704 replies to this topic

[NiceDad]

I'm a new player that just started playing end Jan 2021. From a new player perspective, this upcoming patch will improve my playing experience as I can play with even more different weapons configuration except for ATMs. The reason as follows:

1) Laser boats are too hot for a new player to handle. I always try out the meta laser vomit builds recommended at the GrimMechs. When I configure those laser boats, as a new player I tend keep alpha stirke but will usually experience shutdown after my 2nd aplha strike. Yes, I know that most of the laser vomit builds ain't suppose to do alpha strike before the heat cooldown but as a new player, you know, I just keep pressing the mouse buttons without noticing the heatscale. Thus most of my current mech builds are more dakka & missiles. With the reduced heat on some of the laser & PPC, with the increase awareness to heatscle now, I can have fun experiencing with different builds.

2) I was about to start to experience with different PPC builds when the March patch applies. With the surge of the heat, I simply just drop toying with PPC as the laser heat are already handful for me, with the PPC heat spike it will be worse for me to handle. Thus with this upcoming April patch, I can start to experience with all the different PPC builds again.

3) The only weapon class I haven't really play is Guass weapons as charging them and need to release the mouse button within the specific time is stressing. With the increase damage, it will be interesting for me to try out this weapon class.

4) For lock-on missile weapons, I started with LRM. After getting used to LRM, I moved on to ATM but to a new player, to get the full potential of doing the maximum damage within the ATM's perfect range is really a challenge. With the maximum damage (of 3 per missile) reduced to 2.5 for the perfect range, it doesn't give me incentive of mastering a more difficult weapon system as compared to LRM. ATM9 has lesser arc & lesser missiles vs LRM20 and the extra 2.5 damage is not worth the extra skill/stress I need to master ATM as compare to LRM. Not to mention that with LRM, I can just keep firing even at long range and doing more damage as compared to ATM.


As a new player, I can't say whether this upcoming patch will bring more joy to everyone or not. But for me, definitely it will be more interesting and I will like to say thanks to those people who bring this coming April patch to the game. Hopefully more players will return to play MWO as well as attracting new players. With popluation growth, MWO will be even more fun.

[Bennesto]

denAirwalkerrr, on 05 April 2021 - 01:05 AM, said:

Rich coming off a person who used to bring in FP nothing but ECM Marauder-IIC and sit as far away from fight as possible.

^This.

[Krasnopesky]

katoult, on 05 April 2021 - 01:21 AM, said:

And that's the real problem. Should an overhaul primarily accomodate a limited subsection of players, or should it accomodate the majority of players including "newbies" and "returnees" that one wants to attract?

If it's the first then
1) the target group should be stated and staked out clearly in order to focus on its concerns
2) one might want to think about flanking it with a "training programme" to possibly enlarge this subsection

In general though i see these passes - not the current weapons pass and only to a limited extent the quirk pass - as pandering to very specific groups. Mostly those people that cry "They nerfed my OP Firestarter by making it huge" or "Back in the day before the engine desync the Kodiak could...". It might attract returning players - i mean, the only thing pushing that aspect more would be chucking the skill tree apparently - but for people who take up the game now or at any time in the last 2-3 years it doesn't really mean much other than having to adapt their builds and playstyle to conform to whatever the meta is twisted into by such passes.

Even if an agility pass does not benefit a new players ability to survive (I don't completely agree with this but I understand where you are coming from) then Mech rescale and the quirk pass definitely will.

The agility pass will however make the game more accessible and fun for both new and experienced players. I have been gathering feedback from many places (official forums, Reddit, Discord, Steam, Facebook) and a large portion of players who still play now or quit years ago have shown their frustration with certain Mechs moving very poorly, especially when compared to pre engine desync days. In fact a very large number of people quit the game due to that factor alone and when combined with the skill tree update.

As with any concept, there are players who think the opposite and believe that agility should either stay the same or be lowered, but from the data I have gathered they are in a relatively small minority.

