1125 replies to this topic

[Templar Dane]

Increasing the duration and nerfing the range of CLPL seems kind of excessive. It's already been pretty much obsoleted by the HLL anyway.

[Jackal Noble]

Can we nerf the part where I draw more ire from the enemy than my teammates do somehow?

[Jackal Noble]

It's funny, I am more worried about a grasshoppers' laservomit when I round a corner than a hellbringers. Not the alpha strength, the efficacy of causing damage when it counts. Just a tidbit, not advocating for anything one way or the other.

I barely use the C-LPL anymore but it will likely replace the C-ERPPC on a number of my builds because the cooldown is so friggin long.

[Reno Blade]

Tarogato, on 28 February 2018 - 08:40 PM, said:

It's worth noting that adding enough penalty heat to make people stop laservomitmegaalphanonstop... is basically equivalent to deleting those builds from the game.

Just like happened with gaussPPC. You can still play 3x gaussPPC loadouts just fine. You can alpha them, poptart with them, albeit with a massive heat penalty, and you can split-fire them to avoid the penalty. But because the penalty is enough to discourage you from alpha'ing them all the time, they literally aren't played anymore. It has become a completely useless weapon combination.

Similarly, an Energy Draw that penalises you some amount for mega-alpha-vomiting, would more than likely kill those loadouts outright, almost like deleting them from the game entirely - the only people who would play those loadouts anymore would be the people who haven't put much thought into it and don't actually know what their doing. Everybody else will have moved on to other loadouts.

It's VERY difficult to add heat penalties to things without causing people to just jump ship entirely. More than anything in weapon balance, I feel heat penalties are very razor's edge.

I think this ("builds are dead") is only true for alphastrike builds (majority of mechs).
There are mechs that already have /had to split their fire (e.g. 6LL or 12 SL boats) to prevent GH.
Sure the 3PPCGauss build is much less effective in peaking with split shots, but it's not dead because of that, but because it's much easier to just laser vom everything (even with over 1.x seconds burn of HLL).

This seems to be/become a discussion of alpha performance (ghost heat, alpha burst and facetime)

Sure we can increase laser burn time to about 2.0 for HLL and 1.5 for ERML, but didn't you say (to me) that this is "unfunning" the weapons even more?
I'm already pushing for this for ages and all I see are negative reactions, even though it would help at least the faster mechs - slower mechs will spread the damage, but still take it.

I liked the GHost heat limits you suggested earlier with max of 1 large laser combined with meds.

I guess the best way could be in between.
My take would be
- 2x Larges -> OK
- 6x Meds -> OK
- 1x Large + 4x Meds -> OK
- plus adjust beam duration a little bit (e.g. about 15-20% for ER and heavies)
and half pulse laser values for beam, cooldown, dmg and heat

maybe one day we will get Power Draw where the penalties are partly heat, partly beam duration and partly reload time.

[Tarogato]

Reno Blade, on 02 March 2018 - 06:23 AM, said:

I think this ("builds are dead") is only true for alphastrike builds (majority of mechs).
There are mechs that already have /had to split their fire (e.g. 6LL or 12 SL boats) to prevent GH.
Sure the 3PPCGauss build is much less effective in peaking with split shots, but it's not dead because of that, but because it's much easier to just laser vom everything (even with over 1.x seconds burn of HLL).

This seems to be/become a discussion of alpha performance (ghost heat, alpha burst and facetime)

I don't think you quite understand how critical the synchronisation is to poptarts. If you cannot fire the weapons simultaneously, the build is dead. The whole reason you play that build is because the weapons can be synchronised.

The 0.5 second delay to dodge ghost heat (let's call it more like a 0.7s delay in game on average, when giving yourself room for human error) is rather inconsequential for lasers that already have over a 1.0sec burn duration. For instance, with large lasers it's like a 60% longer burn (1.8s / 1.1s).

Whereas for builds like gaussPPC, it takes ∞% longer, because 0.7 / 0.0 ≈ ∞
(ahem, yes, I know n/0 is undefined, but that's only because of discontinuity. In the real world, where there is no such thing as negative time, the limit of n/x as x approaches zero tends to infinity. Even if we say that ... a 0.2s delay is acceptable for gaussPPC, then ghost heat introduces a 350% increase to that offset. It ultra-massively impacts viability.)

Quote

Sure we can increase laser burn time to about 2.0 for HLL and 1.5 for ERML, but didn't you say (to me) that this is "unfunning" the weapons even more?

I don't think that longer burn durations are unfun. I actually rather like long duration lasers, they feel meatier and more satisfying/rewarding to me. But that's just me. I'm rather strange. I understand that most people would see this as unfunning the lasers, most people don't like lightsabres like I do... so instead of telling them all to eat a bag of ****'s, I'm entertaining alternatives.

Another idea I have, which is a mechanics change instead of a balance change... is to get rid of ghost heat on lasers altogether and replace it with ghost duration. It's a much softer penalty than heat, and affects alpha capability (whereas ghost heat does not affect alpha capability at all, it only affects sustainability.)

Reno Blade, on 02 March 2018 - 06:23 AM, said:

maybe one day we will get Power Draw where the penalties are partly heat, partly beam duration and partly reload time.

Crap. You just said kinda what I just said before I readeded it.
Well, yay I guess for corroborated ideas? =3

Edited by Tarogato, 02 March 2018 - 08:16 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

I just realized, we can both either increase damage of the RAC2 from 0.8 to 1.0 to achieve the 7.275 DPS -- but also increase ROF itself to 9.09375 shots/sec.

