232 replies to this topic

[Yellonet]

cdlord, on 17 August 2015 - 06:39 AM, said:

Lasers Need Nerfs!

Yes.

[CDLord HHGD]

Ordin Hall, on 19 August 2015 - 08:55 AM, said:

"THIS THING NEEDS NERFS"

Or maybe other things just need buffs.

Dimento Graven, on 19 August 2015 - 09:02 AM, said:

WRONG! (opinion)

What is needed is an ACTUAL heat affects table, THAT is the problem with all the massive boat builds we currently have.

cdlord, on 17 August 2015 - 06:39 AM, said:

No specific mechs, no specific faction, no specific side, no specific laser, no specific quirk; as it should be.
*snip*
And a nerf doesn't even have to apply to a laser, could be a general heat rescale.

#bringthehatred

Reading, at least the OP, is important prior to replying.

Edited by cdlord, 19 August 2015 - 10:41 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

cdlord, on 19 August 2015 - 10:41 AM, said:

(Opinion) - (I counter your claim of my statement being an opinion, is that in of itself an opinion)
Reading, at least the OP, is important prior to replying.

And to be clear, "heat rescale" is rather ambiguous.

A heat affects table, that affects ALL weapons is a more comprehensive, specific, and certainly 'adjustable' and 'transparent' solution than a '...general heat rescale.'

It's not that lasers, or any other weapon for that matter, is "too powerful", it's that there is very little consequence to simply playing an 'alpha only' firing mentality.

A '...general heat rescale' specific to lasers, as per the subject of the OP, ultimately results in the meta shifting to another less penalized weapon system.

[KraftySOT]

Yeah its going to take an entire restructuring of the whole heat system, to balance everything correctly. And probably really cutting down on all the weapons rate of fire.

Right now because everything is so tight, some weapons are just completely useless, like MGs, SRM2s, AC2s, and Flamers.

Until you loosen it up, the extreme bottom end either has to be buffed to be comparable with higher end weapons, ala lights extreme quirks that just make 20 tonners into 35 tonners effectively eliminating their differences, or, push the top end out further, make all the weapons take longer to fire, so the bottom end, has some space to breathe. Like retaining their own rate of fire and low heat, to make them a viable alternative to the much higher heat, and higher damage weapons.

As it stands, the balance is good...if you ignore the weapons which are just completely dead.

Edited by KraftySOT, 19 August 2015 - 11:00 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

KraftySOT, on 19 August 2015 - 10:57 AM, said:

...

Right now because everything is so tight, some weapons are just completely useless, like MGs, SRM2s, AC2s, and Flamers.

...

I wouldn't say 'useless' but they are extremely 'situational'...

[CDLord HHGD]

Dimento Graven, on 19 August 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:

And to be clear, "heat rescale" is rather ambiguous.

A heat affects table, that affects ALL weapons is a more comprehensive, specific, and certainly 'adjustable' and 'transparent' solution than a '...general heat rescale.'

It's not that lasers, or any other weapon for that matter, is "too powerful", it's that there is very little consequence to simply playing an 'alpha only' firing mentality.

A '...general heat rescale' specific to lasers, as per the subject of the OP, ultimately results in the meta shifting to another less penalized weapon system.

It was meant to be ambiguous so people (like yourself) could express their ideas.

[Dimento Graven]

cdlord, on 19 August 2015 - 11:14 AM, said:

It was meant to be ambiguous so people (like yourself) could express their ideas.

Mind reader? No, I'm not.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 19 August 2015 - 11:16 AM.

[Screech]

I would rather see the spread of SRM reduced. Nerfs got us to this point it would seem odd to expect nerfs to get us out.

[CDLord HHGD]

Dimento Graven, on 19 August 2015 - 11:15 AM, said:

Mind reader? No, I'm not.

Why read minds when you could have your own?

I started the thread with a provocative title and some forceful dialogue to entice discussion and I've done what I could to curtail flame wars and one word rejections.

Here's how our posts read.
Me: Lasers need nerfed. It need not even touch lasers though, could be an overhaul of the heat system.
You: WRONG! What we need is an overhaul of the heat system.
Me: -.-

[Dimento Graven]

cdlord, on 19 August 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

Why read minds when you could have your own?

I started the thread with a provocative title and some forceful dialogue to entice discussion and I've done what I could to curtail flame wars and one word rejections.

