Jump to content

Srms Need To Be More Skill Dependent


158 replies to this topic

#141 Varent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,393 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationWest Coast - United States

Posted 16 February 2014 - 03:05 PM

View PostOsric Lancaster, on 16 February 2014 - 02:47 PM, said:


Unless you count "running into things" as it's main weapon, then...
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Charger



What is the 4p ?


Core =/= variants

View Poststjobe, on 16 February 2014 - 03:00 PM, said:

Ah, No True Scotsman. Gotcha.

Phoenix Hawk. Ostroc. Ostsol. Thunderbolt. Grasshopper. Zeus. Stalker. All had LLs as main armament.

And if you count the PPC ones: Vindicator. Griffin. Warhammer. Marauder - hell, I needn't go on, do I?


Doh! How could I forget?


The zeus main armament was an ac. The core stalker was missles. Im not looking at saran but off the top of my head I believe the grasshopper was an ac too. And no wasn't counting ppc, they are a main armament weapon. I was incorrect on the grasshopper just checked. Still its even said the grasshopper was fairly uneffective. Wonder why. c,c

Edited by Varent, 16 February 2014 - 03:11 PM.


#142 Solis Obscuri

    Don't Care How I Want It Now!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The DeathRain
  • The DeathRain
  • 4,751 posts
  • LocationPomme de Terre

Posted 16 February 2014 - 03:13 PM

View PostBishop Steiner, on 15 February 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

agreed. Makes no sense that auto homing missiles weigh exactly as much as dumb fire one, yet do more damage too?

I think a flight speed buff would also be helpful - as it is SRMs suck against moving targets. Giving them a flight speed increase and a minor damage buff would give them greater overall utility than giving them a heavy damage buff (90 damage alpha strikes would be pretty unbalanced used against slow 'mechs).

#143 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 16 February 2014 - 03:14 PM

View PostVarent, on 16 February 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

The zeus main armament was an ac. The core stalker was missles. Im not looking at saran but off the top of my head I believe the grasshopper was an ac too. And no wasn't counting ppc, they are a main armament weapon

I'm flipping through my original TRO:3025 here, and you're just dead wrong. Might as well admit it and move on.
* The Zeus mounts a LRM-15, a LL, an AC-5, and 2xML. The MLs are backup, the rest is main weaponry - including the LL.
* The Stalker had dual LRM-10s and dual LLs as main armament, with 4xML and 2xSRM-6 as backup.
* The Grasshopper doesn't mount an AC. Just a LL with 4xML and a LRM-5 as backups.

#144 Osric Lancaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 447 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 03:15 PM

View PostVarent, on 16 February 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

The zeus main armament was an ac. The core stalker was missles. Im not looking at saran but off the top of my head I believe the grasshopper was an ac too. And no wasn't counting ppc, they are a main armament weapon


. . . An ac5. The Zeus had an ac5. You know an ac/5 was basically a long range low heat medium laser in tabletop, right? It was by no means considered a 'main armament'. You're being biased, thick and going completely by your own, MWO biased standards of what 'main armament' means. And no, the grasshopper has no ac. You need to stop arguing a point you have objectively lost.

View PostSolis Obscuri, on 16 February 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

I think a flight speed buff would also be helpful -


Agreed. Alternatively the missiles could have slightly varied launch times, such that the missiles fly out in a 'cloud' or 'stream' rather than a 'wall'. That would make catching a fast moving light with a few missiles less hit or miss.

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 16 February 2014 - 03:22 PM.


#145 Solis Obscuri

    Don't Care How I Want It Now!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The DeathRain
  • The DeathRain
  • 4,751 posts
  • LocationPomme de Terre

Posted 16 February 2014 - 03:21 PM

View PostVarent, on 16 February 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:


Core =/= variants



The zeus main armament was an ac. The core stalker was missles. Im not looking at saran but off the top of my head I believe the grasshopper was an ac too. And no wasn't counting ppc, they are a main armament weapon. I was incorrect on the grasshopper just checked. Still its even said the grasshopper was fairly uneffective. Wonder why. c,c

If you think the Grasshopper isn't effective, or that the ZEU-6S's AC/5 was anything but a handicap, you obviously haven't played any TT Battletech.

But if you're unconvinced about Large Laser primary armaments, consider the Flashman, the MAD-3M, the Crab, the CN9-AL, the CGR-SB, the Rifleman, and the Black Knight. All perform very well, and all utilize Large Lasers for a significant portion of their firepower.

#146 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 16 February 2014 - 03:23 PM

View PostOsric Lancaster, on 16 February 2014 - 03:15 PM, said:

. . . An ac5. The Zeus had an ac5. You know an ac/5 was basically a long range low heat medium laser in tabletop, right? It was by no means considered a 'main armament'.

