142 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

It's been that time practically since the moment they were enacted, really. The velocity nerfs to ACs (and PPCs for that matter) were just indirect bandaids for other problems...

[Alistair Winter]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 January 2016 - 08:29 AM, said:

Naw, even lower end mechs used it: Zeus, Highlander, Cataphract, etc. If you were a heavy with a ballistic hardpoint a few energy hardpoints, 2-3 LL and Gauss was pretty solid, just not as effective as Clan ERML + Gauss.

So what part of the player population are we talking about? Because if we're talking about the average tier 2-3 player, the Highlander and Cataphract are all but extinct, except possibly the CTF-0XP with gauss, which is still relatively rare. Also, at tier 2-3, hardly anyone uses ERLL boats at all, unless you count Ravens. It's the most rare of large lasers in pub matches.

I can understand people who want to balance the game based on what happens at the highest level, or based on what happens in the average game, but we do have to be careful not to cherry-pick arguments. The meta-builds for comp teams fighting on Tourmaline is a fairly specific context

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 January 2016 - 08:29 AM, said:

Yeah, the cooldown nerf was too big, but it didn't make people start using Clan dakka, it just made it so they had to rely on pure laser vomit instead.

As I see it, this supports my argument.

[Elizander]

No amount of velocity will make them instant. Even Goose Rifles are hard to hit with at very long ranges and I've been sniping with +25% velocity on my nearly 900m range Dual Goose Rifle Ilya on Alpine, but it's funny blowing out a light mech's component from 1800m away

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Alistair Winter, on 17 January 2016 - 08:39 AM, said:

So what part of the player population are we talking about? Because if we're talking about the average tier 2-3 player, the Highlander and Cataphract are all but extinct, except possibly the CTF-0XP with gauss, which is still relatively rare. Also, at tier 2-3, hardly anyone uses ERLL boats at all, unless you count Ravens. It's the most rare of large lasers in pub matches.

I can understand people who want to balance the game based on what happens at the highest level, or based on what happens in the average game, but we do have to be careful not to cherry-pick arguments. The meta-builds for comp teams fighting on Tourmaline is a fairly specific context

Well yes, ERLL is barely used in pub matches, so making sure ERLL isn't the only consideration on long range maps wouldn't hurt pubs any would it

The only reason large lasers are rare in pubs is because of how many quirked mechs have Large Laser range with LPLs, which is more than enough range for matches.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 January 2016 - 09:03 AM.

[ChapeL]

A little aside from the main topic ( I appologize ) but I dont understand why anyone would want to use an AC20 at 3 times its optimal range. At that range it's no longer an AC20 when it hits the target but it's still one as far as heat cost and weapon weight on your end.

[kapusta11]

ChapeL, on 17 January 2016 - 08:58 AM, said:

A little aside from the main topic ( I appologize ) but I dont understand why anyone would want to use an AC20 at 3 times its optimal range. At that range it's no longer an AC20 when it hits the target but it's still one as far as heat cost and weapon weight on your end.

Don't forget about heavier ammo.

[Sjorpha]

627, on 17 January 2016 - 12:01 AM, said:

Marauder is a good example how ppc speed should be for all mechs and you dont see poptarting marauders anywhere.

The marauder with good PPC velocity has no jumpjets.

[Reza Malin]

So again, someone give me a justification for again messing around with some substantial weapon balancing?

Something other than "cos poptarts 2 years ago", that makes me think this is anything but people wanting to enhance ideas for builds.

There is nothing wrong with current velocity values. Someone disagree and give me a good reason why please.

[Wintersdark]

Fade Akira, on 17 January 2016 - 02:23 AM, said:

So are you mate, what is your point? Its a forum, we are discussing our mutual viewpoints. What gives your opinon more worth than mine? Are you going to link me a petition to PGI to alter AC velocity values or something? If not, then its your opinon, and my opinon. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, no, you misunderstand. It's not my opinion vs. yours; I'm also a sample size of one. But your opinion is backed by... you. My opinion - that ballistics have been objectively inferior to lasers since the nerf - is backed up by hard data and constant usage from a very large number of players.

