104 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 12:48 AM, said:

Im not saying get rid of damage-dropoff completely. Im saying make it a linear dropoff instead of 0 damage.

And I'm saying that the less you make it punishing, the less people use it for mid range like you wanted.

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 12:48 AM, said:

How does it make any sense that LRMs do more damage than ATMs under 120m? Again theres no logic in that.

You're the only one insisting so, and the one that doesn't get how the weapon system is used. Have you actually played the game after all these years?

So the **** what if the source-material says what ATMs does? Can you not ******* see that PGI was unable to code ammo-switching? The versatility has been botched from the start. What the ATM does now is what you need to contend with. The reality is that the LRMs took up the versatility role, while the ATMs are more specialized to close range. Live with it.

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 12:48 AM, said:

ATM range brackets changed to 120m/270m/540m/810m

ATMs do linear damage dropoff under 120m, they do x1.25 damage from 120-270, they do x1 damage from 270-540, and they do x0.8 damage from 540-810

That also solves the weird issue of ATMs massively outranging LRMs which makes no sense either.

That makes ATMs into a versatile missile that can engage at short and long range (but not as well as srms or lrms) and has a sweet spot in between srm and lrms.

So what if ATMs outrange lrms? Nobody was really using ATMs to reach people up to 1100m -- that's a non-issue. And SRMs, come on really? The SRMs fulfill different roles, as it can brawl. And guess what, because you made it less punishing to be in minimum-distance, that's less role for SRMs.

Your suggestions isn't really going to help with what you want to happen, it's not going to do what you think it's going to do.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 May 2021 - 01:07 AM.

[Khobai]

The6thMessenger, on 18 May 2021 - 12:57 AM, said:

Your suggestions isn't really going to help with what you want to happen, it's not going to do what you think it's going to do.

How does making ATMs more versatile not help with making them more versatile?

I dont really follow your logic. I want the ATM to be more versatile. So of course giving it more versatility is going to help with that.

Quote

So the **** what if the source-material says what ATMs does? Can you not ******* see that PGI was unable to code ammo-switching? The versatility has been botched from the start. What the ATM does now is what you need to contend with. The reality is that the LRMs took up the versatility role, while the ATMs are more specialized to close range. Live with it.

Of course I understand PGI cant code ammo switching. Which is why I never suggested ammo switching as part of my solution. Fortunately ATMs dont need ammo switching to be made more versatile.

Quote

So what if ATMs outrange lrms? Nobody was really using ATMs to reach people up to 1100m. And SRMs, come on really? The SRMs fulfill different roles.

Because if ATMs dont have an 1100m range its easier to justify increasing their velocity. Which is another change they probably need to help them penetrate AMS better. Giving them better velocity also helps make them more versatile than LRMs.

Also again it doesnt really make sense for ATMs to outrange LRMs. Why should they?

Edited by Khobai, 18 May 2021 - 01:14 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 01:05 AM, said:

How does making the ATM more versatile not help with making it more versatile?

....

I want the ATM to be more versatile. So of course giving it more versatility is going to help with that.

It's less punishing, not more versatile. You'll be doing the same dance in the sweet-spot regardless, now you have even lesser range than the LRMs to the distance it was barely getting used in the first place.

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 01:05 AM, said:

I dont really follow your logic.

That's because you aren't really good at it in the first place.

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 01:05 AM, said:

Of course I understand PGI cant code ammo switching. Which is why I never suggested ammo switching as part of my solution. Fortunately ATMs dont need ammo switching to be made more versatile.

But you aren't going to do that with your format.

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 01:05 AM, said:

Because if ATMs dont have an 1100m range its easier to justify increasing their velocity.

Hey remember when I said you aren't good at logic? Well this is one of it.

They have lower range, what on earth do they need the velocity? It's not like people use it at those ranges anymore where the time-to-target needs to be acceptable and balanced. That means there's no need to increase the velocity at all.

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 01:05 AM, said:

Which is another change they probably need to help them penetrate AMS better. Giving them better velocity also helps make them more versatile than LRMs.

Then give them more health, they penetrate AMS more either way, and you don't need this poorly-argued mess of a plan for it that does unintended consequences. The ATMs hit rather well already at the mid-range, what deters people is the ramp-up damage.

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 01:05 AM, said:

Also again it doesnt really make sense for ATMs to outrange LRMs. Why should they?

No, it doesn't make sense to you, because you don't get it.

