68 replies to this topic

[Pjwned]

The6thMessenger, on 10 January 2017 - 06:49 PM, said:

It's not stupid because it's not just some long-range SSRMs,

Yes it is.

Quote

because lights do have the ability to find a cover and not get lurmed to death, target lock is also required, which is not achieved when they are hidden.

That doesn't mean they're not long range SSRMs at that point.

Quote

Biggest mech shrugs it off, lights as the farthest end of the spectrum runs away from it like it's supposed to.

And that's why it's stupid, like I just said. It's going to be hard to convince me that it's not stupid because all I need to do is look at SSRMs which are an abomination.

The spread mechanics work fine as is, it affects mechs of all weight classes more or less equally and that's how it should be, and the reason that SSRMs are such garbage is that they don't affect mechs of all weight classes more or less equally.

[The6thMessenger]

I Zeratul I, on 10 January 2017 - 04:25 PM, said:

The way things are now, if an LRM-15 or LRM-20 is fired at a light mech.

Maybe half to 75% of missiles will miss. With 25% to 50% of LRM's hitting.

If the percentage of missiles successfully targeting light mechs is increased closer to 100%, they'll be shredded very quickly.

Especially with clan assaults boating LRM-70 builds.

If there were 2-3 LRM boats shooting at the same light mech it would be destroyed in seconds if LRM's were more accurate.

I'm not saying its a bad idea.

But if LRM's targeted components individually, major changes would need to be made.

AC10 deals the same damage regardless of size, 124 points of armor from a 100-tonner would be at 114, but a 24-points of armor from a 20-tonner would be at 14, which is a massive chunk. Why is that not an issue? Well, that's because the actual challenge of landing a hit right?

Now granted, LRMs are homing, but why would lights be a special case? Don't they have the advantage of actually finding and utilizing cover much more effectively than larger mechs? Isn't the point of lights is that they are fragile speedsters?

"LB10x and SRMs still has their spread, now why wouldn't we just remove the spread of them as well?"

Because their point is to be used up close in the first place, other long-range projectile needs additional target leading compensation, while LRMs require locks instead to land missiles (and adequate breathing room).

Now sure, major changes have to be made, yes obviously. This is just a concept.

Pjwned, on 10 January 2017 - 07:02 PM, said:

Yes it is.

No it's not.

Pjwned, on 10 January 2017 - 07:02 PM, said:

That doesn't mean they're not long range SSRMs at that point.

Yes it does, their usage and therefore role differ, and their success of hit matter. Streaks have faster missile speed than LRMs,, and being only used short-range means they have a higher chance of actually getting a hit.

That's practically like saying LB20x is like SRMs just because they act like shotguns, disregarding the other factors that makes them different, and those difference put them on a different roles.

Pjwned, on 10 January 2017 - 07:02 PM, said:

The spread mechanics work fine as is, it affects mechs of all weight classes more or less equally and that's how it should be, and the reason that SSRMs are such garbage is that they don't affect mechs of all weight classes more or less equally.

It's practically like complaining why LL doesn't reach as far as ERLL despite having the same damage, or why wouldn't the ER-PPC do better DPS than an AC10 despite having the same damage. Certain weapons are geared towards something, long range is for long range, short range is for short range. If SSRMs are not effective at large mechs, don't you think that their main niche is actually for smaller mechs?

Also besides the point, the impact of an AC20 to an AC10 would be far larger. An AC20 would do 20 points of damage, an AC10 would put 10 damage. To a 100-tonner of 124 armor, that would only be a small portion, an net of an AC20 is 104, net of an ac10 is 114, but to a small light mech of 20 tons would be only at 24 armor, net of 14 with AC10 and net of AC20 is 4, which is a massive chunk to said 20-tonner.

Why aren't you enraged by that? It's not proportional right? Could it be that the ease of landing a hit is also a factor why you are fine with the proportions of said weapons?

Sure, LRMs are of different case than AC20, as it's a direct fire weapon vs homing, but likewise it would still apply as there are different factors that will make a land possible. SSRMs as said has faster projectile speed, and the short range, it's easier to land missiles, compared to LRMs that can be shot farther, even slower projectile speed, further aggravated by constant lock during flight.

