27 replies to this topic

[Xetelian]

You lowered the damage of the cSPL (which killed the ACH until it got machine guns).

So why not lower the damage of the cERML by .5 or 1 whole point.

Also lower the damage of the HLL by 2 points.

Reduce their heat and duration proportional to the damage loss as a way to compensate them.

I believe this will help reign in the HBR alpha while still keeping it relevant.

[Battlemaster56]

I competely I'm with this idea, I'm also the fan of buffing IS laser(std. ER) by 1 to match the pulse laser alternatives. It boost IS lasers near clan standard laser vomit (not counting HLL combos) damage and keep that gap close between the two the only thing that will be different is their gauss combo options when pitied against one another.

Edited by Battlemaster56, 12 May 2018 - 02:14 PM.

[SFC174]

Xetelian, on 12 May 2018 - 02:07 PM, said:

You lowered the damage of the cSPL (which killed the ACH until it got machine guns).

So why not lower the damage of the cERML by .5 or 1 whole point.

Also lower the damage of the HLL by 2 points.

Reduce their heat and duration proportional to the damage loss as a way to compensate them.

I believe this will help reign in the HBR alpha while still keeping it relevant.

This is really a far better idea. Right now we don't have a lot of consistency on how lasers work in terms of dmg/heat/etc. when comparing size, regular/er/pulse/heavy, etc.

For example, both C-ERMed and C-MPL do 7 dmg. But IS ERMed does 5 while IS MPL does 6. It would make perfect sense to drop C-ERMed to 6 pts to maintain both the internal consistency (clan vs. clan) and the external relationship to IS lasers (slight better dmg, slight better range, more heat, longer duration).

Heavy lasers have no comparable equivalent in IS builds, so dropping a little damage on those would be perfectly fine. Take HLL down to 16 and HML down to 9.

I could also see taking C-ERLL down to 10 and C-LPL down to 11. Basically make every clan laser do 1 pt more dmg and have longer range than the IS equivalent while having longer durations and higher heat loads.

Edited by SFC174, 12 May 2018 - 02:37 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

i would like to see all Clan Lasers lose 1 Damage and some as well as some Burn,
(to make them have the same damage per tic)

IS-ERLL = 9Dam 1.1Burn / C-ERLL = 10Dam 1.22Burn(as both have 1Dam per 0.122Sec)

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 12 May 2018 - 02:35 PM.

[Luminis]

Andi Nagasia, on 12 May 2018 - 02:34 PM, said:

i would like to see all Clan Lasers lose 1 Damage and some as well as some Burn,

Certainly not *all*. Smalls and under most certainly don't need a damage nerf.

[Andi Nagasia]

Luminis, on 12 May 2018 - 02:43 PM, said:

Certainly not *all*. Smalls and under most certainly don't need a damage nerf.

i would be happy with Clan lasers having 1 more damage per laser,
cooldown / burn balanced accordingly as per their comparable stats,

[FireStoat]

Clan Er Medium lasers and medium pulse have been hit over the head so many times with damage and cooldown nerfs, it boggles my mind that they need to be beat on even some more. But sure, why not. If a damage reduction came for mediums / heavies along with a reduction on burn time as well as either cooldown reduction or heat reduction, count me in.

I remember fondly the days of Er Medium Lasers matching up well on the cooldown cycle of Large Pulse lasers. If damage is moved down for the mediums but I was able to fire them close in sync to the larges again, that would be stellar.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Honestly even though I am generally called a Clan sympathizer, I could get behind the reduction in damage on many if the Clan Lasers if all others pointed out, their other characteristics were also adjusted to go along with it. If heat, cooldowns and burn duration were lowered significantly I absolutely would accept C-ER ML and C- MPLs that did 6 damage instead of 7. I would also accept Large Lasers and LPLs that that the same damage as IS Large Laser and LPLs under the same circumstances.