The LRMs already are much more versatile at a distance on account of no damage-dropoff and higher arc and IDFing. The ATMs have the mechanical relevance that it gets use at longer range in the first place at all, and it barely is used.

If you want more versatility, you need to make ATMs worth using over said distances.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 May 2021 - 01:31 AM.

[Dauntless Blint]

Best missile in the game just worse? that's my take.

[Khobai]

The6thMessenger, on 18 May 2021 - 01:10 AM, said:

The LRMs already are much more versatile at a distance on account of no damage-dropoff and higher arc and IDFing. The ATMs have the mechanical relevance that it gets use at longer range in the first place at all, and it barely is used.

ATMs shouldnt be more versatile at a distance though. Because theyre not LRMs.

LRMs should be better than ATMs at a distance. working as intended. thats not the problem.

The problem is LRMs are better than ATMs at shorter ranges. Where the ATM needs to be stronger is at short to medium range where it loses ground to LRMs when it shouldnt.

Which is why your logic doesnt make sense. ATMs shouldnt be competing with LRMs because their roles shouldnt really overlap all that much. LRMs should be the most effective missile for long range. ATMs should be mostly effective at short-medium range with the ability to be used at long range if absolutely needed.

And saying ATMs never get used at long range is simply wrong. Because sometimes you just need to kill a cored mech at long range and even a small amount of damage from ATMs will finish them off. Theyre not great at long range but they can still kill a cored mech at long range if they have to. Thats all the versatility ATMs need at long range they dont need to be anymore versatile than they already are at long range.

Again making ATMs better at short to medium range where their performance should be superior to LRMs is exactly the way to fix ATMs. That is exactly how you make them more versatile and less inferior to LRMs.

Its simply a matter of balancing ATMs between LRMs and SRMs so those more specialized weapons retain their places in the game. the ATM should fill the gap as a medium range missile that can also be used at short and long range to a lesser extent if needed.

And if you honestly dont see how getting rid of the stupid 0 damage deadzone under 120m in favor of linear damage dropoff instead doesnt help ATMs im not really sure what to tell you... other than youre being obstinate. of course it helps because It increases the size of the sweet spot for ATMs. Especially if you increase the bracket back upto its original 270m too. thats a significant increase to the sweet spot range bracket which is exactly what ATMs need. Plus we get rid of the complete idiocy of your damage dropping to 0 because youre 1m too close to the target.

Because the whole issue with ATMs right now is that the sweet spot is too small and its too hard to keep targets inside that sweet spot. expanding the range of the sweet spot absolutely fixes that problem. That massively helps ATMs regain lost ground vs LRMs.

Edited by Khobai, 18 May 2021 - 02:20 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 01:31 AM, said:

The problem is LRMs are better than ATMs at shorter ranges. Where the ATM needs to be stronger is at short to medium range where it loses ground to LRMs when it shouldn't.

This would be where LRMs are better at 120m where ATMs aren't?

Okay, since when did LRMs' role revolve around that small band of the minimum range? The point of minimum range is for users to get ****** when an enemy closes on it.

The ATMs doing massive damage at sweet-spot, was formatted to be equally ******. The only problem right now is that the ATM's doesn't do enough for it's ability to get ******.

In short, it's not a useful avenue to attack the problem. It's not just about versatility, but consideration of counterplay. Likewise versatility is about being useful in many instances, not just having little weakness.

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 01:31 AM, said:

Which is why your logic doesnt make sense. ATMs shouldnt be competing with LRMs because their roles shouldnt really overlap all that much. LRMs should be the most effective missile for long range. ATMs should be mostly effective at short-medium range with the ability to be used at long range if absolutely needed.

So tell me, do people line up with ATMs just to hit people at 1100m? Having the ability do touch +200m further than the LRMs doesn't make it more effective, it just means you can. That 200m band beyond LRMs isn't that relevant enough considering that the LRMs is far more effective at a wider band, and the ATMs are being used at an even shorter and wider band. And combat at 900+ is still a massive challenge, hell at that point you're better off with Gauss, AC2s, and ERLLs.

Logic my ***.

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 01:31 AM, said:

And saying ATMs never get used at long range is simply wrong. Because sometimes you just need to kill a cored mech at long range and even a small amount of damage fro m ATMs will finish them off. Theyre not great at long range but they can still kill a cored mech at long range if they have to. Thats all the versatility ATMs need at long range they dont need to be anymore versatile than they already are at long range.