Pull up Metamechs. Tell me how many ballistics you see in those builds. Metamech's isn't The Laser Showcase, however it may look: It's a listing of the proven strongest builds, from the experience of a large number of competitive players. It shows - in aggregate, which removes bias - what actually works best.

Quote

Ballistics are fine, if anyone thinks otherwise they probably need to improve their accuracy, aim off at long range for drop over distance or lead moving targets more.

If they were fine, they'd be used more in serious play. Previously, it as AC5/PPC and Gauss/PPC, all of which requires better aim and leading.

Quote

The reason there is so much laser vomit is because they are lighter and smaller than ballistics. I remember when everyone was complaining the meta game was all about front loaded pinpoint damage, and those were bad times. Now we have lots of lasers, which require a full burn to do max damage and a steady hand rather than pop tarting or pinpoint alpha shooting and people are complaining again.

The reason there is so much laser vomit is that laser vomit is better. Not just lighter, but better: Lasers+DHS to fill the saved space vs. Ballistics+ammo, lasers get better damage output at any range.

If Lasers get better damage output at any given range, for less space/tonnage, then lasers are objectively better weapons.

Quote

Because they are smaller and lighter, lasers should always be more common than ballistics or PPC. What are you looking for? An exact split of lasers over ballistics? I am pretty sure energy hardpoints are also the most common on most chassis types. So your argument is flawed in my OPINION.

Your opinion is meaningless when we have fact and data. Opinions can be - and is this case, demonstrably are - simply incorrect.

It's not that there's more lasers than ballistics because there's more energy hardpoints. I'm not comparing numbers equipped, I'm comparing builds that utilize ballistics at all. Ballistic heavy chassis, a couple notable exceptions aside, are generally the weaker chassis as a result. All the best builds ignore ballistics completely in favour of just packing on more lasers, and that's ridiculous.

Notice you don't see heavy ballistic Hellbringers tearing up the place? How if you look through the Metamechs Tier 1 list, you see virtually no ballistics at all (except the occassional, rare Gauss), and even chassis with ballistic hardpoints just don't use them - it's all massed lasers.

That behavior is a direct result of lasers being better weapons.

Quote

Shall we propose to change SRM velocity now too because there are more laser builds than SRM builds? I don't see how there is an issue with ballistics. They have low heat, good damage and to compensate, they take some skill to aim effectively. Thats what they are and thats where they are currently at. Increasing velocity just makes it more likely everyone will start abusing them and their low heat to lower the TTK even further than it already is.

Well, if a weapon system is not used in favour of another weapon that is simply better in all circumstances, then there should be buffs and nerfs to balance things. That's pretty basic balance 101.

[Mcgral18]

Fade Akira, on 17 January 2016 - 10:04 AM, said:

So again, someone give me a justification for again messing around with some substantial weapon balancing?

Something other than "cos poptarts 2 years ago", that makes me think this is anything but people wanting to enhance ideas for builds.

There is nothing wrong with current velocity values. Someone disagree and give me a good reason why please.

Because they pale in comparison to Hitscan lasers.


Lasers, which in their particular flavours, perform better at long range, better at mid range, and better at short range.
A stark contrast to the past.


ACs as a family could use those de-nerfs.

[Wintersdark]

ChapeL, on 17 January 2016 - 08:58 AM, said:

A little aside from the main topic ( I appologize ) but I dont understand why anyone would want to use an AC20 at 3 times its optimal range. At that range it's no longer an AC20 when it hits the target but it's still one as far as heat cost and weapon weight on your end.

Because right now, it hits 0 damage at 2x it's optimal range. I'd like to see them go back to the prior value of 0 damage at 3 times it's maximum range, so that, in the case of the IS AC20, the damage at 540m (2xmax range) is then 10 damage instead of 0.

