said:

That's not really a brawler build. UAC20s are pretty crappy as are ERSLs (ERSL only for brawling really), they are both more short range poke weapons. The only really good brawl weapon left after the changes are LBX20s and SRMs.

This basically replicates the Atlas DDC brawl build that has remained unchanged since it dropped 5 years ago. 4 cERSLAS are used because they do 6 more damage than cERMLAS for the same heat and have a better cooldown. Being able to spike out 96 targeted damage as an initial alpha for 55 heat on normal maps, then cycle weapons groups when they come off of cooldown while in the brawl to maintain heat efficiency is the very definition of brawling.

[Rusharn]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 July 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

So here is the deal, I'm going to simplify all my thoughts a bit:

• SRMs are not as accurate or as precise as people think due to natural spread, convergence, being unguided, and velocity. For example the kiss of death Jenner IIC has an effective range of pretty much 50m if not shorter because otherwise you spread all your damage all over the place once you start to have to lead. Not all mechs suffer the same way as the Mad Dog and Griffin are actually fairly precise with their SRM volleys, but the point is that SRM precision and accuracy varies. ATMs however do not have that variability similar to how lasers don't suffer similar concerns due to being hitscan.
  
• The average SRM mech is limited to a very short range, in snowflake situations where the main engagement is pretty much guaranteed to be a brawl, that isn't a problem. Those situations are so niche though that ATMs are almost always a better choice provided they did two things for them (buff missile health and remove min range) because the minor loss in efficacy at brawl range (around 0-~150m) is an acceptable sacrifice for being usable outside that range (even if it were just 150-270m) because range is that important when talking about doing a push to get into range even in comp where brawling is probably the most viable because of the coordination it requires. This is a similar reason to why iSPLs just did not compete with cSPLs because that longer optimal range mattered.

So yes, SRMs can beat ATMs without min range at knife fighting range, but how much you sacrifice to get that advantage is too much in a large majority of cases, large enough that I think changes should be made to ensure they don't have as large of an advantage.

You are forgetting that as a lock on weapons if the ATM's wish to maintain constant effectiveness must mount an Active probe or ECM in counter mode have their effectiveness dropped drastically. Even then if they encounter two mech with ECM they still suffer from the increased lock time. SRM's in to the 200m to 0m range have a powerful advantage especially if they are on fast mechs that can close distance quickly and more so on maps that have a plethora of cover. More so if the target mech has AMS the effectiveness of the ATM's are either neutralized of have their damage drastically reduced. Personally I would like to see the ATM's stats remain where they are and remove the minimum range. This would encourage more thought for pilots on whether they decide to take an AMS system.

As a side note, 100% radar dep is also a good counter against an ATM mech that did not take all the target decays and both target retention nodes. This is another point in favor of SRM's over ATM's. To make ATM's fully effective requires heavy investment into the sensor tree as target retention and all the target decays are vital for maximum effectiveness requiring double digit skill point investment. Mean while an SRM mech is not required to make such an investment

in addition an AMS double overload investment is 4 points in the armor tree, one being an entry node to the rest of the tree, making access to an effective defense against the ATM's easier to obtain then the skills necessary to make the ATM's effective.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Steinkrieg, on 06 July 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

This basically replicates the Atlas DDC brawl build that has remained unchanged since it dropped 5 years ago.

Cool, but there is a difference between the D-DC and the Huntsman, namely that cUAC20s have a duration, can double tap, and can jam for stupidly long periods. That said, the D-DC used the AC20 to supplement the SRM alphas, but it isn't a brawling weapon, it is a short range poke weapon and that's the reason Boomcats played differently than Splatcats.

Steinkrieg, on 06 July 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

4 cERSLAS are used because they do 6 more damage than cERMLAS for the same heat and have a better cooldown.

Cool, but that doesn't mean they are brawling weapons. Long durations make them a hassle in actual brawls.

