118 replies to this topic

[Wraith31]

I am trying to wrap my head around this, and my hunchie IIC really wants to run 3 clan LPLs...can someone explain what logic is the reason behind this?

[El Bandito]

CLPL does more damage, even more so when paired with CERMLs. Giving CLPL the ability to fire 3 of them without penalty will further increase Clan alpha, some thing you shouldn't want for this game.

[FupDup]

The IS LPL gets it because the IS LL gets it.

The IS LL gets it because it was pretty stupid back when the IS LL had the same ghost heat limit as the far superior PPC.

[dario03]

Its some weird logic but I think it has something to with them thinking the weapon with more range and damage while using less tonnage should have a downside. Oh, and duration wasn't enough.

Though it has been nerfed since the GH limit was set and more importantly they are supposed to be rebalancing all energy weapons soon. So maybe it will change.

Edited by dario03, 31 May 2017 - 08:12 PM.

[Jettrik Ryflix]

Yes, like El Bandito said. Clan LPL does 13 damage, whereas IS LPL does 11. On top of that, Clan LPL is effective 600m, but IS LPL is effective at 350.

[Mortalcoil]

What is the logic behind clan XL engines requiring both sides to be destroyed. It's illogical for an engine to work when half of it is blown up. It is illogical that clan weapons take up less tonnage as well as less slots when on the mech itself it looks identical to the IS version. Why are clanners only allowed to bring 240 tons while IS can bring 265 tons. This is illogical. What are quirks? Quirks are illogical. Why does a futuristic mech have missile technology worse than present day military. Perhaps the simple answer is balance?

[Wraith31]

Jettrik Ryflix, on 31 May 2017 - 08:13 PM, said:

Yes, like El Bandito said. Clan LPL does 13 damage, whereas IS LPL does 11. On top of that, Clan LPL is effective 600m, but IS LPL is effective at 350.

3x11=33

2x13=26

Mortalcoil, on 31 May 2017 - 08:13 PM, said:

What is the logic behind clan XL engines requiring both sides to be destroyed. It's illogical for an engine to work when half of it is blown up. It is illogical that clan weapons take up less tonnage as well as less slots when on the mech itself it looks identical to the IS version. Why are clanners only allowed to bring 240 tons while IS can bring 265 tons. This is illogical. What are quirks? Quirks are illogical. Why does a futuristic mech have missile technology worse than present day military. Perhaps the simple answer is balance?

You are trying too hard to answer a question with a question m8...

[Johnny Z]

Mortalcoil, on 31 May 2017 - 08:13 PM, said:

What is the logic behind clan XL engines requiring both sides to be destroyed. It's illogical for an engine to work when half of it is blown up. It is illogical that clan weapons take up less tonnage as well as less slots when on the mech itself it looks identical to the IS version. Why are clanners only allowed to bring 240 tons while IS can bring 265 tons. This is illogical. What are quirks? Quirks are illogical. Why does a futuristic mech have missile technology worse than present day military. Perhaps the simple answer is balance?

......

Edited by Johnny Z, 31 May 2017 - 08:25 PM.

[Mortalcoil]

Johnny Z, on 31 May 2017 - 08:23 PM, said:

I didn't know a modern military had vehicles capable of carrying 40 missiles that will hit 100% of the time at 1 kilometer.

I think some fighting civilians for to long have maybe lost sight of things.

lol you have no idea the power of a modern Navy destroyer. I should know, I was on one.

Or how about a sub, that has 40 nukes on it. Is that powerful enough for you? While I'm sure a sub could land a nuke 1 kilo away, I would not recommend it.

Edited by Mortalcoil, 31 May 2017 - 08:27 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

3 x 9 = 27
6 x 7 = 42

Or
3 x 11 = 33
2 x 13 + 6 x 7 = 68

There is your logic

[Mcgral18]

Wraith31, on 31 May 2017 - 08:17 PM, said:

3x11=33

2x13=26

And 3*13=39

Now take the 21 tons VS 18 tons
And the 365 optimal VS 600 optimal


Have your answer yet?

