129 replies to this topic

[Viges]

Wow people still defending Clans... pathetic. Stay home and play your solo games on very easy mode and dont play online ever.

[keith]

Viges, on 10 August 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

Wow people still defending Clans... pathetic. Stay home and play your solo games on very easy mode and dont play online ever.

u weren't around for IS med going up to 4 heat because of the 11 med swayback were ya? IS med is balanced around everything but that hasn't been changed back since CB because of 1 mech

[Mcgral18]

Viges, on 10 August 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

Wow people still defending Clans... pathetic. Stay home and play your solo games on very easy mode and dont play online ever.

Or I can take an IS med and kill some Clammers....That works too.


The crying you'll do when you get your own Clam mechs.

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 10 August 2014 - 04:00 PM, said:

Or I can take an IS med and kill some Clammers....That works too.


The crying you'll do when you get your own Clam mechs.

I'm pretty sure I'll get an Angry Kitty or Hardon/Hardwood Wolf when it comes out. The rest... I could probably do without.

The Cute Fox might be tempting for analysis and biding my time.

[NovaFury]

Damage, heat, and whatnot aside, this weapon is suicidal to use effectively in the current battlefield.

You cannot afford to stand in the open and wave a gigantic blue beam of "Shoot me" around and expect to survive.

The CLPL on the other hand I have found to be a suspiciously effective sniping weapon.

Edited by NovaFury, 10 August 2014 - 04:17 PM.

[Zolaz]

PGI nerfs and you just have to improvise, adapt and overcome. Shouldnt be too much of a problem for all you high speed, low drag steppers. Expecting PGI to fix something is just going to give you heartache. You want an awesome game, they want a minimally viable product.

Lower your expectations of PGI and increase your expectations for yourself.

[Doctor Proctor]

I don't feel like finding the post to quote, so I'll just say this. DPS is not damage/burn time. It's damage/burn+cycle time. Otherwise the DPC of an AC/20 would be 20, because the damage is instant. But it's not, it's 5, because of the 4 second cycle time.

ISERLL
9 damage / 1 second burn + 3.25 second cycle time is 9/4.25=2.18 DPS

CERLL
11.25 damage / 2 second burn + 3.25 second cycle time is 11.25/5.25=2.14 DPS

That's post change, where now the CERLL has a slightly lower DPS than the ISERLL. Prior to the change, which you're saying nerfed it too hard, it looked like this:

CERLL (pre-nerf)
11.25 damage / 1.5 second burn + 3.25 second cycle time is 11.25/4.75=2.37 DPS, which is about a 9% increase over the ISERLL. THIS IS WHY IT WAS NERFED, it was doing too much while basically suffering no heat penalty because ISERLL+DHS is the same weight and crit space as CERLL+2xDHS, which was negating the heat penalty.

The proposed change was also out of whack because while it decreased the DPS compared to pre-nerf levels, it was still higher than the ISERLL after the change. The additional heat was rather small and basically wouldn't have mattered because of the aforementioned CERLL+2xDHS issue.

CERLL (proposed change)
10 damage / 1.3 burn + 3.25 second cycle time = 2.2 DPS

The problem is that this weapon in it's pre-nerf state out DPS'd and out ranged the ISERLL. This was supposed to be balanced by high heat, which wasn't happening because they can cram in an extra DHS essentially for free. Since the heat was not balancing it out, something else had to change, so they nerfed the DPS with the longer cycle time and made it so that the damage has the capability of being spread more. You still end up with a weapon that hits from longer range for similar if not less heat, but has a slightly lower DPS and requires skill to deliver all of the damage. That was the point.

The problem is not that you want a repeal of the burn time. You want it back to 1.5 seconds? Sure thing. BUT GIVE SOMETHING UP. That is what the Clan players seem unwilling to do; they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want it to have higher DPS and more pinpoint, but balked at the Ghost Heat change that would raise the heat generation enough that it was significantly hotter than the ISERLL. Even the proposed changes in this thread essentially would do nothing to curb the power of this weapon, and by dropping the burn time to 1.3 seconds would've probably increased it's effective DPS (as in, the amount it can put on target, as opposed to theoretical) to levels even higher than the pre-nerf version. It's just ludicrous that such an idea would even get proposed, when it's actually almost an sidegrade into a lower total DPS but more precision weapon that is still flat out superior in basically every aspect to the ISERLL.

