As to Streaks never missing, mine only fire with a solid lock and my stats say I have a 66.7% hit ratio with streaks so some of them are not making it to the target.
Hitting on terrain and the occasional flyer you get when a mech is moving fast at a hard angle toward you. My accuracy is about the same.
LRM damage is still too low. My Treb-5N is posting fairly low damage ratings and some of that is medium laser damage. You shouldn't have to take a Stalker or Highlander missile boat to do moderate damage to a spotted target that is not in cover.
You obviously didnt read anything past my initial statement. Of the 3 missile systems, LRMs need the most micromanaging, I will agree with you on that.
Of all the weapons, not just missile weapons, they require the most micromanagement. Starting out stating that they are skilless - something a lot of founders do because there was a brief period where they were, in fact, easy mode (Perfect no-LOS accuracy, vertical descents) and it seems like that train of thought never left the community even when the weapon changed entirely.
Kaldor, on 10 June 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:
Ive played LRM boats for a good portion of my time in this game, so I do understand how they work. However, from a targeting standpoint, they are the easiest. LRMs also function best when you are on a team that helps you. They give you good targets, give feed back on whether or not your hitting, keep targets locked, use ECM/BAP to nullify the oppositions ECM, and maybe your lights use a TAG if your team is really dedicated to the concept.
Team play definitely helps LRMs; maintaining a lock on something that's popping up and down thanks to a scout can help massively, I will even admit that. However, many people seem under the impression that sending a Raven into enemy lines to line up LRM shots is a good idea. My God, it's not. If you're going to try to indirect target for people consistently, you really need to be in a brawl. Indirect fire is so non-damaging I'm not sure I'd waste more than a couple salvos of chip damage on it most of the time - every time I ignore my own advice and do it anyway the damage is always supremely disappointing.
Kaldor, on 10 June 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:
Another thing you need to add to your list is the fact that assault weight LRM boats, while having more firepower, are harder to play and generally less effective than a faster heavy LRM boat. I would much rather have a Cat with a XL300 moving at 82kph that can be fluid and actually get to their position to make a good shot, than an assault that is quite often out of position.
I think that might even be too slow with how LRMs are, right now, destine to be used in the long run.
Kaldor, on 10 June 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:
Let me comment on your cross post:
* Huge minimum range - Not really. Maintaining range is hard yes, but stop running a slow assault LRM boat that is easily picked off by faster mechs.
Again, I primarily run Cent 9Ds and Treb 7Ms for my LRM platforms. I bring up the Stalker example because it comes up in every thread, and I believe entirely the Stalker is about the worst choice for proper LRMing.
That said, maintaining minimum range when you are having to move around from your main line on and off is extremely rough, and if your main line falls and the enemy lights/mediums can reach you unimpeded, it's pretty much over. The minimum range issue should absolutely not be downplayed no matter what 'mech you're running.
Kaldor, on 10 June 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:
* Ineffective at maximum range as people can just walk backwards - You shouldn't be firing at anymore than 500m for max effectiveness
We're pretty much on the same page here. I've been stating it a bunch of times. However, the point still stands. The LRM is listed at 1000m and many complaints begin on the presumption that it can hit to 1000m, which is almost never going to work out for you unless they're on Alpine and hanging out right in a field - even then you need to be <900 or they won't have a chance.
Kaldor, on 10 June 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:
* Multiple ECM in the area still obliterates locks - This is a team game. If you feel that you need to get all your own locks, TAGging, etc, your doing it wrong.ECM still needs work, but is not insurmountable.
Again, I'm not arguing that. I'm not saying it's something that needs to change. I am saying it's a weapon drawback. If the PPC couldn't fire when surrounded by more than 2 targets with ECM I think that's more than worth mentioning in the "drawback" category. You seem to be misunderstanding that I want this stuff to change, rather than merely explaining "this is why these weapons are incredibly complicated."
Remember, the whole reason I posted this is the claim that LRMs are effectively "easy mode" and you yourself stated they are "Largely skilless."
Kaldor, on 10 June 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:
* The guns themselves take tons of weight and crit space, while also consuming ammo faster than any other weapon - Yes they do, especially with Artemis. Ive always felt that double ammo should be given to ballistic and missile systems due to doubled armor.
But.. double ammo was given to LRMs. Back in closed beta!
