479 replies to this topic

[Ziogualty]

I would like to see lasers works like this:

(around) 65% of the damage instant.
(around) 35% of the damage over time.

[Cerberias]

IMO lasers should be over 0.5 seconds, with the damage 'loaded' into the middle. Perhaps the first 0.15 seconds does 25% of the damage, middle 0.2 (so 0.151 to 0.35) with 50% of the damage, then the last 25% between 0.351 and 0.5 at the end. It'd make a cool effect too if they could do something like that.. a quick charge up to a flash in the middle and quickly tapering off at the end.

Then pulses could be three quick 0.1 second bursts. 0.3 second beam duration for pulses (along with other buffs ofc)

Edited by Cerberias, 09 January 2014 - 04:05 AM.

[Khobai]

The problem with buffing lasers is that it would further lower the time to kill in a game where the time to kill is already too low as is. I would much rather see autocannons/ppcs nerfed to the point lasers are at now in order to increase the time to kill to something approaching reasonable.

[Joseph Mallan]

Attank, on 09 January 2014 - 03:14 AM, said:

I would like to see lasers works like this:

(around) 65% of the damage instant.
(around) 35% of the damage over time.

Since lasers do their damage through heat I'd say reverse it and make it more like 15% on contact and 85% over time. I'd prefer front loaded, but I do understand the need to have different styles of damage for different styles of fighting.

Khobai, on 09 January 2014 - 04:22 AM, said:

The problem with buffing lasers is that it would further lower the time to kill in a game where the time to kill is already too low as is. I would much rather see autocannons/ppcs nerfed to the point lasers are at now in order to increase the time to kill to something approaching reasonable.

I don't see this as a problem Kho! For the better part of 35 years killing the enemy ASAP has been Job 1 ™. It takes to long for me to kill my enemy as it is!

And No. I am not afraid to die faster either... It's just a game after all.

[Nihtgenga]

No need to discuss much about timing, that's no remedy, as this will only reduce the exposure problem, but even more reduce the survival time of mechs, which is a problem despite PGIs increased mech durability. The imho better solution would be to be so coherent and have a COF not only on the MG, but all ballistic weapons. This would allow the ACs to retain their specific advantages, but balance it out with the weapon deviation not allow full pinpoint damage, especially when using the extended range envelope of the ACs. A kind of "DOA" (distribution over area), equaling the Laser DOT - which makes willingly and precisely coring out the CT of an enemy over great distances more difficult.

[Nihtgenga]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 January 2014 - 04:26 AM, said:

And No. I am not afraid to die faster either... It's just a game after all.

Having maximum 2 minute matches is not much fun and does not leave much room for tactic, which is one of the key points to play something BT-like and not UT or CS.

[Joseph Mallan]

Nihtgenga, on 09 January 2014 - 04:31 AM, said:

Having maximum 2 minute matches is not much fun and does not leave much room for tactic, which is one of the key points to play something BT-like and not UT or CS.

Well if I have superior tactics I would expect to hammer the snot out of my enemy's poor tactics. You don't prolong a chess match if your opponent is just handing you his pieces! So if my enemy dies in Zero Point Chit Below Rock Level seconds Better for me. And 2 minutes is longer than most TT games would have lasted if each turn only took 10 seconds instead of 30-40 minutes!

Yes my friends and I BS a lot! Isn't that the point of getting together!?!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 January 2014 - 04:40 AM.

[Cerberias]

You could always buff armor by 20-25% to increase TTK, dont need to 'nerf' anything.

[Joseph Mallan]

You mean Double isn't enough of a Buff already???

[Noesis]

Cerberias, on 09 January 2014 - 05:05 AM, said:

You could always buff armor by 20-25% to increase TTK, dont need to 'nerf' anything.

TTK would be relatively increased for sure.

But disparities in weapon potential would be personified more.

[Joseph Mallan]

To the Abyss with TTK improve lasers and leave ACs alone!

