43 replies to this topic

[AngrySpartan]

Since main ATM topic is sort of the same argument for the last 6 pages : "ATMs shouldn't have minimum!...No they should!", I'll post it separately.

Down below are 4 videos with me and MischiefSC doing face-to-face comparison of ATMs vs. other missiles on similar mechs. "Duel" is not equal to 12v12 game by any means, but comparing same mech with similar builds gives some idea about these two weapons performance relative to each other.
I'll leave my comments and impressions in this post and hopefully MischiefSC will post his thoughts as well, so you'll see both sides of a coin.

Video#1:
Me in MDD:2LRM20+A, 4 ERML, NARC
MischiefSC in MDD: 4ATM6+4ERML

Initially it was intended to fight at 270+, so ATMs would be outside of their 3 damage zone, but it's worth to show how LRMs immediately lose once ATMs are in their "sweet spot".

Video#2:
Same mechs, 270+ range. Agreed not to use NARC.

Proper comparison of LRMs vs. ATMs outside ATMs "sweet spot" at 270m . Notice how similar LRM and ATM missile spread pattern is and how close ATMs flight to the ground at 1:15-1:40. Somewhat closer result than I was expecting, but LRMs are still better option at 270+ distance (especially taking into account their better AMS resistance and ability to fire indirectly).

Video#3
Me piloting MDD: 4ATM6+4ERML
MischiefSC piloting RGH 1-C:AC10+4SRM6A.
Fighting goes outside ATMs 120 minimum range, to see how ATMs could in theory perform without it.

Leaving aside the moment when I derped and overheated (Mischief was kind enough to forgive me that), duel went exactly as expected. ATMs hit like a Truck and made a lot of damage to RGH, but its insane durability quirks helped a lot.
We had a similar fight with me piloting SRM Maddog against same ATM Maddog with the same 120m+ condition. More fragile MDD was torn apart by ATMs without lots of troube (no recording unfortunately), maybe Mischef will share how damaged his ATM MDD was, don't exactly remember that.

Video#4
Me piloting MDD:4SRM6+A & 5SPL
MischiefSC piloting Orion-IIC: 3ATM9+UAC10+2ERML.
No range condition, good old fashioned fisticuffs, clan style.

Pay attention how MDD's armor just melts to the red condition only after 2 ATM salvos.
Pay your attention second time, how useless ATMs are with minimum range and that even on open 4v4 map it's not that diffucult to break the distance on more or less similar mechs.

Again, 1v1 is not equal to 4v4 and 12v12. I'll leave a link for some 4v4 ATM footage as well if someone is interested.

Conclusions:
1. ATMs hit like a truck (no, like "The TRUCK") inside it's sweet spot and something has to be done about it. Damage up close is insane indeed, and without nerfing it in some way, ATMs can't get their share of nice things.
2. ATMs have enough disadvantages (AMS vulnerability, velocity, flight paths, etc.) to be only situational weapon in their current state. They need a lot of love, but...see pt.1 above.
3. With minumum range ATM is just an LRM+ weapon, sometimes better, sometimes worse. Question is - do we need another set of LRM launchers in game? My thoughts - hell, NO. You decide for yourself PGI will decide it for you.
4. I see two ways how ATMs may become balanced in some way:
Easy path, path of no resistance: ATMs retain minimum range in some way (linear damage scaling, 90m, etc.) and become another unreliable weapon, working in 1 out of 5 cases. But working extremely well in that single case. Sort of like LRMs.
Difficult path, path of making ATMs self-sufficient weapon: ATM damage should be scales down some way, weapon should be buffed to become self-sufficient.
I was thinking of 0-270 (or even 210, or even 180) linear damage reduction from 2,5 to 2 damage, velocity buff to 300-350+, flat predictable trajectories and reduced, almost eliminated tracking. That way ATMs become clan MRMs of some sort, with limited tracking abilities. That way they can have a role vastly different from LRMs and more or less different from SRMs.

Edited by AngrySpartan, 02 July 2017 - 11:03 AM.

[Hal Greaves]

you should really try this with something like a kitted our ECM Griffin-bomb or another mech that is more suited to the anti-missile role.

As it is, in my testing thus far, any ATM equipped mech that I've faced off against in my Griffin found themselves unable to attack back in any meaningful way as I pounded them in with the SRMs.