Kaldor, on 10 June 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:
* You really need TAG, BAP, Artemis, Decay Modules and ideally UAV to get the most out of them. - If you are trying to play an LRM boat solo, yes. I run TAG, BAP, and Decay modules. Have not run UAV. Teamwork is overpowered.
Oh boy. Here's the realistic deal: Even with a crack team (I'd like to think the Blazing Aces count, heh), you're simply not going to get away without running your own indepdent firing systems. It's ludicrous if you want to RELY on your teammates for your combat ability, rather than AUGMENT your abilities with theirs.
If you encounter ECM 'mechs 700m up the pass, what good is a light with TAG doing something else going to be? Should half the units in your group be carrying TAGs jus to benefit you?
No, no you need all that stuff if you want to be effective. Decay modules because your team won't always have LOS either. TAG to deal with ECM, and to focus your missile damage. Artemis to get any worthwhile damage (Why I still LOL at NARCs not working with Artemis).. UAV is flat out awesome if deployed right, however; that's probably the one thing I'd say belongs more on a Scout than the missile boat itself.
Still I absolutely believe if you are a missile boat and you don't have all of this outside of UAV, you are hurting your team.
ED: I still carry one because I effectively use it to pop on enemy 'mechs chasing me in PUGs, and I often do a "Drop and run" near an enemy line in scrimmages.
Kaldor, on 10 June 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:
* Ideally you need to maintain TAG to get effective damage, meaning you have to be between 270-750 consistently - I agree. But I prefer 200-500m for my firing range.
I'm talking the effective area - 270 is minimum realistically and 750m is where your TAG stops. 500m is optimal, and I've said as much in many threads.
* You also need to watch your firing position as an angle a sniper has likely will prove entirely ineffective for you - huh?
The situation: Your team sets up on a ridge. Someone's popping up and down a hill, and they're all firing. You're firing too... if you feel like wasting ammo. You'll never break that hill.
Thus, to get a firing position you've got to flank to an entirely different angle, leaving you vulnerable to light & medium threats that might decide to push you with more speed, forcing you back to your line. It's a very rough balancing act.
Kaldor, on 10 June 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:
* Indirect fire really sucks for damage and accuracy and people should stop complaining about it. It's chip damage at best. - No, its indirect fire support and needs to be treated as such. Right now LRMs are almost functioning as long range SSRMs. They need to be AOE as they were in beta.
No they don't. They need .1 more damage and then to be left alone for all time.
I have no problems with the fact indirect fire is very inaccurate and not that damaging. It is fine being chip damage, even - sometimes, rarely, that helps out. But the bottom line is this whole post, again, was to point out why LRMs aren't just as one poster put it "Drinking a coke while pointing and clicking red reticules with one hand" or as again you said, "Largely skilless."
You need to gauge 5 times the factors that you do with a laser for every single shot and movement you make. Just because this doesn't require the exact same "lead skill" that other weapons do, hardly removes skill at all.
Kaldor, on 10 June 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:
* There is an entire system designed specifically to counter LRM, and when multiple AMS are in the same area, it can decimate your missile flights. - Yes it can. There needs to be systems that beat others for balance reasons. Ever play rock paper scissors?
AMS got a super buff at the time LRMs also did; AMS wasn't taken back down. I think AMS is almost good where it is at, but could stand a small step back.
That said, again, I am not knocking AMS or saying it should be torn from the game. I'm saying it's yet another factor that you have to consider when using LRMs. If you're firing your missiles over a twin-AMS Stalker to hit your target, you are reducing damage massively with each shot for no good reason, etc.
Kaldor, on 10 June 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:
* Did I mention if you lose lock in mid-flight your missiles hit absolutely nothing, and people have several seconds to dodge that lock? - Target Decay helps a great deal. Getting closer helps too as you have less travel time.
Back to my point that LRM users should positively have Target Decay, taking yet more out of their 'mech.
Kaldor, on 10 June 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:
* Oh, I almost forgot, you have to setup at an angle so your own missiles can actually get over the cover you are using, adding more positioning difficulties - With a Cat or Stalker, this is not really an issue. Awesome does suffer from this. Atlas LRM boats, yeah....
All missile boats suffer from this. If you're using indirect you at the very least should have cover tall enough to block incoming missiles; the Catapult does fare better with it's high launchers (over hills) but if you want to start firing over mountains and buildings, you're going to have to know how the arcs work and calculate them.
