41 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 06:18 PM, said:

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

No, i didn't say that it's a prerequisite for no minimum range. Lost of that high damage close range is a prerequisite of a balanced weapon system as a whole.

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 06:18 PM, said:

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

No it's not, tonnage is also a factor. It affects availability.

The weapon itself does need complete reconfiguring, as it's not feasible at it's current direction.

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 06:18 PM, said:

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?

What? Are you sure you're just not reading them right?

As for the nerf, I'm still mulling over what value should it undertake. Tonnage wise they are fine, but we could be overreacting over a few mechs, for such a fringe build.

[Ruar]

The6thMessenger, on 04 July 2017 - 06:33 PM, said:

No, i didn't say that it's a prerequisite for no minimum range. Lost of that high damage close range is a prerequisite of a balanced weapon system as a whole.



No it's not, tonnage is also a factor. It affects availability.

The weapon itself does need complete reconfiguring, as it's not feasible at it's current direction.



What? Are you sure you're just not reading them right?

As for the nerf, I'm still mulling over what value should it undertake. Tonnage wise they are fine, but we could be overreacting over a few mechs, for such a fringe build.

I got lost in your OP, which is why I asked for just the numbers to help compare.

Seems to me 2.1-2.3 damage or so would be a good starting point. Then have the max damage from 0-180, 2 damage from 180-500, and then 1 damage from 500-900. Bump up the health a bit, increase the velocity to 250, and I'd say test it out to see if it works.

SRMs still have better damage for short range, LRMs still have a role, and ATMs are strongest at medium range.

[The6thMessenger]

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 06:39 PM, said:

I got lost in your OP, which is why I asked for just the numbers to help compare.

People on another thread understood it. I don't think i could get clearer, without making a wall of text. In which anyone can just read through the posts.

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 06:39 PM, said:

Seems to me 2.1-2.3 damage or so would be a good starting point. Then have the max damage from 0-180, 2 damage from 180-500, and then 1 damage from 500-900. Bump up the health a bit, increase the velocity to 250, and I'd say test it out to see if it works.

At that point, wouldn't it make sense to just have the minimum range lost, and have the close range damage done at 270m anyways? ATMs would do worse close range vs ATMs of the same tons anyways, considering that SRMs have lower CD, volley fired than stream and flies faster. Just over all better than brawl.

[Ruar]

The6thMessenger, on 04 July 2017 - 06:46 PM, said:

People on another thread understood it. I don't think i could get clearer, without making a wall of text. In which anyone can just read through the posts.



At that point, wouldn't it make sense to just have the minimum range lost, and have the close range damage done at 270m anyways? ATMs would do worse close range vs ATMs of the same tons anyways, considering that SRMs have lower CD, volley fired than stream and flies faster. Just over all better than brawl.

SRMs do 2.3 dmg? So if ATMs did the same with nearly the same range they would take the place of SRMs. At 180 it would mean SRMs have 50% higher base range than ATMs.

As for your post. Suggestion laid out with ranges, damage, etc first. Then the paragraphs explaining why you are making that suggestion. Alternately, explanation of issue, suggestion numbers, then sentences to explain why suggestion solves issue. You've kind of got it all jumbled together.

Edited by Ruar, 04 July 2017 - 06:50 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 06:48 PM, said:

SRMs do 2.3 dmg? So if ATMs did the same with nearly the same range they would take the place of SRMs. At 180 it would mean SRMs have 50% higher base range than ATMs.

SRM does 2.15 damage per missile, sure. But consider the weight of the weapon system, the equivalent tonnage damage out. And then we get to the difference in firing patterns, that makes SRMs far better at brawling. Why are you not considering that? Come on, there's also those to consider.

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 06:48 PM, said:

As for your post. Suggestion laid out with ranges, damage, etc first. Then the paragraphs explaining why you are making that suggestion. Alternately, explanation of issue, suggestion numbers, then sentences to explain why suggestion solves issue. You've kind of got it all jumbled together.

My suggestion was Introduction of the problem, Changes, and then Justification. No it's fine.