[MischiefSC]

Sandpit, on 10 August 2014 - 03:27 PM, said:

no that doesn't but
it plays into it artificially inflating that gap
then you have the large section of new players on the IS side that does that as well
then you have the large section of "not new because they played 25 matches" contributing to that as well
then you have players in trial mechs that aren't going to hold up well against "good" IS builds much less "good" clan builds contributing to that.

You simply cannot get meaningful data like that

Come on Sandpit, you know better.

You have no data for that, it's all assumptive. It's just opinions trying to justify why data is wrong. It's the same logic train that the development of Ghost Heat rides. 'I don't want to mess with speed/damage/weight/heat/range, I don't want to accept that the issue is PPFLD, so I'll create an indirect and cludgy method of approaching the actual results that lets me avoid the core of the issue'.

Let's put this on the table -

It would take an Elo gap of ~900 pts, every single match in every game all in favor of the Clans to give a 90/10 split for win/loss.

that means that the Clans average Elo would have been ~1900 and the IS ~1,000 (newbie Elo or lower).

Neither you or I are probably a 1900 Elo Sandpit. That's a crushingly high Elo.

It wasn't an Elo disparity. I get that you want it to be; I get that many people want it to be. I get that your personal experience with Clan mechs doesn't feel that OP. I know mine doesn't; my TW KDR is good but my win/loss isn't that unusual. That's likely. a byproduct of relatively homogeneous mix of Clan tech in most matches though. In homogeneous Clan vs IS, Clans have a significant, measurable advantage. A lot of it is Clan XLs in my opinion. Speed and maneuverability for the mechs that need to be maneuverable and heavy firepower for those that need firepower. Range advantage is minimal with mixed teams. When one team is hitting at 50% further range with full strength it's a more universal issue.

Clan weapon advantages and XL advantages have a a lot of synergy with other Clans. They do a lot of total damage.

We really, really need to move past this idea that the only damage that matters is the damage that all goes to one location. It all matters. Every bit. Blowing bits off degrades performance. Taking damage makes people switch from offensive to defensive, which hugely impacts the ebb and flow of the fight. There are a lot of factors in the Clans advantage....

But Clan mechs have a significant, measurable advantage over IS. It's more than just weapons but that's a good start. CERLL needs damage/range reduction, keep heat nerf but back to 1.5. CERMLs could probably take a small range reduction and a small weapon cycle time increase. All of this should bring their total DPS more in line with IS DPS for weapons.

PPFLD isn't that much of an advantage for anyone but top tier players with excellent accuracy on the fly.

IS mechs need a LOT of trait buffs, like the Awesome all the way up and down the line.

We need to get past this 'no no no, the data is somehow wrong' thing about the Clan vs IS test. The data is pretty accurate. Not perfect, but pretty accurate. 90/10 is a stupidly one-sided result for any sort of test. There are no statistical anomalies that are going to throw an 80 point swing in a pool of hundreds or thousands of samples. Let that go, let's focus on how to fix it.

On the other side though small advantages compound in numbers. I don't think Clans are hugely OP - I just think that they have a number of small advantages, a bit too much DPS, a bit too much range, a bit too much survivability vs IS. In mixed teams it's barely noticeable. Split though it compounds.

So focus on fixing it reasonably. Not with 2 second burn times.

Edited by MischiefSC, 10 August 2014 - 06:43 PM.

[lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol]

Basically it's a troll weapon now to shoot people in the face with. You get 2 seconds per laser to visionlock someone's cockpit with.

Seriously, you can now be at a massive distance and calmly and casually shift your mouse back and forth and paint people's cockpits with a pretty blue beam... If you have a few more, TC, extended range and advanced zoom, you can do this forever without fear of them firing on you. People don't realize it, but at range, this is now the ultimate head destroying weapon because you have SO LONG to apply your damage! By the time those sad cockpits get into range a quick strafe from normal weapons will behead them.

And I looooooove those IS mechs who shave armor in their heads for that extra heat sink or ton of ammo!

GG PGI... GG!

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

Doctor Proctor, on 10 August 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:

I don't feel like finding the post to quote, so I'll just say this. DPS is not damage/burn time. It's damage/burn+cycle time. Otherwise the DPC of an AC/20 would be 20, because the damage is instant. But it's not, it's 5, because of the 4 second cycle time.

