19 replies to this topic

[Pariah Devalis]

Had an idea earlier, so figured I'd toss it out here to be picked apart or come up with new ideas to influence the original concept. I'm sure there are flaws, and numbers always subject to change. Disclaimer: some of you will not be happy with my suggestion. At all. I am not attacking you, so please try to be constructive in your disagreements with the idea. Thoughtful discussion is preferred.

Objective: Impact the effectiveness of lasers such that other weapon types are more competitive options without making lasers smoldering piles of junk. Secondary objective is to streamline the ruleset behind them so that it is more user intuitive to players - especially those who might swap between Clan and Inner Sphere often.

First off, before any of the following changes are to be done, two things need to be done. First, all existing IS and Clan laser quirks need to be discarded. Secondly, all IS mechs would get a global 40% torso structure quirk, regardless of mech or variant.

Baseline standardization of the laser systems across BOTH Clan and Inner Sphere tech for ease of understanding would be changed to the following:

• Laser damage dropoff is 2x effective range OR 1,000 meters, whichever comes first.
  
• Standard Laser beam duration is 1.0 s
  
• ER Laser beam duration is 1.2 s
  
• Pulse Laser beam duration is 0.8 s and total number of damage ticks are halved

For ease of transition, keep all current effective ranges for the lasers.

Additional important note: Pulse Laser damage will be the same as their non-pulse versions, however, as each tick will do more damage and the shorter beam duration lets you discharge those ticks faster, they will be easier to fully discharge damage into a small, fast, or evasive target where you want that damage, as compared to standard or ER variations.

IS LL, ERLLas, and LPLas damage reduced to 8 from 9. Heat shifted to 7, 8, and 9 respectively.
C ERLLas and LPLas damage reduced to 10. Heat shifted to 9 and 10 respectively.

IS MLas and MPlas damage kept at 5. Heat shifted to 3 and 4.
C ERMLas and MPLas damage kept at 7. Heat shifted to 5 and 6.

IS SLas and SPLas damage kept at 3. Heat shifted to 1 and 2.
C ERSLas and SPLas damage kept at 5. Heat shifted to 2 and 3.

These changes would result in overall less damage in the high end lasers of both tech lines and less mindless point and click use of the lasers in the mid to lower ends, allowing easier counterplay via armor rolling. Play vs counterplay should be a big thing in this game, especially for such easy to operate weapon systems like hitscan lasers. In addition, all lasers would be a little more heat efficient across both tech lines.

The 2x range OR 1,000 meter rule is in place to stymie the impact of excessive, massed, hitscan weapon systems on certain ... specific maps/game modes, and push players who want to deal damage at those extreme ranges into different weapon types that require a modicum of lead prediction. If this was combined with a mild (say, 20%) ammo per ton increase on all ballistic systems it would be a nice way to make ballistics relevant again without outright obsoleting the alternatives or dropping our already low time to kill any further.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 28 January 2016 - 03:31 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

So with one fell swoop you kill the wub?

You only get 20% duration reduction, but extra heat, no extra damage, and costs extra tonnage :/

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 January 2016 - 03:32 PM.

[Mystere]

I'd rather PGI create a "power" formula that uses damage, range, heat, weight, and duration, publish it for all to see, then stick to it.

[Pariah Devalis]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 January 2016 - 03:31 PM, said:

So with one fell swoop you kill the wub?

Neg. Twice the damage per pulse. That was never tried before. Right now lasers deal damage in 1/10 increments, this would make it 1/5. As a result, a MPLas, for example, would go from dealing 10 ticks of .5 damage to 5 ticks of dealing 1 damage.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pariah Devalis, on 28 January 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

Neg. Twice the damage per pulse. That was never tried before. Right now lasers deal damage in 1/10 increments, this would make it 1/5. As a result, a MPLas, for example, would go from dealing 10 ticks of .5 damage to 5 ticks of dealing 1 damage.

That isn't a balancing mechanism, not to mention unwieldy because knowing how to lagshoot is what helps shooting lasers into lights, not reducing the number of ticks.