[AngrySpartan]

Hal Greaves, on 02 July 2017 - 11:21 AM, said:

you should really try this with something like a kitted our ECM Griffin-bomb or another mech that is more suited to the anti-missile role.

As it is, in my testing thus far, any ATM equipped mech that I've faced off against in my Griffin found themselves unable to attack back in any meaningful way as I pounded them in with the SRMs.

We had a condition: no ECM, no AMS.

Currently ATMs are waaay to vulnerable to AMS and ECM is a no brainer when countering weapons that require a lock. The goal was to test ATM against other missiles, not against ECM or AMS.

I'll qute Mischief's impressions here:

MischiefSC, on 02 July 2017 - 10:41 AM, said:

Did a whole ton of test matches with AngrySpartan last night (early this morning really) testing ATM vs SRM and LRM builds in the same mech at various ranges.

He came to a conclusion I really agree with; ramping damage from 0-240m, up to a max of about 2.7/missile, then ramp down to 810m. Also increase the health of ATMs to SRM levels so they're not super vulnerable to AMS and they need a speed increase.

In the 120-300m range with a Mad Dog v Mad dog both SRMs or LRMs the ATMs utterly destroyed either of the others. Utterly. In one match ATM vs LRMs the ATM mech did 599 damage to the LRM mech, not just killing it but all but vaporizing it.

Same with Orions. The Scorch v Scorch, LRM and SRMs vs ATMs was really shocking. WIth the tonnage to take 2xLB10X and 4xATM9s the Scorch was an incredible mech for ATMs.

However out past 400m the metric really started to shift in favor of LRMs, also the ability to use indirect fire and NARC gave LRMs a big edge at range, that's the only time the ATM mech lost.

Against SRMs it was a bit tougher because we did the test in the context of '120m minimum range for ATMs ain't gonna work and needs to change' so we tried to keep beyond 120m for most matches. Though, to be fair, the Orion match we did no holds barred and the ATM Orion won (with 2 CERML and 1UAC10) because 1 partial hit and 2 clean hits with ~81 pts of missile damage while the SRM Orion closed was enough to make it easy to finish with the UAC and Cermls inside 120m.

Anyone want to drop some 1 v 1 test matches just say so. Happy to do it. I'll play them as they're designed (to work in concert with direct fire) vs LRMs or SRMs. Point blank SRMs are better and more heat/weight efficient so long as ATMs dont get 3 damage at point blank too; at over 400m LRMs are a better choice. 120-400m though, solid mid to close range loadouts, ATMs are just insane.

With a small fix, my conclusions are above in the opening post

Edited by AngrySpartan, 02 July 2017 - 11:28 AM.

[Slambot]

Throw ams on a mech and see where the atms get you...Ams is about 2x as effective against atms due to the much lower number of missiles.

[davoodoo]

Ive seen you fired quite a few volleys on narc while getting no return fire...

oh and yes ecm and ams, thing which is always present

and finally why the **** lrm20, most inefficient lrms present in game...6x lrm5 would be better.

Edited by davoodoo, 02 July 2017 - 12:44 PM.

[Oblitum Infernos]

big issue with all these tests was the use of the Mad-dog, which is a honestly not actually all that good of a missile boat due to the heat issues it tends to have So turns out the Mad-dog A with 2 ATM 12s is actually pretty solid and doesn't have heat issues when it's backup weapons are 4 ER micro lasers

as for balancing ATMs really don't need their damage tuned down in their sweet spot, it is not actually all that easy to maintain in most fights or on most maps, the best way i've seen that one could go to balance them would be a "step down" within 120 rather than no damage, 1.5-2 damage from 0-120 would be perfect, could argue that doing that along with raising projectile health to 7-10.5 would put the system in the perfect place to be worth it's weight but not overly strong

I've also done a ton of testing with different builds and setups for ATM focused mechs the ones i would recommend trying with instead of things like the mad dog are as follows