[Gaan Cathal]

Cerberias, on 09 January 2014 - 05:05 AM, said:

You could always buff armor by 20-25% to increase TTK, dont need to 'nerf' anything.

Internals. You want to buff internals. That way there's more time with 0 armour but internal hp so that critting weapons/ammo might approach actually ever mattering.

[Joseph Mallan]

Gaan by the time I am shooting structure... its already to late for survival!

[Cimarb]

Same argument, new thread. If you don't want to waste your time repeating yourself, stop making dupe threads! http://mwomercs.com/...aw-with-weapons

[Bront]

Varent, on 07 January 2014 - 11:31 PM, said:

medium lasers are already HEAVILY used and HIGHLY effective. In fact they are my most used weapon by far and away and the one I have the most damage with. Large lasers on the other hand could see a great resurgence and make mechs like the awesome feel more useful once again. This also would not upset the already fragile balance of rock paper scissors there currently is with mech chasis.

Medium lasers are not as energy efficient as they should be, which makes them generally less effective than they should be. Meanwhile, Large Lasers are actually more efficient than their TT counterparts in MWO, resulting in an LL being more efficient than an ML (in addition to doing more damage and having a longer range), meaning that it's actually better to fire a single LL than it is to fire 2 MLs at any point in time (Unlike SLs, where you're better off firing 2 SLs over 1 ML in range of the SL, I'm also unsure on 4 SL vs 1 LL, though that probably leans towards the SL, but mechs usually aren't debating that).

So, a fix to MLs would help lasers in general, and create a bit of a tradeoff in the ML vs LL (MLs would be more heat efficient and do more damage in pairs than a single LL, but at the cost of a fairly significant amount of range and tonnage).

Honestly, drop the SL heat by .5, ML and LL heat by 1, do the same to pulse lasers, and see what happens (ERLL is fine heat wise, while still being more efficient than it's TT counterpart). It'll help lighter mechs be a bit more competitive (a good thing), make energy weapons in general more competitive (PPC/ERPPC is fine, though the ERPPC might be a bit too hot, maybe drop that heat to 14 vs 15) and at worst, you start encouraging larger mechs to use more MLs (Oh, darn).

I'd also drop all the beam durations to .75 (.6 for SL) and .5 for pulse lasers (.4 for SPL), which would increase the refire rate a bit and make them just a bit more pinpoint without removing the damage spread entirely.

[Varent]

Bront, on 09 January 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

Medium lasers are not as energy efficient as they should be, which makes them generally less effective than they should be. Meanwhile, Large Lasers are actually more efficient than their TT counterparts in MWO, resulting in an LL being more efficient than an ML (in addition to doing more damage and having a longer range), meaning that it's actually better to fire a single LL than it is to fire 2 MLs at any point in time (Unlike SLs, where you're better off firing 2 SLs over 1 ML in range of the SL, I'm also unsure on 4 SL vs 1 LL, though that probably leans towards the SL, but mechs usually aren't debating that).

So, a fix to MLs would help lasers in general, and create a bit of a tradeoff in the ML vs LL (MLs would be more heat efficient and do more damage in pairs than a single LL, but at the cost of a fairly significant amount of range and tonnage).

Honestly, drop the SL heat by .5, ML and LL heat by 1, do the same to pulse lasers, and see what happens (ERLL is fine heat wise, while still being more efficient than it's TT counterpart). It'll help lighter mechs be a bit more competitive (a good thing), make energy weapons in general more competitive (PPC/ERPPC is fine, though the ERPPC might be a bit too hot, maybe drop that heat to 14 vs 15) and at worst, you start encouraging larger mechs to use more MLs (Oh, darn).

I'd also drop all the beam durations to .75 (.6 for SL) and .5 for pulse lasers (.4 for SPL), which would increase the refire rate a bit and make them just a bit more pinpoint without removing the damage spread entirely.

I would disagree. I was actually running 2 large lasers recently on my awesomes (yes I still play them). After careful considerationg and alot of in game testing ive found it highly more efficient to switch out to 4 medium lasers. I can run more heat sinks to make up for the heat I incur and fire more often for overall more damage.

