418 replies to this topic

[Blue Shadow]

This would be much worse then ghost heat! For starters if light mechs can't use the largest energy weapons then you ruin many perfectly good builds, but if you allow lights to use the largest energy weapons how can you justify restricting larger mechs? Or for example my K2 build with twin AC/10 is a good and fun build but far from the "problem builds" this system is trying to fix. It will kill off a lot of customization forcing players to into builds they don't wont to use.

[HlynkaCG]

Are we still arguing about this? I thought we settled this back in 2013.

Sized hard-points are dumb and do little if anything to address the issue of pinpoint FLD.

If you absolutely must nerf the gauss cat, either nerf gauss rifles or have gauss rifles and AC 20s occupy multiple hard-points. That way you get rid of your annoying AC20s where an MG should be while still giving ballistic boats the option to be a ballistic boats.

[Augustus Martelus II]

I ve made a proposition like this in suggestion feature, but with a few differences + had made an excel format.

You should be able to see it in feature suggestions and maybe we could made an idea out of the 2 ideas

+ if you had try MW Living Legend, you ll see that the heat system work a little differently than the MWO Heat system....wich i find more useful than the one we have now.

Heat tolerance is way much lower for huge alpha

Edited by Augustus Martelus II, 06 October 2014 - 07:30 PM.

[Hoax415]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 06 October 2014 - 07:21 PM, said:

Thats a hell of a trick

But at the same time; You cant fire 3 gauss (even though we have been able to since the illya/sataphract came in) because: reasons

Gauss has a charge because reasons

lol

That's my point. We've applied the following bandaid fixes:
-PPC nerfs
-Gauss charge time
-3 x Gauss rule
-Ghost Heat
-Victor nerfs
-Jump jet nerfs
-HGN nerfs

and so on.

But I'm not even sure what this thread is about. We are currently buffing almost every IS mech. In theory the best FLD build variants are getting less quirk love. Why would we nerf whatever IS FLD build you think is too strong right now?

Russ' post was in response to the idea not of applying another band aid but of redoing the entire hardpoint system.

But when I said "this is what redoing the entire system looks like" the response was:

"well don't redo it, just go after problem builds".

So what the hell is this thread actually about?

It could have been a thread about why the hell is the CTF-IM so low tier. That would make sense to me. This thread makes no sense. The OP doesn't do what Russ says to do. Nobody in the thread is.

Edited by Hoax415, 06 October 2014 - 07:41 PM.

[El Bandito]

Tastian, on 06 October 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

I'll bite.

[EDIT] Changing this to read as weapon class sizes - not crit or slot sizes.

So, I've gone through several mechs and fixed this. The idea is to limit hardpoint sizes. For example, the Catapult K2 has a ballistic slot in its side torsos. Instead of just being ANY ballistic, it has a ballistic slot of class 2. Meaning it can ONLY carry an AC2 or MG in the side torso. With this in mind, I'm studying several mechs with every variant for variation and removing problem builds.

Using this method, here is an energy class chart

[CLASS 1] - Small Laser, Small Pulse Laser, TAG, Flamer
[CLASS 2] - CLASS 1 + Med Laser, Med Pulse Laser
[CLASS 3] - CLASS 2 + Large Laser, ER Large Laser, Large Pulse Laser
[CLASS 4] - CLASS 3 + PPC + ERPPC

For Ballistic Weapons:

[CLASS 1] - MG, AC2
[CLASS 2] - CLASS 1 + AC5, UAC5
[CLASS 3] - CLASS 2 + LB10X, AC10
[CLASS 4] - CLASS 3 + Gauss, AC20

For Missile Weapons:

[CLASS 1] - SRM2, SRM4, Streak SRM2, LRM5, Narc
[CLASS 2] - CLASS 1 + SRM2wArt, SRM6, LRM5wArt, LRM10
[CLASS 3] - CLASS 2 + SRM6wArt, LRM10wArt, LRM15
[CLASS 4] - CLASS 3 + LRM15wArt, LRM20, LRM20wArt

[EDIT] - Also note that although dual AC20 Jagers, Quad and Hex PPC Stalkers, and Splatcats aren't a problem right now, they'd be a problem again if Ghost Heat disappeared.


First case study:

Stalker.

