129 replies to this topic

[BLOOD WOLF]

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.

[Sug]

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

This increased duration makes the Clan ERLL impossible to use in brawling situations.

That was part of the point.

[Wolfways]

A stupid point, but still a point.

[Firemage]

Sug, on 09 August 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

That was part of the point.

I thought it was to limit the power at long range allowing distant targets a chance to move, the only issue i find in the brawl is trying not to clip allies.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Sug, on 09 August 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

That was part of the point.

I understand they did not want CERLL stacking and that is why they put that heat penalty:However with that in place I do not understand the need to make the beam have a longer duration. I literally cant use my Prime in dueling anymore because of this.

The heat increase I do not mind but the Time increase(especially when they already had a longer time hurts)

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 09 August 2014 - 12:16 PM.

[Ultimax]

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.

[Zolaz]

When you see a weapon nerfed into an unplayable state, it is because their is a conscious desire to drive you away from the weapon. Or, whoever is doing the nerfing is incompetent. You just have to improvise, adapt and over come.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Zolaz, on 09 August 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

When you see a weapon nerfed into an unplayable state, it is because their is a conscious desire to drive you away from the weapon. Or, whoever is doing the nerfing is incompetent. You just have to improvise, adapt and over come.

I guess I could just practice over and over again with the weapon change in place. nice to get second opinions.

I guess I should have made it clear that this is from a dueling perspective(zellbrigen).

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 09 August 2014 - 12:34 PM.

[Dreddex]

I say this with hesitation, if you have the tonnage the large pulse isn't.. terrible, and the 1.3 second duration lines up perfectly with the er medium lasers

[Red1769]

I also stripped and even sold some of my C-ERLLs. The beam duration is the only thing keeping it in the gutter now. They should switch nerfs from beam duration (putting it back to 1.5) to a very slight damage nerf. (making it do 10 damage instead of 11.25).

[MischiefSC]

30% duration increase was bad.

Put duration back to 1.5, reduce damage to 10, keep the heat increase, reduce range to be about ISERLL.

That would put it in line. 1 pt damage increase in return for a brutal 50% beam duration increase. However it's lighter and smaller so you can carry more than the IS ERLL.

That's a good balance. 200% duration increase?

That would only be useful if the Clans had a regular and useful LL like the ISLL they could use as a primary weapon and you had this sniper laser with a 2 second beam.

We don't, so this sort of curb stomp on CERLL just eliminates 1 primary energy weapon from the Clan arsenal. The Clan LPL is embarrassingly bad. That the CERLL is nerfed so badly that the CLPL seems more reasonable is a clear and shining proof that the whole decision was bad.

I really hate that approach. The whole 'nobody is using the LPL because it's garbage. I know! We'll make the regular weapons SO BAD that it looks GOOD again! LOL, that's balance!'

No. That's bad and fortunately PGI has been moving away from that terribad model for the last, oh almost 12 months now.

Don't swing back PGI. Don't do it. Worked so hard to get to this point, don't go back that way. Undo the 'we'll make these garbage you have to wade through to get to the good stuff' approach to IS variants and chassis. Actually make pulse lasers not some bad joke played on everyone, which they have been in MW:O since their inception. It's been YEARS now. Pulse lasers have been bad for so long that children have been conceived, been born and are at this point are learning to walk since pulse lasers have been bad and are still bad.

Not wanting to take this all negative but... please. Seriously, really and truly.

1.5 beam duration, damage to 10, dial range back if that's the big issue, keep the heat increase. The CERLL is the primary weapon of most Clan builds. making it sub-par for lights, mediums and a lot of heavy builds just rubs a lot of fun and polish off Clan mechs overall.

[Deathlike]

I thought you (OP) "agreed" with all of Paul's balancing before?

This isn't the first or the last time where people have had legitimate complaints about Paul's balancing... so just saying "deal with it" or "adapt" is not knowing what these changes doing long term.

Edited by Deathlike, 09 August 2014 - 01:07 PM.

[Hobgoblin I]

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.

[MischiefSC]

Deathlike, on 09 August 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

I thought you (OP) "agreed" with all of Paul's balancing before?

