223 replies to this topic

[East Indy]

I'm all for rehabilitating the value of SRMs, but these suggestions essentially create a rival option for potentially overpowered alphas, leaving the fundamental problem ([pinpoint] alphas from multiple weapons fired together) unaddressed. I dunno, doesn't sit right.

The HSR split seems pretty ambitious. The one surefire way to make SRMs reliable is reinserting them as weaker Streaks, since lock-on and bone-targeting are proven to work. Many downsides, but a lot simpler.

All the same, drawing PGI's attention is worth it.

[cSand]

Josef Nader, on 26 February 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

And I'm a Computer Science Major with a focus in Game Design who's been writing his own games for almost 15 years. If were going to make stupid arguments from.authority, I think I win on that one.

The point still stands that it's arse-backwards to devote a ton of time to reimplementing a broken mechanic.

Not to fan the flames, but I think Science major trumps Sales/Marketing, lol


SRMs aren't too bad, I've been using them lots on my PB and you just have to lead them a little more than you would think. Good damage when they connect though

[Mister Blastman]

Bagheera, on 26 February 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

Simple really. If they tune SRMs to be subjectively effective with unreliable hit reg, then when hit reg is fixed there will be a brief period of "SRMageddon" followed by a tragic over nerf hot fix and we'll be back to lackluster SRMs for another year or more.

We're better served trying to get the priority on hsr fixes raised than we are asking for work that will inevitably need to be undone.

I don't think we'll get the priority on HSR fixes. Russ thinks we are on an island. I'm a half-glass-full kinda guy in real life. In PGI world though... I'm half-empty.



I can hear the seagulls crying and the Macaws calling, "Bit of an Island. Everything's fine. Everything's fine. Squaaaaak!"

cSand, on 26 February 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

Not to fan the flames, but I think Science major trumps Sales/Marketing, lol


SRMs aren't too bad, I've been using them lots on my PB and you just have to lead them a little more than you would think. Good damage when they connect though

Piece of paper has nothing to do with IQ. That's not on topic here, though.

I want a compelling reason for users to go back to brawling. If we're going to have black and white where...

Pinpoint meta is Black
Everything else is White

And Black > White by a longshot.

I'd love to have white be a little too powerful, too. We can have Rock and Scissors laced with Paper between the two of them.

[Bagheera]

Mister Blastman, on 26 February 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

I don't think we'll get the priority on HSR fixes. Russ thinks we are on an island. I'm a half-glass-full kinda guy in real life. In PGI world though... I'm half-empty.

I don't think we will either, but I am certain of my scenario above. We've seen it before.

I also wish people would stop suggesting to make them like streaks. Just No. I like my rocket-shotgun thank you very much. Making them "weaker streaks" just sound awful to me.

[Josef Nader]

Mister Blastman, on 26 February 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

It isn't ludicrous if band-aid takes a couple of days, final fix takes months.

The final fix obviously does take a lot of time and effort, otherwise Russ wouldn't of said we have basically nine to twelve months to wait before they do it.

That's a lot of time to wait. Why not enjoy the game in the meantime with more variety?

After patching the game with the new system for several months, a lot of little changes will have been made to integrate the new code. Reverting back to the old code involves finding and rolling back all those changes. Then you have to fix all the systems that those rollbacks broke. Then you have to bugtest all those little fixes and fix all the things that the fixes broke.

A game this labyrinthine has a lot of intertwined code, no matter how much people go on about object oriented programming. Any changes you make require a lot of time to find the related sections of code and make sure that your changes don't make those sections of code blow up. Rolling back HSR would take as much, if not more work than simply fixing the new HSR and it -still- probably wouldn't be done till after CW hit, because you can't just magically make more programmers appear just because you're rolling features back. You're either delaying CW to fix SRMs (whether or not you're rolling back or pushing forward) or delaying SRM fixes to work on CW. Your programming team can only do so much.

Frankly, CW is more important to the survival of this game than the borked HSR on SRMs, and I'd much rather they work on implementing properly functioning SRMs than reintroducing a borked mechanic that got taken out because it was so broken. Their budget only goes so far, and spending time and money working backwards is completely counter-productive.

[Jez]

Dymlos2003, on 26 February 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

So you want the broken death balls for srms again? I think people believe that srms are broken because they aren't doing the godly damage that it used to do.

You have to use srms like a lbx.

They may have been broken, but when they were in a "broken" state the SRMs were the tool that were used to counter the pure sniper builds (quad PPCs, dual gauss) and the LRM boats who had traded off their medium/short range capabilities for their long range punch. When the SRMs were "broken", they were the balance that kept the long-range meta in check.

Scouting back then was even more important cause it was critical to identify the opposing team's brawlers and account for them during the fight. Today we really don't concern ourselves with close range brawlers (except for dual AC-20s) since just about everyone is carrying a mixture of ballistics and energy weapons. Brawl range today is in the 150-300m range band.

