36 replies to this topic

[SCHLIMMER BESTIMMER XXX]

Comparing the heat benefit you get with changing from ER-LargeLasers to LargeLasers(they shoud be the heat efficient version of the LargeLaser family) its pretty dissapointing
looking at the gain in mech heat management.For the 1/3 of max range you lose, the 0,1 difference in Heat Management between both versions dont make the viable imho.
They shoud have +0,1 per laser at least, even with 4xERLL instead of 4xLL
i only gained 0,01 heat management.Clearly visible when looking at the screenshots and the mech
performance window down right corner under Heat Mgmt

see for yourself

STALKER with 2x ErLargeLasers 4x LargeLasers




Stalker weith 6xErLargeLasers




as you can see, it cant get less.This needs to be changed to make LargeLasers an good option and not just a downgrade

Edited by SHRedo, 22 February 2018 - 06:59 PM.

[Khobai]

STD Lasers should have a shorter beam duration than ER Lasers too.

[Yosharian]

One heat less per weapon is significant.

Consider that the current heat nodes are balanced around something like 0.75% or something like that.

7 heat vs 8 heat means the standard Large Laser produces just over 12% less heat than the ERLL. That's the equivalent of more than 10 heat gen nodes.

It also cools down faster, resulting in better damage per second.

ERLL/LL balance is in a good place right now.

Edited by Yosharian, 21 February 2018 - 04:21 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

One heat less per weapon is significant.

nope

in the case of LL vs ERLL theres really no reason not to use ERLL

the balance was much better when LL had a shorter beam duration.

Quote

7 heat vs 8 heat means the standard Large Laser produces just over 12% less heat than the ERLL. It also cools down faster, resulting in better damage per second.

the ERLL lets you shoot enemies at ranges where they often cant retaliate unless theyre also running ERLL builds. especially on garbage maps like boreal vault.

LL cant do that

12% more heat does not balance that

And dps doesnt matter, neither is a brawling weapon, theyre both for poking.

LL should have shorter beam duration than ERLL. And ERLL should probably have less max range, because its pretty out of hand with the percentage based range increases from the skill tree.

Edited by Khobai, 21 February 2018 - 04:31 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 21 February 2018 - 04:19 PM, said:

STD Lasers should have a shorter beam duration than ER Lasers too.

That was ER LLs last time and people just told me to go for LLs cause they do more damage/tick.

Khobai, on 21 February 2018 - 04:22 PM, said:

in the case of LL vs ERLL theres really no reason not to use ERLL

Better mid-range damage/sec and damage/heat.

Hmm, what if ER lasers deal more damage, but less damage/tick?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 21 February 2018 - 04:50 PM.

[Yosharian]

Khobai, on 21 February 2018 - 04:22 PM, said:

nope

in the case of LL vs ERLL theres really no reason not to use ERLL

the balance was much better when LL had a shorter beam duration.



the ERLL lets you shoot enemies at ranges where they often cant retaliate unless theyre also running ERLL builds. especially on garbage maps like boreal vault.

LL cant do that

12% more heat does not balance that

Boreal Vault is a Faction Play map.

Most QP maps in the game (where the vast majority of players play the game) don't have that much play around the 850-1000m envelope which is where ERLLs and similarly-ranged weapons dominate. I know because I often run builds that function at that range, and frequently you just cannot abuse the range.

At the moment it's entirely viable to forgo the extra range of the ERLL in favour of the reduced heat. The standard LL is very effective at 450-600m which is where a lot of combat occurs.

My Atlas S runs a standard LL in the CT because I don't need the extra range on the build, it's designed to be effective at 400m or less.

You're also ignoring the DPS part of the argument.

Edited by Yosharian, 21 February 2018 - 04:32 PM.

[Kubernetes]

Um, the heat management calc takes into account the ERLL's longer cooldown. The LPL also produces less overall heat than the ERLL but it produces more heat/second because of its shorter cooldown and duration. If you know you're going to be on a shorter range map (FW), then LL > ERLL.

[PocketYoda]

Seriously how do you play with 1.07 heat you can't manage that in a large battle you must constantly be over heating..

1.3 is average imo..

Edited by Samial, 21 February 2018 - 05:10 PM.

[Yosharian]

Samial, on 21 February 2018 - 05:00 PM, said:

Seriously how do you play with 1.07 heat you can't manage that in a large battle you must constantly be over heating..

1.3 is average imo..

It's very playable on the 4N. Minus two heatsinks in favour of ECM on the 3FB, I'm not so sure, but on the 4N it is fine.

