55 replies to this topic

[Variant1]

Uhtred the Pagan, on 07 February 2018 - 10:08 PM, said:

One 0.5 tonnage equipment countering 15 tons of equipment(2 ATM12 + 1 probe).

Its not normal that one mech with one AMS can make an ATM mech useless. With 3-4 mechs having ONE AMS each in opposing team counters COMPLETELY an ATM mech, and multiple ATM mechs if theires more than one.

actualy ams weighs 1 ton, the equipment itself weighs .5 ton but it cant fire without ammo so it automatically weight 1+ ton depending on how much ammo is added. the min weight for an ams would be 1 ton (.5 ton ammo) which would mean the ams hass only 1000 rounds before it runs out. depening on how much ammo the mech that carries has it might run out real quick if its only .5 ton of ammo no longer being able to defend its user once it runs dry. A lams on the other hand is 1.5 tons but its drawback is heat generation. in the end it really depends on the matchmaker, if matchmaker brings in 1 ams then its not going to be a problem that much for atms/lrms. but if mm brings alot of ams on one team then it will be a problem for atms/lrms.

[VonBruinwald]

ramp4ge, on 08 February 2018 - 08:33 AM, said:

Between 120m and <300m, with the skill nodes.

Anywhere outside the perfect range and the ATM is one of two things.

1) Completely useless

...

to have someone simply face-tank your missiles as they rush in under 120 yards and completely negate everything you brought to the table is kind of ridiculous.

Now you know how that LRM Atlas feels.

Two things need to happen before we even consider removing ATM minimum range.

1 ~ Remove the minimum range on IS LRM's
2 ~ Remove the minimum range on Rocket Launchers

If you want clan lights to be able to run around and fire a weapon with 36pts of lock-on damage and no minimum range you better be advocate for letting IS lights doing the same with a one shot equivalent that has no ability to lock..

[Gen Lee]

While this is an old thread, changes to the game have been made since the post in February, and I think another look at ATMs is now warranted. Before the August patch that nerfed the lock-on cone, Artemis, and ATMs, I was fine with ATMs as they were, and I wasn't even selecting Artemis in Mech Lab while using ANY missiles (I thought Artemis was useless when using ATMs, just like PGI had been stating for years).

After they realized there was a bug, and that the easiest way to fix it was to pretty much remove all bonuses from Artemis (and in doing so, the Artemis bonuses inherent to ATMs as well), I think ATMs need more love now. There is absolutely no reason to even use Artemis on anything now, seeing as the only bonus they afford is a pathetic decrease in missile spread, due to the two nerfs Artemis was handed regarding missile spread, once last year, and once this year.

Now, the lock-on time, even with TAG, is 5 seconds if the mech you're targeting is under ECM protection, and that's if the target is TAGged without breaking contact with the laser. That wouldn't be too much of a problem if it were not for the fact that ATMs work best up close, where staring at your target can get you wrecked in the time it takes to get that lock.

If you dumbfire ATMs at a stationary target, they do not group the same as when fired with a lock, so they land with more spread than with said lock. If the target happens to be a fast-moving light at ~350m or less (inside the sweet spot), the missiles won't even touch the target if they are moving perpendicular to you at speed, landing instead behind the target. If ATMs are fired at long range, one AMS nearly nullifies even 24 ATM missiles (not that waste ATMs that way).

If fired at an AMS-carrying target at mid-range, one AMS still has the ability to pretty much make 24 ATMs ineffective. Sure, the missiles that do hit still do 2 damage each, but the AMS has time to destroy more of those missiles than at close range, greatly reducing the amount of damage done. Factor in the lower count of missiles, the extra heat, and the longer cooldowns as opposed to LRMs, and you find yourself with a much more situational missile system that underperforms in many cases, and is only effective in certain scenarios that have recently have had more risk added to them.

I think we can all agree that since the August patch, ATMs need reworking. Hell, even PGI has said they will be looking into that. Now, I can understand some peoples' feelings about LRMs, but we're not talking about LRMs. This is a different missile system entirely, one that I feel has been nerfed in too many ways. I've seen some people say "use real weapons". Fine, so we just get rid of LRMs and ATMs, people start boating lasers until they are nerfed into the ground, and then ballistics becomes the go-to for everyone.

That's not going to make the game any more fun, especially considering the wonky hitreg this game tends to have sometimes regarding projectiles. Shoot, that's one reason I won't use any PPCs, because it's too much heat and cooldown for a chance to see your shot find its mark with no damage to show for it.

Edited by Gen Lee, 24 September 2018 - 12:56 PM.

[Khobai]

they need to get rid of damage deadzones on all weapons

no weapon should do 0 damage under a certain range

[Gen Lee]

Khobai, on 24 September 2018 - 12:57 PM, said:

they need to get rid of damage deadzones on all weapons

no weapon should do 0 damage under a certain range

Actually, there are reasons, both in lore and real life, why many weapon systems don't do any, or should I say designed, damage within a minimum range. One is to keep armed warheads from exploding inside their housings. Another is to prevent shots from being fired inside the kill-zone. A 40mm grenade has to spin a certain number of times before it will arm, to keep it from exploding inside an unsafe range. Sure, that round will hurt if it hits you in the chest, but it's going to do a lot more damage once it's at a safe distance from the person that fired it. PPCs have a minimum range to keep the system from frying itself and the mech that fired them.

