1125 replies to this topic

[Koniving]

Kin3ticX, on 25 February 2018 - 09:52 PM, said:

It's not a debacle. What Paul said about that was true. Buff LRMs to be viable for everyone and there will be an LRM apocalypse in the bottom feeder tiers.

Rest of post had too much word salad to bother reading. You lost me at "because IRL a cruise missile would"

Skip that part and actually read it. Gave a comparison to a HUGE missile which flies faster... and then a shoulder-mounted small missile which weighs almost 22 lbs more and yet flies over 7 times faster than our LRMs.

Just a comparison for "Why the **** are the missiles so slow"
You'll see where the rest goes when you read it.

[Kin3ticX]

Tarogato, on 25 February 2018 - 09:43 PM, said:

Exactly which weapons changes would you want removed, and why?

(reference the spreadsheet, because the word doc is not up to date at the moment)

I think some people have reservations against balance by armchair developer regardless of how good or bad your collection of changes are. I am probably in this camp except that all the rabblerousing caused from all this forced PGI to respond.

I think a lot of the problem can be summed up in this video

[Kin3ticX]

Koniving, on 25 February 2018 - 09:58 PM, said:

Skip that part and actually read it. Gave a comparison to a HUGE missile which flies faster... and then a shoulder-mounted small missile which weighs almost 22 lbs more and yet flies over 7 times faster than our LRMs.

Just a comparison for "Why the **** are the missiles so slow"
You'll see where the rest goes when you read it.

Its not the only weapon to get boned by balance by potato. The AC2 used to put out 4DPS which made it usable yet extremely damage farmy compared with Gauss Peep and other stuff. Its been sub 3 DPS for years because tier 4-5 players just stand there like turrets and take ac2 to the face until they die. Same for LRMs, the just walk out into the open and take it.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 25 February 2018 - 10:09 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Apologies to Tarogato, but i feel that it would be best if we can continue the discussion of LPPCs in public, and my reason why i wanted to push the LPPC AC-esque approach.

Tarogato, on 26 February 2018 - 03:04 AM, said:

Anyways, in your recording I counted maybe two instances (three at best) where you would have taken advantage of a cooldown buff. So in all, in that match, you would have better benefited from a damage buff rather than a CD buff. Which is why I think LPPC deserves a damage buff - because even in a match like this you would have gotten full benefit from it, while a cooldown buff instead... matches like this it would not have been a buff at all.

Anyways, we're sticking with the CD buff we have in the doc (3.0sec CD from 4.0) because that's the popular request, but for me personally it won't be a change that will make me use LPPCs. I'll still ignore LPPCs, because they do crap damage. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Similarly, the AC5 would also benefit from damage buff, but the thing is that it plays differently.

The problem is that, the LPPC would play PRECISELY just like every other PPCs. I want it to play differently because if it plays like every other PPC it's just a matter of which is best at which, and the LPPC wouldn't be good at it with it's tonnage so the heavier PPCs would always be picked to min-max. By giving it something that the other PPCs are incapable of doing so such as rapid-fire PPC bolts, people will always have reason to go after it because it offers something completely different to the table. It's like spells from other games, from basic damaging spell to a slow/stun.

I want it to have something like an "incomparable", yes i guess that CD is just another numeric relation to another PPC, but it's the rapid-fire concept itself, the fire-suppression available for low tonnage.



It's not that we could have taken advantage of that CD buff, it's that we are pushed to play differently that we'd get to take advantage of it. Honestly, it's not like i could shoot AC10 and AC5 every time they are out of cooldown due to meta reasons, but we're still given that option.

I agree, it would be best for the meta for LPPCs to have most damage, but it would be far better for the game if it were playing differently, that it gives more different options to play the game, more fun.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 26 February 2018 - 05:29 AM.

