116 replies to this topic

[BTGbullseye]

Just an FYI, if you're going to compare ATMs and LRMs, you should compare them based around the damage per ton, and per heat.

At Equal Tonnage: LRMs are superior damage to ATMs at all but the 90m range where ATMs do 3 damage.
At Equal Heat: LRMs are superior damage at all ranges.

ATMs have slightly higher velocity, and a flatter trajectory. Their only usage case is in midrange brawling, or underneath cover that you can't get LRMs to hit under.

LRMs fire more missiles, does more damage on average, can do indirect fire, are cooler, and are lighter. Their usage case is whenever something's not under cover.

LRMs are superior to ATMs in MOST circumstances.

[ExoForce]

Do not fire LRMs until You hear second click on Target Lock.

If it is matter of life and death - fire all, let the god sort them out.

[Zergling]

BTGbullseye, on 24 April 2018 - 01:47 PM, said:

Just an FYI, if you're going to compare ATMs and LRMs, you should compare them based around the damage per ton, and per heat.

At Equal Tonnage: LRMs are superior damage to ATMs at all but the 90m range where ATMs do 3 damage.
At Equal Heat: LRMs are superior damage at all ranges.

ATMs have slightly higher velocity, and a flatter trajectory. Their only usage case is in midrange brawling, or underneath cover that you can't get LRMs to hit under.

LRMs fire more missiles, does more damage on average, can do indirect fire, are cooler, and are lighter. Their usage case is whenever something's not under cover.

LRMs are superior to ATMs in MOST circumstances.

It's a 150 meter bracket between 120 and 270 meters where ATMs do 3 damage, not 90 meters.


If it weren't for ATMs doing 3 damage in that bracket, then they would comparable to Artemis LRMs; they'd have slightly lower DPS/ton ratings with only slightly better spread (3.7 for ATM9/12 vs 3.9 for ALRM15/20).

Eg, here's DPS/ton for ATMs vs cALRMs, with ATMs at 2 damage per missile:
ATM3 = 0.80
ATM6 = 0.69
ATM9 = 0.72
ATM12 = 0.69

cLRM5 = 0.71
cLRM10 = 0.71
cLRM15 = 0.78
cLRM20 = 0.72

So apart from the ATM3, they are inferior in DPS/ton.


But that 3 damage bracket is what makes them considerably better. Sure they won't be firing in that bracket ALL the time, but the will be firing in it enough to bump up their DPS/ton ratings to be considerably higher than cALRMs.

Eg, my lowest damage/hit rating with ATM launchers (the 9) is 2.53 per hit.

At 2.53 damage per missile, this is the DPS/ton for the ATMs:
ATM3 = 1.01
ATM6 = 0.87
ATM9 = 0.91
ATM12 = 0.87

At that point, all ATM launchers are superior to Artemis LRMs.


Overall, ATMs are superior by a large margin to cALRMs in direct fire; if you don't find them to be superior, then you are just using them wrong.

[Kroete]

Zergling, on 24 April 2018 - 02:57 PM, said:

Overall, ATMs are superior by a large margin to cALRMs in direct fire; if you don't find them to be superior, then you are just using them wrong.

10% is not a large margin
and only if you fire at the optimal range,
but then you need to compare them with srms/ssrms, not lrms.

If you want to compare atms and lrms, you need to take the 2 damage braket as average .
And maybe you should also count ams into your comparement?

ATMs get a big hit with the arc-nerf,
now both have their uses,
atms for more frontline and low range use,
lrms for midrange and going over obstacles.

With the speed-buff of the lrms,
they now work even better together to get your atms through some ams.

[Zergling]

Kroete, on 25 April 2018 - 12:42 AM, said:

10% is not a large margin
and only if you fire at the optimal range,

At optimal range, it is more like a 43% DPS/ton advantage for ATM12 vs cALRM20, and 38% DPS/ton advantage for ATM9 vs cALRM15.
That is very much a 'large margin'.

Kroete, on 25 April 2018 - 12:42 AM, said:

but then you need to compare them with srms/ssrms, not lrms.

SRMs don't lock and more of a 0-100 meter range brawling weapon, so don't compare to a 120-270 meter optimal range with lock on ATM launcher.

Streak SRMs have an absurd limb seeking spread pattern that means they are largely ineffective against heavy and assault mechs, so don't compare to ATMs at all.

Kroete, on 25 April 2018 - 12:42 AM, said:

If you want to compare atms and lrms, you need to take the 2 damage braket as average .

Nonsense, that completely ignores the best ability of ATMs.

Anyone that doesn't attempt to shoot their ATMs inside the 3 damage range bracket as much as possible is using ATMs the wrong way.

Kroete, on 25 April 2018 - 12:42 AM, said:

And maybe you should also count ams into your comparement?

AMS is rare outside of FP.

Kroete, on 25 April 2018 - 12:42 AM, said:

ATMs get a big hit with the arc-nerf,
now both have their uses,
atms for more frontline and low range use,
lrms for midrange and going over obstacles.

Indirect fire is the only use for LRMs, and that is an ability with fairly low value.

Kroete, on 25 April 2018 - 12:42 AM, said:

With the speed-buff of the lrms,
they now work even better together to get your atms through some ams.

Mixed builds are bad.

[Kroete]

Zergling, on 25 April 2018 - 04:11 AM, said:

At optimal range, it is more like a 43% DPS/ton advantage for ATM12 vs cALRM20, and 38% DPS/ton advantage for ATM9 vs cALRM15.
That is very much a 'large margin'.

You need to take all stats for a weapon to compare it.
Just taking your best stats but missing the other is no comparing.

Zergling, on 25 April 2018 - 04:11 AM, said:

SRMs don't lock and more of a 0-100 meter range brawling weapon, so don't compare to a 120-270 meter optimal range with lock on ATM launcher.

Streak SRMs have an absurd limb seeking spread pattern that means they are largely ineffective against heavy and assault mechs, so don't compare to ATMs at all.

If you want tro compare atms only using the 3 damage bucket you need them to compare them with other missiles in that range braket. Or you need to compare all range brakets if you compare them with lrms.

Zergling, on 25 April 2018 - 04:11 AM, said:

Nonsense, that completely ignores the best ability of ATMs.

Anyone that doesn't attempt to shoot their ATMs inside the 3 damage range bracket as much as possible is using ATMs the wrong way.

Then you need to compare them with other missiles in that range bracket only and thats srms and ssrms,
but then atms lose because the 120m minrange.

Zergling, on 25 April 2018 - 04:11 AM, said:

AMS is rare outside of FP.

You dont play qp often?

Zergling, on 25 April 2018 - 04:11 AM, said:

Indirect fire is the only use for LRMs, and that is an ability with fairly low value.

Do you realy think that binary?

Zergling, on 25 April 2018 - 04:11 AM, said:

Mixed builds are bad.

In tryhard and metawhore standarts,
but you can do good in qp with mixed builds,
at least other can do, if you cant.

[Zergling]

Kroete, on 26 April 2018 - 12:53 AM, said:

You need to take all stats for a weapon to compare it.
Just taking your best stats but missing the other is no comparing.

Which is why I compared LRMs vs ATMs at 2.53 damage per missile.

Kroete, on 26 April 2018 - 12:53 AM, said:

If you want tro compare atms only using the 3 damage bucket you need them to compare them with other missiles in that range braket. Or you need to compare all range brakets if you compare them with lrms.

There's no need to compare them at all range brackets vs LRMs, because only the short range bracket matters for determining just why they are superior.

Kroete, on 26 April 2018 - 12:53 AM, said:

Then you need to compare them with other missiles in that range bracket only and thats srms and ssrms,

but then atms lose because the 120m minrange.

ATMs don't lose at that range versus LRMs, which is the important thing.

SRMs are irrelevant to this discussion, because it is ATM vs LRM.

Kroete, on 26 April 2018 - 12:53 AM, said:

You dont play qp often?

Before Solaris, I played solo QP exclusively. AMS wasn't common in the Tier 1 battles I played; it only rarely had any noticable effect on my ATM usage.

Kroete, on 26 April 2018 - 12:53 AM, said:

Do you realy think that binary?

Yes. Indirect fire is literally the only reason to bother with LRMs at all, because in direct fire they are totally inferior to other weapons at all ranges.

And indirect fire is only a strong against bad teams.

Kroete, on 26 April 2018 - 12:53 AM, said:

In tryhard and metawhore standarts,
but you can do good in qp with mixed builds,
at least other can do, if you cant.

And here come the insults.

A mixed ATM/LRM build is better off ditching the LRMs entirely and going full ATM. LRMs are just a terrible weapon system against decent opposition.

[Tesunie]

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 01:41 AM, said:

Which is why I compared LRMs vs ATMs at 2.53 damage per missile.

Mathimatically speaking, that is still rather incorrect to do as an "average"/. That may be your average with the weapon, but the technical damage average is probably going to be either 2 or something closer to 2.1-2.2 to represent their poor abilities in the outer 1 damage range brackets.

You also have to consider the risk and difficulty of maintaining that "small" (comparatively) 3 damage range, without falling into that 120m dead zone or into the 2 damage zone.


Not to mention ammo count per ton, heat generated per ton, average range engagement, and... you keep making the folly of two things; That LRMs are only useful for indirect fire (which is untrue) and that you "must" take Artemis with LRMs (as every example you've presented has Artemis on it). LRMs can thus save a ton right there, which can then be placed into either more ammo OR maybe even more direct fire weapons. An advantage that LRMs can have over ATMs.

