910 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

I personally on't use LRMs any more. I have no problems seeing swarms of Missiles raining death and destruction in game. Then again I am very competitive and will fight any Meta in the game on any drop.

Bring it!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 02 December 2013 - 06:01 AM.

[Troa Barton]

Joseph Mallan, on 02 December 2013 - 06:00 AM, said:

I personally on't use LRMs any more. I have no problems seeing swarms of Missiles raining death and destruction in game. Then again I am very competitive and will fight any Meta in the game on any drop.

Bring it!

THIS!! i like seeing specialist builds out there, i liked having to adapt to targets like ppc snipers, splat cats, and big boats. it changes the whole day to day play of go meet at the center and start playing peekaboo.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Well, since this is an active thread on LRMs, thought I'd post an idea here, over creating a new thread. LRMs don't feel right, with their slow speed, and we can't really make use of their full range. I know I tend to use them around ~450 M due to both the speed and their lock on nature.

So, I think we need to test out different values for certain aspects of the weapon, and I'd love to make use of the Test server, if the idea is viable enough.

I'd like to tweak LRMs in at least two ways:

• Prohibit the ability to Lock On within a specific range
  
• Increase their speed to be more effective at longer ranges

Then depending on their performance, tweak the damage and/or ammo (and/or even heat penalty since I assume its staying for now) as necessary if the first two tweaks work out for LRMs.



So, the first tweak is, when standard LRMs are fired at a target within 630 M, I think that LRMs should not have any Lock-On ability at all, but they can be used as dumb-fire within that range (with a speed boost they should still be fine within this range anyway). And then have LRMs able to Lock-On only beyond 630 M. The range can easily be adjusted to a different value, but I thought starting here would be nice since it is the translated max value of long range in TT (21*30=630) and allows for Artemis to give a nice enough boost.

So, with Artemis on LRMs, instead of providing a Lock-on time decrease (that should be handled only by TAG and NARC, IMHO) possibly reduce the 630 M limit to maybe a range like 540 M to get Lock-On for the difference between Standard LRMs and Artemis IV LRMs. It could be thought of as improving their Spread and Accuracy as mentioned in the lore. And the actual range difference can be more or less than a 90 M difference.

And Lore-wise, this could be seen as the inaccuracy of the weapon to gain locks at near ranges, and its intended use and capacity to function at longer ranges.


So the second tweak, is to increase their speed. I was thinking we could try out, going from 120 m/s to maybe up to 700 or 739 m/s, which is still ~161 m/s slower than an AC/20 round at 900 m/s. This can be changed to whatever speed value works best to hit targets we can keep lock on at the longer range, but they could at least use a slight boost from 120 if that is too fast. And a higher speed would still allow it to be used without Lock-Ons at near ranges, but also hopefully make them more viable at longer ranges too.

The goal is to improve them, keep them balanced and make sure that they are fulfilling their intended role on the battlefield as a long range weapon system.

(Fun fact the speed of 700 to 739 m/s is more or less that of a Hydra 70, which can also be guided with additional systems, similar to how we make use of Artemis and TAG in MWO).



Then, any balance tweaks to LRMs could be to bring the damage from 1.1 to 1.0 and/or reduce ammo to 120 per ton (and/or make use of heat penalties); only as balance measures if the other changes end up working too well for LRMs.

Maybe we could even have the Max Range increased from 1,000 M if LRMs fit their role a bit better then they currently do in MWO.



And as a side note, I'd like to have the necessity of equiping AMS to get that Missile Warning along with any tweaks for LRMs.

[CravenMadness]

Wow ... Nerfing lrms much?

So, you want them only to be able to dummy fire between the 180 min range and 630 meters? For an effective 'able to fight' zone of 450 meters where you have to stare at your enemies as you try and dummy fire where they -might- be going in the next second or two and hope that half your missile racks hit?

Meanwhile as you expose yourself to the prime range of every meta (ac2, ac5, uac5,ac 10, llasers, ppc, even the ac20 at that short range) direct fire weapon in the game, and the 'extended' range for pretty much every -other- weapon out there, and you counter this with the fact that you would increase the speed by almost six hundred percent. ... Well whoop-de-du?

