339 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Just because I face-palm so hard at people who absolutely can not/will not research something to know what they're actually talking about before they insist on something that is 100% incorrect, here's Clan mech release info.

http://mwomercs.com/...lease-schedule/

Quote

Greetings MechWarriors,
While pre-orders for the Clan ‘Mechs remain underway, set for delivery on June 17th, 2014:

No. You are 100% absolutely demonstratively incorrect. CERLLs were released at 1.5 burn duration. Temporarily nerfed to 2.0, on 8/8/2014, then almost immediately hotfixed back to 1.5 seconds on 8/8/2014.

Cuz math and reality.

[XxRingWraithxX]

MischiefSC, on 17 March 2017 - 10:07 PM, said:

IS ERLLs went to 1.25 at the same time Clan CERLL were GOING to be pushed out to 2.0 seconds

Yeonne Greene, on 17 March 2017 - 10:08 PM, said:

And then what becomes of the standard LL after that

Mcgral18, on 17 March 2017 - 10:13 PM, said:

But then you can bring down the normal isLL!
But then that encroaches on the isLPL, so you can drop that too!

ER Large duration was nerfed from 1.0 to 1.25.

So you are advocating because it's more work it's not worth fixing?

[Y E O N N E]

XxRingWraithxX, on 17 March 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

ER Large duration was nerfed from 1.0 to 1.25.

So you are advocating because it's more work it's not worth fixing?

The isERLL was nerfed because, aside from 1 point of heat and +50% range, it was identical to the standard LL. So they nerfed it. Suddenly, the standard LL was actually worth taking because, at the closer ranges, the ERLL was too clumsy. That is exactly what you want to happen to differentiate the two. If you drop the duration back down to 1.00 seconds, you have to do something to make it less desirable than the standard LL at the mid-range bracket. The same applies to the cERLL so you don't end up invalidating the cLPL (which is fine where it is right now).

So, no, I'm not advocating that we shouldn't do it simply because I don't think it's worth the effort. I actually do think the isERLL needs to come down, too, but not to 1 second and not without an increase to cool-down or heat to go with it.

If you want to see what I have in mind for lasers, you can take a peak here. Note, everything but lasers and PPCs is still a work-in-progress, and even then I'm still tweaking things as new considerations come to light.

[MischiefSC]

XxRingWraithxX, on 17 March 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

ER Large duration was nerfed from 1.0 to 1.25.

So you are advocating because it's more work it's not worth fixing?

No, I'm saying if you change it then that needs done in context of all weapon balance. Or else it's back to broken. As has been said, repeatedly.

[Kin3ticX]

It will be interesting to see the placement of the large laser with the release of the ERML

The burn time right now doesnt really matter

[brroleg]

Duration is fine. Just let to use 3 cerll at once without ghost heat. I bet comp teams dont use them cause of this limitation of only 2 at once, and not cause of burn time.

[XxRingWraithxX]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 March 2017 - 10:40 PM, said:

If you drop the duration back down to 1.00 seconds, you have to do something to make it less desirable than the standard LL at the mid-range bracket.

I'm all for doing something positive to the Large Lasers to compensate and make them worth its weight too (maybe a heat reduction).

Edited by XxRingWraithxX, 17 March 2017 - 11:10 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

XxRingWraithxX, on 17 March 2017 - 11:04 PM, said:

I'm all for doing something positive to the Large Lasers to compensate and make them worth its weight too (maybe a heat reduction).

It doesn't need a heat reduction, though. It's actually fine right now exactly where it is.

You are pushing to make the two ERLLs generalist weapons, when we don't need them to be. We need them to be better as extended long range weapons, and we can do that by dropping the duration and then increasing the cool-down for both. They don't need more DPS to be more useful, they simply need less exposure.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 17 March 2017 - 11:10 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 March 2017 - 11:10 PM, said:

It doesn't need a heat reduction, though. It's actually fine right now exactly where it is.

You are pushing to make the two ERLLs generalist weapons, when we don't need them to be. We need them to be better as extended long range weapons, and we can do that by dropping the duration and then increasing the cool-down for both. They don't need more DPS to be more useful, they simply need less exposure.

Except then you put it into the purview of ERPPCs.

I'd rather it get a bit of a range bump.

[dario03]

Mcgral18, on 17 March 2017 - 10:13 PM, said:

But then you can bring down the normal isLL!
But then that encroaches on the isLPL, so you can drop that too!


Do the Creep!
Reasonable values can be done, with downsides. Dropping without any other touches is a no-no

I think reasonable values can be done without downsides since the weapon isn't that great.
Dropping duration all the way down to 1s? Yeah that would need some downsides.
Dropping it to ~1.20? Could use downsides. Or buff some other close weapons, be changing multiple weapons then though.
Dropping it to ~1.4? I think would be fine, its a small buff. Just add a slight buff to ISERLL to go with it.

Or if we kept duration the same.
GH limit raised to 3? Thats a decent buff.
GH limit kept to 2 but GH penalty heat amount lowered a little bit? Not much of a buff.

Edited by dario03, 18 March 2017 - 04:15 AM.

[Ghogiel]

Andi Nagasia, on 17 March 2017 - 06:15 PM, said:

if C-ERLL should get its duration reduced it should only be reduced to the same Tick Rate as IS-ERLL,
(1.25duration/9dam) 0.1389sec perDamage, so with that C-ERLL would have 1.53Duration,.... well um,
no i think we should Stick with 1.50Duration on the C-ERLL, and move GhostHeat up to 3Max,

Going by the (incorrect) math is not effective for balancing in this and many other instances, while I already suggested bumping the CERLL to 3 for ghost heat as basically a necessity in the current balance so we agree there, your dmg tick rate math is both wrong in the actual game there are quirks which completely change the dps, dmg per tick and sustain of all the weapons. the live environment is not a spreadsheet, and on top of that your (incorrect) math forgoes exposure risks and dmg spread that occurs because of long durations. Pretty much no one can quantify how that affects balance.

imo 1.5 sec durations is pretty serious and affects the performance in live to the point that spreadsheet warriors make Pauls balancing attempts look good.

