230 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

Athom83, on 22 March 2017 - 05:38 AM, said:

SRM4s were god tier for fast movers, even without quirks. Compare the above 4 vs a6 scenario with 4 4s and 2 a6s. With the 6s, you can dish out 26 damage every 4 seconds (if you stare at the enemy with the fire button always down). With the 4s you can do 34 damage every 3 seconds. When I'm running behind lets say a Atlas or Dire Wolf, I'd prefer that 36 every 3 seconds to drill though the armor and take out internals as fast as possible as they only take ~12 back armor on each torso section. The very slight inaccuracy over the a6s also works out in my favor, as I don't need to precisely aim for that one section I've opened up while running and circling with the potential to be taken out by the 80+ something damage alpha that Assault is likely to have.
Lol, I take SRM6s and 2s without Artemis in a lot of builds as they have their own benefits, like; saturation against lights trying to run circles around you, less tonnage and crit space, and others. Just because they aren't pinpoint weaponry does not make them bad.

What "fast mover" has the ability to do what you describe here with "4 4s" other than an Oxide (at least on the IS side)?
How often do you see Oxide's since their last nerffing? This patch hits them again. Yay.

[Lightfoot]

Kiran Yagami, on 21 March 2017 - 05:32 AM, said:

To deserve a nerf? As an IS pilot, I only use SRM 4 if I can fit at least 6 of them, and even then only if I'm taking another weapon as a finisher. The whole point of them is that they're just tight enough to not make Artemis mandatory, but not so tight as to be able to finish off a mech with SRM 4s alone. I'd almost always take 4 x ASRM 6 over 6 x SRM 4 if I could afford the weight, since 6 x ASRM 4 is way too heavy, but on some mechs that extra weight Artemis tags on to the SRM 6 pack gimps your ammo stores, hence the SRM 4 sans Artemis option. So which mechs were so OP with non-Artemis SRM 4s that caused it to get the nerf bat? Why take SRM 4 over SRM 6 + Artemis now? The spread nerf was pretty significant, so it's questionable if I can even get all missiles on target, let alone in the general area I point them at.

QFT

Honestly I don't think PGI plays MWO sometimes. There is no reason to use SRM4 over Artemis SRM6 now. You would still be forced to use SRM4 if you were in a Light mech or mech with limited critical slots, but the old SRM4 were not as accurate as the A-SRM6's anyway. Just saying there was already an accuracy trade-off, but it could save some tons, but that's the point of SRM4!!! It's not an exploit or something. It's called "BattleTech".

[Quicksilver Aberration]

DAYLEET, on 21 March 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

No i didnt. You work for Drumpf by any chance?

DAYLEET, on 21 March 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

I almost never see asrm6 beside the AS7 and SB. I have a few mech outside the AS7 who use them, all medium mech and only because they are starving for hardpoints and can't do anything else of value(SP and cn9-ah).

Maybe you wanna double check what you said next time.




Side note, I'm not really a fan of this change, now I simply won't ever use SRM4s without artemis just like SRM6s except in very niche cases (kiss-of-death Jenner IIC).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 22 March 2017 - 06:56 AM.

[InspectorG]

TercieI, on 21 March 2017 - 05:33 AM, said:

It gave light mechs a non energy option.

Can't have effective light mechs.

Gotta make those AC2 Lights viable.

Gotta make those IS-SL viable.

Expect incoming nerfs to wubs and heat dispersion.

[Athom83]

Bud Crue, on 22 March 2017 - 06:36 AM, said:

What "fast mover" has the ability to do what you describe here with "4 4s" other than an Oxide (at least on the IS side)?
How often do you see Oxide's since their last nerffing? This patch hits them again. Yay.

I was referring to all cases where 2 SRM4s = 1 aSRM6 in multiples. Like in the case of the Locust 1M or 3M (both of which I've played) I'd take 2 SRM4s over a aSMR6. Or cases for mechs with 6 missile harpoints can take 6 SRM4s instead of 3 aSRM6s. But if you wan't exact mechs; Trebuchet, Griffon, Bushwacker (+), and all Kintaro mechs except the 20. That doesn't take into account the heavy mechs you can push near 90 kph for the IS with a lot of missile points like the Catapult or Archer, but those you want different weapons as they have different purposes.

[Gas Guzzler]

DAYLEET, on 21 March 2017 - 03:24 PM, said:

Good for you, it's not like you can formulate an argument. Can you? Because you could try to address the fact that srm4 are pound for pound better than asrm6. What do you think is better with asrm6? They have worse spread, worse cooldown, worse crit space, go ahead im interested.

You have blatantly ignored counter arguments by covering your ears and saying "la la la la SRM4s better pound for pound than aSRM6s"

ASRM6 spread: 2.97
SRM4 spread (pre nerf): 3.5

"Worse spread" blatantly false.

