677 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Right now, i do think that ATMs do have an insanely powerful alpha. I firmly believe we can put the damage to 2.4/2.0/1.6, remove minimum range but retain current range distribution.

Or if damage needs to remain the same, we can just alter the distribution to 0m-180m-540m-900m, and we can remove the minimum damage.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 July 2017 - 03:18 PM.

[Tesunie]

The6thMessenger, on 09 July 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

Right now, i do think that ATMs do have an insanely powerful alpha. I firmly believe we can put the damage to 2.4/2.0/1.6, remove minimum range but retain current range distribution.

Or if damage needs to remain the same, we can just alter the distribution to 0m-180m-540m-900m, and we can remove the minimum damage.

We could also (alternatively) remove the minimum range completely, and then set up Ghost heat to be if more than 3 ATM3-6 are shot at once and/or if more than two ATM9-12, penalizing at the highest rate. (AKA: If you have 3 ATM3s and an ATM12, you couldn't shoot the ATM12 with the ATM3s in more than groups of 2 because it would ghost heat you off the ATM12 rating if it is fired within the limit. But, you could fire 3 ATM3s, wait the half second (or whatever it is now) for ghost heat to reset, and then fire the ATM12. Or you could fire the ATM12 with a single other ATM launcher for no ghost heat.)

Ghost heat, if the multiplier is set high enough, will certainly discourage high alpha loads of just ATMs, and can limit the damage they can spit at a given time. I'd love to have it set to so many missiles launched within 0.5 seconds, but it may be easier to assign it to the weapons specifically... Seems to be how all the other weapons are dealt with.

We could also adjust tracking strength, or even the spacing of the ripple fire, or the spread even at closer ranges (so it spreads more at first, and then tighten as it goes farther away), or that soft minimum range people where discussing, or...


As I've said before, we have plenty of aspects that can be altered to make the weapon more balanced. Even if we don't like certain mechanics (Ghost heat to name one), they have a purpose and can be adjusted for better balance of a weapon. ATMs need to be viable at all ranges, but specialize in none. When compared to LRMs, it's fairly well off at the moment because LRMs will still have a role to fill (better at indirect). It seems SRMs are more so the question, and we all agree that an ATM with a minimum range just seems to be silly (but can't agree on how it should be adjusted).

[MischiefSC]

Again, making them SRMs that continue to do damage out to 800m and lock targets isn't going to make them mid range - it makes them locking long range SRMs.

If it does more damage at 0 m than 300m then it's a brawling weapon. It's SRMs with a bit beefier punch but more spread but that are dangerous at 3x the range and lock so they can be used effectively with direct fire.

Saying LRMs are better at mid range is delusional. 21 tons of ATMs do 81 damage at mid range with less travel time and better grouping. They **** all over LRMs out to 400m or so.

ATM damage should peak around 300m. Otherwise they're just buffed SRMs.

[The6thMessenger]

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 03:54 PM, said:

Again, making them SRMs that continue to do damage out to 800m and lock targets isn't going to make them mid range - it makes them locking long range SRMs.

Saying LRMs are better at mid range is delusional. 21 tons of ATMs do 81 damage at mid range with less travel time and better grouping. They **** all over LRMs out to 400m or so.

And then you consider that ATMs would be far heavier, that lrms do the same or better damage at a lighter platform.

ATM12 x3 = 21, and on mid-range it does 72 damage. Versus LRM80 at 20 tons, at least without Artemis.

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 03:54 PM, said:

If it does more damage at 0 m than 300m then it's a brawling weapon. It's SRMs with a bit beefier punch but more spread but that are dangerous at 3x the range and lock so they can be used effectively with direct fire.

ATM damage should peak around 300m. Otherwise they're just buffed SRMs.

No it's not, requiring lock-on, and stream-fire would already gimp it as a brawling weapon. No, just no.

[Khobai]

ATMs need to do massive damage at short range and at least equal damage to LRMs at mid range. Or theres no point to taking ATMs.

Even if they do equal damage, LRMs still have a pretty big advantage because they can fire over obstacles.

[MischiefSC]

The6thMessenger, on 09 July 2017 - 04:16 PM, said:

And then you consider that ATMs would be far heavier, that lrms do the same or better damage at a lighter platform.

ATM12 x3 = 21, and on mid-range it does 72 damage. Versus LRM80 at 20 tons, at least without Artemis.



