Jump to content

- - - - -

Clan Balance Update - Feedback


876 replies to this topic

#441 Russ Bullock

    President

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 909 posts

Posted 07 September 2014 - 10:59 PM

View PostCocoaJin, on 07 September 2014 - 10:56 PM, said:

I'm a bit disappointed that the Clans won't be as strong as they ought to...I never had any plans to run them but I was looking forward to the challenge of fighting them. I was really hoping the devs would come up with some asymmetrical means of balancing out the matches without balancing out the mechs...a difficult task I know, but would have a friction coup is PvP game design.

So though I don't like it, I'd be willing to concede those desires and give the current path a try. Maybe it would better to just make Clan mechs run hot...that way, you could appreciate the awe inspiring weapon payloads...just not as frequently.


I think your going to get your wishes. They are still very powerful mechs, bumping into one face to face will always be deadly even after we feel things are balanced. Truth is the IS will still likely need to play to their strengths as a group. Running into one head to head and trading Alpha's is not going to work out well. So you see I think our Clan players are worried about Nerfs for perhaps no reason. They are absolutely still Clan mechs.

#442 Russ Bullock

    President

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 909 posts

Posted 07 September 2014 - 11:02 PM

View PostDoctor Proctor, on 05 September 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:


Yes, because my Hunchbacks have always been sooooooo meta.

Straw man arguments aside, I do want balance. 10v12 is not good balance. How many assaults do the Clans get? How many do we get? Is an 80 ton Clan mech worth a 100 ton IS mech? These are DIFFICULT problems that are much easier to solve in a turn based tabletop game where there are tight rules and controls over what you can do. In a real game though, 12v12 will be infinitely easier to balance and more likely to actually succeed at achieving a "different but equal" relationship between Clan and IS tech.


This is wisdom, lets get to this point first.

#443 Russ Bullock

    President

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 909 posts

Posted 07 September 2014 - 11:07 PM

Okay I think I got to the majority of the original points, these threads can start to rehash and debate a lot of topics. I hope my posts as least won over a few on our reasoning.

#444 Osric Lancaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 447 posts

Posted 07 September 2014 - 11:10 PM

View PostRuss Bullock, on 07 September 2014 - 10:38 PM, said:


I am completely fine with you not believing me until it releases, talk to you then.



All right, you're fine with me not believing you. Thing is I don't disbelieve CW will exist, I just think you're setting yourself up for problems.

You're balancing around clan 'Mechs like you're trying to get them in line with IS 'Mechs. You say the mixed unit thing is temporary. You say CW is happening. So why are you balancing tech now? Seems like an awful lot of work to put into a system that's bound for change.

View PostRuss Bullock, on 07 September 2014 - 10:56 PM, said:

the number one reason is that I am simply not willing at this point in time to tell IS players there mechs can't compete.


It's not a one on one combat scenario. Gross simplification - if you know clan tech is on average, by your metrics 1.3 times as 'potent' per ton as IS 'Mechs then you feed that into the match maker when balancing by weight. If a match is then 600 tons of IS 'Mechs vs. 460 it's not going to be a stomp. You act like it's impossible to balance Clans against IS in 10 vs 12 but how is it any better 12 v 12?

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 07 September 2014 - 11:12 PM.


#445 Peiper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Dragoon
  • The Dragoon
  • 1,444 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationA fog where no one notices the contrast of white on white

Posted 07 September 2014 - 11:14 PM

View PostRuss Bullock, on 07 September 2014 - 11:07 PM, said:

Okay I think I got to the majority of the original points, these threads can start to rehash and debate a lot of topics. I hope my posts as least won over a few on our reasoning.


No reply on mech battle value to help with matchmaking? ELO + Mech battle value = rank in matchmaker. /sad face.

#446 Groundpound Devalis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 219 posts

Posted 07 September 2014 - 11:15 PM

Ugh, I love how a majority of the posts you picked of people angry about the weapon nerfs are people who chose the words, I paid for awesome and now they suck.

My posts had absolutely nothing to do with amount of money paid. Clan mechs are awesome not because of firepower, but because of diversity. A Diversity this game has not once touched on. Full omnimechs. I however am not complaining about IS mechs being more diverse and Omni than clan. No. I am complaining about worse than lack of diversity.