Firing beyond that is certainly not worth it, but at 2xOptimal, damage drops to zero much faster, and imho that's kind of silly.

So, at 2x, you're hitting 10 damage at 405m, at 3x you're hitting 10 damage at 540m.

That's why.

[KodiakGW]

While I agree with OP, I don't think it will happen. They want to make sure it will not be synced with other weapons, and not an insta-hit.

What they can do is look at the weight and slots on a number of them and make them not as much of a liability instead of taking laser vomit. For instance, UAC5s. Let's look at the numbers.

IS AC5 - 4 slots, 8 tons
IS UAC5 - 5 slots, 9 tons
Clan AC5 - 4 slots, 7 tons
Clan UAC5 - 3 slots, 7 tons

Wouldn't logic dictate if they we similar (Clan being lighter of course) that the IS UAC5 should be 3 slots, 8 tons. Or, the Clan UAC5 should be 5 slots, 8 tons. I know they are going by TRO for weight, but maybe they should both be same slots/tons. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what I see could be changed with tonnage and slots to make them more desirable.

[FupDup]

KodiakGW, on 17 January 2016 - 10:18 AM, said:

While I agree with OP, I don't think it will happen. They want to make sure it will not be synced with other weapons, and not an insta-hit.

What they can do is look at the weight and slots on a number of them and make them not as much of a liability instead of taking laser vomit. For instance, UAC5s. Let's look at the numbers.

IS AC5 - 4 slots, 8 tons
IS UAC5 - 5 slots, 9 tons
Clan AC5 - 4 slots, 7 tons
Clan UAC5 - 3 slots, 7 tons

Wouldn't logic dictate if they we similar (Clan being lighter of course) that the IS UAC5 should be 3 slots, 8 tons. Or, the Clan UAC5 should be 5 slots, 8 tons. I know they are going by TRO for weight, but maybe they should both be same slots/tons. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what I see could be changed with tonnage and slots to make them more desirable.

PGI has taken a hard line that no weapon or equipment will have different tonnage or slots than it had in Tabletop. This leaves us with the option of improving other characteristics of the items to make them worth the investment they need.


Also, how would making the Clan UAC/5 take 5 slots and 8 tons make it more desireable? That would make them worse...

Edited by FupDup, 17 January 2016 - 10:22 AM.

[Moldur]

627, on 17 January 2016 - 12:01 AM, said:

we play in times of 80point alphas, someone who is still afraid of the 30-40 alpha of the poptart era hasn't played a while (in higher tiers).

Can you uh.... Smurfy that? I mean, without lrms. If you meant to exaggerate, I apologize, slight exaggeration does not translate over text well. I don't think I've ever been hit with an 80+ point alpha except for that one time there was a crazy man with an 8 erPPC Dire.

Edited by Moldur, 17 January 2016 - 10:42 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Moldur, on 17 January 2016 - 10:42 AM, said:

Can you uh.... Smurfy that? I mean, without lrms. If you meant to exaggerate, I apologize, slight exaggeration does not translate over text well. I don't think I've ever been hit with an 80+ point alpha except for that one time there was a crazy man with an 8 erPPC Dire.

There's the one Whale, Dual Gauss, 2LPLs, 4ERMLs for 84 damage, and it can do it twice fully, then drop down to only LPLs&Gauss for a time.

Edited by Mcgral18, 17 January 2016 - 10:50 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

ChapeL, on 16 January 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

That was done for the AC5/PPC combo if I remember well and to make sure the AC20 stayed a "close in" type of weapon. I'm ambivalent about to former but I feel the latter is fine now.

well, poptarts switched to AC20 and AC10 after gauss charge was added, then after the they each got reduced, went to dual ac5...until it got reduced, lol....

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 17 January 2016 - 12:07 PM.

[Wintersdark]

KodiakGW, on 17 January 2016 - 10:18 AM, said:

While I agree with OP, I don't think it will happen. They want to make sure it will not be synced with other weapons, and not an insta-hit.

