20 replies to this topic

[Jonathan Paine]

I did promise to make some suggestions regarding energy weapons. General idea is to give bigger weapons (tonnage/crit) more HP than smaller weapons.

ERPPC: Increase heat to 12 (from 11), increase cooldown to 3.5 (from 3). Decrease HP to 9 (from 10).
- ERPPCs need a tiny nerf
PPC: Increase heat to 9 (from 8), increase cooldown to 3.5 (from 3). Decrease HP to 9 (from 10).
- PPCs need a tiny nerf

Larger Pulse Laser: Increase Hp to 12 (from 10).
- Not much of a buff, but changes to PPC/Large laser should make this a more viable weapon.
ER Large Laser: Decrease damage to 8 (from 9). Decrease heat from 9.5 to 9. HP stays at 10.
- Better range than the PPC, less heat than the ERPPC. Needs a damage reduction.
Large Laser. Decrease damage to 8 (from 9). Decrease heat from 7 to 6.8. HP stays at 10.
- Decent range, decent heat, decent tonnage. Needs a slight damage reduction.

Medium Pulse Laser: Decrease heat to 4.5 (from 5). Decrease HP to 7.
- Given the limited range, this weapon needs a slight buff.
Medium Laser: Decrease heat to 3.9 (from 4). Decrease HP to 6.
- Extremely slight buff to heat efficiency. Medium Lasers are pretty good already.

Small Pulse Laser: Increase damage to 4 (from 3). Decrease HP to 5
- Fairly large buff to damage (at least per second). Better choice than Medium Laser at <90 meters now.
Small Laser: Increase range to 120 (from 90). Decrease HP to 4
- Should have better range than the pulse equivalent and be equal to the MG.

Flamer: Increase damage per second to 0.8 (from 0.4). Decrease HP to 5
- Doubling damage per second _might_ make this weapon relevant. Still doubt you would take this over a Medium Laser or a Small Pulse laser.

Edit: Decreased heat for Large Laser and ER Large Laser based on feedback.

Edited by Jonathan Paine, 20 May 2013 - 11:47 AM.

[SubRyan]

Jonathan Paine, on 16 May 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

I did promise to make some suggestions regarding energy weapons. General idea is to give bigger weapons (tonnage/crit) more HP than smaller weapons.

ERPPC: Increase heat to 12 (from 11), increase cooldown to 3.5 (from 3). Decrease HP to 9 (from 10).
- ERPPCs need a tiny nerf
PPC: Increase heat to 9 (from 8), increase cooldown to 3.5 (from 3). Decrease HP to 9 (from 10).
- PPCs need a tiny nerf

Larger Pulse Laser: Increase Hp to 12 (from 10).
- Not much of a buff, but changes to PPC/Large laser should make this a more viable weapon.
ER Large Laser: Decrease damage to 8 (from 9). HP stays at 10.
- Better range than the PPC, less heat than the ERPPC. Needs a damage reduction.
Large Laser. Decrease damage to 8 (from 9). HP stays at 10.
- Decent range, decent heat, decent tonnage. Needs a slight damage reduction.

Medium Pulse Laser: Decrease heat to 4.5 (from 5). Decrease HP to 7.
- Given the limited range, this weapon needs a slight buff.
Medium Laser: Decrease heat to 3.9 (from 4). Decrease HP to 6.
- Extremely slight buff to heat efficiency. Medium Lasers are pretty good already.

Small Pulse Laser: Increase damage to 4 (from 3). Decrease HP to 5
- Fairly large buff to damage (at least per second). Better choice than Medium Laser at <90 meters now.
Small Laser: Increase range to 120 (from 90). Decrease HP to 4
- Should have better range than the pulse equivalent and be equal to the MG.

Flamer: Increase damage per second to 0.8 (from 0.4). Decrease HP to 5
- Doubling damage per second _might_ make this weapon relevant. Still doubt you would take this over a Medium Laser or a Small Pulse laser.

SPL's dont need a damage increase, they need a recycle and duration decrease. Same with small lasers

[Selbatrim]

Pretty good ideas there Paine. I was going to argue this way and that and suggest other tweaks but actually there is not a lot I disagree with. These are small changes for the most part that makes the broader range of energy weapons more viable.