Well, Varent is wrong, but so are you. That was my main point here, that all weapons can be considered "main armament" depending on what 'mech they're on and what other armament it has.

The AC/5 most definitely is "main armament" on the Clint, for instance. And together with the LLs, they're "main armament" on the iconic Rifleman.

The Wasp has a ML as main armament, as does the Locust. The Piranha has MGs as main armament, the Charger has SLs.

As for the Zeus, it has three main armaments: The AC/5, the LL, and the LRM-15. None of these are more important, better, or "more main" than the others.

Edit: Brainfart. Rifleman, not Warhammer.

Edited by stjobe, 16 February 2014 - 03:24 PM.


#147 Osric Lancaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 447 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 03:28 PM

Conceded, though I generally agree with Solis that the AC5 was the least of the Zeus's armament.

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 16 February 2014 - 03:35 PM.


#148 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 16 February 2014 - 03:38 PM

View PostOsric Lancaster, on 16 February 2014 - 03:28 PM, said:

Conceded, though I agree with Solis that the AC5 is still the least of the Zeus's armament.

It's the least damaging of the three main weapon systems, but it does have a range advantage on the LL, and it's the coolest-firing of them all. At 1 heat a pop, you can fire it as long as the ammo lasts (20 turns) without worrying about heat.

#149 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 16 February 2014 - 03:59 PM

View Poststjobe, on 16 February 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:

Well, Varent is wrong, but so are you. That was my main point here, that all weapons can be considered "main armament" depending on what 'mech they're on and what other armament it has.

The AC/5 most definitely is "main armament" on the Clint, for instance. And together with the LLs, they're "main armament" on the iconic Rifleman.

The Wasp has a ML as main armament, as does the Locust. The Piranha has MGs as main armament, the Charger has SLs.

As for the Zeus, it has three main armaments: The AC/5, the LL, and the LRM-15. None of these are more important, better, or "more main" than the others.

Edit: Brainfart. Rifleman, not Warhammer.

Actually, would consider the LRM to be a supplementary armament, by virtue of the lack of ammo, it is pretty much mean to compliment it-s other ranged fire capability. But I freely admit that is my opinion, not some canon set in stone fact. Always viewed it's ac5/large laser combo as it' main guns.

#150 MischiefSC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 16,697 posts

Posted 16 February 2014 - 04:17 PM

Sweet jesus.

In TT heat was rarely an issue unless you were playing Solaris VII or running a few very hot mechs. Most mechs ran close to heat neutral.

There was no real DOT vs pinpoint vs accuracy meta in TT. It was all about range and most mechs were designed to do some kind of damage over just about every range.

Lasers were as likely to be a main weapon as ACs. In fact ammo-dependent main weapons were the exception, not the rule. Nobody took AC5s or AC2s seriously. They were mounted as flavor text. The Clint was a joke because of it. Freaking 9 ton exploding ammo medium laser with extra range? Take 5 more MLs, more speed and some extra heatsinks for a way, way better mech. Or just put an effing LL on there for more power at around the same range and some heatsinks on for more boom less exploding ammo. Crits were a big deal in TT and a significant drawback to ACs and missiles.

All of which is beside the point. SRMs, as implemented right now, are crap. They will likely be crap for a couple of years. Load up your two PPCs and your ACs (2x5 or AC10, depending on mech. Maybe 2xUAC5s) and get to poptarting/hill humping. Or play at a significant disadvantage. That's MW:O, that's the meta the devs want. They made ghost heat, gauss charge up and all sorts of wacky stuff to ensure that.

#151 Varent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,393 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationWest Coast - United States

Posted 16 February 2014 - 04:35 PM

View Poststjobe, on 16 February 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:

It's the least damaging of the three main weapon systems, but it does have a range advantage on the LL, and it's the coolest-firing of them all. At 1 heat a pop, you can fire it as long as the ammo lasts (20 turns) without worrying about heat.


It depends how you define main weapon system. My definition is the heaviest and most size intensive overall to effectively use.

#152 Indoorsman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 792 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 16 February 2014 - 06:49 PM

View PostStygian Steel, on 15 February 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:

the cat in that video is why we can;t have nice things anymore lol


iams sowwy, meow!

I haven't used SRMs in probably a year or more. They just aren't worth equipping when you can just use bigger guns, bigger lasers or GUIDED SSRMs instead. Really is a shame, I loved using SRMs on a wide variety of mechs... Jenners, Centurions, Hunchbacks, Catapults, Awesomes, Stalkers and Atlas. Can't remember if the Highlander/Jager got to use the "good" SRMs.

If they fixed SRMs to where they 100% REGISTERED their hits, that'd be a good first step.

