675 replies to this topic

[Sigmar Sich]

I'm very much excited about this update. I think i'll return to regular play because of it. Drunk runs do not count.. (stopped playing after UI 2.0 update, realising game needs some a lot of time to evolve).

P.S. One thing bugs me - how this war is civil, if FedCom never existed in MWO?
P.P.S. I hope there will be some choise in Civil War events, like subfactions, for example steiners who fight against archon, but still steiners. Would hate to fight for that snake, but would also hate to lose steiner affinity or to not participate..

[Zergling]

GweNTLeR, on 18 July 2017 - 12:17 AM, said:

A quick thought on current state of SRM's.
I dont really see any role for non artemis SRMs-6 after the new patch. Before, it was your ONLY option(and thus, the only way of usefully using them) for mechs such as QKD-4H or GRF-3M if you wanted to have some alpha strike power.Now however, they are completely outclassed by MRM 10s.
Why? Lower spread, MUCH MORE damage per ton (300 vs 215), and much bigger range.I think, that PGI should consider boosting(decreasing spread by like 10%) SRM's in general(since boosing SRM-6 will require boosting SRM-4s) and changing artemis bonus (from -33% spread to -20% spread and like 7% velocity boost).

Gasoline, on 18 July 2017 - 01:30 AM, said:

Consindering that this is the reason behind the minimum range of ATMs... There was the fear, that ATMs would outperform SRMs, which I highly doubt considering the weight, heat, facetime, spread, et cetera. Now we get MRMs which have no minimum range and clearly outperfom SRMs... GG...

MRMs have worse damage/ton and DPS/ton than SRMs, and when I checked on PTS, their spread was considerably worse than SRMs too.

Looking at the Civil War Sneak Peak, the MRM30/40 spread is still pretty bad; MRM10s and 20s only have slightly better spread than that, so I don't see how MRMs are gonna out-perform SRMs at close range.

Edited by Zergling, 18 July 2017 - 01:54 AM.

[GweNTLeR]

Zergling, on 18 July 2017 - 01:49 AM, said:

MRMs have worse damage/ton and DPS/ton than SRMs, and when I checked on PTS, their spread was considerably worse than SRMs too.

Looking at the Civil War Sneak Peak, the MRM30/40 spread is still pretty bad; MRM10s and 20s only have slightly better spread than that, so I don't see how MRMs are gonna out-perform SRMs at close range.

1 t of srm ammo has 100 shots, each deal 2.15 dmg(2 for clans), hence 215(200) damage per ton.
1 t of mrm ammo has 300 shots, each deal 1 dmg, hence 300 damage.
As a result, you can deal more damage per same tonnage.
The thing is, with 4.5m spread, a lot of shots do miss. With 4.3m spread, spread area is reduced by ~10%.
And that makes some real difference.

[Gasoline]

GweNTLeR, on 18 July 2017 - 03:07 AM, said:

1 t of srm ammo has 100 shots, each deal 2.15 dmg(2 for clans), hence 215(200) damage per ton.
1 t of mrm ammo has 300 shots, each deal 1 dmg, hence 300 damage.
As a result, you can deal more damage per same tonnage.
The thing is, with 4.5m spread, a lot of shots do miss. With 4.3m spread, spread area is reduced by ~10%.
And that makes some real difference.

That and you get a lot more versatility with MRMs. You have the longer range you can work with.

[Zergling]

GweNTLeR, on 18 July 2017 - 03:07 AM, said:

1 t of srm ammo has 100 shots, each deal 2.15 dmg(2 for clans), hence 215(200) damage per ton.
1 t of mrm ammo has 300 shots, each deal 1 dmg, hence 300 damage.
As a result, you can deal more damage per same tonnage.
The thing is, with 4.5m spread, a lot of shots do miss. With 4.3m spread, spread area is reduced by ~10%.
And that makes some real difference.

The IS SRM4 currently has 4.0 spread.
Finding SRM6 spread requires looking much further back, but it is apparently 4.5.

Either way, not much different from MRM10/20s at 4.3, MRM30 at 4.5 and MRM40 at 4.6. I wouldn't call MRMs 'superior' in that area, as they struggle to concentrate damage until under 100 meters range.


