1125 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

That is literally NOT POSSIBLE in the PGI Ghost-Heat system.

sure it is. you just put CHLL and CERML in the same ghost heat group.

If you try to fire CHLL and CERML together, it triggers ghost heat, since CHLL is the more prohibitive of the two groups.

Quote

Your solution would make it so that no more than 2 CERML could be fired together at a time.

No thats not how it works.

CHML are in the same ghost heat group as CERML

but CHML being at GH limit of 4 doesnt prevent you from firing more than 4 CERML

Its only when you fire more than 4 CHML and CERML together at the same time that it uses the most prohibitive group for ghost heat.


So linking CHLL and CERML would work the same. You could fire 6 CERML. You could fire 2 CHLL. But if you tried to fire 2 CHLL and 1+ CERML there would be ghost heat.

It effectively switches off the CERML+CHLL combination.

the downside to that is the CHLL would become a rather niche weapon that wont see much use except on energy hardpoint starved mechs. But thats better than it being a constantly abused weapon like it is now.

Edited by Khobai, 26 February 2018 - 08:55 PM.

[FupDup]

Sereglach, on 26 February 2018 - 08:41 PM, said:

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 like 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.

That's false, look at how the LPPC works compared to other PPC types as an example against that (LPPC has a cap of 3, all other PPCs are capped at 2). As long as the CERML are not fired at the same time as a Clan large-type laser, you'd still have the current cap of 6.

Edited by FupDup, 26 February 2018 - 09:04 PM.

[Sereglach]

FupDup, on 26 February 2018 - 08:44 PM, said:

That's false, look at how the LPPC works compared to other PPC types as an example against that (LPPC has a cap of 3, all other PPCs are capped at 2). As long as the CERML are not fired as the same time as a Clan large-type laser, you'd still have the current cap of 6.

Admittedly, I tested that and found out LPPC stack somewhat differently than standard PPCs. I stand corrected on that point. On the other hand, you can't selectively apply this to only one type of LL with one type of ML. That would just revert to a different type of weapon grouping for the same kind of laser-vomit alpha of LL and ML mix. That I DID test while I was in the mechlab; and any 2 other PPCs with 1 LPPC sets off Ghost Heat . . . just as 2 LPPC and 1 other PPC will set off Ghost Heat . . . so it's not as selective as you and Khobai would like to believe.

However, that's the whole convoluted problem with Ghost Heat in the first place . . . it's just gaming weapon groups for the biggest Alpha possible. While I think PGI was moving the wrong direction with several facets of the PTS . . . I think the energy draw system was much more straight-forward, potentially, then Ghost Heat. PGI needs to explore better options than Ghost Heat for dealing with weapons in MWO. Right now PGI is trying to balance everything in vacuums instead of how they can be combined . . . which is what lead us to the ML+LL laser vomit meta in the first place.

[Khobai]

Quote

On the other hand, you can't selectively apply this to only one type of LL with one type of ML. That would just revert to a different type of weapon grouping for the same kind of laser-vomit alpha of LL and ML mix

correct. but the next best combination is x6 CERML + x2 CLPL which is only 66 damage (60 damage if CERML is also reduced from 7->6 damage per my suggestion). Big difference from 78 damage.

Thats 12-18 less damage.

ML+LL combos were never a problem until the CHLL. CHLL pushed laser vomit over the top. But rather than nerfing the CHLL I think attacking the ML+CHLL combo is a better solution. If you shut it down we basically go back to before the CHLL existed.

Because some energy starved mechs like the shadowcat really need the CHLL. Nerfing the CHLL would just nerf mechs like the shadowcat that really dont deserve it. CHLL would just become more of a niche weapon for energy starved mechs, instead of being used on every single laser vomit mech.

Quote

However, that's the whole convoluted problem with Ghost Heat in the first place

I agree energy draw would handle it better. unfortunately PGI seems to have abandoned energy draw so ghost heat is all we have.

Edited by Khobai, 26 February 2018 - 09:12 PM.

[Sereglach]

Khobai, on 26 February 2018 - 09:01 PM, said:

correct. but the next best combination is x6 CERML + x2 CLPL which is only 66 damage (60 damage if CERML is also reduced from 7->6 damage per my suggestion). Big difference from 78 damage.

Thats 12-18 less damage.