[Ruar]

Because weight and ammo per ton don't really matter when talking about damage per shot. Those are different balancing factors not associated with damage. Firing pattern matters up to the point of a weapon applying it's damage. If ATMs can apply damage similar to how SRMs apply damage then different firing patterns have no meaning at similar ranges.

If the firing pattern is an issue then talk about the firing pattern, not damage per shot.

Saying something is "better at brawling" doesn't really matter. Brawling means different things to different people. What can be said is "weapon X is better than weapon Y at these ranges in these conditions."

SRMs have to be better than ATMs from 0-270m. That's a requirement. So the question then becomes how can ATMs still be useful without displacing SRMs. Right now the answer is don't let ATMs do damage closer than 180m due to the higher damage per shot ATMs can do. Dropping that damage down to SRM levels still means there is a requirement for SRMs to be better. Easy way to do that is restrict the distance ATMs doe SRM damage.

The problem with ATMs right now is they are trying to do too much and suffering for it. Just make them focus on medium ranges as their niche, give them some tactical flexibility by doing some damage in close and some at long range, and call it a day.

[MischiefSC]

If they're 3 damage inside 270m only an absolute idiot or someone just boating SRMs would ever take SRMs again.

If my Orion can puke up close to 120 pts on you at point blank range consistently then saying 'oh, but they spread!' is going to make me LOL, given that I can shoot you repeatedly as you close to brawling with them, at which point I can one-shot most mechs or at least cripple them with one shot, maybe two.

It's a locking weapon, which also eliminates the issue of 'missed shots' in the mid to brawl range with SRMs.

have said it a million times - ramping damage or something like 1 damage from 0-60, then ramps to 3 at 180, 3 from 180 to 270, then ramps down out to 810m.

That makes them hugely flexible and viable at all ranges without invalidating anything else.

As I did with AngrySpartan I'll happily test them, even as is with no damage inside 120m, against anyone who wants to bring an SRM or LRM armed mech vs a mixed ATM mech. Even as is, with no damage inside 120m, they're absolutely crushingly brutal. The 0 damage inside 120m and huge vulnerability to AMS will keep them from being viable against a good players (same as LRMs are now) but to say they need 3 damage inside 120m is to say that SRMs should be viable in the same way Single Heatsinks should be viable, or STD engines on Clan mechs.

[The6thMessenger]

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

Because weight and ammo per ton don't really matter when talking about damage per shot. Those are different balancing factors not associated with damage.

But we're not just talking about per shot. We're also considering builds, because it takes account of the weapon at a larger context like how much mechs can actually do it, or whether it's feasible or not. It's like balancing the C-ERPPC at direstar. Not every mech can run 11 ER-PPC, boating that much is suicide too, so why balance by 11 ERPPC at all?

There's takeaway with tonnage, and going ATM over SRM means you're forgoing something else, such as tonnage for what could have been ammo or other backup weapons that could have been introduced to the mix.

But firing patterns of ATMs and SRMs are dissimilar, and because of that they undertake different roles.

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

Firing pattern matters up to the point of a weapon applying it's damage. If ATMs can apply damage similar to how SRMs apply damage then different firing patterns have no meaning at similar ranges.

If the firing pattern is an issue then talk about the firing pattern, not damage per shot.

Or hows about take the weapon system as a whole? Why just that focus on such a little aspect of the weapon? Couldn't we count the weapon at a broader context?

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

Saying something is "better at brawling" doesn't really matter. Brawling means different things to different people. What can be said is "weapon X is better than weapon Y at these ranges in these conditions."

SRMs have to be better than ATMs from 0-270m. That's a requirement. So the question then becomes how can ATMs still be useful without displacing SRMs. Right now the answer is don't let ATMs do damage closer than 180m due to the higher damage per shot ATMs can do. Dropping that damage down to SRM levels still means there is a requirement for SRMs to be better. Easy way to do that is restrict the distance ATMs doe SRM damage.

*sigh



"And saying Weapon x is better than weapon y at these ranges in this condition", how the fight plays out is still a factor.

