677 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Tesunie, on 16 July 2017 - 03:34 PM, said:

It wouldn't really give you true reliable information about how a weapon would work in a live team environment.

True, but just enough information at a brawl, at least when minimum range isn't taken into account.

[MischiefSC]

The6thMessenger, on 16 July 2017 - 02:54 PM, said:

Timberwolf S, our loadout is http://mwo.smurfy-ne...b49656449508d9e, but replace the 4x SRM6A with 2x ATM9.

Skills are:





Oh please, roughneck vs mad dog. Remember that?

I wouldn't waste most of my points on that skill tree setup. Base agility on TBR is so poor the agility tree is a waste. Sensor Tree is a tax on bad situational awareness, have no use for it save in zoom on sniper mechs that can't take a clan TC. You make an SRM TBR, I'll make an ATM based TBR and we'll duke it out. You make/play yours now you want, I'll make/play mine how I want.

You want to keep a specific range we can do that. You want to be moving though. More to the point, you want to just play it however it plays that's also good with me. Even with the 120m deadzone. Ideally I'd say play it however you want but try to keep outside of 120m. The whole point being that ATMs can both demolish you at range and at 120m.

However 2xATM9 isn't a bad choice. I'd probably go with 4x6 though, drop one ton of ammo. With the locking facet of ATMs you're going to be staring a lot anyway. I'd go with 4xcerml too. It'll be a bit hot but at 100 damage per volley you only need 2 clean hits to chew a mech up bad enough that the cermls can finish the work.

The point is that the ability of ATMs to do significant damage at range is strong enough; the ability to then do huge damage at point blank means there's no weakness to exploit, no point to ever take SRMs. If you suddenly started at point blank SRM and ATM, both fresh, it'd probably be close; SRMs have slightly better heat management and better DPS. However the point is that the ATM build can start doing 70+ damage hits at 500m; if it can then do 100+ hits at point blank then overall it's just better than SRMs.

Did you also see the ammo by the way?

90 shots per ton. At 3 damage/ton, that's optimally 270 damage/ton, as oppose to Clan SRMs at 200 damage/ton. Given that it's seeking ammo with a slower refire I'll probably take 5 tons of ammo. 4 is a bit of a stretch, but 5 is between 900 and 1350 damage. About 800-1k damage in a practical sense. That's going to be fine for QP.

In an Orion it's even better; if you want to play an SRM TBR vs an ATM Orion too I'm fine with that. Or vice-versa. ATMs are, at best, a mixed loadout weapon. I'm eager to see how they play with 400 m/s velocity.

[The6thMessenger]

MischiefSC, on 16 July 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

I wouldn't waste most of my points on that skill tree setup. Base agility on TBR is so poor the agility tree is a waste. Sensor Tree is a tax on bad situational awareness, have no use for it save in zoom on sniper mechs that can't take a clan TC. You make an SRM TBR, I'll make an ATM based TBR and we'll duke it out. You make/play yours now you want, I'll make/play mine how I want.

That would largely contaminate the output if we are to isolate the benefit of ATMs at a brawl. We could probably keep to our own skill builds at most, but we need to have the same armor so same skill nodes on the durability tree.

MischiefSC, on 16 July 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

You want to keep a specific range we can do that. You want to be moving though. More to the point, you want to just play it however it plays that's also good with me. Even with the 120m deadzone. Ideally I'd say play it however you want but try to keep outside of 120m. The whole point being that ATMs can both demolish you at range and at 120m.

MischiefSC, on 16 July 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

The point is that the ability of ATMs to do significant damage at range is strong enough; the ability to then do huge damage at point blank means there's no weakness to exploit, no point to ever take SRMs. If you suddenly started at point blank SRM and ATM, both fresh, it'd probably be close; SRMs have slightly better heat management and better DPS. However the point is that the ATM build can start doing 70+ damage hits at 500m; if it can then do 100+ hits at point blank then overall it's just better than SRMs.

Our range must be between 150 - 270m, so to isolate the effects of ATMs vs SRMs.

And the whole point of "better at brawling" is out-brawling the SRMs. If you're peppering me beyond my ability to fire the SRMs, that's not out-brawling, that's out ranging. Do you understand that? Are you just ******* bull ******** us?

