Jump to content

Why Atms Are Just Worse Than Other Missiles

Weapons

104 replies to this topic

#1 SirFred131

    Rookie

  • 6 posts

Posted 16 May 2021 - 05:52 AM

I want to use ATMs, but with the recent changes it's impossible to justify. Comparing an ATM9 and an LRM 20 side by side should be a fair comparison. They're both missiles, they have the same slot and tonnage costs, both can lock on but do not require a lock to fire. I also view ATM9 to be the best ATM launcher, so it's a decent champion for the ATM cause. Unfortunately, the ATM 9 loses out in almost every respect, even disregarding long range engagements and indirect firing where LRMs are meant to outperform ATMs.

In optimal range, an ATM9 clocks in at 22.5 alpha at a 5 second cooldown for 4.5 DPS. With a heat cost of 7 per salvo, this brings 3.2 damage per heat. One ton of ammo carries 105 shots, for a total of 262.5 damage. At medium range, this drops to 18 damage per alpha, leaving it at 3.6 DPS, 2.3 damage per heat, and 210 damage per ton. When direct fired, the missiles have a velocity of 242, and a spread of 3.5. An ATM9 has a part health of 7.5.

An LRM 20 has an alpha of 20 points at a 4.6 second cooldown for 4.3 DPS. A heat cost of 6 per salvo puts it at 3.3 damage per heat. One ton of ammo is 240 damage. When direct fired, the missiles have a velocity of 294, and a spread of 5.05. An LRM 20 has a part health of 12.5

This means that in terms of sustained DPS, the LRM20 will outperform the ATM9 unless more than 77.7% are fired from close range, while the remaining shots are fired from midrange. Incidentally, 62% would need to be fired from close range for ATMs to have better ammo per ton. Again, this is assuming no shots are fired from long range, and that the LRMs are not able to take advantage of their better indirect firing to spend more time firing than the ATMs.

It also means an LRM20 will always outperform an ATM9 in terms of damage per heat. In terms of single salvo damage, it will only be slightly lower at close range, and in exchange will be slightly higher at mid range. Other miscellaneous attributes like part durability, projectile speed, and even minimum range are also in the LRM20's favor, with one key exception. Missile Spread. ATMs have direct fire spread comparable to LRMs with Artemis, but without paying the one ton + slot cost of Artemis.

So the only reason you would ever want to use an ATM 9 over an LRM20 is if you were planning to fight primarily in close range, and you wanted free Artemis. Coincidentally, for one missile hardpoint more, two Artemis SRM6s have the same tonnage and slot count as an ATM9 or LRM20, so I'll put their stats here as well.

Two SRM6s have a combined alpha of 24 damage, with a cooldown and per launcher heat of 3.75. This gives them a combined DPS of 6.4, while the damage per heat is 3.2. One ton of ammo is 240 damage. They have a velocity of 400 and a spread of 3.15. Each launcher has 7.5 health.

SRMs have a longer range than the sweet spot of ATMs, as well as no minimum range, but I will assume that the minimum range never comes into play and all of the ATM's midrange shots are out of SRM range. Assuming 77.7% of the ATM's shots are taken from close range, that gives the SRMs an effective DPS of 4.97

The pair of Artemis SRM6s are clearly beating the ATMs in terms of DPS while maintaining better alpha, tighter spread, higher velocity, slightly better damage per heat, and even being more resistant to critical hits. The only downsides are requiring one more hard point, and having slightly worse damage per ton of ammo.

The damage per ton of ammo isn't that meaningful, so the only situation where you would ever take ATMs is when you think you can fire the majority of your shots from within about 280 meters, but lack the hardpoint count to mount SRMs instead.

Unfortunately, ATMs are saddled with a serious drawback for close-range fighting. A 120 meter minimum range. Even if your positioning is good, you can't always stop an enemy from just running straight at you once they realize you're using ATMs, especially if you're trying hard to get into optimum range. This makes them unreliable in the only situation where they could potentially be better than other missiles.

So obviously ATMs have some problems right now. How do we fix them?

The first answer is to simply say "Well, they're a bit under-tuned right now. Let's just give them .2 more damage per missile at all ranges." This maintains the ATM's identity as an all-range missile. It makes it feel like firing ATMs at long range isn't quite as much of a waste of ammo, it means ATMs can compete with LRMs at medium range while clearly outperforming them at short range, compensating them for their lack of indirect fire, but it still leaves them a much less reliable close range weapon than SRMs.