A change to large lasers increases there viability in larger chasis wich need alot of help. An increase to medium lasers (that are already being heavily used) only **** light mechs that cant afford to run extra heat sinks (and should be settling more into a scout roll).

Discuss.

[Joseph Mallan]

Cimarb, on 09 January 2014 - 07:59 AM, said:

Same argument, new thread. If you don't want to waste your time repeating yourself, stop making dupe threads! http://mwomercs.com/...aw-with-weapons

But that thread was stared over 2 weeks ago This one is fresh and new!

[Khobai]

Quote

it's actually better to fire a single LL than it is to fire 2 MLs at any point in time

Again if those were the only two weapons that would be true. But ballistics... MLs complement ballistics far better due to tonnage restrictions. So if you start buffing MLs youre just going to make all the ML toting ballistic boats even better.

[Bront]

Varent, on 09 January 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

I would disagree. I was actually running 2 large lasers recently on my awesomes (yes I still play them). After careful considerationg and alot of in game testing ive found it highly more efficient to switch out to 4 medium lasers. I can run more heat sinks to make up for the heat I incur and fire more often for overall more damage.

A change to large lasers increases there viability in larger chasis wich need alot of help. An increase to medium lasers (that are already being heavily used) only **** light mechs that cant afford to run extra heat sinks (and should be settling more into a scout roll).

Discuss.

There's 4 levels on how weapons are balanced. Heat, Damage, Range, and Size (tonnage/space). The only place MLs have any advantage is size. True, it's a large advantage being only 1 ton, but the LL does outshine it in other areas. Is it worth it? That depends on your playstyle. If you're constantly firing beyond 300m, 2 LLs is worth more than 4 MLs and extra HS because you're simply not doing much damage.

Khobai, on 09 January 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:

Again if those were the only two weapons that would be true. But ballistics... MLs complement ballistics far better due to tonnage restrictions. So if you start buffing MLs youre just going to make all the ML toting ballistic boats even better.

True, you can't look at them in a vacuum, and yes, balistic mechs can use MLs too, but if you look, most of them use either PPCs for pinpoint alpha damage, or LLs for range, with some loading up on MLs because they simply have the hardpoints to do so or they intend to brawl (Where the ML should shine anyway).

I think both the LL and ML need a buff if you read my final comment. The buff I suggested helps the ML a bit more, but the LL boost given would make the LL more competitive overall and potentially bring lasers back into high end competitive play discussion as more than just a backup/throw in weapon for most mechs, and help mechs forced to rely on energy weapons a bit.

[Varent]

Bront, on 09 January 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

There's 4 levels on how weapons are balanced. Heat, Damage, Range, and Size (tonnage/space). The only place MLs have any advantage is size. True, it's a large advantage being only 1 ton, but the LL does outshine it in other areas. Is it worth it? That depends on your playstyle. If you're constantly firing beyond 300m, 2 LLs is worth more than 4 MLs and extra HS because you're simply not doing much damage.
True, you can't look at them in a vacuum, and yes, balistic mechs can use MLs too, but if you look, most of them use either PPCs for pinpoint alpha damage, or LLs for range, with some loading up on MLs because they simply have the hardpoints to do so or they intend to brawl (Where the ML should shine anyway).

I think both the LL and ML need a buff if you read my final comment. The buff I suggested helps the ML a bit more, but the LL boost given would make the LL more competitive overall and potentially bring lasers back into high end competitive play discussion as more than just a backup/throw in weapon for most mechs, and help mechs forced to rely on energy weapons a bit.

Every single balistic mech I own and use uses medium lasers.

c.c thanks for the buff?

There are alot of heavy assault and medium mechs out there that would only benefit from an upgrade to large lasers that actually REALLY need it.

An upgrade to medium lasers would be a primary boost to light mechs and then to most balistic user mechs that use them as secondary weapons. Which is very very common.

*dislike*.