61 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Still not as bad as 50 PPFLD. At least damage is spread, and done under 270m.

[Scratx]

My 4xMPL 2xATM9 Mad Dog's in group queue right now wrecking face. I do think reducing minimum range even further might not be a great idea. As it is it forces me to think about positioning so I don't get too close.

Guys, really, if you want a sub-120m missile weapon, use SRMs. And don't forget ATMs are a lock weapon. ECM, stealth armor, etc...

[Khobai]

Quote

Still not as bad as 50 PPFLD. At least damage is spread, and done under 270m.

yes but 50 PPFLD is not okay either. they are both not okay.

[InspectorG]

Khobai, on 19 July 2017 - 06:06 PM, said:

3 damage per missile is not fine.

it was definitely not "smooth" to allow 144 damage volleys from a supernova. that level of damage never shouldve been allowed in the game, not in any range band, lol.

the way I see it the damage on ATMs needs to be lowered anyway, and removing the min range is simply an added benefit that can be tacked on in response to the damage being lowered.

I mean certainly the damage steps could be adjusted. Or maybe just get rid of the damage stepping mechanic altogether. Would ATMs really be that bad if they did a flat 2.2 damage at all ranges? and had no min range?

Problem is, if they drop the damage too much, why take it over an SRM?

2.2 dmg at range, why take LRMs? Though i would see benefit in the firing arc forcing bads to contribute their armor.

PGI backed themselves into a corner with the new tech.

Khobai, on 19 July 2017 - 06:18 PM, said:

yes but 50 PPFLD is not okay either. they are both not okay.

Sad part, that has such an easy fix. Doesnt even require ghost heat or spreadsheet jukes.

[Khobai]

Quote

Problem is, if they drop the damage too much, why take it over an SRM?

because ATMs can be used at longer ranges and SRMs cant be.

Quote

2.2 dmg at range, why take LRMs? Though i would see benefit in the firing arc forcing bads to contribute their armor

Couple reasons. LRMs can indirect fire better. LRMs have significantly higher cockpit shake.

I would also lower the max range of ATMs from 1100m to 810m. And I would increase the velocity of LRMs so theyre better at long range, because right now LRMs are medium range missiles when they should be long range missiles. And lack of velocity is in large part the reason why. Broken ECM doesnt help either, they need to take stealth away from ECM, and give it to stealth armor only.

The point of ATMs is to be viable at all range bands. Theyre not supposed to only be good from 120m-270m. Theyre should be good from 0m-810m. Just not better than SRMs under 270m or better than LRMs at 540m+

I mean im not saying a flat 2.2 damage at all ranges is the way to go. You could damage step it at like 2.4/2/1.6 as well. Im not sure which would work better. But im confident both would be better than how ATMs are now. ATMs would be more tactical and flexible, better at every range, and not just limited to 120m-270m. And they wouldnt do potentially broken 144 damage volleys anymore either.

Edited by Khobai, 19 July 2017 - 06:38 PM.

[panzer1b]

I dont see the issue. SRMs require more hardpoints for high alfa strikes, but run cooler, weigh almost nothing even with artemis, and have so little crit slots. All i see this is that ATMs allow certain mechs that normally cant use missiles like at all well to have some interesting builds available to em.

Anyways, if 72 spread dmg is scary, try 78 damage over 1.5s thats HITSCAN and can thus be directed almost entirely at whatever you want to hit (shielding only does so much). Ofc its a bacon build, but thats enough alfa to skin anything's ST to the bone in 1 shot, and its guaranteed to 2 shot any single component if i manage to get most of the burn to hit that one component.

Really the only time ATMs are really scary imo is when you got 48 tubes, 144 alfa strike, regardless of how spread it is, is gonna hurt ALOT...

[MischiefSC]

ATMs that do 1 damage inside 120m, maybe 2.7 at optimal. That brings them closer to viable. Then max range 810m.

That's a good weapon with a more balanced profile that isn't worthless when pushed. It would be something that actually got used for more than pug farming.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 July 2017 - 04:09 PM, said:

STK-3H

Yeah, quadruple Ghost Heat on the MurmStar. Slag them and yourself equally quick ;-). Actually a quad MRM30 mech is pretty devestating, but for its own thread I think (summary, 2xMRM30 might need GH after enough field testing... But we will see)

Dual ATM 12 = 72 damage no ghost heat slaved to a single weapon system (one firing solution) that has nice heat efficiency (missiles and ballistics get almost the same damage / heat ratios (compared to energy). I trotted around test with a triATM12+ATM9 Supernova and was keen to notice that 132 damage was easy to deliver in half a second and could be repeated before overheating.
Accounting for cooldown, that's 264 damage in about 5-6 seconds without overheating, without GH, on a mech with Max engine, most armor, ridiculous amounts of ammo, 2 TAGs, 2 Backup lasers, and you can fire from indirect position.

Sure, let's remove the min range.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 19 July 2017 - 06:46 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Sure, let's remove the min range.

lets lower the damage first. then consider removing the min range. If the damage is sufficiently lowered then no min range should be a non-issue.

But I think its pretty clear 144 damage volleys (and you fire like 3-4 times with coolant) shouldnt be allowed lol. So the 3 damage per missile has to be lowered regardless.

