365 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Deathlike, on 17 March 2016 - 11:19 AM, said:

I specifically edited that statement for a specific reason. I've actually seen comp players run them before, but not in any serious manner (they did it for fun, and not to prove any point).

Perhaps, but this thread is from the original statement, I am simply responding to the response to the response of the responses......

*sigh*

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Alright. I feel strongly about LRMs. They are such a craptastic place that I have but three LRM mechs total: MDD w/ cLRM-5s, CPLT-A1 w/ four iLRM-5s and two iLRM-10s, and a

Treb w/ two iLRM-10s.

I want them to be good, but I don't want them to be cheesy. Right now they're cheesy because they need to be spammy to get results. I don't like spam. We have enough spam with all the Rainbow Ralphing.

My problem with the current LRMs is that they're so inefficient that they need utter spammage to do anything useful. With the roughly 33% accuracy I have with my LRMs, a ton of ammo translates into 60 damage. While a ton of gauss ammo translates into about 120 damage or a ton of UAC10 ammo translates into about 150 damage. I'm not really okay with that. If five tons of ammo on my double UAC-10 Swaguar nets me about 750 damage then I need to pack twelve tons of LRMs into my Mad Dog for equal damage numbers, and I don't indirect onto people unless they're NARC'ed or TAG'ed by a dedicated spotter.

A part of the problem with LRMs are their mechanics. The angles of ascent and descent, the indirect fire portion, their low speed, their low damage per missile, their relative innaccuracy, the number of hard counters, the requirement to maintain LOS, the minimum range, their tonnage requirements... it all adds up and becomes "boat them on a super quirk chassis" if IS or "FILL ALL THE MISSILE HARDPOINTS" if Clan.

I feel a few things could be done to make them outright better, but not God's Hammer in low tiers while being a spitball launcher in high tiers.

• Increase the speed from 160m/s to 250m/s
  
• Increase the damage from 1 to 1.8
  
• Increase cooldown on all launchers by 40-50%

What this creates is a net increase in damage delivered and DPS. An LRM-10 currently delivers 10 damage per salvo every 4 seconds for 2.50 DPS. What would change with my idea, an LRM-10 would deliver 18 damage per salvo every 6 seconds for 3 DPS. Giving them higher damage means that a delivered salvo does more damage, but the longer cooldown makes it so spamming the missiles on any lock that rolls around less desirable as there is a longer time between the ability to put more missiles in the air. And that leads me to my next point:

Indirect fire.

It needs a total work over.

• Flatten trajectory of LRMs to 15 degree firing arc
  
• No more indirect for regular locks
  
• TAG, NARC, and UAV required for indirect fire
  
• Indirect fire firing arc at 30 degrees

Why the flattened trajectory? It currently take an LRM salvo roughly 8 seconds to reach a target at 600m. It takes a gauss slug 0.30 seconds. Or an AC10 shell 0.63 seconds.

Having a flattened trajectory and the increased speed from before makes it so an LRM salvo should be able to reach it's target at 600m in about 3.00 seconds.

Why the removal of indirect for regular locks? No C3 and to start trying to enforce role warfare. If a BFIST Bradley has to remove it's TOW to pack the TAE for artillery

spotting, then it makes sense for a mech to drop a laser for a TAG if it plans on spotting, and we have equipment that needs to be used more.

Why the higher firing angle for indirect? Because terrain, if you can't see the target there is terrain feature between you and it. It just kinda makes sense, ya know?


Next part is a bit of normalization (sad that word has negative connotations now on this forum). All launchers are not created equally. In fact, it's pretty much the smaller ones are the better ones if you have the hardpoints. For instance:

3 iLRM-5s:
-3 crits
-6 tons
-15 damage
-6 heat
-3.25s cooldown

1 iLRM-15:
-3 crits
-7 tons
-15 damage
-5 heat
-4.75s cooldown

I don't know what the actual numerical spreads are (dialing McGral18), but I do know that on the CPLT on training grounds at 600m, the LRM-15 has a few missiles that miss while the LRM-5 does not. The LRM-10 has fewer missiles that miss than the 15, but it still has a missile on each third salvo miss. So for this bit of a normalization