Recommended ATM mechs:
Huntsman-P - 2 ATM 12s and 2 ERML
Hunchback-B - same build as above, 250xl engine (the real difference between this and the huntsman is that the huntsman is more maneuverable and has less ammo, both are viable but it's more of use your preference to pick)
Mad-dog A - while i didn't expect the mad-dog to be good i can admit to being wrong, 2ATM 12s with 4 ER micro lasers works pretty well, though positioning can be hard with the low turn rate the missile cooldown of the A series makes the 12s hit alot more often, works well
Ebon Jaguar(mixed omnipods) - 4 ATM 9s and 1 ERML
Night gyr-D - 2 ATM 12s & 2ATM 9s 1ERLL 1TAG
Orion 2c-A - 2 ATM 12s & 2ATM 9s 1ERLL XL340
SuperNova-3 - 4ATM12s and 2 ERLL XL325

not recommended
Gargoyle - not nearly enough pod space to make effective use of ATMs
executioner - not enough pod space or slots hero might help
mad-dog - too little carry weight to effectively use ATMS also paper thin armor while being too big and cumbersome to position well, pretty much every other missle capable clan heavy is better
Linebacker - too little pod space to feel really comfortable with the ammo you carry if you use big enough ATMs to make a difference, just stick with SRMS it's better
Summoner - ATMS can be a support weapon on this, but it's tiny pod space for it's weight means it just isn't that good for it, though the 1 ATM 12 and 4 ATM 3 build showed some promise will be tested further

list will be edited as i test more

Edited by Oblitum Infernos, 02 July 2017 - 12:55 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

ATMs hit like a truck (no, like "The TRUCK") inside it's sweet spot and something has to be done about it. Damage up close is insane indeed, and without nerfing it in some way, ATMs can't get their share of nice things.

ATM min range needs to be removed. Even if it means lowering the damage.

The whole purpose of ATMs is to be a versatile missile system thats viable in every range band. Giving them a min range is self-defeating towards that purpose.

[kapusta11]

I found that 15% range increase from the skill tree works really well with ATMs, it changes range brackets from 270/450/1100m to 310/517/1265m allowing you to deal more damage from farther away. Also, mixing them with LRMs should improve their resistance to AMS.

[MischiefSC]

ATMs are not a good weapon to boat. They were best when supplemental to a direct fire setup. Also 4x6, 2xcerml Mad Dog is just flat out *sick* anywhere from 120m to 300m. I did 599 damage to his MDD in ATM vs LRM fight in that range bracket. That's just insane.

Orion with 3x9 ATM, UAC 10 and 2xcerml is also phenomenal. You need 2 clean hits with the ATMs at ~81 damage each in the ATMs 'sweet spot' to make the minimum range irrelevant; getting 160 damage out of the SRMs at point blank is a lot of work and a lot of trading damage, doing 160 pts before the other guy is in SRM range just functionally ends the fight. I can kill any half-dead mech with a mostly fresh Orion with the UAC and cermls.

Having played it a ton and had a lot of success with ATMs on the PTS even with their limitations I would say they need damage at 1 inside 120m, or ramping from like 0.2 up to 2.7 inside 180m, then scale down to a max range of 810m. That puts them at still very effective at 400m and still applicable beyond that.

THAT would make them super flexible at a cost of dominating at the most easy to control stages; either staying at long range or staying at point blank. Staying in the 'sweet spot' is hard but with their truly absurd damage very rewarding.

They need scaled down from 3 damage in that sweet spot though. It's just too much. I don't think the fix for that is making them vulnerable to AMS, as is currently done - that just lets people invalidate them and that functionally invalidates them as a serious weapon. Nobody will take them in any serious context (like comp play or even seriously in FW or group queue) because most your firepower can just be effectively turned off by an opponent who's bright enough to bring AMS. That's fine vs LRMs; they're indirect fire and a feast/famine weapon.

ATMs need to be a viable direct fire missile weapon at mid range. Velocity boost, health boost, damage scale back but useful at all ranges (to some degree) and you've got a great option.

[50 50]

The slow flight speed and having less missiles per launcher contribute to them being very ineffective vs AMS.
Bumping up the missile health might be a suitable option in that regard.
However, being a weapon that fires in a stream like the LRMs or even compared to the Autocannons, being able to torso twist effectively helps to spread that damage.
The weight and heat of the weapon makes it difficult to spam, then there are all the other factors that can affect lock on weapons.
While there is potential for the ATMs to dish out some serious damage, at present they really only work when used in conjunction with other weapons so you can offset all the weaknesses.
Maybe that's the goal. To mix up the loadouts.

Should the minimum range be removed then I feel they should not be a lock on weapon, hence suggesting using them as a guided missile forcing the face time which then becomes risky for the user. That seemed like a fair trade to risk taking more damage to deal more damage.

