647 replies to this topic

[Dremster]

Nick Carlile, on 14 March 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

Does an SRM 6 in practice now, in a real game, ever really core a commando in one shot though? I don't think i've ever seen that.

I can't even kill a commando with 30 LRM's in one shot.

Yes it can and does core a Commando in one shot. But it must be a direct CT hit with all misiles, which doesn't happen often if they have half a brain and are always in motion. But with streaks there are no misses, in just a few volleys a Commando is put in the dirt.

Edit: This also assumes stock armor, which is the first thing I change on a Commando build.

Edited by Dremster, 14 March 2013 - 10:17 AM.

[Bloody Moon]

Nick Carlile, on 14 March 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

Does an SRM 6 in practice now, in a real game, ever really core a commando in one shot though? I don't think i've ever seen that.

I can't even kill a commando with 30 LRM's in one shot.

Yes, it does, however due to the lack of state rewind implementation for missiles and the Commando's speed it is not observed often in a game. What you need is to position yourself so the Commando runs straight at you so all the missiles hit then you'll see what is described in this thread.

Since they run on a fairly high speed this is not the easiest thing, but even i despite rarely using SRMs at all, have oneshotted Commandos. The only thing i missed was the reason why they died that easily.

[HighTest]

Nick Carlile, on 14 March 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

Does an SRM 6 in practice now, in a real game, ever really core a commando in one shot though? I don't think i've ever seen that.

I can't even kill a commando with 30 LRM's in one shot.

You shouldn't be able to regardless. A single SRM6 was never intended to have that kind of power in this franchise. Not to get on the TT bandwagon, but in TT you couldn't do that even if all SRM6 missiles hit the same area at once. So unless PGI intentionally WANTS to change the balance of missiles from TT, it shouldn't be able to core a Commando in one shot.

The other night I had my Ilya out, and I seemed to be getting rocked by LRM fire. Two volleys from one mech put half of me into orange, even when I thought I had avoided much of it. I just chalked it up to me leaving myself too open, and maybe there were more people that had me locked on than I realized..

Later that night I pulled out my 2xASRM6 CNT-9D, which I hadn't used in more than a month. In an otherwise lopsided loss, I led our team with over 500 damage. I think I might have lasted 3 minutes in that match, and I hadn't even expended all my ammo before I died. Trust me -- this mech is pretty good, but has never been THAT good. Something has gone sideways with missile damage in the last little month or two. I'm just glad some very astute testers were able to prove it.

Edit: typos

Edited by HighTest, 14 March 2013 - 10:21 AM.

[Nick Carlile]

Dremster, on 14 March 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

Yes it can and does core a Commando in one shot. But it must be a direct CT hit with all misiles, which doesn't happen often if they have half a brain and are always in motion. But with streaks there are no misses, in just a few volleys a Commando is put in the dirt.

Edit: This also assumes stock armor, which is the first thing I change on a Commando build.

Not debating streaks...and I guess I would never consider stock armor to be a norm in this game.

So that's why I've never seen an SRM6 core a commando.

So lets not use that as a basis for arguments.

Lets stick to realworld.

WardenWolf, on 14 March 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

I absolutely feel that SRM damage is overpowered, across the board. There is a reason those 6 x SRM6 cats are so darned popular! I can even feel it in one of my Atlas D-DC variants with 3 x Streak SRM2 - they seem to do more damage that specs would indicate... and now I know why.

I'm not sure about LRMs, but I am also not convinced that they are doing anywhere near the same level of splash damage. Most of the stuff on this thread, and all of my personal testing, has been limited to SRMs.

I dunno man. I get what you mean about the boat.

But i've never EVER felt like when I've launched a single SRM launcher by itself that it was like "YEAH OVERPOWERED".

Between mechs moving, proper mech armor values, and spread that happens. It seems like you need to be very careful with what we are all talking about.

There is way too much blanket "YEAH NERF EM".

Instead of "Lets take a look at this objectively and balance them".

[Klunk]

I admit to being a fan of missiles, but I think this issue is being presented with a bit of anti-missile bias. This data can also be interpreted to present the following conclusion: "If you are in a small mech, don't stand still like a target dummy while people shoot missiles at you."

- The thrust of argument seems to be this: an enemy with a smaller chassis is going to take more total damage from a missile attack than an enemy with a large chassis. Why is this a bug? Smaller fast movers are more difficult to hit with direct fire weapons. Why is it a problem that some weapons are better suited for destroying certain opponents?