I am complaining that each nerf or balance you implement FORCES players to build a mech a specific way. I am so very tired of being told how I, a person how has dropped more money than I should have, and being told I can not even build what I want and still be competitive. I told you on twitter the Nova is dead. That was a half truth, what it really is is this. everyone runs 6 ER meds and 4 MGs. That is all you see. Because it is the only way to compete now. smalls and small pulse have been punished so much Novas can no longer trade with equal to lesser IS mechs. Innersphere offers way too much pinpoint for this.

I am also complaining that you promised us the best MW game ever, the most true to BT. You guys have a visually stunning game, but not the most true to BT. With each patch the last 2 months I am falling more and more out of love with this game. It is painful, I want to love it. You are taking away 10 v 12. Your balance changes aren't balance changes they are cookie cutter molds for mechs. You do realize that every single solo pug match is overwhelmed with LRMs. Sure LRMs are cake to avoid for veterans but once again for new players without group experience you have forced them to take LRMs, which were always a support weapon in spirit. Bah LRMs aside most mechs are now cookie cutter. You can't let that continue. Unless you now want to force stock mechs only? I would be ok with that, would make balancing 10v12 easier too.

My wallet has already asked me to tell you, he needs a break, and wants to see other people. Please don't continue down your current path or I may have to turn away as well. I do not regret buying the max of every pack, not yet at least. But I find myself starting to feel that way.

P.S. Oh and I also complained that it now feels like you guys are taking the easy shortcuts. Rather than taking time to do it amazing

Edited by Groundpound, 07 September 2014 - 11:21 PM.


#447 Peiper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Dragoon
  • The Dragoon
  • 1,444 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationA fog where no one notices the contrast of white on white

Posted 07 September 2014 - 11:16 PM

View PostOsric Lancaster, on 07 September 2014 - 11:10 PM, said:

It's not a one on one combat scenario. Gross simplification - if you know clan tech is on average, by your metrics 1.3 times as 'potent' per ton as IS 'Mechs then you feed that into the match maker when balancing by weight. If a match is then 600 tons of IS 'Mechs vs. 460 it's not going to be a stomp. You act like it's impossible to balance Clans against IS in 10 vs 12 but how is it any better 12 v 12?


Yeah, he didn't address this option either. I'm going to predict that the answer to both our ideas is that: "we're not going to do it because it requires us to do math and stuff."

#448 Kinski Orlawisch

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • 2,282 posts
  • LocationHH

Posted 07 September 2014 - 11:23 PM

What I think? Continue nerfing and the Invasion of the Clans will happen without Clanmechs.
I m back in my Spider now. Clans need the 2nd Liner..using the IS rulez of constructing to become competive. No XL in a Stone Rhino....Frapos?

#449 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 08 September 2014 - 12:07 AM

View PostRuss Bullock, on 07 September 2014 - 10:02 PM, said:


I think this is a very good example that just points to the descrepency being in base play style theory. Both LPL hitting 22% and 3-4 salvos. As it pertains to TTK and brawling, I think we want players to have to make more decisions to actually cease to fire their weapons a little more frequently than currently. But also keep in mind if its consistent across the board and balanced then you are at no disadvantage. You have the same stats as everyone else, and make no mistake if i let you put IS lasers on your Clan mech you would choose the Clan ones, range and damage will always win out on the decision process and Clan lasers always have more range and damage.

Not, actually true. Guys like me, who use mechs like the YLW as our bread and butter know that "range and damage" can be a lie. I run MPL on mine. Have since CB. Why? .3 second duration. Means when I streak in at 106 kph, and snap my ac20/2x mpl alpha, I am almost instantly able to twist, and protect my CT and precious RA, due to short Time on Target.

I promise you Russ, were I to have the option, I would slap 4 IS MPL and an IS AC20 on my Stormcrow. And Be able to wreck 90% of players running Clan equivalents.

Mind you, this is exactly why I am against Mixtech. Short Duration/FLD weapons, plus Clan XL engine? Game over.

But don't ignore the advantages, for fast mechs, that short duration, and PP-FLD weapons give. Especially ones that run cooler.

