61 replies to this topic

[YueFei]

I've been posting about this in other threads, but now that I have the math to back it up, I feel it deserves its own thread.

Take a simple comparison of 2xASRM6 vs 1 AC5:
1.) Same tonnage (8 tons)
2.) 2xASRM6 uses 2 hardpoints. 1 AC5 uses 1 hardpoint.
3.) 2xASRM6 uses 6 crit slots. 1 AC5 uses 4 crit slots.

The 2xASRM6 are a bigger investment in crit slots and hardpoints, and equal in tonnage. Now, the two weapon systems are quite different, but to be balanced, you'd expect the AC5 to outperform the SRMs at range, and the SRMs to outperform the AC5 at close range, right?

Not quite.

Here are the results of a run in the Testing Grounds, using a stock Awesome as the target dummy at 90 meters range, aiming for the CT:

2xASRM6 destroys the Awesome in 7 salvos. That's 28 seconds, and it generates 56 heat.

1 AC5 destroys the Awesome in 22 shots. That's 36.6 seconds, and generates 22 heat.

Percentage-wise, the TTK of the SRMs is about 23.4% faster than the AC5. That's in a sterile environment with no lag, no HSR problems, against a stationary target, at 90 meters. Just to emphasize this, it's a stationary *Awesome*.

The downsides of the SRMs vs the AC5:
1.) Less range, 270 meters hard capped, instead of 620 meters with 3x ballistic fall-off.
2.) Slower projectile speed at 300 meters/sec instead of 1150 meters/sec.
3.) Spread damage. Even at 90 meters, only about 65% of the SRM damage is impacting on the Awesome's CT. And that's *with* Artemis. I can see missiles occasionally hitting the arms and legs (!!).
4.) Heat efficiency, in terms of damage-per-heat. Essentially our weapons are designed to convert heat into damage (MG and Gauss excluded). The AC5 converts heat to damage at a ratio of 5 to 1. The SRM6s, taken as total damage, convert at a ratio of 3 to 1, but since only about 65% of it makes contact with the intended hitbox even at point-blank range, the ratio is really closer to 1.95. As you can see, by the time the SRMs bring down the Awesome, they've generated 2.54 times more heat than the AC5s.

All of these downsides in exchange for:
1.) Slightly faster TTK (23.4%) in an ideal environment.
2.) Higher alpha strike damage potential.

Advantage#2 is mostly negated because to use SRMs effectively tends to involve getting close... and when you're close to the enemy, you can't easily break off and get back into cover. In theory it'd be nice to hit&fade with SRMs to take advantage of the superior alpha strike potential. In practice, not really feasible. Once committed, the SRM user pretty much needs to bring his target down at point-blank range. Retreating in a situation like that gives the opponent free shots at you and vastly reduces the effectiveness of your return shots as you open up the range. You might do so as a strategic move, where you realize there are 2 or more enemy mechs able to focus fire you, and there's no other teammates in position to provide fire support to you, so to continue trading blows would be unfavorable. But retreating certainly doesn't help you leverage the SRM's advantage.

Additionally, the huge difference in heat efficiency means that against an opponent who is actively twisting and turning to spread the damage, there is the very real possibility of redlining yourself on heat using SRMs before you are able to kill the enemy, forcing you to slow your rate of fire, and giving away your marginal TTK advantage. The slight advantage in TTK that SRMs have may not even come to fruition, because of all the extra heat you generate. Against a target that is twisting and shielding, it may take you even longer to finally bring him down, and heat will become a very real issue, slowing down your DPS to the point where it might be a wash between AC5 and SRMs.

Now, add in issues with lag, HSR, and moving targets who are actively twisting, turning, and jumping while under fire, hitreg problems with SRMs.... you can see why SRMs are vastly underperforming. Even in an ideal scenario in Testing Grounds, SRMs only just barely kill faster than AC5s.

---

Conclusion:

SRMs are far too inefficient. For all the disadvantages they have, they don't have enough redeeming qualities at close range when compared to a similar investment in tonnage of AC5s. SRMs should absolutely embarrass AC5s in performance in a fight that begins at 90 meters with 100% fresh mechs.

I can't believe Paul is considering nerfing SRMs back to 1.5 damage per missile after HSR fixes are in. As it is now, SRMs aren't even worth it with perfect hitreg at 2.0 damage per missile.

Edited by YueFei, 27 May 2014 - 10:53 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Let's not ignore the fact our SRMs should be doing 3 damage either.

http://www.sarna.net...d-Fire_Missiles

Edited by Mcgral18, 27 May 2014 - 11:06 PM.

[Reitrix]

Because the game was never designed to let you efficiently destroy an Assault 'Mech with a single weapon?