Pjwned, on 10 January 2017 - 07:02 PM, said:

And that's why it's stupid, like I just said. It's going to be hard to convince me that it's not stupid because all I need to do is look at SSRMs which are an abomination.

This really sounds more of you and your anti SSRM issue more than actually being reasonable and objective.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 10 January 2017 - 08:28 PM.

[Pjwned]

The6thMessenger, on 10 January 2017 - 08:12 PM, said:

No it's not.

Yes it does, their usage and therefore role differ, and their success of hit matter. Streaks have faster missile speed than LRMs,, and being only used short-range means they have a higher chance of actually getting a hit.

So in other words long range SSRMs, thanks for confirming it for me.

Quote

That's practically like saying LB20x is like SRMs just because they act like shotguns, disregarding the other factors that makes them different, and those difference put them on a different roles.

Except that's actually a pretty apt comparison and their roles are hardly different because their range & spread dictate when & where they should be used, and when you compare SRMs & LBX20 it's almost exactly the same.

Quote

It's practically like complaining why LL doesn't reach as far as ERLL despite having the same damage, or why wouldn't the ER-PPC do better DPS than an AC10 despite having the same damage. Certain weapons are geared towards something, long range is for long range, short range is for short range. If SSRMs are not effective at large mechs, don't you think that their main niche is actually for smaller mechs?

No other weapon in the game besides SSRMs are only meaningfully useful towards 1 weight class and garbage against the rest, and the reason is because that's stupid as ****.

Every other weapon is useful based on your mech and your skill, but when it comes to SSRMs the skill is essentially removed and instead its effectiveness is uncontrollably dependent on how big your target is.

Quote

Also besides the point, the impact of an AC20 to an AC10 would be far larger. An AC20 would do 20 points of damage, an AC10 would put 10 damage. To a 100-tonner of 124 armor, that would only be a small portion, an net of an AC20 is 104, net of an ac10 is 114, but to a small light mech of 20 tons would be only at 24 armor, net of 14 with AC10 and net of AC20 is 4, which is a massive chunk to said 20-tonner.

Why aren't you enraged by that? It's not proportional right? Could it be that the ease of landing a hit is also a factor why you are fine with the proportions of said weapons?

That's exactly why I'm fine with it actually, and there's nothing wrong with taking that position because lights would be useless if they were just as easy to hit as everything else.

Quote

Sure, LRMs are of different case than AC20, as it's a direct fire weapon vs homing, but likewise it would still apply as there are different factors that will make a land possible. SSRMs as said has faster projectile speed, and the short range, it's easier to land missiles, compared to LRMs that can be shot farther, even slower projectile speed, further aggravated by constant lock during flight.

I'm not seeing your point here.

Quote

This really sounds more of you and your anti SSRM issue more than actually being reasonable and objective.

Not really, I say they're garbage because they actually are garbage and they're universally almost never used, except on Clan streak boats which are hardly seen anyways.

[The6thMessenger]

Pjwned, on 10 January 2017 - 11:49 PM, said:

So in other words long range SSRMs, thanks for confirming it for me.

Not really no.

Pjwned, on 10 January 2017 - 11:49 PM, said:

Except that's actually a pretty apt comparison and their roles are hardly different because their range & spread dictate when & where they should be used, and when you compare SRMs & LBX20 it's almost exactly the same.

Keyword, "almost".

Pjwned, on 10 January 2017 - 11:49 PM, said:

No other weapon in the game besides SSRMs are only meaningfully useful towards 1 weight class and garbage against the rest, and the reason is because that's stupid as ****

This sounds like call to buff SSRM, or nerf it for the lights.

I disagree, SSRMs can also work on mediums and heavies. I've been having a blast with my Shadow Cat with SSRMs. SSRMs just offer a different playstyle.

Pjwned, on 10 January 2017 - 11:49 PM, said:

Every other weapon is useful based on your mech and your skill, but when it comes to SSRMs the skill is essentially removed and instead its effectiveness is uncontrollably dependent on how big your target is.