ISERLL
9 damage / 1 second burn + 3.25 second cycle time is 9/4.25=2.18 DPS

CERLL
11.25 damage / 2 second burn + 3.25 second cycle time is 11.25/5.25=2.14 DPS

That's post change, where now the CERLL has a slightly lower DPS than the ISERLL. Prior to the change, which you're saying nerfed it too hard, it looked like this:

CERLL (pre-nerf)
11.25 damage / 1.5 second burn + 3.25 second cycle time is 11.25/4.75=2.37 DPS, which is about a 9% increase over the ISERLL. THIS IS WHY IT WAS NERFED, it was doing too much while basically suffering no heat penalty because ISERLL+DHS is the same weight and crit space as CERLL+2xDHS, which was negating the heat penalty.

The proposed change was also out of whack because while it decreased the DPS compared to pre-nerf levels, it was still higher than the ISERLL after the change. The additional heat was rather small and basically wouldn't have mattered because of the aforementioned CERLL+2xDHS issue.

CERLL (proposed change)
10 damage / 1.3 burn + 3.25 second cycle time = 2.2 DPS

The problem is that this weapon in it's pre-nerf state out DPS'd and out ranged the ISERLL. This was supposed to be balanced by high heat, which wasn't happening because they can cram in an extra DHS essentially for free. Since the heat was not balancing it out, something else had to change, so they nerfed the DPS with the longer cycle time and made it so that the damage has the capability of being spread more. You still end up with a weapon that hits from longer range for similar if not less heat, but has a slightly lower DPS and requires skill to deliver all of the damage. That was the point.

The problem is not that you want a repeal of the burn time. You want it back to 1.5 seconds? Sure thing. BUT GIVE SOMETHING UP. That is what the Clan players seem unwilling to do; they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want it to have higher DPS and more pinpoint, but balked at the Ghost Heat change that would raise the heat generation enough that it was significantly hotter than the ISERLL. Even the proposed changes in this thread essentially would do nothing to curb the power of this weapon, and by dropping the burn time to 1.3 seconds would've probably increased it's effective DPS (as in, the amount it can put on target, as opposed to theoretical) to levels even higher than the pre-nerf version. It's just ludicrous that such an idea would even get proposed, when it's actually almost an sidegrade into a lower total DPS but more precision weapon that is still flat out superior in basically every aspect to the ISERLL.

Give it a longer cool down then. My main concern is not the length of beam. But the fact that inadvertent FF is way up because of it.

[MischiefSC]

Doctor Proctor, on 10 August 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:

I don't feel like finding the post to quote, so I'll just say this. DPS is not damage/burn time. It's damage/burn+cycle time. Otherwise the DPC of an AC/20 would be 20, because the damage is instant. But it's not, it's 5, because of the 4 second cycle time.

ISERLL
9 damage / 1 second burn + 3.25 second cycle time is 9/4.25=2.18 DPS

CERLL
11.25 damage / 2 second burn + 3.25 second cycle time is 11.25/5.25=2.14 DPS

That's post change, where now the CERLL has a slightly lower DPS than the ISERLL. Prior to the change, which you're saying nerfed it too hard, it looked like this:

CERLL (pre-nerf)
11.25 damage / 1.5 second burn + 3.25 second cycle time is 11.25/4.75=2.37 DPS, which is about a 9% increase over the ISERLL. THIS IS WHY IT WAS NERFED, it was doing too much while basically suffering no heat penalty because ISERLL+DHS is the same weight and crit space as CERLL+2xDHS, which was negating the heat penalty.

The proposed change was also out of whack because while it decreased the DPS compared to pre-nerf levels, it was still higher than the ISERLL after the change. The additional heat was rather small and basically wouldn't have mattered because of the aforementioned CERLL+2xDHS issue.

CERLL (proposed change)
10 damage / 1.3 burn + 3.25 second cycle time = 2.2 DPS

The problem is that this weapon in it's pre-nerf state out DPS'd and out ranged the ISERLL. This was supposed to be balanced by high heat, which wasn't happening because they can cram in an extra DHS essentially for free. Since the heat was not balancing it out, something else had to change, so they nerfed the DPS with the longer cycle time and made it so that the damage has the capability of being spread more. You still end up with a weapon that hits from longer range for similar if not less heat, but has a slightly lower DPS and requires skill to deliver all of the damage. That was the point.