[Tarogato]

The6thMessenger, on 26 February 2018 - 05:26 AM, said:

Apologies to Tarogato, but i feel that it would be best if we can continue the discussion of LPPCs in public, and my reason why i wanted to push the LPPC AC-esque approach.

crap! *shifts gears abruptly*

Quote

Similarly, the AC5 would also benefit from damage buff, but the thing is that it plays differently.

The problem is that, the LPPC would play PRECISELY just like every other PPCs. I want it to play differently because if it plays like every other PPC it's just a matter of which is best at which, and the LPPC wouldn't be good at it with it's tonnage so the heavier PPCs would always be picked to min-max. By giving it something that the other PPCs are incapable of doing so such as rapid-fire PPC bolts, people will always have reason to go after it because it offers something completely different to the table. It's like spells from other games, from basic damaging spell to a slow/stun.

I want it to have something like an "incomparable", yes i guess that CD is just another numeric relation to another PPC, but it's the rapid-fire concept itself, the fire-suppression available for low tonnage.

<media>

It's not that we could have taken advantage of that CD buff, it's that we are pushed to play differently that we'd get to take advantage of it. Honestly, it's not like i could shoot AC10 and AC5 every time they are out of cooldown due to meta reasons, but we're still given that option.

I agree, it would be best for the meta for LPPCs to have most damage, but it would be far better for the game if it were playing differently, that it gives more different options to play the game, more fun.

I still think if you want that different playstyle, than you should be taking the different weapon. Like the LPL. In my mind, the LPPC exists for one reason: a PPC that is smaller and lighter, such that it can be used on lighter mechs (or any builds, really) where the standard PPC is too heavy.

Of course, to be honest, I would say the LPPC should probably deal 6.5 damage, and the PPC should deal 11.0 or 11.5 damage, with the HPPC dealing 16. But that's just because skill tree introduced armour quirks for every mech in the game, sending TTK through the roof, combined with mega alphavomit clan builds coming into the game that make every other weapon combination feel meek by comparison. =/

[Daurock]

Tarogato, on 26 February 2018 - 05:37 AM, said:

crap! *shifts gears abruptly*







I still think if you want that different playstyle, than you should be taking the different weapon. Like the LPL. In my mind, the LPPC exists for one reason: a PPC that is smaller and lighter, such that it can be used on lighter mechs (or any builds, really) where the standard PPC is too heavy.

Of course, to be honest, I would say the LPPC should probably deal 6.5 damage, and the PPC should deal 11.0 or 11.5 damage, with the HPPC dealing 16. But that's just because skill tree introduced armour quirks for every mech in the game, sending TTK through the roof, combined with mega alphavomit clan builds coming into the game that make every other weapon combination feel meek by comparison. =/

Agreed mostly. PPC's should feel like PPCs, and not like Autocannons. I.E. Hot, Hard hitting, longer ranged, NOT-spammy weaponry. I actually think PPCs are mostly in a good place now, with the exception of maybe the isERPPC, and snub. Those two probably need a heat buff to get them competetive to other options.

The guy does have a point though, that as of right now, there really aren't a lot of god spammy laser builds. On that front, I'd like to see pulse lasers changed to become MORE spammy than they are at the moment. (Dramatically Lower damage per shot, in exchange for better DPS and Heat Efficiency.) It'd help to create more space between the standard and pulse type lasers, which as of right now have way too much overlap in my eyes.

[Koniving]

Kin3ticX, on 25 February 2018 - 10:08 PM, said:

Its not the only weapon to get boned by balance by potato. The AC2 used to put out 4DPS which made it usable yet extremely damage farmy compared with Gauss Peep and other stuff. Its been sub 3 DPS for years because tier 4-5 players just stand there like turrets and take ac2 to the face until they die. Same for LRMs, the just walk out into the open and take it.

I know, but the issue with that is you can easily pack 4 to 6 of them on many mechs, making for up to 24 damage per second. Meanwhile you can't do that with AC/10s, and why would you spend the tonnage on them for inferior range and 24 tons just to run 2 while AC/2s could run 4 for the same weight and double the damage?

That same issue with LRMs, however, is addressed here.