Aside from getting close, and actually getting a lock. Needless to say, positioning.

Pjwned, on 10 January 2017 - 11:49 PM, said:

That's exactly why I'm fine with it actually, and there's nothing wrong with taking that position because lights would be useless if they were just as easy to hit as everything else.

I'm not seeing your point here.

Of course you don't.


Other weapons have heavier impacts on less armored mechs than heavier ones, with only the challenge of actually landing them, and i don't see why LRMs can't have said similar potency, with all of the counters for it since it's already harder to land than other weapons.

Lights already dance around the battlefield since they are harder to hit, LRMs like this should push them to actually be smart and play ephemerally and find cover.

Pjwned, on 10 January 2017 - 11:49 PM, said:

Not really, I say they're garbage because they actually are garbage and they're universally almost never used, except on Clan streak boats which are hardly seen anyways.

This is really you falsely equivocating the new LRM spread with SSRM playstyle you don't like.

I say they are not garbage, they can work with enough skill. Git Gud.

[Pjwned]

The6thMessenger, on 11 January 2017 - 12:46 AM, said:

Keyword, "almost".

So your whole point was talking about how SRMs and LBX20 have different roles, except that difference is more or less microscopic.

Okay then, guess you win there.

Quote

This sounds like call to buff SSRM, or nerf it for the lights.

I want it to affect mechs of all weight classes equally instead of it being a light killer and **** at everything else, so I guess both basically.

Quote

I disagree, SSRMs can also work on mediums and heavies. I've been having a blast with my Shadow Cat with SSRMs. SSRMs just offer a different playstyle.

Well have fun with your horribly inefficient, ineffective build except against 1 weight class, definitely doesn't mean the weapons are garbage and you have a lot to back up that claim.

Quote

Aside from getting close, and actually getting a lock. Needless to say, positioning.

Neither of which are hard at all when you don't have to actually aim while firing, and therefore it takes hardly any skill.

Quote

Of course you don't.

I think you misunderstand what I meant, because you didn't have a clear point at all due to wording it so poorly and having such an incoherent, **** argument where you ramble on about how AC20 & LRMs are somehow related.

I guess that's more clear now though, unless your reading comprehension is equally bad.

Quote

Other weapons have heavier impacts on less armored mechs than heavier ones, with only the challenge of actually landing them,

Except that's actually a major distinction.

Quote

and i don't see why LRMs can't have said similar potency, with all of the counters for it since it's already harder to land than other weapons.

Because it's a garbage idea that we can already see as garbage on SSRMs, like I already said.

Quote

Lights already dance around the battlefield since they are harder to hit, LRMs like this should push them to actually be smart and play ephemerally and find cover.

Oh okay so you're just buttravaged about lights eating your LRM boat for lunch and SSRMs being a huge hard counter to them isn't going far enough for you, got it, opinion discarded.

Quote

This is really you falsely equivocating the new LRM spread with SSRM playstyle you don't like.

Nah, it's pretty accurate actually and your idea is ****.

Quote

I say they are not garbage, they can work with enough skill. Git Gud.

Well you're wrong and a huge scrub in denial.

Edited by Pjwned, 11 January 2017 - 05:22 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Pjwned, on 11 January 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:

I want it to affect mechs of all weight classes equally instead of it being a light killer and **** at everything else, so I guess both basically.

Yeah, "Equally". Cause a King Crab taking 100% of the LRM20 volley, and a locust taking only 4 is equal.

Pjwned, on 11 January 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:

Well have fun with your horribly inefficient, ineffective build except against 1 weight class, definitely doesn't mean the weapons are garbage and you have a lot to back up that claim.

Any more to back up the part where it's garbage.

Pjwned, on 11 January 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:

Neither of which are hard at all when you don't have to actually aim while firing, and therefore it takes hardly any skill.

Not really no, it still takes skill to properly position, to get close safely etc. etc.

Pjwned, on 11 January 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:

I think you misunderstand what I meant, because you didn't have a clear point at all due to wording it so poorly and having such an incoherent, **** argument where you ramble on about how AC20 & LRMs are somehow related.

