73 replies to this topic

[Aym]

Roland, on 17 April 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

Given that I have recently racked up some awesome mountains of likes with epic image memes, I figured it's time to spend some of that ever important forum cred on some suggestions that I feel are timely given the current state of things.

First, some background... I like PPC's. I like all travel time weapons. I've been using them consistently since closed beta, so the fact that they all hit exactly where I aim, and have no firing delay is like a freaking gift from God. Best time I've had in Mechwarrior since prior to the first patch of Mechwarrior 4 Vengeance.

However, I also feel that it has exposed some issues which will eventually degrade things. I expect that the current "everyone take a highlander" meta is gonna fade quickly, but still, I think that we need to look at how things have changed as a result of functional, modern netcode.

Now that the netcode seems to pretty much work correctly, long range direct fire weaponry is a valid and effective means to play the game. This is, without question, a good thing.

However, this means that it is time to revisit some of the previous balance changes that were made in an environment where long range direct fire was not really viable.

Thus, I suggest the following changes to weaponry:
1) Medium lasers - Reduce heat back to the original value of 3
2) Small Lasers - reduce heat back to the original value of 1
3) Medium Pulse Lasers - reduce heat back to the original value of 4
4) Small Pulse Lasers - reduce heat back to the original value of 2
5) Large Pulse Lasers - Increase damage up to 12

Note, I'm not talking about missile weapons here. While I feel that there are certain changes necessary, I feel that is a discussion to be had separately.

This post is mainly about the small and medium lasers (with the LPL thrown in as well), because I feel that we may want to go back to simply reverting the changes previously made to these weapons.

In order to decide whether we should revert those changes, we need to examine why those changes were originally made to begin with.

Back in closed beta, all of the netcode was basically borked. All of the long range weapons, with the exception of the gauss, were basically useless... and the gauss was largely only usable by folks with good pings. PPC's were much hotter, as were Large Lasers. Also, all of the maps were small, close quarters affairs.

This resulted in small and medium lasers being dominant weapons, especially on the limited chassis of the day which included the Jenner and the Hunchback 4P. Also, without engine/speed caps, you could make mechs that tooled around at extremely high speed (further exacerbating the netcode problems), capable of delivering fairly large alpha strikes against targets which were largely incapable of returning fire effectively.

What's worse, given the essential lack of reliable long range weaponry, there was very little that you could do against an advancing medium laser boat to slow him down. He'd be moving at over 100kph, so it was only taking a few seconds to get within range of his medium lasers, at which point he was just gonna beat you on efficiency if you had any other weapon type. This led to an overall lack of balance, and the heat of the small energy weapons was increased in an attempt to balance them against everything else.

Today though, much of this has changed.

Now, we (obviously) have extremely effective long range direct fire weaponry. There is, without question, the ability to crush a mech while he is closing on your position if he does not maneuver to use cover.

But despite the changes that enable effective long range weapons, we still have the nerfs of the light energy weapons. The result of this is that even if that mech is capable of getting up in your face, at optimal range of his weapons (generally through effective manevuering) he's still not at much of (or any) advantage against a PPC/Gauss boat. In terms of heat/damage, the medium lasers are identical to PPC's.. only the PPC's are capable of always dumping all of the damage on a single panel, while the medium lasers must be held on target during their discharge.

For this reason, I think it is worth resetting the light energy weapons to their original stats, and seeing how they balance out against the long range direct fire weapons.

My hypothesis is that this will make them more effective at short range, but less effective at long range.. which is exactly how they are supposed to function.

This is, in my mind, a better option than simply nerfing the long range direct fire weapons. It preserves the long range, skill based sniper play that many players enjoy. However, it also ENABLES short range brawling, that other players enjoy. It then becomes a contest of positioning, in order to try and get the fight that you are ranged for (or carry configurations capable of fighting at both ranges).

I think this is a reasonable request, and fairly easy to implement, and worth at least examining.

Please don't advocate buffing/nerfing in a vacuum. The Dev team has done too much of that already. Let's get full HSR in, then talk about balance. Furthermore "Balance" can not be discussed in a vacuum as 12v12 should be implemented as well. Lastly Balance must be around an idea, a game-play concept called pacing. Currently MLas, SLas, and LLas are all pretty close in terms of "pacing" for combat. PPC's area little strong, SRM's might be ok, LRMs are a little weak, and the Pulse lasers are a little weak, except maybe the large pulse, it might be about in line with the current laser pacing. So please consider this stuff before saying "my weapon that I love is too weak." Consider that the regular lasers are RIGHT and balance the rest around that pacing.

