339 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

SilentWolff, on 17 March 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

Sure I can. Have you used the weapon lately? i dont need math to tell me that the weapon sucks. All you have to do is use it. And as I said, its not used in any COMP matchs. Theres a reason for that.

........so basically all you have to go on is pure conjecture on how good it would be after ghost heat changes.

[Snowbluff]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2017 - 01:32 PM, said:

How, Ima need some math to back that up? You can't just say BUT ITS LONGER and be right, after all the cERML had a longer duration than both iLL and iML yet was considered miles better.

BEcause you can only expect a certain duration of laser to be useful. As duration goes up, usefulness goes down. 1 second burn is still good.

The cERLL has .25 more duration and 2 more damage that will almost never get used, with the 2 more points of heat that will always apply.

[Y E O N N E]

XxRingWraithxX, on 17 March 2017 - 10:47 AM, said:

The reason I laughed in posting is not that I think it's absolute truth but because it was an old joke back when Large Pulse Lasers became viable sometime after they nerfed ppcs and the gauss rifle. It made it a much closer ranged game.

To it's logical end though it will go where every opinion lands is the best weapon system. Making weapons worse as a rule of thumb will only leave you with much better, but much fewer options.

On the contrary if the rule of thumb is to make weapons better in balance, even though they may not all be the best, the one thing for sure is they will all be more effective.

That simply is not the whole picture. If they had nerfed the longer range weapons, you still would have ended up with a closer range game. The vital difference is that, with a buff, everybody dies faster. With a nerf, everybody dies slower. Where you want TTK and TTM is what determines whether you buff one item or nerf its detractors.

[SilentWolff]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2017 - 01:36 PM, said:

........so basically all you have to go on is pure conjecture on how good it would be after ghost heat changes.

I'm leaving the ghost heat argument out, cause I cant test it. My argument only pertains to what the system is currently. That being said, Id rather they reduced the duration than remove ghost heat, although Id take both hehe.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Snowbluff, on 17 March 2017 - 01:36 PM, said:

The cERLL has .25 more duration and 2 more damage that will almost never get used, with the 2 more points of heat that will always apply.

That 2 extra damage translates to the .25 extra duration, and I wouldn't say it will never get used. When you know you can deal more damage per trigger pull, you aren't on the defensive every shot.

The extra 2 heat isn't as big of a deal either given Clans have ES/FF that is much more compact and the fact that cERLL are 1 ton lighter (and 1 slot smaller DHS), which ultimately translates more DHS. Most IS mechs max out at 18-20 DHS (GHR runs I believe 18), clans typically run somewhere between 20-30.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 March 2017 - 01:43 PM.

[SilentWolff]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 March 2017 - 01:39 PM, said:

That simply is not the whole picture. If they had nerfed the longer range weapons, you still would have ended up with a closer range game. The vital difference is that, with a buff, everybody dies faster. With a nerf, everybody dies slower. Where you want TTK and TTM is what determines whether you buff one item or nerf its detractors.

Funny, that doesnt seem to apply to brawl weapons except possibly the AC/20. Which is my whole point of how the game has changed with fast brawlers and how the ERLL are still being punished for a playstyle that no longer exists.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

SilentWolff, on 17 March 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

My argument only pertains to what the system is currently.

Why? If that were the case then we need to be buffing iAC20s, iPPCs, and iERPPCs in a serious fashion.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 March 2017 - 01:45 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2017 - 01:42 PM, said:

That 2 extra damage translates to the .25 extra duration, and I wouldn't say it will never get used. When you know you can deal more damage per trigger pull, you aren't on the defensive every shot.

The extra 2 heat isn't as big of a deal either given Clans have ES/FF that is much more compact and the fact that cERLL are 1 ton lighter (and 1 slot smaller DHS), which ultimately translates more DHS. Most IS mechs max out at 18-20 DHS (GHR runs I believe 18), clans typically run somewhere between 20-30.

i think its been said before but that +2 heat goes with that -1ton, tape on another DHS for balance,

[XxRingWraithxX]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 March 2017 - 01:39 PM, said:

That simply is not the whole picture. If they had nerfed the longer range weapons, you still would have ended up with a closer range game. The vital difference is that, with a buff, everybody dies faster. With a nerf, everybody dies slower. Where you want TTK and TTM is what determines whether you buff one item or nerf its detractors.

Which is my whole point about making weapons dumber instead of better. If you dumb down weapons you have less play styles to choose from. Make them better = more effective play styles.

[Andi Nagasia]

XxRingWraithxX, on 17 March 2017 - 01:48 PM, said:

Which is my whole point about making weapons dumber instead of better. If you dumb down weapons you have less play styles to choose from. Make them better = more effective play styles.

not really, give everything a -20% cooldown Nerf will not take away play styles,
it will just change up how the game is played, its changing the base,

which is why global type Nerfs dont work if only one system is acting out(UAC10 during KDK Era)

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 17 March 2017 - 01:51 PM.

[XxRingWraithxX]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2017 - 01:44 PM, said:

Why? If that were the case then we need to be buffing iAC20s, iPPCs, and iERPPCs in a serious fashion.

Why not? We increased duration on Clan ER Large Lasers from the way they were originally drawn up based upon "conjecture" and not competition (bc they have never been op or viable there).

