59 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 03:47 AM, said:

You've really yet to state how the non Artemis versions of the launchers don't have any tactical use, so I started up a strawman in an attempt to get a look at your logic with the obvious total disconnect we have in opinions here.

Supposed that i asked people whether if they want to get shot in the head and die, and not get shot in the head and live, what do you think their choice would be? Wouldn't it be generally not "shot in the head and die" or rather "Not shot the head and live"? So is there really a choice in there? Well, technically one really could opt to die, like if one is terminal and wanted to end it right?

I get how having more ammo, and has to shoot closer is "different". But it would be something one would pick if tonnage and slot isn't an issue?

What i was proposing is that No-Artemis would have a distinct performance difference aside from tonnage and slots (because that usually pushes into the realm of "you have to" to fit), for it to be a legitimate choice because of a different performance.

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 03:47 AM, said:

So at what point is non Artemis not a legitimate option for builds? Centurion with AC20 and non artemis SRMs rely on it, Jenner oxide and IICs rely on it, AC20 Brawler Mauler relies on it, SRM2 locust relies on it. ("it" refering to the non Artemis option)

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 03:47 AM, said:

-Non Artemis launchers provide light mechs with a high alpha frontloaded option
-Non Artemis launchers are able to be paired with stronger secondary weaponry or equipment due to their lighter weight and smaller size (examples such as the mauler with an AC20 and 2 SRM4 per side torso pop up)

That's the thing, they rely on it.

Oxide needs no-artemis else it couldn't fit two SRM4s in the CT, or the Shadow Hawk in it's HD. It stands on the "you have to" if you want to maximize tonnage, so really it's not a choice (choice being kind of a high chance to be taken. Like "live or die", of course people would choose to live.).

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 03:47 AM, said:

I severely doubt that anyone would really bring Artemis if it called for lower DPS. IS ASRM6 only has 12.5% more DPS than a non artemis SRM4 but it weighs twice as much and takes up 3 time the amount of slots while having similar levels of spread.

SRM4s are already quite competitive with ASRM6.

What about SRM6 with no Arty? Or LRM20s with no Arty?

Probably depends on the playstyle. If it had something like 360m of optimal range, it could probably be used with a hit-and-run peekaboo style as opposed with brawling, and it could be poppular on mechs that aren't able to quickly close the gap -- like if it was the opposite of a Commando.

And also, not everyone is in it for the competition. I was thinking it could be more of a choice over Artemis.

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 03:47 AM, said:

-Non Artemis launchers provide a low tonnage option for high damage alpha strikes at close range with spread that can be negated by going under 50m distance from enemy

Really situational. Best used with fast mechs, which happens to be low-tonnage lights and meds, sometimes heavy.

[R Valentine]

The problem is PGI's burning desire to make launchers garbage without Artemis. SRM 6s without Artemis aren't usable. You get too many missed missiles, which just makes them heavy SRM 4s. SRM 4s had their spread nerfed just this patch in order to force Artemis. SRM 2s aren't used at all. LRMs are much the same way, only people actually use LRM 5s. The difference between having Artemis and not having it is too great. That doesn't mean Artemis is too good, because neither weapon is over-performing. It means launchers without Artemis are garbage. Fix that. Don't break the part that works.

[The Lobsters]

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 01:06 AM, said:

Is there even any good reason to NOT Artemis large launchers? Aside from not enough tonnage?

Hows about Artemis increases Missile cooldown by 33.3333%? That way, no Artemis is for quick-shooting missiles?

So nerf artemis dps by a third?

Based on some rough calculations I just did, your suggestion basically normalises the dps/m² of launchers with and without artemis. Certainly Lrm 20's.

Two launchers do the work of three, by chucking more ammo out.

Or rather, artemis is nerfed to the point that you need three to do the work of two vanilla's.

This would also be a massive nerf to indirect fired artemis launchers, as they'd take a ROF hit and not be getting the spread bonuses.


seems legit

[Bohxim]

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 03:45 AM, said:

But would you pick no-artemis over artemis when you can artemis?

