32 replies to this topic

[LordBraxton]

Please hear me out.

I know we have all seen this thread before in some form, but there hasn't been one for a while and I'd rather not necro an old one.

SRMs have been underpowered for so long now that people have dumped them in the same category as flamers and machine guns in the sense that...

---We all know that SRMs are underpowered, and we honestly don't expect PGI to fix it so we gave up talking about it.

2.5 damage would be a start.

Even if hit detection is ever fixed, I doubt SRMs will ever be the center of the meta again.

I hope they DO become part of the meta in some form again, but right now they are an afterthought.

Finally, please do not try to show me your builds that work really well and include SRMs in some form. I have builds as well.

Ive seen 6mg jagers do really well.

Ive seen a Death's Knell get top damage.

That doesn't mean they are competitive.

So lets all stay objective and keep our epeens tucked down a pants leg.

[Jman5]

I don't understand why PGI is afraid of making SRMs strong. They are extremely short ranged weapons that are completely useless past 270 meters. Why shouldn't they be scary up close?

You can't apply the state of the game from 2012 with today because so much has changed to make that data irrelevant.

1. Ghost heat makes it harder to boat SRMs
2. New mechs, new maps, new game mode, and balance changes has made longer range precision weapons more desireable than short range brawler weapons. This isn't 2012 when the biggest map we had was Caustic and jumpjets didn't work very well.
3. Network improvements make precision weapons actually work well. You don't need to fudge it anymore with lasers and SRMs.
4. SRMs no longer do mystery explosion damage that caused so many of the problems to begin with.

[Artgathan]

As much as I'd like to get behind this, I think that we should wait until hit registration for SRMs is working properly. I honestly can't tell if the SRMs I'm firing are underpowered or not just registering on the target (I've noticed that "partial" volleys can connect as well - meaning that even if it looks like 6 SRMs hit, only 3 might register damage, which then gives the impression that all 6 hit, which then leads to "SRMs suck!").

I agree that the issue has sort of been forgotten. I think we need to wait until hit registration is working well before we start making changes to the weapon damage.

A more interesting solution (to me) would be to have SRMs deal high damage, but a fractional critical hit multiplier (IE: on crits, they do 50% less damage), which would make them great for shredding armor but poor against internals.

[FupDup]

While we're at it, add pulse lasers and the LB 10-X to the buffing list.

[focuspark]

Jman5, on 13 January 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

I don't understand why PGI is afraid of making SRMs strong. They are extremely short ranged weapons that are completely useless past 270 meters. Why shouldn't they be scary up close?

You can't apply the state of the game from 2012 with today because so much has changed to make that data irrelevant.

1. Ghost heat makes it harder to boat SRMs
2. New mechs, new maps, new game mode, and balance changes has made longer range precision weapons more desireable than short range brawler weapons. This isn't 2012 when the biggest map we had was Caustic and jumpjets didn't work very well.
3. Network improvements make precision weapons actually work well. You don't need to fudge it anymore with lasers and SRMs.
4. SRMs no longer do mystery explosion damage that caused so many of the problems to begin with.

SRM boats used to dominate, but back then we had no ghost heat and small maps. Once maps like Alphin showed up SRM boats were done for. PGI over reacted. The fact that SSRM do 25% more damage per missile than SRM is telling on how messed up the PGI balance model is.

[Effectz]

Buffing srms Lpl and lb10x would get people brawling more again.Srms are just not worth taking with their hit reg.

[Mcgral18]

They were reluctant to increase the damage from 1.5 to 2.0, even though people were asking for 2.5.

I have to say, we shouldn't get our hopes up.

[Jman5]

focuspark, on 13 January 2014 - 04:49 PM, said:

SRM boats used to dominate, but back then we had no ghost heat and small maps. Once maps like Alphin showed up SRM boats were done for. PGI over reacted. The fact that SSRM do 25% more damage per missile than SRM is telling on how messed up the PGI balance model is.

I have always found PGI's balance method to be slightly annoying. Instead of doing simple, straight forward changes, they always come in from the side and change something odd that kinda helps in a very narrow way, but doesn't quite fix their larger problems.

[N a p e s]

Artgathan, on 13 January 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

As much as I'd like to get behind this, I think that we should wait until hit registration for SRMs is working properly. I honestly can't tell if the SRMs I'm firing are underpowered or not just registering on the target (I've noticed that "partial" volleys can connect as well - meaning that even if it looks like 6 SRMs hit, only 3 might register damage, which then gives the impression that all 6 hit, which then leads to "SRMs suck!").

I agree that the issue has sort of been forgotten. I think we need to wait until hit registration is working well before we start making changes to the weapon damage.

A more interesting solution (to me) would be to have SRMs deal high damage, but a fractional critical hit multiplier (IE: on crits, they do 50% less damage), which would make them great for shredding armor but poor against internals.

I like this idea of giving the SRMs a lower crit chance but boosting their raw damage. It differentiates them even further from other weapons and would put them in the role of ''sandblasting'' away large sections of armor.

[Lostdragon]

Jman5, on 13 January 2014 - 05:13 PM, said:

I have always found PGI's balance method to be slightly annoying. Instead of doing simple, straight forward changes, they always come in from the side and change something odd that kinda helps in a very narrow way, but doesn't quite fix their larger problems.

