65 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 06 August 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

However, one cannot have a cone of fire and an effective range of 540.

Actually, one can.
In fact, I've already done the math for it.

Quote

With a bit of trig...

arctan (35/8000) = 0.004375 radians = 0.2506 degrees
CEP_500m = (sin(0.2506) * 500)/sin(90-0.2506) {that is, using the Law of Sines} = 2.1875 meters

So, the circle at a range of 500 meters might be about 4.375 meters (~14.35 feet) wide.

With the MWO atlas being ~18 meters tall and roughly half-that (that is, ~9 meters) wide, 4.375 meters represents a hit probability across up to three adjacent sections (e.g. any of the three torso sections if "aimed at" the CT, or the CT and the corresponding arm if aimed at either side-torso).
Against a MWO Commando or MWO Spider (each of which are about 9-10 meters tall), and maybe half-that (that is, ~4.5-5.0 meters) wide, even an Abrams with a modern targeting system stands a reasonable chance of completely missing (especially if the BattleMech's movements are erratic).

Basically, it is a cone with the vertex at the gun muzzle, a circular base with a diameter of 4.375 meters, a "height" (base-to-vertex distance) of 500 meters, and a vertex angle of 0.2506 degrees.

Granted, the base would have a slightly greater diameter at 540 meters (rather than 500 meters), but the basic math is still correct and the results should be fairly easy to plug-into whatever code MWO uses to drive the current LB-X cluster functionality (e.g. "clusterSpreadAngle = 0.2506", or some such).

[Sug]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 06 August 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

cooldown reduction, more damage per pellet.

Can't without nerfing other aspects of the weapon.

I just don't see them taking the time to program bullets that know when to explode based on how close they are to the target. What distance does it go off of? Target distance or distance at what your reticle is over? If you're leading your target it messes up the canister, and if it goes by target what happens if you shoot at something other than what you've targeted?

Which of these ranges gives the spread you'd like to see from the LBX?





I'm hitting with at least 4 pellets at and under 500m, and it doesn't look like I get 100% of the pellets to hit at anything over 200m. (What was the average number of hits in TT, 60%? They're not all supposed to hit.)

My 2nd 200m shot hit 5 different locations. Doesn't 2 or less locations over 200.

Sorry everyone but the TT purpose of the LBX was to get crits, not to do damage. Give LBX bonus crit damage on components and internals, let mechs be killed by engine crits.

Fixed.

Edited by Sug, 06 August 2013 - 07:47 PM.

[Zyllos]

Strum Wealh, on 06 August 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

Actually, one can.
In fact, I've already done the math for it.
Basically, it is a cone with the vertex at the gun muzzle, a circular base with a diameter of 4.375 meters, a "height" (base-to-vertex distance) of 500 meters, and a vertex angle of 0.2506 degrees.

Granted, the base would have a slightly greater diameter at 540 meters (rather than 500 meters), but the basic math is still correct and the results should be fairly easy to plug-into whatever code MWO uses to drive the current LB-X cluster functionality (e.g. "clusterSpreadAngle = 0.2506", or some such).

If I understand you correctly, you are just wanting to reduce the cone to be the size it is now but at 500m (not sure why you don't just calculate 540m, but whatever).

If that is true, it would allow the LBX to replace an AC of the same caliber at close range because the pellets are too close together at close range, so it's just a ligher, high/better critical damage AC.

Doing the flak canister shot makes the LBX have the same spray, on average, no matter the range fired. Once it gets within X meters of a solid object, it explodes, releasing the pellets. This makes the LBX unique in all aspects to the AC.

Just reducing the cone would allow the LBX to replace the AC (which I would actually be fine with, the LBX was to be a replacement to the AC) at shorter ranges.

[Blue Footed Booby]

Zyllos, on 07 August 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

If I understand you correctly, you are just wanting to reduce the cone to be the size it is now but at 500m (not sure why you don't just calculate 540m, but whatever).