Even if the ATM does better damage, it needs lock to track the enemy which requires some stare therefore an opportunity to get fragged in the center torso by SRMs, while SRM's single volley nature would mean that you can just shoot once, and then spread or shield the incoming damage, say ATMs, and then fire again. Compare that to taking a moment to get a lock, and to direct the stream to your enemy at a brawl. As opposed of having to chew only the CT, the ATMs due to it's stream nature can be spread amongst the torso and the arms of any competent brawler, even if you timed launch to where he shown his CT.

Such position you are taking is pretty narrow, and it does not account of what can really happen out there. We need to have more foresight, how the weapon could be used in normal combat. It sounds like you're not the type that brawls, or even shields and armor roll.

Think of it as the same case as C-ERLL and C-HLL. So what if C-HLL does 16 damage, it does so at 1.77s before, versus a C-ERPPC that does instant 15 damage. Not only you need to be able to only land a clean hit for the C-ERPPC, you need to stay on target for 1.77s which presents opportunity to direct damage to your CT, and at the same time doing damage over 1.77s means they can armor roll or side-shield the damage and disitrbute it all around the mech.

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

The problem with ATMs right now is they are trying to do too much and suffering for it. Just make them focus on medium ranges as their niche, give them some tactical flexibility by doing some damage in close and some at long range, and call it a day.

No, niche range is a disservice to the spirit of the weapon. And also that's a lazy way of balancing it.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 04 July 2017 - 07:41 PM.

[Ruar]

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't know how to play the game. We are looking at missile systems differently is all. I've pointed out what I consider to be the flaws and strengths of your suggestion.

And the video about brawling is one players opinion. I've seen people talk about brawling being done differently and at different ranges. Personally I think the fact he talks about hiding behind cover and peeking isn't brawling, it's peeking which is a different style of play, but to each his own.

I've enjoyed the discussion, but I think we have hit our agree to disagree moment.

[Khobai]

I just want no min range and 810m max range. lower the damage per missile if you have to, im fine with that if it means no min range.

more missile health so they dont get chewed up by AMS

and more ammo per ton because 72 just isnt enough

Quote

SRMs have to be better than ATMs from 0-270m. That's a requirement. So the question then becomes how can ATMs still be useful without displacing SRMs

SRMs are ALREADY better than ATMs at 0-270m even if ATMs have no min range.

x3 SRM6 = 36 damage, 4.0 cooldown, weighs 4.5 tons without artemis and 7.5 tons with artemis, have way better velocity, dont require a lock, and have way better control over where they hit

x1 ATM12 = 36 damage, 5.0 cooldown, weighs 7 tons, way worse velocity, requires a lock, and almost zero control over where they hit (they seem to hit legs a lot too but you cant really control it)

Im just not seeing how ATMs compete with SRMs under 270m. SRMs are vastly superior.

Quote

Right now the answer is don't let ATMs do damage closer than 180m due to the higher damage per shot ATMs can do.

Except the damage can be lowered if needed.

There is no reason why ATMs should have a min range since the whole point of ATMs is to be good at all range bands and having a min range makes them not good at all range bands. It defeats their whole purpose.

Quote

The problem with ATMs right now is they are trying to do too much and suffering for it

No the problem is they dont do enough. Theyre supposed to be versatile and useful at all ranges, just not better than the more specialized SRMs/LRMs in their respective range bands. But having that min range completely prevents them from being as versatile as they SHOULD be. The min range is whats holding them back more than anything.

Quote

If they're 3 damage inside 270m only an absolute idiot or someone just boating SRMs would ever take SRMs again.

how do you figure? you cant aim ATMs. you have no control over where they hit.

SRM6s are still far more lethal under 270m

putting 36 damage in a generally small area of your choosing is much better than 36 damage spread randomly across a mech

Edited by Khobai, 04 July 2017 - 10:06 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 07:41 PM, said:

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't know how to play the game.

But how you've been arguing so far is that you're not even considering armor rolling and shielding as a factor between SRM and ATMs. Staring people down to death is idiotic cause that just increases the chances of you receiving damage while not really trading good amount of damage yourself. That's why RAC fails cause there's not enough benefits to justify the stare. That's why C-ERLL at 1.5s duration was not as good as it is today, because all that damage can easily be spread out, while that stare meant larger window time of retaliation. Now consider the lock, and the stream nature of ATMs.

