72 replies to this topic

[razenWing]

Really PGI, I thought in PTS 1, that was one of the first Bad thing that people hated.

Look, let me break down why this is so Bad for you:

IS LPL (7 tons)
Max 730
Optimal 365
Duration .67
Dmg: 11
Heat: 7
GH Threshold: 3

Clan LPL (6 tons)
Max 840
Optimal ?(base on math, probably 400)
Duration 1.12
Dmg: 13
Heat: 10
GH Threshold: 2

If you still don't know why your change is so Bad, let me break it down.
Aside from 2 dmg and 1 ton, CLPL is now officially worse than IS LPL in every single way. Look, if you want to give us an option to add 1 ton upgrade to have HALF duration, 50% REDUCTION IN GH THRESHOLD, 30% LESS HEAT, I would totally do it.

(O wait, nope, you guys did the whole map thing, so, keep going lower, PGI, continue to prove us wrong)

The 40m optimal range difference is the most BS thing ever, especially considering how you guys give free module weapon range upgrade to pretty much ALL YOUR LASER FOCUSED IS MECH. So immediately, forget the 40m, advantage, you are really about 20m less range than all range quirked IS Mech. Meaning, your Clan Mech with generally poor hitbox is running around trying to chase IS Mech.[Redacted]

And that's just direct counterpart comparison.

Let's see how they do against IS LL!

IS LL (5 tons)
Max 900
Optimal 450
Duration 1
Dmg: 9
Heat: 7
GH Threshold: 3

Yea, you messed up something big.

[Redacted]

Do you know why CLPL is design with that kind of range in the first place? Because at your describe range, fighting with the handicap you imposed in the first place is murder-fest. So Clans want to take off as much armor at range as possible, as the high heat and GH penalty is murder at close range.

If you want to murder CLPL like this to "differentiate from ERLL", you need to at least counter-buff it somehow, did you guys just look at ER-LL and was like, "Yea, mission accomplished" without at least looking at the residual effect it's going to have against IS counterparts?

damn it...

(I swear to God, ever since Mapgate, I had a subtle feeling that you (PGI) are doing all these crappy changes to make players quit, so that you can shut down servers without admitting that,"Sorry to all the players, we want out." Good job PGI, now I know you are doing it on purpose. I am going to retract all my pre-orders and ask for refund on that [Redacted] Kodiak. Thanks, but no thanks)

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 19 November 2016 - 02:02 PM.
[Redacted] Language, you know better!

[Juodas Varnas]

[razenWing]

Juodas Varnas, on 12 November 2016 - 12:40 AM, said:

Look, I am sorry that the tone of the thread couldn't be better. But I am fairly god damn angry over this change. Maybe you dun give a crap cause you are thinkinng, "Well, those pesky Clanners finally have to fight inside my optimal!" (And seeing that you are Rasal, further confirms that you are just an IS guy)

So I tell ya what. I will accept that PGI nerf one of the most effective Clan weapon to the ground, in exchange for you guys losing all your quirks. How about that? No? Then STFU being salty about me being salty.

(And see, I think PGI is getting smart about this too. Mapgate pissed off too many people. So they decide to divide and conquer us now. 50% of Clan heavy player base will potentially get angry, and maybe half or even less of that, like me, will actually get angry. So the backlash will be 25% or less of total population, while the other white knights will defend them to the balls. So, can't say PGI is not learning. I like how everything they learned in the past year involves inconvenient daily quests and pissing off a small portion of the player at a time.)

Edited by razenWing, 12 November 2016 - 12:56 AM.

[Deathlike]

I stopped reading the wall of text due to excessive stupidity.

The Clan LPL max range changed, but the optimal range is staying the same at 600m.

The thinking behind the change is because it mostly makes the CERLL pointless, but that's moreso due to duration (1.5s) than anything else. When you're going extreme range, the Clan ERPPC is better option than the CLPL, let alone the CERLL.

[El Bandito]

razenWing, on 12 November 2016 - 12:39 AM, said:

Clan LPL (6 tons)
Max 840
Optimal ?(base on math, probably 400)
Duration 1.12
Dmg: 13
Heat: 10
GH Threshold: 2

Optimum range is still 600 meters, mate, which can be further enhanced by Targeting Computer and range module. At that range, IS LPL does pitiful amount of damage.

Edited by El Bandito, 12 November 2016 - 01:36 AM.

[Juodas Varnas]

Col Jaime Wolf, on 12 November 2016 - 01:36 AM, said:

#quirks

Examples?