I guess that's more clear now though, unless your reading comprehension is equally bad.

No, argument and wording is fine, you don't just accept it even if it's true.

Pjwned, on 11 January 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:

Because it's a garbage idea that we can already see as garbage on SSRMs, like I already said.

Yes, because SSRMs are garbage, and LRMs and SRMs only differences is their spread pattern. You can totally hit enemies at 1000m with SSRMs. *sarcasm

Pjwned, on 11 January 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:

Oh okay so you're just buttravaged about lights eating your LRM boat for lunch and SSRMs being a huge hard counter to them isn't going far enough for you, got it, opinion discarded.

Oh okay so you're just buttravaged about SSRMs eating your light for lunch and content with LRMs being weak on lights, got it, opinion discarded.

Pjwned, on 11 January 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:

Nah, it's pretty accurate actually and your idea is ****.

Well you're wrong and a huge scrub in denial.

Not really, no.

You're just wrong, git gud.

[ShadowChanSeh]

Well hi there, why don't we calm down a little before this thread derails too much.

Personally, I find the idea of reworking lrms in some way to make them more dynamic or interesting good thing. I think that in many ways the lrm spread could be reduced if they required a bit more effort than target locks. I won't deny that it can take skill to properly position yourself for the lrms to be more effective but that's about it, compared to how much more effort and skill that it takes to properly line up ppc or ac shots, I can not say that they are in need of as many buffs to their damage. The thing about lrms is that they are more likely to do some percentage of damage due to their tracking. This is much more noticeable when you use tag or narc. Speaking of which, lrms are the only weapon system, that I'm aware of, that has accuracy boosting equipment. Lrms have all the right tools available to be effective and useful that are not utilized due to the way the scoring and point system works.

I would also like to point out that lights are not quite as well off that as you seem to present them. With the reduced armor that they have in comparison to the other weight classes makes it so that every point of damage they receive counts. Being able to avoid getting hit by fewer lrms due to the lights size and the lrms' spread does not make the balance less fair, it's just an instance where the lights are taking advantage of their role of being able to dodge and avoid fire. If the lrms were to hit every component, lights would be no more as they do not have the durability to withstand them. Lights do not always have cover that they can go to all the time either, sometimes lights need to go out in the open to distract enemy fire or flank unsuspecting enemies, really though there are quite a few reasons why lights can be targeted and destroyed by lrms without it being the fault of the pilot.

Something I would propose to kind of go with what your saying but not require as much working is to implement a targeting system. This would allow you to target a specific body part on the mech that your lrms are more likely to hit. Say for exampale your target a mechs right leg specifically, more misses would likely hit the competent at the cost of more spread or reduced damage to other components. This could also have varying degrees accuracy depending on the part targeted.

Now, I'd like to say I'm not trying to belittle your idea or what your saying, I'm just trying to put some perspective on some of its possible short comings in a constructive manner.

[Pjwned]

The6thMessenger, on 11 January 2017 - 05:58 AM, said:

Yeah, "Equally". Cause a King Crab taking 100% of the LRM20 volley, and a locust taking only 4 is equal.

That has more to do with the amount of spread on bigger launchers like LRM20, which I already said should be addressed by decreasing the spread, and the rest of it comes down to lights being small & fast which is fine.

Still definitely more fair than long range SSRMs that unfairly pummel lights while that King Crab also takes 100% of the shots every time but they're so spread out that it would basically be like a light breeeze hitting the crab.

Quote

Any more to back up the part where it's garbage.

You can just look at how often SSRMs are used outside of Clan streak boats, which is never, and then after that look at how often even Clan streak boats are used, which is infrequently at best.

Hence, garbage.

Quote

Not really no, it still takes skill to properly position, to get close safely etc. etc.

It takes an amount of skill, sure.

Quote

No, argument and wording is fine, you don't just accept it even if it's true.

Well I gave you a chance to clarify your rambling, but you went the low road instead, probably because there wasn't any actual argument there.

Quote

Yes, because SSRMs are garbage, and LRMs and SRMs only differences is their spread pattern. You can totally hit enemies at 1000m with SSRMs. *sarcasm

Glad you agree that SSRMs are garbage and that you want to turn LRMs into long range SSRMs.

