36 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

I am not really happy with the performance of LLs. They should probably have a shorter beam duration and a bit less heat. (At least in this heat system.)

[LethalMezzle]

Medium Laser is pretty much perfect and the Large Laser is almost there too. They're both very effective weapons, but they're not overwhelmingly so.

You don't have to mount Medium Lasers or Large Lasers to be competitive, but if you choose to, they work very well. I think that qualifies them as a baseline weapon.

[Trauglodyte]

MustrumRidcully, on 07 July 2013 - 01:34 AM, said:

I am not really happy with the performance of LLs. They should probably have a shorter beam duration and a bit less heat. (At least in this heat system.)

The thing is, though, that the Large Laser already does more damage than its TT mirror for less heat. If you lessen the heat more than what it is now, you'll end up with a much more heat efficient weapon then even the Medium or Small versions. That would have the impact of having people flood to the Lrg Laser (again) once the PPC is tuned. What kills me is that we're using large heavy weapons for every range requirement and that is because heat isn't punishing and there isn't any bonus for using the appropriate weapon for the appropriate engagement scenario.

[MustrumRidcully]

Trauglodyte, on 07 July 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

The thing is, though, that the Large Laser already does more damage than its TT mirror for less heat. If you lessen the heat more than what it is now, you'll end up with a much more heat efficient weapon then even the Medium or Small versions. That would have the impact of having people flood to the Lrg Laser (again) once the PPC is tuned. What kills me is that we're using large heavy weapons for every range requirement and that is because heat isn't punishing and there isn't any bonus for using the appropriate weapon for the appropriate engagement scenario.

THing is, the large laser produces more damage and more heat then the TT version with pinpoint accuracy and mouse aiming and against double armor, but heat sinks still operate at their old scale of 1 heat per 10 seconds, but mechs can generate a lot of heat without suffering any penalty.

Any similarities to the table top rules are purely coincidental and don't mean a single damn thing. At least if you ignore all the differences.

If you put a weapon that dealt 21 damage and 15 heat per turn for 5 tons in the table top game, doubled the armor values, and let people choose hit locations with no attack penalty, and if you missed by 2 or less points, you just dealt damage to 2 adjacent hit locations, and you could go to 30 heat without suffering heat penalties ... could you tell me that gun was balanced?

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 07 July 2013 - 10:44 AM.

[Aym]

Large lasers MIGHT be too effective, it's impossible to tell w/out 12v12 implemented yet.

[Karl Streiger]

I think the SRM should be the current base line... yeah they make few damage. But only in comparison with other weapons.

[Victor Morson]

Welp, Large Lasers are now screwed over entirely.

On the 17th, firing over 2 begins heat penalties.

R.I.P. Large Lasers - Killed by the dumbest heat system in the world. May a flight of angels sing thee to thy rest.

[Karl Streiger]

Victor Morson, on 12 July 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

R.I.P. Large Lasers - Killed by the dumbest heat system in the world. May a flight of angels sing thee to thy rest.

Firing 3 give you the abillity to burn out a enemy cockpit quiete easy againt catapults or centurions.
I think it is acceptable - no mixed chassis uses more as 2 large laser.
Instead of raging before - lets have a look - I admit - that the BAP - ECM Hardcounter didn't caused much Streak Cats...so lets have a look how the Heat stacking will work

If there is only a sole problem i have with that - 3 large laser are worser as 2 ppc currently .

[Ralgas]

you're afraid 2ppc+gauss will laugh at the new meta, but 3 Llas + ac'20/gauss will be fine?

Edited by Ralgas, 12 July 2013 - 03:56 AM.

[Jonny Taco]

Pretty sure penalty for large lasers should be at 4, not 2...

[Gaan Cathal]

Ralgas, on 12 July 2013 - 03:55 AM, said:

you're afraid 2ppc+gauss will laugh at the new meta, but 3 Llas + ac'20/gauss will be fine?

That's an entirely accurate appraisal. The reason lasers aren't a problem like PPC is that their damage is delivered over a discrete time, causing inherent spreading of damage and enabling defensive reaction. The PPC/Gauss combo delivers all it's damage instantly to one point on the target, with no inherent spread or reactive defense available. That is why it's a problem.

[Ralgas]

lartfor, on 12 July 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

Pretty sure penalty for large lasers should be at 4, not 2...

on it's own i agree with 3, but mixing it with other weapons is a shortcoming of the new system. Needs to be regulated by dmg output of the individual weapons fired, not the "x of each type with a few that stack".

Go to that level and you can even return 3 ppc, as long as you lump the gauss in with the ac/20 at the second wep causes penalty. 2 gauss or 1 gauss 1 ppc might barely feel it but add another and wep and double dip of the penalty and then look hard at 2 ppc gauss's heat efficiency .....

Gaan Cathal, on 12 July 2013 - 04:15 AM, said:

That's an entirely accurate appraisal. The reason lasers aren't a problem like PPC is that their damage is delivered over a discrete time, causing inherent spreading of damage and enabling defensive reaction. The PPC/Gauss combo delivers all it's damage instantly to one point on the target, with no inherent spread or reactive defense available. That is why it's a problem.

but it's still entirely possible to put it all in one location. leave the loophole, the QQ will flow.....

Edit: the gods of assault may shug it of, but it wont make much difference 1 or the other to most of our 60 tonners and below

Edited by Ralgas, 12 July 2013 - 04:23 AM.

[Inkarnus]

Problem is with large lasers alot of Hitdetection issues
giving alot of false impression over it
it would be if they nerf ppcs the next go to weapon!

