43 replies to this topic

[AngrySpartan]

Ruar, on 03 July 2017 - 09:36 PM, said:

it's a jack of all trades, of course it's going to be weaker. I'm amazed you honestly want ATMs to replace SRMs and LRMs while having the best of both worlds.

It's apparent you truly don't understand the value of range. While there is an argument the ATMs need to have more health due to the lower missile count, the rest of the items you list are all reasonable drawbacks for a weapon with all that range and the ability to do variable damage.

It's not jack of all trades with minimum range, it's just glorified LRM launchers. ATMs meant to be flexible and meant to be first multi murpose missile weapon. They aren't meant to replace everything, they meant to provide options other missiles can not. And being complete garbage right now the only option left is to keep playing with conventional missiles.

Range means nothing if you can't do reliable damage at that range. Look how ineffective LRMs are past 300-400m, remember how ineffective clan ERLL was with 1,5 burn duration. ATMs can't do long range, they don't have ammo endurance and velocity for that. ATMs can't do short range, because they have minimum. So there is a mid range, and the only midrange weapon that can't act at short range is LRMs, you see where it's going?

And buffing missile health isn't even an argument, that's a necessity.

Edited by AngrySpartan, 04 July 2017 - 11:43 AM.

[KursedVixen]

as far as the minimum range goes these are my suggestions and opinions

option 1. 3 damage at 0 meters, max range 810

option 2. 90m aluminum range.

I know I'm a clanner.

as for the AMS vulnrabilty i also have two diffrent ideas

1. give ATM missles slightly more health than LRms or SRMs

2. keep it as it is.


I agree that ATM's Were not meant to replace SRM's or LRms, on certain mechs.... however in a sense (where the extra tonnage was available) They were, but if they get 0 minmium range there are still things that keep them from replacing LRMS or SRMS outright
For LRms: ATMs may have longer range but notice they do not have indirect fire ability they fly a generally flat flight path, and can curve a little ,but not as much as LRMs Also their heavier.

For SRms INdirect fire inabilty , weight and untill you get the ATM9 less missles or equal to SRMs


The one major limiting factor of ATMs was removed with PGI's inabilty to swap ammo types.
if we had ammo types people would likly just carry ER and HE missiles though.

Edited by KursedVixen, 27 July 2017 - 02:56 PM.

[Jep Jorgensson]

AngrySpartan, on 02 July 2017 - 11:26 AM, said:

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:

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

In short, you guys compared them under absolute perfect conditions and ATM's won. Quick question, how often will you find yourselves under absolute perfect conditions on the battlefield?

[Doctor Dinosaur]

Don't forget low cover which is no issue for LRM but a big issue for ATM...and there's plenty of it, even on polar highlands.

Best regards
Doc