57 replies to this topic

[Felbombling]

This pains me to say, but I think Thunderbolt Missiles are a dud. I've done some testing and thus far, MRMs seem to be way more lethal, and I suspect is has to do with concentration and crit chances. I'll take them into some live games, but my fear is that the T-bolts would have been better served by being a single high-explosive missile rather than broken up into five damage point clusters.

Your overall thoughts and experience from using them?

[martian]

Felbombling, on 19 March 2024 - 11:44 AM, said:

Your overall thoughts and experience from using them?

I am not sure. I have fired them a few times with average results.

I need more games with them.

[MarcinT1981]

I'm writing this when I'm a little drunk, so please don't shout at me
I checked these weapons in the testing grounds for a while, and I have the impression that in a month each of them will receive a nice buff.
I guess they were afraid to make the same mistake as before with XPulse or Binary

[Mecrutio]

half my volleys fly into the dirt or randomly into the sky....so that's an issue

i agree though that the thunderbolts should have remained one large missile instead of multiple 5 damage missiles....as it stands you can have 3 LRM 20s for the weight of 2 T-bolt 20s, but you don't have the single-component damage T-bolts are supposed to bring to offset the huge weight increase. At the moment (when they fly and track properly) they seem to function as knock-off ATMs

[Weeny Machine]

Dunno what to make of this weapon system...it seems to be neither meat nor flesh. The minimum range really bugs me as well considering what it does. The slow missile speed really kills it.

Edited by Weeny Machine, 19 March 2024 - 02:41 PM.

[w0qj]

So what's the shorthand for Thunderbolt?

LRM20 <---> MRM20 <---> TDM20 ? TDR20 ?

Or is it TD20 for Thunderbolt Missiles (and not TDR?)

Edited by w0qj, 20 March 2024 - 05:44 AM.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Mecrutio, on 19 March 2024 - 01:29 PM, said:

half my volleys fly into the dirt or randomly into the sky....so that's an issue

Oh, you mean like the LRM’s did when they flattened their trajectories the other month? Thunderbolts do have flatter trajectories than LRMs. I must test.

[Novakaine]

Thunder Thunder Thunder-Snails Missiles!
I can't even.

Edited by Novakaine, 19 March 2024 - 03:27 PM.

[marakesh]

Speed needs upped and the min range removed. It is already bad that it is a lock on weapon to be most effective with all the ecm in the game.

[CFC Conky]

I've seen some players do some good work with them.

Good hunting,
CFC Conky

[LordNothing]

did pretty good damage with 4x tbt10s but it took a nightstar to mount it. feel like its weak for the tonnage investment. thats only 8 tubes or 40 damage. put 6 tbt5s on a thanatos and it kind of sucked.

Edited by LordNothing, 19 March 2024 - 10:27 PM.

[Vonbach]

I tried it once. Even LRMs are better than thunderbolts. The tonnage investment is much to high for what you get.
Its pretty much DOA just like I expected it to be.

[LordNothing]

Mecrutio, on 19 March 2024 - 01:29 PM, said:

half my volleys fly into the dirt or randomly into the sky....so that's an issue

i agree though that the thunderbolts should have remained one large missile instead of multiple 5 damage missiles....as it stands you can have 3 LRM 20s for the weight of 2 T-bolt 20s, but you don't have the single-component damage T-bolts are supposed to bring to offset the huge weight increase. At the moment (when they fly and track properly) they seem to function as knock-off ATMs

dont mind them taking on the role of atm on the is side, but man that tonnage hurts.

[ambosen]

I'm just waiting for the same people complaining about LRM's constantly to claim these need to be nerfed too, even though you sometimes won't be able to use AMS as a defense not because of some sort of quirk this weapon has that lets them effectively bypass AMS systems entirely like *literally every category of missile but LRM's and now these*, but because of the alarming frequency of the missiles never getting to a position where they can hit a mech or be potentially intercepted by an AMS system at all to begin with.

Seriously.

There are some maps where due to range, arc and other aspects of missile behavior inherent to this weapon type these are straight up wasted tonnage you should've used for literally anything else. Don't even bother equipping them out of curiousity, you'll regret it almost immediately.

They will miss better then 70% of the time, even against perfectly stationary targets within what is theoretically optimal range. It is downright pathetic. Hell, I can't even make them work in the testing grounds settings on some maps. That's how bad they are.

Despite having a lock on mechanic no less.

Do you hate light mechs?

Do you hate other missile weapons?

Do you especially hate how skilled users of light mechs can already dodge or at least vastly negate the damage from volleys of all other types of missile weapons in the game simply via intentionally erratic movement?

I promise you, you do not hate them nearly as much as you will thunderbolt missiles in the exact same scenario. There is no category of weapon where the Thunderbolt missiles even feel like a viable sidegrade to, much less like it does something different or better, or that's at least more interesting then other weapon types.

There is literally no reason to equip these things onto literally any mech, especially since *literally every other existing weapon in the game, including new ones added in the same patch* can at absolute worst fulfill the exact same intended role with far greater reliability and less random chance robbing the weapon of whatever utility it might have otherwise had.

