283 replies to this topic

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

No surprise at all that the same guys that had no problem with LRMs being trash have a problem with SRMs being nerfed. I'm so sorry your OP Splatcat build no longer 1 shots enemies. Cry us a nice long river. I knew I'd see SRM anti nerf QQ threads. SRMs were very clearly OP and needed a nerf.

Edited by Bluten, 24 March 2013 - 11:08 AM.

[Juicebox12]

GODzillaGSPB, on 24 March 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

srm2...a 1t weapon that does 3 pinpoint damage. Yep, that's pretty much weak, isn't it. /sarcasm

1 ton, plus 1 ton ammo.... So 2 medium lasers does 10 point pinpoint damage.... The srm does 3. You clearly looked at this from an unbiased perspective...

[Franchi]

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

No surprise at all that the same guys that had no problem with LRMs being trash have a problem with SRMs being nerfed. I'm so sorry your OP Splatcat build no longer 1 shots enemies. Cry us a nice long river.

You should read my post I am an SRM user and I say they are fine, i also say LRMS should be removed if this is how the players want them.

[PaintedWolf]

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

No surprise at all that the same guys that had no problem with LRMs being trash have a problem with SRMs being nerfed. I'm so sorry your OP Splatcat build no longer 1 shots enemies. Cry us a nice long river.

Again this is what makes me question the objectivity of the argument this was over a small bug that effected 2-3 light Mechs.

A 90 point Alpha is capable of taking out some mechs with 1 shot normally if they are already damaged or have very weak armor. With 3-4 Salvos most heavies, mediums, even some Assaults should go down even if the damage being done is exactly what is intended.

Now the players supporting the "hot fix" are arguing that the game has become balanced because Splatpults no longer kill enemies as fast as we would expect from 90 point Alphas. Does that sound like the complaint of someone who was worried about a bug, or someone who was unhappy about the weapon working as intended?

If the rationale was that there was a bug effecting 2-3 light Mechs, sometimes, on what basis are claims being made to the effect that a sweeping, across the board reduction in missile damage by 40% has fixed the problem? Does that not sound like they were just wanting missile damage nerfed in general?

[Shadowsword8]

Vassago Rain, on 24 March 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

I don't want to snipe, but get in your face Kinda hard to when my rockets cause minimal damage at best, or do nothing at all, at worst.

I liked it better before they started tampering with the system..

I get plenty of kills on my splatcat. I even take down brawler assaults without needing to take them from behind. All I did was replace my 6 SRM6 by 6 SRM4+Artemis, and I gain not only in heat management, but also in ammo usage and most of all, effective range. With artemis, you will have 90% of the salvo hitting the target even at 250m, assuming your aim is good.

Thus, this is empirical evidence that the damage is fine enough. Your problem must be one of the following:
- You miss to much.
- Or you don't use artemis, and use standard SRM at a range where they spread too much.

[qki]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Again, apparently the reason for the hot fix is based purely on objective data and not because some people find missile boats less skilled.

Now we have the above statement "L2P", again consistent with a political campaign more so then objective evaluations.

you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.


The reason for SRM and LRM damage and splash nerf was the fact, that they were doing more damage than intended. As the devs have stated themselves, LRMs were not intended to ace an assault in 2, or even 5 salvos.


And in the meantime, we get to "enjoy" all those doofuses coming on like doing 700+ damage with a bunch of SRMs is their god-given right. Single-neuron neanderthals, who read about some imba loadout, and roll out hating on everybody not using it for being "inferior", and when that config is shot down to be in line with the rest, they cry that their iWIN button was taken away.



Do you clowns even understand what game balance means? It means that if one strategy is so dominant, everyone is using it, it HAS TO be nerfed.

MtG is a prime example - cards that warp the format are banned - such as BBE, or the cat. JTMS was banned preemptively, because had it not been, everyone running blue in modern would HAVE to play 4.


In MWO you can't ban stuff, because all those weapons are an integral part of the lore. So instead you go around adjusting values for damage, until no one loadout is 200% better than anything else. SRMs and LRMs were doing too much damage, and now they are not.

Take my advice - forget what you "used to do" before the fix. In fact - forget everything. Look at this from a fresh perspective.

I sure enjoyed being the top dog in my raven, topping the damage charts in every other game. But now that I think about it - that wasn't supposed to happen. There are not supposed to be any magical "i kill this mech with one click" loadouts.

I run a raven 4x now, on my way to master. 2 MLs and a single SRM6 - I get kills with it. Not as easy as 3L before the hotfix, but not impossible, and more importantly - i'm not falling behind other people like i'm carrying a pea-shooter in a nukefight.

[TrentTheWanderer]

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

1 ton, plus 1 ton ammo.... So 2 medium lasers does 10 point pinpoint damage.... The srm does 3. You clearly looked at this from an unbiased perspective...