Crit space is a situational issue. Its an issue for lights trying to squeeze every last ounce and getting FF. Mediums can go slower, drop FF and bring aSRM6s if they want to for more up front damage/poke or go with aSRM4s for more DPS and even tighter spread.

Worse cooldown, yep. Sometimes though, the front loaded splat is more valuable than continued DPS which makes your more susceptible to incoming fire. Its a tradeoff. Weighing the advantages and disadvantages, in the past it made std SRM4s viable options for lights that want the speed and DPS more than the enhanced precision or big alpha poke. I personally have found quad packs of aSRM4s or aSRM6s to be the way to go for larger mediums that prefer the precision. Massed SRM4s are borderline gimmicky, with ghost heat and all, and the fact that that many launchers just creates a lot of heat by themselves.

[InspectorG]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 March 2017 - 06:12 AM, said:

So...OMG..they are trying reduce the amount of alpha damage out there.... END OF DAYS!

No, its that they are doing it wrong and after all these years havent figured it out yet with New Tech on the horizon.

Seriously, want to curb Alphas?

Govern what can be grouped with hard 1sec. cooldown between firings of weapon groups. Also re-tards Macros.

Also can create variability/viability to some chassis variants without using quirks.
Case in point: Mad-llC, Mad-llC-8. Both energy boats. No offensive quirks. Pick desired Alpha for each, Limit what can be grouped together in Weapon Grouping Screen. One can be Alpha boat, other can be DPS. Same for Supernovas and the like.

[Bud Crue]

Athom83, on 22 March 2017 - 07:14 AM, said:

I was referring to all cases where 2 SRM4s = 1 aSRM6 in multiples. Like in the case of the Locust 1M or 3M (both of which I've played) I'd take 2 SRM4s over a aSMR6. Or cases for mechs with 6 missile harpoints can take 6 SRM4s instead of 3 aSRM6s. But if you wan't exact mechs; Trebuchet, Griffon, Bushwacker (+), and all Kintaro mechs except the 20. That doesn't take into account the heavy mechs you can push near 90 kph for the IS with a lot of missile points like the Catapult or Archer, but those you want different weapons as they have different purposes.

You and I have a very different definition of "fast mover". As to your main point, I'm not sure I am understanding the Locust comparison. Neither of those varriants has a missile point let alone multiple. You mean the S? You can certainly fit 2-4s instead of 4-2s, but A6'es? Man you gotta drop some serious engine weight to pull that off, and in a Locust that means you're dead.

[Coolant]

boating SRM's shouldn't be allowed. Waaaaay too much alpha

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Coolant, on 22 March 2017 - 07:46 AM, said:

boating SRM's shouldn't be allowed. Waaaaay too much alpha

lolwut

You realize even brawl teams don't really use SRMs that much right now (at least when tonnage matters)? It's all about the cSPL boats these days.

[R Valentine]

Coolant, on 22 March 2017 - 07:46 AM, said:

boating SRM's shouldn't be allowed. Waaaaay too much alpha

So I guess Gauss/PPC and CSmpls are all fine and dandy then. At least SRMs take effort.

[Gas Guzzler]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 March 2017 - 07:54 AM, said:

lolwut

You realize even brawl teams don't really use SRMs that much right now (at least when tonnage matters)? It's all about the cSPL boats these days.

You Filthy Cheeser.

An example of a True MechWarrior build is shown below:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...266ca2b3d706691

If you don't like this kind of build, than you are cancer and I can't wait for HBS BattleTech!!!

[Bishop Steiner]

Gas Guzzler, on 22 March 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

You Filthy Cheeser.

An example of a True MechWarrior build is shown below:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...266ca2b3d706691

If you don't like this kind of build, than you are cancer and I can't wait for HBS BattleTech!!!

uh oh...someone musta annoyed you, lol.

[Athom83]

Bud Crue, on 22 March 2017 - 07:28 AM, said:

You and I have a very different definition of "fast mover". As to your main point, I'm not sure I am understanding the Locust comparison. Neither of those varriants has a missile point let alone multiple. You mean the S? You can certainly fit 2-4s instead of 4-2s, but A6'es? Man you gotta drop some serious engine weight to pull that off, and in a Locust that means you're dead.

Yes, I meant 3S. But the 1M does have 2 missile hardpoints in the arms. And you can fit a6s, you just have to drop some ammo and lose the lasers. LCT-1M, or compare that to what I said of 1 a6 vs 2 4s in it like this one vs this. Proof you can go the 4 4s in a locust.

[Bud Crue]

Athom83, on 22 March 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

Yes, I meant 3S. But the 1M does have 2 missile hardpoints in the arms. And you can fit a6s, you just have to drop some ammo and lose the lasers. LCT-1M, or compare that to what I said of 1 a6 vs 2 4s in it like this one vs this. Proof you can go the 4 4s in a locust.