The second answer is to remove their minimum range. This turns them into the SRM's big brother, weighing more in exchange for using less hardpoints, not needing to worry about maximum range, and having the lock on to help with aiming and to enable hook shots. Without a minimum range they gain a clear advantage over LRMs without needing to outcompete them at mid range.

My third suggestion is a slightly stranger one. Dramatically increase ammo per ton. I'm talking something like a 50% increase. Doubling it would probably be too much, but even that I'm not sure of.

One of the strange things about ATMs is their massive max range, but difficulty being effective at those ranges. They lack indirect fire so they would need to be used as a sniper weapon, but their direct fire velocity is (to my knowledge) the slowest in the game. This gives enemies plenty of time to get to cover, and makes it almost impossible to hit without a sensor lock, so it also can't be used much against ECM targets. To top it all off, at that range the damage per ton of ammo is very low even before AMS. Taking those shots is just a waste of ammo most of the time. So why not boost the ammo per ton to the point where people can take those shots without worrying about wasting ammo? In the cases where some of the missiles do hit, that extra damage will help give ATMs an edge over SRMs without needing to boost their damage.

On the other hand, people might simply say "More ammo per ton? I'll just run less tons then." If they do that, it indirectly helps how ATMs compare against LRMs. Even if an ATM9 is the same tonnage and slot count as an LRM20, it can afford to be slightly worse if in exchange it can run half a ton less ammo.

#2 John Bronco

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 966 posts

Posted 16 May 2021 - 06:56 AM

Why is it a problem that an ATM launcher is only situationally better than a LRM launcher?

#3 doctormanuse

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 25 posts

Posted 16 May 2021 - 07:22 AM

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.

#4 1453 R

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 5,458 posts

Posted 16 May 2021 - 08:03 AM

View PostJohn Bronco, on 16 May 2021 - 06:56 AM, said:

Why is it a problem that an ATM launcher is only situationally better than a LRM launcher?


The issue seems to be that the situations in which an ATM launcher is better than an LRM launcher are so narrow and difficult to consistently achieve and maintain that there's no real point in using the ATM launcher over the LRM launcher. I've noticed it as well since my return a few weeks ago - all my old, once-reliable ATM 'Mechs are at severe disadvantage and start performing much better if I replace the ATM launchers with roughly equivalent LRMs.

The minimum range on ATMs has always been beyond obnoxious, especially since it's a hard minimum, unlike cLRMs. These are supposed to be the cool Everyman missile that works no matter where you are. It's supposed to be the Clan's equivalent to MRMs, in that a 'Mech with limited hardpoints like the Summoner can take one ATM launcher and do well with it...except the ATM launcher is basically a worse-than LRM launcher with a crappier minimum range and a super narrow band where it's worth firing your missiles at all.

Back in the pre-retirement days I really enjoyed playing quick, jumpy ATM platforms. Shadow Cats, Huntsmen, Summoners - they all made really cool ATM platforms because ATMs were richly rewarding if you could find the right band, stick in it, and deliver your missiles. It was a high-mobility playstyle I quite enjoyed. Trying to do it again today, even accounting for the degradation of my skills? Even if I manage to land a good, clean ATM hit in the Butter Zone...I'm not doing any more damage than I could've done with an LRM launcher from six hundred meters further out, more reliably and with better heat and ammo efficiency. And I'm still just as vulnerable to getting facerushed and ruined because my "Every Situation Missile" is even worse in a close-range scrap than LRMs.

ATMs are supposed to be better at long range than SRMs and better at close range than LRMs. Inasmuch as they work at long range (however poorly), they are indeed 'better than SRMs'. However, they are not really better at close range than LRMs in my recent experience, and it's resulted in a very said Rei mostly stripping ATM launchers off her 'Mechs and replacing them with LRMs. Or with nothing at all and just leaving them sad and unfinished in a 'Mech bay somewhere.

#5 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 7,518 posts

Posted 16 May 2021 - 08:12 AM

Ignoring spread is bad.

#6 Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Tip of the Spear
  • The Tip of the Spear
  • 1,678 posts

Posted 16 May 2021 - 08:19 AM

the problem is that the ATMs lost their niche; their're far too similar to LRMs now, to the point where people just use the lurms instead.

or to put it in gameterms:

last I checked before the weapons-patch, the atm-veagle was very popular. and yeah, there were reasons.
but now, you don't see them anywhere. at all.
-> there are reasons for that, too.

