47 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

I don't have noticeable problems hitting large 'mechs with SRMs either - I know it's an issue, but I've not found SRMs to be broken (i.e. unusable) when fighting non-lights.

[Wraith 1]

Short of an actual fix, I'd be happy if SRMs and SSRMs did the same damage per missile. No reason a tracking system should be more explosive than its own weight in actual explosives.

I wouldn't even care whether it was a SRM buff or a SSRM nerf, though it'd be nice if SRMs did a decent amount of damage that 75% of the time.

[Void Angel]

SRMs do a decent amount of damage. If they didn't spread quite so much they'd be utterly broken against anything but a light 'mech. The streak launcher buff was done for balance purposes, I'm sure - I suspect they do too much damage, but not because the damage/missile is different from SRMs. You have to be careful not to accidentally smuggle tabletop rules into your thinking: tabletop determines flavor and general capabilities, but the specific numbers always have to follow game balance.

[Asmosis]

Void Angel, on 10 December 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure they know about hit detection - also, SRMs are NOT broken except as a means of swatting lights. Particularly since they were buffed (hey, wasn't that a community-voted decision?) to compensate for the hit detection, they deal a lot of damage to larger targets. I use them whenever I can mount more than one on a short-range 'mech.

PS: PGI has told you over and over that the people who design 'mechs are a different department than the guys working hit detection - different resources are involved. Ignoring contrary data to accuse someone else of lying is an exercise in self-embarrassment and irony.

/unfollow

This is simply wrong. Point blank, ssrm2 deals the same damage as an atremis srm6, possibly more damage in most cases.

take 6srm6, run up to an atlas in a match and fire one volley dead center for 100% hit rate of 36 missiles. notice you only did 20 damage? nice.

[Void Angel]

If you would read instead of simply insisting on your opinion, you might have noticed that others do not have that experience. No one I've played with has had that experience, I haven't had it, and it'd be intermittent anyway. I have had SRMs occasionally fail to register, particularly on small targets - but their overall damage compensates for that effect on larger 'mechs. Your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is too stupid to notice that an SRM6 is only doing the three damage you claim is as arrogant as it is absurd.

[Kmieciu]

Void Angel, on 11 December 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

If you would read instead of simply insisting on your opinion, you might have noticed that others do not have that experience. No one I've played with has had that experience, I haven't had it, and it'd be intermittent anyway. I have had SRMs occasionally fail to register, particularly on small targets - but their overall damage compensates for that effect on larger 'mechs. Your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is too stupid to notice that an SRM6 is only doi
ng the three damage you claim is as arrogant as it is absurd.

Six SRM6 should inflict 72 points of damage. At point blank range you should be able to put all of them into the CT of an Atlas. Two salvos and the armor should be gone, even if the guy did put 124 points on the front. But this does not work on live server!

If the SRM was working as it should, you would often see Splatcats, since they would have the biggest close range alpha. On paper they do, but people did figure out that something is clearly not working.

Compare a streak car versus a splatcat and tell us how much damage can you score on average during a match.

[Ensaine]

SRM's are, and have been borked, for a good long while. This is why I have 4 mechs in by bay gathering dust, in the event that MAYBE, PGI will fix them, as I USED to have fun with them.

If they can step away from the next sale, that is....... % chances anyone?

[Modo44]

Asmosis, on 11 December 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

This is simply wrong. Point blank, ssrm2 deals the same damage as an atremis srm6, possibly more damage in most cases.

For you, maybe. For me, SRM18 on my D-DC is a hug of death.

[Void Angel]

Exactly. Splatcats don't work because of Heat Scale, autocannon campers, the pinpoint alpha meta, and sure, some hit detection thrown in there - primarily regarding lights and fast-moving 'mechs. But you can't just stamp your foot and say "this is broken!" when other people are telling you it works fine on larger 'mechs. There's a lot of other factors discouraging SRM boats, and disregarding contrary information is a great way to develop an invalid opinion.

[NuclearPanda]

Void Angel, on 12 December 2013 - 04:06 AM, said:

Exactly. Splatcats don't work because of Heat Scale, autocannon campers, the pinpoint alpha meta, and sure, some hit detection thrown in there - primarily regarding lights and fast-moving 'mechs. But you can't just stamp your foot and say "this is broken!" when other people are telling you it works fine on larger 'mechs. There's a lot of other factors discouraging SRM boats, and disregarding contrary information is a great way to develop an invalid opinion.

You're correct, but also please don't assume that some people AREN'T having intermittent issues with SRM usage also causing them to be less desireable weapons to use than other solutions. It even has been acknowledged by PGI. I stand by my figures of around 70-80% success with what "appears" to be a registered hit versus actual damage done (and yes, spread is taken into account).

There is absolutely no reason for me to really load up a Cat A-1 with 6xSRMs, when 6xSSRMs perform much better and more reliably (regardless of aim, mech size, etc).

