61 replies to this topic

[SeventhSL]

Meh... 72 SRM alpha. My 8xSRM6A Huntsman does 96. Penetrates AMS, ECM and stealth armour no problems. ATM without any minimum range couldn't compare to that in a brawl.

[Brain Cancer]

This. People really don't know how fragile ATM salvos are compared to LRM/SRM saturation, it's why I mix my missile launchers so I can put enough tubes into the air at once to get past AMS. They're really nice, don't get me wrong. But there's rarely enough of them to get past a dedicated AMS type without throwing something else into the mix to bulk out a shot.

MRMs by comparison utterly swamp even a triple AMS Kit Fox, both in sheer numbers of missiles and so much ammo/ton that either the AMS carrier runs dry trying to kill them all or gets bludgeoned to death by dozens of MRMs at once.

[Andi Nagasia]

Brain Cancer, on 19 July 2017 - 08:15 PM, said:

This. People really don't know how fragile ATM salvos are compared to LRM/SRM saturation, it's why I mix my missile launchers so I can put enough tubes into the air at once to get past AMS. They're really nice, don't get me wrong. But there's rarely enough of them to get past a dedicated AMS type without throwing something else into the mix to bulk out a shot.

MRMs by comparison utterly swamp even a triple AMS Kit Fox, both in sheer numbers of missiles and so much ammo/ton that either the AMS carrier runs dry trying to kill them all or gets bludgeoned to death by dozens of MRMs at once.

the catch is that LRMs and ATMs are linked so you cant fire too many of both,
also as ATMs have faster Velocity +40m/s you have to Fire your LRMs first,
else your ATMs will arrive first and get targeted by AMS first,

as all missiles have the same health the only difference being Velocity,
(Below im comparing Missile amounts per Tonnage)
MRMs are the best vs AMS (325Velocity & 10Missiles) 3250 resistance,
SRMs follow MRMs with (400Velocity & 6-8Missiles) 2800ish resistance,
LRMs are Tied with SSRMs (160Velocity & 5-10Missiles) 1200ish resistance,
SSRMs are Tied with LRMs (250Velocity & 4-6Missiles) 1250ish resistance,
ATMs follow SSRMs with (200Velocity & 6Missiles) 1200 resistance,

i think SSRMs LRMS & ATMs should have their Velocity increased to Aid their Viability,

(what i would Change)
-
(Non Lockon weapons so 3000ish Resistance is the goal)
MRMs (300(-25)Velocity & 10Missiles) 3000 AMS Resistance(reduce Spread Abit)
SRMs (400Velocity & 6-8Missiles) 2800ish AMS Resistance(Perfact as is),
-
(Lockon weapons so 2000ish Resistance is the goal)
LRMs (240(+60)Velocity & 5-10Missiles) 1800ish AMS Resistance,
SSRMs (300Velocity & 4-6Missiles) 1500ish AMS Resistance,
ATMs (300Velocity & 6Missiles) 1800 AMS Resistance,

[Vellron2005]

Personally, I would not mind the min range so much, if ATMs were indirect fire when LOCK was achieved and direct fire when LOS..

But their direct fire nature makes them useless in most situations out of close brawl range, and it is then when the min range is really really in the way..

Right now, having a weapon with a range o 1200+ meters (when skilled up), that is only useful at the 200 meter range is pure waste of cbills..

And ATMs are only useful at about 200 meters.. not because they do max damage there, but because that's the range that you have to be in to not allow the target to go into cover..

Basically, for me.. ATM = MRM with unnecessary lock on = SMRM..

What it should be is ATM = LRM/MRM hybrid.

Edited by Vellron2005, 19 July 2017 - 11:13 PM.

[Bigbacon]

and a lot of this could be avoided you know if they actually took heat into account and made some real heat scaling....I know the game has a bar to tell you how hot you are but it practically doesn't matter. Its there because its BT but gameplay wise, doesn't matter.