Ballistics and PPCs do pinpoint damage. That means they do all their damage to a single location all at once. Missiles ALSO do pinpoint damage, but include also splash damage. Lasers do damage over time throughout the duration of their burn, not pinpoint damage.

So where two medium lasers will do their damage over the span of more than a second, spreading that damage over multiple components and generating 8 points of heat, those SRMs will put all the damage in one spot generating much less heat.

The devs reported that a flaw in their code caused splash damage to create multiple iterations of full damage increments against light 'Mechs, which was a technical issue that will take them some time to correct. In the mean time they have tried to roughly approximate the middle ground between affected and unaffected targets to attempt to restore a level of playability for the time it takes them to find and solve the technical problem.

Coming onto the forums without all the relevant info to complain about a technical issue you don't understand isn't constructive and is just going to make other people frustrated. It would be more helpful if you asked questions about issues when you are confused, you would be more likely to get positive results.

[Rina Fujimoto]

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

No surprise at all that the same guys that had no problem with LRMs being trash have a problem with SRMs being nerfed. I'm so sorry your OP Splatcat build no longer 1 shots enemies. Cry us a nice long river.

LRM's have never been trash, I'm sorry you're too stupid to use TAG and direct fire instead of sitting behind a hill the entire match firing at the first red thing you see regardless of if you actually have proper lock, or are even hitting it, or that its 1000+ meters away.

Seriously as someone who played LRM boats a lot, nothing made me madder than seeing my team mates plant their *** behind a building and pressing M1 the entire match oblivious that their missiles were just slamming into the side of a dropship the entire match while the guy they're locked on to is just sitting there giggling like mad because the guy is too dumb to pop his head over the hill, or, you know just CHECK his reticle and think "HRRM I HEAR MY MISSILES IMPACTING BUT MY RETICLE ISN'T FLASHING RED, I GUESS THAT MEANS I'M HITTING TERRAIN".

Don't even get me started on how apparently half the communities LRM boats don't take Artemis and seem to be under the impression that all it does is give you "faster locks!"

Sorry for the unrelated rant but as a LRM player nothing ****** me off more than seeing someone who clearly is too dumb to use them complaining about how everyone else around them is "BRAIN DEAD!"

[Feral Goose]

How hard is it to grasp?! SRMs = 2 damage each, LRMs= 1 damage each and absolutely NO SPLASH DAMAGE!

With the splash damage, are we to believe these missiles are high explosive rather than armor piercing? Ifr so, why aren't they doing more damage to areas that are stripped of armor than? Why with all of this over powered then under powered then back to over powered crap?! SRM 2 damage, LRM 1 damage and no splash is all the balance needed for those missiles.

[PaintedWolf]

Shadowsword8, on 24 March 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

I get plenty of kills on my splatcat. I even take down brawler assaults without needing to take them from behind. All I did was replace my 6 SRM6 by 6 SRM4+Artemis, and I gain not only in heat management, but also in ammo usage and most of all, effective range. With artemis, you will have 90% of the salvo hitting the target even at 250m, assuming your aim is good.

Thus, this is empirical evidence that the damage is fine enough. Your problem must be one of the following:
- You miss to much.
- Or you don't use artemis, and use standard SRM at a range where they spread too much.

Again the reason for the hot fix was that SRMs were sometimes hitting 2-3 models of Light Mechs for up to 7 times their intended damage. In a practical sense, that would mean Streak SRM-2s should have their blast radius heavily reduced, since most SRMs tend to miss smaller, faster targets anyways. This is arguable, but for such a small bug such a small change seems to be adequate to address 90% of the issue without overly disrupting gameplay.

Instead we have complaints about how much skill it takes to use missiles, and about the fact that a Splatcat had a 90 point Alpha, to which a sweeping damage reduction introduced as an emergency measure equates to a balanced "correction".

This is echoed by points that missiles are now where they are supposed to be. If the problem has been fixed by a damage reduction, does that not mean the hot fix was meant to fix what was perceived as a general balance problem, and not just a minor bug?

If the problem was just a minor bug, why is the fact that Splatpults now do 54 damage per Alpha instead of 90 a correction? If the change was to effect a balancing issue, that is one thing, but that was not the reason given for the hot fix.

[PaintedWolf]

qki, on 24 March 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.


The reason for SRM and LRM damage and splash nerf was the fact, that they were doing more damage than intended. As the devs have stated themselves, LRMs were not intended to ace an assault in 2, or even 5 salvos.


And in the meantime, we get to "enjoy" all those doofuses coming on like doing 700+ damage with a bunch of SRMs is their god-given right. Single-neuron neanderthals, who read about some imba loadout, and roll out hating on everybody not using it for being "inferior", and when that config is shot down to be in line with the rest, they cry that their iWIN button was taken away.



