50 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 23 January 2018 - 10:56 PM, said:

No, just no. Lets not bring back that cancerous **** ever again.

Knock, knock.

[Khobai]

Quote

And now consider that the AC10 shoots 10 PPFLD every 2.5s, whereas the LGR does so every 3.10s assuming same damage, no the AC10 would still do better damage and the LGR wouldn't out-shine or trample the AC10 in it's range bracket.

but the LGR would significantly outrange the AC10 and generate considerably less heat, with only slightly less dps

plus you could fit 2 LGR in one torso with an LFE. but you cant put 2 AC10 in one torso. so thats a pretty big advantage too.

why would anyone ever use the AC10 again?

not that people really use the AC10 anyway... but lets assume for sake of argument theyre the only two weapons in the game. there would be no reason to ever use the AC10 with your suggestion.

youve basically just created a variation of the AC10 thats functionally better in every way except slightly lower DPS, which is inconsequential compared to the other advantages. It isnt balanced.

the light gauss rifle needs to do considerably less dps than the AC10 for the AC10 to still be considered. at most the light gauss rifle should do 2.2 dps. even regular gauss only does 2.6 dps. 2.2 dps is fairly in line for a weapon that weighs 80% of what regular gauss weighs.

Edited by Khobai, 23 January 2018 - 11:09 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

The LGauss would be just fine if it were 10 damage with a 3-second cool-down.

But not 4 seconds.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 23 January 2018 - 10:59 PM, said:

Knock, knock.

At least it's not really long range, and with low heat.

Yeonne Greene, on 23 January 2018 - 11:19 PM, said:

The LGauss would be just fine if it were 10 damage with a 3-second cool-down.

But not 4 seconds.

EXACTLY, ******* EXACTLY.

AMEN.

Khobai, on 23 January 2018 - 11:02 PM, said:

but the LGR would significantly outrange the AC10 and generate considerably less heat.

for only slightly less dps

Also less ammo, needs charge. 3.2258 DPS is already near at UAC5 EDPS, for scale the AC5 DPS is at 3.01, it's not "slightly less".

Khobai, on 23 January 2018 - 11:02 PM, said:

plus you could fir 2 LGR in one torso with an LFE. but you cant put 2 AC10 in one torso. so thats a pretty big advantage too.

why would anyone ever use the AC10 again?

not that people really use the AC10 anyway... but lets assume for sake of argument theyre the only two weapons in the game. there would be no reason to ever use the AC10 with your suggestion.

Because AC10 offers better DPS on mid range that happens far more often. Because you can shoot more than 2 at times, even if the LGR could have 2 on the same torso with LFE, you're losing on alpha if you have to chain fire that anyways, not to mention that you're using 48 tons just so you could chain fire 2x10 damage which defeats the point. The Annihilator could put 40 damage on one spot every 2.5s for crying out loud.

You can also literally hold to chain-fire the AC10s to just continuously shoot 10 damage every 0.5s, as opposed of the LGR for suppressive fire.

Sure LGR is far cooler, but it's not like people couldn't handle the heat? if it's heat neutral and you're not using what is basically a "god given" heat bar, then you're wasting resources.

Khobai, on 23 January 2018 - 11:02 PM, said:

youve basically just created a variation of the AC10 that is functionally better in every way except slightly lower DPS, which is inconsequential compared to the other advantages.

Again, it's not slightly lower DPS, it's not as inconsequential. We can already manage the heat of the AC10 in certain builds, very long ranges where the LGR would work well isn't as common. The AC10 would dominate short range where it's usually hectic trading and fire-fights, LGR would dominate long range where you usually have "all the time in the world" -- there you have a niche and role. Add the AC10 being able to shoot all at once, where you need to charge 2 LGRs separately (and no we're talking about my suggestion, not your suggestion so going all "but I suggested 3 LGRs at once" is irrelevant), then the AC10 en-masse is far better than LGR in terms of putting damage out and quickly dealing with the enemy.