This isn't the first or the last time where people have had legitimate complaints about Paul's balancing... so just saying "deal with it" or "adapt" is not knowing what these changes doing long term.

Going to swat you like I did Sandpit.

Quit trying to make this personal. If you were in the meetings and can say that this is a Paul decision and not a PGI decision then please dish all the details. Otherwise trying to tag someones name on this instead of making it a game decision just clouds things and devalues the criticism - at that point it's a personal attack and not an indictment of a bad game mechanic.

We are not involved in PGI employee accountability in any way. We don't know who decides what, thinks of what or creates what. Putting a name to something does nothing but force that person to defend the point in order to defend themselves and it encourages everyone else at PGI to defend the point because in doing so they are defending a co-worker from an unsubstantiated personal attack.

Don't do it Deathlike. It just makes getting stuff changed harder.

It's not 'Paul'. I don't know the guy, do you? I'm not in a position to make judgement calls about his business decisions since I'm not working at that business.

None of this is personal. PGI is making a game to sell to us. I'm a consumer, I want to buy it. I'm giving feedback on the product they're selling me and what I want to pay for. If I try to make any of that personal I bugger up the dynamic and make positive change harder; then it's a personal disagreement between people who are essentially strangers and the value of my REAL power (my wallet) is devalued because someone making a dispassionate business decision will side with money. Someone making a decision based on personal insults is more likely to tell me to take my money and go **** myself.

<3 you longtime Deathlike, but this sort of thing is coming up a lot in the forums when balance changes we don't like come in and it's just us poisoning our own well. It's all PGI. If you don't know Paul personally than trying to make it personal is disingenuous. Not our decision to make, not our association to make.

Debate the issue, not the person.

[Deathlike]

MischiefSC, on 09 August 2014 - 01:15 PM, said:

Going to swat you like I did Sandpit.

Quit trying to make this personal. If you were in the meetings and can say that this is a Paul decision and not a PGI decision then please dish all the details. Otherwise trying to tag someones name on this instead of making it a game decision just clouds things and devalues the criticism - at that point it's a personal attack and not an indictment of a bad game mechanic.

It's technically personal since it is in his job description from the beginning to balance the game. I'm not going to pretend that Paul exclusively is making those decisions, because at minimum, he is the messenger for other devs (not just himself). I'm too tired to figure out who is responsible for what anymore... it's just the same **** different day when unknown/surprise changes comes on his behalf that doesn't take any serious consideration or thought into the matter.

Quote

We are not involved in PGI employee accountability in any way. We don't know who decides what, thinks of what or creates what. Putting a name to something does nothing but force that person to defend the point in order to defend themselves and it encourages everyone else at PGI to defend the point because in doing so they are defending a co-worker from an unsubstantiated personal attack.

I actually LIKE accountability. Guys like Karl and Krist take responsibility for when **** hits the fan, and I love them for it. Taking responsibility FIRST AND FOREMOST gets one the cushion for future blowbacks.

For one, I don't take the "staging" of the CERLL Ghost Heat Nerf, and then Buff any less than a terrible ploy, regardless of whether or not you think it's intentional. You can only pull off this "error" so many times until people get sick of it. Well, I'm sick of it.

Quote

Don't do it Deathlike. It just makes getting stuff changed harder.

They will do things whether or not I agree with. Unless they are reading my unsolicited feedback that I put time and effort into while I don't mention a name like Paul or someone else, then I won't have to get that much more personal.

I wrote on multiple feedback threads about the BJ, Elo, ECM, whatever... and NOT attacking Paul. What happens? ZIP, ZILCH, NADA. I don't expect MY FIX to be done.. but actual thought and consideration to the argument. This was demanded LONG AGO and frankly I'm very vocal about balance and stuff, and you know what? What difference does it make? If someone took a long and honest response detailing things that did/don't work, I wouldn't need to be apprehensive or even personal about stuff. Heck, even the small things like improving the UI... how many times does it have to be said that it's not efficient AND NEEDS SERIOUS IMPROVEMENTS AND REFINEMENTS. I don't have a clue to whatever ETA is for just making life easier in the mechlab.... that's how freaking cynical I am about the entire feedback process.

