67 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

That is pretty profound Almond!

[Graugger]

Your SRMs also happen to be capable of being shoulder mounted on INFANTRY... same tonnage ok how about crit slots too?
Hmmm 10 for AC.20 + 4 for 4 tons of ammo = 14 crit slots

2 SRM 6s = 4 slots + 4 tons of ammo = 8 crit slots....

SRM hit registration does need fixed I agree but to say it needs to do more pin point damage... oh yeah I also forgot, the smaller size of the SRMs means they can't be popped off your mech as easily where as you get sneezed on your open side torso with a small laser its bye bye AC/20.

Heck if you're that butt-hurt about a tank shell doing more on the spot damage than 4 rpgs maybe we really should get them to remove ACs from the game then you'd be arguing that PPCs do better pinpoint damage than SRMs instead... oh wait you already did

[Almond Brown]

Mcgral18, on 17 April 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

Please, a close range weapon that dedicates 16+ tons shouldn't be effective? Or even viable? Why not competitive?

It's hard capped at 270M, AC20 does over 10 damage at 500M. In fact, it does front loaded damage, considerably better than the spread SRM damage. So yes, SRMs should do more damage. Rather, they should DO damage which they simply fail to do 40% of the time.

Again, you want everything to be AC20 damage dealing at 90m ffs. SRM's are 2pts each and they cannot all occupy the same space at once. As in TT. ML is 5 same as TT, why complain about one and not the other? because the ML is the best weapon based on damage per ton and yet for some that is not good enough because other weapons can do that damage from farther away. Not for the same weight to damage potential they can't.

You if you want to harp on SRM's and hit detection, fine. We hope they will resolve that. There are very few weapons in MWO that do not conform to the TT damage chart. Heat, Range, Speed and Ammo are "allowable tweaks" in 99% of the cases.

No complete system is fool proof, nor can anyone convince me any system will please everyone, so use what you find best and just leave the rest of us to what we like as well. Is that to much to ask? Nerf your own shit and leave the rest to others...

Edited by Almond Brown, 17 April 2014 - 10:22 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Graugger, on 17 April 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

Your SRMs also happen to be capable of being shoulder mounted on INFANTRY... same tonnage ok how about crit slots too?
Hmmm 10 for AC.20 + 4 for 4 tons of ammo = 14 crit slots

2 SRM 6s = 4 slots + 4 tons of ammo = 8 crit slots....

SRM hit registration does need fixed I agree but to say it needs to do more pin point damage... oh yeah I also forgot, the smaller size of the SRMs means they can't be popped off your mech as easily where as you get sneezed on your open side torso with a small laser its bye bye AC/20.

Heck if you're that butt-hurt about a tank shell doing more on the spot damage than 4 rpgs maybe we really should get them to remove ACs from the game then you'd be arguing that PPCs do better pinpoint damage than SRMs instead... oh wait you already did

...So, you don't want a weapon system to be viable?

FLD is a big advantage SRMs will never eliminate.

3x SRM6=9 tons+SRM4=11 tons +7 tons of ammo=18 tons.

I certainly expect that to compare to an AC20, but it doesn't even come close.

Almond Brown, on 17 April 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

Again, you want everything to be AC20 damage dealing at 90m ffs. SRM's are 2pts each and they cannot all occupy the same space at once. As in TT. ML is 5 same as TT, why complain about one and not the other? because the ML is the best weapon based on damage per ton and yet for some that is not good enough because other weapons can do that damage from farther away. Not for the same weight to damage potential they can't.

I expect them not to be useless. They fail at that.

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 April 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

That is pretty profound Almond!

Thanks. It is the one thing that just gets my goat. If it doesn't have the potential to kill everything is 4 volleys, it must suck. What kind of mentality is that to base Balance on... lol

[Almond Brown]

Mcgral18, on 17 April 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

...So, you don't want a weapon system to be viable?

FLD is a big advantage SRMs will never eliminate.

3x SRM6=9 tons+SRM4=11 tons +7 tons of ammo=18 tons.

I certainly expect that to compare to an AC20, but it doesn't even come close.

I expect them not to be useless. They fail at that.

So you want the SRM6 to fire one 12pt. damage FLD shell? Would that make you happy? Otherwise, that is not there intended use at all, despite how you want them to be.

Edited by Almond Brown, 17 April 2014 - 10:25 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Almond Brown, on 17 April 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

So you want the SRM6 to fire one 12pt. damage FLD shell? Would that make you happy? Otherwise, that is not there intended use at all, despite how you want them to be.

Nope, 2.5 damage, predictable spread (stream or the old corkscrew) and working hit detection. That should make them viable.

[Graugger]

Dude just get thunderbolts when (if) they come out.