Flamers need a buff immediately. They are completely pointless at the mo. Either that or you need to increased the inflicted heat per second to make it actually possible to use it to heat a target mech rather than just bbq yourself. (and please make it possible to set fire to forests...)

@SubRyan, I'd not touch the cycle time of the small laser. They are pretty much awesome already as you can just keep firing till you go blue in the face. MLs will cook you if you try the same.

[Diablobo]

Good idea for the PPC recycle times. It seems there are too many people who want to add too much to the time. I think .5 or .75 is plenty enough to add.

[trollocaustic]

Jonathan Paine, on 16 May 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

Blind crying about everything that wasn't pulse or flamer

Energy weapons already do less damage than wet noodles moving at 1 nanometer per hour.

[Pale Jackal]

As I've said elsewhere, I'll be interested in seeing if the (hopefully) incoming missile buffs affect the meta at all.

I'd probably nerf PPCs a little bit more, increasing the heat by 2 rather than 1. Alternately, increase the re-fire time to 4 and the heat by 1.

You're nerfing Large Lasers and ERLL? Are you serious? Ridiculous. I cannot disagree more. If you hadn't noticed, the current DPS of a PPC is 3.33 compared to the DPS of 2.12 for a LL. Even with your slight nerfs, the PPC will still have superior DPS. The PPC's prime advantage is also its pin point damage.

I used to like LLs because they were good at taking out lights, but with the host state re-wind, the pin point damage of the PPC makes it a significantly superior weapon.

[Jonathan Paine]

Thanks for the constructive feedback.
For Large Lasers versus PPCs, consider this:
Scenario 1:
4 PPCs weigh 28 tons, do 40 points of damage, 36 heat, 12 critical slots,range penalty up to 90, max effective range 540
- Pros: pinpoint damage, fast projectile, disrupt ECM
- Cons: minimum range, cannot fit in a CT mount
5 Large Lasers 25 tons, 40 points of damage, 35 heat, 10 critical slots, max effective range 450
- Pros: no travel time, easy to track fast targets
- Cons: Need to stay on target to deliver full damage

So larger lasers do more damage per tonnage with less heat and less critical slots. While the 90 extra meters of range help, doing no damage up close is lethal.
- I am tempted to suggest a very modest heat reduction for the large laser to make it more tempting, something like 6.8 rather than 7. This would give the 5 LL scenario a 2 point heat advantage over the PPCs

Scenario 2:
4 ERPPCS: weigh 28 tons, 40 damage, 48!! heat, 12 crit, max effective range 810
- Pros: pinpoint damage, fast projectile, disrupt ECM, crazy range
- Cons: extreme heat, cannot fit in a CT mount
5 ERLL: weigh 25 tons, 40 damage, 47.5!! heat, 10 crit, max effective range 675
- Pros: no travel time, easy to track fast targets, great range
- Cons: Need to stay on target to deliver full damage, high heat

Despite the range increase and less tonnage, I dont think the ER Larger Laser holds up to scrutiny. Dropping heat from the current 9.5 to 9 might provide an incentive. Same heat as PPCs, better range, less tonnage. Will edit OP to reflect heat suggestions.

[Pale Jackal]

Jonathan Paine, on 20 May 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

For Large Lasers versus PPCs, consider this:
Scenario 1:
4 PPCs weigh 28 tons, do 40 points of damage, 36 heat, 12 critical slots,range penalty up to 90, max effective range 540
- Pros: pinpoint damage, fast projectile, disrupt ECM
- Cons: minimum range, cannot fit in a CT mount
5 Large Lasers 25 tons, 40 points of damage, 35 heat, 10 critical slots, max effective range 450
- Pros: no travel time, easy to track fast targets
- Cons: Need to stay on target to deliver full damage

So larger lasers do more damage per tonnage with less heat and less critical slots. While the 90 extra meters of range help, doing no damage up close is lethal.

But, the tonnage to DPS ratio for PPCs and LLs is approximately equal. So, if you have allow multiple shots, then their damage to tonnage ratio is almost the same. Also, PPCs have pinpoint damage, so its much easier to bring all that damage to bear.