If that is true, it would allow the LBX to replace an AC of the same caliber at close range because the pellets are too close together at close range, so it's just a ligher, high/better critical damage AC.

Doing the flak canister shot makes the LBX have the same spray, on average, no matter the range fired. Once it gets within X meters of a solid object, it explodes, releasing the pellets. This makes the LBX unique in all aspects to the AC.

Just reducing the cone would allow the LBX to replace the AC (which I would actually be fine with, the LBX was to be a replacement to the AC) at shorter ranges.

What about rounds that are bundles of finned flechettes, so that upon leaving the barrel the cloud immediately expands most of the way to max spread (because the individual darts haven't stabilized themselves yet), then increases spread very gradually with distance? It'd behave like a shotgun at close range while still being able to put a useful amount of damage on a target at longer range.

[General Taskeen]

It would still need a damage per pellet increase (1.1 or 1.2 at minimum for the cluster pellets), but yes this is the idea that people have wanted for a long time to change it to a "flak" burst, since the cluster munitions is described as such for the increased range.

I'm still going to state though that it may be difficult with netcode, unless PGI would like to prove me wrong and work some magic.


Also, as a novel suggestion, because no else seems to do so, people really REALLY need to back and test older Mech titles and see just how effective and fun LB-X type guns were to use, because they were balanced correctly. (MW3, MW4, MW:LL).

In comparison, MWO LB-X is complete, utter horse crap.

Edited by General Taskeen, 07 August 2013 - 09:27 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Zyllos, on 07 August 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

If I understand you correctly, you are just wanting to reduce the cone to be the size it is now but at 500m (not sure why you don't just calculate 540m, but whatever).

If that is true, it would allow the LBX to replace an AC of the same caliber at close range because the pellets are too close together at close range, so it's just a ligher, high/better critical damage AC.

Doing the flak canister shot makes the LBX have the same spray, on average, no matter the range fired. Once it gets within X meters of a solid object, it explodes, releasing the pellets. This makes the LBX unique in all aspects to the AC.

Just reducing the cone would allow the LBX to replace the AC (which I would actually be fine with, the LBX was to be a replacement to the AC) at shorter ranges.

No. You do not understand correctly. I spell it out very plainly in the post.

the LB-10X is SUPPOSED to have an EFFECTIVE range of 540 meters. (note I said EFFECTIVE, not possibly hitting with one pellet maybe)

My proposal is for a proximity fuzed canister shot, that detonates approximately 20 meters before contact (easy to determine with HSR. If it can determine where your mech is supposed to be then it can also determine 20 meters before on a straight line). So be the mech 100 meters away, OR 500, about 20 meters before it would hit, it explodes, and then follows it's current CoF.

This allows it to realistically and effectively reach it's maximum range, but does not OP it to the point where it obsoletes the AC10 (even though it is supposed to do just that). Since we will NOT be getting select fire solid slug/shot for just said reason.

The chalkboard is to visually demonstrate the concept. Readng the post too explains the details.

[Bishop Steiner]

Sug, on 06 August 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

Can't without nerfing other aspects of the weapon.

I just don't see them taking the time to program bullets that know when to explode based on how close they are to the target. What distance does it go off of? Target distance or distance at what your reticle is over? If you're leading your target it messes up the canister, and if it goes by target what happens if you shoot at something other than what you've targeted?

Which of these ranges gives the spread you'd like to see from the LBX?





I'm hitting with at least 4 pellets at and under 500m, and it doesn't look like I get 100% of the pellets to hit at anything over 200m. (What was the average number of hits in TT, 60%? They're not all supposed to hit.)

My 2nd 200m shot hit 5 different locations. Doesn't 2 or less locations over 200.

Sorry everyone but the TT purpose of the LBX was to get crits, not to do damage. Give LBX bonus crit damage on components and internals, let mechs be killed by engine crits.

Fixed.

Actually not true.