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 01:41 AM, said:

There's no need to compare them at all range brackets vs LRMs, because only the short range bracket matters for determining just why they are superior.

That only helps to determine their superiority within that small band of damage, and ignores the overall tactical flexibility and other strengths of some weapons. That would be like comparing LRMs to SRMs within 180m... which neglects the fact that LRMs can strike farther than 180m, where as SRMs really kinda can't.

It's also like pitting LRMs in a challenge. "Oh yeah, I'll show you why LRMs (or, honestly, insert any weapon here) are so bad. I'll 1v1 you to prove my point." This also leads to other issues, as now it's dependent on individual player skill against another, and it's very rare to have two players actually of perfectly equal skill. Then, with this situation on LRMs, it also then negates the entire part of the weapon that revolves around the use of other people's locks. Effectively, it cuts sections of the weapon's abilities out, and also distorts the end results, as not all aspects of a weapon are considered.

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 01:41 AM, said:

Yes. Indirect fire is literally the only reason to bother with LRMs at all, because in direct fire they are totally inferior to other weapons at all ranges.

And indirect fire is only a strong against bad teams.

I beg to differ on this. There are other aspects of the weapon you are neglecting to mention here. For one, something I "abuse" often with LRMs, and something else to make note with them. Jumping disrupts your reticule, but lock on weapons (which does include ATMs) don't care about weapon shake. (And yes, I know you can jump, let of of the JJ key, shoot, and then feather your fall... I do that too.)

Also, no one likes the warnings of "Incoming Missiles". Even "pro" players slink into cover for that as a typical. LRMs are a lighter and less crit intensive way to utilize this.

LRMs can also be very handy in slower mechs, as they are more likely to have problems drawing line of sight when the rest of their team is engaged. If they didn't boat the weapon system, they can do fairly well. You also have to consider that not everyone is "top tier competitive" players. We can (and will) play what we enjoy.

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 01:41 AM, said:

A mixed ATM/LRM build is better off ditching the LRMs entirely and going full ATM. LRMs are just a terrible weapon system against decent opposition.

I can't speak for mixed LRMs and ATMs, as I'd rather do one or the other instead of mixing the missile types, but I can see the mix being acceptable to help punch through AMS. Shoot the LRMs moments before letting loose with the ATMs. AMS will shoot the more numerous LRMs before touching the less numerous (and hopefully more damaging) ATMs. It's of.... limited potential... but it is there?

However, on the note of mixed builds, I'll comment that my LRM hybrid builds continually get me better results as an average over basically every other class of mech I've got. Even accounting for up to half of my LRM damage being dispersed and less useful (as in, I literally divide my LRM damage in half), those mechs still out perform my direct fire mechs. I have found that most matches, half my damage is direct fire weapons and the other half LRMs. Thus, I tend to divide my damage up so that 75% of my damage is classified as "effective", and it still out performs my direct fire only builds.

I'm sure you've seen them, but I can post those builds and their corresponding stats if desired, with all sorts of statistical numbers tossed in. Just ask.


Overall, my experiences with ATMs is that they aren't bad, but they aren't as tactically flexible as I find LRMs to be. Yes, they have the potential to deal more damage, but in order to do that I tend to lose out on my direct fire weapons due to weight and crit space.



I will make mention, I'm probably a little odd with my concept of how I use my LRMs. I tend to use them as pushing weapons (force my enemies to move or take damage, thus pushing them around) and as bombardment weapons to just land some mid/longish range weapons. Thus, I tend to cut out Artemis as it's just too costly within my more mixed builds to be useful (mostly because then it leads to the same issue as ATMs, too heavy and too many crits).


Personally speaking, as an overall general statement between LRMs and ATMs, each I feel have their place. Overall, LRMs maintain more flexibility and tend to be more effective over a larger range of field over ATMs, but ATMs do have that window of high burst damage (3 damage per missile) over LRMs if that range bracket can be maintained. Thus, ATMs require more skillful use to truly be more effective over LRMs.

Basically, ATMs are good only for that 120-270m range. All other ranges LRMs equal or out perform. Toss in AMS and that story changes once more into favor for LRMs, as they just have overall more health per volley per ton/crit. Overall, it just depends upon how you intend to use it and where your personal skills sit.

[Tesunie]

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 01:41 AM, said:

Which is why I compared LRMs vs ATMs at 2.53 damage per missile.

Okay... when you come up with this number... are you using total missiles fired, or total missiles hit?

Also... in the past the weapon stats recorded number of missiles fired and number of missiles hit. It fits for LRMs hit, but for ATMs hit, I get a crazy number (like 20ish damage per missile) until I divide it by the number of missiles launched from the launcher... Example: 7,798 damage total, divided by 374 hits ends up with an insane 20.85... and by launched 692 means 11.27 damage per... missile? Divide each by 9 (I'm looking at ATM9s) and I get far more reasonable numbers of 2.32 and 1.25 per missile...

Yet this isn't even close to how my LRMs are recorded...? Unless my LRMs are dealing less that 0.075 damage per missile that hit...?

[ExoForce]

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 07:10 AM, said:

I will make mention, I'm probably a little odd with my concept of how I use my LRMs. I tend to use them as pushing weapons (force my enemies to move or take damage, thus pushing them around) and as bombardment weapons to just land some mid/longish range weapons. Thus, I tend to cut out Artemis as it's just too costly within my more mixed builds to be useful (mostly because then it leads to the same issue as ATMs, too heavy and too many crits).

Approved. Although I use it, Artemis in not justified. Also LRMs are good as suppression fire to hold the enemy, while your teammates are screaming: "You are shooting a rock, noob!"

[Zergling]

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 07:10 AM, said:

Mathimatically speaking, that is still rather incorrect to do as an "average"/. That may be your average with the weapon, but the technical damage average is probably going to be either 2 or something closer to 2.1-2.2 to represent their poor abilities in the outer 1 damage range brackets.

That is the lowest the average damage I do per hit with ATMs, out of all 4 ATM sizes.

It reflects my ability to use the weapon at a level above 2 damage per missile, which puts ATMs in area of 15-22% DPS/ton advantage over equivilant sized cALRM launchers.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 07:10 AM, said:

You also have to consider the risk and difficulty of maintaining that "small" (comparatively) 3 damage range, without falling into that 120m dead zone or into the 2 damage zone.

ATMs require more skill to use than LRMs, due to the requirement to get closer to the target, their direct fire only nature and the 120 meter dead zone, but if a player meets that higher skill requirement then they are significantly more powerful.

Are they better than SRMs or other weapons? Debatable, but irrelevant to this discussion.

But what isn't debatable is how much better ATMs are than LRMs. Sure a low skill player might do better with LRMs, but for someone that can deal with the idiosyncrasies of ATMs, ATMs are a better weapon.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 07:10 AM, said:

Not to mention ammo count per ton, heat generated per ton, average range engagement, and... you keep making the folly of two things; That LRMs are only useful for indirect fire (which is untrue) and that you "must" take Artemis with LRMs (as every example you've presented has Artemis on it). LRMs can thus save a ton right there, which can then be placed into either more ammo OR maybe even more direct fire weapons. An advantage that LRMs can have over ATMs.

I compared Artemis LRMs to ATMs for the best comparison for direct fire, I wasn't comparing versus indirect fire LRMs.
That comparison showed that at shorter ranges, and for my own average damage per hit, ATMs are considerably stronger than equivilant cALRMs.

There is no point comparing ATMs to LRMs firing indirectly, because no other weapon has that capability.

If you want direct fire weapons, LRMs are the worst possible choice; ATMs are better at close range, and other direct fire weapons are better at longer ranges.

As such, the only meaningful role that LRMs have is indirect fire.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 07:10 AM, said:

That only helps to determine their superiority within that small band of damage, and ignores the overall tactical flexibility and other strengths of some weapons. That would be like comparing LRMs to SRMs within 180m... which neglects the fact that LRMs can strike farther than 180m, where as SRMs really kinda can't.

I note you are also ignoring the flexibility of ATMs over SRMs.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 07:10 AM, said:

It's also like pitting LRMs in a challenge. "Oh yeah, I'll show you why LRMs (or, honestly, insert any weapon here) are so bad. I'll 1v1 you to prove my point."

People have done 12v12 LRM vs non-LRM challenges, at very high skill levels, and the LRMs have always lost badly.
Not since the days of lurmageddon have LRMs versus high skill opposition been anything other than a niche indirect fire suppression weapon.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 07:10 AM, said:

I beg to differ on this. There are other aspects of the weapon you are neglecting to mention here. For one, something I "abuse" often with LRMs, and something else to make note with them. Jumping disrupts your reticule, but lock on weapons (which does include ATMs) don't care about weapon shake. (And yes, I know you can jump, let of of the JJ key, shoot, and then feather your fall... I do that too.)

You are describing poptarting; if you require lockon weapons to poptart effectively, then you don't know how to poptart.

If I'm gonna use a missile weapon for poptarting, I'd rather use MRMs over LRMs; no minimum range and far greater damage.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 07:10 AM, said:

Also, no one likes the warnings of "Incoming Missiles". Even "pro" players slink into cover for that as a typical. LRMs are a lighter and less crit intensive way to utilize this.

Pro players also take cover when they take laser, PPC, autocannon or gauss hits, which they will take before they can get back into cover, unlike LRMs.

In other words, all weapons force players to take cover; the difference between LRMs and direct fire energy and ballistic weapons is that the energy/ballistic weapons will do damage before the player takes cover, while the LRMs will frequently splash against that cover for no effect.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 07:10 AM, said:

LRMs can also be very handy in slower mechs, as they are more likely to have problems drawing line of sight when the rest of their team is engaged. If they didn't boat the weapon system, they can do fairly well. You also have to consider that not everyone is "top tier competitive" players. We can (and will) play what we enjoy.

