43 replies to this topic

[Spheroid]

In isolation the ATM still beats the MRM at medium range. Fewer salvos of ATM12 are required to kill a static assault size target than an MRM20 of equal weight.

I have no dog in this fight, but the mention of MRMs piqued my interest. ATMs are hardly unusable at medium range.

[The6thMessenger]

Spheroid, on 02 February 2019 - 03:47 PM, said:

In isolation the ATM still beats the MRM at medium range. Fewer salvos of ATM12 are required to kill a static assault size target than an MRM20 of equal weight.

I have no dog in this fight, but the mention of MRMs piqued my interest. ATMs are hardly unusable at medium range.

It's not the issue of unusable, but rather it becomes redundant with LRMs lower-arc feature, and it does not help on the fact that it's already relatively worse at mid-range vs LRMs pre-PTS.

The MRMs part is just HammerMaster being concerned with IS not having ATMs for the topic to matter.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 02 February 2019 - 04:05 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

The6thMessenger, on 02 February 2019 - 03:12 PM, said:

I don't want to be mean but, it really sounds like PTS bug and/or poor execution than bad implementation. Isn't that they wanted LRMs to be more efficient with DF fire? Why would hitting low and clustering on the legs helpful to what they wanted to achieve? It seems that it's really unintended than anything.



No, it's the 3x AMS you gotta worry about. Or if there's a lot of other mechs with single AMS.

If you're chain-firing them, that would totally invalidate the 48 missiles you stream-fired. But if you vollied them into two, or sucked the ghost-heat up, it would actually work -- granted there's still missiles that are shot down.

That is what I was referring to. In hindsight, I can see the confusion. I said Nova or Kit Fox as I assumed people would figure they are the 3x AMS mechs in greatest circulation. I should have specified "Nova or Kit Fox with three AMS."

And, yeah. In medium range, you'd expect both to function more or less equally. However, the damage placement was just overwhelmingly superior. IIRC, no armor on my mech was breached in a Super Nova, though my legs were red. His CT was blown out and his side torsos were exposed and he was in a MKII.


If it wasn't for how stupidly hot and susceptible ATM are to AMS, I'd take them every time over LRM, even with the last PTS' changes. But damage placement doesn't matter if you can't get a significant payload to actually connect to the target.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 02 February 2019 - 04:50 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Pariah Devalis, on 02 February 2019 - 04:45 PM, said:

If it wasn't for how stupidly hot and susceptible ATM are to AMS, I'd take them every time over LRM, even with the last PTS' changes. But damage placement doesn't matter if you can't get a significant payload to actually connect to the target.

Yeah well, that sounds bad implementation.

As well as another reason not to take ATMs for mid-range versus LRMs.

[HammerMaster]

Luminis, on 02 February 2019 - 09:40 AM, said:

First off, if you gonna "gif", do it right.

Second, the only thing worth a



is the "HURR DURR BUT MUH IS" nonsense when talking about how one weapon turning into a direct fire, homing missile weapon system is intruding into the design space of the already existing direct fire, homing missile weapon system. MRMs, the IS counterpart to the ATMs, are not, whatsoever, sharing the design elements in question.

Having neither a homing mechanic nor a minimum range quite clearly differentiates them from whatever the reworked LRMs will be. Therefore, regardless of what you might be thinking, not debating the IS perspective of an issue that does not extend to the IS, is not penalizing the IS.

Now, to add something that's actually on topic instead of that nonsense above:


Yes, mostly. Granted, being worse LRMs everywhere except at short range, where they are better LRMs, is bad design if I'm being honest, but it's okay. ATMs had one claim to fame, namely their ability to deliver insane damage within a very specific range bracket, DF LRMs will certainly make people think twice about running ATMs due to the flexibility the new LRMs are gonna offer over ATMs, but it at least doesn't negate the primary niche ATMs are being used for right now.

Nonetheless, I still think ATMs will see a little less play if the LRM rework was to go live as intended. Nonetheless, given how devastating they are within their preferred range bracket, I'd refrain from buffs, even to the underwhelming range brackets.

