1084 replies to this topic

[CDLord HHGD]

My biggest concern with bumping SRM damage lies in the future. What's gonna happen when SSRM4 and SSRM6 systems hit? While 2.0 damage is TT and worth supporting, any more is too much, especially with the boating. 3x SRM6's still hurt. Add streak to that and they'll be game breaking IMO.

[General Taskeen]

Kyocera, on 12 July 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

By forcing you out of alphas and into controlled or chain firing

Keep in mind the group itself is already useless with an arbitrary 0.5 second delay built in (hence why people use macro's to circumvent the delay for a 'true' group fire), which leads me to believe group firing is going to stay the way it is. Mind Boggled.

Edited by General Taskeen, 12 July 2013 - 06:13 AM.

[3rdworld]

cdlord, on 12 July 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

My biggest concern with bumping SRM damage lies in the future. What's gonna happen when SSRM4 and SSRM6 systems hit? While 2.0 damage is TT and worth supporting, any more is too much, especially with the boating. 3x SRM6's still hurt. Add streak to that and they'll be game breaking IMO.

Why use streaks? Clan LRMs have no min range. Might as well be shooting a LRM 20 at them.

[General Taskeen]

MustrumRidcully, on 12 July 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

Funny thing just comes to my mind.

Why didn't they go with a lower heat capacity? Because it would also affect other mech that weren't a problem.
Now we get a heat penalty system... and it affects other mechs that weren't a problem.

And unlike the "lower the heat cap" fraction's idea, this doesn't come even with something compensating. The "lower the heat cap" faction idea also is the "increase heat dissipation".

Though of course, the problem would still remain - precisely applied large damage quantities via boating. It's just that most builds like this are heat-limited. But not all are. Like Gauss-based builds. And does this heat penalty system affect the Gauss?
Nope.

Which is why it is essential to revolutionize what has already worked with 'fixed heat thresholds' in other Mech titles and include new changes. A fixed heat threshold also does not automatically mean 30 or 60 fixed like TT.

For example, if the 'heat cap' concept is multiplied 4 times to a fixed point along with all weapon heat levels (while obviously increasing SHS/DHS disappation), it also opens the way for even more fun things like manufacturer type weapons where something might do a little more damage or range for a little more heat, or less heat in the opposite way, etc.

But the main idea is to adapt what worked and expand it. High heat causing the entire hud and crosshair to distort (reduces situational awareness), slowing the convergence down mid-high heat by a percentage, etc., There are many ways to expand upon it.

[Reptilizer]

Victor Morson, on 12 July 2013 - 01:06 AM, said:

I officially give up. I can't believe you guys are going on with the with this heat system. Literally everyone has told you it's stupid. Everyone has told you why it's stupid. At great lengths, it gets brought up every time an example of "stupid PGI decision making" comes up.

*snip*

No, come on. Let them do this. As fast as possible actually. All is fine.
It will not change the meta however.
But at least it IS a change. They are doing at least SOMETHING.
Yes, they will realize it does not work as they intended and yes, they will have to go back to the drawing board. And perhaps, some bright day in the far future they will realize it might have been a good idea to listen to the hardcore players. But if this day ever comes or not, at least something is moving again! Hooray for ANYTHING happening!

I seriously feared they all died in a fire. Or were bought by EA.

Not that anybody on the forums ever would have wished something like that

[General Taskeen]

cdlord, on 12 July 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

My biggest concern with bumping SRM damage lies in the future. What's gonna happen when SSRM4 and SSRM6 systems hit? While 2.0 damage is TT and worth supporting, any more is too much, especially with the boating. 3x SRM6's still hurt. Add streak to that and they'll be game breaking IMO.

Then why don't they do what worked in other Mech titles? Its literally so simple it is mind boggling -> Making missiles have agility and max turn angles. In MW:LL for instance, you aren't always guaranteed to make your SSRMs hit unless you are good at lead firing them and know when to fire them to account for how fast the missiles turn. Which is essentially introducing skill factor to use them.

Edited by General Taskeen, 12 July 2013 - 06:25 AM.

[Nulnoil]

cdlord, on 12 July 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

What's gonna happen when SSRM4 and SSRM6 systems hit?

