90 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 13 January 2019 - 10:22 PM, said:

You cant do the same upper level of damage with SRMs that you can with four ATM9s or three ATM12s. Its physically impossible to even put that many SRMs on a mech.

No. I constantly do 8x SRM6 Pakhet, and play around 9x SRM6 Arctic Wolf.

Now okay sure, not everyone could do 8x SRM6 Pakhet, or do 9x SRM6 Arctic Wolf on practical capacity, but weight in itself is also a contributing factor on ATM12s.

Khobai, on 13 January 2019 - 10:22 PM, said:

And SRMs should absolutely be the missile system thats capable of hammering you for the most damage because of their absurdly limited 270m max range.

Which is translated in game by faster cooldown, volley fire than stream fire, and not needing lock to direct missiles efficiently on targets. **** is built for brawling.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 13 January 2019 - 11:03 PM.

[ShiverMeRivets]

My only problem with ATMs is the 3 damage/missile from short ranges. That is brutal. 2 damage/missile like SRMs is quite enough.

[Vellron2005]

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 14 January 2019 - 07:13 PM.
off-topic, replies removed

[Storming Angel]

I use on my sun spider and that earns me a ton of creds each match as well as damage and kills (good for kill/damage based events).

I do see a lot of atms along with lrms, and ballistic builds but nothing that causes me great concern at the moment.

either way they run hot, usually require direct line of sight and has flatter arcs than lrms and a 120m damage cutoff point unlike clan lrms which still do damage.

[Kroete]

Another nerf a weapon because i dont want to take the 1ton counter for it?

If you want to compare atms against srms,
you should compare the same tons of both at
100m,
200m,
200m against ams
and average the resulting dps and note also the hps.

[Redacted]

justcallme A S H, on 13 January 2019 - 05:03 PM, said:

So versatile - doing 2dmg (same as LRMs but with more velocity) ...

2 Damage for lrms?
Did i miss the 100% damage buff for lrms?

Edited by draiocht, 14 January 2019 - 03:38 PM.
unconstructive

[FupDup]

Kroete, on 14 January 2019 - 03:16 AM, said:

2 Damage for lrms?
Did i miss the 100% damage buff for lrms?

He is referring to the total salvo damage rather than damage per missile.

[Kroete]

FupDup, on 14 January 2019 - 03:50 AM, said:

He is referring to the total salvo damage rather than damage per missile.

DPS/ton, hps/ton is are units you can compare, slavo damage is not scale you can use for a realistic comparsion. You cant compare different weapons with different tubes and weights without using the same units.
You also need to average the dps if they have different damageprofiles for different ranges. And you also need to only use the same rangesbrakets for both compared weapons. If you want it a little more exact you also need to add ammo/ton in it and ghostheat if you compare more launchers.

I know lots of numbers and a little math,
but you need it,
if you want real results and no [Redacted].

Edited by draiocht, 14 January 2019 - 03:39 PM.
unconstructive

[Gen Lee]

Kroete, on 14 January 2019 - 03:16 AM, said:

Another nerf a weapon because i dont want to take the 1ton counter for it?

If you want to compare atms against srms,
you should compare the same tons of both at
100m,
200m,
200m against ams
and average the resulting dps and note also the hps.

[Redacted]


2 Damage for lrms?
Did i miss the 100% damage buff for lrms?

Kroete, on 14 January 2019 - 04:14 AM, said:

DPS/ton, hps/ton is are units you can compare, slavo damage is not scale you can use for a realistic comparsion. You cant compare different weapons with different tubes and weights without using the same units.
You also need to average the dps if they have different damageprofiles for different ranges. And you also need to only use the same rangesbrakets for both compared weapons. If you want it a little more exact you also need to add ammo/ton in it and ghostheat if you compare more launchers.

I know lots of numbers and a little math,
but you need it,
if you want real results and no [Redacted].

Then why don't you post the numbers instead of [Redacted]?

Edited by draiocht, 14 January 2019 - 03:42 PM.
Quote Clean-up, reference

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 13 January 2019 - 10:22 PM, said:

no it really is irrational.

No, really, it is not irrational.

Quote

if guided weapons cant compete for damage with aimed weapons there is no longer any reason to use guided weapons.

False. If a weapon has ways it can be used that other weapons cannot, it serves a purpose.

