116 replies to this topic

[Zergling]

More testings:

SRM6 with Artemis firing at the Atlas on Crimson Strait testing ground at 10 meters range.
Takes 102 missiles / 204 damage / 17x SRM6 firings to kill.

SRM6 with Artemis, firing at the Atlas on Crimson Strait testing ground at 100 meters range.
Takes 186 missiles / 372 damage / 31x SRM6 firings to kill.

SRM6 with Artemis, firing at the Atlas on Crimson Strait testing ground at 200 meters range.
Takes 216 missiles / 432 damage / 36x SRM6 firings to kill.

SRM6 with Artemis, firing at the Atlas on Crimson Strait testing ground at 270 meters range.
Takes 204 missiles / 432 damage / 36x SRM6 firings to kill.

ATM6, firing at the Atlas on Crimson Strait testing ground at 120 meters range.
Takes 120 missiles / 360 damage / 20x ATM6 firings to kill.

ATM6, firing at the Atlas on Crimson Strait testing ground at 200 meters range.
Takes 114 missiles / 342 damage / 19x ATM6 firings to kill.

ATM6, firing at the Atlas on Crimson Strait testing ground at 270 meters range.
Takes 126 missiles / 378 damage / 21x ATM6 firings to kill.


So I'll average out the SRM6 in 100-270 meters to 200 missiles / 33x SRM6 firings, and ATM6 in 120-270 meters to 120 missiles / 20x ATM6 firings.

Time to fire 17x cSRM6 = 68 seconds
Time to fire 33x cSRM6 = 132 seconds
Time to fire 20x ATM6 = 100 seconds.

However, a cASRM6 weighs 2.5 tons versus ATM6 at 3.5 tons; if I adjust aASRM6 firepower upwards by 40% to account for weight difference, it'd kill the Atlas at 100-270 meters range in 94 seconds, barely beating the ATM6's 100 seconds.

So the ATM6 is somewhat competitive in TTK with cASRM6s at 100-270 meters range, only being seriously outclassed at point blank range where the SRMs can focus to a much greater extent.
This is probably the reason ATMs have a minimum range; to prevent ATMs competing with SRMs in point blank brawling range.


This is the strengths of ATMs; they are a serious threat at close range (just not point blank due to minimum range) while still being able to do some damage at mid ranges (their long range damage is crap and hardly worth mentioning).

Edited by Zergling, 01 May 2018 - 06:35 AM.

[Kroete]

You missed the 0-120m test if you want to compare srms and atms and missed also the ams effect again.

If you want to compare something you need to compare all aspects to get a meaningfull comparsion ...

Even if we would let out the 0-120m test, a single ams would change your test a lot, and even if you would only take 1/4 of the ams effect (lets say we have an average of 3ams a match) it would change your test too.

[Zergling]

Kroete, on 01 May 2018 - 03:41 AM, said:

You missed the 0-120m test if you want to compare srms and atms

Luls, I'm sure firing ATMs inside their deadzone is a useful test.

Edited by Zergling, 01 May 2018 - 06:35 AM.

[Tesunie]

Zergling, on 30 April 2018 - 10:27 PM, said:

More testings:

SRM6 with Artemis firing at the Atlas on Crimson Strait testing ground at 10 meters range.
Takes 102 missiles / 204 damage / 17x SRM6 firings to kill.

SRM6 with Artemis, firing at the Atlas on Crimson Strait testing ground at 100 meters range.
Takes 186 missiles / 372 damage / 31x SRM6 firings to kill.

SRM6 with Artemis, firing at the Atlas on Crimson Strait testing ground at 200 meters range.
Takes 216 missiles / 432 damage / 36x SRM6 firings to kill.

SRM6 with Artemis, firing at the Atlas on Crimson Strait testing ground at 270 meters range.
Takes 204 missiles / 432 damage / 36x SRM6 firings to kill.

ATM6, firing at the Atlas on Crimson Strait testing ground at 120 meters range.
Takes 120 missiles / 360 damage / 20x ATM6 firings to kill.

ATM6, firing at the Atlas on Crimson Strait testing ground at 200 meters range.
Takes 114 missiles / 342 damage / 19x ATM6 firings to kill.

ATM6, firing at the Atlas on Crimson Strait testing ground at 270 meters range.
Takes 126 missiles / 378 damage / 21x ATM6 firings to kill.