[Roland]

Also, as I stated previously, I'm actually someone who has used PPC's as a primary weapon for a long time (going back to when they were far worse than currently), so I'm not complaining about the current state of PPC's.

I'm merely suggesting that by buffing the short range weapons a bit, you can achieve better balance without having to resort to nerfing the long range weapons, which I feel are actually quite good right now.

Quote

Please don't advocate buffing/nerfing in a vacuum. The Dev team has done too much of that already. Let's get full HSR in, then talk about balance. Furthermore "Balance" can not be discussed in a vacuum as 12v12 should be implemented as well. Lastly Balance must be around an idea, a game-play concept called pacing. Currently MLas, SLas, and LLas are all pretty close in terms of "pacing" for combat. PPC's area little strong, SRM's might be ok, LRMs are a little weak, and the Pulse lasers are a little weak, except maybe the large pulse, it might be about in line with the current laser pacing. So please consider this stuff before saying "my weapon that I love is too weak." Consider that the regular lasers are RIGHT and balance the rest around that pacing.

I think that perhaps you misunderstood the point of my original post.

The whole point is that the medium and small lasers were essentially nerfed in a vaccum... the exact thing that you are arguing against.

They were nerfed in a situation where there were no effective long range weapons, and where non-laser weapons were generally terrible for most players.

My suggestion is merely to remove those previous nerfs, and re-evaluate with the original stats, based upon the current state of the game which has changed dramatically from closed beta, primarily as a result of removal of lag.

[zorak ramone]

Roland, on 17 April 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

A long, well reasoned arguement for reducing the heat on medium and small lasers.

You are 100% right. I've made similar arguments ever since the nerf back in closed beta.

To add to what Roland said, one thing that reducing the heat on MLs would do is restore their useage as backup weapons on mixed-range mechs. In CBT, many mechs carried PPCs as primary weapons, and then a cluster of MLs as short range weapons to give them punch at any range. This worked because the MLs produced more damage per point of heat. E.g. 2 PPCs produced 20 damage and 20 heat, but MLs produce 30 damage for only 18 heat, or 35 damage for 21 heat. Therefore it would make sense to configure a mech with 2xPPC and 7xML with enough DHS to deal with 20 heat.

In MWO, MLs do not make sense as backup weapons because they produce just as much damage per heat as PPCs. Say I have a mech with 2xPPCs, and enough DHS. It would take 4xMLs to match the heat of those PPCs ... but those 4xMLs produce the same damage, so why should I add MLs? Why not just add another PPC and/or more DHS? Sure, PPCs have a 90m minimum range, but spending tonnage to do more damage in those 90m makes no sense compared to spending tonnage to do more damage in the 91m to 540m (and beyond) that comes first in any engagement.

[Roland]

Quote

Say I have a mech with 2xPPCs, and enough DHS. It would take 4xMLs to match the heat of those PPCs ... but those 4xMLs produce the same damage, so why should I add MLs?

Well, the primary reason is tonnage. 4 medium lasers is only 4 tons, as opposed to 14 tons for two PPC's.

However, this is really only a viable option for larger mechs.

And I think that by having the lighter energy weapons be more efficient at short range, you'll still see a good spread of weapons usage. Light and medium chassis will tend to use primarily those small energy weapons, and will rely on their speed and mobility to get close to the front lights for fighting. Meanwhile, heavy chassis will leverage the heavy, long range weaponry for laying down some serious pain at long range, and perhaps even mix those long range heavy weapons with some backup medium lasers to deal with the little guys once they get close.

One of the primary reasons I think this will improve the overall game structure, is that it will help boost the importance of maneuvering, by making the short range brawl viable, without making it broken.

One of the reasons that I specifically left LRM's out of this discussion was because there are issues with SRM's. In general, SRM's aren't really bad weapons right now.. but most mechs that use them rely on medium lasers in a mixed configuration. The big exception to this is the A1 splatcat.

If you improve the medium lasers (slightly) then you essentially improve every mech that relied on SRM's as a primary component of its weapons loadout.. but not the A1. And this is the kind of change most folks would want, because most folks agree that the splatcat tends to be abusive when SRM's are particularly strong. To that end, many folks have argued that the problem was that specific chassis, rather than the SRM's themselves.

