129 replies to this topic

[Doctor Proctor]

Ultimatum X, on 09 August 2014 - 01:53 PM, said:

This is my proposal:

11.25 / (2+3.25) = 2.15 DPS
10 / (1.3+3.25) = 2.20 DPS
So your change increases the DPS of the weapon by .05.

9 heat / (2+3.25) = 1.71 HPS
9.5 heat / (1.3+3.25) = 2.09 HPS
Your heat change increases the overall HPS by 22%

However, let's look at the ISERLL:
9 / (1+3.25) = 2.12 HPS
8.5 heat / (1+3.25) = 2 HPS

And lastly a range comparison:
675 - 890 = 31.% increase
675 - 810 = 20% increase

So yeah, I would bet that your "proposed changes" look good to you. Without even taking into account the weight/crit savings that don't get changed at all, you've gone from out ranging IS by 31% while doing more DPS for lower HPS. Now you out range them by a mere 21% while still outdamaging them, but with the massive sacrifice of .09 more HPS on your mechs... /sarcasm

Fact is, your proposed change actually increases the damage of the CERLL for a minor increase in heat compared to the IS version while still maintaining superiority to the IS versions in every way. And hell, I didn't even look at the pre-nerf numbers for that comparison to see how OP the damn thing used to be. Clanner can't sit here and keep saying "Oh, it's not P2W and it's not OP" when they only changes they're comfortable with still maintain advantages in every single area over the IS counterparts for only a token increase in their heat that will barely be a blip on their heat scale. Please...

Edited by Doctor Proctor, 09 August 2014 - 10:43 PM.

[Ultimax]

Pjwned, on 09 August 2014 - 10:37 PM, said:

Fair enough, poor choice of words but you were the one that brought up how the clan weapons are fine simply because mechs not designed to use 2 colossal ballistic weapons can't use 2 of them effectively while seeming to ignore other very viable options.

Earlier his point was that the clan ER MLAS was "unfair".

My point was that "fair" is relative, because builds you can do IS side, like Brawlers with pinpoint AC 20s - or dual gauss builds are impossible on same weight class mechs Clan side.

So it makes no sense to nerf the Clan ER MLAS because it's "better" than the IS MLAS (his words).

I don't see him starting threads to nerf the IS ACs, because they are clearly better than the Clan Ballistics, because he is working his agenda and isn't actually concerned about balance. He is concerned about what he thinks is "fair" but only as it applies to his favored mechs/faction.

I own mechs of both factions. I own the Boar's Head of all mechs ffs.

I have stake in both sides being viable.

Pjwned, on 09 August 2014 - 10:37 PM, said:

That's only possible with an XL engine

Of course, it's a build that requires a lot of patience, positioning and timing.

The rewards are solid, and the results can be great:

Pjwned, on 09 August 2014 - 10:37 PM, said:

The restrictions are not inane, it keeps them from being rampantly overpowered.

I agree completely.

I think you misread my post, I said "innate" not "inane".

Edited by Ultimatum X, 09 August 2014 - 10:52 PM.

[Ultimax]

Doctor Proctor, on 09 August 2014 - 10:42 PM, said:

And hell, I didn't even look at the pre-nerf numbers for that comparison to see how OP the damn thing used to be.

Hi there, Captain Blinders.

I posted the current stats of the weapon - you actually quoted it - which has better heat efficiency and more alpha damage than my version.

You also managed, miraculously, in your fairly solid analysis to not even mention the beam duration.

[Sandpit]

Ultimatum X, on 09 August 2014 - 10:30 PM, said:

Go for the 70 tons.

Now show us the Timber Wolf version.

ask a clanner to lol

[MischiefSC]

Why would someone throw away all the potential in a TW and go with 2 Gauss? What an absolute waste of potential. ERPPCs and CERLLs, even with the long burn, would be a way better expenditure of tonnage.

I get the concept of the challenge but it's an inherently disingenuous one; dual Gauss is great for a few specific mechs, especially ones with poor mobility or fragile form factor.

The TW takes a beating like Rhianna trying to tell Chris Brown he's too abusive. It very successfully rocks energy and ballistics and while it makes a decent sniper it truly shines in brawling or in mid-range crowd control. If you could get 2x Gauss on a TW it would be a waste of the platforms potential.

It hits about 90. It's *fast* and packs a truly *stupid* amount of firepower, especially at shorter range. I've run and played a SRM boat build that was close to 130pt alpha.

Why in the world would I want to try to make a 2x Gauss pokey little puppy sniper out of it?