[Doomstryke]

Void Angel, on 12 December 2013 - 04:06 AM, said:

Exactly. Splatcats don't work because of Heat Scale, autocannon campers, the pinpoint alpha meta, and sure, some hit detection thrown in there - primarily regarding lights and fast-moving 'mechs. But you can't just stamp your foot and say "this is broken!" when other people are telling you it works fine on larger 'mechs. There's a lot of other factors discouraging SRM boats, and disregarding contrary information is a great way to develop an invalid opinion.

Well the heat part doesn't really apply because its not to hard to do 3 and 3 .5 seconds behind. I forget since its been so long since i've used srms but it used to be the limit was 5 srm6s no heat 6 was heat penalty but even then it wasn't much. If they changed it since then I could be wrong but firing 3 from 1 ear and 3 from the other wasn't causing me any issues last time I used it. What did was unloading 3 salvos in the back of an atlas only to have the rear torso turn slightly yellow. (repeat with every mech class and see post by devs from long ago about the problem) We were told to expect a fix looong time ago that never showed up

[DeathlyEyes]

Mech hitboxes are the least of my concerns. My biggest problem with hit detection is invisible walls on maps. The worst map is Tourmaline Desert.

[Void Angel]

I'm not assuming that given people aren't having issues - I'm reasoning based on available data that it's not a widespread thing. If most people across the board. Sure, SRM hit detection is an issue, but 1) it's primarily affecting attacks v. light 'mechs; and 2) it's a lot like lag shields, where a small population reported having no problems at all - but the general population had a different experience. Since both issues seem affected by individual combinations of system/isp/ping/whoknowswhat, it's not accurate to say that "SRMs miss more than 30% of the time" - especially when you're being told by multiple people that this is not the case for them.

[Void Angel]

Doomstryke, on 12 December 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

Well the heat part doesn't really apply because its not to hard to do 3 and 3 .5 seconds behind. I forget since its been so long since i've used srms but it used to be the limit was 5 srm6s no heat 6 was heat penalty but even then it wasn't much. If they changed it since then I could be wrong but firing 3 from 1 ear and 3 from the other wasn't causing me any issues last time I used it. What did was unloading 3 salvos in the back of an atlas only to have the rear torso turn slightly yellow. (repeat with every mech class and see post by devs from long ago about the problem) We were told to expect a fix looong time ago that never showed up

It's 3 SRM6s before Heat Scaling kicks in - and that .5 second delay is rather important when you're considering a build that works by putting a large number of missiles on target. Having the delay allows them to spread damage, return fire more effectively, or twist away. But even if you're pounding on the rear of some newbie Atlas driver who thinks 48kph is fast enough because he's slow anyway... There's a lot of variables to consider. Many of those 48kph Atlas pilots put a full third of their armor allotment in their rear arcs - because they're too slow to effectively turn to face flank and rear threats. Then there's the variability of the problem, both by individual and by instance (each time you fire.) The question is not "does this sort of thing happen," because it obviously does. The question is: "does this sort of thing happen enough to generally offset the massive damage inflicted when hits do register?" The answer to that is "yes," for most players. Which is why this whine thread only has two pages after five days.

Yes, they know it's broken; no, they didn't promise to have it fixed by now; yes, they're still producing other parts of the game; no, that doesn't distract them from hit detection - it's a different kind of problem using different resources than map/mech development. It's just rather silly to post nag threads for an issue that everyone knows about and that PGI is working right now to fix.

Edited by Void Angel, 12 December 2013 - 07:09 PM.

[NuclearPanda]

Void Angel, on 12 December 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

It's just rather silly to post nag threads for an issue that everyone knows about and that PGI is working right now to fix.

Myself, and many others, don't consider this a "nag thread" though. That opinion of yours is a bit subjective.

Do SRMs do damage? Yes. I actually think they at the moment do too much damage..... WHEN they hit. This is why the topic title references "hit detection" for them.

It's pretty much like this as far as hit detection goes......

Edited by NuclearPanda, 13 December 2013 - 06:08 AM.

[White Panther]

Void Angel, on 12 December 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

Yes, they know it's broken; no, they didn't promise to have it fixed by now; yes, they're still producing other parts of the game; no, that doesn't distract them from hit detection - it's a different kind of problem using different resources than map/mech development. It's just rather silly to post nag threads for an issue that everyone knows about and that PGI is working right now to fix.

Says who? You? How about you link me to a thread where PGI has said they are working on hit detection. I can't seem to find any atm that isn't months old already. Perhaps that's one of the reasons this thread gets posted up.

[Void Angel]

No, the thread gets posted up because people pretend that constant complaints and nagging are effective ways of getting things done. That's what "still posting this every patch" means. All of the things in that quote have been in relatively recent announcements - and no, I'm not going to hold your hand and go look them up for you. You've already found some of them - and have apparently dismissed them because of the length of time the issue has been happening. It has been mentioned in various communications, but it's 1) not the only issue, although it is the most important, and 2) not something we can really expect updates on until they locate the problem and fix it. What are they going to tell us, other than "still looking; we're throwing everything we have at it."