Again, like what I said about testing PPCs . . . that change wouldn't be selective. ANY LL/ML combination would set off the Ghost Heat limit you're proposing AND because you're combining the two, 1 ML with 2 LL would set off Ghost heat. This I did test with PPCs as you and FupDup point out. It doesn't work as selectively as you're liking to believe it will through PGI's Ghost Heat implementation.

Khobai, on 26 February 2018 - 09:01 PM, said:

ML+LL combos were never a problem until CHLL. But rather than nerfing the CHLL I think attacking the ML+CHLL combo is a better solution.

Because some energy starved mechs like the shadowcat really need the CHLL. Nerfing the CHLL would just nerf mechs like the shadowcat that really dont deserve it.

The whole reason we had the energy draw PTS in the first place was because laser vomit was getting out of control then; and it was the same problems we have now with ML/LL combinations . . . namely CERML with CLPL or CERLL depending on the weapon adjustments of the time. To say it wasn't a problem until the CHLL came along is a flat out lie. Laser vomit has been an ever-increasing problem for quite a while now.

Also, I never once mentioned nerfing the CHLL. All I said is gaming the Ghost Heat system for the biggest Alpha possible is the problem at hand when it comes to laser vomit weapon groups . . . and it can't be selectively adjusted the way you're proposing.

Edited by Sereglach, 26 February 2018 - 09:37 PM.

[BreakinStuff]

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

why not just use x2 RAC5+x3 AC2s?

Because 3 or more RAC of any size combination = Ghost heat.

[Khobai]

Quote

Because 3 or more RAC of any size combination = Ghost heat.

yes i understand that

thats why I said AC2 not RAC2.

[BreakinStuff]

Khobai, on 26 February 2018 - 11:29 PM, said:

yes i understand that

thats why I said AC2 not RAC2.

because continuous stream of fire, and consistent damage. It works. It works well for me.

[Kin3ticX]

Sereglach, on 26 February 2018 - 08:31 PM, 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.

LRMs, ATMs, Streaks, as they stand now already behave like FOOS strategies. With a FOOS, it doesnt have to be soo strong that it competes with other loadouts toe to toe, but it has to serve as a noob tube for new players.

LRMs already occasionally kill superior players as things stand now, but I suppose they could use a 5-10% damage buff.

ATMs are pretty strong and Streaks are pretty deadly against lights. I really dont think Streaks need any help but I dont disagree with the recent tweak.

The crux of the problem for the players really comes down to "becuz mah battletech". Players think they need to include LRMs for the sake of LRMs because lore, even so far as to always try to add a token LRM launcher to their "theorycraft". I don't think there will ever be a meta or multimeta or "antimeta" where the lore purists suddenly become unstoppable. Its just simply not going to happen so long as there isnt a system that somehow rewards people for using bracketbuilds but AFAIK there is simply no whay to do that.

[Reno Blade]

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 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.

...

Adding to what Sergelach already wrote...
If you have better agility, you can track your target, independent of the beam duration, so that should be avoided (and i think that's one of the bigger reasons for the "Engine Desync" where heavies/assaults lost some agility).

And to further increase the difficulty of tracking targets and of twisting away after your alpha, the beam duration increase would be the obvious choice.

It would also allow the "brawling" role for pulse lasers more... (Pulses would be even better with much shoter cooldowns)
The closer you are to your target, the harder it will be to keep your laser on track. And the slower you can turn and twist PLUS the longer your beam is, the harder the beam tracking will be.
-> Just like trying to fight a dagger with a polearm in breaths range.


I think the longer beam/stream/burst is the only way to reduce the potency of boats if you don't want to further play with Ghost Heat.
Otherwise you would need to put GH limits to 4 ML and 2LL of any class together so you can not fire larges with meds in big numbers.

But to be honest, i think the best result would be to do both anyways, and I don't think this would make the weapons less fun, but would make the game much more fun because of longer batles.

[Sereglach]

Kin3ticX, on 27 February 2018 - 01:56 AM, said:

*snip*

The biggest thing you're missing there is that, even in the FOOS, they're rarely used at upper tiers of play . . . but they're still used. As it stands right now LRMs are a joke at higher tiers of play. There's just too many hard counters. However, the proposed solution -and path to get there- actually lay out a way to deal with the problems most missile systems are having while still allowing them to be viable FOOS for new players and viable weapons at higher tiers of play.

