201 replies to this topic

[davoodoo]

Khobai, on 22 July 2017 - 03:01 PM, said:

youve just proven my point of why mrms need to be changed

srms do less damage at shorter range than mrms.

1)http://mwo.smurfy-ne...da415df3873b1c1
nope, 15 dmg less but can be fired in alpha with bigger engine and more ammo

2)Then theres no need for new tech, lets just go back to clan invasion...

Which is exactly my point from the beginning, if you need to hobble new tech, dont ******* introduce it.

Edited by davoodoo, 22 July 2017 - 03:09 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Then theres no need for new tech

If you add new tech and it makes old tech obsolete anyway, then what was the point of adding the new tech?

MRMs cannot be better than SRMs at short range, or it defeats the purpose of adding MRMs

MRMs should peak in effectiveness at medium range. But they should not be better than SRMs at short range.

How do we accomplish that?

1) make MRMs less effective at short range (i.e. a linear damage dropoff under 120m)

2) make MRMs more effective at medium range (i.e. faster velocity, higher tube count, lower volley delay, etc...)

That keeps SRMs relevant at short range. And it makes MRMs more relevant at medium range.

If we did things your way... SRMs should just be deleted from the game because MRMs would effectively replace them. That is dumb.

Edited by Khobai, 22 July 2017 - 03:13 PM.

[davoodoo]

Khobai, on 22 July 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

If you add new tech and it makes old tech obsolete anyway, then what was the point of adding the new tech?

MRMs cannot be better than SRMs at short range, or it defeats the purpose of adding MRMs

MRMs should peak in effectiveness at medium range. But they should not be better than SRMs at short range.

To improve upon mech design and streamline them...

Same way dhs obsoleted shs, no complaints.
Same way clan xl obsoleted clan std, no complaints
Same way endosteel obsoleted std structure, no complaints.

Also mrms arent better, proven that already.

What you complain about is that assault mechs cant take as much dmg worth of srms as they can of mrms which is problem introduced by pgi...get rid of hardpoints, voila, you can pack more dmg worth of srms...
OR
You can accept the reality that smaller weapons will be used by some mechs, while those bigger launchers will be used by heavies and assaults.

Edited by davoodoo, 22 July 2017 - 03:14 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Same way dhs obsoleted shs, no complaints.
Same way clan xl obsoleted clan std, no complaints
Same way endosteel obsoleted std structure, no complaints.

people do complain about those things though.

because theres no point in having them in the game if theyre not equally good options.

[davoodoo]

Khobai, on 22 July 2017 - 03:16 PM, said:

people do complain about those things though.

because theres no point in having them in the game if theyre not equally good options.

Where?? where was complain about endo steel being op?? or about std clan engines or about shs...

game veterans forgot that clan shs exist...
i bet my *** that general population forgot that clans have std engines.
and endo steel complaints?? i heard about ferro buffs, but no one dares to touch endo...



Even then
While we are at endo
No assault with pack ferro because they are crit starved
On the other hand lights will pack ferro because theyre never crit starved

in the same vein
mrm does 3.33 dmg per ton, srm do 4.3.
Hardpoint starved mechs pack mrm.
Tonnage starved mechs pack srm.
Theres use for both with srm being better in its niche

Edited by davoodoo, 22 July 2017 - 03:23 PM.

[Khobai]

people ask for for SHS buffs occasionally, the most common suggestion being to make all internal heatsinks into true dubs.

people ask for standard engine buffs constantly, usually people want a CT structure buff for STD engines

they ask for standard structure buffs constantly, because if you buff standard structure, it automatically makes ferro much more useful by extension

use the search feature, these discussions have cropped up dozens of times over the last few years.


people want more options. they dont want a game with no options which is what you seem to want.

I want a game where SRMs and MRMs coexist side by side and both have their own distinct roles. Not a game where MRMs are so good at short range, theyve simply made SRMs extinct.

Edited by Khobai, 22 July 2017 - 03:26 PM.

[davoodoo]

Khobai, on 22 July 2017 - 03:23 PM, said:

people ask for for SHS buffs, the most common suggestion being to make all internal heatsinks into true dubs.

people ask for standard engine buffs constantly, usually people want a CT structure buff for STD engines

they ask for standard structure buffs constantly, because if you buff standard structure, it automatically makes ferro much more useful by extension

use the search feature, these discussions have cropped up dozens of times over the last few years.

Do they??
dozens of times over years is nothing, when complaints about gauss ppc and lasevomit cropped up dozens of times every week.


We have ferro buff thread, someone suggested std structure buff, was shut down...nvm it was you...

Edited by davoodoo, 22 July 2017 - 03:29 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Do they??
dozens of times over years is nothing, when complaints about gauss ppc and lasevomit cropped up dozens of times every week

not really the same thing at all. people are always going to complain more about somethings thats overpowered than something thats underpowered.

gauss ppc was causing problems that undermined the game. std engine being underpowered isnt causing balance problems that undermine the game. of course people are going to be less focused on the latter.

but people still ask for std engine buffs frequently enough. youre wrong that it never happens. most people do want std engines to be a viable option. youre literally the only person ive seen on the forums who thinks its okay that std engines are obsolete.

Quote

We have ferro buff thread, someone suggested std structure buff, was shut down...

buffing standard structure does buff ferro though.

because if youre using std structure, you cant use endo, so you have to use ferro instead to save weight.

the topic got shut down because people were being uncivil. the suggestion to buff standard structure to make ferro more viable was an excellent suggestion. it fixes both std structure and ferro at the same time.