Why can the Clam ERMLs fire 42 damage, while the Sphere can only fire 30?
There isn't any logic, just some veiled attempts at asym balance

[Luminis]

Wraith31, on 31 May 2017 - 08:17 PM, said:

3x11=33

2x13=26

3x 11 = 33
3x 13 = 39

That difference isn't much smaller, is it?

[Wraith31]

Mcgral18, on 31 May 2017 - 08:51 PM, said:

And 3*13=39

Now take the 21 tons VS 18 tons
And the 365 optimal VS 600 optimal


Have your answer yet?

Why can the Clam ERMLs fire 42 damage, while the Sphere can only fire 30?
There isn't any logic, just some veiled attempts at asym balance

So why not up GH on IS MLs to 8 or something then?

Luminis, on 31 May 2017 - 08:53 PM, said:

3x 11 = 33
3x 13 = 39

That difference isn't much smaller, is it?

Still smaller.

[El Bandito]

Wraith31, on 31 May 2017 - 08:17 PM, said:

3x11=33

2x13=26

For a 6 ton weapon shooting 13 damage at 600 optimum range is already very good. GH-ing them to 3 is not gonna help balance, but rather hinder it.

Wraith31, on 31 May 2017 - 08:54 PM, said:

So why not up GH on IS MLs to 8 or something then?

Cause PGI is trying to increase TTK by lowering powercreep. Your suggestion will do the opposite.

Edited by El Bandito, 31 May 2017 - 09:07 PM.

[Wraith31]

El Bandito, on 31 May 2017 - 09:05 PM, said:

For a 6 ton weapon shooting 13 damage at 600 optimum range is already very good. GH-ing them to 3 is not gonna help balance, but rather hinder it.

You could up IS ML GH to 8 so they get 40 instead of 30...why not?

[El Bandito]

Wraith31, on 31 May 2017 - 09:05 PM, said:

You could up IS ML GH to 8 so they get 40 instead of 30...why not?

El Bandito, on 31 May 2017 - 09:05 PM, said:

Cause PGI is trying to increase TTK by lowering powercreep. Your suggestion will do the opposite.

[Luminis]

Wraith31, on 31 May 2017 - 08:54 PM, said:

Still smaller.

By one. One!

And you're now favoring the lighter weapon with considerably more range. That's pretty damn stupid, especially considering that Clans are not hurting for firepower.

Wraith31, on 31 May 2017 - 09:05 PM, said:

You could up IS ML GH to 8 so they get 40 instead of 30...why not?

Heat and limited hardpoints?

[Marius Evander]

COZ ALIENS

[Wraith31]

El Bandito, on 31 May 2017 - 09:07 PM, said:

TTK should be less IMO. If a main battle tank hits another main battle tank with primary gun, there are at best 2 shots any main battle tank can take. Why should walking battle tanks be different?

Lower TTK means less deathballing, because it is not required when a mech can kill another mech more quickly.

Karl Streiger, on 31 May 2017 - 08:45 PM, said:

3 x 9 = 27
6 x 7 = 42

Or
3 x 11 = 33
2 x 13 + 6 x 7 = 68

There is your logic

Show me a 50 ton mech running 2x13 + 6x7 = 68 and we can continue your discussion.

[FupDup]

Wraith31, on 31 May 2017 - 09:18 PM, said:

TTK should be less IMO. If a main battle tank hits another main battle tank with primary gun, there are at best 2 shots any main battle tank can take. Why should walking battle tanks be different?

Lower TTK means less deathballing, because it is not required when a mech can kill another mech more quickly.

Realistically speaking, yes our mechs are way too durable. Offensive firepower will always beat defensive armor in the real world.

For gameplay purposes, though, being able to take several hits before dying rather than exploding when you get hit by a stiff breeze is something that many people prefer.