104 replies to this topic

[SirFred131]

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

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.

I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I wanted to play passively or to play ATMs like LRMs. There's a reason I've avoided saying anything about LRMs' long range abilities other than "And also they do stuff ATMs don't". It's because I'm doing the opposite, I'm playing LRMs like ATMs. I'm always looking for direct shots and I usually try to get as close as I can without getting horribly out of position. Every little bit of range you close is a slightly higher chance the missiles land before the enemy can get cover, break lock, or torso twist, and I'm usually not afraid of taking return fire. Sometimes I even do dumb stuff like closing in a little instead of back pedaling when I'm at 300 meters just because some of my ATM habits are still there. And then I get rushed, the enemy gets inside my minimum range, and it's my fault for playing stupidly.

But that play is only stupid because I'm using LRMs. If I were using ATMs it would be a perfectly understandable play, despite having the exact same result aside from a few more points of damage dealt before they get inside the minimum range. It's not understandable with ATMs because making that play feels any better than with LRMs, it's understandable because making any other play than that just feels worse with ATMs than LRMs.

It's also interesting to me that you described it as wanting to justify playing passive. From my point of view, LRMs are actually a bit better suited to an active playstyle than ATMs. If I peak a corner without knowing the enemy's position and they're 600 meters away then if I have ATMs I've goofed, and if I have LRMs I can take the shot just fine. If they're 100 meters away I can at least put some damage on them with LRMs, while with ATMs I'm completely useless. The increased flexibility of LRMs means you're punished less for taking risks, which enables the player to take risks more often. With ATMs you need to be more patient to let the situation develop in a way that you can safely take advantage of your narrow window of strength.

[RickySpanish]

Nightbird, on 16 May 2021 - 08:12 AM, said:

Ignoring spread is bad.

Answer's on page 1 my little darlings. How is this thread still going?

[The6thMessenger]

SirFred131, on 21 May 2021 - 07:01 AM, said:

I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I wanted to play passively or to play ATMs like LRMs. There's a reason I've avoided saying anything about LRMs' long range abilities other than "And also they do stuff ATMs don't". It's because I'm doing the opposite, I'm playing LRMs like ATMs. I'm always looking for direct shots and I usually try to get as close as I can without getting horribly out of position. Every little bit of range you close is a slightly higher chance the missiles land before the enemy can get cover, break lock, or torso twist, and I'm usually not afraid of taking return fire. Sometimes I even do dumb stuff like closing in a little instead of back pedaling when I'm at 300 meters just because some of my ATM habits are still there. And then I get rushed, the enemy gets inside my minimum range, and it's my fault for playing stupidly.

But that play is only stupid because I'm using LRMs. If I were using ATMs it would be a perfectly understandable play, despite having the exact same result aside from a few more points of damage dealt before they get inside the minimum range. It's not understandable with ATMs because making that play feels any better than with LRMs, it's understandable because making any other play than that just feels worse with ATMs than LRMs.

It's also interesting to me that you described it as wanting to justify playing passive.

Actually, I didn't pointed you out specifically, i just highlighted exactly what it seems to be to others, while you simply clarified that it is the opposite.

SirFred131, on 21 May 2021 - 07:01 AM, said:

From my point of view, LRMs are actually a bit better suited to an active playstyle than ATMs. If I peak a corner without knowing the enemy's position and they're 600 meters away then if I have ATMs I've goofed, and if I have LRMs I can take the shot just fine. If they're 100 meters away I can at least put some damage on them with LRMs, while with ATMs I'm completely useless. The increased flexibility of LRMs means you're punished less for taking risks, which enables the player to take risks more often. With ATMs you need to be more patient to let the situation develop in a way that you can safely take advantage of your narrow window of strength.

That doesn't sound more like more risk, but the LRMs simply have less risk in their typical operation. And that's not active, that's still passive -- that's practically second-line. Hell, it also seems like you're fitting ATMs into the thinking of LRMs, that you are hindered by range that you simply chose to wait for the chips to fall in your favor. LRMs can afford it, the ATMs doesn't, they are played like something else.

