90 replies to this topic

[cazidin]

TheArisen, on 20 May 2016 - 11:21 PM, said:

This is one of my most desired weapons that's in the current timeline.

BTW, perfect balance is never going to be achieved so it's not a reason not to add more weapons. Especially when it's a weapon like the Binary laser that's pretty self balancing.

Who said perfect balance? I just want PGI to fix broken or mediocre weapon systems before introducing new ones. I'd also like the Command Console to be worth 3 tons. I wouldn't mind a pony either, for m'lady, of course...

[FLG 01]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 21 May 2016 - 06:14 AM, said:

Otherwise... I'm not sure PGI can balance them well enough to not be a massive problem.

Well, lasers can be balanced relatively simply by adjusting the beam duration, at least against each other.
But then, I think the Blazer would fit into the general modeling of energy weapons: for higher damage and/or range you pay with more a lot more weight and space; just compare the 1ton ML with the 5ton LL and then the 5ton LL with the 9ton Blazer.

Then there is ghost heat (at least for now...). As a large laser type, you could fire three of them, and that is a whopping 40.5 hitscan alpha. I think the fact that it generates 42 heat and needs 12 crits and 27 tons just to make it possible should balance it out. But if not, just add a ghost heat penalty for firing three Blazers.

Whatever kind of power draw system PGI will or will not use in the future could also be used to balance such a power hungry weapon.


So I don't expect any unsolvable balance problems.

cazidin, on 21 May 2016 - 06:51 AM, said:

Who said perfect balance? I just want PGI to fix broken or mediocre weapon systems before introducing new ones.

Those are not mutually exclusive. The Binary Laser Cannon, being a low-tech solution of fusing two LL, is a rather typical member of the laser-family and thus it would not create the same kind of problems which totally new weapon system like the Mech Mortar or radically new concepts like the Bombast Lasers would create. There are no new mechanics involved or required, it is simply a bigger laser. And its effect is rather easily predicted once we know its stats. Therefore the Blazer would not affect PGI's balancing attempts much.

I would also be careful when it comes to "mediocre" weapons. Someone somewhere will always consider something mediocre. And some weapons are just "broke". The MG for example was included in MWO because it is the stock equipment of some Mechs, not because it is useful against other Mechs. It was never meant to be, nor should it be. Denying new weaponry because the MG does not hurt a Mech is something I cannot agree with.

Edited by FLG 01, 21 May 2016 - 07:41 AM.

[Johnny Z]

Most everything I learned about Battletech is on these forums aside from the general vague story line. Also Playing MechWarrior 2 and 4 long after they were obsolete.

But anyway, the Blazer seems like a good addition but its tough to say as a casual player that likes playing quite often and stop by these forums as often. Meaning, the fine details escape me.

Maybe its a good idea maybe its not. I'm sure quad mechs are a good idea though! But shouldn't they be multi player and 150 tons?

Edited by Johnny Z, 21 May 2016 - 07:53 AM.

[Triordinant]

Johnny Z, on 21 May 2016 - 07:48 AM, said:

I'm sure quad mechs are a good idea though! But shouldn't they be multi player and 150 tons?

These are the 'mechs you're looking for...

[Tordin]

Ah, the AT-AT. Way too tall for their own good..

[wanderer]

Solis Obscuri, on 20 May 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

dmg 12, heat 16, long range 450m... for 9 tons and 4 crits...

Why would I want a worse version of the LPLas?

Given large lasers in MWO generally have been upgraded from TT stats, it'd actually beat that out. In MWO terms, a binary laser would be a 14 heat (MWO LL's are 87.5% TT heat), 13.5 damage (MWO LLs are also 112.5% damage) weapon with an effective range of 450m and maximum of 900m, with a one second burn. Given it's literally built from large lasers, I'd expect LL-specific quirks to work on binary lasers along with the usual energy/laser-generic ones. On the other hand, I'd also figure they'd count as 1.5 weapons for the purpose of triggering ghost heat (effectively meaning more than 2 would set it off, and given ghost heat that'd be a lot of extra hot) and it'd count along with everything else in the large laser group.