No. You don't warrant any extra iota of time.

[ShiverMeRivets]

Basic rule of game balancing: an all-range weapon must suck at all ranges relative to specialized weapons.

That 120 m minimum range limitation is the only excuse to make ATMs excel at some range. Make it an all range weapon and you will lose that. Still interested?

[Luminis]

HammerMaster, on 02 February 2019 - 04:51 PM, said:

No. You don't warrant any extra iota of time.

If you wanted something worthwhile, you should've formulated some sort of coherent argument. If you can't do that, do everyone a favour and scram.

ShiverMeRivets, on 03 February 2019 - 01:57 AM, said:

Basic rule of game balancing: an all-range weapon must suck at all ranges relative to specialized weapons.

That 120 m minimum range limitation is the only excuse to make ATMs excel at some range. Make it an all range weapon and you will lose that. Still interested?

I don't think that minimum range is being challenged at all. And yeah, that basic rule ought to apply, but I believe that's what makes the discussion worthwhile. SRMs and MRMs will have their place regardless of what PGI does to DF LRMs because they're mechanically different, so we can skip them. For ATMs, it very much depends on the tuning of DF LRMs. At present, I don't see a reason to fiddle with the ATMs just yet simply because they still excel in the 270 meter bracket, or so I believe.

Now, I wouldn't put it past PGI to buff DF LRMs to the point where it's a wash between DF LRMs and ATMs even within that range bracket (assuming that's not already going to be the case once the spread modifier for DF LRMs gets fixed). Even if it's "only" due to the buffed GH caps. If they're mechanically similar and LRMs perform better at long range, medium range and roughly the same at short range, you end up with ATMs becoming a 100% redundant weapon system. Which we need less of, not more.

It's a bit like buffing the regular IS Gauss to the point of encroaching onto the Heavy Gauss' design space. Less reason to bring one of the more unique weapon systems either side has access to...

Now, with all of that said, don't take this as me asking for pre-emptive buffs to the ATMs. I strongly believe that homing weapons shouldn't ever outperform weapon systems you have to manually aim, at any range (when aimed well, that is), but that's a different topic.

[The6thMessenger]

Luminis, on 03 February 2019 - 02:54 AM, said:

Spoiler

I don't think that minimum range is being challenged at all. And yeah, that basic rule ought to apply, but I believe that's what makes the discussion worthwhile. SRMs and MRMs will have their place regardless of what PGI does to DF LRMs because they're mechanically different, so we can skip them. For ATMs, it very much depends on the tuning of DF LRMs. At present, I don't see a reason to fiddle with the ATMs just yet simply because they still excel in the 270 meter bracket, or so I believe.

Now, I wouldn't put it past PGI to buff DF LRMs to the point where it's a wash between DF LRMs and ATMs even within that range bracket (assuming that's not already going to be the case once the spread modifier for DF LRMs gets fixed). Even if it's "only" due to the buffed GH caps. If they're mechanically similar and LRMs perform better at long range, medium range and roughly the same at short range, you end up with ATMs becoming a 100% redundant weapon system. Which we need less of, not more.

It's a bit like buffing the regular IS Gauss to the point of encroaching onto the Heavy Gauss' design space. Less reason to bring one of the more unique weapon systems either side has access to...

Yes, thank you!

Luminis, on 03 February 2019 - 02:54 AM, said:

Now, with all of that said, don't take this as me asking for pre-emptive buffs to the ATMs. I strongly believe that homing weapons shouldn't ever outperform weapon systems you have to manually aim, at any range (when aimed well, that is), but that's a different topic.

I somewhat agree with that sentiment, but I'm not so sure with how our ATMs and LRMs are set-up, like constant aiming at the target means you can't just shield away damage or easily twist without the threat of losing the lock and have to regain it, and the slow projectile speed means it's a lot less easier to land with range because it's a lot bigger window of time to lose the lock.

Having allies to hold locks for you so you can get in and out to launch missiles sure is nice, but that still means a LOT of hoops that makes me question it for being "easy mode". If it were fire-and-forget, it'll be probably be different story.