The 1.0 damage plainly increases damage, likewise increases ammo efficiency and damage/ton which could be alarming for balance.

The 9.09375 shots/sec retains ammo-efficiency while achieving good DPS, it also doubles down on the suppressive power of the RAC2 and provides a distinct difference from RAC5.

Which would be better?

[BreakinStuff]

From a purely gun-nut perspective, smaller caliber tends to be faster firing. I'd opt for the RoF rather than the ammunition efficiency if we had to pick.

[Nightbird]

Would like to point out autocannons are still the same bad... for example Ultras, IS has 3.5% better DPS for 25% more weight and more crits

[BreakinStuff]

PGI is not going to eliminate the weight/slot difference between IS and clan. That's a dead horse no one wants to kick.

[Y E O N N E]

BreakinStuff, on 03 March 2018 - 12:20 AM, said:

PGI is not going to eliminate the weight/slot difference between IS and clan. That's a dead horse no one wants to kick.

They don't have to. They just have to make those extra resource requirements count for something.

[Papaspud]

C'mon get it right....IS = targets.... clan= alpha damage, balance be damned/.

[Sjorpha]

Yeonne Greene, on 03 March 2018 - 12:46 AM, said:

They don't have to. They just have to make those extra resource requirements count for something.

Exactly, make IS gauss strong enough that it's actually 3 tons "better" than cGauss and so on. No need to change slots or tonnage if the equipment is balanced to be worth it.

[Khobai]

cguass should be nerfed to 12 damage. but also given a faster rate of fire and longer range.

12 tons for 12 damage seems fair to me.

and 15 tons for 15 damage on the IS side.

[Mystere]

Yeonne Greene, on 03 March 2018 - 12:46 AM, said:

They don't have to. They just have to make those extra resource requirements count for something.

My main beef with such a solution has always been that this picture is at the back of my head at all times:




As such, the solution needs to go beyond mere equipment. And for people who have been paying attention long enough, they know exactly what I mean.

[Mystere]

Sjorpha, on 03 March 2018 - 05:22 AM, said:

Exactly, make IS gauss strong enough that it's actually 3 tons "better" than cGauss and so on. No need to change slots or tonnage if the equipment is balanced to be worth it.

So, how much should "weight", "size", "range", etc. count in determining how much "power" a weapon or piece of equipment should have? In other words, what mathematical basis are you using to determine this?

Declaring it should be "3 tons better" says nothing.

And we haven't even talked about the Mechs themselves yet.

Edited by Mystere, 03 March 2018 - 04:33 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 03 March 2018 - 12:46 AM, said:

They don't have to. They just have to make those extra resource requirements count for something.

Unless they're going to increase LB20X damage to around 24 to 30, I don't see any use of it being at 11 slots that forces standard engine along with spread-damage, cause increased velocity is barely a compensation. Of course if they implemented crit-splitting, it would be solved too.

Khobai, on 03 March 2018 - 06:10 AM, said:

cguass should be nerfed to 12 damage. but also given a faster rate of fire and longer range.

No it shouldn't. We've been over this it devalues the use of Gauss at it's intended role for the other side. Just increase it's CD so less shots that way.

Khobai, on 03 March 2018 - 06:10 AM, said:

12 tons for 12 damage seems fair to me.

and 15 tons for 15 damage on the IS side.

That sounds childish.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 03 March 2018 - 04:11 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 03 March 2018 - 04:04 PM, said:

Unless they're going to increase LB20X damage to around 24 to 30, I don't see any use of it being at 11 slots that forces standard engine along with spread-damage, cause increased velocity is barely a compensation. Of course if they implemented crit-splitting, it would be solved too.

Note, I didn't say there weren't limits to how you can apply the concept.

That being said, I do not think LB-20X are as bad off as people make it sound. It has its niche, even the IS one, though not necessarily in the big modes. It was pretty dominating in 1v1s at the Heavy weight bracket.

[PocketYoda]

54 pages nothing changes, PGI don't care what we say.. You guys are all screaming into the wind..

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 03 March 2018 - 04:07 PM, said:

Note, I didn't say there weren't limits to how you can apply the concept.

That being said, I do not think LB-20X are as bad off as people make it sound. It has its niche, even the IS one, though not necessarily in the big modes. It was pretty dominating in 1v1s at the Heavy weight bracket.

I have no qualms that it can be worked with, but the big problem with it is that you are forced to STD engine. It's not like the extra tonnage that one has to use has proportional advantages given. Sure it's not that bad, but it's still pretty bad, it's still a really inflexible weapon.

Samial, on 03 March 2018 - 04:08 PM, said:

54 pages nothing changes, PGI don't care what we say.. You guys are all screaming into the wind.

Eh true. I mean that interview with Paul Inouye, what he said is basically "**** you" in the most indirect and discreet way possible.

But hey, at least Tarogato and a lot of others tried.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 03 March 2018 - 04:19 PM.

[Tarogato]

The6thMessenger, on 03 March 2018 - 04:04 PM, said:

[cGauss] Just increase it's CD so less shots that way..

That doesn't really affect the strongest meta gaussvomit builds, imo, since their rate of poke is pretty low due to heat constraints (Deathstrike, MCII-1, DWF, NTG), but it can affect a lot of non-problem mechs which are not meta and do leverage the full rate of fire of cGauss.