In TT, the LB-X is a weapon capable of selectively firing either the crit seeking shot shell OR a standard HEAP round. Does the current LB-X remotely emulate this? No. The TT purpose was to be able to crush armor with heap FIRST, then switch to shot shell and hit crits when the armor was gone.

Also, even WITH shot, the weapon was supposed to be effective at it's max range. You quote what 60%? Sounds right. I would like to see 6 out of 10 sub-munitions hit at 200 meters, let alone 540.

My proposal, while not 100% TT true either allows it do objectively accomplish both, since the Devs have stated they have not intention of pursuing allowing the LB-X to fire solid slug (at this time anyhow)

The current iteration is largely useless, you are firing an 11 ton SRM launcher where each pellet does half damage. Even for crit seeking one is currently better off with other weapons. The desire is to find a way to make the weapon actually useful, able to fulfill it's actual design in some way. Slightly increasing pellet damage or reducing cool down don't address it's largely useless range, and conversely, run the risk of making Clan versions utterly OP. Tightening the CoF can be done to give it range, as Sturm demonstrates, but then you lose enough spread at close range to make it useful against lights, by giving it TOO choked a pattern.

Thinking outside the box people.... it's usually where the real answers are found, instead of retreading a tried and trued ineffective system.

[Sug]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 August 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

In TT, the LB-X is a weapon capable of selectively firing either the crit seeking shot shell OR a standard HEAP round. Does the current LB-X remotely emulate this? No. The TT purpose was to be able to crush armor with heap FIRST, then switch to shot shell and hit crits when the armor was gone.

Well yeah a solid shot option would help but every time someone asks PGI about it they quickly change the subject. Switching from solid to clusters is right there with different ammo options for the standard AC's, a long long ways away.

Bishop Steiner, on 07 August 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

Also, even WITH shot, the weapon was supposed to be effective at it's max range. You quote what 60%? Sounds right. I would like to see 6 out of 10 sub-munitions hit at 200 meters, let alone 540.

Well in the video and post I say, and you can see, that at 500m at least 4 pellets hit, and at 200m at least 5 hit. I say at least because I'm going by the location hit on my little target hud thing in the upper right corner. Maybe 6 did hit, can't say.

Also 2 shots isn't really a definitive test.

Bishop Steiner, on 07 August 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

My proposal, while not 100% TT true either allows it do objectively accomplish both, since the Devs have stated they have not intention of pursuing allowing the LB-X to fire solid slug (at this time anyhow)

I don't disagree I just think it's so complicated a system that there's no chance they'd ever implement it.

A projectile that somehow senses when it's close to it's target? It takes them months just to change the numbers of the heat and damage values....

Bishop Steiner, on 07 August 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

The current iteration is largely useless, you are firing an 11 ton SRM launcher where each pellet does half damage.

Agreed. Honestly I think they should revamp the way SRMs fire to give the LBX more of a niche. Staggered fire pattern instead of missile shotgun please.

Bishop Steiner, on 07 August 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

Even for crit seeking one is currently better off with other weapons.

Yes because crits are currently pointless since they don't lead to kills. Better to just hit something hard in one spot.

Bishop Steiner, on 07 August 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

Slightly increasing pellet damage or reducing cool down don't address it's largely useless range, and conversely, run the risk of making Clan versions utterly OP.

Agreed.

Bishop Steiner, on 07 August 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

Tightening the CoF can be done to give it range, as Sturm demonstrates, but then you lose enough spread at close range to make it useful against lights, by giving it TOO choked a pattern.

They basically have to get rid of the cone and have it act like SRMs (again missile shotgun....) where the pattern spreads quickly but then maintains the same size of spread for it's entire range.