[El Bandito]

Col Jaime Wolf, on 12 November 2016 - 01:36 AM, said:

#quirks

Can you name an IS mech that takes advantage of big LPL range quirk to stand up to the best Clanners have to offer? Fact is, current quirks are still not enough for IS to stand on equal grounds as the best of the Clans on all classes, as this chart already shows. https://docs.google....t#gid=622556702

Col Jaime Wolf, on 12 November 2016 - 12:53 AM, said:

point im trying to make is. if this trend continues.... well don't ******* complain when your gauss PPC overlords once again rule the game.

2xCERPPC + 2xCGauss KDK-3, Gauss + CERPPC Timbie/Night Gyr, dual CERPPC HBK-IIC... already rule the competitive scene. Oh look, all Clan mechs. None of them even need quirks.

Edited by El Bandito, 12 November 2016 - 02:02 AM.

[Wil McCullough]

Col Jaime Wolf, on 12 November 2016 - 12:53 AM, said:

i just want to point out

"you shall reap what you sow" (to the nerf criers)

as i predicted, pgi fixed the "bad touch bear problem" with wide reaching nerfs that affected far more than the kodiak.

so now we got the clan LPL, and all ultras taking a hit. honestly the UAC changes are probably bearable, the clan LPL change.... well its really breaking lore for one and for two it really is putting it in direct competition with the IS LL and LPL, which already enjoys a higher ghost heat threshold.

but..... if you look at the quirks on IS mechs its fairly obvious that IS LPL and LL will come out the better weapon every time (range/damage per tick/damage per heat/burn time est), and PGI did do nothing to address the abjectly useless cERLL vs the IS ERLL (outside of boreal vault defense).

point im trying to make is. if this trend continues.... well don't ******* complain when your gauss PPC overlords once again rule the game.

wow you're one can short of a six pack aren't you.

i get it you're miffed at the blanket kdk nerf which is undeserved for the chassis.

but pointing fingers at the "nerf kdk op" crowd for a LARGE PULSE LASER NERF?

the kdk-3 has ballistic hardpoints ffs.

take a breath, bruh.

[Deathlike]

El Bandito, on 12 November 2016 - 01:43 AM, said:

Can you name an IS mech that takes advantage of big LPL range quirk to stand up to the best Clanners have to offer?

Ironically, there isn't that many. ~455m at best with some LPL specific quirks with modules, but most of them are in godawful chassis and builds (Thunderbolt-9SE is not a real thing at the moment, when the Grasshopper is a better mech for laservomit).

Quote

2xCERPPC + 2xCGauss KDK-3 still rules the competitive scene. Oh look, Clan mech.

lol sad yet true

[razenWing]

Deathlike, on 12 November 2016 - 01:33 AM, said:

I stopped reading the wall of text due to excessive stupidity.

The Clan LPL max range changed, but the optimal range is staying the same at 600m.

The thinking behind the change is because it mostly makes the CERLL pointless, but that's moreso due to duration (1.5s) than anything else. When you're going extreme range, the Clan ERPPC is better option than the CLPL, let alone the CERLL.

Um... even though it's not stated. But let's just think logically real quick. So, PGI either shifted the WHOLE TREND LINE so that even though Optimal is not EXPLICITLY stated that it's nerfed when it ACTUALLY IS, OR created a weapon with the steepest curve drop-off of ANY weapon in existence.

Hum...

Nope, just because you lack the basic understanding of mathematics, doesn't mean I am wrong. In either case, we will find out in 4 days right? (Seriously guys, just because PGI didn't have a blatant statement that says Optimal is also nerfed, you can kind of infer because ALL PGI weapons have been running on the SAME god damn trend line. What makes you think that they move the endpoint without moving the dropoff? Come on, this is not hard.)

Think logically number 2, WHY WOULD THEY CREATE THE SAME 50% drop off max/optical mathematical model for EVERY OTHER LASERS and made exception for cLPL? Do you actually know that Optimal will not be changed or are you making a worse assumption than me?

Edited by razenWing, 12 November 2016 - 02:00 AM.

[Mcgral18]

They have roughly the same MAXimum, but effective the cLPL wins by 50%

[Wrathful Scythe]

The LPL will still be amazing. Not so amazing in CW anymore but who plays that anyway?

It's a nerf, yes, but an insignificant one. C-LPL are still one of the best laser weapons we have beside the IS-LPL and the C-MPL.

