77 replies to this topic

[shabowie]

Tennex, on 05 June 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

they can't increase SRM damage without increasing sSRM damage because they use the same missile

Just make up some BS like "the guidance system inside the missile requires it have a smaller warhead" or something and leave them at 1.5

Edited by shabowie, 05 June 2013 - 07:51 PM.

[Sephlock]

aniviron, on 05 June 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

I'm also curious why it is that it's unacceptable for a mech boating 6 srm6 to be effective in its range bracket, but it's totally okay for a stalker to roll out with 6 ppcs and be equally effective.

Just to play devil's advocate: One of those builds has a narcolepsy problem, the other does not.

[aniviron]

Sephlock, on 05 June 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

Just to play devil's advocate: One of those builds has a narcolepsy problem, the other does not.

Then again, one of them has a range problem, and the other does not.
Well, okay, it has an extreme close-range problem.

p.s. your description made me chortle.

[Praehotec8]

Damage on SRMs is too low. I changed from 2X aSRM-6 and 2X aSRM-4 to 4X SSRM-2 on my A-1, and my damage output has nearly doubled with less effort with aiming...

[Metafox]

SRMs have been working pretty well for me since the patch. I was doing 4-mans in a CN9-A and I was doing pretty decent damage with 3 ASRM6 and 3 tons of ammo (and 2 MLs of course). Currently, SRMs are much more accurate and much more viable for medium range engagements, but they don't melt armor like they used to.

SRMs lack the ability to reliably target a specific component so you probably wouldn't do well with a team of 8 SRM boats. In the past, SRMs would do so much damage that it didn't matter if you couldn't hit a specific spot, they'd core just everything at once. Right now, SRMs are great for softening a target up, but you'll probably need a balanced team to help focus specific components and finish them off.

[Mantle]

I agree that SRM damage is too low. It can be pretty difficult to get into proper range to do damage with an srm without being destroyed or made useless. I use a variety of mechs, but mediums to me are lots of fun. Those seem to be the srm carrier of choice because you need speed and agility to get into position to deliver your payload, and that can be difficult as it requires patience, timing, cover and support.

[Corvus Antaka]

I'd say possibly bump SRMS to 2.0 damage. however, more at issue is that brawling guns like the ac/20 and ac/10 are really under-par to the big alphas, and once this issue is resolved the srm will be better as a sumplementary to these guns.

still, right now almost every mech I have runs the SSM2 over any SRM, and thats a bad sign in terms of weapon effectiveness and is totaly brought on bby the fact that with BAP the SSRM2 remains significantly more useful than any SRM in pretty much every situation.

[Praehotec8]

Metafox, on 05 June 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

SRMs have been working pretty well for me since the patch. I was doing 4-mans in a CN9-A and I was doing pretty decent damage with 3 ASRM6 and 3 tons of ammo (and 2 MLs of course). Currently, SRMs are much more accurate and much more viable for medium range engagements, but they don't melt armor like they used to.

SRMs lack the ability to reliably target a specific component so you probably wouldn't do well with a team of 8 SRM boats. In the past, SRMs would do so much damage that it didn't matter if you couldn't hit a specific spot, they'd core just everything at once. Right now, SRMs are great for softening a target up, but you'll probably need a balanced team to help focus specific components and finish them off.

I think we're really saying the same thing, but have different expectations for SRMs. For starters, I would consider 270m to be the very inner part of "medium range" (hence SHORT range missile). Second, SRMs aren't useless currently. They just seem more useful for "softening armor" as you say. Many of us, especially in PUGs, would like SRMs to be a significant short-range threat, particularly given that you need to be at short range for any use from them.

Look at it this way, currently at 1.5dmg/missile, an SRM-6 launcher with artemis and a ton of ammo is 5 tons weight, for 9 damage, and 4 heat, plus the damage cannot be concentrated. A large laser is 4 tons, does 9 damage, and has a range of 450m+ for 7 heat, and can be at least somewhat focused on a component. Assuming one can manage their heat, by the time the SRM user has closed with the LL user, guess who likely will already have the advantage?

I don't think we're arguing they are useless, but they ought to be MORE useful. Right now, it's usually more useful to take a LL, and then bring streaks to finish off what's left when you close to short range (3 damage for 2 heat and 2.5 tons with ammo).

[Mr 144]

Praehotec8, on 05 June 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

Damage on SRMs is too low. I changed from 2X aSRM-6 and 2X aSRM-4 to 4X SSRM-2 on my A-1, and my damage output has nearly doubled with less effort with aiming...

Yep...100% agreed.

Forumites have told me I'm nuts...L2P...etc, but since the great missile nerf, SSRM2 > ASRM6 in practice. I've done extensive comparisons ranging from mediums...to fast heavies...to slow assaults...and every single iteration, Streaks are superior to SRMs per hardpoint...and that ain't right.

