104 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 06:39 PM, said:

that doesnt fix the smaller tube launchers because AMS still destroys them.

Then increase health/missile, no need for your BS. Come on, Gulag figured this out. Surely the man of logic can.

Anomalocaris, on 18 May 2021 - 07:27 PM, said:

To be fair, they should be about the sweetspot, its what makes them unique. If you're not working the sweetspot (at least in the old damage paradigm), there was little reason to play ATM mechs. The damage outside of 270m just allows you to keep contributing, but you weren't any more useful than an LRM boat then.

...


Right now, why would you push inside of 300-400m with ATMs? 25% more damage, but the risk of return fire also goes up. And because your missile health is better, you're going to get more through in the 250-500m bracket than you would before anyways. At 3 dmg up close the risk/reward was much more attractive - twice as good in fact.

...

I don't mind nerfing the mass fire delete characteristic of ATMs. I can see the rationale. I just think that taking away their unique characteristics makes them boring and little more than tweaked LRMs. That's why I propose more GH, more heat in general, and maybe some other nerfs. Rather than flattening the range/damage curve into irrelevance.

I agree, but I think it's necessary to reduce damage because that just ended up as cancerous. Your solution of just not letting them alpha doesn't address the root of the problem. People will always find a way around the disadvantage to make it work -- making the skill ceiling higher means it's just useful and more accessible at the higher ups, it's just more feast-famine. If you approach the damage directly, then there's little to play around.

I agree that they are a little bit boring. It will always feel awful that a weapon system isn't doing as it had before -- and other weapon systems are also better so yeah the once overperformers will feel different. But all things considering that just seems that it's all they need to be with respect to the balance.

If you want actual relevance, I'm sorry to say that the damage is already where it should be. Maybe approach this mechanically like maybe make ATMs fire and forget but not bone-tracking, or return to 270m sweet spot.

[Nomad One]

As it stands, all lock on based weaponry are becoming less and less useful. The current lock on mechanism does not work in the environment where mechs are being given back the silly level of mobility they had back before engine desync. Even clan lasers, the ones with the longest burn duration, are able to get an alpha off and get back in cover before lock on weaponry have made it half way to the target. And against anyone with ECM, they will not even be able to achieve a proper lock. This is WITH the tonnage tax support equipment of active probes and TAGs.

But, as I had stated before in a feedback thread to weapon balance, the increased mobility and the greater presence of AMS is simply proving that in the environment the "player council" is building all lock on weapon types will require notable improvements in order to have a chance and achieve a level playing field.

As for ATMs, reducing their damage potential has proven clearly to have been a poorly thought out knee jerk reaction all told, as it was apparent a month ago. Improvements to the lock on system would help them a little bit, but the idea that they wouldn't have any minimum range is intriguing. They're too hot and have too long a cooldown to match the precision and DPS of SRMs, so I see no issue in testing out such a change. Another change worth testing alongside is reduction of volley delay of all launcher sizes to similar levels as MRMs. This would help them push through AMS fields a lot better than the constant fiddling with missile health. Also it would help them actually reach a target before they're obscured by invulnerable terrain and thus rendering the ATM's completely moot. In an environment where fast paced and high precision weapons are king, a delayed damage weapon is simply unable to function.

[Anomalocaris]

The6thMessenger, on 18 May 2021 - 10:31 PM, said:

Then increase health/missile, no need for your BS. Come on, Gulag figured this out. Surely the man of logic can.



I agree, but I think it's necessary to reduce damage because that just ended up as cancerous. Your solution of just not letting them alpha doesn't address the root of the problem. People will always find a way around the disadvantage to make it work -- making the skill ceiling higher means it's just useful and more accessible at the higher ups, it's just more feast-famine. If you approach the damage directly, then there's little to play around.

I agree that they are a little bit boring. It will always feel awful that a weapon system isn't doing as it had before -- and other weapon systems are also better so yeah the once overperformers will feel different. But all things considering that just seems that it's all they need to be with respect to the balance.

If you want actual relevance, I'm sorry to say that the damage is already where it should be. Maybe approach this mechanically like maybe make ATMs fire and forget but not bone-tracking, or return to 270m sweet spot.

I'm not convinced your approach is the correct one. But in the spirit of exploration, let's assume it is. If so, we'd actually need to reduce midrange and long range bracket damage. I suppose it would look something like 2.5/1.7/1.0. This would give us back the incentive to push in close vs. play further away that was lost with the current flattening of the damage curve.