Guess what else can be very handy in slower mechs? Almost every other weapon.

And PGI is well aware that not everyone is a top tier player, which is why they intentionally made LRMs bad.
PGI has stated that they know LRMs aren't competitive at higher skill levels, but they have intentionally NOT buffed them to be competitive at those higher skill levels because that would result in the low skill players facing lurmageddon.

Quite simply, PGI themselves have said LRMs are only competitive against bad players.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 07:10 AM, said:

I can't speak for mixed LRMs and ATMs, as I'd rather do one or the other instead of mixing the missile types, but I can see the mix being acceptable to help punch through AMS. Shoot the LRMs moments before letting loose with the ATMs. AMS will shoot the more numerous LRMs before touching the less numerous (and hopefully more damaging) ATMs. It's of.... limited potential... but it is there?

If opponents are running enough AMS to be a problem for ATMs, then you're better off not running ATMs or LRMs at all.
Mixed builds are basically trying to defeat a hard counter with more spam, which is a losing proposition.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 07:10 AM, said:

However, on the note of mixed builds, I'll comment that my LRM hybrid builds continually get me better results as an average over basically every other class of mech I've got.

Which I attribute to you not using ATMs effectively.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 07:10 AM, said:

but in order to do that I tend to lose out on my direct fire weapons due to weight and crit space.

If you are running significant direct fire weapons with either LRMs or ATMs, then you're doing it wrong, because neither weapon system works well with other direct fire weapons.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 07:10 AM, said:

Thus, ATMs require more skillful use to truly be more effective over LRMs.

Exactly.

And if you don't find ATMs to be more effective than LRMs, then you aren't meeting the skill requirements for ATMs.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 07:10 AM, said:

Basically, ATMs are good only for that 120-270m range. All other ranges LRMs equal or out perform.

Not quite; they have slightly better spread values than ALRMs, so they do focus damage better, causing them to still outperform LRMs in the 270-500 meter range bracket.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 07:29 AM, said:

Okay... when you come up with this number... are you using total missiles fired, or total missiles hit?

Also... in the past the weapon stats recorded number of missiles fired and number of missiles hit. It fits for LRMs hit, but for ATMs hit, I get a crazy number (like 20ish damage per missile) until I divide it by the number of missiles launched from the launcher... Example: 7,798 damage total, divided by 374 hits ends up with an insane 20.85... and by launched 692 means 11.27 damage per... missile? Divide each by 9 (I'm looking at ATM9s) and I get far more reasonable numbers of 2.32 and 1.25 per missile...

Yet this isn't even close to how my LRMs are recorded...? Unless my LRMs are dealing less that 0.075 damage per missile that hit...?

Total missiles hit.


Here are my ATM stats:

ATM 3; 53 fired, 17 hit, 117 damage = 6.882 damage/hit
ATM 6; 2178 fired, 926 hit, 2478 damage = 2.676 damage/hit
ATM 9; 9011 fired, 4089 hit, 10371 damage = 2.536 damage/hit
ATM12; 2808 fired, 1318 hit, 3896 damage = 2.956 damage/hit

As you can see, the 2.53 number comes from my ATM 9 stats, which is my most used ATM launcher.
The high damage/hit for the ATM 3 is likely due to how little that weapon has been used; it has been inflated due to ammo explosions and/or side torso destruction.


Compare those ATM stats to my LRM damage stats:

cLRM5; 525 fired, 208 hit, 197 damage = 0.947 damage/hit
cLRM10; 511 fired, 188 hit, 459 damage = 2.441 damage/hit
cLRM15; 9525 fired, 3863 hit, 3661 damage = 0.948 damage/hit
cLRM20; 1000 fired, 376 hit, 328 damage = 0.872 damage/hit

cALRM5; 0 fired, 0 hit, 0 damage = not used this even once
cALRM10; 990 fired, 430 hit, 422 damage = 0.981 damage/hit
cALRM15; 5980 fired, 1881 hit, 2594 damage = 1.379 damage/hit
cALRM20; 1362 fired, 744 hit, 753 damage = 1.012 damage/hit

I haven't used Clan LRMs very much, which explains the deviations from 1 damage/hit.


isLRM5; 5755 fired, 1918 hit, 1932 damage = 1.007 damage/hit
isLRM10; 4550 fired, 1617 hit, 1564 damage = 0.967 damage/hit
isLRM15; 7875 fired, 2738 hit, 2742 damage = 1.001 damage/hit
isLRM20; 56 fired, 19 hit, 294 damage = 15.474 damage/hit

...yeaaaaah, isLRM20 stats are weird, due to it barely being used (and possibly being from much older date when stats were buggier).


isALRM5; 280 fired, 84 hit, 86 damage = 1.024 damage/hit
isALRM10; 9255 fired, 3164 hit, 3195 damage = 1.010 damage/hit
isALRM15; 65055 fired, 20997 hit, 21329 damage = 1.016 damage/hit
isALRM20; 5840 fired, 1997 hit, 1996 damage = 0.999 damage/hit

So isALRM15 is the only LRM launcher I've made significant use of.

Still, it can be see that apart from obvious bugged/flawed stats, LRMs do close to 1 damage per hit.

Edited by Zergling, 26 April 2018 - 03:36 PM.

[Tesunie]

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

That is the lowest the average damage I do per hit with ATMs, out of all 4 ATM sizes.

It reflects my ability to use the weapon at a level above 2 damage per missile, which puts ATMs in area of 15-22% DPS/ton advantage over equivilant sized cALRM launchers.

I do think we could consider "missiles launched" as a possible stat to look into. This could show the effects of that dead zone as well as AMS within the stats. Each are things to consider when gauging a weapon.

I would like to point out here that, it shows "your" ability to use ATMs within their more powerful 3 damage per missile bracket. It doesn't show how the average player may perform with said weapon, nor what it's technical averages of damage engagement may be. You are referring to a damage zone that, compared to it's other options, is only a small portion of what the weapon's engagement zone may be.

This discussion does remind me that I should consider using ATMs a bit more, if for no other reason than to just become more familiar with them.

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

But what isn't debatable is how much better ATMs are than LRMs. Sure a low skill player might do better with LRMs, but for someone that can deal with the idiosyncrasies of ATMs, ATMs are a better weapon.

I would mention here that LRMs have more flexibility and reliably more standard performance over ATMs, as an average. Your point here reminds me of people's arguments on some of my builds where "you are only truly powerful within this small range band" as to why my build "sucked" badly...

Honestly, it depends upon what you are looking to get out of it. Each weapon system is viable, depending upon how it's being intended to be used.

As far as for non-boating concepts, ATMs crit and weight (and ammo count) requirements makes it harder to mix with other weapons. LRMs (especially if without Artemis) provides similar punch for less weight at more optional engagement ranges (as in, more than just 120-270m ranges mostly direct fire) on top of less susceptibility to AMS. This doesn't lead to one system being overall superior to another, but rather more likely indicates different intended roles and intentions.

For my personal play style, LRMs are more complimentary to what I desire out of my mechs than ATMs seem to do. I also don't boat LRMs (and thus, also don't boat ATMs), so it's just easier to mix other weapons with LRMs, compared to ATMs. (Though, I'll note again that I should use my ATM builds more to become more familiar with ATMs. They certainly are not a bad weapon system.)

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

That comparison showed that at shorter ranges... ATMs are considerably stronger than equivilant cALRMs.


There is no point comparing ATMs to LRMs firing indirectly, because no other weapon has that capability.


As such, the only meaningful role that LRMs have is indirect fire.

Okay, I know I omitted some lines here, but I did so to try to make a point.

First line, your key words used where "at shorter ranges", as well as cALRMs. There are more ranges than shorter ranges, and ATMs only out perform LRMs when within it's 150m 3 damage per missile zone (which I will note is also really close to it's 0 damage zone). Every where else, they are nearly equivalent to out performed by LRMs. Within that 3 damage zone, I agree. ATMs do out perform. But that's only a 150m zone to play with, compared to upwards of 420m* effective zone for LRMs (which has probably increased to even longer due to increased velocity of LRMs recently). (* This is having an effective range of 600m or closer, with the 180m minimum range removed.)

Second line is literally a statement to remove a benefit of LRMs, something that should be considered when talking about the weapon, not just dismissed. I'll also note that, even with it's lower trajectory, ATMs can actually still shoot indirectly. It just doesn't do it very well and requires knowledgeable position. Or... JJs and a bit of Jump-Lrming skill applied to ATMs instead...

Last line, my argument here would be that you now wish to place LRMs as an indirect only weapon, or so your statement seems to indicate. Sure, it's a strength, but using LRMs only indirectly is one of the many follies people do, and one of the traps that leads to poor playing of LRMs. They can do indirect, but they aren't restricted to only indirect use. I made mention of this earlier in this thread but I'll say it again, LRMs are still best served when up with the team. You can be behind the team, but don't be too far behind that you aren't sharing armor and getting your own locks when possible/needed.

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

I note you are also ignoring the flexibility of ATMs over SRMs.

As I mentioned, it's very similar situation you've placed into this discussion. You are saying ATMs are superior to LRMs in every way*, because they can deal more damage within a 150m range bracket. It's no different than saying SRMs (or even SSRMs) are better than LRMs because they deal more damage inside 180m. Well, if you only look at a weapon's strengths and compare them to another weapon's weakness, of course you are going to get "obvious" results.
*Some exaggeration may be in effect here.