Steinkrieg, on 06 July 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

Being able to spike out 96 targeted damage as an initial alpha for 55 heat on normal maps, then cycle weapons groups when they come off of cooldown while in the brawl to maintain heat efficiency is the very definition of brawling.

Brawling isn't about spike damage, it is about sustained damage. Spike damage is really only useful for mechs that are called targets or if you are pushing where there is a good chance you will need to spike things down and cooldown in transit to the next target (which is less brawling and more of a push mech).

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Rusharn, on 06 July 2017 - 11:26 AM, said:

You are forgetting that as a lock on weapons if the ATM's wish to maintain constant effectiveness must mount an Active probe or ECM in counter mode have their effectiveness dropped drastically.

That's nothing new.....AP have been required equipment for Streak boats since they became a thing.

Even then if they encounter two mech with ECM they still suffer from the increased lock time. SRM's in to the 200m to 0m range have a powerful advantage especially if they are on fast mechs that can close distance quickly and more so on maps that have a plethora of cover. More so if the target mech has AMS the effectiveness of the ATM's are either neutralized of have their damage drastically reduced. Personally I would like to see the ATM's stats remain where they are and remove the minimum range. This would encourage more thought for pilots on whether they decide to take an AMS system.

Rusharn, on 06 July 2017 - 11:26 AM, said:

As a side note, 100% radar dep is also a good counter against an ATM mech that did not take all the target decays and both target retention nodes.

The difference is they aren't used like LRMs, they are used to push which means you would use them like you would in a dakka push. LOS or target locks will be gained at some point, even if only at 500 (or even SSRM range), you are in optimal range for ATMs.

Rusharn, on 06 July 2017 - 11:26 AM, said:

SRM's in to the 200m to 0m range have a powerful advantage especially if they are on fast mechs that can close distance quickly and more so on maps that have a plethora of cover.

Very few mechs and/or pilots can make use of SRMs effectively and reliably at 200m and very few maps have that much cover that you won't get crushed by smart power positions.

Rusharn, on 06 July 2017 - 11:26 AM, said:

This is another point in favor of SRM's over ATM's. To make ATM's fully effective requires heavy investment into the sensor tree as target retention and all the target decays are vital for maximum effectiveness requiring double digit skill point investment. Mean while an SRM mech is not required to make such an investment

in addition an AMS double overload investment is 4 points in the armor tree, one being an entry node to the rest of the tree, making access to an effective defense against the ATM's easier to obtain then the skills necessary to make the ATM's effective.

Honestly the AMS part is the bigger concern, sensor tree requirement isn't a huge issue because of the damage you can put out makes the firepower tree investment somewhat meh since the two big things SRM boats are concerned with are heat gen and cooldown nodes in firepower.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 06 July 2017 - 11:39 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 July 2017 - 11:33 AM, said:

Cool, but there is a difference between the D-DC and the Huntsman, namely that cUAC20s have a duration, can double tap, and can jam for stupidly long periods. That said, the D-DC used the AC20 to supplement the SRM alphas, but it isn't a brawling weapon, it is a short range poke weapon and that's the reason Boomcats played differently than Splatcats.


Cool, but that doesn't mean they are brawling weapons. Long durations make them a hassle in actual brawls.


Brawling isn't about spike damage, it is about sustained damage. Spike damage is really only useful for mechs that are called targets or if you are pushing where there is a good chance you will need to spike things down and cooldown in transit to the next target (which is less brawling and more of a push mech).

Brawl and push mean different things to people who play FW/QP and people who play comp. In QP/FW a 'brawl' is really a push; it's what happens when you've got a kill lead, the enemy is badly damaged and you're moving in to finish off the wave. A 'brawl' in the context of comp rarely, rarely happens in QP and pretty much only 2 teams in FW ever do it. A sustained DPS drive close range engagement to burn down teams who are built around mid-long range poke and higher alpha or PPFLD but lower DPS.