Edited by Krasnopesky, 05 April 2021 - 03:34 AM.

[ghost1e]

Pure_NZ, on 04 April 2021 - 10:56 PM, said:

"As many of you know, towards the end of last year we were tasked with revitalizing MechWarrior Online."

You think we are idiots?
Exactly NOT. All the capacities were reserved for that crap MW5. Sometimes when you thought it was so much time between two patches, you tuned the IS.
The game is obsolete:

• Invisible edges
  
• Marionette mechs
  
• True/False images of turrets
  
• Square objects
  
• Autocannons/Lasers/Missile pods/Arms/Mechs are steady contrary to these are shooting
  
• Mechs CAN NOT crouch
  
• 6 hitboxes on the mechs. A MECH CAN BE DESTROYED IF YOU SHOOT ITS FINGERS!
  
• CLAN AC20 Autocannons shoot 4 times times to make 20 damage. Shoot 4xAC5 projectiles but with 720m range! What is this ********? The AC20 means 200mm, not the imaginary calibers you want! Of course, its IS variant can take a 20 damage by one shot.
  
• CLAN AC10 Autocannons shoot 3 times times to make 10 damage. Shoot 3xAC5(or what?) projectiles but with 1080m range! What is this ********? The AC10 means 100mm, not the imaginary calibers you want!
  
• CLAN AC5 Autocannons shoot 2 times times to make 5 damage. Shoot 2xAC2(or what?) projectiles but with 1260m range! What is this ********? The AC10 means 100mm, not the imaginary calibers you want!
  
• IS light mechs with heavies’ armor
  
• IS lights can run the ping
  
• IS lights and medium can’t be destroyed by 3 hits from 2xLB20X
  
• Sticky Assassin can’t be destroyed by 4 hits from 2xLB20X
  
• IS mediums an ligths have optimal variants for Short Range combat. Have missile pods in the torso symmetrically. Have energy pods in the torso symmetrically. Have any pods in a medium. For example: The Assassin has Jumpjet/1million SRM/Runs 200KPH/ECM/Stealth Armor/Invulnerability
  
• CLAN mediums and lights can’t be built to be combat worthy. If a variants has equipments the player needs, it is sure that weapon pods are in the arms.
  
• No combat worthy CLAN mech can be built against the IS mechs.
  
• All the CLAN mechs are wide as you can did draw them.
  
• All the IS mech have the optimal shape to avoid the hits. Mainly have an inverted triangle torso, this way can’t be targeted well. Contrary to the CLAN mechs. You did draw them as wide as you can.
  
• IS AMS boats. 4xAMS on the IS mechs. The CLAN missiles are ineffective if there is a Corsair in the IS team.
  
• IS Missile boats. 6 and 8 missile pods on a IS mech? 6 or 8 AMSs on a IS mech? Are you serious???
  
• 0,3s IS Laser shooting
  
• IS can shoot 8 lasers, mediums and larges without overheating. They are shooting continuously happily without ghost heat and overheating. Are you serious???
  
• IS mechs have 20% more armor
  
• No combat worthy 100tons CLAN mechs
  
• Should I continue the listing?

You are doing nothing, not revitalising!
You are compensating your lack of talent and degrade the CLANs to make the IS wins in the combats/factions because want to see the IS’ victory, your favourite’s victory. Just let’s see the „Inner Sphere News” account. Why not CLAN news?
In a real simulator the CLAN/IS ratio should be 12/24 mechs, mainly int he faction combats!
Oh, you have no motivation to fight in real environments?
Oh, you have no motivation to carry it out?
Oh, and there is no enough players to carry it out?

alright, gonna answer these in order.

