43 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

PTS 2.0 for the dual-arc LRMs is incoming, and we're expecting LRMs to be a lot better in DF than it is right now, with much more pronounced distinction between DF and IDF.

But where does this lead our actual DF homing missiles, the ATMs?

In my experience, ATMs suck at it's long-range in more ways than CLRMs suck at long-range cause not only it has poor damage it also have higher heat and less damage/volley (C-LRM20 deals 20 damage for 5.6 heat with 4.6s CD vs ATM9 that deals 9 damage for 7 heat with 5s CD); CLRMs somewhat triumphs in DFing in mid-range because it has both better damage and less heat than ATMs (C-LRM20 deals 20 damage for 5.6 heat with 4.6s CD vs ATM9 that deals 18 damage for 7 heat with 5s CD); but at short-range the CLRMs fall short on it's less-pronounced IDF angle and the ATMs deal monstrous damage in comparison (C-LRM20 deals 20 damage for 5.6 heat with 4.6s CD vs ATM9 that deals 27 damage for 7 heat with 5s CD), saved for that minimum-range.

That being said, I still do use ATMs both in mid-range and short-range, mainly because the mid-range use of ATMs is more of a backup.

Poor damage/heat due to being beyond optimal range isn't new, it happens with other direct fire weapons, but if that is really the case then really the optimal-range of ATMs is 270m and is a borderline close-range weapon, with a minimum-range that further compromises it's close-range use.

The CLRMs being better at DF in mid-range means it's mostly reinforcing the use of ATMs as close-range weapons than mid-range ones. The fact that CLRMs are kinda more usable in a wider band of range than ATMs, if anything, makes it much better at being a Jack-of-all-trades missile weapon.

So here's something to discuss:
- Is ATMs just supposedly for close-range niche in MWO?
- Are you satisfied with it just reigning on the close-range?
- What are ways to make ATMs compete in mid-range vs the new DF CLRMs?
- If so would you want it to compete with CLRMs in DF mid-range?

Personally, I'd rather add Ammo-Switching, because ATMs could be balanced as three distinct weapons (consuming different ammos doing different CD and heat/volley), unfortunately PGI could not code it, else we won't have this problem in the first place.

ADDENUM:

So here's my take on it, make ATMs excel at being reliable, at hitting the target versus LRMs in DF.
> Fire and Forget (means no longer sustained lock to home)
> High Tracking Strength
> 1.6/2.0/2.4 damage/missile (so it's not that powerful at close range, but not too weak long-range)
> No minimum range.

By capitalizing ATMs in being the reliable weapon system, that you are sure to land the missiles you launched, it should be an adequate distinction of use versus LRMs, after all "Advanced". Actual damage might be different, but that is one way to make a distinction.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 03 February 2019 - 04:28 AM.

[HammerMaster]

IS doesn't have ATM.

[The6thMessenger]

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

IS doesn't have ATM.

Did you not see the "C" on the LRM part?

And if anything, this does not call for adjustment of LRMs but of ATMs.

[HammerMaster]

The6thMessenger, on 01 February 2019 - 06:13 PM, said:

Did you not see the "C" on the LRM part?

And if anything, this does not call for adjustment of LRMs but of ATMs.

Ok.
In your duplicate post I'll reiterate here.
Don't penalize IS.

[The6thMessenger]

HammerMaster, on 01 February 2019 - 06:24 PM, said:

Don't penalize IS.

What.

[HammerMaster]

The6thMessenger, on 01 February 2019 - 06:30 PM, said:

What.

Pretty simple sir.
You worry so hard about lrm being like atm. You don't have IS ATM. So what do you want for IS?

[The6thMessenger]

HammerMaster, on 01 February 2019 - 06:43 PM, said:

Pretty simple sir.
You worry so hard about lrm being like atm. You don't have IS ATM. So what do you want for IS?

Why bother with IS when they don't have ATMs in the first place? Clans have the ATMs, so why not adjust ATMs for Clans?

That's even simpler.

[HammerMaster]

The6thMessenger, on 01 February 2019 - 06:48 PM, said:

Why bother with IS when they don't have ATMs in the first place? Clans have the ATMs, so why not adjust ATMs for Clans?

That's even simpler.

Why bother with IS!?

[Hauptmann Keg Steiner]

HammerMaster, on 01 February 2019 - 06:43 PM, said:

Pretty simple sir.
You worry so hard about lrm being like atm. You don't have IS ATM. So what do you want for IS?

If only the IS had some sort of Missile, maybe in a Medium Range between SRMs and LRMs, that had no minimum ranges or wacky brackets and didn't require a lock-on at all. That would be neat.

[Luminis]

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

IS doesn't have ATM.

Some sort of, I don't know, Medium Range Missile? That's ridiculous.

Ha, now imagine if you could put them on giga quirked Mechs, wouldn't that be something?

[justcallme A S H]

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 11 February 2019 - 04:11 PM.
unconstructive, inappropriate reference

[TechChris]

justcallme A S H, on 01 February 2019 - 08:58 PM, said:

[Redacted]

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 ****".

Edited by draiocht, 11 February 2019 - 04:12 PM.
Quote Clean-up

[The6thMessenger]

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 ****".