No it's not, requiring lock-on, and stream-fire would already gimp it as a brawling weapon. No, just no.

When it comes live I'm sure it'll have the 120m min range. We'll test it. Up to you, take SRMs or LRMs and I'll destroy you with ATMs wi th out getting into 120m.

Because "oh noes! 0.75 sec stream on missiles" doesn't matyer when matched 81 damage in missiles and 35 pts of direct fire pukes up on you every 4 seconds or so when you hit about 300m. Twisting doesnt help much vs 50% more damage.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 09 July 2017 - 04:30 PM, said:

and at least equal damage to LRMs at mid range. Or theres no point to taking ATMs.

No they don't. Yes there is a point, LRMs are support, ATMs are offense. The behavior of ATMs support a different playstyle than LRMs.

Khobai, on 09 July 2017 - 04:30 PM, said:

Even if they do equal damage, LRMs still have a pretty big advantage because they can fire over obstacles.

Negated by the fact that you need constant, retained lock which makes them already harder to land even at mid-range.

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 04:40 PM, said:

When it comes live I'm sure it'll have the 120m min range. We'll test it. Up to you, take SRMs or LRMs and I'll destroy you with ATMs wi th out getting into 120m.

Because "oh noes! 0.75 sec stream on missiles" doesn't matyer when matched 81 damage in missiles and 35 pts of direct fire pukes up on you every 4 seconds or so when you hit about 300m. Twisting doesnt help much vs 50% more damage.

That's far from brawling num-nuts. If anything, that just highlights the problem of SRMs ABOVE it's range, and versus every other weapon that outrange it.

It's ultimately irrelevant.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 July 2017 - 04:51 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

No they don't. Yes there is a point, LRMs are support, ATMs are offense. The behavior of ATMs support a different playstyle than LRMs.

Except if ATMs are worse than SRMs at short range and worse than LRMs at medium range then they are literally worse than everything and good at nothing. Theres no reason to use a weapon like that.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 09 July 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

Except if ATMs are worse than SRMs at short range and worse than LRMs at medium range then they are literally worse than everything and good at nothing. Theres no reason to use a weapon like that.

Generalizing means it would work at most cases, but not excel versus those that specialize. Yes there is a use. Bracket builds and offense. It's a weapon that could undertake any role okay if not the best, if a specialist is not available. That means, if your lumer died or just didn't have one as a teammate, you can "lurm".

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 July 2017 - 04:56 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Khobai, on 09 July 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

Except if ATMs are worse than SRMs at short range and worse than LRMs at medium range then they are literally worse than everything and good at nothing. Theres no reason to use a weapon like that.

this is my point.

Maybe people are tripping over "short range" or "medium range" but on a Clan platform, 400m IS medium range. And from 400m out, LRM's wipe the floor with ATM's. Keeping locks is trivial around these ranges, be it directly, via UAV's or good old fashioned teamwork.

Even from 300-400m, ATM's are not better than LRM's. More damage per missile, but still more investment per missile, and the ATM flight path prevents their usage where LRM's can still hit (over low terrain and friendly Mechs).

Meanwhile, damage per ton of ammo is the same (till 500ish) and then much, much worse.

400-600m is the golden zone for LRM's, where they are most effective. Much, much moreso than ATM's. Beyond 600m, they're rarely particularly effective, but even then are more effective more often than ATM's.

But, let's stop a sec, and be charitable. I'll accept that from 300m and beyond, ATM's are equal to LRM's.

This is tantamount to saying they are flat out bad at those ranges, no?

Because all the reasons LRM's are bad STILL APPLY TO ATM's, and more besides. Feast or famine? ECM, AMS, cover - all still apply, but cover is even easier because you only need to block basically direct line of fire. Spread damage, and comparable to worse damage done with very inefficient ammo. Without indirect fire, there's no lucky happenstance with a narced target on a map/area like Polar Highlands or similar low-cover-only regions in many other maps. No way to lend weight of fire when you can't get a direct line of fire yourself.

[Wintersdark]

Are you honestly so concerned that in practice, in a 12v12 battle, ATM's are sufficiently strong in the 120-300 range to cover the fact that they're literally useless inside 120 and as bad as/worse than LRM's beyond that?

I just can't see it.

Maybe I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, and won't be the last. But I spent a lot of time with them on the PTS (against real players, not in the testing grounds) and I found them to be much like LRM's in the end:

Even discounting AMS entirely - Weapons that are quite effective in just the right circumstances, but on the balance of things a poor use of tonnage vs. basically anything else.

