306 replies to this topic

[Inkarnus]

For anybody defending LPL in there old values
they were far to powerfull they could net you around 600-900 damage ez.
If i boat 3 in my highlander on tourmaline in a ppc meta game
seems there is something wrong with em and yes
bringing them in line is a step closer to bringing all
weapons in line. Including PPCs as i see the LPL
change as a starting series of tweaks.

Edited by Inkarnus, 05 July 2013 - 03:14 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Inkarnus, on 05 July 2013 - 03:12 AM, said:

For anybody defending LPL in there old values
they were far to powerfull they could net you around 600-900 damage ez.
If i boat 3 in my highlander on tourmaline in a ppc meta game
seems there is something wrong with em and yes
bringing them in line is a step closer to bringing all
weapons in line. Including PPCs as i see the LPL
change as a starting series of tweaks.

I think you make a mistake here; This game isn't about getting the highest damage number at the end of the match.

If I headshot every enemy on the field with a Dual Gauss Catapult, I might deal only 240 damage in the whole match, but still won it singlehandedly.

ONe of the key aspects of the PPC meta is that you tend to deal pinpoint damage with PPCs and ballistics, and if you're a good shot, you need less damage for your kills than you would with lasers or missiles.

[jeffsw6]

WolvesX, on 04 July 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

13 months to clans, just saying.

Right after 12v12 or follow-up to the "temporary" SRM fix, right?

Postumus, on 04 July 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

A good fix would be to leave the heat, but increase large pulse damage, reduce duration or decrease the recycle time. As a 7-ton weapon, it is going to be compared with the PPC, so the tradeoff should be less range for more damage. Right now you are sacrificing 240 meters of optimal range for an extra .6 damage. If the damage was increased to about 12 or 12.5, this might make sense.

I think mechs die too quickly right now, and raising damage is probably unwise. That's the only reason I disagree with you -- I do not want to see quadruple armor. Instead, the LPL could have more heat efficiency (increasing long-term DPS but not alpha) or greater range (making the weapon more flexible.)

MustrumRidcully, on 05 July 2013 - 01:30 AM, said:

Remember when they wrote something to the effect that they don't want spreadsheet warrior opinion, t hey want information of the game?

I think they are just using Paul's Opinion Warrior. They clearly are not basing balance decisions on game-play data, or they would realize by now that PPCs and Gauss Rifles need to be fixed. You can't draw conclusions about under-powered weapons in a game where O/P ones dominate the field; so any game-play data for weapons which are not PPCs is truly useless.

[Ragnar Darkmane]

jeffsw6, on 04 July 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

No man, that still wouldn't make it good. LPL sucks because of MAPS and META forcing long-range engagements. We will never find out if LPL is really useful until brawling is possible.

Small correction: LPLs suck because they get dominated in long range engagements by PPCs and even if they make it into brawling range they will get blown to bits by dual AC 20 Jagers that dominate EVERYTHING up close.

[jeffsw6]

Ragnar Darkmane, on 05 July 2013 - 05:14 AM, said:

Small correction: LPLs suck because they get dominated in long range engagements by PPCs and even if they make it into brawling range they will get blown to bits by dual AC 20 Jagers that dominate EVERYTHING up close.

Are you saying the LPL can't be made into a good brawling weapon without eliminating the utility of AC/20?

Your post basically made me think this: If 28 tons of LPL (4 weapons) had really good heat-efficiency, a sufficiently large mech with enough hard-points (Stalker) could fire them, with no projectile speed and uber-fast aiming compared to a Jagermech, and deal competitive damage to two AC/20s until it ran out of heat capacity.

That mech would have no ammo limit, no 12-slot weapon that gets destroyed fairly easily by incoming PPC fire, and you can fit two LPLs into basically any chassis that could manage to hold one AC/20.

So if the LPL was buffed up to be a premier brawling weapon, the choice would be:

• AC/20 if you want brawling endurance (less heat)
  
• LPL if you want no ammo limit or chassis other than the few that can hold two AC/20

Basically correct?

[Ragnar Darkmane]

jeffsw6, on 05 July 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

Are you saying the LPL can't be made into a good brawling weapon without eliminating the utility of AC/20?

That mech would have no ammo limit, no 12-slot weapon that gets destroyed fairly easily by incoming PPC fire, and you can fit two LPLs into basically any chassis that could manage to hold one AC/20.

