57 replies to this topic

[Asmudius Heng]

Range is the issue never taken into the balance equation by PGI.

I would always take a PPC over a LPL now because you get about the same damage and accuracy and heat for your tonnage - but the PPC has MUCH more range.

The PPC Minimum range is also hardly a major issue.

If you keep the range the same then the damage must increase or heat be reduced or both to some measure.

One balancing factor that should be in its favour and the same for all pulse lasers is that it only takes one hardpoint. If you have that energy hardpoint left and mroe tonnage to spend you should be seriously considering if upping your medlas to a MPL for instance is a worthwhile trade off in terms of your role - but the tonnage you spend needs to come back in raw damage output as well - but its single energy hardpoint usage means it migth be something worthwhile if you cannot fit 2 ML or 2 LL

if that makes sense ....

For instance. I was running a dragon with a gauss in one arm and 4 medlas 2 in the other arm two in the torso. I wanted to strip the medlas in the torso and upgrade the ones in the arms to pulse so i didnt split my laser fire too much ... but the investment in the pulse and the advantage it would give was still not good enough for me to consider it even though that should be a meaningful choice.

[Raso]

Pulse lasers, in general, are just not very useful in this game. They are basically beam lasers with a shorter range, more heat, more tonnage and a barely noticeable damage boost. That needs to change.

Make them small, rapid fire lasers. Instead of several beams make them shoot a single bolt or pulse (hit scan like the beams) that does pin-point damage. Make the beam duration for the weapons on the magnitude of 0.10 seconds, or less and their cool down roughly as short. Give them superior DPS to that of beam weapons but cause them you heat you mech up slowly and steadily. Basically, make them short range, energy AC2s or short range, rapid fire PPCs.

Suddenly the pulse laser has a niche. While the beam laser is about "burst" damage and allows you to make a shot for full effect then duck behind cover a pulse laser is about sustained damage and for more of a stand and deliver style of combat. Suddenly the pulse weapons are unique and have a role all their own as laser machine guns.

[MustrumRidcully]

scJazz, on 12 June 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

The upcoming changes are not a "Balancing" pass. They are a "Normalization" pass. They are adjusting the values to follow the normal laser pattern of damage and heat. This goes into the next patch. They are then going to assess the effects and do a "Balancing" pass after that if needed. Which it will be... which is why they mention this fact.

What is the point of the normalization, though? Is there any value from it? Is anything meaningful normalized?

[Shalune]

"pass"
- in the context of game design, an iterative effort to build upon a specific aspect of the game

I haven't seen it suggested anywhere that this is, nor resembles the final intended form of LPL. The impression I got from how the post was worded is that this was an attempt to make the 3 PL comparable in an attempt to make future balancing easier to manage.

[armyof1]

At the moment PGI don't seem to understand that weapons with shorter range need to do considerably more damage up close without being penalized with higher tonnage, more crit slots and higher heat. It's the same thing with SRMs and LBX currently. Both weapons either don't even work outside of 270m or will do just a fraction of their max damage. And there are weapons that are better due to longer range while still having lower requirements. Same thing with pulse lasers, the small dps buff costs you a lot of lost range, more tonnage and considerably more heat. I guess the PGI testers all snipe at long range and have no idea how they're making any short-ranged weapons beside the medium laser becoming more and more pointless.

Edited by armyof1, 13 June 2013 - 03:11 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

gjnii, on 12 June 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

Lets compare LL's to LPL's
4Large Lasers
20 Tons
36 Damage (27 of that damage is in .75 seconds)
8.48 DPS at 300m
8.48 DPS at 450m
5.65 DPS at 600m
28 Alpha Heat
6.6 Heat/Sec
1.28 Damage/Heat


3LPL
21 Tons (WORSE)
31.8 Damage (WORSE) (31.8 is in .75 seconds, so slightly better)
7.95 DPS at 300m (WORSE)
3.975 DPS at 450m (WORSE)
0 DPS at 600m (WORSE)
25.5 Alpha Heat (WOR... wait better?
6.45 Heat/Sec ok.. slightly better.
1.24 Damage/Heat (WORSE) THERE WE GO

So only use LPL's if you want
extra tonnage
inferior damage
inferior DPS
inferior damage/heat efficiency
at Short Medium and Long range battles


For a tradeoff of:
3% less heat/second (and 12% less damage to go with it of course)
15% more damage if you cannot EVER keep a beam on a target for a whole 1s when they've closed to under 300m away from you.


it doesn't really improve as you scale down either, because at that point. you should just be taking ML's... which are 1/2 an LPL in damage, and full cycle time, (edit they do have slightly longer beam duration) for 1/7th THE TONNAGE.

