57 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Tennex, on 13 June 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

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.

If you question normalizing, you only normalize questioning.

When you care for what is balanced, the imbalanced will take care of itself.

ER PPC is number one. All others are number two, or lower.

Spoiler

[armyof1]

The only thing I see them normalizing is how many weapons are useful to weapons that are not. It's closing in on 50/50 alright.

[Gaan Cathal]

Deathlike, on 13 June 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

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

Yeah, let's sacrifice some of the most powerful balance tools in the system to preserve the maths of a bunch of mostly hideously terrible builds that the game has already broken anyway.

[SirLANsalot]

those of you saying you will always take PPC's over LPL's.

Enjoy trying to hit lights....oh wait, you can't. In close range circle strafing, you will be LUCKY to hit a light with a PPC, but those pulse lasers are really good at taking out there legs, and torsos, and...well everything on a light. LPL being the best at it, as its 10 damage in .75 sec, even if ONE little pulse hits a light, thats 2 damage to its little legs. Multiply it by say 3, and you can leg them easy, which is far better then what 3 large lasers can do.

[gjnii]

SirLANsalot, on 12 June 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

1. If your going to do a balance post, at least compare 3 to 3.....

2. LPL's will get even better now, heat will not be much of an issue if used correctly. This is ALWAYS the case with ANY mech and is why the "boating" issue exists now.

Tonnage is a fairer comparison in my mind. unless you're talking outrageous numbers of a weapon.
like comparing 16ML's to 8LPL would be unfair. 4 energy mounts on one mech is hardly an unreasonable expectation. so 4LL seemed a pretty fair match for 3LPL.
We could do 2LPL to 3LL if you'd prefer... thats pretty equal tonnage, and I think we both know how those numbers stack up.

SirLANsalot, on 12 June 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

3. 3LPL is 30 damage in the arm for a Heavy Metal, vs the 27 from a longer duration 3 LL, after this normalization pass, the mech is just going to get even better

and the extra 6 tons and 4.5 heat you spent to do that 3 additional damage... we should just ignore it?

While I appreciate that a true mechwarrior only attacks from behind, when his enemy is shut down, and puts all damage directly into the cockpit, everyone else also considers things like Range, Tonnage and Heat worth mentioning when talking about weapon balance.

Seriously though, show me a 3LPL pretty baby that can core an Atlas-RS without overheating, and I'll show a 4LL Atlas that can core a 3LPL pretty baby from any range, faster than that, and pack in some streaks while doing it.
20 tons you say? Well clearly if I'm going to do a balance comparison I should at least use 1 mech to 1mech do it.

[Sable]

I think you forgot that they said this was to normalize pulse lasers for future tuning.

[Deathlike]

SirLANsalot, on 13 June 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

those of you saying you will always take PPC's over LPL's.

Enjoy trying to hit lights....oh wait, you can't. In close range circle strafing, you will be LUCKY to hit a light with a PPC, but those pulse lasers are really good at taking out there legs, and torsos, and...well everything on a light. LPL being the best at it, as its 10 damage in .75 sec, even if ONE little pulse hits a light, thats 2 damage to its little legs. Multiply it by say 3, and you can leg them easy, which is far better then what 3 large lasers can do.

If you're good at using PPCs, shooting lights is a non-issue.

For those of us that aren't so awesome, it's simply easier to use regular med lasers in addition to PPCs to take care of it. The range on the Med Pulse is not exactly optimal, but additionally LPL's range is effectively the same as the med pulse... which 2 meds would be more effective than LPL because you have all the tonnage you'd need to cool them down.

I speak from trying to find any excuse to use LPLs for wub wub, but am finding better alternatives that achieve the same means.

Edited by Deathlike, 13 June 2013 - 02:09 PM.

[Xeno Phalcon]

I want to like pulse lasers I really do but they are just too damn hot for also having a duration, maybe if it was reduced to 0.50 or less. As it stands I cant justify the weight and heat to risk playing around with ac40 FOTMs. That being said I did use them for a little while there when my blackjacks were slower I spent more time defending capture points from munchkins or scraping them off fatties. (Now im much faster, and can do the same thing with erppcs.)

[armyof1]

Sable, on 13 June 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

I think you forgot that they said this was to normalize pulse lasers for future tuning.