[MischiefSC]

Ultimatum X, on 09 August 2014 - 10:51 PM, said:

Hi there, Captain Blinders.

I posted the current stats of the weapon - you actually quoted it - which has better heat efficiency and more alpha damage than my version.

You also managed, miraculously, in your fairly solid analysis to not even mention the beam duration.

Which is a 50% beam duration nerf over the ISERLL; essentially a 10% damage increase for a 40% reduction in DPS of the duration of the beam. This means that if I have you on target for 1 second, my ISERLL does 9 pts. If I have you on target with my CERLL at the same 1 second I've done about 6 pts.

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.

[Ultimax]

Sandpit, on 09 August 2014 - 10:55 PM, said:

ask a clanner to lol

I'd love to see the build, I'd play it.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 09 August 2014 - 11:06 PM.

[Pjwned]

Ultimatum X, on 09 August 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

Earlier his point was that the clan ER MLAS was "unfair".

My point was that "fair" is relative, because builds you can do IS side, like Brawlers with pinpoint AC 20s - or dual gauss builds are impossible on same weight class mechs Clan side.

So it makes no sense to nerf the Clan ER MLAS because it's "better" than the IS MLAS (his words).

I don't see him starting threads to nerf the IS ACs, because they are clearly better than the Clan Ballistics, because he is working his agenda and isn't actually concerned about balance. He is concerned about what he thinks is "fair" but only as it applies to his favored mechs/faction.

I own mechs of both factions. I own the Boar's Head of all mechs ffs.

I have stake in both sides being viable.

Well, it's hard not to look at the C-ERML and think "wow that is a little too good" when both tech trees are supposed to be relatively balanced, but really the answer in this case is to just buff IS medium lasers to be less hot rather than nerfing the C-ERML, although I do think 450m range for 1 ton is a little questionable.

Quote

Of course, it's a build that requires a lot of patience, positioning and timing.

The rewards are solid, and the results can be great:

I'm not saying it can't be good but when you compare the significantly faster timber wolf that doesn't die when its side torso is shot out to the slower, more stocky jager that does die when its side torso gets shot out it seems a little silly to wonder why the timber wolf might not be designed to use gauss rifles in the same fashion.

Quote

I agree completely.

I think you misread my post, I said "innate" not "inane".

Oops, certainly did misread that.

[El Bandito]

Ultimatum X, on 09 August 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

Earlier his point was that the clan ER MLAS was "unfair". My point was that "fair" is relative, because builds you can do IS side, like Brawlers with pinpoint AC 20s - or dual gauss builds are impossible on same weight class mechs Clan side. So it makes no sense to nerf the Clan ER MLAS because it's "better" than the IS MLAS (his words). I don't see him starting threads to nerf the IS ACs, because they are clearly better than the Clan Ballistics, because he is working his agenda and isn't actually concerned about balance. He is concerned about what he thinks is "fair" but only as it applies to his favored mechs/faction.

What kind of blatantly childish assumption is this? Come September I will buy the Thor and the Direwolf with C-Bills, because gathering mechs that's all what this game amounts to. Why would I intentionally gimp Clan mechs if I am going to pilot them in a month's time? Hell, I am going to buy the Kit Fox this coming week due to the Triple AMS.

As for nerfing IS weapons, during these 2 years I was very active in voicing about toning down the PPC meta, and the poptart meta. Not to mention the AC20, and the Gauss. If I see imbalance I call it out, factions don't matter.

There is no "my faction is better" here, there should be only balance. And CERML is certainly not balanced. Not with the current stat.

Edited by El Bandito, 10 August 2014 - 12:34 AM.

[Doctor Proctor]

Ultimatum X, on 09 August 2014 - 10:51 PM, said:

Hi there, Captain Blinders.

I posted the current stats of the weapon - you actually quoted it - which has better heat efficiency and more alpha damage than my version.

You also managed, miraculously, in your fairly solid analysis to not even mention the beam duration.

I didn't bring up the pre-nerf version because, as I said, it was just even more OP. The post nerf CERLL is flat out stronger than the ISLL in practically every way, and your "proposed change" does nothing to actually change that.

The beam duration was included in the DPS and HPS calculations, which is something that you didn't seem to do. When you look at the the fact that you not only get higher DPS with your proposed changes and combine that with a beam duration that's 35% shorter, meaning you'll likely get more of that DPS on target and to a single component, your proposed changes become even more powerful. Simply put, your proposed changes take a weapon that completely obsoletes the ISERLL and makes it even more powerful. gg I guess...

