59 replies to this topic

[Gattsus]

The SRM4 was really good value for weight, but it got nerfed. What do you think about its viability in mediums? should I use srm4+A or plain srm4. For example, this Griffin 2n build could be, in this form


http://mwo.smurfy-ne...7c0fcae18e91eb7

or this one:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...bc79a108d6e8b49

thank you!

Edited by Gattsus, 27 March 2017 - 07:31 AM.

[mogs01gt]

IMO with how much the meta and maps benefit long range, brawling with SRMs simply makes the game hardmode.

[R Valentine]

The clan SRM4s definitely suck now. I used to use 6x SRM4 + LB20-X on my Mad Dog, but now that SRM4s go everywhere, I've just gone back to 6xASRM 6. SRM4s are pointless now.

[Bud Crue]

My shot gun Shadow Hawk still seems pretty capable even without Artemis (4srm4 and an LBX). But then I tend to treat it as a "hold your fire until you see the white's of their eyes" sort of thing so the spread nerf isn't that big of a deal.

I ran my Cat-A1 with my normal build of 6ASRM4s and it still is more effective at range than the 6ASRM6 version.

Where I really noticed a difference is in my QuickDraw 4H with 3 SRM4 vs my 4G with 2 ASRM4s. The G was far more lethal to the extent that I rebuilt the H to add Artemis.

At the end of the day I think if you are staying at mid-long SRM range (~200M or more) then Artemis, particularly with only a few launchers is key to SRM4 performance. But if your build is all about point-blank brawling, then I don't think Artemis matters regardless of the number of mounts. So, same as it ever was, with only a few of my builds impacted.

Edited by Bud Crue, 27 March 2017 - 07:52 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

For a Griffin I would DEFINITELY bring artemis. For an Assassin you could do either I suppose, but I had better results going slower and bringing artemis. For the Oxide... probably stick with non-Artemis, but Jenners are just not in a great spot.

[Athom83]

I hardly notice any difference. Although, I usually hold SRM fire until around 200m or closer, and its in chain fire when I use SRM4s. And to Kiran, if you could directly swap out 6 SRM4s for 6 aSRM6s without changing anything else, why were you using SRM4s in the first place?

Edited by Athom83, 27 March 2017 - 08:40 AM.

[Mystere]

mogs01gt, on 27 March 2017 - 07:26 AM, said:

IMO with how much the meta and maps benefit long range, brawling with SRMs simply makes the game hardmode.

My solution to solving the long-range meta problem is to require at least 50% of MWO maps to be relatively dense environments, with maximum sight lines of 300m.

[Spheroid]

You can run cooler with a triple ASRM6 setup, with more jump and alpha despite loss of one heatsink. You may wish to think about that.

[Athom83]

Mystere, on 27 March 2017 - 08:33 AM, said:

My solution to solving the long-range meta problem is to require at least 50 33% of MWO maps to be relatively dense environments, with maximum sight lines of 300m.

FIFY. There are 3 ranges, not 2. The long range picking (ERL, ERPPC, LRM, Light ACs), the short range brawl (SRM, MPL, Heavy ACs), and the medium range slugfest (LPL, ML, Medium ACs/UACs).

[Mystere]

Athom83, on 27 March 2017 - 08:44 AM, said:

FIFY. There are 3 ranges, not 2. The long range picking (ERL, ERPPC, LRM, Light ACs), the short range brawl (SRM, MPL, Heavy ACs), and the medium range slugfest (LPL, ML, Medium ACs/UACs).

Making at least half of the maps favor short range engagements forces people to consider bringing more suitable shorter-range weapons. Anything less than that and people will be using mostly longer-range ones.

Edited by Mystere, 27 March 2017 - 08:53 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Kiran Yagami, on 27 March 2017 - 07:33 AM, said:

The clan SRM4s definitely suck now. I used to use 6x SRM4 + LB20-X on my Mad Dog, but now that SRM4s go everywhere, I've just gone back to 6xASRM 6. SRM4s are pointless now.