The concept of 'sustained DPS' for this forum is an idea based around mid-long range sustained DPS for shooting derps who stand in the open. Sustained brawling builds just don't happen in this environment. In QP, pushing in to brawl is a suicide YOLO maneuver.

This forum thinks brawling is burst damage. You rush in, blast someone with a huge alpha and kill them or run away again. None of them are talking about sustained pressure/aggression. There are so few people in this game who know what a coordinated push looks like I know each and every one of them by name and none of them are in this discussion.

This is the 'LRMs work great in mixed builds if you use them right', 'isn't poptarting still like major OP thing and we should nerf JJs again', 'My win/loss may be sub 1.0 and my KDR maybe 1, but my damage scores are always SO HIGH!!!! My teams just suck', 'Hey, this bracket build is amazing because this one time in band camp I had a 1k damage match in it so I always play it' crowd.

Even if ATMs have the 120m dead zone I'm curious to see how they play out. If they're trash vs AMS then I see them going away completely but man, on a map where you can force that 120-300m engagement to stay there for even 10 seconds with minimal cover (like Frozen City, Sulfur, Crimson) it's just so much damage I can do without sacrificing any accuracy from my direct fire loadout. The arc is non-existent too - fighting in the cave on HPG was no issue and it was actually really nice shooting DOWN at targets on HPG, if you're on the high ground they really like legs.

Edited by MischiefSC, 06 July 2017 - 11:59 AM.

[Steinkrieg]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 July 2017 - 11:33 AM, said:

Cool, but there is a difference between the D-DC and the Huntsman, namely that cUAC20s have a duration, can double tap, and can jam for stupidly long periods. That said, the D-DC used the AC20 to supplement the SRM alphas, but it isn't a brawling weapon, it is a short range poke weapon and that's the reason Boomcats played differently than Splatcats.

Define poke.

Quote

Cool, but that doesn't mean they are brawling weapons. Long durations make them a hassle in actual brawls.

Their duration is about equal with the UAC20 volley. This makes their use equally appealing as you are holding line on the component for the full duration to get the full damage. As you know, a lot of brawling involves out-trading your opponent and blowing components off to minimize their ability to trade with you. That volley will expose, and then the SRMs will rip off, most mech's side torsos 80 tons and below.

Quote

Brawling isn't about spike damage, it is about sustained damage. Spike damage is really only useful for mechs that are called targets or if you are pushing where there is a good chance you will need to spike things down and cooldown in transit to the next target (which is less brawling and more of a push mech).

I guess you didn't understand this from my prior post - "...then cycle weapons groups when they come off of cooldown...". The build has a very long up-time, even when leading in with an alpha.

[Steinkrieg]

@ MischiefSC

To me sustained DPS means exactly what it sounds like it should mean - continuing for an extended period or without interruption + Damage Per Second. I am very familiar with DPS as I've played many MMORPGs. There is really very little difference in fine tuning a skill rotation for a raid or pvp comp teams and fine tuning a mech build and fire group rotations.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Steinkrieg, on 06 July 2017 - 12:43 PM, said:

Define poke.

Using cover on cooldown or standing outside the main engagement shooting into it. Boomcats were probably one of the old short range poke/overwatch mechs and it excelled at this well.

Steinkrieg, on 06 July 2017 - 12:43 PM, said:

Their duration is about equal with the UAC20 volley.

Which is why both are horrible for brawling......in fact it is part of the reason cSPLs were so much better than cERSL for brawling. For short range poke however that is acceptable.

Steinkrieg, on 06 July 2017 - 12:43 PM, said:

As you know, a lot of brawling involves out-trading your opponent and blowing components off to minimize their ability to trade with you. That volley will expose, and then the SRMs will rip off, most mech's side torsos 80 tons and below.

Except your alpha really isn't that impressive, 6-8 ASRM6 Huntsman can out match your damage with less exposure time and probably as much spread damage, and they don't have to worry about different velocities/weapon mechanics bogging down aiming. Not that Huntsman are prime brawlers either considering how slow they are and how large their legs are. They work better for the hammer/anvil approach to brawling and that generally means orienting them towards short range poke rather than full brawl.