...if you bring standard LLs. with ERLLs you're gonna a lot hotter. 6 more heat per volley, that's like firing a whole extra Large Laser.

[Nema Nabojiv]

SHRedo, on 21 February 2018 - 04:16 PM, said:

STALKER with 2x ErLargeLasers 4x LargeLasers

Stalker weith 6xErLargeLasers

What a waste of a stalker.

[Khobai]

Quote

Boreal Vault is a Faction Play map.

ok then polar highlands. that works just as well as an example.

Quote

Most QP maps in the game (where the vast majority of players play the game) don't have that much play around the 850-1000m envelope which is where ERLLs and similarly-ranged weapons dominate.

polar highlands is one of the most picked maps in quickplay.

Quote

At the moment it's entirely viable to forgo the extra range of the ERLL in favour of the reduced heat. The standard LL is very effective at 450-600m which is where a lot of combat occurs.

ERLL is better at 600m because its still doing full damage. LL is already dropping off considerably at 600m.

ERLL also gets bigger increases from the skill tree because theyre percentile based. like 15% range means a lot more for ERLL than LL.

LL really needs a shorter beam duration like it used to have before PGI took it away for no reason. The ISML should also have a shorter beam duration compared to the ISERML.

non-ER lasers should not have the same burn time as ER lasers. that makes no sense.

Edited by Khobai, 21 February 2018 - 05:50 PM.

[Yosharian]

Khobai, on 21 February 2018 - 05:45 PM, said:

ok then polar highlands. that works just as well as an example.



polar highlands is one of the most picked maps in quickplay.



ERLL is better at 600m because its still doing full damage. LL is already dropping off considerably at 600m.

ERLL also gets bigger increases from the skill tree because theyre percentile based. like 15% range means a lot more for ERLL than LL.

LL really needs a shorter beam duration like it used to have before PGI took it away for no reason. The ISML should also have a shorter beam duration compared to the ISERML.

non-ER lasers should not have the same burn time as ER lasers. that makes no sense.

Polar is seen, but most picked? Nope. I see Crimson Strait, Grim Plexus, HPG and Rubellite picked way more often than Polar. Polar happens usually cos someone dropped a 6x multiplier that they've been saving in order to abuse their ERLL/LRM build. On these other maps it's a lot more effort to abuse longer range builds.

I didn't say LL was better at 600m I said it was effective, and I said 450-600m, I wasn't picking out 600m specifically, it was mentioned as the limit on a range bracket, so it's misleading of you to focus in on 600m when the average range of the bracket I wrote is about 525m.

'Makes no sense' is a subjective comment. There's nothing about an ER laser that indicates that it would burn longer from a tech point of view.

I don't think LL needs a shorter duration at all.

We can agree to disagree. Not every discussion has to end with a victor.

Edited by Yosharian, 21 February 2018 - 06:11 PM.

[El Bandito]

Yosharian, on 21 February 2018 - 04:30 PM, said:

Most QP maps in the game (where the vast majority of players play the game) don't have that much play around the 850-1000m envelope which is where ERLLs and similarly-ranged weapons dominate. I know because I often run builds that function at that range, and frequently you just cannot abuse the range.

At the moment it's entirely viable to forgo the extra range of the ERLL in favour of the reduced heat. The standard LL is very effective at 450-600m which is where a lot of combat occurs.

Exactly. Even on certain FP maps I use regular LLS over ERLLs cause the combat is restricted to around 500 meters.

SHRedo, on 21 February 2018 - 04:16 PM, said:

For the 1/3 of max range you lose, the 0,1 difference in Heat Management between both versions dont make the viable imho.
They shoud have +0,1 per laser at least, even with 4xERLL i only gained 0,1 heat management.

It is the regular LL that should lose heat; do not nerf IS ERLL.

Edited by El Bandito, 21 February 2018 - 11:17 PM.

[Kubernetes]

Samial, on 21 February 2018 - 05:00 PM, said:

Seriously how do you play with 1.07 heat you can't manage that in a large battle you must constantly be over heating..

1.3 is average imo..

6 ERLL and 18 DHS works because it's built for a particular playstyle that allows you plenty of time to cool off. It's only problematic if you get pushed, but the whole idea is to burn down enemies before they ever get close. The BLR-1G is really better for this build because you can have all six ERLLs up high.

[Exard3k]

Last year I was using normal Large Lasers on a regular basis, they had a niche that fit my playstyle....around 2/3 of my large lasers on IS side were std LL. Nowadays, I don't bother with them anymore.....no real benefit in using them over ERLL. Sad.