You are also not thinking in roles -- as in what could the AC10 do that LGR could not do as good or better, and likewise what could the LGR do that the AC10 could not do as good or as better? Now we're talking about roles -- you wouldn't use AC10 at 810 meters right? So why would you use the LGR at 450m where it's DPS is less than that of the AC10 and you are losing on DPS versus other weapons?

In short, there are many ways to play the game, why you're not considering AC10 over LGR with the stats i have given is most likely just your lack of imagination, and your short sightedness about roles.

Khobai, on 23 January 2018 - 11:02 PM, said:

It isnt balanced.

Lol, the irony.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 January 2018 - 11:32 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

The LGauss would be just fine if it were 10 damage with a 3-second cool-down.

But not 4 seconds.

then why would anyone ever use heavy gauss? dual light gauss would be way better.

youre not balancing against other existing weapons.

heavy gauss optimum range is only 220m. at 220m you should be able to put all the light gauss shots where you want anyway (while also having the extreme range option). and you can use an LFE engine with dual light gauss so that makes up for the tonnage difference.

dual light gauss should not beat heavy gauss at brawling. that wouldnt work unless you put a minimum range on light gauss. but im pretty against minimum ranges on weapons.

Quote

Also less ammo, needs charge. 3.2258 DPS is already near at UAC5 EDPS, for scale the AC5 DPS is at 3.01, it's not "slightly less".

yes. 3.22 is slightly less than 4. by all definitions of the phrase "slightly less".

.8 extra dps is not going to make anyone want to use an AC10 over a light gauss.

being able to fit two LGR in a single torso with an LFE is a HUGE advantage. you cant even fit two AC10s in a single torso with a STD engine lol.

plus all the other advantages light gauss gets. the AC10 is worthless at that point.

youre not considering other important balance factors like how compact the LGR is compared to the AC10.

Edited by Khobai, 23 January 2018 - 11:34 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 23 January 2018 - 11:24 PM, said:

then why would anyone ever use heavy gauss? dual light gauss would be way better.

youre not balancing against other existing weapons.

You have a perpetual hang-up with focusing on single, independent weapon systems instead of the complete builds they are going to be a part of.

Let me know when you get over that and then we can have a productive conversation.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 23 January 2018 - 11:24 PM, said:

yes. 3.22 is slightly less than 4. by all definitions of the phrase "slightly less".

So is UAC5, and AC5 are just slightly less. Lets just remove LGR and AC10s then right? Who would use them over AC5 and UAC5s? They are just slightly less DPS after all..

But could it be that the AC10 and LGR offer more than just damage so that they are worth considering?

Khobai, on 23 January 2018 - 11:24 PM, said:

.8 extra dps is not going to make anyone want to use an AC10 over a light gauss.

0.8 difference ALONE won't, but the LGR's charge time deters it, the AC10 can shoot more than 2x, the low-heat is over-kill and people can just manage their heat better.

Khobai, on 23 January 2018 - 11:24 PM, said:

being able to fit two LGR in a single torso with an LFE is a HUGE advantage.

Sure, but then considering that you can only shoot two GRs at a time, that defeats the point of boating 4 at once. And with AC10 spread between two side torso, you still have enough space for other weapons anyways.

Khobai, on 23 January 2018 - 11:24 PM, said:

plus all the other advantages.

As if the AC10 doesn't have advantages over the LGR.

Khobai, on 23 January 2018 - 11:24 PM, said:

the AC10 is worthless at that point.

No it's not, you just lack imagination, and foresight about roles. Read above.

Yeonne Greene, on 23 January 2018 - 11:30 PM, said:

You have a perpetual hang-up with focusing on single, independent weapon systems instead of the complete builds they are going to be a part of.

Let me know when you get over that and then we can have a productive conversation.

