5 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

.. in a timely manner, why not just improve SRM/LRM damage per missile at least until you can find time to fix it?

Once again you've got one of the three big classes of weapons sitting around in the trash pile (LRMs/SRMs) because you keep turning splash down to insanely limited levels, while counting on the damage from the splash to keep them viable.

This is wrecking the game. LRMs went from OP to awful because of this and SRMs haven't been a good primary weapon for brawlers in months. This is insane and the time taken to get these fixes is in unacceptable.

Unless the next major patch will fix splash & restore it to all the missile weapons, throw us a bone and at least buff base damage to compensate until you can figure out why it favors the CT, please?

[Renthrak]

Victor Morson, on 25 May 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

... throw us a bone and at least buff base damage to compensate until you can figure out why it favors the CT, please?

It should be possible to have LRM damage distributed over the target without splash. Details are here:

http://mwomercs.com/...eeking-to-lrms/

[Victor Morson]

Renthrak, on 25 May 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

It should be possible to have LRM damage distributed over the target without splash. Details are here:

http://mwomercs.com/...eeking-to-lrms/

I would be entirely fine with that. I'm OK if it's not splash damage. In fact to my knowledge, nobody's even asked for splash damage.

The problem is the explosive damage is such a huge necessity for the weapon to output proper damage and they think the answer is just turning it down?

This is like finding a weapon in Diablo with like 50 base damage and 70 Fire damage, then removing all the Fire damage and saying "It's OK, we gave it 5 more base damage to compensate. "

EDIT: Literally the ONLY thing wrong with damage before the nerf is how the explosions favored the CT even if they shouldn't be able to hit it. The actual raw damage was pretty much spot on but I agree the CT bias was a bit much.

Edited by Victor Morson, 25 May 2013 - 11:08 AM.

[Diablobo]

I think the devs are trying to use an explosive projectile in the CryEngine instead of a regular one. I suppose their thinking was "It's a rocket, so it has to explode, right?" Wrong.

Now for everyone who says "It's MWO not TT", they are going to have to completely change all the PPC, laser, and AC damage values if they are going to make missiles behave differently than they do in TT.

Oh well, we are already playing triple-heat Battletech, so what's a little splash damage that completely breaks a weapon system matter? It's par for the course. Dakka dakka pew pew is pretty fun, but it sure would be nice to have some WHOOOSH!

[CancR]

Diablobo, on 25 May 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

Now for everyone who says "It's MWO not TT", they are going to have to completely change all the PPC, laser, and AC damage values if they are going to make missiles behave differently than they do in TT.

Shh! You'll upset the Mechwarrior pretenders who have never played any other Mechwarrior or battle tech before and still pretend the facts are on their side.

[Victor Morson]

Diablobo, on 25 May 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

I think the devs are trying to use an explosive projectile in the CryEngine instead of a regular one. I suppose their thinking was "It's a rocket, so it has to explode, right?" Wrong.

Now for everyone who says "It's MWO not TT", they are going to have to completely change all the PPC, laser, and AC damage values if they are going to make missiles behave differently than they do in TT.

Oh well, we are already playing triple-heat Battletech, so what's a little splash damage that completely breaks a weapon system matter? It's par for the course. Dakka dakka pew pew is pretty fun, but it sure would be nice to have some WHOOOSH!

The sad part is the splash wasn't even OP - just the fact it goes to the CT - yet we're still in a place where the weapon just had it taken away with nothing to replace it.