51 replies to this topic

[Savage Wolf]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 23 October 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

Yeah...something is up with the min range. Testing grounds on stationary targets illustrates this. Not sure if skill tree range additions increase min. range ....(which would be more dumb as adding those nodes is necessary to get to useful missle nodes and would make range additions more of a disadvantage than advantage) or if the range readout is just slightly inaccurate.

It's the latter, don't worry. The range indicator just measures the distance between the center of your mech to the center of theirs. So it does not measure the distance between your launchers to their armor which is the relevant distance and so we must compensate.

[Savage Wolf]

Khobai, on 23 October 2017 - 08:13 AM, said:

not really. ATMs cant indirect fire. LRMs would still be superior in their domain.

although ATMs should have more of a parabolic arc than they currently do. ATMs just shouldnt be able to lockon to a target unless you have direct LoS. PGI got lazy with the coding there.

Of course you should be able to lock on to targets you don't have LoS to. Even without missiles you can. It's just unlikely that you can hit a target you can't see. Is this another case of thinking C3 is required for that, because it isn't. C3 does something entirely different.

[Khobai]

Quote

Of course you should be able to lock on to targets you don't have LoS to.

of course you should be able to target things you dont have LoS to. you just shouldnt be able to lock on to them with ATMs. ATMs are a direct fire missile so they should only be able to lockon to targets in direct LoS. ATMs shouldnt be able to indirect fire at all like people have been doing with them. which is why PGI nerfed missile lockon angle recently... but they also nerfed LRMs in order to nerf ATMs which was just uncalled for.

you seem to have targeting confused with locking on. they arnt the same thing. totally different things entirely.

targeting is when you press R and a red box appears around your target. locking on is when you put the reticle in the square and the white circle turns red and theres a tone indicator that tells you the LRMs/ATMs/Streaks are locked on.

now you know the difference for future discourse.

Quote

Is this another case of thinking C3 is required for that, because it isn't. C3 does something entirely different.

did I mention c3? oh I didnt? no its just another case of you reading into things that arnt there.

all mechs can share target information without C3. obviously. C3 is like an advanced cloud computer that lets mechs input their sensor data and uses it to create a real time predictive simulation of the battlefield.

again totally different things entirely.

Quote

Forget long range. Not even LRMs are worth it at long range

and obviously that needs to be fixed. LRMs stands for long range missiles. if theyre not good at long range whats the point? thats supposed to be their whole function. If they arnt good at long range it means PGI done !@#$ed up and needs to fix them.

LRMs will probably never be a top tier weapon but they can certainly be improved beyond where theyre at now. Its pretty obvious they need their velocity increased so they can hit targets better at long range. And as a result of increasing their velocity you probably need to reduce their indirect fire capabilities somewhat. ECM should also not grant stealth at all, that was never one of its functions in battletech.

Edited by Khobai, 23 October 2017 - 09:45 AM.

[Stinger554]

Savage Wolf, on 23 October 2017 - 06:51 AM, said:

Also supposed to be switch ammo, but can't. And without a minimum they would be incredibly overpowered in MWO... well until everyone mounted AMS. Anywho, 120m is a good compromise.

A better compromise is no minimum with ramping down damage for under 120. For a weapon that is supposed to function at all ranges having a minimum is dumb.

[Savage Wolf]

Khobai, on 23 October 2017 - 09:19 AM, said:

of course you should be able to target things you dont have LoS to. you just shouldnt be able to lock on to them with ATMs. ATMs are a direct fire missile so they should only be able to lockon to targets in direct LoS. ATMs shouldnt be able to indirect fire at all like people have been doing with them. which is why PGI nerfed missile lockon angle recently... but they also nerfed LRMs in order to nerf ATMs which was just uncalled for.

you seem to have targeting confused with locking on. they arnt the same thing. totally different things entirely.

targeting is when you press R and a red box appears around your target. locking on is when you put the reticle in the square and the white circle turns red and theres a tone indicator that tells you the LRMs/ATMs/Streaks are locked on.

now you know the difference for future discourse.