Finally, I've used PPCs many times, the 90m limitation doesn't come up that often, and even when it does, if you're foe is at 70m, you're still doing 78% damage.

I think the pinpoint damage advantage is incredibly significant.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Jonathan Paine, on 20 May 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

Thanks for the constructive feedback.
For Large Lasers versus PPCs, consider this:
Scenario 1:
4 PPCs weigh 28 ......

Luckily you're not in charge at PGI. Too many players struggle to maintain lasers on target long enough to garner even 60% of the damage potential for lasers to currently warrant any form of a nerf. Additionally, you might want to actually play the game after changes to PPC's and Missile go live to see how that portion of the game is truly changed (outside of mere math/theorycraft) before introducing additional variables to lasers.

[Jonathan Paine]

Wins / Losses 3,094 / 2,283

I think it is fair to say that I play MWO slightly more than average.

Lukoi, on 20 May 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

Luckily you're not in charge at PGI. Too many players struggle to maintain lasers on target long enough to garner even 60% of the damage potential for lasers to currently warrant any form of a nerf. Additionally, you might want to actually play the game after changes to PPC's and Missile go live to see how that portion of the game is truly changed (outside of mere math/theorycraft) before introducing additional variables to lasers.

[Ralgas]

Then what do you say on the concept of the multi wep heat penalties under investigation instead. The more i think about it ( with a few caveats) the more it seems like a reasonable anti alpha balancer

[Pale Jackal]

Ralgas, on 20 May 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

Then what do you say on the concept of the multi wep heat penalties under investigation instead. The more i think about it ( with a few caveats) the more it seems like a reasonable anti alpha balancer

I think it seems like a heavy handed solution when the main problem seems to be PPCs.

Gauss, AC20s, etc. can be boated, but Gauss isn't going to suffer much from heat penalties, and AC20s have limited range. A 6 LL boat would have to keep lasers on target for a full second.

I'd tweak PPCs first (+1 second, and +2 heat, or maybe +1 heat to start), and get SRMs and LRMs to where they're supposed to be, before implementing it.

[Ph30nix]

Jonathan Paine, on 16 May 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

I did promise to make some suggestions regarding energy weapons. General idea is to give bigger weapons (tonnage/crit) more HP than smaller weapons.

ERPPC: Increase heat to 12 (from 11), increase cooldown to 3.5 (from 3). Decrease HP to 9 (from 10).
- ERPPCs need a tiny nerf
PPC: Increase heat to 9 (from 8), increase cooldown to 3.5 (from 3). Decrease HP to 9 (from 10).
- PPCs need a tiny nerf

Larger Pulse Laser: Increase Hp to 12 (from 10).
- Not much of a buff, but changes to PPC/Large laser should make this a more viable weapon.
ER Large Laser: Decrease damage to 8 (from 9). Decrease heat from 9.5 to 9. HP stays at 10.
- Better range than the PPC, less heat than the ERPPC. Needs a damage reduction.
Large Laser. Decrease damage to 8 (from 9). Decrease heat from 7 to 6.8. HP stays at 10.
- Decent range, decent heat, decent tonnage. Needs a slight damage reduction.

the fact you think reducing damage on large lasers is actually a good idea and that it will make them more viable over PPC's completely invalidates anything you have to say in my opinion.

then you go on to want to lower Hp of the short range weapons? i thought the point of nerfing PPC's was to get brawlers to stop using them, why the F would i want to use a weapon at close range that has such low health?

PPC/ERppc Heat gen is fine, im fine with trying a 4 second cooldown if it would get people to stop whinning but PPC's are not a problem.

all the laser weapons need some kind of buff, personaly i feel changing it so their recycle time start the second they are fired NOT after the beam duratoin ends, is the minimum they need. After that i would agree that all laser weapons need to generate less heat.

[Syllogy]

I especially like how nothing in here addresses AC20 boats, which are infinitely more common than any sort of Quad PPC / Large Laser Boat.

[ego1607]

You can't compare large lasers and PPC-s without taking into acount that lasers do damage over time while PPC-s are (almost) instant. With PPCs you shoot, concentrate all the damage on one area and can imediately do evasive maneuver. With lasers unless you are targeting an atlas from 50 m, you have to be very skilled not to spread your damage all across an enemy mech, and in most cases miss some. Also, it makes you face your oponent face to face while you are shooting, allowing him to get a nice steady aim and shoot you back where it hurts the most.