[MischiefSC]

50 50, on 02 July 2017 - 07:00 PM, said:

The slow flight speed and having less missiles per launcher contribute to them being very ineffective vs AMS.
Bumping up the missile health might be a suitable option in that regard.
However, being a weapon that fires in a stream like the LRMs or even compared to the Autocannons, being able to torso twist effectively helps to spread that damage.
The weight and heat of the weapon makes it difficult to spam, then there are all the other factors that can affect lock on weapons.
While there is potential for the ATMs to dish out some serious damage, at present they really only work when used in conjunction with other weapons so you can offset all the weaknesses.
Maybe that's the goal. To mix up the loadouts.

Should the minimum range be removed then I feel they should not be a lock on weapon, hence suggesting using them as a guided missile forcing the face time which then becomes risky for the user. That seemed like a fair trade to risk taking more damage to deal more damage.

Leave the lock, the spread is brutal, just reduce damage inside 120m.

[Vladosteron]

Guys thanks a lot for the thorough testing. Interesting results.
While i see where your suggestion for minimum range removal and decreasing Damage stats aims at. (making the weapon self-sufficiant but not OP), i like where the weapon is right now for with the minrange in place it is not boatable on ins own, it has a weakspot. And it is right there next to the sweetspot! That wight there takes skill to use properly, a misslesystem that does ok-to-good damage in all the ranges that matter is:
A: boring
B: would make LRMs even more niche and situational then they are right now.

Where I agree completely is Missle Health, it should be upped by a fair margin.

[AngrySpartan]

MischiefSC, on 02 July 2017 - 05:48 PM, said:

ATMs are not a good weapon to boat. They were best when supplemental to a direct fire setup. Also 4x6, 2xcerml Mad Dog is just flat out *sick* anywhere from 120m to 300m. I did 599 damage to his MDD in ATM vs LRM fight in that range bracket. That's just insane.

Orion with 3x9 ATM, UAC 10 and 2xcerml is also phenomenal. You need 2 clean hits with the ATMs at ~81 damage each in the ATMs 'sweet spot' to make the minimum range irrelevant; getting 160 damage out of the SRMs at point blank is a lot of work and a lot of trading damage, doing 160 pts before the other guy is in SRM range just functionally ends the fight. I can kill any half-dead mech with a mostly fresh Orion with the UAC and cermls.

Having played it a ton and had a lot of success with ATMs on the PTS even with their limitations I would say they need damage at 1 inside 120m, or ramping from like 0.2 up to 2.7 inside 180m, then scale down to a max range of 810m. That puts them at still very effective at 400m and still applicable beyond that.

THAT would make them super flexible at a cost of dominating at the most easy to control stages; either staying at long range or staying at point blank. Staying in the 'sweet spot' is hard but with their truly absurd damage very rewarding.

They need scaled down from 3 damage in that sweet spot though. It's just too much. I don't think the fix for that is making them vulnerable to AMS, as is currently done - that just lets people invalidate them and that functionally invalidates them as a serious weapon. Nobody will take them in any serious context (like comp play or even seriously in FW or group queue) because most your firepower can just be effectively turned off by an opponent who's bright enough to bring AMS. That's fine vs LRMs; they're indirect fire and a feast/famine weapon.

ATMs need to be a viable direct fire missile weapon at mid range. Velocity boost, health boost, damage scale back but useful at all ranges (to some degree) and you've got a great option.

Don't know, 4ATM6+4ERML sounds like an ATM boat to me and it was good!

And I see where you suggest the place for ATMs should be: 120-270 close range fire support weapon. 0-120m 1 damage and damage past 270 would give it some other capabilities as well, and "sweet spot" maintaining would be a minigame of some sort. I can't say it's the worst thing PGI can do with ATMs, but that's not where I would love to see them - there is enough "fire support" from LRMs already. Besides, keeping the distance at 120-270 isn't that hard when there are teammates who hold the line:


ATM should be a self-sufficient weapon. More direct approach I'd like to see (or at least test it at PTS):
- remove minimum range
- make ATM damage scale DOWN from 2,7-3 at 0m to 2 at 270-210 (maybe even 180), that would make ATMs a weapon you don't want to be close to, exactly like they act in TT.
- maintain Lock mechanic, but remove most of the tracking, buff ATM velocity, flatten trajectories even more.

That way ATMs become more direct fire weapon, LRMs will keep their indirect role. SRMs will be better at short, but not point blank range and will maintain their "fire and forget" brawling spirit.