This change helps address those concerns, albeit in a somewhat indirect fashion. If you drove an SRM brawler that wasn't a splatcat, then this change will most likely improve it a bit.

The most important thing with this change though (which, again, is merely a return to previous values which were nerfed due to earlier flaws in the game) is that it will reward good flanking and maneuvering, without punishing good long range snipers. Rather than nerfing anyone simply because they are effective, this proposes that we enable high skill play in multiple facets of the game.

This is how you make a game good, I think. By not simply enabling highly skilled players, but by enabling different types of highly skilled players.

[hammerreborn]

The biggest balance changes that should be rolled back are the projectile speed increases nearly every ballistic weapon got, to combat the netcode. Netcode is fixed, slow those ******** back down. Now faster mechs can actually dodge without having to shake like their having an epileptic seizure and aiming actually becomes a skill. Because at 2000m/s the PPC might as well be a laser in its current optimum range.

Faster mechs can close in on snipers, faster mechs shoot snipers, and all is right with the world.

Edited by hammerreborn, 18 April 2013 - 09:37 AM.

[Roland]

Again, I'm not really in favor of nerfing the PPC's. I think that they feel pretty good right now. At long range, against even just medium mechs, you need to lead a target significantly. Shots are most definitely not gimmes.

Rather than focusing on nerfing those weapons, I think it's better to reward the short range fighter with increased efficiency... but in order to utilize that efficiency, he needs to get close. And getting close should be done through maneuvering, not just relying on the enemy to miss clear shots due to exceptionally long travel time of the weapons.

If you want to get close to knife fighting range, you should have to do so through maneuvering under cover.. not just relying on the game mechanics to cause opfor to miss you while you cross open terrain.

[DCLXVI]

I think im in the right thread for a change. pgi please unlock ultra ac/5, its not competitive against 6 ac/2 jager's and would no longer be OP if its unlocked. things will balance out because jagers wont be able to effectively use 6 ac/5's and mechs with 2 ballictic hardpoints will be able to compete while armed with ultras. do it now!

[hammerreborn]

Roland, on 18 April 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Again, I'm not really in favor of nerfing the PPC's. I think that they feel pretty good right now. At long range, against even just medium mechs, you need to lead a target significantly. Shots are most definitely not gimmes.

Rather than focusing on nerfing those weapons, I think it's better to reward the short range fighter with increased efficiency... but in order to utilize that efficiency, he needs to get close. And getting close should be done through maneuvering, not just relying on the enemy to miss clear shots due to exceptionally long travel time of the weapons.

If you want to get close to knife fighting range, you should have to do so through maneuvering under cover.. not just relying on the game mechanics to cause opfor to miss you while you cross open terrain.

How is hitting the max range of a ppc in less than a second not a gimmie? I mean sure, poptart vs poptart is oh so difficult, but anything bigger than a cicada at optimum range is a guarenteed hit for anything with any sort of modicum of skill (a mech moving 115 kph at 680m will move 11m by the time the ppc hits). That's probably the entire arm to arm length of a centurion.

Edited by hammerreborn, 18 April 2013 - 09:52 AM.

[Death Mallet]

I disagree with any change to the standard medium laser.

Even with the current stats, it's still king of the battlefield in terms of the most efficient way to arm your mech. That 1T/1Crit combo is amazing.

To make pulse lasers more viable, their heat should be reduced to the same as the standard laser. Basically you're giving up range, and in some cases tonnage in exchange for more damage.

Medium pulse laser should have it's damage increased to 7.
Small pulse laser should have it's damage increased to 4
Small laser should have it's range increased to 180m

[Roland]

Quote

How is hitting the max range of a ppc in less than a second not a gimmie?

Well, at max PPC range, it's taking about a second to get there. That means you're having to lead a fast moving target by multiple body lengths to hit it. That's not really a gimme. At max ERPPC range, you're talking around 1.5 seconds to get there.

I can land shots against fast movers at long range, but it's certainly not a gimme just based on how far you need to lead the target. If they change their vector at all in that second, your shot is gonna miss.

Quote

anything bigger than a cicada at optimum range is a guarenteed hit for anything with any sort of modicum of skill (a mech moving 115 kph at 680m will move 11m by the time the ppc hits). That's probably the entire arm to arm length of a centurion.

