237 replies to this topic

[Thuzel]

Writhen, on 14 January 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

Math imbalance? Shotgun weapon can do X damage across the entire torso within 90 meters. Past that most don't hit and the missiles are useless past 270m. Every try to hit a light mech with SRM's? It's not math imbalance, it's lack of skill and understanding of weapon mechanics.

I understand the weapon mechanics. I'm still saying that, even with weapon spread and range limitation as drawbacks, SRMs are a little too powerful. My suggestion is to reduce their damage about 15%.

Edited by Thuzel, 14 January 2013 - 05:48 PM.

[gamingogre]

I went to SRMs after ECM came out and killed any LRM build I could field. Once LRMs become viable while pugging my SRM use will drop. That said, the SRMs feel just right to me.

Edited by gamingogre, 14 January 2013 - 06:01 PM.

[Writhenn]

You understand the mechanics? 2.5 damage per missile over an entire torso if you're under 90m needs a nerf? Okay, you win.

[PropagandaWar]

Thuzel, on 14 January 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

No, I'm not saying 40+ is OP, I'm saying the extra damage becomes noticeable at that level. 20% of 40 is 8 points per strike, which, in my opinion, is where you start seeing significant gains.

And keep the Tetris junk for yourself, I do just fine in this game.

It becomes noticable o_O It should. Your getting blasted. What a mech should be able to take an infinite amount of damage? The other day I turned a corner and there were 6 mechs spread out. I think I took about a 1000 points of damage in one shot and all that was left was my toe. Now thats brutal.

[PropagandaWar]

Thuzel, on 14 January 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

I understand the weapon mechanics. I'm still saying that, even with weapon spread and range limitation as drawbacks, SRMs are a little too powerful. My suggestion is to reduce their damage about 15%.

My suggestion is when you see a Hellcat Run or gang up on it. We spot em we kill them ASAP along with the real cheese build: The no torso but big gun having Thunder/Gauss Cat (Give them big gun torsos like the rest and I wont complain about them either). I've been using srms for a long, long time and they are far from op and if you put Artemis on them your taking up e extra ton plus crit slots which makes them even less valuble.

Edited by PropagandaWar, 14 January 2013 - 06:35 PM.

[SectionZ]

Zrave, on 13 January 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

If not for the hardpoint system, I'd pack my mech with like 10 srm6. I don't think you can say that about many other weapons. Just compare it to the LB-10X, they both have shotgun like effects but the LB-10X does less damage at three times the tonnage and slots. Sure it has the advantage of range but a shotgun is not a very effective sniper weapon

I think a return to 2 damage per missile would be reasonable.

It hurts my brain when people complain that freaking Shotguns are not effective sniper weapons. I am so terribly sorry your weapon that weighs 1 ton less and takes 1 less critical slot than the AC10, does not have the same sniping efficiency as one. What the hell. At least the Ultra5 has the decency to weigh more and take more space than the plain AC5.

Just checking due to that wording, do you think SRMs are effective sniper weapons? Because you will still hit nothing but torso on the average assault with an LBX past the range SRMs self destruct.

Is two tons and two slots that much harder to fit on all these dual shotgun builds I see running around trying to snipe across Forest lake?

Edited by SectionZ, 14 January 2013 - 07:04 PM.

[Zrave]

SectionZ, on 14 January 2013 - 06:36 PM, said:

Just checking due to that wording, do you think SRMs are effective sniper weapons? Because you will still hit nothing but torso on the average assault with an LBX past the range SRMs self destruct.

No, my point was that the fact that the LB-10X has longer range is irrelevant because it's a shotgun, so a direct comparison between the SRM and LB-10X is valid. The SRM blows it out of the water in every way.

[SpiralRazor]

Thuzel, on 14 January 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

I understand the weapon mechanics. I'm still saying that, even with weapon spread and range limitation as drawbacks, SRMs are a little too powerful. My suggestion is to reduce their damage about 15%.

You do not understand weapon mechanics. You werent in the game when they were lower damage...you lack special knowledge....SRMS were weak, then WAY WAY strong, then dialed back to the point where they are reasonable now. Aside from which, if you changed SRM damage you would have to change streak damage, and gimp even further a gimped weapons system(Caveat: Unless you can also mount ECM)

And dont say Artemis because more then 75% of the time your going to be ECMd and your fancy Arty does nothing.

[QuantumButler]

The OP has a serious case of "Mad 'cause Bad" I see.

[PropagandaWar]

SpiralRazor, on 14 January 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

You do not understand weapon mechanics. You werent in the game when they were lower damage...you lack special knowledge....SRMS were weak, then WAY WAY strong, then dialed back to the point where they are reasonable now. Aside from which, if you changed SRM damage you would have to change streak damage, and gimp even further a gimped weapons system(Caveat: Unless you can also mount ECM)

And dont say Artemis because more then 75% of the time your going to be ECMd and your fancy Arty does nothing.

That's one problem. A lot of these players didnt see the death rain (taking out a commando out in the water with a lrm 10 and killin atlases behind hills with a few salvos) SRM's in tight clusters etc., etc. If they did they would understand. Hell at least LBX's are viable now. I remember where I wouldnt touch them with a ten foot pole.

[Stalkerr]

The answer is not to automatically nerf SRMs, which are a weapon only good in specific situations (due to range, missile spread, travel time, etc.), and in the experience of many of the players I know, well-balanced. For example, I don't take SRMs on all my builds because they are not always the best option . Back in early beta, they were practically required on everything that might brawl due to how powerful they were, but that has changed quite a bit since missile spread has been tweaked.

SRM damage is where it needs to be to keep them as viable missile slot weapons, especially considering their current mechanics and slots/tonnage.

Edited by Stalkerr, 15 January 2013 - 09:46 AM.

[Thuzel]

SpiralRazor, on 14 January 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

You do not understand weapon mechanics. You werent in the game when they were lower damage...you lack special knowledge....SRMS were weak, then WAY WAY strong, then dialed back to the point where they are reasonable now. Aside from which, if you changed SRM damage you would have to change streak damage, and gimp even further a gimped weapons system(Caveat: Unless you can also mount ECM)

And dont say Artemis because more then 75% of the time your going to be ECMd and your fancy Arty does nothing.

Don't make assumptions. I remember plenty of SRM tweaks around the middle of last year, especially when they started increasing their damage. The increases actually prompted me to start a new build and test period.

A lot has changed since then, but even before their damage was brought up I wouldn't have called them overly weak.

I considered the streak changes as well. A 15% damage reduction would do fine there too.

[Antarus]

Ursh, on 13 January 2013 - 11:40 PM, said:

The thing with SRM catapults is that they're not slow mechs. Most are running between a 280xl-315xl, which can put them up over 84kph with speed tweak.

A lot of the boats are sort of gimmick builds, but not the splatapult.

When an SRM cat is in play, you absolutely have to kill it first, because it's far more dangerous than anything else the other team could be fielding.

This, a million times this. It is one thing to have to adopt strategies to fight other mechs, but to have one mech be so dominant that it has to be called alpha every time or it destroys an entire team indicates something is amiss.

[Antarus]

SixStringSamurai, on 14 January 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

Also if your going to use the TT argument you have to account for the fact that armor is double the value of TT in MWO. So 2.5 damage isn't entirely outside of the ballpark. Plus in TT don't you have critical multipliers that make the weapon more effective then is default value of 2?

I mean I'm no genius but isn't that what this is all about:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/CBT_Tables

Can we stop with the double armor gambit? The Double Armor is to extend combat. Buffing damage to compensate just completely negates the purpose of that move in the first place.