It doesn't matter if SRMs were "broken" back then. All that matters was that SRMs were fulfilling a functional role (expect for the splat-cat). Since the nerf and bandaids to SRMs that functional role has remained vacant to this day and this game desperately needs to fill in that role.

Edited by Jez, 26 February 2014 - 10:38 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Bagheera, on 26 February 2014 - 10:30 AM, said:

I don't think we will either, but I am certain of my scenario above. We've seen it before.

I also wish people would stop suggesting to make them like streaks. Just No. I like my rocket-shotgun thank you very much. Making them "weaker streaks" just sound awful to me.

Yeah, like minor-streaks is a bad idea. I can foresee even worse HSR issues if they did that.

They worked remarkably well back in CB when they connected. Remember when there was that half-second to full second delay when you pressed the trigger before they launched?

Yes. There was that long of a delay. Even with no missile-bay doors! We still hit and killed stuff just fine with even that!

[ackstorm]

Mister Blastman, on 26 February 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

Piloting skill matters now?

HAHAHAHAAHAHA.

You lost me there. Yes, piloting skill does matter... but aiming from far away to pinpoint kill someone matters the most. Pick them off before they get close and win.

The game these days requires far less skill than it did in closed-beta. I have been playing this since June of 2012, btw. I never ran a Splat-Cat, either. I ran mostly Dragons and Hunchbacks back then. Not anymore.

One of the huge superiority's when they first arrived was their long range capabilities. They could take out a lot of IS mechs from a distance without IS being able to fire back. IS learned to change their tactics to force the clans to get close to them - thus losing their long range advantage.

Its the similar now with the meta builds of AC5s and PPCs. If you don't want to get ripped up, don't stand out in the open so they can snipe at you. Take away their range and they are the ones who become disadvantaged. That is one of the reasons that light fast mechs do so well in this game. There are so many heavies and assaults running builds that don't stance a chance against a fast moving mech.

[Reptilizer]

Josef Nader, on 26 February 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

*snip*
Even ignoring that, pretending like its better for the game to spend development time reintegrating a broken mechanic then it is to spend time fixing the final implementation is ludicrous.

That is probably right.
But when developing it further means 9 months more of jumpsniper crap due to time constraints i would be happy for any reintegrating they could squeeze in as a bandaid.
See, if i can not get the perfect solution within a reasonable time i tend to go for something that works halfassed but can be implemented comparably fast.

If you actually canreintegrate the old modes faster than develop the ones we have now further is something i do not know.
You know, i got my PhD in rocket science. Or was it brain surgery? Should have been an MD then...

[Mister Blastman]

Josef Nader, on 26 February 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

A game this labyrinthine has a lot of intertwined code, no matter how much people go on about object oriented programming. Any changes you make require a lot of time to find the related sections of code and make sure that your changes don't make those sections of code blow up. Rolling back HSR would take as much, if not more work than simply fixing the new HSR and it -still- probably wouldn't be done till after CW hit, because you can't just magically make more programmers appear just because you're rolling features back. You're either delaying CW to fix SRMs (whether or not you're rolling back or pushing forward) or delaying SRM fixes to work on CW. Your programming team can only do so much.

Well the HSR was implemented in stages. It is possible that it can be turned on for ballistics and energy weapons but turned off for SRMs (as those were the stages it was put into the game). But who knows. Maybe they coded everything badly.

[IceSerpent]

ackstorm, on 26 February 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

I use srms far more frequently than anyone else I play with and they work well. I can even hit and kill lights with them. I dont see a major problem.

Either your definition of "works well" is very different from everyone else's, or you are unable to do basic arithmetics.

The most damage you can possibly do with SRMs is 72 points spread across at least 3 torso locations (not accounting for ghost heat and hit registration issues, assuming perfect aim and range conditions). That's 24 points per location. Same 65t mech can deliver up to 40 points of damage to a single location with a config that doesn't use missiles.

[Mister Blastman]

ackstorm, on 26 February 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

There are so many heavies and assaults running builds that don't stance a chance against a fast moving mech.

Well, I think that is more due to bad piloting than anything.

Try and run four lights against a four man of 733C/VTR/3D snipers and the lights will get ripped to pieces in seconds--assuming it is set to skirmish or assault mode.

[Josef Nader]

Reptilizer, on 26 February 2014 - 10:35 AM, said:

That is probably right.
But when developing it further means 9 months more of jumpsniper crap due to time constraints i would be happy for any reintegrating they could squeeze in as a bandaid.
See, if i can not get the perfect solution within a reasonable time i tend to go for something that works halfassed but can be implemented comparably fast.

If you actually canreintegrate the old modes faster than develop the ones we have now further is something i do not know.
You know, i got my PhD in rocket science. Or was it brain surgery? Should have been an MD then...