Then to compensate for the overall damage nerf, you'd want to reduce cooldown by 1 second across the board, reduce heat by 15% and increase ammo/ton by 15%. Max DPS would be similar to what we had before the cauldron changes, but the big punch is still reduced - much like what was done with Clan SSRMs. Keep the flavor of the old ATMs, but make them hurt less and fire more often.

I'd still recommend ghost heat changes too to discourage massive alphas from high tube count heavies and assaults.

[Anomalocaris]

Nomad One, on 19 May 2021 - 02:09 AM, said:

As it stands, all lock on based weaponry are becoming less and less useful. The current lock on mechanism does not work in the environment where mechs are being given back the silly level of mobility they had back before engine desync. Even clan lasers, the ones with the longest burn duration, are able to get an alpha off and get back in cover before lock on weaponry have made it half way to the target. And against anyone with ECM, they will not even be able to achieve a proper lock. This is WITH the tonnage tax support equipment of active probes and TAGs.

But, as I had stated before in a feedback thread to weapon balance, the increased mobility and the greater presence of AMS is simply proving that in the environment the "player council" is building all lock on weapon types will require notable improvements in order to have a chance and achieve a level playing field.

I agree that the Cauldron clearly has a issue with lock-on weapons, as those were the only things nerfed in a patch where they were only supposed to be improving sub-optimal weapons. And the rationale was not particularly well justified IMO.

That said, the mobility buffs we are getting really don't mean too much for dodging missiles except for the very fastest mechs (which tend to be the ones that need help to prevent getting deleted by big ATM volleys). If you're playing ATMs under 300m and have a fully skilled mech (which for lock-on weapons means lots of sensor range nodes too), not many mechs will be unable to uncover, aim, fire a 1.5 second laser volley and get back into cover before you can get a lock and send missiles their way with a 1 second or less flight time. And if you're playing a faster ATM carrier, you should be able to flank and get unobstructed shots quite easily vs. trying to trade in a static situation with peekers.

I would like the Cauldron to reconsider their lock-on strategies, but it's important we be realistic about where things are.

[Nomad One]

Anomalocaris, on 19 May 2021 - 04:15 AM, said:

That said, the mobility buffs we are getting really don't mean too much for dodging missiles except for the very fastest mechs

On the contrary, mobility matters considerably when it comes to facing lock on weaponry, not just ATMs. The faster you can obscure your center mass, the faster you break lock. The faster you can peek out of cover, fire your weapons, and then be back behind cover before the lock on weapon manages to return fire.

Not to mention, the lock on weapons have to stare dead on at their target in order to track them with or without TAG to achieve lock and deliver their "homing ammunition", giving the non-lock weaponry user free reign to pick whatever component they want to shoot at.

Edited by Nomad One, 19 May 2021 - 05:04 AM.

[Anomalocaris]

Nomad One, on 19 May 2021 - 05:00 AM, said:

On the contrary, mobility matters considerably when it comes to facing lock on weaponry, not just ATMs. The faster you can obscure your center mass, the faster you break lock. The faster you can peek out of cover, fire your weapons, and then be back behind cover before the lock on weapon manages to return fire.

Not to mention, the lock on weapons have to stare dead on at their target in order to track them with or without TAG to achieve lock and deliver their "homing ammunition", giving the non-lock weaponry user free reign to pick whatever component they want to shoot at.

Lock ons have always had to stare down targets. Nothing new there.

But the mobility changes we're getting are to turn rate, twist rate, and in some cases accel/decel. No one is getting speed boosts and in most cases (except perhaps spirit bear and TBR) the accel/decel changes aren't going to result in big mechs dodging more missiles than they do now (approx zero). It just isn't that significant.

Regardless, this is getting off-topic because we've been talking about how ATMs got a nerf vs. other missiles (save perhaps IS SSRM).

[The6thMessenger]

Anomalocaris, on 19 May 2021 - 04:07 AM, said:

I'm not convinced your approach is the correct one. But in the spirit of exploration, let's assume it is. If so, we'd actually need to reduce midrange and long range bracket damage. I suppose it would look something like 2.5/1.7/1.0. This would give us back the incentive to push in close vs. play further away that was lost with the current flattening of the damage curve.

