1125 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

The6thMessenger, on 26 February 2018 - 04:41 PM, said:

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.

yeah but I dont think it should have a zero damage deadzone either. thats not fun.

damage dropoff is fine but it shouldnt do 0 damage.

PPCs in tabletop dont do 0 damage at close range. They just suffer a loss of accuracy. But if they hit they still do full damage. So damage dropoff is the best compromise for that.

I also think there should always be a minimum amount of damage with damage dropoff. Like the damage should never drop below 1/3rd. We know from ATMs that kindve damage stepping is possible.

Edited by Khobai, 26 February 2018 - 04:50 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 26 February 2018 - 04:44 PM, said:

yeah but I dont think it should have a zero damage deadzone either. thats not fun.

damage dropoff is fine but it shouldnt do 0 damage.

Classic misdirection.

Also I've already suggested the self-damage portion that changes the minimum-range function that still allows damage and removes the dead-zone.

Please stop spamming, we get it, you hate dead-zone. I have no issues with it.

[Tarogato]

The6thMessenger, on 26 February 2018 - 04:02 PM, said:

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.

Except that global hitpoint inflation has a greater effect on PPC builds than any other build. PPC/poptart builds are some of the most limited in terms of alpha and DPS potential. 20 PPFLD, which used to feel adequate and very effective, now feels like a pillow cannon. Just feels futile against the sheer amount of extra armour and structure on the battlefield of today compared to the battlefield of yesteryear. Whereas laservomit hardly cares because of the shear damage it outputs, and dakka generally doesn't care because it can just keep shooting and that's its job anyways... PPCs with their piddly 20-limited alpha potential just feel left behind. I mean to be fair, a few other types of builds have fell behind similarly, like your ERLL and LPL Ravens and Panthers, and other similarly anemic builds that barely scraped by in the past, but feel powerless on the battlefield of today.

The6thMessenger, on 26 February 2018 - 04:02 PM, said:

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.

You've alluded to this several times earlier in the thread - you think we have some sort of agenda. Like, "we want ONLY THESE weapons to be viable, because they are conducive to the comp attitude".

Couldn't be farther from the truth. Why are we light-handed with RAC buffs? Because we're afraid. We don't know what it would take for RACs to become overpowered, particularly in lower tier play where potato facetanking is pretty much meta. If we wanted RACs to be viable in a comp-play atmosphere, sure we could go ham on them and suggest the changes that would make them viable for MRBC, WC, whatnot. But at what cost? Would they completely dominate in pub queue? FP? We don't know. I don't think anybody knows. When in doubt, take a small step in the right direction. If you step too far, it might be too late to realise if the floor is lava.

Same goes for LRMs. Yeah, LRMs are crap at high-tier. We no buffs? Because we're scared. LRM balance is delicate. Their effectiveness is massively inflated when you have skill-lacking or inexperienced players on both sides. An improvement to LRMs that makes them worth considering for high level players... could be all it takes to make them just absurdly ridiculous in lower tiers where nobody knows what cover is and where LRMs are more prevalent to begin with. I feel like most people agree that LRMs need a rework. They need to behave differently, so that they can simultaneously be worthwhile in higher tier, while not being ezmode overbearing at the lowest tiers. But that rework... nobody agrees on how to approach it. LRMs, due to their indirect fire capability, are really an entire topic of discussion on their own, and trying to squeeze them into our proposal which is aimed at merely fine-tuning... would just detract and derail a lot of other important discussion. Why not go ahead and start up that dedicated independent discussion (as happened with the GaussPPC debate)? Well, because frankly I don't know how to start it. Because it's a very messy topic, everybody has very different ideas, and even people disagree strongly on the present state of the weapon system to begin with. I don't feel confident in trying to reconcile all that.

[BreakinStuff]

Tarogato, on 26 February 2018 - 04:47 PM, said:

Couldn't be farther from the truth. Why are we light-handed with RAC buffs? Because we're afraid. We don't know what it would take for RACs to become overpowered, particularly in lower tier play where potato facetanking is pretty much meta.

As someone who just escaped tier 4, this is entirely valid. In my opinion it wouldn't take much to push RACs over the edge. they're good, Jam duration is a bit much, but they're solidly teetering on the edge of good, and unfortunately for them, "Good" is a razor edge.