1. agreed, invisible edges are a problem, yet they can be mostly removed with a proper user.cfg
2. don't know what you mean by that
3. turrets are a simple game mechanic and do not need to be complicated.
4. square hitboxes are a problem but are mathematically way easier to calculate, which I'd assume is the reason they exist
5. recoil would be over-complicating a game that is already pretty complex
6. mechs shouldn't be able to crouch, after all they are 12m high war-machines
7. it works the same way in every battletech game, also there are technical limitations...
8. lore says ac20s can either shoot one bullet or multiple, even for is.
9. see above
10. see above
11. is non-existent, no light mech in the game has the armor of a heavy mech
12. ping is almost irrelevant in practice in this game, though some mechs have weird animations
13. they can easily, if you aim well
14. same as above, just need to aim a bit better
15. so since you are taking everything so 100% accurate to simulations... asn doesn't have 1 million srms, nor does it go 200kph.
16. clan lights are in a bad place rn, but piranhas can have their niche. for mediums, the vapor eagle would probably like a word as one of the strongest mechs in the whole game
17. I'll just list a few mechs that are taken at the top level of comp, where you can pick from both factions: MCII, BAS, VGL, SMN, WHM-IIC, DWF
18. look at the fafnir... clan mechs aren't widened too much at all
19. fafnir has terrible hitboxes, mauler has bad hitboxes... IS mechs doesn't have a giant advantage here, and it's definitely not all IS mechs
20. IS only has the corsair with 4ams, all other mechs can have max 2. clan has KFX (3ams), NVA (3ams) and PIR (4ams)
21. huntsman has 8 missile as well, and the nova cat and mad dog have six
22. well, IS has the MPL, clan has the C-ERPPC, the two top weapons right now...
23. clan can also shoot 2HLL and 6ERML without ghost heat... if you mean 8ML at the same time, there is ghost heat on that and you are flat out wrong
24. not all of them, but yes
25. DWF is pretty decent, especially in QP or faction with 8AC2
26. please not, because everything you said so far was absolutely delusional

all in all, seems like you really wished this was a simulator and your precious clans were as good as they are in lore...
jokes on you though, this is a game and no simulator, and the imbalance you feel is probably mostly made up of you playing against better players...

[Serenna187]

TheUltimateGhost, on 05 April 2021 - 03:55 AM, said:

6. mechs shouldn't be able to crouch, after all they are 12m high war-machines

11. is non-existent, no light mech in the game has the armor of a heavy mech

6. crouching was a thing in mechwarrior 3 i believe,tho i would deem it rather redundant in this game

11. may i introduce you to our lord and saviour,the one and only...urbanmech

[John Bronco]

The urbi has the armor of a 50 tonner.

[KHETTI]

Looking forward to this patch, finally a reason to play again.

[ghost1e]

Serenna187, on 05 April 2021 - 08:55 AM, said:

6. crouching was a thing in mechwarrior 3 i believe,tho i would deem it rather redundant in this game

11. may i introduce you to our lord and saviour,the one and only...urbanmech

UM-K9 (the only really viable one, so didn't check others) gets a total of 80 ct hp unskilled (60 armor, 20 structure).
QKD-4G (a 60 tonner that isn't the giga-quirked IV4, gets no ct hp quirks) gets a total of 120 ct hp unskilled (80 armor, 40 structure)

happy to answer any other concerns btw

[Sereglach]

Krasnopesky, on 05 April 2021 - 02:53 AM, said:

Even if an agility pass does not benefit a new players ability to survive (I don't completely agree with this but I understand where you are coming from) then Mech rescale and the quirk pass definitely will.

The agility pass will however make the game more accessible and fun for both new and experienced players. I have been gathering feedback from many places (official forums, Reddit, Discord, Steam, Facebook) and a large portion of players who still play now or quit years ago have shown their frustration with certain Mechs moving very poorly, especially when compared to pre engine desync days. In fact a very large number of people quit the game due to that factor alone and when combined with the skill tree update.

As with any concept, there are players who think the opposite and believe that agility should either stay the same or be lowered, but from the data I have gathered they are in a relatively small minority.

