20 replies to this topic

[Koniving]

I think this is it.

Technically this is 6 Streak SRM-2s. But that isn't what this is about.

Some mechs of the past have had reduced missile tubes to help add a little flavor. In some cases this was good. In some cases it was bad, particularly when the number of tubes you got didn't make any sense (Victor's first 2 missile slots were great, the third only gave you twin tubes and no control over what weapon system got it. Quickdraw's CT slot having 4 tubes was kinda bleh).

There have been times when limited tube counts provide interesting gameplay, too, such as Wolverines. An LRM-20 on a Wolverine only nets a 10 tube launcher, but the 'ease' of two heat spikes of half heat instead of a single heat spike allows for some great tactical elements. The reduced spread of 10 missiles being fired from an LRM-20 instead of 20 also made it almost as if each volley had Artemis when it didn't, and with Artemis the benefits are more compounded, more than making up for the added risk of those missiles being shot down or potentially missing.

But beyond the gameplay elements, there's the cosmetic elements...
And lets be honest. This looks like ****.

The Vindicator, whose missile door we missed out on because PGI gave it additional missile hardpoints and lots of tubes... looks like ****.
The Centurion, whose missile door was sacrificed to give us a mess of holes... looks less like **** compared to the Javelin and Vindicator, but my god the loss of that missile door is too drastic. I would happily accept something like a limit of 18 to 24 tubes on my Centurion if it meant I could keep them all behind a missile door, and I say this as someone who typically sports LRM-20 + 2 SRM-6s. I would be fine knowing that my LRM-20 launcher is trying to spew out of 5 to 6 tubes if it meant I'd look good doing it. God knows it'd do wonders for my heat management, too! So long as it isn't accidentally spiking ghost heat.

So if there was ever a case to cut back on extreme missile tube counts... here it is.

Discuss:

Can't make a poll here.
So please also provide:
Yay, Nay or Abstain/neutral.
and the reason for your position.

[Juodas Varnas]

Could probably be fixed with sized-hardpoints

But yeah, i always thought that mechs should have limited tube counts, depending on their role.
Take a Centurion for example.
It's a Jack of all trades with an LRM-10 stock, it has 20x20x15 missile tubes, which is beyond ridiculous.
Instead, i'd give it 10x6x6 tubes, you could probably even fit them onto its torso, without making it look like garbage.
Then take a Trebuchet as another example, since it's a missile-focused mech.
As a missile focused mech, Trebuchet could get much higher tube-count, giving it 20 tubes per hardpoint.

I don't know, just my 2 cents (but it's probably too late to have any of this changed, so why even bother?)

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 18 May 2017 - 09:12 AM.

[Metus regem]

Koniving, on 18 May 2017 - 09:00 AM, said:

I think this is it.

Looks like it got run through:

[Koniving]

It's good to see that there's yet another reason for the logical progression to sized hardpoints.. But correct, we'll never see it in this game so why bother. Just hope they consider it for Mechwarrior 5 since they are using the same models.

Tube counts, however, isn't a terribly big overhaul to do as many of the models already exist.

[Alexander Garden]

This is a known issue with S-SRM2s on the Javelin; it's called out in the Javelin section of the Patch Notes.

If we get a hot-fix out this week, a fix for this will be included with.

Hoping to have the potential for a hot-fix locked down some time today, one way or the other.

[Koniving]

Alexander Garden, on 18 May 2017 - 09:34 AM, said:

This is a known issue with S-SRM2s on the Javelin; it's called out in the Javelin section of the Patch Notes.

If we get a hot-fix out this week, a fix for this will be included with.

Hoping to have the potential for a hot-fix locked down some time today, one way or the other.

Good to know. But as is said above

Koniving, on 18 May 2017 - 09:00 AM, said:

Technically this is 6 Streak SRM-2s. But that isn't what this is about.

Edited by Koniving, 18 May 2017 - 09:36 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Alexander Garden, on 18 May 2017 - 09:34 AM, said:

This is a known issue with S-SRM2s on the Javelin; it's called out in the Javelin section of the Patch Notes.

If we get a hot-fix out this week, a fix for this will be included with.

Hoping to have the potential for a hot-fix locked down some time today, one way or the other.

I hope so, because you cannot shoot a Streak SRM hotfix without a lock.

Koniving, on 18 May 2017 - 09:00 AM, said:

I think this is it.

Technically this is 6 Streak SRM-2s. But that isn't what this is about.

Some mechs of the past have had reduced missile tubes to help add a little flavor. In some cases this was good. In some cases it was bad, particularly when the number of tubes you got didn't make any sense (Victor's first 2 missile slots were great, the third only gave you twin tubes and no control over what weapon system got it. Quickdraw's CT slot having 4 tubes was kinda bleh).

There have been times when limited tube counts provide interesting gameplay, too, such as Wolverines. An LRM-20 on a Wolverine only nets a 10 tube launcher, but the 'ease' of two heat spikes of half heat instead of a single heat spike allows for some great tactical elements. The reduced spread of 10 missiles being fired from an LRM-20 instead of 20 also made it almost as if each volley had Artemis when it didn't, and with Artemis the benefits are more compounded, more than making up for the added risk of those missiles being shot down or potentially missing.

But beyond the gameplay elements, there's the cosmetic elements...
And lets be honest. This looks like ****.