EXACTLY.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 January 2018 - 11:38 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

You have a perpetual hang-up with focusing on single, independent weapon systems instead of the complete builds they are going to be a part of.

right thats why I wanted light gauss to be ghost heat limit of 3 so it could be combod with erppcs

I am considering the complete builds

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 23 January 2018 - 11:38 PM, said:

right thats why I wanted light gauss to be ghost heat limit of 3 so it could be combod with erppcs

I am considering the complete builds

It's funny how you're only considering complete builds in your scenario, but none of mine in my scenario.

And then add in the fact that you are only arguing from a single build, versus other possible builds. You think somehow arguing "but muh LGR-PPC" combination get you out from being short-sighted to the rest of the combinations? That's just one build out of many other that the LGR can function, and that's just on your specifications, not just mine.

Heed Yeonne Greene's words a lot more carefully.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 January 2018 - 11:43 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

It's funny how you're only considering complete builds in your scenario, but none of mine.

I am. thats why I mentioned the compactness of the LGR and the fact you can fit two LGR into a single side torso and still use an LFE engine.

Youre the one thats not considering that. Thats a massive advantage over AC10. And it will heavily influence LGR being used over AC10.

For example, why would a mech like an atlas use a single AC10 when it could fit 2 LGR instead? theres just not a whole lot of situations where the AC10 is better. because its 7 crit slots make it awkward.

The AC10 takes up more crit slots, and over 6 crit slots, so it needs to be a substantially better weapon overall. Even though they both weigh the same tonnage, the crit slots make a big difference.

Edited by Khobai, 23 January 2018 - 11:47 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 23 January 2018 - 11:41 PM, said:

I am. thats why I mentioned the compactness of the LGR and the fact you can fit two LGR into a single side torso and still use an LFE engine.

Youre the one thats not considering that. Thats a massive advantage over AC10. And it will heavily influence LGR being used over AC10.

For example, why would a mech like an atlas use a single AC10 when it could fit 2 LGR instead? theres just not a whole lot of situations where the AC10 is better. because its 7 crit slots make it awkward.

The AC10 takes up more crit slots, and over 6 crit slots, so it needs to be a substantially better weapon overall. Even though they both weigh the same tonnage, the crit slots make a big difference.

But the fact that the AC10 can be shot more than just two times. So what if you have to spread the AC10 between the torso as the LGR? You can shoot more all at once, boating two at each side torso defeats the point. By having an assymetric build, you can risk losing your entire build -- sure you can shield, but what will happen if you couldn't? Decisions decisions, there are many ways to play the game, not everybody build mechs like you and play like you.

Sure lets add in that something like the Hunchback could boat two LGR but just one AC10 -- so what? Not every mech are supposed to be capable of the every other build as others. Where's the outrage of Locusts not being able to do 4x SRM6A + AC20?

As if that's a smoking gun, you know the weapon offers differing advantages and disadvantages, that caters to different roles and situations, something you are not getting. Again, short sighted about roles, and lack of imagination.

No, the AC10 does not need to be a substantially better weapon just because of crit slots, it needs to do the role it's meant to do better that it's a choice. Balance is more than just crit slots, balance is supposed to be according to grand scheme of things.

No, i am considering the builds, but the problem is that you are just obsessed with one-dimensional thinking, as if you can just put the LGR in the role of the AC10 and vice versa. STUPID.

If you use the LGR at AC10 ranges, you practically forfeit the point of the LGR.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 January 2018 - 12:04 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

No, the AC10 does not need to be a substantially better weapon

it has a higher cost. so it should be better. thats how balancing works.

a weapon that takes up 7 crits costs more than a weapon that takes up 5 crits

2 crits isnt normally a lot but in the case of 7 vs 5 its a considerable difference. because its the difference between being able to fit two of the weapons in the same torso and still using an LFE.

Quote

No, i am considering the builds, but the problem is that you are just obsessed with one-dimensional thinking, as if you can just put the LGR in the role of the AC10 and vice versa. STUPID.

If you use the LGR at AC10 ranges, you practically forfeit the point of the LGR.

You can put the LGR in the role of the AC10. But you still have to assume the LGR is going to be used at long range before it turns into a midrange fight.