Just to throw this out there. I was (and still am) completely for engine desync. It allowed PGI the opportunity to add another layer to balancing mech chassis, and keep them feeling unique, instead of just hardpoints and geometry. This was especially the case the more PGI kept adding in mechs that could mount an absurd range of engine sizes, which really started removing limits on mech agility for newer chassis vs. older ones.

However, like most things PGI did at the time, they screwed it up. Instead of creating a wide array of viable chassis with different levels of agility, they just made most heavier mechs feel like boats and then say "if you want your old baseline agility, then you MUST invest into the skill tree for it." Granted, I don't think most Assaults should be able to easily track and shoot a light in close-medium proximity with perfect precision. That should be the realm of only certain assaults known for their high agility (Charger, Victor, Executioner, etc.). However, if a viable shot presents itself then it shouldn't be absurdly difficult for the assault to line it up and take it.

Maybe one day we can get back to the balancing idea, that helped all classes be more viable, where each heavier weight class carried just enough extra armor and weapons that -with equal skilled pilots- the heavier class would generally defeat the lower one. On the other hand, two classes in difference became a crapshoot (a light vs. heavy or medium vs. assault) and with a light vs. assault the light could generally outmaneuver the assault. It wasn't guaranteed rock-paper-scissors, but it was a good approach to baseline balancing of mech agility; and then you could take it and throw in exceptions to the rule, like the particularly agile assaults mentioned earlier or the slower fire-support heavies (like a Rifleman).

Even if engine desync is removed, I think chassis should still have baseline stats that are then altered by the equipped engine size. Therefore a Victor with a 320 engine will always be more agile than an Annihilator with a 320 engine, for example.

I'm sure there are plenty of people that disagree with me on the topic, but I figured I'd throw in my opinion on the subject, since it's always a heated debate.

John Bronco, on 05 April 2021 - 09:23 AM, said:

The urbi has the armor of a 50 tonner.

And in the stock values of lore it has comparable armor to many medium mechs. The stock Urbanmech mounted 6 tons of armor. A Cicada carries 4, A Wolverine 3R carries 6.5, A Hunchback IIC carries 6, A Hatchetman has 6.5, and the Shadowhawk 2D carries a paltry 4.5 tons and a 2D2 only 6.5. Hell, a stock Rifleman only carried 7.5 tons, and that's entering the 60 ton bracket. In TT it's very hard to find chassis that actually carry near-maxed out levels of armor, unlike MWO builds. The Urbanmech was quite the standout in that regard.

Really, in order for PGI to help the Urbanmech FEEL like an Urbanmech they had to quirk it enough to actually make it seem like it's as rugged as it's original, highly adored, TT design. That takes a lot considering one of the first things people do with their mechs is try to optimize said armor loadout.

[Krasnopesky]

Sereglach, on 05 April 2021 - 11:08 AM, said:

Just to throw this out there. I was (and still am) completely for engine desync. It allowed PGI the opportunity to add another layer to balancing mech chassis, and keep them feeling unique, instead of just hardpoints and geometry. This was especially the case the more PGI kept adding in mechs that could mount an absurd range of engine sizes, which really started removing limits on mech agility for newer chassis vs. older ones.

However, like most things PGI did at the time, they screwed it up. Instead of creating a wide array of viable chassis with different levels of agility, they just made most heavier mechs feel like boats and then say "if you want your old baseline agility, then you MUST invest into the skill tree for it." Granted, I don't think most Assaults should be able to easily track and shoot a light in close-medium proximity with perfect precision. That should be the realm of only certain assaults known for their high agility (Charger, Victor, Executioner, etc.). However, if a viable shot presents itself then it shouldn't be absurdly difficult for the assault to line it up and take it.

Maybe one day we can get back to the balancing idea, that helped all classes be more viable, where each heavier weight class carried just enough extra armor and weapons that -with equal skilled pilots- the heavier class would generally defeat the lower one. On the other hand, two classes in difference became a crapshoot (a light vs. heavy or medium vs. assault) and with a light vs. assault the light could generally outmaneuver the assault. It wasn't guaranteed rock-paper-scissors, but it was a good approach to baseline balancing of mech agility; and then you could take it and throw in exceptions to the rule, like the particularly agile assaults mentioned earlier or the slower fire-support heavies (like a Rifleman).

