90 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

Mavairo, on 22 May 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

So the Binary Laser in it's rule of Cool... very much applies. As for it's niche, it's niche is actually a pretty good one. It basically gives PGI a way to effectively increase the energy hardpoints of a given mech without having to do so.
T
Take the DRG for example... suddenly the 5N could have a pair of Binary Lasers in it's one arm.

Or the Fang,maybe 3 Binary Lasers. One in the ST, two in the arm.
Given that DRG gameplay is more about blowing out components and finishing mechs off, or bullying mediums, or hitting assaults in their back armor, a triple binary laser would be pretty lulzy.

Basically the Binary Laser, gives new life into mechs who are somewhat energy starved. Without having to use insane levels of Quirkening to make those limited hard points more effective, potentially.

My issue with this line of thinking is that it resigns to the idea that to be good, you need lots of energy.

That isn't necessary.

The Dragon has lots of missiles and ballistics. Those...should be the bread-and butter. One of them has three (!) on a single arm. To make twin BLasers on it the only good build is a terrible concept.

I mean, the BLaser will always make 'Mechs with limited energy hardpoints better at energy, and that's fine, but the Dragon should not have to rely on the existence of that one gun in the game to be good.

[Johnny Z]

Yeonne Greene, on 22 May 2016 - 05:50 PM, said:

My issue with this line of thinking is that it resigns to the idea that to be good, you need lots of energy.

That isn't necessary.

The Dragon has lots of missiles and ballistics. Those...should be the bread-and butter. One of them has three (!) on a single arm. To make twin BLasers on it the only good build is a terrible concept.

I mean, the BLaser will always make 'Mechs with limited energy hardpoints better at energy, and that's fine, but the Dragon should not have to rely on the existence of that one gun in the game to be good.

Well luckily the Blazer is based on two inner sphere large lasers. Large lasers are not threatening to unbalance the game.

I would say the strongest single weapon in the game is still the CERML as well the Clan Small Pulse laser. When boated they take mechs apart very easily which keeps the Timberwolf and the Arctic Cheddar as among the strongest easiest mechs to play. I would say the top two mechs in the game easily. Clan streaks also are completely unbalanced vrs Inner Sphere lights. Gauss rifles being for macro users only is also another problem in this catagory.

Energy vrs ballistics balance is a good point but not really related to a potential blazer in and of itself.

Also the Black Knight may be able to do what the Timberwolf can do, but cant do it in the air going 90 kph and packing a no blow XL.....

Edited by Johnny Z, 22 May 2016 - 07:35 PM.

[Mavairo]

Yeonne Greene, on 22 May 2016 - 05:50 PM, said:

My issue with this line of thinking is that it resigns to the idea that to be good, you need lots of energy.

That isn't necessary.

The Dragon has lots of missiles and ballistics. Those...should be the bread-and butter. One of them has three (!) on a single arm. To make twin BLasers on it the only good build is a terrible concept.

I mean, the BLaser will always make 'Mechs with limited energy hardpoints better at energy, and that's fine, but the Dragon should not have to rely on the existence of that one gun in the game to be good.

Yeah, but lets be honest, the Triple ballistics aren't getting used...ever. The only way that's happening is if MGs or 3 AC2s actually become viable. Those 3 ballistics are in one arm, that has a lower actuator.

Mind you I'm not arguing that the MG and AC2 should remain perpetually in a state of Suck they shouldn't..that they are what is it 4 years? 5 years now? later and still are is criminal.

The DRG also at most has 2 missile ports..... in the crotch... a spot where there are realistically only 2 slots to use. Mind you the 1N with it's missile quirks does an admirable job of making them viable with a pair of SRM4s..but again, it's a crit space issue at the end of the day.

(Or in the case of the other DRGs....it's a Single Hardpoint issue, ontop of the crit space)
The Binary Laser, is just one of many more tools that can make the DRG an easier mech to utilize on the battlefield, and is probably the most shining example of a mech that needs it in the game right now.

It opens the DRG's build diversity, considerably.

I'm not saying that the DRG SHOULD rely on the Binary Laser to become effective. But, again, given the other limitations it's one of the best options, easily aside from artificially inflating hardpoints or shifting them to other locations (like the 5Ns Ballistics) Back before Quirks even existed, I'd run a pair of LLs and an AC10 in my 5N. It was for me the most effective use I could get out of the mech, in it's entirety.
The Trial 5N had the GR and 2 LLs. So clearly the thought was already there.

Also funnily enough, the Binary laser being less weight than a pair of LLs could possibly free up other uses in the ballistic slot too.

It gives Options, to mechs that are either crippled by crit space (like the 5N).

And that's always a good thing.