Problem builds: LRM and PPC boating


**Stalker 3F**
RA/LA
2x [Class 2] energy
1x [Class 3] missile

RT/LT
1x [Class 4] energy
1x [Class 2] missile


**Stalker 3H**
RA/LA
2x [Class 2] energy
1x [Class 4] missile

RT/LT
1x [Class 2] missile


**Stalker 4N**
RA
2x [Class 2] energy
1x [Class 4] missile

LA
2x [Class 2] energy

RT/LT
1x [Class 4] energy
1x [Class 2] missile


**Stalker 5M**
RA/LA
2x [Class 2] energy
1x [Class 3] missile

RT
1x [Class 2] missile

LT
1x [Class 1] missile
1x [Class 2] missile

CT
1x [Class 4] energy


**Stalker 5S**
RA/LA
2x [Class 2] energy
1x [Class 3] missile

RT/LT
1x [Class 4] energy
1x [Class 2] missile



If you notice, ALL stalker stock builds are maintained but there is greater diversity among the stalker variants. Also, LRM boats and energy boats are removed.


**Catapult K2**
RA/LA
1x [Class 4] energy

RT/LT
1x [Class 1] ballistic
1x [Class 3] energy


**Raven 2X**
RA
2x [Class 2] energy

RT
1x [Class 3] missile

LT
2x [Class 3] energy


**Raven 3L**
RA
2x [Class 2] energy

LA
1x [Class 2] missile

RT
1x [Class 4] energy
1x [Class 2] missile

MEGUSTA!



I was the advocate of sized hardpoints since 2012. We wouldn't have this stupid Ghost Heat in the first place if we had sized hardpoints, and the Awesome would actually be a very useful mech instead of the joke it is ATM.

Edited by El Bandito, 06 October 2014 - 07:50 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Belorion, on 06 October 2014 - 06:42 PM, said:

Kind of my point... right now if you want to run dual guass you can do it with several platforms. Each with their own nuance (and presumably more nuance in the future) if you implement sizes that choice drops to what 1?

All the players wanting dual gauss will now be running around in King Crabs. How did that do anything for variety?

That choice would drop to however many mechs you want (up to the current number of mechs that can mount dual gauss obviously). The fact that you can limit the size of a ballistic hardpoint doesn't mean that you absolutely have to do so on all mechs.

Hoax415, on 06 October 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

I don't even know what this thread is about if it isn't about using MW4 system + stock builds + crit space to limit which weapons a mech can use. You know some kind of actual system not just more arbitrary "balance" to things that are "too powerful".

It isn't. The idea revloves around keeping current 1 hardpoint = 1 weapon scheme and adding size limits to those hardpoints where necessary for balancing reasons. Stock builds only come into the picture because we kind of want to still be able to run stock builds even with limited hardpoints (i.e. Hunchie 4G should still be able to pack that AC20).

Quote

If you don't care about a systemic change to the way hardpoints are determined then just make up special rules. More negative quirks. Whatever.

Stalkers can't into PPC. Because reasons.

This mech can't Gauss. Because reasons.

It's as systemic as any other limitation - why would Stalkers be able to replace smaller weapons (medium lasers) with larger ones like PPCs? Why would Cat K2 be able to replace tiny machine guns with huge AC20s? There's really no good way to make the case one way or another, we're talking about fictional gun of unknown dimensions fitting into a mount point on a fictional mech (also of unknown dimensions). The only solid reason behind limiting something goes along the lines of "If it doesn't cause balance problems, leave it alone. If it does cause problems, limit it".

[Stonecutter]

So... look. I don't post often, and I kinda suck at MWO, but I play a lot and I lurk the forums a lot and whenever threads like this come up I really don't know what it is everyone WANTS the game to be.

You don't want PPC boats, but you don't want LRM boats, but you don't want laser boats, but you don't want gauss boats, and you seem to really not want AC/20 boats but you want customization because that's a big part of the game but you don't want too much customization because you don't want mechs to be too good.

I like the idea of stock mechs being viable (especially stock IS mechs) but the tabletop game never had to take reflexes into account. At the end of the day MWO is an action game where dexterity matters, and Battletech is a tabletop game where it doesn't. If you're going to try to stick to tabletop cannon as far as the basics for how the weapons operate and the basic way mechs are outfitted, there's always going to be builds that are better than others, and people are always going to want to be part of the action and the shooing so total role warfare really isn't viable,

Quirks are a really cool idea and I'm glad they're coming and I hope they provide more viable mechs to pilot but I don't really see why every weapon and every mech needs to be balanced.