I'm not ignoring ATMs abilities at all. They are better than LRMs when they can get into that 150m range bracket. Toss in AMS or fighting outside that range zone... and it's a different situation. Each weapon (LRM and ATM for this discussion) has their strengths and weaknesses. I would not say ATMs are superior to LRMs, but they do have their strengths that make them different from LRMs.

(PS: Did you by chance mean "ATMs over LRMs" rather than "ATMs over SRMs"?)

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

People have done 12v12 LRM vs non-LRM challenges, at very high skill levels, and the LRMs have always lost badly.
Not since the days of lurmageddon have LRMs versus high skill opposition been anything other than a niche indirect fire suppression weapon.

I've watched those matches for the record... and I saw some really odd things. For one note I'd make... they tried to test with BOATS. Something I disagree with greatly with LRMs. Secondly, those matches showed an LRM "bloated" team verse another team that typically used brawlers. Not one of those matches (that I've seen) had only a few LRM mechs that didn't boat. If they hadn't bloated up on the LRMs, we may have seen different results...

I will make mention (again for this post, sorry) that LRMs did just recently get a velocity buff. That should help LRMs make contact more often, as well as increase their effective ranges (do not read this as "max" ranges). I do believe most of our discussion is still based off the old values, as well as basically all of our data.

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

You are describing poptarting; if you require lockon weapons to poptart effectively, then you don't know how to poptart.

If I'm gonna use a missile weapon for poptarting, I'd rather use MRMs over LRMs; no minimum range and far greater damage.

I do very well in my LRM Huntsmen. I can poptart with many weapons, but LRMs tend to be light weight weapons that can deal just that bit more damage (and aggravation/annoyance) to opponents that other more "traditional" poptarting weapons may not be able to do.

MRMs I feel (I haven't used them very much yet either, finding it hard to make a good build with them) would make a poor poptart weapon. The fact that they track where your reticle was upon their launch means that it can be even more difficult and less effective compared to lasers. (I often do this with lasers... and most times I'm forced to kick the jets on to cushion my fall before the beams are finished, sending them off target sometimes. Sometimes though, I can account for that drift and still hit my target with full jets on... Meh.)

The lock on abilities of LRMs permits me to give a "parting gift" before I fall behind cover. With being closer than the average LRM user to my target and using lasers as well (with skills for target decay and laser duration), I find this to be rather effective use for LRMs. ATMs would also do well with this attack style, but their tonnage and crit heaviness competes with the JJs themselves as well as the direct fire elements I always like to have on my mechs. (Part of the reason many of my mechs don't have Artemis.)

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

Pro players also take cover when they take laser, PPC, autocannon or gauss hits, which they will take before they can get back into cover, unlike LRMs.

In other words, all weapons force players to take cover; the difference between LRMs and direct fire energy and ballistic weapons is that the energy/ballistic weapons will do damage before the player takes cover, while the LRMs will frequently splash against that cover for no effect.

Increased velocity as of recent. I'll also mention, just like they have those skills, so there are also counter skills such as flanking, popping over an obstacle, attacking from unexpected angles or even out right shooting over what they thought was safe to hide behind. Not to mention that "incoming missile" warning can keep even a "pro" player behind cover longer than direct fire weapons, possibly even keeping their weapons out of the fight that bit longer. (Oh, and we should consider "non-pro" players as well. We aren't just talking about the top 10% of players, but more so what the average player may be capable of and expect to see.)

I will comment that my Jump-LRMing has caught plenty of "high end" players off guard, landing several volleys of LRMs (and other direct fire weapons) on them. Even the best player can be dealt damage by LRMs, depending upon who is using it and how it's being used. If you are thinking in the more traditional use of LRMs (which I find to be one of the least effective uses of LRMs), than yeah.

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

Guess what else can be very handy in slower mechs? Almost every other weapon.

And PGI is well aware that not everyone is a top tier player, which is why they intentionally made LRMs bad.
PGI has stated that they know LRMs aren't competitive at higher skill levels, but they have intentionally NOT buffed them to be competitive at those higher skill levels because that would result in the low skill players facing lurmageddon.

Quite simply, PGI themselves have said LRMs are only competitive against bad players.

Of course. Many weapons are useful on slower mechs. LRMs can help slower mechs when their team has locks, but said slower mech can't see to shoot direct fire weapons yet. Some smaller LRM launchers can sometimes be handy in those situations. An Assault might even have the tonnage to take it too... Depends upon the player and what they face. (I admit, I'm not a good assault pilot. I'm strongest with medium mechs...)

LRMs are a lock on weapon... I feel it should have trade offs for this feature. But it also has strengths too. You wont hear me saying it's the best weapon in the game, but I also wont say it's the worst. It has it's uses, much like every weapon in the game. Some more than others...

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

If opponents are running enough AMS to be a problem for ATMs, then you're better off not running ATMs or LRMs at all.
Mixed builds are basically trying to defeat a hard counter with more spam, which is a losing proposition.

I like my mixed LRM and direct fire builds. This way, if my LRMs are ever being ineffective (such as strong AMS or close ranges), I can still perform and do something, rather than be almost ineffective. I like my LRMs for tactical flexibility, but I'm not blind to their weaknesses either.

As far as mixing ATMs and LRMs... I don't see much use for it, besides the only one I presented. Personally speaking, I'd be taking either LRMs or ATMs. Not both. Their roles are too similar, and taking both I feel just means divided ammo pools... and having to now calculate different flight paths...

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

Which I attribute to you not using ATMs effectively.

More so... I have more data for LRMs and thus more data on my LRM builds. ATMs are still relatively new and I haven't used them as much as I would have liked yet. I tend to exclude mech data that doesn't have at least 50 matches... so I get better averages. It's on the list of "things I need to still do".

I should mention that I'm not saying ATMs are bad. I'm more so in the camp that ATMs and LRMs each have their own distinct roles, yet also share many similar capabilities. As for my actual ATM damage, I've only got stats for the 3 and 9. The 3 says I've used it in 0 matches, shot 72 missiles, hit with 11, and dealt 1.91 damage per missile... which seems odd to me. The 9 says I've used it in 26 matches, shot 692 missiles, hit with 374 of them, and dealt 20.9 damage per missile (7,798 total damage)... which also seems odd to me...

However, I tend to like looking at mech build stats, preferably builds that haven't changed for long periods of time. Doesn't show individual weapon performance as well, but I normally am looking for builds that have complimentary weapons more than individual weapon performance... Which doesn't help this situation much. Best I have is an Arctic Wolf Prime with 16 matches in it. It dealt an average of 386 damage per match it has been in so far. It's got 4 ERSLs and 2 ATM9s. Try to use the JJs and the speed of the mech to maintain the right distances... (I haven't played my Wolves very much yet... Bought them to be a lighter alternative to my Huntsmen for larger groups, but my group keeps wanting to give me more tonnage!)

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

If you are running significant direct fire weapons with either LRMs or ATMs, then you're doing it wrong, because neither weapon system works well with other direct fire weapons.

You'd be surprised... I could present my Huntsmen Prime(S). 4 ERMLs and two LRM15s has served me well on that mech. One of my favorites to ride in, as well as has some of my better stats in. I also have a Huntsmen with two HLLs and two ERMLs, but ended up with a single LRM10 due to lack of crit space for anything else to fit in. Works rather well...

A lot of mech designs depends upon how it's used, as well as who your opponent is.

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

Exactly.

And if you don't find ATMs to be more effective than LRMs, then you aren't meeting the skill requirements for ATMs.

Just to make note of it again (I'm sure you read this already), I just haven't managed to use ATMs very much yet. Too many new shinies have come out that ATMs just were not effective on... Just like the Uziel that came out with new tech... which preoccupied much of my attention as I figured out how to get it to work. Then I experimented heavily with heavy lasers (pun fully intended), etc. Lots of new stuff came out with new tech... and I just haven't gotten to it all. Just barely touched MRMs as it is...

I will say, the few times I have used ATMs I didn't find it more effective, nor did I find it less effective than LRMs. It has much potential, but does require a different style of play than LRMs to truly be effective. I did a heavy testing of them in the PTS before their release, so upon release I just checked out other things.

As I said, just need to get using them more. So much new stuff to check out...

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

Not quite; they have slightly better spread values than ALRMs, so they do focus damage better, causing them to still outperform LRMs in the 270-500 meter range bracket.

Excluding AMS, and it's lower trajectory. Each can cause some problems for the system.

Basically, each weapon has gives and takes. Also, remove the Artemis and you can take larger launchers of LRMs. This means more missiles in the air, less susceptibility to AMS and thus also more missiles hitting the target. Bombardment over pin-point style of play. (Though I use the saved tonnage for more direct fire weapons.)

I don't know the exact spread values, but I'm gonna go out on a branch here and take a guess it's a very minimal difference, making it such a slight difference as to have only a small impact on it's performance? For this, we'd have to look at hit percentages, but that will be dependant upon the player as much as the weapon...

Zergling, on 26 April 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

Total missiles hit.


Here are my ATM stats:

ATM 3; 53 fired, 17 hit, 117 damage = 6.882 damage/hit
ATM 6; 2178 fired, 926 hit, 2478 damage = 2.676 damage/hit
ATM 9; 9011 fired, 4089 hit, 10371 damage = 2.536 damage/hit
ATM12; 2808 fired, 1318 hit, 3896 damage = 2.956 damage/hit

As you can see, the 2.53 number comes from my ATM 9 stats, which is my most used ATM launcher.
The high damage/hit for the ATM 3 is likely due to how little that weapon has been used; it has been inflated due to ammo explosions and/or side torso destruction.