Here's how our posts read.
Me: Lasers need nerfed. It need not even touch lasers though, could be an overhaul of the heat system.
You: WRONG! What we need is an overhaul of the heat system.
Me: -.-

So... Wait a minute, you make statements, with no actual interrogative included.

Statements, that by the very rules you've applied to mine, are 'opinion' (ie: The statement that 'Lasers need nerfs' is actually an opinion.

You come to my reply and start debating the merits of how I present reply, not the actual content ignoring the ideas you theoretically wanted to be expressed.

You've apparently reserved the right to forceful and provocative expression to yourself...

Are you interested in an actual discussion, or are you here to have your 'ears tickled'?

[CDLord HHGD]

Dimento Graven, on 19 August 2015 - 11:37 AM, said:

So... Wait a minute, you make statements, with no actual interrogative included.

Statements, that by the very rules you've applied to mine, are 'opinion' (ie: The statement that 'Lasers need nerfs' is actually an opinion.

You come to my reply and start debating the merits of how I present reply, not the actual content ignoring the ideas you theoretically wanted to be expressed.

You've apparently reserved the right to forceful and provocative expression to yourself...

Are you interested in an actual discussion, or are you here to have your 'ears tickled'?

I reserve the right to defend myself. I like your heat scale tables! It's exactly the type of info I was looking for! The problem was your delivery:

Dimento Graven, on 19 August 2015 - 09:02 AM, said:

WRONG!
What is needed is an ACTUAL heat affects table, THAT is the problem with all the massive boat builds we currently have.
What we have is this:
What we NEED is something like this:

Telling me I am WRONG in all caps and then giving evidence (with continued keywords in all caps) that relates to what I was requesting is what got me. In essence, you told me I was wrong, then you agreed with me by giving info to support a heat scale change which is specifically mentioned in my OP as being a possible solution. Scale, effects, we all know MWO's implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

EDIT: Things didn't paste nicely..... Cleaned up.

Edited by cdlord, 19 August 2015 - 11:48 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

cdlord, on 19 August 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

I reserve the right to defend myself. I like your heat scale tables! It's exactly the type of info I was looking for! The problem was your delivery:

[/center]
Telling me I am WRONG in all caps and then giving evidence (with continues keywords in all caps) that relates to what I was requesting is what got me. in essence, you told me I was wrong, then you agreed with me by giving info to support a heat scale change which is specifically mentioned in my OP as being a possible solution. Scale, effects, we all know MWO's implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

Your delivery of the OP got you the response you see.

You make a very clear statement in the title and in the OP that lasers need nerfs. Yes, you did have an ancillary point of a very ambiguous 'heat rescale', but taken in context with your subject line and the entirety of the OP, it seemed you were asking for, at best some sort of laser specific heat rescaling.

I disagreed with those 'opinions', and I used the same sort of 'forceful and provocative' tools to express my disagreement as well as present what I consider a better, more comprehensive solution.

NOW, had you stated something like, "I think lasers might need to be nerfed," I would have responded in kind, with less 'forceful and provocative' language.

I think what we have here is a bit of 'reaping what you've sown'...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 19 August 2015 - 11:53 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Dimento Graven, on 19 August 2015 - 11:52 AM, said:

..... it seemed you were asking for, at best some sort of laser specific heat rescaling.

cdlord, on 17 August 2015 - 06:39 AM, said:

No specific mechs, no specific faction, no specific side, no specific laser, no specific quirk; as it should be.
And a nerf doesn't even have to apply to a laser, could be a general heat rescale.

Yes, I was talking specifics....

/shrug

EDIT: More paste woes....

Edited by cdlord, 19 August 2015 - 12:02 PM.

[East Indy]

I don't need to make a wild guess from which side the "well-known group" chose its medium, heavy and assault 'Mechs.

Clan tech is the problem. The power made sense when PGI was considering numerical offsets. The power made sense when extreme Inner Sphere quirks were acceptable. But even sides are the way this game will be played, and according to Sean Lang the BV-esque system rejects powerful quirks. That leaves no reason.

Lasers have been the next-best thing since FLD pinpoint's nerf. Weight and space can't be changed; that's okay, and the resulting advantage can be equalized in other ways. Range and damage can be changed. They need to be changed, because range plus damage equals unbelievable power.