The problem is not that you want a repeal of the burn time. You want it back to 1.5 seconds? Sure thing. BUT GIVE SOMETHING UP. That is what the Clan players seem unwilling to do; they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want it to have higher DPS and more pinpoint, but balked at the Ghost Heat change that would raise the heat generation enough that it was significantly hotter than the ISERLL. Even the proposed changes in this thread essentially would do nothing to curb the power of this weapon, and by dropping the burn time to 1.3 seconds would've probably increased it's effective DPS (as in, the amount it can put on target, as opposed to theoretical) to levels even higher than the pre-nerf version. It's just ludicrous that such an idea would even get proposed, when it's actually almost an sidegrade into a lower total DPS but more precision weapon that is still flat out superior in basically every aspect to the ISERLL.

The issue is actually damage per tic though. I get what you're saying and I'm all for the CERLL needing a nerf.

Put damage at 10, heat at 9 or whatever it is now, burn time at 1.5, range at 810 or 800 or whatever. Totally fine with that, seems sane and fair and reasonable. 1.5 is still a bit long but it does have longer range and 1 more point of damage. This also brings its heat efficiency back into a space of being HOT to manage, which is also good.

Weight and crit spaces are not an advantage. They don't really matter much on Clan mechs because of the engine/internal structure locking. If I could swap engines out I'd agree; however when I can get 35 tons of space open in a Cataphract for dual Gauss and 2 MLs plus ammo or even on a Jag that'd be a sincere concern.

Clan mechs though get sacked with locked spaces and engine size, freezing your total available weapon tonnage and space per location. The Warhawk for example has a lot of locked in spaces to make boating big weapons impossible.

The weight/crit spaces for Clan weapons are an illusionary advantage, balanced by their limits on customization.

CERMLs though? I'd say just extend their cooldown between shots to bring their DPS in line with IS MLs. This would be a surprisingly painful nerf but, again, in keeping with their design concept. You could also go with reducing damage/range like with the CERLLs but I'd like to keep some conceptual space between Clan and IS mechs and weapons as much as possible. Nobody is ever going to mistake the Clan missile or AC experience for the IS one and I like that.

Clan lasers though need toning back. Just not by increasing burn time - it's a minimal change for twolves and other big mechs and a crushing one for Clan lights and mediums. That makes it a poor balance choice.

[Ultimax]

MischiefSC, on 10 August 2014 - 06:38 PM, said:

On the other side though small advantages compound in numbers. I don't think Clans are hugely OP - I just think that they have a number of small advantages, a bit too much DPS, a bit too much range, a bit too much survivability vs IS. In mixed teams it's barely noticeable. Split though it compounds.

While your post is reasonable, what happened in the public queue goes beyond just weapons & survivability.


We don't have the information unfortunately, but just by the nature of the mechs available clan teams would likely have a raw tonnage advantage - with every mech but the Warhawk being within 5 tons of the cap for it's weight class.

In particular multiple Dire Wolves alone, could easily shift a PUG game due to their 50 tons of pod space.



Clans would almost always have at least 1 Kit Fox, if not more. This means most clan teams probably had ECM.

ECM imbalance is a huge factor in the PUG queue.



Clan teams tend to move fairly fast, but also as important have fairly uniform speeds.

No more solo light or medium mech showing up and being surprised by a lance of heavies/assaults.

No, now the Kit Foxes, Novas, Storm Crows & Timber Wolves all show up at pretty much the same time, with any Warhawks not far behind them.

This is more important than most people realize. A whole team that moves at the same speed can seize better positioning faster.




So while 90/10 is certainly a bad outcome, these tests were poorly run and had zero controls - to the point that it's almost farcical to call it "a test".

Tests are controlled, they eliminate variables to zero in on what ever it is you are looking to understand.

This is not what happened.

MischiefSC, on 10 August 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

The issue is actually damage per tic though. I get what you're saying and I'm all for the CERLL needing a nerf.

Put damage at 10, heat at 9 or whatever it is now, burn time at 1.5, range at 810 or 800 or whatever. Totally fine with that, seems sane and fair and reasonable. 1.5 is still a bit long but it does have longer range and 1 more point of damage. This also brings its heat efficiency back into a space of being HOT to manage, which is also good.