Compare those ATM stats to my LRM damage stats:

cLRM5; 525 fired, 208 hit, 197 damage = 0.947 damage/hit
cLRM10; 511 fired, 188 hit, 459 damage = 2.441 damage/hit
cLRM15; 9525 fired, 3863 hit, 3661 damage = 0.948 damage/hit
cLRM20; 1000 fired, 376 hit, 328 damage = 0.872 damage/hit

cALRM5; 0 fired, 0 hit, 0 damage = not used this even once
cALRM10; 990 fired, 430 hit, 422 damage = 0.981 damage/hit
cALRM15; 5980 fired, 1881 hit, 2594 damage = 1.379 damage/hit
cALRM20; 1362 fired, 744 hit, 753 damage = 1.012 damage/hit

I haven't used Clan LRMs very much, which explains the deviations from 1 damage/hit.


isLRM5; 5755 fired, 1918 hit, 1932 damage = 1.007 damage/hit
isLRM10; 4550 fired, 1617 hit, 1564 damage = 0.967 damage/hit
isLRM15; 7875 fired, 2738 hit, 2742 damage = 1.001 damage/hit
isLRM20; 56 fired, 19 hit, 294 damage = 15.474 damage/hit

...yeaaaaah, isLRM20 stats are weird, due to it barely being used (and possibly being from much older date when stats were buggier).


isALRM5; 280 fired, 84 hit, 86 damage = 1.024 damage/hit
isALRM10; 9255 fired, 3164 hit, 3195 damage = 1.010 damage/hit
isALRM15; 65055 fired, 20997 hit, 21329 damage = 1.016 damage/hit
isALRM20; 5840 fired, 1997 hit, 1996 damage = 0.999 damage/hit

So isALRM15 is the only LRM launcher I've made significant use of.

Still, it can be see that apart from obvious bugged/flawed stats, LRMs do close to 1 damage per hit.

A lot of stats seems to be weird... which is starting to become a problem. LRMs should be doing close to or just over 1 damage per missile hit. Have to include that critical damage bonus to structure... with the right skills in effect from the skill tree, that can be a lot of bonus damage (for LRMs and ATMs).

We really should be narrowing our data to cLRMs and ATMs, just for the sake that IS mechs can't take ATMs. A more narrow set of data is more easily compared.


Personally speaking though, I think the weapons have different roles to play, and neither one so drastically out performs the other as to remove one as a choice. Prefer more closer in engagements within 270m? ATMs would be more beneficial while still permitting some longer range uses (at the cost of ammo, something the ATMs don't get much of per ton). Meanwhile, want to engage as an average at more mid ranges (270m-600m) with some extra indirect options? LRMs pick up more here, making them a slightly better choice.

Different roles, but they still carry similar enough mechanics.

(And I really need to do some more runs with my ATM mechs... Fully realize that.)

[Zergling]

My god you are wordy; seriously, please cut down on the amount of words you use to make your replies, because it is a total PITA to make a decent reply to all that.

I'm not going to bother responding to everything you've written, and will try to trim down for the sake of brevity.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

I do think we could consider "missiles launched" as a possible stat to look into. This could show the effects of that dead zone as well as AMS within the stats.

My most used ATM, the ATM9, has a 45.38% hitrate
My most used LRM, the isALRM15, has a 32.28% hitrate

It appears as though ATMs have a naturally higher hit rate than LRMs, as they aren't fired indirectly and usually used at closer ranges, which offsets them being more vulnerable to AMS.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

It doesn't show how the average player may perform with said weapon

The average player is irrelevant for gauging how effective a weapon is, because the average player is almost completely lacking in any competence at the game.

I remind again that because the average player is so terrible at MWO, the LRMs are deliberately kept at a non-competitive level of performance by PGI.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

I would mention here that LRMs have more flexibility and reliably more standard performance over ATMs, as an average.

When the level of performance of LRMs is so bad, it really doesn't matter how flexible LRMs are; they are outclassed by every other weapon system in MWO.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

Honestly, it depends upon what you are looking to get out of it. Each weapon system is viable, depending upon how it's being intended to be used.

Depends on how you define 'viable'.

If you define it as being able to club bad players, then LRMs are viable, as is every other weapon system in the game.
If you define it as being effective against high skill players, then LRMs are definitely not viable.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

and ATMs only out perform LRMs when within it's 150m 3 damage per missile zone (which I will note is also really close to it's 0 damage zone). Every where else, they are nearly equivalent to out performed by LRMs.

They perform better than ALRMs beyond the 270 meter range too, all the way out to 500 meters. It isn't as great a performance advantage, but the advantage is there.

Versus non-Artemis LRMs? Lol, no contest.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

Last line, my argument here would be that you now wish to place LRMs as an indirect only weapon, or so your statement seems to indicate. Sure, it's a strength, but using LRMs only indirectly is one of the many follies people do, and one of the traps that leads to poor playing of LRMs. They can do indirect, but they aren't restricted to only indirect use.

There are only 2 valid reasons to use LRMs:
1) indirect fire ability (which is such a niche ability it doesn't make up for the other downsides of LRMs)
2) player lacks the ability or skill to use a weapon system that require more ability or skill

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

I've watched those matches for the record... and I saw some really odd things. For one note I'd make... they tried to test with BOATS. Something I disagree with greatly with LRMs.

Boating in large numbers is the only way to use LRMs; anything else is pointless, because in smaller numbers the LRM firepower is just a nuisance that can be ignored for extended times (although to be fair, even boated LRMs are still bad compared to other weapons, they just aren't quite as terrible as non-boated LRMs).

LRMs don't work well with other non-lock weapons either; they require extended stare time to acquire and maintain locks, which quickly results in a dead mech.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

I will make mention (again for this post, sorry) that LRMs did just recently get a velocity buff.

The velocity buff is only 19%; they are still slower than ATMs, and still not anywhere near fast enough to score much or any hits before a target returns to cover.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

I do very well in my LRM Huntsmen.

I'll just say that we have different standards for doing 'very well'.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

MRMs I feel would make a poor poptart weapon.

MRMs are actually one of the best poptart weapons available.

Eg, the Trebuchet 7M with 2x MRM30 is an excellent medium poptarter.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

Not to mention that "incoming missile" warning can keep even a "pro" player behind cover longer than direct fire weapons, possibly even keeping their weapons out of the fight that bit longer. )

It actually doesn't; smart players can tell when they've broken lock by the amount of time they have been out of line of sight, and then push out again to take another shot.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

I like my mixed LRM and direct fire builds.

As a rule, those are fairly bad builds.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

The 3 says I've used it in 0 matches, shot 72 missiles, hit with 11, and dealt 1.91 damage per missile... which seems odd to me. The 9 says I've used it in 26 matches, shot 692 missiles, hit with 374 of them, and dealt 20.9 damage per missile (7,798 total damage)... which also seems odd to me...

Nowhere near enough data, and those stats are probably bugged (weapon stats seem to suffer from frequent bugs).

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

Best I have is an Arctic Wolf Prime with 16 matches in it. It dealt an average of 386 damage per match it has been in so far. It's got 4 ERSLs and 2 ATM9s.

Never assess performance on damage only, especially if you are talking about LRMs.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

my Huntsmen Prime(S). 4 ERMLs and two LRM15s

4 medium class lasers is fairly standard secondary armament for a LRM mech, and not what I would term 'significant' direct fire weapons.
That'd be more like sticking LRMs with some large class lasers or PPCs.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

I also have a Huntsmen with two HLLs and two ERMLs, but ended up with a single LRM10 due to lack of crit space for anything else to fit in. Works rather well...

I'll just say again that we have different standards for working 'well'.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

Also, remove the Artemis and you can take larger launchers of LRMs.

ATM9 = 3.7 spread
cLRM20 = 5.2 spread

The LRM will have more DPS/ton, but ATMs are focusing their damage that much better (seriously, the difference is huge) that the ATM is superior even out to 500 meters range.

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

I don't know the exact spread values

ATM3/6 = 3.2
ATM9/12 = 3.7
LRM5/10 = 4.2
LRM15/20 = 5.2
ALRM5/10 = 3.15
ALRM15/20 = 3.9

Tesunie, on 26 April 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

A lot of stats seems to be weird

Weapon stats in the profile page are unreliable, due to frequent bugs.

However, my stats for the ATM9 and isALRM15 do not appear to be suffering from any bugs; usually the bugs result in obviously flawed damage/hit figures, but mine stats for those two weapons appear reasonably possible.

Edited by Zergling, 27 April 2018 - 04:13 AM.

[Tesunie]

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 04:08 AM, said:

My most used ATM, the ATM9, has a 45.38% hitrate
My most used LRM, the isALRM15, has a 32.28% hitrate

It appears as though ATMs have a naturally higher hit rate than LRMs, as they aren't fired indirectly and usually used at closer ranges, which offsets them being more vulnerable to AMS.

My hit rates for LRMs are slightly different from yours. I achieve hit rates much closer to your ATM9.
My weapon accuracy stats:
ATM9: 54.05% (not used often, and every other stat seems bugged)
cLRM10: 44.7%
cLRM15: 44.7% <- Most used
cLRM20: 46.0%
cALRM10: 48.6%
isALRM10: 42.7%
isALRM15: 37.4%
isALRM20: 41.0%
isLRM10: 43.2% <- Most used for IS
isLRM15: 39.3%

As I had previously stated, looking at total hit rate does show things such as AMS intervening, but also player skill and natural weapon hit rates.