Also it's worthless to just compare minimum ranges 1:1, because they are at their worst, and they have different playstyle and mechanic that goes to said playstyle used as counterplay. It's worth more that the ATMs have a deadzone because they deal even better damage at close range, meanwhile the LRMs kitted for mid-range to long range, with proper positioning they shouldn't be anywhere near. like ATMs are.

[Anomalocaris]

Decent discussion here. And I appreciate your contributionsThe6thMessenger. I would really like to see if PGI will offer some data on how weapons usage has changed since the weapon patch. Anecdotally it seems like ATM usage is way down, but anecdotes just don't fly when making balance decisions (and you'd expect it to go down somewhat with a nerf vs. buffing everything else).

I think a lot of people agree that ATMs were nerfed too hard. The solutions to improving them are varied, but they do seem to need some changes. I just hope the anti-lock on crowd in the Cauldron can see past their dislike (hatred? for some) of those weapon systems and make a fair proposal.

[Nomad One]

ATM usage is overall down, though not simply because their damage was nerfed. Other contributing factors such as the playbase focusing more on pin point single shot weapons like gauss and PPCs again, which lock on weaponry is traditionally extremely poor against due to how terrible the locking mechanic is.

Or the proliferation of AMS due to the heat reduction in laser AMS or the non exploding ammunition standard AMS received. As we all know, ATM's are horribly weak against AMS. Just a single AMS unit can effectively shut down an ATM12 launcher. A single 3x AMS mech within 200 meters of your target or you will destroy effectively all missiles, even if fired at the same time, from three ATM12 launchers. And if there's more than three AMS on the opposing side, you're simply not going to be able to use said weapons. At all.

AMS is frankly too strong as it is. Too much range, too much damage per second, and add to this the ability to fire at and destroy missiles through all forms of terrain means that even if there's a triple AMS mech hiding in the tunnel of crimson strait while you're standing on the top platform trying to shoot, it will be destroying a good majority of your missiles that happen to pass through its range radius.

Edited by Nomad One, 22 May 2021 - 12:29 AM.

[KursedVixen]

doctormanuse, on 16 May 2021 - 07:22 AM, said:

Dont forget you can alpha 3 ATM9 but only 2 LRM20. This is huge speially in close range with optimal damage: 67,5 vs 40 damage.

27 missile vs 40 and take into account atm 9 does not work well at indirect fire you have to arc your long range shots more. I really think they should go back to 3 damage at short range and 1 damage at long, Atm's in tabletop could not do Indirect fire.... and for long range they are less efficent than LRms SRMS are lighter and only do .5 less damage per missile, unless your low on missile hardpoints you have no reason to run ATms especially now, considering AMS is everwhere.

Edited by KursedVixen, 22 May 2021 - 12:48 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

KursedVixen, on 22 May 2021 - 12:45 AM, said:

27 missile vs 40 and take into account atm 9 does not work well at indirect fire you have to arc your long range shots more. I really think they should go back to 3 damage at short range and 1 damage at long, Atm's in tabletop could not do Indirect fire.... and for long range they are less efficent than LRms SRMS are lighter and only do .5 less damage per missile, unless your low on missile hardpoints you have no reason to run ATms especially now, considering AMS is everwhere.

ATMs actually deal 1.6 damage at long range, so that is 1.6 x 9 x 3 = 43.2.

This is not TT, likewise it's not necessarily inferior just because you have higher arc, for it comes with higher time to target and spread, this means your damage is less efficient and more easily counterable by longer time for AMS to react or players to find hard cover.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 22 May 2021 - 01:20 AM.

