64 replies to this topic

[PEEFsmash]

This would be a great change, and make a lightweight laser other than the Medium Laser worth taking. Right now, med lasers are the only thing worth taking out of smalls, small pulse, med pulse, and meds.

[Tempered]

Upping the range is effectively upping the damage for small lasers. Most small laser hits currently are made outside of optimal range, which means reduced damage. It also means that small laser boats, like the jenner, have a low heat alpha strike every couple seconds, which is easily doable by any decent light pilot.

[Deathlike]

I had this idea in a different thread, but it should help somewhat.

Outside of obviously increase the SL range (135m is a nice #, at least 120m min), increasing the max range of all pulse laser weapons from 2 times the optimal range to 2.5 times would be helpful.

So here's projected #s:
SPL: 90m optimal, 225m max (this optimal range could increase to something like 100m)
MPL: 180m optimal, 450m max (LL optimal range)
LPL: 300m optimal, 750m max (between Gauss and ERPPC optimal range).

[Nubirak]

Regarding small lasers, I think the problem with them is the hardpoint system. I usually dismiss them because I have the tonnage for medium lasers, but I wouldn't have enough hardpoint slots to fit enough small lasers to compensate. The hardpoint system really favors big guns, so I think the small outliers like mgs, small lasers and flamers kind of get shafted to secondary priority weapon systems.

A sign of this is that, traditionally, the more common builds that field small lasers are on variants with unusually high amounts of energy hardpoints, like the jenner and the hunchback.

Maybe these small weapons can get a hardpoint value of less than one*, so you could field a higher number of them on any given build. This would enable the builder to value different configurations based on heat, engagement range and tonnage, instead of resorting to small weapons when he absolutely can't afford a heavier one.

*eg.: with a hardpoint value of 0.5, you could field 18 small lasers on a HBK-4P, while with a hardpoint value of 0.75, you could field 12. This value could be tweaked as needed for balance purposes.

[MustrumRidcully]

Tripling the SL range would not be a good idea, but doubling sounds fine. Tripling would make it better as the ML if you have the hard points for it.

Now, tripling the range of Flamers, that might work. Though if people complain about AC/2 shaking them up, I am sure the'd also copmlain about people using Flamers to blind them. Maybe rightfully so, maybe not.

[Avalios]

Double is a bit much, in a game such as this small tweaks is the way balance should be done, riasing them to 120 optimal 240 max would be a good start. Then go from there.

But this is pgi, if they do anything at all it would be triple.

[Joseph Mallan]

Alistair Winter, on 22 September 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

I've used the SPLs on my Ilya Muromets and the SL on my CTF-3D, just for the sake of variety. I have recently switched to medium lasers, It's made a huge difference. Granted, it was hilarious to get a few kills with red lasers before, but usually the joke was on me as those lasers made less damage than laser pens.


Every time someone on this forum says "they aren't meant to be _____", I just want to punch a cow square in the jaw.

It's the same reason why so many fans were happy with useless MGs, useless flamers, useless single heat sinks and a bunch of useless mechs. Because they read in a book that some things are supposed to be better than other things, and they think this computer game needs to be an exact carbon copy of the tabletop game, thinking that it's more important to stay true to every quirk of the Battletech universe rather than making a good and balanced game, with features that actually serve a purpose. I don't care what your old books tell you about this weapon or that mech. If PGI puts them in this game, they better give me a reason to use them.

My only consolation is that PGI is starting to realize their mistakes and are no longer listening to arguments like yours.

So should a hand gun have the same range as an M-16 in a FPS game? Certain weapons are actually meant to fill certain roles. Now some folks should not be making the statements you are complaining about. But Doc did get it right (and normally does). I don't want to see the weapons of MWO become ...vanilla. Small lasers should be weaker than Mediums which should be weaker than larges. Its a natural progression.

[Alistair Winter]

Avalios, on 23 September 2013 - 04:22 AM, said:

Double is a bit much, in a game such as this small tweaks is the way balance should be done, riasing them to 120 optimal 240 max would be a good start. Then go from there.
But this is pgi, if they do anything at all it would be triple.

If they take the approach they did with MG's, it's more likely that they'll increase small laser range to 95 meters, with a 1% chance of 150 meters.

[mania3c]

Not sure if agree..SL already have same dps as ML..lower heat, lower tonnage .. maybe bump range to 120m wouldn't make them over-buffed..but doubling or tripling range? no way..

[Alistair Winter]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 September 2013 - 05:19 AM, said:

So should a hand gun have the same range as an M-16 in a FPS game? Certain weapons are actually meant to fill certain roles. Now some folks should not be making the statements you are complaining about. But Doc did get it right (and normally does). I don't want to see the weapons of MWO become ...vanilla. Small lasers should be weaker than Mediums which should be weaker than larges. Its a natural progression.

There are other ways to fixing the problem, like making small lasers and small pulse lasers more like the MGs, giving them a higher rate of fire while maintaining low range. This has been suggested before and I'm not really agains the idea, although it would definitely make them less popular than if my suggestion was carried out.