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2017 - 01:54 PM, said:

If ATMs are max damage point blank then you've got a good brawling weapon you can still use out to long range, which just makes it flat out better than SRMs, which are lighter but max out at 270m and are only useful at point blank. This would make ATMs as good or better than SRMs to brawl, plus useful out to long range.

That's what you said. Take note of a separate "plus useful out to long range", means you are implying that to "brawl" is an exercise, not a build.

I'll will give you this, ATM is a better weapon system to take hands down, no complaints there, as it can be much more useful than the SRMs at an even wider variety of situations. But a brawling weapon, a close-range one built for a role, it is not, not even when the min-range is soft, or removed.

If you're not even giving the SRMs a chance, I don't see the point of this exercise. Of course the ATM would beat the SRMs at range, like many other weapons that out range it. And again i will repeat it, you are out-ranging, not out-brawling. And that doesn't make them better than the SRMs to brawl.

MischiefSC, on 16 July 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

However 2xATM9 isn't a bad choice. I'd probably go with 4x6 though, drop one ton of ammo. With the locking facet of ATMs you're going to be staring a lot anyway. I'd go with 4xcerml too. It'll be a bit hot but at 100 damage per volley you only need 2 clean hits to chew a mech up bad enough that the cermls can finish the work.

Do you know what is Dependent Variable and Independent Variable is? The dependent variable is that which we are measuring, while the independent variable is the one we change in an experiment, to see how much the dependent variable changes -- it's the outcome we're trying to study.

If you use ERMLs instead of SPLs, you contaminate the output -- that reduced heat efficiency could be the death of you, or the better damage at a distance or alpha can change the outcome and does not account for the ATM instead. You use 4x ATM6 at a cumulative 24 tubes, or 14 tons, as opposed of the 2x ATM9 at cumulative 18 tube, for 10 tons, you still contaminate the output. Should you win, we don't know whether the firepower of the additional 4 tons made it better, or just the difference of weapon types itself.

Contaminate, as in there are additional factors that threw off the output, when we're supposed to be measuring a simple change of ATM to SRMs. Hell i'm already risking so much with 200 ping difference, and differences between skill nodes, lets do everything else by the book please.

But okay, tell you what lets not use ERML but only SPLs. And then we do 2x ATM9, and then 4x ATM6s, cause the perk with the ATMs is going a lot heavier.

MischiefSC, on 16 July 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

Did you also see the ammo by the way?

90 shots per ton. At 3 damage/ton, that's optimally 270 damage/ton, as oppose to Clan SRMs at 200 damage/ton. Given that it's seeking ammo with a slower refire I'll probably take 5 tons of ammo. 4 is a bit of a stretch, but 5 is between 900 and 1350 damage. About 800-1k damage in a practical sense. That's going to be fine for QP.

That's relevant why? Again we are trying to isolate the benefits of ATM versus SRMs in brawling.

MischiefSC, on 16 July 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

In an Orion it's even better; if you want to play an SRM TBR vs an ATM Orion too I'm fine with that. Or vice-versa. ATMs are, at best, a mixed loadout weapon. I'm eager to see how they play with 400 m/s velocity.

What, you just want the upper hand like you did on one of those videos? The firepower allotment on that Orion you just brought, the UAC10 sullied the outcome, hell even just shooting before the Mad Dog gets in range.

Don't tell me that you're that ******* of a kid, that always changes the rules so that the outcome would always be in your favor. Like Eric Cartman -- that ******* fat psychopath ******* on South Park?

No we use the same mech if our exercise be even valid at all. Anything else, we don't isolate the benefits of the ATM over SRMs at brawling.

If you don't have a TBR, lets use something else. I have a linebacker, we could use that if you also have a linebacker. Unless you didn't get that free Linebacker on memorial day.

Here's the linebacker. LBK-PRIME 4x SRM6A + 4x ERSL

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 July 2017 - 10:41 PM.

[Tesunie]

The6thMessenger, on 16 July 2017 - 10:21 PM, said:

No we use the same mech if our exercise be even valid at all. Anything else, we don't isolate the benefits of the ATM over SRMs at brawling.