[Dewodahs]

As someone that has used ATMs heavily since they were added to MWO I feel like chiming in. ATMs right now simply do not feel worth using, the overall damage nerf I get.. they could melt mechs when they were in the "sweet spot" range. However, that was something of a high risk/high reward factor since you have that 120 minimum range and as soon as people realized you were running ATMs they would try their hardest to get into that minimum range making them useless at that point. ATMs are a heavy weapon system with low ammo per ton so you have to kind of commit to them being the main weapon system on your mech. My suggestion which falls somewhat in line with the other suggestions is to lower minimum range to 90 and increase the ammo per ton. As it stands now, it's a waste to fire them at long range, and you no longer have that hard hitting punch to try to stop people from getting within 120.

[Khobai]

ATMs definitely arnt worth using right now.

1) the damage is not worth the risk anymore
2) the firing arc is terrible they hit every single obstacle in the way unless youre on highground or have jumpjets which is dumb.
3) lrms are pretty much always better and safer

ATMs are supposed to be a versatile engage-at-all-ranges missile. And they just arnt. Theyre a stupid niche weapon with a horribly narrow range band and the complete opposite of what they should be based on the lore.

Lowering the minimum range to 90m would be an acceptable compromise I suppose. But I still think they shouldnt have a zero damage deadzone and should have linear damage dropoff under 120m instead. You can use ATMs at pointblank range in tabletop theres no reason you shouldnt be able to use them at pointblank range in MWO too, provided the damage is balanced against SRMs.

The firing arc also needs to be fixed as well because its a useless firing arc. You shouldnt have to have highground or jumpjets for a weapon to work. As long as ATMs cant indirect fire i dont see the problem with changing their firing arc back to how it used to be. Especially with the damage being so much lower.

Edited by Khobai, 22 May 2021 - 04:46 PM.

[Anomalocaris]

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

Just wanted to revisit this point. Was watching Baradul's Hellfire LRM video this morning. He showed the stats for the LRMs and pre-skill tree the indirect fire speed for LRMs is 210 m/s. But the direct fire missile speed is _294 m/s_

https://youtu.be/eA96JXZ81FQ?t=96

Which means that if you're getting your own locks LRMs have far less time (20%) exposed to AMS than ATMs. Not being an LRM guy I never realized the projectile speed was so different between direct and indirect. I think it shifts the balance even more in favor of LRMs and if you were ATM guy prior to the nerf, it would feel pretty natural to get your own locks and/or poptart your volleys when you switch to LRMs.

[Hiten Bongz]

I called this nerf out immediately as a misguided tweak as soon as the patch dropped, but got responses like "but the spread" and "missiles stream faster"...was also told that "comparing numbers on a spreadsheet that does not seem like much, but in practice it makes a large difference."

A difference? Sure. A large difference? Not really, in my opinion. At least, not enough of a difference to really matter.

At the time, I also did a similar breakdown of an ATM 9 and an LRM 20. Here, go take a looksy:

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6387402

And just as I predicted, most players with ATM mechs/builds have switched to LRMs, regardless of the "large spread difference" and "faster missile stream"...

Yup, ATMs suck now. And they are neither fun, nor unique enough to warrant use in their current iteration. This much is made clear by the player base nearly completely abandoning them, either in favor of LRMs, or switching to [insert any other weapon here] that received buffs.

So, now the question is: how to fix them; make them -fun- to play again?

Here's my take.

I would really like to see them have a flat trajectory (requiring line of sight to hit a target), and higher velocity and salvo speed, much like MRMs have now. Eliminate the dead zone or have damage falloff under 120m. Then, missile HP, range brackets, heat, cooldowns, and damage values could be fine tuned from there, but those mechanic changes would at least make them fun and unique and not just a "different LRM" that is almost always worse in most situations. They would, instead, function more like a "lock-on MRM" (mechanics-wise) and that would actually be...fun...at least, in my opinion.


Even if you don't agree with the above, there are so many ways that PGI/Cauldron could tweak ATMs for them to not feel like *** to play, and be viable on more mechs. Just straight up nerfing the damage was not the best way to go about it. It was lazy.

Edited by Hiten Bongz, 23 May 2021 - 07:43 PM.