Edited by Exard3k, 21 February 2018 - 11:30 PM.

[LowSubmarino]

There was a time when I really did well in e.g. a Shadowhawk 2K with 110ish speed, 3 ER LLs, one JJ and very good heat.

Now though, the heat is too much. Feels like its not even half as effective.

But what crippled that particular mech/loadout even more, was that the Shadowhawks turning rate and general mobility was nerfed beyond eevn a number of heavy mechs. Its abysmal now sadly. And neither a good mech or loadout anymore.

That mech/loadout has been murdered brutally.

[mogs01gt]

Yosharian, on 21 February 2018 - 05:24 PM, said:

It's very playable on the 4N. Minus two heatsinks in favour of ECM on the 3FB, I'm not so sure, but on the 4N it is fine.

...if you bring standard LLs. with ERLLs you're gonna a lot hotter. 6 more heat per volley, that's like firing a whole extra Large Laser.

maybe 3 years ago but in today's world, the DPS on the stalker will be crap after a few Alphas. Why do you think no-one uses a Stalker? Without their quirks, they cant compete.

Edited by mogs01gt, 22 February 2018 - 06:52 AM.

[Verilligo]

mogs01gt, on 22 February 2018 - 06:52 AM, said:

maybe 3 years ago but in today's world, the DPS on the stalker will be crap after a few Alphas. Why do you think no-one uses a Stalker? Without their quirks, they cant compete.

No one uses a Stalker for this because 6 ERLL is an XL engine build so you can cram in 10 external sinks and a TC1 with competitive speed. For that purpose, a BLR-1G has the higher engine cap along with higher mounts. The only relevant quirks the BLR-1G has that the STK-4N doesn't for this build are some bonuses to armor on the arms. If the mounts were higher on the STK-4N and it could mount a higher engine rating, you might very well see people shift mechs even if you didn't give it the extra armor. Either way the quirks aren't directly impacting DPS compared between the two.

Alternatively if you don't need the speed, you CAN do a LFE300 with 6 ERLL, 10 DHS, and a TC1. But typically you see mechs like this in FW where you really DO need that speed. That doesn't make the Stalker version bad, it just means it doesn't necessarily fit the mission profile. If you were sitting on a base defense, the speed wouldn't matter as much... though in that case, you'd likely also be using standard LL. Either way it would still be viable and powerful, but if you're going to be slow, heavy, and on defense there may actually be even stronger options, like the Annihilator. If you're crap with Annihilators, though, choosing the "better" option might be the worse decision.

[Y E O N N E]

You do not need an XL for 6x ERLL on a Stalker with 20 total DHS, that fits just fine on a STD 300, which will have you running only 1.6 kph slower than a Supernova with its max 325 engine. If you want a TC1, swap over to a Light 300, swap Endo for Light Ferro, and throw on tge TC1. You could even probably squeeze a TC2 on that. Using the STK-5S, you will even get a 10% range quirk out of it.

To wit, most 6x ERLL Battlemasters run 17-18 DHS with much bigger TCs...which you can still easily do on the Stalker. If the BLR-1G ever gets nerfed (it shouldn't), the Stalker 5S is probably next in line to succeed it.

[Verilligo]

Yeonne Greene, on 22 February 2018 - 10:25 AM, said:

You do not need an XL for 6x ERLL on a Stalker with 20 total DHS, that fits just fine on a STD 300, which will have you running only 1.6 kph slower than a Supernova with its max 325 engine. If you want a TC1, swap over to a Light 300, swap Endo for Light Ferro, and throw on tge TC1. You could even probably squeeze a TC2 on that. Using the STK-5S, you will even get a 10% range quirk out of it.

To wit, most 6x ERLL Battlemasters run 17-18 DHS with much bigger TCs...which you can still easily do on the Stalker. If the BLR-1G ever gets nerfed (it shouldn't), the Stalker 5S is probably next in line to succeed it.

Yes, you're quite right. I was trying to say that in order to keep up with the pack most of the time in offensive actions, the higher engine ratings help a lot. Things like 325s and 350s. For that, in order to hit 20 DHS on a BLR-1G, you have to consider an XL. If you don't need that higher engine rating and don't necessarily need the mounts of the BLR-1G, you can manage it perfectly fine on an LFE or STD in a number of Stalkers. Point being, apart from being slower, there's nothing that makes the Stalker necessarily all that much weaker, which is what Mogs seemed to imply.

Edited by Verilligo, 22 February 2018 - 11:29 AM.