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 04:08 AM, said:

The average player is irrelevant for gauging how effective a weapon is, because the average player is almost completely lacking in any competence at the game.

I remind again that because the average player is so terrible at MWO, the LRMs are deliberately kept at a non-competitive level of performance by PGI.

In this case, in this thread, we are talking very much about average if not almost new players. That was the subject presented by the OP of this thread.

I would also remind again that LRMs are a lock on weapon. That is in part why it can't be too strong, and it could be very easy to make it too strong. I believe inching it forwards until we can find a good place for as many levels of play would be best.

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 04:08 AM, said:

When the level of performance of LRMs is so bad, it really doesn't matter how flexible LRMs are; they are outclassed by every other weapon system in MWO.

I use that flexibility to actually deal more damage in a match than I probably could normally deal with pure direct fire weapons. It's a matter of use.

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 04:08 AM, said:

Depends on how you define 'viable'.

If you define it as being able to club bad players, then LRMs are viable, as is every other weapon system in the game.
If you define it as being effective against high skill players, then LRMs are definitely not viable.

I deem "viable" for myself as in how well I can personally get them to perform. Seen as I'm a T1 player, and been using LRMs just fine even against some of the top players in the game, such as EMP and even Eyez... I'm going to say I can leverage them within my own mixed builds to a viable statues.

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 04:08 AM, said:

They perform better than ALRMs beyond the 270 meter range too, all the way out to 500 meters. It isn't as great a performance advantage, but the advantage is there.

Versus non-Artemis LRMs? Lol, no contest.

In a blank environment, sure. Once you include live elements such as AMS, you may go from no damage ATMs to some damage LRMs simply due to overall volley health. To provide an example.

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 04:08 AM, said:

There are only 2 valid reasons to use LRMs:
1) indirect fire ability (which is such a niche ability it doesn't make up for the other downsides of LRMs)
2) player lacks the ability or skill to use a weapon system that require more ability or skill

One glaring flaw in your argument here... You say Artemis with LRMs, then say to shoot them indirectly. You do realize you are wasting the tonnage and crits of Artemis when you shoot them indirectly? You are only gaining increased lock on speeds at that point... So, maybe you are not using LRMs to their fullest?

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 04:08 AM, said:

Boating in large numbers is the only way to use LRMs; anything else is pointless, because in smaller numbers the LRM firepower is just a nuisance that can be ignored for extended times (although to be fair, even boated LRMs are still bad compared to other weapons, they just aren't quite as terrible as non-boated LRMs).

LRMs don't work well with other non-lock weapons either; they require extended stare time to acquire and maintain locks, which quickly results in a dead mech.

I'd have to strongly disagree with this. LRMs can pair up with plenty of weapon systems. A couple of larger launchers can be very effective. I've been doing very well with two LRM15s on my Huntsmen, or two LRM20s on my Mad Dog, each with reasonable direct fire weapons. Even a solo LRM10 on my Huntsmen with two HLLs and two ERMLs provides a little more punch, either while on cooldown from shooting the lasers or when I'm too hot/damaged to engage directly yet. It may only be an LRM10, but it can still help.

You do also know that you can break line of sight and still have your missiles hit. You can even break the lock before the missiles hit and still land missiles on target. This means, you don't have to stare down your opponent as everyone seems to think you do.

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 04:08 AM, said:

The velocity buff is only 19%; they are still slower than ATMs, and still not anywhere near fast enough to score much or any hits before a target returns to cover.

I was using LRMs plenty well even before that buff. Also, have we included velocity buffs from the skill tree?

I'd like to mention here as a note, last time LRMs got a velocity increase people complained that they were too strong. (AMS also got an increase.) They were brought back down because of that (but AMS wasn't). Now we've gone back to a faster velocity... So I'm still waiting and seeing what people are saying about it. So far, it's been surprisingly quiet on the subject. Kinda surprises me.

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 04:08 AM, said:

MRMs are actually one of the best poptart weapons available.

Eg, the Trebuchet 7M with 2x MRM30 is an excellent medium poptarter.

As stated, I haven't had much experience with MRMs, so it's "on the list" of things I need to do. I will comment, I haven't seen much results from them, but I haven't figured them out yet.

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 04:08 AM, said:

As a rule, those are fairly bad builds.

My Sun Spider has dual UAC5s, a HML and twin LRM15s. Took me a while to get to that build, and most everything else didn't work. This was when it first came out and the hit boxes where not corrected yet. I learned to be a very sneaky pilot (again) from this mech. Worked well enough I kept emptying the ammo bins, with (and this includes previous builds that didn't work so well) an average damage of 336 damage per match. Not great, but I do think it should be considered that it had poor hit boxes and had several matches with other builds on it. (I still wish I could archive individual mech stats, so I could build stats on a specific build...)

For the record, you aren't the only one to say that my builds "are bad". Yet, I continue to get reasonable results and average stats, considering my level of intended play. Wont say I'm the greatest, but I'm certainly not the worst. I'm also not a very competitive person...

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 04:08 AM, said:

Nowhere near enough data, and those stats are probably bugged (weapon stats seem to suffer from frequent bugs).

I know. As I said, I need to use the weapon more. Too bad the PTS stats aren't available. I would have had slightly more data sets...

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 04:08 AM, said:

Never assess performance on damage only, especially if you are talking about LRMs.

...
Isn't that what you are trying to do?

Anyway, I've already mentioned that I take my LRM damage (specific LRM damage) and divide it in half to determine effective damage. So if I was in a pure LRM boat (I never am), and I dealt 600 damage in a match, I would conclude that about 300 damage was effective. Even with this consideration to damage spread, I still out perform my pure direct fire builds regularly with my mixed platforms. A lot of it is all about how you use it.

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 04:08 AM, said:

4 medium class lasers is fairly standard secondary armament for a LRM mech, and not what I would term 'significant' direct fire weapons.
That'd be more like sticking LRMs with some large class lasers or PPCs.

Those are CERML, which deal more damage from ISMLs, it's more significant than other people's two MPLs or just two MLs/SLs.

It's also on a medium, where 5 ERMLs is considered about max effective for an Adder (35 ton) and 6 ERMLs is considered about the max a Nova can effectively take (another JJ capable 50 ton). In relation to those numbers, four ERMLs plus two LRM15s is plenty of firepower, and runs respectfully cool. I also have a Huntsmen with 5 ERMLs and an LRM10 and LRM15... but it's a lot hotter.

On heavier LRM based mechs, I've been known to add in larger direct weapons. My Stalker 3FB has two LLs, four ERMLs and two LRM systems (I think 15s, but might be 10s. Can't recall right now). It all depends upon the mech, it's hard points and what I get to work on it reliably.

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 04:08 AM, said:

ATM9 = 3.7 spread
cLRM20 = 5.2 spread

The LRM will have more DPS/ton, but ATMs are focusing their damage that much better (seriously, the difference is huge) that the ATM is superior even out to 500 meters range.

I thought you were comparing ATM9s to ALRM15s? Why is this now being compared to the spread of an LRM20?

Now, how about comparing a single ATM9 to an LRM15 and an ERML? That is what I would do with the tonnage... I probably also could take less ammo, so maybe even squeeze in another ERML...

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 04:08 AM, said:

ATM3/6 = 3.2
ATM9/12 = 3.7
LRM5/10 = 4.2
LRM15/20 = 5.2
ALRM5/10 = 3.15
ALRM15/20 = 3.9

Might want to mention that LRMs have a faster reload time, and produce less heat. Comparing your ALRM15 with ATM9s, you are talking about only a difference in spread of 0.2. I wouldn't call that so significant as to out class LRMs when outside the 3 damage per missile zone.

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 04:08 AM, said:

Weapon stats in the profile page are unreliable, due to frequent bugs.

However, my stats for the ATM9 and isALRM15 do not appear to be suffering from any bugs; usually the bugs result in obviously flawed damage/hit figures, but mine stats for those two weapons appear reasonably possible.

That's the problem. They may be bugged, and we aren't aware of it. However, we can only work with what data we have available, and have to hope it isn't bugged.

[Zergling]

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

In this case, in this thread, we are talking very much about average if not almost new players. That was the subject presented by the OP of this thread.

If you want a player to improve, you have to encourage them to start using the harder to use but more effective weapon systems.

Sure, new players can start with LRMs, but they do need to transition to better weapon systems sooner or later, or else they will get stuck in a rut where they never improve at the game.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

I would also remind again that LRMs are a lock on weapon. That is in part why it can't be too strong, and it could be very easy to make it too strong. I believe inching it forwards until we can find a good place for as many levels of play would be best.

According to PGI, they are about as strong as they can be without making them too strong for low skill level players.

TBH, I favor a complete rework of lock-on weapons so they can be balanced for all levels of play, but I know that is never going to happen.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

I use that flexibility to actually deal more damage in a match than I probably could normally deal with pure direct fire weapons. It's a matter of use.

That indicates your skill with direct fire weapons is severely lagging behind that with LRMs. I recommend shelving lock-on weapons for a time, and practice extensively with energy and ballistic weapons.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

I deem "viable" for myself as in how well I can personally get them to perform. Seen as I'm a T1 player, and been using LRMs just fine even against some of the top players in the game

I'll just say again that our standards for 'just fine' appear to be quite different.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

In a blank environment, sure. Once you include live elements such as AMS, you may go from no damage ATMs to some damage LRMs simply due to overall volley health. To provide an example.

Some damage LRMs is pretty much worthless; if the enemy has sufficient AMS to counter ATMs, then LRMs shouldn't be used either.