The LRM tidbit I put in... does the following:
Makes a little more than 6 times LRMs faster, but piss poor at tracking fast moving targets that are not moving in a straight line.

Allows Artemis to be slightly slower but track even light mechs well, provided actual distance (the closer they get the harder this would be)

AMS after skill tree is already effective enough to deal with that threat by reducing damage reasonably well.

Goal there is to make it effective at long range and less effective as they get close (as most mechs 86+ can just run in a circle around you and dodge 'em all). That is the opposite of what they are now.

Next up:
Require a new lock after every firing. This Removes chainfire spam and eternal spam.

This also removes the ability to overwhelm AMS with endless spam.
(a process in which you lob separate volleys of LRMs so quickly at an AMS user that even with 3 AMS, it comes down to the point where ZERO missiles are being destroyed before impact due to a bug in which if a targeted missile hits the player before the AMS destroys it, there's half a second delay before it accepts new targets.)

This also increases player engagement as this will not be an easy button to hold while reading the sunday newspaper or in my case, set fire to a macro and alt tab to watch a youtube video while players just die because they are pop-tarting from the same location over and over and over and over...
It also increases the skill needed for boats versus 'just a launcher or two" as the choice is to lock, fire, lock fire with multiple firing groups or accept the ghost heat.

Consequentially affects Streak and ATM due to requiring new locks for each firing.

Is fire and forget, allowing you to fire a locked volley of missiles and twist away to defend yourself rather than stare blankly into enemy fire. This will make it more useful in advanced play. and a lot more non-boated loadouts.

Artemis is the exception, with an additional indicator for maintaining line of sight (and without this, the missiles default to stock behavior. As such, ATM would also require this for maximum accuracy (as it should already require it, given ATM has Artemis built in).

Indirect fire will go up and over. Direct fire will go directly at the target. Remove the range-basis of how high the missiles go.

Remove 25% faster lock acceleration from Artemis. This removes the exploit for Streaks and weightless accelerated lockons. Admittedly, with requiring new locks PGI may increase locking speed overall.

And then as the followup paragraph:
Enable tracking on SRMs. Unlike streaks, they won't defy the laws of physics and will fire without locks. Doing so would also allow them to enable the missing functionality of NARC-enabled SRMs, which our LRMs have that built in but our SRMs...magically don't?

[Tarogato]

Koniving, on 26 February 2018 - 06:58 AM, said:

I know, but the issue with that is you can easily pack 4 to 6 of them on many mechs, making for up to 24 damage per second. Meanwhile you can't do that with AC/10s, and why would you spend the tonnage on them for inferior range and 24 tons just to run 2 while AC/2s could run 4 for the same weight and double the damage?

20 PPFLD every 2.5 seconds > 8 damage every 0.72 seconds.

Sure, the former is 8 DPS and the latter is 11 DPS, but the AC2 has to stare for nearly two full seconds to achieve the same damage output that the AC10 deals instantaneously. Mandatory facetime reduces the effectiveness of a weapon beyond what its DPS numbers may indicate.

[Tarogato]

Tiewolf, on 08 February 2018 - 06:15 AM, said:

1. From the hole population mainly the top players will benefit the most and the skill gap between them and the casual players grows. (When you look at the players that where involved the perspective/hidden agenda is obvious)

Tiewolf, on 09 February 2018 - 01:01 AM, said:

... the more i read here i realize that it is not about balance. It is about buffing weapons so that the impact of the top players in this game increases. Thats not balance or making different playstyles viable. Maybe Dane and company only want to achieve their fun not that of the whole community. Sure its fun for the b33f and his ordiance to see all the enemy players riped to pices. But for the ones riped apart with a lower skill then the b33f it is not fun. If you increase the weapon performance the skill gap and the influence of good players grows.

Other than gaussPPC, could you point to any changes that support this notion?

slide, on 07 February 2018 - 08:36 PM, said:

It also seems to me that most of these changes will bring back old meta favorites. Whilst not necessarily a bad thing per se, it should be kept in mind that they were nerfed for a reason.