Hmm well if my build had the space and tonnage, I'd run the artemis foe the accuracy. More dmg into 1 component means faster deaths or disarming. But if I had the hardpoints and lack tonnage/space (like most light mechs and my phakhet) i'll run the non artemis version to bring as much spike firepower as I can

[Lightfoot]

"Introduced in 2598 by the Terran Hegemony. The Artemis IV Fire Control System is a guidance system that utilizes an infrared laser designator and tight-beam microwave transmitter which improves the accuracy of LRMs, SRMs, and MMLs by roughly thirty-five percent. The Artemis IV FCS must be mounted in the same location as the launcher it controls, taking up space and weight on a BattleMech like other components. In order to actually benefit from Artemis IV, the missiles fired must be Artemis compatible, which are more expensive than standard versions, and the firing unit must have line of sight to its target; indirectly fired LRM receives no increase in accuracy.

Though extremely useful for improving a missile launcher, there is one major obstacle to their use: if any standard missile launcher is equipped with an Artemis system, every launcher of that type must have its own Artemis IV attached. Therefore a 'Mech mounting an LRM-15 and an LRM-5 would need two Artemis IV systems. (As they use different guidance systems, Rocket Launchers, MRMs, Streak launchers, and NARC systems do not require Artemis IV and do not count towards this limit.) ATM launchers automatically have Artemis included."

No, BattleTech says it would not be canon for Artemis to increase recycle times, so it's not allowed.

Of course Artemis does not increase the accuracy of missiles by 35% in MWO either.

[Kaeb Odellas]

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 03:45 AM, said:

But would you pick no-artemis over artemis when you can artemis?

I take the opposite track. I ask myself if there's anything else I'd rather bring than Artemis, like extra ammo, engine, JJ, etc. If I can't use anything else, it's Artemis time.

Generally, I only use Artemis on mechs that don't have a ton of missile hardpoints, as masses of smaller launchers is usually a better deal than a few big ones.

[dario03]

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 01:06 AM, said:

Is there even any good reason to NOT Artemis large launchers? Aside from not enough tonnage?

Hows about Artemis increases Missile cooldown by 33.3333%? That way, no Artemis is for quick-shooting missiles?

For LRMs and SRMs no. But I think this would be fine for streaks. Maybe not go that high but if they are not going to or can't fix the artemis affect on streaks then slower down cooldown is one way to offset that. Though I would prefer something else like range or damage or lock on time.

[Bishop Steiner]

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 01:06 AM, said:

Is there even any good reason to NOT Artemis large launchers? Aside from not enough tonnage?

Hows about Artemis increases Missile cooldown by 33.3333%? That way, no Artemis is for quick-shooting missiles?

eh...it's a ton and a crit more...per launcher? Why should it have penalties?

[The6thMessenger]

The Lobsters, on 22 March 2017 - 05:40 AM, said:

So nerf artemis dps by a third?

Based on some rough calculations I just did, your suggestion basically normalises the dps/m² of launchers with and without artemis. Certainly Lrm 20's.

Two launchers do the work of three, by chucking more ammo out.

Or rather, artemis is nerfed to the point that you need three to do the work of two vanilla's.

This would also be a massive nerf to indirect fired artemis launchers, as they'd take a ROF hit and not be getting the spread bonuses.

Or you know, it could be lower. Like just 20% increase or 10%.

Bishop Steiner, on 22 March 2017 - 08:43 AM, said:

eh...it's a ton and a crit more...per launcher? Why should it have penalties?

Because touching the Artemis is the only thing i could come up with. If i buffed the base No-Artemis, then the Artemis would also be buffed because of multiplicative bonus, and i have to nerf it as well.

Like if i buffed the CD of non-Artemis launcher like SRM6 from 4.00s to 3.75s -- while it's a buff to the SRM6, yet the SRM6A stays at 4.00s, it's a nerf to the SRM6A because it's base weapon is SRM6, because the utilization of Artemis increases CD by 6.666666% and therefore lowers DPS.

So i did away of touching No-Artemis at all, and just focused on the our-lord-and-savior Artemis.

Lightfoot, on 22 March 2017 - 07:10 AM, said:

No, BattleTech says it would not be canon for Artemis to increase recycle times, so it's not allowed.