[MrTBSC]

just to throw in my 2 cents


personaly i always thought with how ATMs were implemented in MWO they would cover the area SRMs deal no damage and LRMs do not enough while being up close with ATMs would be a bonus but because of the minrange was meant to have you in a mid to closerangeposition ... 270m is srmrange, ATMs i think should perform well in a area uptill say 400 to 500 or so meters ..
i don´t see why you would want to use ATMs at LRM range anyway, that is to at best deal SOME damage that is not as good but not entirely poor vs LRMs, up close at least on paper ATM deal 0,5 damage more than SRM missiles

[Anomalocaris]

Hiten Bongz, on 23 May 2021 - 07:19 PM, said:

Even if you don't agree with the above, there are so many ways that PGI/Cauldron could tweak ATMs for them to not feel like *** to play, and be viable on more mechs. Just straight up nerfing the damage was not the best way to go about it. It was lazy.

Indeed. And I would call on the Cauldron to at least address what has happened with ATMs as they said they would per this post by Krasnopesky.

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6388385

We saw quick action on the uPL issues, but the Cauldron has been silent about ATMs.

[The6thMessenger]

Anomalocaris, on 23 May 2021 - 06:18 AM, said:

Just wanted to revisit this point. Was watching Baradul's Hellfire LRM video this morning. He showed the stats for the LRMs and pre-skill tree the indirect fire speed for LRMs is 210 m/s. But the direct fire missile speed is _294 m/s_

https://youtu.be/eA96JXZ81FQ?t=96

Which means that if you're getting your own locks LRMs have far less time (20%) exposed to AMS than ATMs. Not being an LRM guy I never realized the projectile speed was so different between direct and indirect. I think it shifts the balance even more in favor of LRMs and if you were ATM guy prior to the nerf, it would feel pretty natural to get your own locks and/or poptart your volleys when you switch to LRMs.

Okay, take a clan mech on the testing grounds, and use ATMs and LRM side by side. I dare you.

Because when I did it, the ATMs hit a smidge earlier than the LRMs even in direct fire -- yeah it becomes much more pronounced in longer ranges. Hell, I can even confirm it with F5 and watch it exactly on impact.

Anomalocaris, on 24 May 2021 - 07:41 AM, said:

We saw quick action on the uPL issues, but the Cauldron has been silent about ATMs.

Eh well, I do think that they have some bias against homing weapons. That being said they also do know what they are talking about in most cases, so best bet is that they feel that ATMs are in a good spot that's why they don't get a mention.

Hiten Bongz, on 23 May 2021 - 07:19 PM, said:

I called this nerf out immediately as a misguided tweak as soon as the patch dropped, but got responses like "but the spread" and "missiles stream faster"...was also told that "comparing numbers on a spreadsheet that does not seem like much, but in practice it makes a large difference."

A difference? Sure. A large difference? Not really, in my opinion. At least, not enough of a difference to really matter.

At the time, I also did a similar breakdown of an ATM 9 and an LRM 20. Here, go take a looksy:

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6387402

And just as I predicted, most players with ATM mechs/builds have switched to LRMs, regardless of the "large spread difference" and "faster missile stream"...

Yup, ATMs suck now. And they are neither fun, nor unique enough to warrant use in their current iteration. This much is made clear by the player base nearly completely abandoning them, either in favor of LRMs, or switching to [insert any other weapon here] that received buffs.

So, now the question is: how to fix them; make them -fun- to play again?

ATMs had been performing rather spectacular before, of course it's going to turn off players and will feel **** to play.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 May 2021 - 08:42 AM.

[Anomalocaris]

The6thMessenger, on 24 May 2021 - 08:38 AM, said:

Okay, take a clan mech on the testing grounds, and use ATMs and LRM side by side. I dare you.

Because when I did it, the ATMs hit a smidge earlier than the LRMs even in direct fire -- yeah it becomes much more pronounced in longer ranges. Hell, I can even confirm it with F5 and watch it exactly on impact.