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 05 June 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

I'd say possibly bump SRMS to 2.0 damage. however, more at issue is that brawling guns like the ac/20 and ac/10 are really under-par to the big alphas, and once this issue is resolved the srm will be better as a sumplementary to these guns.

still, right now almost every mech I have runs the SSM2 over any SRM, and thats a bad sign in terms of weapon effectiveness and is totaly brought on bby the fact that with BAP the SSRM2 remains significantly more useful than any SRM in pretty much every situation.

I would stay below 2.0. Otherwise somewhat agree. In addition the new flight path without Artemis is too good in my opinion. Not enough advantage giving up 3 tons + slots for Artemis. Tonnage/damagewise BAP (also hard counter for ECM, which is stupid btw) + SSRM2 is the way to go. I'd say loosen spread and speed on SSRM.

[Vercinaigh]

BlackDrakon, on 05 June 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

We had to test the SRM's, it was more likely a 535 tons of death, lol. And believe me, we are successfull with most of our drops, we have a very high win percentage with my banner around 82% and is not using 8 atlas that we succeed.

Back to the topic, I do think that the flightpath is still broken, is way better than before the patch, but I think the way they were a month ago was very nice. Having Artemis make them circle in a very nice way doing more pinpoint damage, and if you were not using Artemis, they used to fly straight but in a way better group.

Since (IMO) the flightpath is determined by LRM's (everything they do to LRM's screw up SRM's), I do think that the damage buff is the more realistic thing to ask for them to add, because I dont really think that they can fix SRM flightpath without touching LRM's.

I know what ya drop mate drop against you dozens and dozens of times a week But yes they need more damage, otherwise better than they have been, flight wise.

For the record I only keep calling you out because you do drop super ultra heavy and you don't play in any leagues, makes 8 mans stale playing against super tonnage, hard to practice anything in 8mans when everyone runs 6+ assaults

Edited by Vercinaigh, 06 June 2013 - 01:23 AM.

[Mr 144]

Mr 144, on 05 June 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

Yep...100% agreed.

Forumites have told me I'm nuts...L2P...etc, but since the great missile nerf, SSRM2 > ASRM6 in practice. I've done extensive comparisons ranging from mediums...to fast heavies...to slow assaults...and every single iteration, Streaks are superior to SRMs per hardpoint...and that ain't right.

Yes, I'm quoting myself...get over it

Just to establish the timeline here....I started tracking matches wih the release of the Jagermech...~one week after the first missile nerf. 2xUAC+4xSRM6 shoulda been a beast, but 2xUAC+4xSSRM2 worked far, far better in practice. Mind you, this was before the BAP buff (or Seismic)...now there's no contest.

Highlander 733....
Gauss+2xERPPC+4xSSRM2+BAP
is far superior to...
Gauss+2xERPPC+4xSRM4
for ~equivalent tonnage...

All the way to the A1...I can't think of a scenario where SRMs are superior to Streaks in practice. Please, Please, Please, seperate the two into seperate damages. Streaks at 1.5 is OK....SRMs at 1.5 is a total waste of tonnage/crits/heat for any educated mechanic.

Edited by Mr 144, 06 June 2013 - 01:25 AM.

[TexAce]

2.0 damage (up from 1.5 per missile) would do it for me.

My 8R Awesome with 4SRM6s with Artemis is a good measurement tool. The spread is really good with artemis, they just still lack some punch.

The spread is so tight with artemis, I managed to shoot a dragons back side torso with all 4 racks from about 170-200 meters away and destroy it. I think thats the sweet spot where they are the tightest.

1.8 damage would also be good for the beginning. 2.0 could be too much or make them the go-to weapon.

Edited by TexAss, 06 June 2013 - 01:34 AM.

[Noesis]

aniviron, on 05 June 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

I'm also curious why it is that it's unacceptable for a mech boating 6 srm6 to be effective in its range bracket, but it's totally okay for a stalker to roll out with 6 ppcs and be equally effective.

Except that the Heat scale initiative I mentioned is intended to help penalise this kind of of specific Mech use with boated PPCs and helping to make that kind of build unpopular to use due to the poor heat management likely to be introduced with its application. Hence the Stalker will be brought more into line with the Splat Cat as is now and not the other way around so we don't end up with lots of cheesy builds on the field.

Edited by Noesis, 06 June 2013 - 04:32 AM.

[Zyllos]

I agree with most here in stating that SRMs need to be brought back to 2.0 damage.

For those afraid of the large SRM strikes, that is what ripple fire would fix. If SRMs fired every 0.1s until every tube has fired, then waits 0.5s, then fires again, until all missiles have fired based on what missiles where triggered by the user.

Think of the Splatcat, CPLT-A1. The thing has 15 physical missile slots in each pod. Considering it has 3 Missile Hardpoints, then only 15 SRMs can be fired then a wait to continue firing the rest of the SRMs.

From one pod, meaning it will ripple fire a SRM every 0.1s, until the launcher has completely fired, wait 0.5s, then continue rippling, repeating the process until all missiles have fired.