Even an lrm 20 rack would only likely score a quarter of it's damage potential dummy fired as your suggesting through ams, terrain detection, generally ****** overall hit detection (that every chassis has), the fact that you're getting rocked in the face while trying to dummy fire causing scatter to your reticule and random fires off where you weren't even pointing, this would also make jumpjetting and using lrms almost useless, and there's still the giant ball of glowing bees easily visible giving you plenty of time to spot and move without the need of the bitching betty alarm.

Then as for the peripheries which are the only way to make the current lrms even usable you have nerfs for those as well?

Artimis you want to cease increasing lock on time, which you claim is the perview of the tag only (which is another item that forces the lrm to have to stand in line of sight for the things he's trying to kill, kind of against the point of lrms.) or the NARC which is a joke in and of itself as it's implemented right now (don't know if you've ever used one, try it out some time) and instead you want to use it [Artimis] to 'decrease the minimum lock on range' for the lrms to 'lock on' after your brawling range forced dummy-fire range?

And -then- you suggest -lowering- the damage of lrms on top of every other negative tweak you've put in for them?

And your only real concession to the lrms is to say that the ams should be the thing giving the incoming missiles warning? You know I've been playing the game with voices off since the beginning, I don't even hear that irritating voice and I still easily notice when I have lrms pelting me in the head. It's situational awareness.

Or that they -maybe- should increase the 'Long Range Missiles' puny 1k maximum range (which isn't even it's effective maximum range, because the damn things have to travel upwards about 200 meters before they even start going towards the target) oh how magnanimous of you.

All I can think, is ... Just NO. FFs do you even LRM bro? Or is this just another pov from someone who's found themselves getting boned by some lrms after a year and a half to two years of them being a joke weapon system?

Edited by CravenMadness, 03 December 2013 - 09:23 AM.

[Lyoto Machida]

CravenMadness, on 03 December 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

Wow ... Nerfing lrms much?

So, you want them only to be able to dummy fire between the 180 min range and 630 meters? For an effective 'able to fight' zone of 450 meters where you have to stare at your enemies as you try and dummy fire where they -might- be going in the next second or two and hope that half your missile racks hit?

Meanwhile as you expose yourself to the prime range of every meta (ac2, ac5, uac5,ac 10, llasers, ppc, even the ac20 at that short range) direct fire weapon in the game, and the 'extended' range for pretty much every -other- weapon out there, and you counter this with the fact that you would increase the speed by almost six hundred percent. ... Well whoop-de-du?

Even an lrm 20 rack would only likely score a quarter of it's damage potential dummy fired as your suggesting through ams, terrain detection, generally ****** overall hit detection (that every chassis has), the fact that you're getting rocked in the face while trying to dummy fire causing scatter to your reticule and random fires off where you weren't even pointing, this would also make jumpjetting and using lrms almost useless, and there's still the giant ball of glowing bees easily visible giving you plenty of time to spot and move without the need of the bitching betty alarm.

Then as for the peripheries which are the only way to make the current lrms even usable you have nerfs for those as well?

Artimis you want to cease increasing lock on time, which you claim is the perview of the tag only (which is another item that forces the lrm to have to stand in line of sight for the things he's trying to kill, kind of against the point of lrms.) or the NARC which is a joke in and of itself as it's implemented right now (don't know if you've ever used one, try it out some time) and instead you want to use it [Artimis] to 'decrease the minimum lock on range' for the lrms to 'lock on' after your brawling range forced dummy-fire range?

And -then- you suggest -lowering- the damage of lrms on top of every other negative tweak you've put in for them?

And your only real concession to the lrms is to say that the ams should be the thing giving the incoming missiles warning? You know I've been playing the game with voices off since the beginning, I don't even hear that irritating voice and I still easily notice when I have lrms pelting me in the head. It's situational awareness.

Or that they -maybe- should increase the 'Long Range Missiles' puny 1k maximum range (which isn't even it's effective maximum range, because the damn things have to travel upwards about 200 meters before they even start going towards the target) oh how magnanimous of you.

All I can think, is ... Just NO. FFs do you even LRM bro? Or is this just another pov from someone who's found themselves getting boned by some lrms after a year and a half to two years of them being a joke weapon system?

So you're saying you could hit with an AC/20 going 900m/s from 540m away but couldn't hit with a swarm of missiles (from 5-20) going 739m/s from the same distance? Makes sense.