Quote

Oh okay so you're just buttravaged about SSRMs eating your light for lunch and content with LRMs being weak on lights, got it, opinion discarded.

I'm content with LRM spread mechanics affecting weight classes equally, yes.

The issue you have would be solved by tightening the spread on bigger LRM launchers, because they shouldn't be punished with increased spread on top of everything else, but instead you come up with the worst idea possible to change spread and apparently it really is about being buttravaged about lights when you're not in your skillcrow or skilldog.

[The6thMessenger]

Pjwned, on 11 January 2017 - 04:50 PM, said:

Well I gave you a chance to clarify your rambling, but you went the low road instead, probably because there wasn't any actual argument there.

Not really no, you're just that close minded. Reason only works to those willing to listen, you're not willing to listen, you just want to live in your own bubble. I'm out

[Pjwned]

The6thMessenger, on 11 January 2017 - 06:06 PM, said:

Not really no, you're just that close minded. Reason only works to those willing to listen, you're not willing to listen, you just want to live in your own bubble. I'm out

I'll just re-quote the relevant parts and conclude that you didn't have a point there at all so you choose to cop out because you didn't have a relevant point and you wanted to be a petty tool instead.

This is your poorly worded rambling in question:

The6thMessenger, on 10 January 2017 - 08:12 PM, said:

Sure, LRMs are of different case than AC20, as it's a direct fire weapon vs homing, but likewise it would still apply as there are different factors that will make a land possible. SSRMs as said has faster projectile speed, and the short range, it's easier to land missiles, compared to LRMs that can be shot farther, even slower projectile speed, further aggravated by constant lock during flight.

This is me giving you a chance to clarify what you meant:

Pjwned, on 10 January 2017 - 11:49 PM, said:

I'm not seeing your point here.

And this is you being an inept jackass because your incoherent rambling didn't make sense:

The6thMessenger, on 11 January 2017 - 12:46 AM, said:

Of course you don't.

I was being pretty reasonable on that point until you decided to go full ******.

But anyways, like I said your idea is trash and your reasoning for it is garbage, so if you're done arguing for it then that's fine with me.

Edited by Pjwned, 12 January 2017 - 12:50 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Pjwned, on 12 January 2017 - 12:46 AM, said:

I was being pretty reasonable on that point until you decided to go full ******.

But anyways, like I said your idea is trash and your reasoning for it is garbage, so if you're done arguing for it then that's fine with me.

You cheeky dickwaffle.

No, you weren't being reasonable at all. You kept equivocating SSRMs to LRMs without regarding the difference between the two weapon systems, and the bias against SSRMs.

That is that, but let it not be said that i didn't tried hard.

The6thMessenger, on 10 January 2017 - 08:12 PM, said:

Also besides the point, the impact of an AC20 to an AC10 would be far larger. An AC20 would do 20 points of damage, an AC10 would put 10 damage. To a 100-tonner of 124 armor, that would only be a small portion, an net of an AC20 is 104, net of an ac10 is 114, but to a small light mech of 20 tons would be only at 24 armor, net of 14 with AC10 and net of AC20 is 4, which is a massive chunk to said 20-tonner.

Why aren't you enraged by that? It's not proportional right? Could it be that the ease of landing a hit is also a factor why you are fine with the proportions of said weapons?

Sure, LRMs are of different case than AC20, as it's a direct fire weapon vs homing, but likewise it would still apply as there are different factors that will make a land possible. SSRMs as said has faster projectile speed, and the short range, it's easier to land missiles, compared to LRMs that can be shot farther, even slower projectile speed, further aggravated by constant lock during flight.

Is it really hard to figure out that these three go together? The first paragraph frames the point i am trying to make, an AC20 is indiscriminate of the mech class, whether the total armor is 124 or 24, an AC20 does 20 damage upon impact.

Next paragraph, I explained the reasons why it would have been balanced. What makes it balanced is obviously it's the differences of what happens in between, like range and projectile speed, how hard it is to actually land a hit.