Even if engine desync is removed, I think chassis should still have baseline stats that are then altered by the equipped engine size. Therefore a Victor with a 320 engine will always be more agile than an Annihilator with a 320 engine, for example.

I personally have no intentions to suggest/recommend removing engine desync, nor do I want it removed. I don't know for certain, but I do not think that any of the other Cauldron members want to either.

We do however want to improve the agility of many Mechs that have poor mobility and are severely disadvantaged as a result. This is just one step that we hope will allow a greater diversity of Mechs to be viable.

Edited by Krasnopesky, 05 April 2021 - 11:25 AM.

[C337Skymaster]

So Shilone and Mech Buster aircraft as AI, when? How about Long Tom Carriers as AI?

[ShooterMcGavin80]

Sereglach, on 05 April 2021 - 11:08 AM, said:

Just to throw this out there. I was (and still am) completely for engine desync. It allowed PGI the opportunity to add another layer to balancing mech chassis, and keep them feeling unique, instead of just hardpoints and geometry. This was especially the case the more PGI kept adding in mechs that could mount an absurd range of engine sizes, which really started removing limits on mech agility for newer chassis vs. older ones.

Even if engine desync is removed, I think chassis should still have baseline stats that are then altered by the equipped engine size. Therefore a Victor with a 320 engine will always be more agile than an Annihilator with a 320 engine, for example.

Agreed, this is very sensible to me. I would say if you have a Kodiak with an XL400, it would make you... say... 10 to 15% more agile than a baseline KDK? With a sliding scale from 0 to 15% more agile for every engine size above a stock engine. Have to be careful how this would stack though with a fully skilled out agility tree, just to make sure you're not having assaults out-performing lights or mediums with twist rates.

Edited by ShooterMcGavin80, 05 April 2021 - 02:01 PM.

[Averof]

that poor light guass will still underperform and i dont see many people using IS streaks with their current range + them getting jammed+ longer cooldown. Howerver the rest of the changes look interesting and i am looking forward to them.

[Tarteso]

Krasnopesky, on 03 April 2021 - 12:13 PM, said:

We have purposely buffed a lot of weapons to be better specifically for Light and Medium Mechs. IS weapons that will be better on Lights/Mediums:

• SL, ML, ERSL, ERML, SPL
  
• LPPC (This weapon system in particular got a number of big buff and should work excellently on 30/35 tonners)
  
• LMG, MG, HMG
  
• SRM4, SRM6, MRM10

Clan weapons that will be better on Lights/Mediums:

• ERuL, ERSL, ERML
  
• uPL, SPL, MPL
  
• HSL, HML
  
• LMG, HMG
  
• SRM4, SRM6

We have also reduced the upfront damage of close range ATMs and clan Streaks, which will reduce the instances of getting one-hit in Light Mechs from these weapon systems. Additionally we have future plans to decrease the size of many 30 and 35 tonne Mechs (as well as others), as many of them are far too large currently, as well as buffing the quirks one some Light Mechs that are currently underperforming and increasing the agility on certain slow Light Mechs that have poor mobility. I personally pilot Light Mechs a lot (as do many other pilots in The Cauldron) and we have specifically made sure that these changes will be beneficial for Light Mechs and lighter Medium Mechs.