Weight and crit spaces are not an advantage. They don't really matter much on Clan mechs because of the engine/internal structure locking. If I could swap engines out I'd agree; however when I can get 35 tons of space open in a Cataphract for dual Gauss and 2 MLs plus ammo or even on a Jag that'd be a sincere concern.

Clan mechs though get sacked with locked spaces and engine size, freezing your total available weapon tonnage and space per location. The Warhawk for example has a lot of locked in spaces to make boating big weapons impossible.

The weight/crit spaces for Clan weapons are an illusionary advantage, balanced by their limits on customization.

CERMLs though? I'd say just extend their cooldown between shots to bring their DPS in line with IS MLs. This would be a surprisingly painful nerf but, again, in keeping with their design concept. You could also go with reducing damage/range like with the CERLLs but I'd like to keep some conceptual space between Clan and IS mechs and weapons as much as possible. Nobody is ever going to mistake the Clan missile or AC experience for the IS one and I like that.

Clan lasers though need toning back. Just not by increasing burn time - it's a minimal change for twolves and other big mechs and a crushing one for Clan lights and mediums. That makes it a poor balance choice.

We can think about touching cERMLS when clan UACs stop being bad & when there is a large laser variant that isn't as bad as the two current options are.

cERMLS are the only good laser weapons clans have at the moment.

The rest are too short range or have too long burn time, or weigh too much for phantom benefits.

The rest of this post was very good though.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 10 August 2014 - 07:11 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Ultimatum X, on 10 August 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

While your post is reasonable, what happened in the public queue goes beyond just weapons & survivability.


We don't have the information unfortunately, but just by the nature of the mechs available clan teams would likely have a raw tonnage advantage - with every mech but the Warhawk being within 5 tons of the cap for it's weight class.

In particular multiple Dire Wolves alone, could easily shift a PUG game due to their 50 tons of pod space.



Clans would almost always have at least 1 Kit Fox, if not more. This means most clan teams probably had ECM.

ECM imbalance is a huge factor in the PUG queue.



Clan teams tend to move fairly fast, but also as important have fairly uniform speeds.

No more solo light or medium mech showing up and being surprised by a lance of heavies/assaults.

No, now the Kit Foxes, Novas, Storm Crows & Timber Wolves all show up at pretty much the same time, with any Warhawks not far behind them.




So while 90/10 is certainly a bad outcome, these tests were poorly run and had zero controls - to the point that it's almost farcical to call it "a test".

Tests are controlled, they eliminate variables to zero in on what ever it is you are looking to understand.

This is not what happened.







We can think about touching cERMLS when clan UACs stop being bad & when there is a large laser variant that isn't as bad as the two current options are.

cERMLS are the only good laser weapons clans have at the moment.

The rest are too short range or have too long burn time, or weigh too much for phantom benefits.

The rest of this post was very good though.

The data on the test could easily be off by as much as 15 or 20% - which is still hugely one-sided. If it's off though it's as easily off in the other direction.

Trying to shoehorn anecdotal potentials of one-off situations and translate them into large overall shifts in results though just don't work. The test was actually good specifically because it was a flat out live test - if you take Clans on one side and IS on the other, what happens? There's a variance for the higher probability of IS having newbies but that's accounted for in the 40-90 pt Elo variance, which equates to 5-10%.

Otherwise this 'test' is literally the results of exactly what happens in the pug queue with Clans on one side, IS on the other, balanced for Elo and tonnage. That's exactly what needed testing.

As to lasers, I would agree that CERMLs need left alone until the CERLL is fixed back to something useful, as discussed prior with 10dmg and 800 rng and the like, with a 1.5 burn length. All up with that.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Doctor Proctor, on 10 August 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:

I don't feel like finding the post to quote, so I'll just say this. DPS is not damage/burn time. It's damage/burn+cycle time. Otherwise the DPC of an AC/20 would be 20, because the damage is instant. But it's not, it's 5, because of the 4 second cycle time.