Thanks for the effort, I am all for good changes.

What meta favorites? Assuming the GaussPPC reintroduction removed from the proposal, what are you thinking of, examples?

[Reno Blade]

Koniving, on 25 February 2018 - 08:24 AM, said:

...

• Change non-Artemis LRMs to fire and forget. Require new locks every time (this behavior should actually be done to all lock on weapons but wait for that at the next senior bullet point).
  
  • I'm aware that as a consequence this means that Streaks and ATMs would also have the same behavior as well as Artemis LRMs.
    
  • The idea here is to increase the skill quotient and player involvement from "Camp in one spot and hold fire button, yawn and read a book" to "C'mon c'mon lock, YES GOT IT! Fire! C'mon, lock again lock again" in order to make the gameplay using them be much more engaging.
    
  • This would also fight against chainfire missile spam, since any missile lock would be removed once you fire, preventing harassment builds that annoy players and shower them in blinding light. (PGI did the same to flamers, so why not here?)
    
  • Finally this would improve their utility in non-boat applications, as having just one or so missile launchers would allow players the ability to use said missile launchers and then twist to protect themselves whenever necessary rather than "STARING" at the enemy until they are two-shotted by laser vomit or unable to defend themselves [and actually hit something] against enemy AC fire.

...

quoting this part as imho this (fire and forget + lock loss) is the single most useful (most needed) change of the whole missile balancing.

in addition, we could change the lock mechanic to aquire 5 target components (e.g. 2x LT, 1x CT, 1x RT, 1x RL) for each 5 missiles to further make missile locks more interesting/interactive - independently of launcher size and volley size.


EDIT: Comparing a boat (e.g. 4 launchers+) to a single launcher (or smaller volley), when losing the lock every launch, you would need to fire the whole volley (e.g. 4x LRM15) and get ghost heat penalties, or reaquire locks for your next ready launchers and still risk the "stare-down" issue (e.g. as you need to keep locks currently).

If the launchers cooldowns would be higher, there would be less reason for keeping the staring for (longer/new) locks and would allow the launchers to be better (e.g. more velocity).

Conclusion
So my complete suggestion would be:
- increase the velocity
- increase cooldown
- lock on weapons are fire and forget with bad turn rate (smaller launchers = better turn rate, streaks best)
- every launch will trigger the lock-loss effect (similar to moving the reticule too far away)

Edited by Reno Blade, 26 February 2018 - 09:20 AM.

[Koniving]

Reno Blade, on 26 February 2018 - 09:02 AM, said:

in addition, we could change the lock mechanic to aquire 5 target components (e.g. 2x LT, 1x CT, 1x RT, 1x RL) for each 5 missiles to further make missile locks more interesting/interactive - independently of launcher size and volley size.

As cool as that sounds... It reminds me a lot of Armored Core and has a very satisfying thing to it, those locks were pretty quick and the audio/visual very neat... I do not believe it would mesh well with MWO's fast paced gameplay. MWO, despite all its crap about being a thinking shooter... rewards some of the most mindless gameplay and the inability to quickly make those locks would likely shun many players away from lockon weaponry unless they were nearly instant. And if it were, then it would really just be visual flare.. and PGI doesn't do visual flare.

If they did, the different PPCs would have different visuals instead of the same visual... different audio... and you'd be able to distinguish IS ER and standard lasers.

If they were to do any visual flare work.. I'd like to think that after 5+ years they'd finally give the monitors a genuine purpose.

But thank you for quoting and emphasizing it. I'm glad to see part of it is enjoyed.

[Reno Blade]

Koniving, on 26 February 2018 - 09:19 AM, said:

As cool as that sounds... It reminds me a lot of Armored Core and has a very satisfying thing to it, those locks were pretty quick and the audio/visual very neat... I do not believe it would mesh well with MWO's fast paced gameplay. MWO, despite all its crap about being a thinking shooter... rewards some of the most mindless gameplay and the inability to quickly make those locks would likely shun many players away from lockon weaponry unless they were nearly instant. And if it were, then it would really just be visual flare.. and PGI doesn't do visual flare.