[Oppresor]

It's no secret, I am a big fan of the LBX10 Scattershot. I like your idea for a form of canister shot and can see how this would make the weapon more effective at range; however, I would prefer a system where I could select ammo types. Let me explain; 90% of the time I use the LBX at ranges out to 200m; more often than not this could be reduced to 100m. For me it's primary role is as a CIWS system when a light unit catches me in a circle of death; I am actually counting on the shotgun spread effect to catch the enemy unit and most of the time this works.

The ability to select ammo types would give the LBX a new lease of life. Some have already asked for a solid projectile like the AC10 round and canister shot has also been mentioned before alongside the existing ammo type. Based on this we are looking at three types. The question is would you need to select the ammo type at loadout or could it be done in the field on the fly?

[Bishop Steiner]

Sug, on 07 August 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

[/size]

I don't disagree I just think it's so complicated a system that there's no chance they'd ever implement it.

A projectile that somehow senses when it's close to it's target? It takes them months just to change the numbers of the heat and damage values....

That's the thing, mind you, I am not a programmer,( and unlike MANY on here, don't pretend I am) but my limited understanding of HSR makes me think it would not be terribly complex. HSR already tracks where you are, where your target is, and the axis, beam, whatever, that connects you, which is what is supposed to allow it compensate for server lag, latency, ping, yadda yadda. That same thing would allow it to know where the projectile is, and then its coding as to when it explodes. But if they can make AMS intercept clouds of missiles with much more variable trajectory, I am pretty sure using a similar method to determine detonation of a single projectile on a defined line would be much easier, tbh.

Oppresor, on 07 August 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

It's no secret, I am a big fan of the LBX10 Scattershot. I like your idea for a form of canister shot and can see how this would make the weapon more effective at range; however, I would prefer a system where I could select ammo types. Let me explain; 90% of the time I use the LBX at ranges out to 200m; more often than not this could be reduced to 100m. For me it's primary role is as a CIWS system when a light unit catches me in a circle of death; I am actually counting on the shotgun spread effect to catch the enemy unit and most of the time this works.

The ability to select ammo types would give the LBX a new lease of life. Some have already asked for a solid projectile like the AC10 round and canister shot has also been mentioned before alongside the existing ammo type. Based on this we are looking at three types. The question is would you need to select the ammo type at loadout or could it be done in the field on the fly?

agreed. But the 1) it totally and instantly obsoletes the AC/10 (Which is why TT had to invent specialized ammos that somehow only work in standard ACs to keep them relevant) and 2) whenever mentioned to the Devs, as noted, they change the subject or have said it is not on the table to look at currently.

So. Instead of beating a dead horse, I am trying to find a creative, yet viable and comparably simple solution to the issue.

Sug, on 07 August 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

[/size]


They basically have to get rid of the cone and have it act like SRMs (again missile shotgun....) where the pattern spreads quickly but then maintains the same size of spread for it's entire range.

Yeah, and ...well, not to try to make a scifi games of stompy robots "realistic" but how does that work with a shotgun again? Missiles have stabilizers and thrusters, shotty pellets have..... physics. =/

[Strum Wealh]

Zyllos, on 07 August 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

If I understand you correctly, you are just wanting to reduce the cone to be the size it is now but at 500m (not sure why you don't just calculate 540m, but whatever).

If that is true, it would allow the LBX to replace an AC of the same caliber at close range because the pellets are too close together at close range, so it's just a ligher, high/better critical damage AC.

Doing the flak canister shot makes the LBX have the same spray, on average, no matter the range fired. Once it gets within X meters of a solid object, it explodes, releasing the pellets. This makes the LBX unique in all aspects to the AC.

Just reducing the cone would allow the LBX to replace the AC (which I would actually be fine with, the LBX was to be a replacement to the AC) at shorter ranges.

The (self-)quote of the math was from another discussion (regarding the CEP of the Abrams MBT - which happens to be on the order of ~35 at a range of 8000 meters), and was meant to show that (1) the math can be done, and (2) it's actually relatively simple.