#153 Varent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,393 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationWest Coast - United States

Posted 16 February 2014 - 07:12 PM

View PostSolis Obscuri, on 16 February 2014 - 03:21 PM, said:

If you think the Grasshopper isn't effective, or that the ZEU-6S's AC/5 was anything but a handicap, you obviously haven't played any TT Battletech.

But if you're unconvinced about Large Laser primary armaments, consider the Flashman, the MAD-3M, the Crab, the CN9-AL, the CGR-SB, the Rifleman, and the Black Knight. All perform very well, and all utilize Large Lasers for a significant portion of their firepower.


variants vs core. Core mechs verus added on later mechs. I actually made a point to go over those mechs because I HAVE IN FACT PLAYED BT and I clearly remember a few of the core mechs they started out with. Just about all of them or at least the vast majority that were medium or larger were built around missle, ppc and ac systems. That said keep in mind this game also isn't the board game. If anything I think its evolved well beyond that with all of the rp games, books, and video games that are out there now. I don't think they need to be hardlocked into concepts just because they make BT sense. The game should simply be a good stand alone shooter with a BT feel. Not a hardcore BT game with a badly balanced shooting system.

#154 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 17 February 2014 - 01:33 AM

View PostVarent, on 16 February 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

It depends how you define main weapon system. My definition is the heaviest and most size intensive overall to effectively use.

Right. So using that definition the Phoenix Hawk, Ostroc, Ostsol, Thunderbolt, Grasshopper, and Stalker have LLs as main armament.

Which in turn means that your previous statement that started this whole sub-thread wasn't correct:

View PostVarent, on 16 February 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

Lasers are meant to be roughly supportive of most other weapons. Look at the major and main loadouts of some of the core mechs. The lasers are always supportive and setup into secondary rolls.

Not that I expect you to concede that.

Edited by stjobe, 17 February 2014 - 09:40 AM.


#155 Shlkt

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 319 posts

Posted 17 February 2014 - 09:45 AM

SRMs need a niche. Right now they're half-decent weapons if you can get in range and if the target is large. IMO they're still worse than ballistics overall, but competitive with energy weapons for brawling due to lower heat.

That's too many drawbacks for a weapon that doesn't excel at anything.

I fear a pure damage boost would make them too powerful vs. targets with large hitboxes. An Atlas or an Awesome, for example, will take a lot more concentrated damage than a Spider. But perhaps an anti-assault weapon is not a bad thing?

I'd like to see them boosted in a way that makes them attractive in the current meta: alpha potential. Increase their cool down rates but boost the damage to compensate, holding DPS fixed but giving them more front-loaded damage. That'll appeal to a lot of players while still maintaining their current drawbacks (damage spread, range issues). A splatcat ought to be a scary sight - at least as scary as an AC/40 Jager - 'cuz he's probably only gonna get one or two shots before his ears get blown off.

#156 IceSerpent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,044 posts

Posted 17 February 2014 - 09:57 AM

View PostShlkt, on 17 February 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

I fear a pure damage boost would make them too powerful vs. targets with large hitboxes. An Atlas or an Awesome, for example, will take a lot more concentrated damage than a Spider. But perhaps an anti-assault weapon is not a bad thing?

That won't be a problem as Atlas has a lot more armor than a Spider, so more concentrated damage won't necessarily turn SRMs into a specialized anti-assault weapon.

Edited by IceSerpent, 17 February 2014 - 09:57 AM.


#157 Artgathan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,764 posts

Posted 17 February 2014 - 02:26 PM

Looking at weapon reloads, an SRM6 has the same reload speed as the PPC and AC/20. Perhaps a buff to their reload speed could help? SRMs have impressive DPS for their size - but most of this DPS doesn't land on target (I'd estimate that SRMs have an "effective" DPS that's 50% or less of their indicated DPS). Buffing their DPS by increasing their ROF includes "skill" in the buffing equation because now your DPS is only increase if you have good aim.

#158 Solis Obscuri

    Don't Care How I Want It Now!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The DeathRain
  • The DeathRain
  • 4,751 posts
  • LocationPomme de Terre

Posted 17 February 2014 - 04:49 PM

View PostShlkt, on 17 February 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

SRMs need a niche. Right now they're half-decent weapons if you can get in range and if the target is large. IMO they're still worse than ballistics overall, but competitive with energy weapons for brawling due to lower heat.

That's too many drawbacks for a weapon that doesn't excel at anything.

I fear a pure damage boost would make them too powerful vs. targets with large hitboxes. An Atlas or an Awesome, for example, will take a lot more concentrated damage than a Spider. But perhaps an anti-assault weapon is not a bad thing?