If they did, the different PPCs would have different visuals instead of the same visual... different audio... and you'd be able to distinguish IS ER and standard lasers.

If they were to do any visual flare work.. I'd like to think that after 5+ years they'd finally give the monitors a genuine purpose.

But thank you for quoting and emphasizing it. I'm glad to see part of it is enjoyed.

Sure locking on 5 parts separately needs to be very fast (e.g. needs to already happen while the lock cycle is spinning).
I think it could be without visuals, where your missiles "aim" for the 5 areas that you are aiming at when locking on.
So, if you have a steady aim at your targets RT, all the missiles would try to aim for this side of the mech instead of the center mass.
- with the existing spread, you would probably still hit different parts, or miss some missiles, but that way you could add "skill" to your aiming.
and if we also would have the lock-on icons for each of the 5 target zones.... for fun:

[Koniving]

Reno Blade, on 26 February 2018 - 09:26 AM, said:

Sure locking on 5 parts separately needs to be very fast (e.g. needs to already happen while the lock cycle is spinning).
I think it could be without visuals, where your missiles "aim" for the 5 areas that you are aiming at when locking on.
So, if you have a steady aim at your targets RT, all the missiles would try to aim for this side of the mech instead of the center mass.
- with the existing spread, you would probably still hit different parts, or miss some missiles, but that way you could add "skill" to your aiming.
and if we also would have the lock-on icons for each of the 5 target zones.... for fun:

The follow up issue would be the missiles spreading out. With the old missile code I could see that happening.


But with the current missiles, they all fly in a locked (and very ugly) pattern.. Far as I remember the reasoning was to improve reliability and strictly control spread. Or something to do with the HSR. Whatever the case they would have to give LRMs the Streak code... and lets be honest nobody would like that no matter how much cooler it would look. People shun damage spread as it is. Look at all the flak people give the LBX weapons.

Battletech's LRMs tend to go for a specific body part, likely chosen at random, and mostly hammer in on it. So having it spread in individually targeting across body parts might even irk the lore nuts.

(And I'm saying this as an avid streak user that exploits the fact that streaks spread all over the place to pad damage income and to find weak spots in enemy armor. I like the idea, but I do not believe many others would. But who knows, I could be wrong and others might like it too. But since in the past its been PGI and certain players deciding balance, I do not believe it'll happen. PGI has mentioned on several occasions talking with top competitive players about balancing and in the process, we've seen meta only amplify while other weapons that didn't suit meta get left out in the dust... and balancing against things like laser vomit only flip back around to enable excessive laser vomit with a new vengeance.)
---------------------------

Now, reading a little better, What if instead you could choose a specific area to focus on to achieve that specific body part as the primary target? There would be more skill but it would absolutely require a visual element to indicate this as, honestly, who the hell would know that it is a mechanic without it? Unfortunately if you gotta aim at the body part to keep the lock there... it breaks the fire and forget element that you liked.

If this were a factor in say Artemis LRMs/SRMs and ATMs... that'd be a whole different story, in fact it would add a new and cooler element to the enhanced accuracy, by say painting say 7 target points (one per leg, arm, ST and CT) on which the user with line of sight could focus on. And then that focused point could focus the missile path to go for specifically that limb, we'd have something that many players could get behind (in addition to more reason to keep that line of sight when you could otherwise just fire and twist away).

So THAT aspect... I think many players could get behind (as opposed to randomly lock 5 body parts before firing).

I think that Clan LRMs and ATM would benefit better than IS LRMs due to the stream fire versus volley fire. That would need addressing...

Furthermore if this is done, I would hope that the torso and arm crosshairs could be used to do this, to either prioritize two points, or with seniority on the arm crosshair as it is the easiest one to maintain a specific body part with.