I do get the point of not making MWO even more vanilla, but you also have to realize that if players can't find a combination of weapons that creates some kind of synergy, where weapon A is easily combined with weapon B and weapon C, then players are more likely to boat one of the weapon types, to ensure that they get optimal effect of all their weaponry.

So if small lasers have a range of 90 meters (the 180 meter max range is almost entirely pointless since the weapon only does 3 dmg to begin with, if you actually manage to stay on target for the full duration), most mechs won't be using them very much, because most of their armament has a much longer range. If you have 16 tons of ballistic weapons, why risk your neck trying to get that 1 ton of small lasers into range for an additional few points of damage?

Right now, you're still getting vanilla, because people are simply ignoring the red lasers. And that could still be the case if you buff the weapon without making it easy for players to achieve synergy with other weapons.

There aren't too many weapons that are meant specifically for short range (less than 120 meter) engagements. If you have an AC20 or some SRMs, then it's usually better to get some extra ammo, some extra SRM tubes, Artemis or heat sinks, instead of getting small lasers. The small lasers would have to be buffed significantly for that to change.

If we're looking specifically at light mechs - most of them have so few hardpoints that small lasers are a complete waste. It's not like a Cataphract where you have 20+ tons of ballistic weapons and just slap on a few small lasers because you have some spare weight. If you're piloting a Raven 4X and you go with 2 small lasers and 2 MGs (for maximum synergy), then your main armament weighs 2 tons. And since you only have 2 energy hard points and 2 ballistic hard points, you don't have the option of taking 4 small lasers and 4 MGs, which would actually be a sensible alternative to the standard medium lasers. If the small laser had a standard range of, say, 180 meters and maximum 360 meters, then it would actually make sense to combine it with a large laser and SRM6, for example.

In regards to your last point, I'm not suggestion that small lasers would be as powerful as medium lasers. They would still do less damage, they would still have lower DPS. But they would have a higher DPS per ton, and would encourage a different playing style as people could potentially get more lasers and heatsinks and rely on damage over time instead of burst damage.

[Joseph Mallan]

Alistair I don't disagree with most of what you are saying, but how many builds out of the hundreds use small lasers as their main weapons(Charger comes to mind!)? How many are using multiples as support weapons? I am guessing maybe 5%.

To me a light Mech really needs the up front damage v damage over time... hen again I don't live long enough to worry about DoT in a light

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 September 2013 - 05:19 AM, said:

So should a hand gun have the same range as an M-16 in a FPS game? Certain weapons are actually meant to fill certain roles. Now some folks should not be making the statements you are complaining about. But Doc did get it right (and normally does). I don't want to see the weapons of MWO become ...vanilla. Small lasers should be weaker than Mediums which should be weaker than larges. Its a natural progression.

Um, the ML isn't "weaker" than the LL. It does less damage and has shorter range, sure, but it isn't less useful. It has a much better damage:tonnage ratio (5:1 compared to 1.8:1), requires a significantly lower amount of tonnage investment (4 tons lighter), and generates less heat. The LL is not a direct upgrade to the ML. The ML, however, is currently a direct upgrade to the SL, and that is whack.

[Joseph Mallan]

FupDup, on 23 September 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

Um, the ML isn't "weaker" than the LL. It does less damage and has shorter range, sure, but it isn't less useful. It has a much better damage:tonnage ratio (5:1 compared to 1.8:1), requires a significantly lower amount of tonnage investment (4 tons lighter), and generates less heat. The LL is not a direct upgrade to the ML. The ML, however, is currently a direct upgrade to the SL, and that is whack.

So using this logic the Large Laser needs to be made better not the small. cause for 4 additional tons a Large should be Much better than a Medium. That makes more sense than making a small laser better.

[Alistair Winter]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 September 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

Alistair I don't disagree with most of what you are saying, but how many builds out of the hundreds use small lasers as their main weapons(Charger comes to mind!)? How many are using multiples as support weapons? I am guessing maybe 5%.

So you don't want this game to be vanilla, but you're fine if 1 of 3 different laser types is obsolete and not used by anyone? That seems like a contradiction to me. If you want more variety and flavour, wouldn't you want all 3 kinds of lasers to be viable choices?

Should we let the small laser suck because it sucked in tabletop and was rarely used? This sounds a lot of like the "MG is an infantry weapon" argument.

Joseph Mallan, on 23 September 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

To me a light Mech really needs the up front damage v damage over time... hen again I don't live long enough to worry about DoT in a light

DOT is usually the way to go unless you're playing a PPC jumpsniping jenner or some other silly build. SSRMs, SRM2, MGs, all those weapons that are primarily used by light mechs tend to focus on DOT. Unfortunately, the DOT from only small and medium lasers, with so few hardpoints, means that most light mechs other than the Jenner F-variant are forced to load up on some large lasers.

I personally find it ridiculous that the PPC has been a standard weapon on the smallest mechs in the game. For those interested in real world analogies (e.g. M16 vs handgun), take a look at the CPLT-K2's PPC arms and explain how a Spider has the same weapon in its tiny arms, 100% identical capabilities but 1/10th the size.