[wanderer]

FLG 01, on 21 May 2016 - 07:40 AM, said:

I would also be careful when it comes to "mediocre" weapons. Someone somewhere will always consider something mediocre. And some weapons are just "broke". The MG for example was included in MWO because it is the stock equipment of some Mechs, not because it is useful against other Mechs. It was never meant to be, nor should it be. Denying new weaponry because the MG does not hurt a Mech is something I cannot agree with.

The "MGs don't do anything to a 'Mech" bit is a little tired- and false.

Ton for ton, MGs deal exactly as much damage as SRM launchers do in tabletop- 6 MGs is 12 damage, same as an SRM 6, and for the same weight (3 tons) as well. They get less range, but no heat to fire. The reason they're not popular with TT players is because MGs carry so much ammo even with a single ton that an ammo explosion is sufficient to obliterate the 'Mech in question (barring CASE) unless you're carrying an obscene (as in 10-20) MGs to chew up that 200 shots per ton. And the most any canonical design carries is the Clan Piranha with 12, pretty much dwarfing everyone else outside of a few Solaris VII special rigs. Double heat sinks made it an ever less popular decision as most 'Mechs could mount SPL/SLs for backup guns and not worry about the minimal heat or the strap-on-ammo-bomb, until Tactical Operations gave MGs the option to fire in a high-ROF, heat-generating mode...which took advantage of DHS and let you actually burn ammo off at a respectable rate.

PGI just decided to make them trash weapon systems vs. armor, because Paul.

There are definitely TT weapons that are available (if rare) that would fill in gaps in MWO- the binary laser, 'Mech rifles - that can easily use existing projectile modeling and minimal graphics work to expand selection and fill in gaps. There's even an entire armor type (Hardened) for both Clan and IS units that could be reasonably added.

Edited by wanderer, 21 May 2016 - 09:16 AM.

[Johnny Z]

Mech rifle is another that may be good or not. Sounds good but will it be another gauss rifle or auto cannon?

[wanderer]

Johnny Z, on 21 May 2016 - 09:19 AM, said:

Mech rifle is another that may be good or not. Sounds good but will it be another gauss rifle or auto cannon?

Amusingly enough, Paul's "MGs do less damage to armor" coding works perfectly with it.

Rifles fire a single shell in TT, deal reduced damage to armor and in general are a tad less heat efficient and range-reach than similar ACs, but also generally have a better damage to tonnage ratio.

In MWO terms, a rifle would deal 1.5 less damage per hit to armor (it's 3 in TT, but doubled armor here = halved damage reduction in MWO), meaning even light rifles would deliver modest damage and a heavy rifle runs like a cross between an AC/5 and AC/10, while light/medium rifles would fill the tonnage gap for ballistics between the MG and AC/2. As a ballistic addition, they'd be a remarkably easy weapon to add to the ranks.

[davoodoo]

12 dmg for 16 heat at 9 tons vs 16 dmg 16 heat 10 tons with 2 large lasers.
Have i mentioned that both have same range??

Damn even raven will pass on this, only time i would use this thing is
1)few hardpoints but plenty of tonnage for heat sinks and only mad5d comes to mind.
2)it wont be tied to group ghost heat and youll pack 1-2 of those along with 3 large lasers.
3)somehow we will get actual DOUBLE heat sinks.

Edited by davoodoo, 21 May 2016 - 09:35 AM.

[Triordinant]

davoodoo, on 21 May 2016 - 09:32 AM, said:

12 dmg for 16 heat at 9 tons vs 16 dmg 16 heat 10 tons with 2 large lasers.

Your numbers are wrong. These are the right ones:

http://mwomercs.com/...40#entry5200940

[davoodoo]

Triordinant, on 21 May 2016 - 09:39 AM, said:

Your numbers are wrong. These are the right ones:

http://mwomercs.com/...40#entry5200940

http://www.sarna.net...ry_Laser_Cannon
12 dmg 16 heat 9 tons 4 slots
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Large_Laser
8x2=16dmg 8x2=16heat 5x2=10 tons 2x2=4 slots

Even if you adjust them to mwo values, its simply inferior weapon.