Edited by Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, 16 May 2021 - 08:19 AM.


#7 SirFred131

    Rookie

  • 6 posts

Posted 16 May 2021 - 08:21 AM

View Postdoctormanuse, 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.


I hadn't considered that, so I went and calc'd the ghost heat for that case. Firing 3 C-LRM20s generates 21.67 heat for 60 damage, for a total of 2.769 damage per heat. For 3 ATM9s to deal better damage per heat than 3 LRM20s, they'd only need to fire 52% of their shots from within optimal range. On the other hand, if we assume that the LRMs will avoid ghost heat when firing at mid range, the math gets a bit more complicated. I'm worried I'll mess up the math so I'm not calculating it, but I'm fairly certain it'd end up being above the 77.7% rate that would be required for the ATMs to have higher DPS anyway.

#8 Leone

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,693 posts
  • LocationOutworlds Alliance

Posted 16 May 2021 - 08:54 AM

Yup, whilst I was happy to see so many other weapons buffed, this patch nerfed ATMs, and so they've all be removed from my mechs. I've also found my streaks underperforming, so it's SRMs all the way.

'Tis sad, but all in all, still happy with the weapon rebalancing.

~Leone.

#9 SPNKRGrenth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 184 posts

Posted 16 May 2021 - 02:10 PM

ATMs should get their old 270m optimal range back. And maybe lower their minimum range to 90m. As it is, I do like that they push through AMS better now, without making things just outright vanish from close range anymore. Long range is no longer a complete trap either, which is nice.

#10 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 16 May 2021 - 03:30 PM

ATMs shouldnt even have a minimum range.

The whole advantage of ATMs in battletech is that they can be used at ANY range. What they lack in specialization they make up for in versatility.

Giving ATMs a minimum range defeats the purpose of the weapon which is to be usable at all ranges. With the downside being theyre not supposed to be as strong ton for ton as the more specialized weapons in specific range brackets.

Obviously ATMs shouldnt be better than SRMs at short range as a point of balance but ATMs should definitely not have a min range either. Instead they should have linear damage dropoff under 120m adjusted to a point that makes them worse than SRMs but not completely useless at that range.

I also agree with changing their range brackets back to how they used to be too. If ATMs arnt going to be specialized at one particular range bracket like they used to be, then they should be versatile at all ranges, which is actually truer to their battletech counterpart anyway.

Edited by Khobai, 16 May 2021 - 03:46 PM.


#11 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,516 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 16 May 2021 - 04:23 PM

View PostTeenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, on 16 May 2021 - 08:19 AM, said:

the problem is that the ATMs lost their niche; their're far too similar to LRMs now, to the point where people just use the lurms instead.

or to put it in gameterms:

last I checked before the weapons-patch, the atm-veagle was very popular. and yeah, there were reasons.
but now, you don't see them anywhere. at all.
-> there are reasons for that, too.


PPC ring a bell?

#12 Remover of Obstacles

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 549 posts

Posted 16 May 2021 - 05:25 PM

View PostLeone, on 16 May 2021 - 08:54 AM, said:

Yup, whilst I was happy to see so many other weapons buffed, this patch nerfed ATMs, and so they've all be removed from my mechs. I've also found my streaks underperforming, so it's SRMs all the way.

'Tis sad, but all in all, still happy with the weapon rebalancing.

~Leone.



Totally agreed. I did the same thing. ATMs and Streaks out, SRMs and LRMs in. LRMs are cooler and lighter, so I can afford to take more lasers. Win-Win.

Hopefully ATMs get something next patch (0 to 270 at 2.5 damage). With the current short optimal window and big dead zone, no reason to take them for me.

Also, 100% radar derp has got to go.

#13 Krucilatoz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • Big Brother
  • 119 posts

Posted 16 May 2021 - 07:20 PM

you do know that those two weapon are for different purposes right? Especially on the gameplay (mech-movement / manuevre)

ATM missile travel in short arc, this only useful on when you have direct sight or low-cover. Will be totally useless on high hill / cover such as building / cliffs. That's why VGL become the best ATM carrier, it can carry enough ATM firepower and jump-jets to shoot.