As far as the Heavy Variants, I just don't see the problem with them that other people seem to see. Sure they produce high damage but the heat requirements are tremendous and this is even before you look at things like beam duration, cooldowns and such. Again I guess I could see reductions in damage combined with reductions in beam duration, cooldown and heat but crazy as this sounds, I think that would actually improve them rather than tone them down.

In any case, I think it is a better Idea that the nerf entire builds through excessive use of the ghost heat mechanic.

[MechaBattler]

It is simpler and straight forward. But I suspect the same horde of clan players will do the same to any nerf that they propose. Regardless of whether it makes sense.

[Vxheous]

Just raise IS ML/ERML to 6 damage, LPL back to 11 damage, LL/ERLL to 10 damage and call it done. Why keep nerfing instead of buffing?

Edited by Vxheous, 12 May 2018 - 04:27 PM.

[Ruccus]

To play devil's advocate a bit, I think going the route of requiring more staggering fire instead of lowering damage allows for good players to still get significant damage on the target and allows good defensive players to be able to better spread the damage they receive. It also helps to require the attacker to stay out in the open for the second volley of fire, giving the defender time for a counterstrike.

Also if you lose half your weapons during the fight you'll still have a reasonably competent alpha strike capability versus a less damaged mech with all his weapons (you'd just have to play the poking game and use your damaged side to soak up more damage).

[Vxheous]

Ruccus, on 12 May 2018 - 04:44 PM, said:

To play devil's advocate a bit, I think going the route of requiring more staggering fire instead of lowering damage allows for good players to still get significant damage on the target and allows good defensive players to be able to better spread the damage they receive. It also helps to require the attacker to stay out in the open for the second volley of fire, giving the defender time for a counterstrike.

Also if you lose half your weapons during the fight you'll still have a reasonably competent alpha strike capability versus a less damaged mech with all his weapons (you'd just have to play the poking game and use your damaged side to soak up more damage).

No, anyone that min/maxes would realize that IS laser vomit mechs can now outtrade clan laser vomit mechs and just switch chassis instead of stagger fire and exposing themselves more than needed/required. (Had the patch gone live)

Edited by Vxheous, 12 May 2018 - 04:49 PM.

[The Lighthouse]

Vxheous, on 12 May 2018 - 04:27 PM, said:

Just raise IS ML/ERML to 6 damage, LPL back to 11 damage, LL/ERLL to 10 damage and call it done. Why keep nerfing instead of buffing?

They want to increase TTK. I think PGI believes increasing TTK would help lesser players against better players.

....

...despite the fact that it actually works for opposite way, and it even further worsens deathball issues and creates more lopsided 12-0 games we are too frequently seeing.

Edited by The Lighthouse, 12 May 2018 - 04:55 PM.

[Ruccus]

Vxheous, on 12 May 2018 - 04:49 PM, said:

No, anyone that min/maxes would realize that IS laser vomit mechs can now outtrade clan laser vomit mechs and just switch chassis instead of stagger fire and exposing themselves more than needed/required. (Had the patch gone live)

I'll just copy and paste Koniving's post in the 'Russ to shelf laser nerfs" thread:

Koniving, on 12 May 2018 - 03:40 PM, said:

Currently Clans can do 78 damage with 6 ER ML and 2 Heavy LL without ghost heat or shutting down. All this at only 14 tons.
Closest thing IS has without triggering ghost heat is 60 with 6 ER ML and 3 LPL all at 27 tons. Not to mention nearly twice the range for the Clans.

Post nerf it'd be 59 damage Clan to 60 damage IS without hitting ghost heat at 16 tons to 27 tons and even better range.
Or risking a measily 3.7 extra ghost heat on top of a minor bit for an extra ER ML the Clans could net 66 damage for what would effectively be 60% heat on a 15 DHS build with no skill tree. Meanwhile the IS would get hit with (and currently do) 7.06 extra heat just to bring that IS 60 damage to 65, post patch... so the Clans STILL win the laser vomit war post nerf. But it would've been a lot more fair.