And here I thought I had all the Locusts. I have forgotten about the 1M. I honestly had no idea. Now I gotta do that. Thanks

As to your point: I never said you couldn't do 4 -4s or even 2a6s on the S. I said you would be slow and thus dead if you did.
Those builds are moving at less than 120. In a Locust. Good luck.

[Athom83]

Bud Crue, on 22 March 2017 - 09:14 AM, said:

Those builds are moving at less than 120. In a Locust. Good luck.

Gotta use the supersize butt *** tactic for sure, but they're still going at a really good clip.

[Splatshot]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 March 2017 - 07:15 PM, said:

balance. Why ever use a larger launcher if the smaller ones group tighter and cycle faster, aside from limited hardpoints. Thus, from a balance standpoint, it's stupid. Pretty simple, actually.

Then that is the problem, as who decides what is balance point.

Everyone knows what the weapons can and cannot do, if you choose not to use the better weapons, so be it, but that is your choice.

There is no way that you will ever be able to balance this game, they have not been able to in 20 years. And what they did come up with to balance it in TT, they cannot or will not do here with BV or numbers of mechs (10 v 12).

[Bishop Steiner]

Splatshot, on 22 March 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

Then that is the problem, as who decides what is balance point.

Everyone knows what the weapons can and cannot do, if you choose not to use the better weapons, so be it, but that is your choice.

There is no way that you will ever be able to balance this game, they have not been able to in 20 years. And what they did come up with to balance it in TT, they cannot or will not do here with BV or numbers of mechs (10 v 12).

K. Cool story. Pretty demonstrably wrong, as shown by multiple people throughout this thread, but believe what you want. Cheers.

[Athom83]

Splatshot, on 22 March 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

Then that is the problem, as who decides what is balance point.

Math and numbers, to an extent the guys who interpret those numbers.

Splatshot, on 22 March 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

Everyone knows what the weapons can and cannot do, if you choose not to use the better weapons, so be it, but that is your choice.

However, people don't know what things can do in changes not yet known. The data collected just this past day may have been enough to either validate or invalidate the nerf to SRM4s. We don't know, but its there at PGI.

Splatshot, on 22 March 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

There is no way that you will ever be able to balance this game, they have not been able to in 20 years. And what they did come up with to balance it in TT, they cannot or will not do here with BV or numbers of mechs (10 v 12).

Man, forgot my tinfoil hat. Give me a second. Ah, got it. OMG no balance change never balance nerf nerf nerf nerf buff PGI fault!
Seriously though, the reasons for the appearance of being unable to balance are as follows;
1) Data collected can be skewed by extremes and bugs. Take the B33f video from quite a while ago where there was a bug with the missile cooldown on a mech, setting it to 1000%. Things like that can artificially inflate statistics of certain things. Or take a very skilled player who plays "bad" mechs against very new players with "meta/op" mechs. The skilled player gets many kills and **** tons of damage and points, while the newer players did **** all. Does this mean that the mechs were to blame for the performances shown?
2) Everything new added or changed invalidates previously collected data as a whole new set of data is then required to be built. Not only for the thing changed, but everything else as well as all of that data was collected and built with the basis of the original statistics.
3) Comparing things for balance is difficult to do as they all have their own statistics that are dependent and independent to other things.
4) The variety of views that can come out of a source because of the truly massive amounts of variables involved. Figuring out the variables in something like y = ax+b is easy if you have your x and/or y. But then given something else like f(yn) = (ax^n - bx^(c-n / x) + d) / n^e - x^n, what does a and b equal now?

[banana peel]

I would also like to point out one thing that pro-nerf folk is missing here. An argument that "SRM4 is 2 tons, SRM6A is twice as much and triple in crits, so why would i take SRM6A" is completely incorrect in terms of MWO balance. You cannot directly compare weapons of different power level within one weapon type.

Say, you have an option to take only 6 ermeds or only 1 lpl. What would you pick? Only 2 ac5 with less armor or only 1 ac20? The answer is always obvious, because the most powerful weapons of the kind must be blocked behind the tonnage and/or crit paywall. How high must be the wall - it depends. That is the way the balance is set in MWO.

Even though SRM4 and SRM6A have equal range, unlike other weapon types, they still play differently: SRM4 is more of a dps, SRM6A is high and heat efficient alpha strike, that also anables heavier mechs to perform a full twist during the cooldown.

Simple example. I have a mauler-1R and i want to make a good splat build. I can take 2lbx10+4srm4 with max standard engine, plenty of ammo and some heatsinks. But obviously i would prefer 2lbx10+4srm6A with something like std 310 and no heatsinks. It is superior even without the nerf. Or would you ever consider building an SRM4 cyclops instead of SRM6A build?

p.s. I still think a slight spread nerf (5%) for SRM4 would be reasonable, not 15%. Tried one of my top-3 favourite builds in the game yesterday, JM6-A with 2lbx10+4srm4. It's a junk now, completely useless.