82 replies to this topic

[ego1607]

Sometimes I take them when I have just enough heat disipation to handle them, but not enough to handle anything else.

But the biggest problem right now is that all energy weapons are just inferior to balistics and misles.

Edited by ego1607, 22 November 2013 - 06:02 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

currently the only mechs worth putting pulses on are lights to hit as they charge past eachother, and they make a nice spound

LPL are pointless compared to erll and standards,

mpl and spl are in general not worht the weight and extra heat, though as I said sometimes they work with a mixture of standard lasers

however on the whole they are pointless in MWO with the present meta

[Bors Mistral]

All energy weapons are not in the best place right now, pulse weapons doubly so.

I like the current beam duration of pulses, the range is pretty OK too. They are supposed to be energy weapons for brawlers after all, right?

My problem is with their weight. Heavier by 50% more for the SPL and the MPL? Paying 2t extra for an LPL? I know that's per table-top, but still... If they were something like 0,8 / 1,5 / 6 ton we would have tonnage for some extra cooling to keep those weapons running better, and we'd have more useful configuration options as a whole.

Edited by Bors Mistral, 22 November 2013 - 06:24 AM.

[SniperCon]

Macbrea, on 22 November 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

I am all for altering pulse lasers to be 1 less heat then regular lasers and keeping the range the same it is now. It would be nice if they were the same size and weight or at least the same weight. This would give a players options.

Now, having said that, you're gaming machine and latency effect how effective you are with lasers and pulse lasers entirely. You have to look at your own stats to see which is more effective for you. As an example: I use pulse alot. So, my stats show their effectiveness.

Weapon	Fired	Hit	Accuracy	Damage	Dam/Hit	Dam/Shot
ER LARGE LASER	3,184	2,498	78.45%	12,921	5.17	4.06
ER PPC	1,599	841	52.60%	8,148	9.69	5.10
LARGE LASER	2,755	2,009	72.92%	9,912	4.93	3.60
LRG PULSE LASER	5,442	3,793	69.70%	23,477	6.19	4.31
MED PULSE LASER	4,371	2,641	60.42%	8,666	3.28	1.98
MEDIUM LASER	13,462	10,927	81.17%	28,380	2.60	2.11
PPC	299	120	40.13%	1,067	8.89	3.57
SMALL LASER	3,080	2,446	79.42%	3,917	1.60	1.27
SML PULSE LASER	12,284	8,684	70.69%	16,607	1.91	1.35

My stats are even more pronounced. I used small pulse lasers a good deal before they got the damage buff, so the damage per hit/shot should be a little higher.

Weapon	Fired	Hit	Accuracy	Damage	Dam/Hit	Dam/Shot
LRG PULSE LASER	3,345	2,779	83.08%	19,217	6.92	5.74
ER LARGE LASER	4,447	3,675	82.64%	18,446	5.02	4.15
MED PULSE LASER	3,208	2,646	82.48%	9,675	3.66	3.02
MEDIUM LASER	20,678	17,858	86.36%	48,468	2.71	2.34
SML PULSE LASER	6,332	5,215	82.36%	9,981	1.91	1.58
SMALL LASER	31,195	26,286	84.26%	41,217	1.57	1.32

Edited by SniperCon, 22 November 2013 - 06:38 AM.

[Mad Cow Jenkins]

Macbrea, on 22 November 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

I am all for altering pulse lasers to be 1 less heat then regular lasers and keeping the range the same it is now. It would be nice if they were the same size and weight or at least the same weight. This would give a players options.

Now, having said that, you're gaming machine and latency effect how effective you are with lasers and pulse lasers entirely. You have to look at your own stats to see which is more effective for you. As an example: I use pulse alot. So, my stats show their effectiveness.

so how often do you have to hold your shot because of range, the numbers only show part of the story. My AC20 hit with 70% deal around 20.1 damage because as a general rule i use it when the distance to the target is max 400, whereas my AC10 deals 7.8 damage. I´ve run into quite a few situatinos with LPL where i couldn´t support a team mate because i was a bit to far away and had to hold my shot because the heat penalty was not worth it for the damage.

[Macbrea]

That shows up in damage per hit. The further you are away or more often that you are shooting at a fast mover the more likely you are to do less then full damage. You are correct in that I cannot do long range support with that weapon. It's max range causes that.

My suggested Change to Pulse Lasers is as follows:

Reduce the Weight to that of it's equivalent. Leave the Ranges exactly the same. Reduce the heat of pulse lasers to be 1 less then the equivalent Laser. And leave the size of them in slots the same. This means that they become slightly more efficient short range brawling weapons vs the equivalent standard lasers.. They have their place in the scheme of things.


If you want to brawl, you take LPL, if you want to fight medium to long ranges you take LL. And for sniping Long range fights, you should take ERLL.

[Koniving]

Technically, large pulse lasers in MWO generate less heat than a large laser has ever generated in the history of Battletech/Mechwarrior. To further compound this, the insanely high thresholds of MW4's franchise ending boatability are our minimum threshold for 10 DHS in the 250 engine + a mastered mech.