As for the damage of the launchers:
SRM6 = 12.9 damage, 4 heat, 3 tons, 4.0 second cooldown, 3.23 DPS, 1.08 DPS/ton, 3.23 damage/heat
MRM10 = 10 damage, 4 heat, 3 tons, 4.3 second cooldown, 2.33 DPS, 0.78 DPS/ton, 2.50 damage/heat

And if I include enough ammo for 300 points of damage, which is 1.5 tons of SRM ammo and 1.0 tons of MRM ammo:
SRM6 = 4.5 tons, 0.72 DPS/ton
MRM10 = 4.0 tons, 0.58 DPS/ton

So MRMs are inferior in damage/ton, even if you account for MRMs having more damage per ton of ammo, while also being hotter than SRMs.

With no practical advantage in spread, MRMs are definitely inferior in damage output to SRMs within SRM range.

Gasoline, on 18 July 2017 - 03:10 AM, said:

That and you get a lot more versatility with MRMs. You have the longer range you can work with.

Which is the entire point of MRMs; you get less firepower than SRMs, in exchange for better range.

Edited by Zergling, 18 July 2017 - 03:58 AM.

[Vesper11]

FireStoat, on 17 July 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

I, as well as MANY other Clan players would CHEERFULLY, with a huge SMILE on our face, click a button that locks an omnimech FOREVER to its original 8/8 omnipod stock loadout if it would turn it into a Battlemech. Clan battlemechs even with their locked hardpoints are so much better than Omnimechs due to full equipment customization it's not even funny. Don't even taunt me or other players with such a thing - we're literally dreaming it could happen.

When I started playing (again) I thought omni fixed engine and structure was there to balance the more powerful and lighter clan weaponry. So with clan you get better guns but you have to work around your mech limits, I really liked that, and IS could enjoy greater mech customization but harsher crit+weight limits on weapons. But then I saw clan battlemechs, customization of IS but with clan weapons, no drawbacks. only good parts. And to balance out clan battlemechs clan weapons got nerfed again, 20% cd AND heat on cERSL b-b-but 10% more range guis "fix", LESS heat efficient micros than smalls to "replace" them and small buff to nerfed-to-the-ground cSPL (it was THAT obvious), so now I'm going to enjoy unique clan omni technology even more...

[Zergling]

Vesper11, on 18 July 2017 - 04:02 AM, said:

When I started playing (again) I thought omni fixed engine and structure was there to balance the more powerful and lighter clan weaponry. So with clan you get better guns but you have to work around your mech limits, I really liked that, and IS could enjoy greater mech customization but harsher crit+weight limits on weapons. But then I saw clan battlemechs, customization of IS but with clan weapons, no drawbacks. only good parts. And to balance out clan battlemechs clan weapons got nerfed again, 20% cd AND heat on cERSL b-b-but 10% more range guis "fix", LESS heat efficient micros than smalls to "replace" them and small buff to nerfed-to-the-ground cSPL (it was THAT obvious), so now I'm going to enjoy unique clan omni technology even more...

You were wrong; Omnimech customisation limits exist to balance their ability to swap hardpoints.

[GweNTLeR]

Zergling, on 18 July 2017 - 03:39 AM, said:

MRM spread, even that of MRM10 and MRM20, is not better than SRM spread; even under 100 meters range, MRMs are still unable to focus damage to a single component.

Surprise : it is. 4.3m(MRM-10) vs 4.5m(SRM-6). You can argue, that SRM's have smaller spread on short range(under 100m, a member of my unit tested and found out that they reaches their max spread at 100m) and it is possible to strike a single component IN THEORY but in MWO reality it is almost impossible to get under 100m, not to mention that you have to take into account launcher position on a mech.
As for the other metrics...I was talking not about DPS, but about maximum damage dealt possible(and I'm pretty sure you understood me,IDK why you keep insisting). BTW, to properly calculate effective DPS, you have to take into account hit possibility ( which is higher on MRM's).
And yes, if you read my initial post, you'll see that I was talking about SRM-6s, not about 4s.
Also much higher velocity do help to focus fire, hence less shots will miss. Even at ~150 m the difference will be sufficient to feel.

