Jump to content

@ Paul Inouye : Why Did You Nerf The Large Pulse Lasers?


306 replies to this topic

Poll: @ Paul Inouye : Why Did You Nerf The Large Pulse Lasers? (305 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you want to know why Paul did nerf the LPL?

  1. Yes. (241 votes [79.02%])

    Percentage of vote: 79.02%

  2. No. (50 votes [16.39%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.39%

  3. Other (explain) (14 votes [4.59%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.59%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 jeffsw6

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,258 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY (suburbs)

Posted 04 July 2013 - 12:27 PM

View PostDeathlike, on 04 July 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

If they boosted LPL damage by .6 AND only increased heat by like .2 (from 7.3 to 7.5 instead of 8.5), I wouldn't have been complaining.

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. However, if it doesn't have a very significant dmg/heat or DPS advantage compared to LL, it will never be good; because the LL can be used in more situations (longer range.)

What they should have done is left the LPL's damage the hell alone and reduced its heat a lot.

View PostVictor Morson, on 04 July 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

And people wonder why I don't have faith in our direction or "upcoming aggressive changes" or that Paul being "aware of the situation" means he understands the situation.

They literally nerf'ed a weapon that they nerf'ed out of existence a year prior!

Paul is totally clueless. I think that is self-evident. Because, you know, nerfing LPL, a weapon only valuable to brawlers, is way more important than fixing SRMs, a weapon that is only valuable to brawlers, which they promised 3 months ago to fix soon.

View PostTehSBGX, on 04 July 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

Pretty sure the whole "Bringing pulse lasers in line" thing is part of a series of tweaks to pulse lasers. Small Pulse got a buff, becuase of this so theres prolly going to be further tweaks on pulses after this. I could be wrong, but this is the only way this could make sense to me, it's part of a series of tweaks.

Yeah for all those mechs who have tons of extra energy slots and can't afford to put anything over 0.5 tons in them, but they have plenty of heat sinks to waste on firing ultra-short-range weapons that now are not heat-efficient.

View PostTimePeriod, on 04 July 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

PGI is doing things that is contradicting the gameplay of the game community anyone with a brain.

There, I fixed it for you.

View PostTarrasque, on 04 July 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

Ostensibly, this means that they wanted to get a baseline and collect metrics on how the lasers work in actual gameplay

That's stupid. armyof1 stops just short of telling us why...

View Postarmyof1, on 04 July 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

Data for data's sake is pointless.

You would have to be a window-licking moron to equip LPLs right now. They are WORTHLESS. Engagement ranges are currently huge for all mechs that can really equip more than 1-2 LPLs, and they aren't good for light mechs because those guys need more alpha (just use more MPLs) or less beam duration and more flexibility (just use ERPPCs.)

Whatever "data" they get on the usage of Large Pulse Lasers is only from idiots who don't understand that it is not just a waste of 2 tons, even if the ******* LPL was the same tons as LL, the LPL would STILL BE TRASH because of the reduced RANGE causing you to deal significantly less damage at typical engagement ranges in the current maps & meta!

You can't get useful data on a weapon that is gimp and only used by bad players. The fact that no one uses it is the only data that has any value. The only weapon that can give useful data right now is PPC. You can't even really infer decent conclusions about the performance of the Gauss Rifle right now, which is still O/P, but that fact is somewhat hidden by PPCs being even MORE O/P due to no ammo requirement, less weight and slots, more mechs can mount them, and so on. If PPCs were deleted from the game tomorrow you'd see Gauss Rifles return as the dominant extreme-range weapon inside of a week. So even a weapon that is already OP is eclipsed, information is hidden, by the fact that a different weapon is "the most OP."

AAARGH

#42 hammerreborn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,063 posts
  • LocationAlexandria, VA

Posted 04 July 2013 - 12:28 PM

Oh look, the @ dev titles are back....yay

Not to mention he already explained in the post why it was changed to be that way...but whatever. Reading is for you know what.

Edited by hammerreborn, 04 July 2013 - 12:29 PM.


#43 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 04 July 2013 - 12:32 PM

View Postjeffsw6, 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. However, if it doesn't have a very significant dmg/heat or DPS advantage compared to LL, it will never be good; because the LL can be used in more situations (longer range.)

What they should have done is left the LPL's damage the hell alone and reduced its heat a lot.


Well, my personal change for it is to buff the range from 300m to 350m or 360m.. that would make it semi-comparable to LL w/o infringing on the LL's territory and not be stuck in the "better off stuffing med lasers" line of thinking.

Quote

You would have to be a window-licking moron to equip LPLs right now. They are WORTHLESS. Engagement ranges are currently huge for all mechs that can really equip more than 1-2 LPLs, and they aren't good for light mechs because those guys need more alpha (just use more MPLs) or less beam duration and more flexibility (just use ERPPCs.)