Quote

and the core gameplay of a shooter is not to test the user's ability to place damage.

Yes it is.

Quote

in fact a lot of shooters have auto-aim features on their weapons.

Name a PvP one with guided weapons that are as broadly powerful as the manually aimed weapons.

Edited by Y E O N N E, 14 January 2019 - 06:43 AM.

[Kroete]

Gen Lee, on 14 January 2019 - 04:23 AM, said:

Then why don't you post the numbers instead of [Redacted]?

I did not come with the "comparsions", just mentioning thats all about feeling if you dont bring numbers.
[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 14 January 2019 - 03:44 PM.
unconstructive, Quote Clean-up

[Khobai]

justcallme A S H, on 13 January 2019 - 10:55 PM, said:

[Redacted]

[Redacted]

Y E O N N E, on 14 January 2019 - 06:21 AM, said:

Name a PvP one with guided weapons that are as broadly powerful as the manually aimed weapons.

guided missile launcher in fortnite. it was one of the most complained about broken weapons in that game.

theres countless examples of guided weapons in shooters that are just as powerful or more powerful than manual weapons. so again im not sure what youre talking about...

and again your argument is entirely irrational. Guided weapons in MWO are hardly as bad as you make them out to be. With the exception of ATMs which I already said do too much damage. Its okay to have guided weapons be as good as manually aimed weapons, but the problem with ATMs is that theyre way better than certain manually aimed weapons like SRMs which is a big no-no.

Again if guided weapons werent as good as manually aimed weapons there would be no reason to ever use guided weapons. If we did things your way guided weapons wouldnt be viable AT ALL .Honestly a problem really only arises when guided weapons are better than manually aimed weapons as is the case with ATMs vs SRMs. ATMs should not be outdamaging SRMs as much as they do in the 120m-270m bracket. SRMs should hit harder than just about anything in that bracket because of their 270m max range limit.

Theres also the fact that ATMs in MWO simply dont perform like ATMs in battletech. ATMs are supposed to be viable (but not as strong as the more specialized weapons) at all range brackets included under 120m. ATMs are supposed to be a versatile jack-of-all-trades weapon not a specialized 120m-270m niche weapon thats completely broken inside that niche (3 damage per missile is insane and always has been)

ShiverMeRivets, on 14 January 2019 - 12:26 AM, said:

My only problem with ATMs is the 3 damage/missile from short ranges. That is brutal. 2 damage/missile like SRMs is quite enough.

exactly. 3 damage is way too much. the damage of ATMs needs to be flattened out more. they should do less damage at short range and more damage at long range. And they should not have a 0 damage deadzone.

that would turn them into more of a jack-of-all trades missile which is what theyre supposed to be.

Edited by draiocht, 15 January 2019 - 02:26 PM.
Quote Clean-up, reference

[Remover of Obstacles]

Less worried about the asCendancy of ATMs and more worried about nerfs making fewer and fewer weapons viable in the game.

They are outclassed by LRMs outside of 270 meters and have a hard dead zone and as others have mentioned easily countered with skill tree radar derpage, AMS and positioning. If someone gets between 125 and 270 meters and lights me up with ATMs, I expect to take a ton of damage. Just as if an SRM/MRM Cyclops punched my ticket from 200 meters with a single click no lock needed alpha to the face.
https://mwo.smurfy-n...8e596a012d4b022

And also spelling.

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 15 January 2019 - 09:17 AM, said:

guided missile launcher in fortnite.

Well there's one...

Quote

it was one of the most complained about broken weapons in that game.

...and now it's gone. It was so powerful that they vaulted it.

Thank you for making my point for me.

Quote

theres countless examples of guided weapons in shooters that are just as powerful or more powerful than manual weapons. so again im not sure what youre talking about...

And all of them either have massive limitations or break the games they are in. More examples, because I'm way better versed in this than you are:

Guided rockets in UT2k3 and 2k4 had only token tracking and were easily dodged, making aimed dumb-fire the go-to. The Link Gun does far less damage in its aim-assisted alt-fre than in its projectile-based primary fire.

The guided rocket of Halo 2 made vehicles suicidal and was removed in Halo 3, replaced by a much weaker missile launcher with poor tracking. The Plasma Pistol's overcharge function gained stronger tracking at the expense of being able to damage health (and thus could not kill); even that was still too much and they toned it back down while also adding a power draw for holding the charge. The Needler has continuously waffled between being nearly useless and being OP because of its iconic guided projectiles and super combine.