[Mcgral18]

razenWing, on 12 November 2016 - 01:54 AM, said:

Um... even though it's not stated. But let's just think logically real quick. So, PGI either shifted the WHOLE TREND LINE so that even though Optimal is not EXPLICITLY stated that it's nerfed when it ACTUALLY IS, OR created a weapon with the steepest curve drop-off of ANY weapon in existence.

Hum...

Nope, just because you lack the basic understanding of mathematics, doesn't mean I am wrong. In either case, we will find out in 4 days right? (Seriously guys, just because PGI didn't have a blatant letter that says Optimal is also nerfed, you can kind of infer because ALL PGI weapons have been running on a god damn trend line. What makes you think that they move the endpoint without moving the dropoff? Come on, this is not hard.)

You know, like every Clam laser currently in the game?
They have linear drop, but extended isn't 2x. It's 60 or 80%


The PTS had it at 550M or something like that, didn't it? With extended to the 800 some.

[Deathlike]

razenWing, on 12 November 2016 - 01:54 AM, said:

Um... even though it's not stated. But let's just think logically real quick. So, PGI either shifted the WHOLE TREND LINE so that even though Optimal is not EXPLICITLY stated that it's nerfed, OR created a weapon with the steepest curve drop-off of ANY weapon in existence.

Hum...

Nope, just because you lack the basic understanding of mathematics, doesn't mean I am wrong. In either case, we will find out in 4 days right? (Seriously guys, just because PGI didn't have a blatant letter that says Optimal is also nerfed, you can kind of infer because ALL PGI weapons have been running on a god damn trend line. What makes you think that they move the endpoint without moving the dropoff? Come on, this is not hard.)

Dude... do you like read the patch notes religiously like some of us do?

The Small Laser got its optimal range and max range boosted.

The round of Clan laser nerfs mostly affected their max range, and not so much their optimal.

The reason why Clan laser max range got nerfed is because of the balance suggestion (probably my fault) to make the max range of Clan lasers LESS than the IS version... since having using the same formula for Clan lasers makes the Clan ERMED much more powerful than the equivalent IS Large Laser (and that's besides tonnage+crit discussions).


Take a look at smurfy and see the difference in the max ranges for all the Clan non-Large lasers (both ER and Pulse)... it's more or less consistent that the max range isn't "twice" the optimal range.



As an aside... if people are disgruntled about our balance overlord's abilities, feel free to add #voteagainstPaul2017 to your sigs. Sure we can't vote him out of office, but it's the only unified message that I think people that have watched him over time would agree... you can't run balance strictly with a spreadsheet and a dartboard.

[Kubernetes]

razenWing, on 12 November 2016 - 01:54 AM, said:

So, PGI either shifted the WHOLE TREND LINE so that even though Optimal is not EXPLICITLY stated that it's nerfed when it ACTUALLY IS, OR created a weapon with the steepest curve drop-off of ANY weapon in existence.

Hum...

Nope, just because you lack the basic understanding of mathematics, doesn't mean I am wrong. In either case, we will find out in 4 days right? (Seriously guys, just because PGI didn't have a blatant statement that says Optimal is also nerfed, you can kind of infer because ALL PGI weapons have been running on a god damn trend line. What makes you think that they move the endpoint without moving the dropoff? Come on, this is not hard.)

This has nothing to do with math; you are engaging in pure speculation until PGI actually states that cLPL optimal range is being nerfed. "Trendlines" don't mean anything when it comes to PGI.

[razenWing]

Mcgral18, on 12 November 2016 - 01:57 AM, said:

You know, like every Clam laser currently in the game?
They have linear drop, but extended isn't 2x. It's 60 or 80%


The PTS had it at 550M or something like that, didn't it? With extended to the 800 some.

The estimated new Optimal based on their EXISTING mathematical model is NOT hard. Just as I guesstimated that 60m difference in Max is probably about 40m difference in low end. I am telling you guys, there is NO GOD DAMN WAY, that PGI changed specifically for the cLPL to only have a 200m drop-off. So trust me on this, they moved the trend line, so the optimal drop-off is affected.

Then again, Trump is elected president, so what do I know about Math right? But you all owe me an apology when what I said will happen, actually happen. I will be keeping track of every single one of you.