Then to compensate for the overall damage nerf, you'd want to reduce cooldown by 1 second across the board, reduce heat by 15% and increase ammo/ton by 15%. Max DPS would be similar to what we had before the cauldron changes, but the big punch is still reduced - much like what was done with Clan SSRMs. Keep the flavor of the old ATMs, but make them hurt less and fire more often.

I'd still recommend ghost heat changes too to discourage massive alphas from high tube count heavies and assaults.

I disagree. Damage is good as is.

You don't need the flavor of ATMs of extreme short range, that is exactly the problem, it doesn't have to be relegated to just short range. Doing 2.5 to 2.0 damage/missile is already fine, you are competitive at mid-range, you dominate short-range, the thing is that it only needs to make the short-range a bit longer so to get used more a lot.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 19 May 2021 - 06:21 PM.

[Anomalocaris]

The6thMessenger, on 19 May 2021 - 06:18 PM, said:

I disagree. Damage is good as is.

You don't need the flavor of ATMs of extreme short range, that is exactly the problem, it doesn't have to be relegated to just short range. Doing 2.5 to 2.0 damage/missile is already fine, you are competitive at mid-range, you dominate short-range, the thing is that it only needs to make the short-range a bit longer so to get used more a lot.

agree to disagree then. But run the comparison on an LRM20 vs. ATM9. Same weight, same slots. LRM20 fires 10% faster and generates 15% less heat. Even in the sweet spot DPS is only 3.5% better for the ATM. Everywhere else the LRM20 crushes it. 20% better DPS from 250-500m and almost 50% better outside of 500m. And the GH for firing 3 LRM20 is quite tolerable - don't know the exact numbers but total heat including GH probably not much worse than the overall heat for 3xATM9.

When ATMs lack the firing arc versatility of LRMs, have barely any damage advantage inside 250m, and are completely outclassed beyond 250m, you have to ask if things are out of balance. I think they are, and extending the sweet spot isn't going to help much. I stopped playing LRMs years ago except for memes or event goals. But if I were playing lockons today, ATMs just don't make sense, especially in the randomness of soup queue.

p.s. - and yes I'm aware that the volley time for an LRM20 is long, and AMS can have an impact, but it doesn't change the calculations for me.

Edited by Anomalocaris, 19 May 2021 - 07:57 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Anomalocaris, on 19 May 2021 - 07:57 PM, said:

agree to disagree then. But run the comparison on an LRM20 vs. ATM9. Same weight, same slots. LRM20 fires 10% faster and generates 15% less heat. Even in the sweet spot DPS is only 3.5% better for the ATM. Everywhere else the LRM20 crushes it. 20% better DPS from 250-500m and almost 50% better outside of 500m. And the GH for firing 3 LRM20 is quite tolerable - don't know the exact numbers but total heat including GH probably not much worse than the overall heat for 3xATM9.

When ATMs lack the firing arc versatility of LRMs, have barely any damage advantage inside 250m, and are completely outclassed beyond 250m, you have to ask if things are out of balance. I think they are, and extending the sweet spot isn't going to help much. I stopped playing LRMs years ago except for memes or event goals. But if I were playing lockons today, ATMs just don't make sense, especially in the randomness of soup queue.

p.s. - and yes I'm aware that the volley time for an LRM20 is long, and AMS can have an impact, but it doesn't change the calculations for me.

ATM9 does 18 to 22.5 damage every 5.0s + 0.4s to a DPS between 3.333 to 4.1667 DPS at heat of 7, at 242m/s velocity, and 1.4 missile health at a total of 12.6. Spread at 5.5 and 3.5 LOS.

LRM20 does 20 damage every 4.6s + 0.95s stream to a DPS of 3.6036, heat of 6, with a speed of 210 m/s on a higher arc, and 0.8s missile health at a total of 16. Spread at 6.05 and 5.05 LOS.

5.4s < 5.55s

So technically the ATM9 has faster fire rate, so what if it has higher cooldown? If anything the ATM12 has the same fire rate as the LRM20.

There's also a bit more factor at play here, such as looking at the ATMs, it is better equipped at actually hitting the target with faster projectile speed, lower arc, and higher health and tighter shot density; that the AMS has to deal with a total of 12.6 HP under 0.4s, where the LRM20 at that same duration only has 7.2 HP.

This means, against AMS, the ATMs would actually be a lot more successful. And in most cases, if you are getting your own locks and having good angles, you're actually be better at landing ATMs than LRMs.

