90 replies to this topic

[ice trey]

I wouldn't be against the Binary Laser Canon AKA Blazer. It has been known to be an experimental piece of tech for ages - just never really getting put into full production - not unlike a lot of the tech you'd find on Solaris 7.

Not only is it one of the few pieces of 'tech that hasn't been incorporated into the game yet, for those who are whining about wanting "More guns", it's at least canon technology that was floating around as experimental tech, like Listen-kill Missiles, EW Equipment, and prior to true DHS, Freezers.

...but when it comes to experimental tech like that, I'd prefer if it were something that you couldn't just "Buy" for a mech. I think it'd be interesting if they were included as part of the rewards in events for MWO, and can only be equipped when you have one in your inventory. Making them MC-only would have people crying "P2W" too quickly, but having them as for C-bill also reduces the semblance of rarity.

[LordNothing]

theres a lot of weapons we can have now, the blazer is no exception. give clans er micro lasers* or something.

monetizing them is possible in a pay or grind / pay or wait sort of way to keep the pay2win people quiet.

*wait thats 3060 kit.

Edited by LordNothing, 25 May 2016 - 02:34 AM.

[Jetfire]

Would love to see the Blazer, Bombast Laser, mech mortars and inferno/thunder ammo.

[TheArisen]

This would be a good addition for E HP starved mechs. I don't think it'd replace the PPC because the PPC is fire & forget & the Binary has a burn time & different weight & heat.

[FLG 01]

ice trey, on 24 May 2016 - 11:46 PM, said:

I wouldn't be against the Binary Laser Canon AKA Blazer. It has been known to be an experimental piece of tech for ages - just never really getting put into full production - not unlike a lot of the tech you'd find on Solaris 7.

Not only is it one of the few pieces of 'tech that hasn't been incorporated into the game yet, for those who are whining about wanting "More guns", it's at least canon technology that was floating around as experimental tech, like Listen-kill Missiles, EW Equipment, and prior to true DHS, Freezers.

...but when it comes to experimental tech like that, I'd prefer if it were something that you couldn't just "Buy" for a mech. I think it'd be interesting if they were included as part of the rewards in events for MWO, and can only be equipped when you have one in your inventory. Making them MC-only would have people crying "P2W" too quickly, but having them as for C-bill also reduces the semblance of rarity.

It is an interesting idea to limit the availability. I agree it should not be too common place, but on the other hand, if the Binary Laser is balanced correctly it will be a total niche weapon. Who hows, perhaps it will be 'self-limiting'? If not I would definitely not totally object to limiting its availability otherwise.

I would not call it experimental though, as it was fully matured and in put in serial, if limited, production in 2922. It is just that the SHS of the time could not handle the Binary Laser and when DHS came along, the IS first explored other high-tech options like the ER laser (for a good reason, imo).

Jetfire, on 25 May 2016 - 07:11 AM, said:

Would love to see the Blazer, Bombast Laser, mech mortars and inferno/thunder ammo.

Infernos would be interesting, even if such a weapon might be abused a lot (like loading whole batteries of Infernos to instantly shut down enemy Mechs). But there are many ways to balance it, too.

[Triordinant]

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.

Should be at least 2.

[Lozruet Gravemind]

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 the reason in TT/Lore to use it over 2 LLasers was the FCS in the mech and it was a single roll instead of two seperate ones. First the LLaser in MWO is over powered and under heated compared to TT, 8/8 TT 9/7 in MWO. So if we used the Blazers TT ratio, 1.5x damage and 2x heat, the Blazer would be 13.5 Damage for 14 Heat.

Now where I think the Blazer COULD, not advocating for it just love talking mechanics sometimes, is its Burn Duration. The way MWO shows Pulses easier to hit roll is they massively reduce the burn times. This in my opinion could be used on the Blazer to balance it. Large Laser 1, Large Pulse .6, Blazer .8. At .8 Duration your getting tons of damage out but paying for it in the heat department. Also I HEAVILY feel the Large Pulse needs a slight tweak cause its really too good right now, same heat as a Large but 2 points more damage. Large Pulse should be same heat as the ER if not 10.

[FLG 01]

The combo of three LPL is potent enough that you can use it effectively on every Mech which can support it with enough DHS, with or without quirks. LPL are just insanely strong.
The Binary Laser does not need to be that good. Niche is fine.

But then I would not mind a super effective Blazer....

[FLG 01]

A small bump as I updated the OP a little.

Despite the fact that the difference between TT stats and MWO stats is noted in the OP, it was overlooked by some and therefore I put a larger disclaimer in. Furthermore similar disclaimers regarding the availability rating, "prototype" status and mass production were added.

Edited by FLG 01, 04 June 2016 - 06:43 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Triordinant, on 25 May 2016 - 06:30 PM, said:

Should be at least 2.

It should be two, and linked with all large-class lasers (i.e. ghost with 1x BL and 2x LL or 2x BL + 1x LPL, etc.), otherwise we'd just have a glut of 'Mechs running around with what is effectively a 5x LL alpha strike. That's gross.

[TheArisen]

FLG 01, on 04 June 2016 - 06:36 AM, said:

A small bump as I updated the OP a little.

Despite the fact that the difference between TT stats and MWO stats is noted in the OP, it was overlooked by some and therefore I put a larger disclaimer in. Furthermore similar disclaimers regarding the availability rating, "prototype" status and mass production were added.

Yeah ppl tend to hardly read the OP & comment.