230 replies to this topic

[TercieI]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 March 2017 - 08:25 AM, said:

What needs doing is standardizing the effectiveness of missiles racks, and of Artemis, so that the weapons are still effective without, but gain in effectiveness with it.

Now where have I...

TercieI, on 21 March 2017 - 05:47 AM, said:

Pretty much this. The 4 was good, the A4 was better if you could afford it. That's how it should be, but instead they're making it more like the 6, which is useless and you have to upgrade to the A6 to be usable. SMH.

...heard that?

Key word there is effectiveness, though. Raw numbers don't do that. "Normalization" rarely equals balance.

[Gas Guzzler]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 March 2017 - 08:25 AM, said:

Problem then becomes about hardpoints since very few mechs have enough hardpoints to bother with SRM2s in the first place. This game is designed around limiting hardpoints such that weapons that NEED to be boated to be useful often just get ignored unless they have more power to offset that hardpoint requirement. Now if mechs just had more hardpoints all around (especially lights) that would make more sense but as it stands, if that were the case the SRM2 would really just not be useful.

6 SRM2 Javelin! Hurray! (its gonna be hot as balls)

[Amsro]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 March 2017 - 08:25 AM, said:

the reason is... because you are saving that ton and crit, for every launcher. So you are sloppier, but capable of carrying more ammo or total firepower. That's it's own tradeoff.

What needs doing is standardizing the effectiveness of missiles racks, and of Artemis, so that the weapons are still effective without, but gain in effectiveness with it.

Yeah I don't have the answers to be sure. As it is %90 of the time I just use ASRM6 and be done with it.

No streaks, no 2's, no 4's, no lrms. (well barely any, couple mechs here or there)

[Deathlike]

TercieI, on 21 March 2017 - 08:28 AM, said:

Key word there is effectiveness, though. Raw numbers don't do that. "Normalization" rarely equals balance.

Why are you "poking the Dragon" (that is the nerfbat)?

[Spheroid]

People need to stop **** riding the 3M. What they have is andectotal evidence from comp play. Hardly a controlled experiment. Where are the hundreds of recorded matches of 3Ms vs. 2Ns with no other variables?

People act like vertical spread doesn't matter.

Edited by Spheroid, 21 March 2017 - 08:36 AM.

[Deathlike]

Spheroid, on 21 March 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

People need to stop **** riding the 3M. What we have is andectotal evidence from comp play. Hardly a controlled experiment. Where are the hundreds of recorded matches of 3Ms vs. 2Ns with no other variables?

People act like vertical spread doesn't matter.

That spread is due to hardpoint locations and convergence, not so much Artemis vs non-Artemis.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Spheroid, on 21 March 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

People act like vertical spread doesn't matter.

People act like the torso structure quirks don't matter.

[TercieI]

Deathlike, on 21 March 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

Why are you "poking the Dragon" (that is the nerfbat)?

I'm the one arguing for buffs to the 6 actually...

My point was most of us are actually saying the same thing: We want there to be tradeoffs that give us meaningful choices between the launchers, just struggling to figure out how that can happen. (And I still got little hope for the 2, but the vanilla 6 shouldn't have stayed trash this long).

[Gas Guzzler]

Spheroid, on 21 March 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

People need to stop **** riding the 3M. What they have is andectotal evidence from comp play. Hardly a controlled experiment. Where are the hundreds of recorded matches of 3Ms vs. 2Ns with no other variables?

People act like vertical spread doesn't matter.

The 3M is probably better unless you really really want the 4 aSRM6 with an XL engine.

All the structure quirks help.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 March 2017 - 08:25 AM, said:

Problem then becomes about hardpoints since very few mechs have enough hardpoints to bother with SRM2s in the first place. This game is designed around limiting hardpoints such that weapons that NEED to be boated to be useful often just get ignored unless they have more power to offset that hardpoint requirement. Now if mechs just had more hardpoints all around (especially lights) that would make more sense but as it stands, if that were the case the SRM2 would really just not be useful.

and that is an inherent issue with the game design. Again, in TT, the determining factor of what launcher you used, was the size of your mech. You used a SRM2 on a Locust because you didn't have the tonnage for a bigger one, etc.

The hardpoint system has negated some headaches, but created a few of it's own.

As I said, give the smaller racks a slight efficiency bonus over the larger ones. There are many ways to do that. I have always felt cooldown was the worst one.

