41 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Currently, ATM is just another mid-range weapon, and a monster at it. To be fair, an equivalent SRM-LRM hybrid loses out on a proper ATM -- like SRM6A + LRM15A, loses out on ATM12. The SRM6A-LRM15A does 27.9 damage within 180m-270m, but the ATM12 does 36 damage between 120m-270m, and as if that's not enough it does 24 damage beyond 270m, versus the 15 damage from the LRM component of the LRM-SRM hyrbid.

But why do we hybridize SRM-LRM in the first place? Isn't that so we have reliable up-close weapon so minimum range of the weapon wouldn't screw us over? Powerful as the ATMs are over SRM-LRM hybrid, that 120m minimum-range is hampering, it goes against the point of the SRM-LRM hybrid. It's just another mid-range monster of a weapon, when ATMs were supposed to be a missile system that works on any range, but is paid by low ammo/ton, and being bulky. Right now it has those drawbacks, but not ample benefits to justify it.

I propose no minimum range, with the range distribution at 0m-180m-540m-900m.

Between 0m-180m, you won't be screwed by not having a decent close-range damage, but to only use the weapon under 180m is just not a good idea. It takes too much time to get in range, and enemies can get outside of it pretty easily. You could have done more damage by shooting from 540m as you get to 0m. However it does answer the "Backup weapon" portion, the part where you're not screwed over by range, like SRMs above 270m or LRMs below 180m. SRMs also does better damage at 180-270m too, with better heat efficiency for a brawl.

180m - 540m, 4x LRM10A does better DPS than a 2x ATM12 of the same tons. So if you're going to stay above 270m anyways, why even bother with an ATM boat? Go LRM boat.

540m - 900m, yes you still do damage, but at 72 ammo/ton, it's dreadfully inefficient and is particularly wasteful. Not to mention that your DPS just goes down versus a normal LRM with spotter. It's only usable due to being fire-and-forget, but honestly it's just wasteful that a responsible LRM boat would just get closer instead.

So at either range, it doesn't do anything particularly well, but as a weapon system at it's totality, it won't screw you over with range like other missile systems do.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 04 July 2017 - 03:20 PM.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Your range suggestion makes no sense. Everything else aside, ATM's already struggle with slow missile speed, low missile toughness, low number of missiles fired per salvo, very limited ammo, and others including the fact that they are supposed to be LOS only weapons. They do not need to be nerfed to the ground before they are even released!

[The6thMessenger]

Jep Jorgensson, on 04 July 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

Your range suggestion makes no sense. Everything else aside, ATM's already struggle with slow missile speed, low missile toughness, low number of missiles fired per salvo, very limited ammo, and others including the fact that they are supposed to be LOS only weapons. They do not need to be nerfed to the ground before they are even released!

Nerfed? If anything it's a buff. Before it's useless 120m, now you can use it there cause there's no minimum range. Realistically it's not feasible at very long range, why the **** would that matter? At 2 damage/missile, and fire and forget, it's already pretty good at mid-range, and having maintained that mid range i don't think that's the part you're whining about. If you're talking effectiveness between the sweet-spot of 120m-270m, don't you think that you're hinging the weapon at a really really really really really narrow field of use? When it's supposed to encompass a wide diverse range? If you really want it as effective as it was on TT, shouldn't you just play TT? MWO just have a vastly different mechanics that direct translations doesn't necessarily mean it would be balanced.

Your problem is "everything else aside", no we have to count the weapon at it's totality. And i have yet to hear an argument how this is a nerf?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 04 July 2017 - 04:14 PM.

[ProfessorD]

Jep Jorgensson, on 04 July 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

... ATM[s] ... are supposed to be LOS only weapons. ...

This.

Fixing ATMs.

Step 1: Flat trajectory.

Step 2: No minimum range.

Then PGI can come back to us and we can talk about tweaking spread, velocity, cooldown, ghost heat, and ammo/ton. Their update last week was not nearly enough.

[Ruar]

So you'd get the 3 damage from 0-180, 2 dmg from 180-540, and 1 dmg from 540-900?

Would you mind throwing down the damage numbers for the different launchers compared to SRMs for the 0-180. My only concern is they would be too strong in close.

[The6thMessenger]

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

So you'd get the 3 damage from 0-180, 2 dmg from 180-540, and 1 dmg from 540-900?

Would you mind throwing down the damage numbers for the different launchers compared to SRMs for the 0-180. My only concern is they would be too strong in close.