With what other weapons? PPC's? They're synced with them right now.

Quote

What they can do is look at the weight and slots on a number of them and make them not as much of a liability instead of taking laser vomit. For instance, UAC5s. Let's look at the numbers.

IS AC5 - 4 slots, 8 tons
IS UAC5 - 5 slots, 9 tons
Clan AC5 - 4 slots, 7 tons
Clan UAC5 - 3 slots, 7 tons

Wouldn't logic dictate if they we similar (Clan being lighter of course) that the IS UAC5 should be 3 slots, 8 tons. Or, the Clan UAC5 should be 5 slots, 8 tons. I know they are going by TRO for weight, but maybe they should both be same slots/tons. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what I see could be changed with tonnage and slots to make them more desirable.

No, because Clan AC has no relation to IS AC. AC2's aside, regular Clan AC's are simply worse weapons even without the loss of ultra mode.

This is because they were added as placeholders (for a system that was never implemented), they aren't "real" weapons and just shouldn't be used.

Regardless, slots and tonnage is, for better or worse, not going to change. This is something PGI is not going to bend on, its totally off the table.

Moldur, on 17 January 2016 - 10:42 AM, said:

Can you uh.... Smurfy that? I mean, without lrms. If you meant to exaggerate, I apologize, slight exaggeration does not translate over text well. I don't think I've ever been hit with an 80+ point alpha except for that one time there was a crazy man with an 8 erPPC Dire.

My Direwolf pushes 120 point strikes. Now, that's counting a doubletap on the uac20, but it does that entirely within the ERML burn time.

[Wintersdark]

I should note:

You could acheive the same end result via nerfing lasers, theoretically. Normally, I prefer nerfs to buffs (because I'm not a child who can't grasp game design needs vs. omg they're breaking my stuffs) but in this case, there aren't a lot of good ways to nerf lasers now that don't negatively impact gameplay.

Heat? Lasers are already quite hot. It wouldn't be a lot more heat to make them entirely unusable - it'd be a short road between OP and UP.

Duration? Absolutely not. As duration increases, gameplay experience decreases. It makes them deal less effective damage most of the time which is ok, though if reducing damage is your goal, then just nerf damage. However, longer duration leads to greatly increased unintentional friendly fire, and increases face time requirements leading to further lower TTK. Duration is the one change that makes lasers less fun to use, even with effectiveness taken right out of the picture.

Range, or damage. There's not much space for range alterations now without getting silly. So, that just leaves damage. Doable... but... meh.

On the other hand, a simple velocity increase on ballistics makes them more usable (particularly at range), without increasing how much damage they are capable of doing. It serves to buff ballistics, but in a more granular fashion; and it does so without increasing their overall peak damage output.

Heat reduction could be done for some, too. It's a less "fun" buff, though - makes them better, but not easier to use. Ease of use will contribute heavily to weapon usage at lower tiers, so firing faster shells helps ballistics perform a little more consistently, which makes other balance changes easier.

[Yosharian]

Ultimatum X, on 16 January 2016 - 11:08 PM, said:

Unfortunately range without velocity is kind of irrelevant.

Even now, max ranges at these velocities are pretty hard to pull off consistently, and mostly generates unfavorable trades.

Wintersdark, on 17 January 2016 - 11:39 AM, said:

You could acheive the same end result via nerfing lasers, theoretically. Normally, I prefer nerfs to buffs (because I'm not a child who can't grasp game design needs vs. omg they're breaking my stuffs) but in this case, there aren't a lot of good ways to nerf lasers now that don't negatively impact gameplay.

Except this is actually the reversion of a previous nerf, so not really the same as what you're saying (powercreep).

Edited by Yosharian, 17 January 2016 - 11:50 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Yosharian, on 17 January 2016 - 11:49 AM, said:

Except this is actually the reversion of a previous nerf, so not really the same as what you're saying (powercreep).

Which is why he is saying that in this case it makes more sense to buff ACs, than to nerf lasers?