28 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

I tend to run Strikers and Flankers. Beam duration is crucial to my success. More so than saving weight, longer range, etc. A perfect example being the YLW I have run since CB. AC20, 300XL and 2 MPL.

A lot say I should run standard Mediums (or Std Engines, but that is a different story), but those people universally miss the biggest advantages of the YLW. It can run 107 kph, has an arm mounted AC20, and the fastest torso twist in the game. It's a perfect striker. In, fire, out.
But the longer your lasers beam duration, the longer you have to face your enemy, and the more damage you cannot roll onto your shield arm. Those pulse lasers are actually a key to the success of the design, as their short pulse allows you to fire, and snap out of line, almost instantly, protecting your core and your precious AC20.

But then the Clan MPLasers came. And they didn't feel bad. Added range and damage is very nice. BUT THE BEAM DURATION WAS TWICE THE IS VERSION.

And so the advantage of a pulse laser, short time on target, was totally nullified. Which in actuality, negated ANY advantages it might have.

Now it's .9 second to the IS versions .6. Over the duration of the Medium Pulse lasers beam, the Clan Version only does 4.4 damage vs 6 for the IS. Is the extra range worth the tradeoff, especially in light of the huge heat tax compared to the IS? (5.5 vs 4 ht) Clan ER Mediums only do 5 heat. And have better range. For half the weight.

CMPL: 5.5 ht, 7.4 dmg, .9 duration, 400m range, 2 ton
ISMPL: 4.0 ht, 6.0 dmg, .6 duration, 220 m range, 2 ton
C.ERML 5.0 ht, 7.0 dmg, 1.3 duration, 450m range, 1 ton

6 IS MPL dish out 36 damage for 24 heat vs 6 C-MPL doing 44.4 damage for 33 heat, but also requiring you to be on target 50% longer. (During the time 6 MPL dish out 36 damage... 6 C-MPL dish out 26.4)

On paper, I am seeing no reason to use them still. Has anyone tried them, to see if the reduced beam duration is worth the extra weight and heat?


Because I just don't see it.

[1453 R]

The IS MPL has a 0.6s burn time for its damage, which is 60% of the regular laser. It’s also the only pulse laser in this game I feel is anywhere remotely close to where it should be (it’s not there yet, but as Bishop pointed out, it actually has some noticeable advantages for mobile fighting – WHICH IS WHAT PULSE LASERS ARE CANONICALLY SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD FOR.)

The same math applied to the C-ERML (1.3s burn * 0.6) gives us a 0.78s burn duration, which rounds up to 0.8s burn neatly enough. 0.9s is still too long – nearly seventy percent of the original weapon’s burn time. Certainly the C-MPL loses less comparative range than the IS-MPL does, but it also gets significantly less bonus damage (roughly six percent extra damage over a C-ERML, as compared to an IS-MPL’s 20% bonus damage over an IS-ML) and remains hot as hell.

The C-MPL currently feels like a C-ERML that had a few too many doughnuts. Its burn time is too long, its bonus damage is too low, and it doesn’t take enough of a range cut over the C-ERML. It doesn’t really feel significantly different in terms of performance, which is the case for pretty much every pulsebeam we’ve got. Pulse lasers should be shorter-ranged, higher-damage striker’s weapons that pay in heat and weight for being halfway to autocannons in terms of performance.

[Zerberus]

FWIW, I ran 4xcMPL as backup weapons on my Warhawk before the buff and was fine with how they performed, so I can`t imagine I`ll be uncomfortably surprised next time I drop in it....

[Ultimax]

I agree with you, I'm not seeing a reason to use them either.

Unfortunately PGI still does not see the same role for pulse lasers that many posters seem to see.

I think they are undervaluing the lower weight of standards.

[Bishop Steiner]

Zerberus, on 02 July 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

FWIW, I ran 4xcMPL as backup weapons on my Warhawk before the buff and was fine with how they performed, so I can`t imagine I`ll be uncomfortably surprised next time I drop in it....

the added 1.5 ht per laser might surprise you. (6 extra ht per volley for you)

IMO, the IS MPL and LPL are far superior to the CPulse version, range and damage notwithstanding, because of the huge advantage of the short beam duration, meaning much more focused damage, quicker.

1453 R's summation of Pulse Lasers is just about perfect.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 02 July 2014 - 12:25 PM.

[Jabilo]

I am not sure there is a pulse laser in the game that justifies its increase in tonnage over standard lasers?

Looking at my Nova, 6 clan medium lasers would weigh six tons and six clan medium pulse lasers would weigh 12 tons.

It is hard to justify to be honest.

I think every time I have run pulse lasers it is been because they are cool and for no practical reason.

Edited by Jabilo, 02 July 2014 - 12:25 PM.

[Carrioncrows]

1 step forward 2 steps back.

[BARBAR0SSA]

Or they could do the MW4 pulse laser idea and really drop the damage, burn time and recycle rate down.