So they're going to make LPL, that aren't even good enough to be bothered with by most players, even worse for a while before they can re-balance it to make more sense again? What kind of backwards game balancing is that?

Edited by armyof1, 13 June 2013 - 03:48 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

There is a type of normalizing for weapons that I would really support:
Make more weapons have the same recycle time.
Make more weapons have the same beam duration.
Make more weapons have the same projectile speed.

All this helps adding advantages to mixed loadouts that normally only boats enjoy.

If you were able to fire an AC/5 and an AC/10 with the same lead, it can actually be useful to mix them. If they even had the same recycle time (yes, that might mean we need to adjust the damage per shot to make it worth carrying an AC/5 or making the AC/10 not underpowered), you could fire them together and torso twist between the full cooldown time.
But even if you have to stagger the shots due to different projectile speeds, the same recycle time means you can always use them with the same stagger delay without using efficiency.

For example, a standardization measure for lasers:

Small Laser and Medium Laser: 0.75 second beam duration, 3.25 second cooldown.
Large Laser: 0.5 second beam duration, 3.5 second cooldown
ER Large Laser: 0.5 second beam duration, 3.5 second cooldown
=> Total Recycle Time for all Standard and ER Lasers: 4 seconds

Small Pulse Laser: 0.5 second beam duration, 1 second cooldown
Medium Pulse Laser: 0.5 second beam duration, 1 second cooldown
Large Pulse Laser: 0.25 second beam duration, 1.25 second coolodwn
=> Total Recycle Time for all Pulse Lasers: 2 seconds

Also:
===> If you mix pulse lasers with normal lasers, you have a pulse+laser -> pulse -> pulse +laser -> pulse cycle.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 14 June 2013 - 12:48 AM.

[Sephlock]

MustrumRidcully, on 13 June 2013 - 04:37 AM, said:

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

They were normalizing our low expectations with this patch.

--

Also, I have to admit I don't "get" the people who claim to like the pulse laser sounds, in the same sense that I don't "get' bronies. Firing a pulse laser makes a sound like an infant banging on an old drum. Bum bum bum.

[The Mech behind you]

I'm a Pulse Laser Fan but even I have to say I don't see any reason why I shouldn't replace my LPLs with ERPPCs after that change. In the current meta, do we really need a weapons balance change that encourage more players to put PPCs on their mechs?

[Gaan Cathal]

MustrumRidcully, on 14 June 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

There is a type of normalizing for weapons that I would really support:
Make more weapons have the same recycle time.
Make more weapons have the same beam duration.
Make more weapons have the same projectile speed.

All this helps adding advantages to mixed loadouts that normally only boats enjoy.

If you were able to fire an AC/5 and an AC/10 with the same lead, it can actually be useful to mix them. If they even had the same recycle time (yes, that might mean we need to adjust the damage per shot to make it worth carrying an AC/5 or making the AC/10 not underpowered), you could fire them together and torso twist between the full cooldown time.
But even if you have to stagger the shots due to different projectile speeds, the same recycle time means you can always use them with the same stagger delay without using efficiency.

You'd be better off normalising projectile speed than recycle rate, that'll make the leads actually match (and make some sense). An unhooked recycle rate means you've got more damage spread (good for balance) and relative damage output is easier to adjust (without touching the 'magic number' in the weapon name and causing an avalanche of TT-purist hate to boot). Just make sure the Gauss and PPC don't have matching fire rates with anything, but especially eachother, and you're good.

MustrumRidcully, on 14 June 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

Small Laser and Medium Laser: 0.75 second beam duration, 3.25 second cooldown.
Large Laser: 0.5 second beam duration, 3.5 second cooldown
ER Large Laser: 0.5 second beam duration, 3.5 second cooldown
=> Total Recycle Time for all Standard and ER Lasers: 4 seconds

Small Pulse Laser: 0.5 second beam duration, 1 second cooldown
Medium Pulse Laser: 0.5 second beam duration, 1 second cooldown
Large Pulse Laser: 0.25 second beam duration, 1.25 second coolodwn
=> Total Recycle Time for all Pulse Lasers: 2 seconds

Why the arbitrarily shorter beam duration for large laser variants? It doesn't make any more sense than keeping them all the same. It actually makes less sense than the current longer LLAS durations (although I'd rather equalised durations).