Don't you think that there's such a thing as "too close"? SRMs still do 180m-270m better at equivalent tube side, but even better at equivalent tonnage, and not being stream-fired, fastest missile velocity and needs no guidance to be effective, means they brawl better too cause you need the time to armor roll and side-shield. But maybe you meant "strong" as damage numbers?

But the 2x ATM3 -- at proposed range distribution, does 18 damage at within 180m, and 12 damage at 180m-270m. Versus a 2x SRM6 at equivalent tonnage, that does 25.8 damage from 0 to 270m.

As powerful as they sound within 180m, think about it would you or anyone just use the ATM within 180m only? Lights maybe, I actually like the idea of 2x ATM3 on my ACH.

Don't be silly Ruar, come on use numbers and calculations and ****.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 04 July 2017 - 04:26 PM.

[Ruar]

The6thMessenger, on 04 July 2017 - 04:20 PM, said:

Don't you think that there's such a thing as "too close"? SRMs still do 180m-270m better at equivalent tube side, but even better at equivalent tonnage, and not being stream-fired, fastest missile velocity and needs no guidance to be effective, means they brawl better too cause you need the time to armor roll and side-shield.

As powerful as they sound within 180m, think about it would you or anyone just use the ATM within 180m only?

Lights maybe, i actually like the idea of 2x ATM3 on my ACH. But the ATM3 -- at proposed range distribution, does 18 damage at within 180m, and 12 damage at 180m-270m. Versus an SRM6, that does 25.8 damage from 0 to 270m.

Don't be silly Ruar, come on use numbers.

Yeah, I specifically asked you to provide those numbers. I stated a question and then explained why I asked that question. You are dodging.

[The6thMessenger]

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 04:24 PM, said:

Yeah, I specifically asked you to provide those numbers. I stated a question and then explained why I asked that question. You are dodging.

I already did. A 2x ATM3 versus 2x SRM6 cause at equivalent tonnage, the 2x ATM3 does 18 damage within 180m, 12 damage between 180m and 270m, versus a 2x SRM6 doing 25.8 damage at entire 270m.

Factor in that ATM3 is stream-fired, at the same time requires lock to reliably hit target, versus the Volley fire of SRM6 making it more ideal to brawl.

Other launchers, you mean ATM6, ATM9, ATM12s? Okay, sure my bad.

ATM6, at 3.5t, would be equivalent to 2x SRM6 + SRM2, a total of 14 SRMs. ATM deals 18 damage within 180m, 12 damage between 180m-270m. The 2x SRM6 + SRM2 does 30.1 damage.

ATM9, at 5 tons, would be equivalent to 5 SRM4s, or 20 SRMs. Does 27 damage within 180m, 18 damage between 180m-270m. Versus 43 damage of 5x SRM4s, or 20 SRMs at between 0m-270m.

ATM12, at 7 tons, equivalent to 7 SRM4s or 28 srms. Does 36 damage within 180m, 24 damage between 180m-270m. Versus 28 SRMs, at 60.2 damage between 0m-270m.

Maybe you meant artemised SRMs cause that's proper brawling stuff? 4x SRM6A at 10 tons, versus 2x ATM9 at total of 10 tons. Close range, within 180m, the 2x ATM9 does 54 damage, 36 damage between 180m-270m. The SRM24A, at the same 10 tons, does 51.6 at 0m-270m.

To be fair, yes a bonafide SRM with artemis loses out on ATMs under 180m, in terms of alpha with 2.4 damage difference. Although consider cd and heat, SRM24A does 12.9 DPS within 270m, while the ATM18 does 10.8 DPS within 180m.

And then we get to why Artemis was taken in the first place -- its to be a lot more accurate at the upper half of the range of the SRMs, at 200m-270m still able to isolate components. So it stands to reason that artemis users intend to be at beyond the 180m of the ATM. But that's just me.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 04 July 2017 - 04:43 PM.

[Ruar]

Yeah, those numbers look fairly reasonable.

I think the only other reason to pause for concern would be the ability to stack ATMs if you have the tonnage. Example would be ATM 9 is equal to 5x SRMs. So would stacking 5x ATM 9s be too strong if you had the tonnage since you wouldn't be able to stack that many SRMs?

Ton for ton your numbers look good, but what about launcher for launcher?

[The6thMessenger]

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 04:50 PM, said:

Yeah, those numbers look fairly reasonable.

I think the only other reason to pause for concern would be the ability to stack ATMs if you have the tonnage. Example would be ATM 9 is equal to 5x SRMs. So would stacking 5x ATM 9s be too strong if you had the tonnage since you wouldn't be able to stack that many SRMs?