You can always contribute to the thread instead of just watching for the lulz. Kinda the point of the thread.

I mean for example:

"ATM's are fine the way they are as weapons that shine in 270m."

As in if ATMs weren't really added in mind for mid-range in the first place, the concern actually goes away. CLRMs can have the +270m bracket (well it does lower gradually than instantly from 3 damage/missile to 2 damage/missile).

[El Bandito]

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

PTS 2.0 for the dual-arc LRMs is incoming, and we're expecting LRMs to be a lot better in DF than it is right now, with much more pronounced distinction between DF and IDF.

But where does this lead our actual DF homing missiles, the ATMs?

ATM is still much better in certain range than LRMs, and should be used as such. Didn't players post their leet ***-kicking videos on the forums some time ago and claimed ATMs are OP, or something?

Personally I think ATM close range firepower should be reduced in exchange for having no minimum range. To those who say that will make them too similar to Streaks: No, Streaks have much better tracking, with much lower heat per second. You use Streaks to brawl against faster lighter mechs, and use ATMs against slower heavier mechs.

Edited by El Bandito, 02 February 2019 - 05:12 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

One of the things I tested with Kanajashi in last PTS was a direct comparison between ATM vs LRM. Clustering with ATM was still superior at 500 meters over LRM. Further, they would impact torsos far more than LRM which would, for whatever reason, hit the legs a ton, even on stationary assault mechs.

It was pretty remarkable how much of a difference there was. For testing, we used an ATM 48 vs A-LRM80 at 500 flat meters. Stationary 90 ton mechs, each. The LRM still wanted to gnaw on legs, while the ATM went primarily for the CT, with significant spread towards the side torsos.

That said, this was without AMS, which would have made a tremendous difference in favor of the LRM. Especially since I've seen as little as a single AMS Nova or Kit Fox totally invalidate ATM48 builds, while with LRM mechs you're still able to output most of your damage onto your target. The LRM mech also ran cooler, which meant it was easier to keep up sustained damage output.

I understand it sucks to get whacked by an ATM48 mech in the sweet spot if you have no AMS or ECM, but I still don't find ATM reliable enough. Even LRM are more likely to apply damage the moment AMS comes into play, whereas even 28 tons worth of ATM (plus ammo) are more likely to do zilch unless you're practically at the minimum range point. And even then, I've seen them explode literally within 20 meters of the launch tubes. At this point, I'd even take an ATM damage nerf to get reduced or removed minimum range and/or beefier missiles that are more resistant to being totally nullified by a single AMS boat.

TL;DR:
ATM damage placement is still superior to LRM, but susceptibility to counter-measures is grossly in the LRM's favor, and produce more heat than LRM per salvo.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 02 February 2019 - 04:43 AM.

[justcallme A S H]

Pariah Devalis, on 02 February 2019 - 04:27 AM, said:

Especially since I've seen as little as a single AMS Nova or Kit Fox totally invalidate ATM48 builds

Yeah, no.

[HammerMaster]

IdToaster, on 01 February 2019 - 07:16 PM, said:

If only the IS had some sort of Missile, maybe in a Medium Range between SRMs and LRMs, that had no minimum ranges or wacky brackets and didn't require a lock-on at all. That would be neat.

Luminis, on 01 February 2019 - 08:54 PM, said:

Some sort of, I don't know, Medium Range Missile? That's ridiculous.

Ha, now imagine if you could put them on giga quirked Mechs, wouldn't that be something?

facepalm.gif

justcallme A S H, on 01 February 2019 - 08:58 PM, said:

[Redacted]

eyeroll.gif

Edited by draiocht, 11 February 2019 - 04:27 PM.
Quote Clean-up

[East Indy]

Players' motivation to win has an interesting, evolutionary effect. If a game element isn't useful, players don't use it — especially months and months after its introduction.

ATMs have got to be either the most commonly used Clan missile weapon, or tied for it, in the most representative game experience of Solo Queue. Though I wouldn't call them overpowered, and they don't have the silly force multiplier of indirectly fired LRMs in organized play, they're devastating for players that can keep opponents at pre-brawl ranges after teams meet and begin to flank and counterflank.

[Luminis]

HammerMaster, on 02 February 2019 - 06:49 AM, said:

facepalm.gif

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:

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

- Are you satisfied with it just reigning on the close-range?

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.

Edited by Luminis, 02 February 2019 - 09:41 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Pariah Devalis, on 02 February 2019 - 04:27 AM, said:

It was pretty remarkable how much of a difference there was. For testing, we used an ATM 48 vs A-LRM80 at 500 flat meters. Stationary 90 ton mechs, each. The LRM still wanted to gnaw on legs, while the ATM went primarily for the CT, with significant spread towards the side torsos.

TL;DR:
ATM damage placement is still superior to LRM, but susceptibility to counter-measures is grossly in the LRM's favor, and produce more heat than LRM per salvo.

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.

Pariah Devalis, on 02 February 2019 - 04:27 AM, said:

That said, this was without AMS, which would have made a tremendous difference in favor of the LRM. Especially since I've seen as little as a single AMS Nova or Kit Fox totally invalidate ATM48 builds

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.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 02 February 2019 - 04:14 PM.