I'd like to see them boosted in a way that makes them attractive in the current meta: alpha potential. Increase their cool down rates but boost the damage to compensate, holding DPS fixed but giving them more front-loaded damage. That'll appeal to a lot of players while still maintaining their current drawbacks (damage spread, range issues). A splatcat ought to be a scary sight - at least as scary as an AC/40 Jager - 'cuz he's probably only gonna get one or two shots before his ears get blown off.

More alpha potential just reinforces the current meta. It doesn't provide SRMs a better "niche". The current 2xPPC+2xAC/5 meta has a few major advantages going for it:
1) Concentrated high damage at mid/long range.
2) Steady DPS at low heat at close range.
3) High projectile speeds that make hitting a target easy.

And one thing against it:
1) Big weight penalty
2) Moderately high heat alpha strikes.

By contrast, the advantages for SRMs:
1) Do high damage at close ranges for moderate heat.
2) "Crit seeker" chance to damage internals.
3) Moderate close range DPS
4) Good damage/weight

And the negatives:
1) Don't work outside 270m
2) Wide damage spread increases time-to-kill
3) Slow projectile speed makes it difficult to hit moving targets
4) Moderately heat-inefficient (sligtly better than lasers)

A fix to this without big damage buffs to SRMs (and the potential balance issues those open up) is to reduce some of the benefits of the PPC+AC meta while reducing the negatives to using SRMs.

For example, you might increase SRM speed by 100m/s (in all likelihood this would improve hit detection at the same time, so far as I understand the game engine and netcode difficulties) while reducing heat by 0.5 points per launcher and increasing max range by 90m (at the cost of an increasing spread at those ranges). In the process you'd improve accuracy (and hit detection) for SRMs, increase the effective range, and give 'mechs with energy/ballistic loadouts better heat-efficient options for brawling, but without renewing the potential for heavy/assault missileboats to one-shot mediums.

As for combatting the current meta... you also have to be mindful of the role of each system individually. Currently, neither PPC boats nor light-AC boats are particularly dominant, though the light-AC+PPC combination is very strong. I've discussed that above, but let's look at each system individually:

Positives for PPCs:
1) High projectile speed improves accuracy
2) High concentrated damage
3) Long range
4) Decent damage/weight

Negatives for PPCs:
1) High heat
2) 100m minimum range (ERPPCs trade this for even worse heat)
3) Low DPS

Positives for AC/5:
1) High projectile speed improves accuracy
2) Moderate concentrated damage
3) Long range
4) Decent DPS

Negatives for AC/5:
1) Low alpha
2) High weapon weight and crit space for damage potential
3) Moderately high ammo consumption
4) More ammo = more chances for ammo explosions

So there are a few issues - if you slow down the projectile speed of a PPC, it synchs with heavier autocannons.

Reducing the range of either weapon effectively makes them obsolete (replaced with heavier autocannons and pulse lasers).

Reducing AC/5 DPS makes them useless as a stand-alone weapon.

Making PPCs beam weapons makes them obsolete compared to lasers, and encourages combining them with Large Lasers in an Alpha to avoid Ghost Heat penalties.

There isn't an awful lot to do with either system individually, besides possibly creating another linked Ghost Heat penalty. The problem with the high-alpha sniper meta is the same as it always was, instant convergence treating multiple projectiles like a single ultra-high-damage projectile. Creating some kind of CoF effect for high-alphas is probably the only true cure, except perhaps forcing everyone to use chain fire exclusively...

And amusingly, the only systems that would get significantly screwed by forcing chain-fire would be AC/2s and MGs, as missiles and lasers already spread damage and are more heat efficient chain-fired, the other autocannons and PPCs are quite nicely balanced chain fired, and even Flamers are often chain-fired to avoid the exponential heat build-up. Time-to-kill would also be increased in most cases. I suspect forcing chain-fire would be an unpopular option to pursue at this point, but it is intriguing.

#159 Rex Budman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 841 posts

Posted 17 February 2014 - 05:09 PM

I run 4xSRM4 and 2xSRM6.

Heat is fine - I can handle it.
Damage spread is way too much.

I'm not going to go into all the reasons as they pretty much are covered by the posts in this thread. I will say that it does need a change, perhaps with registration or with altered missile path (I miss the old SRM system very much).

One thing is for certain - they don't justify their tonnage, and they are extremely weak even in a one on one battle.

I keep running them because I like the concept of them. I think they're fun and I like placing shots. I also love the amount of damage I put out in matches. I get between 400 and 700 each time respectively.

The entire game is build on a great concept and thats why a majority of people keep coming back - but after the game has been out for so long, and so many issues still exist, there is no real technical reason people keep coming back. Fact is, the games concept is great, its got a fun system and the content is constantly becoming more robust.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users