If we wanted truly accurate results (to the best of our abilities), you would need to perform "baseline" challenges, where each of you would play the same exact mech several times. This would establish a "skill difference baseline". If one of you is better at spreading damage, more accurate, etc, it would show. Then, you account for that with all other tests after that.

From there, then you would have to test again with the only alteration to the mechs being the missiles. From the same tonnage of LRMs, SRMs and ATMs being alternated. This alters only the missile aspects of the mechs. Then, test to see how that compared to your baseline results.

Then, the two sides need to switch builds. Where one might have been testing the SRMs, now the other one would. Compared to above two pools of results. Does this have an impact?

Then, if you specifically wish to test brawling ONLY capabilities (seems to be the touchy subject here), you would now need to repeat those tests within the 120-270m ranges (because ATMs can't get closer) only. Just like before, you would again need to repeat several times and then switch sides.


Even after all that, your results can still be contaminated. All it takes is for one side to "purosefully" handicap themselves (such as not shooting at a shut down opponent) or just purposefully play sloppy to give specific weapons a worse showing than what they could actually do. (However, this should show up from the baseline to each of the following pools of tests.)


It is actually rather hard to prove something like this, only because you need to do so much testing first. Even then, your pools of data are probably going to be small, so it still may not be representative of different skill sets, where some players may be better with certain weapons over other weapons. But, it could help provide a reasonable amount of results.

It's a lot of work...


Edit: To add on to this, each time the build is changed (missiles changed out), you would once again need to perform base line matches, where each player is using the same exact build. This would be a representation of skill differences between players. Then test the different weapons. AKA: You'd need to make base line data pools for SRMs, LRMs and ATMs with mirrored build in use before pitting the different missiles against each other.

Edited by Tesunie, 16 July 2017 - 10:47 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Tesunie, on 16 July 2017 - 10:45 PM, said:

It's a lot of work...

Yes, we can't really prove which one is 100% better at brawling.

But hey at least I get to shut him up about the matter.

[Tesunie]

The6thMessenger, on 16 July 2017 - 10:48 PM, said:

Yes, we can't really prove which one is 100% better at brawling.

But hey at least I get to shut him up about the matter.

We would have a hard time testing "brawling" because of how much skill is involved in brawling as well as it's close proximity to each target. Brawling is normally well within 120m, ATM minimum range. Closer is normally better with SRMs, right on down to face hugging (really reduces spread, as long as you don't have teammates trying to shoot in as well). You also have to consider which component is being shot at, as SRMs could aim for legs (and in most comp brawling, that's what people did. Aim for the legs and take them off, or at least in my short experience of brawling comp play when I did play comp for a bit).

There are a lot of things to consider. To truly even try to give meaningful results, it would be a lot of work and dedication. If can't literally be "I think ATMs are best, so I challenge you with my ATMs" and then use different builds with different weapons. Those results, as you've pointed out, become deeply contaminated, and it can be very one sided. Especially if situations are set up in favor of a specific weapon/build.

For best results, we also have to talk ton for ton. So if someone has 10 tons of SRMs and 3 tons of ammo (random numbers), than the opponent would have to use the same exact build with the exception of 10 tons of (in this example) ATMs and 3 tons of ammo. Then, after testing those builds against each other a few times... The players would have to switch builds, maintaining the same exact builds with no alterations. (AKA: If one took 10 tons of ATM3s, one can't change them to ATM6s, at least not without triggering a complete retest in reverse.)

If one uses a specific build, the other tester needs to also use that exact build. I'd recommend to leave skills out of the question, if at all possible. The closer each is to the other, the more accurate the results.

[The6thMessenger]

Tesunie, on 16 July 2017 - 10:59 PM, said:

If one uses a specific build, the other tester needs to also use that exact build. I'd recommend to leave skills out of the question, if at all possible. The closer each is to the other, the more accurate the results.

The more valid test would have been just done by one person anyways, after all same skill level. I'm okay trying out the ATM by myself, jot down notes either.

But yeah, he's the one who keeps threatening me.

[Rick T Dangerous]

There's nothing "Advanced Tactical" about them. They appear to be a useless thing just so PGI can say "look, the claners got some new missles, too".

[BTGbullseye]

Rick T Dangerous, on 18 July 2017 - 12:10 AM, said:

There's nothing "Advanced Tactical" about them. They appear to be a useless thing just so PGI can say "look, the claners got some new missles, too".