- The post focuses on total damage done, but destroying an enemy is accomplished by destroying the engine, head, or legs. Targeted weapons allow the attacker to more efficiently place their damage, missiles do not.

- Missile lock is not addressed. With a direct fire weapon, the attacker is free to deliver damage as soon as range and LoS permit. For SSRMs and LRMs, the attacker must first achieve missile lock. It can be very difficult to achieve missile lock on fast moving enemies.

- The effect of ECM is downplayed. It is a controversial mechanic in general, but currently ECM greatly reduces the effectiveness of SSRMs and LRMs.

- A minor oversight, but the comparison with the medium laser downplays the value of ammunition. One ton of ammo per launcher lasts for about 4 minutes. I don't have raw data on this, but I think in most games teams trade fire for more than 4 minutes. As with ballistic weapons, a missile launcher with zero ammo does zero damage.

What I can agree with is that missiles are a very good way of making Cbills, due to the high damage numbers they produce. I think the problem here is with the compensation mechanics, not the splash damage. I would argue that encouraging players to inflict as much damage as possible is less fun than encouraging players to win. The former encourages us to run assaults and splatcats, the latter encourages teamwork.

I can also agree that smaller mechs could use some love; while they were a little OP with lag shield, I think lights are not much of a threat now and are generally underrepresented.

TL;DR If you don't like the way missiles effectively counter your small chassis, get ECM or stay more than 270m away (or get behind some cover for LRMs when you see the giant red "Incoming Missile" message).

[Vapor Trail]

Lege, on 14 March 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

I've been saying for months that missiles are making energy slots useless.
Missiles do almost everything better, only since long range energy weapon heat reduction are they even competitive.
Medium range lasers still need their heat reduced, because now the long range have better damage/heat ratios.

Don't forget range... But the mass (and critical in the case of the PPC class) penalties they give up in exchange for that damage over range per heat is significant too.

Would you take two medium lasers instead of a Large Laser?
If your mass was limited, but your crits were not?
If your crits were limited, but your mass was not?

The tradeoffs are a lot tighter now than they used to be.

But I agree that missiles have been the weapon slots generally filled first, with the rest of the loadout built with whatever's left over.

[Amaris the Usurper]

Nick Carlile, on 14 March 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

This isn't about tabletop, but actual weapon use in the game.

Do you feel that an SRM 6 doing a lot less damage and having it be spread is going to be worth taking?

I am not sure how you got the idea that I was arguing for reduced and spread-out damage. In fact, I have argued for removal of the splash damage mechanic. (I have also presented experimental results, from which you are free to draw your own conclusions.)

MWO is a real-time simulation. It doesn't have to (and can't possibly) match a turn-based game in all particulars, and I have never argued that it should.

However, it doesn't make sense that a single SRM hitting the torso of an Atlas (for example) does 3.5-ish damage, while the same missile hitting the torso of a Commando does 15 damage.

Edit: Also, note that missiles striking the legs and arms often do highly reduced damage. This also makes no sense.

I am merely arguing that the tabletop system (in concept, not in the exact damage values, i.e., the total damage is proportional to the number of missiles that hit) is sane and should be emulated.

Edited by Amaris the Usurper, 14 March 2013 - 10:32 AM.

[Rakash]

Actually, I wasn't aware there was splash damage because there isn't supposed to be any. Why would there be? These missiles are used primarily to engage enemy BattleMechs. As such, they would be anti-tank missiles.

"Most modern ATGMs have shaped charge high explosive (HEAT) warheads, designed specifically for penetrating armor." Meaning the explosion is focused in such a way as to cut through armor, not explode all over the place. Such a weapon's damage would be laughably deflected almost in its entirety by mech armor.

Long story short, cut the ****. Cancel splash damage now.

Edited by Rakash, 14 March 2013 - 10:28 AM.

[Texas Merc]

Klunk, on 14 March 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

I admit to being a fan of missiles, but I think this issue is being presented with a bit of anti-missile bias. This data can also be interpreted to present the following conclusion: "If you are in a small mech, don't stand still like a target dummy while people shoot missiles at you."

- The thrust of argument seems to be this: an enemy with a smaller chassis is going to take more total damage from a missile attack than an enemy with a large chassis. Why is this a bug? Smaller fast movers are more difficult to hit with direct fire weapons. Why is it a problem that some weapons are better suited for destroying certain opponents?

- The post focuses on total damage done, but destroying an enemy is accomplished by destroying the engine, head, or legs. Targeted weapons allow the attacker to more efficiently place their damage, missiles do not.