EDIT: this post is has an inflammatory tone because I love LPL's. I love their pulsing fire animation, I love their blue color, I love their firing sound... I will miss them enormously.

The Inner Sphere LPL was only better cause it was 18% more accurate. In the MMO we don't get that +2 to hit So pulse lasers suffer from a lack of range that had a positive offset on TT. I haven't read the thread yet But I am sure there will be someone who will of course claim "Mad skillz for the win". Thing is, I was never a fan of IS Pulse weapons due to the reduced range.

[DerSpecht]

I use PL because of sound and effect and compensate your funny spreadsheet numbers with skill. Its al about teh PEW!

[Cubivorre]

Harharhar, my LPL AS7-RS disagrees.

[Joseph Mallan]

Cubivorre, on 13 June 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

Harharhar, my LPL AS7-RS disagrees.

I am old school. If my enemy gets into short range, I made a mistake! Training as a Marine Infantryman, was to kill them BEFORE you see the whites of their eyes.

Pulse lasers disobey that order.

Seriously, Why would I want to let my enemy get close enough to stick a knife in me???

[John MatriX82]

Simple fix would be to drop off some weight off the weapons, like 6 for LPL, 1.5 for MPL and (weird I know) 0.75 for SMPL. They'd be instantly considered. Every time i have 7 tons free a PPC is always a better option (I usually have also the necessary 3 crits) and why should I place a single MPL for the weight of two ML's or a ML and more ammo or a DHS more? Few times unfortunately..

[Ralgas]

MustrumRidcully, on 12 June 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

What is the point of the normalization, though? Is there any value from it? Is anything meaningful normalized?

Depends on how much else is getting normalized, ac/20 debate could get interesting if they do a pass on ballistics and use say a 3.33 dps (almost the average of the group atm and would mean a 6 sec cd on the wep)

Edited by Ralgas, 13 June 2013 - 03:57 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Ralgas, on 13 June 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

Depends on how much else is getting normalized, ac/20 debate could get interesting if they do a pass on ballistics and use say a 3.33 dps (almost the average of the group atm and would mean a 6 sec cd on the wep)

I am not sure what they intended to normalize, but they didn't normalize DPS.

[Ralgas]

wasn't it dmg and heat over reg lasers? Paul threw out some comparisons but it was confusing.....

[Alistair Winter]

I guess it kind of seems irrational to some of the uneducated players. Let me clear it up.

The large pulse laser is currently one of the less popular large energy weapons. The large laser, PPC and ER PPC are far more common. At the moment, a lot of fans believe that the weight, short range and heat problems don't make up for the potential extra damage.

To fix this problem, PGI has decided to nerf the large pulse laser further, so that it will be in proportion to other pulse lasers. They do acknowledge that this arbitrary need for proportion is completely irrelevant, of course, so they are preparing to change the values later.

It's kind of like if you're raising a bunch of cattle and you see that one cow is a bit malnourished. Then you decide to give it even less food, and judge the result to determine how much more food you should have given it in the first place. It's all very technical, you guys wouldn't understand.

[Deathlike]

John MatriX82, on 13 June 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

Simple fix would be to drop off some weight off the weapons, like 6 for LPL, 1.5 for MPL and (weird I know) 0.75 for SMPL. They'd be instantly considered. Every time i have 7 tons free a PPC is always a better option (I usually have also the necessary 3 crits) and why should I place a single MPL for the weight of two ML's or a ML and more ammo or a DHS more? Few times unfortunately..

Lemme just state "stock/TT specs" (tonnage+crits/slots) before someone reams you over that. There will be somethings that won't change.