Soldier 76's homing rounds in Overwatch are restricted to a limited duration Ultimate ability because of how powerful they are. Autoaiming beam weapons from Symmetra and Winston have very short ranges and low damage tick rates.

Heavy Gear 2 had ridiculously long flight times for long range guided weapons, had poor turning radius for shorter ranged ones, and let you Stealth by dropping to passive radar, forcing the enemy to go active or use a tagging laser.

Battlefield 3 and 4 only let you lock onto vehicles, and even then they gave every vehicle multiple spoofing enhancements. Battlefield Bad Company 2 require you to first hit the target with a slow-moving, dumb-fire tracking dart before RPGs would lock, and blowing flares would knock the dart off. Battlefield 2 required you to manually guide missiles to the target.

None of these guided things in any of these major league PvP shooters was as good as taking a conventional direct-fire weapon and being good at aiming unless they were, at which point they were nerfed or were terminal failures in the game's design.

This argument is over, and you sealed it against yourself.

Quote

and again your argument is entirely irrational.

No it isn't. Until you learn some basic English, you are finished.

Edited by Y E O N N E, 15 January 2019 - 11:21 AM.

[Khobai]

Y E O N N E, on 15 January 2019 - 11:05 AM, said:

And all of them either have massive limitations or break the games they are in. More examples, because I'm way better versed in this than you are:

um LRMs DO have massive limitations in MWO. They hardly break the game.

even ATMs dont break the game most of the time. theyre only broken in the 120m-270m bracket. thats the only circumstance where guided weapons are maybe a bit too strong in MWO. the 3 damage needs to be lowered in exchange for making ATMs better at other range brackets (and removing the zero damage deadzone).

so again youve proven your point is irrelevant. guided weapons in MWO are hardly in danger of being better than manually aimed weapons.

its a totally irrational fear on your part.

even moreso since LRM indirect fire is already getting massively nerfed on test server because of whiners like you. And not because IDF was too good... literally because of crybabies like you. so congrats youve ruined that. now we have another horrible PTR that hopefully wont go live.

so yes the argument is over. and youre wrong. but what else is new.

again youre just one of those crazy whackjobs that think skill should actually mean something in a casual game that isnt even the least bit competitive. MWO is for casual gamers and thats why guided weapons exist. Because most people agree that LRMs/ATMs should be capable of doing decent damage and dont share your irrational fear of guided weapons.

this game is a joke as an esport and a competitive game. skill does not matter in this game. thats why players trying to be elitest in this game is so hilarious.

Edited by Khobai, 15 January 2019 - 11:29 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 15 January 2019 - 11:14 AM, said:

um LRMs DO have massive limitations in MWO. They hardly break the game.

That remains up for debate.

Quote

even ATMs dont break the game most of the time. theyre only broken in the 120m-270m bracket.

"aTmS dOnT bReAk ThE gAmE eXcEpT wHeN tHeY dO."

Quote

so again youve proven your point is irrelevant.

Try harder, my child.

[Verilligo]

Khobai, on 15 January 2019 - 11:14 AM, said:

again youre just one of those crazy whackjobs that think skill should actually mean something in a casual game that isnt even the least bit competitive. MWO is for casual gamers and thats why guided weapons exist. Because most people agree that LRMs/ATMs should be capable of doing decent damage and dont share your irrational fear of guided weapons.

this game is a joke as an esport and a competitive game. skill does not matter in this game. thats why players trying to be elitest in this game is so hilarious.

I'm sorry, how exactly can you say this in a game whose entire storied history has been tied, at the hip, to location-based damage, a system that specifically rewards skill in placing shots? A series which challenges its players with forcing them to control a torso that can move separately from the legs, allowing players to skillfully deflect damage away from previously targeted locations? Look at what you're saying, man.