[FupDup]

IS LPL gets -3 damage, +2 heat, and +0.13 seconds of burn time in this suggestion (8 damage and 9 heat lol)...it pretty much dies on the spot. Goodbye wubz.

IS LL and ERLL get an unneeded damage nerf.

Clan LPL manages to survive damage nerf because of a significant beam time reduction. Might actually be a bit deadlier in terms of damage dealt per second of beam lol.

Clan SPL and ERSL probably didn't need a buff this big. They're the small-class lasers that are actually viable right now.

IS ML heat reduction is kewl, but making the MPL have a longer burn time is not.

IS SL heat reduction is also kewl, but longer burn time on both SL and SPL are very very unneeded for weapons that are underwhelming (especially the SL).

Clan ERML really, really doesn't need 5 heat, and you also gave it a shorter beam time too lol. Shorter beam on Clam MPL is meh.

Clan ERLL buff is at least nice, although perhaps too much actually (-0.3 duration time and -1 heat at the same time? ggclose).


Ultimately, I don't think we need to or should take a "normalization" approach to balancing lasers (or just about anything else) because having some values line up on a spreadsheet doesn't always translate into balanced gameplay. The Nerfinator is an excellent case-study of this concept...

Edited by FupDup, 28 January 2016 - 03:42 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 January 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:

That isn't a balancing mechanism, not to mention unwieldy because knowing how to lagshoot is what helps shooting lasers into lights, not reducing the number of ticks.

Just because you claim it isn't a balancing mechanism doesn't make it not a balancing mechanism. It is a mechanism that was never used. More damage per tick directly increases the effective application of damage to a target that, say, armor rolls at a distance you cannot easily correct for. Effective application is the name of the game here as opposed to raw damage numbers.

FupDup, on 28 January 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

IS LPL gets -3 damage, +2 heat, and +0.13 seconds of burn time in this suggestion (8 damage and 9 heat lol)...it pretty much dies on the spot. Goodbye wubz.

IS LL and ERLL get an unneeded damage nerf.

Clan LPL manages to survive damage nerf because of a significant beam time reduction. Might actually be a bit deadlier in terms of damage concentration lol.

Clan SPL and ERSL probably didn't need a buff this big. They're the small-class lasers that are actually viable right now.

IS ML heat reduction is kewl, but making the MPL have a longer burn time is not.

IS SL heat reduction is also kewl, but longer burn time on both SL and SPL are very very unneeded for weapons that are underwhelming (especially the SL).

Clan ERML really, really doesn't need 5 heat, and you also gave it a shorter beam time too lol.


Ultimately, I don't think we need to or should take a "normalization" approach to balancing lasers (or just about anything else) because having some values line up on a spreadsheet doesn't always translate into balanced gameplay. The Nerfinator is an excellent case-study of this concept...

Now, this I like. You're breaking it down by comparison. Good good. See, now we can discuss suggestions from there to improve their effectiveness to a usable level. However right now there's a situation where some mechs (but not all) are getting their cake and eating it too. Dealing more effective damage while being tankier. One or the other has got to give, but TTK should not be allowed to go down.

We also have a situation where ballistics by comparison are just bad investments. Either you bring up the ballistics or bring down the lasers. I rather hit the lasers a bit, personally.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 28 January 2016 - 03:40 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pariah Devalis, on 28 January 2016 - 03:39 PM, said:

Just because you claim it isn't a balancing mechanism doesn't make it not a balancing mechanism. It is a mechanism that was never used. More damage per tick directly increases the effective application of damage to a target that, say, armor rolls at a distance you cannot easily correct for. Effective application is the name of the game here as opposed to raw damage numbers.

You can't roll damage that fast though, for this idea to work the difference has to be more than simply half the ticks, more like a fourth of the ticks basically chunking the damage into packets bigger than point of damage. That still isn't worth the tonnage and extra heat though. If we were talking just heat, then yes, that would be interesting, but double the tonnage on the medium/small side this would not be worth it.

I would rather the lasers be more distinct from each other than having half of them being more "accurate" versions of each other and this makes them more "samey".

