5 replies to this topic

[Cy Mitchell]

So far I have been doing most my testing on Terra Therma testing grounds because I cannot seem to get an actual game. I guess I will have to try again once NA gets off work.

In testing grounds:

3 erLL plus 3-5 erML Hellbringer - This is a mild build compared to what you can do if you want to go all out Alpha on HBR or other Mechs. the one with 5 erML is hot but it destoys targets fast and has excellent range. My old 2 x erLL/ 4 MPL did not hit this hard. The one with 3 erML is very sustainable and heat is easily managed even on TT. First impression after several runs with this is that raising the GH limit on erLL is not a good idea. I want to try it in a few games though.

I tested the 3 x cLPL/ 3 erML HBR. Initially I thought it would be fine because the LPL weigh so much that you cannot add enough heatsinks cool it properly. An immediate 2nd Alpha will shut it down on TT. However, if you Alpha once and then alternate the the LPLs and the ERML then it is sustainable and of course coolshots change everything because you can abuse the heat scale and get extra Alphas. It does pack a lot of damage but at least on the HBR is is not OP because of the weight of the weapons. Without coolshots it would not be very threatening because it would run hot. I want to take this build in a game too. It might be fun on a cold map.

I do not use Gauss much. I tested a single Gauss and 6 x erMLs on a HBR. I was surprised how much recoil the Gauss had but I quickly adjusted to using it at the end of the laser burn or firing it and waiting slightly before firing the erMLs. Yeah, it messes up your Alpha if the lasers are burning while the recoil effect hits but it is easy to work around it. It will reduce a one button Alpha but it will not really change the power level of the Mechs that match 1 or 2 Gauss with cerMLs. I am kind of ambiguous about this change. I sort of feel like all ballistic should have recoil and the bigger the caliper then the bigger the recoil. But then allowances would have to be made with changes to Jam, jam duration and cooldown because Clan ballistics are already "not good". I do have a MadCat MKII so maybe I will try double Gauss on it in a couple PTS games.

I will update this after I have had a chance to take some builds into games this evening.

[Cy Mitchell]

OK, finally able to get a few games in.

3 x cerLL is very strong on open maps. Not so good on Solaris City map. Especially when you do not have jump jets and walk right into the enemy pack one of who is equipped with Flamers. On Grim it did better until the machine gun light found me and took me apart while they were cooling down. Gut feeling is that raising the GH limit on cerLL is not a good idea.

3 x cLPL is OK on the HBR. It packs a punch but it is hot. You can either run it with just a couple cerML and enough heatsinks to keep the heat under control and you in the fight. Or you can run the 3 cLPL and 3erML. On the HBR I was running that meant leaving ECM off and only running 4 extra heatsinks for a total of 17. Very toasty even on Polar and I had multiple overheat warnings and two shutdowns one of which got me killed. I think that raising the cLPL GH threshold is fine because of the tonnage of the weapons that keep you from running a lot of additional weapons and/or heatsinks.

As far as the damage changes this is my impression after a bunch of testing grounds and a few matches:

HLL - I think this one is OK
HML - I think this one is OK
erSL - have not used at this point. Hard to take that when you are facing all Assaults and Heavies for the most part.
erML - I think the change to 5.25 is too much. Perhaps 6 with 6 heat. If there is too much synergy with Gauss, HLL and LPL then the max range could be reduced back to 660 again. I would rather is wasn't but......
erLL - Using 3 without GH is a problem. They do not have the drawback of tonnage that the LPL does. The damage reduction is OK but if GH stays at 2 then the damage would be fine as it was.
cSPL - unchanged but I believe damage could have been raised to 5. This is the only pulse weapon that does less damage than its er counterpart.
cMPL - damage reduction is noticeable and seems unnecessary. It already had its max range drastically reduced to bring it in line 7 damage seemed about right.
cLPL - They are not overpowering at 3 before GH and 11 damage. They are good if you can keep them cool and firing but their high tonnage hampers your ability to do that on the Mechs that I tested them on.


Am I they only one that finds it difficult to test laser weapon changes when you have Lights running around with MG and Heavies and Assaults with Flamers? I guess that 2 mil and warhorn is really making people want to win.

Edit: I am not complaining about MG or Flamers being used but neither one of those changed. Obviously a lot of people will be trying out the big lasers that got changed and running big Mechs that carry big Alpha loadouts so Flamers and MG make sense if your only goal is to win on PTS.