[Wildstreak]

Don't forget there was that June patch AMS buff that was, "designed to counter SRMS," and not only failed, it made anti-LRM even better.
Now here comes a weapon using similar lock-on mechanics and what happens? Those buffed AMS wipe them while MRM users, like SRMs, have no problems.

[Maker L106]

Stop bitching and use the tool as you have it WHILE you have it like this and give it time to see if it needs to be changed instead of kneejerk reactions which make things far FAR worse in the long run.

MRM's are in a good place ATM's aren't bad by any means and the Heavy lasers the clans picked up are a ******* god-send.

MY current issue is with the new IS Light PPC's but I'm going to keep my mouth shut on that until such time as they've been around more than a week and I've actually USED them more than a week so any of my words have experience to stand on.

Same **** with the ATM's, Minimum range? sure, 90-120... does it really matter? i mean i guess if your trying to engage in a 30 meter range... really? no. Leave them alone for now, see what you can get done with them as is. Don't talk about ghost heat on ANYTHING besides the vanilla AC20's because the last thing the game needs is more arbitrary placement of strange weapon groupings.

Crab + 2x AC20 + 2x HPPC is glorious... for now... I fear the nerf bat because people just like to ***** and moan about things like the minimum range here when the weapon is effective as is. Don't shoot your mouth off until time has passed and things have been done to death. give it a few months of constant attention before wild claims are made or recommendations on modifying currently new systems are there.

[R Valentine]

"Blob 72 damage SRM strikes from 2 hard points"

Aren't MRMs a thing? Last I checked, you can blob 80 damage from 2 hardpoints with those, and they actually function like SRMs.

[davoodoo]

Bigbacon, on 20 July 2017 - 02:49 AM, said:

and a lot of this could be avoided you know if they actually took heat into account and made some real heat scaling....I know the game has a bar to tell you how hot you are but it practically doesn't matter. Its there because its BT but gameplay wise, doesn't matter.

If they actually adjusted heat to tt values.

We would all be running heat neutral builds because you cant fit more weaponry before gh hits...

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

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

I cant believe what im reading here...

2x mrm30=60 dmg
4x srm6 = 51.6 dmg

and while we are at it, srm6 dont require stare time

Edited by davoodoo, 20 July 2017 - 07:26 AM.

[AssaultPig]

I would prefer removing the minimum range and tuning the falloff distance as appropriate to what we have now; after messing around with ATMs a bit it's not really clear why I'd want to take them over some roughly equivalent combination of LRMs. Ostensibly ATMs are a short-ish range weapon but the 120m minimum is a big handicap in a brawl, and you don't have to get far beyond their optimal range before LRMs are doing notably more damage. The increased velocity is another thing that should be a selling point, but in practice doesn't matter much because at the range you're actually firing ATMs is so short.

[Brain Cancer]

If they made the "stepdown" happen like it does for damage at each range tier regarding minimum range, it'd actually be pretty nice.

That is, given the current 120m minimum, from 120-70 it drops linearly from 3 to 2, then from 70-20 it drops to 1 and stays that way.

[Appuagab]

There's no way to fix ATMs without implementing different ammo types. However you tweak its stats, it's still a placeholder, even if pretty viable or even devastating. Still placeholder.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

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?

Flat 2.2 damage at all ranges would suck.

I really love that its a weapon system built around using proper positioning. If you keep to your small 120-270m range band all the time you can get some great results, if you stick to mid range you get mid level results, and if you are sitting in the back behind the whole team you'll do poorly.

The whole point of ATMs is that they deal different damage at different ranges, I'd never support something that removes that one unique feature of the class.

Besides that, 3 damage per rocket isn't even overpowered on the things. Just bring an AMS and you already take out around 20% of the volley and that volley was already spread throughout all of the mech's components anyway.

You're really looking at it like a spreadsheet warrior at the moment, seeing a damage value that looks too high for your liking and wanting it cut down similar to how PGI cut the structure quirks on the Hunchback-4SP. Look at it from an ingame perspective, the people doing good with them are using great positioning and the people losing to them aren't taking the proper defensive measures by equipping 1 ton of equipment.

