136 replies to this topic

[Curccu]

Khobai, on 26 February 2018 - 02:42 AM, said:

Because I was talking about clans not having a mech with more than x6 missile hardpoints. SRM2s will never be used on a clan mech with only 6 missile hardpoints. Neither will ATM3s.

PAKHET

[Diablobo]

Bombast, on 26 February 2018 - 05:29 AM, said:

The Jenner IIC does not receive fire well, so it's generally considered a 'Zoom and Boom' mech. Big alphas you can vomit once on the way in and once on the way out are preferable to 'stand and deliver' low cooldown loadouts.

I don't think SRM4+2s are the ideal Jenner IIC build, but I know for sure SRM2 boating is not good.

Well, as a general rule I never play any mechs without at least one energy hardpoint (more like two), so I will never willingly test that theory, but I personally think that SRMs are some of the lowest skill noob friendly weapons in the entire game. They actually make LRMs look like rocket science *heh*

The Arctic Wolf even with only 4 SRMs and 2 lasers does look fairly interesting, though. I will definitely try one out when it goes on sale for cbills.

Curccu, on 26 February 2018 - 05:37 AM, said:

PAKHET

OOOPS...we both missed one. LOL

Edited by Diablobo, 26 February 2018 - 05:42 AM.

[Diablobo]

Well shucks, I just might have to go and buy a Pakhet and even put on an energy torso or arm to lose a couple missiles. Suh weet.

[Seranov]

Diablobo, on 26 February 2018 - 05:44 AM, said:

I personally think that SRMs are some of the lowest skill noob friendly weapons in the entire game.

And you'd be wrong. Closing to a distance to use them is challenge enough, especially in this medium-range Laser/Gauss Vomit-heavy meta that does more damage than any SRM Bomber from well outside SRM range. And that's not even counting stuff like AMS.

[Diablobo]

Seranov, on 26 February 2018 - 06:27 AM, said:

And you'd be wrong. Closing to a distance to use them is challenge enough, especially in this medium-range Laser/Gauss Vomit-heavy meta that does more damage than any SRM Bomber from well outside SRM range. And that's not even counting stuff like AMS.

All good points, and all the more reason to not waste critspace and tonnage on some bulls@t you have to get point blank and overheat with. Yeah, SRMs suck.

Edited by Diablobo, 26 February 2018 - 06:50 AM.

[Curccu]

Diablobo, on 26 February 2018 - 06:48 AM, said:

All good points, and all the more reason to not waste critspace and tonnage on some bulls@t you have to get point blank and overheat with. Yeah, SRMs suck.

Madness.

[Seranov]

Diablobo, on 26 February 2018 - 06:48 AM, said:

All good points, and all the more reason to not waste critspace and tonnage on some bulls@t you have to get point blank and overheat with. Yeah, SRMs suck.

That's not correct, either. They are good, but not overpoweringly so. They're light, can be boated with backup weapons, are reasonably cold as long as you don't over-commit, and are some of the best weapons for fire'n'twisting in a brawl. You give up pinpoint damage and range for those benefits, however.

Honestly, you strike me as someone who doesn't really know what he's talking about. You haven't made a coherent point beyond "smaller ATM and MRM launchers should be better" but don't have any reasons why that should be the case.

[Diablobo]

Seranov, on 26 February 2018 - 07:00 AM, said:

That's not correct, either. They are good, but not overpoweringly so. They're light, can be boated with backup weapons, are reasonably cold as long as you don't over-commit, and are some of the best weapons for fire'n'twisting in a brawl. You give up pinpoint damage and range for those benefits, however.

Honestly, you strike me as someone who doesn't really know what he's talking about. You haven't made a coherent point beyond "smaller ATM and MRM launchers should be better" but don't have any reasons why that should be the case.

So I have to make a case that literally every other smaller weapon in the game has a higher rate of fire than the larger one but MRMs and ATMs don't count? Are you kidding? Just listen to how messed up that is.

[Diablobo]

Am I being trolled? Is this more of that magical PGI Working as Intended^Tm

[Bombast]

Diablobo, on 26 February 2018 - 07:08 AM, said:

So I have to make a case that literally every other smaller weapon in the game has a higher rate of fire than the larger one but MRMs and ATMs don't count? Are you kidding? Just listen to how messed up that is.

No, you have to make the case that there's an inheritant problem with MRMs and ATMs being different. You've yet to do so.

[Diablobo]

Bombast, on 26 February 2018 - 07:12 AM, said:

No, you have to make the case that there's an inheritant problem with MRMs and ATMs being different. You've yet to do so.

Ok, fine. There is not ONE SINGLE weapon in the game that has the exact same rate of fire as the larger version. Me explaining why this is the case is not my job. It's incumbent upon them to explain this departure from the procedures they have used on literally every other weapon system. Small lasers fire faster than meds, AC2 fires faster than AC5, the list goes on and on and on. I'm not the one making the rules. I am pointing out the complete and utter disregard for them by their very own game and rules that they designed.

I was here in closed beta when they talked about how the smaller weapons had to be given shorter cooldowns to make them better for the lighter mechs that couldn't carry the big guns. Now all of the sudden........LOL JK nvrmind? That's completely f@king stupid.

Edited by Diablobo, 26 February 2018 - 07:22 AM.

[Diablobo]

Maybe they could also explain why an MRM40 takes longer to cooldown than an MRM30. An MRM10 has 1/3 the tubes, but it's the exact same time. Explain that craziness.

[Bombast]

Diablobo, on 26 February 2018 - 07:21 AM, said:

Ok, fine. There is not ONE SINGLE weapon in the game that has the exact same rate of fire as the larger version. Me explaining why this is the case is not my job. It's incumbent upon them to explain this departure from the procedures they have used on literally every other weapon system. Small lasers fire faster than meds, AC2 fires faster than AC5, the list goes on and on and on. I'm not the one making the rules. I am pointing out the complete and utter disregard for them by their very own game and rules that they designed.