The game is not the meta.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

How about a hard point size limit based on the original component that was mounted sized combined with MWO's arbitrary number of hard points that they've put in the game? For instance, using the Centurion 9D as an example (disclaimer: the examples are not valid builds as they lack armor and engines -- they merely are to demonstrate what the sized hard points would look like):

Base Configuration, CN9-D Centurion



It has 2 hard points in the right arm, the total of which could add up to six criticals or less. The left torso could have two missile systems that add up to a total of three critical slots, and the two medium lasers in the center torso can be replaced with two single slot lasers or a double slot laser like the large laser systems (ER, standard or pulse as they are all the same sized).

Valid Custom Configuration



This would be an acceptable modification -- the two ballistic systems in the right arm are not larger than the LB-10X they are replacing; the missiles equal three criticals which is the same size as the LRM-10 with Artemis they replace, and the large laser replaces the two medium lasers.

Invalid Custom Configuration



The above configuration would be considered invalid for the CN9-D; the Gauss rifle is seven critical slots, which is larger than the LB-10X it replaces; likewise, the LRM-15 with artemis is one slot too large to fit where the LRM-10 with artemis previously was.

Some configurations would have to be switched around -- for instance, the CN9-A Centurion has 3 missile slots in the left torso, but an LRM-10 only takes up two critical locations. However, since the AC/10 is larger than the LB-10X of the CN9-D example, it could carry a larger ballistic weapon like the gauss rifle. As a trade-off, perhaps the CN9-A would only have two maximum missile systems for its two critical sized slots, while the CN9-D would receive three. This would limit the triple SRM-6 "meta" build that the CN9-A has -- the most SRM's it could take would be eight in two separate 4-packs.

With the exception of 'Mechs intended in lore to be total boats, this would greatly limit most of the problem boating builds we see from say, upgrading two vehicle grade machine guns to 15 ton gauss rifles. For instance, with this system, the STK-3F Stalker would not be allowed to carry any PPC's -- four large lasers would be do-able; four LRM-10's or SRM-6's would also be valid builds, but massive PPC/LRM boats would be required to be carried on 'Mechs which come with the physical space in mounting size to carry it.

Customization for individual chassis would be less, but certain chassis which are currently considered sub-par would have defined roles -- the Awesome, for instance, would be one of the few 'Mechs that can boat PPC's (if anybody actually wanted to do so, since PPC's are considered sub-par now with their walk-out-of-the-way MW2 blue orb like performance). AC/20's would go back to being a hallmark of the Hunchback, Victor and Atlas rather than anything that can swap out a machine gun for them -- 'Mechs would have unique options to differentiate between each chassis, rather than just being a random skin for whatever weapons are considered "meta."

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 06 October 2014 - 08:49 PM.

[KraftySOT]

I prefer more bait and less switch. Lets see how the quirks work out. Id rather lure people to use more sensible designs rather than just prevent the bad ones arbitrarily.

Though of course quirks might be a total flop...so this isnt a bad idea if that fails.

[Zordicron]

http://mwomercs.com/...zed-hardpoints/

that removes the concerns about invalidating loadouts. it removes the need for GHOST HEAT. It can put a clamp on certain PPFLD loadout troublesome mechs. It does what you guys want, WITHOUT actually restricting anything as it doesnt change the current hardpoint system one bit.

it is a functionality change, not a loadout restriction. Any loadout that exists now could remain, with ghost heat turned off(or at least mostly reduced) and if it is a MEGA PPFLD type loadout, it could be altered so it isnt, on a per variant basis.

This is the 4th time I have brought it up since early open beta. With clans showing us exactly how it could function- the functionality alterations of the weapons, we have gotten a taste of duration changes and burstfire ballistics now- I think the idea is more relevant then ever.