For a LB 10-X, let's say that the base of our cone-of-fire is of diameter 17.6 meters (the height of the MWO Atlas), and the height (vertex-to-base distance) of the cone is 540 meters (the stated optimal range of the LB 10-X).


LB 10-X vertex angle = arctan ((17.6/2)/540) = 0.0163 radians = 0.9336 degrees
So, let's say that the Atlas' CT is one-quarter of its width, which in turn looks to be about two-thirds of its height - giving us a CT width of 17.6 * (2/3) * (1/4) = 2.933 meters

To land all of the submunitions on the CT, the base of the cone of fire would have to be less than or equal to 2.933 meters in diameter (or 1.4667 meters in radius). So, how close would our hypothetical LB 10-X, with its vertex angle of 0.9336 degrees, need to be to do it?
tan(0.9336) = (1.4667/(range)) = 0.0163
range = 1.4667/0.0163 = 90 (meters)

Given the above-stated values, the hypothetical LB 10-X cluster round could "replace an AC of the same class" (that is, the AC/10) at ranges of 90 meters or less; at ranges greater than that, the LB-X cluster round would be simply unable to concentrate its submunitions onto one hit location.
Somehow, I don't see that rendering the AC/10 wholly obsolete.

And just for funsies, let's see what happens if we do the same thing with a LB 20-X (both the IS and Clan versions have a canon "long" range (optimal range, in MWO) of 360 meters)!
arctan ((17.6/2)/360) = 1.4002 degrees
tan(1.4002) = (1.4667/(range)) = 0.0244
range = 1.4667/0.0244 = 60 (meters)
Our hypothetical LB 20-X would need to be within 60 meters of the Atlas in order to have its cluster round match the concentrated damage of a Standard AC/20 shell - beyond that range, the LB-X cluster round will spread its damage across more than one hit location.

In summary, it seems that the LB-X ACs, with the cluster rounds adjusted/implemented as I've described, would not wholly supplant the Standard AC counterparts.

Thoughts?

[Strum Wealh]

Sug, on 07 August 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

I don't disagree I just think it's so complicated a system that there's no chance they'd ever implement it.

A projectile that somehow senses when it's close to it's target? It takes them months just to change the numbers of the heat and damage values....

That's another thing that would be working against Bishop's proposal - that is, the amount of work needed relative to the importance and desirability of the result would be rather high relative to the "simpler" solution of changing the spread.

Not only is the shotshell/cone-of-spread implementation closer to what is described in BT, but simply "adjusting the choke" (that is, changing the spread) is something that they can already do without having to design, implement, and test a new mechanic.
In fact, they had already done it at least once before, as indicated in the May 21 patch notes.

Quote

LB 10-X

- Spread 2.25 (down from 3.0)

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 07 August 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

The (self-)quote of the math was from another discussion (regarding the CEP of the Abrams MBT - which happens to be on the order of ~35 at a range of 8000 meters), and was meant to show that (1) the math can be done, and (2) it's actually relatively simple.

For a LB 10-X, let's say that the base of our cone-of-fire is of diameter 17.6 meters (the height of the MWO Atlas), and the height (vertex-to-base distance) of the cone is 540 meters (the stated optimal range of the LB 10-X).


LB 10-X vertex angle = arctan ((17.6/2)/540) = 0.0163 radians = 0.9336 degrees
So, let's say that the Atlas' CT is one-quarter of its width, which in turn looks to be about two-thirds of its height - giving us a CT width of 17.6 * (2/3) * (1/4) = 2.933 meters

To land all of the submunitions on the CT, the base of the cone of fire would have to be less than or equal to 2.933 meters in diameter (or 1.4667 meters in radius). So, how close would our hypothetical LB 10-X, with its vertex angle of 0.9336 degrees, need to be to do it?
tan(0.9336) = (1.4667/(range)) = 0.0163
range = 1.4667/0.0163 = 90 (meters)

Given the above-stated values, the hypothetical LB 10-X cluster round could "replace an AC of the same class" (that is, the AC/10) at ranges of 90 meters or less; at ranges greater than that, the LB-X cluster round would be simply unable to concentrate its submunitions onto one hit location.
Somehow, I don't see that rendering the AC/10 wholly obsolete.