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 09 August 2014 - 10:56 PM, said:

The TW takes a beating like Rhianna trying to tell Chris Brown he's too abusive.

El Bandito, on 09 August 2014 - 11:13 PM, said:

Come September I will buy the Thor and the Direwolf with C-Bills, because gathering mechs that's all what this game amounts to.

unfortunately

[MischiefSC]

Sandpit, on 09 August 2014 - 11:48 PM, said:

Yeah. I should probably feel ashamed of that reference.

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 09 August 2014 - 11:49 PM, said:

Yeah. I should probably feel ashamed of that reference.

lol I thought it was great!(might get redacted though)

[Y E O N N E]

Just a draft of a small part of something I've been working on for fun:



The values are actually based on 2.0 dissipation and a limited variable heat cap (based on engine size: 25 for 100-195, 30 for 200-295, 35 for 300-395, and 40 for those ballsy enough to bring a 400 size engine along), but it actually still sorta works with the current heat system. Heat per second is calculated before dissipation of any sort. The values are assuming no major shift in the MWO play; that is, this is still meant for arena combat like we have.

After seeing the above changes to the C-ER LL and noting how similar they were to my own, I thought it would be fun to share now and see what people have to say. As you can see, clans have distinct range and DPS advantages in all areas (with the exception of small-type lasers), but the trade is higher heat. The idea was that, if the Inner Sphere can get inside their own weapons' optimum ranges, they ought to be able to sustain the fight longer since their weapons run cooler.

I'm still running hand simulations, so values are "work in progress."

[5th Fedcom Rat]

El Bandito, on 09 August 2014 - 11:13 PM, said:

As for nerfing IS weapons, during these 2 years I was very active in voicing about toning down the PPC meta, and the poptart meta. Not to mention the AC20, and the Gauss. If I see imbalance I call it out, factions don't matter.

Except if the weapons in question are missile based (streaks/LRMs). Amiright?

[Doctor Proctor]

Yeonne Greene, on 10 August 2014 - 06:25 AM, said:

Just a draft of a small part of something I've been working on for fun:



The values are actually based on 2.0 dissipation and a limited variable heat cap (based on engine size: 25 for 100-195, 30 for 200-295, 35 for 300-395, and 40 for those ballsy enough to bring a 400 size engine along), but it actually still sorta works with the current heat system. Heat per second is calculated before dissipation of any sort. The values are assuming no major shift in the MWO play; that is, this is still meant for arena combat like we have.

After seeing the above changes to the C-ER LL and noting how similar they were to my own, I thought it would be fun to share now and see what people have to say. As you can see, clans have distinct range and DPS advantages in all areas (with the exception of small-type lasers), but the trade is higher heat. The idea was that, if the Inner Sphere can get inside their own weapons' optimum ranges, they ought to be able to sustain the fight longer since their weapons run cooler.

I'm still running hand simulations, so values are "work in progress."

Except for two factors:

1) The IS mechs will be under fire constantly from hundreds of meters out by weapons with superior DPS before they can effectively return fire, let alone bring their smaller/shorter range weapons to bear. Full damage on the ML workhorse, for example, only kicks at 270m.

2) Due to slot and weight savings the Clans can devote more tonnage to heat sinks, thus negating the heat disparity while still being able to fire from range. ISERLL + DHS = 6 tons and 5 slots, whereas CERLL + CDHS = 5 tons and 3 slots. Meaning that the Clanner can go CERLL + 2xDHS for 6 tons and 5 slots, which as I said completely negates heat disadvantage.

So basically, for the same 6 tons and 5 slots the IS mech uses up the Clans get a weapon that does more damage, fires from a longer range and probably has equal if not better heat dissipation due to the presence of an extra heat sink. Where's the downside here? Even once you get inside of their optimal range they WON'T be running hotter, and will just melt you there because even with the longer burn time they still have higher DPS numbers than the ISERLL can put out. This is why it was an OP weapon system.

[El Bandito]

5th Fedcom Rat, on 10 August 2014 - 07:21 AM, said:

Except if the weapons in question are missile based (streaks/LRMs). Amiright?

Yes, and I was proven right on the SSRM2. After PGI had finished nerfing SSRM2s, it is now officially garbage weapon. I am now doing my best not to let that happen to the LRMs.

Edited by El Bandito, 10 August 2014 - 09:44 AM.

[El Bandito]

Doctor Proctor, on 10 August 2014 - 09:14 AM, said:

Except for two factors:

1) The IS mechs will be under fire constantly from hundreds of meters out by weapons with superior DPS before they can effectively return fire, let alone bring their smaller/shorter range weapons to bear. Full damage on the ML workhorse, for example, only kicks at 270m.