[Ultimax]

Eldagore, on 06 October 2014 - 08:09 PM, said:

the functionality alterations of the weapons, we have gotten a taste of duration changes and burstfire ballistics now

Unfortunately they taste like crap though.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 06 October 2014 - 08:06 PM, said:

How about a hard point size limit based on the original component that was mounted sized combined with MWO's arbitrary number of hard points that they've put in the game? For instance, using the Centurion 9D as an example:

That would kill the Gauss Cents other than Yen Lo Wang and AH builds, the point of the Gauss Cent is endurance and the AH is ammo dependant. It is not an exceptional build. And that is just starting with Cents. The sized hardpoint proposal is to apply a consistent set of rules without curtailing build variety. Yes, you can kill some meta builds with that, but you also kill many perfectly good non meta builds. That is why Russ said "a true audit of what builds would still exist." Sized hardpoints are hard to do without a massive loss of potential builds.

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 06 October 2014 - 08:06 PM, said:

Invalid Custom Configuration



The above configuration would be considered invalid for the CN9-D; the Gauss rifle is seven critical slots, which is larger than the LB-10X it replaces; likewise, the LRM-15 with artemis is one slot too large to fit where the LRM-10 with artemis previously was.

That is not a build that is a strawman. At 28 tons of weapons before ammo that particular CN9-D not only makes no use of any of the CN9-D's qualities like a larger max engine rating, it violates good medium building basics. Here is the best that can be done with that loadout. It is by no means a good Cent. No endurance, stock CN9-A/AL/AH speed, and despite the resilient nature of Cents an XL engine at that speed only makes it more of a death trap. I could take that mess in a stock CN9-D and rip it to shreds, just by out maneuvering it! Either of my Gauss Cents would annihilate it.

Edited by Nathan Foxbane, 06 October 2014 - 08:38 PM.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Nathan Foxbane, on 06 October 2014 - 08:35 PM, said:

That would kill the Gauss Cents other than Yen Lo Wang and AH builds, the point of the Gauss Cent is endurance and the AH is ammo dependant. It is not an exceptional build. And that is just starting with Cents. The sized hardpoint proposal is to apply a consistent set of rules without curtailing build variety. Yes, you can kill some meta builds with that, but you also kill many perfectly good non meta builds. That is why Russ said "a true audit of what builds would still exist." Sized hardpoints are hard to do without a massive loss of potential builds.


That is not a build that is a strawman. At 28 tons of weapons before ammo that particular CN9-D not only makes no use of any of the CN9-D's qualities like a larger max engine rating, it violates good medium building basics. Here is the best that can be done with that loadout. It is by no means a good Cent. No endurance, stock CN9-A/AL/AH speed, and despite the resilient nature of Cents an XL engine at that speed only makes it more of a death trap. I could take that mess in a stock CN9-D and rip it to shreds, just by out maneuvering it! Either of my Gauss Cents would annihilate it.

The CN9-A, AH, and yen lo wang would all be able to use gauss rifles -- the above build did not include armor or engine, it was meant to be a mock up demonstrating the use of space limitations by combining the size of the original components with a set number of hard points, not an actual build.

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 06 October 2014 - 08:48 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Tincan Nightmare, on 06 October 2014 - 07:01 PM, said:

I'm curious about the people who say that customization is critical to MWO's success, since how much customization is there when you need a meta build to succeed?

I absolutely believe customization is critical to MW:O's success.

I also absolutely believe that without this kind of hard point system, we've reached a total dead end in game balance. Tiered hardpoints add diversity to the game. I had at least 50 variants for some mechs in MW4, but also different planets, different missions favored different 'mechs, too.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 06 October 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

The CN9-A, AH, and yen lo wang would all be able to use gauss rifles -- the above build did not include armor or engine, it was meant to be a mock up of space limitations by combining the size of the original components with a set number of hard points.

Even a mockup should take reality into consideration. I have run Cents since CB and tried builds like that. The Dual AC/5 or Ultra and regular combo with an LRM 20+A, SRM 6+A and Large Pulse Laser would have made your point better, because it is not a workable build and illustrates in the extreme.

And this is the CN9-D Gauss Cent updated for half ton lots. The A is used to Zombie with it. They have different roles. One is a fast skirmisher and the other is for plugging gaps in a line. Neither are slow plodders. The point this kills a unique build. I can make it faster. Two tons of gauss is generally enough. Believe me, I have tried to make it with the A, but it just is not fast enough even using an XL. That 106+ kph is what makes the XL worth having. Funny how little tweaks work out that way. Quirks on the other hand can be used to encourage diversity without removing builds.