After all, let's say I have a mech with 8 hardpoints, and one with 4. Everything else is the same. As it stands, aside from a minimal heat difference, right now, I'm better firing 8 SRM2s than 4 SRM4s because I get tighter groups and faster RoF. So apple to apple, the smaller rack is better (as demonstrated by LRM5s in particular) as are more hardpoints. And yes, once you add Artemis to both, the scale now tilts to the SRM4s, due to 4 ton weight savings (again because Artemis is a bad design, in itself), but it's not a big enough gap between 8 SRM2 vs 4 aSRM4 (and you probably lose the heat advantage with the extra 4 tons devoted), because even if the aSRM4 is 10% more efficient on dmg (just a guess, not a hard number) that is really not an equal tradeoff in any sustained fire scenarios compared to the gain in RoF for the SRM2s. (every 6 seconds the SRM4s are 68 dmg vs 103 for the SRM2s). And yes, I know Alpha vs DPS matters, too which is again a reason for diminishing gains.

What's needed is legit reason, all other things equal to use the larger weapon over the smaller. And that is where MWO often falls apart, balance wise.

TercieI, on 21 March 2017 - 08:28 AM, said:

Now where have I...



...heard that?

Key word there is effectiveness, though. Raw numbers don't do that. "Normalization" rarely equals balance.

Actually it does, but one has to be willing to adjust all the moving parts, as needed. And balance normalization should be base doff diminishing returns, but not dramatically diminishing. Math is never wrong. People sometimes just focus on the wrong equations.

Deathlike, on 21 March 2017 - 08:34 AM, said:

That spread is due to hardpoint locations and convergence, not so much Artemis vs non-Artemis.

also you take 4 different photos of each, you will get slight variables in the spread pattern each time.

Deathlike, on 21 March 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

Why are you "poking the Dragon" (that is the nerfbat)?

because that is the only time most of us actually get to see a Dragon any more?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 March 2017 - 08:39 AM, said:

The hardpoint system has negated some headaches, but created a few of it's own.

Agreed, which is why I preferred the sized hardpoint system from MW4 because it made smaller launchers more interesting.

Bishop Steiner, on 21 March 2017 - 08:39 AM, said:

As I said, give the smaller racks a slight efficiency bonus over the larger ones. There are many ways to do that. I have always felt cooldown was the worst one.

After all, let's say I have a mech with 8 hardpoints, and one with 4. Everything else is the same. As it stands, aside from a minimal heat difference, right now, I'm better firing 8 SRM2s than 4 SRM4s because I get tighter groups and faster RoF.

The problem is the number of mechs with those 8 hardpoints to even use SRM2s in the first place.
Then there is the problem as you point out later about the impact of Artemis on both. Either Artemis needs to have scaling bonuses (so 2 aSRM2s are equal to an SRM6) or Artemis tonnage needs to scale with the launcher (that latter breaking stock configs most likely).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 March 2017 - 08:45 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 March 2017 - 08:44 AM, said:

Agreed, which is why I preferred the sized hardpoint system from MW4 because it made smaller launchers more interesting.

Eh, I just see it as having the opportunity for a different role. Sure the Archer can do 9 SRM4s for short range DPS, but a heavy mech with 4 SRM6 w/art and even 6 IS SPLs would be preferred for fire and twist brawling, to me anyway. Shame we don't have an IS mech that can do that.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 March 2017 - 08:44 AM, said:

Agreed, which is why I preferred the sized hardpoint system from MW4 because it made smaller launchers more interesting.


The problem is the number of mechs with those 8 hardpoints to even use SRM2s in the first place.
Then there is the problem as you point out later about the impact of Artemis on both. Either Artemis needs to have scaling bonuses (so 2 aSRM2s are equal to an SRM6) or Artemis tonnage needs to scale with the launcher (that latter breaking stock configs most likely).

hence the headache, since LRM5s and SRM2 largely break with artemis due to tonange, etc. As I said, artemis has been poorly implemented since it first appeared in TT. (hardly the first, nor the last example of bad design, but what can you do?)

In general the TT idea was, again, you only used the SRM2 or LRM5 when tonnage kept you from going bigger. And as such, those units like the 2xLRM5 Locust, simply never used artemis. But I mean, where have you seen in a TRO a mech with 6-9 LRM5s or SRM2s, with, or without artemis? On lighter mechs, you just boated energy instead, and bigger machines used bigger racks, with or without artemis.