Kaldor, on 10 June 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:
* Additionally outside of the ECM bubble you cannot obtain locks to fire without piercing it with a TAG; PPC piercing is lucky to give you time to even get a shot off, let alone guide it in. - Relying on PPC fire is pointless as you point out. TAG is OK, but not the best solution. NARC, lol. Teamwork is still the best solution.
If a target isn't TAG'ed, you get inferior damage. If a target is ECM'ed and you don't happen to have counter-ECM/TAG in your team, you are screwed. Not carrying your own equipment is an awful idea.
Teamwork is incredibly useful of course. If a light wants to carry a second TAG and try to spot for me in a brawl, I won't mind. More power to them. But teamwork does not mean you shouldn't carry your own equipment to remain capable instead of waiting for someone else to TAG so you can get damage.
Kaldor, on 10 June 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:
* LRMs are honestly most used at 400-500m like a Skirmisher more than an Archer due to the need to minimize flight time, which puts them in constant danger of being brought into a <270m fight. - I dont know where you have been, but they have functioned best in the 200-400 meter range for a long time now. Be thankful they are not canon range of 630m.
I played back when they did do 630. Comedy.
That said, 200 is way, way, way too close to be (intentionally) fighting. If you don't have at least a 100m buffer zone players will "turn into" the flow of missiles and immediatley shut you down unless they are assaults; if they are assaults, they'll probably stick mediums on you at this point.
So if by "functioning best" you mean "absolute max damage" you're right; if you mean you actually want to be at 200-400......
Kaldor, on 10 June 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:
I agree on some of your points, but others need work.
Long story short:
Stop firing at extreme ranges.
Stop running slow assault missile boats
Stop trying to do it all yourself, in other words, dont try and solo boat LRMs.
Always carry backup weapons.
I still think you've totally misunderstood the reasoning for posting that.. really we don't have many major disagreements (outside of the fact you absolutely, positively should be running your own TAG, BAP, Artemis, Decay, etc. and using your teammates to bolster that, instead of relying on other people to be functional) on most of that stuff, but it was purely to point out how many factors the pilot must keep in mind at all times in an LRM 'mech. It is VERY easy to screw yourself over if you aren't managing the terrain perfectly.
Trading aim-leading skills for terrain-positioning skills still involves a lot of skill. I take issue when people act like it's just "aim in the area, hold trigger on red, win" or when people enforce that view.
EDIT: Split into two messages due to Quote limits.
Spheroid, on 10 June 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:
LRM damage is still too low. My Treb-5N is posting fairly low damage ratings and some of that is medium laser damage. You shouldn't have to take a Stalker or Highlander missile boat to do moderate damage to a spotted target that is not in cover.
I outperform both the Stalker & Highlander routinely in my 7M or Cent D.
(outside of the fact you absolutely, positively should be running your own TAG, BAP, Artemis, Decay, etc. and using your teammates to bolster that, instead of relying on other people to be functional)
This is so true it huts. Especially the bolded part.
Kaldor, on 10 June 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:
Hitting on terrain and the occasional flyer you get when a mech is moving fast at a hard angle toward you. My accuracy is about the same.
That accounts for about 33.3% of all fired streaks?!
That accounts for about 33.3% of all fired streaks?!
Yeah, Im bad and just dont care if I hit, lol.
Id say about 25% of my misses are from terrain. Keep in mind, most of my current SSRM playing has actually been from playing my Highlanders, at times just getting a good lock on a mech going 85kph more than you with ECM inside of 150m is a challenge, heh.
LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.
Posted 10 June 2013 - 12:50 PM
SpiralRazor, on 09 June 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:
No, they can miss... They have a tracking stat, and a set speed. If your angle is bad, and they are turning hard enough and moving fast enough, your packet will miss.
Please don't tell me you've never seen or had your 'mech be the victim of the Streak Catherine Wheel of Doom™? If you've used them as much as you say you have, you should be well aware that it's a common occurrence to have them spinning around the target like crazy hula-hoops for a couple of seconds before they hit (and they usually hit CT).
That sort of behaviour is really not indicative of a healthy missile code.