The LGR is going to get a couple shots off before the AC10 even fires once. Yes once it turns into a midrange fight the AC10 has the advantage. But if the LGR has done enough damage at long range beforehand it can still win the battle at midrange even at lower dps.

If the LGR was as good as you want it to be, it would be able to decide fights at long range, before the enemy mech gets into midrange. Fortunately PGI will never make the light gauss as good as you want it to be. Im not really worried about it.

The best were gonna get is 10 damage with a 4.0+0.5 cooldown. We can sell that to PGI. But they wont buy your idea, theyre not gonna bump it upto 10 damage and leave the cooldown the same. PGI has been increasing cooldowns on most long range weapons not decreasing them. They want to give brawlers more of a chance to get into brawling range without getting beat up too badly. Thats been a trend in recent patches.

Edited by Khobai, 24 January 2018 - 12:16 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

The fundamental issue with the AC/10 really isn't the combat performance of the AC/10 itself. It's that it's at an awkward tonnage for the damage it deals. No matter what combination of weapons you have, it's always more efficient to get that same damage number with pure lasers, with Gauss, or with some form of PPCs.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 24 January 2018 - 12:06 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 24 January 2018 - 12:02 AM, said:

it has a higher cost. so it should be better. thats how balancing works.

a weapon that takes up 7 crits costs more than a weapon that takes up 5 crits

2 crits isnt normally a lot but in the case of 7 vs 5 its a considerable difference. because its the difference between being able to fit two of the weapons in the same torso and still using an LFE.

Lol, that's like how children think of things. Just because it's bigger, it's better -- give them a larger stuffed toy they'll be more happy than a much more expensive but smaller doll.

No it's not, it should fit within the power curve in terms of give-and-take and roles it does, within the grand scheme of things. That's how balance really works.

Khobai, on 24 January 2018 - 12:02 AM, said:

You can put the LGR in the role of the AC10. But you still have to assume the LGR is going to be used at long range before it turns into a midrange fight.

Sure you can, but even though knives could be used to turn screws, it's best to use a god damn screwdriver.

Same thing, while the LGR could do the AC10 role, it just doesn't do it well enough to obsolete it. On more frequent instances of mid-range than extreme long ranges, the AC10 would be sufficient enough.

Khobai, on 24 January 2018 - 12:02 AM, said:

The LGR is going to get a couple shots off before the AC10 even fires once.

If the LGR was as good as you want it to be, it would be able to decide fights at long range, before the enemy mech gets into midrange.

As if it's always about 810m closing in to 450m on open spaces, as if people couldn't use cover to close in. etc. etc. As if our only maps are either polar highland or alpine peaks where everyone is exposed. As if specialists like brawlers don't know how to wait for the right time to fight.

Khobai, on 24 January 2018 - 12:02 AM, said:

Fortunately PGI will never make the light gauss as good as you want it to be. Im not really worried about it.

..

The best were gonna get is 10 damage with a 4.0+0.5 cooldown. We can sell that to PGI. But they wont buy your idea. PGI has been increasing cooldowns on most long range weapons not decreasing them. They want to give brawlers more of a chance to get into brawling range without getting beat up too badly. Thats been a trend in recent patches.

If that's best bet and happens, then PGI just became a lot more stupider. As far as i'm concerned, you ain't PGI.

I got my faster rate of fire for the LGR and is actually better than what i suggested, and your 10 damage has yet to be done -- so what if PGI is increasing cooldown on most other weapons? The LGR got it's CD decreased!

Yeonne Greene is right, we can't have a productive conversation if you can't get out of your one-dimensional thinking.

Yeonne Greene, on 24 January 2018 - 12:05 AM, said:

The fundamental issue with the AC/10 really isn't the combat performance of the AC/10 itself. It's that it's at an awkward tonnage for the damage it deals. No matter what combination of weapons you have, it's always more efficient to get that same damage number with pure lasers, with Gauss, or with some form of PPCs.