And just for funsies, let's see what happens if we do the same thing with a LB 20-X (both the IS and Clan versions have a canon "long" range (optimal range, in MWO) of 360 meters)!
arctan ((17.6/2)/360) = 1.4002 degrees
tan(1.4002) = (1.4667/(range)) = 0.0244
range = 1.4667/0.0244 = 60 (meters)
Our hypothetical LB 20-X would need to be within 60 meters of the Atlas in order to have its cluster round match the concentrated damage of a Standard AC/20 shell - beyond that range, the LB-X cluster round will spread its damage across more than one hit location.

In summary, it seems that the LB-X ACs, with the cluster rounds adjusted/implemented as I've described, would not wholly supplant the Standard AC counterparts.

Thoughts?

the obsoleting the AC is if they were to ever implement selective fire. The cone can conceivably work, but looking at your numbers, I still don't really admittedly do math enough to full get them, I suppose. Wide enough cluster to be good for catching lights at short range, though, still seems like too far spread at long to be useful.

I don't have the math mind, I just draw pretty pictures. Fortunately, I don't need math for this one, as the projectile flies on a straight path until gravity or other outside forces affect it.


So to be able to marginally accomplish both tasks, one would need the cone of fire to be approximately along these numbers, in which case, it's still, TBH too wide at 500, and not wide enough to rabbit with effectively, at 100, But is passable at either. Presuming either a higher RoF or more damage. Otherwise one is still better served with other weapons. An AC5 is more effective at 500 meters, and the SRM 6 is better at 100. And to bet both is 11 tons. Plus ammo. Heat is a non issue overall, but for this 11 tons, you could conceivably land 17 pts at 100 meters instead of 10. And a much more useful 5 damage at 500.

[Sug]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 August 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

Yeah, and ...well, not to try to make a scifi games of stompy robots "realistic" but how does that work with a shotgun again? Missiles have stabilizers and thrusters, shotty pellets have..... physics. =/

I for one would be willing to overlook this ONE instance of complete lack of realism in mechwarrior.

[Zyllos]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 August 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

No. You do not understand correctly. I spell it out very plainly in the post.

the LB-10X is SUPPOSED to have an EFFECTIVE range of 540 meters. (note I said EFFECTIVE, not possibly hitting with one pellet maybe)

My proposal is for a proximity fuzed canister shot, that detonates approximately 20 meters before contact (easy to determine with HSR. If it can determine where your mech is supposed to be then it can also determine 20 meters before on a straight line). So be the mech 100 meters away, OR 500, about 20 meters before it would hit, it explodes, and then follows it's current CoF.

This allows it to realistically and effectively reach it's maximum range, but does not OP it to the point where it obsoletes the AC10 (even though it is supposed to do just that). Since we will NOT be getting select fire solid slug/shot for just said reason.

The chalkboard is to visually demonstrate the concept. Readng the post too explains the details.

Uhh, I was responding to someone else (Strum Weahl).

What you explained (a canister which explodes X meters from a solid object) is exactly what I want (as I said on page 1).

[CarnifexMaximus]

Yes.

This should have happened a year ago.

[Bishop Steiner]

Zyllos, on 07 August 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

Uhh, I was responding to someone else (Strum Weahl).

What you explained (a canister which explodes X meters from a solid object) is exactly what I want (as I said on page 1).

I'm starting to confuse myself. SOrry.

[Borengar629]

I think LB-10X is fine as it is. It is a shotgun and not the Jericho-Missle from Iron Man. What you propose here would change it into a completly different type of weapons. It would make it into a missle-weapon with a warhead that seperates into many at a specific after launch. Ballistic weapons do not do that at all.
But when I think about it... I would like such a missle weapon. But NOT as a replacement for the LB-10X and not in the Battletech universe.