Unfortunately, its a more than half year before clans will arrive and there is no guarantees that they will not say something like "Hey! we don't need clans as playable factions because of balance breaking. C'mon guys! Here another pack of unseens, forgot about clans!"

Edited by Daumantas Galland, 12 July 2013 - 06:31 AM.

[Aim64C]

Victor Morson, on 12 July 2013 - 02:37 AM, said:

"It's a beta!" won't be an excuse for much longer and much of this they could have fixed months ago. Which leads to the frightening conclusion that they don't want to admit much if it is broken in the first place. Otherwise we'd be seeing some other changes in this "aggressive" patch. Ho-hum half-buffed SRMs could have at least come with a half hearted attempt to stop kicking the Large Pulse Laser.

I'm, honestly, shocked that they are out of closed beta, still. They weren't ready to make that transition. Or, at least, not half as ready as they thought they were.

The other thing they don't seem to grasp is that they're being given a -lot- of lee-way amongst game reviews and critics because no self-respecting person with a strong presence in the review/critic community publishes their opinions of a beta outside of: "Has potential."

Once that beta tag is dropped.... it will be interesting to see how the tone changes.

The reviewers that pick it up and play it for a few hours before writing their review might see it in a favorable light - it's a game that has a lot of potential and is fundamentally different from other online smash-em-ups. Component destruction, alone, (assuming that doesn't get worked out of the game by those in charge of balance... more to follow on that point) will be enough to keep the simpletons amazed for a couple days.

Those that actually play it for a while will start to get a different flavor in their mouth.

Mudhutwarrior, on 12 July 2013 - 03:46 AM, said:

It would be nice if those of us who don't have a PHD in mechwarriors could understand what to do in builds. All this crap on top of all the other crap works fine for the few that know this game intimately but for the rest of us were screwed.

PGi is just proving that they cant see the forest for the trees. No one wants to invest in such a steep learning curve except the geeks who are into that.

That's part of the problem. Systems like these, even when players know about them, are convoluted and weird.

When players aren't aware of them, the turn the experience into some kind of voodoo experience. As one review of Window* Eight put it: "You're trying to browse the internet for some research, and all of a sudden a goblin pops up and farts in your face." - From the user's standpoint, these types of systems don't generate anything resembling consistent behavior. Even if they are of rational minds and know that the computer must be pulling its instructions from somewhere - the criteria that led their weapons to, suddenly, generate enough heat that they are now taking damage (in a stock build) just doesn't 'click.'

You fire one weapon. Good. Two weapons. Good. Three, and you might notice the shift. Four... "Wait... what the hell? Why'd I esplode?"

OriginalTibs, on 12 July 2013 - 04:57 AM, said:

I think it is a case where the genie looks down from the glowing cloud from the ancient brass lamp peering soberly into your eyes with a hint of perplexed disbelief, fully aware of something you hadn't adequately realized, and asking you 'Are you absolutely sure you want everything you touch turning to gold?'

You know - that is, actually, how I saw that.

I voted against buffing SRM damage. Hit detection is bugged and Paul flat-out said: "This is going to be bad news for heavies and assaults."

Which - it's not like those chassis are endangered species on the battlefield, or anything, but it's not really going to help things to have SRM damage go back up to auto-coring glory when hit detection is in the pooper, still.

Granted - I would rather deal with splatcats and multi-streak lights than with an ocean of Gauss-PPC highlanders... but that is really only going to succeed in fueling the see-sawing of the forums. "ZOMG I was auto-cored by a Raven running away from my 35-point alpha!"

Kyocera, on 12 July 2013 - 05:09 AM, said:

Many of you complaining about the 4P(C) and the alpha penalties are simply clueless and pathetic. You obviously don't have the skill to chain fire and hold the reticle on target, or even build an efficient mech for that matter. You've relied on high pinpoint alphas for so long you just don't have a clue.

Because the only reason I should ever be upset about a system that is implemented is because it affects the way I play the game?

Most of my builds are completely unaffected by this. The only one is my 4 Large Laser BlackJack - which can just as easily be swapped out for a PPC (or a PPC with two large lasers). Normally, I don't alpha unless I'm dealing with an emergency situation - and even that is often enough (at that time) that I'm going to overheat (so I try to make it worth a component destruction or outright kill). Typically, It's a 2-by-2 chain-fired attack.