ISERLL
9 damage / 1 second burn + 3.25 second cycle time is 9/4.25=2.18 DPS

CERLL
11.25 damage / 2 second burn + 3.25 second cycle time is 11.25/5.25=2.14 DPS

That's post change, where now the CERLL has a slightly lower DPS than the ISERLL. Prior to the change, which you're saying nerfed it too hard, it looked like this:

CERLL (pre-nerf)
11.25 damage / 1.5 second burn + 3.25 second cycle time is 11.25/4.75=2.37 DPS, which is about a 9% increase over the ISERLL. THIS IS WHY IT WAS NERFED, it was doing too much while basically suffering no heat penalty because ISERLL+DHS is the same weight and crit space as CERLL+2xDHS, which was negating the heat penalty.

The proposed change was also out of whack because while it decreased the DPS compared to pre-nerf levels, it was still higher than the ISERLL after the change. The additional heat was rather small and basically wouldn't have mattered because of the aforementioned CERLL+2xDHS issue.

CERLL (proposed change)
10 damage / 1.3 burn + 3.25 second cycle time = 2.2 DPS

The problem is that this weapon in it's pre-nerf state out DPS'd and out ranged the ISERLL. This was supposed to be balanced by high heat, which wasn't happening because they can cram in an extra DHS essentially for free. Since the heat was not balancing it out, something else had to change, so they nerfed the DPS with the longer cycle time and made it so that the damage has the capability of being spread more. You still end up with a weapon that hits from longer range for similar if not less heat, but has a slightly lower DPS and requires skill to deliver all of the damage. That was the point.

The problem with doing this calculations based on just the math is that practice trumps the math. You can throw DPS numbers out all day long but DPS only counts against a target that is standing still allowing you to hit it.

The reality is that an extra second of burn time means the enemy can twist, find cover or any number of other things can happen that drastically reduce the actual DPS. Also as many including myself mentioned, 2 seconds vs 1 means you have to stand exposed longer. So the change to burn time doesn't just change DPS, it changes it effectiveness and worse, now effects a totally unrelated aspect, a mechs ability to survive.

This is why you cannot balance on the math alone. Numbers are meaningless without taking into account real world application. Also you have to account for how a small change in something like the mechanic of laser burn time effects other systems like mech survivability. If you don't you have just fixed one thing while introducing a fatal flaw into another unrelated system. Of course PGI is notorious for this sort of "balancing with blinders on" as I call it. They get so focused on one thing that perhaps only effects a small portion of players that they fail to realize their fix breaks dozens of other things in a cascading effect.

[LordKnightFandragon]

BLOOD WOLF, on 09 August 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

I cant seem to get used to this. I am glad they changed some aspects of the CERLL nerf but This increased duration makes the Clan ERLL impossible to use in brawling situations.

Or just impossible to use really.....

[Odins Fist]

AGAIN...

A (2) second Beam Duration "IS".. A pathetic Joke.

[MechB Kotare]

Ultimatum X, on 09 August 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

You need more skill to use them now.

The skill you need is persuasion, you have to convince your target to stand in the open for at least 2s.

Try flattering them.

You just won the internet my good sir.

BLOOD WOLF, on 09 August 2014 - 05:36 PM, said:

well I am not bitter. I guess I can live with it. In the testing grounds It doesn't affect me as much but It just bothers me a bit. I guess I am just whining but They were already long enough without the increase.

I can do with reduce damage or a trade off.

Dude, fight for what you think is worth fighting for.

Your not bitter, adn you are not whiner.

Rawlings reply is one of those who are happy with it without even trying those weapons. As soon as he gets a hold of clan tech, he will realize how useless the weapon is now.

The cERLL are useless everywhere besides large maps (alpine, tourmaline) and even in those, LPLs are much better choice, because they actually have a chance of delivering its full damage upon hillhumpin, jumpsniping enemy.

El Bandito, on 09 August 2014 - 09:38 PM, said:

CERLL--Notice the ER part? It is supposed to be primarily used for long range. There should be noticeable drawbacks to use ER versions of the lasers in close quarters.

It's like OP is complaining that Gauss is bad in brawling.

Im sorry, but i dont agree. ER stands for extended range. Means that comparing to its LL counterparts, they have their range increase by certain amount of meters in exchange of increased heat output. They are not Long Range Large Lasers. They dont have any minimum range either.
You should be able to use them how ever you want, being able to use that ER aspect whenever you see fit, expecting higher heat output from your Battlemech when using ER technology.

TB Freelancer, on 09 August 2014 - 10:30 PM, said:

Not unplayable. Just requires a higher skill cap to be as effective with it as you were....