Edited by davoodoo, 21 May 2016 - 09:42 AM.

[Triordinant]

davoodoo, on 21 May 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

http://www.sarna.net...ry_Laser_Cannon
12 dmg 16 heat 9 tons 4 slots
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Large_Laser
8x2=16dmg 8x2=16heat 5x2=10 tons 2x2=4 slots

Those are BattleTech tabletop numbers. We're using MWO numbers. Your numbers are wrong.

[wanderer]

Davoodoo, you're whiffing on the fact that in MWO, large lasers have adjusted stats from TT for heat and damage.

Taking those modifiers into account, a binary laser becomes a 14 heat, 13.5 damage weapon in MWO.

[Johnny Z]

davoodoo, on 21 May 2016 - 09:32 AM, said:

12 dmg for 16 heat at 9 tons vs 16 dmg 16 heat 10 tons with 2 large lasers.
Have i mentioned that both have same range??

Damn even raven will pass on this, only time i would use this thing is
1)few hardpoints but plenty of tonnage for heat sinks and only mad5d comes to mind.
2)it wont be tied to group ghost heat and youll pack 1-2 of those along with 3 large lasers.
3)somehow we will get actual DOUBLE heat sinks.

Well that's the beauty of it. It help mechs with few hard points. Doesn't help the laser vrs auto cannon balance much. But that isn't to bad, just needs a nudge somewhere maybe.

[FLG 01]

davoodoo, on 21 May 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

http://www.sarna.net...ry_Laser_Cannon
12 dmg 16 heat 9 tons 4 slots
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Large_Laser
8x2=16dmg 8x2=16heat 5x2=10 tons 2x2=4 slots

Please read the thread, first. Really, please do. This has been adressed multiple times in several responses and in the opening post.

wanderer, on 21 May 2016 - 09:15 AM, said:

The "MGs don't do anything to a 'Mech" bit is a little tired- and false.

While I admit I was unfairly exaggerating, and that TT rules actually give MGs the power to damage Mechs, I would still claim the MG is a subpar weapon for anti-Mech works - not just in fluff, but also in TT. But that discussion would detract from the Blazer, being off topic. It might be better suited for PM.

The point is the introduction of the Binary Laser Cannon should not prohibited just because some weapons are "broke" or even just "mediocre".

[Metus regem]

davoodoo, on 21 May 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

http://www.sarna.net...ry_Laser_Cannon
12 dmg 16 heat 9 tons 4 slots
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Large_Laser
8x2=16dmg 8x2=16heat 5x2=10 tons 2x2=4 slots

Even if you adjust them to mwo values, its simply inferior weapon.

But you are missing one very important factor in the Blazer's favor as far as MWO goes, it would one take 1E hard point, rather than 2E for 2LL....

[davoodoo]

Yes i use tabletop values because we have no binary laser within game.

And each weapon is differently scaled. ppc in mwo got 100% of its tt dmg while having 95% of the heat while large laser got 112.5% dmg and 87.5% heat. Medium laser got 100% dmg and 133% heat.

Its basically a wild guess what stats will it have.

Edited by davoodoo, 21 May 2016 - 09:56 AM.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

FLG 01, on 21 May 2016 - 07:40 AM, said:

Well, lasers can be balanced relatively simply by adjusting the beam duration, at least against each other.
But then, I think the Blazer would fit into the general modeling of energy weapons: for higher damage and/or range you pay with more a lot more weight and space; just compare the 1ton ML with the 5ton LL and then the 5ton LL with the 9ton Blazer.

Ah no... I meant I don't trust PGI to not completely **** it up.

[Alan Davion]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 21 May 2016 - 10:02 AM, said:

Ah no... I meant I don't trust PGI to not completely **** it up.

Because we all know they would f*** it up somehow.