You mean the heavier and bulkier SRM 6 packs with Artemis are better than the lighter and smaller SRM 4packs without Artemis?

Wow. I guess the reason I am surprised is that you are disappointed by this fact. See, I am one of those lunies who thinks bigger and heavier weapons in a weapon category should be better than the smaller and lighter ones.

[Athom83]

Prosperity Park, on 27 March 2017 - 09:04 AM, said:

You mean the heavier and bulkier SRM 6 packs with Artemis are better than the lighter and smaller SRM 4packs without Artemis?

Wow. I guess the reason I am surprised is that you are disappointed by this fact. See, I am one of those lunies who thinks bigger and heavier weapons in a weapon category should be better than the smaller and lighter ones.

This isn't the first topic where he constantly equates SRM4s and aSRM6s 1:1 for examples, math, complaints, and other.

[mogs01gt]

Mystere, on 27 March 2017 - 08:53 AM, said:

Making at least half of the maps favor short range engagements forces people to consider bringing more suitable shorter-range weapons. Anything less than that and people will be using mostly longer-range ones.

Exactly! I got tired of seeing my w/l and dkr drop so I finally stopped being stubborn and switched to long range weapons. There isnt almost zero draw backs.

[KingCobra]

Well there is not much to say really except ( THE poptart META RANGE PLAYERS GOT THERE WAY AGAIN) Brawling in MWO keeps getting nerfed soon everyone will be long range weapon LRMS-Gauss-ERLL and every other weapon will be useless under 800 meters.

[Athom83]

mogs01gt, on 27 March 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

Exactly! I got tired of seeing my w/l and dkr drop so I finally stopped being stubborn and switched to long range weapons. There isnt almost zero draw backs.

With the 1 drawback being more susceptible to surprise butt seks from midgets on crack.

[R Valentine]

Athom83, on 27 March 2017 - 08:31 AM, said:

I hardly notice any difference. Although, I usually hold SRM fire until around 200m or closer, and its in chain fire when I use SRM4s. And to Kiran, if you could directly swap out 6 SRM4s for 6 aSRM6s without changing anything else, why were you using SRM4s in the first place?

You missed the giant LB-20X that was occupying the rest of the weight.

Athom83, on 27 March 2017 - 09:15 AM, said:

This isn't the first topic where he constantly equates SRM4s and aSRM6s 1:1 for examples, math, complaints, and other.

And your ability to read hasn't improved since the first topic. This last statement of yours is a complete lie.

[ZippySpeedMonkey]

It really doesn't matter what PGI does to SRM's ( or LRM's ) their individual performance is not the issue..

The problem right now is the lack of a penalty for stacking. Now some you are going to say "heat spike" but that is a lame arguement. It has does nothing to address the rampant boating we are seeing.

The solution is to make any ammo based weapons stacked past 2 jam. But we won't see this...

[Felicitatem Parco]

ZippySpeedMonkey, on 27 March 2017 - 10:47 AM, said:

The solution is to make any ammo based weapons stacked past 2 jam. But we won't see this...

The "problem" is that different weapon types require different firing solutions. In order to maximize efficiency and effectiveness you should cram as many weapons into a single firing solution as possible to minimize the number of targeting adjustments needed to land your shots and maximize the amount of firepower that goes downfield in a single volley.

Boating is effective and efficient. That is the "problem," however it's also the best way to build a combat vehicle.

[Mole]

I've been playing my Assasins with non-artemis SRM4s. They have been doing just fine. However, I have noticed the difference between what SRM4s used to be and what they are now. Your Griffin up there seems to have the tonnage for artemis so I would take it. But all the people claiming SRM4s are "useless" now without artemis is just a bunch of alarmist hyperbole. I'm willing to bet you that both of those Griffins you've built will be killers. That all being said, I believe you will see more benefit from having artemis on your SRM4s than you will with an extra 1% heat efficiency on an already decently heat efficient 'mech and two extra damage from the MPLs.

Edited by Mole, 27 March 2017 - 11:05 AM.