Unlike the Extra Credits video, weapon systems in MWO aren't meant to be just tossed to the wayside at higher tiers of skill. However, certain weapon systems ARE meant to have a much lower skill level of entry with the ability to learn better tactics and skill ceilings for higher tiers of play.

Really, even lasers are a FOOS weapon, as well. They're hit-scan point and shoot weapons. However the skill cap on using them is quite high (burn duration, twisting damage, damage per tic, etc.). The same opportunity should be given to missile systems in their tuning AND addressing many of the systems' inherent flaws.

Reno Blade, on 27 February 2018 - 08:35 AM, said:

Otherwise you would need to put GH limits to 4 ML and 2LL of any class together so you can not fire larges with meds in big numbers.

As highlighted in my conversation with FupDup and Khobai, you just can't do that. IF you link ML and LL groups together, they're not selective in type (so you can't say ONLY CHLL will be affected like this) and the link is universal, so it's not selective in direction.

Yes, LPPCs have an exclusive GH limit of 3. HOWEVER, once you put 1 LPPC with 2 PPC it accrues ghost heat as if it were a PPC. Put 1 PPC with 2 LPPC and you get the same effect . . . it accrues ghost heat as if it were a PPC. To correlate this, that means if you link LL and ML GH groups, then if you fire 1 ML with 2 LL then it's going to accrue ghost heat as if it were a LL. PGI's ghost heat system will use the most punishing GH limit of any linked groups. You can't be selective about it.

Thus, you end up with the universal flaw of Ghost Heat . . . trying to tune weapons in a vacuum wherein players just look for the highest Alpha they can get out of the GH system limits. Something more universal needs to be done. As much as some people didn't like it, Power Draw was on the right track because it couldn't be gamed for higher alphas and it was universal . . . sadly PGI's approach to some facets was flawed and enough people complained to have it shelved. Hopefully they revisit it, or something similar.

[R Valentine]

If PGI could code it so that cERML and HLL could share a ghost heat group together, but cERML could still be fired on its own in groups of 5 that'd be OK, but my faith in PGI's coding abilities is virtually zero. cERML shouldn't even be allowed to fire in groups of 6 as it is now. That's 42 damage, 12 more than IS ERML at 6. Even 5 is more than 6 IS ERMLs, so why do we allow 6? Clan laser vomit is just way too strong.

[FupDup]

Kiran Yagami, on 27 February 2018 - 10:16 AM, said:

If PGI could code it so that cERML and HLL could share a ghost heat group together, but cERML could still be fired on its own in groups of 5 that'd be OK, but my faith in PGI's coding abilities is virtually zero. cERML shouldn't even be allowed to fire in groups of 6 as it is now. That's 42 damage, 12 more than IS ERML at 6. Even 5 is more than 6 IS ERMLs, so why do we allow 6? Clan laser vomit is just way too strong.

It's in their coding ability, look at the LPPC and PPC linkage as an example.

As for the group of 5 vs. 6, I just want to directly nerf the CERML to do only 6 damage per hit instead of 7 (throw in some minor compensation like a little less heat) so that a group of 6 wouldn't be as stronk anyways.

[R Valentine]

FupDup, on 27 February 2018 - 10:20 AM, said:

It's in their coding ability, look at the LPPC and PPC linkage as an example.

As for the group of 5 vs. 6, I just want to directly nerf the CERML to do only 6 damage per hit instead of 7 (throw in some minor compensation like a little less heat) so that a group of 6 wouldn't be as stronk anyways.

I guess that would work too. That'd be 36 damage instead of 35, but for a lot more heat. I just wish IS had laser vomit worth a damn. 6 IS ERML and 3 LL is only 57 damage, and that's for a metric f***ton of heat. That's pathetic compared 6 cERML and 2HLL, and the mechs that can do that have god hardpoints. The Black Knight, the only IS mech with enough energy points, has garbage hardpoints and structure quirks, which PGI successfully negated down to useless with the release of the Parana.

