198 replies to this topic

[Pando]

Try running crap tons of SRM6 in 8's against a sniper team. See how "OP" they are then ;P

[OneEyed Jack]

Kmieciu, on 01 March 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

Have you ever seen an A1 boating SRM2's or SRM4's? The answer is no, because both of them are inferior to SRM6.

Um... the answer is yes. I've seen a number if A1's with 6xSRM4 for better heat management, less spread, less ammo usage and faster cycle. Next question you want to ask, then answer incorrectly?

[Terror Teddy]

CG Oglethorpe Kerensky, on 01 March 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

Lets look at this from a different direction shall we?

All of our maps,aside from the very recent Alpine Valley are these tiny little maps and usually have lots of cover. Well of course brawling weapons like SRMs and AC/20s are going to be great here, all of our tactics we have refined are specifically tailored for these maps.

Take your Cent-A and A1 Cat into Alpine Valley loaded down with SRMs and you will find a significantly different experience from what you would find in River City.
The answer to this problem isn't changing the SRMs but introduction of more maps, large maps, where highly specialized mechs are at a disadvantage.

A very good point as well.

I think for example 3L ravens or many fast mechs will get into trouble if we get metroplex maps where you have ONLY cities and high buildings and tight corridors between buildings where their freedom of movement means that their SSRM and ECM means squat as our hordes of peackeeping Urbanmechs corner them and blap them to pieces.

[Flying Blind]

SRMs have always been the best damage per ton in this game no matter what incarnation. they have also always been one of the more difficult weapons to land on target consistently. this is all true still here in MWO. SRMs are working as intended and as they should be.

Edited by Flying Blind, 01 March 2013 - 07:51 AM.

[OneEyed Jack]

CG Oglethorpe Kerensky, on 01 March 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

Valley loaded down with SRMs and you will find a significantly different experience from what you would find in River City.
The answer to this problem isn't changing the SRMs but introduction of more maps, large maps, where highly specialized mechs are at a disadvantage.

You seem confused. It's not highly specialized builds that are at a disadvantage. It's only highly specialized short-ranged builds that are. Highly specialized long-ranged builds have a distinct advantage; something all the people claiming it encourages "balanced" builds like to brush over.

[Kylere]

Same whine, different day

[Johnny Morgan]

Brilig, on 28 February 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

Rather than reducing the damage I would increase their spread up close, or maybe hamper their convergence a little. Single units seem pretty well balanced. Its when you have 3 SRM6 all firing out of the same tubes at the same point that the damage seems crazy.

This is a very valid point.

A good example is the Raven 3L, it physically doesn't have the tubes to mount 2xSRM6. It really is only able to support 1xSRM6 and 1xNARC (which I have actually started running on my 3L).

I do like that the rate of fire is limited to the 1 tube on the Raven and I'm ok if this applies to all mechs but my understanding is that it doesn't. It's only the mechs that have a NARC tube that this happens too right now and I do hope they implement this over an other nerf/buff to see how it works out.

Increasing the spread without Artemis, and in turn making Artemis a bit more of an impact for SRMs, is another good ideal and from what I understand they are working on/playing around with.

[Yokaiko]

All the while half of these people would moan if people were fitting all of their missile slots with LRMs.


"LRM is OP, NO SKILL"

Its getting silly there are literally nerf this posts for EVERY weapon that isn't a laser or ballistic on the first two pages.

Get over it.

[Pendraco]

While I don't have a huge issue with SRM's, I would not mind seeing them tweaked a bit. maybe give them decent accuracy, but make them fire 1 at a time in quick succession (per location).

So a splatcat with 3 in the right arm and 3 in the left arm would fire 1 from each group at the same time (2 at a time) and take maybe 3 seconds to get through a volley of 18 missiles. This could actually make them more dangerous in the hands of a capable pilot, but it would also give the defender the ability to mitigate damage through twisting and moving.

What do you guys think? I have read something like this proposed before, what would be the downside?

[Flying Blind]

Pendraco, on 01 March 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

While I don't have a huge issue with SRM's, I would not mind seeing them tweaked a bit. maybe give them decent accuracy, but make them fire 1 at a time in quick succession (per location).