Very revealing. In general, the list of changes is interesting. But the continous efforts to make the light class stronger to favor some personal preferences are becoming a bit ridiculous. Some would say "more viable", perhaps they aren´t right now? Perhaps are they being played as (logically) should: scouts, spotters, scavengers, to fight enemy light mechs??? In practise, the foreseeable results (particularly about the size reduction) will be to make current meta lights, and some meds, even more meta; even more nascar; and heavies and assaults more exposed to lights and less capable of return fire. All them bad moves, IMO

[cougurt]

Tarteso, on 05 April 2021 - 04:44 PM, said:

Very revealing. In general, the list of changes is interesting. But the continous efforts to make the light class stronger to favor some personal preferences are becoming a bit ridiculous. Some would say "more viable", perhaps they aren´t right now? Perhaps are they being played as (logically) should: scouts, spotters, scavengers, to fight enemy light mechs??? In practise, the foreseeable results (particularly about the size reduction) will be to make current meta lights, and some meds, even more meta; even more nascar; and heavies and assaults more exposed to lights and less capable of return fire. All them bad moves, IMO

as far as light mechs go, the rescale will primarily be targeting the 30-35 tonners, of which only the wolfhound and urbanmech K9 are widely considered meta. of those two, only the wolfhound is receiving a size reduction, and i would expect that its armor quirks will be lowered as a result. the 20-25 ton mechs are remaining the same size, with the exception of the flea which is actually being made slightly bigger.

[Krasnopesky]

Tarteso, on 05 April 2021 - 04:44 PM, said:

Very revealing. In general, the list of changes is interesting. But the continous efforts to make the light class stronger to favor some personal preferences are becoming a bit ridiculous. Some would say "more viable", perhaps they aren´t right now? Perhaps are they being played as (logically) should: scouts, spotters, scavengers, to fight enemy light mechs??? In practise, the foreseeable results (particularly about the size reduction) will be to make current meta lights, and some meds, even more meta; even more nascar; and heavies and assaults more exposed to lights and less capable of return fire. All them bad moves, IMO

You are taking my message out of context and confusing 'personal preferences' with informed holistic balance decisions. I was responding to a person who was concerned that Light and Medium Mechs were being left out due to what he perceived as buffs only for Heavy and Assault Mechs. To ease his mind I listed the ways we specifically aimed at helping the two aforementioned classes and listed some reasons (such as personally playing Light Mechs a lot) as to why we are making sure not to leave out one particular weight class of Mechs. I will now provide you with similar reasoning for your concerns.

My personal preferences (which are the same as many Cauldron members) are towards having a balanced game where all weapons and Mechs have a viable place to be used in this game. We believe that this is the best way to promote fun in the game and not have new players punished for unknowingly bringing suboptimal Mechs and weapon systems. This also has the added benefit of making the game more diverse and fun for veterans and new players alike.

If your concerns are an increase in NASCAR you should not worry. The Cauldron dislikes the current NASCAR meta just as much as everyone else typically does. One of the main reasons I do not play Quick Play (QP) as much as I have done in previous years is due to the ever increasing need for teams in tier 1/2 matches to immediately NASCAR and the negative impact that has on matches, particularly for Assault Mechs.

Similarly to my mentioning of playing Light Mechs quite a bit in your quoted message, I am happy to inform you that Assaults are my most played class in QP. We have a balanced team of players at the Cauldron, with many members having vast experience and preferences towards all weight classes. While we have catered to Light and Medium Mechs with the mentioned weapon systems, there are just as many weapon systems that have been balanced primarily towards usage on Heavy and Assault Mechs.

You will notice a trend here: we have not purposely skewed the system towards one weight class, or type of gameplay, or towards only skilled players or towards one particular concept with one exception. That one exception is fun. We have skewed all our changes and concepts towards creating more fun for hopefully everyone that plays this game, or failing that at least the vast majority of people who play this game. There is something here for the Light pilots, for the Assault pilots, for the new players, for the grizzled veterans, for the pilots who prefer more lore based builds with mixed weaponry. We are attempting to create fun balance through increasing the viability and diversity of everything we believe is not performing well or 'feels bad' to use in the current state of the game.

[TK Romero]

Looking forward to the weapon balance pass and chassis improvements.