[Kin3ticX]

Sereglach, on 27 February 2018 - 10:04 AM, said:

The biggest thing you're missing there is that, even in the FOOS, they're rarely used at upper tiers of play . . . but they're still used. As it stands right now LRMs are a joke at higher tiers of play. There's just too many hard counters. However, the proposed solution -and path to get there- actually lay out a way to deal with the problems most missile systems are having while still allowing them to be viable FOOS for new players and viable weapons at higher tiers of play.

Unlike the Extra Credits video, weapon systems in MWO aren't meant to be just tossed to the wayside at higher tiers of skill. However, certain weapon systems ARE meant to have a much lower skill level of entry with the ability to learn better tactics and skill ceilings for higher tiers of play.

Really, even lasers are a FOOS weapon, as well. They're hit-scan point and shoot weapons. However the skill cap on using them is quite high (burn duration, twisting damage, damage per tic, etc.). The same opportunity should be given to missile systems in their tuning AND addressing many of the systems' inherent flaws.


As highlighted in my conversation with FupDup and Khobai, you just can't do that. IF you link ML and LL groups together, they're not selective in type (so you can't say ONLY CHLL will be affected like this) and the link is universal, so it's not selective in direction.

Yes, LPPCs have an exclusive GH limit of 3. HOWEVER, once you put 1 LPPC with 2 PPC it accrues ghost heat as if it were a PPC. Put 1 PPC with 2 LPPC and you get the same effect . . . it accrues ghost heat as if it were a PPC. To correlate this, that means if you link LL and ML GH groups, then if you fire 1 ML with 2 LL then it's going to accrue ghost heat as if it were a LL. PGI's ghost heat system will use the most punishing GH limit of any linked groups. You can't be selective about it.

Thus, you end up with the universal flaw of Ghost Heat . . . trying to tune weapons in a vacuum wherein players just look for the highest Alpha they can get out of the GH system limits. Something more universal needs to be done. As much as some people didn't like it, Power Draw was on the right track because it couldn't be gamed for higher alphas and it was universal . . . sadly PGI's approach to some facets was flawed and enough people complained to have it shelved. Hopefully they revisit it, or something similar.

Regarding lasers. I agree. I think the switch from the PPC-gauss / PPC-AC meta to moreso laser vom was very deliberate because lasers skill scale for low and high skill players whereas a miss is a miss with a PPC. I tend to think PGI is very very deliberate whilst trying to act like everything is an accident or getting blindsided (these are smart people). Part of the problem with the whole poptart+PPFLD meta was so many players can't hit anything and it also turned a lot of groundpounders into **** tier simply because they had no JJs. Shutting down new players over and over before they can get established is bad obviously.

Regarding LRMs, the problem with applying the 100% by the book FOOS treatment to them is that they are also homing weapons. When the nube tube is also a homing weapon, it unfortunately has to be toned down a notch from the pack of other arguable FOOS strategies simply because of the homing feature. Paul also said in a podcast he is reluctant to effectively buff LRMs because of balance between the bottom feeder tiers and tier 1.

[Reno Blade]

Sereglach, on 27 February 2018 - 10:04 AM, said:

The biggest thing you're missing there is that, even in the FOOS, they're rarely used at upper tiers of play . . . but they're still used. As it stands right now LRMs are a joke at higher tiers of play. There's just too many hard counters. However, the proposed solution -and path to get there- actually lay out a way to deal with the problems most missile systems are having while still allowing them to be viable FOOS for new players and viable weapons at higher tiers of play.

Unlike the Extra Credits video, weapon systems in MWO aren't meant to be just tossed to the wayside at higher tiers of skill. However, certain weapon systems ARE meant to have a much lower skill level of entry with the ability to learn better tactics and skill ceilings for higher tiers of play.

Really, even lasers are a FOOS weapon, as well. They're hit-scan point and shoot weapons. However the skill cap on using them is quite high (burn duration, twisting damage, damage per tic, etc.). The same opportunity should be given to missile systems in their tuning AND addressing many of the systems' inherent flaws.


As highlighted in my conversation with FupDup and Khobai, you just can't do that. IF you link ML and LL groups together, they're not selective in type (so you can't say ONLY CHLL will be affected like this) and the link is universal, so it's not selective in direction.

