87 replies to this topic

[Adamski]

Lets see...
iERLL is 9 dmg over 1.25s (1.125 if you get a 10% duration quirk) for 5 tons and 2 slots
gives you 1.6 damage per second per ton full quirked
cERLL is 11 dmg over 1.5s for 4 tons and 1 slot
gives you 1.8 damage per second per ton

Cry more Gyrok

[Gyrok]

Adamski, on 25 March 2016 - 05:47 PM, said:

Lets see...
iERLL is 9 dmg over 1.25s (1.125 if you get a 10% duration quirk) for 5 tons and 2 slots
gives you 1.6 damage per second per ton full quirked
cERLL is 11 dmg over 1.5s for 4 tons and 1 slot
gives you 1.8 damage per second per ton

Cry more Gyrok

Hmm...

IS ERLL with no duration quirks gives 0.72 damage per 0.1 seconds

IS ERLL with -10% duration (because half the mechs on the IS side have that or more) gives 0.8 damage per .1 seconds.

cERLL with no quirks (because there are none, anywhere, ever...) gives 0.73 damage per 0.1 seconds.

Tell me who is winning that trade?

Edited by Gyrok, 25 March 2016 - 05:58 PM.

[Wolfways]

Felio, on 25 March 2016 - 09:10 AM, said:

What game have you been playing? Matches are basically won or lost at long ranges, then people move in closer after their team is up by 2-3 kills.

What do you call long range? I see ERLL's, ERPPC's, Gauss rifles, etc. as long range. On maps other than Alpine and Polar most combat is within ML range.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Adamski, on 25 March 2016 - 05:47 PM, said:

Lets see...
iERLL is 9 dmg over 1.25s (1.125 if you get a 10% duration quirk) for 5 tons and 2 slots
gives you 1.6 damage per second per ton full quirked
cERLL is 11 dmg over 1.5s for 4 tons and 1 slot
gives you 1.8 damage per second per ton

At the same time, ignoring ghost heat thresholds is a grave mistake.

[Adamski]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 March 2016 - 07:29 PM, said:

At the same time, ignoring ghost heat thresholds is a grave mistake.

Yep, IS mechs are constrained by weight and space, which the isERLL take up more of

Clan mechs are constrained by heat, which the cERLL uses up more of

[Gyrok]

Adamski, on 25 March 2016 - 07:37 PM, said:

Yep, IS mechs are constrained by weight and space, which the isERLL take up more of

Clan mechs are constrained by heat, which the cERLL uses up more of

You can fire 3 ERLLs at once, 27 damage versus 22 damage.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Adamski, on 25 March 2016 - 07:37 PM, said:

Yep, IS mechs are constrained by weight and space, which the isERLL take up more of

Clan mechs are constrained by heat AND facetime, which the cERLL uses up more of

Fixed that for you, because there is extra face time to do similar damage. No Clan assault will use more than 4 ERLL (if they even use 4 ERLL) because more than that means ways too much face time in a coordinated match, and pure ERLL is what dominates extreme range still, which is why the Hunchback IIC and Hellbringer are the best you can do.

Spooky heat has an unfortunate impact on the effectiveness of a weapon.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 25 March 2016 - 07:55 PM.

[Adamski]

Gyrok, on 25 March 2016 - 07:48 PM, said:

You can fire 3 ERLLs at once, 27 damage versus 22 damage.

Yep, 87.5% more tonnage, 50% more hardpoints, and 300% more slots for 22.7% more damage.

Edited by Adamski, 26 March 2016 - 08:48 AM.

[Gyrok]

Adamski, on 26 March 2016 - 08:47 AM, said:

Yep, 87.5% more tonnage, 50% more hardpoints, and 300% more slots for 22.7% more damage.

You know, the irony is...you only compare a single metric when it favors your argument, you compare lots of metrics when comparing a single metric is unfavorable.

So...

Set the criteria. What are we focusing on...?

That way there is a point that I can come back to and say..."wait! this is what you said, stop moving the goal posts..."