[Albert C]

Krasnopesky, on 05 April 2021 - 06:58 PM, said:

You are taking my message out of context and confusing 'personal preferences' with informed holistic balance decisions. I was responding to a person who was concerned that Light and Medium Mechs were being left out due to what he perceived as buffs only for Heavy and Assault Mechs. To ease his mind I listed the ways we specifically aimed at helping the two aforementioned classes and listed some reasons (such as personally playing Light Mechs a lot) as to why we are making sure not to leave out one particular weight class of Mechs. I will now provide you with similar reasoning for your concerns.

My personal preferences (which are the same as many Cauldron members) are towards having a balanced game where all weapons and Mechs have a viable place to be used in this game. We believe that this is the best way to promote fun in the game and not have new players punished for unknowingly bringing suboptimal Mechs and weapon systems. This also has the added benefit of making the game more diverse and fun for veterans and new players alike.

If your concerns are an increase in NASCAR you should not worry. The Cauldron dislikes the current NASCAR meta just as much as everyone else typically does. One of the main reasons I do not play Quick Play (QP) as much as I have done in previous years is due to the ever increasing need for teams in tier 1/2 matches to immediately NASCAR and the negative impact that has on matches, particularly for Assault Mechs.

Similarly to my mentioning of playing Light Mechs quite a bit in your quoted message, I am happy to inform you that Assaults are my most played class in QP. We have a balanced team of players at the Cauldron, with many members having vast experience and preferences towards all weight classes. While we have catered to Light and Medium Mechs with the mentioned weapon systems, there are just as many weapon systems that have been balanced primarily towards usage on Heavy and Assault Mechs.

You will notice a trend here: we have not purposely skewed the system towards one weight class, or type of gameplay, or towards only skilled players or towards one particular concept with one exception. That one exception is fun. We have skewed all our changes and concepts towards creating more fun for hopefully everyone that plays this game, or failing that at least the vast majority of people who play this game. There is something here for the Light pilots, for the Assault pilots, for the new players, for the grizzled veterans, for the pilots who prefer more lore based builds with mixed weaponry. We are attempting to create fun balance through increasing the viability and diversity of everything we believe is not performing well or 'feels bad' to use in the current state of the game.

I generally agree with other changes, especially regarding lasers and mobility, but not with ATM.
ATMs are hard to use already, they have been receiving nerfs ever since introduction to the game especially after 2018. ATM seems to perform well only because this weapon needs much time and efforts to master and really, really discourages new players or inexperienced players and I could bet the percentage of highly skilled players playing ATM builds is much higher than other metas like LB10s. A highly situational weapon with high requirement on situation awareness and positioning, at least this is the way I play them. Considering their low flight arc and min range, that meams only a very few meta/strong meds(sometimes heavy) with good missile hpts, jump jets and decent mobility can utilze them to their maxinum potential(also needs a good pilot). You maybe still find few assaults with ATM builds in QP from time to time but they are incresingly rare due to the shorter optimal range and harsh min range penalty that cannot be compensated by basically non existence mobility.
The increase of missile health does NOT compensate for the dmg reduction. In close range the 2.5 dmg ATM cant compete with srm which has higher tonnage efficiency, less spread without deadzone; in med range it cant compete with mrm which penetrates ams like a boss and much cooler: in long range the 1.6 dmg does NOT make it a more viable alternative than the c-lrm in any way.
If you guys insist on nerfing the dmg to 2.5, PLEASE compensate it by increasing the optimal range to 300 meters and reduce its heat so that this weapon will be easier to use by inexperienced players and slightly better on assaults. And I think that fits your"increasing the viability and diversity of everything " goal.

Edited by Albert C, 05 April 2021 - 08:05 PM.

[Laser Kiwi]

Currently atms are laughably strong, I back any move to reduce their ability to delete mechs at 180m or so in a couple of volleys

[Sneakytrig]

Very good to see, these nearly all sound pretty good.

The only thing that seems silly and unnecessary is the inner streak cooldown nerf.

Anyway good job well done.