Battle stays at 400+ meters? They're garbage; you either don't fire or burn ammo too fast. Battle gets close? You MAYBE get a couple good high damage volleys in, but opponents who aren't potatoes close range quickly.

IF you get a battle where the opfor cooperates and stays at 120m-300m, AND doesn't have ECM AND doesn't have derp/use cover to break locks/etc, then they're damned awesome.

But pokefights happen at those ranges all the time, and ATM's are horrifically bad at pokefights.

[Wintersdark]

The6thMessenger, on 09 July 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

Right now, i do think that ATMs do have an insanely powerful alpha. I firmly believe we can put the damage to 2.4/2.0/1.6, remove minimum range but retain current range distribution.

Or if damage needs to remain the same, we can just alter the distribution to 0m-180m-540m-900m, and we can remove the minimum damage.

I'd love this. Hell, I'd be happy if they went further, 2 damage from 0-300, 1.6 damage to max range, no minimum range. I'd rather ATM's be useful in a wider range of situations instead of good at one very specific thing and garbage everywhere else.

Staying directfire keeps them unique and preserves LRM's "strong" position as a long range missile. Locks, slow missile tracking and velocity keeps them poorer up close than SRM's, but the ability to use them at any range makes them useful everywhere.

(Not advocating those numbers; using them as an extreme to make a point.)

[Khobai]

Quote

Right now, i do think that ATMs do have an insanely powerful alpha. I firmly believe we can put the damage to 2.4/2.0/1.6, remove minimum range but retain current range distribution.

2.4/2.2/1.8 is probably closer to where they need to be to be viable at all ranges


Both an ATM9 and LRM20 are 5 tons so at 2.4/2.2/1.8...

An ATM9 would do 21.6/19.8/16.2 damage with no min range, a flat trajectory, and better tracking/spread

While an LRM 20 would do 20/20/20 damage with a 180m damage dropoff and a high trajectory



And also increase ATM ammo from 72->90 per ton

Increase ATM health by about 50% so AMS doesnt wreck it as badly

And decrease ATM max range to 810m because 1100m is a bit silly

Lastly I think LRMs could use a max velocity increase, but they should accelerate gradually upto that higher max velocity. That would make LRMs better at long range without making them better at shorter ranges. And ATMs would then have a faster velocity at shorter ranges than LRMs because of the gradual acceleration.

Edited by Khobai, 09 July 2017 - 06:42 PM.

[MischiefSC]

The6thMessenger, on 09 July 2017 - 04:42 PM, said:

No they don't. Yes there is a point, LRMs are support, ATMs are offense. The behavior of ATMs support a different playstyle than LRMs.



Negated by the fact that you need constant, retained lock which makes them already harder to land even at mid-range.



That's far from brawling num-nuts. If anything, that just highlights the problem of SRMs ABOVE it's range, and versus every other weapon that outrange it.

It's ultimately irrelevant.

Except there's no magic that happens between 120m and 0m. Other than an extra 4 seconds of travel time in which the ATMs get to shoot you again.

Again, why don't we do some put up or shut up. I did it during the PTS and proved my point about ATMs vs SRMs and everything else and will do it with you when it comes live, however it comes out.

The locking isn't an issue. Not when you do 50% more damage. You can just stare - it doesn't matter, because you're obliterating the other guy before he's through your armor. If you can do that at brawling range then you just push to a brawl and delete people. If I can hit you consistently at 300m (thanks to locks) and then do SRM+ damage at brawling then I win over SRMs every single time.

Khobai, on 09 July 2017 - 06:26 PM, said:

2.4/2.2/1.8 is probably closer to where they need to be to be viable at all ranges


Both an ATM9 and LRM20 are 5 tons so at 2.4/2.2/18...

An ATM9 would do 21.6/19.8/16.2 damage with no min range, a flat trajectory, and better tracking/spread

While an LRM 20 would do 20/20/20 damage with a 180m damage dropoff and a high trajectory

Except you can only do 2 LRM20s or maybe 3 LRM15s vs 3 ATM9s. I can take more/bigger ATMs than LRMs in a tonnage basis per hardpoint. I can take 3xATM9, UAC10 and 2CERMLs on an Orion. Can you run 3xLRM20A? Because with the tight clustering ATMs do you'd need to compare the Artemis version.