Edited by GweNTLeR, 18 July 2017 - 04:30 AM.

[Zergling]

GweNTLeR, on 18 July 2017 - 04:11 AM, said:

As for the other metrics...I was talking not about DPS, but about maximum damage dealt possible(and I'm pretty sure you understood me,IDK why you keep insisting).

Because you said this:

GweNTLeR, on 18 July 2017 - 12:17 AM, said:

Now however, they are completely outclassed by MRM 10s.

MRM10 does not completely outclass SRM6, or even outclass it at all in SRM range, because even with ammo weight accounted for, it is 20% inferior in DPS/ton and 23% inferior on damage/heat.

Within SRM range, a mech that is using SRM6s absolutely has a large advantage over a mech using MRM10s.

GweNTLeR, on 18 July 2017 - 04:11 AM, said:

BTW, to properly calculate effective DPS, you have to take into account hit possibility ( which is higher on MRM's).

There is no practical difference between 4.3 and 4.5 spread, certainly nowhere near enough for MRMs to make up for being 20% worse in DPS/ton.

GweNTLeR, on 18 July 2017 - 04:11 AM, said:

Also much higher velocity do help to focus fire, hence less shots will miss. Even at ~150 m the difference will be sufficient to feel.

'Much higher velocity'? It is 400 vs 425 m/s, just 6.25% higher velocity for MRMs.

SRMs will cover 150 meters in 0.375 seconds, versus MRMs at 0.353 seconds... that is a difference of just 0.022 seconds, or just above 1/50th of a second.

Edited by Zergling, 18 July 2017 - 04:53 AM.

[GweNTLeR]

Zergling, on 18 July 2017 - 04:32 AM, said:

There is no practical difference between 4.3 and 4.5 spread, certainly nowhere near enough for MRMs to make up for being 20% worse in DPS/ton.

Practical difference is 10% reduction(S=pi*R^2, (4.5/4.3)^2=1.095), in spread area, surely a number to be accounted. Velocity also makes real difference, but it's impact is impossible to calculate.
But okay, I see your point. Then could you please name at least one mech that would surely be better in QP with SRM-6s than with MRM-10s? Because personally I cannot.

[Zergling]

GweNTLeR, on 18 July 2017 - 04:57 AM, said:

Then could you please name at least one mech that would surely be better in QP with SRM-6s than with MRM-10s? Because personally I cannot.

While MRMs can be used at sub-270 meters, they will be inferior to SRMs at that range, so I'd expect SRMs to still be used on anything that expects to be brawling at sub-270 meters.

I'd mostly expect more mobile mechs to have a preference for SRMs, while slower mechs might prefer MRMs.

[Twilight Fenrir]

Zergling, on 18 July 2017 - 01:49 AM, said:

MRMs have worse damage/ton and DPS/ton than SRMs, and when I checked on PTS, their spread was considerably worse than SRMs too.

Looking at the Civil War Sneak Peak, the MRM30/40 spread is still pretty bad; MRM10s and 20s only have slightly better spread than that, so I don't see how MRMs are gonna out-perform SRMs at close range.

Huh? The short range specific weapon will be better at short range than the medium range weapon? What madness is this?!?

[Kaptain]

I see the somewhat fragile blackjack using MRMs while the Griffin 2n will probably continue to use srms.

[Sucy Manbavaran]

the "only" real use for MRM is, very low Missileshardpoints > La Malinche
you can use them now ><

[Twilight Fenrir]

Sucy Manbavaran, on 18 July 2017 - 05:23 AM, said:

the &quot;only&quot; real use for MRM is, very low Missileshardpoints &gt; La Malinche
you can use them now &gt;&lt;

MRMs are one of the big things that will make my Founder's Atlas relevant again

[GweNTLeR]

Zergling, on 18 July 2017 - 05:09 AM, said:

I'd mostly expect more mobile mechs to have a preference for SRMs, while slower mechs might prefer MRMs.