Panda, my point stands: the question isn't "do they miss," it's "do they do enough damage to compensate for missing?" For most people they do. They still suck at killing lights - there, they are broken. But for general-purpose brawling, it's not an issue; like you pointed out, they do more damage than they should when they hit, and they fail enough to make it more or less balanced. It's not an optimal solution, but it is being worked on - with or without posting a thread every patch to nag them about a problem that has most of their engineering assets thrown at it already.

Edited by Void Angel, 13 December 2013 - 01:12 PM.

[White Panther]

If hit detection has been posted in the recent patch notes then please provide a link, as I can't find any (for quite some time). I already asked you too since you seem to misunderstand the meaning of "patch feedback". It really doesn't matter if the same problem occurs patch after patch, if it doesn't get fixed then feedback will be given. If this feedback concept is too much for you just let us all know please and get out of this topic. Did you also not understand when I asked for a recent post from PGI? I'm not referring to a post months ago (which I already explained). Is that all clear now or do you need some further explanation? I think an official posting months ago about this issue is a bit too long.

Edited by White Panther, 13 December 2013 - 11:29 PM.

[NuclearPanda]

Void Angel, on 13 December 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

No, the thread gets posted up because people pretend that constant complaints and nagging are effective ways of getting things done. That's what "still posting this every patch" means. All of the things in that quote have been in relatively recent announcements - and no, I'm not going to hold your hand and go look them up for you. You've already found some of them - and have apparently dismissed them because of the length of time the issue has been happening. It has been mentioned in various communications, but it's 1) not the only issue, although it is the most important, and 2) not something we can really expect updates on until they locate the problem and fix it. What are they going to tell us, other than "still looking; we're throwing everything we have at it."

Panda, my point stands: the question isn't "do they miss," it's "do they do enough damage to compensate for missing?" For most people they do. They still suck at killing lights - there, they are broken. But for general-purpose brawling, it's not an issue; like you pointed out, they do more damage than they should when they hit, and they fail enough to make it more or less balanced. It's not an optimal solution, but it is being worked on - with or without posting a thread every patch to nag them about a problem that has most of their engineering assets thrown at it already.

I don't really feel like arguing with you, and myself as well as others are not attempting to "nag".

To be honest, and you admit this, it is a hit detection issue as reference within the thread's title. If I point and shoot the damn missles and they CONNECT to the enemy they should do damage. No questions asked.

Lights, Mediums, Heavies, etc.

What I DO find however is that it is not simply just an issue with lights. If I'm unloading SRMs at optimal ranges, as it stands right now with current damage values they should be obliterating even Atlases. This isn't the case.

Are they doing damage? Sure, but they're not registering as they should be.

Lower the damage and fix hit registration. Most of us are sick of the band-aid fix of buffing damage rather than addressing the root cause. This is why this thread gets posted every patch. If you don't like it, then don't post here.

[Void Angel]

Since the alternative is deliberate obfuscation on your part, I'm going to assume that you simply have not understood what's been said up till now. I shall help you:

NuclearPanda, on 07 December 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

Please fix SRMs, specifically hit detection. These weapons have been broken for quite some time, even with Artemis equipped, and it makes them a poor choice for brawling currently. [emphasis added]

This bolded part of your statement is not an observation of fact about hit detection being broken; everyone agrees that hit detection isn't working right, including PGI. This is a conclusion that SRMs are broken as a brawling weapon - and this conclusion is eminently debatable.

Void Angel, on 10 December 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

SRMs are NOT broken except as a means of swatting lights.

This also, is not a denial of the fact that hit detection is broken - it is a counter-claim that hit detection has broken SRMs for killing lights, but not for brawling with larger enemies. Meaningless assertions that "they should be destroying Atlases" don't counteract this claim, or even address it. Please let me know if you actually have reasons for disagreeing with me, or if you need additional help catching up to this rather straightforward conversation.

NuclearPanda, on 14 December 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

Lower the damage and fix hit registration. Most of us are sick of the band-aid fix of buffing damage rather than addressing the root cause. This is why this thread gets posted every patch. If you don't like it, then don't post here.

It's amazing to me that you'd demand that PGI do exactly as they intend to do as though you're somehow offering an alternate solution from your standpoint of superior judgement. PGI is working on the issue; they know about the issue; they've explained that the buffed damage on SRMs is specifically a band-aid fix (voted in by the community, remember?) to fill the gap while they track down what was proving to be a tricky problem. So, "posting every patch" demanding a fix they're already working on, as if they were withholding a solution, is silly, possibly disingenuous - and certainly "nagging."

You're posting constantly, every time they patch and look for feedback on it, "until they get it fixed." That's nagging by definition: "to annoy by persistent faultfinding, complaints, or demands." You're not asking for an update on hit detection; you're pretending that they're not really trying to fix it, and "motivating" them by posting the same topic over, and over, and over. You can attempt to justify it if you wish, but you're not going to get away with arguing about the definition of the word "is" with me.

If you "don't like" to hear corrections to your erroneous claims, don't post them here.

/unfollow