Ton for ton your numbers look good, but what about launcher for launcher?

Well, there is hardpoint limits to be considered too i guess. I really wouldn't bother too much with it, as there's takeaway with tonnage, and then we get to consider the role of the mech, and other weapons it can put on the mix.

Supposed that we limit 2M + 6E hardpoint. Yes you can go heavy 2x ATM9 at 10 tons, but at equivalent tons you could have 2x SRM6A + 4 ERML + 2x ERSL, at a cumulative 63.8 alpha damage, vs 54/36.

Even if there only flat out 2M total hardpoint at an entire mech, at 12 tons of 2x ATM9 + 2t of ammo at a total damage of 432/288/144, the equivalent 2x SRM6A has 7 tons of ammo, and put out a total of 1505 damage. Sure SRMs loses out on alpha, but ATMs lose on sustainability.

Simply put, even if there's hardpoint limit to consider, the heavy nature of ATMs means you sacrifice more to tonnage instead.

[Ruar]

The6thMessenger, on 04 July 2017 - 05:04 PM, said:

Well, there is hardpoint limits to be considered too i guess. I really wouldn't bother too much with it, as there's takeaway with tonnage, and then we get to consider the role of the mech, and other weapons it can put on the mix.

Supposed that we limit 2M + 6E hardpoint. Yes you can go heavy 2x ATM9 at 10 tons, but at equivalent tons you could have 2x SRM6A + 4 ERML + 2x ERSL, at a cumulative 63.8 alpha damage, vs 54/36.

Even if there only flat out 2M total hardpoint at an entire mech, at 12 tons of 2x ATM9 + 2t of ammo at a total damage of 432/288/144, the equivalent 2x SRM6A has 7 tons of ammo, and put out a total of 1505 damage. Sure SRMs loses out on alpha, but ATMs lose on sustainability.

Simply put, even if there's hardpoint limit to consider, the heavy nature of ATMs means you sacrifice more to tonnage instead.

What I really meant was on missile boats with 5-8 hardpoints. Would ATMS with no minimum range be op if you can stack a bunch of them together. What kind of alpha could you get point blank with a Maddog or Night Gyr?

Edited by Ruar, 04 July 2017 - 05:08 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 05:07 PM, said:

What I really meant was on missile boats with 5-8 hardpoints. Would ATMS with no minimum range be op if you can stack a bunch of them together. What kind of alpha could you get point blank with a Maddog or Night Gyr?

I really don't understand. We're just multiplying hardpoints up, it should scale.

I mean if Maddog can boat 6x SRM6s, and then 6x ATM3s of the same tonnage -- the 6x SRM6s does 77.4 alpha damage between 0m-270m, versus the 6x ATM3s 54 damage within 180m, 36 damage between 180m-270m.

But maybe you're concerned that while the SRM6 is the limit for the srms, the ATMs could go heavier instead? Like if night gyr can only get 4x SRM6A Max with no-Jade-Kite Ominpod, the Night Gyr could go 4x ATM12s for the same no-Jade-Kite omnipod, total of 48 ATMs at cumulative 28 tons with 9 tons of ammo (29 free slots - 5/ ATM12s x4, = 9 free slots).

I guess that's something to consider, i mean doing 144 alpha at 180m is just so what the ****? it still does 96 damage mid range to -- what the actual ****? And it does spell an end to the LRM80 night gyr already.

The Night Gyr is also pretty slow and quite immobile versus other heavies, it's more effective at good positioning and long range engagement, than short-ranged ones. So it's unlikely that the night gyr itself would go all the trouble to get in 180m of the enemy to do 144 alpha, rather it's much more reasonable that the enemy would instead go to it's 180m, in which it would function better as a backup, when the LRM80 Night gyr would have done even less damage, even if we factor in adding an MPL to the head and LPL on the CT at a total of 13 + 8 damage, it only amounts to 21 damage close range, and 101 damage at within 180m-330m.

I see where you are getting at. But if considering such case despite plenty other mechs to consider, it would be much more balanced to nerf the close-range damage of the ATMs?

I mean at PTS, it can still do that 144 Alpha within 120m-270m already, where's the outrage?. Even if it has minimum range, factor in 12 v 12 where there's ample distraction so that enemies won't just get within 120m of you, then you could do steady 144 alpha on engaged enemies.