The Vindicator, whose missile door we missed out on because PGI gave it additional missile hardpoints and lots of tubes... looks like ****.
The Centurion, whose missile door was sacrificed to give us a mess of holes... looks less like **** compared to the Javelin and Vindicator, but my god the loss of that missile door is too drastic. I would happily accept something like a limit of 18 to 24 tubes on my Centurion if it meant I could keep them all behind a missile door, and I say this as someone who typically sports LRM-20 + 2 SRM-6s. I would be fine knowing that my LRM-20 launcher is trying to spew out of 5 to 6 tubes if it meant I'd look good doing it. God knows it'd do wonders for my heat management, too! So long as it isn't accidentally spiking ghost heat.

So if there was ever a case to cut back on extreme missile tube counts... here it is.

Discuss:

Can't make a poll here.
So please also provide:
Yay, Nay or Abstain/neutral.
and the reason for your position.

I say Hellz no. I want to run MRM packs on my Javelin, so reduced missile tube count is a direct nerf to an IS light Mech.

[Koniving]

Prosperity Park, on 18 May 2017 - 09:37 AM, said:

I say Hellz no. I want to run MRM packs on my Javelin, so reduced missile tube count is a direct nerf to an IS light Mech.

MRMs are getting unique tube models, however. Smaller, more condensed tubes.

Side by side on the Uziel, the MRM tubes are about 2/3rds the size and far more compact so they won't look as bad.

The Uziels demonstrated MRM-10 rack was smaller than 5 tubes out of an LRM-10.

Also... machine gun missile launcher anyone?

[Juodas Varnas]

Koniving, on 18 May 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

MRMs are getting unique tube models, however. Smaller, more condensed tubes.

Side by side on the Uziel, the MRM tubes are about 2/3rds the size and far more compact so they won't look as bad.

The Uziels demonstrated MRM-10 rack was smaller than 5 tubes out of an LRM-10.

Also... machine gun missile launcher anyone?

Weren't those models of Rocket Launchers though?

I don't think we've actually seen MRMs

[Appogee]

Mech cosmetics has never been a major concern of mine.

It does bother me though that post-scaling there's actually not enough room inside a Locust for a pilot to sit, unless the pilots legs are actually hanging down inside the legs of the Locust.

That troubles me.

[sycocys]

Where does that mech keep its engine?

[Metus regem]

sycocys, on 18 May 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

Where does that mech keep its engine?

It doesn't need one, it runs on pure salt, both that of the pilot and those it kills.

[Koniving]

Juodas Varnas, on 18 May 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

Weren't those models of Rocket Launchers though?

I don't think we've actually seen MRMs

It could be. It's been a while.

Either way though, considering how weak missiles are and how tiny they are, it'd stand to reason to shrink the tubes down a bit to some new standard, and honestly MRM-40 on ten tubes sounds really entertaining. Good reason to rush up to someone and shower them in volley after volley after volley after volley... and that'd just be one launcher.

It'd just need a faster rate of fire than the old LRM-20 on a single tube.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

[Appogee]

sycocys, on 18 May 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

Where does that mech keep its engine?

Same place as the Locust, which by scale would need to be so full of pilot that it's actually more of a Battle Armor than a Mech.

[Alexandros]

Metus regem, on 18 May 2017 - 10:27 AM, said:

It doesn't need one, it runs on pure salt, both that of the pilot and those it kills.

Perhaps the best comment I have ever seen on these forums.

[Koniving]

Metus regem, on 18 May 2017 - 10:27 AM, said:

It doesn't need one, it runs on pure salt, both that of the pilot and those it kills.

Your tears fuel my mech.



This kinda shows both the merits and the drawbacks of short tube numbers. Sadly I don't have any videos of SRMs in use, but SRMs fired in straight lines from single tube launchers, and even twin tube launchers... wait I do have some..

The Trollbuchet!


Twin tubes, twin launchers, SRMs fired like bullets! (Thumbnail is a snapshot of my Trollbuchet firing SRM-4s from the twin tubes while being followed by the CommandoCam of Lordred.)
Now I'm not asking for every mech to suddenly have crap for tubes... but on mechs where it makes sense we should cut them down. The reduced heat spike from the missiles firing in sequence really alleviates a lot of issues with launching missiles as a light, the tighter spread really buffs the hell out of whatever you're actually using... and this I believe more than makes up for having to hold for a reasonable number of volleys (2 to 3).

Edited by Koniving, 18 May 2017 - 11:01 AM.

[Daemon04]

Speaking of missile tubes.
Ive discovered that some quickdraw variants may have some visual issues.
4g shows both side torsos as usual with the heatsink grills while no weapons being equipped.
4h shows right torso grills but left torso has none when no weapons equipped.
5k shows right torso with grills but left torso shows only half the grills while no weapons equipped.
iv-four shows right torso with heat sink grills but left side is missing again.

Edited by Daemon04, 18 May 2017 - 11:29 AM.

[Juodas Varnas]

Daemon04, on 18 May 2017 - 11:29 AM, said:

Speaking of missile tubes.
Ive discovered that some quickdraw variants may have some visual issues.
4g shows both side torsos as usual with the heatsink grills while no weapons being equipped.
4h shows right torso grills but left torso has none when no weapons equipped.
5k shows right torso with grills but left torso shows only half the grills while no weapons equipped.
iv-four shows right torso with heat sink grills but left side is missing again.

Yeah, Quickdraw is kinda F'ed in the A, at the moment.

The 4H's extra hardpoint geometry also has F'ed textures with specific loadouts.

[stealthraccoon]

I would have preferred the shoulder mounted tubes to be in second place, vs the ribcage mounted ones. Why the need for so many tubes when you really can't fit that many launchers in the little guy?