See, but then you hit part 2 of the problem. By reimplementing old code, you force your new code to work around the old code. This is the reason that development stopped until we could get UI2.0 out the door. They didn't want to continue building systems on the back of a placeholder UI, as the more they built on top of UI1.5, the more they would have to completely rewrite when UI2.0 rolled out. So, if we revert SRMs back to their preHSR code then we suddenly have this special snowflake section of code that needs to be changed independently of the rest of the HSR tweaks and fixes. It requires it's own slot in the development cycle, and it requires special time and attention when dealing with it. When you finally -do- bump SRMs back up to HSR, you've basically got to start from scratch again in the new HSR system to get them working.

If we leave them using the new code, even if the new code is bugged, then they're still being affected by changes to the overall HSR code, and when the dev team finally finds time to get in there and fix them, the code for SRMs will be up-to-date and ready to move forward. They can focus on moving forward rather than going back in and surgically removing the old code before writing in the new code.

tl;dr the bugged HSR SRMs are better for the same reason the crappy UI2.0 is better than UI1.5. They're not as finished as the previous builds, but they're progress forward, and with these new baseline systems in place development can focus on progressing forward rather than spinning in place or moving backwards.

[Reptilizer]

ackstorm, on 26 February 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

*snip*

Its the similar now with the meta builds of AC5s and PPCs. If you don't want to get ripped up, don't stand out in the open so they can snipe at you. Take away their range and they are the ones who become disadvantaged. That is one of the reasons that light fast mechs do so well in this game. There are so many heavies and assaults running builds that don't stance a chance against a fast moving mech.

Funny anecdote:
One of those disadvantaged Gaussboats skillfully disassembled my SRM-cent very recently in a nice brawl. He needed two shots. I did not stand a chance.


There is no inherent disadvantage in using the long range weapons in close combat at the moment. AC5 is actually a very fine brawling weapon pushing very consistent damage.

[ackstorm]

IceSerpent, on 26 February 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

Either your definition of "works well" is very different from everyone else's, or you are unable to do basic arithmetics.

The most damage you can possibly do with SRMs is 72 points spread across at least 3 torso locations (not accounting for ghost heat and hit registration issues, assuming perfect aim and range conditions). That's 24 points per location. Same 65t mech can deliver up to 40 points of damage to a single location with a config that doesn't use missiles.

Yes. If you stand still and take it. Slow moving assault mechs certainly feel the effect because they cannot outmaneuver their opponents. That rises the importance of having fast moving light and medium mechs to keep them from standing there and sniping. I eat meta builds for breakfast because only the best of pilots can hit me once my fast moving mechs get close.

[Deathlike]

Mister Blastman, on 26 February 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

Well, I think that is more due to bad piloting than anything.

Try and run four lights against a four man of 733C/VTR/3D snipers and the lights will get ripped to pieces in seconds--assuming it is set to skirmish or assault mode.

Yes, that happens often. Last night, ran a Jenner for 12-mans... got TKed by one. I laughed and cried. You know how people are at trying kill the last mech on the field.

Back to... I'd like the brawling weapon of choice back please. While you're at it, improve LBX and pulse lasers, while they are primarily dormant.

[Mister Blastman]

Reptilizer, on 26 February 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

There is no inherent disadvantage in using the long range weapons in close combat at the moment. AC5 is actually a very fine brawling weapon pushing very consistent damage.

And this is the crux of the entire problem!

Mid to Long-range weapons are far too powerful in all three areas: close, mid and long, while true short-range weapons are weak in ... short, mid and long.

Mid and Long-range weapons are stronger up close than dedicated short-range weapons.

[ackstorm]

Reptilizer, on 26 February 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

Funny anecdote:
One of those disadvantaged Gaussboats skillfully disassembled my SRM-cent very recently in a nice brawl. He needed two shots. I did not stand a chance.


There is no inherent disadvantage in using the long range weapons in close combat at the moment. AC5 is actually a very fine brawling weapon pushing very consistent damage.

You have a left arm that contains no weapons. If you are not close enough to keep them turning, present your sides to them so that their damage can be shrugged off. If you cannot get in close to outmaneuver them then dont engage. Make them come to you.

[Thorn Hallis]

Actually you will "only" have to wait 'til June. With the introduction of the Clans and Streak SRM6s, brawling might be on the rise again.

Thinking of it...thats some strange sort of advertisment: "You want working SRMs? Go Clan!"

[Nicholas Carlyle]

East Indy, on 26 February 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

I'm all for rehabilitating the value of SRMs, but these suggestions essentially create a rival option for potentially overpowered alphas, leaving the fundamental problem ([pinpoint] alphas from multiple weapons fired together) unaddressed. I dunno, doesn't sit right.

The HSR split seems pretty ambitious. The one surefire way to make SRMs reliable is reinserting them as weaker Streaks, since lock-on and bone-targeting are proven to work. Many downsides, but a lot simpler.

All the same, drawing PGI's attention is worth it.

SRM's by their nature are not pinpoint. They never have been.

And they also have a hardcap range of 270m.

Totally different than what we are currently seeing.