They are on-par with LRMs at range in my experience, (provided you fire at least 12 missiles per barrage) but that deadzone at 120m is a bit too far. Least they could do is have it ramp down in damage like the existing Clan missiles. If it were a real-life thing, I seriously doubt a real Clanner would take the time to switch over to the ATMs we have now.

Edited by BTGbullseye, 18 July 2017 - 07:10 PM.

[Wintersdark]

BTGbullseye, on 18 July 2017 - 07:09 PM, said:

They are on-par with LRMs at range in my experience, (provided you fire at least 12 missiles per barrage) but that deadzone at 120m is a bit too far. Least they could do is have it ramp down in damage like the existing Clan missiles. If it were a real-life thing, I seriously doubt a real Clanner would take the time to switch over to the ATMs we have now.

they are way weaker than LRM's at range. That's fine, as they're better very close (but worse inside 120m, if barely)... They're only on par with LRM's when they're getting 2 damage per missile, and even then aren't really as good due to the direct fire need and higher losses to AMS.

[Gasoline]

I did some live testing of ATMs yesterday. I found them way to situational to be worth the weight. At the moment even Streak SRMs outperfom ATMs... and Streaks are bad in the first place. I still think for ATMs to at least be worth the weight, create a SOFT minimum of max. 90m, which would in turn make Micro Pulse and ER Micros worth taking as underrunning the minimum range would leave the victim in optimal range for those.

I did a Cougar Prime with 2 Medium Pulse and 2 LRM10A and the other one with 2 Heavy Mediums and 2 ATM6. The first outclassed the latter by a long shot.

I also tried ATMs on the MCII and MAD-IIC. Depending on the map I did either okay or really bad. Their low flight path and bad trajectory make them very prone to hit the ground or other obstacles. That being said I have to say I got lucky a few times, that people were actually running away from me, so I could keep the optimal range. As soon as people realize their hard minimum I guess they'll be worthless.

Also their tracking strength has some real issues. They're supposed to have inbuilt Artemis FCS, yet I had no problem dodging them in a MAD-IIC by just sidestepping a little.

For them to be slightly effective you have you take many, but more than 4 ATM6 is not really feasible.

The most devastating combo in clan tech I found was Heavy Mediums with SRMs.

[Widowmaker1981]

After some testing i think ATMs are, tentatively, OK.

I seriously doubt they are comp viable in any way, due to the min range... but in 12v12 pugs its not too hard to float around the 300m mark (ATMs 3 damage bracket is increased by skill tree range) and do very nice damage with no need to aim. I think they are best on something pretty mobile, definitely with JJs (because no one cares about crosshair shake with locking weapons, making them very nice for poptarting with)

3xATM6, 2xATM12 or 3xATM9 are the builds i looked at. Not willing to deal with the lockon mechanic for less than 18, and lower spread on the 6s makes 3x6 > 2x9

My main issue really is that there isnt a heavy mech that runs them well.

• Night Gyr is too slow and too space limited to run enough DHS.
  
• Timber is screwed by locked ES and FF crits meaning literally all the ammo for any respectable loadout is in the arms.
  
• Onion-IIC can build a nice 3x9 or 2x12 build but has no JJs, not enough E hardpoints for backup lasers and awful LT hitboxes mean you lose all the launchers as soon as someone looks at you funny.
  
• Summoner can run 3x6 but has poor backup laser options and that can be run on a much lighter mech.. not enough tonnage tbh.
  
• Ebon Jag has no lower arm actuators, so thats a big NO for any locking weapons.
  
• Hellbringer has no JJs and its hitboxes get screwed bigtime by adding missiles.
  
• Linebacker has nowhere near enough tonnage
  
• MadDog... can run them, but no JJs and not quite enough tonnage

Best option i found was a Huntsman with 3x6 and 5xERSL with 6 tons of ammo, a CAP and a few extra DHS. That has the mobility to stay in the range band, enough JJs to poptart with and enough backup weapons to cover the min range

Edit: Based on my testing, if the min range was removed they would need nerfing in some other area, or they would be too strong. Maybe reduced to 90 wiith current stats would be OK.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 21 July 2017 - 02:15 AM.