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 September 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

So using this logic the Large Laser needs to be made better not the small. cause for 4 additional tons a Large should be Much better than a Medium. That makes more sense than making a small laser better.

You missed the point.


The LL has higher damage and range than a single ML, but the ML is still a very useful weapon in its own right. Both are viable tactical choices. The LL doesn't need to be buffed, if anything it's one of the most balanced weapons in the game and should be considered a "baseline" weapon.

When comparing the ML to the SL, the SL's half weight (you only save half a ton, not very much at all) and half heat are negligible compared to the very large range sacrifice being made. If you have 2 SL versus 1 ML, the 2 SL generate identical heat as the ML and gain +1 damage, at the downsides of terrible, terrible range and taking up a little bit more critical space. 2+ ML are useful in comparison to 1 LL, so why can't 2ish SL be asymmetrically comparable to 1 ML?

Edited by FupDup, 23 September 2013 - 06:58 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

2 Small lasers
6 damage
4 heat
180M max range

1 medium lasers
5 damage
4 heat
540M Max range

They seem pretty well balanced to me. Where only 2 Mediums are required to equal a large in damage. with a bit over half the max range. Looks more like small to medium really is the right balance to my mind.

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 September 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

2 Small lasers
6 damage
4 heat
180M max range

1 medium lasers
5 damage
4 heat
540M Max range

They seem pretty well balanced to me. Where only 2 Mediums are required to equal a large in damage. with a bit over half the max range. Looks more like small to medium really is the right balance to my mind.

Maybe I'm just on an island here, but in the current gameplay I'd rather take the triple-range ML over the +1 damage paired SL. +1 damage is tiny, especially with doubled armor. The only "right balance" is ML versus LL.

As a generate rule, the longer range weapons in BT are supposed to pay up a larger amount of relative tonnage than the smaller ones to make up for the fact that they get to shoot farther. For instance, the ML versus LL case. You pay that extra weight for the ability to shoot people from farther away than 9 hexes (although MWO's range extensions mess this up). For autocannons this is especially apparent, like how the AC/20 gets to do double the damage of the AC/10 but the AC/10 is supposed to have the advantage of having a 15 hex range (again, MWO range extension issue). The Gauss is 1 ton heavier than an AC/20 and does 5 less damage. A bank of 3 Medium Lasers will do 50% more damage than a lone PPC, and lower heat (in TT at least), at the downside of shorter range. An SRM6 does 12 damage for 3 tons, whereas an LRM10 does 10 damage for 5 tons of weight. Mechs specialized around close combat are designed to have a much higher damage:tonnage ratio than mechs built for long range. Currently, the damage bonus of boating SL is too tiny to make it worth it the range sacrifice.

Edited by FupDup, 23 September 2013 - 07:08 AM.

[Pale Jackal]

mania3c, on 23 September 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

Not sure if agree..SL already have same dps as ML..lower heat, lower tonnage .. maybe bump range to 120m wouldn't make them over-buffed..but doubling or tripling range? no way..

I agree, though I think the SL is harder to use than the ML since it requires more shots fired. Oh, SL duration is also shorter.

A small buff to SL range would be fine. If I ever buy a Hunchback 4P, or a BlackJack, I might try a suite of small lasers + 2 PPCs or something. They're not awful, but most 'mechs lack the hardpoints to really boat them.

[Khobai]

I dunno about double range. Should be the same 120m as machine guns though.

[Joseph Mallan]

FupDup, on 23 September 2013 - 07:05 AM, said:

Maybe I'm just on an island here, but in the current gameplay I'd rather take the triple-range ML over the +1 damage paired SL. +1 damage is tiny, especially with doubled armor. The only "right balance" is ML versus LL.

As a generate rule, the longer range weapons in BT are supposed to pay up a larger amount of relative tonnage than the smaller ones to make up for the fact that they get to shoot farther. For instance, the ML versus LL case. You pay that extra weight for the ability to shoot people from farther away than 9 hexes (although MWO's range extensions mess this up). For autocannons this is especially apparent, like how the AC/20 gets to do double the damage of the AC/10 but the AC/10 is supposed to have the advantage of having a 15 hex range (again, MWO range extension issue). The Gauss is 1 ton heavier than an AC/20 and does 5 less damage. A bank of 3 Medium Lasers will do 50% more damage than a lone PPC, and lower heat (in TT at least), at the downside of shorter range. An SRM6 does 12 damage for 3 tons, whereas an LRM10 does 10 damage for 5 tons of weight. Mechs specialized around close combat are designed to have a much higher damage:tonnage ratio than mechs built for long range. Currently, the damage bonus of boating SL is too tiny to make it worth it the range sacrifice.

Sorry Fup, but its been that way for lasers for 30+ years. Everyone that wants small lasers to be more are on an island.

And for the Missile example, an SRM6 averages 3 Missiles (6 damage) while an LRM 10 averages...6 Missiles (same damage) on TT.

We will just have to disagree.