So I'll average out the SRM6 in 100-270 meters to 200 missiles / 33x SRM6 firings, and ATM6 in 120-270 meters to 120 missiles / 20x ATM6 firings.

Time to fire 17x cSRM6 = 68 seconds
Time to fire 33x cSRM6 = 132 seconds
Time to fire 20x ATM6 = 100 seconds.

However, a cASRM6 weighs 2.5 tons versus ATM6 at 3.5 tons; if I adjust aASRM6 firepower upwards by 40% to account for weight difference, it'd kill the Atlas at 100-270 meters range in 94 seconds, barely beating the ATM6's 100 seconds.

So the ATM6 is somewhat competitive in TTK with cASRM6s at 100-270 meters range, only being seriously outclassed at point blank range where the SRMs can focus to a much greater extent.
This is probably the reason ATMs have a minimum range; to prevent ATMs competing with SRMs in point blank brawling range.


This is the strengths of ATMs; they are a serious threat at close range (just not point blank due to minimum range) while still being able to do some damage at mid ranges (their long range damage is crap and hardly worth mentioning).

Were we not just talking about SSRMs and LRMs? Why is this testing now about SRMs or ASRMs?

Never argued the strengths of ATMs, within their strength. What about not in their full strength?

Oh, and why compared to ATM6s... when there are ATM3s that may be closer to the proper wait.


I mean, I could make comparisons with LRMs talking about only indirect fire mode. I kill the mech in X time after dealing X damage. Meanwhile, my (insert other weapon here) shot uncountable shots, into a wall, and well... LRMs are best weapon. However, if you noticed in ALL the posts I did, I never tried to do that, and I have never once said LRMs are best weapon. They are reasonable, if not used in the traditional sense too many people use them in (which is why I say I can not be held responsible for how others use LRMs).

FYI: Your data is very messed up... Interesting to look at, but proves very little to your own argument.

Zergling, on 01 May 2018 - 06:35 AM, said:

Luls, I'm sure firing ATMs inside their deadzone is a useful test.

That is the point. It would be useless, we know. But we just want a recognition that ATMs do have that weak point when mentioning test results.

[Tesunie]

SRM6 takes up 1.5 tons and 1 crit without Artemis.
ASRM6 takes up 2.5 tons and 2 crits.
ASRM4 takes up 2 tons and 2 crits.

ATM6s (your test) takes up 3.5 tons and 4 Crits.
ATM3s (what you should have tested) takes up 1.5 tons and 3 crits.

We still remain with a bit tonnage difference at times, and always with a crit difference between the two. So your tests should have been the SRM6 vs the ATM3 (same tonnage) with notation on crit differences. Or ASRM4s vs ATM3s with notation of tonnage difference for the SRMs and crit difference for the ATMs.

So, again, why were you testing SRM6s vs ATM6s?


I'll go out on a limb again here and also presume that you tested on the same mech with the same skills and the same hard points. But once again, was hard point location considered? SRMs placed on different arms will actually spread more than SRMs placed on the same component.

So even if we were testing SRM values, your previous test still looks incomplete. Interesting data and appreciated that you took the work to do it, but it's still lacking.

[Kroete]

Zergling, on 01 May 2018 - 06:35 AM, said:

Luls, I'm sure firing ATMs inside their deadzone is a useful test.

If you want to compare atms with srms? Sure
But if you want alduterated results that cater your opinion ...

[Zergling]

Kroete, on 01 May 2018 - 07:50 AM, said:

If you want to compare atms with srms? Sure
But if you want alduterated results that cater your opinion ...

Lol, just lol. Comparing ATMs to SRMs at under 120 meters range is A: stupid and B: a waste of time, 'cause everyone knows very well that it doesn't take much to beat a weapon doing zero damage.

If you'd actually read my post, I was comparing ATMs versus SRMs at greater ranges than point blank, which is also the 3 damage bracket for ATMs.
And my testing showed ATMs can actually compete well with cASRMs in TTK against a stationary target.

That doesn't mean ATMs are are as good as SRMs in that range bracket, because SRMs have a bunch of other obvious advantages I shouldn't need to state, which clearly make SRMs the superior close range weapon overall.
But ATMs also have the advantage of being able to do damage at longer range than SRMs, so they aren't inferior to SRMs either.