So 3xLRM15A same build is 45 damage, with falloff inside 180m. ATMs would be 64.8/59.4/48.6.

Which makes him a 88.8 pt brawler, stronger than the Scorch with less spread (Scorch is 2xLB20X,4xSRM6 without artemis) not including double-tap on the UAC. At mid range he loses... 5pts. So 83 pts. Then long range another 11. So 71pts at 500m or so.

You guys are ******* insane. Do any of you play this game? Did any of you use ATMs?

First, if the most damage is at brawling range? That makes it a brawling weapon. So you're saying you want to have a weapon that's better than SRMs for damage at point blank but only.... just as good or better at mid range, and still very deadly at long range.

Conversations like this are why it's hard to have balance talks on the forums that PGI should look at.

If ATMs do more damage in brawling than SRMs (regardless of spread, because at point blank spread is a minimal issue compared to damage hence why LBX20s are viable for brawling for example) then they're an excellent brawling weapon and better than SRMs - because they're also good at mid and long range.

If ATMs have a 0 damage minimum range they are worthless in a 'serious' context. Same with low health missiles that are wiped by AMS at anything but point blank. That's a weapon that is suddenly able to be completely neutralized by something SOMEONE ELSE does. It makes them trash that's suitable for spud farming in QP and a complete waste of coding time. However if the damage they have inside 120/180m or so is as good or better than SRMs than they're going to replace SRMs. Why? Because in this game, and I know this is crazy talk here, in a brawl usually the guy who does the most damage wins. Yes, precision is part of that. No question. But if I'm doing 20, 30, 50% more damage than you I can give up some precision because even if I don't CT you out I'm going to wipe your side torso and cripple you before you can CT me or leg me, which lets me then kill you first.

If ATMs are better beyond that 300m mark than LRMs? Then LRMs, which are already a trash weapon due to useless inside 180m range and the ability to render them useless via AMS/ECM due to how those work at ranges beyond 180m. At that point LRMs are not even a good call in pug queue unless you are total potato who only plays from indirect fire because when you get shot at you pee yourself and freeze.

This isn't hard. It's not complicated. I get that some people want super SRMs and want to pretend having super SRMs that let you one-shot mediums and smaller out to 300m and because they want that they're pretending that wouldn't be maybe a bit OP and invalidate SRMs, I'm sincerely hopeful (reasonably confident in fact) that whatever I can say about PGI and balancing they've never.... err, well, rarely, made balance decisions that bad.

At this point I'm happy to wait and see what gets released and hold an open invitation to the people on this thread - we can test them vs LRMs and SRMs and I'll prove to you, in practice with the mechs and the weapons, that more than SRM damage inside 120m would make them OP and invalidate SRMs.

Because currently the strawman arguments on this thread are giving people hives and creating straw shortages in 3rd world countries.

[Khobai]

Quote

Because with the tight clustering ATMs do you'd need to compare the Artemis version.

Remember ATMs were bugged on test server. Artemis was buffing them when it wasnt supposed to. So their cluster isnt going to be nearly as tight when patch goes live. Expect their spread to be about 50% wider apart.

Quote

Except you can only do 2 LRM20s or maybe 3 LRM15s vs 3 ATM9s.

Why? ATM9s are 5 tons. LRM20s are also 5 tons. They weigh the same.

Even if you spend 1 extra ton for artemis, LRMs still more than make up that 1 ton by getting 180 ammo per ton instead of only 72. If anything ATMs weigh more after ammo.

Quote

First, if the most damage is at brawling range? That makes it a brawling weapon. So you're saying you want to have a weapon that's better than SRMs for damage at point blank but only.... just as good or better at mid range, and still very deadly at long range.

Its not better than SRMs for damage.

x2 SRM6+A = 5 tons = 24 damage with 4.0 cooldown (6 dps)
x1 ATM9 = 5 tons = 21.6 damage at 2.4 damage per missile with 5.0 cooldown (4.32 dps)

And yes theyre a brawling weapon but theyre not just a brawling weapon. The whole point of ATMs is to be viable at short, medium, AND long range. They should be weaker than SRMs at short range, just as good as LRMs at mid range, and worse than LRMs at long range. Because thats the absolute best you can make ATMs without making them better than SRMs/LRMs in their respective range bands.

And also LRMs need a max velocity increase with a gradual acceleration upto the higher max velocity because LRMs should not be reaching their peak effectiveness at medium range. So yeah my justification for making ATMs decent at medium range is to actually make LRMs better at long range... because you know theyre long range missiles and all.