Steinkrieg, on 06 July 2017 - 12:43 PM, said:

I guess you didn't understand this from my prior post - "...then cycle weapons groups when they come off of cooldown...". The build has a very long up-time, even when leading in with an alpha.

That generally means you aren't applying damage in an efficient manner. Not to mention the sin of using cSRM6s without artemis (which is pretty much a requirement because of how horrible the spread is otherwise).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 06 July 2017 - 01:55 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 July 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

SRMs are not as accurate or as precise as people think due to natural spread, convergence, being unguided, and velocity. For example the kiss of death Jenner IIC has an effective range of pretty much 50m if not shorter because otherwise you spread all your damage all over the place once you start to have to lead. Not all mechs suffer the same way as the Mad Dog and Griffin are actually fairly precise with their SRM volleys, but the point is that SRM precision and accuracy varies. ATMs however do not have that variability similar to how lasers don't suffer similar concerns due to being hitscan.

The average SRM mech is limited to a very short range, in snowflake situations where the main engagement is pretty much guaranteed to be a brawl, that isn't a problem. Those situations are so niche though that ATMs are almost always a better choice provided they did two things for them (buff missile health and remove min range) because the minor loss in efficacy at brawl range (around 0-~150m) is an acceptable sacrifice for being usable outside that range (even if it were just 150-270m) because range is that important when talking about doing a push to get into range even in comp where brawling is probably the most viable because of the coordination it requires. This is a similar reason to why iSPLs just did not compete with cSPLs because that longer optimal range mattered.

You mean the champion build? What about artemised SRMs?

Even then, so what if it varies? So what if ATMs are homing? Does that give them the upper hand versus SRMs close range? No, with the ATM's stream-fire, naturally spreading damage, requires lock, even longer cooldown, it loses out to SRMs close range cause you can't just fire on demand, quickly deal your damage. And then again you can't aim to isolate a component, which is fun for a brawl. Even if it's not as accurate as people think, it's still better close range than ATM even without min range.

The only thing ATMs has over SRMs is that they don't have to deal with close range.

So yeah, SRMs are better in close range, but the ATM doesn't need to be in close range. But so are a lot of other weapons, that's not really ATM advantage, that's SRM's disadvantage. If SRMs are obscure right now, minimum range or not for the ATM, it wouldn't really help cause it doesn't even help now.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 July 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

So yes, SRMs can beat ATMs without min range at knife fighting range, but how much you sacrifice to get that advantage is too much in a large majority of cases, large enough that I think changes should be made to ensure they don't have as large of an advantage.

That's the inevitability of long range vs short range. Large lasers have that over small lasers, AC2s have that over AC20s. That's not an ATM problem, that's an SRM problem.

SRMs are specialized weapons, it's a min-max weapon, it's supposed to be effective at it's specialized field but glaringly useless at other field. Right tool for the right job, you don't use a rubber mallet to unclog the toilet, that's the plunger's job.

ATMs however, they are supposed to be generalist at range, because of ammo switching -- that PGI didn't do -- it can participate at ANY range so long as it has ammunition, but is paid by being heavy weight, low ammo/ton, and bulky.

If you really want to help SRMs not be obscure requires a meta-shift towards close-range, not just ATMs not getting their deserved fix. All this minimum range does is give us a **** of a weapon as opposed to that which we are promised.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 July 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

So here is the deal, I'm going to simplify all my thoughts a bit:

• SRMs are not as accurate or as precise as people think due to natural spread, convergence, being unguided, and velocity. For example the kiss of death Jenner IIC has an effective range of pretty much 50m if not shorter because otherwise you spread all your damage all over the place once you start to have to lead. Not all mechs suffer the same way as the Mad Dog and Griffin are actually fairly precise with their SRM volleys, but the point is that SRM precision and accuracy varies. ATMs however do not have that variability similar to how lasers don't suffer similar concerns due to being hitscan.
  