Quote

So all you need to do is adapt your firing pattern and you'll actually find yourself doing better with less HPS and more sustained DPS over time.

So now it's my turn to say "adapt or die" like the PPCwarriors say to us none PPC adopters. Unfortunately I've already adapted and have been for some time, playing the game how it should be played.

You're not playing the game in a smart manner.

Smart warriors go for quick, efficient kills. Lasers waste damage by dumping it into armor that protects components you have no interest in destroying. Chain firing when you can dump 150% more damage into a single component and destroy it before it gets the opportunity to apply more damage to your team is just not how you kill and move on to the next efficiently.

I've said it before - even a 20% increase in DPS is relatively useless when dealing with a seasoned MechWarrior who will make sure only 35% of your damage goes where you want that over-time damage applied.

Eldragon, on 12 July 2013 - 05:19 AM, said:

Wrong. Wrong on so many levels it is hilarious.
First, this isn't table top. Get that idea out of your head right now. The armor values in this game need to reflect those needed for a first person shooter where even the worst player hits what he is aiming at 80% of the time.

Second. The lack of DPS is actually the problem. High Alpha mechs do very good burst damage for about 12 seconds. Then their DPS drops to nothing because they need to cool down. Mechs like Triple UAC5 actually have much higher DPS than the classic 3xPPC+Gauss mech after 12 seconds.

High Alpha mechs cannot maintain their DPS for very long. They begin to overhead after 3-4 alpha-strikes. They succeed by killing their target faster than the target can close the distance into brawling range. If the brawling weapons were not total garbage, and mechs had more armor/internals, brawling mechs could survive closing the distance into brawling range and simply out-DPS the bust damage boats.

See above. DPS is a useless metric.

Lower heat capacities on a number of chassis (with higher heat dissipation) made it so that alpha-strikes were far more punishing for many mechs. By shifting the game toward higher heat capacity and lower dissipation - the high-damage alphas revolving around energy weapons (which are a dime a dozen on a number of chassis) that are light, compact, and offer the best damage/weight ratios in the game are going to swamp a system where the goal is to bust open a section of the piñata to get the juicy internals.

Following your mentality - component destruction is on the list of features to put on the chopping block. MechAssault was an enjoyable third person shooter (though many hated it because it was a relatively passing nod at MechWarrior and battletech). Which is where this game is headed.

"Brawling" in this game (even in tabletop) has never really been about longevity outside of assault mechs. Any player with an ounce of tactical sense knows to focus fire and drop opponents quickly. Block as many incoming routes of fire as you can while converging your own field of fire with that of your team upon a mech (Or, really, you can break it up by lance - a team of eight can effectively focus fire on two targets at once - there's a depreciating return - having all eight mechs dump ammo into the same target that is likely going to wither in the same amount of time under half that amount of firepower is just silly).

The idea that you lumber in with your Atlas and tank a whole mob of enemies like you're in WoW is just silly. Yeah - the Atlas is supposed to be able to take a hell of a beating, and it is supposed to form a serious part of your team's lines - but precise fire from a team can bring it down in nothing flat. Each turn in battletech is ten seconds - and I can guarantee you that eight-on-eight mech battles in tabletop can see mechs shredding the toughest among them within a ten second round.

Tarzilman, on 12 July 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

What really sucks in this game is the stupid kindergarden community. Now I see, some of your aren't really pissed of because of the new heat penalty. You are pissed of, because PGI didn't use your OWN ideas, you spent so much time for writing them down in several threads.
You all should read Paul's announcement again and read it closely, every single word again. It's a process. The problem will not be done with the next Patch.
Now **** and play the game or PLEASE uninstall it and never come back. It's so annoying to read all your baby-cries in this thread...

Perhaps you should read what people are saying, rather than being dense about it.

The system does nothing to curb what Paul is trying to say it will help fix. It doesn't even begin to set the foundation for it.

Not to mention, even if it did, plenty have explained how it's an absolutely horrible and convoluted system that does nothing but frustrate players who do not get into the min/max routine. They're playing around, and then all of a sudden weapons take an inexplicable and radical departure from their 'usual' behavior. They don't run macros and they misjudge their timing and suddenly they're not just shutting down - they're also taking damage (because... the mech is shutting down, why, again? To protect it from damage? It's taking damage at the threshold it uses to shut down... so why can't I just turn that off so I don't have to mash the over-ride key to avoid being penalized for not being proficient in its use?)