SRMs are a good option against faster mechs when you don't want risk wasting large AC rounds. SRMs aren't useless I use them.

[Khobai]

Quote

You do remember Missiles are/were RNG for numbers of missiles to make contact right? SRMs could do more... or as was more the case, less damage.

SRMs and AC20s also had the same 270m cutoff. The AC20 was buffed with better range. So SRMs need to be buffed too.

[Mystere]

Mcgral18, on 17 April 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

SRMs however have a max range of 270 M and if you bring 16 tons worth, with ammo and launchers, I would expect to get AC20 results, if not better. As it stands, it's a waste of tonnage with shotty hit detection and poor damage.

Then have PGI fix the problem instead of demanding AC20-level results. Gee.

Edited by Mystere, 17 April 2014 - 10:38 AM.

[Graugger]

... You do realize that if you design the system so that you have 1x2 tubes firing instead of all six at once the spread isn't as random? Basically you you could adjust how many tubes the SRM has to fire out of you could make it more accurate. If they made that an option I think that would work well along with the HSR fixes (if they happen). Yes you'd have something more like a laser but hey you take longer to get the missiles out the more accurate. The more rapid the less accurate.

[Mcgral18]

Graugger, on 17 April 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

... You do realize that if you design the system so that you have 1x2 tubes firing instead of all six at once the spread isn't as random? Basically you you could adjust how many tubes the SRM has to fire out of you could make it more accurate. If they made that an option I think that would work well along with the HSR fixes (if they happen). Yes you'd have something more like a laser but hey you take longer to get the missiles out the more accurate. The more rapid the less accurate.

Yep, that's what the "stream" is. MWLL did it well. And yes, it would help with hit detection. The errors tend to come from multiple simultaneous hits, which is what SRMs do.

Mystere, on 17 April 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

Then have PGI fix the problem instead of demanding AC20-level results. Gee.

So, having a hardcapped 270M range weapon shouldn't ever be effective? They used to be 2.5 damage before splash, and worked decently. Then people started getting very scared after splash, and they nerfed them to 1.5 damage! They should be brought back up to 2,5 damage, and SSRMs down to 2,0. That relation just doesn't make sense. Heavier rounds with guidance, they also have more payload!

Graugger, on 17 April 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

Dude just get thunderbolts when (if) they come out.

SRMs are a good option against faster mechs when you don't want risk wasting large AC rounds. SRMs aren't useless I use them.

Yep, my 22 tube SHD is a complete waste. Streakboat works alright. Dakkahawk is still my favourite, and best performer.

With a 20 ping, I noticed no improvement in the most recent patch. We'll see with the 29th.

[LowSubmarino]

Xmith, on 16 April 2014 - 10:41 PM, said:

On 6/20/2013, I said in so many words that balance will never happen because of the skill level of players. I'm not referring to just the new pilots. This is also directed at the folks that have been playing for awhile but still are whining about balance. I still believe this to be true.

New players come onto the forums looking for solutions to the problems they encounter. What they need to see are answers to their question on how they should do this and that.

So what the new players end up reading are ways to nerf the problems they run up against. It's like watching all those commercials from drug companies. Eventually people will say, yeah, I got those symptoms.

Anyway, basically same thing here. Yeah, those PPCs, ACs and LRMs are tearing me up. I can't move in any direction. PGI should do something about this. YEAH, NERF IT! So, they end up joining the chorus without really trying to get a handle on their problems first.

Sadly, we have to deal with this forever. There will always be new players and there will be players that will always need help from PGI so they can have fun without the hard knocks.

It is what it is.

I agree. 90 % of the complaints is directly derived out of frustration mostly connected to utterly disorganized random groups.

MWO features quite a few tiny maps e.g. forest colony or frozen city. A light mech crosses the entire map in 20 - 30 seconds. Without cover (physical as well as electronical) the biggest mech dies in a matter of a few seconds.

I can't remember how often I have seen an assault pilot die half a minute into the game to then write "Lrm op..." or something along the lines.

MWO is more punishing in terms of mistakes and much more rewarding if played as a team that understands the map and how to use ECM effectively.

A lot of fast paced competitive online games let the players spawn right away after comitting to a futile attack or rush (e.g. cod or battlefield series). If you die there are no consequences.

In a game like MWO if you die that particular game is over for you and you have to wait unless you immediately start with a different mech. But even then you have to exit the game. Choose another mech and load a game which will take between 1 - 3 mins. Mistakes mean your game is over for the next few minutes. As most modern games try to constantly reward and never frustrate or punish the player for mistakes ppl do not have any kind of incentive to improve much. Why would you consciously and critically think about the way you play if you can play no matter what you do right or wrong hehe.

I see 90 % of the frustration not as a direct result of any kind of weapons imbalance but of the unforgiving nature of a game that partially moves away from mainstream arcade games to focus a little bit more on simulation.