Honestly, i think it's probably beneficial if ATMs could capitalize reliability as it's distinction to LRMs.

Become Fire-And-Forget (doesn't need constant lock) with really high tracking-strength, without minimum range and had a bit more consistent damage (and 1.6/2.0/2.4 damage/missile). It's not as good in terms of damage and would less likely vaporize someone in the sweet-spot, but at least it's the true "easy mode". Besides the reduction of the 3 damage to 2.4, it's less powerful and would mean less competent with DF right? Likewise the 1.6 damage long range would make it less of a waste to use and isn't a joke (ATM9 would still do 14.4 damage long-range while LRM20 would do 20), and the 2.4 damage at close-range means it still has it's sweet-spot even if not as powerful before. It's still differentiated from streaks too with it's stream fire, and not bone-seeking.

As for the "Reliable Missile System" setup, I'm not really sure with the right numbers, damage could be far weaker and might spread quite horribly. It's not exactly something I'm pushing for, but it is one way to make ATMs more distinct. And if it does became the noob-crutch, at least it ain't IDF.

ShiverMeRivets, on 03 February 2019 - 01:57 AM, said:

Basic rule of game balancing: an all-range weapon must suck at all ranges relative to specialized weapons.

That 120 m minimum range limitation is the only excuse to make ATMs excel at some range. Make it an all range weapon and you will lose that. Still interested?

Honestly, yes, at least depending on the setup. If it was set up like above, as a much more reliable weapon system (one which we could fire and forget, without minimum-range with relatively consistent damage at all ranges), as in make it excel specifically at hitting the targets, I would actually be interested.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 03 February 2019 - 05:58 PM.

[Reno Blade]

I think ATMs would be better with a linear damage fall off rather than the current 3-step difference.

Reason:
Anything outside of the short-range bracket is very lackluster for dmg considering the stats (heat, cd, and AMS penetration...) compared to large LRM volleys.

Suggestion:
Change ATM dmg fall-off to linear drop, so that they are about even with LRMs around 900m with 1dmg/missile.

Further adjustment to LRMs in general (or Clan especially) might resolve around heat/GH/cd/speed and maybe ammo or missile health.
But overall the range bracket is the major difference where the ATMs are only really good at short range (even tho they have more max range than LRMs).

[LordNothing]

i dont see a reason why atms need to change. their niche is being able to get close and do tripple damage. lrms in direct fire mode are still lrms and will be used at moderate to long ranges. atms should completely dominate lrms inside 300 meters.

i for one wouldnt mind seeing is get mmls (which would work like atms with srm and lrm modes). clans could get streak lrms. and i want a varient of narc with epod. more stuff is good.

Edited by LordNothing, 03 February 2019 - 06:51 AM.

[Dogstar]

and 6th knocks it out of the park with another brilliant idea

[HammerMaster]

Luminis, on 03 February 2019 - 02:54 AM, said:

and scram

Oh so much bluster.
Here's some kittens.

[justcallme A S H]

Dogstar, on 03 February 2019 - 11:10 AM, said:

and 6th knocks it out of the park with another brilliant idea

[Angel of Annihilation]

HammerMaster, on 01 February 2019 - 06:11 PM, said:

IS doesn't have ATM.

No they have MRMs but I am not sure why you would want to use MRMs when you can now have "lock on" MRMs in the form of dual arc LRMs.

Honestly I think they whole Dual Arc LRM is a really bad idea across the board. It encroaches way to much on ATMs, MRMs and even Streaks by having one system that pretty much does the same thing as all three wrapped into one. I mean you still get the indirect fire but in direct fire situations you will have the trajectory and speed of an MRM only these MRMs lock on like streaks so that all missiles actually hit. I mean I am not going to lie and say that there aren't still some advantages to using ATMs or MRMs or Streaks in some cases but the change to LRMs means there isn't going to be a hell of alot of disadvantages to using them either.

I think what is more frustrating though it I am wondering just how much effect they will have on all my builds and skill set ups. LRMs as they are now can be pretty damn annoying to deal with in certain circumstances but with them having this new direct fire mode, I am wondering if it won't become a full on necessity to mount AMS and/or run Radar Dep and having to do that will end up breaking a ton of my builds and if radar dep becomes a necessity, all my mechs will require to be reskilled since I don't run radar dep currently.