If you don't want people to think that you don't know how to play the game, don't talk as if you don't know how to play the game, don't argue as if you don't know how to play the game. Jesus.

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 07:41 PM, said:

We are looking at missile systems differently is all. I've pointed out what I consider to be the flaws and strengths of your suggestion.

The problem is that you're focusing on the ATMs as they are with little context. As shown with shielding and armor rolling. I really could not fathom why couldn't you link Stream fire and damage spread altogether, when you're supposedly capable of damage distribution. And then there's the tonnage differences you just wouldn't acknowledge. You're damn right we're looking at it differently, I'm looking at it critically, you're not.

But hey, since we're only looking for damage out. 4x SRM6A on only does 51.6 damage per volley, whilst a 4x LRM60A does 60 damage, and considering that the C-LRMs only drop off damage, it should be able to do similar damage at 154.8m. You should be able to brawl with LRM60s right? Go right ahead, brawl with 4x LRM60A, AngrySpartan would probably be kind enough to stay between 270m and 180m, you can ask him.

Before you post again, ask yourself this: If an enemy graced you by staying within 270m and 180m at a brawl, would you brawl with 4x LRM15A + 4x ERSL over 4x SRM6 + 4x SPL, just because you could pump out 60 damage of LRMs over 51.6 of the SRMs?

And before you ask, yes it's fair that both builds i presented have different amount of heatsinks. That's the price of using heavy weapons, ATMs are heavier so you couldn't take as much heatsinks and/or ammo, other weapons. That's why we have to consider the tonnage differences, cause they have profound effects on the load out anyways.

Ruar, on 04 July 2017 - 07:41 PM, said:

And the video about brawling is one players opinion. I've seen people talk about brawling being done differently and at different ranges. Personally I think the fact he talks about hiding behind cover and peeking isn't brawling, it's peeking which is a different style of play, but to each his own.

Hey, i've seen players talk brawling precisely how Kanajashi put it out.

But hey lets just ignore that Kanajashi has a pinned video tutorial: https://mwomercs.com...ideo-tutorials/, on the place where newbies are supposed to learn stuff in the very beginning. Lets just talk brawl as how you wanted it to be, so you'd be right and i'm wrong because reasons.

Sarcasm aside, so what if our definitions differ? Advantage still stands. SRMs are better cause you can put damage out, and then twist damage, versus the ATMs being easy to spread around and you have to stare for a moment to get lock repeatedly and direct the stream briefly.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 05 July 2017 - 04:18 AM.

[Jep Jorgensson]

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

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

1. I asked first.

2. It already has a boatload of drawbacks to it as is. So why do you fear it so much? How does it threaten you?

3. You do not see me crying about rapid-fire RAC's or IS ERML's that have the same cooldown as our MPL's.

4. Read this.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 04 July 2017 - 10:04 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Jep Jorgensson, on 04 July 2017 - 09:59 PM, said:

1. I asked first.

2. It already has a boatload of drawbacks to it as is. So why do you fear it so much? How does it threaten you?

3. You do not see me crying about rapid-fire RAC's or IS ERML's that have the same cooldown as our MPL's.

4. Read this.

Lolol you fear a 5 damage, 4.5 heat laser? You poor poor soul. Also, RACs are garbage, ATMs are much more deadly than RACs.

ATMs seemed pretty solid, probably one of the best missile systems in the game, which is good. Don't think they need to be nerfed, but they were doing work for me.

Also, IS ERMLs have a 3.35 second cooldown while cMPLs have a 3.00 second cooldown.

DPS wise 5/(3.35+0.9) = 1.18 DPS for IS ER ML vs 7.5/(3+.9) = 1.92 DPS for the cMPL. So yeah, not sure what the point of that cooldown remark was?

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 05 July 2017 - 09:06 AM.

[Ruar]

Gas Guzzler, on 05 July 2017 - 09:02 AM, said:

Lolol you fear a 5 damage, 4.5 heat laser? You poor poor soul. Also, RACs are garbage, ATMs are much more deadly than RACs.

ATMs seemed pretty solid, probably one of the best missile systems in the game, which is good. Don't think they need to be nerfed, but they were doing work for me.