Not in favor of the idea but for what it's worth...you're already in "the prime range of every meta (ac2, ac5, uac5,ac 10, llasers, ppc, even the ac20 at that short range) direct fire weapon in the game" if you're using them efficiently as they currently are.

Or are you indirect firing them from 900m away from behind a rock???

[wanderer]

Wow. I leave for most of a year during an "LRMs are OP!" phase.

I come back and this is at the top of the forums.

Never change.

This is something I've learned. A weapon is "OP" when it manages to do something right. Generally, people doing what the weapon is supposed to do ticks off the people getting killed by it, which results in "NERF THE WEAPON!" being another 20-page forum thread.

If a weapon forces you to think beyond "run at enemy, run in circles, pew pew pew until dead", it is a good weapon. If you fear an artillery piece, learn to do what I've done as a missile lover of choice. If you can move and cover, use cover. If you can't move fast enough, stay under an ECM/AMS umbrella. And ideally, USE THEM YOURSELF IF YOU KEEP GETTING HOSED BY MISSILES.

Defense is as important as offense, and these threads start every time someone forgets that little fact. The LRM is a suppression-fire weapon that only kills you if you stand out in the open. Which is where everyone ELSE kills you, too. And unlike the sniper, it even warns you with a big ol' INCOMING MISSILES sign.

If you're getting burned by LRMs constantly, you are playing bad defense and you should feel bad.

[Mr 144]

Joseph Mallan, on 02 December 2013 - 06:00 AM, said:

I personally on't use LRMs any more. I have no problems seeing swarms of Missiles raining death and destruction in game. Then again I am very competitive and will fight any Meta in the game on any drop.

Bring it!

Oh man...you're missing out. Not since early CB has supplemental LRMs been more anti-meta viable. Try a troll build like Orion (4xALRM5, BAP, 2xML, and AC/20), or 'Phract 2X (2x"wierd tube firing"ALRM15, BAP, and PPCs, LLs, or whatever)...or even a 9M or PB spamming the "large launchers through small tube" fun. It's really fun...and by no means "meta" ....just ha ha fun...I've data tracked most of these builds...and they're all pug friendly 300+ "real average" damage.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

CravenMadness, on 03 December 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

Wow ... Nerfing lrms much?

So, you want them only to be able to dummy fire between the 180 min range and 630 meters? For an effective 'able to fight' zone of 450 meters where you have to stare at your enemies as you try and dummy fire where they -might- be going in the next second or two and hope that half your missile racks hit?

The ranges can be tweaked. Any changes need to be tested of course. I have no problem being able to test these kinds of things out in a live environment anyway.

The problem is we haven't tried any sort of changes, so we'd be arguing hypotheticals here anyway.

Quote

Artimis you want to cease increasing lock on time, which you claim is the perview of the tag only (which is another item that forces the lrm to have to stand in line of sight for the things he's trying to kill, kind of against the point of lrms.) or the NARC which is a joke in and of itself as it's implemented right now (don't know if you've ever used one, try it out some time) and instead you want to use it [Artimis] to 'decrease the minimum lock on range' for the lrms to 'lock on' after your brawling range forced dummy-fire range?

Artemis is said to improve Spread and Accuracy, so adjusting Range as an analog to Accuracy seemed sufficient.

And if the flight speed is too slow at ~700 m/s then it can be increased. But we need to see how it works in a live environment, before we know if that speed is too fast or too slow. Sure we can calculate the distance they will travel at that speed, but with how players know how to use cover effectively, I figured it would be easier to simply test it.

And what other uses are there for NARC currently? I haven't noticed them being used in a very long time.

Quote

And your only real concession to the lrms is to say that the ams should be the thing giving the incoming missiles warning? You know I've been playing the game with voices off since the beginning, I don't even hear that irritating voice and I still easily notice when I have lrms pelting me in the head. It's situational awareness.

Maybe I should have kept that out since it was a tangent anyway, but I simply wanted to provide another reason to carry an AMS, and make it more of a surprise to get hit with LRMs, if players have no idea LRMs are incoming without an AMS.

And we're only human right? I know I have lapses in my awareness if I am focusing on something else at the time and that Warning can be all too fair.

Quote

Or that they -maybe- should increase the 'Long Range Missiles' puny 1k maximum range (which isn't even it's effective maximum range, because the damn things have to travel upwards about 200 meters before they even start going towards the target) oh how magnanimous of you.