LRM, on the other hand, has higher arc, great for suppressing enemies into big rock / tall building. And because of that high-arc, LRM is a good choice for non-jump-jets mech, even better for assaults. The low-arc LRM missile on direct sight just an incentive.

I've been trying those two on WHM-IIC-4, the LRM version produce better result than ATM since WHM too slow to climb hill looking for target.

#14 SirFred131

    Rookie

  • 6 posts

Posted 17 May 2021 - 12:53 AM

View PostKrucilatoz, on 16 May 2021 - 07:20 PM, said:

you do know that those two weapon are for different purposes right?

ATM missile travel in short arc, this only useful on when you have direct sight or low-cover.

LRM, on the other hand, has higher arc, great for suppressing enemies into big rock / tall building.


The problem is that using LRMs as a close-mid range short arc direct fire weapon is still more effective than using ATMs in that role, unless you're so focused on close range that SRMs would be a far better weapon than ATMs. Hence the claim that ATMs are just worse than other missiles.

#15 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 17 May 2021 - 11:32 PM

View PostKrucilatoz, on 16 May 2021 - 07:20 PM, said:

you do know that those two weapon are for different purposes right? Especially on the gameplay (mech-movement / manuevre)


The problem is LRMs are now better for both purposes.

View PostSirFred131, on 17 May 2021 - 12:53 AM, said:


The problem is that using LRMs as a close-mid range short arc direct fire weapon is still more effective than using ATMs in that role, unless you're so focused on close range that SRMs would be a far better weapon than ATMs. Hence the claim that ATMs are just worse than other missiles.


bizarrely LRMs also do more damage than ATMs under 120m. Because LRMs have exponential damage dropoff under 180m while ATMs do 0 damage under 120m. That makes NO SENSE.

LRMs are currently more versatile than ATMs theres no logic in that.

In order to fix ATMs, they need their 0 damage deadzone changed to linear damage dropoff under 120m to make them better than LRMs under 120m. The linear damage dropoff should also prevent ATMs from being better than SRMs under 120m to keep them balanced under 120m.

ATMs also need their range brackets fixed... for example it makes no sense that ATMs have a max range of 1100 when LRMs only have a max range of 900. Shouldnt LRMs have a longer max range since theyre the more specialized long range missile?

ATM range brackets should be 120/270/540/810

And then they should do linear dropoff under 120m, x1.25, x1, and x0.8 damage respectively

Edited by Khobai, 17 May 2021 - 11:53 PM.


#16 RJF Volkodav

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,444 posts

Posted 17 May 2021 - 11:50 PM

Minimal range should be removed (along maybe with a slight damage reduction at close range). To make them viable at mid range there could be added some acceleration for the rockets so that they stay at the same travel speed (or even lower) at close range but will gain speed boost for a medium/long range. That would make them all-range usable missile system as it meant to be.

#17 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,045 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 18 May 2021 - 12:29 AM

I agree that LRMs are a lot more useful right now, but I don't want ATMs having more close-range damage, because that just detracts more from uses at other range band.

Why LRMs are useful is because of their mechanic, the combination DF and IDF. They are designed with spamming in mind, and it works.

ATMs used to be the close-range monster, but right now it's just okay. That being said I question the point of the small sweetspot, one would think that it should get back the 270m sweet spot though.

View PostNightbird, on 16 May 2021 - 08:12 AM, said:

Ignoring spread is bad.


Eh well, both are basically spread. Yeah one's tighter, but the point of ATM was (past tense) is that you deal ludicrous damage anyways.

View PostKhobai, on 17 May 2021 - 11:32 PM, said:

bizarrely LRMs also do more damage than ATMs under 120m. Because LRMs have exponential damage dropoff under 180m while ATMs do 0 damage under 120m. That makes NO SENSE.

...

ATMs also need their range brackets fixed... for example it makes no sense that ATMs have a max range of 1100 when LRMs only have a max range of 900. Shouldn't LRMs have a longer max range since theyre the more specialized long range missile.


Why though? Is it because one is an ATM and the other is LRM? That's basically North Korea is Democratic because there's Democracy in the name.

As it stands, the ATMs are kind of meh, powerful but meh. The reality is that ATMs are done dirty because of lack of ammo-switching. We also have to mind its place within the game right now, that is what we have now and that is what we must contend.