Alistair Winter, on 13 June 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

I guess it kind of seems irrational to some of the uneducated players. Let me clear it up.

It's kind of like if you're raising a bunch of cattle and you see that one cow is a bit malnourished. Then you decide to give it even less food, and judge the result to determine how much more food you should have given it in the first place. It's all very technical, you guys wouldn't understand.

It's so backwards, it's genius!

[Ningyo]

However the Large pulse laser was far more popular and better than the medium and OMG small pulse lasers. this brings them to an even level of suck. Then they plan to make them better at the same time. (not the strategy I would use, but at least they are working on them)

[tayhimself]

Alistair Winter, on 13 June 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

I guess it kind of seems irrational to some of the uneducated players. Let me clear it up.

The large pulse laser is currently one of the less popular large energy weapons. The large laser, PPC and ER PPC are far more common. At the moment, a lot of fans believe that the weight, short range and heat problems don't make up for the potential extra damage.

To fix this problem, PGI has decided to nerf the large pulse laser further, so that it will be in proportion to other pulse lasers. They do acknowledge that this arbitrary need for proportion is completely irrelevant, of course, so they are preparing to change the values later.

It's kind of like if you're raising a bunch of cattle and you see that one cow is a bit malnourished. Then you decide to give it even less food, and judge the result to determine how much more food you should have given it in the first place. It's all very technical, you guys wouldn't understand.

Great use of sarcasm. A+++ would read again.

[SmokinDave73]

Alistair Winter, on 13 June 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

I guess it kind of seems irrational to some of the uneducated players. Let me clear it up.

The large pulse laser is currently one of the less popular large energy weapons. The large laser, PPC and ER PPC are far more common. At the moment, a lot of fans believe that the weight, short range and heat problems don't make up for the potential extra damage.

To fix this problem, PGI has decided to nerf the large pulse laser further, so that it will be in proportion to other pulse lasers. They do acknowledge that this arbitrary need for proportion is completely irrelevant, of course, so they are preparing to change the values later.

It's kind of like if you're raising a bunch of cattle and you see that one cow is a bit malnourished. Then you decide to give it even less food, and judge the result to determine how much more food you should have given it in the first place. It's all very technical, you guys wouldn't understand.

I am sorry but speaking for all us "uneducated players" I am not going to be happy tohave a weapon nerfed for a month to the point where they are pointless to take just because PGI's balance team is incapable of doing so on their own internal servers beforehand to gather further data. Your logic is completely flawed, by the incompatenece of PGI.

@ OP, I’m glad someone noticed the fail of changes LPL to these new values. As I wrote in my feedback Pulse lasers do not need to be normalise across the 3 weapon groups. If SPL need a buff, buff them but don’t do it in a way were it will make another weapon more useless then it already is. Paul really needs to start re thinking the approach the PGI balance team is taking towards weapons because at this rate no one will be left to keep testing this game.

Edited by SmokinDave73, 13 June 2013 - 06:29 AM.

[Tennex]

scJazz, on 12 June 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

The upcoming changes are not a "Balancing" pass. They are a "Normalization" pass. They are adjusting the values to follow the normal laser pattern of damage and heat. This goes into the next patch. They are then going to assess the effects and do a "Balancing" pass after that if needed. Which it will be... which is why they mention this fact.

I want to know how the hell they think they can normalize heat and damage, when the tonnage between small/med/large pulse is at random intervals.

and they can't touch the weight.

Realize that nobody uses LPL as it is. and an addition of 1 heat would not even be beneficial for experimental/normalization reasons.

Edited by Tennex, 13 June 2013 - 06:22 AM.

[Tennex]

MustrumRidcully, on 12 June 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

What is the point of the normalization, though? Is there any value from it? Is anything meaningful normalized?

The purpose of normalization is to balance the game. however, if the process of normalization unbalances the game. (adding 1 heat to LPL nobody will use it)

then moot point.

So essentially they are going to unbalance what we have now, so that it becomes normalized. and then later go back and unnormalize it so it will be balanced again.

Edited by Tennex, 13 June 2013 - 06:27 AM.