(including changes above):

iLRM-5:
-1 crit
-2 tons
-9 damage
-2 heat
-4.9s cooldown
-increased spread to match iLRM-10
-fires in one salvo
-DPS increased to 1.84 from 1.54

iLRM-10:
-2 crits
-5 tons
-18 damage
-3.5 heat
-6s cooldown
-is baseline for spread
-fires in one salvo
-DPS increased to 3.00 from 2.50

iLRM-15:
-3 crits
-7 tons
-27 damage
-5 heat
-6.9s cooldown
-decreased spread to match iLRM-10
-fires in two salvos of 10 followed by 5 and spaced 0.10s apart
-DPS increased to 3.86 from 3.16

iLRM-20:
-5 crits
-10 tons
-36 damage
-6 heat
-7.9s cooldown
-decreased spread to match iLRM-10
-fires in two salvos of 10 each spaced 0.10s apart
-DPS increased to 4.5 from 3.64


So they get an overall net increase in DPS, they get to their target faster, and they do more damage and do it more reliably in part to the increased speed and lower flight angle. They have to give up the indirect fire for this unless special equipment is being used and they take a noticeable hit to their spammy-ness.

On to Artemis!

Okay, my idea for Artemis LRMs was to radically change the way they worked from normal LRMs.

Basically a rough idea is that Artemis:
-increases flight speed to 300m/s
-decreases spread by 10%
-flattens trajectory to 10 degrees
-reduces lockon time by 15%
-missiles become Fire and Forget
-loses ability to fire indirect as they must have LOS to target



Clans would get a similar treatment to the IS with the difference being that I'd reduce the the cLRM-15 and cLRM-20 salvos so that they fire their payloads staggered so instead of a single missile firing out, it fires them out in pairs effectively halving their salvo duration.

Edited by Saint Scarlett Johan, 17 March 2016 - 11:46 AM.

[cazidin]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 17 March 2016 - 11:43 AM, said:

Alright. I feel strongly about LRMs. They are such a craptastic place that I have but three LRM mechs total: MDD w/ cLRM-5s, CPLT-A1 w/ four iLRM-5s and two iLRM-10s, and a

Treb w/ two iLRM-10s.

I want them to be good, but I don't want them to be cheesy. Right now they're cheesy because they need to be spammy to get results. I don't like spam. We have enough spam with all the Rainbow Ralphing.

My problem with the current LRMs is that they're so inefficient that they need utter spammage to do anything useful. With the roughly 33% accuracy I have with my LRMs, a ton of ammo translates into 60 damage. While a ton of gauss ammo translates into about 120 damage or a ton of UAC10 ammo translates into about 150 damage. I'm not really okay with that. If five tons of ammo on my double UAC-10 Swaguar nets me about 750 damage then I need to pack twelve tons of LRMs into my Mad Dog for equal damage numbers, and I don't indirect onto people unless they're NARC'ed or TAG'ed by a dedicated spotter.

A part of the problem with LRMs are their mechanics. The angles of ascent and descent, the indirect fire portion, their low speed, their low damage per missile, their relative innaccuracy, the number of hard counters, the requirement to maintain LOS, the minimum range, their tonnage requirements... it all adds up and becomes "boat them on a super quirk chassis" if IS or "FILL ALL THE MISSILE HARDPOINTS" if Clan.

I feel a few things could be done to make them outright better, but not God's Hammer in low tiers while being a spitball launcher in high tiers.

• Increase the speed from 160m/s to 250m/s
  
• Increase the damage from 1 to 1.8
  
• Increase cooldown on all launchers by 40-50%

What this creates is a net increase in damage delivered and DPS. An LRM-10 currently delivers 10 damage per salvo every 4 seconds for 2.50 DPS. What would change with my idea, an LRM-10 would deliver 18 damage per salvo every 6 seconds for 3 DPS. Giving them higher damage means that a delivered salvo does more damage, but the longer cooldown makes it so spamming the missiles on any lock that rolls around less desirable as there is a longer time between the ability to put more missiles in the air. And that leads me to my next point:


Indirect fire.

It needs a total work over.

• Flatten trajectory of LRMs to 15 degree firing arc
  
• No more indirect for regular locks
  
• TAG, NARC, and UAV required for indirect fire
  
• Indirect fire firing arc at 30 degrees

Why the flattened trajectory? It currently take an LRM salvo roughly 8 seconds to reach a target at 600m. It takes a gauss slug 0.30 seconds. Or an AC10 shell 0.63 seconds.