[Jun Watarase]

Reitrix, on 27 May 2014 - 11:09 PM, said:

Because the game was never designed to let you efficiently destroy an Assault 'Mech with a single weapon?

Strange, then why can i boat 4 AC5s and core a full hp Atlas from 620 meters in 13.28 seconds, and not have to worry about overheating to boot?

Edited by Jun Watarase, 27 May 2014 - 11:20 PM.

[YueFei]

I refrained from putting my own suggestions for changes in the opening post to avoid taking attention away from the findings, and to make it clear that this thread is not just about *my* ideas, but to welcome suggestions from the entire community. So, the opening post only contains information about the problem, and doesn't include any proposed solutions.

That said, here would be my own proposal for how to change things:

SRMs should kill a target twice as fast and twice as efficiently as an AC5 at 90 meters. Basically, if two similar mechs meet head-on and begin engaging at 90 meters, and one has AC5s and the other mech has equivallent tonnage in SRMs, the one with SRMs should win and walk away with ~60% health remaining, if both start at 100% and are piloted by players with equal skill. First step is to increase SRM efficiency by reducing spread. You should be able to get 100% of a salvo into the CT of an Awesome at 90 meters. That will increase SRM efficiency by over 50%. Then, bumping damage per missile to 3.0 will be another 50% increase in effectiveness. Combine these together, and SRMs will become twice as effective as they are now, and thus roughly twice as effective as an AC5 at 90 meters.

TLDR: tighten SRM spread so you can hit 1 component at 90 meters. Increase damage-per-missile to 3.0.

[YueFei]

Reitrix, on 27 May 2014 - 11:09 PM, said:

Because the game was never designed to let you efficiently destroy an Assault 'Mech with a single weapon?

What does this have to do with the information I presented? First of all, get the Splatcat of old *out* of your head. That doesn't exist anymore, and cannot exist anymore because SRMs have no splash damage.

Secondly, if you feel overall TTK is too low (mechs die too fast), then you should advocate for nerfs to the AC5. If you feel overall TTK is just right or is too high (mechs live too long), then you should be all on-board with a buff to SRMs, since they currently do *not* compare favorably with AC5s even within a 90 meter range band where they ought to vastly outperform AC5s.

The information I presented is actually completely *independent* of what the overall TTK is. The thing that matters is the *relative* TTK, and the *relative* performance between these weapons. If the AC5 is held up as a measuring stick (and, since AC5s aren't afflicted by Ghost Heat, I assume PGI feels AC5s are a good "standard"), then SRMs are badly underperforming.

[YueFei]

Mcgral18, on 27 May 2014 - 11:06 PM, said:

Let's not ignore the fact our SRMs should be doing 3 damage either.

http://www.sarna.net...d-Fire_Missiles

Coincidence that you and I are both suggesting SRMs be bumped to 3.0 damage per missile?

[zazz0000]

The only thing I dislike about SRM's (aside from occasional hitreg issues) is the amount of heat they put out. Mmmmaybe a bit more damage would be nice, like 2.25-ish.

[PeekaBoo I C Ju]

At the moment SRMS are largely useless. Even when they do hit the damage spreads out all over the place and is negligible to begin with. 3 per missile would help the damage but the real problem is hit detection IMO

[Tahribator]

AC5 applies its damage to a single location, while SRMs are designed to weaken the enemy mech as a whole. That's why they do way more damage, but it's not focused. I don't think this is a fair comparison.

You're supposed to use SRMs as a "sidekick" to a higher higher damaging weapon like ACs, Pulse Lasers or a decent amount of regular lasers. You hammer away with SRMs and pound the specific component with your main weapon. Your damage output will be so high, that soon his armor will start opening up. At this stage, even if you die, the enemy won't survive longer either.

Also, you have to take movement into account. How accurate are you when circling an enemy mech at 90 meters with your AC5? Its middling rate of fire only makes it tedious to use, requiring you to stare at the target until they die. SRMs on the other hand, allow you to "dump and twist" and even this property alone makes them superior.

SRMs aren't designed to be on par with ACs. If you really want your TTK to go down and use SRMs as a main weapon, use Artemis.

[PhoenixFire55]

SRMs are currently doing just about the damage they should be doing. Problem, just like with other weapons, is the horrendous hit reg. I've been testing my SRM Centurion and SRM Atlas quite often over the last month. They do just fine and tear things up when hit reg is with you, but sometimes it just doesn't happen. Had a game when I parked 10m behind a stationary Banshee and unloaded 3 ASRM6s into its rear CT twice in a row. First alpha stripped all armor off and made the CT red, second alpha did nothing. Like nothing at all, no damage anywhere, not rear, nor front. On an Atlas with dual LBXs and 3 SRM6s when hit reg is there I practically one-shot any medium mech I come across. SRMs are fine, hit reg isn't.