If lasers theoretical maximum potential wasn't better then PPC's, it would be a gratly inferior weapon.

[Zyllos]

I do not agree with your assessment of Large Lasers needing a heat reduction.

But I do agree that the ER Large Laser needs it's heat dropped by 0.5. I also think ER weapons should have a 0.25 beam duration decrease (to 0.75s) while Pulse Lasers should also have the same decrease (to 0.5s).

The Small Pulse Laser needs a damage increase to fit inbetween the Medium Laser and the Small Laser, so I would add 1.0 damage (to 4.0).

The Medium Pulse Laser should stay the same in terms of damage and heat but the above beam duration change.

The Large Pulse Laser actually needs a slight heat increase by 0.7 (to 8.0) but with the above beam duration change.

The ERPPC/PPC still needs to add 1.0 heat to each weapon.

All these above changes are done to balance them against ballistics, missiles, and other energy weapons in a vaccum. That means these are not changes to fix boating, poptarting, or any other issues except for the balance between weapons themselves.

I also think the AC/2, AC/5, UAC/5, and almost all missile weapons need some slight changes but that is not the subject of this thread.

[Jonathan Paine]

Ph30nix, on 21 May 2013 - 03:47 AM, said:

the fact you think reducing damage on large lasers is actually a good idea and that it will make them more viable over PPC's completely invalidates anything you have to say in my opinion.

then you go on to want to lower Hp of the short range weapons? i thought the point of nerfing PPC's was to get brawlers to stop using them, why the F would i want to use a weapon at close range that has such low health?

PPC/ERppc Heat gen is fine, im fine with trying a 4 second cooldown if it would get people to stop whinning but PPC's are not a problem.

all the laser weapons need some kind of buff, personaly i feel changing it so their recycle time start the second they are fired NOT after the beam duratoin ends, is the minimum they need. After that i would agree that all laser weapons need to generate less heat.

1. I want a PPC to deliver more damage than a laser per shot, but have the drawback of weighing more, taking up more crits, slower recycle rate and increase heat more. Makes them unique and useful under different circumstances.
2. HP. Larger weapons take up more critical spaces and are more likely to be hit, which means more likely to be destroyed. It is also easier to fit a handful of smaller lasers than one PPC, and losing a medium or small laser is not the end of the world. I also think that heavier and bigger guns should soak more damage.
3. The recycling change is interesting, and I honestly thought they changed that a few patches back. I could be wrong.

Thanks for the feedback!

[Jonathan Paine]

ego1607, on 21 May 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

You can't compare large lasers and PPC-s without taking into acount that lasers do damage over time while PPC-s are (almost) instant. With PPCs you shoot, concentrate all the damage on one area and can imediately do evasive maneuver. With lasers unless you are targeting an atlas from 50 m, you have to be very skilled not to spread your damage all across an enemy mech, and in most cases miss some. Also, it makes you face your oponent face to face while you are shooting, allowing him to get a nice steady aim and shoot you back where it hurts the most.

If lasers theoretical maximum potential wasn't better then PPC's, it would be a gratly inferior weapon.

I don't know if my crazy spreadsheet makes much sense, but the adjusted ER Large Laser ends up being more efficient than the ER PPC when we include Damage/Heat*Range/Tonnate/Critical spaces. 1.87 times more "efficient", though this does not take into account the advantage of delivering 10 points of damage to one location in an instant over 8 points splashed over time.

Edited by Jonathan Paine, 06 June 2013 - 12:30 PM.

[Jonathan Paine]

Posters wanting buff/nerf compared to ballistics, especially with boating & high alpha strikes: I think the solution to alpha strikes is spreading the damage out to neighboring locations, and let pinpoint damage be the domain of chain fire (with a small delay between each shot to combat macro misuse).

Thanks for all the feedback!

[AP514]

the BASIC problem is that there is no Penalty for overheating................So a PPc boat can Shoot overheat and restart Alpha over heat restart............Ect ect....no worries about damage to MEk from being at 150% heat.....