SSRMs are used closer, with faster missile speed, therefore there is less time to evade it and would amount to high chance of landing a hit and to my knowledge, actually requires. On the other hand, LRMs with lower missile speed and larger range, coupled the fact that they arc instead of going straight, aaand you have to retain the lock much longer -- which means you have to expose yourself to retain lock to a chance of moar damage and/or the targeted enemy has a larger window of time to find cover. The last paragraph highlights how the balance dynamic with the AC20 applies, the difficulty of actually having a land befalls on simply retaining the lock.

And that points out that LRMs with the SSRM guidance, would still be different. Even if it's "garbage", it wouldn't have applied because SSRM is still a different weapon from LRM because of factors other than their spread.

If you still don't get that, i can't help you, I'm done.

[Pjwned]

The6thMessenger, on 12 January 2017 - 02:55 AM, said:

You cheeky dickwaffle.

No, you weren't being reasonable at all. You kept equivocating SSRMs to LRMs without regarding the difference between the two weapon systems, and the bias against SSRMs.

That is that, but let it not be said that i didn't tried hard.


Is it really hard to figure out that these three go together? The first paragraph frames the point i am trying to make, an AC20 is indiscriminate of the mech class, whether the total armor is 124 or 24, an AC20 does 20 damage upon impact.

Next paragraph, I explained the reasons why it would have been balanced. What makes it balanced is obviously it's the differences of what happens in between, like range and projectile speed, how hard it is to actually land a hit.

SSRMs are used closer, with faster missile speed, therefore there is less time to evade it and would amount to high chance of landing a hit and to my knowledge, actually requires. On the other hand, LRMs with lower missile speed and larger range, coupled the fact that they arc instead of going straight, aaand you have to retain the lock much longer -- which means you have to expose yourself to retain lock to a chance of moar damage and/or the targeted enemy has a larger window of time to find cover. The last paragraph highlights how the balance dynamic with the AC20 applies, the difficulty of actually having a land befalls on simply retaining the lock.

And that points out that LRMs with the SSRM guidance, would still be different. Even if it's "garbage", it wouldn't have applied because SSRM is still a different weapon from LRM because of factors other than their spread.

If you still don't get that, i can't help you, I'm done.

So you want to give LRMs the same spread functionality as SSRMs, making it have the same problems as SSRMs and making it an abomination for the same reasons as SSRMs while you ignore that SSRMs are indeed garbage, the spread mechanics work fine as they do now, and that there are better ideas instead...but that wouldn't mean making LRMs into long range SSRMs.

Okay, but it's still a **** idea. Should I call them "LRMs that are garbage for the same reasons as SSRMs" instead of "long range SSRMs" to make you feel better?

Edited by Pjwned, 12 January 2017 - 04:36 AM.

[Hotthedd]

This is one lesson that MW:O could take straight from TT.

Have missiles fire in volleys of 5.
Spread can be normalized with and without Artemis.

Problem solved.

[Snazzy Dragon]

Hotthedd, on 12 January 2017 - 05:32 AM, said:

This is one lesson that MW:O could take straight from TT.

Have missiles fire in volleys of 5.
Spread can be normalized with and without Artemis.

Problem solved.

More reasons not to take bigger launchers! \0/

[Hotthedd]

Snazzy Dragon, on 12 January 2017 - 06:29 AM, said:

More reasons not to take bigger launchers! \0/

Really?

It would give the LRM20 the same spread as an LRM5.

To me, it would be a reason to take the larger weapon as long as there was enough space and tonnage available.

[Snazzy Dragon]

Hotthedd, on 12 January 2017 - 06:33 AM, said:

Really?

It would give the LRM20 the same spread as an LRM5.

To me, it would be a reason to take the larger weapon as long as there was enough space and tonnage available.

Cooldown and DPS, man.

[Pjwned]

Hotthedd, on 12 January 2017 - 05:32 AM, said:

This is one lesson that MW:O could take straight from TT.

Have missiles fire in volleys of 5.
Spread can be normalized with and without Artemis.

Problem solved.

There's a difference between missiles hitting the target in clusters of 5 and missiles firing in volleys of 5, especially when AMS is considered.

