31 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

I like that they increased the long range damage from 1 to 1.2. That change was needed to give ATMs a little more versatility. 1.2 still probably isnt enough but its better than nothing.

however the fact ATMs still have a 0 damage deadzone is completely dumb and goes against the spirit of the weapon. not saying ATMs should do the full 3 damage below 120m but they should at least do *some* damage.

If ATMs did like 50% damage below 120m then changing the short range bracket to 245m would be more acceptable.

ATMs are supposed to do damage at all ranges. Thats the whole point of the weapon. And its absurd that CLRMs do more damage below 120m than ATMs. How does that make sense? It also doesnt make sense that ATMs have longer max range than LRMs. LRMs should have 1100m max range and ATMs should have 900m max range.

ATMs should be more like:

0-120 = 50% damage penalty (1.5 damage)
120-245 = 3 damage
295-500 = 2 damage
550-900 = 1.2 damage (and LRMs should have 1100 max range instead of ATMs)

Edited by Khobai, 15 June 2019 - 10:25 PM.

[LordNothing]

Vorpal Puppy, on 15 June 2019 - 12:09 PM, said:

Just like other times, the problem (assuming their really is one) was one particular mech - the Vapor Eagle - not the weapon system.

pgi likes to break entire weapons systems when one mech is op. they have done it before and they do not learn from their mistakes.

Khobai, on 15 June 2019 - 09:45 PM, said:

I like that they increased the long range damage from 1 to 1.2. That change was needed to give ATMs a little more versatility. 1.2 still probably isnt enough but its better than nothing.

however the fact ATMs still have a 0 damage deadzone is completely dumb and goes against the spirit of the weapon. not saying ATMs should do the full 3 damage below 120m but they should at least do *some* damage.

If ATMs did like 50% damage below 120m then changing the short range bracket to 245m would be more acceptable.

ATMs are supposed to do damage at all ranges. Thats the whole point of the weapon. And its absurd that CLRMs do more damage below 120m than ATMs. How does that make sense? It also doesnt make sense that ATMs have longer max range than LRMs. LRMs should have 1100m max range and ATMs should have 900m max range.

ATMs should be more like:

0-120 = 50% damage penalty (1.5 damage)
120-245 = 3 damage
295-500 = 2 damage
550-900 = 1.2 damage (and LRMs should have 1100 max range instead of ATMs)

id love to see hard min ranges go away in favor of ramped min ranges, either linear or that thing clan lrms do. that would include weapons like ppcs. i think id also give atms a lot more velocity when used against targets in the far range bracket and a flat trajectory.

Edited by LordNothing, 16 June 2019 - 02:53 AM.

[Moochachoo]

Yeah, kind of frustrated by the up coming change aswell, clan weapons has been steadily nerfed since I started playing, it’s lasers first, now this.

[Strength Damage Cliff Racer]

The changes are clearly meant to reduce amount of potshot BS level of damage you get in usual NASCAR scenario. You know things are bad when high-powered ballistics are outperformed by 2nd-liners with ATMs.
This change of 35 meters just makes it so you can't sit in 2nd line and get top damage. Either risk running into the death wall/tank or be in 2nd place you deserve.

[The6thMessenger]

Strength Damage Cliff Racer, on 16 June 2019 - 09:51 AM, said:

The changes are clearly meant to reduce amount of potshot BS level of damage you get in usual NASCAR scenario. You know things are bad when high-powered ballistics are outperformed by 2nd-liners with ATMs.
This change of 35 meters just makes it so you can't sit in 2nd line and get top damage. Either risk running into the death wall/tank or be in 2nd place you deserve.

Lol. that 25 meters isn't exactly hard to compensate with. You could still sit in 2nd line and get top damage, provided you use them medium ATM-Poptarters. The ATM heavies and Assaults aren't exactly the problem, but they're the ones that getting nerfed, it's the ATM Veagles that are the ones doing this and with the changes they are still going to do this.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 June 2019 - 02:39 PM.

[dwwolf]

You know, the normal fix would have been to give the VGL-3 a 5% ATM-12 RoF penalty.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

I don't want ATMs to be useless as a weapon... but I also don't agree with guided missiles having instagib potential the way that streakboats do for lights, and ATM48 does for... well, everything. At the very least, ATM ghost heat needs to be adjusted so that the 144-point auto-aim CT drill becomes impossible; currently, even the NTG version of the build can manage an alpha without overheating, in spite of ghost heat. If an alpha that massive can't be done with direct-fire, manually-aimed weapons, it should definitely not be possible with guided missiles. That's a hard no. It should never have happened.

What would really be cool is if ATMs were guided in their med-long range bracket (with reduced damage), but unguided within their short range bracket... with the minimum range also removed (so, they'd basically function like MRMs at close range, with higher damage per missile but a slower projectile speed). So, beyond ~300m, you can lock and use them in guided mode. Under 300m, you aim manually, but get higher damage. That seems fair to me. It would also give ATMs a more unique flavor (instead of basically just being better LRMs with a slightly higher skill floor) compared to every other missile type.

I somehow doubt PGI would spend the effort to code it at this point, though.

[Khobai]

ATMs just shouldnt do 3 damage per missile

It was always too much damage

2.4/2.0/1.6 is always where I thought they should be

and they shouldnt have a zero damage deadzone under 120m... instead have like a flat 50% damage penalty or maybe linear dropoff. or maybe a combination of both like linear dropoff down to a minimum of 50% damage.

weapons should NEVER do 0 damage at any range though. thats not a fun game mechanic with all the light mechs running around at 170kph.

Edited by Khobai, 16 June 2019 - 03:48 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 16 June 2019 - 03:46 PM, said:

and they shouldnt have a zero damage deadzone under 120m... instead have like a flat 50% damage penalty or maybe linear dropoff. or maybe a combination of both like linear dropoff down to a minimum of 50% damage.

weapons should NEVER do 0 damage at any range though. thats not a fun game mechanic with all the light mechs running around at 170kph.

That's basically your first post. You might as well copy paste for better clarity. Lol.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 June 2019 - 06:02 PM.

[thievingmagpi]

ATMs LOL

[Khobai]

The6thMessenger, on 16 June 2019 - 06:02 PM, said:

That's basically your first post. You might as well copy paste for better clarity. Lol.

well theres a lot of ways they could fix the zero damage deadzone. im honestly not sure which would be the best way. but I am sure that no weapon should ever do 0 damage at any range.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 16 June 2019 - 08:09 PM, said:

well theres a lot of ways they could fix the zero damage deadzone. im honestly not sure which would be the best way. but I am sure that no weapon should ever do 0 damage at any range.

Sure, but don't spam.