Further - some weapons are subjected to the treatment while others are not. Pulse lasers seem to be exempt entirely - unless those are supposed to be worked in similar to lasers. Though I could see that they think it's 'balanced' because "pulse lasers are designed for that, hence the weight and higher heat they generate naturally" ... but... whatever.

The route PGI is going with this game, the only way to "balance" the weapons is going to be to remove component destruction. You'll simply get a re-hashed mech-assault.

Hit detection will be better, missile homing behavior will be better, alphas will be less important than DPS. It will be every other shooter out there with a mecha theme.

[NRP]

Okay, I'll repost my question from the closed thread:

Why does firing 3 LLs (27 dmg) incur a heat penalty but firing 6 MLs (30 dmg) does not?

[Jakob Knight]

Taren Avalis, on 12 July 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

You used a lot of words there to say you don't like the idea of a company trying to balance its game. They put a system in place. They're changing it because people abused it. If the changes don't work - we're still in Beta. They can change it again. I have yet to play an online game that was perfectly balanced. They can't control things like what mouse you choose to use, or who has a faster computer or internet connection, and never will be able to.

Like it or not, no online game will ever be balanced.

That being said, I'd rather see other weapon damage reduced than SRM's raised to two. I don't care what the TT values are, it's too easy to die in this game right now as is, especially if you're in an assault mech. You're just adding one more way to blow away a big target in a few shots, by buffing a weapon with low weight requirements that's easily carried in multiples on any size mech.

I would question how people using the design rules as they were implemented and without getting around any limitations are abusing anything. They made configurations that did the job better than others in the environment the game provides. That isn't abuse unless you think being successful is wrong (and there are those in the world who see things that way). And, I am not entirely against limitations, though I think we have enough as it is. What I am against are imposing limitations purely to curb valid success in the game, that are not balanced across the same weapon effects, and are thus unjustified. Until an AC/10 has the same limitations as a PPC in regards to the proposed changes, it cannot be said to be balanced (both weapons already have tradeoffs vrs each other, yet apparently the PPC does too much damage while the AC/10 is okay). And by limitations I mean actual restrictions....saying heat output is doubled on a PPC does not translate to an identical penalty when the heat is doubled on an AC/10, so is not the same penalty.

As to no game being balanced, this is a concept I understand, but is at odds with the current reasons behind the changes. The weapons in the game are already set up with strengths and weaknesses, but these are being changed purely in order to remove configurations that have proved more successful than others. There is no other reason for it. Do the Devs have the right to do so? Of course, it's their product. Are they right to do so? Not in my understanding of what is right and wrong. I was always raised with the concept of fairness, and that doesn't mean chopping off the knees of the winner in a contest because they played the game better (and yes, configuration selection is part of the skill involved in this game).

As to being too easy to die, I would submit that this is a problem with the pilot, not the mech. I survive quite a while on the battlefield in whatever mech I end up in unless I get into a situation where I -should- die fast. Maybe if you are treating MWO like rock-em-sock-em-robots, you'll die fast, but not if you react to the situation and know your unit's limitations and strengths. Indeed, all these changes will do is make those same large targets unable to have the frightening damage output that is supposed to keep other mechs from having the time to kill them...precisely because they are the ones with the tonnage, ammunition, and heat sinks to mount such increadible alpha capability.

I will adapt to any changes in the game, and -still- win because I don't rely on the game to provide me my advantages. The question is, as I stated many times in the ECM debate, if I should be required to do so in this way. Right now, it seems to me the reasons for this are completely contradicted by the actual implementation, and thus I should not.

To sum up in smaller words, this change is being made to undercut success and reward failure, make the battlemechs as designed originally penalized, and being done specifically against some weapons while leaving identical weapons of another type unhindered. For these reasons, I call these changes wrong.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 12 July 2013 - 06:47 AM.

[Ozric]

There is nothing wrong with 2xERPPC, 1 Gauss builds, there never was. It's been a synergistic combination for snipers for years before MWO, and as ever the best counter to it is simply positioning. It's certainly looking like the new boating tweaks will make this an optimal loadout again, but it always was, and if a 35 point alpha seems OP to you then honestly you may be beyond help.

