32 replies to this topic

[Dauntless Blint]

I think LB5's need a tighter pattern (LB2 tight) and perhaps a miniscule cycle rate buff. (Make them a heavier LB2 essentially)

Light PPC's could lose 0.5 of a heat point (& maybe be fired in sets of 4 without ghost heat).

Clan ATM's could maybe have 0.1 point of damage taken from far range added to close range.

Laser AMS could have it's "effective" range increased, staying within its current max range.

Really reaching because all seems great.

I tried some triple Snubnose builds and they seem ok. Maybe they could lose one point of pinpoint and add one point of splash in a 1/9/1 pattern?

Love all the builds that can be done now. My humble opinion is everything else is spot on and I hope everyone holds judgement until the mobility pass because it's gonna throw lower weight smaller silhouette survival times back up somewhat.
Fatty mains might groan during mobility pass until resize although will be able to twist again!.
I hope resize happens before perk wipes to avoid big sads.
Look out for SRM use to go up with mobility pass?

Edited by Dauntless Blint, 29 April 2021 - 03:48 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

A little bit of update:

> 3x LPPC is still anemic. Yeah it's a 9-ton investment, but given it's use with lights, I think it should be a worthy and powerful replacement to an array of ERMLs. I think it should get like 6 damage with 5 heat, still at 3 seconds cooldown.

> SNPPC was kind of overperforming but not on it's own. The AC20s + 3x SNPPCs are particularly potent. Personally I'm alright with them, but I don't mind with it doing some splash.

[FupDup]

The6thMessenger, on 30 April 2021 - 04:42 PM, said:

> 3x LPPC is still anemic. Yeah it's a 9-ton investment, but given it's use with lights, I think it should be a worthy and powerful replacement to an array of ERMLs. I think it should get like 6 damage with 5 heat, still at 3 seconds cooldown.

I feel like that's starting to step on the toes of the regular PPC. 9 tons for 18 damage vs. 14 tons for 20 damage.

If we're gonna buff if more I'd rather go with a further cooldown reduction.

Edited by FupDup, 30 April 2021 - 05:42 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

In addition:

> IS PPC is still kind of meh, yeah it's a bit cold, but I think it should be colder to 8.

> IS ERPPC needs to be a LOT colder, from 12 heat to 10 heat. It's still somewhat hot garbage. Yeah it's useful with the LGR, but on it's own like triple ERPPC, it's really really hot.

FupDup, on 30 April 2021 - 05:42 PM, said:

I feel like that's starting to step on the toes of the regular PPC. 9 tons for 18 damage vs. 14 tons for 20 damage.

If we're gonna buff if more I'd rather go with a further cooldown reduction.

Sure I guess, but I think more alpha would help better since it's more damage for less lead. The 3x LPPC would straight up kind of be better than the 2x PPC sans the increased heat, but the PPC can still go up 3x PPC to compete with 2x HPPC and 3x ERPPC, or 3x SNPPC.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 01 May 2021 - 12:47 AM.

[Ignatius Audene]

Hell no. A 15 dmg for 9 ton investment and no minimum range is glorious. Just look at ac10 or normal ppc and u will see (3 ppc is meh, since u are better of with 2 hppc). Further more it can be combined with light gauss. Dont buff ppcs even more because of stupid qp. In faction it is already thunder party.

[The6thMessenger]

LGR-ERPPC is kinda hard. It's not op, or not not-good, but it's just hard.

I suppose I'm not that good enough, but given the nature of QP, that 40 alpha over 900m doesn't happen very often, and if you try to make use of it, you are open to getting swarmed by the lights or the very enemy deathball as it goes in your nest.

It's good over long ranges, that's what it does best and that's why getting swarmed isn't in the users' best interest, I don't get the complaints of it being op.

Also, I'm still not using Case, because leg ammo just works every time. Also it's not like an IS XL is survivable.

Ignatius Audene, on 01 May 2021 - 11:31 AM, said:

Hell no. A 15 dmg for 9 ton investment and no minimum range is glorious. Just look at ac10 or normal ppc and u will see (3 ppc is meh, since u are better of with 2 hppc). Further more it can be combined with light gauss. Dont buff ppcs even more because of stupid qp. In faction it is already thunder party.

I usually go for ERPPC + LGR myself really, I don't see that much use with LPPC with that mix because of desynced cooldown, velocity, and optimal range.