I never said never, I said barely. Arguing an extremely fringe instance does not have the same weight as what the entire weapon system seems to meant to do.

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 01:31 AM, said:

Again making ATMs better at short to medium range where their performance should be superior to LRMs is exactly the way to fix ATMs. That is exactly how you make them more versatile and less inferior to LRMs.

That's not versatility, that is even more specialization. As in that's less deterrence to the sweet spot.

And if you want them better at short to medium range, increase sweet-spot range to 270m, that means the 2.5 damage/missile will work in more instances.

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 01:31 AM, said:

Its simply a matter of balancing ATMs between LRMs and SRMs so those more specialized weapons retain their places in the game. the ATM should fill the gap as a medium range missile that can also be used at short and long range to a lesser extent if needed.

It does that already, what you're doing right now is just for the sake of your misguided idea of balance.

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 01:31 AM, said:

And if you honestly dont see how getting rid of the stupid 0 damage deadzone under 120m in favor of linear damage dropoff instead doesnt help ATMs im not really sure what to tell you... other than youre being obstinate.

of course it helps because It increases the size of the sweet spot for ATMs. Especially if you increase the bracket back upto its original 270m too. thats a significant increase to the sweet spot range bracket which is exactly what ATMs need.

No, you're being obstinate because you don't look at the larger picture. It's not a versatile weapon, it's just a really good weapon with little weakness.

You can argue how it's good all damn day, but you never consider if it's overpowered, or doing what you said it should do. Such as if you make sweet-spot less punishing, the more you take away from the mid-range use you care about, the more you take away from "versatility". That's not how we think, that's not how we play the game -- reality is, even if I don't like it, we min-max, the more we specialize the more effective we can be, and removing counterplay means the specialized use of ATMs is much more effective.

Doing 2 damage/missile as opposed of 0 at 100m is a massive advantage for the ATM user.

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 01:31 AM, said:

Plus we get rid of the complete idiocy of your damage dropping to 0 because youre 1m too close to the target.

Because the whole issue with ATMs right now is that the sweet spot is too small and its too hard to keep targets inside that sweet spot. expanding the range of the sweet spot absolutely fixes that problem. That massively helps ATMs regain lost ground vs LRMs.

ATMs and LRMs aren't defined by their use at their minimum-ranges, it's just stupid to argue LRMs so that ATMs -- that's like kid with a candy bar at a store arguing he should get two because another boy got two. That's not how it works, you need to consider how ATMs play first before comparing to LRMs.

I'm not fan of the deadzone or minimum range, but I understand why it should be there. But you know what, people seem to manage the minimum-range, not because YOU can't means we should adjust for you.

Though I agree with the sweet-spot issue, I argue that it should just be bigger up to 270m, not to ******* reduce effectiveness of the goddamn counterplay.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 May 2021 - 03:36 AM.

[Khobai]

The6thMessenger, on 18 May 2021 - 03:31 AM, said:

Though I agree with the sweet-spot issue, I argue that it should just be bigger up to 270m, not to ******* reduce effectiveness of the goddamn counterplay.

the fact you can counterplay ATMs so easily is the whole problem with ATMs

when they did a crushing 3 damage they needed counterplay to counter the fact the 3 damage was so powerful.

now that they only do 2.5 damage there is no reason to have that counterplay anymore. 2.5 damage hurts but it doesnt completely melt you like 3 damage did.

see how that works? less powerful = less need for counterplay. ATMs are balanced enough now that they no longer need the counterplay of having a zero damage deadzone. its time to get rid of it.

Quote

ATMs and LRMs aren't defined by their use at their minimum-ranges, it's just stupid to argue LRMs so that ATMs -- that's like kid with a candy bar at a store arguing he should get two because another boy got two. That's not how it works, you need to consider how ATMs play first before comparing to LRMs.

Of course they are. ATMs are absolutely defined by the fact they drop to 0 damage below their minimum range of 120m. Its one of the main things that defines ATMs because if you dont stay above 120m you dont do any damage. Again youre just being obstinate because youre wrong.

And you still havent answered the question of how it makes any sense for LRMs to outdamage ATMs below 120m. All you keep doing is repeating the same rhetoric about how it doesnt matter because it never actually happens. Why does that matter? Regardless of whether it happens or not theres no logical sense in LRMs outdamaging ATMs below 120m. Furthermore by getting rid of the 0 damage deadzone on ATMs it very much creates the possibility for ATMs to be used below 120m and therefore said situation would actually happen. Because it would very much change the dynamic of how ATMs are used.