How about we just normalize spread without doing stupid ****? Sounds better to me.

Hotthedd, on 12 January 2017 - 06:33 AM, said:

Really?

It would give the LRM20 the same spread as an LRM5.

To me, it would be a reason to take the larger weapon as long as there was enough space and tonnage available.

Or you could just...not take any launchers bigger than LRM5 and not have to deal with the consequences of volley fire delaying and spreading out your damage even more with bigger launchers.

[Hotthedd]

Snazzy Dragon, on 12 January 2017 - 06:36 AM, said:

Cooldown and DPS, man.

Cooldown (and therefore DPS) is easily tweaked.

Pjwned, on 12 January 2017 - 06:37 AM, said:

There's a difference between missiles hitting the target in clusters of 5 and missiles firing in volleys of 5, especially when AMS is considered.

How about we just normalize spread without doing stupid ****? Sounds better to me.

I am not saying that 1 LRM 20 would be the same as chain firing 4 LRM5s, (although the LRM5s would allow you to stop firing in the event of loss of LOS). The LRM 20 would fire faster (for less heat) than the LRM5s.

When you say "normalize spread without doing stupid ****", are you suggesting that the LRM20 have as tight a spread as the LRM5, but with all missiles fired at once? You are asking for an easy mode auto lock LB-X 20?

Pjwned, on 12 January 2017 - 06:37 AM, said:

Or you could just...not take any launchers bigger than LRM5 and not have to deal with the consequences of volley fire delaying and spreading out your damage even more with bigger launchers.

Bigger launchers have bigger spread, that is the nature of the beast. By splitting the LRMs into volleys of 5, it puts MORE control in the hands of players, not less.

[Pjwned]

Hotthedd, on 12 January 2017 - 06:48 AM, said:

I am not saying that 1 LRM 20 would be the same as chain firing 4 LRM5s, (although the LRM5s would allow you to stop firing in the event of loss of LOS). The LRM 20 would fire faster (for less heat) than the LRM5s.

Not good enough, I'd rather have the **** spread we have now than to deal with that nonsense.

Quote

When you say "normalize spread without doing stupid ****", are you suggesting that the LRM20 have as tight a spread as the LRM5, but with all missiles fired at once? You are asking for an easy mode auto lock LB-X 20?

I want bigger launchers to be actually worth a damn, so yeah sure I want "easy mode auto lock LB-X 20" I guess according to you.

Quote

Bigger launchers have bigger spread, that is the nature of the beast.

And that's why they're bad.

Quote

By splitting the LRMs into volleys of 5, it puts MORE control in the hands of players, not less.

No it doesn't, making bigger launchers fire in volleys no matter what is inherently giving players less control.

[Hotthedd]

Pjwned, on 12 January 2017 - 06:58 AM, said:

Not good enough, I'd rather have the **** spread we have now than to deal with that nonsense.

So, you want the LRM20 to be four times better than the LRM5 with no drawbacks, less space, less tonnage, and less heat.

Pjwned, on 12 January 2017 - 06:58 AM, said:

I want bigger launchers to be actually worth a damn, so yeah sure I want "easy mode auto lock LB-X 20" I guess according to you.

That seems to be what you are asking for. Having a spread just as tight as a smaller launcher, but with no real trade-off.
With what you are asking for, a 'mech with 4 LRM20s should be able to core an enemy 'mech completely from cover, letting the auto guidance (and a teammate) do the actual work.

Pjwned, on 12 January 2017 - 06:58 AM, said:

And that's why they're bad.

Bad to you. It is, however, the nature of the beast. You can either blot out the sun with missiles, OR you can be super accurate. You cannot have both.

Pjwned, on 12 January 2017 - 06:58 AM, said:

No it doesn't, making bigger launchers fire in volleys no matter what is inherently giving players less control.

But it does. As it is, when you fire a LRM20, you know that some missiles WILL miss due to inherent spread. If the spread were tightened, but they missiles were fired in volleys of 5, a good LRM boat has the chance to keep the target locked and deal more damage. Conversely, a good player has the opportunity to use cover more effectively.