I will just leave it with this. I am so damn sick of PGI re-balancing and changing systems so damn often. The game is fine as is. Stop re-balancing the damn thing and give us content like a couple new maps or something instead.

[The6thMessenger]

Angel of Annihilation, on 03 February 2019 - 05:58 PM, said:

No they have MRMs but I am not sure why you would want to use MRMs when you can now have "lock on" MRMs in the form of dual arc LRMs.

Can snap shot because you don't need lock to fire and effective volley, work better on constricted areas versus LRMs, +50% damage/ton (LRM20 vs MRM30) which makes it powerful at point-blank range, which unlike LRMs you can focus at a single component. I would argue that it's a question of playstyle.

Granted, we haven't seen 2.0, I'm just voicing it from the 1.0.

Angel of Annihilation, on 03 February 2019 - 05:58 PM, said:

Honestly I think they whole Dual Arc LRM is a really bad idea across the board.

It encroaches way to much on ATMs, MRMs and even Streaks by having one system that pretty much does the same thing as all three wrapped into one.

But i would argue that it's a good idea, mainly because it helps LRMs competent vs DF weapons, which one of the crux why it's being shat upon.

I would argue that it's not enroaching on Streaks, because there's far more nuance to the Streaks than just a homing weapon. It's also a fire-and-forget missile system with bone-seeking, which means unlike ATMs or LRMs that have a spread that makes it a lot more effective the larger the target is, the Streak does the opposite which gives it a point to use.

As to MRMs, refer above.

As for ATM, that's the reason why the thread is here cause at mid-range LRMs DF are enroaching at the mid-range of ATMs.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 03 February 2019 - 06:19 PM.

[50 50]

HammerMaster, on 01 February 2019 - 06:11 PM, said:

IS doesn't have ATM.

Nice observation.

The6thMessenger, on 01 February 2019 - 06:05 PM, said:

- Is ATMs just supposedly for close-range niche in MWO?

Need to replace 'Is' with 'Are'?

[MischiefSC]

I admit I'm curious to see how the changes to LRMs shake out. It's something I've put forward before and am happy to see it coming to play.

For ATMs, keep them as a niche alternative. One way to do that is have them on an acceleration curve - as in the further a target is, the faster they get their so at short range they're giving a better damage/heat/weight ratio and at long range they're doing less damage for the heat but are arriving much sooner.

MRMs are not and never were a LRM alternative for IS. They're direct competition for SRMs and have largely replaced them for most IS brawling builds. MRMs are relative to ATMs in the same way AC2s are relative to MGs.

[Mole]

Direct fire or no, no amount of LRM launchers will allow me to vomit out a disgusting 72 damage like ATMs will in their proper range bracket. Best hit I can get out of LRMs before I start getting ghost heat is 40. ATMs can inflict 72 damage before incurring the wrath of ghost heat at proper range, 48 at longer distances, and a meager 24 at long range. Just because LRMs are going to be better at direct fire now doesn't mean you should drop your ATMs for LRMs because short range ATMs are bloody terrifying. I love the hell out of my ATM24 Mad Dog.

Edited by Mole, 04 February 2019 - 12:09 PM.

[Water Bear]

TechChris, on 01 February 2019 - 09:53 PM, said:

FTFY.

also, thanks for the good chuckle. I always appreciate finding one of those on these forums among the sea of "why am I even still reading this ****".

Most "discussion" on this forum, and chat in this game, falls into this category. A game that makes you say "did I really hear the voice of a grown man say that childish s**t?"

[Hauptmann Keg Steiner]

Mole, on 04 February 2019 - 12:07 PM, said:

ATMs can inflict 72 damage before incurring the wrath of ghost heat at proper range, 48 at longer distances, and a meager 24 at long range.

Triple 9s hit 81 dmg (3 more tubes than 2x12s) while still dodging spooky heat. Might not be worth the tonnage or crit slots on every mech though.