I know the difference. But once you have a target you can lock on. And if LRMs and Streaks can then there is no reason why ATMs shouldn't also be able to. Especially since you can mix them so actually they couldn't change it for ATMs even if they wanted to.
And really, there is no reason to. It wouldn't prevent locking on to people who are outside LoS anyway because of target decay. So really you are trying to solve the arcing problem by arbitrarily changing the lock on system. What they did was the way to go even though I agree that LRMs will suffer needlessly for it.

Khobai, on 23 October 2017 - 09:19 AM, said:

did I mention c3? oh I didnt? no its just another case of you reading into things that arnt there.

all mechs can share target information without C3. obviously. C3 is like an advanced cloud computer that lets mechs input their sensor data and uses it to create a real time predictive simulation of the battlefield.

again totally different things entirely.

I asked if it was the case. I didn't assume. I think you are far more guilty of that during this debate, just like now.

But I'm glad we are on the same page concerning C3.

Khobai, on 23 October 2017 - 09:19 AM, said:

and obviously that needs to be fixed. LRMs stands for long range missiles. if theyre not good at long range whats the point? thats supposed to be their whole function. If they arnt good at long range it means PGI done !@#$ed up and needs to fix them.

LRMs will probably never be a top tier weapon but they can certainly be improved beyond where theyre at now. Its pretty obvious they need their velocity increased so they can hit targets better at long range. And as a result of increasing their velocity you probably need to reduce their indirect fire capabilities somewhat. ECM should also not grant stealth at all, that was never one of its functions in battletech.

I would rather they kept their indirect fire capability and focused on that rather than their long range. Indirect is a much more unique aspect of them and you can't really buff long range without buffing medium range more. Sad to say.

Stinger554, on 23 October 2017 - 09:37 AM, said:

A better compromise is no minimum with ramping down damage for under 120. For a weapon that is supposed to function at all ranges having a minimum is dumb.

Like Clan LRMs? Sure. It doesn't really change much. I'm not scared of Clan LRMs below 180m, they deal almost no damage instead of just no damage.

[Khobai]

Quote

Like Clan LRMs? Sure. It doesn't really change much. I'm not scared of Clan LRMs below 180m, they deal almost no damage instead of just no damage.

ATMs should still do way more damage than CLRMs under 120m though. They shouldnt be completely ineffective like CLRMs are. But they shouldnt be as effective as SRMs either.

Again the point of ATMs is to be good but not great at all ranges. its a jack of all trades weapon.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 23 October 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

ATMs should still do way more damage than CLRMs under 120m though. They shouldnt be completely ineffective like CLRMs are. But they shouldnt be as effective as SRMs either.

Again the point of ATMs is to be good but not great at all ranges. its a jack of all trades weapon.

Oh please, the stream-fire and lock required already prevents them from being as effective as SRMs.

At least at that narrow band of range.

[Khobai]

Quote

Oh please, the stream-fire and lock required already prevents them from being as effective as SRMs.

At least at that narrow band of range.

they dont require a lock though. you can dumbfire them.

the 120m min range kills them though. they need to get rid of that completely and just lower the damage per missile to balance not having a min range.

Edited by Khobai, 23 October 2017 - 04:29 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 23 October 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

they dont require a lock though. you can dumbfire them.

Yeah but it's not it's feasible considering the speed. SRMs have 400 m/s projectile, the ATMs just have 160 m/s IIRC, precisely why homing is needed is so that the missiles are landed reliably at all. And then the part that it's not an MRM just makes it worse.

Khobai, on 23 October 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

the 120m min range kills them though. they need to get rid of that completely and just lower the damage per missile to balance not having a min range.

Yep. I think 2.4/2.0/1.6 should do it, at 0-270m/540m/1150m should do it.

[qS Sachiel]

Khobai, on 23 October 2017 - 07:51 AM, said:

no because they would do less damage per missile. obviously you didnt read that sentence. its an important one.

because it means atms would be weaker than srms or streaks at short range. but unlike srms or streaks they would have the ability to fire at medium and long range as well.

the purpose of atms is to be a versatile missile thats good at all ranges, just not better than srms at short range, or better than lrms at long range. ATMs should be the jack-of-all trades but master of none of missile weapons.

atms are not supposed to be a 120m-270m niche weapon that does broken amounts of damage like they are now. thats completely not in the spirit of the weapon.