You said:

Lightfoot, on 22 March 2017 - 07:10 AM, said:

Of course Artemis does not increase the accuracy of missiles by 35% in MWO either.

And if it were completely lore-based, PGI shouldn't include non-canon hero variants, don't bother releasing Roughneck cause it's nowhere in the original BT. What about P variants like Shadow Cat P?

If "muh lore" is just your argument. Then really you don't have anything argue with.

Kiran Yagami, on 22 March 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:

The problem is PGI's burning desire to make launchers garbage without Artemis. SRM 6s without Artemis aren't usable. You get too many missed missiles, which just makes them heavy SRM 4s. SRM 4s had their spread nerfed just this patch in order to force Artemis. SRM 2s aren't used at all. LRMs are much the same way, only people actually use LRM 5s. The difference between having Artemis and not having it is too great. That doesn't mean Artemis is too good, because neither weapon is over-performing. It means launchers without Artemis are garbage. Fix that. Don't break the part that works.

Exactly this.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

I still really don't understand why you think Artemis should be nerfed. The logic is flawed here and you're asking to nerf an under performing weapon system that already pays its fair share in an attempt to make the non upgraded version seem better. Can't see the forest for the trees.

[The6thMessenger]

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 02:15 PM, said:

I still really don't understand why you think Artemis should be nerfed.

You probably don't understand it, the same way you don't understand why TBR is regarded as "good", so don't get too hung up on it.

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 02:15 PM, said:

The logic is flawed here and you're asking to nerf an under performing weapon system that already pays its fair share in an attempt to make the non upgraded version seem better. Can't see the forest for the trees.

Logic is flawed how? No demonstration? Like if "2 + 2 = 5"?

Artemis being an upgrade, it's akin to "x 4 = 8"-- in 2 x 4 = 8. If i increase 2 to 3, then it becomes 3 x 4 = 12. The Artemis still rose it's value, and that's my point. It's buffed, like how no-artemis is buffed. For the Artemis to retain the 8 value, it should end up with 3 x 2.666666666666667 = 8.

I will give you this, maybe we should just buff the No-Artemis launchers, but this will indirectly nerf the Artemis launchers nevertheless. Like if SRM6 is at 3.75s CD while SRM6A is at 4.00s CD, the involvement of Artemis is less advantageous so it's nerf.

I'm just scatter-brained like that, but this is the gist of it, making SRM6 and other non-artemis launchers not garbage that they ain't much of a choice.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 22 March 2017 - 02:52 PM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 02:36 PM, said:

You probably don't understand it, the same way you don't understand why TBR is regarded as "good", so don't get too hung up on it.

Logic is flawed how? No demonstration?

Artemis being an upgrade, it's akin to "x 4 = 8"-- in 2 x 4 = 8. If i increase 2 to 3, then it becomes 3 x 4 = 12. The Artemis still rose it's value, and that's my point. It's buffed, like how no-artemis is buffed. For the Artemis to retain the 8 value, it should end up with 3 x 2.666666666666667 = 8.

I will give you this, maybe we should just buff the No-Artemis launchers, but this will indirectly nerf the Artemis launchers. Like if SRM6 is at 3.75s CD while SRM6A is at 4.00s CD. I'm just scatter-brained like that, but this is the gist of it, making SRM6 and other non-artemis launchers not garbage that they ain't much of a choice.

I mean what you are suggesting here is to make the heavier weapon that takes up more slots worse than the weapon that is lighter and takes up less slots. This is why I say the logic is flawed. Its backwards thinking to have to buy an upgrade to a launcher that makes them heavier, larger, and do less damage.

Throwing in the extra range for Artemis launchers that you also suggested in some variations of your posts would be something pretty different for the SRMs but its kinda a useless addition with MRMs coming right around the corner for the mid ranged missile bracket. Not to mention extra range on LRMs is entirely worthless.