Yes, LPPCs have an exclusive GH limit of 3. HOWEVER, once you put 1 LPPC with 2 PPC it accrues ghost heat as if it were a PPC. Put 1 PPC with 2 LPPC and you get the same effect . . . it accrues ghost heat as if it were a PPC. To correlate this, that means if you link LL and ML GH groups, then if you fire 1 ML with 2 LL then it's going to accrue ghost heat as if it were a LL. PGI's ghost heat system will use the most punishing GH limit of any linked groups. You can't be selective about it.

Thus, you end up with the universal flaw of Ghost Heat . . . trying to tune weapons in a vacuum wherein players just look for the highest Alpha they can get out of the GH system limits. Something more universal needs to be done. As much as some people didn't like it, Power Draw was on the right track because it couldn't be gamed for higher alphas and it was universal . . . sadly PGI's approach to some facets was flawed and enough people complained to have it shelved. Hopefully they revisit it, or something similar.

Yes Ghost Heat shared groups are flawed, but with some shared groups, we would at least reduce the boating by a huge margin.

I would be fine with GH groups for lasers to have a shared max of:
8 small
4 med
2 large
Sure you would have GH already when using 2 med +1 large, so you would either take 2 large +1 med or 3 med... but that's already the case when looking at smaller mechs like the PHawk (e.g. using 3 Larges instead of 2 med +1 large).

Anyway, that's why I (also) suggested the beam duration as primary tuning.
(see also my signature post for full example tweaks already out for months)

[Sereglach]

FupDup, on 27 February 2018 - 10:20 AM, said:

It's in their coding ability, look at the LPPC and PPC linkage as an example.

As for the group of 5 vs. 6, I just want to directly nerf the CERML to do only 6 damage per hit instead of 7 (throw in some minor compensation like a little less heat) so that a group of 6 wouldn't be as stronk anyways.

As I pointed out, and is being conveniently ignored, it doesn't work the way you want it to. If you fire 2 of any other PPC with 1 LPPC it counts as PPC ghost heat. If you fire 1 of any other PPC with 2 LPPC it STILL counts for PPC ghost heat.

Therefore, if you link LL and ML ghost heat groups, it's not just CHLL and CERML. 1 ML + 2 LL would count as LL ghost heat. 2 ML + 1 LL would count as LL ghost heat. 6 ML + 2 LL would count as 6x LL ghost heat. PGI's coding shows that when you link groups it always uses the most punishing weapon to calculate ghost heat scaling.

Reno Blade, on 27 February 2018 - 11:59 AM, said:

Yes Ghost Heat shared groups are flawed, but with some shared groups, we would at least reduce the boating by a huge margin.

I would be fine with GH groups for lasers to have a shared max of:
8 small
4 med
2 large
Sure you would have GH already when using 2 med +1 large, so you would either take 2 large +1 med or 3 med... but that's already the case when looking at smaller mechs like the PHawk (e.g. using 3 Larges instead of 2 med +1 large).

Anyway, that's why I (also) suggested the beam duration as primary tuning.
(see also my signature post for full example tweaks already out for months)

Congratulations . . . you're asking for what Power Draw achieved (even if PGI had flawed implementation/tuning) . . . controlled Alpha Size. You're just asking to do it through linking ALL Ghost Heat groups instead of having a Power Draw bar. Even then, the system can be gamed. People would just link ACs and Lasers or PPCs and Lasers. People would still just game the system for the biggest Alpha possible.

Kin3ticX, on 27 February 2018 - 11:41 AM, said:

Regarding LRMs, the problem with applying the 100% by the book FOOS treatment to them is that they are also homing weapons. When the nube tube is also a homing weapon, it unfortunately has to be toned down a notch from the pack of other arguable FOOS strategies simply because of the homing feature. Paul also said in a podcast he is reluctant to effectively buff LRMs because of balance between the bottom feeder tiers and tier 1.

That's why people are also suggesting (as I outlined a step-by-step process to achieve it) a means of changing missile mechanics to be FOOS, but also fix the issues that cause such drastic disparity between low and high tier play. If you address the underlying issues, then you can tune and fix LRMs for both high and low tier viability.

Paul also said he IS open to addressing more core mechanics, but we (and Chris) need to present the plans in step-by-step processes. That's why I laid it out in a multi-step/patch process above for fixing LRMs based on the solid ideas provided.