[Deathlike]

Just #s in case the OP is actually still reading this..
Weapon-Optimal Range-Multiplier-Max Range
CERMED 405m *1.7 688m (rounded down)
CERSML 200m *1.8 360m
CMPL 330m *1.7 561m
CSPL 165 *1.8 297m

Based on projections on the patch
CLPL 600m *1.4 840m

razenWing, on 12 November 2016 - 02:04 AM, said:

The estimated new Optimal based on their EXISTING mathematical model is NOT hard. Just as I guesstimated that 60m difference in Max is probably about 40m difference in low end. I am telling you guys, there is NO GOD DAMN WAY, that PGI changed specifically for the cLPL to only have a 200m drop-off. So trust me on this, they moved the trend line, so the optimal drop-off is affected.

Then again, Trump is elected president, so what do I know about Math right? But you all owe me an apology when what I said will happen, actually happen. I will be keeping track of every single one of you.

Oh, this will be good!

*insert meme with same message*

[razenWing]

Deathlike, on 12 November 2016 - 02:09 AM, said:

Just #s in case the OP is actually still reading this..
Weapon-Optimal Range-Multiplier-Max Range
CERMED 405m *1.7 688m (rounded down)
CERSML 200m *1.8 360m
CMPL 330m *1.7 561m
CSPL 165 *1.8 297m

Based on projections on the patch
CLPL 600m *1.4 840m



Oh, this will be good!

*insert meme with same message*

Wait, your proof is that 30% drop-off fits within the current models? You do realize a .3 on your multiplier is 30% right? If you look at ANY mathematical model, how is 30% not significant?

(1.7 vs 1.4... yea, that's fairly significant, dood)

---------------

PS I did the math. Let's just take the middle ground of the figure you provided and use 1.75. 840 Max is 480 Optimal...

But let's use the actual multiplier for long range laser... which is 2. Which would mean a further reduction of 420.

My point is, so you think they use 1.4 instead of the already existing 2, or even the number you gave, at 1.7~1.8. And somehow, no red flag?

PS 2 And I realized, look at your numbers again. The multiplier for the linear drop-off is class dependent. Short range = 1.8, medium range = 1.7, and of course, long range = 2. So PGI, breaking the models that they are using... use 1.4 instead. Logically, does that make sense?

PS 3 But again, you did get me rattled about the small laser duplicate statements. I still think I am right, but we will find out in 3 days.

Edited by razenWing, 12 November 2016 - 02:21 AM.

[Mcgral18]

razenWing, on 12 November 2016 - 02:04 AM, said:

The estimated new Optimal based on their EXISTING mathematical model is NOT hard. Just as I guesstimated that 60m difference in Max is probably about 40m difference in low end. I am telling you guys, there is NO GOD DAMN WAY, that PGI changed specifically for the cLPL to only have a 200m drop-off. So trust me on this, they moved the trend line, so the optimal drop-off is affected. Then again, Trump is elected president, so what do I know about Math right? But you all owe me an apology when what I said will happen, actually happen. I will be keeping track of every single one of you.

How about I go ahead and copy paste the PTS5 cLPL data?

-<Weapon faction="Clan" HardpointAliases="Energy,Laser,LargeLaser,PulseLaser,LargePulseLaser,ClanLaser,ClanLargeLaserFamily,ClanLargeLaser,ClanPulseLaser,ClanLargePulseLaser" name="ClanLargePulseLaser" id="1216">
<Loc iconTag="StoreIcons\ClanLargePulseLaser.dds" descTag="@ClanLPL_desc" nameTag="@ClanLPL"/>
<WeaponStats maxDepth="10.0" volleydelay="0.0" speed="0" lifetime="0" duration="1.2" tons="6" maxRange="840" longRange="600" minRange="0" ammoPerShot="0" ammoType="" cooldown="3.2" heat="9.0" impulse="0.0" EnergyDraw="10.0" damage="10.0" numFiring="1" projectileclass="" type="Energy" slots="2" Health="10" effectscale="3.75"/>

Boom

In case you need that highlight:

• maxRange="840"
  
• longRange="600"

BLOODY FORMATTING!

Edited by Mcgral18, 12 November 2016 - 02:15 AM.

[Deathlike]

razenWing, on 12 November 2016 - 02:12 AM, said:

Wait, your proof is that 30% drop-off fits within the current models? You do realize a .3 on your multiplier is 30% right? If you look at ANY mathematical model, how is 30% not significant?

(1.7 vs 1.4... yea, that's fairly significant, dood)

Our balance overlord picked the value. Don't blame me for math.

What is going to result is more CERPPC usage over longer ranges.. (CERPPC optimal range is 810m after all).