109 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Warma, on 11 December 2012 - 05:37 AM, said:

DO NOT suggest balancing mechanics that alter:

Slots
Weigth
Range

These are tabletop-critical values and affect the role of a weapon and the configurations it is used in. Weapon variables which should be used for balancing in MWO are:

Beam Duration
Heat
Fire Rate
Damage

These variables are mech buildsheet invariant and can be used more freely. Even they should be close to the intended values, as they also affect weapon role, but there is a lot of room to wriggle with small changes.

In my opinion, LPLs could use a bit more damage and a bit less heat. Their DPS/ton should be larger than LLs, since they have less range. Otherwise they're quite allright.

I disagree with range - it's not that important, especially since they already changed the effective range of weapons:
A Medium Laser cannnot fire beyond 270m normally. And hitting something at 270m is rather difficult with a Medium Laser in the table top. All not reflected in MW:O (without cone fo fire, the difficulty to hit wouild be hard to implement, but a damage drop off could have come close.)

Changing a weapons weight or crit slots has worse consequences, becuase it could lead to mechs being under or overweight or unable to fit weapons.

De La Fresniere, on 11 December 2012 - 05:57 AM, said:

Whoever decided on weapon values was on some seriously nasty drugs...

It's like they come from an entirely different game where these stats made sense...

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 11 December 2012 - 06:23 AM.

[Pale Jackal]

I want to use them but:

Their DPS to heat ratio is only balanced relative to the Large Laser if you assume that the extra .25 seconds of Large Laser fire would miss.

If you would hit with the entire beam duration, then the LPL is a waste. A waste that costs you tonnage, heat, and range.

Reducing the recycle time was a wise suggestion, since as another poster noted, if you reduce the recycle time, that doesn't necessarily let you fire it more often - you're still limited by heat. It would truly make it the ideal weapon to take when you only have one energy hard point, assuming you can manage the heat.

[Warlune]

Pulse lasers should have a chance to crit with each pulse.

Makes sense to me!

[SmoothCriminal]

hmm 1 LPL or 1LL + 2 heat sinks? Once you start putting fire on a target the initial DPS increase is irrelevant as the heat builds. Burst DPS is an undesirable trait because, at close range, chances are youve moved in for the kill anyhow.

Only use i can see for them is a hit and run medium/light, but the tonnage really restricts any actual use. I think the heat should be reduced, to counter the extra weight of the weapon anyhow (but this is a very tricky one).

[John MatriX82]

If you have 7 spare tons and two free crits, I tend to consider to bring in a single LPL above PPCs or a LL.. I was enjoying single LPLas in my 1X or 2X Phracts. When you have to dual or multiple wield large lasers, vanilla LLasers are far better, you can pinpoint far more damage at higher ranges (up to 900m), I love quad laser Atlas RS.

Later on I'm finding ER Large to be somewhat better (used on a DDC, it puts out far a lot of damage to long range battles), but LPLas is nice when you have to deal with lagshielded targets or if you are a brawler that can manage the heat.

= I think they are almost there as ballast, maybe that little bit too hot.

[MadPanda]

Purlana, on 11 December 2012 - 06:15 AM, said:

I am thinking that instead of 4 Large pulse lasers + Heat Sinks, that I can downgrade them and add additional weapons.

I tried today to "upgrade" my quad LL atlas RS to quad pulses and the results were really bad. You can do only two alpha strikes with quad PLL and four with LL. In a straight up brawl the damage differences are: 80PLL vs 144LL. The heat problem is just massive with them. One of the two buffs should happen; reduce the tonnage from 7 to 5 (same as LL) or reduce heat from 9 to 7 (same as LL). With two handicaps (tonnage and heat) the PLL is just not worth taking into any serious build.

[Pale Jackal]

MadPanda, on 11 December 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

One of the two buffs should happen; reduce the tonnage from 7 to 5 (same as LL) or reduce heat from 9 to 7 (same as LL). With two handicaps (tonnage and heat) the PLL is just not worth taking into any serious build.

Reducing heat would work thematically - wasn't the logic in the Battletech setting that they were more efficient because they fired pulses, allowing steam and slag to dissipate before they did damage again?

This would make LPL useful when you have limited hard points or limited critical slots. I would love me some heat efficient LPLs on my Catapult C1.

They just need to do something to make LPL useful. The lost tonnage, heat inefficiency, and range sacrifice is just too much.

Maybe when they buff PPCs.

[Khobai]

LPL are terrible.

LPL- 2.5 dps, 2.25 hps, 300m range, 7 tons

LL- 2.12 dps, 1.65 hps, 450m range, 5 tons

I mean what are you really getting for 2 extra tons? slightly more dps, way more heat, way less range... totally not worth it.

[DrVulcan]

Pulse lasers are handy for very fast hit and run mechs.
Such as I have a light that runs near 152 or so (forget exact number) and a pair of lpl or 3mlp builds work well on it as i can run it, hit, run out and cool. Pulse lasers make aiming at that speed much easier plus the extra dmg is nice for hit and run as each hit is more important than recharge rate or heat with that type of play.
Pulse lasers are good, just a nitch weapon.

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

"Whoever decided on weapon values was on some seriously nasty drugs..."

I totally agree. Some of the best drugs we ever did were available during the mid - 1980's LOL

[Lightfoot]

LPLAS: not good for boating, good for getting that extra 5 or 15 points of damage out of your config. Think of it as MLAS with double the damage and then some.

[Khobai]

pulse lasers in general need a buff, in tabletop they get a massive increase to accuracy, but in mwo they dont get anything like that.

[Vassago Rain]

They're very good, because they cut through the lag somewhat. But they're very heavy, and you won't be able to maintain firing them, even on a heatsink boat.

[Khobai]

Quote

They're very good, because they cut through the lag somewhat. But they're very heavy, and you won't be able to maintain firing them, even on a heatsink boat.

eh not really. its 0.25 second shorter duration and a MASSIVE range reduction. thats not worth the extra tonnage cost

pulse lasers need a much shorter beam duration and cooldown... they should actually PULSE.

[Roland]

No, the LPL is not worth taking.

Take a medium laser instead, and save yourself a huge amount of weight and heat.

[Irreverence]

I can never find a use for them. I'd rather add more heatsinks to make my other weapons more heat efficient.

[rgreat]

Lower heat by 2 points. Then it is worth taking.

[Roland]

rgreat, on 11 December 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

Lower heat by 2 points. Then it is worth taking.

No, it's still not worth taking.

It's range is garbage, and it weighs far too much.

[Elizander]

One less heat would make it more usable. Maybe 50 more range since they don't mind tweaking ranges.

[Vassago Rain]

Khobai, on 11 December 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

eh not really. its 0.25 second shorter duration and a MASSIVE range reduction. thats not worth the extra tonnage cost

pulse lasers need a much shorter beam duration and cooldown... they should actually PULSE.

600 max range is more than enough.