Having a flattened trajectory and the increased speed from before makes it so an LRM salvo should be able to reach it's target at 600m in about 3.00 seconds.

Why the removal of indirect for regular locks? No C3 and to start trying to enforce role warfare. If a BFIST Bradley has to remove it's TOW to pack the TAE for artillery

spotting, then it makes sense for a mech to drop a laser for a TAG if it plans on spotting, and we have equipment that needs to be used more.

Why the higher firing angle for indirect? Because terrain, if you can't see the target there is terrain feature between you and it. It just kinda makes sense, ya know?


Next part is a bit of normalization (sad that word has negative connotations now on this forum). All launchers are not created equally. In fact, it's pretty much the smaller ones are the better ones if you have the hardpoints. For instance:

3 iLRM-5s:
-3 crits
-6 tons
-15 damage
-6 heat
-3.25s cooldown

1 iLRM-15:
-3 crits
-7 tons
-15 damage
-5 heat
-4.75s cooldown

I don't know what the actual numerical spreads are (dialing McGral18), but I do know that on the CPLT on training grounds at 600m, the LRM-15 has a few missiles that miss while the LRM-5 does not. The LRM-10 has fewer missiles that miss than the 15, but it still has a missile on each third salvo miss. So for this bit of a normalization

(including changes above):

iLRM-5:
-1 crit
-2 tons
-9 damage
-2 heat
-4.9s cooldown
-increased spread to match iLRM-10
-fires in one salvo
-DPS increased to 1.84 from 1.54

iLRM-10:
-2 crits
-5 tons
-18 damage
-3.5 heat
-6s cooldown
-is baseline for spread
-fires in one salvo
-DPS increased to 3.00 from 2.50

iLRM-15:
-3 crits
-7 tons
-27 damage
-5 heat
-6.9s cooldown
-decreased spread to match iLRM-10
-fires in two salvos of 10 followed by 5 and spaced 0.10s apart
-DPS increased to 3.86 from 3.16

iLRM-20:
-5 crits
-10 tons
-36 damage
-6 heat
-7.9s cooldown
-decreased spread to match iLRM-10
-fires in two salvos of 10 each spaced 0.10s apart
-DPS increased to 4.5 from 3.64


So they get an overall net increase in DPS, they get to their target faster, and they do more damage and do it more reliably in part to the increased speed and lower flight angle. They have to give up the indirect fire for this unless special equipment is being used and they take a noticeable hit to their spammy-ness.

On to Artemis!

Okay, my idea for Artemis LRMs was to radically change the way they worked from normal LRMs.

Basically a rough idea is that Artemis:
-increases flight speed to 300m/s
-decreases spread by 10%
-flattens trajectory to 10 degrees
-reduces lockon time by 15%
-missiles become Fire and Forget
-loses ability to fire indirect as they must have LOS to target



Clans would get a similar treatment to the IS with the difference being that I'd reduce the the cLRM-15 and cLRM-20 salvos so that they fire their payloads staggered so instead of a single missile firing out, it fires them out in pairs effectively halving their salvo duration.

Honestly, just increasing velocity and tightening their spread would work. Maybe change the Flight Arc.

[WarHippy]

Aresye, on 16 March 2016 - 11:23 PM, said:

If you buff the speed, tighten the spread, and make them fire and forget (vs. holding lock), then LRMs CAN be effectively used as a direct fire weapon.

Your original suggestion was to buff indirect fire speed by 250m/s which is still considerably slower than PPCs that people complain about being too slow now. Fire and forget plus a tighter spread is still not going to put them on equal footing with pin point ACs, PPCs, Gauss, and lasers let alone with how much faster all of those weapons are compared to LRMs, and lets not forget that the other weapons also don't have to deal with things like AMS. Short of some really absurd speed and grouping changes LRMs are not going to be on the same competitive footing as other weapon systems in a direct fire situation and even with absurd changes I have my doubts.

Aresye, on 16 March 2016 - 11:23 PM, said:

As a competitive player, I have absolutely ZERO bias against LRMs. You could literally take an entire team of the best LRM pilots, with NARC support, plentiful UAVs, advanced target decay, etc, and you still won't be able to do anything against a direct fire competitive team. It's been tried.