The ACs are good on their own terms, such as increased DPS with low heat.

As for the PPC, yeah it does tread on those if said case. Though maybe less heat, that would make it competitive with the HPPC.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 02 May 2021 - 12:38 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

> Further testing with RACs, the RAC5s and RAC2s, I think they still need more velocity. It's unlike AC10s and AC5s that you have only to figure out the lead with a single volley, no the RACs require constant lead, and that is complicated by the part where the targets can actively screw up your lead with evasive actions that they can immediately take as soon as they are being hit.

I think RAC5/2s should have 1800/2300 velocity. At any rate, the low range of weapons would still restrict them at closer distances despite velocity.

[FupDup]

The6thMessenger, on 04 May 2021 - 03:51 AM, said:

> Further testing with RACs, the RAC5s and RAC2s, I think they still need more velocity. It's unlike AC10s and AC5s that you have only to figure out the lead with a single volley, no the RACs require constant lead, and that is complicated by the part where the targets can actively screw up your lead with evasive actions that they can immediately take as soon as they are being hit. I think RAC5/2s should have 1800/2300 velocity. At any rate, the low range of weapons would still restrict them at closer distances despite velocity.

I generally find it pretty easy to just "walk" the bullet stream to the target if I initially lead too much or too little. I wouldn't oppose more velocity but I don't think it would have much impact in terms of effectiveness.

[BreakinStuff]

Quote

> LAMs is useful, but I still wouldn't bring it over AMS, in many cases the AMS ammo is adequate the entire match anyways. LAMs and AMS are treading in each other's role, unfortunately LAMs loses out by reducing sustaining DPS in builds. LAMs needs to be better in it's own role, maybe AMS higher damage/shot but reduced ROF for better handling high-HP missiles, while LAMs would have higher range better suited for LRMs and MRMs.

So this is the only spot I particularly disagree with you. The reason being is in-battle testing at the stupid extreme.

Ran a Corsair 7A build incorporating the LAMS pre-patch to see what it would do. As anyone sane would likely guess, it would overheat the Corsair in about 8-10 seconds under solid LRM bombardment. That build was an absolutely brutal heat-monster.

Swapped back to using 4 standard AMS, albeit with more ammo for the AMS than anyone would likely bother with.

Post-patch, tested 4 Laser AMS again. This time, the performance was roughly comparable to the standard quad AMS with very little variation and completely manageable heat that did not overwhelm the heat sinks at any point while under a continuous bombardment by a nova cat B, nor did I suffer any abnormal heat performance firing two RAC/5, and an AC-2 continuously on attack. Each of the LAMS performed similarly to a standard AMS with a single ton of ammo per unit, so identical weight profiles.

The Nova Cat was hardly the only test I put the LAMS build against, not the most missile-saturated mission, but it was easily the easiest to pick out in memory.

I recommend testing it out more, because for the same tonnage as a standard AMS + single ton of ammo, the LAMS is performing well within expectations, and the heat reduction has made them a lot less obnoxious a liability while lighting up heat-hog weaponry, though I wouldn't recommend them for your typical Hellbringer laser vomit build.

Fair warning: unless the typical loadout hasn't changed in Faction wars, you're probably not going to see much in the way of LRMs in the area. The weapon changes have seen a lot more laser/Autocan focused matches in public, and the number of people utilizing any significant amount of LRM battery to begin with seems to be going down sharply.

[The6thMessenger]

BreakinStuff, on 04 May 2021 - 06:22 PM, said:

So this is the only spot I particularly disagree with you. The reason being is in-battle testing at the stupid extreme.

Ran a Corsair 7A build incorporating the LAMS pre-patch to see what it would do. As anyone sane would likely guess, it would overheat the Corsair in about 8-10 seconds under solid LRM bombardment. That build was an absolutely brutal heat-monster.

Swapped back to using 4 standard AMS, albeit with more ammo for the AMS than anyone would likely bother with.

Post-patch, tested 4 Laser AMS again. This time, the performance was roughly comparable to the standard quad AMS with very little variation and completely manageable heat that did not overwhelm the heat sinks at any point while under a continuous bombardment by a nova cat B, nor did I suffer any abnormal heat performance firing two RAC/5, and an AC-2 continuously on attack. Each of the LAMS performed similarly to a standard AMS with a single ton of ammo per unit, so identical weight profiles.