Our issue isn't actually with pulse lasers. In fact I think the recent "beam time duration" being shortened was really damn stupid. To make them fire faster, reduce the cooldown not the beam time.

The issue really lies with the fact that lasers in general are the one and only middle ground and high ground damage over time weapons. ACs? Pinpoint, instant damage. PPCs? Pinpoint, instant damage. Missiles? Non-pinpoint, instant damage. Pulse lasers? Non-pinpoint, damage over time. Lasers? Non-pinpoint, damage over time.

Here comes our genuine issue. In past games, lasers were pinpoint, instant damage. We stopped their boatability to point by having them damage over time. In MW2, ACs were damage over time, non-pinpoint "machine guns." Literally an AC/20 fired 20 bullets. In MW3, ACs were burstfire weapons. In the books, over 95% of ACs are either burst-fire (loads a magazine, dumps the magazine [called a cassette] in a trigger pull) or fully automatic (chain-fed). And that's regular autocannons.

Crusher Super Heavy Autocannon -- 10 rounds 20 damage
Hunchback's Tom--whatever it's spelled -- 5 rounds. becomes 20 damage
Chemjet gun, 4 rounds. becomes 20 damage
Pontiac 100 = 100 rounds for 20 damage
Atlas' Deathgiver = 15 rounds for 20 damage.

Whirlwind AC/5 -- 3 rounds becomes 5 damage

AC/2 variants, - 10 rounds, 5 rounds, 1 round, ? rounds.

Hunchback IIC's twin UAC/20s = 6 rounds is 20 damage, 12 rounds is 40 damage per gun.

Only single shot UAC/20 in existence, Cauldron Born. 1 shot = 20 damage. Lore -- it can't carry 2 or it will fall over from the recoil.

[Mad Cow Jenkins]

I actually used a really bad example, and didn´t make myself clear,
my point was that the damage was a combination of 2 things time on target and damage loss because of distance. Your large lasers furthermore hit the opponent more which could actually degrade the damage and if you engaged at really long distance, because you knew that you didnt have to hold your weapon the comparison just looses alot of dimentions. The numbers that are missing from the statics with lasers are time on target, loss of damage because of engagement distance; to get a better view of the weapons performance, without considering the huge part of the actually battle.
I guess what i´m trying to say is that its almost impossible to use statistics any weapons which are not extremely similar ala, UAC5, AC5

[Prezimonto]

Vodrin Thales, on 21 November 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

It's a bad niche. There really are hardly any builds that work better with a MPL or LPL than they would with a LL or ML. For the most part the standards are simply better due to weight less, having less heat generation, and longer range. To make pulse lasers variable they need buffs in damgage, heat production, or range. Or some combination of those factors.

The thing to remember is that when you save the tonnage you can put in more heat sinks, which serve to drive the already cooler, lighter, regular lasers even more efficiently.

Pulse lasers really only work in hit-and run builds at the moment, as they don't maintain the dps to reliably brawl in close unless you dedicate a build to a few and lots of heat sinks.

For instance, I used to have decent luck brawling with a C1 catapult, 2lpls and 2 ml, with tons of DHS. But it's not a great build and 3LL was actually better in most cases and you can stand off and fire continuously in chain fire or nearly continuously with 2 and 1 in fire groups.

[BlackIronTarkus]

Reduce cooldown to increase DPS.

Reduce heat DRASTICALY to allow extended use in a brawl.

They are brawling weapons but yet dont have anything for that role. The decreased range and the increased size are big enough drawbacks. Unlike the normal laser they should be a lot more effective at close range.

[Pwnocchio]

JagdFlanker, on 21 November 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

if pulses weighed a little less they'd be a more viable option - 6t for LPLas, 1.5t for MPLas, .75t for SPLas i don't find their beam duration to really be that much less than regular lasers so why do they weigh double? they might be slightly more useful for small fast mechs to make snap shots on the run, but when space is at a premium on them i'd personally rather the lighter regular lasers if you want to play meta you want max firepower for weight, and pulse lasers don't fit in that equation. fun, yes. practical, no

I actually like using Pulse Lasers. I disagree that the duration isn't a considerable advantage. It is. I do, however, agree that the tonnage is probably the one thing they could tweak to make Pulse Lasers viable in the current meta.

It would also be nice to see more uniform factors applied across the board when calculating differences between standard lasers and their pulse brethren with regard to tonnage, damage, range, and heat.

For examples:

Large Pulse Laser vs Large Laser:
Damage + 17.78%
Heat +21.43%
Range: -33.33%
Tonnage: +40%
Duration: -40%

Medium Pulse Laser vs Medium Laser:
Damage + 20%
Heat +25%
Range: -33.33%
Tonnage: +100%
Duration: -40%

Small Pulse Laser vs Small Laser:
Damage + 13.33%
Heat +20%
Range: 0%
Tonnage: +100%
Duration: -33.33%

Why not just make the damage +X% higher, Heat +Y% higher, Range -Z% shorter, etc... of the pulse vs standard laser?