Edited by Gen Lee, 24 September 2018 - 01:05 PM.

[Viking Yelling]

This is why I took the engine out of my MCII-4. I like to run it with a sorta for-fun build, with 4 light tag, w/ 2x ATM-9 and 2x ATM-12. Probe and a targeting computer. Spread quirks, the works.

Had a Hunchback with one Reg-AMS (it's possible another AMS was in range) counter most of an alpha strike from 300-400m.
Didnt even change any of its armor readout color.

Advanced Tactical Missiles are kinda one of my favorite weapon systems, and you can just, literally see how cheesy it was implemented in MWO.

[Khobai]

Gen Lee, on 24 September 2018 - 01:03 PM, said:

Actually, there are reasons, both in lore and real life, why many weapon systems don't do any, or should I say designed, damage within a minimum range. One is to keep armed warheads from exploding inside their housings. Another is to prevent shots from being fired inside the kill-zone. A 40mm grenade has to spin a certain number of times before it will arm, to keep it from exploding inside an unsafe range. Sure, that round will hurt if it hits you in the chest, but it's going to do a lot more damage once it's at a safe distance from the person that fired it. PPCs have a minimum range to keep the system from frying itself and the mech that fired them.

Games arnt supposed to be like real life, because real life isnt fun, thats why people play games to escape real life and have fun.

So again... there should be no 0 damage deadzones on any weapons. Its not a fun game mechanic.

And ATMs especially shouldnt have a zero damage deadzone because ATMs doing less damage than LRMs under 120m is completely dumb. ATMs are supposed to be better than LRMs under 120m.

Edited by Khobai, 24 September 2018 - 04:57 PM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Gen Lee, on 24 September 2018 - 01:03 PM, said:

Actually, there are reasons, both in lore and real life, why many weapon systems don't do any, or should I say designed, damage within a minimum range. One is to keep armed warheads from exploding inside their housings. Another is to prevent shots from being fired inside the kill-zone. A 40mm grenade has to spin a certain number of times before it will arm, to keep it from exploding inside an unsafe range. Sure, that round will hurt if it hits you in the chest, but it's going to do a lot more damage once it's at a safe distance from the person that fired it. PPCs have a minimum range to keep the system from frying itself and the mech that fired them.

This only really makes sense for LRMs if they had a big enough splash radius to damage the shooter if fired at close range, but that isn't the case for BattleTech's LRMs.

[Pariah Devalis]

I'm just miffed that a single 3x AMS mech can totally shut down salvos from 24 ATM, even at close range. 1.5 tons of equip plus 1-3 tons of ammo shutting down 14 tons of weapon and at least six tons of ammo to feed it just screams bogus. I've lost count of the number of times I've fired ATM only to see each and every one of them explode before getting 20 meters past my cockpit. You wanna talk anti-fun? A relatively minor investment in defensive technology can completely shut down an entire mech's primary weapon systems.

I'd be fine if it was, say, a 50% loss of damage output, because at least the ATM platform can do something considering how bloody hot they are, how heavy they are, how ammo inefficient they are, and how much sustained exposure is required. But when a single light or medium mech can not only shut down a heavy or an assault completely, but still have its own primary weapons chugging along happily, there is a very unequal trade here.

Scaling damage drop off should probably exist for all weapons with a minimum range, either in a way similar to how C-LRM function or in a straight linear rate of decay. IS LRM and PPC included. Hell, even in TT, it wasn't that the PPC couldn't do damage, you just had to disable safety mechanisms and risk harming yourself in the process - and I think high heat for the damage generated is a form of self harm, but at least it gives the player some sort of option.

Further, in conjunction, yes. I strongly think ATM should have an HP boost per missile. 1.5? 2? I don't know. Should probably be tested, but considering how easy it is to shut down massed ATM completely either by a single multi-AMS mech, or by two mechs that just so happen to have AMS equipped, and all the various downsides that ATM have beyond even LRM when it comes to exposure time, trajectory, heat, weight, ammo inefficiency, and - another less spoken issue - a propensity to accidentally annihilate friendly mechs that decide to jump in your way at the last second... I'd lean closer to 2, and scale it down as needed to strike the balance. There is high risk in using the system that doesn't pay off in any sort of reward the moment there are just two or more AMS in your general proximity.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 24 September 2018 - 06:12 PM.