Honestly, in TT, the only time I ever realyl say people use artemis heavily was SRM6s, and LRM15s. Oddly not on SRM4s, people would just go to streaks instead. But your aLRM15 was overall about as effective as a std LRM20, while still being 2 tons lighter and more ammo efficient.

Gas Guzzler, on 21 March 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:

Eh, I just see it as having the opportunity for a different role. Sure the Archer can do 9 SRM4s for short range DPS, but a heavy mech with 4 SRM6 w/art and even 6 IS SPLs would be preferred for fire and twist brawling, to me anyway. Shame we don't have an IS mech that can do that.

honestly, the fact we look toward any form of massed small laser on heavy or assaults in MWO, is just more proof of the issue with efficiency and such in MWO. (exacerbated by convergence, also)

[Weeny Machine]

TercieI, on 21 March 2017 - 06:42 AM, said:

Ok. Pretty sure I trust div A comp players in their area of specialty over you.

EDIT: note I said ASRM4s. If you mean vanilla SRM4s, I'd agree with you (and so would those pilots).

What doesn't work well for them, doesn't need to work well for others. And why should it? Each person is different. However, if you prefer to be a mindless lemming, more power to you.

[Gas Guzzler]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 March 2017 - 08:53 AM, said:

honestly, the fact we look toward any form of massed small laser on heavy or assaults in MWO, is just more proof of the issue with efficiency and such in MWO. (exacerbated by convergence, also)

For a brawler, its more for heat efficiency and short duration.. MPLs would probably be okay actually, maybe just 4 though. In MWO, larger lasers have higher durations, and LPLs are too heavy to be used effectively with aSRM24. Really, a PPFLD weapon matches with SRMs better, but IS heavies typically don't have the tonnage to do aSRM24 and a ballistic.

One of the reasons a Snub-Nose PPC might be a useful new weapon for brawlers in that configuration.

But then I guess you look at the Gargoyle with 10-12 cSPLs and I see your point, but at least that mech has that going for it, as it would be pretty "role-less" without being able to do that.

Bush Hopper, on 21 March 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

What doesn't work well for them, doesn't need to work well for others. And why should it? Each person is different. However, if you prefer to be a mindless lemming, more power to you.

There is more than "personal preference" at play here, has nothing to do with being a mindless lemming.

[TercieI]

Bush Hopper, on 21 March 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

What doesn't work well for them, doesn't need to work well for others. And why should it? Each person is different. However, if you prefer to be a mindless lemming, more power to you.

SMH. This is what kills me about how non-competitive players view competitive players. We're anything but lemmings. We're also not sentimental. We test the options, wear them out in scrimmages and lobbies and drops to figure out what really is best, not just what looks best. And if every top player runs essentially the same build it's not an accident and it's not conformity, it's because it's been tested and it's what works.

[Kubernetes]

It sucks. I like to run a Shadowhawk 2D2 (AC10, 4 SRM4) in some of my faction decks. You can't equip Artemis if you want to use that head hardpoint.

Spheroid, on 21 March 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

People act like vertical spread doesn't matter.

I don't think it matters as much because torsos and legs are vertically oriented. Narrow horizontal spread is more important when you're trying to hit a specific leg, ST, or CT.

Edited by Kubernetes, 21 March 2017 - 10:35 AM.

[R Valentine]

TercieI, on 21 March 2017 - 08:34 AM, said:

I'm the one arguing for buffs to the 6 actually...

My point was most of us are actually saying the same thing: We want there to be tradeoffs that give us meaningful choices between the launchers, just struggling to figure out how that can happen. (And I still got little hope for the 2, but the vanilla 6 shouldn't have stayed trash this long).

Buffing the 6 is the better option than nerfing the 4. Nerfing the 4 just makes all SRM mechs Artemis mechs. I have no idea why PGI thought the SRM 4 was such a monster that it needed to be smacked down. Whoopty doo, some light 1 shot you from behind. Fit more back armor. SRM 2s are pretty much unheard of and I have no idea what to do there. They're a lot different from AC/2s which at least had range going for them. SRM 2s have nothing. They're too hot, too slow, and few mechs have that many missile hard points.

[MechaBattler]

SRM4s that have good enough spread without artemis? It was bound to happen eventually.

It took them this long to do something about it. That's all.

[Andi Nagasia]

i think its less how was SRM4s over preforming, and more how were they preforming to other SRMs,
much like the UAC2 Nerfs coming in this next Patch, its not how is it over preforming,
but how is it preforming better than other AC2s,