That's why those small pop up messages (in the loading screen when the game starts) shouldn't be limited to how to power your mech up and down, etc. but give general advice concerning strategy and tactics e.g.: Remain with your group except for scouting (or let's say base defense in assault). Provide ecm cover for your team. Find a good position. Avoid or exploit chokepoints. Get to higher ground and dont let the other team surround you in a canyon.

And so on.

If those messages popp up every single game ppl will internalize those gems of wisdom and ultimately enjoy the game more. The phrase "Teamplay vastly improves your chances". Or however it was formulated goes in that direction but is too vague. Ppl dont understand what "teamplay" means. To most ppl simply dropping with random ppl means theyr playing as a team haha.

Give new players help in form of pop ups that explicitly tell them what to avoid at all costs and what will truely improve their odds. If you read those things 100 times you will start to scratch your head and actually attempt to play accordingly.

[Graugger]

Wait they reduced the damage SRM missiles do to 1.5... Ok now I'm annoyed, they're SUPPOSED to do at the very least 2 per missile. These (explicit) break everything I mean heck they could add red, blue, and green ending screens to every match and it'd make sense to them.

Is PGI part of EA or Redstorm Entertainment by any chance?

...I checked smurfy's the SRMs do do 2 damage per missile and the streaks do 2.5... You just lied to us about SRMs doing 1.5. I am finished arguing with you.

Edited by Graugger, 17 April 2014 - 10:50 AM.

[Mystere]

Mcgral18, on 17 April 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

So, having a hardcapped 270M range weapon shouldn't ever be effective? They used to be 2.5 damage before splash, and worked decently. Then people started getting very scared after splash, and they nerfed them to 1.5 damage! They should be brought back up to 2,5 damage, and SSRMs down to 2,0. That relation just doesn't make sense. Heavier rounds with guidance, they also have more payload!

It's ineffective because hit detection is broken.

Or are you one of those:

Ineffective < AC20

types?

[Joseph Mallan]

You have to admit a AC20 is pretty much the damage standard!

[Mcgral18]

Graugger, on 17 April 2014 - 10:48 AM, said:

Wait they reduced the damage SRM missiles do to 1.5... Ok now I'm annoyed, they're SUPPOSED to do at the very least 2 per missile. These (explicit) break everything I mean heck they could add red, blue, and green ending screens to every match and it'd make sense to them.

Is PGI part of EA or Redstorm Entertainment by any chance?

...I checked smurfy's the SRMs do do 2 damage per missile and the streaks do 2.5... You just lied to us about SRMs doing 1.5. I am finished arguing with you.

The nerf was when they took splash damage out. Then they put a forum poll to "temporarily" raise SRM damage to 2.0 until they fixed SRMs. You can see how well that went.

Mystere, on 17 April 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

It's ineffective because hit detection is broken.

Or are you one of those:

Ineffective < AC20

types?

I'm willing to bet they'll still be poor when they are working. Especially if PGI keeps their word and brings them back to 1.5 after they are fixed.

[Graugger]

Make a thread regarding the reduction in damage when they fix the HSR and I will support you. The damage of an SRM is supposed to be 2 and should remain 2 not be reduced. That's like making an AC/5 do 4 damage per shot.

[Mcgral18]

Graugger, on 17 April 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

Make a thread regarding the reduction in damage when they fix the HSR and I will support you. The damage of an SRM is supposed to be 2 and should remain 2 not be reduced. That's like making an AC/5 do 4 damage per shot.

Well, that thinking is flawed as well. TT numbers are over a 10 second turn. So, an AC20 does 20 damage over 10 seconds. Either 1 shot and a 10 second cooldown, or a 5 damage shot with a 2.5 damage cooldown. Cut the heat, adjust the ammo and you properly take the TT damage to a real time game.

PGI failed with that, and as such with 3x damage we get 2x armor. With 3x heat, we actually get nerfed dissipation with external DHS being 1.4. It's a sad state of affairs.

But I don't imagine PGI will drop the SRM damage. SRMs are so lackluster, they really can't.

[IceCase88]

Weapoms balancing will only be accomplished when PGI figures out how to nerf the red team and buff the blue team. All the weapons QQing has devolved into the major accomplishment of the patches being weapons "fixes" which make some happy and some angry. We deserve better than this after all the time and money we have spent on the game. We deserve content and something other than playing the same thing over and over and over again. Their vision of community warfare won't fix this game since they are caterring to PUG games. Essentially, your factions success and your accomplishments will be based on whether you were lucky in the PUG lottery to get a good team. Players ars going to find that incredibly frustrating. Private matches you say? Well they won't mean anything and you may have to pay for them. Are we seeing a problem yet?