Edited by Rampage, 13 July 2018 - 07:05 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

I did 6 more games today to qualify for the 2 mil award. I ran all kinds of bad builds made just to test the limits of lasers and trying to make UACs work.

My opinion has not changed much after 10 games and time spent in testing grounds.

Gauss recoil is a not factor in my opinion. I do not think it is much of a difference whether it is in or it is out.

Clan lasers now have much less return for the amount of heat they generate. I do not think that raising the large lasers GH threshold is a good idea. Definitely not for erLL and probably not for cLPL either. With the LPL the tonnage is somewhat of a limiting factor but there will still be Assault builds that will be able to stack them on with erML or HML and put out some big Alpha numbers that will only be hindered by range and heat.If the stated goal of limiting Alphas is indeed the case then just switching one set of weapons for another set in order to still get huge Alphas is not productive.

My position on laser changes:

erSL did not need a change
SPL did need a change. It needs a damage increase.
erML change went too far. This is a bread and butter weapon and it has to be used as a filler weapon on many builds. That is why it is used so much. Slashing it to 5.25 with 5.7 heat was excessive in my opinion. I think it would be fine at 6 damage/6 heat.
MPL was fine as it was. It already had lost range. It weighs enough that tonnage is somewhat of a limiting factor too. It is currently a useful weapon but certainly not the "go to" weapon. That seems like a good place to me.
HML is right about where it should be with these changes.
erLL is too strong with a GH threshold allowing 3 to be fired without penalty. 10 damage is fine.
LPL is borderline too strong to have its GH raised but is limited by tonnage. Damage is fine if Ghost Heat threshold is raised but I think it could even be increased slightly if the GH stays at 2 without penalty.
HLL is right about where it should be with these changes. I would have even dropped it to 15 with a slight reduction in heat.

Generally speaking, I do not think damage should ever drop below a 1 to 1 ratio with heat generated.

And finally, UACs still suck. (I know they were not being tested but if Devs are reading this then I have to bring it up). I do not own a Mech that can boat UACs so I have to carry 1 or 2 and combine that with lasers. With these laser changes and the changes the UAC changes dating back to Nov or Dec of 2016 my HBR Prime with 2 x UAC5/4 erML just felt like a really bad build.

Edited by Rampage, 14 July 2018 - 09:57 AM.

[Cy Mitchell]

I believe that removing coolshots from the game would go a long way towards controlling huge Alphas.Or they could be reworked so that you can use a coolshot but your cooling efficiency will be reduced for the rest of the match due to loss of coolant. Use two during a match and you are even less efficient.

[Fat Jack Murphy]

just had a wonderfully balanced match:
Annihilater, Mauler, Marauder IIC and hellbringer vs Atlas, Quickdraw, Griffin and Raven.

you want me to play 10 matches ? really ? balancing is crap. you cant even test lights.

oh, and the maurauder IIC was hitting high alphas just as in live server. one shot, gone is the torso.

EDIT
2nd match, im out, too boring. no real change. that balancing attempt is not worth diskussing.
got alpha`d by a flea.

EDIT2:
2 million is not motivating for the test server, i make that in less time on live. and i miss out on XP...

Edited by Fat Jack Murphy, 14 July 2018 - 01:22 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

I am going to echo what some others have said. It is very difficult to compare the changes to the lasers on the PTS compared to Live because of the 4 v 4 format. All but one of my matches was a brawl which is not really my style. I tend to play at about 400-800 meters in HBR, LBK, SCR, KFX, etc. I usually found myself facing Assaults or quirked IS Heavies. Add to that, I have not played the game in months due to HBS BT coming out and my disappointment in some things that have happened in MWO. So, I sucked. I felt I got a better feel for actual changes to the damage of the weapons in testing ground but that in the actual games I got an indication of how the damage reductions and GH changes would work in relation to heat and recycle time.

That all said, I believe many of the proposed changes are a step in the right direction but TOO BIG of a step in several cases (see my comments in previous posts about each weapon). I hope that this was intentional in an effort to generate data and that some of the changes will be dialed back before implementation in a patch to the live sever. If there is another PTS with more reasonable settings then I will test again.

I think that, with the offering of rewards, there was adequate population for at least 8v8 testing (maybe 12v12) and I would like to see that be the case in any future test so that we can actually get a feel for how the changes will affect QP matches. Another possible reward for testing might be a badge or title pertaining to PTS testing. The 2mil was nice and appreciated. Thanks for adding that.