283 replies to this topic

[PaintedWolf]

Sifright, on 24 March 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

a single srm6 only did 90 damage to a commando or spider. split across every single component.

Come. On. You are saying there are cases of a single SRM-6 doing 90 damage, yet in the video the Commando survives 2 volleys. And some Assault Mechs survive 5-6. Amazing how whenever we look for signs of this exponential damage it magically avoids detection.

[GODzillaGSPB]

Juicebox12, on 24 March 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

So 2 medium lasers does 10 point pinpoint damage

Well that's the point, they don't! Lasers hardly do pinpoint damage on a moving target. You might be able to stay on the target for the whole duration of the beam, but you will most likely hit several compartments of the enemy mech and he may turn and rotate, too.

But when an SRM hits, it hits and does x amount of damage at that exact point. And that's why SRMs are still strong. People still use them and people still get many kills with them. Surprise, surprise.

[valkyrie]

Sifright, on 24 March 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

Small lasers boated on a mech in table top also roll to hit individually and don't all hit the same hit location so i don't see your point to be honest.

SRMS are pilot targeted just like lasers and ballistics if you want them to have random hit locations like LRMS they sure as hell need to be doing a lot more damage than they are right now to be worthwhile.

Edit: unless you are claiming you want every weapon in the game to hit random locations.

Well yeah, but small lasers suck in TT. Missiles are a gamble in TT since you rarely do the full damage amount, but you hit more locations so it's more likely to hit something you want to hit, as opposed to single larger weapons like autocannons and lasers, where you hit harder for full damage, but only hit one location. Additionally, SRMs work way different in TT in regards to aim - all SRMs/LRMs lock on, but there's still no guarantee of a hit. Streak SRMs differ in that they simply don't fire at all if your attack roll indicates you would've missed entirely, saving your ammo.

I'm not claiming a damn thing, but you asked what SRMs do in TT, so I explained what they do in TT.

[Sifright]

GODzillaGSPB, on 24 March 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

Well that's the point, they don't! Lasers hardly do pinpoint damage on a moving target. You might be able to stay on the target for the whole duration of the beam, but you will most likely hit several compartments of the enemy mech and he may turn and rotate, too.

But when an SRM hits, it hits and does x amount of damage at that exact point. And that's why SRMs are still strong. People still use them and people still get many kills with them. Surprise, surprise.

Ballistics also front load their damage.

Srms unlike most ballistics fire like a shotgun (at least with out Artemis) going all over the place unless you are within very specific ranges

Lasers can be aimed with pin point precision if you are good and more importantly thanks to state rewind are for more reliable for actually hitting your opponent.

Unguided missiles and ballistics still have the ability to completely miss the opponent thanks to latency.

[Davers]

Sifright, on 24 March 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

This isn't a small nerf, your bias is revealed in calling it such.

What bias is that? I use SRMs on mechs, and I haven't pulled them off after the hotfix.

YOU are the one saying you WANTED SRMs to be nerfed. YOU are the one who said they wanted the A1's torso twist to be nerfed.

I want them to actually do what they are supposed to do. If it turns out they do too much, then they should be balanced. The SRM6 isn't supposed to be the most powerful weapon on the battlefield you know.

[PaintedWolf]

GODzillaGSPB, on 24 March 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

Well that's the point, they don't! Lasers hardly do pinpoint damage on a moving target. You might be able to stay on the target for the whole duration of the beam, but you will most likely hit several compartments of the enemy mech and he may turn and rotate, too.

But when an SRM hits, it hits and does x amount of damage at that exact point. And that's why SRMs are still strong. People still use them and people still get many kills with them. Surprise, surprise.

Again if you think a 54 Alpha is where it should be that is a very different discussion then saying the change was over a bug.

[stjobe]

Sifright, on 24 March 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

SRMS are unguided so at least half of the reasoning doesn't apply to srms.

If they were worried about SSRMS they could just delink the ammo used by SSRMS and SRMS until they patched it up.

SRMs and SSRMs used the same splash damage as LRMs and were broken in the same way (too large radius, too much damage done, too many hitboxes hit), It was with SSRMs in particular that the splash damage bug was discovered.

I personally two-shotted a Commando with a single SSRM-2, and one-shotted it with a single SRM-6 - in the training grounds, against a stationary target with stock armour. The effect wasn't as pronounced in the live game, but here's a video of SRMs doing three times their listed damage in the live game.