Edited by Khobai, 09 July 2017 - 07:42 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

Except there's no magic that happens between 120m and 0m. Other than an extra 4 seconds of travel time in which the ATMs get to shoot you again.

Brawling doesn't necessarily have to occur 120m below. However brawler is usually short-range combat, and brawling itself is -- in my experience, no-cover short-ranged combat. Where we just move around, trying to nail one another.

In brawling, there is no cover, so we have to maximize our durability via torso twisting, side-shielding and armor-rolling. It's kind of fast-paced stuff.

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

Again, why don't we do some put up or shut up. I did it during the PTS and proved my point about ATMs vs SRMs and everything else and will do it with you when it comes live, however it comes out.

And what, you get to shoot the SRM brawler on his way to get in range? That's not brawling, that's the same issue as with any weapon that out-ranges the SRMs. That's really besides the point.

You can't call it "better at brawling", if it wins by not even brawling.

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

The locking isn't an issue. Not when you do 50% more damage. You can just stare - it doesn't matter, because you're obliterating the other guy before he's through your armor. If you can do that at brawling range then you just push to a brawl and delete people. If I can hit you consistently at 300m (thanks to locks) and then do SRM+ damage at brawling then I win over SRMs every single time.

Lol, and while you have to chew through your opponents cumulative torso health, that SRM brawling is just hammering your CT away.

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

Except you can only do 2 LRM20s or maybe 3 LRM15s vs 3 ATM9s. I can take more/bigger ATMs than LRMs in a tonnage basis per hardpoint. I can take 3xATM9, UAC10 and 2CERMLs on an Orion. Can you run 3xLRM20A? Because with the tight clustering ATMs do you'd need to compare the Artemis version.

So 3xLRM15A same build is 45 damage, with falloff inside 180m. ATMs would be 64.8/59.4/48.6.

ATM9 is 5 tons, LRM20 without artemis is 5 tons, LRM15 with artemis is 4.5t. Seeing that ATMs are supposed to have abhorrent spread due to not being able to take artemis, we shall do the same, and assume the simmilar spread. 3 ATM9 vs 3 Artemis mid-range of 2.0 damage for the ATM, mid-range where LRM excels, that's just 54 vs 60 of LRM20 x3.

There is no point using HE-damage over LRMs, of course it would win.

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

Which makes him a 88.8 pt brawler, stronger than the Scorch with less spread (Scorch is 2xLB20X,4xSRM6 without artemis) not including double-tap on the UAC. At mid range he loses... 5pts. So 83 pts. Then long range another 11. So 71pts at 500m or so.

I think that's just close-range alpha. Brawling is more than just nuking your enemy to death close range.

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

You guys are ******* insane. Do any of you play this game? Did any of you use ATMs?

Yes i used ATMs. No, you're just short-sighted, and narrow-minded. But hey since we're being personal now, what about i ask you, do you even brawl?

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

First, if the most damage is at brawling range? That makes it a brawling weapon.

No it doesn't, it just says that it has the most damage there, to accomodate the trend it was supposed to follow. The brawling scene has a LOT MORE working than just damage. That is no more a brawler, than LRMs are a brawler just because their optimal range is at 180m

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

So you're saying you want to have a weapon that's better than SRMs for damage at point blank but only.... just as good or better at mid range, and still very deadly at long range.

Sure. But the thing is that, better damage out does not necessarily mean it's better at the role the SRMs are intended. We have lots of other factors to consider at brawling, cause really you don't just nuke your opponents at a brawl.

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

Conversations like this are why it's hard to have balance talks on the forums that PGI should look at.

Yeah, because of you. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Seriously now, disagreements are part of discussion, because there are different people with different perspectives to things. What, you're one of those precious snowflakes that couldn't handle anyone having different opinion? Tough luck, the world isn't one big liberal-arts college.

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

If ATMs do more damage in brawling than SRMs (regardless of spread, because at point blank spread is a minimal issue compared to damage hence why LBX20s are viable for brawling for example) then they're an excellent brawling weapon and better than SRMs - because they're also good at mid and long range.

What, is LRM better at sniping over Gauss Rifle? Cause LRM20 does 20 damage, when Gauss only does 15 damage? Come on.

Spread is minimal? Yeah, if it were shooting it's load, all at once like SRMs. But nah man, stream-fire, that's the same problems as lasers as armor-rolling can distribute those damage away.