[KursedVixen]

to be fair i think their minimum range should be 90m if they want to give us a minimium though i'd prefer the cannon 0 no minimum.

[Lanikin Malachite]

ATMs have a minimum range to help mitigate the canon mechanic of having to carry separate ammo for short/medium/long range profiles that you do in Battletech. Although I'm sure most people (myself included) wouldn't even pack in the long range 1 damage missiles if given the option.

[John Stryker]

Cant they have 3 sets of ATM weapon types with the 3 ranges and damage ratings? Would be a good substitute for not being able to switch ammo types

[Khobai]

Quote

Cant they have 3 sets of ATM weapon types with the 3 ranges and damage ratings? Would be a good substitute for not being able to switch ammo types

thats the same thing as just SRM/MRM/LRM

the whole point of ATMs is that its a versatile jack-of-all-trades all-in-one weapon system, not 3 different weapons

without ammo switching, the only other option is to average the 3 ammo types together into one versatile ammo type.

Edited by Khobai, 06 November 2017 - 11:18 AM.

[Prezimonto]

Brain Cancer, on 28 June 2017 - 04:11 PM, said:

It's an LRM clone coding here, right down to the 180m deadzone. This is inelegant and inappropriate.

1) Change the deadzone to a 120m damage reduction instead. Reduce damage from 270m and normalize it across the missile range so that ATMs hit 1 damage at 810m, 2 damage at 540m, and 3 damage at 270m (and then decline from 120m-0m.).

2) Reduce the range to TT levels- that is, 810 meters. ATMs have LRM velocity, which makes them incredibly inaccurate at range anyway. No need for a snail-missile with a 6.8 second flight time from launch to impact at 1100m.

3) Improve clustering. ATMs include Artemis automatically as part of the launcher, and should benefit from lock time boosts as well.

I like all 3 of these suggestions. I'd actually like to see the top range decreased, the artemis spreads applied, and damage decrease under 120.

But instead of a purely linear decrease or the silly exponential decrease of clrms... I'd suggest 90 to 120 they decrease to 2dmage, and 50 to 90 they decrease to 1 damage, and 0 under that. That still leaves them with an under run range, but gives a lot more leeway on damage when mixing it up with folks.

[Kijiro Bugboy]

I mean to be fair, I was another person heavily advocating for the below-120 damage decrease but whatever.

[Laser Kiwi]

If they even dared consider this, perhaps remove rocket launcher min range while they are at it, and IS lrms worked TT inside minimum with hit penalties, so IS should be able to dummy fire for damage inside minimum with their lrms too. Otherwise I vote no change unless my rocket launcher 120 bushie can instance kill u at 10 metres

[Tesunie]

Laser Kiwi, on 09 November 2017 - 01:32 PM, said:

If they even dared consider this, perhaps remove rocket launcher min range while they are at it, and IS lrms worked TT inside minimum with hit penalties, so IS should be able to dummy fire for damage inside minimum with their lrms too. Otherwise I vote no change unless my rocket launcher 120 bushie can instance kill u at 10 metres

I will mention here that Rocket Launchers originally had no minimum range and was adjusted once it went live into the game as a consideration toward balance. However, I do also believe that their damage went up when they gained the minimum range.

Unlike ATMs, which started off with a minimum range and has only had that minimum range reduced but maintained as a hard minimum range. This was reduced also for balance, but the minimum range was left in as a consideration toward lore and as a compromise of not having to switch between ammo types and adjusting everything to try and match the "middle" ranged ammo type. However, when they decided to do this, they seemed to have only included the minimum range of the middle ranged missile ammo, but retained the long ranges of the long range ammo type... Which seemed a little odd in my opinion.

I still feel that the best approach (which could even be applied to Rockets even for the sake of balance) is the same damage drop off as CLRMs currently have or some aspect of a damage drop off as the target gets closer. The hard minimum range just seems odd for a clan weapon, which their LRMs enjoy a soft minimum range instead... Then again I also feel that normal PPCs (and L/HPPCs in addition) should have a soft minimum range with damage dropping off rather than a hard minimum range. (Then again, so should AC2s, AC5s and Gauss as well, if we want to get technical as we are showing minimum ranges as reduced damage rather than reduced accuracy...)