18 SRMs - 15, that means 15 shots then 3. So, when fired, a SRM is fired then 14 more will follow, in 0.1s increments. That means the launcher will take a total of 1.4s to empty. Then, the launcher has to reload, waiting 0.5s, then begin firing again, for 0.2s, to finish off the 3 more SRMs.

So the grand total firing time of 18 SRMs from a 15 missile launcher is 1.4s + 0.5s + 0.2s = 2.1s. That would make boating all those SRMs very hard to empty all the shots immediately at a target.

A simple SRM/6 would only take 0.5s to fire off all the shots. SRM/2 would be 0.1s, basically instantly.

A SRM/6 firing from a 4 missile pod (Pretty Baby missile arm), would take 0.3s + 0.5s + 0.1s, or 0.9s.

That would fix the alpha striking issues that anyone would have with SRMs when they increase damage. It would also require more aiming to get the missiles to land.

LRMs would also follow the same firing pattern, expect each ripple fire would fire 5 LRMs.

For players who can chain fire quickly, a launcher goes into the 0.5s reload time after a launcher has fired. So the Atlas, if it fires an SRM/6, the 6 missile launcher would go into the 0.5s reload timer. So the Atlas could fire LRMs during the reload timer and not have an issue but could not rapidly fire SRMs due to a single SRM launcher. So if you actually did fire them quickly (either by chain fire or group fire), they are just placed into the queue to continue firing.

[armyof1]

Stream fire of SRMs is just a horrible nerf no matter how you look at it. Slow travel speed, spread damage, 270m max range and now we should have to track with it like a laser, and track it with leading the shot too due to the travel time? That would make it by far the hardest weapon to use, no thanks.

Edited by armyof1, 06 June 2013 - 06:58 AM.

[NRP]

Yeah, I ran my PB last night to check out SRMs. The spread is better, but the damage is still far too low. I brawled a Highlander on Frozen City for what seemed like an eternity. I went through 3T of SRM6 ammo and blew off both his arms and pretty much stripped his CT armor, but I couldn't finish him because I ran out of ammo. A teammate came late to the party and finished him, after I did all the hard work. This is still not acceptable. In months past, 3-4 SRM6 volleys combined with my 2 LL+ML fire would have downed this dude.

Packing SRMs still involves too much risk and not enough reward.

[BillyM]

I have been running my 4sp and SRMcat recently, and can agree that damage is a tad low for competitive viability.

...but want them adjusted little-by-little. lets try 1.9 next, then maybe 2.1 (where I think the sweet-spot will be, honestly).

--billyM

[Wreknar Temper]

Most of the responses echo my sentiment as well. SRM grouping buff was exceptionally helpful (I can actually hit a full SRM 6 spread at 200m now), but after playing with it for the last two nights, the damage is still anemic. Snipers and LRM boats should be $#!%ing themselves if I manage to get my SplatCat or 733C Brawler in range. More often than not, I simply do not have the output to punish an out of position sniper before his buddies have time to come and support him.

I understand that a buff for SRM would probably equate to a SSRM buff, which is unneeded. So the first step would be to decouple the two. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the SSRM should have less punch than the SRM due to sacrificing ordnance for guidance. Add in that we get the same rounds per ton of ammo for both SRM and SSRM that equates nicely as well. Once that's done, then beef up the SRM to at least 2.0 per missile. Ideally, before the splash damage debacle, SRMs hit at 2.5 which weren't really wasn't that big deal at the time. But in the interest of baby steps starting at 2.0 per missile once the decouple is done would definitely be a good approach to balance.

[Zyllos]

armyof1, on 06 June 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

Stream fire of SRMs is just a horrible nerf no matter how you look at it. Slow travel speed, spread damage, 270m max range and now we should have to track with it like a laser, and track it with leading the shot too due to the travel time? That would make it by far the hardest weapon to use, no thanks.

Well, I think that is a good sacrfice if you want more damage. Because if you add more damage, boats of SRMs will just come back in a big way.

Plus, if you use only one or two SRM launchers, you basically only have to aim for 0.5s or so. The ripple fire is there to keep SRM boats in check, making them having to aim for longer to get a major use out of all the boated weapons they used.

This also adds more spread, which is a good thing, even if many players think it's not. That is why Mediums are so under utilized and PPC, ERPPC, and Large Laser boats are so much better than most mechs due to weapons damage being considered "duck taped" together when fired.

Wreknar Temper, on 06 June 2013 - 07:55 AM, said:

I understand that a buff for SRM would probably equate to a SSRM buff, which is unneeded. So the first step would be to decouple the two.

They should be decoupled by DPS, not by straight damage.

SSRMs should be good for burst damage while SRMs should be good at DPS, with higher RoF.

But I would need to see how SSRMs function with correct spread (not hitting the CT so much), thus might be more suspectable to lower up front damage over regular SRMs.

Edited by Zyllos, 06 June 2013 - 08:22 AM.