Do you clowns even understand what game balance means? It means that if one strategy is so dominant, everyone is using it, it HAS TO be nerfed.

MtG is a prime example - cards that warp the format are banned - such as BBE, or the cat. JTMS was banned preemptively, because had it not been, everyone running blue in modern would HAVE to play 4.


In MWO you can't ban stuff, because all those weapons are an integral part of the lore. So instead you go around adjusting values for damage, until no one loadout is 200% better than anything else. SRMs and LRMs were doing too much damage, and now they are not.

Take my advice - forget what you "used to do" before the fix. In fact - forget everything. Look at this from a fresh perspective.

I sure enjoyed being the top dog in my raven, topping the damage charts in every other game. But now that I think about it - that wasn't supposed to happen. There are not supposed to be any magical "i kill this mech with one click" loadouts.

I run a raven 4x now, on my way to master. 2 MLs and a single SRM6 - I get kills with it. Not as easy as 3L before the hotfix, but not impossible, and more importantly - i'm not falling behind other people like i'm carrying a pea-shooter in a nukefight.

Again you may have a point, I don't agree, but you can argue that 90 point Alphas are too much.

But that is not the official reason given for the emergency measure/hot fix. The reason given is that a bug was found showing that the Alpha was more then 90 points vs some models of Mechs, and that SRMs in general were doing more damage then intended due to splash damage effects.

Arguments now that "oh they are just complaining because they can't kill Mechs in 2-3 salvos" make the claim that this is about a bug very dubious. Such arguments are against how much damage the missiles do in general and not the specific reason given for this sweeping hot fix.

[TrentTheWanderer]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

This is arguable, but for such a small bug such a small change seems to be adequate to address 90% of the issue without overly disrupting gameplay.

Instead we have complaints about how much skill it takes to use missiles, and about the fact that a Splatcat had a 90 point Alpha, to which a sweeping damage reduction introduced as an emergency measure equates to a balanced "correction".

This is echoed by points that missiles are now where they are supposed to be. If the problem has been fixed by a damage reduction, does that not mean the hot fix was meant to fix what was perceived as a general balance problem, and not just a minor bug?

If the problem was just a minor bug, why is the fact that Splatpults now do 54 damage per Alpha instead of 90 a correction? If the change was to effect a balancing issue, that is one thing, but that was not the reason given for the hot fix.

The problem you are having with understanding this is that the issue wasn't a "minor" bug, it was a "MAJOR" bug, one that will take them a significant amount of time to code. Instead of allowing the entire playerbase to be affected by the bug for the duration of the time they will need to code a correction, they introduced a stopgap damage reduction.

When they have fixed the damaged code the actually damage values of SRMs will be re-balanced and returned to a non-temporary damage configuration.

[Tor6]

Can we nerf streaks further though? That's the question.

[Glythe]

haruko, on 24 March 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

LRM's have never been trash, I'm sorry you're too stupid to use TAG and direct fire instead of sitting behind a hill the entire match firing at the first red thing you see regardless of if you actually have proper lock, or are even hitting it, or that its 1000+ meters away.

This guy apparently hasn't been in beta long. There have been plenty of times when LRMs were trash. They have been tweaked up and down so many times since august it would make your head spin to sit down and count.

LRMs have been on the up before (many of you probably do not remember when LRMs had homing as if you had kept the lock once they were fired and then they came straight down directly from the sky) and they will rise again to a level of usefulness. Last patch was stupid and everyone was using them because of that.

Asking them to return broken weapons to broken states is a waste of time.

Edited by Glythe, 24 March 2013 - 11:32 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

If the rationale was that there was a bug effecting 2-3 light Mechs, sometimes, on what basis are claims being made to the effect that a sweeping, across the board reduction in missile damage by 40% has fixed the problem? Does that not sound like they were just wanting missile damage nerfed in general?

I'm going to be generous and assume your misunderstanding was genuine. The missile splash damage inflation is dependant on hitbox complexity more than just mech size. Whilst the mech that suffered the most, the Commando, did so because it had very dense hitboxes on a small frame, other newer mechs with more complex hitboxes than the original four also suffered from inflated damage.

Additionally, this is a temporary fix since the actual fix (the removal of splash damage) caused unexpected torso-seeking behaviour (apparently even more than currently) and that needs to be resolved before splash damage can be removed.

Oh, and Splatcats don't do 54 per alpha now. They do 54 + Splash. That Splash damage is still not inconsiderable, and (based on calculations on LRM numbers so possibly not exact for SRMs) will bring the actual damage number close to 90. However - what you had previously was not a 90dmg alpha, it was anywhere between ~110 to ~450 damage (and that's using the slightly conservative 5x value for Commando hits, there's evidence it could reach x7).