Just my 2ct. boss.

#450 Lily from animove

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 13,891 posts
  • LocationOn a dropship to Terra

Posted 08 September 2014 - 12:10 AM

View PostAsteraie, on 07 September 2014 - 12:57 AM, said:

Inner Sphere Raven kills 4 heavy clan mechs, inner sphere till own. watch this and see if you still disagree https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3crlk_jsxkU

https://.www.youtube...ch?v=3crlk_jskU

ah whatever just search ' Asteraie ' on youtube



Ravens? what about fixing ravens, they have broken hitboxes, laserhitreg is completely broken on them.

#451 Ceefood

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 118 posts
  • LocationBathurst NSW Australia

Posted 08 September 2014 - 12:18 AM

heat increase with side torso destruction - fine this is canon.
Movement penalty not supported not canon - don't like - especially when clan mechs already suffer speed penalties compared to IS mechs as they cannot change engines like IS can.

weapons are currently less effective in terms of damage than IS since ACs need multiple hits to be same,
lasers need longer hit times to be same,
PPCs spread damage not like IS.
make double heat sinks actually be double to be canon will help a lot for both IS & clan

Edited by Ceefood, 08 September 2014 - 12:45 AM.


#452 Lily from animove

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 13,891 posts
  • LocationOn a dropship to Terra

Posted 08 September 2014 - 12:40 AM

View PostRuss Bullock, on 07 September 2014 - 08:32 PM, said:

Only 20 pages? Okay sorry I'm late to the party but I am going to jump in here:



Well lets keep in mind that many players including myself are very concerned with "average time to death". I personally wish the average lifespan was a little longer. As we have stated many times lots of our design decisions are based on a desired game where players really feel like they are driving a giant stomping mech that can take some abuse and possibly survive a mistake. A more "battle of attrition" feeling is what we and many of our players desire. This has been the basis for most design choices that steered us away from large pin point Alpha's and punching holes through mechs. So I would rather try and keep time to death at least where it is and that means not just buffing up the IS mechs to reach Clans. So the main problem with buffing IS mechs is just that everyone dies faster.

How many of your truly prefer that style of gameplay in MWO? Please I am actually asking.


Dear Russ.
What about lifespans? 100+damage alpha direwolfs barely give any "lifespan" even to assaults. they cna shred some in two alphas.
So the fix must be on the high alpha builds. kinda instant dealing 100+ damage in 1,5 seconds , 4 secs Cooldown and again is not a valid thing. They need to spread this damage over a longer time. Because lights and mediums do not survive a small "mistake". facing these opponents.
In a heavy and Assault, you do survive minor mistakes serveral times.
Ghost heat and heat is not the right system to balance, because heavies and assaults who carry all the cool guns assisted by a few energyweapons *caugh* 5xAc5+ 3CERML*caugh*. Said build suffered nearly not by those changes. The Nova on the other side, or adder, they suffered a lot, because they can not alter their builds much.

So when I would use a 4xCERML adder, I an not run cooler, because runnign cooler means -25% firepower for a single heatsink which barely imporves any heat issues. And by this you force the mech basically to very specific loadouts which lights often restricts to only a few choices. ot much fun in variety to use.

While on said Direwolf witt its 3 CERML as support to the AC's the heat change is nearly unnoticeable. And even if he would swap a CERML for a heatsink, the build rarely suffers in firepower.

if you want "battle of attrition" you need to destroy alpha strikes. But lorewise with the superlow heat AC's you will NEVER achieve this.
If you want to achieve this, alte the way how many wapons can fire. Simultaneously.

simple example:

lets say we would create wepaon groups, for small wepaos and big weapons and Supersize weapons.
small weapons count 1 point.
big wepaons count 2 points.
Supersize wepaons 3 points.
Maybe exclude flamers and MG's from this and give them 0 points.

example Small and medium lasers, AC's up to 5 are small. up to LRM 10.
Gauss + AC 20 are supersize.
rest is big weapons.