2) Due to slot and weight savings the Clans can devote more tonnage to heat sinks, thus negating the heat disparity while still being able to fire from range. ISERLL + DHS = 6 tons and 5 slots, whereas CERLL + CDHS = 5 tons and 3 slots. Meaning that the Clanner can go CERLL + 2xDHS for 6 tons and 5 slots, which as I said completely negates heat disadvantage.

So basically, for the same 6 tons and 5 slots the IS mech uses up the Clans get a weapon that does more damage, fires from a longer range and probably has equal if not better heat dissipation due to the presence of an extra heat sink. Where's the downside here? Even once you get inside of their optimal range they WON'T be running hotter, and will just melt you there because even with the longer burn time they still have higher DPS numbers than the ISERLL can put out. This is why it was an OP weapon system.

Well said.

[amisu]

El Bandito, on 10 August 2014 - 09:22 AM, said:

Well said.

Well cried.

CERLL is useless now.

People complain about it's range. How much damage you think it was doing at 1400m? With all the spreading through components even on slower mechs?

On how many maps it's range advantage can be used? One? I mean - you can argue that Caustic Valley or Tourmaline Desert are big enough. But with their design and all the obstacles in the way how much damage do you expect to do to moving targets?

I guess PGI broke it because some unskilled cry babies couldn't handle getting REKT. I bet they were standing in the middle of Alpine Peaks like idiots wondering what the hell is happening with their precious Trial Atlas.

Now with it's 2s burning time its not only completely worthless in close combat but also even less usable at long distances. Cool. That will really balance the game. I should already convert my Warhawk into no-fun LRM boat considering the CERPPC is also broken.

But hey! No more lazor duels with those invincible Stalkers right? I am overheating with happiness. I should get my beer cool shot right now.

Seriously though. If you want to nerf Clans so much - introduce the damn IS vs Clan game type. You know like 10 vs 12 or 8 vs 12 - whatever. More kills for me anyway. Stop messing with the weaponry damn it.

Ultimatum X, on 09 August 2014 - 09:53 PM, said:

It's unfair that my engines are locked, my DHS in that engine are locked - or there are none and none can be slotted.

It's unfair that my nova has 3 more JJs than it needs.

It's unfair that structure and armor are also locked.

It's unfair that clan ballistic are heavy spread damage weapons, with ZERO pinpoint options like the IS has outside of Gauss.

Until you are capable of recognizing those build drawbacks, you will continually be arguing from a flawed perspective.

So go cry me a river.

Just this.

Regards.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Hobgoblin I, on 09 August 2014 - 01:15 PM, said:

PGI has a "vision" for the use of each weapon. Medium lasers don't have range to snipe, so they don't see a need for long range weapons to be effective in brawls. They see the CERLL as a long range suppression weapon. You can choose other weapon slots to put brawling weapons in.

That doesn't mean that I would choose this particular nerf over other options, but if you want something that can hurt at 2000m then you shouldn't expect it to be just as good from 90m.

Here is the thing. Heavy weapons have diminishing returns. In general they put out more heat and weigh alot more than lighter weapons. Also the damaged gained isn't proportional to the heat and weight increases. What they do offer however is much longer ranges and generally a larger chunk of damage in shorter time.

So when you mount a larger weapon, generally you start off with a large trade off that is actually more inefficient than mounting smaller weapons. Therefore they really shouldn't be adding in additional trade offs, especially ones that "specialize" the weapons into very small roles.

For example, right now the C-ER LL is 4x heavier than a C-ER ML, It has almost twice the heat of the C-ER ML and takes almost twice as long to do 30% more damage. Its one benefit is that it has twice the range but there are a hell of alot of disadvantages to offset that one advantage. Also because it has one advantage and one advantage only, it has become "Specialized" in its role meaning it is only good at long range sniping and even then, with a 2.0 second burn time, sniping with it is a dubious proposition.

This being the case, why would you ever chose a C-ER LL and devote 3 more tons of precious weight that is only going to pack on even more heat over a C-ER ML or even some other heavy weapon that isn't as "specialized".

See this issue?

Lasers are a class of weapon and should share characteristics. Choosing a large over a medium, should be a direct upgrade, not about choosing a specialization. Large Lasers should be just as good at short range combat as medium lasers but have the benefit of being longer ranged at the expense of weight and heat. That is the trade off, weight and heat, there just doesn't need to be more to distinguish the weapons.