All I can think, is ... Just NO. FFs do you even LRM bro? Or is this just another pov from someone who's found themselves getting boned by some lrms after a year and a half to two years of them being a joke weapon system?

They are a joke, and no need to make too many assumptions about our anecdotal experiences anyway, I simply felt that they are too slow to be Long Range Missiles and needed a speed boost. But with lock on, I thought that only doing a speed increase seemed like it would then make them OP at closer ranges to the 180M limit.

From reading posts around here about how LRMs were in CB and remembering how ALRMs were for a brief period later on in open beta, I therefore thought a reasonable adjustment was changing the range when we can lock on to a target if they moved faster. So that if you do hit your target within that range limit (be it 630, 540 or 450) with a barrage of fire and forget LRMs then it was the skill of the player that made that happen.

For example, I can land shots in the 450 M range with my AC/20, I don't like doing that due the damage loss past 270, but I can do it, so I don't see why it couldn't work with LRMs that will do their full damage all over the enemy mech up to 1,000M. And after firing you can duck back since it is dumb fire at whatever range ends up working out the best for the limit to lock on.

If starting at 630M is too high, I see no problem in bringing that down to 540M for example, with Artemis then potentially lowering that down to 450M.

I simply want to test those two changes out first; how do they perform moving faster and with a reasonable limit to lock on.

And thank you for being civil with your response.

Edited by Praetor Shepard, 03 December 2013 - 03:48 PM.

[CravenMadness]

Let pgi fix hit registration, and then we can talk about changes to the already weakest and under-used weapon in the game. Next to a NARC launcher (and yes, the only person I know who runs a NARC launcher only runs it when he knows I'm playing lrms, he consoles himself with claiming I am his weapon system and that my kills and damage belong to him).

"So you're saying you could hit with an AC/20 going 900m/s from 540m away but couldn't hit with a swarm of missiles (from 5-20) going 739m/s from the same distance? Makes sense."

You realize that the missiles will be spreading as they travel... An lrm 20 is 20 some-odd damage only if -every single missile- hits... And there is never going to be a time when -every single missile- hits the -same exact spot- as opposed to the direct fire weapons that have the same distance as the proposed range of no-lock.

I would be able to hit, but they would be for a bare fraction of what the weapon is actually set up to do. In a dummy fire situation, you launch a swarm of 30 lrms forward and all a mech (even most heavies and assaults) would have to do is twist and 2/3s of the missiles are going to miss and the last 1/3d would impact on arms/legs. If there's still a minimum range for lrms dummy-fired then you can't even try and face-hug an opponent to try and get a concentrated burst on the same general area of the target.

Meanwhile, you can say that they could do the same twist defense against any other direct fire weapon, and yet each of those weapons will do their -maximum- damage to whichever part of the mech the target wants to sacrifice to absorb the shot. And eventually there won't be anything left to take the hits, the same fire from the dummy-fired lrms would be still hitting armored chassis.

But as they said, this is all anecdotal since ... The hit registration for this game blows monkey chunks. What we think we should do, what we -do-, and what we are -supposed- to be able to do, are all very different things once the game has been engaged.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I agree with addressing HSR and Hit Reg issues first. Maybe the devs could play around with how LRMs are tracked and how they hit a target, keeping their other current stats before further changes.

So, it's plausible that each LRM missile is currently being tracked individually in MWO for hits/misses. And I haven't found any comments as to how they are tracked by the server yet either, so I can be off with my observations. But there still seems to be too much of a burden for the servers to keep track of with all of the potential missile salvos that can be in the air at any one time during a match.

So, after reading a post that suggested applying the SSRM "bone" target system to LRMs, and looking at a Master Rules book that mentions that the attacker makes one hit location role for every five missiles, I wondered if there might be way to see if Hit Reg can be improved by combining elements of the two ideas together to reduce the number of potential LRM hits/misses the server needs to keep track of. (And here's another page on TT missile hits if anyone is interested in taking a look at that too.)

Therefore, instead of seemingly having the server keep track of each missile individually hitting or missing, it might be possible to have groups of up to 5 missiles count as one hit to a random weighted bone instead of tracking five individual missile hits on the target as we currently have, basically restructuring how the server receives the data from the clients I guess. But I wish I knew what the Cry Engine is capable of handling for something like this, since that is key here in making this kind of improvement.