The Nova Cat was hardly the only test I put the LAMS build against, not the most missile-saturated mission, but it was easily the easiest to pick out in memory.

I recommend testing it out more, because for the same tonnage as a standard AMS + single ton of ammo, the LAMS is performing well within expectations, and the heat reduction has made them a lot less obnoxious a liability while lighting up heat-hog weaponry, though I wouldn't recommend them for your typical Hellbringer laser vomit build.

Fair warning: unless the typical loadout hasn't changed in Faction wars, you're probably not going to see much in the way of LRMs in the area. The weapon changes have seen a lot more laser/Autocan focused matches in public, and the number of people utilizing any significant amount of LRM battery to begin with seems to be going down sharply.

I don't get it. What are you disagreeing again? And when should I bring LAMS over AMS? I mean sure C-LAMS would probably be better since it's -0.5 ton than the C-AMS setup of 0.5 + 1 ton ammo.

But I never really said that it's bad, hell yeah it's more usable now than before. But it's just just not that good enough that it warrants the change from AMS that wouldn't compromise your heat-efficiency to a small degree.

[BreakinStuff]

The6thMessenger, on 04 May 2021 - 06:32 PM, said:

But I never really said that it's bad, hell yeah it's more usable now than before. But it's just just not that good enough that it warrants the change from AMS that wouldn't compromise your heat-efficiency to a small degree.

I disagree that it should be buffed for damage. pretty much that's it. the higher utility and never running out of ammo means that the laser AMS can be sustained for a lot longer, potentially. And each laser AMS has basically reduced the heat burden to about what you'd get if you fired an extra flamer for the duration of an incoming barrage.

If you up the damage on the LAMS, (this assumes the IS one, I don't have much experience with the clan one) where's the advantage to parking a ballistic AMS on a mech and risking the ammunition explosion, or running dry? The heat penalty is pretty trivial at this point unless you're cranking more than two on a build that runs upwards of 95% heat per volley.

that's more my point. It's a disagreement, just not a hugely strong disagreement, based on the fact that the buff to LAMS has more effect than might be immediately obvious.

[The6thMessenger]

BreakinStuff, on 04 May 2021 - 06:45 PM, said:

I disagree that it should be buffed for damage. pretty much that's it. the higher utility and never running out of ammo means that the laser AMS can be sustained for a lot longer, potentially. And each laser AMS has basically reduced the heat burden to about what you'd get if you fired an extra flamer for the duration of an incoming barrage.

The suggestion was kitting the AMS and LAMS out for different missiles. It's for differentiation of systems because they occupy exactly the same role.

Higher damage + longer interval would mean that it works best with high-hp missiles like ATMs and SRMs. Higher range would mean that it works better with low-hp missiles en-mass like LRMs and MRMs.

Okay, imagine this. LAMS deals 1 damage every 0.08s, while AMS deals 2 damage every 0.10s.

If the stream of missiles are 2 HP/missile, means the AMS can effectively kill missiles every 0.10s, but the LAMS would instead take 0.14s.

But if the stream of missiles are 1 HP/missile, the AMS will still kill every 0.10s, but now the LAMs will only take 0.07s between missiles kills.

That means, the AMS would work better on high-hp low-count missiles, while the LAMs would instead fare better on low-hp high-count missiles. That means AMS would work better against ATMs, SRMs and SSRMs, while LAMs would work better against LRMS and MRMs.

Because they have their own missile niches, the different AMS are now relevant on their own fields.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 04 May 2021 - 07:34 PM.

[BreakinStuff]

The6thMessenger, on 04 May 2021 - 07:33 PM, said:

Because they have their own missile niches, the different AMS are now relevant on their own fields.

not a bad suggestion, honestly. now that you've clarified, makes more sense offhand. That's one way to handle it for sure.

cheap segue to a mildly related topic:

Bluntly though at this point, IMHO CIG probably needs to address the elephant in the room: LRMs, and figure out a solution to them overall. Until they figure out what the hell they're going to do with 'em overall? not much discussion as they seem to be falling out of favor for the buffed, direct-fire weapons.

Unpopular opinion: I think LRMs should be buffed to compete as direct fire weapons, and hard lock indirect fire to TAG, NARC and hard missile locks. without one, no indirect fire. this would let them unscrew sensors too, though I recognize this will be an unpopular opinion with many.

Edited by BreakinStuff, 05 May 2021 - 10:35 AM.