[Adamski]

Gyrok, on 26 March 2016 - 10:19 AM, said:

You know, the irony is...you only compare a single metric when it favors your argument, you compare lots of metrics when comparing a single metric is unfavorable.

So...

Set the criteria. What are we focusing on...?

That way there is a point that I can come back to and say..."wait! this is what you said, stop moving the goal posts..."

You mean where I pointed out that Damage per Beam Time per Ton favored the cERLL, and here how I pointed out that Damage per Ton favored the cERLL?

Truly, how will you ever figure out which way my argument will blow and where the goal post will be located.

[Gyrok]

Adamski, on 26 March 2016 - 10:23 AM, said:

You mean where I pointed out that Damage per Beam Time per Ton favored the cERLL, and here how I pointed out that Damage per Ton favored the cERLL?

Truly, how will you ever figure out which way my argument will blow and where the goal post will be located.

Damage per tick favors the IS ERLL.

Damage per ton favors the CERLL

Now what?

[Y E O N N E]

Gyrok, on 26 March 2016 - 11:22 AM, said:

Damage per tick favors the IS ERLL.

Damage per ton favors the CERLL

Now what?

Give IS 10% duration reduction across the board.

Let cERLL fire 3x3.

[Gyrok]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 March 2016 - 11:28 AM, said:

Give IS 10% duration reduction across the board.

Let cERLL fire 3x3.

Really, only the IS ERLL would even be necessary and 5% would be enough to make dam/tick in favor of the IS version already...the LL and LPL are already in a crazy good place to be honest.

Edited by Gyrok, 26 March 2016 - 12:31 PM.

[Adamski]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 March 2016 - 11:28 AM, said:

Give IS 10% duration reduction across the board.

Let cERLL fire 3x3.

I would be happy if they gave the IS 10% energy range across the board even

[Gyrok]

Adamski, on 26 March 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

I would be happy if they gave the IS 10% energy range across the board even

You cannot afford range modules?

[LegendaryArticuno]

I wish they reduced range on all long range weapons - ERLL/ERPPC/Gauss/LRM/UAC2/UAC5 to encourage more brawling.

[Khobai]

Quote

I wish they reduced range on all long range weapons - ERLL/ERPPC/Gauss/LRM/UAC2/UAC5 to encourage more brawling.

long-range should have its place in the game.

what the game needs is a better balance of long-range and brawling. it doesnt need long-range removed completely.

I still like the idea of making ALL weapons do -30% damage if you dont have a target lock. that makes getting sensor locks way more important while appropriately nerfing long range weapons fired without locks.

sensors need to actually matter and implementing that idea gets us there...

Edited by Khobai, 26 March 2016 - 02:47 PM.

[Adamski]

Khobai, on 26 March 2016 - 02:44 PM, said:

long-range should have its place in the game.

what the game needs is a better balance of long-range and brawling. it doesnt need long-range removed completely.

I still like the idea of making ALL weapons do -30% damage if you dont have a target lock. that makes getting sensor locks way more important while appropriately nerfing long range weapons fired without locks.

sensors need to actually matter and implementing that idea gets us there...

I liked that idea too, but PGI really needs to remove the target scrambling from ECM, and then buff its range again, so it is a counter to information gathering and missile locks only.

While we are on the topic, nerf Radar Deprivation so that it causes locks to be lost 2x faster, instead of instantly.

[Y E O N N E]

Gyrok, on 26 March 2016 - 12:30 PM, said:

Really, only the IS ERLL would even be necessary and 5% would be enough to make dam/tick in favor of the IS version already...the LL and LPL are already in a crazy good place to be honest.

Having the damage per tick be even isn't necessarily the goal.

Another way you could do it is leave cERLL at ghost 3, then shorten the duration just enough to make it worth firing through the ghost.

[cazidin]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 March 2016 - 03:33 PM, said:

Having the damage per tick be even isn't necessarily the goal.

Another way you could do it is leave cERLL at ghost 3, then shorten the duration just enough to make it worth firing through the ghost.

Would a 1.25 sec burn duration sound reasonable?