- Missile lock is not addressed. With a direct fire weapon, the attacker is free to deliver damage as soon as range and LoS permit. For SSRMs and LRMs, the attacker must first achieve missile lock. It can be very difficult to achieve missile lock on fast moving enemies.

- The effect of ECM is downplayed. It is a controversial mechanic in general, but currently ECM greatly reduces the effectiveness of SSRMs and LRMs.

- A minor oversight, but the comparison with the medium laser downplays the value of ammunition. One ton of ammo per launcher lasts for about 4 minutes. I don't have raw data on this, but I think in most games teams trade fire for more than 4 minutes. As with ballistic weapons, a missile launcher with zero ammo does zero damage.

What I can agree with is that missiles are a very good way of making Cbills, due to the high damage numbers they produce. I think the problem here is with the compensation mechanics, not the splash damage. I would argue that encouraging players to inflict as much damage as possible is less fun than encouraging players to win. The former encourages us to run assaults and splatcats, the latter encourages teamwork.

I can also agree that smaller mechs could use some love; while they were a little OP with lag shield, I think lights are not much of a threat now and are generally underrepresented.

TL;DR If you don't like the way missiles effectively counter your small chassis, get ECM or stay more than 270m away (or get behind some cover for LRMs when you see the giant red "Incoming Missile" message).

Its more about the :splash: damage than how the missiles are behaving themselves.

If you say stay 270 meters out you do realize you can still be hit by splash dmg that can cripple smaller mechs as has been demonstrated here already.

OP is doing great work btw. Amaris the Usurper? More like Amaris the Bug Squasher!!!!

[stjobe]

Klunk, on 14 March 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

- The thrust of argument seems to be this: an enemy with a smaller chassis is going to take more total damage from a missile attack than an enemy with a large chassis. Why is this a bug?

It's a bug because the listed damage from a single SRM missile is 2.5, not 17.5.

It's like having the AC/20 do 140 damage per hit. Would you consider that not a bug as well?

Klunk, on 14 March 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

TL;DR If you don't like the way missiles effectively counter your small chassis, get ECM or stay more than 270m away (or get behind some cover for LRMs when you see the giant red "Incoming Missile" message).

That's probably the dumbest thing I've read in this whole thread. "Get ECM", like it was available for any chassis, "stay more than 270m away" like most light 'mechs don't need to mount smaller weapons with shorter ranges, and the old L2P horse.

You sir, fail.

[Vapor Trail]

Nick Carlile, on 14 March 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

Not debating streaks...and I guess I would never consider stock armor to be a norm in this game.

So that's why I've never seen an SRM6 core a commando.

So lets not use that as a basis for arguments.

Lets stick to realworld.

Real-world, or the game simulation of such, an SRM-6, dealing 2.5 damage per missile, or 15 damage, if all missiles hit the CT, should not even breach the armor on a stock COM-1B. 16 > 15.

Instead it's taking off the armor of the CT, and coring out the internals. It's either an exact kill (pretty unlikely), or overkill. I'm thinking it's probably the latter. How much overkill is the question. Until we have something controllable where we can get two testers in the game and actually film both sides of the exchange will we get a feel for the maximum potential for a single SRM6 strike. but right now all we have is the testing grounds... which offers some control over alot of the variables, but others... not so much. Armor is one thing. Chassis is another. When was the last time you saw a Raven you weren't driving in the Testing Grounds? A Stalker? CAT-K2?

[Nightcrept]

Some of you geniuses are clueless.

The numbers don't matter nor does TT or BT lore.

The only thing that matters is in game balance. AND YOU DO NOT BALANCE A WEAPON AGAINST BOATING. YOU BALANCE THE BOAT.

In game effects of Lrm's and Srm's not counting boating mechs in pretty much spot on. If you nerf one of the mechanics used to balance them in game you will nerf their effect in game.

We know from painful experience that srms and especially lrms below current in came effect make them combat inefective and players stop using them.

So if we remove damage modifiers we must replace them with other damage modifiers.

This isn't rocket science.

[WardenWolf]

Nick Carlile, on 14 March 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

There is way too much blanket "YEAH NERF EM".

Instead of "Lets take a look at this objectively and balance them".

My feeling is not 'lets nerf em' so much as 'lets get rid of splash damage, as it seems highly inconsistent'. Run like that for a patch or two. Then, and only then, if it turns out that SRMs feel too weak in comparison to other weapons the damage per missile could be increased to try and find the right spot. I would go to 3.0 damage next, if it was needed, and see how that did (20% more than current damage is supposed to be, and 50% more than in TT to compliment the doubled armor). Personally I suspect that won't even be necessary, but it would be the next step IMHO.