In my industry we call that incompetence.

[Flying Blind]

Hit detection on SRMs is much less of an issue than it used to be. They are very close to the other weapons in this.
SRMs are still bad because of their spread pattern and maybe even damage.
It comes down to risk vs. reward, SRMs are High risk ton use since you have to get through the kill zone of pretty much every enemy mech before you can use them and they are low reward because once you do get in close enough you are already damaged (often heavily) and your SRMs do no better damage (actually worse in most cases) than the long range weapons that continue to pound you
Can we please get a better pattern for SRMs and then see where they are? Then we can look at damage.

Bottom line: SRMs need to be better than anything other than an AC20 at less than 270m range currently they are not. Not even close.

[Asmudius Heng]

I wonder if PGI are just scared of changing a few things for close range weapons and seeing a return to knife fighting dominance.

I think it would be an unfounded fear.

The only other option is that they really dont think there is a problem or dont care enough to change it.

[Der_Goetz]

I think the problems with srms are, that they don´t do proper damage on armor. They do minimal dam if the target is fully armored and are only usefull when the enemy mech is open on serveral locations. That is the problem. You need a lot firepower from sidearms to make them usefull in the first place.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Here's what I'd do for sure:

• Speed from 300 m/s to 425 m/s
  
• Range from 270 to at least 360 (I'd like to see up 540 M even, with a slow 425 speed it will still be hard to hit on the move and hit moving targets)

Then maybe,

• Consider giving them LRM style tracking, they can fire without, but can fire with a lock on. Could even tie this to Artemis.

Lastly, because of Hit Reg and HSR, reduce the number of tracked missiles. So

• SRM (SSRM) 2 - fire one missile at 4 damage
  
• SRM 4 - fire two missiles
  
• SRM 6 - fire three

[Screech]

Mcgral18, on 13 January 2014 - 05:05 PM, said:

They were reluctant to increase the damage from 1.5 to 2.0, even though people were asking for 2.5.

I have to say, we shouldn't get our hopes up.

I think their fears of 2.0 SRM damage breaking the game have been found lacking, might be time to 2.5 now. I am willing to push the envelope in the name of aggressive weapons balancing.

Edited by Screech, 13 January 2014 - 10:28 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

SRM damage should probably go up to 2.5.

In addition I'd not object to a general tightening on the spread and a rework of Artemis IV FCS. Artemis IV should give SRMs slight self-guided tracking (not like LRMs or SSRMs, no locking on). They should have the ability slightly to adjust their flight path toward whatever enemies (not covered by ECM) happen to be within a tight forward cone. This would not allow for radical course correction (again, not like SSRMs), but would increase the number of hits against moving targets.

Of course the most important change is for a reliably hit registration fix to go through. Whether PGI needs to optimize some code, fix some bugs, or upgrade some server hardware, SRMs ought to be the primary counter to long-range builds. They should be cheap, light, and powerful, and should absolutely shred stuff in CQB.

[nemesis271989]

LordBraxton, on 13 January 2014 - 04:17 PM, said:

Please hear me out.

I know we have all seen this thread before in some form, but there hasn't been one for a while and I'd rather not necro an old one.

SRMs have been underpowered for so long now that people have dumped them in the same category as flamers and machine guns in the sense that...

---We all know that SRMs are underpowered, and we honestly don't expect PGI to fix it so we gave up talking about it.

2.5 damage would be a start.

Even if hit detection is ever fixed, I doubt SRMs will ever be the center of the meta again.

I hope they DO become part of the meta in some form again, but right now they are an afterthought.

Finally, please do not try to show me your builds that work really well and include SRMs in some form. I have builds as well.

Ive seen 6mg jagers do really well.

Ive seen a Death's Knell get top damage.

That doesn't mean they are competitive.

So lets all stay objective and keep our epeens tucked down a pants leg.

Why do I agree with you? Because my Atlas is no longer Fearsome machine.
I'm with you !!! Buff this things

[John MatriX82]

Jman5, on 13 January 2014 - 05:13 PM, said:

I have always found PGI's balance method to be slightly annoying. Instead of doing simple, straight forward changes, they always come in from the side and change something odd that kinda helps in a very narrow way, but doesn't quite fix their larger problems.

To me they simply have one goal: nerf everything. They nerfed this game so hard that you've basically been obliged in your choices for loadouts, chassis, even variants. That's why I got sick of it.

Making SRMs come back into a good level of decency could save this game, allowing brawlers to have a chance vs ranged fire. At least when you manage to get in range, you deal damage.

But still, I believe that 2.5 dmg per missile isn't enough. The old "pulse/wavy" flightpath should be brought back as well, that allowed to concentrate srm fire better at known distances (200m -with artemis- and then 150m/75-65m/under 50m). That made the difference, not only the splash dmg bugs or else.

The current tube flightpath, even with 2.5 missiles dmg, would still splatter damage all over even at point blank, making them still worthless unless you get lucky that 2-3 launchers randomly decide to shoot 70% of their missiles around the centre of the crosshair.

[Kazma]

As a players who's been playing SRMs for quite a while, I can say that its really just the hit registration thats making the SRMs so worthless. Don't buff things without fixing them first ... (how long has it been )

[D A T A]

THE ONLY THING SRMS NEED IS 2.5 DAMAGE

nothing more
nothing less