Sprouticus, on 28 May 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:
Some people don't like LRM's because they don't see any 'skill' involved in using them (because you don't have to point and click.. This is patently false, but that is what they believe. So they (intentionally or not) want the weapon damage/usefulness to reflect that perception.
Now I could say the same thing about PPC's vs lasers. Lasers have DoT, so it takes more skill to use them, therefore they should do more damage.
But there are serious issues with this line of thinking. Primarily, what constitutes skill. Is skill just aiming? What about positioning, seeing the battlefield, prediction of the flow of battle. For LRM's that is the critical skill needed to maximize damage. What about snap shooting vs steady aim. Being able to snap shot with a gauss or PPC is a skill, and a hard one. However being able to hold a beam from a laser is also a skill, albeit a different only than snapshots.
I Honastly got to say that that's among the best things I've ever heard about a LRM'er. Yes, it takes skill, not aiming skill, but tactical awerness skills. Positioning, locking delay and the wait for my missiles to hit though I know I'm in the open for a sniper is always a well calculated gamble. I've been on both ends during LRMgeddon, and I never thought they where overpowered, because I knew how it was to be on the other end too. I used cover, I used AMS, and took advantage of my teammates AMS.
I'm a aging gamer and my eye to hand coordination was never that good to begin with, so I had to almmost almost rely on either lots of lead in the air (MG's and Shottys) or plain tactical thinking. I'm not a sniper, or a brawler, or even a good scout. But the Cat, mostly cannon built, gived me a way to enjoy this game ... at least it used to do