Now everyone can shoot up to "6 points of wepaons" simultaneausly.
this way, heavy AC + laser builds as mentioned above will be restricted to what they can fire simulteaneously. This would heavily reduce the alpha damage ability. But mechs still can fire Volley after Volley, meaning the real dps will not sink that harsh. finding a good weapon rotation will now be important. Or people may build "mixed" mechs. where they use a pair of CERLL for long range and probably 4 CERML for short and medium range. Because pakcign laods of medium range wepaons won't work for high pinpoint alpha. And therefore you better try to achieve a loadout that can deliver viable alphas on all ranges.

and for more "battle of attrition" reuce armor, increase internal HP. This will cause component destruction to have a lot more influence on a single emchs perfomance. Because lets be honest, most of the time you start to deistroy components in a mehc is also shortly before that section completely goes off.. When now said section instead would last wuite long and "survive" serveral component destructions, the component destruction will happen more often and mostlikely early enough to cause "attrition" on the mechs performance.

Yes you are right, buffing IS won't help the feeling of big armored mechs, everything just dies faster. But limiting the amount fo weapons being used simultaneously will also nerf the clans, because they can wield a lot more weapons and they can hardly make use of this. The IS will mostlikely stay untouched since they rarely na wield crazy amounts of wepons alltogether. But yet clans are not totally nerfed, they will have the ability to carry more wepaons for specific situations, they will just nore be able to fire them all again.

Also nice would be some quirks for the Nova now would be 16,5% less heat by energy weapons. Otherwise you create a second "prebuff-Awesomone" as soon as the Stormcrow is released.

Edited by Lily from animove, 08 September 2014 - 12:49 AM.


#453 Ceefood

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 118 posts
  • LocationBathurst NSW Australia

Posted 08 September 2014 - 12:42 AM

View PostRuss Bullock, on 07 September 2014 - 10:59 PM, said:

They are absolutely still Clan mechs.

umm not even close - lets see
  • Omni pods - not customisable like in BT lore - but suited for MWO - let that slide
  • adjustable armour IS can do it but clan cant? why IS should be less customisable
  • engine changes we used to do this all time in BT – I cant remember a rule preventing clans from doing so but I do remember IS had trouble all but replacing an engine so why can IS mechs do it & not clan
  • why does this adder have a fixed flamer? Just cause each variant had it does not mean its fixed there – their clan so they are customisable
  • weapons less effective than they should be
  • heat sinks not double heat sink (then again neither are IS ones)
They are clan mech by shape not by lore

#454 Cabal668

    Member

  • Pip
  • Stone Cold
  • Stone Cold
  • 16 posts

Posted 08 September 2014 - 12:43 AM

Wh don't you use Battlevalue (BV) for balancing as it is in the Tabletop. When you use a meta build Clanmech you have very high BV and have to face much higher tonnage of IS mechs in return to get the same BV.
For example a Timberwolf has a BV of 2500 and the Atlas around 1600 so you have a Atlas + another mech to fill the same amount of BV. This doesn't mean the other team has to have more mechs but the team with the Timberwolf has less BV left and has to be filled with weaker mechs.
Maybe this is a chance not to have a team of full meta against a team of casual players with more or less stock loadout.
I hope you can get the point.
If this happens it is absolutely possible to have the clanmechs as they are in the tabletop. They ARE stronger, much stronger but you can only put less tonnage into game because of the high BV. This is also realistic because the clans usually fight with the smallest amount of mech or lightest mechs as they try to show how good they are in fighting even stronger enemys.

So in short:
-Battlevalue for each mech and each equipment as in the normal tabletop rules
-balancing along the BV not tonnage
-same amount of mechs on each side but balanced with the BV, so different tonnage per side possible
-IS vs Clan then gives 12 vs 12 matches but with strong tonnage difference
-Weapons can be balanced by increasing or decreasing their BV
-makes standard heatsinks a new option to lower BV
-XL engines have way higher BV so standard engine is a good option
-Gauss + other weapons meta would be very expensive in BV so only few of them per team
-Jumpjet sniper have high BV and you have less per team
-ECM + ER LL + XL engine Spider would be quite high in BV so it enters less often in battles

So a short list of pros and cons:

pro:
+better balancing
+weapons can be balanced only by BV not the stats
+stock loadouts have a advantage
+weaker mechs have a higher playability due to low BV
+Meta builds can be balanced by BV ( for example PPC+AC5 gives a BV penalty)
+more teamplay needed when a strong mech is on one team while other only have average ones
+Less high BV mechs per battle

Cons:
-one or two strong mechs may appear in match with the rest of normal and weaker mechs
-still strong builds possible
-can effect matching time
-meta players will whine due to cap of BV so not all in a squad may play a meta

Sorry for my bad english but i hope you get the point

P.S.: If you have more pros and cons just tell them to me or write your opinion on this.

#455 Ladehemmung

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 420 posts
  • LocationBerlin

Posted 08 September 2014 - 12:50 AM

What is the database for the balancing? I hope you take in account, that the nerds bought the clan packages. This are the players that sill belief or believed in this game. Those people are mostly good players. It should be clear, that those people play better than the main street. Nerfing the clan mechs is like a kick in the nuts for them!
You take PUG's as database but you want to balance them for community warfare. This are 2 absolutely different types of gaming. CW will be organized with units playing against each other. Clans have atm no chance. The IS plays a pinpoint-meta and forces clans into brawl. IS mechs are more flexible and have more weapons. PPC's are useless one longrange, LRM's will be blocked by ECM in such an organized game. With laser on this range you will hit the whole mech, but not single components, same with AC's. Only the gauss is competetive.
In brawls the perfomance of clan tech is ridiculous. IS-Mechs fire with AC 20 and turn their torso away till it is reloaded. Compare it to a clan AC20... you fire a salvo and make damage on many components and you have to keep the enemy in target. When you are focussed by enemy team, you are dead... so you need a LBX but this weapon has a spread... Streaks, useless becaus of ECM and to much spread. Only with SRM's + Artemis you have a small chance.

Up the mechs:
Clan Scouts, useless because they are to slow. Compare 70t Nemesis with 70t Cataphract. The Nemesis is badly inferior. Nova is unplayable because of ghost heat.

When I play my clan mechs, it should be a feeling of steering a badass kickin monster, but they so bad, that it ist not even the nice cousin of the badass kickin monster. It is something like playing Doofy! Especially when playing organized matches.Posted Image


So please ask the paying members about balancing. They bring the money and they played and or will play for a long time. Don't use data of PUG's or don't use them only! Considering CW, aks the people that play competitive.

BTW: It is absolutely unlogical that clan, which are much more developed and preferring decisive battles use AC's that have the mutual effect.

#456 p4r4g0n

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationMalaysia

Posted 08 September 2014 - 12:58 AM

@Russ Bullock

Thanks for taking taking the time to respond to some of the posts here during the wee hours of the morning. Have to say that I was impressed with the mechanisms used to try to balance Clan vs IS even if it did not work completely as expected. I was anticipating a much worse imbalance to be honest.

One of the reasons I've always wanted CW to be implemented asap was that I have always believed that attempting to evaluate all the various tweaks that have been introduced was futile unless all the features of the game were already in-game e.g. refusal to eliminate PPFLD despite all the issues until Clans were released and it became clear that this was one of the balancing factors.

Would really appreciate some firmer dates on Phase 2 (House Warfare / Clan Invasion) and Phase 3 (Planetary Conquest) when the schedule firms up.

Edit: What happened to the idea of using tonnage modifiers to Clan mechs for match making?

Edited by p4r4g0n, 08 September 2014 - 01:00 AM.


#457 TheCaptainJZ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The CyberKnight
  • The CyberKnight
  • 3,689 posts
  • LocationUnited States

Posted 08 September 2014 - 01:12 AM

View PostRuss Bullock, on 07 September 2014 - 09:33 PM, said:


Its tough because as you have seen there is a contingent of players that desire the FLD and do not like how much we have limited them so far in MWO compared to past MWO products. We are attempting to find a level everyone can live with and enjoy. I dont suspect that quest will ever be complete but we will continue trying.

Once I finish down that Clan balancing path, I may look at these IS weapons in fact I mentioned how we may look to help IS heat efficiency, this could be part of where we go with this.



Yes we are considering this strongly in fact this sounds about right, we do the Quirk pass and everything on the Clan balancing list then we may need to increase armor and IS. But we will be careful to approach this in a way that helps all mechs equally of course and not just the larger mechs. But this change is not certain but we will decide after some of the other items are in place.

All this talk of buffs and nerfs and TTK and balance. It's been suggested that armor should be increased. Why increase it? Why not just reduce the damage of all weapons? Adjust cooldowns? Who says a PPC must do 10 damage? You wouldn't have >30 pinpoint alphas if you lowered damage values across the board. The way to counter alphas is not to add complicated firing rules and restrictions, but to lower the power of each weapon. More shots=more damage spread. It would require a tremendous amount of work, but it might lead to a better balance. I have no specific ideas of how to do this. I'm not going to run any numbers. But I have often seen people compaining about these problems but no one ever suggests to lower damage values of weapons. MechCommander 1. PPC does 7.5 damage with a 7.5 s recycle rate. It's not the TT value but it feels right with the other weapons. Just don't use the CERPPC as an example. That thing was clearly better than all other weapons in that game.

#458 Widowmaker1981

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Widow Maker
  • The Widow Maker
  • 5,031 posts
  • LocationAt the other end of the pretty lights.

Posted 08 September 2014 - 01:16 AM

View PostRedDragon, on 05 September 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

God, I'd really love to see how the Star Craft fan base would react if in the next iteration a single Zergling could win against a single Marine. Because, you know, to hell with lore. It's all about minimizing work for the Devs so we can get our most minimum viable product. Who needs fluff and deep game play when we can make everything the same?


Oh. My. God. are you really so dense you don't see the fail in this comparison? In Starcraft ONE person controls the ENTIRE ARMY. So that one person gets to have 6x the number of troops (or whatever the ratio is).. as an individual person he is not, in fact, weaker (because starcraft is very well balanced). If you convert starcraft to an FPS, and 6 zerglings are required to take on 1 marine, who exactly is going to choose to play the cannon fodder zergling instead of the hero marine that stomps on them, considering that they only get to control one, regardless of what is more powerful? Thats right, no one.

#459 TheDegenhard

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 24 posts

Posted 08 September 2014 - 01:59 AM

As much as i liked the Idea of 10v12. I also get, that this would be to much work. And every person, who whines about not getting it anytime soon and uses the lore argument should bear in mind, that claners fight according to another codex of honor, that you could never implement or rely on users to fight according to it.
It would also be a verry rough balancing cut, that would needed further balancing like the ones above anyway.

I like the idea of more and better quirks for IS mechs and I really hope this will bring the IS medium mechs their long deserved boost so that they can finally fulfill their role in MWO. Because now, they are the worst (excluding 3 or 4).

#460 Widowmaker1981

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Widow Maker
  • The Widow Maker
  • 5,031 posts
  • LocationAt the other end of the pretty lights.

Posted 08 September 2014 - 02:09 AM

Russ, one question: what do you see the role of Pulse lasers being? The reason everyone started swapping out C-ERLLs to C-LPLs was because, with the 2s beam duration on the ER, the pulse lasers 1.3s duration was actually a decent trade off for a 50% tonnage and 100% slot increase (given the broadly similar range/heat/damage of the 2 weapons, 600m is enough really in most cases, 890 was pretty excessive on any map not called Alpine)

Now, the Pulse laser has had the range and heat nerfed, and the ER has had the duration put back somewhere sensible, we once again have the situation where if you compare the 2 weapon systems they are roughly balanced against each other, making it a total non-decision to take the ER, because it is a lot lighter and smaller, for similar performance. The Pulse lasers need to be a good amount BETTER on balance than ERs, otherwise there is no point wasting the extra tonnage.

Id suggest halving the beam duration on all large pulse lasers (IS and Clan). Medium pulses also need some love. This, imo, wouldn't lead to no one using ERs again, because 1.6 is usable (2s isnt), but would give Pulse lasers an actual place in builds.

They are only the same weight as PPCs in tabletop because of the +2 to hit modifier, which is not easy to represent in an FPS where people use their own skill to aim. Actually - having said that if a heat/speed based cone of fire was implemented then Pulses could use that mechanic to be more accurate than other lasers while on the move...

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 08 September 2014 - 02:27 AM.






9 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 9 guests, 0 anonymous users