Smaller LOS spread, your missiles are also more centered. As in that "puny" 18 damage is 37% more focused where the LRM20 does 20 damage, and that still goes up to 22.5.

And then about that DPS, I have my own calculations. Considering that the range is at 0m-120m to 121m-245m to 246m-550m to 551m-1100m. Realistically we don't use the 551-1100m, so the real actual use is just between 121m-550m, a total of 430m band of use, with 124m worth of sweet-spot, that means the 25% increase in DPS is only active 28.83% at a time. So the actual average DPS -- brute forcing it, is at 3.5736 Average DPS.

This is why I want the ATMs back at 270m sweet spot range, because at 121-270m to 271-550m, the sweet spot is active 34.88% at the time. This boosts the average DPS back to 3.624 DPS.

And then damage under the minimum-range is honestly kind of irrelevant. That was the point, it's the counterplay, get in their min range and watch them flop about. It's not worth arguing at weapon system's worsts.

You said that if things were out of balance, I would argue that they are kind of, but not what you think. ATMs are good, even better at midrange than LRMs. Damage and DPS isn't just where you need to look at. If there is anything I would actually agree with you is that, the ATMs can stand to have less heat. But honestly that's just about it; sweet-spot back to 270m and less heat.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 May 2021 - 08:42 AM.

[SirFred131]

The6thMessenger, on 19 May 2021 - 10:23 PM, said:

ATM9 does 18 to 22.5 damage every 5.0s + 0.4s to a DPS between 3.333 to 4.1667 DPS at heat of 7, at 242m/s velocity, and 1.4 missile health at a total of 12.6. Spread at 5.5 and 3.5 LOS.

LRM20 does 20 damage every 4.6s + 0.95s stream to a DPS of 3.6036, heat of 6, with a speed of 210 m/s on a higher arc, and 0.8s missile health at a total of 16. Spread at 6.05 and 5.05 LOS.

5.4s < 5.55s

I hadn't factored in stream time, so that's a good point. It lowers the time you need in close range rather than mid to only about 30% of the time to equal LRMs, assuming the LRMs never do any LRM things. That's definitely an achievable number. It's also a number that's low enough you could conceivably be in a situation where you do better with an ATM9 than with either an LRM20 or a pair of SRM6s. I now think it's reasonable to say "Almost any build would be better off with another missile" rather than "There's no reason you should ever take ATMs over alternatives".

Quote

There's also a bit more factor at play here, such as looking at the ATMs, it is better equipped at actually hitting the target with faster projectile speed, [...]

ATMs actually have lower projectile speed than direct fire LRMs. You were comparing to indirect fire LRMs, which is a pointless comparison because those are generally shots the ATMs couldn't even take. Even if ATMs were more likely to hit when fired, in practice LRMs can take more shots thanks to their potential for indirect arcs and higher damage per heat, and thus will usually land more damage in the same range band.

Quote

the AMS has to deal with a total of 12.6 HP under 0.4s, where the LRM20 at that same duration only has 7.2 HP.

This means, against AMS, the ATMs would actually be a lot more successful.

You're ignoring the actual travel time, and only counting the time from the first missile hitting to the last hitting. If the AMS gets even half a second of fire before that, the LRMs will perform about as well.


Everyone who says ATMs are fine is saying "They're not crazy strong but they do a decent enough job at being ATMs". And I agree. But the problem is that LRMs do pretty much just as good a job at being ATMs too. They just also have more flexibility at doing what ATMs do (you can do it just as well at 650m as at 250m), in addition to the ability to do something else that ATMs definitely can't.

[LordNothing]

people who think atms are bad have forgotten about rocket launchers.

but they do really suck now.

[Leone]

Nonsense. Rocket launchers having ghost heat and an arming range has nothing to do with ATMs being less effective than any other clan Missile.

~Leone.