Once again the best way to fix ATMs is to expand the range of their sweet spot so they do their 2.5 damage within a much larger range band. That gives them less overlap with LRMs at short to medium range. And you yourself said you dont like the zero damage deadzone. Nobody likes it because its stupid. Why keep stupid things in the game? ATMs should be balanced in a way that isnt stupid instead. Linear damage dropoff is far less stupid than doing 0 damage.

Edited by Khobai, 18 May 2021 - 04:28 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 04:06 AM, said:

the fact you can counterplay ATMs so easily is the whole problem with ATMs

when they did a crushing 3 damage they needed counterplay to counter the fact the 3 damage was so powerful.

now that they only do 2.5 damage there is no reason for that counterplay anymore.

see how that works? less powerful = less need for counterplay. ATMs are balanced enough now that they no longer need the counterplay of having a zero damage deadzone.

They still do superior damage/ton, come on this is not a hard idea to get. And you don't have to reduce or eliminate the counterplay, you can just increase sweetspot back to 270m, not this ****.

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 04:06 AM, said:

Of course they are. ATMs are absolutely defined by the fact they drop to 0 damage below their minimum range of 120m. Its one of the main things that defines ATMs because if you dont stay above 120m you dont do any damage. Again youre just being obstinate because youre wrong.

Wrong, you are being obstinate. And that's not being defined, that's being countered.

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 04:06 AM, said:

And you still havent answered the question of how it makes any sense for LRMs to outdamage ATMs below 120m. All you keep doing is repeating the same rhetoric about how that doesnt matter because it never actually happens. When the fact remains regardless of whether it happens or not it makes no sense.

If you actually know how to play the game, I don't need to define it for you. But in case you need it spelt, it's because of how ATM's mechanic is set up and their use, and it doesn't have to depend on how LRMs are set up and their use.

Such as you use ATMs to **** people within the sweet-spot with still being effective at mid-range. While LRMs are primarily useful at midrange and above especially with IDF.

My god. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 04:06 AM, said:

And again the best way to fix ATMs is to expand the range of their sweet spot so they do their 2.5 damage within a much larger range. That gives them less overlap with LRMs.

They aren't that overlapped, LRMs are still better at mid-range and longer range, while ATMs are still primarily used at close range. Less overlap is meaningless if their overlap is just an extremely fringe instance.

And again, reducing counterplay and max-range isn't helpful to that, it'll just make them OP. You want it bigger? Just put it back at 270m, you want to go through AMS? just more health. Anything else beyond that, git-gud scrub -- or in your case, actually play the game.

[Khobai]

You are 100% wrong. There is absolutely a huge overlap where LRMs are better. Which is exactly why people are preferring LRMs over ATMs right now.

Quote

They still do superior damage/ton, come on this is not a hard idea to get. And you don't have to reduce or eliminate the counterplay, you can just increase sweetspot back to 270m, not this ****.

the fact lrms are preferred over atms despite atms having better damage per ton tells us that damage per ton isnt really the biggest consideration. and its really not. nobody cares about that. thats not why lrms are better. lrms are better because theyre more versatile and useful in more situations than ATMs.

increasing the sweetspot back to 270m isnt enough. because atms only do 2.5 damage now. the drop from 3 to 2.5 damage was a HUGE nerf. they need more than a slight range increase to overcome a nerf that huge.

ATMs would still be way inferior to LRMs if you increased their range to 270m. that doesnt fix them adequately. They lost fully 1/6 of their damage potential! And you think giving them an extra 25m for their sweet spot range bracket makes up for that? No lol. Not even close. 25m is absolutely nothing. its inconsequential and practically the same thing as doing nothing.

ATMs need their sweet spot increased by way more than 25m. And removing the min range in favor of linear damage dropoff is a logical and easy way of doing that. Again nobody likes the zero damage deadzone. Its a bad game mechanic that isnt fun. And its not necessary for counterplay anymore since ATMs are way less powerful than they used to be.

The fact you think adding 25m to their range1 band would fix ATMs is laughable. They need a hell of a lot more than that to compete against LRMs.