Besides this I've already stated all the points that I've said where non Artemis options are useful in the current state of the game that people have gotten used to. Its a pretty simple trade right now, pay extra tonnage and slots, get less spread, don't pay it and get more cooling/firepower/equipment. Its as if you put absolutely no weight on the extra tonnage and slots that Artemis requires and put no thought into the extra equipment that can be brought in place of it. Its not so linear as Artemis vs non Artemis, its more like how is Artemis SRM6 vs SRM6+SPL or SRM+ML or SRM+better cooling or SRM+more speed through a bigger engine, or SRM+jump jets. Its all just budgeting your build and determining if more accuracy in your missiles is worth the weight and room or if bringing normal SRMs would be superior for your situation.

[The6thMessenger]

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 03:01 PM, said:

I mean what you are suggesting here is to make the heavier weapon that takes up more slots worse than the weapon that is lighter and takes up less slots. This is why I say the logic is flawed. Its backwards thinking to have to buy an upgrade to a launcher that makes them heavier, larger, and do less damage.

The values i suggested is merely to frame what i intend it to look like. But it doesn't have to completely work like that. It doesn't have to be 33.3333%.

Define "worse". What I intended is to simply make No-Artemis more of a real choice, or you don't want it to be a choice? You want Artemis to be a Must on SRM6s? Or LRM15s or LRM20s to be "not-garbage".

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 03:01 PM, said:

Throwing in the extra range for Artemis launchers that you also suggested in some variations of your posts would be something pretty different for the SRMs but its kinda a useless addition with MRMs coming right around the corner for the mid ranged missile bracket. Not to mention extra range on LRMs is entirely worthless.

Then what about have different effects on different types of launchers? It doesn't have to be all range.

You take it as it is, instead of considering what the suggestion is trying to do. Don't do that, instead see it for what it tries to do

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 03:01 PM, said:

Besides this I've already stated all the points that I've said where non Artemis options are useful in the current state of the game that people have gotten used to. Its a pretty simple trade right now, pay extra tonnage and slots, get less spread, don't pay it and get more cooling/firepower/equipment. Its as if you put absolutely no weight on the extra tonnage and slots that Artemis requires and put no thought into the extra equipment that can be brought in place of it. Its not so linear as Artemis vs non Artemis, its more like how is Artemis SRM6 vs SRM6+SPL or SRM+ML or SRM+better cooling or SRM+more speed through a bigger engine, or SRM+jump jets. Its all just budgeting your build and determining if more accuracy in your missiles is worth the weight and room or if bringing normal SRMs would be superior for your situation.

And as you agreed, large launchers like SRM6s are garbage without it, that they are not really a good choice. Look at Kirian Yagami's post, there's your like in it.

I never contested it's bonuses, rather as it is currently, it still has room for improvement that invariably touches Artemis if larger launchers would be useful without them.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 22 March 2017 - 03:32 PM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Oh boy, scanning through my likes by now for points to argue. I liked what he said about Artemis not being too good and not breaking the part that is fine, basically the part that blows right back in your suggestion's face. He specifically stated that Artemis should not be nerfed, which I agree with.

I'd agree with just unnerfing this patch's spread increase of SRM4s and I've always thought that bigger launchers shouldn't have more spread than smaller ones and would like to see SRMs based around SRM4s and LRMs based around LRM10s. This would lead to the base launchers being rather good by themselves but people who have the spare tonnage can still opt for Artemis for that little bit of extra edge in precision.


I don't like your method of outright blindly obliterating a weapon class to promote the other, its similar to many of PGI's attempts to balance such as with the clan UACs to promote the clan ACs. I prefer a method that adds no extra obfuscation in the form of your "different effects on different launchers" or odd DPS changes. I prefer an elegant method that provides balance between the different weights of launchers while improving the base launchers to a good enough position that Artemis still has a place, yet its bonus isn't entirely required.

My suggestion leads to LRM20s being balanced with mass LRM5s, LRM5s having lower weight but more heat, and both having the same amount of spread, 4 LRM5s will doing somewhat more damage due to the higher amount of hardpoints required. It also makes an SRM6 better than an SRM4 when previously its high spread usually lead the competition to be between SRM4 and ASRM6 with the lone SRM6 being the one non artemis srm launcher that was trash.