Edited by Koniving, 26 February 2018 - 09:45 AM.

[JediPanther]

PPCs have way to much heat for the damage output. Velocity quirks are ok but the only two things that make ppcs worth it are a fast mech to fire and relocate before the enemy light finds you can a lot of energy heat quirks in the 15-20 range added to the fire power's heat gen nodes.

[Leone]

To weigh in on the PPC debate, I'd like to point out that two Lights PPCs make a standard PPC for an extra slot, with a ton saved and 0.5 extra heat. A Light PPC and a standard PPC make a Heavy PPC For an extra slot, with a full second faster cooldown and the same heat. We can even use three light PPCs to make a Heavy for two more slots, saving a tonne, with .5 extra heat and a full second faster cooldown.

So, right now the only reason to take light ppcs is the tonnage, and if you've the spare hardpoints. The only reason to take heavy PPCs is if you're slot or hardpoint starved. If you up their damage so that two lights are better'n a standard ppc, more than that 0.5 heat they bring. Oh and the whole ghost heat thing.

Personally, I'd like a 0.5 cooldown rather'n more damage on the Light PPCs for a bit more variety between weaponry, but they're already fairly well scaled with the PPC family. Just, you know, keep that in mind.

~Leone.

Edited by Leone, 26 February 2018 - 12:52 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Kin3ticX, on 25 February 2018 - 09:52 PM, said:

It's not a debacle. What Paul said about that was true. Buff LRMs to be viable for everyone and there will be an LRM apocalypse in the bottom feeder tiers.

https://mwomercs.com...skill-counters/

Instead of, y'know, actually giving those bottom feeders an AMS safety net we just render LRMs unviable? C'mon. We can do better than that.

Leone, on 26 February 2018 - 12:51 PM, said:

To weigh in on the PPC debate, I'd like to point out that two Lights PPCs make a standard PPC for an extra slot, with a ton saved and 0.5 extra heat. A Light PPC and a standard PPC make a Heavy PPC For an extra slot, with a full second faster cooldown and the same heat. We can even use three light PPCs to make a Heavy for two more slots, saving a tonne, with .5 extra heat and a full second faster cooldown.

So, right now the only reason to take light ppcs is the tonnage, and if you've the spare hardpoints. The only reason to take heavy PPCs is if you're slot or hardpoint starved. If you up their damage so that two lights are better'n a standard ppc, more than that 0.5 heat they bring. Oh and the whole ghost heat thing.

Personally, I'd like a 0.5 cooldown rather'n more damage on the Light PPCs for a bit more variety between weaponry, but they're already fairly well scaled with the PPC family. Just, you know, keep that in mind.

~Leone.

There's also that annoying ghost heat bit for trying to combine too many PPCs at once, of course. While combi-blasters work OK with a single pair, past that you're triggering ghost heat and lots of it.

[The6thMessenger]

Tarogato, on 26 February 2018 - 05:37 AM, said:

I still think if you want that different playstyle, than you should be taking the different weapon. Like the LPL.

Nah, i like LPPC acting like a weaker AC10, cause it would have longer range trading it's less ROF over the LPL, and LPPC is more accessible for lights due to being lighter.

I also don't want it just following the other PPCs in their meta, i feel like it's just self-serving on comp people when they're the guys that wouldn't be interested in LRMS, RACs, and other non-meta stuff.

Tarogato, on 26 February 2018 - 05:37 AM, said:

Of course, to be honest, I would say the LPPC should probably deal 6.5 damage, and the PPC should deal 11.0 or 11.5 damage, with the HPPC dealing 16. But that's just because skill tree introduced armour quirks for every mech in the game, sending TTK through the roof, combined with mega alphavomit clan builds coming into the game that make every other weapon combination feel meek by comparison. =/

Isn't that the point of armor-quirks, to extend TTK? If we just increase PPC damage like that, we compromise skill builds that weren't using armor quirks, unskilled mechs by default are more vulnerable.