[Athom83]

Kiran Yagami, on 27 March 2017 - 10:38 AM, said:

You missed the giant LB-20X that was occupying the rest of the weight.

You omitted the fact that you dropped the LB-20X.

Kiran Yagami, on 27 March 2017 - 10:38 AM, said:

And your ability to read hasn't improved since the first topic. This last statement of yours is a complete lie.

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.

Kiran Yagami, on 21 March 2017 - 05:43 AM, said:

I just hate that the SRM 4 was the only decent Non-Artemis option, but now PGI wants to force everyone into taking Artemis no matter what SRM pack you take. Even the Clan SRM 4 was usable assuming you had another pin-point gun to hammer home the soft spots you created. The SRM 4 alone is horrible at finishing off enemies. Now it won't even be viable at all. May as well just only take SRM 6 + Artemis. The ASRM 4 is heavier per 12 and hotter, which makes it all but useless.

Kiran Yagami, on 21 March 2017 - 06:08 AM, said:

Yea sure, if you only take 1 SRM 4. But no one takes just 1 SRM pack. You take at least 3, and then only if you only have 3 missile hard points. I've never used less than 4 SRM packs, and at 4, the ASRM 6 is lighter and cooler than 6 x ASRM 4. That's 2 tons that could be ammo, and actually more like 4 tons because that's 2 heat sinks you don't have to take. SRM 4s are only better than SRM 6s without Artemis because the spread is tight enough to be usable, but not enough to reliably take out components. You still need another weapon to thread the needle. Now, there's almost no point in taking SRM 4s at all. As I just said, once you add Artemis SRM 6s are actually lighter.

Kiran Yagami, on 21 March 2017 - 06:28 AM, said:

You hear, but you don't listen. The SRM 4 is only better than the 6 without Artemis. With Artemis the 6 is hands down better. It's lighter and cooler, and I don't care at all about "the deeps" because SRMs are all about the alpha. It doesn't matter what your opinion on TTK is, nerfing SRM 4s doesn't really change that. It just makes SRM 4s unusable. I'll still just pack the ASRM 6's like I always have, only now the 2 mechs(yes, a whole 2) that I did use SRM 4s on I won't use them on anymore. I'll just use ASRM 6. The SRM 4 has no place.

3 x SRM 4 and 2 x SRM 6 weigh the same and do the same alpha, but SRM 4 groups are tighter. Disadvantage: 3 x SRM 4 generates more heat. That's a give and take, but still gives the SRM 4 a place.

Add on Artemis and now the ASRM 6 is tight enough that the only thing the ASRM 4 does is add more heat. Spread advantage has been neutralized. Not to mention 3 x ASRM 4 is also heavier. There's no contest here. ASRM 6 is straight better.

So if you destroy what made the SRM 4 better than the 6 without Artemis then the SRM 4 becomes obsolete altogether. A few extra "deeps" here and there won't save it. ASRM 6s are already better than ASRM 4s, so nothing's really changed there.

Kiran Yagami, on 21 March 2017 - 07:29 AM, said:

Huh? An SRM 4 nerf won't touch TTK. 4 x ASRM 6s is still a one shot wrecking ball and still my go to, only now my two builds that used SRM 4s to soften things up for other guns won't be viable, more engaging alternatives. Now all SRM mechs are ASRM 6 mechs.

Oh please, you only compare apples that don't actually exist in game. No one takes 1 SRM 4 or 1 SRM 6, hence why I matched them up in numbers that actually matter. But you already knew that, didn't you champ? Hence why you're attempting to pick at technicalities that don't actually construct an argument.

Kiran Yagami, on 21 March 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

Huh? I always take ASRM 6 over SRM 4s if I have the tonnage. SRM 4s were barely good enough before to be usable, but nowhere near pinpoint. You needed another weapon to hammer the soft spots your SRM 4s created. ASRM 6 are good enough to use as your one an only weapon. 4 of them in a fire group is a huge punch to one hit box. Even only 3 SRM4s usually hit 2 or more spots. Not bad, but definitely no ASRM 6.

Shall I continue?