306 replies to this topic

[jeffsw6]

So your suggestion is to make LPL/MPL/SPL be able to shoot continuously, like tag? I'm not saying I wouldn't try it; but I think that would make them significantly less useful than they are today. It would be good for newbies who really need a weapon to (very)slowly leg a light-opponent; but skilled players would find them worthless.

I'm assuming you would keep DPS similar, so the beam would be pretty weak. For example, an LPL would do about as much as a Small Pulse Laser does today; but it would have no cool-down. Interesting idea but I think some mechs would miss their punchy, efficient, and easily-boated MPLs. Is that a good trade?

[MustrumRidcully]

jeffsw6, on 24 July 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

So your suggestion is to make LPL/MPL/SPL be able to shoot continuously, like tag? I'm not saying I wouldn't try it; but I think that would make them significantly less useful than they are today. It would be good for newbies who really need a weapon to (very)slowly leg a light-opponent; but skilled players would find them worthless.

I'm assuming you would keep DPS similar, so the beam would be pretty weak. For example, an LPL would do about as much as a Small Pulse Laser does today; but it would have no cool-down. Interesting idea but I think some mechs would miss their punchy, efficient, and easily-boated MPLs. Is that a good trade?

Continous DPS weapons are not very good in MW:O.

The poster before you suggested that longer beam durations are an advantage, but the fact is that the superior weapon for quite a long time now is a weapon without any duration at all!

A weapon with a duration for firing means two things:

• You will spread your damage around and cannot focus it. Even if you're the perfect shot and can hold the beam steady 100 % of the time, that still requires the target you are focusing on to be available 100 % of the time. The longer the beam duration, the less likely that becomes. Yes, an instant shot weapon has the risk of completely missing, and it has the risk of not dealing 100 % of its damage to the intended location - but it deals 100 % of its damage to one location, and that gives you the option to change tactics and now focus on severely weakened section - destroying the CT with the next two shots might have been preferable, but killing one half of the enemy mech's firepower isn't bad, either. But if you spread the damage, you need more time to achieve either end.
  
• You will have less time for torso twisting, allowing people to focus on soft spots on your mech (or create one.). If the enemy also uses beam duration based weapon, you might have no particular disadvantage, but if the enemy uses weapons with a shorter duration or no duration at all (aka PPC), you're disadvantaged.

I think a way to make Pulse Lasers better would be to turn them into a rapid fire hitstcan weapon with no or minmal duration. The rapid fire means that per shot, you won't deal much damage, so there are no uber-mega-blaster-quad-PPC-like kill shots possible. Maybe something with the rate of fire similar to the AC/2. 5 damage and 4.25 heat per shot. Even a hypothetical 6 LPL boat would only deal 30 damage alphas.

[WolvesX]

Thank you for your opinions and thoughts.

Now Paul, what where your thoughts when you NERFed the LPL?

[Deathlike]

You got your answer in the late Dev update... except there's zero specifics.

[jeffsw6]

MustrumRidcully, on 25 July 2013 - 03:38 AM, said:

The poster before you suggested that longer beam durations are an advantage, but the fact is that the superior weapon for quite a long time now is a weapon without any duration at all!

That's why I think his idea would be good for noobs who need a weapon to leg light-opponents, but not good for experienced players or for any other purpose. Given that SPL and LPL are worthless today, though, would this dramatic change to pulse lasers be a helpful crutch for new players?

[MustrumRidcully]

jeffsw6, on 25 July 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

That's why I think his idea would be good for noobs who need a weapon to leg light-opponents, but not good for experienced players or for any other purpose. Given that SPL and LPL are worthless today, though, would this dramatic change to pulse lasers be a helpful crutch for new players?

I am not convinced it would be the right way. You mean it acts as a weapon that with little skill input gives good power input, but if you have a decent amount of skill, you will move to a better weapon?

I forgot the game design concept behind this - and it can be a good thing. But I am not really convinced that the sustained DPS way can actually achieve this without causing issues elsewhere. I think a weapon that is hit-scan and has a high rate of fire is kinda noob friendly, too. The crucial aspect is - hit-scan, no beam duration, high rate of fire. That's good too manage. But it leaves little room for defensive torso twisting, which is the weakness of a rapid fire weapon and might be the reason that experienced players will want to move forward to a slower firing weapon, even if it'S more challenging to hit with it.