Pre nerf SRM4 spread was in a good place, it was condensed enough that it worked well, but if you had free tonnage and really wanted to be precise you could go for artemis, so in a way my suggestion has already been tested out in practice.

[The6thMessenger]

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 03:46 PM, said:

Oh boy, scanning through my likes by now for points to argue. I liked what he said about Artemis not being too good and not breaking the part that is fine, basically the part that blows right back in your suggestion's face. He specifically stated that Artemis should not be nerfed, which I agree with.

You're not even looking at the essence of the suggestion are you? Boy oh boy. As i have stated ever since, all this suggestion intends to do is to make No-Artemis on large launchers a real choice.

No it doesn't blow right back in the face. He acknowledged that something has to be done if No-Artemis won't be garbage anymore.

Kiran Yagami, on 22 March 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:

The problem is PGI's burning desire to make launchers garbage without Artemis. SRM 6s without Artemis aren't usable. You get too many missed missiles, which just makes them heavy SRM 4s. SRM 4s had their spread nerfed just this patch in order to force Artemis. SRM 2s aren't used at all. LRMs are much the same way, only people actually use LRM 5s. The difference between having Artemis and not having it is too great. That doesn't mean Artemis is too good, because neither weapon is over-performing. It means launchers without Artemis are garbage. Fix that. Don't break the part that works.

Yes Arty is fine. But again touching the Base launchers yet Artemis stays the same would still be a nerf, as i have explained before.

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 03:46 PM, said:

I'd agree with just unnerfing this patch's spread increase of SRM4s and I've always thought that bigger launchers shouldn't have more spread than smaller ones and would like to see SRMs based around SRM4s and LRMs based around LRM10s. This would lead to the base launchers being rather good by themselves but people who have the spare tonnage can still opt for Artemis for that little bit of extra edge in precision.

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 03:46 PM, said:

Pre nerf SRM4 spread was in a good place, it was condensed enough that it worked well, but if you had free tonnage and really wanted to be precise you could go for artemis, so in a way my suggestion has already been tested out in practice.

Amen. I agree. SRM4 (and LRM5) was fine as it was before.

But again, large launchers, I keep specifying that. The part were SRM6s and LRM20s are still garbage without Artemis is left unaddressed.

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 03:46 PM, said:

I don't like your method of outright blindly obliterating a weapon class to promote the other.

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 03:46 PM, said:

I prefer a method that adds no extra obfuscation in the form of your "different effects on different launchers" or odd DPS changes.

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 03:46 PM, said:

I prefer an elegant method that provides balance between the different weights of launchers while improving the base launchers to a good enough position that Artemis still has a place, yet its bonus isn't entirely required.

Again, as i have explained, No-Artemis launchers being the base launcher buffed, when Artemis launchers would still be an indirect nerf. Even if the SRM6 gets a 3.75s Cooldown, when the SRM6A gets a 4.00s cooldown, it's still a nerf to the Artemis because it's the Non-Artemis it was based from. If the base spread is decreased by 33.33%, but the Artemis has to stay where it is currently at, then the Artemis spread bonus would only be att 44.44% than 66.66%, which is a nerf.

For the base No-Artemis launchers to get buffed, yet the Artemis Launchers stay the same, they will get inevitably nerfed, directly or indirectly otherwise.

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 03:46 PM, said:

My suggestion leads to LRM20s being balanced with mass LRM5s, LRM5s having lower weight but more heat, and both having the same amount of spread, 4 LRM5s will doing somewhat more damage due to the higher amount of hardpoints required. It also makes an SRM6 better than an SRM4 when previously its high spread usually lead the competition to be between SRM4 and ASRM6 with the lone SRM6 being the one non artemis srm launcher that was trash.

Finally, we're getting somewhere.

So essentially 2x SRM6 and LRM20 would do as much component-concentrated damage as a 3x SRM4 or 4x LRM5s, but individually SRM4s and LRM5s are tighter.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 22 March 2017 - 04:19 PM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

My suggestion would basically be a buff to both the normal launchers and artemis launchers (aside from the SRM2 and LRM5 which would be bloated to SRM4 and LRM10 levels of spread because I'm evil)

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

Finally, we're getting somewhere.