This whole argument is exactly like the idiocy that went around in early beta about LRM's. Most of QQ came from people who just didn't understand how to avoid them (which contrary to common belief was never impossible), and the rest from people that just didn't like them. This whole convergence nonsense just smacks of angry brawlers desperate to be able to get away with running over the ridge in frozen city again. High alpha damage is a problem being addressed, but 35 points is still too much? come on guys.

The Brawling game is weak right now, we all know that, but with SRM changes inbound and the insanity that is 12vs12 coordinated brawling already looks like the new game in town.

[Deathlike]

Aim64C, on 12 July 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

Perhaps you should read what people are saying, rather than being dense about it.

The system does nothing to curb what Paul is trying to say it will help fix. It doesn't even begin to set the foundation for it.

Not to mention, even if it did, plenty have explained how it's an absolutely horrible and convoluted system that does nothing but frustrate players who do not get into the min/max routine. They're playing around, and then all of a sudden weapons take an inexplicable and radical departure from their 'usual' behavior. They don't run macros and they misjudge their timing and suddenly they're not just shutting down - they're also taking damage (because... the mech is shutting down, why, again? To protect it from damage? It's taking damage at the threshold it uses to shut down... so why can't I just turn that off so I don't have to mash the over-ride key to avoid being penalized for not being proficient in its use?)

I'm a habitual min/max player that still has to test out builds... and buffing the min/max warrior indirectly is not necessarily a good thing. There is a reason why franken-builds are not as successful as something that was designed well and fully thought out.

NRP, on 12 July 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

Okay, I'll repost my question from the closed thread:

Why does firing 3 LLs (27 dmg) incur a heat penalty but firing 6 MLs (30 dmg) does not?

The obvious answer to that is "because reasons".

Sad, but true.

Edited by Deathlike, 12 July 2013 - 06:45 AM.

[Xerkics]

NRP, on 12 July 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

Okay, I'll repost my question from the closed thread:

Why does firing 3 LLs (27 dmg) incur a heat penalty but firing 6 MLs (30 dmg) does not?

More range?

[Ozric]

NRP, on 12 July 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

Okay, I'll repost my question from the closed thread:

Why does firing 3 LLs (27 dmg) incur a heat penalty but firing 6 MLs (30 dmg) does not?

That's a valid point, I think it's a little off myself. I also think that the whole system will of course be tweaked further, and increasing the number of LLAS you can fire at once is sure (in my opinion) to be one of the first things changed.

[Desdain]

PEEFsmash, on 11 July 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

Firing 6 MLs DOES incurr extra heat penalty on Test Server. I might have been wrong about it happening at 4. Here is proof that shooting 6MLs, (not OVER 6, but exactly 6) incurs extra heat.

Test Server Cold Map: 39% http://www.twitch.tv...smash/c/2560918

Normal Server Neutral Heat Map same build: 31% http://www.twitch.tv...smash/c/2560957

This is a huge deal. They claimed there were no heat changes on the test server. While I suppose they don't technically have to be honest with us, it means they either aren't being honest (which is bad) or they have no control over what they are releasing (which is worse?).

[Jakob Knight]

Xerkics, on 12 July 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

More range?

If you look at the difference between the Large Laser and Medium Laser, range is the single most important reason to use a Large Laser and the reason it exists. So, yeah, it's a very valid reason.

[Aim64C]

Kyocera, on 12 July 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

Ok I'll forget all about my 2.5 k/d Highlander (which was as high as 3.0 at one time) with which I've stuck with that same 1x gauss 3x LL configuration since buying it. It's the mech I have most success in and I have a range of mechs including high alphas, boats and an AC/40 Jager (my 2nd highest k/d).

Big deal. I've got that K/D ratio in my Jenner 7F. Which has been run with medium lasers and small pulse lasers.

That must mean my points are just as valid as yours. If not more so considering "lights are a rare thing, these days."

Quote

By forcing you out of alphas and into controlled or chain firing, it also has the added effect of nerfing convergence in a sense unless your target is stationary. If they're stationary then that's entirely their own fault.

It, honestly doesn't affect most of us.

0.5 seconds is not a very long cool-down, at all - though about a full second is average for re-setting your target after firing.