So a splatcat with 3 in the right arm and 3 in the left arm would fire 1 from each group at the same time (2 at a time) and take maybe 3 seconds to get through a volley of 18 missiles. This could actually make them more dangerous in the hands of a capable pilot, but it would also give the defender the ability to mitigate damage through twisting and moving.

What do you guys think? I have read something like this proposed before, what would be the downside?

no thank you. try out putting an SRM6 in the left torso of the TBT-7M or any other mech's NARC tube like on the Raven 3L and see how it works for you.

it is not fun

No thank you

[SI The Joker]

I have a couple suggestions and questions which might turn into suggestions.

- Make the NARC tube a NARC tube like AMS is an AMS point. The whole concept of firing an SRM6 out of a NARC tube is silly, in my opinion. In the case of the Raven 3L, it would then have 1 missle point, 1 NARC point, 3 Energy points. My thoughts here are that if it's a NARC tube... it should be a NARC.

- With regard to SRMs... my only question is... how does a mech fire 36 dumb-fire missles... and not one of those missles explodes by hitting another missle as it flys? In addition to increasing spread and convergence... maybe it's just a case of "If you fire 36 missles... there's an X% chance per launcher that Y number of missles will hit each other in flight and explode before hitting their target."

It doesn't solve the facehumpers, though. So perhaps a min-range on SRMs? Say... 40 meters?

[Flying Blind]

SI The Joker, on 01 March 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

I have a couple suggestions and questions which might turn into suggestions.

- Make the NARC tube a NARC tube like AMS is an AMS point. The whole concept of firing an SRM6 out of a NARC tube is silly, in my opinion. In the case of the Raven 3L, it would then have 1 missle point, 1 NARC point, 3 Energy points. My thoughts here are that if it's a NARC tube... it should be a NARC.

- With regard to SRMs... my only question is... how does a mech fire 36 dumb-fire missles... and not one of those missles explodes by hitting another missle as it flys? In addition to increasing spread and convergence... maybe it's just a case of "If you fire 36 missles... there's an X% chance per launcher that Y number of missles will hit each other in flight and explode before hitting their target."

It doesn't solve the facehumpers, though. So perhaps a min-range on SRMs? Say... 40 meters?

minimum range on SRMS? what? no! first of all face humping will go away when knockdown returns. Secondly SRMs are limited enough in range as it is. getting close is how you mitigate the way SRMS spread out and become useless at any range other than 125 meters or less than 50. SRMs are difficult to really use well, the fact that we have skilled pilots able to use them well doesn't mean we need to nerf SRMS or that there's anything wrong with SRMS, it just means that we have highly skilled players making this game more challenging and interesting for us.

stop complaining this is a good thing.

[Viper69]

Just ripple the missiles out of the tubes not in a few big clump. This way you have to maintain a crosshair hold for the duration of the launching. Have the missles have a cone of effect that radiates out in a widening arc from the launcher.

[Lightfoot]

@OP

I think you are confusing the never rebalanced hardpoints of the CPLT-A1 with a need to rebalance the SRM6.

This approach was applied to the CPLT-K2 and the Gauss Rifle and now the K2 Gausspult has become the 2xAC20-pult and the Gauss Rifle is too fragile to use. The rebalance needs to be applied to the out-of-balance mechs and not the weapon.

The real culprit in all this is the screwy way Hardpoints are applied to the Mechs. It wrongly assumes that if the Hardpoints were on the Stock variant of the Mech, then all permutations arrived at in Mechlab will also be balanced and drawn from Battletech sources and in both assumptions PGI is, from time to time, incorrect. MWO has only Mech-labbed Mechs and that is where balance must come from.

Edited by Lightfoot, 01 March 2013 - 08:41 AM.

[StalaggtIKE]

SRM have not change since closed BETA, yet now they're a problem. ECM made LRM and SSRM not worth the investment. Guided missiles are no longer viable, thus the popularity of SRM.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 01 March 2013 - 08:46 AM.