Atms should be 0m-810m range missiles that do ~2 damage per missile at all ranges. The whole damage stepping mechanic is pointless for ATMs, just make them do a uniform amount of damage at all ranges. Pick a damage value that puts them exactly in between SRMs at short range and LRMs at long range.

From great niche to average general application.
i like atm's how they are, as they force a different style of play (mobility)

[Stinger554]

Savage Wolf, on 23 October 2017 - 11:25 AM, said:

Like Clan LRMs? Sure. It doesn't really change much. I'm not scared of Clan LRMs below 180m, they deal almost no damage instead of just no damage.

Yep although not the exact numbers more like from 3 @ 120 to 2 from 50 - 120 and 1 >50 with the last part there just to discourage face hugging with ATMs.

[Jun Watarase]

Main issue with ATMs isnt the min range, its that a single AMS (1.5 tons including ammo) counters 7 tons of ATMs without including ammo.

There is no need to torso twist, use cover, or do anything other than charge blindly at a mech with ATMs as long as you have AMS.

Removing the min range and lowering damage per missile would actually make AMS stronger since the same amount of missiles are getting through, but they do less damage.

[Stinger554]

Jun Watarase, on 24 October 2017 - 11:59 AM, said:

Main issue with ATMs isnt the min range, its that a single AMS (1.5 tons including ammo) counters 7 tons of ATMs without including ammo.

There is no need to torso twist, use cover, or do anything other than charge blindly at a mech with ATMs as long as you have AMS.

Removing the min range and lowering damage per missile would actually make AMS stronger since the same amount of missiles are getting through, but they do less damage.

Agreed, but min range isn't in the spirit of the weapon and the only reason it exists is because PGI cannot code multiple types of ammo for one weapon system. Therefore there needs to be a better solution than having a minimum range; hell I'll even accept a halved max range just to get rid of the minimum.Though that's not really a fair trade as no one should be using ATMs past 500ish meters anyways.

[dwwolf]

Falloff from 120 to 0 meters.

No face hugging ATMs.
Much more workable shortrange fire power.

[Tarl Cabot]

Example of Doritos range (center of mech) and crosshair on a part of the mech.

Atlas - Dorito (center of mech) 96m whereas the crosshair on the arm/shoulders is 89m, a 7m difference. If using a PPC no damage would be generated. And the reverse too, at max range, the Dorito range will be shorter than the body parts on the other side.

ROFL.. finished reading the actual thread this pic came from... ROFL... oh mine.. The OP of the thread was a good sport at the end though...

https://mwomercs.com...tlas-erroneous/

With that said, minimum ranges - no damage should be removed. Depending on weapon PGI can decide what type of damage curve to give it.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 07 October 2018 - 08:58 AM.

[Phyrce]

Khobai, on 23 October 2017 - 07:19 AM, said:

ATM min range should be 0 and it should do less damage per missile

having a min range on ATMs defeats the purpose of the missile system which is to be versatile and good at all ranges

Steve Pryde, on 23 October 2017 - 07:27 AM, said:

+reduce max range to 500-600m, maybe slight velocity buff to 250-300 (still slower than MRMs).

Sooo.... Make SRMs obsolete?

[Viking Yelling]

Savage Wolf, on 23 October 2017 - 06:51 AM, said:

Also supposed to be switch ammo, but can't. And without a minimum they would be incredibly overpowered in MWO... well until everyone mounted AMS. Anywho, 120m is a good compromise.

I still think PGI should make ATM 3 & 6 have no minimum, and no long range.

So few use ATM because LRM are better out side of 400m and SRM/streaks have no minimum and can have almost 300m range with skill tree.
PGI wont change ATM for better close range because it so powerful, and acts like and does better than streaks/srm at close range.

It's really messed up, but its the only new tech added for clans.

[Armored Yokai]

What is the min range of rocket launchers?

50m? 90m?

Edited by Armored Yokai, 07 October 2018 - 02:06 PM.

[SCUD303]

On testing grounds I did damage up to 122 metres.

[Chortles]

If minimum range was removed from ATMs, what would be the purpose of Streak SRMs? An ATM-12 weighs 7 tons while two CSSRM-6 weigh 9 tons. ATMs aim center mass like LRMs while Streaks has the forced spread.