I think the RAC buffs presented are a good start, nothing too big, and addresses most of the failings of the weapons: excess heat and inaccuracy.

[The6thMessenger]

Tarogato, on 26 February 2018 - 04:47 PM, said:

Except that global hitpoint inflation has a greater effect on PPC builds than any other build. PPC/poptart builds are some of the most limited in terms of alpha and DPS potential. 20 PPFLD, which used to feel adequate and very effective, now feels like a pillow cannon. Just feels futile against the sheer amount of extra armour and structure on the battlefield of today compared to the battlefield of yesteryear. Whereas laservomit hardly cares because of the shear damage it outputs, and dakka generally doesn't care because it can just keep shooting and that's its job anyways... PPCs with their piddly 20-limited alpha potential just feel left behind. I mean to be fair, a few other types of builds have fell behind similarly, like your ERLL and LPL Ravens and Panthers, and other similarly anemic builds that barely scraped by in the past, but feel powerless on the battlefield of today.

Isn't that kind of the point? I get that Dakkas and Laser-Vomit are power-houses, but compare the dakkas and laser-vomits. Laser-Vomit -- or rather Clan Vomits, just needs damage nerf, period. Dakkas however, spread-damage, has long exposure time when barreling down an enemy, sounds about right.

The 20 PPFLD, or the 18 damage erll snipers, while i agree might need buffs, such as the ERLL -- just give it 10 damage and LPL 11 damage, that's kind of expected with the low amount of tonnage right?

Honestly though, i think IS needs it's PPC series have +1 ghost-heat requirement -- except Heavy PPC, that means LPPC can fire 4 before GH, SNPPC/PPC/ERPPC can fire 3 before ghost-heat, to at least compete with C-ERPPC, HPPC and others.

Tarogato, on 26 February 2018 - 04:47 PM, said:

You've alluded to this several times earlier in the thread - you think we have some sort of agenda. Like, "we want ONLY THESE weapons to be viable, because they are conducive to the comp attitude". Couldn't be farther from the truth.

I agree with the RAC and LRM parts, but my issue is about the changes just reinforcing the hit-fade meta, not breaking it -- such as increasing LPPC damage to serve more to it's hit-and-fade role, the attempt in increasing gauss-ppc GH limit, the other changes which just actively makes other non-meta weapons such as LRMs and RACs unable to compete in the first place.

I mean, lets increase the laser duration globally so that they are more starey, that RACs could get out more damage and compete? What about increase UAC volleys instead of decreasing it -- that sort of thing.

If we couldn't bring up the non-meta weapons such as LRMs and RACs due to their mechanics (because PGI wouldn't), maybe it's best to bring down the other weapons. The hit-and-fade meta works with minimizing exposure while maximizing damage, hows about increase the exposure since there are weapons that requires exposure to be competitive.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 26 February 2018 - 05:09 PM.

[Tarogato]

The6thMessenger, on 26 February 2018 - 04:57 PM, said:

but my issue is about reinforcing the hit-fade meta, not breaking it -- such as increasing LPPC damage to serve more to it's hit-and-fade role.

The LPPC ... that's just my personal idea. Actually, I get a bit of the feeling that I'm the only person in the world that seems to think this way (that LPPC should be precisely identical in function to PPC, at a smaller slot/tonnage investment for the mechs/builds that require it). Like I said, my 6 dmg idea didn't go through. It's not in the recommendations. It's never going to be (unless a bunch of people flock to my side, or i make my own independent personal "Tarogato's proposal")

About hit 'n fade in general, well, our goal was actually the opposite. The clan laservomit poke meta is too prevalent. This is why we restored many of the IS midrange lasers to their historical stats, putting them back into a place where they can asymmetrically counter clans through their efficiency and capacity to push and apply constant pressure. We call for buffs restoring SRMs mostly to their historical stats, so that they can actually out-DPS the laservomit poke meta and brawl them down. We call for buffs to dakka almost universally, which is the antithesis of the hit 'n fade meta. We call for buffs to the small laser family as a whole, so that it can again, like SRMs, actually win against laservomit poke meta when properly employed. Pretty much all of our changes really come down to countering the too-dominant hit-fade meta.

