555 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Lugh, on 29 March 2016 - 10:00 AM, said:

And there isn't a single map in this game that requires you to expose yourself to enemy fire before you are ready to fire at YOUR optimal range.

Wat. The meta may be more mid range than it was 4 months ago, but don't think for a second that a coordinated unit is going to let you within your optimal range without taking significant damage. The reason LPL/ML boats are strong on the IS side is they can put out damage past their optimal fairly well which extends their useful range, the same can not be said for cMPL as you often better off just running ERML/LPL for that. The only time I contemplate cMPL is if I was contemplating boating cERML and cERSL.

Deathlike, on 29 March 2016 - 10:06 AM, said:

I would not be for a CMPL range nerf, but if that had to happen... the range cannot go below 300m either way (I'm thinking 310-315m or so).

I don't think it needs anything even if the iLPL gets nerfed to something like 0.75 or 0.8 duration, but Ultmax seemed worried about the balance.

Deathlike, on 29 March 2016 - 10:06 AM, said:

The sheer irony though is that CSML has a quite of a bit of duration (same as a LL of 1.0s - ISML has a .9s duration) and people flock to CSPL simply because of duration (willing to pay the .5 ton increase per laser for this).. it would be nice if that sucked less.

The problem here is that they are competing for the same role, the ERSL would have to do more damage or the cSPL be nerfed beyond repair for that situation to change (another reason I would love for them to be a bit more different).

[Deathlike]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 March 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

I don't think it needs anything even if the iLPL gets nerfed to something like 0.75 or 0.8 duration, but Ultmax seemed worried about the balance.

Well, I would prefer to take 3 CMPL over 1 LPL... although the former is going to be hot, but I'd be doing more work over time if I have enough DHS to play with, but I shouldn't feel too badly using 1 LPL if I had to (although 1 LPL is never enough, and probably needs some MLs - like 2 or 3 - to go with that).

Quote

The problem here is that they are competing for the same role, the ERSL would have to do more damage or the cSPL be nerfed beyond repair for that situation to change (another reason I would love for them to be a bit more different).

Personally speaking, CERSML is literally unusable unless you're not using for a Light/anti-Light role. The DPS is there for filler damage/ton/heat, but if you're going to fight Lights.. it's not the optimal solution (every competent Clan Light pilot is going to run CSPL straight up - I would kinda argue that the ACH Champion is a somewhat of a trap). I don't want a damage increase... just a duration adjustment (if the damage has to change, so be it - it's already in a good spot tonnage+heatwise).

Edited by Deathlike, 29 March 2016 - 10:19 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Deathlike, on 29 March 2016 - 10:19 AM, said:

Well, I would prefer to take 3 CMPL over 1 LPL... although the former is going to be hot, but I'd be doing more work over time if I have enough DHS to play with, but I shouldn't feel too badly using 1 LPL if I had to (although 1 LPL is never enough, and probably needs some MLs - like 2 or 3 - to go with that).

3 cMPLs = 24 damage for 6 tons.
2 iLPLs = 22 damage for 14 tons.

The irony though is it takes around 8 DHS to make up for the extra heat that is generated by the cMPLs. 4.77 HPS vs 3.58 HPS, so while the iLPLs have a higher initial tonnage investment, the iLPL gets much better the more tonnage you have to play with, and you can supplement them with MLs as well which makes the iLPL better compared to the cMPL which really only combines with itself well. cMPLs really aren't that great of a weapon, I don't see them eclipsing anything anytime soon.

Deathlike, on 29 March 2016 - 10:19 AM, said:

I don't want a damage increase... just a duration adjustment

You run the risk of making them so similar though (just minor variations of each other), that's the problem I have with that.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 29 March 2016 - 10:29 AM.

[Gyrok]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 March 2016 - 09:43 AM, said:

I'd much rather the cMPL be nerfed in range if we are really worried about the cMPL vs iLPL so that the duration can be nerfed on the iLPL.

Large XPL solves that issue nicely I think...at the added cost of heat...

Clans pay heat for range and damage, I do not see a way IS should also be immune.

Should we also not forget the IS LPL does 3 more damage than a CMPL for only 1 more heat and about 1/2 duration. Plus the iLPL gets greater max range, and most mechs that use LPLs have quirks...making the iLPL a 438m weapon, with a max range over 850m.

The CMPL argument dies quickly when you consider the entirety...

[Mole]

Here's a summary of this thread for those of you joining us late.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

Mole, on 29 March 2016 - 10:45 AM, said:

Here's a summary of this thread for those of you joining us late.

cant hear you over the sound of 25%+ accel/decel/turn rate, 50%-100%+ int struct and an average of 4-6 10%+ weapons quirks

on every single IS mech.

Edited by Col Jaime Wolf, 29 March 2016 - 10:50 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Deathlike, on 29 March 2016 - 10:19 AM, said:

Personally speaking, CERSML is literally unusable unless you're not using for a Light/anti-Light role. The DPS is there for filler damage/ton/heat, but if you're going to fight Lights.. it's not the optimal solution (every competent Clan Light pilot is going to run CSPL straight up - I would kinda argue that the ACH Champion is a somewhat of a trap). I don't want a damage increase... just a duration adjustment (if the damage has to change, so be it - it's already in a good spot tonnage+heatwise).