So even at optimum range of 680m, which isn't really that far away, you're still talking about having to lead a fast target by a whole body's lenth. That's not trivial.

And really, shots at that range shouldn't be impossible shots.. because a mech moving that fast is gonna be in medium laser range real soon.

Certainly, it may be the case that the heavy travel time weapons require nerfs, but prior to deciding that I think we should merely re-evaluate the original statistics of the light energy weapons.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 17 April 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

Given that I have recently racked up some awesome mountains of likes with epic image memes, I figured it's time to spend some of that ever important forum cred on some suggestions that I feel are timely given the current state of things.

First, some background... I like PPC's. I like all travel time weapons. I've been using them consistently since closed beta, so the fact that they all hit exactly where I aim, and have no firing delay is like a freaking gift from God. Best time I've had in Mechwarrior since prior to the first patch of Mechwarrior 4 Vengeance.

However, I also feel that it has exposed some issues which will eventually degrade things. I expect that the current "everyone take a highlander" meta is gonna fade quickly, but still, I think that we need to look at how things have changed as a result of functional, modern netcode.

Now that the netcode seems to pretty much work correctly, long range direct fire weaponry is a valid and effective means to play the game. This is, without question, a good thing.

However, this means that it is time to revisit some of the previous balance changes that were made in an environment where long range direct fire was not really viable.

Thus, I suggest the following changes to weaponry:
1) Medium lasers - Reduce heat back to the original value of 3
2) Small Lasers - reduce heat back to the original value of 1
3) Medium Pulse Lasers - reduce heat back to the original value of 4
4) Small Pulse Lasers - reduce heat back to the original value of 2
5) Large Pulse Lasers - Increase damage up to 12

Note, I'm not talking about missile weapons here. While I feel that there are certain changes necessary, I feel that is a discussion to be had separately.

This post is mainly about the small and medium lasers (with the LPL thrown in as well), because I feel that we may want to go back to simply reverting the changes previously made to these weapons.

In order to decide whether we should revert those changes, we need to examine why those changes were originally made to begin with.

Back in closed beta, all of the netcode was basically borked. All of the long range weapons, with the exception of the gauss, were basically useless... and the gauss was largely only usable by folks with good pings. PPC's were much hotter, as were Large Lasers. Also, all of the maps were small, close quarters affairs.

This resulted in small and medium lasers being dominant weapons, especially on the limited chassis of the day which included the Jenner and the Hunchback 4P. Also, without engine/speed caps, you could make mechs that tooled around at extremely high speed (further exacerbating the netcode problems), capable of delivering fairly large alpha strikes against targets which were largely incapable of returning fire effectively.

What's worse, given the essential lack of reliable long range weaponry, there was very little that you could do against an advancing medium laser boat to slow him down. He'd be moving at over 100kph, so it was only taking a few seconds to get within range of his medium lasers, at which point he was just gonna beat you on efficiency if you had any other weapon type. This led to an overall lack of balance, and the heat of the small energy weapons was increased in an attempt to balance them against everything else.

Today though, much of this has changed.

Now, we (obviously) have extremely effective long range direct fire weaponry. There is, without question, the ability to crush a mech while he is closing on your position if he does not maneuver to use cover.

But despite the changes that enable effective long range weapons, we still have the nerfs of the light energy weapons. The result of this is that even if that mech is capable of getting up in your face, at optimal range of his weapons (generally through effective manevuering) he's still not at much of (or any) advantage against a PPC/Gauss boat. In terms of heat/damage, the medium lasers are identical to PPC's.. only the PPC's are capable of always dumping all of the damage on a single panel, while the medium lasers must be held on target during their discharge.

For this reason, I think it is worth resetting the light energy weapons to their original stats, and seeing how they balance out against the long range direct fire weapons.

My hypothesis is that this will make them more effective at short range, but less effective at long range.. which is exactly how they are supposed to function.

This is, in my mind, a better option than simply nerfing the long range direct fire weapons. It preserves the long range, skill based sniper play that many players enjoy. However, it also ENABLES short range brawling, that other players enjoy. It then becomes a contest of positioning, in order to try and get the fight that you are ranged for (or carry configurations capable of fighting at both ranges).

I think this is a reasonable request, and fairly easy to implement, and worth at least examining.