So if the LPL was buffed up to be a premier brawling weapon, the choice would be:

• AC/20 if you want brawling endurance (less heat)
  
• LPL if you want no ammo limit or chassis other than the few that can hold two AC/20

Basically correct?

Basically what I wanted to say is that non-AC 40 builds simply cannot compete in brawling because you can't keep up with a 40 damage alpha (not counting possible secondary weapons like MLs) every 4 seconds that does not even run the risk of overheating. If the devs made AC 40 impossible and made sure that mechs could only run a single AC 20 max (even without changing the stats [except slightly reducing range]) other brawling weapons would stand a change again. Your post summed up the situation we would have then pretty nicely.

Edited by Ragnar Darkmane, 05 July 2013 - 05:37 AM.

[MonkeyCheese]

Aint gonna get into the TT agument as im not a TT person but the thing is in my point of view with the way this game and combat works pules lasers should be the perfect fit for all fast light mechs as quick hit and run weapons thanks to their short duration and damage over normal lasers when lights have limited hardpoints and space and the fact that light mechs have the speed to get in range take a swat at the enemy then run far away.

Problems are in such small tonnage frames the pulse lasers are just not worth it when it comes to light mechs.

• The range of the MPL and LPL are terrible for fragile light mechs compared to the ML and LL for less tonnage/heat.

• The heat is bad for lights where every heatsink counts.

• The tonnage for more damage and a shorter duration for the SPL,MPL and LPL over their non pulse variants is bad when usually every ton counts as heatsinks, jumpjets, ferro and endo, ams, bap and ecm are usually more beneficial for light mechs .

Example 1 - why take four quick hitting SPL (4tons, 13.6 damage, 180 range) on a jenner when four ML (4tons, 20 damage, 540 range) for the same tonnage gives better range and damage for a heat tradeoff?



Example 2 - why take four quick hitting MPL (8tons, 24 damage, 360 range) on a jenner when four ML (4tons, 20 damage, 540 range) gives you better range and four extra tons to play with on your light mech?

I use to run LPL builds on ravens and commandos with success months ago and in closed beta but no point now.

tldr - Pulse lasers should be a perfect match for light mechs but there is just too many downsides to taking them over normal lasers.

Edited by MonkeyCheese, 05 July 2013 - 06:29 AM.

[jeffsw6]

Ragnar Darkmane, on 05 July 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

Basically what I wanted to say is that non-AC 40 builds simply cannot compete in brawling

My thinking is the LPL could be buffed up enough (with heat reduction) to compete with AC/40 mechs but it runs the risk of being not just an alternative to AC/40, but the only way to brawl.

The AC/20 has the following weaknesses vs two LPL:

• Useful range against mobile target limited by slow projectile velocity
  
• Huge slot requirement means an AC/20 is easily destroyed by crits (even with its high hitpoints)
  
• Ammunition takes yet more slots and tons, and limits your endurance (run out of ammo)

But it has these strengths:

• AC/20 heat is negligible
  
• The current crit system means AC/20 is far more likely to destroy enemy weapons/equipment
  
• Damage will all be applied to same enemy section

In addition, the only current mech that can equip two AC/20 has poor maneuverability / arm articulation, relatively weak armor and hit-boxes, etc. Many heavy-assault mechs could equip two pairs of LPLs and several could install one AC/20 and some number of LPLs.


My proposal is this: Buff up the LPL's damage-per-heat and range so it is a flexible weapon that doesn't eclipse the AC/20 for short-range brawling, but also doesn't create a "new PPC." Let the LPL do 100% damage at 400m and fall off to zero damage by 600m, put damage back at 10, and change its heat to 5.

That makes it a DPS monster but a very heavy one that won't work at super-range, and won't work as well as an AC/20 at the range you can make AC/20 rounds land where you want them.

MonkeyCheese, on 05 July 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

tldr - Pulse lasers should be a perfect match for light mechs but there is just too many downsides to taking them over normal lasers.

If there was one between 2 tons and 7 tons, it might be more light-oriented. As it stands, the MPL is only useful when boated and used by a light-striker, or a Stalker that can carry 6 of them and back them up with a lot of SRMs (that are currently useless) so he can have such a high alpha that the Stalker can cut down any opponent before he overheats -- and then hope he can retreat to safety and cool down.