[Bishop Steiner]

Jabilo, on 02 July 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

I am not sure there is a pulse laser in the game that justifies its increase in tonnage over standard lasers?

Looking at my Nova, 6 clan medium lasers would weigh six tons and six clan medium pulse lasers would weigh 12 tons.

It is hard to justify to be honest.

I think every time I have run pulse lasers it is been because they are cool and for no practical reason.

Yes, I explained exactly why IS MPL can very much be worth it.
IS LPL actually aren't bad, though they need work, but their short pulse can very well be an advantage.

[Escef]

I run 2xERLL, 2xMPL, 4xSSRM4 on my Timby S. So far, I feel the MPLs are performing well enough. If I change my mind, I'll swap to ERMLs and add 2 jets back in (now at 3) or add a heat sink or something.

[Lootee]

Too. Much. Heat.

I have 3 MPL on a Timberwolf A-config clone I'm experimenting with and after this patch they are coming off. Clan pulse lasers and Streak launchers are disappointing across the board. Probably will replace them with 2 SRM6 and 3 ERML.

Edited by PanchoTortilla, 02 July 2014 - 12:48 PM.

[Torgun]

IS MPL is actually 4.6 heat, not 4.0 which is the ML. That makes IS MPL and C MPL pretty balanced to each other. While the Clan ERML is still by far better than IS ML.

Edited by Torgun, 02 July 2014 - 12:47 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Torgun, on 02 July 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

IS MPL is actually 4.6 heat, not 4.0 which is the ML. That makes IS MPL and C MPL pretty balanced to each other. While the Clan ERML is still by far better than IS ML.

that beam duration is still hideous, and the damage over the same time period (not dps) is not good, but yeah, I did misread the

shad0w4life, on 02 July 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:

Or they could do the MW4 pulse laser idea and really drop the damage, burn time and recycle rate down.

ugh. I really hated MW$ pulse lasers, lol. Actually, pretty much hated anything under Large and ER LArge.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

The only reason to use cMPLs is the same as why you use IS MPLs. The relative burn time between the cERML and cMPL is 0.40s, the same margin that the MPL gets over the ML. That is nearly half a second of extra twist time, which is even more important for knife fights when you consider how long the cERML burn time really is, and what that costs you in terms of damage concentration and defensive twisting.

[Torgun]

Bishop Steiner, on 02 July 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

that beam duration is still hideous, and the damage over the same time period (not dps) is not good, but yeah, I did misread the

The reason C MPL is bad is simply because Clan ERML is too good in comparison. Frankly CERML is clearly the best overall laser in MWO and is not balanced to all the other lasers right now.

Edited by Torgun, 02 July 2014 - 12:57 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 02 July 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

The only reason to use cMPLs is the same as why you use IS MPLs. The relative burn time between the cERML and cMPL is 0.40s, the same margin that the MPL gets over the ML. That is nearly half a second of extra twist time, which is even more important for knife fights when you consider how long the cERML burn time really is, and what that costs you in terms of damage concentration and defensive twisting.

I'd kill for IS MPLs, TBH.

[Sable]

C Medium pulse are fine, and now they're even better. Not sure where all the whine came from. Guess you needed something new to complain about.

[Sephlock]

Sable, on 02 July 2014 - 01:33 PM, said:

C Medium pulse are fine, and now they're even better. Not sure where all the whine came from. Guess you needed something new to complain about.

Uhh... MPL have always been weaksauce to varying degrees...

Except maybe in early beta...

[1453 R]

The point isn’t really whether the pulsebeams can do the job – of course they can.

It’s a point of “what do I get for my extra 0.5/1/2 tons of beam weapon, and is it worth whatever else I could use that weight for?”

Usually the ‘whatever else’ is going to be heat sinks, or occasionally ammo. Is a C-MPL comparable, in terms of performance, to a C-ERML + 1x C-DHS? Is one C-SPL comparable in performance to a C-ERSL + ½ C-DHS? (assuming the usual pattern of replacing a pair of small pulse lasers with a pair of small beamers and a heat sink. Half-ton weight savings get harder to fiddle with). Or, and here’s the big one – is 1c C-LPL comparable in performance to 1x C-ERLL + 2 C-DHS?

Or, of course, are any of these comparable in performance to the same grade of regular beam, plus 3/7/14 extra shots of AC/20 ammo? To 90/180/360 more LRMs in the tubes? To 18/36/72 extra points of armor?

The pulsebeams just don’t offer enough benefit for their drawbacks. They need to be better optimized for the sort of combat they were originally made for way back in TT – high-mobility fighting. They were designed to be more accurate, helping a pilot compensate for his ‘Mech’s running and jumping around like a jazzed wallaby. Why are these things NOT being tuned to striker-style gameplay already?

[RAM]

Bishop Steiner, on 02 July 2014 - 11:57 AM, said:

the fastest torso twist in the game.

Wrong