But I also think min ranges should be removed on all weapons, its simply not a fun mechanic to not be able to do any damage, just because the enemy walked 1m too close to you. If you have to have something then have linear damage dropoff instead of a 0 damage deadzone.

Edited by Khobai, 19 July 2017 - 06:53 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Khobai, on 19 July 2017 - 06:46 PM, said:

lets lower the damage first. then consider removing the min range. If the damage is sufficiently lowered then no min range should be a non-issue.

But I think its pretty clear 144 damage volleys shouldnt be allowed lol. So the 3 damage per missile has to be lowered regardless.

My Anni has quadMRM30 and when spread across 2 weapon groups it deals 120dmg in 1 second, 120 more after recycle. And again, with no GH.

Would causing GH on any 2 ATM systems help to make a case for removing or reducing min range? Or would a better be to be just remove the HE segment entirely and just deal 2 dmg/missile with no min range?

[Khobai]

Quote

Would causing GH on any 2 ATM systems help to make a case for removing or reducing min range? Or would a better be to be just remove the HE segment entirely and just deal 2 dmg/missile with no min range?

There is a certain appeal to ATMs doing the same damage at all ranges. The damage stepping mechanic is frustrating to play around and I dont believe its necessary.

[Wildstreak]

Prosperity Park, on 19 July 2017 - 06:44 PM, said:

(summary, 2xMRM30 might need GH after enough field testing... But we will see)

Not needed, leave my Awesome-8T / -8V alone, they finally have some use.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Wildstreak, on 19 July 2017 - 07:06 PM, said:

Not needed, leave my Awesome-8T / -8V alone, they finally have some use.

I know, I know... I put a couple MRM30 on a catapult and it felt alive for the first time.

[Bishop Steiner]

Prosperity Park, on 19 July 2017 - 06:44 PM, said:

Yeah, quadruple Ghost Heat on the MurmStar. Slag them and yourself equally quick ;-). Actually a quad MRM30 mech is pretty devestating, but for its own thread I think (summary, 2xMRM30 might need GH after enough field testing... But we will see)

Dual ATM 12 = 72 damage no ghost heat slaved to a single weapon system (one firing solution) that has nice heat efficiency (missiles and ballistics get almost the same damage / heat ratios (compared to energy). I trotted around test with a triATM12+ATM9 Supernova and was keen to notice that 132 damage was easy to deliver in half a second and could be repeated before overheating.
Accounting for cooldown, that's 264 damage in about 5-6 seconds without overheating, without GH, on a mech with Max engine, most armor, ridiculous amounts of ammo, 2 TAGs, 2 Backup lasers, and you can fire from indirect position.

Sure, let's remove the min range.

I never said it was good..or GOOD IDEA.... just that why worry about 72 pts alphas when we can do a 160 pts one instead XD

[Brain Cancer]

We finally get a missile system that competes with the usual suspects, it doesn't even use indirect fire...annnnnd we're already at the point of NERF THIS!

Please. Tell that guy in the Trebuchet-7M over there with the dual MRM 30's how horrible I am as he dashed into my dead zone and is now giving me rocket hugs.

Or the other guy with the dual AMS that is pure nightmare fuel for my ATM launchers, as the BRRRRT can scrub big chunks of a ATM 24 salvo out of the sky with ease. Never mind when people are mounting LAMS all over the place. Already, on a bad game I can see anything short of a ghost-heat-pain all-in salvo reduced to chaff. I mount LRMs with my ATMs just to help overwhelm AMS enough to get some missiles through.

We got two surprisingly nice missile launchers for the Clans and IS here. There is no reason right now to hammer things with the nerf bat.

[Ordin Hall]

Prosperity Park, on 19 July 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

Yeah, remove the minimum range for ATMs so we can blob 72 damage SRM strikes from 2 hardpoints.

>Seriously complaining about theoretical removal of ATM min range
>He doesn't know about IS MRMs
Do you even play the game?

[Khobai]

Quote

We got two surprisingly nice missile launchers for the Clans and IS here. There is no reason right now to hammer things with the nerf bat.

Its not really a nerf. More of a sidegrade. Lower damage at short range, but no min range, and better damage at long range.

[Novakaine]

[The6thMessenger]

Minimum range on a supposedly jack-of-all-trades weapon makes it jack-**** instead.

I agree, 3 up-close damage is too powerful. 2.4/2.0/1.6 damage and no minimum range, that's fine.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Athom83, on 19 July 2017 - 04:09 PM, said:

I think most (sensible) complains I've seen about about the min range is that its at 120 and not 90. Removing it completely is a bad idea, but it could be brought in a little.

Yeah I would like to see it at 90m myself and that is what I suggested during the PTS however I am totally against removing it all together. The other option I would like to see would be leave the minimum range at 120 but have it scale down as you get closer, not just do zero damage. Maybe make it 2 damage at 90m and 1 damage at 50m, something like that.

The other thing is they need to make the individual missiles more resistant to AMS. I had a Centurion mounting a single AMS almost totally shut me down trying to fire dual ATM6s at him. He quite literally was shooting down 10 out of 12 of my missiles from under 250m. I personally feel at those ranges you should be able to get 6-8 through a single AMS, not 2.