Edited by Verilligo, 15 January 2019 - 11:35 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

I'm sorry, how exactly can you say this in a game whose entire storied history has been tied, at the hip, to location-based damage, a system that specifically rewards skill in placing shots?

because that aspect of the game actually doesnt require much skill. most new players can aim weapons at a single location and hit that location. thats fairly easy to do. especially vs assaults with their laughably huge hitboxes.

if you think aiming is the singular aspect of this game that requires the most skill youre wrong.

remember the context of the argument was that guided weapons shouldnt do the same damage as aimed weapons.

but aiming doesnt really require all that much more skill than locking targets. in fact lasers are arguably the most easy mode weapon in the game, not LRMs. being instant hitscan makes lasers more easy mode than LRMs IMO.

there is nothing wrong with guided weapons as long as they have downsides and arnt better than manually aimed weapons. And the guided weapons in MWO have massive inherent downsides. the only circumstance where a guided weapon might be too strong is the 3 damage bracket for ATMs.

Edited by Khobai, 15 January 2019 - 11:49 AM.

[Spheroid]

Remover of Obstacles, on 15 January 2019 - 09:41 AM, said:

They are outclassed by LRMs outside of 270 meters

I don't disagree with this statement under normal combat conditions however in isolation an ATM9 will affect a CT Atlas death in fewer salvos than a cLRM20 at medium range for the same weight. If you accomplish the same result in fewer shots the difference in cooldown becomes a non-issue. Fewer shots also offset but does not overcome the ammo difference between the two weapons. Again this is comparing the two weapons in isolation under non-combat conditions.

The entirety of this discussion seems to only revolve around the triple damage range, but one should not discount the double damage range which is not insubstantial.

[Verilligo]

Khobai, on 15 January 2019 - 11:39 AM, said:

because that aspect of the game actually doesnt require much skill. most new players can aim weapons at a single location and hit that location. thats fairly easy to do. especially vs assaults with their laughably huge hitboxes.

if you think aiming is the singular aspect of this game that requires the most skill youre wrong.

remember the context of the argument was that guided weapons shouldnt do the same damage as aimed weapons.

but aiming doesnt really require all that much more skill than locking targets. in fact lasers are arguably the most easy mode weapon in the game, not LRMs. being instant hitscan makes lasers more easy mode than LRMs IMO.

there is nothing wrong with guided weapons as long as they have downsides and arnt better than manually aimed weapons. And the guided weapons in MWO have massive inherent downsides. the only circumstance where a guided weapon might be too strong is the 3 damage bracket for ATMs.

Is aiming the singular most important skill? No, of course not, the game is much more complex than that. But it is a very important skill. And judging by what I've seen, while the skill is fundamentally simple, people have a remarkably difficult time actually succeeding at it. Being able to lead your shots to a target such that you continually hit the same location over an extended period of time? Not nearly as widespread as you're assuming. Holding a laser burn on one location on a target for the duration of the burn? You can easily tell the difference between skilled and unskilled players.

I'm not even focused on the context of the discussion, I'm too flabbergasted by the fact you seemingly tried to argue on the last page that the core gameplay of a shooter isn't to shoot good. Like... okay, you don't have to have great accuracy to enjoy playing something. But you can't argue that placing more shots onto more critical locations is not the better display of at least one core component of shooter gameplay. Someone can be the best shot in the world and utter pants at positioning and you can say that they're not the best at the game as a whole, sure... but you still have to admit that their skill at hitting a target's vitals is on point.

Edited by Verilligo, 15 January 2019 - 12:24 PM.

[Kodyn]

I've personally seen them a bit too much in Tier 1, at least 3-4 mechs per side per match generally, on top of 1-2 LRM mechs. I normally have zero fear of missile mechs, but dealing with incoming fire from 2-3 ATM mechs at once from different angles can be a bit dicey, especially when I'm now seeing things such as 4x ATM 12 Night Gyrs and the like. While using them, even with a simple 2x ATM 9 on my SCR, I find my damage is generally much, much higher than I expect it to be after what feel like terrible matches for me.

I wouldn't say they're necessarily OP, but they could possibly use a tiny, tiny bit of tuning. I don't really want to suggest heat, because they're already hot, so perhaps a bit more spread? When dealing with them in large numbers, even on a 3x AMS Kit Fox, they seem to target legs a bit too much, almost seeming to bypass my AMS altogether- possibly due to the shallow arc? I'm really not sure.

I just know for a fact they're definitely far more common in the higher tiers than any other missile type at this point, and approaching irritating, at least during events. Again, not OP, but still on the more annoying side of weapon systems to face in any kind of quantity.