Well reasoned arguments, and one of the worries I have long held with all the yoyoing of weapon stats since Closed Beta. I stil feel they need to ignore DHS, and XL and aALL level 2 tech and get all the level 1 BASIC tech properly balanced where the trials are actually viable. THEN -readd and balance the newer tech items AROUND the level 1 tech baseline.

Sadly, ain't never gonna happen.

BUT, I think it sure wouldn't hurt to try your suggestion and see what happens, though I have seen a fair number of HBK-4Ps lately, at least in 8 man.

[shintakie]

hammerreborn, on 18 April 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

The biggest balance changes that should be rolled back are the projectile speed increases nearly every ballistic weapon got, to combat the netcode. Netcode is fixed, slow those ******** back down. Now faster mechs can actually dodge without having to shake like their having an epileptic seizure and aiming actually becomes a skill. Because at 2000m/s the PPC might as well be a laser in its current optimum range.

Faster mechs can close in on snipers, faster mechs shoot snipers, and all is right with the world.

This brings up a good point.

There were a lot of changes made to the game that were meant to combat issues that no longer exist. Host State Rewind was added to ballistics to finally combat the issue of lag. Unfortunately ballistics (and the ppc?) were buffed initially to combat lag by makin them ridiculously fast to try and compensate for lag. Now that lag isn't there anymore.

Its like this thread really. There were a lot of buffs made in a vacuum to combat (very real) imbalances at the time. Perhaps its not really necessary to keep those nerfs intact now that the game has changed so much?

[hammerreborn]

Roland, on 18 April 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

Well, at max PPC range, it's taking about a second to get there. That means you're having to lead a fast moving target by multiple body lengths to hit it. That's not really a gimme. At max ERPPC range, you're talking around 1.5 seconds to get there.

I can land shots against fast movers at long range, but it's certainly not a gimme just based on how far you need to lead the target. If they change their vector at all in that second, your shot is gonna miss.



So even at optimum range of 680m, which isn't really that far away, you're still talking about having to lead a fast target by a whole body's lenth. That's not trivial.

And really, shots at that range shouldn't be impossible shots.. because a mech moving that fast is gonna be in medium laser range real soon.

Certainly, it may be the case that the heavy travel time weapons require nerfs, but prior to deciding that I think we should merely re-evaluate the original statistics of the light energy weapons.

PPC travels 2000m/s, max range of ERPPC is 680*2= 1360. PPC reaches max range in .68s. Do you know how to do math?

And you aren't leading a mech by a full length. If the mech is even running remotely toward you if you shoot at the leading arm you'll hit the trailing every time (at something going slower than 115).

Lets do the more predictable mechs, which go around 75 kph.

75 kph is 21m/s. At optimum range, we're at 680m. The ERPPC takes .34s to reach the target. The mechs move 7m.

Shoot anywhere at the mech and you'll hit it at that speed.

And why not both? After all, its not like anyone can really use light energy weapons at the moment because they get instantly gibbed at 1400 -> 270.

[IceSerpent]

Roland, on 17 April 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

Well, I think missile weapons are going to be much more complex to balance, and in many ways they don't play into this discussion much.

I agree with your OP in general, but have to completely disagree with this statement above - if you want to revisit short range weapon balance, you have to include missiles and ballistics. Otherwise the resulting balance would still be way off target.

[Jordan Youngblood]

I don't have much to add to this discussion beyond what has already been said, but I will add my voice as another that does believe this may be a very good idea!

[DrSecretStache]

I'm in agreement with you, OP. I'm absolutely loving the HSR, killing them darn poptarts with my quad ac2s, but I've noticed that when choosing between two tons of ammo and two mls, I chose the ammo. Perhaps unrelated, but I don't know.

Just from experience, I haven't once seen spls, I rarely see small lasers, and I only see mpls a bit more, but not really.

ML, I'm not too sure. I still see them plenty, but that's likely just because they are the most ideal shorter ranged weapon at the moment. You're right that the heat efficiency compared to a PPC is a little borked, so they could probably use the change.

I hope that PGI is open to changes like this. Lately, there's been some strange duality with some forumites wanting more quality patches because of the 'it's released' business, while others actually want more frequent balancing changes. Personally, I'd like them to focus on content changes on their same schedule, but balance patches on a non-regular basis after they develop the data for it, or even if they don't. I mean, if you patch frequently enough, even moving heat values by .5 on the lasers patch by patch will eventually get them to a point where they are seen a proper amount of the time.