[Captain Caveman DE]

LordNothing, on 20 May 2021 - 01:05 PM, said:

people who think atms are bad have forgotten about rocket launchers.

but they do really suck now.

funny you should mention that; dropped in a hunchieIIC a few days ago (TMN-Urbie, t3 environment, HPG);
early as possible, crossing 1st ramp getting to the righthand one, a javelin suicides over the top, drops behind me and
*instagib* - I felt a bit noobish^^
8? rocketlaunchers to the rear and gone. granted, the jav was useless after that, but they traded "good" tonnagewise.

so yeah.. rockets aren't the greatest - were never, will never be. considering what they are, they shouldn't, either.
but they're really not (that) useless

Edited by Captain Caveman DE, 20 May 2021 - 01:15 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

SirFred131, on 20 May 2021 - 12:29 PM, said:

ATMs actually have lower projectile speed than direct fire LRMs. You were comparing to indirect fire LRMs, which is a pointless comparison because those are generally shots the ATMs couldn't even take. Even if ATMs were more likely to hit when fired, in practice LRMs can take more shots thanks to their potential for indirect arcs and higher damage per heat, and thus will usually land more damage in the same range band.

No I am not, I took that directly from the api source: ( https://mwomercs.com.../list/full.json ), even then, actually testing it at testing ground, the ATMs hit first before LRMs, and that is both Direct-Fire arc.

Indirect-Arc is typically unreliable, until enemies are brawling, in UAV, or you have a dedicated spotter. There's a reason why there's a saying "Get your own locks."

SirFred131, on 20 May 2021 - 12:29 PM, said:

You're ignoring the actual travel time, and only counting the time from the first missile hitting to the last hitting. If the AMS gets even half a second of fire before that, the LRMs will perform about as well.

Well, the ATMs have actually lower time to target in addition of shorter stream and higher HP that results into higher health and stream density. That is versus LRMs with longer time to target -- even longer time to target at IDF, with less health with longer stream.

SirFred131, on 20 May 2021 - 12:29 PM, said:

Everyone who says ATMs are fine is saying "They're not crazy strong but they do a decent enough job at being ATMs". And I agree. But the problem is that LRMs do pretty much just as good a job at being ATMs too. They just also have more flexibility at doing what ATMs do (you can do it just as well at 650m as at 250m), in addition to the ability to do something else that ATMs definitely can't.

Yeah, but it's good midrange and a lot better at short range, that is why I'm advocating for longer short range, that is it, that's all it needs.

The problem with those people is that they don't get the nuances that the weapon system provides. They just see damage output, but never the information in between.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 May 2021 - 02:47 PM.

[LordNothing]

Captain Caveman DE, on 20 May 2021 - 01:14 PM, said:

funny you should mention that; dropped in a hunchieIIC a few days ago (TMN-Urbie, t3 environment, HPG);
early as possible, crossing 1st ramp getting to the righthand one, a javelin suicides over the top, drops behind me and
*instagib* - I felt a bit noobish^^
8? rocketlaunchers to the rear and gone. granted, the jav was useless after that, but they traded "good" tonnagewise.

so yeah.. rockets aren't the greatest - were never, will never be. considering what they are, they shouldn't, either.
but they're really not (that) useless

i think i only ever got one kill with an rl in the live game, and it was just an rl10 in the head hardpoint on my grasshopper, at least in the live game. i did run the troll archer build a lot on the civil war pts (i was one hitting atlases from the front) to try and get a mechanics change*.

for the troll build config you are still limited by damage and kills and wont be getting good scores or gaining psr with it (barring a team that is actually worse than a troll rl build). it might work, sometimes, and that might be fun, and there is the solaris niche if you play solaris. but i almost never use them in a serious build.

*would have liked to go with single use rockets with high damage, high heat, no spread, and rapid fire them one at a time rather than all at once. you can fire multiple times until you use all your rockets. rapid fire means you can dump all the rockets in a short period of time for surge damage, but if you tried to do it with multiple launchers you would gh out.

Edited by LordNothing, 20 May 2021 - 04:42 PM.

[SirFred131]

The6thMessenger, on 20 May 2021 - 02:41 PM, said:

No I am not, I took that directly from the api source: ( https://mwomercs.com.../list/full.json ), even then, actually testing it at testing ground, the ATMs hit first before LRMs, and that is both Direct-Fire arc.

If that's true then the tooltips in the mech lab are lying, since they clearly say indirect is 210 and direct is 294. That's a fairly massive difference, so the effectiveness against AMS definitely hinges on which value is actually used.

Quote

Indirect-Arc is typically unreliable, until enemies are brawling,

Yeah, that's the timing I was talking about. There are times during a fight that you don't have a clear line on your target when your weapons come off cooldown. If you're not heat limited, you can sometimes get free shots in while you're repositioning with LRMs that you wouldn't be able to take with ATMs. Just landing one free salvo can swing the math in the LRMs' favor.