I've got to disagree there.

I think the ERSL is in a decent spot...maybe a heat decrease by a half point...but that may also bump it up too far.
Hell of a lot better than the isSL.


It deals enough damage, has adequate range (I do miss 450M), and has largely acceptable heat to boat them.
cSPL does cost a fair bit of tonnage in comparison, but also better.

Neither escaped the range nerf...but the cLPL did (Because PGI? Or because Paul The Nerfinator?)

[kapusta11]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 March 2016 - 10:28 AM, said:

3 cMPLs = 24 damage for 6 tons.
2 iLPLs = 22 damage for 14 tons.

The irony though is it takes around 8 DHS to make up for the extra heat that is generated by the cMPLs. 4.77 HPS vs 3.58 HPS, so while the iLPLs have a higher initial tonnage investment, the iLPL gets much better the more tonnage you have to play with, and you can supplement them with MLs as well which makes the iLPL better compared to the cMPL which really only combines with itself well. cMPLs really aren't that great of a weapon, I don't see them eclipsing anything anytime soon.


You run the risk of making them so similar though (just minor variations of each other), that's the problem I have with that.

You make it sound like LPL is straigh up superior by using some bad example. First, no one carries just 3 cMPL, it's either 5 or 6 hence up to 48 damage. In order to match that on the IS side you need 2 LPL and 5 ML. In the end we have

48 damage 36 heat (~9 hps) 12 tons on Clan side
47 damage 34 heat 30 heat with quirk (~7.5 hps) 19 tons and 7 hardpoint requirement on IS side

Tonnage and heat differences are compensated by clans carrying more DHSs and on average having 1 hps higher dissipation. They are actually pretty even stat wise. But how many IS mediums and lower end heavies with 7E hardpoints that can run that loadout without XL engine are out there?

Edited by kapusta11, 29 March 2016 - 10:56 AM.

[Gyrok]

Mcgral18, on 29 March 2016 - 10:49 AM, said:

I've got to disagree there.

I think the ERSL is in a decent spot...maybe a heat decrease by a half point...but that may also bump it up too far.
Hell of a lot better than the isSL.


It deals enough damage, has adequate range (I do miss 450M), and has largely acceptable heat to boat them.
cSPL does cost a fair bit of tonnage in comparison, but also better.

Neither escaped the range nerf...but the cLPL did (Because PGI? Or because Paul The Nerfinator?)

With range quirks in play, I honestly think the fall off nerf could be rolled back, and that would make the range gap for the ERSL significant enough that it would warrant use over the SPL.

The fall off nerf made the 2 too similar in range profile for my personal taste.

[Mystere]

MrMilkshake, on 29 March 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

Whats the point of this thread ? No one is listening to you. Any of you. We have been moaning about this pish for how long now? why do you all still bother. Were all just along for the ride as russ gets drunk and changes stuff at the press of a button. Ballance will never be achevied before mwo nose dives into the ground and it looses so many players that they just close it down.
Face it, its run by clowns for clowns,
So just shut up and put your big rubber noses on.

That's entirely the point. Subterfuge 101.

[Mole]

Col Jaime Wolf, on 29 March 2016 - 10:49 AM, said:

cant hear you over the sound of 25%+ accel/decel/turn rate, 50%-100%+ int struct and an average of 4-6 10%+ weapons quirks

on every single IS mech.

Yes. Quirks. I can still kick an IS 'mech's face in with any one of my clan 'mechs and vice versa. I really don't feel like either techbase has a significant advantage over the other. If I can play both techbases and never feel particularly advantaged/disadvantaged in one or the other, I don't see how you people can cry overpowered or underpowered on either tech base. The simple fact of the matter is that if you are a good pilot those extra structure quirks and acceleration/deceleration really aren't so significant a boon that you'll even really notice them that much. I know I don't. I still think Blackjacks go down super easy despite all the whining about them being overquirked and immortal.

Edited by Mole, 29 March 2016 - 10:58 AM.

[Gyrok]

kapusta11, on 29 March 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

But how many IS mediums and lower end heavies with 7E hardpoints that can run that loadout without XL engine are out there?

Structure quirks make IS XL engines viable...

I think proliferation of structure quirks on IS mechs would make some sense in accommodating that gap. Some mechs are over quirked, and others are under quirked...

The best option in my mind is still to bring in IS tech 2 at least and make the tech parity more even.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

Mole, on 29 March 2016 - 10:55 AM, said:

Yes. Quirks. I can still kick an IS 'mech's face in with any one of my clan 'mechs and vice versa. I really don't feel like either techbase has a significant advantage over the other. If I can play both techbases and never feel particularly advantaged/disadvantaged in one or the other, I don't see how you people can cry overpowered or underpowered on either tech base. The simple fact of the matter is that if you are a good pilot those extra structure quirks and acceleration/deceleration really aren't so significant a boon that you'll even really notice them that much. I know I don't. I still think Blackjacks go down super easy.

most of my IIC mechs would like a word with you about that......