I haven't used lpls recently, so I can't really anecdote them, but considering that they have the same damage and comparable heat to a ppc without the range benefit, I'd like to see them get a damage buff, even if it costs us a heat boost as well.

Edited by Zoughtbaj, 18 April 2013 - 10:31 AM.

[zorak ramone]

Roland, on 18 April 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

Well, the primary reason is tonnage. 4 medium lasers is only 4 tons, as opposed to 14 tons for two PPC's.

However, this is really only a viable option for larger mechs.

I should probably give a more specific example to be clearer.

Take an DDC, and pretend for a moment that the missile hardpoints are actually 5 energy hardpoints. I mount 2xPPC/GR and all the DHS and ammo I need to run them comfortably. I have 4 tons left over (a real DDC would have much more, but bear with me). I want to add MLs for close range work. The PPCs alone already run cool so PPCs + MLs = overheat. If I add 4xML, these MLs do just as much damage and just as much heat as the PPCs. When I reach the point of overheat, the MLs add nothing: I might as well not bring the MLs and add more DHS or squeeze in another PPC.

However, real DDCs bring 3xSRM6. These weapons do more damage than the 2xPPC for less heat, so when you get close, and you're overheating, the SRM6s actually give you something extra.

If however, MLs were producing only 3 heat, I could add 5xML and produce slightly less heat than the PPCs but 5 points of more damage.

The idea is that with lower heat, MLs can serve as a replacement weapon group that does more damage at close range for the same heat. This was a key feature of MLs in CBT, and is what made mechs like the Banshee so deadly: It has enough DHS to run 2xERPPC/GR at range, but for the cost of only 8 tons, it can increase its damage potential by 22 (think 44 in MWO) at close range without affecting its heat efficiency by adding 4xML/SRM6 and switching from 2xERPPC/GR at range to ERPPC/GR/4xML/SRM6 at close range.

Similar configs aren't possible in MWO, because the ML doesn't offer more damage per heat than the PPC. Only the SRM6 currently does this and guess what sniper mechs use as close range backup weapons in MWO?

Quote

One of the reasons that I specifically left LRM's out of this discussion was because there are issues with SRM's. In general, SRM's aren't really bad weapons right now.. but most mechs that use them rely on medium lasers in a mixed configuration. The big exception to this is the A1 splatcat.

I can tell you now that SRMs are much worse than they were before and probably not worth taking. Sometimes I play a whole game without using my SRMs more than once or twice because they're not worth getting close for. The only reasons I bring SRMs in my Atlases now are:
-I'm not running an RS, so I can't fit another PPC
-I'm bored with running pure GR/PPC builds

[Dexion]

OP makes some good points. I hope the next round of weapon balancing gets here soon... because poptart online just doesn't do it for me.

[Roland]

Quote

Take an DDC, and pretend for a moment that the missile hardpoints are actually 5 energy hardpoints.

I'd rather not, given that we have a large number of actual mechs to choose from. I'd rather you made your example using existing mechs that can be actually constructed. The reason for this is that the hardpoint limitations in existing mechs really does have something of a balancing effect. A 4P, for instance, can carry a bunch of medium lasers.. but it's also not super fast, and can't mount JJ's, etc.

So, I think it'd be most useful to work with real configurations if we're gonna discuss balance theory.

Quote

I can tell you now that SRMs are much worse than they were before and probably not worth taking.

They are certainly much worse than before... but I absolutely disagree with the assertion that they are not worth taking.

Now, on an Atlas, that could certainly be the case. But that doesn't translate to lighter mechs. SRM's are still absolutely viable weapons on medium and light weight chassis. Cents and Hunchbacks still make effective use of them. Light mechs still use them effectively. They just aren't the "best weapon ever" that they were previously.

A big part of this is that the atlas just doesn't have the mobility to get into range easily for SRM use currently. And honestly, the missile hard points on the Atlas were traditionally used for LRM's to deal damage at LONG range, weren't they? This is really neither here nor there, but I think that part of the issue is that with highly accurate long range weapons, a huge slow moving target like the atlas may simply be less viable as pure brawlers... but this is not the same as saying SRM's are no longer viable as weapons at all.

[Pinselborste]

solution would have been to drop the TT values and calculate some that are working better with mwo mechanics, but this wont be done at this stage.