Eh well, I do think that they have some bias against homing weapons. That being said they also do know what they are talking about in most cases, so best bet is that they feel that ATMs are in a good spot that's why they don't get a mention.

ATMs had been performing rather spectacular before, of course it's going to turn off players and will feel **** to play.

Just quoting the in-game stats as listed in the mechlab. If its wrong that should be addressed too. But as it is, the stats say direct fire LRMs should be much faster.

If ATMs aren't being used much anymore, then they clearly aren't in a good spot. I don't know how much their usage has gone down, but it's clearly down. Would be nice to know the actual stats.

The idea was to make as many weapons as possible viable in game by boosting underperforming weapons. ATMs and Streaks were the only weapons to get a _nerf_ in direct contravention to the stated goals of the Cauldron. Navid went so far as to call lock on weapons "cancer" in a response to the patch thread. I know you disagree with LRMs being superior to ATMs in most aspects post patch, but if we've seen a big switch from ATMs to LRMs in response to the Cauldron patch, where ATMs were "rebalanced" (meaning nerfed) while LRMs were untouched, then it says that ATMs are not balanced, even against other similar weapon types, let alone against the pantheon of weapons available to Clanners.

What I find unusual is the attitude among many high level players that lock-ons are horrible weapons, to the point that they don't even want their teammates to bring them ("oh great, an LRM assault on our team"). Yet they want them nerfed. I watched a video a day ago from a very good player who recently returned, and he was shooting down his own team's UAVs to prevent the LRM mechs that popped those UAVs from getting locks. That's not conjecture, he said as much in the video. Now, he's a toxic **** most days anyways, but I found it rather illuminating. Again, I haven't played LRMs in years save for a meme or event requirement, but I think they should have a viable place in the game, as should ATMs.

[LordNothing]

i think a nerf was required, its shameful that a "no skill homing weapon" is so powerful (i still would have put atms in the hard to use right category because you really had to maintain your range to target). but they kind of over reached. id be happy if they would extend the max damage range and either reduced or ramped the min range. that way the damage nerf can stay in place but make it a lot easier to get max damage than it was. to make the long range bracket more useful, give the ammo a bit more damage per ton.

[The6thMessenger]

Anomalocaris, on 24 May 2021 - 05:09 PM, said:

If ATMs aren't being used much anymore, then they clearly aren't in a good spot. I don't know how much their usage has gone down, but it's clearly down. Would be nice to know the actual stats.

...

I know you disagree with LRMs being superior to ATMs in most aspects post patch, but if we've seen a big switch from ATMs to LRMs in response to the Cauldron patch, where ATMs were "rebalanced" (meaning nerfed) while LRMs were untouched, then it says that ATMs are not balanced, even against other similar weapon types, let alone against the pantheon of weapons available to Clanners.

People not using them =/= unusable, it's merely not an attractive choice considering that everything else is buffed. That tends to happen, but that doesn't mean ATMs won't perform well.

It's the FOOS strategy from Extra Credits, people are just so used with the weapon wrecking people up close that they refuse to adapt a different style after that was taken away. The ATMs for all intents and purposes still works okay, and that's all it needs to be.

Anomalocaris, on 24 May 2021 - 05:09 PM, said:

The idea was to make as many weapons as possible viable in game by boosting underperforming weapons. ATMs and Streaks were the only weapons to get a _nerf_ in direct contravention to the stated goals of the Cauldron. Navid went so far as to call lock on weapons "cancer" in a response to the patch thread.

....

What I find unusual is the attitude among many high level players that lock-ons are horrible weapons, to the point that they don't even want their teammates to bring them ("oh great, an LRM assault on our team"). Yet they want them nerfed. I watched a video a day ago from a very good player who recently returned, and he was shooting down his own team's UAVs to prevent the LRM mechs that popped those UAVs from getting locks. That's not conjecture, he said as much in the video. Now, he's a toxic **** most days anyways, but I found it rather illuminating.