The PPCs would have heat to deter them, but I feel that it's really more of Lasers being just easier to use.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 January 2018 - 12:36 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 24 January 2018 - 12:06 AM, said:

The PPCs would have heat to deter them, but I feel that it's really more of Lasers being just easier to use.

Would you rather take a pair of HPPC and 17-18 DHS while running at 75 or would you rather take an AC/10 and two PPCs with only 13 DHS and run at 64.8? If your build is focused around delivering PPFLD strikes, going pure PPC is the name of the game. It's not until we get to the big 'Mechs where we run out of firepower options and have to actually start combining PPCs and ACs again to get the firepower to a level that justifies taking the 'Mech in the first place.

For lasers, it's part ease-of-use and part being fully unable to exceed the entire set of performance characteristics of an alternative build

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 January 2018 - 12:19 AM, said:

It's not until we get to the big 'Mechs where we run out of firepower options and have to actually start combining PPCs and ACs again to get the firepower to a level that justifies taking the 'Mech in the first place.

True. But when you are restricted with tonnage and not preoccupied with PPFLD, lasers being easier to use seems to be a lot more attractive.

Yeonne Greene, on 24 January 2018 - 12:19 AM, said:

For lasers, it's part ease-of-use and part being fully unable to exceed the entire set of performance characteristics of an alternative build

I know right. If ACs would ever get a chance over Lasers, then the ease-of-use should be tackled.

[BenAran]

I say:
Remove its charge cap. Giving people the ability to boat light gauss will give it a niche to fill.
Imagine a mauler with quad light gauss delivering 32 damage every 2.5 seconds at minimal heat.
Other ways to buff it: remove charge up (Makes sense even, since it launches smaller projectiles) increase damage (only to 9, otherwise the AC10 would seem like a worse alternative in my eyes) and, my personal favorite: We are playing a game of improbabilities. Let the light gauss have insane muzzle velocity, so its fits the whole "I am just a gauss downscaled with ammo thats half as heavy" since thats the tradeoff. Go for a velocity upwards of 4000 m/s, so it becomes a good long range weapon to poke with.

[An Innocent Urbie]

it is really hard to get above 400 with a single LGR

[Khobai]

Quote

I got my faster rate of fire for the LGR and is actually better than what i suggested, and your 10 damage has yet to be done -- so what if PGI is increasing cooldown on most other weapons? The LGR got it's CD decreased!

because it still only does 8 damage

but if its damage is increased to 10 its cooldown will go up as well, it wont stay the same as it is now

and you yourself admitted it needs to do 10 damage

8 damage just isnt enough to justify the weapons tonnage

Edited by Khobai, 24 January 2018 - 01:38 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 24 January 2018 - 01:37 AM, said:

because it still only does 8 damage

but if its damage is increased to 10 its cooldown will go up as well, it wont stay the same as it is now

Or maybe it won't because it's supposed to be a buff, not just an adjustment.

Khobai, on 24 January 2018 - 01:37 AM, said:

and you yourself admitted it needs to do 10 damage

8 damage just isnt enough to justify the weapons tonnage

Sure, but i specified that it also needs to retains the cooldown buff as well. 8 damage at 2.6s + 0.5s might not worth the 12 tons, but guess what, the 10 damage with 4.0 + 5s is just worse.

Now you're just cherry picking. You think that's a gotcha moment? Like how "every other weapon got CD increase so the LGR would have an increase too" never mind that while the trend is so, PGI is still putting on the effort of buffing the LGR which makes it fair game. What you are suggesting is completely opposite nature of what i am advocating for, i only agreed with 10 damage, but disagreed with you with most of it.

Tell you what, maybe they will do 10 damage with 2.6s + 0.5s first and prove me wrong. Maybe PGI would go 12 damage instead, and it would justify the 4.0s cooldown with 0.5s charge time -- but your suggestion is just horrendous.

Till then? Hows about being more insightful, learn to argue better and with actually valid points than just rhetoric, and think more than just one dimension. Heed Yeonne Greene's word, he's right you know.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 January 2018 - 02:20 AM.