• The average SRM mech is limited to a very short range, in snowflake situations where the main engagement is pretty much guaranteed to be a brawl, that isn't a problem. Those situations are so niche though that ATMs are almost always a better choice provided they did two things for them (buff missile health and remove min range) because the minor loss in efficacy at brawl range (around 0-~150m) is an acceptable sacrifice for being usable outside that range (even if it were just 150-270m) because range is that important when talking about doing a push to get into range even in comp where brawling is probably the most viable because of the coordination it requires. This is a similar reason to why iSPLs just did not compete with cSPLs because that longer optimal range mattered.

So yes, SRMs can beat ATMs without min range at knife fighting range, but how much you sacrifice to get that advantage is too much in a large majority of cases, large enough that I think changes should be made to ensure they don't have as large of an advantage.

So you are saying that ATM's could potentially become meta like gauss and ERPPC's? Because SRM's are meta and you seem to be doubting them when compared to ATM's. So again, are saying that ATM's could potentially become meta?

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 30 July 2017 - 11:22 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 06 July 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

You mean the champion build? What about artemised SRMs?

Honestly I have no clue what the champion build is, but even with ASRMs (which are a bit heavy on the Clan side) the width of the mech combined with the fact you have to run SRMs across both arms means convergence is going to be a pain, in other words you still have a short effective range. The only difference is you can't almost one shot people through the back at point blank range anymore.

The6thMessenger, on 06 July 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

• ATM's stream-fire,
  
• naturally spreading damage
  
• requires lock
  
• even longer cooldown

• You have a point here, this does suck, but the stream is fairly short and again because it is guided doesn't cause as much of an aim issue like it would if it were unguided.
  
• SRMs suffer the same problem in a different manner.
  
• This is an issue for short range, but can be mitigated with arm movement just like you would with streaks.
  
• You say this like it matters, if I'm doing more damage per salvo and per heat than SRMs, this isn't an issue. In the end whatever gets me the best combination of alpha and DPS is what matters. Cooldown is only part of that equation.

The6thMessenger, on 06 July 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

So yeah, SRMs are better in close range, but the ATM doesn't need to be in close range. But so are a lot of other weapons, that's not really ATM advantage, that's SRM's disadvantage. If SRMs are obscure right now, minimum range or not for the ATM, it wouldn't really help cause it doesn't even help now.

It would at least make there be more of a trade-off in picking ATMs over SRMs considering they compete with the same hardpoint. Until they acknowledge something needs to be done about SRMs, I'd rather not introduce something that is power-creep for missiles.

The6thMessenger, on 06 July 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

That's the inevitability of long range vs short range. Large lasers have that over small lasers, AC2s have that over AC20s. That's not an ATM problem, that's an SRM problem.

It's an everything problem, it just depends on which one you think is above the power curve to you.

The6thMessenger, on 06 July 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

SRMs are specialized weapons, it's a min-max weapon, it's supposed to be effective at it's specialized field but glaringly useless at other field. Right tool for the right job, you don't use a rubber mallet to unclog the toilet, that's the plunger's job.

ATMs however, they are supposed to be generalist at range, because of ammo switching -- that PGI didn't do -- it can participate at ANY range so long as it has ammunition, but is paid by being heavy weight, low ammo/ton, and bulky.

I'm aware of that, but at some point there is such a thing as being too niche (aka situational) that it never sees use. See LRMs for a perfect example of that.

The6thMessenger, on 06 July 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

If you really want to help SRMs not be obscure requires a meta-shift towards close-range, not just ATMs not getting their deserved fix. All this minimum range does is give us a **** of a weapon as opposed to that which we are promised.