Sifright, on 24 March 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

They also mega broke the code just before the hotfix patch making everything worse. If they were that concerned they could have simply reverted to the older missile code and dropped damage a little instead of this mega nerf nonsense.

The March 19th patch broke the code, yes. In more ways than one. But reverting to the pre-patch code would likely also have reverted the leg-damage bug (and possibly other things - possibly invalidating the whole patch), and the splash damage bug was present in the pre-patch code as well. I understand that they didn't want to revert the code, it would likely have caused even more issues.

And again, this "mega-nerf" as you call it is temporary. It's a stop-gap solution to allow the game to be played without missiles being extremely overpowered while they work on a solution.

When that solution is in, we can come back to whether or not missiles are over- or underpowered.

Edited by stjobe, 24 March 2013 - 03:41 PM.

[Davers]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

Again if you think a 54 Alpha is where it should be that is a very different discussion then saying the change was over a bug.

So is claiming that there is no bug and this is a conspiracy to nerf SRMs, which you seem to be doing.

[TheSteelRhino]

Sifright, on 24 March 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

a single srm6 was doing 15 damage to heavy and assault mechs pre splash madness patch. in TT they did what 10?

a single srm6 only did 90 damage to a commando or spider. split across every single component.

Ok. So lets say u have a 50 ton medium. Its probably doing 30-45 dmg with splaash madness? Thats hardly correct

Srms do 2 pts dmg per missiles and lrms 1 each in tabletop. Since every other wep basically does tabletop dmg in this game i dont see the point of changing it

[PaintedWolf]

Davers, on 24 March 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

What bias is that? I use SRMs on mechs, and I haven't pulled them off after the hotfix.

YOU are the one saying you WANTED SRMs to be nerfed. YOU are the one who said they wanted the A1's torso twist to be nerfed.

I want them to actually do what they are supposed to do. If it turns out they do too much, then they should be balanced. The SRM6 isn't supposed to be the most powerful weapon on the battlefield you know.

But it was not just the SRMs that got nerfed- ALL missiles got nerfed by 40%. Supposedly over a bug. Now we are being told "Nope it was a balance patch!"

Which was it, were A1s supposed to be doing 90 Alphas and they had to be patched because of a bug, or are you arguing they needed a 40% damage reduction in general?

It's not the issue if whether or not the A1 was nerfed. It's that the reason why was supposedly over a bug---and now we are being told over and over again it was because missiles as a whole were OP in general.

If that's the case they should nerf PPCs over bugs and ACs and Gauss Rifles. You can't detect these bugs in damage summaries, or averages of player's stats, or see them on video evidence, but they are there and need to be nerfed because Gauss/PPC/Laser/AC "aren't supposed to be the most powerful weapons in the game."

[Sifright]

valkyrie, on 24 March 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

Well yeah, but small lasers suck in TT. Missiles are a gamble in TT since you rarely do the full damage amount, but you hit more locations so it's more likely to hit something you want to hit, as opposed to single larger weapons like autocannons and lasers, where you hit harder for full damage, but only hit one location. Additionally, SRMs work way different in TT in regards to aim - all SRMs/LRMs lock on, but there's still no guarantee of a hit. Streak SRMs differ in that they simply don't fire at all if your attack roll indicates you would've missed entirely, saving your ammo.

I'm not claiming a damn thing, but you asked what SRMs do in TT, so I explained what they do in TT.

Sigh, you are missing the forest for the trees and taking exception with parts of what i am saying which are frankly irrelevant.

Every single weapon in the game except for LRMS can be guided to fire perfectly on target to hit a component of your choice.

You point out small lasers are crap fine they are.

Medium lasers aren't large lasers aren't

UAC/5 AC/20 aren't crap all of these can aimed precisely against an enemy mech component with no difficulties at pretty much any range that will register damage unlike srms.

You are taking exception to me stating that srms were over nerfed when i'm pointing out they are now **** for damaging a section you are actually aiming for. Their splash damage might keep them doing 2.5 damage overall but given I never relied on the splash effect to help me because it only damaged sections adjacent to the component i was firing on this dropped my ability to deal precise damage to a target by 40%.

I am better off taking lasers or Ballistics now no matter my engagement envelope if i'm not trying to just ********* damage all over the enemy mech and instead try and cut them to pieces with precision fire..

Srms in their current setup are not worth taking.