Name.A.Mech.
Locust? Both too heavy, but I'd prefer MRMs due to bigger ammo.
Commando 3A/2D? Slots starvation, more ammo is preferable.
Anansi? Not sure.
Javelin? both are bad choice.
Raven 3L? Too squishy to get close enough to use SRM's without artemis.
Cicada same.
Assasin? Well, maybe, but I'd prefer more ammo(tonnage starvation)
Vindicator? Too slow for SRMs w/o artemis
Cent? Same
Kintaro? both are bad
Shadow hawk? MRMs on 2K, since it has launchers packed closely.
Bushwaker? Weeeeeeell, maybe on that 6 missile hardpoint model srms might be good but...it isn't effective, is it?
Wolverine? MRMs are better, since higher hardpoints allow sort of poptarting
Griffin? Only on 3M, but I bet they are equal
Did miss something?

Edited by GweNTLeR, 18 July 2017 - 05:39 AM.

[Zergling]

Sucy Manbavaran, on 18 July 2017 - 05:23 AM, said:

the "only" real use for MRM is, very low Missileshardpoints > La Malinche
you can use them now ><

Hell, maybe the single missile hardpoint on my Grid Iron will finally have a use!

GweNTLeR, on 18 July 2017 - 05:37 AM, said:

Name.A.Mech.
Locust? Both too heavy, but I'd prefer MRMs due to bigger ammo.
Commando 3A/2D? Slots starvation, more ammo is preferable.
Anansi? Not sure.
Javelin? both are bad choice.
Raven 3L? Too squishy to get close enough to use SRM's without artemis.
Cicada same.
Assasin? Well, maybe, but I'd prefer more ammo(tonnage starvation)
Vindicator? Too slow for SRMs w/o artemis
Cent? Same
Kintaro? both are bad
Shadow hawk? MRMs on 2K, since it has launchers packed closely.
Bushwaker? Weeeeeeell, maybe on that 6 missile hardpoint model srms might be good but...it isn't effective, is it?
Wolverine? MRMs are better, since higher hardpoints allow sort of poptarting
Griffin? Only on 3M, but I bet they are equal
Did miss something?

Those are just your opinions, influenced by your own play style and preferences. Just because you would prefer MRMs, does not mean they MRMs are OP or that SRMs need a buff, it just means you prefer MRMs.

Edited by Zergling, 18 July 2017 - 05:46 AM.

[Vesper11]

Zergling, on 18 July 2017 - 04:04 AM, said:

You were wrong; Omnimech customisation limits exist to balance their ability to swap hardpoints.

Thanks Captain, but, as others have already said, swapping hardpoints isn't even close to battlemech ability to fully customize your mech minus swapping hardpoints. Semi-fixed hardpoints, fixed armor, engine, structure, JJs, MASC, fixed podspace and structure slots on side torsos vs fixed hardpoints, really...

[Zergling]

Vesper11, on 18 July 2017 - 05:53 AM, said:

Thanks Captain, but, as others have already said, swapping hardpoints isn't even close to battlemech ability to fully customize your mech minus swapping hardpoints. Semi-fixed hardpoints, fixed armor, engine, structure, JJs, MASC, fixed podspace and structure slots on side torsos vs fixed hardpoints, really...

Which I agree with, and I also believe that Omni customisation restrictions should be loosened.

[Genesis23]

might be a bit of a unpopular opinion but i would prefer to use rocket launchers for my quickdraw (the one with 3 missile and 4 energy hardpoints) and just use larger lasers with them. so i have good damage on mid range as a support and the first guy who dares to come too close just gets the whole load of rockets in the face.

but i agree that mrm will be better paired with ml than the srm we had previously are. the quickdraw build with 4ml and srm4 or srm6 never worked as well as the one with large lasers or pulse lasers. with rmr that could change quite a bit.

Vesper11, on 18 July 2017 - 05:53 AM, said:

Thanks Captain, but, as others have already said, swapping hardpoints isn't even close to battlemech ability to fully customize your mech minus swapping hardpoints. Semi-fixed hardpoints, fixed armor, engine, structure, JJs, MASC, fixed podspace and structure slots on side torsos vs fixed hardpoints, really...

what good is full customisation if hardpoints are few or on unoptimal positions? you greatly underestimate being able to take whatever hardpoints you want to. sure they are a few exceptions, but many omnimechs are still very high in their weightclass, even if they themself have more or less no quirks.