So essentially 2x SRM6 and LRM20 would do as much component-concentrated damage as a 3x SRM4 or 4x LRM5s, but individually SRM4s and LRM5s are tighter.

No, SRM4 would have the same spread as an SRM6. This would have to be true if 2 SRM6 was to have the same spread as 3 SRM4, as firing more launchers at once doesn't magically increase their spread. 3 SRM4 would be superior to 2 SRM6 due to the shorter cooldowns that the smaller launchers have, but otherwise their per shot damage and spread is identical.

If we compare a single SRM6 to a single SRM4 both would have the same spread and the SRM6 would be superior due to having a higher DPS even with the higher cooldown due to the higher burst damage.

If we have an ASRM6 compared to an SRM6 they'd be the same except for the ASRM being one ton heavier and taking one extra slot and having smaller spread. Artemis would be able to get its spread into a single hitbox against a heavy while a non artemis might send a missile or two to adjacent side torsos per shot. A decent bonus for the extra weight and slots paid, but without the bonus its still a respectable weapon.

[The6thMessenger]

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 04:24 PM, said:

My suggestion would basically be a buff to both the normal launchers and artemis launchers (aside from the SRM2 and LRM5 which would be bloated to SRM4 and LRM10 levels of spread because I'm evil)

But isn't that Artemis launchers is in good position?

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 04:24 PM, said:

No, SRM4 would have the same spread as an SRM6. This would have to be true if 2 SRM6 was to have the same spread as 3 SRM4, as firing more launchers at once doesn't magically increase their spread. 3 SRM4 would be superior to 2 SRM6 due to the shorter cooldowns that the smaller launchers have, but otherwise their per shot damage and spread is identical.

Well, okay. If it were me coding though, i'd make it so that 2 missiles would be SRM2 spread level, 2 more missiles would be at SRM4 levels, and the last 2 at larger SRM6 levels -- simmilar with LRMs; each 5 LRMs would have a larger spread than the last. But that's just me, but would that work.

Dakota1000, on 22 March 2017 - 04:24 PM, said:

If we compare a single SRM6 to a single SRM4 both would have the same spread and the SRM6 would be superior due to having a higher DPS even with the higher cooldown due to the higher burst damage.

If we have an ASRM6 compared to an SRM6 they'd be the same except for the ASRM being one ton heavier and taking one extra slot and having smaller spread. Artemis would be able to get its spread into a single hitbox against a heavy while a non artemis might send a missile or two to adjacent side torsos per shot. A decent bonus for the extra weight and slots paid, but without the bonus its still a respectable weapon.

Well, okay.

[Deathlike]

To the OP, lol no plz.

Artemis by definition is not free (unless you use them for Streaks, but that's because of PGI coding).

If you want to acknowledge that PGI has not properly defined the tradeoffs of what Artemis was supposed to bring, you've succeeded.

Artemis is not supposed to be mandatory for IS-based builds... it supposed to be reserved for Clans (since they gain so many tonnage saving benefits in the first place). For IS, optional should mean exactly that... optional.

[The6thMessenger]

Deathlike, on 22 March 2017 - 04:50 PM, said:

Artemis is not supposed to be mandatory for IS-based builds... it supposed to be reserved for Clans (since they gain so many tonnage saving benefits in the first place). For IS, optional should mean exactly that... optional.

Well yeah, but what about C-SRM6 or C-LRM20, can't that be not-garbage? Not great, just not garbage without arty.

[Deathlike]

The6thMessenger, on 22 March 2017 - 05:04 PM, said:

Well yeah, but what about C-SRM6 or C-LRM20, can't that be not-garbage? Not great, just not garbage without arty.

Right now, SRM6s are hot garbage for IS, which is generally why people say it's mandatory for IS. CSRM6 is benefiting already from not consuming more than 1 crit by default and saving 1.5 tons "by being Clan tech". 2.5 tons with 2 crits for an ACSRM6 is still better than 3 tons with 2 crits for a SRM6.

I really can't sympathize for that kind of inherent benefits.

The LRM20 conundrum is more of a "increased spread for no good reason" deal.