Considering that case of upper limit, now i do think that ATMs should just lose or nerf the maximum damage completely. Cause even at 120m-270m, 144 alpha is stupidly powerful as hell. Consider heavier mechs that could pull faster speed off, like Scorch.

2x LB20x + 4x SRM6 only does 91.6 damage, and that's already OP as hell, UAC20 double shot instead could bump it 131.6, but that's not near 144 damage, and that's without jumping the hoops of ghost-heat and the jam chance.

Thanks for prompting the thought for me. But honestly, if anything, the damage itself should be nerfed.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 04 July 2017 - 05:43 PM.

[Ruar]

Yeah, that's where I was going. Ton for ton is one comparison but a lot of mechs have weight to spare while it's total hardpoints that are the problem. I'm just not familiar enough with clan tech to run valid tests.

Instead of worse case try a build that would be used. Can a Maddog fit 4x ATMS9s and if so isn't that a 108 dmg? On a mobile mecho that can get in close.

Which isn't horrible if there is only a small window to do that much damage and it takes a lot of effort to keep that range. But if it's just a matter of getting close and firing then it becomes a problem.

I'm thinking ATMs are probably too much dmg at there best which is why all of the other restrictions. Drop the max damage some and then it's easier to justify making improvements. Having that high alpha potential makes it tough to buff.

[Jep Jorgensson]

The6thMessenger, on 04 July 2017 - 04:02 PM, said:

Nerfed? If anything it's a buff. Before it's useless 120m, now you can use it there cause there's no minimum range. Realistically it's not feasible at very long range, why the **** would that matter? At 2 damage/missile, and fire and forget, it's already pretty good at mid-range, and having maintained that mid range i don't think that's the part you're whining about. If you're talking effectiveness between the sweet-spot of 120m-270m, don't you think that you're hinging the weapon at a really really really really really narrow field of use? When it's supposed to encompass a wide diverse range? If you really want it as effective as it was on TT, shouldn't you just play TT? MWO just have a vastly different mechanics that direct translations doesn't necessarily mean it would be balanced.

Your problem is "everything else aside", no we have to count the weapon at it's totality. And i have yet to hear an argument how this is a nerf?

I was referring to you shrinking the optimal range. It is supposed to do 3 damage up to 270 meters, not 180. Therefore, your proposal is a nerf and I was correct.

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

I'm thinking ATMs are probably too much dmg at there best which is why all of the other restrictions. Drop the max damage some and then it's easier to justify making improvements. Having that high alpha potential makes it tough to buff.

Assuming that nobody carries AMS, yes, you may be correct. Do you carry AMS? If not, then why not?

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 04 July 2017 - 05:51 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Jep Jorgensson, on 04 July 2017 - 05:48 PM, said:

I was referring to you shrinking the optimal range. It is supposed to do 3 damage up to 270 meters, not 180. Therefore, your proposal is a nerf and I was correct.

Considering that it does 0 damage within 120m, now it doesn't. Before, you can be shut down by a mech going in 120m, now it doesn't.

Therefore it's not a nerf, so you're incorrect.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 04 July 2017 - 06:35 PM.

[Ruar]

Jorg, are you suggesting a weapon be balanced based on requiring another weapon to be used?

[The6thMessenger]

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

Yeah, that's where I was going. Ton for ton is one comparison but a lot of mechs have weight to spare while it's total hardpoints that are the problem. I'm just not familiar enough with clan tech to run valid tests.

To be fair, lighter mixes are just easier to pull of. Tonnage limit is there for a reason. When other mechs couldn't pull off 4x ATM12, they can still pull of 4x SRM6 -- where's the outrage on that?

Isn't that being heavier, it does give certain leeway? That's like comparing AC2s to AC20s. Of course the AC20 would do better damage in it's optimal range, it weights 14 tons, versus AC2 at only 6 tons. Or why does an Urbanmech takes 60 damage to it's CT to die, while a King Crab takes 150 to it's CT to die? Of course the King Crab would be a lot tankier, its far heavier and far slower too.

The SRM6 only weighs at 1.5 tons, whereas an ATM12 weighs at 5 tons, of course it would out-perform it. That's why we use equivalent tonnage to compare.

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

Which isn't horrible if there is only a small window to do that much damage and it takes a lot of effort to keep that range. But if it's just a matter of getting close and firing then it becomes a problem.

I'm thinking ATMs are probably too much dmg at there best which is why all of the other restrictions. Drop the max damage some and then it's easier to justify making improvements. Having that high alpha potential makes it tough to buff.