Id say about 25% of my misses are from terrain. Keep in mind, most of my current SSRM playing has actually been from playing my Highlanders, at times just getting a good lock on a mech going 85kph more than you with ECM inside of 150m is a challenge, heh.
hahaah ohhh man. Streaks NEVER miss. You understand that right. They NEVER miss unless you shoot them into a hill/building. Plus, they do concentrate damage even on CT at any range. This has been well-proven and well understood.
As far as your, "don't comment unless you can back your statement up with examples" you haven't even backed up your own statement with anything other than baseless/unevidenced other statements.
My claim's evidence:
Streak damage should not be buffed alongside normal SRM damage (which should go up to 2.0 or even higher.. In fact, Streak damage should only affect the one bone that the streak missile hits instead of splashing at all.
Sorry to say but your wrong. A fast mech running across your aim path from say left to right at close range will cause the Steaks to miss. The Missiles just can't turn fast enough to track if the mechs are in close.
Yeah, we have some minor disagreement on implementation. I still dont think they are hard to play, just require micromanagement. Consider them "easy to moderate mode" depending on how you play them? They can be played easy mode, and those that do, in other words the guys shooting 10+ ton of ammo at 800m in an assault boat, and then come complain they are ineffective. There will always be a level of disagreement on skill levels for certain weapons. I think SRMs and AC ballistics are the hardest to use weapons mostly due to lead time. I get bored playing an LRM boat because its really quite easy for me to factor in the different variables.
My biggest concern is balance for the future. Im sure you remember back in closed beta, they were AOE weapons, and they were MUCH more viable than they are now and were 1.8 damage (iirc). They were much closer to canon, and worked as such. Now LRMs are torso seeking weapons as testing and gameplay has shown. If CLRMs go in using the current mechanics, it will be really bad. Your looking at direct LOS fire missiles that function like SSRMs. PGI needs to get a system in place that will work with current and future tech. Balancing for the "now" is bad.
The difference of opinion on which chassis to use is up to you. You like the mediums, I like a Cat with JJs, or maybe an Awesome 8R for grins from time to time. The builds are all about the same. Point of entry is BAP, TAG, Target Decay, and you like UAV, Id rather run Seismic so I cant be snuck up on. Different strokes for different folks.
I did not know that ammo was doubled for LRMs back in closed beta. Ive been playing for a year now. I always thought Sarna was confusing on that. So LRM ammo by canon is 90 per ton?
I think we can agree to disagree and most of what we disagree on is like splitting hairs.
Id like to see a small damage bump, maybe .1, re-evaluation of how they are functioning, and go from there. Scalpel, not chainsaw!
Sorry to say but your wrong. A fast mech running across your aim path from say left to right at close range will cause the Steaks to miss. The Missiles just can't turn fast enough to track if the mechs are in close.
I have to disagree with that, every now and then you even see how a light mech is just about to run past you and when you fire the streaks they'll shoot out almost backwards and still hit their target. It's just running behind cover/out of range that saves you from streaks.
Yes, weapons like LRMs that function best when used by a team, need to be balanced around team play. If they are really good solo, then they will be OP when a team uses them. Im not saying they need to be worthless solo, as they need to be viable. But you should not be depending on LRMs if you plan on solo dropping. Its just too hit or miss as to whether or not the other team has ECM and your team has enough ECM or BAP to counter. Its not as bad as it used to be though when half the mechs being fielded in a drop were ECM.
Any weapon functions best when used by a team.
The last video is less about movement and positioning and more about various technologies - some of the more pertinent are the combined situational awareness and access to information. Those are 'short term' research programs that are in the process of being adopted as we speak.
Some of that is more applicable to MechWarrior than others - but the point is that a team is always watching their fields of fire and working to concentrate them on particularly threatening targets or keep suppression on the main enemy front. One of the first things the administrators of field trials of these systems noticed was that squads equipped with them naturally diffused more - they spread out. Within reason - this is advantageous - it allows the squad to command more territory and provides more maneuvering opportunities to bring their weapons onto a threat.
The greater the angular spread of incoming fire - the less effective cover is and the more difficult maneuvering is for your team. Spreading out while remaining in communication as if you were standing close to each other allows you to mitigate attempts by the enemy to pin you down and to more easily pin down the enemy.
We should balance the strength of team-play elements before we balance weapons. Is ECM too powerful? Not powerful enough? Is BAP doing anything to improve team cohesion?
Those are some of my thoughts on Information Warfare within the context of MWO.