[PaintedWolf]

stjobe, on 24 March 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

SRMs and SSRMs used the same splash damage as LRMs and were broken in the same way (too large radius, too much damage done, too many hitboxes hit), It was with SSRMs in particular that the splash damage bug was discovered.

I personally two-shotted a Commando with a single SSRM-2, and one-shotted it with a single SRM-6 - in the training grounds, against a stationary target with stock armour. The effect wasn't as pronounced in the live game, but here's a video of SRMs doing three times their listed damage in the live game.

Yeah, right. Why do they shoot the legs with the medium laser and the torso with the srms? This 40 second video is so dubious- and it is basically the entire premise on which the arguments that SRMs/LRM super-bugs rest. This one 46 second video was the basis for a sweeping "emergency fix" on one third of the games weapons.

And what was this amazing, dramatic effect that required a sweeping, emergency patch?

Well when the Legs are shot with the Medium Laser health goes down 3%.

When the torso is hit with SRMs it goes down 9%.

That's. It.

Why the legs were hit by one weapon, and the torso by another is beyond me. There was not even another video presented where legs are hit by SRMs and Torso by medium lasers to make for an actual controlled experiment. Instead the devs just rushed to this emergency nerf because based on this 46 second video the game was considered "unplayable".

Rhinehardt Ritter, on 24 March 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

Ok. So lets say u have a 50 ton medium. Its probably doing 30-45 dmg with splaash madness? Thats hardly correct

Srms do 2 pts dmg per missiles and lrms 1 each in tabletop. Since every other wep basically does tabletop dmg in this game i dont see the point of changing it

Because TT does not have weapons convergence.

Edited by PaintedWolf, 24 March 2013 - 03:50 PM.

[Sifright]

Davers, on 24 March 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

What bias is that? I use SRMs on mechs, and I haven't pulled them off after the hotfix.

YOU are the one saying you WANTED SRMs to be nerfed. YOU are the one who said they wanted the A1's torso twist to be nerfed.

Yes and? Nothing i've said in this thread indicates that I didn't want these things. I also don't want them to be nerfed into the ground so hard they aren't worth taking at all.

Davers, on 24 March 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

I want them to actually do what they are supposed to do. If it turns out they do too much, then they should be balanced.The SRM6 isn't supposed to be the most powerful weapon on the battlefield you know.

Yes I agree, which is why i wanted them to be dropped to 2 damage a missile. Which actually keeps them competitive with other weapons (ammo count per tonne could do with being dropped a little as well tbh) I can go ahead and find a post of my self asking for this months back and quote it if you really want me to. The problem is this is an over nerf.

40% reduction in damage if you are using the weapon for precision damage is huge.

[Davers]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

But it was not just the SRMs that got nerfed- ALL missiles got nerfed by 40%. Supposedly over a bug. Now we are being told "Nope it was a balance patch!"

Which was it, were A1s supposed to be doing 90 Alphas and they had to be patched because of a bug, or are you arguing they needed a 40% damage reduction in general?

It's not the issue if whether or not the A1 was nerfed. It's that the reason why was supposedly over a bug---and now we are being told over and over again it was because missiles as a whole were OP in general.

If that's the case they should nerf PPCs over bugs and ACs and Gauss Rifles. You can't detect these bugs in damage summaries, or averages of player's stats, or see them on video evidence, but they are there and need to be nerfed because Gauss/PPC/Laser/AC "aren't supposed to be the most powerful weapons in the game."

It was a patch to fix bugs that caused missiles to do more damage than intended.

[valkyrie]

Sifright, on 24 March 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

Sigh, you are missing the forest for the trees and taking exception with parts of what i am saying which are frankly irrelevant.

(blah blah blah)

Whoa, hold on, back up a second. In the original post I quoted, you asked how much damage SRMs do in TT. I then explained how much damage they do in TT, as well as how missiles as a whole behave in TT to give some context to that. At no point did I ever say SRMs are fine - in fact, if you go back a page or so, you'd see my original post where I weighed in with my opinions on SRMs as they relate to MWO, NOT TT.

You're reading into my explanation of TT rules a bit too much.

[Sifright]

Rhinehardt Ritter, on 24 March 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

Ok. So lets say u have a 50 ton medium. Its probably doing 30-45 dmg with splaash madness? Thats hardly correct

Srms do 2 pts dmg per missiles and lrms 1 each in tabletop. Since every other wep basically does tabletop dmg in this game i dont see the point of changing it

are you claiming an srm6 did 30-45 damage per set fired from one hard point?

because thats just not true at all, medium mechs did not suffer any where near the kind of splash damage issues the commando did.