[Navid A1]

FupDup, on 20 May 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

PGI missed a great opportunity when they skipped over the Zeus 6Y.

Missing opportunities is PGI's thing, you know!

[Y E O N N E]

Johnny Z, on 22 May 2016 - 06:26 PM, said:

Well luckily the Blazer is based on two inner sphere large lasers. Large lasers are not threatening to unbalance the game.

I would say the strongest single weapon in the game is still the CERML as well the Clan Small Pulse laser. When boated they take mechs apart very easily which keeps the Timberwolf and the Arctic Cheddar as among the strongest easiest mechs to play. I would say the top two mechs in the game easily. Clan streaks also are completely unbalanced vrs Inner Sphere lights. Gauss rifles being for macro users only is also another problem in this catagory.

Energy vrs ballistics balance is a good point but not really related to a potential blazer in and of itself.

Also the Black Knight may be able to do what the Timberwolf can do, but cant do it in the air going 90 kph and packing a no blow XL.....

The cERML is nowhere close to being the best single weapon in the game. It has its uses, but (ironically) only on heavier 'Mechs where you can bring sufficient DHS to cool them. You'd think it would be a staple on lighter 'Mechs, being only one ton, but it isn't because bringing a bunch is too hot for lack of DHS and bringing a few gives you woefully inadequate damage per tick at the ranges it is currently capable of.

cSPL is pretty good, but it's used on striker builds that get to fire a full set worth maybe two and a half times during a brawl before they cook and/or get crushed by the SRM boats. Powerful and useful, but it has weaknesses.

The ACH is torn to shreds by the Firestarter, Jenner IIC, and the Oxide. Actually, I'd even throw the Wolfhound into that list and, if we restrict to 1v1, even the Locust 3S will be about even with it. It's really not as good as you think it is.

The cXL debate is, honestly, over. IS 'Mechs take just as long, sometimes longer, to kill even with XL. That's a combination of quirks, inhereint weapon behavior, hit-boxes/geometry, and player skill. Contrarty to popular opnion, the hit-boxes on a Timberwolf are mediocre at best. They can not shield a side. Remove a side, and you've neutered him pretty badly, making it easier to take the other side.

Macro on a Gauss? To do what? Macros are useless on Gauss. No advantage to be gained.

I'm really not worried about the BLaser upsetting balance, though, so I'm not sure where you were going with that whole tangent. IS guns are usually pretty self-limiting through weight and slots, unlike their Clan counterparts (*coughheavylargelasercough*).

[GreenHell]

I find that if you can bring about 20 (total, engine included) DHS on a mech, that's how many it takes to handle 6x ERML. That's a lot more than IS mechs with 6x ML (where 14 has the same heat ratio).

Macro on Gauss is dumb... Auto-Cycling it every .9 or whatever seconds on the off chance it will be ready when you need it is... yeah dumb

I still say, C-XL's can't complain. Speed tax < Death tax

[Hit the Deck]

Yeonne Greene, on 22 May 2016 - 07:49 PM, said:

The cERML is nowhere close to being the best single weapon in the game. It has its uses, but (ironically) only on heavier 'Mechs where you can bring sufficient DHS to cool them. You'd think it would be a staple on lighter 'Mechs, being only one ton, but it isn't because bringing a bunch is too hot for lack of DHS and bringing a few gives you woefully inadequate damage per tick at the ranges it is currently capable of.

4x cERML is pretty good on the Jenner-IIC. But I'm a 100% pugger so maybe peeps shouldn't listen to me.

[wanderer]

kapusta11, on 22 May 2016 - 12:37 PM, said:

It should do 16 damage for 12.5 heat and have 1 sec burn time. Same damage per heat as LL but a bit less total damage compared to 2 LL - a price for being able to put it in high mounted hardpoint or hardpoint starved mech in general.

Ironically, it originally did basically that in TT- 12 heat, 16 damage. Which was a typo. I'm fine with it scaling along the same multipliers as other LL's do.

[zagibu]

Johnny Z, on 22 May 2016 - 01:40 PM, said:

I think it should have the same stats as 2 LL. The advantage is more fire power per hard point, the disadvantage being easier to have that fire power knocked out.

Not a very strong argument but why take a Blazer if it doesn't equal 2 LL?

Because if you only have two nice high E hardpoints, it's better to take 3.5 LL instead of 2 LL.

Edited by zagibu, 22 May 2016 - 10:54 PM.

[FLG 01]

The damage per hardpoint ratio is very high, that is why one may also think about the alpha strike. Even without ghost heat, firing three Binary Lasers will generate extreme heat, but it also produces massive firepower. Compared to the LPL e.g. you can gain an advantage in raw firepower and range, for which you pay by increased heat, weight, and size.