[The6thMessenger]

Just put it at no minimum range. But damage progression would be at 0m-180m-540m-900m. At that point, SRMs would be better at 181m-270m. And at the same time, realistically it's just inefficient to only use the ATM under 180m.

[AngrySpartan]

The6thMessenger, on 02 July 2017 - 11:25 PM, said:

Just put it at no minimum range. But damage progression would be at 0m-180m-540m-900m. At that point, SRMs would be better at 181m-270m. And at the same time, realistically it's just inefficient to only use the ATM under 180m.

Could be an option, at least an option to be present on PTS! Would not solve every ATM problem, but would be a good start.

[Reno Blade]

I've tested a MDD with 2x SRM6, 2x ATM6 and 2x LRM10 + 4x Micros and a Tag.
against a ATM Supernova it was a lot of fun to use all missile systems and see the different overlapping weapons complement each other and make it out as a winner.

i have to say, i prefere a weapon that has some draw backs like min range. we already have is PPC and LRM and they are good weapons if you are not just boating them without any backup.
even with cLRMs i see many ppl fire at point blank without use.

boating should have drawbacks.
only buff for ATMs should be missile health.

[AngrySpartan]

Reno Blade, on 02 July 2017 - 11:39 PM, said:

I've tested a MDD with 2x SRM6, 2x ATM6 and 2x LRM10 + 4x Micros and a Tag.
against a ATM Supernova it was a lot of fun to use all missile systems and see the different overlapping weapons complement each other and make it out as a winner.

i have to say, i prefere a weapon that has some draw backs like min range. we already have is PPC and LRM and they are good weapons if you are not just boating them without any backup.
even with cLRMs i see many ppl fire at point blank without use.

boating should have drawbacks.
only buff for ATMs should be missile health.

Wow, that's a lot of different missiles!

Though, I'd disagree with your assesment of minimum range, how's that make any sense at all that you deal full damage at 91m and suddenly Zero at 89? I don't have any problems with minimum range on PPC or LRMs, that's just the implementation that is bad.

ATMs are different however, their drawback is that there are other missiles that do some things better (SRMs for short range, LRMs for long). Their strenght is that ATMs can do things other missiles can't do at all! Minimum range just turns ATM into another type of LRM launcher and it's not supposed to be one.

I guess the only thing most players agree with is a projectile health buff for ATMs

Edited by AngrySpartan, 03 July 2017 - 12:32 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 02 July 2017 - 01:27 PM, said:

ATM min range needs to be removed. Even if it means lowering the damage.

The whole purpose of ATMs is to be a versatile missile system thats viable in every range band. Giving them a min range is self-defeating towards that purpose.

What I might overall do to ensure that every missile launcher retains a niche, and assuming that Minimum Range won't go away entirely:

1) Lower the Maximum Range below that of the LRM. This means that LRMs will be better at extreme range spectrums, and coupled with their better indirect fire ability, they have a clear role they excel at.
2) Lower the Minimum Range to 90m, or give it a Mimimum Range of 120 with ramp-down damage. This ensures that SRMs are really still the best choice at the absolute lowest range, without harmstringing the ATM too much.
3) Increase missile health so it is not so easily intercepted by AMS. This compensates its low velocity and the low count of missiles.


The overall result would be that ATMs are really versatile in many tactical situations, being useful at most ranges, but the more specialized missile remain an edge for the extreme ends of ranges and situations.

[Snowbluff]

There is no niche.

Clan LRMs are ****. Vulnerable to AMS and twist due to stream fire. Minimum range damage is awful.
Clan SSRMs are ****. Long CD and targeting make them only good versus lights.
Clan SRMs are meh. They spread a lot. Still usable, at least.

They're protecting a niche of "being garbage." Why should ATMs, the only new clan tech, be reduced to garbage just because PGI made all of the other clan missiles terrible.


EDIT: Also, are your fights 1v1 with Rules of Engagement? This puts too much on the pilot skill, especially with lasers involved. Personally what makes ATMS so bad is the minimum range and trying to maneuver into a sweet spot. It's gotten me killed quite a bit in queued matches, and in practice a lighter amount of SRMs were just better for me.

A better test would be to time the time-to-kill against a static target at different ranges using different missiles.

Edited by Snowbluff, 03 July 2017 - 11:05 AM.

[Ruar]

What I find interesting is how ATMs are eating legs while LRMs tend to hit higher. That is going to be a significant problem down the road.