It's the same when things hit 0.5-0.6 sec durations it makes them OP af because that stat barely matters in balancing as in practice it almost acts like FLD but with perfect accuracy and no travel time/leading.

Edited by Ghogiel, 18 March 2017 - 07:48 AM.

[Naduk]

SilentWolff, on 15 March 2017 - 02:00 PM, said:

The game has evolved into a nascar brawl fest for the most part. Good coordinated brawl teams with fast mechs, have little issue closing the range on most maps in most open games. (not talking comp here, but I am talking about tier 1 play).

The clan ERLL is an absolute joke, Its unusable as is for anything other than for teh lulz.

Inner sphere ERLL are better, but not by much. Only mechs with duration bonuses are worth using and even then, just barely.

I remember when the duration nerf came. We can blame NGNG crying to PGI after CSJx plowed them on Crimson Straight when they were streaming.

(for a good laugh)

A few weeks later, the nerf bat came swinging. But, that was a different time and a different game. It has evolved since then. A good number of fast brawlers have been released since then and SRM's got a big buff as well.
Unfortunately, PGI is always slow to catch up to game mechanics.

So I'd like to get the conversation going on this. Should the duration be reduced and if so by how much?

My proposal:

Inner sphere ERLL current duration 1.25. Proposed duration 1.00
Clan ERLL current duration 1.5 Proposed duration 1.00

I also think durations should be normalized. You can only use 2 Clan ERLL without ghost heat, while IS ERLL can use 3. So while you get slightly better range and damage, its not enough to punish the weapon with such a long duration.

Community thoughts?

absolutely not

you clearly have not experienced a full ERLL deck on polar highlands lately

if you need a picture painted for you, your dead before you can get into cER-PPC range

you want reduced beam times
significantly drop the range or the damage to match

[Y E O N N E]

MischiefSC, on 17 March 2017 - 11:35 PM, said:

Except then you put it into the purview of ERPPCs.

I'd rather it get a bit of a range bump.

Not necessarily. 1.25 seconds (for cERLL) is still long enough that if you are fighting anything other than Lights or pseudo-Lights, you will want the ERPPC instead until you start talking about 900+ meters, which is fair IMHO.

[MischiefSC]

Yeonne Greene, on 18 March 2017 - 08:19 AM, said:

Not necessarily. 1.25 seconds (for cERLL) is still long enough that if you are fighting anything other than Lights or pseudo-Lights, you will want the ERPPC instead until you start talking about 900+ meters, which is fair IMHO.

Reduce the damage to match and I'm fine with the beam duration reduction; puts it on part with the IS ERLL - save that it's lighter, smaller and has better range....

so do you then start the avalanche of changes down the laser line?

Look, we have a number of weapons that overlap in purpose and viability. All the lasers from CERML to CLPL. Some are inevitably going to eclipse others. Right now ERLLs, being long range hitscan weapons, are edged out by 2 specific variants of 2 specific chassis for the IS (which is the only reason a IS laser other than the IS LPL + ML is ever mounted on anything). If CERLLs get a burn reduction they're going to edge most of the existing lasers out of use. Still no reason to think they would replace CERPPCs as long range weapons of choice.

4 tons, 1 slot. With a 1.25 burn, ghost heat of 4 you could easily boat 6 on most Clan heavies and burn them 3x3 - which is going to easily, *easily* out-trade IS ERLLs. Even with a damage reduction to match the same damage/tic. 4 on a HBK IIC, burning all 4 at once for a 44pt alpha at 750m - about like 3 CERPPCs, for less heat than 3 CERPPCs is currently. Twistable, sure, but vastly more sustainable and exposure is less of an issue when you're almost 100m beyond optimal range of IS ERLLs.

Not sure there's an easily answer. Leave GH at 3, so 2 max. Reduce burn to 1.4 and heat to 9.5 but increase cycle time by a bit? How do you keep it from just flat out replacing the CLPL?

Yes, we all want more weapons viable but we've got a passable balance landscape right now. Screwing that up is a terrible, terrible idea. A laser that's lighter, smaller and does more damage than all of its peers needs significant offsets or it's obviously going to replace them.

[FupDup]

I'd start small with a nudge down to 1.4s, so we don't have to deal with a pendulum swing and it's less likely that we'll have to pile on several "compensation" nerfs with it.

[MischiefSC]

Still need to adjust damage down to match damage/tic.

[dario03]

MischiefSC, on 18 March 2017 - 12:29 PM, said:

Still need to adjust damage down to match damage/tic.

Or just lower the ISERLL duration down a bit.

[Dirus Nigh]

Make the Clan ER large laser have the same damage, range, and heat of the IS ER Large laser and I will agree with having the beam duration shortened.

Edited by Dirus Nigh, 18 March 2017 - 01:10 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Dirus Nigh, on 18 March 2017 - 01:09 PM, said:

Make the Clan ER large laser have the same damage, range, and heat of the IS ER Large laser and I will agree with having the beam duration shortened.

Well, it would need higher something in that case, heat or cooldown, because it's still 1 ton lighter and 1 Crit smaller

[Andi Nagasia]

cant we just test them with a GH limit of 3?
Quick Change, test live, if its too strong or too week then change it back,
also like SRM/LRMs you can have ERLL set to 3GH and LPL set to 2GH and have both attached to each other,