0
Deathlike, 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.
Victor 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!
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.
TehSBGX, 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.
TimePeriod, 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.
Tarrasque, 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...
armyof1, 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
lol
.