[The6thMessenger]

Tarogato, on 26 February 2018 - 05:12 PM, said:

The LPPC ... that's just my personal idea. Actually, I get a bit of the feeling that I'm the only person in the world that seems to think this way (that LPPC should be precisely identical in function to PPC, at a smaller slot/tonnage investment for the mechs/builds that require it). Like I said, my 6 dmg idea didn't go through. It's not in the recommendations. It's never going to be (unless a bunch of people flock to my side, or i make my own independent personal "Tarogato's proposal")

... even laBoeuf? What about QK? Lol, that's actually cool.

No, you're not alone though, Khobai is on your camp too.

Tarogato, on 26 February 2018 - 05:12 PM, said:

About hit 'n fade in general, well, our goal was actually the opposite. The clan laservomit poke meta is too prevalent. This is why we restored many of the IS midrange lasers to their historical stats, putting them back into a place where they can asymmetrically counter clans through their efficiency and capacity to push and apply constant pressure. We call for buffs restoring SRMs mostly to their historical stats, so that they can actually out-DPS the laservomit poke meta and brawl them down. We call for buffs to dakka almost universally, which is the antithesis of the hit 'n fade meta. We call for buffs to the small laser family as a whole, so that it can again, like SRMs, actually win against laservomit poke meta when properly employed. Pretty much all of our changes really come down to countering the too-dominant hit-fade meta.

I see, so it's about making other a better choices. I'm still on the camp of nerfing Clan Laser-Vomit -- and I'm the Clanner. I saw the damage reduction on Clan Lasers, and i'm cool with that.

BreakinStuff, on 26 February 2018 - 04:54 PM, said:

As someone who just escaped tier 4, this is entirely valid. In my opinion it wouldn't take much to push RACs over the edge. they're good, Jam duration is a bit much, but they're solidly teetering on the edge of good, and unfortunately for them, "Good" is a razor edge.

I think the RAC buffs presented are a good start, nothing too big, and addresses most of the failings of the weapons: excess heat and inaccuracy.

So is RAC2 good or was that just all RAC5?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 26 February 2018 - 05:33 PM.

[Tarogato]

The6thMessenger, on 26 February 2018 - 04:57 PM, said:

Laser-Vomit -- or rather Clan Vomits, just needs damage nerf, period.
[...]
I mean, lets increase the laser duration globally so that they are more starey

I want to nerf laser duration across the board. Significantly.

You want an 18-damage heavy large laser? Deal with a 2.0 sec burn time.
You want a 1-ton, 1-slot laser that deals 7 damage? Have a 1.5 sec burn time.
You want 70+ pinpoint alphas? Suck it up and learn the way of the Jedi, because you're going to need some lightsabre training.

Maybe I slightly exaggerate. (Not by much.) But I really do think one of the best answers to the balance problem that is clan alphavomit... is just increase the burn durations across the board. I think that reducing their damage has both little impact on their net effectiveness (unless you go overboard, in which case you're nuking innocent non-overpowered mechs/builds), and also a damage nerf to me serves as sort of a "I gave up" in terms of asymmetrical balance of the game - it's literally a step toward symmetrical balance, an omen of defeat --- that we could not come up with a solution that balanced Clantech without making it virtually the same as IS.

Sure, yes... some innocent builds do get hurt by a global duration nerf, but quirks can readily address that. Quirks cannot easily rectify a damage nerf though. The only problem with the whole thing... and why my idea got shot down, admittedly I contribute toward shooting it down myself on this basis: people don't want lightsabre warrior online. They think it's not fun. I say f*** 'em, you want 70 pinpoint hitscan alpha... then suck it up, buttercup.

But hey, that probably wouldn't go over well.

[The6thMessenger]

Tarogato, on 26 February 2018 - 05:31 PM, said:

I want to nerf laser duration across the board. Significantly.

You want an 18-damage heavy large laser? Deal with a 2.0 sec burn time.
You want a 1-ton, 1-slot laser that deals 7 damage? Have a 1.5 sec burn time.
You want 70+ pinpoint alphas? Suck it up and learn the way of the Jedi, because you're going to need some lightsabre training.

YES PLEASE!!!11111

And a Clanner just said that.