[Gyrok]

Mole, on 29 March 2016 - 10:55 AM, said:

Yes. Quirks. I can still kick an IS 'mech's face in with any one of my clan 'mechs and vice versa. I really don't feel like either techbase has a significant advantage over the other. If I can play both techbases and never feel particularly advantaged/disadvantaged in one or the other, I don't see how you people can cry overpowered or underpowered on either tech base. The simple fact of the matter is that if you are a good pilot those extra structure quirks and acceleration/deceleration really aren't so significant a boon that you'll even really notice them that much. I know I don't. I still think Blackjacks go down super easy despite all the whining about them being overquirked and immortal..

Ok, go play a cataphract...then go play a WHM or GHR.

Tell me there is no difference.

[Mystere]

Monodominant, on 29 March 2016 - 09:26 AM, said:

I would argue that the significant range difference (apart from weight for example) is a MAJOR plus difference for the clans.

Sure, noone is fighting out in an open map with no obstacles but when you can shoot at someone from 235+ meters (optimal) more then you have an advantage... given the 1200 max vs 700 max of the cLPL vs LPL that becomes even more important... essentially you can shoot them without them harming you... so we have a case of Some damage vs NO damage...

Long-range weapons lose much of their advantage when placed on low-slung hardpoints and used on terrain with short sight lines. Their longer duration further reduces their effectiveness.

Edited by Mystere, 29 March 2016 - 11:00 AM.

[Deathlike]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 March 2016 - 10:28 AM, said:

3 cMPLs = 24 damage for 6 tons.
2 iLPLs = 22 damage for 14 tons.

The irony though is it takes around 8 DHS to make up for the extra heat that is generated by the cMPLs. 4.77 HPS vs 3.58 HPS, so while the iLPLs have a higher initial tonnage investment, the iLPL gets much better the more tonnage you have to play with, and you can supplement them with MLs as well which makes the iLPL better compared to the cMPL which really only combines with itself well. cMPLs really aren't that great of a weapon, I don't see them eclipsing anything anytime soon.

I'm fully aware, but that depends solely on the tonnage situation available, and much less how good that weapon is (both are good for what they do). I'm not saying they are actual equivalents, but as currently constituted, the tonnage spent on either weapons is usually worth paying for (can't say the same for PPCs/ERPPCs).

Quote

You run the risk of making them so similar though (just minor variations of each other), that's the problem I have with that.

What exactly are you comparing though?

My direct comparison is really is CERSML vs CSPL vs ISML. I don't think the CERSML should be better than the CSPL (CSPL does everything you'd really want), but all I'm suggesting is something like a .90s duration on the CERSML (adjust damage as necessary - perhaps to something like 4.5) so that it isn't as "worse off" as the ISML (mind you, the ISML is fine for the most part for what you're asking for it too). I would consider range (nerfing the optimal range by 20m, but keep the current max range of 360m as is).

It's just a thought - CERSML is kinda sad to me.

[Mole]

Gyrok, on 29 March 2016 - 10:57 AM, said:

Ok, go play a cataphract...then go play a WHM or GHR.

Tell me there is no difference.

I've got a better idea. I'll just go back to having fun while you guys sit in here and corner the world market on salt. You'll make a fortune, I tell you.

[SuomiWarder]

My question is why is this thread at 24 pages and counting. It is not as if an 'answer' to anyone's opinion is going to suddenly shine for everyone.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Deathlike, on 29 March 2016 - 11:00 AM, said:

What exactly are you comparing though?

My direct comparison is really is CERSML vs CSPL vs ISML.

It's just a thought - CERSML is kinda sad to me.

I'm only comparing it to the cSPL because that's the only weapon it competes with at this point, and so long as the cSPL maintains the role of being the more accurate short range weapon, it will probably maintain the position of being better, even if it did 1 less damage, I would still probably take it because the duration is just that important for a weapon that is in brawl range.

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 29 March 2016 - 10:49 AM, said:

I've got to disagree there.

I think the ERSL is in a decent spot...maybe a heat decrease by a half point...but that may also bump it up too far.
Hell of a lot better than the isSL.

I don't think heat as an issue. In the case of the ISSL... I kinda think range is part of its issue, but I don't think it's quite that. I'm kinda leaning towards tweaking the duration from .75 to .66 or something like that. I'm still not quite sure, but I've never found a need to run IS SL generally speaking.

Quote

It deals enough damage, has adequate range (I do miss 450M), and has largely acceptable heat to boat them.
cSPL does cost a fair bit of tonnage in comparison, but also better.

Neither escaped the range nerf...but the cLPL did (Because PGI? Or because Paul The Nerfinator?)

I dunno. The CLPL is still crazy effective with range (not quite CERLL range, but it's pretty effective as is).