I think even with the nerfs clans still have a slight advantage. Some may switch over to IS, some may stay with clan, and I think that's a good thing for the variety of mechs on the battlefield.

[Xetelian]

SFC174, on 12 May 2018 - 02:15 PM, said:

This is really a far better idea. Right now we don't have a lot of consistency on how lasers work in terms of dmg/heat/etc. when comparing size, regular/er/pulse/heavy, etc.

For example, both C-ERMed and C-ERMPL do 7 dmg. But IS ERMed does 5 while IS MPL does 6. It would make perfect sense to drop C-ERMed to 6 pts to maintain both the internal consistency (clan vs. clan) and the external relationship to IS lasers (slight better dmg, slight better range, more heat, longer duration).

Heavy lasers have no comparable equivalent in IS builds, so dropping a little damage on those would be perfectly fine. Take HLL down to 16 and HML down to 9.

I could also see taking C-ERLL down to 10 and C-LPL down to 11. Basically make every clan laser do 1 pt more dmg and have longer range than the IS equivalent while having longer durations and higher heat loads.

Lets not get too crazy, the HML isn't the greatest weapon in the world because it has insane cool down and duration (total cycle time 7 seconds) and high high heat.

I also think the cERLL and cLPL have found a decent balance at the moment.

[MrXanthios]

I have another mad idea, let people mix single and double heatsinks as they prefer, that would help a lot of is mechs imo

[Alexander of Macedon]

The Lighthouse, on 12 May 2018 - 04:55 PM, said:

They want to increase TTK. I think PGI believes increasing TTK would help lesser players against better players.

....

...despite the fact that it actually works for opposite way, and it even further worsens deathball issues and creates more lopsided 12-0 games we are too frequently seeing.

This precisely. A good player does well because they can aim, spread incoming damage, and position intelligently. High TTK just means that good players are even less likely to be seriously punished when they do make a mistake against random pubbies. It means that a group of coordinated players focusing fire is even more disproportionately effective because one or three people on the other side can't lay down enough damage to do anything about it.

Should be buffing IS pulse lasers and nerfing clam small laserboats to pave the way for de-nerfing clan small laser variants so their lights have options other than MG spam.

[Y E O N N E]

Ruccus, on 12 May 2018 - 04:59 PM, said:

I'll just copy and paste Koniving's post in the 'Russ to shelf laser nerfs" thread:



I think even with the nerfs clans still have a slight advantage. Some may switch over to IS, some may stay with clan, and I think that's a good thing for the variety of mechs on the battlefield.

Koniving is not a good source to be citing. What Koniving isn't mentioning is how, post-nerf, the lower duration on the IS lasers means that the Clans will be unable to deal comparable damage in a similar span. Right now, before nerfs, the problem is that the Clans can both deal similar damage per unit of time and still do much more if they are given the opportunity.

[Ruccus]

Yeonne Greene, on 12 May 2018 - 05:17 PM, said:

Koniving is not a good source to be citing. What Koniving isn't mentioning is how, post-nerf, the lower duration on the IS lasers means that the Clans will be unable to deal comparable damage in a similar span. Right now, before nerfs, the problem is that the Clans can both deal similar damage per unit of time and still do much more if they are given the opportunity.

I don't have a problem with reducing burn duration to equalize the builds.

[FupDup]

The Lighthouse, on 12 May 2018 - 04:55 PM, said:

I think PGI believes increasing TTK would help lesser players against better players.

No, that's not the reason. The reason is to retain the game's pacing as being massively different from your garden variety FPS. Mech vs. mech combat is supposed to take a lot longer than infantry vs. infantry.

If we keep pushing the baseline firepower higher and higher and higher and higher and higher without the durability baseline moving up at an equal pace, we are going to eventually become "Call of Duty with mechs" like people have been complaining about for years. Most of the time people making that CoD complaint were severely wrong, but if some people on this forum got their way then those fears would actually come true (not exaggerating, there's at least one guy on here who wants all mechs to have their durability cut in half as a starting point).