[Xetelian]

InspectorG, on 19 July 2017 - 06:04 PM, said:

People wanted their NEW TECH.

They got it, and just like BT, got power creep with it.

You seriously thought PGI was gonna have this balanced out before hand?

They slowed the game down, and added a bunch of facetank weapons.

Cant link a Gauss and Peeps without ghost heat but your sure can alpha over 100 damage on most heavies and assaults...

GGCLOSE????

The few that can pack enough SRMs to bring their alpha damage up to 100 are also spreading that damage everywhere. What good is 100 damage if you can't get it all in on the CT?



I rarely see meaningful posts from you.

[SPNKRGrenth]

Meanwhile on the IS side, 80 damage SRM strikes from 2 hardpoints. It's a lot of fun by the way, 2 MRM40s to the face followed by a few lasers to rip out what's opened up.

Why not just have ATMs do half damage inside the minimum range? 1.5 damage. Easy. Then have long range do 1.2-1.4 damage so it's not a complete waste of ammo to fire at that range. So under 120m it would be like a weaker, heavier Streak SRM launcher, missile for missile.

And if the ATMs doing 3 damage a missile at optimum range is too much, lower the missile damage to 2.6-2.7. Then maybe lower the minimum range to 90m and increase the optimal range to 300m since they wouldn't hit as hard. Under minimum range they could then do 1.3 damage. Not hard.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

I think ATMs need better ammo/ton, or AMS resistance rather than removal of minimum range.

As it is, they're much better on faster mechs that can dictate range than larger once. I think encouraging players to bring missiles other than SRMs on lighter mechs is a good idea, and ATMs in their current iteration really reward that, even if it isn't an ideal situation regarding AMS.

The hard minimum range puts a big barrier up against boating them on larger mechs. I don't think SNV-As need to be encouraged by turning ATMs into super SSRMs.

Edited by Aggravated Assault Mech, 24 July 2017 - 10:57 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

2.4/2.0/1.6 damage, no minimum range, increased Missile health. Boom, proper ATM.

[Savage Wolf]

ATMs needs to have a minimum range to justify the 3 damage band and it needs the 3 damage band to make it fun and rewarding to stay in that sweet spot. It's a weapon that requires mobility and that's really good addition to the game. The Shadowcat was born for this, being able to use it's mobility to get higher damage than a medium usually can deal. And no it will be subpar on slow assaults. Is that a bad thing? They have plenty of options already.

Removing minimum range would mean decreasing that 3 damage band to something meh like 2.5 damage or some nonsense. Just so it becomes an easy weapon to use that requires nothing of your mech.

So keep the damn minimum range. Stop dumbing every weapon down. Already plenty threads about dumbing LRMs down.

[InspectorG]

Xetelian, on 24 July 2017 - 09:24 PM, said:

The few that can pack enough SRMs to bring their alpha damage up to 100 are also spreading that damage everywhere. What good is 100 damage if you can't get it all in on the CT?



I rarely see meaningful posts from you.

You would understand more meaning if you were better at reading.

I pointed out that in addition to power creep, they slowed the game down to compensate for the facetank spread while nerfing Gauss+Peeps which were the weapon combos that not only mitigate facetanking but require a higher base of skill.

GGClose on your reading comprehension.
Hence why i rarely bother at meaningful posts anymore in the 'Brown Sea'.

[Lugin]

SPNKRGrenth, on 24 July 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

Meanwhile on the IS side, 80 damage SRM strikes from 2 hardpoints. It's a lot of fun by the way, 2 MRM40s to the face followed by a few lasers to rip out what's opened up.

Quick reminder: those MRM 40 launchers are 12 tons. Each. And damn hot.

Compared to a pair of ATM 12 lauchers at 7 tons each.

So, 80 unguided @ 6 volleys/ton, versus 72 guided @ 5 volleys/ton with range bands.

Edited by Lugin, 25 July 2017 - 07:14 PM.