3
Shakespeare, on 22 October 2013 - 07:38 PM, said:
I'm aware of the system's functionality - I'm saying that this setup handicaps and devalues supposedly LRM focused variants, and gives advantages to multiple, smaller stacked missile systems, which makes it difficult to balance both as a weapon system, and as a chassis characteristic. Further, it's not hard to see a shift in hardpoint distribution for missile mechs, when looked at chronologically... The Huchback, Stalker, and catapult all have variants with difficulties leveraging their LRM utility, while the Shadowhawk, Kintaro, Highlander, and Battlemaster have variants with greater capabilities as missile mechs with no apparent drawbacks. As the hardpoint system evolved to do what it does now vs tube limits, these mechs got left in the dust.
This is hampering the balance discussion for LRMs as well as making the system more counter-intuitive to employ.
LRMs are in a dangerous place right now for balancing - you can see that every time they make a change and this place turns into LRMageddon. Any direct change in spread or damage gives mechs with 2 launchers or less a needed advantage, but exponentially boosts the power of mechs with 4 or more launchers.
Missile mechs need to have a hard limit on volleys that actually matches the launchers equipped, so that the choice is between a larger launcher, with more heat and spread but better one-shot-performance, OR multiple launchers firing in pulses. Instead, we've got small launchers doubling up to form larger one-shot launchers with better recycle, slighty better impact characteristics, and no drawback in weight, damage, or range.
No other hardpoint system works this way in terms of balancing factors - stacked smaller lasers lose range and heat efficiency in return for better dmg/ton and recycle (2ML vs 1 LL). Stacked ballistics have less reliable convergence and high tonnage and critical costs compared to the single system they replace (2xAC5 vs 1 AC10). Only missiles get identical munitions, damage-per-ton, and range - and BETTER impact behavior and recycle, at the cost of another hardpoint and a little more heat.
Madness, I say. I want LRMs to be reliably dangerous, but placed on a similar balance curve to the other weapons. There needs to be a reason to bring the big ones vs the small ones, other than "well, my missile mech is too old to get bonus hardpoints". If I'm fighting a catapult with two missile ears, I should be able to reliably say "oh, he's probably got 30missiles per salvo, but he might have multiple salvos available", not "oh, he's either got 30 in a burst, but it could be 90, unless he's a C4 and only gets 40". Even the "ITS CANNON, SEE?" Butterbee build only got 12 SRMs per ear, keeping to the max of 15 that those ears should be capable of.
All the 20-tube mechs make sacrifices in order to accommodate those weapon systems, usually by sacrificing other weapon hardpoints. That's supposed to be the balancing factor between missile-capable chassis. This quantum-tube-generator system subverts that, as there's not a single 20-tubed mech that isn't worse off for its 'benefit', compared to its multi-hardpoint cousins. Same volley size and missile performance, but typically keeps its other hardpoints or chassis benefits (twist, arm placement, etc.)
Madness. I truly have no idea what direction the game is trying to go re: missiles.
This is hampering the balance discussion for LRMs as well as making the system more counter-intuitive to employ.
LRMs are in a dangerous place right now for balancing - you can see that every time they make a change and this place turns into LRMageddon. Any direct change in spread or damage gives mechs with 2 launchers or less a needed advantage, but exponentially boosts the power of mechs with 4 or more launchers.
Missile mechs need to have a hard limit on volleys that actually matches the launchers equipped, so that the choice is between a larger launcher, with more heat and spread but better one-shot-performance, OR multiple launchers firing in pulses. Instead, we've got small launchers doubling up to form larger one-shot launchers with better recycle, slighty better impact characteristics, and no drawback in weight, damage, or range.
No other hardpoint system works this way in terms of balancing factors - stacked smaller lasers lose range and heat efficiency in return for better dmg/ton and recycle (2ML vs 1 LL). Stacked ballistics have less reliable convergence and high tonnage and critical costs compared to the single system they replace (2xAC5 vs 1 AC10). Only missiles get identical munitions, damage-per-ton, and range - and BETTER impact behavior and recycle, at the cost of another hardpoint and a little more heat.
Madness, I say. I want LRMs to be reliably dangerous, but placed on a similar balance curve to the other weapons. There needs to be a reason to bring the big ones vs the small ones, other than "well, my missile mech is too old to get bonus hardpoints". If I'm fighting a catapult with two missile ears, I should be able to reliably say "oh, he's probably got 30missiles per salvo, but he might have multiple salvos available", not "oh, he's either got 30 in a burst, but it could be 90, unless he's a C4 and only gets 40". Even the "ITS CANNON, SEE?" Butterbee build only got 12 SRMs per ear, keeping to the max of 15 that those ears should be capable of.
All the 20-tube mechs make sacrifices in order to accommodate those weapon systems, usually by sacrificing other weapon hardpoints. That's supposed to be the balancing factor between missile-capable chassis. This quantum-tube-generator system subverts that, as there's not a single 20-tubed mech that isn't worse off for its 'benefit', compared to its multi-hardpoint cousins. Same volley size and missile performance, but typically keeps its other hardpoints or chassis benefits (twist, arm placement, etc.)
Madness. I truly have no idea what direction the game is trying to go re: missiles.
Well that really is the point isnt it - the drawbacks are higher heat generation and additional hardpoint use, the catch being available hardpoints which are the most valuable resource by far for consideration. However you're a bit off when it comes to the weight and you dont mention critical slots, because there are differences between the combinations:
Double-rack combo examples
2 LRM10s = 1 LRM20, -1 crit slot
1 LRM15 + 1 LRM5 = 1 LRM20, -1 crit slot, -1 ton
2 LRM5s = 1 LRM10, -1 ton
Triple-rack combo examples
3 LRM10s = 2 LRM15s, +1 ton
3 LRM5s = 1 LRM15, -1 ton
2 LRM5s + 1 LRM10 = 1 LRM20, -1 crit slot, -1 ton
It only goes up from there, since hardpoints are the most useful and valuable resource you have for a mech, by sacrificing firepower potential for firepower efficiency you're gaining a small bonus to saved space, tonnage or both. Firing an LRM20 means less missiles will hit your target than 2 LRM10s, but firing 40 missiles via 2 LRM20s out of those same slots, in my experience, means a hell of a lot more missile hits than the 20 missiles via 2 LRM10s... like i said, potential versus efficiency. It's player preference - do you want a lot of damage with a higher ratio of wasted ammo, or less damage with less wasted ammo... More damage per volley for a big alpha requiring less total shots fired or peppering damage requiring more shots fired... AC20 single shot damage or AC2 burstfire damage? One may have more reliable hits, but the other does more damage in fewer shots.