[Budor]

PGI just shot those ears!

[PaintedWolf]

TrentTheWanderer, on 24 March 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

The problem you are having with understanding this is that the issue wasn't a "minor" bug, it was a "MAJOR" bug, one that will take them a significant amount of time to code.

This is the thread that the existence of the bug was based on: http://mwomercs.com/...ted-2013-03-15/

In it, a claim is made that PGI verified the bug's existence, this is what PGI said:

Quote

Here is one of the scenarios described and I've turned on the debug tools to let us see exactly what is going on in terms of hits and damage being done.

The Raven 3L has just fired 1 volley of 2 x S-SRM2 at the Commando 1B. As you can see, the amount of damage done to the Commando does not make sense. There is a total of 51.5 armor being stripped off the Commando. We've been able to reproduce this repeatedly and we're getting an average damage of 12.9 per missile. Quite a bit higher than the intended 2.5 damage per missile plus splash damage.

So what has happened to cause this? Smaller Mechs and more complex geometry than what was available when the splash damage system first went into the game. When SRM splash damage went into the game, there were a total of 4 Mechs available to the playerbase. The Jenner, Hunchback, Catapult and the Atlas. These 4 Mechs have very unique targeting silhouettes and were used to calculate the radius of splash damage per missile. Now what has happened is that the splash damage across smaller Mechs or Mechs with more complex/tighter component positioning are getting hit with more splash damage than intended.

Again a small number of Mechs are said to be effected due to complex geometries. Why then is an across the board damage reduction called for over reducing splash effects?

Splash effects can be removed without nerfing overall missile damage. In fact they did reduce the radius of missile splash AND THEN reduced all missile damage by almost 50%. If the problem was with splash damage, it could have been more heavily reduced or removed entirely, why did missile damage have to be reduced completely? That seems to go far beyond the scope of fixing a periodically occurring splash damage bug.

TrentTheWanderer, on 24 March 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

Instead of allowing the entire playerbase to be affected by the bug for the duration of the time they will need to code a correction, they introduced a stopgap damage reduction.

When they have fixed the damaged code the actually damage values of SRMs will be re-balanced and returned to a non-temporary damage configuration.

On the one hand claims are being made that this is a "stop gap/temporary measure" and then almost in the same breath claims are being made that missiles are now balanced.

If this is just a stop gap/temporary measure, on what basis are further claims being made that missiles are now "where they are supposed to be" on this measure?

And how did it get from a point that some Mechs, were sometimes effected by splash, to an overall reduction in missile damage by 50%?

Would it have not made more sense to just remove splash damage? Again, there is a lot that does not add up with respect to this particular matter, namely that this is over a minor bug effecting some mechs, some times, to the claims that an overall reduction in missile damage has now balanced the game, and made for more skilled game play.

Edited by PaintedWolf, 24 March 2013 - 11:31 AM.

[Davers]

Missiles were doing too much damage. This was confirmed from the Devs that the average damage of an SRM was 12.9. Since all missiles use the same system, LRMs were doing more as well (don't have numbers for that though). They tried just removing splash damage to fix the problem, but then discovered another problem- far too many LRMs were hitting CT than intended. The 'hotfix' was to lower the damage and the splash radius- the bugs are still there (being worked on) which is why they needed these low numbers to try to keep the damage where they feel it should be.

Doesn't everyone stalk the Devs and read all their posts?

[Shadowsword8]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

This is echoed by points that missiles are now where they are supposed to be. If the problem has been fixed by a damage reduction, does that not mean the hot fix was meant to fix what was perceived as a general balance problem, and not just a minor bug?

If the problem was just a minor bug, why is the fact that Splatpults now do 54 damage per Alpha instead of 90 a correction? If the change was to effect a balancing issue, that is one thing, but that was not the reason given for the hot fix.

Careful here, you're playing spreadsheet online, and that can be misleading when there's splash mechanics involved.

Rather than arguing about theorical number that may or may not be applied in reality, I'd rather just test it, and the results are the following:

2 weeks ago, with my 6SRM6 cat, I could one-shot (in the back, at point-blank range) catapults, cataphracts, almost all assaults, except the atlas who would always require a second one.

Right now, with my 6SRM4+Art cat, I can still one-shot catapults, cataphracts, awesomes, and still need two salvos on an atlas back.

In short, the only signifiant change is that I gained in effective range, upgraded my enginve a bit, and can make one or two more salvoes before overheating. Therefore, The OP is wrong, SRM don't need a damage boost.

[Merky Merc]

Le sigh, the missile hotfix only boned non-boating missile mechs. 1-3 hardpoints with missiles? GG don't even bother with them. It's made my medium mechs even more useless in comparison to heavy mechs.