Epic Srm Nerfbat
#1
Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:19 PM
The broad nerf to the SRM was like the devs performing a delicate surgery with a battle axe. Now the well balanced (for its weight) Stalker 5M is a questionable choice, and if medium mechs weren't already useless, this nerf squashed the two shining hopes of that weight class, theHhunchie SP and fast zomble Cent.
This severe nerfing of the best CQB weapon in the game couldn't have come at a worse time while other game changes have already moved many folks away from brawlers in general and into direct fire support roles. Why do the devs love whack-a-mole?
Perhaps the SRMs did need a nerf, but this was extreme overkill that resulted from a single abused chassis.
#2
Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:21 PM
#3
Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:22 PM
#4
Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:28 PM
Huntsman, on 25 March 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:
Funny. I could have sworn that my non zombie 9D still wrecks 'Mechs with its Gauss Rifle. And my X-5 Cicada functions equally well with its stock configuration that just so happens to have SRMs. So the weapon you relied on was nerfed, temporarily I might add, learn to use some others and go back when they fix them or tough it out.
#5
Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:30 PM
Davers, on 25 March 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:
I don't remember being angry...
...and as an afterthought, I would ask that the devs take the same design philosophy you mentioned and apply it to the machine guns...
#6
Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:31 PM
Huntsman, on 25 March 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:
The broad nerf to the SRM was like the devs performing a delicate surgery with a battle axe. Now the well balanced (for its weight) Stalker 5M is a questionable choice, and if medium mechs weren't already useless, this nerf squashed the two shining hopes of that weight class, theHhunchie SP and fast zomble Cent.
This severe nerfing of the best CQB weapon in the game couldn't have come at a worse time while other game changes have already moved many folks away from brawlers in general and into direct fire support roles. Why do the devs love whack-a-mole?
Perhaps the SRMs did need a nerf, but this was extreme overkill that resulted from a single abused chassis.
Crying and obvious splatcat pilot.
#7
Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:35 PM
K0M3D14N, on 25 March 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:
assuming every missile will hit: 200 * 1.5 = 300 dmg assuming+ *0.4 dmg = 420 dmg.
trololol L
Edited by no1337, 25 March 2013 - 04:37 PM.
#8
Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:41 PM
#9
Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:41 PM
#10
Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:43 PM
#11
Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:44 PM
Huntsman, on 25 March 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:
As part of a fast and easily implemented (temporary) hotfix. Their prior damage was inconsistent and at times way larger than advertised and due to the huge splash radius never just 2.5 per missile. Just as the damage now isn't 1.5 in most cases.
Huntsman, on 25 March 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:
This severe nerfing of the best CQB weapon in the game couldn't have come at a worse time while other game changes have already moved many folks away from brawlers in general and into direct fire support roles. Why do the devs love whack-a-mole?
Perhaps the SRMs did need a nerf, but this was extreme overkill that resulted from a single abused chassis.
I had some fun matches in my centurions with srms. I don't see them becoming useless just because they adjusted the _best_ close range weapon as part of a bug fix. A bug fix that had to be implemented to fix a bug =) and not to nerf a perceived OP chassis.
#12
Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:47 PM
It this yet another thread of a sweeping PoV opinion where you want the masses to agree with you??
#13
Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:47 PM
no1337, on 25 March 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:
assuming every missile will hit: 200 * 1.5 = 300 dmg assuming+ *0.4 dmg = 420 dmg.
trololol L
The splash damage part actually looks like Sum_i x_i*0.4*1.5 with x_i dependent on the distance of impact point and other mech parts inside the splash radius. Therefore 500 damage seem possible.
#14
Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:47 PM
#15
Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:52 PM
#17
Posted 25 March 2013 - 06:02 PM
Its currently just a hotfix. We have to wait upwards of 3+ months before we can complain.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users