[Davers]

Sifright, on 24 March 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

Yes and? Nothing i've said in this thread indicates that I didn't want these things. I also don't want them to be nerfed into the ground so hard they aren't worth taking at all.



Yes I agree, which is why i wanted them to be dropped to 2 damage a missile. Which actually keeps them competitive with other weapons (ammo count per tonne could do with being dropped a little as well tbh) I can go ahead and find a post of my self asking for this months back and quote it if you really want me to. The problem is this is an over nerf.

40% reduction in damage if you are using the weapon for precision damage is huge.

Balancing can't even be started until everything is working as intended. Let's get there first. Then we can argue over damage fractions to our heart's consent.

If you feel that SRMs are useless now, then I am sorry. Hopefully PGI will get this fixed by the April 2nd patch.

[stjobe]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

Yeah, right. Why do they shoot the legs with the medium laser and the torso with the srms?

That's my only reservation against that video as well, but it matters little. The leg takes damage from a ML and the 'mechs health drops 3%. Then a single SSRM-2 is fired at the CT and the 'mechs health drops 9%.

So since the ML and the SSRM-2 is supposed to do the same damage (5 each), there clearly is something fishy going on since the SSRM-2 does 3 times more than the ML.

Now it could be that the ML does reduced damage to the leg, but AFAIK that bug was with missiles only. It could also be that the SSRM-2 does too much splash damage, in effect doing 15 damage to that Commando from just two missiles.

My money (and apparently the dev's money as well) is on the latter.

[Sifright]

Davers, on 24 March 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

Balancing can't even be started until everything is working as intended. Let's get there first. Then we can argue over damage fractions to our heart's consent.

If you feel that SRMs are useless now, then I am sorry. Hopefully PGI will get this fixed by the April 2nd patch.

I agree that missile code needs fixing but we still have a live environment running and they could boost damage very slightly to bring the weapons back to a semblance of usability. .2 damage buff for lrms and .4 buff for srms would bring them back to parity of utility with other weapon systems given their rather bad downsides.

stjobe, on 24 March 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

That's my only reservation against that video as well, but it matters little. The leg takes damage from a ML and the 'mechs health drops 3%. Then a single SSRM-2 is fired at the CT and the 'mechs health drops 9%.

So since the ML and the SSRM-2 is supposed to do the same damage (5 each), there clearly is something fishy going on since the SSRM-2 does 3 times more than the ML.

Now it could be that the ML does reduced damage to the leg, but AFAIK that bug was with missiles only. It could also be that the SSRM-2 does too much splash damage, in effect doing 15 damage to that Commando from just two missiles.

My money (and apparently the dev's money as well) is on the latter.

The ssrm 2 was doing 5 damage to both the side torsos and the ct in the example in the video.

so an SRM6 would have done 45 damage total to the commando.

I've had a time in game where I hit a commando on full health with two srm4's (with my jenner d) and he exploded giving me every single component destruction I can only attribute this to ammo explosion because thats a maximum of 20 damage to each component which should not be capable of blowing a commando to scrap instantly.

edit: however this bug primarily effected only small mechs until they fixed some of the splash damage code which made missiles brokenly over powered.

Edited by Sifright, 24 March 2013 - 03:57 PM.

[PaintedWolf]

Davers, on 24 March 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

It was a patch to fix bugs that caused missiles to do more damage than intended.

Again the bait and switch theme keeps running. The Missiles weren't nerf, there was a bug that needed to be corrected.

So why did they get a 40% reduction in general?

Well because missiles were OP and needed to be balanced.

The argument switches time and again to a general claim that Missile are OP and require no skill, to missiles were bugged and LRMs were doing more then 1.8 pts of damage and SRMs more then 2.5.

If they want to Nerf Missiles to TT points or less (LRMs actually only do 70% their TT damage now, which makes them WEAKER then TT in a game with Double Armor and more ways to counter LRMs then TT had) then they need to address the issue of weapon convergence and lack of TACs and Pilot K/O which balanced out spread vs. concentrated damage in TT.

That is why the bait and switch impedes honest discussion of how to balance missile damage. In TT there were extra features which balanced concentrated vs spread damage. But since the missiles are not being "nerfed" and instead this hot fix is over a bug we can't discuss any of this at all. We just have have to accept the fact that missiles are under-powered as though the alternative was to allow cheating.