And this is coming from someone who kind of thinks the idea of the Thunderbolt missile is interesting mechanics wise at least when it comes to the tabletop and some mods for various battletech games that have tried to model them according to some genuine simulation of tabletop rules. I love the things in every other game they've appeared.

I mean the necessary balancing mechanic, which makes perfect logical sense is already there in almost all of these other implementations of the exact same concept, IE, more upfront damage, less missiles, greater chance of successful interception by AMS, or dodging efforts leading to less overall damage overall. Complete no brainer, you know exactly what to expect while keeping things different enough to make the weapon type genuinely interesting.

Just as importantly in all other implementations of Thunderbolt missiles in all other Battletech related media, it gives this missile type a distinct and different role unique to that weapon type, and I'm sorry, but MWO's weapon role differentiation is hanging on by a thread as it is due to all the disparate buffs, nerfs, chassis quirks, skill adjustments, ect. There are mechs out there that can equip Snub nose PPC's or medium lasers (just mediums, not ER's or pulses) and have them serve as perfectly viable stand ins for the longer range or higher damage weapons in the same category, quite literally.

All of these thing chip away at the unique traits that make differing weapon types viable, desirable choices for players to equip. That needs to be a thing for the game to be enjoyable. Sorry, it just does. The bland sameness being effectively enforced by these cycles is what's really killing this game.

Just like the MRM trade off of being a completely unguided missile, or the rocket launcher trade off of allowing specific unit types to effectively punch far above their theoretical weight class once ect. Weapons role differentation is a good thing both game design and balance wise, and just plain being more fun, too.

And to seemingly purposefully design a weapon to be nigh on functionally useless while packaging it with a bunch of other weapons that are effectively replicating things we already had in game in various ways, when the way to implement that weapon and make it genuinely differentiated, functional, and interesting was literally right in front of them just waiting to be utilized to good effect... It's just...

Sad, really.

Edited by ambosen, 20 March 2024 - 12:01 AM.

[ambosen]

Nine-Ball, on 19 March 2024 - 04:19 PM, said:

They hit like a truck for one thing.

If you ever manage to hit something. Statistically, you won't. The few people still mounting AMS to their mechs are gonna be having a pretty good time until the bulk of the playerbase figures that out *if* they can identify enough spots on the maps where Thunderbolts being fired at them or allied mechs can actually make it to that range to begin with.

[Curccu]

w0qj, on 19 March 2024 - 02:30 PM, said:

So what's the shorthand for Thunderbolt?

LRM20 <---> MRM20 <---> TDR20 ?

Or is it TD20 for Thunderbolt Missiles (and not TDR?)

TBM would make most sense to me.

[martian]

ambosen, on 20 March 2024 - 12:17 AM, said:

If you ever manage to hit something. Statistically, you won't. The few people still mounting AMS to their mechs are gonna be having a pretty good time until the bulk of the playerbase figures that out *if* they can identify enough spots on the maps where Thunderbolts being fired at them or allied mechs can actually make it to that range to begin with.

What meaningful and verifiable statistics can you offer? All those new weapons (Thunderbolt missiles included) have been out literally just for a few hours.

[LordNothing]

i figure it will take a week minimum for people to get used to them. ive just tried everything out for a few matches. i havent even looked at quirks yet. there will probably be a quirks pass next patch and im not even sure its worth quirk matching yet.

Edited by LordNothing, 20 March 2024 - 06:23 AM.

[ScrapIron Prime]

It needs a quirk pass, definitely.

The utility of the Thunderbolt launcher from the Battletech Tabletop game came from its concentrated damage. LRMs did a random amount of damage. An LRM 5 would do 1 to 5 damage to an armor location. The thunderbolt 5 did 5. Period. The largest launcher did a flat 20 damage to a single location instead of a random amount scattered all over the target, and for this you paid a premium in tonnage, similar to an autocannon.

We don't have that here. We pay the extra tonnage just like in Tabletop, but they are multiple 5 point hits now instead of single kabooms, and with armor and structure doubled over the tabletop values, they just don't pack a wallop that justifies spending 1/3 more tonnage than the equivalent damage LRM system. And that's before the whole issue of actually locking on and hitting and velocity and...

Thunderbolt missiles are a curiosity as they stand, and that's it.

Edited by ScrapIron Prime, 20 March 2024 - 06:44 AM.

[MrTBSC]

i generally run a MRM 120 build on my Fafnir 5E with quad lmgs for ungabunga ....

i tested a quad TBM 15 build on it

here is the thing though TBMs deal more precise damage to mechs than any other missilelauncher even artemis LRMs

and honestly i do not disagree with the decision to make each thunderbolt a 5dmg-per-missile battery instead of something that would be more like a guided single projectile autocannon ... which the TBM 5 by itself actualy is ... (you also would have to create 4 different ammotypes for each so eh a bit less work for the devs i suppose)

someone mentioned them being mockup ATMs .... actually imo they would be superior as the dmg per volley stays the same instead of being dependant to how close you are to the target ..



Edit: ok ... i did a TBM5 x8 Archer 5W build .... i´m sorry but that scrap is actually scary ... you do not want to be caught in the open without ECM/AMS support with that especially not with the back ...

Edited by MrTBSC, 20 March 2024 - 10:31 AM.