Also, none of this **** will work as long as the map team continues to create more maps where long-range engagements are the only realistic option. We need more variety in engagement range, which means PGI needs to invest some of their map money in urban maps that do not force all the mechs to cross open areas where they will be picked apart by PPC fire.

Edited by jeffsw6, 05 July 2013 - 07:24 AM.

[WolvesX]

Still no answer from Paul.

[LethalRose]

The old LPL had a DPS / HPS ratio of 1.37. 2nd only to small lasers.
The new LPL has a DPS / HPS ratio of 1.25. Making them inline with the other energy weapons.

You missed the post where this was explained.

This is only an 8% nerf. I still think LPL's are one of the strongest weapons in pug games.

Edited by LethalRose, 05 July 2013 - 09:49 AM.

[WolvesX]

LethalRose, on 05 July 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

The old LPL had a DPS / HPS ratio of 1.37. 2nd only to small lasers.
The new LPL has a DPS / HPS ratio of 1.25. Making them inline with the other energy weapons.

You missed the post where this was explained.

This is only an 8% nerf. I still think LPL's are one of the strongest weapons in pug games.

Serious or troll?

[armyof1]

LethalRose, on 05 July 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

The old LPL had a DPS / HPS ratio of 1.37. 2nd only to small lasers.
The new LPL has a DPS / HPS ratio of 1.25. Making them inline with the other energy weapons.

You missed the post where this was explained.

This is only an 8% nerf. I still think LPL's are one of the strongest weapons in pug games.

That's just dumb number balancing. Sure if we only had pulse lasers this might make some kind of sense. But when LL and PPC are already better, to nerf the LPL even further is plain ignorant.

[Jonny Taco]

LethalRose, on 05 July 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

The old LPL had a DPS / HPS ratio of 1.37. 2nd only to small lasers.
The new LPL has a DPS / HPS ratio of 1.25. Making them inline with the other energy weapons.

You missed the post where this was explained.

This is only an 8% nerf. I still think LPL's are one of the strongest weapons in pug games.

/facepalm

stop trolling please.

[Homeless Bill]

WolvesX, on 05 July 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

Still no answer from Paul.

If this thread got an answer and mine didn't, I'd be pissed =P

You're dreaming though if you really think they're going to show up here and defend their rationale.

[Cubivorre]

I know why - for changes that are to be made later down the road. Don't read much, do you?

[WolvesX]

Homeless Bill, on 05 July 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

If this thread got an answer and mine didn't, I'd be pissed =P

You're dreaming though if you really think they're going to show up here and defend their rationale.

I just wanna know what he was/is thinking. My request is much more simple tham your threads.

Cubivorre, on 05 July 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

I know why - for changes that are to be made later down the road. Don't read much, do you?

So why nerf them in this patch?

[armyof1]

Cubivorre, on 05 July 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

I know why - for changes that are to be made later down the road. Don't read much, do you?

Just like you don't read the thread before posting, since this worthless reason has already been mentioned.

[Shakespeare]

FupDup, on 04 July 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

PGI felt like making it so all pulse lasers had +20% damage and +25% heat compared to the standard laser of the same class. It's pretty much just because they said so.


Their error is that the LPL requires a much larger weight sacrifice than any other pulse laser, so it should naturally get higher bonuses than the smaller pulses (instead of this stupid standardization).

That's the really strange thing - it's almost like a new guy was put in charge of energy weps and basically undid all the tuning that's BEEN done. The LPL used to be hotter, then it was given a reduced heat penalty - because when it had a higher heat output compared to LLs, and the addtl tonnage, it was not a great weapon.
Now we're back to giving it more heat? What, to combat all those Poptarting P̶P̶C̶ LPL boaters?
We didn't need a 'normalization' pass. They had one already, it was the original, TT-derived numbers, and we've been tweaking ever since.
Why in the world did they 'Untweak'? Now, when Pulse lasers come up in the balance passes, they'll be (eventually) re-tweaked.... sounds like make-work to me.

Edited by Shakespeare, 05 July 2013 - 10:19 AM.

[Cubivorre]

armyof1, on 05 July 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

Just like you don't read the thread before posting, since this worthless reason has already been mentioned.

No need to read when the answer has already been stated. Does it make it a good change? No. But that is what was done and he stated why. /thread

[armyof1]

Cubivorre, on 05 July 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

No need to read when the answer has already been stated. Does it make it a good change? No. But that is what was done and he stated why. /thread

Yeah he might as well have said "because of reasons", because that would make as much sense.