Quote

It's not 'Paul'. I don't know the guy, do you? I'm not in a position to make judgement calls about his business decisions since I'm not working at that business.

None of this is personal. PGI is making a game to sell to us. I'm a consumer, I want to buy it. I'm giving feedback on the product they're selling me and what I want to pay for. If I try to make any of that personal I bugger up the dynamic and make positive change harder; then it's a personal disagreement between people who are essentially strangers and the value of my REAL power (my wallet) is devalued because someone making a dispassionate business decision will side with money. Someone making a decision based on personal insults is more likely to tell me to take my money and go **** myself.

<3 you longtime Deathlike, but this sort of thing is coming up a lot in the forums when balance changes we don't like come in and it's just us poisoning our own well. It's all PGI. If you don't know Paul personally than trying to make it personal is disingenuous. Not our decision to make, not our association to make.

Debate the issue, not the person.

Debated the issue 50 times over, and ROI is little to none. Unless PGI is TRULY listen to feedback from the start, this would not be so dire. I'm too tired to repeat the same arguments of what needs to be addressed, tweaked, or improved in a nice way. I have zero expectations of ANY feedback being processed, read, or even implemented, as most suggestions however benign or small would have improved this game dramatically (like colored kill-death messages). The little things add up... and I have as much faith in winning the lotto than PGI even just READING AND UNDERSTANDING the overall message I continue to present to them. There's way too much on their plate, and yet even when they get all the time in the world, the quality of what is produced never matches up with the time and effort spent. That's just insulting to myself and people that have been more than reasonable at trying to make things better.

There's no "good faith" if "no effort" is put into the response. That is how I have been calling it, and this is where some of us are at.

[Koniks]

I agree we should leave employee names out of it unless directly addressing content they post. Blaming individuals doesn't get us anywhere.

I think it's fair to say that regardless of who's responsible, the decision-making process deviates substantially from our ideal. As do the outcomes.

[Sandpit]

good luck with that. PGI could care less about feedback. Do you think if Paul had included the CERLL info in his PPC post that this wouldn't have gotten just as much feedback?

I don't see the issue personally. It brings them more in line with every other weapon that's been nerfed over the past year. That's what happens when you play nerfwarrior. Everything eventually has to be nerfed because if not, it's far more powerful than the other weapons that have already been nerfed. Maybe NOW you see why some of us roll our eyes every time we see another "this is op" QQ thread asking for something to be nerfed? Maybe now you'll not be so quick to bash other people's opinions.

[Rick Rawlings]

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.

*sigh* Is there any reason to still be bitter, though?

[Sug]

BLOOD WOLF, on 09 August 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

I understand they did not want CERLL stacking and that is why they put that heat penalty:However with that in place I do not understand the need to make the beam have a longer duration. I literally cant use my Prime in dueling anymore because of this.

The heat increase I do not mind but the Time increase(especially when they already had a longer time hurts)

It's why Clan lasers have a longer duration in general. To offset the heat/damage/weight/crit advantage. Part of the balance of things. They feel stupid long now though so i think they're goign to take another whack at it next week.

[Jonny Taco]

I'd like to point out that the original values introduced with the release of clans were spot on relative to the increases that they have applied to the IS ERLL compared to it's TT equivalent... MWO IS ERLL does 12.5% more damage compared to TT, this 12.5% increase is also carried over to the MWO Clan ERLL. 8x1.125 = 9, 10x1.125=11.25. The relative difference in range is also carried over. Divide 890 by 675 and then divide 25 by 19, you will find that you're looking at almost exactly the same ratio.


As for my opinion about the current 11.25 dmg, 9 heat, 2.0 second, 890m range C ERLL... The increased burn duration is undeniably extremely awkward to use. Now unlike many of the posters above and in others threads, I do not think that the original implementation of the C ERLL was really broken at all. Sure, it scored big damage values against teribad pug players unwilling or unable to stay in cover... Against people that know how to play and how to use pp fla though? Yeah, these weapons were not and are even more so not viable. It's for this reason that I'd like to see the Clan ERLL maintain it's 11.25 damage, have it's heat increased to 9.5, duration reduced back to 1.5s, and have it's range cut to the 850m range...

Edited by lartfor, 09 August 2014 - 01:59 PM.