Whatever "data" they get on the usage of Large Pulse Lasers is only from idiots who don't understand that it is not just a waste of 2 tons, even if the ******* LPL was the same tons as LL, the LPL would STILL BE TRASH because of the reduced RANGE causing you to deal significantly less damage at typical engagement ranges in the current maps & meta!

You can't get useful data on a weapon that is gimp and only used by bad players. The fact that no one uses it is the only data that has any value. The only weapon that can give useful data right now is PPC. You can't even really infer decent conclusions about the performance of the Gauss Rifle right now, which is still O/P, but that fact is somewhat hidden by PPCs being even MORE O/P due to no ammo requirement, less weight and slots, more mechs can mount them, and so on. If PPCs were deleted from the game tomorrow you'd see Gauss Rifles return as the dominant extreme-range weapon inside of a week. So even a weapon that is already OP is eclipsed, information is hidden, by the fact that a different weapon is "the most OP."


Well, I still see them on a Spider-5V and 5K... surely they aren't that bad... :)

Quote

AAARGH


Indeed.

#44 Victor Morson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 6,370 posts
  • LocationAnder's Moon

Posted 04 July 2013 - 12:32 PM

View Postjeffsw6, 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. However, if it doesn't have a very significant dmg/heat or DPS advantage compared to LL, it will never be good; because the LL can be used in more situations (longer range.)


The LPL was good in 2012, then they decided the balance it had was a bug so "fixed it." It's been completely worthless ever since. (Check my sig link.)

But I can say without a doubt the LPL is not a good brawling weapon, having actually tried it rather extensively, in it's current form. It's worse by far than a regular Large Laser in every possible way. The duration isn't short enough to make the aiming advantage work, and the damage is too low for it's ROF and heat.

It literally is irredeemable with it's current stats.

#45 jeffsw6

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,258 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY (suburbs)

Posted 04 July 2013 - 12:34 PM

View PostDeathlike, on 04 July 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

Well, I still see them on a Spider-5V and 5K... surely they aren't that bad... :)

Even the SDR-5K which can only use ONE ENERGY WEAPON should just equip an ERPPC. Why? He has plenty of heat capacity because HE CAN ONLY HAVE ONE ENERGY WEAPON so he might as well get the best energy weapon there is. If you don't care about heat, and an SDR-5K never will, you should buy an ERPPC.

My point is, anyone using an SDR-5K with any energy weapon other than an ERPPC is dumb. Those equipping an LPL instead of an LL, even more dumb.

Edited by jeffsw6, 04 July 2013 - 12:35 PM.


#46 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 04 July 2013 - 12:36 PM

View Postjeffsw6, on 04 July 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

Even the SDR-5K which can only use ONE ENERGY WEAPON should just equip an ERPPC. Why? He has plenty of heat capacity because HE CAN ONLY HAVE ONE ENERGY WEAPON so he might as well get the best energy weapon there is. If you don't care about heat, and an SDR-5K never will, you should buy an ERPPC.

My point is, anyone using an SDR-5K with any energy weapon other than an ERPPC is dumb. Those equipping an LPL instead of an LL, even more dumb.


I think you mean ER Large... relax.

I thought the :) was a giveaway of the joke.

#47 PEEFsmash

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,280 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 04 July 2013 - 12:38 PM

View Postjeffsw6, on 04 July 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

Even the SDR-5K which can only use ONE ENERGY WEAPON should just equip an ERPPC. Why? He has plenty of heat capacity because HE CAN ONLY HAVE ONE ENERGY WEAPON so he might as well get the best energy weapon there is. If you don't care about heat, and an SDR-5K never will, you should buy an ERPPC.

My point is, anyone using an SDR-5K with any energy weapon other than an ERPPC is dumb. Those equipping an LPL instead of an LL, even more dumb.


That is a great idea. I'll just strap that ERPPC right into my only energy hardpoint in my CT! Should fit perfectly! How could those people using LLs or LPLs be dumb enough not to equip an ERPPC?! Maddening, right?

#48 armyof1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 1,770 posts

Posted 04 July 2013 - 12:52 PM

View PostTarrasque, on 04 July 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:


Yeah, because I'm sure that an overhaul of any/all pulse lasers to different values that would really effect them would have been received FANTASTICALLY... Maybe they're trying to do things a little less like a massive pendulum swing (like most people have asked), but I guess you can never please anyone in these parts.


Nerfing an already underpowered weapon is pointless. If you have any reason why I'm wrong about this then please enlighten me. This change in itself is a choice to make the pendulum swing even further, by making a weak weapon even weaker which would automatically require a big change to balance it back.

Edited by armyof1, 04 July 2013 - 12:55 PM.