Also, so what if the ATMs can participate above brawling ranges? That just makes them better "weapon", not "brawling weapon". Brawling is a specialization.

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

However if the damage they have inside 120/180m or so is as good or better than SRMs than they're going to replace SRMs. Why? Because in this game, and I know this is crazy talk here, in a brawl usually the guy who does the most damage wins. Yes, precision is part of that. No question. But if I'm doing 20, 30, 50% more damage than you I can give up some precision because even if I don't CT you out I'm going to wipe your side torso and cripple you before you can CT me or leg me, which lets me then kill you first.

No it doesn't, it's who could chew through the CT first. Sometimes just throwing a lot of damage can do that, but other times you can maximize your armor.

Even if you're doing 50% more damage than me, if that is spread out, that doesn't really matter as much as you think. There's a reason why we scoff at 800 damage mark on lurm-boats versus gauss-ppcs, and its because 800 damage is spread-all over while Gauss-PPC can be isolated in a component, which in turn can much more efficiently kill a target.



Now just shorten the range, to a range where it's much more hectic. Stream + lock on, would mean you're compromising your CT more than a brawler that could just spread damage and splat a volley in your face, rinse and repeat.

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

If ATMs are better beyond that 300m mark than LRMs? Then LRMs, which are already a trash weapon due to useless inside 180m range and the ability to render them useless via AMS/ECM due to how those work at ranges beyond 180m. At that point LRMs are not even a good call in pug queue unless you are total potato who only plays from indirect fire because when you get shot at you pee yourself and freeze.

I kinda agree with this.

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

At this point I'm happy to wait and see what gets released and hold an open invitation to the people on this thread - we can test them vs LRMs and SRMs and I'll prove to you, in practice with the mechs and the weapons, that more than SRM damage inside 120m would make them OP and invalidate SRMs.

But then you're already engaging SRM brawlers at long range, which is just not brawling. And then when they get in range, they are already overwhelmed. Which is really against the point, the weapon already had the upper hand because it needs not to only engage close range.

If it were really fair, close-range only, the SRMs would win. But with what you have been declaring for your past posts, ATMs only wins because SRMs couldn't get in range it time, which is pretty much every other weapon in the game. You're not out-brawling SRMs, you're out ranging them, and there's a lot of difference between the two advantages.

The exercise is moot, unless you actually give SRMs fair chance.

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

Because currently the strawman arguments on this thread are giving people hives and creating straw shortages in 3rd world countries.

Wow really? You're going there? Okay what was the strawman? And clarify your position.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 July 2017 - 09:18 PM.

[Tesunie]

Khobai, on 09 July 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

Except if ATMs are worse than SRMs at short range and worse than LRMs at medium range then they are literally worse than everything and good at nothing. Theres no reason to use a weapon like that.

There would be a reason... Versatility, but they need to not be so weak that they also can't fight against said weapons.

They should be slightly worse than SRMs are close ranges, but still competitive at those ranges. (AKA: They can hold their own, but SRMs have a bit of an advantage.)

They should be slightly worse than LRMs at mid to longer ranges. (AKA: They should be able to hold their own or behave differently enough to compete with LRMs, but LRMs probably should retain some element that is their own or makes them a bit stronger.)


The idea would be, sure they aren't as "good" as those specialized systems, but they can engage at any of those ranges. It gives up specialization of a specific role/range to be able to perform adequately in those ranges instead.

[Tesunie]

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 03:54 PM, said:

Again, making them SRMs that continue to do damage out to 800m and lock targets isn't going to make them mid range - it makes them locking long range SRMs.

If it does more damage at 0 m than 300m then it's a brawling weapon. It's SRMs with a bit beefier punch but more spread but that are dangerous at 3x the range and lock so they can be used effectively with direct fire.

Saying LRMs are better at mid range is delusional. 21 tons of ATMs do 81 damage at mid range with less travel time and better grouping. They **** all over LRMs out to 400m or so.

ATM damage should peak around 300m. Otherwise they're just buffed SRMs.

You are considering them as "mid ranged SRMs", without considering their lower missile count per system as well as tonnage and slots that they take. LRMs seem to perform in about as equally of a manner outside the 3 damage range band of ATMs as ATMs do, if not better. You look only at individual missile stats, without realizing the drawbacks of such a system. 3 missiles being launched compared to 5, or for the tonnage more like 10. 3 Missiles, even if it had SRM level health, at those mid ranges are still going to be more susceptible to AMS than 10 from an equally weighted (or roughly so) LRM system.