...IF you have what it takes.

Personally I'm noticing a slight degradation in performance. I've only had half a dozen 6+ kill rounds since the change using them.

Im honestly happy for you. But just because you are able to kill some pugs in low elo matches doesnt nessesarly determines how usable that weapon is, especially in competitive gameplay, people who knew how to use cERLL in deadly performance soon realized upon overnerf of the waepon, that cLPLs are way better. Gauss ultimately became n1 snipe weapon, which is aside of ammo limitation capable of performing combat in all range levels (SR, MR, LR)
I wonder how can you use your "skill" with 2s beam duration when fighting in urban enviroment, while enemy battlemech constantly humps buildings.
I wonder ho can you use your skill with 2s beam in map Frozen city, which is so over crowed with unstable terain and objects, that even 1.5s duration made it hard to deal with.

No. "l2p" is "requires more skill" is empty argument in this case.

MischiefSC, on 09 August 2014 - 11:01 PM, said:

The range advantage is only applicable for fighting in the 700 to 800m range. So in that narrow window you relaly see the Clan advantage pay off. Any closer than that and the IS LL is a better weapon.

Assuming you can deal all the Laser's damage with its long beam duration upon hillclimbing, torso twisting or bunny hoping mech lol.
I know people complain about how the ridiculous the range of cERLL is, but it was still useless to engage from 2k distance using only 3bracket of the damage. Engaging from **** load of range was in order to get some early shots, to help you win fight with loadouts far more superiour in medium range after you they within their/yours optimal range. (reason why range nerf is far more logical and far more nessesary nerf over increasing sh*t long beam duration even more...)

With that aside, Medium range superior builds (all including PPCs) were nerfed to the ground, cERLL which represented real Long range engagement was nerfed to the ground with all its aspects, clearing way for new long range weapons (LPLs) stopming all previously mentionend into ground. Incomming Brawlwarrior online (6x cUAC 5s) and LPL boating online

MischiefSC, on 10 August 2014 - 03:40 PM, said:

Clans, overall, are op. The clan xl and their ability to customize hardpoints. Combine that with significantly better energy weapons and, yeah. Clans are a bit op.

I think thats a fair deal tbh. IS still has the capability of taking standard engine, which increase their survivability over c XL. Thats why most of clan omnis were rapidly faster to their IS counter parts excluding their canon-wise ridiculous firepower of them.

IS XL always demanded risks to using them.

----------------------------

I wonder what can we expect in future, when time comes to implement Large beamed Heavy large Lasers, Heavy meds, or HEavy smalls.

Are they gonna have 5s beam duration? No. Pgi will do massive rebalance of lasers again, overnerfing or overbuffing them how they see fit, as we are witnessing from their calls even now.

Edited by MechB Kotare, 11 August 2014 - 06:45 AM.

[topgun505]

Yes it should have drawbacks. But there were plenty of other options they could have done.

2 second duration makes this weapon competely useless unless your target is dumb as a box of rocks and doesn't move or twist.

They could have increased heat more and/or increased the cooldown values.

PGI seems to be VERY against adjusting cooldown values. The heavier the weapon is the more the cooldown should be.

El Bandito, on 09 August 2014 - 09:38 PM, said:

CERLL--Notice the ER part? It is supposed to be primarily used for long range. There should be noticeable drawbacks to use ER versions of the lasers in close quarters.

It's like OP is complaining that Gauss is bad in brawling.

[El Bandito]

MechB Kotare, on 11 August 2014 - 06:26 AM, said:

ER stands for extended range. Means that comparing to its LL counterparts, they have their range increase by certain amount of meters in exchange of increased heat output. They are not Long Range Large Lasers. They dont have any minimum range either. You should be able to use them how ever you want, being able to use that ER aspect whenever you see fit, expecting higher heat output from your Battlemech when using ER technology.

And any ER versions of lasers should have lower DPS to HPS ratio than regular versions, with same amount of damage. However, not only CERML has noticeably higher DPS than IS ML, CERML also has higher DPS to HPS ratio than IS ML--meaning it deals more damage at lower heat--and that is frankly bullshit.

Edited by El Bandito, 11 August 2014 - 07:07 AM.

[Too Much Love]

Clan LPLaesers could be a substitute to Clan ERlasers if they had normal hitreg.

Unfortunately, they don't.