[CFC Conky]

LordNothing, on 20 May 2021 - 01:05 PM, said:

people who think atms are bad have forgotten about rocket launchers.

but they do really suck now.

I like to use RL10s on my Stalkers to get the weapons bay door and increase the durability of the arm components.

Good hunting,
CFC Conky

[The6thMessenger]

SirFred131, on 20 May 2021 - 05:09 PM, said:

If that's true then the tooltips in the mech lab are lying, since they clearly say indirect is 210 and direct is 294. That's a fairly massive difference, so the effectiveness against AMS definitely hinges on which value is actually used.

"If"? I tried it in testing ground, go test it yourself.

An ATM9 will hit first before the LRM20 volley, slightly. Gets more pronounced at a distance.

SirFred131, on 20 May 2021 - 05:09 PM, said:

Yeah, that's the timing I was talking about. There are times during a fight that you don't have a clear line on your target when your weapons come off cooldown. If you're not heat limited, you can sometimes get free shots in while you're repositioning with LRMs that you wouldn't be able to take with ATMs. Just landing one free salvo can swing the math in the LRMs' favor.

And you don't see that as an issue with your arguments and point of view? That LRMs and ATMs as a result have different roles. Such as LRMs are a lot more passive, while ATMs are a lot more active.

At ATM's active role, it works rather well, yeah it needs it's short range back, but it works. I think that's why ATMs feel lagging behind LRMs in the point of view you share with others is that you're using ATMs as if they are LRMs, instead of their own. Like so what if LRMs excel long range? Point is you slap ATMs and get closer to do heavy damage.

It's like they want to justify playing passive.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 May 2021 - 07:59 PM.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

The6thMessenger, on 20 May 2021 - 07:58 PM, said:

"If"? I tried it in testing ground, go test it yourself.

An ATM9 will hit first before the LRM20 volley, slightly. Gets more pronounced at a distance.



And you don't see that as an issue with your arguments and point of view? That LRMs and ATMs as a result have different roles. Such as LRMs are a lot more passive, while ATMs are a lot more active.

At ATM's active role, it works rather well, yeah it needs it's short range back, but it works. I think that's why ATMs feel lagging behind LRMs in the point of view you share with others is that you're using ATMs as if they are LRMs, instead of their own. Like so what if LRMs excel long range? Point is you slap ATMs and get closer to do heavy damage
It's like they want to justify playing passive.

except that's just not the problem right now; I had lots of fun in 2019? using ATMs on my hunchies, on huntsmen, veagle or even a brawl-a-nova; I'm sure there are other mechs, too.
MY biggest problem ALWAYS was watching the distance to not get too close;
and yeah, it produced good damage;
as is the trade-off risk like being too close to something that will snack you in a few seconds.

as of now, doing the same, the damage is very meh up close, and the latest changes openly invite you to just play it safe, stay back and do what the "better" lurmers do - directfire at X meters.
but it's just that: mind-numbingly boring to walk through the landscape, sip your coffee, drag your round targetthingie over a squared red-mech and pressing mousebuttons.
oh, and another sip of coffee before you walk on.

nah, there's no fun in ATM'ing right now

Edited by Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, 21 May 2021 - 02:59 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, on 21 May 2021 - 02:55 AM, said:

except that's just not the problem right now; I had lots of fun in 2019? using ATMs on my hunchies, on huntsmen, veagle or even a brawl-a-nova; I'm sure there are other mechs, too.
MY biggest problem ALWAYS was watching the distance to not get too close;
and yeah, it produced good damage;
as is the trade-off risk like being too close to something that will snack you in a few seconds.

as of now, doing the same, the damage is very meh up close, and the latest changes openly invite you to just play it safe, stay back and do what the "better" lurmers do - directfire at X meters.
but it's just that: mind-numbingly boring to walk through the landscape, sip your coffee, drag your round targetthingie over a squared red-mech and pressing mousebuttons.
oh, and another sip of coffee before you walk on.

nah, there's no fun in ATM'ing right now

That just means since there's not much reward, why the risk right? So increase the short-range damage, which was always my suggestion.

I agree that it's meh, but all things considering, that is where ATMs needs to be be. The min-max thin-band of range ends up being all-or-nothing, of feast-or-famine. That's not what I want, i prefer consistency, and that would be achieved by longer short-range.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 21 May 2021 - 03:10 AM.