Tarogato, on 26 February 2018 - 05:31 PM, said:

Maybe I slightly exaggerate. (Not by much.) But I really do think one of the best answers to the balance problem that is clan alphavomit... is just increase the burn durations across the board. I think that reducing their damage has both little impact on their net effectiveness (unless you go overboard, in which case you're nuking innocent non-overpowered mechs/builds), and also a damage nerf to me serves as sort of a "I gave up" in terms of asymmetrical balance of the game - it's literally a step toward symmetrical balance, an omen of defeat --- that we could not come up with a solution that balanced Clantech without making it virtually the same as IS.

I know right?

Tarogato, on 26 February 2018 - 05:31 PM, said:

Sure, yes... some innocent builds do get hurt by a global duration nerf, but quirks can readily address that. Quirks cannot easily rectify a damage nerf though. The only problem with the whole thing... and why my idea got shot down, admittedly I contribute toward shooting it down myself on this basis: people don't want lightsabre warrior online. They think it's not fun. I say f*** 'em, you want 70 pinpoint hitscan alpha... then suck it up, buttercup.

But hey, that probably wouldn't go over well.

I think pretty much most nerf isn't fun in the first place, but just have to be done.

[Sigmar Sich]

Tarogato, on 26 February 2018 - 05:31 PM, said:

But I really do think one of the best answers to the balance problem that is clan alphavomit... is just increase the burn durations across the board

Yes please.
Not only for clan lasers though, but for all non-pulse lasers, mostly ER ones. And where is no need to nerf DPS, make longer burns but shorter cooldowns.
Nerfing damage is giving up on interesting asymmetrical balance, you are correct. So don't bury your idea, because it is good one.

[BreakinStuff]

The6thMessenger, on 26 February 2018 - 05:22 PM, said:

So is RAC2 good or was that just all RAC5?

I use RAC/2s as backup weapons for when my RAC/5's jam and when they are able to pin damage to a target they perform well.

[The6thMessenger]

BreakinStuff, on 26 February 2018 - 06:34 PM, said:

I use RAC/2s as backup weapons for when my RAC/5's jam and when they are able to pin damage to a target they perform well.

But they're not really that good are they?

[Khobai]

Tarogato, on 26 February 2018 - 05:31 PM, said:

But I really do think one of the best answers to the balance problem that is clan alphavomit... is just increase the burn durations across the board

restoring mech agility is the best answer. it has the same effect of increasing beam duration. laser damage will spread out more. and it makes mechs more fun to play because they wont pilot like garbage trucks anymore.

aside from that, the alphastrike damage capability needs to be roughly the same for both Clan and IS. You cant allow clans to have 78 damage laser vomits when IS only has like 55 damage laser vomits. So there needs to be adjustments made to laser damage and ghost heat limits.

nerfing the CERML to 6 damage is a pretty obvious change that needs to go through. there is no reason the CERML should do 2 more damage than an ISERML. 1 extra damage is sufficient. And the heat/cooldown/beamduration should all be adjusted accordingly.

And the ghost heat limit needs to be increased on a lot of the IS lasers. Like the ISERML should be ghost heat limited at 7 instead of 6.

Those changes would put CERML at 6x6 = 36
and ISERML at 5x7 = 35

Thats much more equal. Instead of 42 and 30 like it is now.


I also dont believe in nerfing the CHLL. Because CHLLs on their own are not overpowered. the x2 CHLL shadowcat meta is hardly dominating. Its specifically laservomit combinations like x6 CERML+x2 CHLL that need to be addressed.

Linking medium lasers and heavy large lasers for ghost heat is one potential way to solve that.

That would prevent CERML/CHLL combos. The biggest clan laser vomit alpha possible would be 60 damage then.

Edited by Khobai, 26 February 2018 - 07:58 PM.

[BreakinStuff]

The6thMessenger, on 26 February 2018 - 06:58 PM, said:

But they're not really that good are they?

As-is now? No. they run hot, the damage application leaves a bit to be desired, but the overall rate of damage is solid and I've had some very real luck using them to grind lights and mediums. the failure points almost invariably come from the slow projectiles being a pain in the *** to lead, and the damage application being scattered.

Now, I also use the RAC/2 as my primary on the Urbanmech K-9 and the gun performs admirably when fed enough ammunition. Again, the jam duration is where I find the main issue there behind projectile speed and heat gen. Otherwise, the RAC/2 caters VERY well to my playstyle.

but IMHO as a fairly frequent RAC user, slightly decreasing heat and increasing the projectile speed will go a very long way to improving the performance of these weapons.