Edited by XxRingWraithxX, 17 March 2017 - 01:53 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

XxRingWraithxX, on 17 March 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

We increased duration on Clan ER Large Lasers from the way they were originally drawn up based upon "conjecture"

Yes, and look how much flack that took when they did that.
You can't base all balance decisions purely on what sounds good, you need to make some informed decisions. The easier route is to just increase the ghost heat limit rather than finding a good spot for duration.

[SilentWolff]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2017 - 01:44 PM, said:

Why? If that were the case then we need to be buffing iAC20s, iPPCs, and iERPPCs in a serious fashion.

Go ahead and make another thread then if you want. This thread is strictly for ERLL's.
But I already told you that Id prefer duration is reduced b4 anything else including ghost heat.

[XxRingWraithxX]

Andi Nagasia, on 17 March 2017 - 01:51 PM, said:

which is why global type Nerfs dont work if only one system is acting out(UAC10 during KDK Era)

Right, I am not advocating global nerfs, but buffing weapons as a standard of better overall balance. The problem has been nerfs to certain specific weapons.

Edited by XxRingWraithxX, 17 March 2017 - 01:58 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

SilentWolff, on 17 March 2017 - 01:56 PM, said:

Go ahead and make another thread then if you want. This thread is strictly for ERLL's.
But I already told you that Id prefer duration is reduced b4 anything else including ghost heat.

disagree, perhaps a 3max on CERLL GH could very well balance CERLLs,
its what we had in the Energy Draw PTS, and People were using there there,
Reducing the Duration increases the Damage Per Tick which is currently how most lasers are balanced,
if you increased the Damage per Tick you would have to Penalize the CERLL in another way,

Currently Lasers are Balanced by (Damage/Tick) (Laser Cooldowns by Laser Class) & (Heat/Tonnage)
the only Main Difference between ERLL vs CERLLs is the GhostHeat Limit being 3 for IS and 2 for Clan,

[XxRingWraithxX]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2017 - 01:55 PM, said:

Yes, and look how much flack that took when they did that.
You can't base all balance decisions purely on what sounds good, you need to make some informed decisions. The easier route is to just increase the ghost heat limit rather than finding a good spot for duration.

The duration was unnecessarily increased, it should go back. Ghost heat was unnecessary as well, but duration is the main issue with large lasers as said previously, even with IS, with out heavy quirks for duration they are ineffective.

Edited by XxRingWraithxX, 17 March 2017 - 02:12 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

XxRingWraithxX, on 17 March 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

The duration was unnecessarily increased, it should go back.

Given the current environment, that might be so, but this isn't a change that should be made in isolation especially if you are wanting to change the iERLL as well (because the iERLL has invalidated the iLL for a very long time now). Even the cLPL is having issues since the max range got chopped off.

XxRingWraithxX, on 17 March 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

Ghost heat was unnecessary as well.

I will agree here.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 March 2017 - 02:11 PM.

[XxRingWraithxX]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2017 - 02:10 PM, said:

Given the current environment, that might be so, but this isn't a change that should be made in isolation especially if you are wanting to change the iERLL as well (because the iERLL has invalidated the iLL for a very long time now). Even the cLPL is having issues since the max range got chopped off.

Solution, buff them so we don't have multiple ineffective weapon systems. Even though some may still not be as good as others, it will at least make them more effective.

Edited by XxRingWraithxX, 17 March 2017 - 02:18 PM.

[SilentWolff]

Andi Nagasia, on 17 March 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

disagree, perhaps a 3max on CERLL GH could very well balance CERLLs,
its what we had in the Energy Draw PTS, and People were using there there,
Reducing the Duration increases the Damage Per Tick which is currently how most lasers are balanced,
if you increased the Damage per Tick you would have to Penalize the CERLL in another way,

Currently Lasers are Balanced by (Damage/Tick) (Laser Cooldowns by Laser Class) & (Heat/Tonnage)
the only Main Difference between ERLL vs CERLLs is the GhostHeat Limit being 3 for IS and 2 for Clan,

Am I speaking a foreign language? The main difference besides ghost heat is duration. Its the reason that Clan ERLL are not viable, especially in comp play. Whats so hard understanding this simple fact?
I have already said that I wouldnt be opposed to reducing the damage of the Clan ERLL to compensate.

[Y E O N N E]

Pariah Devalis, on 17 March 2017 - 01:13 PM, said:

Evidently it did. *shrug*

However, even without ghost heat, you're also talking more overall heat, period, and you're paying 12 tons to the IS 10 tons for that.

15. It is 15 tons to get three isERLL.

But more to the heat discussion, four isERLL and three cERLL generate similar heat for similar total damage. But you pay only 12 tons for that weapon system vice 20. You can, however, reasonably fire both with only 18x DHS, only two from the practical limit for the IS but fice or six to eight away from the practical limit for Clans. It is absolutely fair that, in their vanilla states, the one gets better dam/burn for the heat and weight.

That being said, this thread is getting ridiculous. I don't think many in here strictly disagree about buffing the cERLL, myself included. We only seem to be arguing over exact implementation and, frankly, only one half is actually providing any empirical information to the discussion. The other is arguing entirely from seat-of the-pants.