Reminds me of the guy that "Should have legged me", just because i went first. It wouldn't be that bad, but the other comp players defended him. That's the stain of comp players in my eyes forever.

YEONNE said that even though the Gulag Cauldron is comprised of diverse players players, it's the high-skill that editoralizes the changes, so yeah practically just the high-skill people speaking, because unless stupid ideas from the low-skill are able to be published, then they aren't really representing them. That's like hate-speech is part of free-speech, now matter how much you hate it.

That being said, I really don't care for representation, why can't I just decide for myself than for another supposedly representative of mine? Representation is basically identity-politics, and people surrendering their ability to think and choose for themselves. That is why I don't really care whether the Gulag Cauldron claims they represent people they most likely don't, because only I represent myself.

You have to remember that these people have a different environment. I don't want to pull tiers, but being in Tier 1, it's a lot more active and has a lot more tendency to nascar -- even on the new canyon -- while Tier-5, I honestly don't know how people play in Tier-5 anymore, but I remember it being passive and strangely more cooperative.

These people, the high-level ones, their environment is the comp leagues, that which I don't play, that which I don't really care for. LRMs and ATMs are powerful for them? Sure. They are entitled to their on feedback based on what they see. And unfortunately, their feedback carries a lot more weight than the other guy that says "Logically" a lot.

Anomalocaris, on 24 May 2021 - 05:09 PM, said:

Again, I haven't played LRMs in years save for a meme or event requirement, but I think they should have a viable place in the game, as should ATMs.

I don't want to be mean, but why are you here then? It's like the other guy that haven't even played the game for like years, but still has something to say about the game even if balance was changed several times.

For the sake of transparency, I'm actually brought ATMs a few times, and it was difficult. I would say that it's not that ATMs are weak but the proliferation of AMS and constant ECMs that makes it hard. LRMs simply have more breathing room, and that's what ATMs need -- just more breathing room.

[Anomalocaris]

The6thMessenger, on 24 May 2021 - 10:48 PM, said:

I don't want to be mean, but why are you here then? It's like the other guy that haven't even played the game for like years, but still has something to say about the game even if balance was changed several times.

For the sake of transparency, I'm actually brought ATMs a few times, and it was difficult. I would say that it's not that ATMs are weak but the proliferation of AMS and constant ECMs that makes it hard. LRMs simply have more breathing room, and that's what ATMs need -- just more breathing room.

I'm here because this is about ATMs. I've played LRMs maybe 50 games out of over 2000 on this account (almost all in a clan LRM boat). They just never appealed to me. But I played ATMs substantially more because of the risk/reward and the challenge of staying in optimum range. In fact, they were the only lock-on weapon I used with any regularity. Now that I view ATMs as worse than LRMs in many aspects, there isn't much point in playing any lock-on weapons. That, to me, is bad for the game. Lock on weapons were generally inferior to other stuff IMO anyways. Which is why good players tend to not use them as frequently. But they should be viable options in quick play. I think the Cauldron patch made lock-ons generally less viable. And not only do I think that's wrong, but its the opposite of what they said they wanted to do. I'm a fan of holding people to what they say.

p.s. you do know this account is Tier5 because I haven't played it since they did the reset, right?

Edited by Anomalocaris, 25 May 2021 - 09:41 AM.

[John Bronco]

Anomalocaris, on 24 May 2021 - 05:09 PM, said:

I watched a video a day ago from a very good player who recently returned, and he was shooting down his own team's UAVs to prevent the LRM mechs that popped those UAVs from getting locks. That's not conjecture, he said as much in the video.

A noble act borne of extreme compassion for his fellow mechwarriors, for there is nothing more gracious than saving a fellow gamer from the vile tyranny of indirect fire.

In future times, men will name their sons after him.

[Leone]

What? No. That's terrible. Also probably reportable. Long Range Missiles have enough problems to deal with without having your team shooting you in the back.

~Leone