Edited by Nathan Foxbane, 06 October 2014 - 09:01 PM.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

All of you guys are missing the point.
Eventual hard point size system it has nothing with ghost heat, PPFLD. Or is not even about out of some ridicule mechs like gaussputa. To fix massive unfun PPFLD there are other tools. Like TC by HomelessBill, or slower convergence or whatever from dozens good ideas already posted about it. Of course that system can help with this but that only side effect, and there are meks that just naturally boat. Thunder Hawk, Bane, or whatever. Boat is not a problem, PP FLD is and that must be addressed somewhere else.

The fact is...
ITS ABOUT SELLING MORE MECHS.

Imagine how many meks they want to sell in a long run? 24 chassis for a year? 12 IS and 12 clan. That gives like around 100 variants i suppose. And all those meks need some special flavor and uniqueness. Current system was ok when we had few chassis to choose from, so morphing any mek in to almost any other helped. Customer need to have a reason bay a mek. No reason or almost none now. Please sell me a panther or hollander, but again whats the point in current system. Only some sort of hard point size restriction will give us a reason to bay, because those meks will be different from each other. Right now they will try to to cover this with quirks but I and probably they as well are suspecting that this can be not enough and the current hard point system was a blind valley since the beginning.

And here you have quiet ready concept that have sense
http://www.mechlivin...es-Concept2.pdf

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 06 October 2014 - 09:07 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 06 October 2014 - 08:54 PM, said:

The fact is...
ITS ABOUT SELLING MORE MECHS.

Imagine how many meks they want to sell in a long run? 24 chassis for a year? 12 IS and 12 clan. That gives like around 100 variants i suppose. And all those meks need some special flavor and uniqueness. Current system was ok when we had few chassis to choose from, so morphing any mek in to almost any other helped. Customer need to have a reason bay a mek. No reason or almost none now. Please sell me a panther or hollander, but again whats the point in current system. Only some sort of hard point size restriction will give us a reason to bay, because those meks will be different from each other. Right now they will try to to cover this with quirks but I and probably they as well are suspecting that this can be not enough and the current hard point system was a blind valley since the beginning.

While not the reason I'd like to see this take place, it is the reason PGI should definitely consider it. Even in my 2012 post I specifically point out that they'd reach a dead end of a need for 'mechs, and a lot of designs would come out and instantly be trash without such a system.

I wasn't exactly wrong.

This is a good way for PGI to profit AND improve the game. And for people saying this won't cure the "ghost heat problem" - it's a multi-level approach that's needed. Weapon Balance, reticle control, hardpoints and quirks all introduced into the game = a far, far superior game and one that won't need ANYTHING as silly as Ghost Heat.. or that God Awful Gauss-PPC desync any longer.

[HlynkaCG]

IceSerpent, on 06 October 2014 - 07:50 PM, said:

...

Let's not mince words here, the purpose of sized hard-points is to curtail build variety, always has been.

IF you absolutely must crack down on about boating, have certain weapons occupy multiple hard-points. Make PPCs require 2 Energy points, vice one, or AC20s require 3 ballistic. We already have hard-point inflation, lets put it to use.

Anything else is either going to be a band-aid or an atom bomb.

Edited by HlynkaCG, 06 October 2014 - 09:09 PM.

[Lordred]

I would like to take a stab at this.

In my own perfect world, I imagine 3 weapon size classes for each weapon group system, each mechs hard points based off its original configuration, yes you can customize it and swap out whatever you want, so long as it will fit.

I've taken the time to diagram out 12 example (Four Mechs, three variants, I chose the Phoenix Pack.)

Weapon class for IS weapons.

Breif explination.

Class one (C1) hardpoints may mount up to class one weapons.
Class two (C2) hardpoints may mount up to class two weapons.
Class thee (C3) hardpoints may mount up to class three weapons.

If you have two C1 mounts in the same location, you may mount one (1) C2 weapon
If you have three C1 mounts in the same location, you may mount either one (1) C2 and one (1) C1, OR one (1) C3 weapon.

Likewise with larger weapon hardpoints, you may increase the number of weapons you mount if you choose to equip smaller weapons.

If you have a C2 mount, you may instead equip two (2) C1 weapons.
If you have a C3 mount, you may instead equip one (1) C2 and one C1, OR Three (3) C1 weapons.




This is what I thought of for the first 12 mechs I mapped out, based on their orginial configurations.

Locust:



Shadowhawk



Thunderbolt


Battlemaster




Please let me know what you think.

Edited by Lordred, 06 October 2014 - 09:41 PM.

[Koniving]

Lordred, on 06 October 2014 - 09:19 PM, said:

Please let me know what you think.

I think I would have given MGs their own class.

Then again while I haven't put much thought into it yet.. here's what I had for ballistics:
Note that 2 MGs deal 16 damage in 10 seconds, 1 AC/2 deals 28 damage, 1 AC/5 deals 30 damage.
1 UAC/5 deals 60 to damage (assuming no jams), 1 AC/10 deals 50 damage, 1 LBX/10 deals 50 damage,
1 AC/20 deals 60 damage, 1 Gauss Rifle deals 45 damage (but that range, yo!)
(These are the total amounts of damage that can be achieved before or upon hitting the 10 second mark.)

• Small: 2 MGs or 1 AC/2 or 1 AC/5
  
• Medium: UAC/5, AC/10, LBX or 2 of small.
  
• Large: AC/20, Gauss Rifle. or 2 of medium.

The question is whether to allow a large slot to allow smalls (which would be 6 MG slots for 1 large and/or 4 AC/2 slots for 1 large. I should note that it's impossible to carry 4 AC/5s in one location; I did think that one through. ).

Now when I went to this one...
(Note: 2 smalls is 6 damage, 1 medium is 5 damage. 1 large is 9 damage, 2 mediums is 10, 3 smalls is 9. 1 PPC is 10, 2 larges is 18, 3 mediums is 15, 4 smalls is 12.)
(Second Note: 'small', 'medium', and 'large' pulses are included with their respective standard laser sizes.)

• Small: 2 Smalls to 1 medium laser
  
• Medium: Large laser or 2 mediums/3 smalls.
  
• Large: 1 PPC or 2 large lasers or 3 mediums/ 4 smalls.

I had worked with the belief that a PPC barrel should be larger than a laser barrel (like the Awesome's PPCs or the Kintaro's PPCs, but NOT like the Atlas / Shadowhawk / Firestarter PPCs, oh god those tiny things are atrocious!). Though this assumes we might get 2 or 3 sizes of laser-emitters in order to fit them.

Originally I had 4 small lasers for a medium class hardpoint (4 small lasers being 12 damage to 2 medium lasers at 10 to 1 large at 9.) And 5 smalls for a large class hardpoint (which is 15 damage, to 3 medium lasers which is also 15 damage, to 2 larges which is 18 damage, to 1 PPC which is 10 damage but pinpoint).

The premise of course is to encourage more smaller weapons to compete with singular larger weapons. Of course it's not very heat efficient and under the current hardpoint system very hardpoint inefficient. But with this at least it'd be hardpoint efficient.

For missiles, this is what I came up with in a few seconds based on something I read from the MRM pages on Sarna, where it was said that different MRM sizes could easily swap with specific kinds of standard SRM/LRM launchers. I didn't want to try and differentiate between Artemis versions due to, well, 'issues' I figured would happen with modeling.

• Small: SRM-2 / Streak SRM-2 / SRM-4 / Streak SRM-4 / LRM-5
  
• Medium: SRM-6 / Streak SRM-6 / LRM-10 or two of smaller hardpoints. (Example: 2 SRM-4s in place of an SRM-6. 2 LRM-5s in place of an LRM-10. Mix and match too).
  
• Large: LRM-20 / LRM-15 or two of medium hardpoints or four of small hardpoints. (LRM 20 or 2 LRM-10s / 2 SRM-6s or 4 LRM-5s / 4 SRM-4s / 4 Streaks / 1 SRM-6 and 2 SRM-4s. LRM-15 or LRM-10 + SRM-6, etc.)

This, though, is ultra basic as I only spent about 40 seconds on it. (I spent longer putting it here than I did on the concept itself, but this is because MRM fluff had already solved the missile aspect for me).

Edited by Koniving, 06 October 2014 - 09:51 PM.