In general you are gaining two benefits from pulse laser (better damage and shorter duration) which translates into higher and more focused damage on target at the cost of 3 penalties (Shorter Range, Higher Heat and Tonnage). The higher heat and tonnage are compounding penalties because higher tonnage will reduce your capability to add heat sinks.

I think it's fine that they are heavier, but right now the tonnage penalty is simply too... well... massive. +40% and +100% means you are giving up 2 heat sinks for each LPL you mount, and 1 heat sink for every Medium or Small Pulse Laser you mount.

Worse, LPLs require ~35% more heat sinks than their LL brothers to manage heat, MPL's require ~40% more heat sinks to manage, and SPL's ~28% more heat sinks to manage.

There is a perception that pulse lasers, outside of the Jenner SPL builds, are very under-utilized in the game.

If PGI has statistics that support that perception, then the Pulse Lasers are currently bad as a weapons system.

I think if they just reduced the tonnage penalty to +40% across the board they would probably become viable.

[Ecto Cooler]

Pulse lasers are superior because they sound better.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I would like to use MPLasers, but the way the negatives are set up, regular MLasers are just better.


My delima for MPLasers...
They have reduced range, so I would want a quick mech to close fast and "hit and fade" to optimize the damage it can do.

A quick mech is a smaller mech with less available tonnage for the twice as heavy MPLasers

A quicker mech is small and doesn't disipate heat as well, so I need more DHS

Now with double the tonnage requirments, and the additional DHS I need, and the poor heat dissipation, I really could have been more effective with standard MLasers.


Overall I feel LPLasers are in a better place because of the "descent" range. One LPLaser can compliment 2 MLasers pretty nicely and still have similar ranges and ok heat.

SPLasers are....well, they are about Flamer level useless. I had once in a moment of weakness considered them for the Swayback...nah, didn't even try it.

[SiriusBeef]

The LL eclipses the LPL in almost every respect. Cheaper, lighter, better range. Start with removing ghost heat from the LPL and then increase the range by 20%.

[Macbrea]

I don't think the ghost heat needs to be removed. If you simply reduce the weight back to a standard laser and make the heat one less. It will mean that for brawling, you will want Pulse. But for any normal situation you will want standard lasers.

[Death Mallet]

Give them the same range as regular lasers.

They already pay more in Heat and Tonnage.

The range nerf is what kills them.

[Barantor]

Death Mallet, on 22 November 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

Give them the same range as regular lasers.

They already pay more in Heat and Tonnage.

The range nerf is what kills them.

I think the range should be their downside, but I think the heat is a bit off for how much damage they do at the ranges they do operate at.

I would suggest taking the small pulse down to 2.20 heat from 2.40 (small laser is 2)

The medium laser down .50 to 4.5 from 5. (medium laser is 4)

Large pulse laser down .50 to 8 from 8.5 (large laser is 7)

The large pulse laser also is a bit too heavy in my opinion and could stand to be one ton under a ppc, but one ton over a normal large laser at 6 tons. The ppcs, although they do slightly less damage (10 on ppc, vs 10.6 on lrgpulse), do their damage in one solid slug rather than over any time. The downside of the large pulse should be that it does take a little time with the normal large lasers taking more.

Right now the er large laser is in a great spot and the large pulse needs to get there too.

[SniperCon]

More effective than then medium laser version --> http://mwo.smurfy-ne...fbb49ba19b98683

[Mad Cow Jenkins]

Barantor, on 22 November 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

I think the range should be their downside, but I think the heat is a bit off for how much damage they do at the ranges they do operate at.

I would suggest taking the small pulse down to 2.20 heat from 2.40 (small laser is 2)

The medium laser down .50 to 4.5 from 5. (medium laser is 4)

Large pulse laser down .50 to 8 from 8.5 (large laser is 7)

The large pulse laser also is a bit too heavy in my opinion and could stand to be one ton under a ppc, but one ton over a normal large laser at 6 tons. The ppcs, although they do slightly less damage (10 on ppc, vs 10.6 on lrgpulse), do their damage in one solid slug rather than over any time. The downside of the large pulse should be that it does take a little time with the normal large lasers taking more.

Right now the er large laser is in a great spot and the large pulse needs to get there too.

There is one thing you can count on and that's PGI will not change the weight of weapons, its one of their principles and it should remain that way.

[Trauglodyte]

Sprouticus, on 21 November 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

I run the light killer @d2 with a 350, a ML and a LPL. The range is close between the two, and the LPL's shortened beam time is significant.

I would still like the heat on the LPL to come down half a point, but it is at least not horrible with the change a couple of months ago.

Very few people think to team up a Md Laser with a Lrg Pulse. Nearly identical burn times, recharge times, and range. I had them on both arms of my AWS-8T and a few other mechs for quite some time. Not bad spending only 8 tons for 15+ damage. Its essentially a short range energy Gauss.

Anyway, Pulse Lasers were intended to trade damage and ease of hitting the target with higher heat and weight. In MW:O, you just get damage for heat and weight. More to the point, they're actually hotter than listed due to a shorter burn time which means a shorter overall recycle. SO, you're paying more weight for only a slight bump in damage for a much larger addition in heat.