[Royalewithcheese]

Lightfoot, on 01 March 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

This approach was applied to the CPLT-K2 and the Gauss Rifle and now the K2 Gausspult has become the 2xAC20-pult and the Gauss Rifle is too fragile to use. The rebalance needs to be applied to the out-of-balance mechs and not the weapon.

I'm still not convinced this is specifically a K2 issue - ppl stick those guns on anything that fits them, which at this point in time is the K2 for the AC/20 and used to be just the K2 for gauss. Now you can stick dualguass on the cataphract, and what do you know, ppl stick it on the cataphract too. I would be very surprised if dual AC/20 Jagermechs don't become as common or more common than dual AC/20 K2s.

[Odanan]

Kobold, on 28 February 2013 - 11:54 PM, said:

I vote the exact opposite. Give them less damage, but also a tighter grouping at range. This gives a lower alpha weapon, but it will retain usefulness.

Totally agree. SRMs should be better effective at long range.

[Tesunie]

I only read up to mid page 2, but I think this thread needs a stop boating close range systems only.Stop making lopsided brawler builds. Place a single range weapon on and suddenly, you'll find you can take on that splatcat causing damage at range, giving you a better chance when he gets up to the brawl. LRMs are fairly might. A large laser can still be used in a brawl. AC 20 actually have a decent range. AC 10 does good range to damage.

I haven't heard a definitive response back yet, but I heard one SRM cat changed 2 SRM racks for some LRMs, and I think they said they enjoyed the versatile ranges. The ability to choose when to engage, and not be helpless at certain ranges.

This is an argument that something makes a better close range build, and seem to forget longer ranges or balanced builds. If you are also only effective at the same range as they are, of course one will out perform the other. Your tactics are limited when you limit your build, but a focused build has strength as well as weaknesses.

[Royalewithcheese]

Tesunie, on 01 March 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

I only read up to mid page 2, but I think this thread needs a stop boating close range systems only.Stop making lopsided brawler builds. Place a single range weapon on and suddenly, you'll find you can take on that splatcat causing damage at range, giving you a better chance when he gets up to the brawl. LRMs are fairly might. A large laser can still be used in a brawl. AC 20 actually have a decent range. AC 10 does good range to damage.

+1. Brawlers need to be able to hurt stuff outside of facehug range. In addition to AC/20s (seriously, those things are amazing - they do gauss damage out to like ~400) I've found that UAC/5s are pretty insane if you can run more than one. Those things do full damage at similar ranges to a gauss rifle or a PPC and a pair of them is arguably a better brawling weapon than an AC/20. Either one is probably Tier 1 in terms of stuff you want to bring to a brawl and will also make anyone that specialized for facehugging reconsider their build choices posthaste.

And, it's a lot of fun to dump 5-6 UAC rounds into a lurmboat or sniper and make it get back behind cover.

Edited by Royalewithcheese, 01 March 2013 - 09:28 AM.

[Kommisar]

Johnny Morgan, on 01 March 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

This is a very valid point.

A good example is the Raven 3L, it physically doesn't have the tubes to mount 2xSRM6. It really is only able to support 1xSRM6 and 1xNARC (which I have actually started running on my 3L).

I do like that the rate of fire is limited to the 1 tube on the Raven and I'm ok if this applies to all mechs but my understanding is that it doesn't. It's only the mechs that have a NARC tube that this happens too right now and I do hope they implement this over an other nerf/buff to see how it works out.

Increasing the spread without Artemis, and in turn making Artemis a bit more of an impact for SRMs, is another good ideal and from what I understand they are working on/playing around with.

For the record, every mech variant has a set number of "tubes" for any given missile hardpoint. You can mount more "launcher" in that hardpoint, but they will all have to exit out of the tubes.

For example, if you mount (and I have) an LRM15 in the left arm of an Awesome 9M (with has 1 missile hardpoint with 2 tubes for a default Streak launcher), you will have 15 missiles fired 2 at a time until they are all out. That is 7 rapid launches of 2 missiles with 1 last missile at the end.

Same with every mech. This is the advantage of the Catapults. They have big launchers with a lot of tubes. It is the reason the Treb is a better missile boater than the Cent; more tubes.