Edited by Zergling, 01 May 2018 - 08:04 AM.

[Tesunie]

Take a weapon within it's known weaker points. Then compare to a weapon in it's known stronger points. Then, to top it off, take the weapon in it's stronger point with a tonnage and crit advantage...

Yup. Sounds like perfect logic.

We are still comparing ATM6s to SRM6s, despite ATM3s being a better comparison, right?

[Zergling]

Went and ran my Hunchback IIC-B, which didn't have any weapon skill tree nodes to begin with, with ATMs... and I'm loling at how much better ATMs are than LRMs.

Ended up with 1.0 Wins/Losses, 1.5 kills/death, 0.9 kills/battle, 344 average matchscore and 502 average damage for the 10 battles I played, despite not putting any serious effort in to play well... and after I was done I discovered I'd been playing on the EU server with 400 ms ping, just luls.

Oh and Kroete? After some thought, I've realised you aren't interested in having an intelligent discussion, so you can join Tesunie on ignore list.

[Tesunie]

I have a feeling that, someone wants to "ignore" me, yet also just made a post to try and provoke me...
I will say, hey man, if you are enjoying ATMs, then by all means use them. This is a game after all. Play what you enjoy and feel you do well in.

Then again, I never refuted ATM effectiveness. They can be a good weapon system to use.

[Throe]

[deleted by user]

Edited by Throe, 09 June 2022 - 09:51 AM.

[Dragonporn]

While tests are pretty educational, so thanks for performing them, I think they miss a bit of a missile role here. Comparing sheer damage and TTK at certain ranges, shooting standing still Atlas in the face is not really what SRMs are mostly good at and picked for, unlike ATMs (probably). Thing is, having mobile mech, which can hug and circle opponent delivering nasty shots in rear CT f.e. is what both S-SRMs and SRMs are good at, even MRMs can perform here quite well, though they are more of a sandblasting type of weapon system, to strip away armor to make surgical strikes to components with direct fore weapons, unlike ATMs. Keep in mind that brawling very often comes to point blank, and this is very hard, or nigh impossible to stay at needed range for ATMs to be effective, as well as ranged combat, where ATMs simply have no velocity, speed or arc to reliably deliver payload on long distances. Pure damage potential is there, no argument here, but there are some downsides which can be obvious in regular matches and situations, which led some of us to believe why one weapon system is inferior or preferable to another. I've already listed: speed, hp and number of projectiles, the rest is up to ones taste I guess.

[Tesunie]

Been playing my ATM Huntsmen strictly tonight in my Unit practices. I don't mind ATMs at all, but I do find that they are very hot, take a lot of crits (makes them harder to build with) and have long cool down times. Overall, I felt I got about the same results as I would have with my LRM Huntsmen... or about similar results as I would have expected from my LRM Huntsmen.

Each weapon is fairly good, but do carry slightly different roles and require different ways of playing them. LRMs you typically will stay more at mid ranges, bobbing and poking as needed. ATMs you tend to want to get into that closer range and try to maintain it, with some shots at mid range occasionally. Each are good within their roles, especially if one is willing to work within the weapon systems and compensate for their weaknesses while working towards their strengths. But that's fairly typical for just about anything in the game...

[Zergling]

Dragonporn, on 01 May 2018 - 04:56 PM, said:

While tests are pretty educational, so thanks for performing them, I think they miss a bit of a missile role here. Comparing sheer damage and TTK at certain ranges, shooting standing still Atlas in the face is not really what SRMs are mostly good at and picked for, unlike ATMs (probably). Thing is, having mobile mech, which can hug and circle opponent delivering nasty shots in rear CT f.e. is what both S-SRMs and SRMs are good at, even MRMs can perform here quite well, though they are more of a sandblasting type of weapon system, to strip away armor to make surgical strikes to components with direct fore weapons, unlike ATMs. Keep in mind that brawling very often comes to point blank, and this is very hard, or nigh impossible to stay at needed range for ATMs to be effective, as well as ranged combat, where ATMs simply have no velocity, speed or arc to reliably deliver payload on long distances. Pure damage potential is there, no argument here, but there are some downsides which can be obvious in regular matches and situations, which led some of us to believe why one weapon system is inferior or preferable to another. I've already listed: speed, hp and number of projectiles, the rest is up to ones taste I guess.