And i'm thinking that 3 damage for 120m-270m but 0 damage under 120m is just an extreme measure, and it takes away so much flexibility that the weapon should be providing. PGI already modified other values, why not nerf the close range ATM values?

[Ruar]

The6thMessenger, on 04 July 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:

To be fair, lighter mixes are just easier to pull of. Tonnage limit is there for a reason. When other mechs couldn't pull off 4x ATM12, they can still pull of 4x SRM6 -- where's the outrage on that?

Isn't that being heavier, it does give certain leeway? That's like comparing AC2s to AC20s. Of course the AC20 would do better damage in it's optimal range, it weights 14 tons, versus AC2 at only 6 tons. Or why does an Urbanmech takes 60 damage to it's CT to die, while a King Crab takes 150 to it's CT to die? Of course the King Crab would be a lot tankier, its far heavier and far slower too.

The SRM6 only weighs at 1.5 tons, whereas an ATM12 weighs at 5 tons, of course it would out-perform it. That's why we use equivalent tonnage to compare.



And i'm thinking that 3 damage for 120m-270m but 0 damage under 120m is just an extreme measure, and it takes away so much flexibility that the weapon should be providing. PGI already modified other values, why not nerf the close range ATM values?

I'm good with them nerfing the damage and removing the minimum range, but I haven't seen many posts suggesting such a thing. Most of them seem to want no minimum range, or 90m minimum range and then keep all the damage.

As for the part about tonnage, ATMs are new and untested. What mech can equip 4xAC20s? How many can even equip 4xAC10s?

So looking at ATMs in a comparison of launcher point to launcher point method makes sense. If the best alpha that could be done with SRMs is 70ish and ATMs can give 100ish with the same number of hardpoints then there is a potential for big problems. Which is why I like the minimum range restriction.

Drop that alpha down to 70ish for both SRMs and ATMs and I can't see a good reason for the minimum range. ATMs are paying higher tonnage for their ability to hit at both near and far targets so that is a fair amount of give and take.

[The6thMessenger]

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 06:07 PM, said:

As for the part about tonnage, ATMs are new and untested. What mech can equip 4xAC20s? How many can even equip 4xAC10s?

If i answered, would you shut up about it?

Annihilator. Now please acknowledge tonnage differences. Also just 1 so far.

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 06:07 PM, said:

So looking at ATMs in a comparison of launcher point to launcher point method makes sense. If the best alpha that could be done with SRMs is 70ish and ATMs can give 100ish with the same number of hardpoints then there is a potential for big problems. Which is why I like the minimum range restriction.

And why i don't like it is that it takes away from the spirit of the weapon -- it doesn't screw you over with range. Even then, the 4x SRM6s over 4x ATM12 does have tonnage differences, that means availability is also a factor. Despite the broken 144 alpha at close range, wouldn't it be more reasonable to just nerf the few than to penalize the many? Well PGI does the latter like nerfing Kodiak as a whole but only the KDK-3 overperforming, but i don't agree to it.

Still, at 70 alpha SRMs at close range are already monstrous. Wouldn't it stand to reason that a 100 alpha is OP and needs to go anyways?

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 06:07 PM, said:

Drop that alpha down to 70ish for both SRMs and ATMs and I can't see a good reason for the minimum range. ATMs are paying higher tonnage for their ability to hit at both near and far targets so that is a fair amount of give and take.

Pfft, never mind the good reason for minimum range. That high alpha at 120-270m, is just really really messed up and needs to go, and THEN we remove the minimum range.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 04 July 2017 - 06:23 PM.

[Ruar]

The6thMessenger, on 04 July 2017 - 06:14 PM, said:

If i answered, would you shut up about it?

Annihilator. Now please acknowledge tonnage differences.



And why i don't like it is that it takes away from the spirit of the weapon -- it doesn't screw you over with range. Even then, the 4x SRM6s over 4x ATM12 does have tonnage differences, that means availability is also a factor.

Still, at 70 alpha SRMs at close range are already monstrous. Wouldn't it stand to reason that a 100 alpha is OP and needs to go anyways?



Pfft, never mind the good reason for minimum range. That high alpha at 120-270m, is just really really messed up and needs to go, and THEN we remove the minimum range.

Not sure your point about tonnage at this stage, but it's moot anyway.

Agree with you that getting rid of the high alpha is a prerequisite to removing minimum range.

Are you going to edit that into your OP and maybe reconstruct your sentence structure to highlight the changes instead of them being mostly lost in the justifications?