[Sephlock]

"Do not ask which creature screams in the night. Do not question who waits for you in the shadow. It is my cry that wakes you in the night, and my body that crouches in the shadow. I am Paul Inouye and you are the puppet that dances to my tune..." —The Book of MechWarrior Online

[jeffsw6]

MustrumRidcully, on 26 July 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

I am not convinced it would be the right way. You mean it acts as a weapon that with little skill input gives good power input, but if you have a decent amount of skill, you will move to a better weapon?

Think of it like a machine gun, but with range, no cone-of-fire, and it would produce heat. It might be a great tool for newbie players.

Just to throw out some numbers, imagine LPL did 4 DPS for 2 heat/sec, giving it similar heat-efficiency to AC/2 (better than any other laser) but its value is limited by it being continuous-fire. You could fire just that one weapon in a heat-neutral setup and use it to fend off a light mech -- or else you will eventually burn off one of his legs. However, this weapon won't be useful for much else because you aren't torso-twisting and your damage is spraying all over your opponent.

You might say 4 DPS and 2 HPS is too strong. Maybe it is; I'm just giving some numbers. But keep in mind, LPL weighs the same as an AC/2 with 1 ton of ammunition; and AC/2 has superior range and crit properties compared to this re-imagined LPL.

If you compared it to ML, the re-imagined LPL would be very similar to chain-firing Medium Lasers at your enemy, except chain-firing MLs would actually do a little bit more damage (for more heat) but they are flexible because you can alpha them at the same time when you need.

So this would make the LPL a crutch for newbies. That might be the best thing they could do with it. What do you think?

[MustrumRidcully]

Actually, I am more leaning towards 4 DPS and 2 HPS for a sustained fire weapon is too weak. I think the AC/2 is sh*t. The only good part of it might be the shaking it inflicts on other players, and the nice sound it creates when you roll your fingers over your weapon groups (or macro it.).

[jeffsw6]

MustrumRidcully, on 26 July 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

Actually, I am more leaning towards 4 DPS and 2 HPS for a sustained fire weapon is too weak.

That may be true. I think it would take play-testing to arrive at good values. It's probably impossible to get it right with a guess since there aren't any weapons with comparable mechanics.

[Sephlock]

Could some of the crazier nerfs (pulse lasers in general, llas, erllas) be intended to help out lights?

[WolvesX]

What the problem with answering a simple question, Paul?

[Deathlike]

LPL is OP! That's why LL, ERLL, LPL are linked in holy matrimony.

But hey, they will get a duration reduction, so yay?

[Stoicblitzer]

lol idk. i want to see pgi run some 8mans again. paul and bryan can use lbxs and large pulse lasers.

[subgenius]

Has anyone given them a try with the reduced beam duration?

Personally I would have preferred a heat reduction or a range increase, but this might be interesting...

[FupDup]

subgenius, on 30 July 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

Has anyone given them a try with the reduced beam duration?

Personally I would have preferred a heat reduction or a range increase, but this might be interesting...

The duration hasn't been reduced yet.

[subgenius]

Ah my bad, I thought it was in this last patch...

Have to wait and see then.

[jeffsw6]

I haven't bothered reading the latest patch notes. Are you saying that the LL heat-scale-group was linked together with ERLL and LPL, similar to PPC/ERPPC group? I mean, ERLL and LPL are total trash weapons anyway so no one will care right away, but wow ... tweaking the heat-scale system to make it even worse than it already was.

Kind of like wrecking your car, then getting out and kicking a few dents in the fender for good measure.

[Deathlike]

For LPL to be reasonably viable... one or more of the following needs to change:

1) Increase range... to 350m-360m. LPL is closer to a medium laser in range, and the obvious characteristics of the medium laser is a lot more appealing than LPL...

2) Lower heat... it would be fine if there's a corresponding damage nerf (it would still be above 10 pts of damage). Lowering LPL heat from 8.6 to even 7.6 (1 pt difference) is enough.

3) Increase LL-ERLL-LPL threshold from 2 weapons to 3. It should not need further explanation.

There... it's better balanced than it was before.

[WolvesX]

Deathlike, on 30 July 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

For LPL to be reasonably viable... one or more of the following needs to change:

1) Increase range... to 350m-360m. LPL is closer to a medium laser in range, and the obvious characteristics of the medium laser is a lot more appealing than LPL...

2) Lower heat... it would be fine if there's a corresponding damage nerf (it would still be above 10 pts of damage). Lowering LPL heat from 8.6 to even 7.6 (1 pt difference) is enough.

3) Increase LL-ERLL-LPL threshold from 2 weapons to 3. It should not need further explanation.

There... it's better balanced than it was before.

So simple and so true, written in 34 secounds I guess and still better than Pauls "i d e a s".