Also, IS ERMLs have a 3.35 second cooldown while cMPLs have a 3.00 second cooldown.

DPS wise 5/(3.35+0.9) = 1.18 DPS for IS ER ML vs 7.5/(3+.9) = 1.92 DPS for the cMPL. So yeah, not sure what the point of that cooldown remark was?

His points don't make sense. He was advocating that ATMs are balanced if you bring an AMS. Which means everyone is required to bring an AMS since we'll be seeing ATMs in every match. Balance dependent on your target bringing a specific item isn't really balance.

[Gas Guzzler]

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 09:12 AM, said:

His points don't make sense. He was advocating that ATMs are balanced if you bring an AMS. Which means everyone is required to bring an AMS since we'll be seeing ATMs in every match. Balance dependent on your target bringing a specific item isn't really balance.

Well I would argue if AMS is too effective against them, then they SHOULD get a hit point increase. I just didn't face anyone with AMS while using them so I can't say.

[Oblitum Infernos]

the modification to ATMS i would suggest are as follows

1.change the damage steps
instead of 0DMG 0-120M 3DMG 120-270M 2DMG 270-540 1DMG 540-1100
i would suggest 1.5DMG 0-120 3DMG 120-270 2DMG 270-540 1DMG 540- 1100
(as a side note i also would agree with dropping the max range to 810, it's not like you can actually hit anything at 1100 with their low trajectory anyways)

2. make the missile health 7-10.5, which translates to 2-3 AMS shots per missile, i think the slow speed high health missiles are better then fast low health because it leaves in the counter play options of running to cover or using positioning against them as viable, but doesn't make the passive i put LAMS on my mech as effective.

Edited by Oblitum Infernos, 05 July 2017 - 01:49 PM.

[Korvus Knull]

I think a good solution is no minimum range, atm should fire cluster like srms out to 270 no lock 3dmg per after 270 to 580 lock up cluster fire like lrm travel to target 2dmg after 580 fly like lrm 1 dmg. Right now IS MRMs are going to butcher everything, and Clan Heavy lazers have no advantage over er because of ridiculous cooldown and durations.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Gas Guzzler, on 05 July 2017 - 09:02 AM, said:

Lolol you fear a 5 damage, 4.5 heat laser? You poor poor soul. Also, RACs are garbage, ATMs are much more deadly than RACs.

ATMs seemed pretty solid, probably one of the best missile systems in the game, which is good. Don't think they need to be nerfed, but they were doing work for me.

Also, IS ERMLs have a 3.35 second cooldown while cMPLs have a 3.00 second cooldown.

DPS wise 5/(3.35+0.9) = 1.18 DPS for IS ER ML vs 7.5/(3+.9) = 1.92 DPS for the cMPL. So yeah, not sure what the point of that cooldown remark was?

Assuming you are correct about the laser, then oh well.

Having been on the receiving end of them more than a few times, I know RAC's can do some damage, especially to internals.

How much testing have you done with ATM's? They are trash. I tested them out personally multiple times and they have shown to be inferior to LRM's and SRM's in every way.

1. An ATM 12 past 540 meters will do 12 points of damage, max. A LRM 20 will do 20, max.

2. Inside 270 meters, an ATM 12 may do 36 (I say may since it still uses LRM style tracking which is crap against moving targets close up even after you wait to get a lock-on) in exchange for 9 heat, 5 crit slots (single crit box), 7 tons, the inability to aim where they land, 5 second cooldown, 3.5 component health, 160 m/s projectile speed, and 6 salvos per ton of ammo. Conversely, 3x SRM 6's will do the same damage at the same range for 12 heat, 3 crit slots (individual crit boxes), 4.5 tons, point and shoot (no time out for lock-on required), 4 second cooldown, 7.5 component health (per launcher (3 x 7.5 = 22.5)), 400 m/s projectile speed, and 8+ salvos per ton of ammo. So I guess ATM's are better with heat, but not by much. Oh wait, the 3x SRM 6's can chain fire if heat becomes an issue, never mind.

3. Here are some more numbers for you.

So, would you mind explaining exactly how ATM's are so superior? And please, be as detailed as possible drama queen.