But, it might be enough to simply have each LRM missile randomly select a weighted bone to hit like SSRMs do.

[Victor Morson]

If anything, LRMs need a buff against AMS and a slight velocity or angle boost.

They definitely don't need nerfing.

[Sir Ratburger]

When you get caught in a rain of LRM fire its bad, it can be non stop, it can kill you in seconds - but you should stay near cover if possible and not run out into the open. Its great people can make these builds, why you ask...

These builds are near enough useless in a maze of buildings and against lights, but they shine when catching people out in the open. They are specific built loadout for a single purpose and that's one of the things I like about MWO, its so flexible.

[Cimarb]

Praetor Shepard, on 04 December 2013 - 12:27 AM, said:

So, after reading a post that suggested applying the SSRM "bone" target system to LRMs, and looking at a Master Rules book that mentions that the attacker makes one hit location role for every five missiles, I wondered if there might be way to see if Hit Reg can be improved by combining elements of the two ideas together to reduce the number of potential LRM hits/misses the server needs to keep track of. (And here's another page on TT missile hits if anyone is interested in taking a look at that too.)

Therefore, instead of seemingly having the server keep track of each missile individually hitting or missing, it might be possible to have groups of up to 5 missiles count as one hit to a random weighted bone instead of tracking five individual missile hits on the target as we currently have, basically restructuring how the server receives the data from the clients I guess. But I wish I knew what the Cry Engine is capable of handling for something like this, since that is key here in making this kind of improvement.


But, it might be enough to simply have each LRM missile randomly select a weighted bone to hit like SSRMs do.

This is a good idea in theory for the larger launchers but it causes an issue when you have large amounts of smaller launchers. People already complain that LRM5 spam is too easy to core with, so if they are grouped in five-pack punches (instead of individually), the issue will be magnified five-fold, at least. Say I have five LRM5 launchers. That is five pounds of weight and five crit slots, doing the effective damage when grouped like you suggest equivalent to five AC5s, instead of five MGs. It makes the issue worse instead of better, unfortunately.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Cimarb, on 04 December 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

This is a good idea in theory for the larger launchers but it causes an issue when you have large amounts of smaller launchers. People already complain that LRM5 spam is too easy to core with, so if they are grouped in five-pack punches (instead of individually), the issue will be magnified five-fold, at least. Say I have five LRM5 launchers. That is five pounds of weight and five crit slots, doing the effective damage when grouped like you suggest equivalent to five AC5s, instead of five MGs. It makes the issue worse instead of better, unfortunately.

I'm not sure, but it seems possible that using the bone system could actually decrease the CT seeking nature of LRM5s currently, if the weighted bones disfavor CT enough. But it could increase legging (more from under armoring) and side torso coring instead though.

Since each missile would be randomly choosing a target, the damage would seem like it would be more spread all over.

And as for keeping missiles individual over grouping them, it should be fine keeping them individual. But if grouping them helps LRMs, I guess damage per missile could be adjusted some again if hits are tracked better.

And with the bones system, I assume it can be modified some for LRMs.

From the Command Chair post:

Quote

We are also looking at weighting the torso bones in a manner that make them not a priority for SSRMs. For example, all components would have a weight of 1.0. The Torsos however would take a weighting of 0.35(LT) 0.3(CT) 0.35(RT). The reasoning behind this weighting is that if all the torsos had an equal value of 1, each missile would have a 3/7 chance of going for a torso. Any sort of torso twist/movement would increase the chance of a missile in flight to hit the CT (since it’s the biggest component on a Mech) if they were to target a side torso.

So, if the bones are either at joints or at the center of a component there should be seven currently with SSRMs:

Left Arm - 1.00
Right Arm - 1.00
Left Torso - 0.35
Right Torso - 0.35
Center Torso - 0.35
Left Leg - 1.00
Right Leg - 1.00

This might be enough, but if seven bones are still too few for LRMs, maybe more bones can be added by splitting up the limbs in two (upper and lower) for targeting depending on whatever count is most reasonable.