Quote
Yes they can. But an 82kph heavy with decent armor and backup weapons can fend off most lights and mediums long enough for direct fire cavalry to show up to either drive the attacker off or kill him. This is also why I recommend shooting at 200-400m, it takes less time for help to arrive if you need it.
The point is that individual pilot skill or tactics are incapable of overcoming the challenges and limitations of the weapon system, alone. The weapon requires some element of teamwork more so than any other weapon system.
Not that it is a bad thing - but that it makes them far from an easy weapon to utilize unless your team is holding its own, to begin with.
Quote
Not really understanding your thought process here, but I will go out on a limb. LRMs are lock on, fire and forget weapons. The heavy use of assaults to boat LRMs is an issue because they lack the tools to get out for a shot if need be, and get back before getting owned by a direct fire weapon. Whereas a Cat with JJs can just get lock in cover thanks to team locking targets, poptart, launch missiles, and get in cover.Cats may have a huge head hit box but they are hard to hit when played by a competent player that understand they cant stand still. I honestly cant remember the last time I was headshot on any of my Cats, and I have all 4 variants mastered. The key is really mobility. I would prefer to play a medium (Treb or Hunchy) with LRMs over an assault to be honest in the current meta.
Fire and forget?
Maybe at 200 meters against people who don't understand that the thing they are in has legs.
Not to mention - you lose Artemis bonuses employing indirect fire. Indirect fire shots are truly firing missiles at a target because you can and you just might do something. You're not really firing to be effective. If you've got a very coordinated team with team-speak up - you can utilize the indirect fire of LRMs 'okay' - but no competent player is going to be so easily pinned down by LRM fire and his scout. The LRMs are functioning mostly as territory denial or forcing the weighing of attrition to maneuver. And a coordinated team will accept attrition to not play your game.
A lot of the maps, however, provide plenty of cover from LRMs. A salvo or two may connect on some of your longer dashes to cover - but it's inconvenient damage as compared to effective. Unless the opposing team has made the effort to flank - ample cover is available... and if they've flanked so much as to make cover scarce - their short-stop defenders have also been divided and your team can simply pick one or the other to rush.
Quote
LRMs in canon are AOE suppression and or artillery, not the long range SSRMs they basically are now. See my first post about how they used to function in closed beta as an AOE weapon.
LRMs in canon roll a hit and cluster for each missile on the target, so long as it is in range on the same turn for 1 point (2 points) per missile. Hit locations are random - but an LRM 20 would average around 12 or so missiles making contact. A Catapult C4, then, would average about 24 missiles making contact - blowing off a ton and a half of armor (with the potential to blow off over two tons of armor). The fire interval for missiles was the same as the fire interval for weapons like lasers, autocannons, etc.
Taken in context with the game's other mechanics - LRMs are wicked weapons - even in small packages (which is why they are included on stock builds). The per-missile damage and the nature of the cluster roll meant that missiles were more likely to 'mangle' enemy mechs than 'core' them - tearing off torso sections and removing arms.
The original role of LRMs was to **** the enemy up before they could make contact with your team or preceding the arrival of your own skirmishers. It wasn't "to soften them" as in "to give them a massage" - An LRM-40 salvo could take the wind right out of an Atlas.
Which is why, per-canon, entire invasions were staged to capture chassis like the catapult before the Helm memory core led to the rediscovery of the ability to produce those battlemechs.
It's also partially why the Clans were so ridiculously overpowered. They could put LRM20s on their mechs like the Inner Sphere equipped LRM10s... and the whole XL engines without side-torso blow-out.... Endo Steel only taking 7 criticals... every one of their weapons being ER by definition and weighing less while taking up fewer criticals....
If you survived the volleys of missiles usually seen on dedicated fire support mechs of that weight class - you didn't even get into range before the clans started clipping what remained of you away with direct fire weaponry on par with what the IS expected out of the weight class. They were two mechs (and roles) in one.
Missiles have always hurt like hell in battletech.
Quote
No. Just make them fly in a swarm and be done with it. No need to add extra mechanics that could possibly be broken. Make all the LRMs have the same flight path. Add in consideration for flight path adjustments from team mates. All Artemis should do is tighten the pattern on LRMs for targets the LRM user has direct LOS on. Make them all AOE weapons as they should be. See my first post about LRM pattern sizes back in closed beta, and how the different LRM launchers varied.