[Jack Dawes]

ramp4ge, on 08 February 2018 - 09:40 AM, said:

The problem is though that once you step outside that minimum range, the ATM becomes a guided missile that still does 3/2/1 damage out to over 1,000 meters. It basically becomes the go-to all-in-one missile, which is kind of what it was designed to do (in tabletop) but they can't have that in this game because it'd instantly obsolete Streaks and SRMs, and maybe even LRMs in many cases. And for better or worse, this game seems to think that no weapons system can completely obsolete another weapons system, even though they kind of already have that with ACs vs UACs.. I used the analogy in another thread. You get this problem when you literally have generational advances in weapons all forced to cooperate without obsoleting eachother even when some weapons were developed to obsolete others. It'd be like having a flight sim with a Sopwith Camel and an F-15, and then forcing them to find parity because the F-15 isn't allowed to obsolete the Sopwith Camel.

While I understand the concept, the game and its lore would contradict that. Not that I'm a lore fanatic. But how many mechs would you render completely useless in the game because they aren't omnimechs just to satisfy the lust for OP?

[Gen Lee]

Khobai, on 24 September 2018 - 04:55 PM, said:

Games arnt supposed to be like real life, because real life isnt fun, thats why people play games to escape real life and have fun.

So again... there should be no 0 damage deadzones on any weapons. Its not a fun game mechanic.

And ATMs especially shouldnt have a zero damage deadzone because ATMs doing less damage than LRMs under 120m is completely dumb. ATMs are supposed to be better than LRMs under 120m.

That's why I also mentioned the Battletech lore. There are missiles that, in lore, can have their warheads manually armed in the housing to hit targets at close range at the risk of having them detonate inside their housing should they be damaged by enemy fire or whatever. PGI can't code that into the game, so minimum range for missiles makes some sense. Maybe lowering the minimum range for ATMs to 90m could be something they could look into. As for PPCs, there's also a reason there why they have a minimum range, to keep from frying the pilot's own mech with energy feedback at close range.

Kaeb Odellas, on 24 September 2018 - 04:58 PM, said:

This only really makes sense for LRMs if they had a big enough splash radius to damage the shooter if fired at close range, but that isn't the case for BattleTech's LRMs.

The reason is probably so they don't detonate in their housing, like real missiles. They are trying to keep to lore while coding what they can into the game. Don't expect the devs to start rewriting entire mechanisms to account for every little thing this late in the game. I don't know a whole lot about Battletech lore, but from what I've read about some missiles, this is the best they can code and still make sense without creating a headache for themselves and the players.

[Khobai]

Gen Lee, on 24 September 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

That's why I also mentioned the Battletech lore. There are missiles that, in lore, can have their warheads manually armed in the housing to hit targets at close range at the risk of having them detonate inside their housing should they be damaged by enemy fire or whatever.

not really seeing your point

the Gauss Rifle, AC5, and AC2 all have min ranges in battletech too. yet they dont have min ranges in MWO.

min range is arbitrarily enforced as is. since min range already isnt enforced on a lot of weapons, theres absolutely no need to enforce min range on missiles either. in fact theres no reason to enforce it on any weapon because its entirely arbitrary and not a fun game mechanic anyway.

ATMs should not have a zero damage deadzone. Neither should LRMs. neither should PPCs. Zero damage deadzones add nothing beneficial to the game whatsoever and it only detracts from those weapons being more fun.

Quote

because it'd instantly obsolete Streaks and SRMs

no one is saying ATMs have to do 3 damage under 120m. But they certainly shouldnt do 0 damage.

ATMs could do 1 damage per missile under 120m and be perfectly fine. They would still be inferior to SRMs.

Edited by Khobai, 24 September 2018 - 07:54 PM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Gen Lee, on 24 September 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

The reason is probably so they don't detonate in their housing, like real missiles. They are trying to keep to lore while coding what they can into the game. Don't expect the devs to start rewriting entire mechanisms to account for every little thing this late in the game. I don't know a whole lot about Battletech lore, but from what I've read about some missiles, this is the best they can code and still make sense without creating a headache for themselves and the players.

You don't need to give missiles a 120 or 180 meter minimum range to keep them from blowing up in the launcher. 20 meters will suffice.

[SCHLIMMER BESTIMMER XXX]

S t P a u l, on 24 September 2018 - 11:24 AM, said:

100% of your missiles deserve to be shot down.

pls explain

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

thing is: right atm, ATMs are in a bad-ish state;

ecm is a thing again, ams is everywhere thx to the constant buffing of lurms; first makes life harder for the atm-guy, while 2-3 ams just shut him down.
I like(d) the weapons, but right now you're punishing yourself by taking-them-and-not-lurms. lurms are way easier to use and spam, thus also harder to counter purely via AMS.

don't get me wrong: each time I take out my atm-hunchie or huntsman, I'm having fun.
but the numbers say: "should have taken lurms for more dmg and less work." which is kinda meh.

Edited by Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, 26 September 2018 - 07:48 AM.

[Gen Lee]

Has anyone even heard the devs mention anything about LRMs, ATMs, or Streaks since the August patch where they all but removed Artemis from the game, the lock-on times, ECM buffs and how that has affected ATMs and possibly Streaks? I remember Chris mentioned in a post that they would be looking into it, and possibly reworking some stuff WRT ATMs due to their built-in Artemis bonuses being all but removed.