Edited by Khobai, 18 May 2021 - 04:51 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 04:32 AM, said:

You are 100% wrong. There is absolutely a huge overlap where LRMs are better. Which is exactly why people are preferring LRMs over ATMs right now.

the fact lrms are preferred over atms despite atms having better damage per ton tells us that damage per ton isnt really the biggest consideration.

increasing the sweetspot back to 270m isnt enough. because atms only do 2.5 damage now. the drop from 3 to 2.5 damage was a HUGE nerf. they need more than a slight range increase to overcome that nerf.

they would still be way inferior to LRMs even if you increased their range to 270m. that doesnt fix them adequately.

No, you're wrong. I actually have played the Gulag changes, ATMs are just fine -- sweetspot back to 270m is sweet, but they aren't dominated by LRMs.

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 04:32 AM, said:

And removing the min range in favor of linear damage dropoff is a logical and easy way of doing that. Again nobody likes the zero damage deadzone. Its a bad game mechanic that isnt fun. And its not necessary for counterplay anymore since ATMs are way less powerful than they used to be.

This sounds more like you and your own shortcoming.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 May 2021 - 04:47 AM.

[Khobai]

The6thMessenger, on 18 May 2021 - 04:46 AM, said:

This sounds more like you and your own shortcoming.

lmao what? how is it a shortcoming to not find it fun that weapons do 0 damage? I dont think its fun on PPCs either. Its a stupid game mechanic.

Besides since you admitted you dont like the game mechanic either you obviously share the same shortcoming and are really just insulting yourself too. lmao.

Edited by Khobai, 18 May 2021 - 05:05 AM.

[Ekson Valdez]

Let's not devolve into personal insults and bickering, here.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 18 May 2021 - 05:04 AM, said:

lmao what? how is it a shortcoming to not find it fun that weapons do 0 damage? I dont think its fun on PPCs either. Its a stupid game mechanic.

Besides since you admitted you dont like the game mechanic either you obviously share the same shortcoming and are really just insulting yourself too. lmao.

Laughable.

I don't like it, but I don't complain for it and propose gamebreaking solution. Don't put me on your level.

Ekson Valdez, on 18 May 2021 - 05:22 AM, said:

[mod]Let's not devolve into personal insults and bickering, here.[/mod]

Oh rather late. My bad.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 May 2021 - 05:29 AM.

[Dogstar]

Heaven help either of you if you need to use IS LRMs, they have a huge deadspot!

Getting the maximum performance out of ATMs _should_ be somewhat difficult as they are the best missile weapon system in the game.

Admittedly they were reduced in damage in the last patch but it hasn't really reduced their overall strength. Boating multiple ATMs on anything but the slowest of clan mechs allows you to do some pretty impressive damage at all ranges with no need for locks at short ranges and all the benefits of lock on at long range.

[Parashurama]

Maybe just replace ATMs with a clan version of MRMs capped at 600 meters. So up the damage to 3.41667 damage per missile.

IS gets a 40 damage launcher from 0 to mid-range. No one is (should be) taking ATMs to fire at enemies at long range.

MRMs are the next tier of IS LRMs, more damage, but (one to three tons heavier per group) and more heat. Focused on short to mid range.

ATMs are the next tier of clan LRMs, more damage (?), but heavier (40% to 50%) and more heat. Focused on short to mid range with 33% reduction for mid range and 67% reduction at long range.

Since lock on weapons are getting hosed (AMS buff, radar derp, stealth armor, and nerfs), it would be nice to give clans a non-lock option for their 'best' missile weapon system.

Remember when the lock on target zone got reduced by 75%?
https://mwomercs.com...atch-notes/2125

Edited by Parashurama, 18 May 2021 - 12:26 PM.

[Anomalocaris]

The problem that the cauldron tried to address with their ATM changes wasn't the mechanics of ATMs. It was two fold. One, make them more durable against AMS. Which they did, along with every other missile except LRMs. So that's not really an ATM buff, its more of a general missile change.

Second, reduce the ability to deliver a huge hammerblow at close range that would melt mechs. The chosen path for this, reducing close in damage by 16%, wasn't particularly nuanced. Why? Because it didn't really do much to mitigate the punch of an ATM 36/48 mech inside 250m. Furthermore, it just made it a better decision in many situations to sit back in the 250-500m zone. Because you don't gain much damage by pushing closer, but you increase the risk of getting rushed, subject yourself to more weapons fire (inside optimal range for AC20, SRMs, etc) and have a harder time disengaging if you need to. Additionally mechs running 18-27 ATM loadouts got hurt a lot more than the bigger boats because they depended on getting in close to deliver the 3dmg/missile hit to make those small tube counts work.