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 January 2016 - 03:48 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Hm. Pulse set to 30% below standard and heat matched with tech standard variations and ER set to 30% above might bring it a bit more into line. So, 0.7 second pulse, 1.0 second standard, 1.3 second ER. Match heat for IS pulses with their standard lasers and match heat with Clan pulses to their ER lasers.

Don't forget the areas where Clan lasers might get a slight increase in current effectiveness is also being countered by the global 40% increased structure of IS mechs, as well as the lower heat cap on Clan mechs. Also, last I checked, I believe it wasn't the Clan lasers that were proving a problem in the competitive scene.

Edit: Honestly, I'd love to see pulse lasers be more akin to energy machine guns except, well, not sucky COF pieces of junk, with Class of Laser based on a DPS rating.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 28 January 2016 - 03:55 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pariah Devalis, on 28 January 2016 - 03:54 PM, said:

Edit: Honestly, I'd love to see pulse lasers be more akin to energy machine guns except, well, not sucky COF pieces of junk, with Class of Laser based on a DPS rating.

I'd prefer the opposite simply because pulse are heavier and supposed to be the more accurate weapons, but either way, as long as they accomplish something different.

[Tarogato]

Pariah Devalis, on 28 January 2016 - 03:27 PM, said:

- Laser damage dropoff is 2x effective range OR 1,000 meters, whichever comes first.

So basically ruining ERLL. Think about this for a second: the LL feathers at 495m and caps at 990 meters. The ERLL feathers at 742m and caps at 1485m. The ERLL is a better choice at ranges between 496 and 1485m, which is a nice 990m gap. But what happens if you reduce the ERLL to a 1000m cap? Now it only covers a 505m gab. What does this accomplish? What does this balance?

Absolutely nothing.

Quote

- Standard Laser beam duration is 1.0 s
- ER Laser beam duration is 1.2 s
- Pulse Laser beam duration is 0.8 s

So basically ruining short range lasers but giving all lasers the same burn duration. Why are short range lasers better at short range than long range lasers are? Two reasons. 1: better DPS. 2. better burn duration. Take away the duration advantage and brawling will be ridiculously dead.

You'll have people running around with 4x LL dealing 0.9 DpT and people running around with 8x SPL dealing 1.3 DpT.

To put this into perspective, the present DpT are 1.20 for 4x LL and 2.14 DpT for 8x SPL. The SPL build gets a 73% increase in DpT. But in your system the SPL build only gets a 44% increase in DpT. You're nearly making laser brawlers half as effective as they currently are. And what purpose does this serve? What does this balance?

Absolutely nothing. Just makes long range lasers that much better - more swiss army knife. Who needs to bring short range lasers when your long range lasers have just as much precision? You've completely erased a balancing mechanic from the game.

Quote

<pulse lasers> and total number of damage ticks are halved
Additional important note: Pulse Laser damage will be the same as their non-pulse versions, however, as each tick will do more damage and the shorter beam duration lets you discharge those ticks faster, they will be easier to fully discharge damage into a small, fast, or evasive target where you want that damage, as compared to standard or ER variations.

How do you change how many ticks a laser has? The server checks for damage every 0.033333 seconds. That is because the game servers run at 30 ticks per second. Are you suggesting that pulse lasers skip every other tick and deal their damage at half resolution? Sure, the damage output stays the same, but the accuracy goes down. This will make it *harder* to discharge damage into small, fast, or evasive targets. It's almost like trying to play the game at 15fps instead of 30fps.

Quote

The 2x range OR 1,000 meter rule is in place to stymie the impact of excessive, massed, hitscan weapon systems on certain ... specific maps/game modes, and push players who want to deal damage at those extreme ranges into different weapon types that require a modicum of lead prediction. If this was combined with a mild (say, 20%) ammo per ton increase on all ballistic systems it would be a nice way to make ballistics relevant again without outright obsoleting the alternatives or dropping our already low time to kill any further.

Instead of completely rewriting laser balance just to make people use other weapons for long range... how about this?