Edited by Inkarnus, 12 July 2013 - 04:21 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Ralgas, on 12 July 2013 - 04:19 AM, said:

but it's still entirely possible to put it all in one location. leave the loophole, the QQ will flow.....

So? It's entirely possible to put it all in one location by chainfiring. The problem isn't the same weapon hitting the same location more than once in a match, it's being able to reduce the amount of skill and effort involved in aiming by only needing to have reticule on target for a tenth of a second when other setups are required to maintain that aim for a full second with no corresponding reward for the extra effort required.

[Ralgas]

Gaan Cathal, on 12 July 2013 - 04:24 AM, said:

So? It's entirely possible to put it all in one location by chainfiring. The problem isn't the same weapon hitting the same location more than once in a match, it's being able to reduce the amount of skill and effort involved in aiming by only needing to have reticule on target for a tenth of a second when other setups are required to maintain that aim for a full second with no corresponding reward for the extra effort required.

And that's where pgi disagrees, obviously. Now if you read my full post, i put forward an idea upping the limit while bypassing the issue. thoughts on that?

[Gaan Cathal]

Ralgas, on 12 July 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

And that's where pgi disagrees, obviously. Now if you read my full post, i put forward an idea upping the limit while bypassing the issue. thoughts on that?

The guys who think that true double heatsinks would allow a Jenner to output more damage in 3s than it's hardpoints and tonnage are physically capable of disagree with me? Well. I'll be rethinking my position now then.


As for implementing heat damage based on total alpha output as you suggested, it's a better model than PGI's mathematically, but possibly slightly less practical on a coding level. The main problem with it is that it's still a heat penalty for large alphas. That's firstly reactive and thus doesn't stop anyone doing it and secondly punishes DoT 'alpha' as much as pinpoint alpha meaning pinpoint alpha is still better, just with a different weapon combo. PGI's method also has (for them) an additional advantage in that it will please the idiots that think boating is bad because boating is bad and should possibly be a warcrime.

The core problem with both methods (although yours is superior, certainly) is that it's a heat penalty for alpha over a certain number.
A: This won't stop high alpha, just make it cost more
B: Drastically lowering Heat Containment and increasing Dissipation proportionally would do the job better, has been discussed repeatedly and in depth and was rejected by PGI because it would 'kill builds that aren't currently a problem'. (Unlike the Swayback they've just nerfed. That was obviously way overpowered.)
C: It doesn't do anything about how damn easy aiming with frontloaded damage weapons is in this game, and the fact that there is no reward for using higher skill floor weapons like lasers, it's actually punished.

[Ralgas]

Gaan Cathal, on 12 July 2013 - 04:44 AM, said:

The guys who think that true double heatsinks would allow a Jenner to output more damage in 3s than it's hardpoints and tonnage are physically capable of disagree with me? Well. I'll be rethinking my position now then.


As for implementing heat damage based on total alpha output as you suggested, it's a better model than PGI's mathematically, but possibly slightly less practical on a coding level. The main problem with it is that it's still a heat penalty for large alphas. That's firstly reactive and thus doesn't stop anyone doing it and secondly punishes DoT 'alpha' as much as pinpoint alpha meaning pinpoint alpha is still better, just with a different weapon combo. PGI's method also has (for them) an additional advantage in that it will please the idiots that think boating is bad because boating is bad and should possibly be a warcrime.

The core problem with both methods (although yours is superior, certainly) is that it's a heat penalty for alpha over a certain number.
A: This won't stop high alpha, just make it cost more
B: Drastically lowering Heat Containment and increasing Dissipation proportionally would do the job better, has been discussed repeatedly and in depth and was rejected by PGI because it would 'kill builds that aren't currently a problem'. (Unlike the Swayback they've just nerfed. That was obviously way overpowered.)
C: It doesn't do anything about how damn easy aiming with frontloaded damage weapons is in this game, and the fact that there is no reward for using higher skill floor weapons like lasers, it's actually punished.

On it's own no, imo we still need timed convergence back or a non-random, predictable cof mechanic. But if they can link 2 weps (ppc/erppc) i'd suggest arch typing them into 3 levels (i just linked the full explanation as i'd see it working in my sig) is certainly possible

My philosophy on these matters is rather than beating my head on a brick wall as some around here have want to do telling pgi to change it completely or they're wrong, read into what they are trying to achieve and actively trying to improve it to a degree that we can all live with.

To date they wont budge on heat caps (although i've called for heat containment at the least to be removed plenty and it's still my personal stance)

ATD39 indicates the hud mechanics won't be touched until sept/oct earliest when a hud rework is possibly in order (they only state "after launch"). So that's the best we can hope for/expect ( as i see it) by then for any inaccuracy mechanic other than the "jump reticule" and "timed convergence"

Given those 2 factors, and the fact they are willing to play with these penalties it's play devils advocate. As for my suggestion,

A: it wont stop high alpha's but it will curb the volume of them, and catch out most of the game breakers pgi's system has as described, along with not screwing over several cannon builds (unfortunately the swayback is still going to have to live with multiple weapon groups though)

B: I don't disagree, beyond the unlikelihood of it actually being implemented in any sort of timely fashion

C: Once again, this is just part of a larger puzzle, and certainly not separate of further heat/rof/dmg tweaks necessary on individual weapon systems to bring them into line, shutdown taking dmg @ 100% is another of these steps.

Edited by Ralgas, 12 July 2013 - 05:42 AM.