Ruar, on 05 July 2017 - 09:12 AM, said:

His points don't make sense. He was advocating that ATMs are balanced if you bring an AMS. Which means everyone is required to bring an AMS since we'll be seeing ATMs in every match. Balance dependent on your target bringing a specific item isn't really balance.

1. See other #1.

2. See my 2 previously posted links.

3. So you are saying that understanding and utilizing AMS, LAMS, ECM, big rocks, tall buildings, tunnels, leaving LOS, radar dep, and sniping from beyond missile hard max range are all too difficult for you to grasp? o.0 You poor, poor boy. Life must be so hard for you as a permanent Tier 6.

4. Seriously though, my point was that ATM's are very weak against AMS. How could you have missed that?

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 05 July 2017 - 03:50 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Jep Jorgensson, on 05 July 2017 - 03:49 PM, said:

Assuming you are correct about the laser, then oh well.

Having been on the receiving end of them more than a few times, I know RAC's can do some damage, especially to internals.

How much testing have you done with ATM's? They are trash. I tested them out personally multiple times and they have shown to be inferior to LRM's and SRM's in every way.

1. An ATM 12 past 540 meters will do 12 points of damage, max. A LRM 20 will do 20, max.

2. Inside 270 meters, an ATM 12 may do 36 (I say may since it still uses LRM style tracking which is crap against moving targets close up even after you wait to get a lock-on) in exchange for 9 heat, 5 crit slots (single crit box), 7 tons, the inability to aim where they land, 5 second cooldown, 3.5 component health, 160 m/s projectile speed, and 6 salvos per ton of ammo. Conversely, 3x SRM 6's will do the same damage at the same range for 12 heat, 3 crit slots (individual crit boxes), 4.5 tons, point and shoot (no time out for lock-on required), 4 second cooldown, 7.5 component health (per launcher (3 x 7.5 = 22.5)), 400 m/s projectile speed, and 8+ salvos per ton of ammo. So I guess ATM's are better with heat, but not by much. Oh wait, the 3x SRM 6's can chain fire if heat becomes an issue, never mind.

3. Here are some more numbers for you.

So, would you mind explaining exactly how ATM's are so superior? And please, be as detailed as possible drama queen.

I used RACs and they are good against potatoes who are standing still. After testing them today I think the RAC5 is just okay, its really nothing to be crying about. I would much rather have 2 UAC5s.

Lol chain-fire? How is that a solution to heat? Your DPS/HPS is the same. You might as well mitigate damage until you can fire all 3, THEN fire. Chain-firing is never objectively the right thing to do.

And ATMs are good because they can do a crap ton of damage. Even when they are doing less than 3 damage they were still melting armor. I would say the sweet spot is LESS than 540m for sure, but that's fine. When I saw lights trying to close with me, they were deleted no problem. I would put ATMs as one of the strongest missile systems in the game. Yeah, SRMs are better brawling weapons, but ATMs are better the rest of the time. Seriously, nothing beats dumping 142 damage into somebody, even if its spread.

MRMs on the other hand, were pretty weak, maybe they will be better now that you can track your target throughout the stream... but I dunno. I felt like the spread was preventing them from being very useful.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 05 July 2017 - 04:39 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Except you're looking at it wrong.

Inside 270m (or a bit over 300 with range quirks) 3x ATM9 do 81 damage, the UAC does 10-20, the lasers do 14, for a total of 104-114. Then again, after you've crossed 110m at 80 kph to get to 200m, you take another 104-114. This is in addition to all the other damage you've taken getting to 300m.

If my ATMs keep hitting over 2 damage inside of 120m i can festroy you at range, then keep smashing you for 80+ damage at brawling range - which is your best alpha at close range with SRMs. If that first trade in SRM brawling range puts me at 80 damage taken and you at about 300 damage take, how much do I care about how ammo efficient and focused your SRMs are?

Or are we going to pretend that you're always going to magically close to 120m brawling range undamaged?

The exception is AMS. If ATMs are left weak to AMS they are irrelevant trash and this is all wasted discussion. Assuming however that's fixed, you give me 2+ damage ATMs inside of 120m and I'll rampage over your SRM builds all day.