- nerf LL by 0.5s
- nerf LPL by 0.3s
- nerf cLPL by 0.5s
- nerf ERLL by 0.7s
- nerf cERLL by 0.4s
- buff AC/2 velocity by 100m/s
- buff ERPPC velocity by 150m/s
- buff cERPPC velocity by 150m/s

Are these arbitrary numbers? Perhaps. Are these small iterative changes to balance instead of completely overhauling an entire system that doesn't need to be overhauled? Hell to the yes.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Just a general response to this thread without going into numbers:

We really don't want normalization of base values for different weapons, even in a category or family (that is, energy category and LL family). If the function is too similar it makes player choice and gameplay style less meaningful and less differentiated.

What we should be aiming to normalized is derivative values such as DPS, DPH, DPS/ton, HPS.

It is very reasonable to create causal relationships via ratios to make these stats very close together without making the base values too similar.

[Y E O N N E]

Mystere, on 28 January 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

I'd rather PGI create a "power" formula that uses damage, range, heat, weight, and duration, publish it for all to see, then stick to it.

"Power" as in a utility score, more or less?

[Deathlike]

Mystere, on 28 January 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

I'd rather PGI create a "power" formula that uses damage, range, heat, weight, and duration, publish it for all to see, then stick to it.

You can't realistically consolidate it into a # and expect it to "just work".

That's how we get indirect nerfs to weapons that never needed nerfs (like the LPL back before the "official launch").

[Mystere]

Deathlike, on 28 January 2016 - 06:55 PM, said:

You can't realistically consolidate it into a # and expect it to "just work".

That's how we get indirect nerfs to weapons that never needed nerfs (like the LPL back before the "official launch").

Who said it has to be "a number"?

Yeonne Greene, on 28 January 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:

"Power" as in a utility score, more or less?

Sort of, and it does not really have to be limited to just the 5 attributes I mentioned. We can even get fancy and create a set of KPIs to measure against.

The basic idea is to have something measurable.

Edited by Mystere, 28 January 2016 - 07:53 PM.

[SQW]

I'd just raise the laser heat generation by 30-50% across the board.

Make it so any laser boat alphas worth the effort will generate 90+% heat so if you don't kill your target, you are a sitting duck on shutdown. Laser are suppose to be a supplementary weapon to your other weapon types and not to be alpha-spammed. Even in a Nova, you are not suppose to be able to open an engagement with 2 alphas of 6+ lasers then hide to bleed out the heat.

With 50% more heat, the extra HSs requirement in both tonnage and slots will FORCE players to use 'less desirables' like ACs or Missiles to compensate. Even with a laser boat, you'd start to chain fire more and reserve alpha only in a do-or-die situation.

Added bonus might also might take care of all the suicide Light mech squads now they can't spam alphas all day and actually go back to scouting and screening.

Edited by SQW, 28 January 2016 - 07:47 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Mystere, on 28 January 2016 - 07:35 PM, said:

Who said it has to be "a number"?

If it's not a value, how are you going to quantify it?

Mystere, on 28 January 2016 - 07:35 PM, said:

Sort of, and it does not really have to be limited to just the 5 attributes I mentioned. We can even get fancy and create a set of KPIs to measure against.

They actually do have these KPIs already; they are the derived values I mentioned above.

[Y E O N N E]

Mystere, on 28 January 2016 - 07:35 PM, said:

Sort of, and it does not really have to be limited to just the 5 attributes I mentioned. We can even get fancy and create a set of KPIs to measure against.

Isn't that basically along the lines of what I was doing in my tables? Take the performance characteristics, give them swing weights because not all of them apply to the same level, figure a performance curve for each of those characteristics (i.e. is less duration better in a linear fashion), normalize the performance to a common scale, and then score them with the weighted average accordingly?

[Mister Blastman]

Just REMOVE CONVERGENCE.

DO it. Put it on PTS, schedule a big rewards grab bag event that requires a minimum of 200 drops to win everything and collect data.

I encourage everyone to spam the twitch townhall chat with a question asking about removing convergence.

Let's stop this madness... once and for all.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 28 January 2016 - 08:24 PM.

[Mystere]

Mister Blastman, on 28 January 2016 - 08:23 PM, said:

Just REMOVE CONVERGENCE.

Or that.