At 500 meters, an unmodified Inner Sphere medium laser deals 0.8 damage while a Clan ER medium laser deals 5.36. With the above listed conditions, that's a ridiculous disparity.

Try this:

1. Bring all Clan laser and autocannon ranges into line with Inner Sphere ranges.
2. Bring all Clan laser damage into line with Inner Sphere damage.
3. Reduce the range advantage for all ER lasers to 15%.
4. Retain PPC range to give the weapon a stronger niche, compensating for the weapon's loss of velocity.
5. Replace all existing quirks with much less powerful quirks.

[Gas Guzzler]

I just want to pop in again and say, lasers do not need to be nerfed.

[FupDup]

Gas Guzzler, on 19 August 2015 - 02:09 PM, said:

I just want to pop in again and say, lasers do not need to be nerfed.

To be fair, I do think that some of the Clan pewpews could use a nudge down in some areas. For example, at least reducing the Clan LPL from 13 damage to 12 (maybe throw in some other small slap to duration or w/e).

...However there are zero Inner Sphere lasers that are OP, and several that are actually kinda mediocre.

[Livewyr]

cdlord, on 17 August 2015 - 06:39 AM, said:

No specific mechs, no specific faction, no specific side, no specific laser, no specific quirk; as it should be.

Lasers across the board need substantial nerfs.

When I see 90% of mechs in matches run laserboats, there's something wrong. Had the honor of getting stomped by a well known comp group and guess what, they were all running laserboats. Nary a missile or AC among them.

And a nerf doesn't even have to apply to a laser, could be a general heat rescale.

#bringthehatred

As a primarily clan player (since they came out) I can really only speak to clans anymore, but I can tell you this:

You see mostly lasers from the clans side because LRMs always suck, SRM/SSRM are all short range, and ballistics have a two-fold problem: Ammo consumption (double armor, but not double ammo..go figure) and clan (U)ACs have burst fire. (While the UACS are improved compared to their initial inception; the travel time + spread damage + ammo + weight just means that a laser's a better option. Spread damage, but without the ammo or travel time.

Want to see less lasers? Make the ballistic ammo double, and fix LRMs (and ECM by association.)

[Madcap72]

Yea lasers are easy mode.



To really test your skill run LRM's and compete with terrain and ECM.

[Dimento Graven]

Madcap72, on 19 August 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

...

To really test your skill run LRM's and compete with terrain and ECM.

Congratulations, you've earned my standard LRM reply:

LRM sk1llz:

1. Put little circle in big square.
2. Wait for big circle.
3. Pull trigger.

LRM l33t sk1llz:
1. Put little circle in big square.
2a. Am I Clan: is range less than 1000-1100 meters?
2b. Am I IS: is range more than 180 meters and less than 1000 - 1100 meters?
3. Wait for big circle.
4. Pull trigger.
5. Keep big circle inside little big square.

Anyway... You made me laugh out loud, thank you sir!

[Deathlike]

I read some parts of this thread deevolving into sized hardpoints... which I'm OK with, but I think it should be considered but under a different caveat.

Instead of actually "restricting" mechs from not being able to equip a certain weapon, it should rather be that the "weapon size" (from whatever arbitrary system you come up with) that dictates what weapons benefit in that hardpoint and what don't.

For instance, let's use the infamous "Gausscat" as an example. Since the hardpoints were made for MGs, it stands to reason that it may be worth penalizing it for using anything bigger than an AC2 (or an MG).

So if you were to fit an AC20 or Gauss in it... under my proposed system, it would suffer "penalties" for trying to use a ballistic hardpoint for an MG to do something else.

Penalties would include the following:
Damage reduction
Cooldown increase
Velocity reduction

Penalties would stack when hardpoints are consumed in multiple sections (fitting 2 Gauss instead of just 1 Gauss on the Gausscat would increase penalties further).

There might be others that I can't think of at the top of my head, but it WOULD NOT stop people from building the mech, but it would most certainly make it "less optimal" for a dual Gauss setup (although, I think the Jagermech would benefit despite the penalties - because it's a natural dakka machine).

The bigger issue is that it doesn't hurt certain Clan Omnimechs (most notably the Dire Wolf from running Dual Gauss+whatever laservomit).

Still, that wouldn't be overly restrictive, but also would allow mechs to be distinct (of course, there will be future powercreep of sorts by design).

Edited by Deathlike, 19 August 2015 - 02:46 PM.