This is exactly why LRMs behave like streak SRMs.
Unless what I have said is done - they will always behave like Streak SRMs, and you will always have to deal with them being long-range streaks that apply more damage to the center torso than should be. Utility will be hideously different across weight classes and target movement will render the target almost invincible once they are going 1 kilometer per hour faster... or damned to destruction if 1 kilometer per hour slower.
It's the nature of Tail-Chase Navigation. It's the nature of treating 20 separate missiles as a single coherent group guiding as one.
More or less illustrate why the way current LRMs behave is, well, stupid. Which is why we should employ a terminal scattering to simulate the cluster roll (since making them too much like real missiles -would- turn them into homing nightmares).
Quote
Solo with LRMs, yeah Id rather dig my eyes out with a spoon.
I didn't solo as much in my C4 - simply because it was, by necessity, too reliant upon missiles...
But my C1 and I can tear the hell out of a pug-match. It's not nearly as bad-*** as it used to be, as anything moving faster than 40 kph barely registers LRM damage, these days, but the quad bank of medium pulse lasers slipped it right in without any lube once I got within range. Splat-cats were my favorite victims - walk a little sluggish, make them think they could close on me quick enough... then smash them with full LOS 30-missile ALRM salvos and flip on them at the last second to smack them in the face with 24 points of damage.
There was one match, again, before they implemented splash... where I pretty much tore up the whole enemy team by myself. This was before ELO was really in effect - but I was out of ammo and simply killing things with my lasers before I finally killed everything.
You'll see it in my play-style... I still largely play my cats the way I used to, even though it's not nearly as effective as it used to be. Engagements that, back in the beginning of March or the end of February (forget when they applied that patch that sent missiles all kinds of sideways) would have ended with me having a run-away with the team end with me merely ******* off the Atlas and earning a few PPCs to the face.
Quote
If people would follow those 4 things about LRMs, they would be alot more successful at it. It still wont make then perfect, but it helps. The point is, spamming 10-12 ton of LRMs at 800m is easy mode. To get where you get where your actually effective with them, they become a little harder, but more alot the lines of "moderate mode". Is that better?
I consider them the most difficult weapons to use in the game - partially because to be mounted in numbers sufficient enough to alter your play-style to take advantage of them, you often have to make substantial compromises to the rest of your build.
I've used all of them - and the only ones that touch on the same level of care are longer-ranged direct-fire weapons - which are more physically challenging because of the fine motor skills those can require (particularly if you haven't monkeyed too much with your mouse settings and are using a standard mouse). Skill-wise - they are pretty basic and don't require much thought put into the shot. Most of it is experience in knowing how much you need to lead your shot and being able to actually command your body well enough to be able to put your cursor in the right spot.
If you can see it - you can usually hit it with direct-fire. There's not much thought that needs to be put into where it's going to be even 3 seconds from now (outside of the team-play aspect, but the LRM player needs to consider those factors just to get the damned things to hit...).
Quote
BTW, you raised some excellent points. What are your thoughts on SSRMs and SRMs based my first post in thread?
Streaks and normal SRMs are very awkward to translate from tabletop to MechWarrior. Streaks, in tabletop, are used for their efficiency - only missiles that successfully roll for a hit are subtracted from the ammunition count. It is, thus, implied that SRMs, themselves, behave like short-range LRMs. Except with twice the per-missile damage.
I'll have to think on SRMs for a bit, to be honest. One could merely treat them like a dumb-fire rocket... but that seems a little too simplistic considering the impact of Artemis on them as well as the Streak component.
The original firing mechanic -seemed- okay... although that did make for very concentrated damage potentials at close range - and really made things beyond a few dozen meters difficult to hit effectively. The current pattern is... well... quite random, but so random as to not be very useful in smaller packages... and Streaks are next to auto-hit weapons (provided the firing mech isn't simply holding down the fire button... even then...)
Per-missile damage should be substantially higher than LRMs - I would argue as high as 2.5-3.0 damage per missile (particularly if the pattern is completely random and scatter-tastic). Though making streaks home in on a random section (rather than the center torso) seems like a better application of them (and a reason, once we get to streak 6s, to take standard SRMs over SSRMs).
But I'm not so sure that's really the answer we're looking for.
0
SuomiWarder, on 10 June 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:
