Pulse Laser Buffs In November
#41
Posted 03 November 2014 - 01:28 PM
#42
Posted 03 November 2014 - 01:37 PM
#44
Posted 03 November 2014 - 02:00 PM
Shalune, on 03 November 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:
Prepare yourselves.
The actual DPS of the C-LPL and LPL are very close, within .2 of each other. The C-LPL has much better range and weighs 1 ton less and uses 1 less crit but the LPL runs much cooler and has a much shorter duration so it won't "spread damage" nearly as badly.
Add that to the fact that the IS can put it into a 'mech that gets energy quirks or even PL/LPL quirks and I'd say that overall the LPL is the better weapon.
Edited by Kain Thul, 03 November 2014 - 02:01 PM.
#45
Posted 03 November 2014 - 02:03 PM
13 dmg for a clan LPL? 6 for Clan SPL? so as much as an IS MPL. that doesn't feels right tbh.
and btw, the vomit wolf already wet his pants again.
Edited by Lily from animove, 03 November 2014 - 02:05 PM.
#46
Posted 03 November 2014 - 02:07 PM
Lily from animove, on 03 November 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:
13 dmg for a clan LPL? 6 for Clan SPL? so as much as an IS MPL. that doesn't feels right tbh.
If I was in charge the way I would have done pulse lasers is this:
The damage figure between a regular laser and the pulse variant would be the same but I would have the pulse lasers produce less heat and have a much shorter beam duration and shorter cycle times so that the heat generated would be either roughly the same with a decent DPS boost or slightly more heat for a big DPS boost.
Example:
C-ERLL: 11 damage, 10 heat, 750 range, 3.25 cycle time + 1.5 second duration = 2.32 DPS 2.1 HPS 1.1 damage/heat
C-LPL: 11 Damage, 9 heat, 600 range, 3.00 cycle time + .75 second duration = 2.93 DPS 2.4 HPS 1.22 damage/heat
On paper that might look "still not worth it" by the numbers alone. A lousy tenth difference in damage per heat generated for a heavier weapon that takes more slots with less range. The beam duration I think makes up for this though as in a skilled player's hands this means much, much more damage where you want it. The DPS increase coupled with this would make them "worth it" in the minds of many I'm sure.
To be honest, in this system where you can actually deviate from everything having the same cycle time you have a lot more options. You could even make the damage number for the pulse laser LESS than the regular version but give them even shorter cycle times, burn lengths, and even less heat generation. MW4 did that to the extreme.
Imagine the same C-ERLL from above when compared against:
C-LPL: 9 damage, 7 heat, 600 range, 2.00 cycle time, .75 duration = 3.22 DPS 2.55 HPS 1.26 damage/heat
Honestly this type of pulse laser would feel "more pulse laserish" to me and would be a better way to differentiate the lasers from each other.
Edited by Kain Thul, 03 November 2014 - 02:23 PM.
#48
Posted 03 November 2014 - 02:47 PM
#49
Posted 03 November 2014 - 02:56 PM
Mcgral18, on 03 November 2014 - 02:14 PM, said:
Yeah, I'm not sure that particular one needed the help, but I guess the ERLL is also getting one.
I think it's primarily because of normalizing all the things. In this case, they're aiming for the CLPL to have the same benefits over the CERLL as the ISLPL has over the ISLL, such as +2 damage.
#50
Posted 03 November 2014 - 03:16 PM
Mcgral18, on 03 November 2014 - 02:14 PM, said:
Yeah, I'm not sure that particular one needed the help, but I guess the ERLL is also getting one.
FupDup, on 03 November 2014 - 02:56 PM, said:
I disagree.
The IS LPL will be 7 heat for 11 damage in 0.67s.
The CLPL will be 10 heat for 13 damage in 1.12s.
The IS LPL will have several mechs that have cooldown reduction benefits, beam duration reduction benefits, significant range improvement, heat reduction.
The handful of mechs selected to have quirks with IS LPLs would possibly out right have better version of IS LPL than the clans had, including range. (and they might still end up with a better version)
The CLPL pretty much needed to have it's damage increased and it's range set back to 600m because it would have been bizarro town otherwise.
#51
Posted 03 November 2014 - 03:21 PM
LET THE GOOD TIMES COMMENCE
#52
Posted 03 November 2014 - 03:34 PM
Ultimatum X, on 03 November 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:
I disagree.
The IS LPL will be 7 heat for 11 damage in 0.67s.
The CLPL will be 10 heat for 13 damage in 1.12s.
The IS LPL will have several mechs that have cooldown reduction benefits, beam duration reduction benefits, significant range improvement, heat reduction.
The handful of mechs selected to have quirks with IS LPLs would possibly out right have better version of IS LPL than the clans had, including range. (and they might still end up with a better version)
The CLPL pretty much needed to have it's damage increased and it's range set back to 600m because it would have been bizarro town otherwise.
Well, let's look at PGI's chart from the roadmap thread.
The damage increase and DPS increase, for [ER]LL versus LPL, is the same down to the decimal for both factions. The duration reduction is very close, off by only 0.05. The CLPL's heat was increased to match that of the CERLL, just as the ISLPL got a heat reduction to match the ISLL.
The range looks a lot different initially, but some division reveals a very close ratio. Dividing the new ISLPL range by the ISLL range gives us 0.81111111. Do this for the restored CLPL and CERLL and we get 0.8108108108.
I don't think these values line up as a coincidence. Saying that the CLPL was tuned to prevent craziness is valid, but it would certainly appear that the way they tuned it follows a pattern similar to their IS equivalents.
#53
Posted 03 November 2014 - 06:06 PM
LordKnightFandragon, on 30 October 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:
We are coming full circle on the balance merry-go-round.
Strangely enough, I'm slowly going in the LPL direction as it is... so, it is finally good that we're heading to slight pro-wub meta... minus Paul.
#54
Posted 03 November 2014 - 06:08 PM
Deathlike, on 03 November 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:
Strangely enough, I'm slowly going in the LPL direction as it is... so, it is finally good that we're heading to slight pro-wub meta... minus Paul.
It's only a matter of time until the Wubshee ascends to the meta throne. Only a matter of time...
WUB FOR THE WUB GOD! PEWPEW FOR THE PEWPEW THRONE!
#56
Posted 03 November 2014 - 06:25 PM
#57
Posted 03 November 2014 - 06:46 PM
Grimey-Wah Pedal-Ultra Bass-Boot on your Favorite Neck-WUB only mechs!!!!!!
Wubshee
Partyback
BadderWub
Wubcust
TDK (B****-out Wub Remix)
Spider V (Wub from Above)
WubFox
Oh, btw, Flat Eric is my copilot:
(headphones, volume and bass all the way up plz, u will thx me)
#59
Posted 04 November 2014 - 01:44 AM
#60
Posted 04 November 2014 - 01:52 AM
Viktor Drake, on 30 October 2014 - 04:08 PM, said:
Nope, you apparently are to blinded by the 13 damage to realize that they upped the heat to 10 for them. Clan mechs are already running hot, this just means that a weapon that was reasonably cool before has just suffered about a 12% heat increase. That is like having to remove a DHS or two from your build just to potentially get 2 more damage.
People seem to forget that unlike damage, any nerf to anything heat related also nerfs each and every other piece of equipment or weapon mounted on that mech. You gain a few damage with your LPL, but the amount of times you can alpha before overheat gets reduced, the sustained DPS of every weapon gets reduced. The length of time it take to cool gets increased, everything get hit by an increase in heat on any weapon you have mounted.
So overall, the Clan LPL buff really is a pretty significant nerf.
unfortunately this is very much what many people do not understand. People have a bad understanding how heat is affecting a battle over time and how heat as a ressource is to be handeled. Yet even realising how to optimise a build for "heat efficiency" This is also a reason why many don't unserstand how a 4 medium iS light is superior to a 4 CERML Clan light.
unfortunately, this change will bugg the laser vomit crow and laser vomit TBR a lot more than it will buff clan lights.
I basically now got +4 damage per vomit now and have a lower duration, menaing less time to exposure.
Edited by Lily from animove, 04 November 2014 - 01:55 AM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users