I'm well aware, and that is why I question the changes you suggest. They still won't be effective against a coordinated direct fire team, and with your changes the one thing they could actually do they will not be able to do as easily as before making them continue to suck in competitive play and now in addition everywhere else because the needed coordination to use them indirectly doesn't exist in solo queue.

Aresye, on 16 March 2016 - 11:23 PM, said:

When I say you can't buff the speed and/or spread without making LRMs drastically overpowered, I'm not talking as if it will somehow become a threat to the meta game and/or competitive play. It won't. Trust me. I've played through the LRMageddons, but the techniques to defeat them haven't changed.

Again, I'm well aware I have been around since the beginning as well. I just don't agree that increasing the speed some is as big of a problem as you make it out to be. The problem is PGI lacks a gentle touch so to speak and either over nerfs or over buffs things rather than something more appropriately in the middle.

Aresye, on 16 March 2016 - 11:23 PM, said:

The thing that DOES change however, is the amount of crying from the lower tiers, because for anybody in the T5-T3 queues, all they're ever going to see is LRMs. They'll round a corner, get seen by ONE player, and instantly have 11 streams of missiles (that are now flying faster) home in on them, and it's going to suck. Every game.

This goes back to PGI needing to put in some work on finding the right equilibrium something a lot of games struggle with. The problem is your changes don't fix things for lower tier players either. With no guarantee they can even use LRMs in a indirect fire situation in the public queue they will be stuck with them in direct fire where they will quickly discover how out gunned they are by other weapon systems. Now I suppose if your goal is to get everyone to stop using LRMs as quickly as possible then I guess mission accomplish, but I hope we can find a better solution.

[Yanlowen Cage]

Simplest solution would be to make all lrms a multiple of the 5 rack in weight and slots. Increase the reload by one fold for every rack size the launcher goes up. So I
E. A 10 rack would weigh 4 tons and take 2 slots. And so forth. With double the recharge or whatever is right. Then allow larger racks to chain or volley fire groups of five. So a a twenty rack could chain fire four groups of five or volley fire all twenty. With cool down about equal to four chain fired fives. Then two twenty racks would be better then eight fives as they would not suffer ghost heat for volley fire and still provide and optimal chain fire ability. Might work better than what's happening now.

[DAYLEET]

I really only read first page but

The thing is that lrm5 are always shot in succession and shooting lrm5 in succession is as good as shooting erll at range. youll end up with good damage and maybe kills but most of it will be spread and leeched off your teammate. I always prefer getting pelted by lrm5 that i can twist and get to cover than lrm15 that truly hurt me. They rarely are my first target and that in itself is a buff, people might/will ignore you and target higher priority mech but it does not make you better.

I sport lrm often, always with artemis and almost always both tag and bap. You can spare the tonnage for tag/bap, you really dont need 10million lrm unless you are farming damage rather than kills and then you might as well be driving a dual erll raven and be be more usefull to your team(i cant believe i said the words erll rvn and usefull together).

I think a team where every mech has a single lrm would be at serious advantage in most condition without nerfing anyone hard enough to jeopardize the combined firepower of the team.

and then ofcourse you have to learn how and when to use lrm, or just stick with 5s and thousands or ammo.

Edited by DAYLEET, 17 March 2016 - 12:24 PM.

[wanderer]

Quote

• Increase the speed from 160m/s to 250m/s
  
• Increase the damage from 1 to 1.8
  
• Increase cooldown on all launchers by 40-50%

Note that this means LRMs become the slowest weapon in the game, dwarfing the Gauss Rifle's 5.75 with the bigger weapons (min 7.7 sec for a 40% increased ISLRM20, a mindshattering 9.1 for an CLRM20) and 4.8-4.9 seconds for an LRM 5.

An AC/20 has a 4 second cooldown, BTW. On the other hand, you now have an LB-X 36 for an LRM 20 and your travel time is now a max of 4 seconds (4 and change if rangequirked), not including lockon time.). Yeah, we'd replace missile spam, but you'd end up with masstube-a-geddon as LRM 60 would translate to grinding away about 3 tons (assuming you lose a few missiles) of armor per shot. Something in between on both cooldown and damage-up would work.

Quote

Flatten trajectory of LRMs to 15 degree firing arc

No more indirect for regular locks

TAG, NARC, and UAV required for indirect fire

Indirect fire firing arc at 30 degrees

Annnnnnd here we go full derp. Flatter arcs = harder to fire over both team and cover, removing IDF except for special circumstances basically removes the function unless you depend on others to be specialists.

