

Why Dont Pulse Lasers Work Right
#21
Posted 18 December 2012 - 03:01 AM
#22
Posted 18 December 2012 - 04:02 AM
#23
Posted 18 December 2012 - 04:10 AM
Pr8Dator, on 18 December 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:
Well, actually the two best weapons in terms of DPS/Ton and Damage/Ton are the Medium laser and the Medium Pulse Laser. LL is just too hot and heavy to compete. Both LL and MPL has almost the same damage/heat (1.2 v 1.28) but vastly different DPS/Ton and Dam/Ton, giving MPL the absolute advantage over LL on the battlefield. If you have only one energy hardpoint and the tonnage to spare, the LPL would still be better than the LL.
Lol, ok good luck sniping with your MPL...
#24
Posted 18 December 2012 - 04:16 AM
Soy, on 18 December 2012 - 04:10 AM, said:
Lol, ok good luck sniping with your MPL...
Good luck sniping with Medium Lasers too... if sniping is all you are concerned about, of course the longer range weapons are better but I don't think that is what I was discussing.
#25
Posted 18 December 2012 - 04:17 AM
#26
Posted 18 December 2012 - 04:19 AM
Pr8Dator, on 18 December 2012 - 04:16 AM, said:
Good luck sniping with Medium Lasers too... if sniping is all you are concerned about, of course the longer range weapons are better but I don't think that is what I was discussing.
Are you serious? Talking about sniping with LLs, hello?
Yeah, what you were discussing was dps/tonnage, etc, crapping on LLs. Without even once comparing range.
#27
Posted 18 December 2012 - 05:11 AM
AlexEss, on 18 December 2012 - 04:17 AM, said:
Hmm. This might be PGI math.
So I rather give them a hint:
Drop damageand heat per shot proportionally to the increase in rate of fire, and the weapon retains its overall damage output, but it delivers it in smaller, but more frequent packages. Afterwards, balance to taste, because some people might observe that machine guns rate of fire is not necessarily the best way to fight, and that slow firing weapons have certain perks - more up-front damage, more time to get into cover or perform evasive actions.
#28
Posted 18 December 2012 - 05:40 AM
FrupertApricot, on 17 December 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:
You should instead post this in the suggestion forum.
#29
Posted 18 December 2012 - 05:40 AM

Edited by Purlana, 18 December 2012 - 05:41 AM.
#30
Posted 18 December 2012 - 06:09 AM
Accuracy in MWO essentially translates into one of three things:
1) less damage dropoff due to range
2) lower beam duration so more damage hits the same location
3) faster convergence speed (once convergence is implemented)
#31
Posted 18 December 2012 - 06:30 AM
FrupertApricot, on 17 December 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:
That's not how the lore works...
Not even close.
Soy, on 18 December 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:
Are you serious? Talking about sniping with LLs, hello?
Yeah, what you were discussing was dps/tonnage, etc, crapping on LLs. Without even once comparing range.
Well when you got someone talking about DPS you got at least 1 ***** in the conversation... keep that in mind.
#32
Posted 18 December 2012 - 06:39 AM
Khobai, on 18 December 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:
Accuracy in MWO essentially translates into one of three things:
1) less damage dropoff due to range
2) lower beam duration so more damage hits the same location
3) faster convergence speed (once convergence is implemented)
There is a 4th factor everyone here seems to be missing, and that is DoT ticks per second. pulse lasers not only have lower beam times, but also fewer ticks (yes there is a difference) which means the damage is more concentrated.
Regular lasers are actually better for dmg/heat if you can hold the beam on target. But pulse give you much better damage/location when hitting a moving target.
#33
Posted 18 December 2012 - 07:09 AM

Here is what I was raised on playing BattleTech
AC/2 - These were cannons in the 20mm range
AC/5 - 50mm range
AC/10 - 100mm range
AC/20 - 200mm range
Right now, the AC/2 fires a lot like a 20mm Cannon and has a lot of Dakka Dakka.
I never liked the rotary ACs that came later. I think that had a lot to do with the art that created showing them on mechs. These massive spinning barrels. The engineer in me was always left looking at those thinking, Okay, you have the mechanism to spin all those barrels... where do you fit the chamber and feed mechanisms for it? And, if you are shooting rounds that large to require spinning barrels to control barrel fatigue, where do you fit the ammo???
My hopes here is that the Devs do a better visual implimentation of rotary ACs.
#34
Posted 18 December 2012 - 07:26 AM
Kommisar, on 18 December 2012 - 07:09 AM, said:

Here is what I was raised on playing BattleTech
AC/2 - These were cannons in the 20mm range
AC/5 - 50mm range
AC/10 - 100mm range
AC/20 - 200mm range
Right now, the AC/2 fires a lot like a 20mm Cannon and has a lot of Dakka Dakka.
I never liked the rotary ACs that came later. I think that had a lot to do with the art that created showing them on mechs. These massive spinning barrels. The engineer in me was always left looking at those thinking, Okay, you have the mechanism to spin all those barrels... where do you fit the chamber and feed mechanisms for it? And, if you are shooting rounds that large to require spinning barrels to control barrel fatigue, where do you fit the ammo???
My hopes here is that the Devs do a better visual implimentation of rotary ACs.
Actually, if you look at the art for Prometheus(Victor Stiener-Davion's Daishi), which is commonly armed with an Ultra AC/20, you'll notice that in a large portion of them the Autocannon really is an autocannon, firing off what look to be 125mm shells in fairly rapid succession. Though I agree, the fact that a lot of the art for Battlemechs have multibarrel A/Cs when the Rotary A/C is strictly Davion tech has always threw me as well. Just thought I'd toss my oar in.
#35
Posted 18 December 2012 - 07:31 AM
That would be much cooler than what we have now.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users