TBH, I also dislike AMS for being such a hard counter against specific weapon systems. It just detracts from skillful play when one player can so severely counter another player by running AMS.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

One glaring flaw in your argument here... You say Artemis with LRMs, then say to shoot them indirectly.

I've only been talking about Artemis LRMs to provide a better comparison to direct fire ATMs.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

I'd have to strongly disagree with this. LRMs can pair up with plenty of weapon systems.

You are absolutely wrong; I don't know of a single high skill player that would agree with you.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

I'd like to mention here as a note, last time LRMs got a velocity increase people complained that they were too strong. (AMS also got an increase.) They were brought back down because of that (but AMS wasn't). Now we've gone back to a faster velocity... So I'm still waiting and seeing what people are saying about it. So far, it's been surprisingly quiet on the subject. Kinda surprises me.

That's because LRMs are still in a hilariously bad state even with the buff.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

My Sun Spider has dual UAC5s, a HML and twin LRM15s. Took me a while to get to that build, and most everything else didn't work. This was when it first came out and the hit boxes where not corrected yet. I learned to be a very sneaky pilot (again) from this mech. Worked well enough I kept emptying the ammo bins, with (and this includes previous builds that didn't work so well) an average damage of 336 damage per match. Not great, but I do think it should be considered that it had poor hit boxes and had several matches with other builds on it.

That is a definitely a sub-par build, which (as I noted above) indicates your skill with direct fire weapons is deficient.

There isn't any top builds for the Sun Spider that use LRMs, or even ATMs; all of them use direct fire energy/ballistic.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

I'm also not a very competitive person...

Neither am I.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

...
Isn't that what you are trying to do?

Damage comparison is a reasonable method for determining weapon effectiveness.

Build and player effectiveness requires more statistics, like Wins/Losses, Kills/Deaths and Kills/Battle, typically over at least a few dozen battles (I'd say 50 battles at a minimum for a decent analysis, preferable 100+).

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

I thought you were comparing ATM9s to ALRM15s? Why is this now being compared to the spread of an LRM20?

I was comparing ATM9 to ALRM15 because that is my most reliable personal stats.

If you want to compare ATMs vs non-Artemis LRMs however, ATM9 is 5 tons, so it equal to cLRM20 that also weighs 5 tons.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

Now, how about comparing a single ATM9 to an LRM15 and an ERML? That is what I would do with the tonnage... I probably also could take less ammo, so maybe even squeeze in another ERML...

If you want to compare an ATM9, then compare versus the cLRM20, which weighs the same 5 tons.
If you want to compare to the cLRM15, then compare versus the ATM6, as both weigh 3.5 tons.

ATM6 = 12 damage, 2.40 DPS, 0.90 HPS, 3.2 spread
cLRM15 = 15 damage, 3.49 DPS, 1.00 HPS, 5.2 spread

Sure the cLRM15 has more DPS, but it is hotter and has faaaaaaar worse spread, so it is definitely inferior versus ATM6 in the 2 damage bracket.
And inside the 3 damage bracket, the ATM6 is going to outclass the cLRM15 in DPS too.

(exactly why ATM6 goes from being cooler than than cLRM15, to ATM9 being hotter than cLRM20... is unknown, but probably holdover from TT weapon statistics).

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

and produce less heat.

Not always; the ATM6 vs cLRM15 comparison above shows LRMs sometimes have more heat.

Edited by Zergling, 27 April 2018 - 08:34 PM.

[Tesunie]

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 08:33 PM, said:

If you want a player to improve, you have to encourage them to start using the harder to use but more effective weapon systems.

Sure, new players can start with LRMs, but they do need to transition to better weapon systems sooner or later, or else they will get stuck in a rut where they never improve at the game.

I encourage players to experiment and learn through experience. I'll guide and help them by describing things as best as I can, but I leave it in their hands to choose what to bring and how to bring it. They give me a build, I'll try to refine their build along the lines they already have it set up as.

That mean, I would encourage players to experiment with ATMs, as well as LRMs. ATMs have their benefits over LRMs, but LRMs also have things that ATMs can't do as effectively. Plain and simple, it's got gives and takes. It would be up to the individual to make their own decision on what they enjoy playing and what they feel they are best at using. I would encourage all players though to experiment with everything, at least a little. Variety is the spice of life, as well as knowledge is power.

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 08:33 PM, said:

That indicates your skill with direct fire weapons is severely lagging behind that with LRMs. I recommend shelving lock-on weapons for a time, and practice extensively with energy and ballistic weapons.

I have. I've used direct fire only builds for almost a full year before going back to LRMs again. I went from crawling up the ranks of PSR with direct fire weapon, from T4 to T3, but went straight to T1 very quickly with my LRM hybrid builds. So I'd have to say I'm well versed in direct fire weapons. As of late, I've been enjoying a Uziel with an AC10, two LPPCs and two ERMLs, performing reasonably well with it.

I run a large range of weapons, but I do have a preference and joy of using LRMs. Contrary to popular belief, LRMs do require skill to use well... and seen as you are so quick to throw that I'm bad with direct fire weapons (without much real proof for that matter), I think you also have lacked in any kind of actual training with LRMs, thus your worse stats with those weapons that you've posted up already...

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 08:33 PM, said:

I'll just say again that our standards for 'just fine' appear to be quite different.

Apparently... I consider a match where I do a match score of 200+ and/or effective damage around 300 to be "fine". I never said I was a great player. I play this game to have fun, not to be competitive and get stressed out. I don't care what my standings are on any leaderboards, seen as if I actually cared then I wouldn't be able to experiment with builds and would only have to use "the best of the best", instead of... say... going "What can I do with this Zeus?"

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 08:33 PM, said:

You are absolutely wrong; I don't know of a single high skill player that would agree with you.

I do not care a bit about so called "high skilled players" and what they may say anymore. I go by what evidence I produce from my own game play. Does this work better for me, or does this? Well, what if I change this? Is this better? It's a process, and I use actual data to progress, as well as what may be fun to play.

You make it seem as though comp player's words are the end all be all of this game. It isn't. Very few players in this game actually play competitively. They may provide good data, but their level of play isn't the only one here.

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 08:33 PM, said:

That is a definitely a sub-par build, which (as I noted above) indicates your skill with direct fire weapons is deficient.

There isn't any top builds for the Sun Spider that use LRMs, or even ATMs; all of them use direct fire energy/ballistic.

Once again, a no proof accusation about my skill with direct fire weapons...

Oh, and there where no top level build for the Sun Spider before the hit box changes... Best they said was to toss the mech into the scrap yard to rot. Best they came up with was dual UAC10s and a PPC.Tried it, didn't like it. Far too squishy at that time. Now? Maybe it would work better. At the time of it's release when I was devising a build for it, I needed to be far sneakier...

I will mention, I normally mix lasers with my LRMs and ATMs, rather than ballistics. The beam duration compliments well with the lock on mechanics. In this case here, the Sun Spider just didn't have the capability to do that, so I had to get a little creative. PS: I also tried it with ATMs before settling on this build...

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 08:33 PM, said:

Neither am I.

But you seem to want to talk like one...

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 08:33 PM, said:

Damage comparison is a reasonable method for determining weapon effectiveness.

Build and player effectiveness requires more statistics, like Wins/Losses, Kills/Deaths and Kills/Battle, typically over at least a few dozen battles (I'd say 50 battles at a minimum for a decent analysis, preferable 100+).

But... didn't you just say you can't compare damage numbers with LRMs? But now you want to say comparing damage is a reasonable method for determining weapon effectiveness... I'm not disagreeing with you here, but at the same time there are some weapons that certain situations and counters (such as AMS and ECM for example) do need to be considered. In this case, indirect capabilities. Does that offset it's weaknesses of lock on, spread, etc? Low tier players (who have more LRMs in their matches) would say yes. Higher skilled players? Probably not so much. (I think some of this is because so many people do use LRMs so poorly...)

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 08:33 PM, said:

I was comparing ATM9 to ALRM15 because that is my most reliable personal stats.

If you want to compare ATMs vs non-Artemis LRMs however, ATM9 is 5 tons, so it equal to cLRM20 that also weighs 5 tons.

You compare the ATM9 to ALRM15s. Even then, there is technically enough extra tonnage for an ERSL or even a HSL. Was that accounted for?

And, for non-Artemis comparison you only looked at the spread of LRM20s, not it's damage (20 vs 9/18/27), heat (6 vs 7) nor cool down times (4.6 vs 5 sec). There are other things to consider here. Not to mention indirect options.

You also, for ALRMs, seemed to have discredited that they lose their spread bonus, meaning your spread comparison between ATM9s and ALRM15s was off once you considered "LRMs are only good for indirect combat". (This may actually be a hidden benefit for ATMs... Do they lose "Artemis" spread benefits if they are fired indirectly? Which I do know they can do...)

Personally speaking, I'd be taking an LRM15 and an ERML for the same tonnage as a single ATM9. 15 spread damage and 7 direct fire damage (22) vs 9/18/27 spread damage with a 120m hard minimum range. But compared by heat... the ATM9 in that situation would run cooler... Now we have to consider heat and cooling abilities (which start to become a mess and on a per mech selection).

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 08:33 PM, said:

If you want to compare an ATM9, then compare versus the cLRM20, which weighs the same 5 tons.
If you want to compare to the cLRM15, then compare versus the ATM6, as both weigh 3.5 tons.