For example, the bones could go as far as this maybe:

Upper Left Arm - 1.00
Lower Left Arm - 1.00
Upper Right Arm - 1.00
Lower Right Arm - 1.00
Front Left Torso - 0.35
Rear Left Torso - 0.010
Front Right Torso - 0.35
Rear RIght Torso - 0.010
Front Center Torso - 0.30
Rear Center Torso - 0.005
Upper Left Leg - 1.00
Lower Left Leg - 1.00
Upper Right Leg - 1.00
Lower Right Leg - 1.00

And maybe once certain components are destroyed, maybe it could be allowed for the some of the bones to remain in the targeting list until its connecting ST is destroyed?

So for example, if the Left Arm is destroyed, maybe the Upper bone could remain active; or if a leg is destroyed, maybe both upper and lower bones could still remain target-able?


Whatever happens with LRMs, I still don't think they feel right with their current stats and would like to use the Test Servers to explore some options.

[BeardedGlass]

You could change it so that instead of having each missile tracked separately, that they are clumped in a tight formation of 5, So an LRM20 would launch 4 groups of 5.

They would be treated as a single entity (Each missilegroup) And their damage would be based on how many missiles (Health) remained on impact.

Their health would be determined by the possible damage they can deal. So if a Single LRM did 1 damage, the cluster would have 5 HP.

The AMS could do 1.2 Dps to the missiles, or however much damage it currently does and would track and try to destroy that cluster before moving onto another.

It seems to me that 4 Entities would be easier to register hits for than 20. And at max with the LRM 90 SuperPults you would have only 12 Entities to track and register instead of 90 separate missiles.

[Ngamok]

Mr 144, on 03 December 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

Oh man...you're missing out. Not since early CB has supplemental LRMs been more anti-meta viable. Try a troll build like Orion (4xALRM5, BAP, 2xML, and AC/20), or 'Phract 2X (2x"wierd tube firing"ALRM15, BAP, and PPCs, LLs, or whatever)...or even a 9M or PB spamming the "large launchers through small tube" fun. It's really fun...and by no means "meta" ....just ha ha fun...I've data tracked most of these builds...and they're all pug friendly 300+ "real average" damage.

I use 1 LRM15 launcher on a few of my Highlanders since I can spare the weight for weapon + ammo and it makes a nice suppliment to getting people to either run and hide when I shoot at them at distance or for those people who run over hills away from me and still get hit. I am not boating them on those models but they still have a great use since I can still brawl with them at 200-300 meters.

[Cimarb]

Praetor Shepard, on 04 December 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

I'm not sure, but it seems possible that using the bone system could actually decrease the CT seeking nature of LRM5s currently, if the weighted bones disfavor CT enough. But it could increase legging (more from under armoring) and side torso coring instead though.

Since each missile would be randomly choosing a target, the damage would seem like it would be more spread all over.

I prefer the way they currently work, personally. They spread damage over the entire area they cover and don't go for legs when the target is behind a short hill, for instance. While I agree with some peoples suggestions that you should be able to choose direct or indirect flight paths manually (instead of it being range automated), I honestly think they are in a pretty good place right now otherwise.

[ColonelMetus]

lrm are too effective against assaults which cant move fast enough to get out of their way and are too tall to use 90% of cover, they should allow all assault mechs to mount double AMS and ECM or they should nerf the lerm

[Orgasmo]

The only thing that needs nerfing about LRM is reducing the screen shake it produces. It gets ridiculous.

[Martin Oberhofer]

If anything LRMs are UP then OP
but generally they fell right
I wasnt using them much this month (HGN 4xLRM10, C4 2XLRM20+A, A1 Funbuild 6xLRM5+A)

the most effective one was the A1 Cat
non damage wise, but the screenshake prevents you from beeing hitten that often.
so of these 3 Builds the 0dmg @ close range LRM - streamer was the most successful?

Let take into consideration that LRMs have a direct counter -> AMS and one single AMS takes almost all missiles of the stream out of the sky. I begin to think how many (or schould i say "few") AMS are out there.

Yesterday on Crimson a Cent tried to egange me, following me in the open water, he was a inch faster than me but never got nearer than 300m - i mean who ever had that great idea following a fast LRM boat to the open - without AMS oviously - must not wonder i he get wrecked up by LRMs...
Still the LRM5+A has the advantage of a nice tight grouping -> most of the Damage goes to CT and ST

If anything i would propose increase thier damage back to 1,5 and give rewards for AMS ~50Cr per LRM reducing Ammo to 250/ton (adding the ability to switch it of )