#49 Victor Morson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 6,370 posts
  • LocationAnder's Moon

Posted 04 July 2013 - 12:56 PM

View Postarmyof1, on 04 July 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:


Nerfing an already underpowered weapon is pointless. If you have any reason why I'm wrong about this then please enlighten me. This change in itself is a choice to make the pendulum swing even further, by making a weak weapon even weaker which would automatically require a big change to balance it back.


Twice. Nerfing it twice.

In a row.

PGI vs Pulse Lasers, since 2012:
Posted Image

Edited by Victor Morson, 04 July 2013 - 12:58 PM.


#50 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 04 July 2013 - 12:59 PM

View Postarmyof1, on 04 July 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

Nerfing an already underpowered weapon is pointless. If you have any reason why I'm wrong about this then please enlighten me. This change in itself is a choice to make the pendulum swing even further, by making a weak weapon even weaker which would automatically require a big change to balance it back.


This is what nerfing the LPL looks like to the rest of us...

Niche -> None -> Nay -> No -> N

Edited by Deathlike, 04 July 2013 - 01:00 PM.


#51 New Breed

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,028 posts

Posted 04 July 2013 - 01:10 PM

I use my Atlas RS 4 LPL maybe once a week. Just to get my fix for the best sound ever.

Pretty much it's only worth now :) lol

#52 Victor Morson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 6,370 posts
  • LocationAnder's Moon

Posted 04 July 2013 - 01:12 PM

View PostGhost Bear, on 04 July 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

I use my Atlas RS 4 LPL maybe once a week. Just to get my fix for the best sound ever.

Pretty much it's only worth now :) lol


Before they wrecked them in 2012 I loved LPL Atlas zombies. They were a ton of fun to play and a totally viable option.

There's no :) big enough in the world to describe them now. I feel for you, man.

#53 Sephlock

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,819 posts

Posted 04 July 2013 - 01:17 PM

They're normalizing things before further tweaking.

I guess it's so they can compare the usage data easier...

We may not be using them but not everyone knows better, and hell... even I can't resist using MGs and LBX sometimes and I know better :).

#54 Grandmaster Ramrod

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • LocationComfortable Leather Chair

Posted 04 July 2013 - 02:03 PM

Why? I can only guess based on what I have read on these forums, but the reason appears to be that Paul and others are not very good at their job.

#55 Rahnu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 146 posts

Posted 04 July 2013 - 02:23 PM

View PostGrandmaster Ramrod, on 04 July 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

Why? I can only guess based on what I have read on these forums, but the reason appears to be that Paul and others are not very good at their job.

I hate to say it, but honestly? The current crew seems like some of the least qualified individuals for the position. No one that incompetent with numbers should be touching weapon balance, period. This is a massive staffing failure.

#56 Grandmaster Ramrod

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • LocationComfortable Leather Chair

Posted 04 July 2013 - 02:32 PM

View PostZyrusticae, on 04 July 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

I hate to say it, but honestly? The current crew seems like some of the least qualified individuals for the position. No one that incompetent with numbers should be touching weapon balance, period. This is a massive staffing failure.



Indeed. It is a damn shame that incompetence seems rife within PGI's walls. I had high hopes that this development team would deliver a fine game; hopes that get dashed little by little, time and time again.

#57 WolvesX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Machete
  • The Machete
  • 2,072 posts

Posted 04 July 2013 - 03:31 PM

Garth or an other person from PGI can explain that too.

Explain that nerf, that a player can understand it.

#58 Divine Decoy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 104 posts

Posted 04 July 2013 - 03:39 PM

I don't need to "KNOW WHY" i just need them to fix it. Either go back to what it was, OR lower the heat .5 to .8 degrees... my LPL boat is nuttered, and there is no need to use LPLs if not as a close range brawler..... LLs and even ER LLs are now so much better.....

#59 WolvesX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Machete
  • The Machete
  • 2,072 posts

Posted 04 July 2013 - 03:40 PM

View PostDivine Decoy, on 04 July 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

I don't need to "KNOW WHY" i just need them to fix it. Either go back to what it was, OR lower the heat .5 to .8 degrees... my LPL boat is nuttered, and there is no need to use LPLs if not as a close range brawler..... LLs and even ER LLs are now so much better.....

We need to know why, because the change was ******!

Edited by WolvesX, 04 July 2013 - 03:54 PM.


#60 TheDeckardCain

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 71 posts

Posted 04 July 2013 - 03:46 PM

View PostWolvesX, on 04 July 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

We need to know why, because the change was *tu*i*!


I love how the OP has a sense of entitlement, demanding for an answer. I believe PGI has already answered this question. I believe it was something to the effect of they were bringing in line (scale wise) vs the other pulses. They have data we don't. It could very well be that quite a few were using LPL to great effect. I don't think what little heat was added nerfed the large pulse into obscurity....





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users