Of course it would be a niche weapon, not the laser to end all lasers. I mean, it could be the laser to end all lasers if the beam duration is short enough simulating the TT advantage of an increased concentration of firepower. But then it also could turn out to be useless.
The good news is that it seems relatively easy to balance.

[El Bandito]

And then PGI limits Blazer GH to one, and then links it with other large class lasers.

[TheArisen]

El Bandito, on 23 May 2016 - 02:37 AM, said:

And then PGI limits Blazer GH to one, and then links it with other large class lasers.

Lol that'd kill it for sure.

[FLG 01]

El Bandito, on 23 May 2016 - 02:37 AM, said:

And then PGI limits Blazer GH to one, and then links it with other large class lasers.

Sure, there are many ways to kill it. There are many ways to make op. So there are many ways for PGI to go wrong. But I am sure the Binary Laser is worth this risk, especially as does not seem overly difficult to balance being a fairly regular laser weapon.

... which brings me to another point I would like to address:

zeves, on 22 May 2016 - 03:34 PM, said:

It has been stated by Russ himself that they wont add anything until theyve squeezed all the mech money out of this timeline.
so why bother talking about it.

The Binary Laser is a weapon of this timeline. If Russ really wants to scrape the bottom of the barrel, he'll find the Blazer.

While it was almost forgotten and only became common in the Jihad, it remains a lowly SW introtech weapon (albeit a retconned one). And when it comes to Mechs there is the Zeus 6Y. Perhaps a super-rigid GM might object to one due to the relatively limited production run, though I very much doubt it. But PGI is an extremely liberal GM anyway. Where there is a Zeus 5S, there can be a Zeus 6Y too.

I think PGI should embrace the opportunity offered by this weapon, not shy away from its obscurity. I am afraid once we make the time-jump, the Binary Laser will be forgotten again because then the IS gets other toys - hightech toys which, unlike the Blazer, could be difficult to balance.

[Solis Obscuri]

FupDup, on 20 May 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

Are you aware that the LPLas has been buffed from its TT stats?

People keep clinging to 12 damage and 16 heat, but the reality of the matter is that PGI has altered the damage and heat values of almost every laser in the game. The Blazer won't be any different, why wouldn't it be any different?

That is precisely why I noted that the binary laser - already a bit iffy even in TT numbers - is significantly worse by MWO standards. I guess it could have tons of buffs dumped on it to make it not suck, but at this point, and with ERLLas/LPLas buffed as much as they are already... why? It doesn't seem to have much of a role to fill given how many strong options are already available for mid-long range lasers.

[Dulahan]

Totally support the Blazer. For all the reasons others have said.

Of course it's not the best weapon ever. And if you have the tonnage and the Hardpoints, then darned right two LLs is probably the better option. But it opens up a lot of options and builds, especially for low Energy Hardpoint mechs. CDA-2C? Darn skippy I could see running on one of those!

Mechs that have 1 Arm Energy hardpoint? Or one hardpoint up on a shoulder? Heck yeah there's a place in builds. And options is the important thing. It opens up new options for lots of mechs!

[Karl Streiger]

You can just make the Binary pure havoc by reducing the burn duration.

The LPL has 0.67 seconds (the binary have to keep below by a margin. The additional damage of the LPL is a nice adaptation for the -2 hit mod. (because better hit probability = more damage) Although I think it happened by accident, the changes were made when those changes had some sense.

So the binary....has to deal 22 dmg in a 1 sec beam, or just 11dmg in a 0.5sec beam or 33dmg in a 1.5sec beam - but the cycle time has to change for every variant. (it got the same 1.33 damage rating in comparison to the IS LPL)

[LordNothing]

im for any new weapons variety. balanced or otherwise.

luddites can join comstar.

Edited by LordNothing, 24 May 2016 - 01:56 AM.

[FLG 01]

LordNothing, on 24 May 2016 - 01:56 AM, said:

im for any new weapons variety. balanced or otherwise.

luddites can join comstar.

Funny enough, the leaders of ComStar were not happy about the Successors researching new tech - actually, they even had researchers assassinated. The XTRO:SW's fluff insinuates that ComStar deliberately excluded the ZEU-6Y and the Binary Laser Cannon from its TRO:3025 because they did not want people to know about them.
I would not be surprised if some of the Defiance designers had 'unfortunate accidents' when Primus Takami initiated Holy Shroud II.

[Snowbluff]

Mavairo, on 22 May 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:

I think the Binary Laser needs to be a thing. Mechs with limited energy hard points would see a great deal more potential mileage and build choices from it.
Some mechs could run 2X Binary Lasers.. QuadLaser!

[zagibu]

As far as implementation goes, they could simply reuse the standard laser box lens thing and give the beam a slightly violet blueish hue.