If I fire incredibly slowly and can get more damage on a target with direct-fire weapons in the same amount of time -and- I can't use IDF in most cases, why the heck would I bother with LRMs? They're still inferior to real direct fire weaponry and their real advantage is lost.

Improve velocity. Tighter larger LRM clusters more. If you increase damage/missile for cooldown increases, do it in small amounts. Stop trying to hose the primary advantage of LRMs entirely, because the more direct-fire LRMs become, the more massive the changes you have to make just to keep up with Ye Olde Laser Boates....and it'll put them into the same carousel of nerfbuffing as the rest.

Edited by wanderer, 17 March 2016 - 01:35 PM.

[Trip Hammer]

The easy way to handle this is to make all of the Inner Sphere launchers fire Volleys of 5 missiles at a time separated by a short pause (say .25 sec).

LRM 5 - 1 Volley of 5 missiles
LRM 10 - 2 Volleys of 5 missiles
LRM 15 - 3 Volleys of 5 missiles
LRM 20 - 4 Volleys of 5 missiles

Simple to implement (I would think) and it would make them similar to the Clan but still keep some of the flavor from the IS launchers.


What do you think?

[Fiona Marshe]

A consistant launch arc would make things a lot easier. The arc is based o range to target, so it is not unusual for one salvo to go over cover and the next to slam into the side.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Quote

Increase the speed from 160m/s to 250m/s
Increase the damage from 1 to 1.8
Increase cooldown on all launchers by 40-50%

This would make LRMs about 5 -6 times more powerful than they are now.

A Five Fold Increase.


You should not be making balance suggestions.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Prosperity Park, on 17 March 2016 - 01:47 PM, said:

This would make LRMs about 5 -6 times more powerful than they are now.

A Five Fold Increase.


You should not be making balance suggestions.

Reread that.

80% increase in damage (like we had in CB for the longest time)
25-33% decreased ROF
90m/s bump in velocity

That translates to 5-6 times more powerful?

[Aresye]

WarHippy, on 17 March 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

Your original suggestion was to buff indirect fire speed by 250m/s which is still considerably slower than PPCs that people complain about being too slow now. Fire and forget plus a tighter spread is still not going to put them on equal footing with pin point ACs, PPCs, Gauss, and lasers let alone with how much faster all of those weapons are compared to LRMs, and lets not forget that the other weapons also don't have to deal with things like AMS. Short of some really absurd speed and grouping changes LRMs are not going to be on the same competitive footing as other weapon systems in a direct fire situation and even with absurd changes I have my doubts.

Technically PPCs and Gauss are not on equal footing compared to lasers, however they work within the current meta because they have front-loaded damage. It allows you to get off your shot and seek cover/torso twist, unlike lasers which all have burn time that must be focused for the full duration.

With a fire&forget function for direct fire mode, you can mitigate incoming damage by not having to stand out in the open holding lock the entire time, which is why missiles are pretty much useless in a direct fire role at the moment. You also don't have the worry of missing the target as you would still have the initial lock and homing.

Essentially, it would be like a rock-paper-scissors type balance for the different weapon types:
- Lasers have no travel time at the cost of requiring face time to get full damage.
- PPCs/ACs/Gauss do full damage when they hit at the cost of being harder to aim due to travel time.
- LRMs (in direct fire&forget mode) are easier to aim/lock at the cost of having spread/non-localized damage.

WarHippy, on 17 March 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

I'm well aware, and that is why I question the changes you suggest. They still won't be effective against a coordinated direct fire team, and with your changes the one thing they could actually do they will not be able to do as easily as before making them continue to suck in competitive play and now in addition everywhere else because the needed coordination to use them indirectly doesn't exist in solo queue.

I think you underestimate the value of having a reliable, fire&forget direct fire mode, and how important it is for trading.

Yes, the indirect firing mode would require a little bit more coordination in solo queue to fully utilize, but indirect fire shouldn't be the primary mode everyone goes to. They should be able to be utilized first as foremost as a direct fire weapon.