A better solution would be this. Return the damage to where it was. Leave the health buffs (since every missile got them), or if need be reduce them a bit (cut in half?). And then use the one mechanic we have in the game that punishes boating. Ghost heat. Right now its way to easy to fire 4 ATM9s without even noticing the heat penalty. Same goes for 3 ATM12s. Make it hurt like we did with other weapons systems. 3 ATM9's generate 21 heat. Firing a 4th should generate at least that much additional heat if not more, and shut down a mech that's not close to zero heat buildup. Same goes for ATM12s. 2 generate 18 heat. Firing that 3rd one should generate enough to push the average mech over 80% on the heatscale from zero. An ATM48 Supernova alphaing should shut down hard or cause enough heat damage to take out a component.

In this way an ATM18, 24 or 27 mech can still get in close and deliver a worthwhile hit, but none of those was deleting heavy or assault side torsos in a single hit. If you want to run an ATM36 Veagle, you still can, but you're slower, less mobile and require a lot more heat management than the easy to play ATM27 version. An ATM48 SNV will have to manage its heat much better as well, or consider dropping down to an ATM36 version.

This leaves the versatility of ATMs intact, but mitigates the big tube count boat's ability to delete things. Given how the numbers chart out now for ATM vs. LRM in a variety of settings (LRM are superior more of the time now), I think this would address the original issues the cauldron identified and still keep ATMs fun. Of course, I'm not against tweaking them a little more if need be with more heat, slightly longer cooldown, etc.

[The6thMessenger]

Anomalocaris, on 18 May 2021 - 02:44 PM, said:

A better solution would be this. Return the damage to where it was. Leave the health buffs (since every missile got them), or if need be reduce them a bit (cut in half?). And then use the one mechanic we have in the game that punishes boating.

...

This leaves the versatility of ATMs intact, but mitigates the big tube count boat's ability to delete things. Given how the numbers chart out now for ATM vs. LRM in a variety of settings (LRM are superior more of the time now), I think this would address the original issues the cauldron identified and still keep ATMs fun. Of course, I'm not against tweaking them a little more if need be with more heat, slightly longer cooldown, etc.

ATMs are okay for the most part. 3 damage/missile would make it even more about the sweetspot. It's okay right now that it's just a small increase.

The weapon system also still does monstrous damage at 3 damage/missile, even if you increase heat penalty to punish boating. Simply partitioning your shot does little about the monstrous damage -- even the ATM48s work with partitioning primarily, but now you make it even more about poptarting. That's like what happened this march patch to ERPPCs.

Anomalocaris, on 18 May 2021 - 02:44 PM, said:

Additionally mechs running 18-27 ATM loadouts got hurt a lot more than the bigger boats because they depended on getting in close to deliver the 3dmg/missile hit to make those small tube counts work.

It honestly worked as intended really, I would argue that they deserve the nerf regardless.

That being said, I would just push for reduced Cooldown and Heat, return of sweetspot back to 270m.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 May 2021 - 03:38 PM.

[Khobai]

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

[Anomalocaris]

The6thMessenger, on 18 May 2021 - 03:37 PM, said:

ATMs are okay for the most part. 3 damage/missile would make it even more about the sweetspot. It's okay right now that it's just a small increase.

The weapon system also still does monstrous damage at 3 damage/missile, even if you increase heat penalty to punish boating. Simply partitioning your shot does little about the monstrous damage -- even the ATM48s work with partitioning primarily, but now you make it even more about poptarting. That's like what happened this march patch to ERPPCs.

It honestly worked as intended really, I would argue that they deserve the nerf regardless.

That being said, I would just push for reduced Cooldown and Heat, return of sweetspot back to 270m.

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. I'd be really curious to see how an LRM60 Veagle plays now vs. an ATM27 Veagle over a 20-30 match comparison period with a top level player (although why would they, there are much better weapons for damage dealing than either of those lockons - neither system offers anything over solid direct fire weapons for a player who can aim - which is why the nerf was surprising).

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.

ATM's tended to favor pop tarts from day one due to the flight path of the missiles. I don't see that changing much. If you're going to have to run around an corner and deliver a punch SRMs would be better I think.

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.

[LordNothing]

atms aren't as fun as they used to be. either the short range bracket needs more range or damage needs to go up a bit. even then streaks are better in the medium range bracket and lerms are better at the long range bracket. taking away or reducing the min range would also work.