My primary build for RAC is an Annihilator running two 5's and two 2's, and I swap between them on jams. Thus far both perform admirably inside the AC/20 envelope, but fail fairly hard when taking them out to their "optimal" ranges unless the target is standing still or charging mindlessly at you. When you can APPLY the damage effectively, both weapons are rock-solid. When you cannot apply the damage, they both suck balls.

[The6thMessenger]

BreakinStuff, on 26 February 2018 - 07:41 PM, said:

As-is now? No. they run hot, the damage application leaves a bit to be desired, but the overall rate of damage is solid and I've had some very real luck using them to grind lights and mediums. the failure points almost invariably come from the slow projectiles being a pain in the *** to lead, and the damage application being scattered.

Now, I also use the RAC/2 as my primary on the Urbanmech K-9 and the gun performs admirably when fed enough ammunition. Again, the jam duration is where I find the main issue there behind projectile speed and heat gen. Otherwise, the RAC/2 caters VERY well to my playstyle.

but IMHO as a fairly frequent RAC user, slightly decreasing heat and increasing the projectile speed will go a very long way to improving the performance of these weapons.

My primary build for RAC is an Annihilator running two 5's and two 2's, and I swap between them on jams. Thus far both perform admirably inside the AC/20 envelope, but fail fairly hard when taking them out to their "optimal" ranges unless the target is standing still or charging mindlessly at you. When you can APPLY the damage effectively, both weapons are rock-solid. When you cannot apply the damage, they both suck balls.

Compared to the RAC5 though, RAC2 has a completely low damage even when massed at their GH limits. I could get better result with RAC5 than RAC2.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 26 February 2018 - 07:50 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 26 February 2018 - 07:37 PM, said:

restoring mech agility is the best answer. it has the same effect of increasing beam duration.

Has to be a combination of the two, because there are limits to how fast you can allow 'Mechs to turn to keep the classes from nullifying each other out and there are limits to how fast the lasers can burn to keep ERs and Pulses from cancelling each other out.

[BreakinStuff]

The6thMessenger, on 26 February 2018 - 07:49 PM, said:

Compared to the RAC5 though, RAC2 has a completely low damage even when massed at their GH limits. I could get better result with RAC5 than RAC2.

Good luck running more than two RAC/5 on most chassis. Ghost heat pings the instant you run more than two RAC regardless of size, and getting four RAC/5 to alternate is problematic in most battlemechs outside the mauler and the Annihilator. And they're ammo-devouring and prone to jamming.

a RAC/2 performs admirably as a backup weapon on assaults, and as a primary weapon on lights or mediums.

IF you can apply the damage.

Therein lies the problem, they're harder to lead, and prone to wasting shots because of it.

[Khobai]

Quote

Has to be a combination of the two, because there are limits to how fast you can allow 'Mechs to turn to keep the classes from nullifying each other out and there are limits to how fast the lasers can burn to keep ERs and Pulses from cancelling each other out.

No. longer beam durations is stupid. That just makes lasers less fun. You do not need to suck all the fun out of using weapons to balance them.

I explained how to fix it. buff mech agility. nerf CERML to 6 damage (and adjust heat/cooldown/duration for a 6 damage weapon). And also link CERML and CHLL for ghost heat so they can no longer be used together.

That way the biggest clan laser vomit alpha possible is 60 damage (without CHLL, x6 CERML + x2 CLPL would become the most damage you could do at midrange without ghost heat)

Which is fair since the biggest IS laser vomit alpha possible is 55 damage

That adjusts both clan and IS laser vomit alphas to roughly the same amount of damage.

Quote

Compared to the RAC5 though, RAC2 has a completely low damage even when massed at their GH limits. I could get better result with RAC5 than RAC2.

x3 RAC2s (24 tons) should outdps x2 RAC5s (20 tons) based on tonnage.

RAC2 should do like 8dps instead of only 6dps

And the heat needs to be lowered on RAC5s. They should also fire longer but automatically jam 100% of the time when the bar reaches the end.

We do not need RNG jam mechanics. You should be able to tell exactly when your gun is going to jam. And you should be rewarded for managing the jam bar properly and not letting it reach the end.