As I've stated numerous times, there are a lot of things to look at for balancing a weapon. And a lot of things to test for, which I don't think we could properly do on the PTS.

[Rusharn]

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

You guys are ******* insane. Do any of you play this game?

I don't know what kind of mechs and pilots you played against but in my tests and play time, I found the ATM's performance to be pathetic against anything that was not a slow moving heavy or assault. The ATM's are only remotely dangerous to slow moving mechs with bad builds as seen in your test videos. Watching your test videos the scenarios were so heavy biased towards the ATM's as to be worthless to the discussion. A mad dog using two LRM twenties? Really? You're right off the bat reducing the LRM damage potential by 15 - 30%, by not using quick firing lrm 5's for a tighter spread, or pushing to the LRM60+ builds again with faster firing and just more raw damage. As for your Orion test I noticed that you kept to fighting slow heavies instead of anything fast as if that would be the only engagement scenario that would be encountered.

I found that a fast moving linebacker or Stormcrow with SRM's were murder to such builds as your Orion or the ATM Mad Dog, being able to close under the 120m by taking only partial hits in 3 damage point band or even avoiding damage all together depending on the availability of cover. Even in the Mad Dog verse Orion video, with the Orion trying to keep the distance it still kept creeping in under the 120m band.

Within your own video "evidence." you have proven how easily any mech with decent speed can close into the minimum range of the ATM's. This makes the weapon system a liability on all but the fastest and most maneuverable mechs. Even then they have problems dealing with other fast mechs that can close the distance as in most mech you have to be running at minimum parallel to them if you want to get a lock on. The only notable exception was the Shadow cat with it's extremely wide torso yaw, and even then it was still hard work to stay at range. While in 4 vs 4 combat you have a decent chance of running into a team of nothing but slow moving mechs, in 12 vs 12, you will run into mechs with AMS, multiple ECM, and fast movers with decent pilots. If ATM's are left as they currently stand, they will be a liability because an ATM's user will most likely encounter every weakness of the system during every battle. The weapon running hot, low ammo counts, AMS, multiple ECM, mechs getting in under minimum range, being attacked outside of 540m, the weapons being lost as soon as armor is reduced to zero, targets missed because of slow flight speeds, CT hits from long face time and maintaining locks, all these weaknesses will manifest in a 12 vs 12 battle.

With all those issues, are you honestly telling me that the ATM's threaten other weapons systems such as SRMs and LRMs, much less the meta? Clearly all your battles with ATM's went like your test videos, where the other pilots kindly try to stay in your 3 damage weapon band, where they take sub optimal builds, and always play on maps with little to no cover standing in the open, with no AMS, in slow heavy or assaults, because I can see no other reason for you to think that the ATM's are anything but a second line weapon at best. But then again maybe you don't want to have to carry AMS on your mechs and invest an extra point to get that second AMS overload just to counter one weapon system. Or maybe you don't want to have to step up your game if they do remove the minimum range because it might create the MWO version of the Noob Tube (See link for definition: http://www.urbandict...rm=noob%20tube.)

I think when this weapon hits the live server and it still has the 120m range, the only mechs we'll see ATM's on is Linebackers, Shadowcats, and Stormcrows and after the first two months even those will be a rarity. If we see it on any mech outside of those it will met with the same disdain from team mates as the LRMs.

[MischiefSC]

No, they said the artemis clustering is what they're going to actually have. That's why they said to test everything with Artemis on; that's going to be the clustering for MRMs, Rockets and ATMs will have.

Going to stop arguing the rest of it. Will go with 'I'll show you how you're wrong on the live server in actual practice' because currently we've go people pointing out the reality of how the game actually plays (thanks Quicksilver et al) and then the actual video recorded test matches (thanks AngrySpartan) which make the details I've been arguing pretty clear, which isn't enough for the unsupported armchair theorizing that is exactly like the LRM armchair theorizing ('They would dominate in comp if you just play them right').

We'll see what comes out in live, then we will put together some reasonable ways to test how LRMs and SRMs would compete with ATMs with the values suggested, we'll test it and when I prove (again, like I did on the PTS already) that it plays out like I've said, tested and shown already that it will, you guys can come up for new excuses why 'that test doesn't count because, err, the sun was in my eyes' or whatever it's going to be.