ATM6 = 12 damage, 2.40 DPS, 0.90 HPS, 3.2 spread
cLRM15 = 15 damage, 3.49 DPS, 1.00 HPS, 5.2 spread

Sure the cLRM15 has more DPS, but it is hotter and has faaaaaaar worse spread, so it is definitely inferior versus ATM6 in the 2 damage bracket.
And inside the 3 damage bracket, the ATM6 is going to outclass the cLRM15 in DPS too.

(exactly why ATM6 goes from being cooler than than cLRM15, to ATM9 being hotter than cLRM20... is unknown, but probably holdover from TT weapon statistics).

Sometimes... the spread helps. Have you ever considered that it's harder to "side shield" or "twist" damage away from a spread weapon? It seems to be a not ever discussed concept. But... it is a thing and can actually come in handy. I consider spread to be a benefit as well as a drawback. It all depends upon the situation... (not to mention that downward arc of LRMs too.)

Also, the ATM6 takes up an additional crit slot. I know of several builds that are so crit starved, an ATM6 is a difficult thing to try to fit in. Once again, the Huntsmen comes to mind, which needs at least a weapon or two that exceed 1 ton per crit levels of weight. Otherwise, you run out of crit slots before you run out of tonnage.

Zergling, on 27 April 2018 - 08:33 PM, said:

Not always; the ATM6 vs cLRM15 comparison above shows LRMs sometimes have more heat.

True, but cooldowns, ammo amounts, etc should also be considered.

I've got a Huntsmen where I changed out my LRMs for ATM9s and a CLAP. I think I still need to fine tune the mech, because it's running much hotter than my LRM15 version, and doesn't seem to have enough ammo. But, I need more testing time for it.

I do know my ATM Arctic Wolf (with 4 ERSLs) runs really hot and that longer cool down time of the ATMs is heavily felt.

I find it harder to build with ATMs due in part from their weight, crit capacity, cool downs and often increased heat.


For the record, I just want to say that I'm not trying to discredit ATMs. They are perfectly fine as a weapon choice and do have strengths. I just think LRMs are vastly underestimated, and this is largely do to how the average person seems to use them... ATMs are a viable choice in comparison to LRMs, and it can give a larger boon in damage scores if one can use them skillfully. I'd also mention that LRMs can be used well if used skillfully and also can get good results.

[Zergling]

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

LRMs do require skill to use well... and seen as you are so quick to throw that I'm bad with direct fire weapons (without much real proof for that matter), I think you also have lacked in any kind of actual training with LRMs, thus your worse stats with those weapons that you've posted up already...

It is true that LRMs do require skill (afterall, every activity does), but it is also true that they don't require nearly as skill much other weapons.

The fact that you can't perform as well with energy/ballistic weapons as you do with LRMs, does indicate you are lacking in skill with energy/ballistic, because energy/ballistic are undisputably better weapons.

As for my performance with LRMs, the last time I bothered using them I averaged 500 damage/battle and a positive W/L ratio over a few dozen battles.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

Apparently... I consider a match where I do a match score of 200+ and/or effective damage around 300 to be "fine". I never said I was a great player. I play this game to have fun, not to be competitive and get stressed out. I don't care what my standings are on any leaderboards, seen as if I actually cared then I wouldn't be able to experiment with builds and would only have to use "the best of the best", instead of... say... going "What can I do with this Zeus?"

200 match score and 300 damage is below average, especially for Tier 1. To be winning more battles than you lose at Tier 1, you need to be doing somewhere over 250-260 average matchscore and 400-450 average damage.

I play this game for fun too, and if it is stressing me out, I stop playing it.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

I do not care a bit about so called "high skilled players" and what they may say anymore. I go by what evidence I produce from my own game play.

You are making a severe mistake there. Personal experience and opinions are frequently coloured by unintentional biases or gaps on knowledge, which is why it is wise to defer to expert opinion.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

You make it seem as though comp player's words are the end all be all of this game. It isn't. Very few players in this game actually play competitively. They may provide good data, but their level of play isn't the only one here.

Don't confuse 'high skill player' with 'comp player'. Many high skill players also play competitively, but not all do.
The opinions of high skill players are frequently based on quick play, often solo play.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

Once again, a no proof accusation about my skill with direct fire weapons...

The proof is in your lack of success with energy/ballistic.

There isn't any debate about LRMs being bad; even PGI knows it, because they intentionally made them that way.
If you are performing better with LRMs than energy/ballistic, then you simply aren't using energy/ballistic effectively.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

Oh, and there where no top level build for the Sun Spider before the hit box changes... Best they said was to toss the mech into the scrap yard to rot. Best they came up with was dual UAC10s and a PPC.Tried it, didn't like it. Far too squishy at that time. Now? Maybe it would work better. At the time of it's release when I was devising a build for it, I needed to be far sneakier...

Incorrect; all mechs have top or 'best' builds. Those builds may not be competitive compared to other mechs, but those builds are the best ways to use the mech.

And yes, the twin UAC10 + ERPPC build was one of the best builds for the Sun Spider before the hitbox change, and it still is now.

Aside from that, you are heavily under-rating the mech before the hitbox change; while it wasn't top tier material, it was still half decent. With fixed hitboxes it should be good.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

But... didn't you just say you can't compare damage numbers with LRMs? But now you want to say comparing damage is a reasonable method for determining weapon effectiveness...

I'm talking about different sorts of comparisons.

When comparing the specific stats of one weapon to another, it is fair to compare damage.
When comparing player performance, whether in the context of overall player performance or with a specific build, damage alone should not be used.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

You compare the ATM9 to ALRM15s. Even then, there is technically enough extra tonnage for an ERSL or even a HSL. Was that accounted for?

ER Small and Heavy Small aren't going to be used much at LRM ranges, not worth counting.

A DPS/ton comparison is more useful, in which case it is 0.78 vs 0.72, a 8.33% advantage for cALRM15.
Compared to the 0.2 spread advantage, I'd say the ATM9 is still better.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

And, for non-Artemis comparison you only looked at the spread of LRM20s, not it's damage (20 vs 9/18/27), heat (6 vs 7) nor cool down times (4.6 vs 5 sec). There are other things to consider here. Not to mention indirect options.

The differences in damage per salvo, heat and cooldown are marginal. ATM9 is blatantly superior to non-Artemis cLRM20.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

You also, for ALRMs, seemed to have discredited that they lose their spread bonus, meaning your spread comparison between ATM9s and ALRM15s was off once you considered "LRMs are only good for indirect combat".

cALRMs are inferior to ATMs in direct fire, and non-Artemis cLRMs are faaaaar inferior in direct fire.
Either way, LRMs only beat ATMs in their indirect fire capability.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

Sometimes... the spread helps. Have you ever considered that it's harder to "side shield" or "twist" damage away from a spread weapon? It seems to be a not ever discussed concept. But... it is a thing and can actually come in handy. I consider spread to be a benefit as well as a drawback. It all depends upon the situation... (not to mention that downward arc of LRMs too.)

I'm sorry, but this is absolute nonsense.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

Also, the ATM6 takes up an additional crit slot.

Quite frankly, you are grasping at straws here.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

I do know my ATM Arctic Wolf (with 4 ERSLs) runs really hot and that longer cool down time of the ATMs is heavily felt.

You might be ghost heating; check the ghost heat limits for the ATMs you are running.

Light weight missile boats tend to have bad heat dissipation though.

Tesunie, on 27 April 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

I just think LRMs are vastly underestimated

They aren't.

Edited by Zergling, 28 April 2018 - 01:23 AM.

[Dragonporn]

Don't mean to detract this thread, but following earlier discussion, I don't see any point or use of ATMs from any perspective. I tried every missile weapon system in this game, and they all feel much superior to what ATM offers. My main problems are projectile speed, health and flight arc. "Big" LRMs can get through pretty heavy AMS coverage, and as BTGbullseye posted, are very flexible among many other things while ATMs aren't. S-SRMs are fantastic because they are light, barely generate heat and used and very close range so you break through ECM with the probe and AMS won't help much at such a close range, same with SRM but no tracking (but couple more downsides). MRMs are simply amazing system as well, especially in brawling, doing high damage stripping armor to hit structure with other weapons. Can't really grasp why would anyone even pick ATM...

[Zergling]

Dragonporn, on 28 April 2018 - 02:46 AM, said:

S-SRMs are fantastic

Lol, Streaks are really only useful for killing lights. Against anything heavier than a medium they are just terrible because of how they spread damage everywhere.

Dragonporn, on 28 April 2018 - 02:46 AM, said:

Can't really grasp why would anyone even pick ATM...

High damage with less spread than LRMs and Streak SRMs, while having the ability to do damage beyond 270 meters (unlike regular SRMs).
They are best used like regular SRMs; a player using them should focus on brawling, but they are able to still be relevant beyond brawling range.

They also have the advantage of packing a lot of firepower into a limited number of missile hardpoints; an assault mech only needs 3 or 4 missile hardpoints to focus entirely on ATMs.

Edited by Zergling, 28 April 2018 - 03:03 AM.

[Tesunie]

On the remark of ATMs, I'm just going to say that it probably doesn't have the same pit fall habits that LRMs can produce because they are so difficult to shoot indirectly. This leads to players actually still moving with their team, rather than "sit out back at long range and shooting only indirectly".

Otherwise, I do stand by my previous remarks. LRMs are under-rated because too many people boat them, hide in the back, try to indirect fire only and "not get hit", which leads to fewer targets for the enemy to be concerned with and asks for a single mech to sneak up on the boat and rip it apart while it's alone and undefended. This isn't the best way to play LRMs, or honestly any weapon system. Best place to be for most people is shoulder to shoulder with the rest of their team. Not slinking in the back almost 1000m away. On this front, ATMs can't support this poor combat behavior.