WarHippy, on 17 March 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

Again, I'm well aware I have been around since the beginning as well. I just don't agree that increasing the speed some is as big of a problem as you make it out to be. The problem is PGI lacks a gentle touch so to speak and either over nerfs or over buffs things rather than something more appropriately in the middle.
This goes back to PGI needing to put in some work on finding the right equilibrium something a lot of games struggle with. The problem is your changes don't fix things for lower tier players either. With no guarantee they can even use LRMs in a indirect fire situation in the public queue they will be stuck with them in direct fire where they will quickly discover how out gunned they are by other weapon systems. Now I suppose if your goal is to get everyone to stop using LRMs as quickly as possible then I guess mission accomplish, but I hope we can find a better solution.

The last speed increase was a relatively minor increase, and it turned into a crap show. Do you not remember the 80%+ topics on the general discussion talking about how LRMs were OP? It was pretty bad.

The reason it was bad is because of the stupid indirect firing mechanic that allows anybody with LRMs on the team to lock on to any target their teammate pressed "R" on.

I will reiterate once again. If you want LRMs to become an effective weapon that can actually be successfully utilized given the current mechanics of the game, you HAVE to remove the "Press R" indirect ability. It is just as much of a fundamental problem as ECM is in terms of holding LRMs back from their full potential as a weapon system.

I DON'T want to see LRMs disappear from the game. Quite the opposite really, as I'd really like to run them.

[Mcgral18]

It's been said before...but perhaps this helps with visualization:




Side view to avoid any perspective calling

The 3M Radius LRM5 VS the 6.2M Radius LRM20, on among the biggest mechs in the game.


Should I do a Cheetah? Or maybe a Crow?

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 17 March 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

It's been said before...but perhaps this helps with visualization:




Side view to avoid any perspective calling

The 3M Radius LRM5 VS the 6.2M Radius LRM20, on among the biggest mechs in the game.


Should I do a Cheetah? Or maybe a Crow?

People want moar mech pron.

You should give it to them.

[Wintersdark]

Mcgral18, on 17 March 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

It's been said before...but perhaps this helps with visualization:




Side view to avoid any perspective calling

The 3M Radius LRM5 VS the 6.2M Radius LRM20, on among the biggest mechs in the game.


Should I do a Cheetah? Or maybe a Crow?

ooooooh, do it with something reasonably compact, but that you'd legitimately lurm. A stormcrow, or some such. Just to show what sort of miss rate you're getting with a large launcher that you won't get with small ones (though it's even extreme with the Atlas!)

[wanderer]

Mcgral18, on 17 March 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

It's been said before...but perhaps this helps with visualization:

The 3M Radius LRM5 VS the 6.2M Radius LRM20, on among the biggest mechs in the game.

Should I do a Cheetah? Or maybe a Crow?

Do a few different robots, yes. People really should see what getting pelted by large launchers really is like.

[Mcgral18]

Deathlike, on 17 March 2016 - 03:04 PM, said:

People want moar mech pron.

You should give it to them.

But which robots!


I've also realized...mechs now have 2K textures. Wonder if I should export them again and see if it makes any difference.
Most of mine are from late 2012, with newer things brought in case by case.

Wintersdark, on 17 March 2016 - 05:39 PM, said:

ooooooh, do it with something reasonably compact, but that you'd legitimately lurm. A stormcrow, or some such. Just to show what sort of miss rate you're getting with a large launcher that you won't get with small ones (though it's even extreme with the Atlas!)

No idea what the impact angle of LRMs are...but it isn't straight.

[Andi Nagasia]

all Launchers need to have the Same Spread(lets Assume LRM10)
Large Launchers already pay as their Size and Cooldown balance them,

Also im starting to Like Bishops idea of +100 Velocity for LRMs Tag'ed Narc'ed and LOS,
that would help LRM teamworking, as well as Encourage Better team LRM Skills,

[Mole]

I agree with a lot of what's been said in this thread. There is no reason that me spamming a bunch of LRM5s should be so much more effective than me doing the same with a couple of LRM20s. The only real benefit I should get is the decreased cooldown. But I should not be doing more damage.

[Navid A1]

Here is what needs to be changed on LRMs:

• LRMs should fire in rapid salvos of 5, with less then 0.25 second delay between them.
  
• All LRMs should have the same spread.
  
• LRMs should have 2 flight stages. constant speed upto 300m and accelerating up to 1000 m, reaching around 400 m/s.
  
• Dumb fire LRMs in the air should have the ability to lock on a target and track when a lock is acquired.
  
• Lurmageddon preachers need to stay quiet...please.