Minimum range is stupid, I have no disagreements there, but allowing this weapon to pass in without it would be equally silly because it would be the GOTO missile weapon for Clan mechs, aka, power creep (if it got the missile health increase beside it that is, but at least people would carry AMS more I guess).

Jep Jorgensson, on 06 July 2017 - 02:56 PM, said:

So you are saying that ATM's could potentially become meta like gauss and ERPPC's? Because SRM's are meta and you seem to be doubting them when compared to ATM's.So again, are saying that ATM's could potentially become meta?

SRM's really aren't meta. You do see them in Div A MRBC drop 1, but outside of that, not really. The reason you don't is because of their extremely low effective range, which ATMs do not share.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 06 July 2017 - 03:06 PM.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 July 2017 - 11:38 AM, said:

Very few mechs and/or pilots can make use of SRMs effectively and reliably at 200m and very few maps have that much cover that you won't get crushed by smart power positions.

Not true. When we could still run Stormcrows in scouting, the IS'ers would leg us every time with their SRM boat GRF-2N's and almost every shot was a hit. They still like to leg us today. So your statement is not accurate.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 July 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

SRM's really aren't meta. You do see them in Div A MRBC drop 1, but outside of that, not really. The reason you don't is because of their extremely low effective range, which ATMs do not share.

ATM's just very inaccurate at short range and can only be aimed and a mech, not a body part. When I was back in Marines, some of the guys would ask others what part of a crutch they would want as a weapon. They could choose either the one little piece with the foot of the crutch at the bottom, or everything else. Most chose everything else because it had more range than the foot-long piece of metal. Sometimes they would even enact it and you know what? That one little piece won every time. Reason being, it was both quicker and once you get within a certain range, the rest of the crutch was useless. Sound familiar?

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 06 July 2017 - 03:16 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Jep Jorgensson, on 06 July 2017 - 03:08 PM, said:

Not true. When we could still run Stormcrows in scouting, the IS'ers would leg us every time with their SRM boat GRF-2N's and almost every shot was a hit. So your statement is not accurate.

• Scouting is a special snowflake and probably an even smaller percentage of play than comp is.
  
• You are comparing to ages ago before even the skill tree shifted things (isn't that even before the Huntsman?).
  
• Stormcrows were not really good mechs at that the time, people using them instead of Novas or Ice Ferrets for brawling should've felt bad.
  
• SRMs are still good for scouting because it is easy to force the brawl and is pretty much the only environment in which SRMs drumpf ATMs. That said, if you weren't boating cSPLs back then, you were doing it wrong.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 06 July 2017 - 03:14 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 July 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

• You have a point here, this does suck, but the stream is fairly short and again because it is guided doesn't cause as much of an aim issue like it would if it were unguided.
  
• SRMs suffer the same problem in a different manner.
  
• This is an issue for short range, but can be mitigated with arm movement just like you would with streaks.
  
• You say this like it matters, if I'm doing more damage per salvo and per heat than SRMs, this isn't an issue. In the end whatever gets me the best combination of alpha and DPS is what matters. Cooldown is only part of that equation.

True. But there's a reason why SRMs are used for brawlers, than SSRMs.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 July 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

It would at least make there be more of a trade-off in picking ATMs over SRMs considering they compete with the same hardpoint. Until they acknowledge something needs to be done about SRMs, I'd rather not introduce something that is power-creep for missiles.

You mean being heavy? Low ammo/ton, large that you can't fit a lot of tubes in the CT versus other missile system.

Its not just SRMs, a lot of other out-ranged weapons suffer with it.

Well, power-creep is here. MRMs, Heavy lasers, RACs. Jesus MRMs? 40 damage per salvo and you could shoot two all at once?

No i don't advocate power creep though. But min range is getting in the way of what ATMs should be working. If anything, damage could be done at 2.4/1.8/1.2, i would have been fine with that.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 July 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

It's an everything problem, it just depends on which one you think is above the power curve to you.