[YueFei]

Tahribator, on 27 May 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

AC5 applies its damage to a single location, while SRMs are designed to weaken the enemy mech as a whole. That's why they do way more damage, but it's not focused. I don't think this is a fair comparison.

You're supposed to use SRMs as a "sidekick" to a higher higher damaging weapon like ACs, Pulse Lasers or a decent amount of regular lasers. You hammer away with SRMs and pound the specific component with your main weapon. Your damage output will be so high, that soon his armor will start opening up. At this stage, even if you die, the enemy won't survive longer either.

Also, you have to take movement into account. How accurate are you when circling an enemy mech at 90 meters with your AC5? Its middling rate of fire only makes it tedious to use, requiring you to stare at the target until they die. SRMs on the other hand, allow you to "dump and twist" and even this property alone makes them superior.

SRMs aren't designed to be on par with ACs. If you really want your TTK to go down and use SRMs as a main weapon, use Artemis.

You can twist&fire with AC5s. They don't require you to stare your opponent down. The skill level required to do this is higher than with SRM6s with 4 second reload time, but it can still be done. I've seen top players do it frequently.

This test was conducted using Artemis at a range of 90 meters. And it represents a scenario where a *greater* investment was made in the SRMs than in the AC5. Same tonnage, but more hardpoints and more crit slots are used to install the SRMs.

A more realistic scenario would involve the first shots being exchanged much farther out, well outside of SRM range. Even if you manage to get into SRM range to start the fight, the first shots are probably going to be fired from 200+ meters away, not 90 meters away. Good players tend to not hug cover so tightly that they can't see anything anyways, so being able to sneak up within 90 meters of someone before the first shot is extremely difficult.

If SRMs are not a superior alternative to AC5s even in a fight that starts at point-blank brawling range, why ever bring SRMs instead of AC5s (assuming you have the hardpoints for either one)? Why aren't brawl decks composed of PPC + SRM combos? Instead, they are still PPC + AC combos. I saw lots of AC20s and lots of medium lasers on the Frozen City tournament matches. Hell, I even saw Streaks. But hardly any SRMs. =/

[Mister Dubis]

Peekaboo I C JU, on 27 May 2014 - 11:50 PM, said:

3 per missile would help the damage but the real problem is hit detection IMO

I feel like damage is fine as I don't really see a problem with hit detection. But that might be because my ping is usually in the 30-50 range

[YueFei]

PhoenixFire55, on 27 May 2014 - 11:55 PM, said:

SRMs are currently doing just about the damage they should be doing. Problem, just like with other weapons, is the horrendous hit reg. I've been testing my SRM Centurion and SRM Atlas quite often over the last month. They do just fine and tear things up when hit reg is with you, but sometimes it just doesn't happen. Had a game when I parked 10m behind a stationary Banshee and unloaded 3 ASRM6s into its rear CT twice in a row. First alpha stripped all armor off and made the CT red, second alpha did nothing. Like nothing at all, no damage anywhere, not rear, nor front. On an Atlas with dual LBXs and 3 SRM6s when hit reg is there I practically one-shot any medium mech I come across. SRMs are fine, hit reg isn't.

I'm not trying to characterize SRMs are completely useless. They aren't. I've been using them, and continue using them. I was in my HBK-4SP tonight with a pair of ASRM6 on my shoulders, they still do damage, and they can still kill people. They can be effective. They're not totally useless like.... flamers.

However, if the AC5 is considered to be balanced, then SRMs are underpowered in comparison.

In a fight that starts at 270 meters and *stays* at 250 meters? I have no problem with AC5s outperforming SRMs, assuming you invest equivalent tonnage into both. So if you have 2xAC5, the equivalent investment in SRMs would be 4xASRM6. But if you fight at 90 meters and 4xASRM6 don't significantly outperform 2xAC5 in a point-blank-range brawl, what's the point?

Keep in mind that my test was on a stationary target. Against a moving target, SRMs must be lead farther ahead due to the slow projectile speed. In many cases, this involves leading the shot into thin air, which leads to crappier convergence with missile launchers located in different parts of your mech. Converging AC5s into a target can be done even when it is moving laterally if you are at close range.

Hit detection is definitely a problem with SRMs, but I don't want this thread to focus on that. I ran my tests in the Testing Grounds to eliminate lag and HSR from consideration. In light of the data gleaned from Testing Grounds, even with perfect hit detection, SRMs still need some love.

Edited by YueFei, 28 May 2014 - 12:19 AM.