Quote

My primary build for RAC is an Annihilator running two 5's and two 2's, and I swap between them on jams.

why not just use x2 RAC5+x3 AC2s? then you dont have to swap. And you can fire everything at the same time.

RAC2s are garbage. there is no reason to use them.

Edited by Khobai, 26 February 2018 - 08:38 PM.

[Sereglach]

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

This episode made me think of another episode that's very pertinent to this discussion:



For LRM systems in particular, they NEED to be balanced so that they can be viable against both new and veteran players, even if they have a lower entry skill point. A lot of the velocity, fire-and-forget, trajectory, and single-lock-single-launch adjustments, that people have already mentioned, really hit this nail on the head.

With the changes, veterans might complain that they get killed by LRMs on occasion, because they become more viable; and there may be more or less use of them in lower tiers. However, as people progress in their own personal skill they will learn how to counter LRMs (cover, AMS, ECM), and develop desire to use more in their weapons payload. In addition, we can't just balance the game for one end of the skill spectrum or another. ALL skill levels need to be taken into account; and if PGI isn't going to take that into account in their overall balancing strategy then they're just going to "un-fun" themselves into oblivion.

Again, Paul (and thereby PGI) have stated that they will address core mechanics and issues. They just need to be proposed in bite-sized stages of implementation. So . . . how do we get there? Here is a possible solution:

Step 1: Change Streaks to fire like ATMs/Clan LRMs already do at short range, using flat trajectories and standard tracking. We could say that PGI is already moving in this direction by causing streaks to favor torso-bone locking more than limbs.

Step 2: Adjust missile tracking speeds to make missiles track better at desired brackets (Streaks sharp-turning, ATMs modest turning, LRMs slower turning). This encourages bracket-firing and desired roles.

Step 3: Implement one-lock-one-launch mechanics . . . making all locking missiles fire-and-forget. Begin curbing missile spam for more thoughtful missile launching and weapon configurations. This retains a low-skill usage point but also pushes a higher-use skill ceiling.

Step 4 (over multiple patches): Flatten all LRM/ATM LOS trajectories and arc their non-LOS trajectories more. At the same time increase all missile velocities in proportional amounts. Continue this, incrementally, until they feel solid between LOS and non-LOS launches. This encourages higher-skill LOS use that is more punishing for opponents, but it also allows lower-skill non-LOS use that is at least reasonably viable . . . but able to be countered.

Step 5 (concurrent with step 4): As needed, adjust AMS damage/firing speed/range to retain viable counter-status without suppressing all missile fire. The desired goal would be to complete step 4 without any AMS adjustments, but upward or downward incremental adjustments may be needed to achieve an optimal end-goal.

[Sereglach]

Khobai, on 26 February 2018 - 08:04 PM, said:

No. longer beam durations is stupid. That just makes lasers less fun. You do not need to suck all the fun out of using weapons to balance them.

I explained how to fix it. buff mech agility. nerf CERML to 6 damage (and adjust heat/cooldown/duration for a 6 damage weapon). And also link CERML and CHLL for ghost heat so they can no longer be used together.

That is literally NOT POSSIBLE in the PGI Ghost-Heat system.Power draw, as much as some people didn't like it, actually could address it in that way, but you cannot link Ghost Heat like that. If you link any LL to any ML Ghost Heat levels, then the "lesser weapon" has a fixed Ghost Heat limit concurrent with the "superior weapon". Your solution would make it so that no more than 2 CERML could be fired together at a time. (EDIT: I stand partly corrected, here, but the rest still applies . . . see later post.)

As far as agility goes, as stated elsewhere, you cannot just buff the agility of heavier chassis to the point where they can twist-off a short beam duration. If they can do that, then they can twitch-track and hit-scan destroy (through that same laser-vomit) a light mech moving at 150+kph. There needs to be give and take; and laser duration is a completely viable balancing metric. Therefore, as stated, you need to find a balance between beam durations and mech agility.

However, if we worked towards having more distinct DPS pulse lasers (ala MW4) with fast cyclic rates and near-instant beam durations, then maybe there could be a bit more play in the beam duration of the other laser types . . . otherwise you're just stepping on the toes of the already mostly similar feeling laser types.

Edited by Sereglach, 26 February 2018 - 10:22 PM.