But screwing over ATMs is not gonna help.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 July 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

I'm aware of that, but at some point there is such a thing as being too niche (aka situational) that it never sees use. See LRMs for a perfect example of that.

But with SRMs, every other weapons outshine it. Why you gotta make it an ATM thing?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 July 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

Minimum range is stupid, I have no disagreements there, but allowing this weapon to pass in without it would be equally silly because it would be the GOTO missile weapon for Clan mechs, aka, power creep (if it got the missile health increase beside it that is, but at least people would carry AMS more I guess).

It is a weapon system that's supposed to work at any range, that's a pretty diverse amount of situations where it can be used. However i would not count it cause it's pretty heavy tube wise. That to an equal amount of tonnage, like SRM6-ATM3, the SRM6 wins.

ATMs could only be as meaningful if people can allot a significant amount of tonnage with it, that may have been an ammo, heatsink, or other backup weapons. Isn't that not enough?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 06 July 2017 - 03:36 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 06 July 2017 - 03:23 PM, said:

You mean being heavy? Low ammo/ton, large that you can't fit a lot of tubes in the CT versus other missile system.

• Heaviness is offset by having better damage-to-heat ratio, we've been over this. For 9 heat, an ATM12 can give you 36 damage per salvo. While 3 ASRM6 give you 36 damage for 12 heat. That translates to ~3.6 more DHS needed to counter the extra heat (if firing on the ATM12's cooldown rather than the faster rate, in which case it needs more DHS to actually get a better sustained DPS). That sort of thing is important because it plays into the tonnage needed to use it effectively and can actually counter the lower damage per ton (not that it is as severe as people make it out to be given that at 3 damage, 72 missiles per ton translates to 216 damage per ton).
  
• You can only fit 1 ASRM in the CT, so let's stop acting like that is a huge deal, especially given how few mechs have CT missile hardpoints to concern themselves with in the first place.

So let's quit with some of these misleading numbers since some of this crap you are saying is the same stuff people said about how "bad" Clan laser vomit was compared to IS laser vomit.

The6thMessenger, on 06 July 2017 - 03:23 PM, said:

Its not just SRMs, a lot of other out-ranged weapons suffer with it.
But with SRMs, every other weapons outshine it. Why you gotta make it an ATM thing?

Sure, but this is specifically about missiles because they all compete for the same hardpoint. I never said this was specifically an SRM problem.

The6thMessenger, on 06 July 2017 - 03:23 PM, said:

Well, power-creep is here. MRMs, Heavy lasers, RACs. Jesus MRMs? 40 damage per salvo and you could shoot two all at once?

• MRMs are bad because of they have much worse spread and too slow of a velocity.
  
• Heavy Lasers still serve no purpose outside of a select few mechs (SCat and **** Lynx).
  
• RACs are meh because of how limited of a time you can fire, UACs are just better right now.

The6thMessenger, on 06 July 2017 - 03:23 PM, said:

No i don't advocate power creep though. But min range is getting in the way of what ATMs should be working. If anything, damage could be done at 2.4/1.8/1.2, i would have been fine with that.

Honestly I'd go with 2.5/2/1.5 so they are more useful at the more extreme ranges while low enough that they still serve a purpose at short range. Also wouldn't hurt to increase ammo per ton since the max damage per ton is lowered. That and fixing the missile health.

The6thMessenger, on 06 July 2017 - 03:23 PM, said:

But screwing over ATMs is not gonna help.

Where did I ever say I wanted to screw over ATMs? All I'm saying is they shouldn't be released with min range and 3 damage per missile at short range.

The6thMessenger, on 06 July 2017 - 03:23 PM, said:

It is a weapon system that's supposed to work at any range

No, it is meant to do damage at any range, but it isn't meant to "work" at every range, it is meant as a push weapon as would any weapon that is meant to be "flexible". It's the exact same as any bracket build, to get the best of both worlds, chances are good you are going to push with it except when you are going against brawl teams (in which case you play the range game for as long as you can).