[Grimmrog]

Sure its crappy compared to the AC's but some mechs are kinda forced to use them as their CQC crutch because they don't have the ballistic Hardpoints.

But the SRM's are totally crappy, you better go with some SSRM's They at least home in if you cna lock.

Edited by Grimmrog, 28 May 2014 - 12:30 AM.

[Reitrix]

YueFei, on 27 May 2014 - 11:37 PM, said:

TLDR: tighten SRM spread so you can hit 1 component at 90 meters. Increase damage-per-missile to 3.0.

And have back the old one shot Splatcat from CB? No thanks. 6x SRM6 with a tight enough spread to only hit a CT at 90~ means they'd be hitting center mass with at least 80% of the missiles from its optimal range of 270.

You do realize that Six SRM6's is 108 damage in a single salvo if they went with your plan, right? Two salvos to blow an Atlas to pieces. No thanks. If the damage was ever moved to 3, they'd need to WIDEN the spread.

[El Bandito]

I believe I represent everyone here when I say that it really isn't too much to ask PGI to make SRMs not suck.

[Ursh]

Tahribator, on 27 May 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

AC5 applies its damage to a single location, while SRMs are designed to weaken the enemy mech as a whole. That's why they do way more damage, but it's not focused. I don't think this is a fair comparison.

You're supposed to use SRMs as a "sidekick" to a higher higher damaging weapon like ACs, Pulse Lasers or a decent amount of regular lasers. You hammer away with SRMs and pound the specific component with your main weapon. Your damage output will be so high, that soon his armor will start opening up. At this stage, even if you die, the enemy won't survive longer either.

Also, you have to take movement into account. How accurate are you when circling an enemy mech at 90 meters with your AC5? Its middling rate of fire only makes it tedious to use, requiring you to stare at the target until they die. SRMs on the other hand, allow you to "dump and twist" and even this property alone makes them superior.

SRMs aren't designed to be on par with ACs. If you really want your TTK to go down and use SRMs as a main weapon, use Artemis.

Uhm, the AC5 has a higher projectile speed, so it's actually pretty freaking accurate against anything but a very fast medium or light when it comes to circle strafing.

He stated in the original post that he was using artemis...so maybe go back and read it again?

Machine guns, flamers, and small lasers weren't mean to be main weapons. SRMs, particularly ASRMs, definitely were meant to be main weapons, in both canon battletech and MWO.

The OP made a pretty good comparison between similar weapon weight plus criticals, and found that a single AC5 will outperform 2xASRM6 in almost any situation that doesn't involve shooting a shutdown assault mech with a huge torso from pointblank range. Even at 90m, which should be considered pointblank range, only 65% of his Artemis guided missiles were hitting the CT of an Awesome, which has a massive CT to hit.

MY Ideas for SRM improvement:
Increase speed to 500m per second, minimum.
Increase grouping for base SRM flights, make it almost a solid group for ASRM flights. Currently ASRM has a worse spread at max range than an LB10X does at 600m, which is why SRMs are referred to as a face-hugging weapon, because it's the only way to maximize their effectiveness. Unless you're extremely fast, you don't get to hide and peek with SRMs.
Increase SRM damage to 2.5. Mechs with long range loadouts, particular ballistics, shouldn't view a brawler ambush with the thought "Well, he's going to hurt me a bit and strip a bunch of armor before I core him out." They should be thinking, "He got the drop on me and I'm about to die", provided the pilots are of mostly equivalent skill.

Edited by Ursh, 28 May 2014 - 01:15 AM.

[Dymlos2003]

People need to learn how to use srms.

Ursh, on 28 May 2014 - 01:06 AM, said:

Uhm, the AC5 has a higher projectile speed, so it's actually pretty freaking accurate against anything but a very fast medium or light when it comes to circle strafing.

He stated in the original post that he was using artemis...so maybe go back and read it again?

Machine guns, flamers, and small lasers weren't mean to be main weapons. SRMs, particularly ASRMs, definitely were meant to be main weapons, in both canon battletech and MWO.

Wrong, srms hunt crits. That's all and were made to be used with other weapons.

Edited by Dymlos2003, 28 May 2014 - 01:14 AM.

[El Bandito]

Dymlos2003, on 28 May 2014 - 01:13 AM, said:

People need to learn how to use srms.


Wrong, srms hunt crits. That's all and were made to be used with other weapons.

Why should we use SRMs to hunt crits when high caliber weapons such as PPC and AC20 can destroy crits much more efficiently? Current SRMs are bad for all of its intended role.

Also, many Lighter mechs use SRM as main weapon. Commando and Jenner are a prime examples.

Edited by El Bandito, 28 May 2014 - 01:24 AM.