I was here in closed beta when they talked about how the smaller weapons had to be given shorter cooldowns to make them better for the lighter mechs that couldn't carry the big guns. Now all of the sudden........LOL JK nvrmind? That's completely f@king stupid.

"Because other weapons operate that way" is not a compelling argument. How does this set up hurt or help MRMs and ATMs? What would changing them fix?

While there may be some problems with these small launchers, you've yet to explain how improved cooldown would fix them. ATM3s would still be autocountered by AMS. MRM10s would still suffer from 'Just not enough boom boom' syndrome. So what does your proposal do?

Diablobo, on 26 February 2018 - 07:25 AM, said:

Maybe they could also explain why an MRM40 takes longer to cooldown than an MRM30. An MRM10 has 1/3 the tubes, but it's the exact same time. Explain that craziness.

Because the MRM40 is so much lighter per tube than the MRM30/20.

Edited by Bombast, 26 February 2018 - 07:27 AM.

[Diablobo]

Bombast, on 26 February 2018 - 07:27 AM, said:

"Because other weapons operate that way" is not a compelling argument. How does this set up hurt or help MRMs and ATMs? What would changing them fix?

While there may be some problems with these small launchers, you've yet to explain how improved cooldown would fix them. ATM3s would still be autocountered by AMS. MRM10s would still suffer from 'Just not enough boom boom' syndrome. So what does your proposal do?



Because the MRM40 is so much lighter per tube than the MRM30/20.

The MRM40 is another interesting deviation from normal rules in that if they can fit 40 unguided rockets in a launcher for 12 tons when all the other launchers are the EXACT SAME tonnage as their LRM counterparts, then why can't there be an LRM25?

Your tonnage argument is complete garbage. A ten tube jump can be anywhere from 3 to 4 tons per step of launcher size, which is the EXACT SAME as the LRMs. Why do those 10 extra tubes take longer while literally every other 10 tube extra step takes no time whatsoever?

I don't have to justify anything. If we pay more to get more in every single case except these two instances, then I don't need to explain why we need to pay less to get less, YOU need to explain why we need to pay the same. You have it exactly backwards.

[Seranov]

Burden of proof is on the accuser. You first need to prove why it's an issue, which, spoiler: it ain't.

Edited by Seranov, 26 February 2018 - 12:30 PM.

[VonBruinwald]

Seranov, on 26 February 2018 - 12:30 PM, said:

Burden of proof is on the accuser. You first need to prove why it's an issue, which, spoiler: it ain't.

[Brain Cancer]

Diablobo, on 26 February 2018 - 12:46 AM, said:

Boating is the stupidest and most min/max perversion of any game system that is little more than an exploit. And your solution to actual problems and inconsistencies is to make them worse? Wow....just wow.

Rather than make an actual weapon better, you just propose piling more on in the hopes that it will fix it. And what about the remaining mechs that can't boat? Uhhhhh...too bad, shoulda brought a boat?

There's a reason why those chassis tend to end up either by the wayside or in the trash heap. Any build wants to be able to get to their favorite position and cut loose, and that's boating in a nutshell. Having to wait for your small lasers to get into range while you're lobbing MRMs is silly, after all. You may only have a second or two to shoot as it is.

[Bombast]

I apologize in advance. Typing on a phone, expect errors galore (More than usual anyway).

Diablobo, on 26 February 2018 - 12:21 PM, said:

The MRM40 is another interesting deviation from normal rules in that if they can fit 40 unguided rockets in a launcher for 12 tons when all the other launchers are the EXACT SAME tonnage as their LRM counterparts, then why can't there be an LRM25?

The existence of the MRM40 is something you'll have to take up with the FASA crew. Some of them are working on Battletech, maybe when they're not so busy they can give you an answer.

Quote

Your tonnage argument is complete garbage. A ten tube jump can be anywhere from 3 to 4 tons per step of launcher size, which is the EXACT SAME as the LRMs. Why do those 10 extra tubes take longer while literally every other 10 tube extra step takes no time whatsoever?

Again, tonnage per tube in the MRM40 is a step up from the 30 and 20, matched by the MRM10 only. MRM10 dominance is kept in check by heat and hard point restrictions, while the MRM40 gets 'throttled' down as it's price.

Quote

I don't have to justify anything. If we pay more to get more in every single case except these two instances, then I don't need to explain why we need to pay less to get less, YOU need to explain why we need to pay the same. You have it exactly backwards.

The person busting the status quo is the one that has the burden of proof, as it were.

[MechaBattler]

Are there popular builds of MRM10/20s? Seems like most people just run the 30. 40 if it's a single missile point like the Vindicator 1X with it's 25% missile cooldown.

[Bombast]

MechaBattler, on 26 February 2018 - 12:55 PM, said:

Are there popular builds of MRM10/20s? Seems like most people just run the 30. 40 if it's a single missile point like the Vindicator 1X with it's 25% missile cooldown.

The Zeus uses MRM20s due to their reduced crit investment (Only way to get a MRM60 fist). MRM10s are used sometimes as 'boosters' for bigger racks.

The problem with 20s is their weight. The problem with 10s is that MRMs really rely on quantity of fire to be effective. Anything only using 1-2 MRM10s is wasting tonnage and probably heat, and anything that can carry 4 or more should probably be using SRMs in the first place.

EDIT:. Oh, there is that MRM10x6-7 Archer build. But that's mostly for trolling. Personally not a fan.

Edited by Bombast, 26 February 2018 - 01:04 PM.