Sephlock, on 14 June 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

Also, I have to admit I don't "get" the people who claim to like the pulse laser sounds, in the same sense that I don't "get' bronies. Firing a pulse laser makes a sound like an infant banging on an old drum. Bum bum bum.

If it actually sounds like a drum, your sounds settings are jacked.

[MustrumRidcully]

Gaan Cathal, on 14 June 2013 - 01:06 AM, said:

You'd be better off normalising projectile speed than recycle rate, that'll make the leads actually match (and make some sense). An unhooked recycle rate means you've got more damage spread (good for balance) and relative damage output is easier to adjust (without touching the 'magic number' in the weapon name and causing an avalanche of TT-purist hate to boot). Just make sure the Gauss and PPC don't have matching fire rates with anything, but especially eachother, and you're good.

[size=4]

Why the arbitrarily shorter beam duration for large laser variants? It doesn't make any more sense than keeping them all the same. It actually makes less sense than the current longer LLAS durations (although I'd rather equalised durations).

The range makes the difference to me. Trying to hold a 1 second or 0.75 second beam on a target 400+ m away is a lot harder than holding it still on a target 200m away. If they have the same beam duration as MLs, they can use their effective range worse than the MLs can use theirs. That doesn't sound fair, especially if you consider that the original stats were also balanced around a system where long range weapons had a better hit probability at lower ranges then low range weapons. If the LL would have a 50 % hit chance at 0-450m and the ML a 50 % hit chance at 0-270m in the table top, I don't think they would have made it 4 tons heavier. The extra damage could be worth an increase in weight of 80 %, and the range might be worth an increase in 100 %, so a weight of around 4 tons might be okay (but giving the TT LL also produces more heat per damage, it would probably sitll be to heavy, and going down to 3 to 3.5 tons sounds more reasonable.)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 14 June 2013 - 01:24 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

MustrumRidcully, on 14 June 2013 - 01:24 AM, said:

The range makes the difference to me. Trying to hold a 1 second or 0.75 second beam on a target 400+ m away is a lot harder than holding it still on a target 200m away. If they have the same beam duration as MLs, they can use their effective range worse than the MLs can use theirs. That doesn't sound fair, especially if you consider that the original stats were also balanced around a system where long range weapons had a better hit probability at lower ranges then low range weapons. If the LL would have a 50 % hit chance at 0-450m and the ML a 50 % hit chance at 0-270m in the table top, I don't think they would have made it 4 tons heavier. The extra damage could be worth an increase in weight of 80 %, and the range might be worth an increase in 100 %, so a weight of around 4 tons might be okay (but giving the TT LL also produces more heat per damage, it would probably sitll be to heavy, and going down to 3 to 3.5 tons sounds more reasonable.)

You're forgetting that the MW:O LLAS has an advantage the TT LLAS doesn't though - it only takes up one hardpoint. On Heavies/Assaults with low numbers of well position hardpoints that is a big deal - 4 LLAS vs 4MLAS in an Atlas or Stalker for example. Hell, even comparing 4LLAS to 6MLAS the LLAS have a good shout.

[Asmudius Heng]

I believe large lasers had a beam duration reduction a long while back because people found it very difficult to get any consistent damage at longer ranges with it and so defaulted back to medlas.

However poor netcode was a part of that.

Then again - in BT your range gve you greater chances to hit up close as well as being able to fire longer, so a shorter beam duration mimics this a little bit.

[Victor Morson]

All the anger on the heat system is overshadowing this, but I entirely agree.

It's unacceptable.

[Axident]

Back before the days of the aPPColypse I was sailing a Stalker with 4 LPLs (plus a SSRM for giggles). This was a nice build. I had some of my best games with this - over half a dozen 7 kill rounds and a good win ratio. When someone got 4 LPLs to the cockpit they tended to retreat very fast and even before HSR the legs on lights flew off like a drunk cheerleader's frillies. However, it was always running on the ragged edge of overheat. You could get maybe three Alphas and then it was chainfire or melt. Crank the heat up even a little, and those short-range, heavy, bulky, hot, baby blue subwubbers are really going to quite impractical.