Pulse Laser Mechanic Change
#1
Posted 24 February 2014 - 01:56 PM
Why? Let's look at their pros and cons.
+Slightly more damage than a laser
+Reduced beam duration
-Massive weight increase
-Substantial heat increase
-Terrible Range (which reduces the damage by a lot in effect)
Basically, you don't get any advantages. Reduced Beam duration is actually really cool, but the terrible range means they usually don't do any more damage than just normal lasers, which are more flexible anyway. And lighter, since the extra tonnage can go to heat sinks.
My Solution:
Change Pulse Lasers entirely to a new kind of weapon.
Instead of being a 'modded' Laser that fires a little different, make it behave like a UAC/5. A burst weapon that can potentially shoot a lot of shots, then needs to be ramped down.
A Medium Pulse Laser could be a weapon that shoots every 1s, with the 0.6s beam. But it has to cycle for 10 seconds after putting out 4 or 5 beams. A sort of 'clip' mechanic.
Alternatively, just like a UAC/5. Have it have a pulse overload mechanic that's identical to jamming, making it a substantially better burst damage weapon, without ruining the 'holy TT stats'.
#2
Posted 24 February 2014 - 02:16 PM
The new stats on the pulse lasers are a step in the right direction. In my opinion they need a smidgen more tweaking (less heat, I think), but they don't need much to be pretty useful. I had a great time earlier today in a Commando running 3x MedPLas, and I did good damage - more useful damage than usual, because I found myself being able to concentrate damage on the rear CT of mechs better.
We don't need to totally revamp Pulses, we need additional iteration in small doses. There are other things that could use an overhaul more than pulses by far.
#3
Posted 24 February 2014 - 02:36 PM
I'd take away the range buff and put in a damage buff instead.
==================
SL is 3 Damage@90m for 2 Heat
SPL is 4 damage@90m for 2.5 Heat
==================
ML is 5 Damage@270m for 4 Heat
MPL is 7 Damage@180m for 5.5 Heat
==================
LL is 9 Damage@450m for 7 Heat
LPL is 11 Damage@300m for 8.5 Heat
Makes more sense to me.
#4
Posted 24 February 2014 - 03:06 PM
You'd get a faster firing laser that produces a bit more heat and loses range in exchange for being able to fire faster with a reduced beam duration. It would still produce more heat as an offset as well as have that reduced range but fire much faster and put more damage on target faster. That would also give more use to the weapon modules taht increase range in my opinion.
That's just how I would have worked them
#5
Posted 24 February 2014 - 03:26 PM
Sepulchritude, on 24 February 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:
Folks have pointed this out for over a year.
Sepulchritude, on 24 February 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:
Not a bad idea.
#6
Posted 24 February 2014 - 03:48 PM
Quote
Which says everything about this game. Very obvious issues, well documented, well known. YET NOTHING GETS DONE FOR A YEAR OR MORE AT A TIME.
I mean WTF ??? Thats just sad. No wonder so many people are horribly bummed out by the game.
#7
Posted 24 February 2014 - 03:49 PM
#8
Posted 24 February 2014 - 03:59 PM
Sepulchritude, on 24 February 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:
+ 40% reduced beam duration
- 40% weight increase
- 14.2% heat increase
- 18.5% range reduction (for the max effective ranges)
For me personally, as much as I enjoy pulse lasers, I still only justify using them on one build, given the 3-distinct cons vice 2-distinct advantages. Maybe half the duration of the pulse ("near"-front loaded damage OR if we are still leery of more weapons that do that.....well, idk)? Increasing the range just kills the distinctiveness between the two imo, leaving only beam duration, heat and damage as tweakables.
I think this latest minor refinement was a good first step....now hopefully PGI quickly assesses it and then adds just a smidge more damage, reduces just a smidge more heat/beam duration but leaves it a short range weapon for the most part. I think by tweaking those three items in small doses, PL can be brought up incrementally without pendulum-swinging breaking of the game meta.
#9
Posted 24 February 2014 - 04:01 PM
#10
Posted 24 February 2014 - 05:09 PM
What PLs really need (and what the game in general needs, among several other things) is for general fire rates to be reduced by a second or two. If PLs had a significant RoF edge in addition to their burn-time and damage advantages, suddenly they become fearsome brawling weapons.
SRMs could use a similar treatment (retain high RoF as other weapons get theirs reduced).
#11
Posted 24 February 2014 - 05:13 PM
#12
Posted 24 February 2014 - 05:15 PM
War Beast, on 24 February 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:
Which says everything about this game. Very obvious issues, well documented, well known. YET NOTHING GETS DONE FOR A YEAR OR MORE AT A TIME.
I mean WTF ??? Thats just sad. No wonder so many people are horribly bummed out by the game.
It only took them around 9 months to fix PPC heat if I recall correctly lol.
#13
Posted 24 February 2014 - 05:27 PM
War Beast, on 24 February 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:
Which says everything about this game. Very obvious issues, well documented, well known. YET NOTHING GETS DONE FOR A YEAR OR MORE AT A TIME.
I mean WTF ??? Thats just sad. No wonder so many people are horribly bummed out by the game.
uhm ok
no, it means they've focused on other things as a priority.
#14
Posted 24 February 2014 - 06:38 PM
Sandpit, on 24 February 2014 - 05:27 PM, said:
no, it means they've focused on other things as a priority.
But they have guys whose job description is 'the weapons guy'. If that is his job, what has he been doing? Not Clan weapons until recently. 9 months designing turrets?
#15
Posted 24 February 2014 - 07:20 PM
Davers, on 24 February 2014 - 06:38 PM, said:
I don't think they have an actual "weapons" guy based on what we've seen thus far. I think they have a guy or two that works on code in general which means they're the macguyvers' of the team. That's all conjecture though. If they had a dedicated person or team for every aspect of the game I think we'd see MUCH faster dev times.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



