[Strum Wealh]

Trickshot, on 08 August 2013 - 01:45 AM, said:

I think LB-10X is fine as it is. It is a shotgun and not the Jericho-Missle from Iron Man. What you propose here would change it into a completly different type of weapons. It would make it into a missle-weapon with a warhead that seperates into many at a specific after launch. Ballistic weapons do not do that at all.
But when I think about it... I would like such a missle weapon. But NOT as a replacement for the LB-10X and not in the Battletech universe.

Actually, there were ballistic munitions that do what Bishop is proposing - they were artillery shells called "Shrapnel shells", invented in 1784 and so named in honor of the inventor, an English artilleryman named Henry Shrapnel.

"Shrapnel shells were anti-personnel artillery munitions which carried a large number of individual bullets close to the target and then ejected them to allow them to continue along the shell's trajectory and strike the target individually."



The BattleTech "Flak Round" (described on page 352 of Tactical Operations) that should be available only to Standard ACs (and later, Light ACs) models the operation of the Shrapnel shell (albeit while using a proximity sensor rather than the Shrapnel Shell's timed fuse).
"Despite having been a proven technology in ages past, flak autocannon ammunition remains uncommon today. Intended to deal with airborne combatants such as VTOLs and fighters, this ammunition uses proximity charges to detonate in mid-air. While potent against fast-moving targets susceptible to foreign object damage (FOD), flak ammo is less effective against slower-moving targets on the ground because the charges scatter their shrapnel too far and too quickly to benefit from the target’s mobility."

By contrast, the LB-X Cluster Round and the BattleTech "Flechette Round" (the latter being available only for Standard and Light ACs, and described on page 208 of TechManual) are closer to shotshells or modern canister rounds, like the M1028 canister round used by the Abrams tank - they fragment and release their submunitions upon exiting the muzzle of the weapon.

The missile equivalent to the BT "Flak Round" would be the BT "Fragmentation Missile", described on page 141 of Classic BattleTech Master Rules (Revised).
"Designed to scatter large amounts of shrapnel over a wide area, fragmentation rounds are purpose-designed anti-infantry weapons. The storm of shrapnel released when one of these shells bursts can easily wipe out any unarmored troops within 15 meters of the blast. These rounds have little effect on armored targets like BattleMechs or armored vehicles."

The Air-Defense Arrow Missiles and Cluster Arrow Missiles, while somewhat less analogous, somewhat follow the same concept as the Fragmentation Missile.
Also of note is that older descriptions of Swarm LRMs (as found in TRO 2750 and Field Manual: Free Worlds League) indicate that the missiles released submunitions, while newer descriptions (as found in TechManual and Tactical Operations) indicate that "Swarm missiles fired like standard LRMs, but any that missed a target would remain active and able to home in on any other unit within 30 meters", while making no mention of fragmentation or submunitions.

[Bishop Steiner]

lovely GIF.

And if Trickshot thinks the LB-10X is currently fine, I must wonder....does he simply not use it, or is just very very easy to please?
I use it extensively for fun, and it is extremely not worth the tonnage. (Aided and abetted by the current MG heat bug, my MEch Salad is not a happy mech currently.)

Anyhow, as for not being canon, I would point out that currently neither are UAC/5s, MGs, DHS, armor..........

So I am more interested in keeping to the "Spirit" of the concept than the letter of the law. And I don't feel the CoF tightening is in and of itself enough to approach the TT level of usefulness, its pretty much a given they won't have selective ammo capability EVER, and while individually tweaking CoF, RoF and Dmg sound simple enough, I would rather change 1 thing instead, and as stated above, I am reasonably certain all the needed "info and code" is already in game between the AMS interaction capability and HSR. If the AMS can easily detect and react to missiles when they come within 90 meters of the mech, why can't the shell use the same coding for detection?