[Stinger554]

Sereglach, on 27 February 2018 - 12:57 PM, said:

As I pointed out, and is being conveniently ignored, it doesn't work the way you want it to. If you fire 2 of any other PPC with 1 LPPC it counts as PPC ghost heat. If you fire 1 of any other PPC with 2 LPPC it STILL counts for PPC ghost heat.

Therefore, if you link LL and ML ghost heat groups, it's not just CHLL and CERML. 1 ML + 2 LL would count as LL ghost heat. 2 ML + 1 LL would count as LL ghost heat. 6 ML + 2 LL would count as 6x LL ghost heat. PGI's coding shows that when you link groups it always uses the most punishing weapon to calculate ghost heat scaling.

The question needs to be if a weapon system can be apart of two GH linked groups. IE HLL is part of the ML linked group and LL linked group therefore avoids what you worry about(even if it's probably a plus, looks at Gauss/ERLL/ERML 80 alphas). Now I don't know if this is possible or not just a question/suggestion.

FupDup, on 27 February 2018 - 10:20 AM, said:

It's in their coding ability, look at the LPPC and PPC linkage as an example.

As for the group of 5 vs. 6, I just want to directly nerf the CERML to do only 6 damage per hit instead of 7 (throw in some minor compensation like a little less heat) so that a group of 6 wouldn't be as stronk anyways.

Personally I think that they should GH limit most lasers + laser combos that hit 40 damage(note this is arbitrary on my part could be higher or lower I based it on two times the PPFLD allowed from most PPCs, also would exclude gauss) except for ERLL which stay capped at 2 because of their range.

So IE 2x HLL = 36 damage any laser besides a Micro will take you past 40 and cause GH to occur.

This does lower CERML limit to 5 at current damage so maybe have the limit at 42?

[Sereglach]

Stinger554, on 27 February 2018 - 02:52 PM, said:

The question needs to be if a weapon system can be apart of two GH linked groups. IE HLL is part of the ML linked group and LL linked group therefore avoids what you worry about(even if it's probably a plus, looks at Gauss/ERLL/ERML 80 alphas). Now I don't know if this is possible or not just a question/suggestion.

Under PGI's current system of Ghost Heat? Not possible. As shown with PPCs, a weapon type that is in multiple groups will always utilize the most punishing Ghost Heat for the weapons fired. Therefore, linking any type of ML with any type of LL bridges the gap in the weapon groups, and if LLs were fired with MLs then all the lasers would be treated as LL for the purposes of GH penalty.

Stinger554, on 27 February 2018 - 02:52 PM, said:

Personally I think that they should GH limit most lasers + laser combos that hit 40 damage(note this is arbitrary on my part could be higher or lower I based it on two times the PPFLD allowed from most PPCs, also would exclude gauss) except for ERLL which stay capped at 2 because of their range.

So IE 2x HLL = 36 damage any laser besides a Micro will take you past 40 and cause GH to occur.

This does lower CERML limit to 5 at current damage so maybe have the limit at 42?

Congratulations, you just described what Energy Draw did across all weapons . . . to a T no less. Even if PGI's tuning and implementation wasn't the best, it really was the best available answer to the high alpha problem. However, some people complained and got PGI to kill the PTS rather than continue to tune and refine it.

[Stinger554]

Sereglach, on 27 February 2018 - 04:47 PM, said:

Therefore, linking any type of ML with any type of LL bridges the gap in the weapon groups, and if LLs were fired with MLs then all the lasers would be treated as LL for the purposes of GH penalty.

But that's not how GH works.... If a CERML is in the LL GH group a HML or a MPL will not be cause GH when fired with LLs..... if the HLL gets put into the ML group then it will GH with MLs but not with LL and other LLs like CERLL still won't GH with MLs.. Which is why I was curious if it's possible to have HLL be in both LL and ML group.

Sereglach, on 27 February 2018 - 04:47 PM, said:

Congratulations, you just described what Energy Draw did across all weapons . . . to a T no less. Even if PGI's tuning and implementation wasn't the best, it really was the best available answer to the high alpha problem. However, some people complained and got PGI to kill the PTS rather than continue to tune and refine it.

Yeah I know but here's the thing energy draw is not likely to come back so we are kinda forced to manage GH with a similar principle to compensate. Yes it's harder and more tedious to manage but that was PGI's choice to make when they straight dropped ED like it was a hot potato.