While I agree that SRMs are definitely better overall than ATMs at short range, Streak SRMs are seriously bad at killing anything other than lights and maybe mediums.
ATMs aren't bad at short range though; they just aren't quite as good as SRMs. In return for being weaker than SRMs, they are able to do damage at longer ranges than SRMs.

Throe, on 01 May 2018 - 04:40 PM, said:

I just think this thread is kind of funny because we have a guy who was pretty bold in lambasting LRMs now saying ATMs are competitive with SRMs

Gee, yet another person that can't understand context. If you read my post again with an understanding of context, you'll see that I specifically said ATMs are competitive with SRMs ONLY compared to SRMs firing at ranges where they cannot focus damage well (100+ meters), and only in terms of time-to-kill/TTK.

It is plainly obvious that ATMs are overall inferior to SRMs at short range combat, because SRMs don't have a minimum range, and at point blank range they focus damage insanely well.
To compensate for ATM inferiority at short range combat, they have the ability to do damage beyond 270 meters; they sacrifice raw damage for more versatility.

LRMs sacrifice even more damage output than ATMs for further versatility, but they end up garbage as a result.
Go look at current 12v12 QP and FP battles where there's tons of players using LRMs because of the velocity buff; the team that has the most LRM users is vastly more likely to lose, simply because LRMs suck.

Throe, on 01 May 2018 - 04:40 PM, said:

when we've also seen plenty of proof that LRMs and ATMs are comparable in terms of actual performance.

Lol, no they aren't; ATMs are far superior in actual performance. Only players that fail at ATM usage think LRMs are at all comparable or superior to ATMs.

ATMs are basically Clan MRMs; they are best used at close range, but have the ability to still do damage at longer ranges. They are weaker than SRMs at close range in exchange for that ability to do damage beyond 270 meters.
Anyone that goes in trying to use ATMs like LRMs is going to fail hard, which explains why lurm warriors think they suck.


Like, compare ATMs to MRMs; ATMs get higher alpha damage, equivalent to better DPS/ton at mid ranges (and waaaaaaay better at 120-270 meters), better spread, higher damage/heat.
On the flip side, MRMs don't need to lock on, don't have a minimum range and have lower heat/second.

MRMs are a good weapon system, combining brawling ability with the ability to still do damage at mid-ranges. ATMs are pretty much the same deal, but so many lurm warriors can't think of them as anything other than bad LRMs, because they require a different play style that they suck at.

Edited by Zergling, 01 May 2018 - 10:53 PM.

[Tesunie]

Zergling, on 01 May 2018 - 10:26 PM, said:

the team that has the most LRM users is vastly more likely to lose, simply because LRMs suck.

And yet, you still wish to deny my 1.2 W/L average with my LRM builds. (Builds and stats already posted, for basically all qualifying mechs of 40+ matches I could find.)

Zergling, on 01 May 2018 - 10:26 PM, said:

Only players that fail at ATM usage think LRMs are at all comparable to ATMs.

They are comparable. They have similar mechanics, but perform slightly different roles. Depending upon how you use them...

Personally speaking, I already commented that I have two "mirrored" Huntsmen, each have 4 ERMLs then they differ from there with one having LRM15s and the other one ATM9s. I actually get very similar performance ratios through actual stats (though the ATMs have fewer matches so a less informative data as of yet).

Also, I seem to be able to use ATMs just fine...

Zergling, on 01 May 2018 - 10:26 PM, said:

Only players that fail at ATM usage think LRMs are at all superior to ATMs.

And if you even think for a moment that anyone here has made such a claim (especially if you are hinting at me), then seriously read everything I wrote again. I have not implied this at all. Not even once. Go ahead and quote me saying otherwise if you wish to try. You can even look across the entire forum outside this thread. You wont see me saying that.

Different doesn't mean superior. It means different is different.

[Kroete]

Tesunie, on 02 May 2018 - 07:34 PM, said:

Different doesn't mean superior. It means different is different.

Missiles in themselfs are all nearly balanced, have all their weakness and strenghs and useability.
There is no best missile, but there is the best missile for that use.

Even streak 2 are useable,
had some fun with a bsw with 4x streak2 (chainfire!), 2 mls and ams,
Sounds strange, but works in scouting, not that bad in solaris and is fun in qp.

[Pain G0D]

I would like to mention my King Crab has LURMED a few suckers to death in Solaris .