Edited by Khobai, 22 July 2017 - 03:36 PM.

[davoodoo]

Khobai, on 22 July 2017 - 03:28 PM, said:

buffing standard structure does buff ferro though.

because if youre using std structure, you cant use endo, so you have to use ferro to save weight.

You break builds and for what?? ferro is already used.

Locusts run with it.
Ravens
Firestarters
Commandos
Urbies
I run it on my hunchback.
Catapult.
My marauder used ferro pre civil war, now it uses light ferro.

If you can afford it you shouldnt run ferro instead of endo, ever.
You can run it as compliment to endo and its the use for it.

Khobai, on 22 July 2017 - 03:28 PM, said:

not really the same thing at all. people are always going to complain more about somethings thats overpowered than something thats underpowered.

fine doesnt explain a monthly buff lbx and lrm thread but fine.

Edited by davoodoo, 22 July 2017 - 03:36 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

fine doesnt explain a monthly buff lbx and lrm thread but fine.

theres a monthly buff std engine thread usually too

its usually rolled into the same thread as ISLFE should be better than CXL because it weighs more thread

[davoodoo]

Khobai, on 22 July 2017 - 03:39 PM, said:

theres a monthly buff std engine thread usually too

its usually rolled into the same thread as ISLFE should be better than CXL because it weighs more thread

so offhand comment on related thread versus entire thread. K mate...

[Khobai]

anyways im done arguing with you.

agree to disagree.

i dont think new tech should make old tech obsolete

i think more options is better than less options and I think PGI should seek to expand options

im going to go actually play the game instead of have stupid arguments about it

[davoodoo]

Atm its old tech that makes new obsolete.

With exception of atms, er lasers, uac and lfe nothing catches up.

Edited by davoodoo, 22 July 2017 - 03:47 PM.

[MischiefSC]

I'll gleefully drop some 1 v 1 MRM build vs ATM build at comparable tonnage if anyone wants.

I'll happily do SRM vs ATM too. Heavy/assault - not, say, a Linebacker because it's a rush brawler. A great example of an SRM mech and why minimum range invalidates weapons. Some mech you'd have a viable question of ATM or SRM. ORION IIC is a great example. Scorch, MAD Cat MK 2, etc.

[davoodoo]

MischiefSC, on 22 July 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

I'll gleefully drop some 1 v 1 MRM build vs ATM build at comparable tonnage if anyone wants.

No need to guess, mrms will win...

[MischiefSC]

davoodoo, on 22 July 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

No need to guess, mrms will win...

Not sure if serious?

You can take the Mauler MRM boat with whatever else and I'll take the Mad Cat with ATMs and ballistics. We can drop Steiner Arena, good mix of cover and open space or even one of the 4 v 4 maps.

MRMs are unmitigated garbage.

[davoodoo]

Thing is, ITLL HAVE BALLISTICS...its like certain someone who tried to convince me that atlas with uac20 and mrm60 means mrms are good.

i can take something i usually run like 2 atm12 hbk2c b
or 2 atm12 ebj
or 2 atm12 mad2c(ok this one is underarmed)

and it wont be good for me if i meet lets say hbk4sp or catapult with mrms.

Edited by davoodoo, 22 July 2017 - 04:27 PM.

[MischiefSC]

ATMs + ballistics are excellent. That's the point. Better than MRMs plus ballistics or even SRMs plus ballistics on big mechs.

So your complaint is that ATMs don't boat as well? That's you making bad mechs. ATMs are about a great mid range use for missile hardpoint on a mid range loadout.

MRMs are trash either way. That boated ATMs, in having a minimum range, are as terrible as LRMs are for the same reason doesn't change that overall as a use of a hardpoint ATMs are better than MRMs.

[davoodoo]

1st i dont build for duels, i build for some actual group play
2nd you really want to pack 2 7 tons launchers with at least 6 tons of ammo as backup?? well i guess you must be running 75tons+ with that.
3rd wheres that ridiculous damage potential if you dont actually commit to boating?

I guess i can build 2 uac5 2 atm12 ntg, itll be hard to find someone calling that build good though and in actual duel, ill fire atms maybe twice(out of which 1 will be at 3dmg) before i have to just finish enemy(which will still have armor intact) with uacs.

Edited by davoodoo, 22 July 2017 - 05:12 PM.

[T3N5POT]

Well, my newly bought Scorch with 48 atms as its only weapons is running a 1.67 w/l ratio and 5:1 KD ratio over its first 15 pugs matches.

They require a very UNIQUE playstyle, and therefore you can't just slap them on a mech as an additional damage source like SRMs. It would be like putting a heavy machine gun on an ER PPC sniper. Your build has to be ATM FOCUSED. I can't hammer that home enough. These things require positioning and special awareness like no other.

Their best use? I'd say is killing ambushers. Novas, lights, and anything that tries to flank and take on the straggling Direwolf. at short range. ATMs are especially good at killing light mechs because they function effectively as a 3x streak 6. Their horizontal flight makes nearly all of the missiles hit instead of pound into the ground.

Other uses? A lot of times you get medium mechs that push through and suicide into the team. Usually this distracts 5x of the team who want an easy kill while the main enemy force deathballs into the remaining 7x. This build tears apart those suicidal mechs which has a whole host of benefits.

In summary, anything but ATM 12s are pretty much useless. Your build needs to focus around them because they require a completely different playstyle than most people are comfortable with.