The only time most skilled players alpha is when a target is standing still or on a flat approach that almost guarantees all of their shots will hit. Else they'll usually stagger their intervals because misses do happen (and it's better to have the opportunity to fire again at the same or a different target than it is to be suffering the heat of 100% of your arsenal).

Quote

I'm honestly at a loss to understand why this alpha heat penalty should be a problem for anyone, seeing as you're all so smart to be able to "adapt" to changing game conditions. For the first time in a very long while I'm with PGI on this one.

That's the thing. A lot of us don't CARE about how it affects us. We are killers, and that's what we'll do in any system. We'll work out what the most efficient way is to get the result we want (killing things) and do it.

Unless it's so easy that it's boring (part of the reason I don't play PPCs and have fun tearing up teams in a Blackjack with 2 AC5s). Then people go find something else to do. If there's nothing else in your game to enjoy - they'll go find some other game or find something productive to do with their time (and wouldn't that be a damned shame).

What we're worried about is how it's actually going to affect the game as a whole. How it implements arbitrary and senseless penalties that just make no sense.

They didn't want an "infinite mechlab" BECAUSE OF THIS VERY ISSUE WITH 'BOATING' OF HIGH ALPHA WEAPONS. That is -WHY- hard-points were instated.

That is why they absolutely refuse to release an assault with a ballistic hardpoint in each torso or one in each arm. "Gauss rifles are overpowered" - even though the most extreme of cases allows you to put 4 on a mech (for a grand total of a 60 point alpha that is going to be running out of slots to use for ammo and is going to weigh in at 60 tons of weaponry, as well).

But because of the way they wonked with heat and because they implemented the PPC the same as every other MechWarrior game has implemented it (as an energy autocannon... which EVERY MechWarrior game has had difficulty properly balancing), and because there's no reason -not- to upgrade that Large Laser to a PPC, or that bank of 3 medium lasers to 3 PPCs... you have a huge issue with high-alpha damage from weapons that -should- be balanced by the heat they generate, but aren't. Weapons like the Gauss Rifle and Autocannon series have severe size and ammunition costs that realistically restrict the amount of damage that can be inflicted (and with doubled armor values - most weapons that can be 'boated' in pairs are as effective as a single successful hit in tabletop).

That's why the PPC is favored for boating. 10 insta-damage, it circumvents the restrictions of the mechlab (because mechs must have energy hardpoints to mount their two token medium lasers that instantly become a 20-point damage delivery system), the heat system means you can often destroy whatever the heck you're shooting at before overheating becomes a problem (which means your need to keep shooting, if you're not dumb and standing in the middle of a pile of enemies, is also gone... which means heat inefficiency is not a huge problem), and you can pile the things on two-for-one with similarly performing ballistics. And you don't have ammunition to worry about.

That's why the PPC is favored.

Why is boating favored? Because it maximizes your performance ranges. It's less effective to be carrying around substantial tonnages of weapons that you cannot use on your target because it is out of range or within a minimum range. Focus fire - it's a standard tactical concept that should go hand-in-hand with breathing. There are exceptions to this (where you are designing a build to advance - such as a C1 - where LRMs expose internals for a bank of medium or medium pulse lasers to destroy) but for the most part, you build mechs to shoot into a given optimal range, and that is where you strive to be as a pilot. You can diversify a bit, and add a longer ranged punch to your arsenal or sacrifice a little range for better hitting power - but you're designing your mech to perform optimally within a certain range or when utilizing a certain class of strategies.

*sigh*

I'm beating a dead horse, here.

[Jakob Knight]

Note that none of the heat changes would have been necessary if the Devs hadn't shyed away from using the heat scale as originally designed because it would, ironically enough, limit gameplay. Having a marginal heat generation result in reduced speed, turning, increased cursor shake, or even ammunition detonation as heat built up always kept all but the most foolhardy players from ignoring heat in the original material, and having that shutdown at the top of the heat scale last a long time made pilots avoid shutdown like the plague.

However, because this is a video game and the devs didn't want to put brakes on the action, here we are. Putting more and more breaks on the action.

[Bagheera]

Tennex, on 11 July 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

Could always do this:

And while you are at it remove the problematic splash mechanic from them as well.

[VXJaeger]

If SRMs are buffed, I promise to drop (at least) one ER PPCs from my builds that are capable of carrying SRMs.