I wouldn't worry about the long-range use of ATMs because it's basically non-existent, it's incredibly wasteful to use it other than the HE range. So what if it can hit 1100m? People use it for the sweet spot! If anything LRMs are a lot more generalized because it doesn't lose damage between 180m outwards 900m.

If you really want ATMs to have shorter max range then they need to be actual competitors to LRMs at those ranges. Just make it deal the same damage at all points within the range, and remove the min-range. That means no sweet-spot, it's just LRMs with no IDF and deals 2.2 damage/missile, maybe make it fire-and-forget.

This creates a performance floor, whereas LRMs are volatile despite good sustaining DPS, the ATMs provide ensured damage.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 May 2021 - 12:34 AM.


#18 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 18 May 2021 - 12:34 AM

View PostThe6thMessenger, on 18 May 2021 - 12:29 AM, said:

Why though? Is it because one is an ATM and the other is LRM? That's basically North Korea is Democratic because there's Democracy in the name.


Because the battletech source material says ATMs are supposed to be more versatile than LRMs. Thats why.

ATMs are supposed to be versatile but lacking in specialization. They should be worse than SRMs at short range and worse than LRMs at long range but flexible in the fact they can engage at both short and long range unlike those more specialized weapons.

Making ATMs do 2 damage at all ranges doesnt really fix them. Not unless you also fix their firing arc so they can actually hit things at longer ranges again.That might be another possible way to fix them. But i would argue that also overlaps with the role of LRMs.

I tend to think ATMs should be slightly biased towards medium range performance. That way LRMs and SRMs remain dominant in their specialized short and long range niches. I believe thats the best way to differentiate ATMs... make them versatile at short and long range but also give them a slight bias towards medium range.

I think 2.5 damage is good. thats not crushing like the 3 damage it was before. And I think ATMs are okay at long range right now. They just need some help in the short and medium ranges where LRMs are currently outperforming them. Which is why I think the range brackets should be changed back to how they were before and the min range should be changed to linear damage dropoff.

Again its not right that LRMs do more damage than ATMs under 120m. There is no logical sense in that.

Edited by Khobai, 18 May 2021 - 12:46 AM.


#19 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,045 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 18 May 2021 - 12:37 AM

View PostKhobai, on 18 May 2021 - 12:34 AM, said:

Why? Because the battletech source material says ATMs are supposed to be more versatile than LRMs. Thats why.

ATMs are supposed to be versatile and lacking in specialization. They should be worse than SRMs at short range and worse than LRMs at long range but flexible in the fact they can engage at both short and long range unlike the more specialized weapons.


Well guess what, no ammo-switching. Too bad. How the ATMs fit in our current game right now is what you must contend with.

View PostKhobai, on 18 May 2021 - 12:34 AM, said:

Making ATMs do 2 damage at all ranges doesnt really fix them. Not unless you also fix their firing arc so they can actually hit things at longer range again.


Well it's a start, because as it stands the damage-reduction means it's incredibly wasteful to use ATMs long range at all. So the **** what if it has 1100m range? People might as well just get closer to get the 2 damage/missile.

I think the Arc is what makes LRMs Mechanically relevant. ATMs shouldn't tread on that, but should have their own thing. Like being Fire-and-Forget if not bone-tracking.

View PostKhobai, on 18 May 2021 - 12:34 AM, said:

I think ATMs need to be more biased towards medium range though. That way LRMs and SRMs remain dominant in their specialized range niches. So I believe thats the best way to fix ATMs... make them more versatile but with a slight bias towards medium range.


So long as the damage-dropoff exists, the ATM use is always pushed towards the close-range. And once you remove the deadzone, for misguided sake of versatility, then it's less deterrence from using the sweet-spot means less mid-range use.

Why can't you see that? Surely you too use ATMs at the sweet-spot? Surely you actually played once again.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 May 2021 - 12:44 AM.


#20 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 18 May 2021 - 12:48 AM

Quote

So long as the damage-dropoff exists, the ATM use is always pushed towards the close-range. And once you remove the deadzone, for misguided sake of versatility, then it's less deterrence from using the sweet-spot means less mid-range use.

Why can't you see that? Surely you too use ATMs at the sweet-spot? Surely you actually played once again.


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

ATMs would still retain their sweet spot from 120m-270m where they would do the most damage.

But now instead of doing 0 damage under 120m they would at least do more damage than LRMs under 120m.

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

Again here is what im suggesting:

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.

Edited by Khobai, 18 May 2021 - 12:54 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users