As for the clan laser-vomit, it's just too damn OP and we should be nerfing it in the first place. Honestly.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 26 February 2018 - 04:05 PM.

[Templar Dane]

Kin3ticX, on 25 February 2018 - 10:08 PM, said:

Its not the only weapon to get boned by balance by potato. The AC2 used to put out 4DPS which made it usable yet extremely damage farmy compared with Gauss Peep and other stuff. Its been sub 3 DPS for years because tier 4-5 players just stand there like turrets and take ac2 to the face until they die. Same for LRMs, the just walk out into the open and take it.

Yep, and it wasn't just one nerf. They nerfed impulse, the rof, gave every other weapon modules but left them out, velocity, range....

To this day you have people crying about firing scripts, people so uneducated they think a script actually makes them fire faster or something. Like taking 2/2/2/2/2/2 is somehow worse than taking 12 at a time.

And on LRMs.....

LRMs aren't a competitive weapon because terrain exists. It's not because of ECM or AMS, or needing spotters etc. On polar highlands they wreck face with spotters, but just about every other map is made of up varying amounts of complete and hard cover from LRMs. You can buff the crap out of them and they'll still be bad on maps like grim plexus and such.

Trying to buff them to the point where they are ridiculous on maps with little to no cover makes no sense at all. They're already the easiest weapon in the game to use, no point buffing them further.

Edited by Templar Dane, 26 February 2018 - 04:20 PM.

[Khobai]

the AC2 was never going to be good at 6 tons

the only way to make the AC2 somewhat viable would be to replace it with the Light AC2. 4 tons is far more reasonable.

then the choice of Light AC2 at 4 tons or UAC2 at 7 tons is a better one.

Tarogato, on 26 February 2018 - 05:37 AM, said:

I still think if you want that different playstyle, than you should be taking the different weapon. Like the LPL. In my mind, the LPPC exists for one reason: a PPC that is smaller and lighter, such that it can be used on lighter mechs (or any builds, really) where the standard PPC is too heavy

I agree the LPPC should not be a dps weapon. Thats the role of pulse lasers.

The role of the LPPC is to function as a more compact version of the PPC for lighter mechs.

LPPC should have a cooldown of 3.5, thats fine. But any faster than that would be silly.

6 damage, 5 heat, 3.5 cooldown would be fine.

Templar Dane, on 26 February 2018 - 04:08 PM, said:

LRMs aren't a competitive weapon because terrain exists.

thats why a lot of terrain elements should be destructible and be especially vulnerable to missiles. buildings should have damage resistance against ballistic and energy weapons. but missiles should obliterate buildings.

but thats sadly never going to happen

Edited by Khobai, 26 February 2018 - 04:36 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 26 February 2018 - 04:18 PM, said:

I agree the LPPC should not be a dps weapon. Thats the role of pulse lasers.

Sure, but what we are trying to get done is have it mid-way between DPS and long-range -- again you are missing the range bracket. And we both know that MPL and LPL doesn't have minimum range and works in a brawl versus LPPC that runs too hot for it's damage and has minimum range.

Khobai, on 26 February 2018 - 04:18 PM, said:

The role of the LPPC is to function as a more compact version of the PPC for lighter mechs.

But it's not like we could give it another different role, and it would be something that people would actively go to for, than just some economic choice, which is generally not even much of a choice when on a constrained budget.

Khobai, on 26 February 2018 - 04:18 PM, said:

LPPC should have a cooldown of 3.5, thats fine. But any faster than that would be silly.

Not really, it would be actually fun being AC-esque, it offers something new in the table.

Khobai, on 26 February 2018 - 04:18 PM, said:

6 damage, 5 heat, 3.5 cooldown would be fine.

2 LPPC beats 1 PPC by 1 ton, 0.5s CD and 2 damage, 3 LPPC beats HPPC by 3 damage, 1 ton, and 1.5s CD.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 26 February 2018 - 04:44 PM.