[Xendojo]

Nightcrept, on 14 March 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

Some of you geniuses are clueless.

The numbers don't matter nor does TT or BT lore.

The only thing that matters is in game balance. AND YOU DO NOT BALANCE A WEAPON AGAINST BOATING. YOU BALANCE THE BOAT.

In game effects of Lrm's and Srm's not counting boating mechs in pretty much spot on. If you nerf one of the mechanics used to balance them in game you will nerf their effect in game.

We know from painful experience that srms and especially lrms below current in came effect make them combat inefective and players stop using them.

So if we remove damage modifiers we must replace them with other damage modifiers.

This isn't rocket science.

This is not about balance, it's about us as testers saying "HEY PGI!!! YOUR SH*T IS BROKEN SO FIX IT PLEASE!!"

Balance comes later.

Edited by Xendojo, 14 March 2013 - 10:40 AM.

[Nick Carlile]

Amaris the Usurper, on 14 March 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

I am not sure how you got the idea that I was arguing for reduced and spread-out damage. In fact, I have argued for removal of the splash damage mechanic. (I have also presented experimental results, from which you are free to draw your own conclusions.)

MWO is a real-time simulation. It doesn't have to (and can't possibly) match a turn-based game in all particulars, and I have never argued that it should.

However, it doesn't make sense that a single SRM hitting the torso of an Atlas (for example) does 3.5-ish damage, while the same missile hitting the torso of a Commando does 15 damage.

I am merely arguing that the tabletop system (in concept, not in the exact damage values, i.e., the total damage is proportional to the number of missiles that hit) is sane and should be emulated.

I'm not saying anything about you or your views. I'm just arguing that people need to stop calling for nerfs.

What we need is balance.

We need to make sure that if we fix this bug, that the weapons are still doing enough damage to be worth taking.

Which does not seem to be what people here want from this.

[Gevurah]

To the people claiming we need to increase missile damage for 'balance' if we remove splash:

In what world is a catapult that can oneshot 90% of the mechs in the game, or for that matter 2-3 chassis which take 7X as much damage as larger chassis by virtue of being smaller balanced?

It's not.
You're trying to talk intelligently to defend your advantage.
Everyone sees what you're doing and in the end, you are just looking like ***holes.
So stop now and save yourself some face for crying out loud.

[WardenWolf]

Nightcrept, on 14 March 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

We know from painful experience that srms and especially lrms below current in came effect make them combat inefective and players stop using them.

So if we remove damage modifiers we must replace them with other damage modifiers.

This isn't rocket science.

I don't recall any time, all the way back to July of last year when I joined closed beta, that SRMs were not used pretty widely. LRMs have gone through several revisions, it is true, but I used them all along and they have always been viable - even when they did less damage per shot. If anything, and especially if they are also doing excess splash damage, I think they may be overpowered currently (ECM is what keeps it from being as apparent, but that is a whole other can of worms).

[WardenWolf]

BTW, I just did some impromptu testing of LRMs on the training grounds. Against a Cicada 2A they were doing about double the damage total they should have when compared with firing a Medium Laser. I tried testing against a Commando too, but my LRM15 one-shotted it (while it stood still, of course).

So it looks like there is some splash damage going on there too, though maybe not as much - or maybe it just came out less vs a slightly larger mech than the Commando where I did my SRM splash damage tests.

I was going to try the technique Vapor Trail used to test LRM splash radius as well, but I think modules must be borked in training grounds because I could only target enemies 800 meters out even with BAP + the enhanced sensor range module (and I would need to target 1007 meters out at least in order to conduct such a test).

[Texas Merc]

FWIW :Just tested single lrm5 no tag no modules no arty versus com1b at 400 meters.
LRM5 stated to do 9 dmg on mech readout screen.

1st volley mech down to 75% second volley mech at 53% 3rd volley mech dead (ammo pop i believe). but the first volley is what is telling.


hehe looks like me and WW were trying the same things

Edited by Texas Merc, 14 March 2013 - 10:50 AM.

[Lynxal]

Amaris the Usurper, on 14 March 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

In response to your points,

• A COM-1B has 12+15 = 27 total HP in the head; I just repeated your small laser test on Testing Grounds, and it took 9 head hits to destroy the 'mech, as it should.
  
• I just repeated your AC/2 test, and it takes 14 shots (28 damage) to destroy the 'mech, as it should.

Just keep repeating it....My results varied in 5 trials each which was the point. Something doesn't make sense.