Please stop being angry at each other. It's not helping this thread or the discussion in it at all.
In more relevant words:
I do think the AMS ammo bin size and capacity to affect flights not launched at the AMS carrier may need another looking at. I'm honestly not clear why PGI had the idea to make AMS like it is right now. I do agree that it's a neat idea, but that doesn't mean it can't be a broken (in terms of 'does not interact properly with the rest of the mechanics' fashion), similarly to ECM. If this comes from novels then that would explain why; my only exposures to Battletech and Mechwarrior have been my playing the tabletop since 1990 (with rules up to TR 3060-era) and the Mechwarrior/Battletech computer games (excepting Mech Commander, MW4, and MW:LL), so I'm missing a lot of the 'non-canon' history and later revisions (such as the Phoenix Project and other revised TROs).
As far as autocannon versus LRMs:
Yes, autocannon do have those limitations. Yes, LRMs have more flexible ammunition bins. But, there are some things that need to be taken into account here.
While autocannon shot are technically dodgeable, they cannot be dodged by turning and running the other direction. All that running directly away from an AC-toting 'mech gets you is shot in the back, but running directly away from someone launching LRM volleys at you can prevent most or even all of the damage if you're fast enough. This is not even at all.
Autocannon are not as limited in shots per ton of ammo, but they're not supposed to be anyway, except the AC/20 (in whose case you're paying for a 20-damage instant shot to one location with that ammo restriction, the tonnage, the space occupation, and the short range). Autocannon are paying more weight per weapon, which is what's supposed to be the case.
What's not supposed to be the case is LRMs wasting squillions of ammunition by having to wait four or more seconds for a shot to land, so there are often multiple salvos in the air still when a target gets to cover or dies- you really don't get that with autocannon. Even an AC/2 at extreme range will at most get one shot in the air before you can tell that your target is in cover and no longer valid for you.
LRMs
do have to maintain a lock for the entire flight time, though, which places a heavy restriction on the movement of the 'mech in question. Now, I don't have the target retention module myself (I'm currently more interested in managing to obtain all the 'mechs I have in my sights- I only have about 40 so far and there are about that many more that I intend to get... mostly Heavies, which are kind of expensive) and I hear it alleviates things a bit (which it seems like it shouldn't, since my understanding of the
described function is that it retains target lock, not weapon lock-on), but trying to keep LRMs locked without it means spending something like 85% of the missile flight time with the targeting reticle in the little red box- and that is
ruinous for 'mechs heavy enough to carry multiple large missile racks, as it prevents large amounts of maneuvering and any form of torso twisting. LRMs should not be preventing maneuvering-
and keep in mind I'm saying this from a game balance perspective, not from a player-who-got-shot perspective or an I-want-LRMs-to-be-the-strongest perspective- without some kind of capacity in LRMs to be more powerful than other weapon systems. As LRMs demonstrably don't have such an advantage, this added restriction makes no sense.
Finally, autocannon have no functional hard counters that prevent their use
in the way that ECM and large quantities of AMS can hard counter LRMs. I emphasize this because there are some universal 'hard counters' in this game (being in cover, for instance, or behind whatever's shooting) that function for all weapons. Only Streak missiles and LRMs have equipment hard-counters, though- you can still fire non-missile weapons and standard SRMs at a target you cannot lock with the same chance of success because you can see the target moving yourself and are making precisely the same judgement (just without fine information such as where it's already damaged or what weapons it has). You can't fire the Streaks at all, and LRMs take so long to arrive that they
need the weapons lock to stand a reasonable chance of hitting. If you're firing LRMs without a target lock, then even within 300 meters a typical Atlas can move out of the way- this is a pretty strong limitation that is applied to LRMs only, and is very close to the strength of the Streak missile system's 'cannot be fired at all without lock' limitation- but LRMs aren't similarly strong compared to similar tonnages of weaponry.
The fact that so many players will mount Streak 2s with a Beagle instead of even considering LRM-5s in a 'mech with only 3 missile hardpoints is a good demonstration of this. Yes, they save a little on tonnage from ammo (you need more ammo weight for the LRMs, partly since so many of them won't hit and the Streaks will always hit) and the damage is a notably higher on average (3xLRM-5 is max 15 damage per launch, 3xSSRM-2 is always 15 damage per launch), but you would expect the massively increased range to go some distance (what I did there) to giving the LRMs some consideration, to say nothing of the capacity for indirect fire.
Back to my first note:
I'm all for arguments, but I don't like shouting/insult matches and I'll be surprised if any of you tell me you do. If you do, though, please do tell me so I can stop hoping for this topic to stay a rational argument instead of an angry one. Don't let LRMs make you go 'grrrr', let them make you go 'hmmmm'.
-QKD-CR0
Edited by Elli Gujar, 06 March 2014 - 09:55 AM.
7
Abivard, on 06 March 2014 - 09:06 AM, said:
