Deathlike, on 10 January 2015 - 01:28 AM, said:
1. You honestly did not read what I wrote.
If you're going to buff Clan, you're going to have to buff IS as well. If anything, it is far worse with the IS given how tracking in blobs does not favor them... if anything it favors Clan a bit more.
2. Yes, ballistic boats DO need backup weapons, generally speaking.
3. Even the ammo-driven pilots know that they ONLY have a certain lifespan before they are useless once ammo is depleted. This includes the Catapult-A1 and even the Centurion-AH. Since every other missile boat has a laser hardpoint, you literally have no excuse at that point.
4. LRMs are not competitive for various reasons... and are highly dependent on how bad your target is AND the situation/map.
5.) Adding more stuff to a weapon system that annoys me when teammates with CLRM manage to hurt my back because they fire at will instead of firing intelligently does not help your cause.
1. I did, in fact, read what you wrote, and responded to it. "...people would cry about it if it were actually implemented." and, "I would be cool if all LRMs had no min. range." All that aside, clan ballistics are far worse than IS ones, so if cLRMs have an edge, so be it.
2. I'm not advocating not carrying backup weapons, but right now LRMs (and missiles in general) are the most dependent on backups of all weapon systems. Take a ballistic boat, and you can dakka at long range, medium range, and close range until your ammo runs out. Take a laser boat and you can pew pew at pretty much any range. Get LRMs at close range and you're done. It would be nice to have more options for LRM heavy mechs than only having a couple of medium lasers when someone sneaks up on you.
Plus, be honest with yourself, how often does running dry on ammo matter in this game? Yes, you can, but it isn't often (if you are indeed boating), and it often doesn't change the course of a match by much (again, noting that there are no 100% absolutes).
3. No offense, but I'm not sure what point you are making here. That A1s have no excuse for running dry and not making each shot count, or that mechs with other hardpoints have no excuse not to take other weapons? Either way, it has little to no bearing on a discussion of LRM min. range.
4. EXACTLY....I feel this would make them less situational. It would be much easier to justify taking heavy loadouts of LRMs if one knew that they could be used to effect in any matchup. Seriously what is wrong with that?
5.) If anything that is a drawback that would provide some measure of balance. Right now getting hit with cLRMs below 180m is not damaging, just annoying. Aside from that, you need to stay out of the firing lane of friendly mechs (and they yours) as much as possible. We're all guilty of not paying attention to this (me as much as anyone), and again, I don't feel this is a good reason to NOT remove minimum range. If anything it is an argument FOR removing minimum range.
I respect your opinion (and everyone's) on balance, but thus far I still don't see any evidence that the proposed changes would severely unbalance the game, but I do see a lot of people saying they wouldn't like it. I would like to see some compelling arguments why this would be unfair. Again, SRMs would do more damage at close range for less tonnage, so I still do not see where it would make a big problem.
As an aside, if you feel I did not address your points, please just ask me to clarify. You may rest assured that if I respond to a post I have read it and considered it thoroughly. If I don't address your point either I misread it, or it did not come across in text the way you meant it.