209 replies to this topic

[SpiralRazor]

Soy, on 05 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Lol, just lol.

I'm at the point regarding this particular thread where I have hit the wall, so to speak - just learn how to use the different weapons in this game, if you don't feel like it, great. I am god awful with ballistics myself. But to talk about the LPL as "garbage" in a serious way? No, just learn to play.

Because it is garbage, in a serious way...And i am VERY good with Ballistics, meaning ACs not PPCs,.

I dont need to "learn how to play" as you put it. I was using LPLs an hour after it went online and im 99% sure im a better player then you are, and im not saying that to stroke epeen or insult you....it simply is....More knowledgeable, more experience, low ping, good team, strong system.

Edited by SpiralRazor, 05 January 2013 - 12:17 PM.

[Soy]

Stop [double] misquoting things that are not even directed at you.

I doubt you're good you can't even connect the dots in a simple forum thread, good lord man.

PS - If you want to edit your response why don't you just delete it since you're just misquoting? Btw, you have more than 4000 rounds played and less than 35 ping?

Did I take the short dropship today on the way to this thread, holy ****.

Edited by Soy, 05 January 2013 - 12:22 PM.

[SpiralRazor]

shintakie, on 05 January 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

Small pulse lasers have the advantage of havin the shortest beam time of all the energy weapons that use beams. Its for this that you can fairly effectively use them on smaller faster lights for quick bursts of damage all to one location. In my Cicada I can put 18 damage into basically any location I choose and be back behind a buildin before you can return fire.

Now outside of places where there's lots of cover SPL have no real purpose, but that's basically to be expected since the entire point of pulse weapons is that they lose heat efficiency for more pinpoint damage. In the open that heat efficiency is far more important.

Well sir.....

Here is the real data on your Small Pulse Laser(after it was nerfed into the ground because of the Swayback)

Small laser..... DPs 1.00 HPS .67 Beam duration: .75
SPulse laser DPS 1.09 HPS 1.09 Beam duration .50

You are getting a .25 OF A SECOND shorter duration on holding that beam on target for a .09 increase in damage. PLUS a full .42 HPS increase, almost the amount of a full nother Small laser.

now do you get why they are bad? .09 increase for tons more heat for POINT 25 second less duration.

bad.

[SpiralRazor]

Soy, on 05 January 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

Wait.

How am I trolling or lying if I just linked a video where I derp around casually with just 2 LPLs and still get kills left and right? With an awful specced mech?

Wheres the lie?

Why did I tear apart heavies in that clip then if it sucks against mechs above 40t?

Your video is terribad...you were playing against random nubs, most likely in trial mechs. You took over 60 seconds to score a kill, and were mostly kill vulturing anyway.

[BerryChunks]

Assume two people standing still. One using 4 medium lasers, the other using 2 LPL.

Thats 4 tons, 20 damage, 12 heat Versus 14 tons, 20 damage, 18 heat.

LPL has a 6 heat deficit, a 10 ton deficit, and does the same damage. 10 more tons for heat sinks allows more firing per second.

More firing per second with the same damage means more damage over time.

Let's make it simple and just say that the medium laser user gets One extra volley in a toe to toe shooting match, due to the LPLer overheating. Thats 20 extra damage applied to the target. Damage causes lost armor. Damage causes destroyed internals. Who wins in this scenario?

Let's assume a different fight, between two speedy units that can use cover. Assuming that both sides take cover long enough for both sides to lose heat completely, the damage caused by both sides will be absolutely equal, and only the faster application of damage from pulse lasers will be a factor in how much skill of aiming is required.

assuming both had perfect aim, the fight then comes down to who fired first. In this scenario both weapon systems are equal.

So as you can see, at most, LPLs can be "equal" to other systems, depending on the fight. Worse, they are totally inferior.

An effective weapons is one that's not inferior. Tell us why we don't use WW1 tanks to fight in wars. They can be just as "effective" given enough time.

[SpiralRazor]

De La Fresniere, on 05 January 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

Being heat-neutral is not very good anyway; being able to do 18 damage all day long is much, much less advantageous than being able to do 36 damage four times in a row (disabling or killing your opponent in 15 seconds) and then voluntarily lowering yourself to 18 per cycle or however much heat allows, with movement/cover breaks allowing you to 4x36 burst again.

LPLs are crap, but LLs are good. Heavy, but good.

Being able to do 18 damage all day long, accurately, is actually better then a high alpha 4x in a row IF you are in the specific situation that you can remain at a range where your actual damage inflicted is > theres.

I have done this MANY times on the River city map by sitting on the G platform and having shootouts with mechs that were still on there base. My lasers dealt more damage at the ranges we were engaging at, and i could fire them more often, forcing them to go into cover(thereby suppressing there damage) or losing there mech to an unwinnable damage trade.

[BerryChunks]

De La Fresniere, on 05 January 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

Leaving cover is not that easy. Seriously, half of matches is people staying very far away from each other and the first one foolish enough to pop his head out being obliterated in ten seconds...

Yes, I love MLs too. I'd probably use 8 MLs instead of 4LLs if I could (less range but 4 more damage and, more importantly, *12 free tons!*), but not every mech is a Swayback... I only have 4 energy hardpoints. Luckily, LLs have the same damage-per-heat ratio as MLs (actually I think the LLs are a tiny bit better), so heat does not prevent me from dealing as much damage as a ML user. Being heat-neutral is not very good anyway; being able to do 18 damage all day long is much, much less advantageous than being able to do 36 damage four times in a row (disabling or killing your opponent in 15 seconds) and then voluntarily lowering yourself to 18 per cycle or however much heat allows, with movement/cover breaks allowing you to 4x36 burst again.

LPLs are crap, but LLs are good. Heavy, but good.

and if you want to do high damage alpha and overheat, PPCs or mass medium lasers or SRMs are better already.

[Soy]

SpiralRazor, on 05 January 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

I have done this MANY times on the River city map

No you haven't.

Cuz I said so in this thread.

[SpiralRazor]

Soy, on 05 January 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

Stop [double] misquoting things that are not even directed at you.

I doubt you're good you can't even connect the dots in a simple forum thread, good lord man.

PS - If you want to edit your response why don't you just delete it since you're just misquoting? Btw, you have more than 4000 rounds played and less than 35 ping?

Did I take the short dropship today on the way to this thread, holy ****.

Its edited because for some reason, it double quotes.....drink more rtard juice sir...and sometimes after i read it i notice a spelling mistake, or a piece of a sentence i forget to add...

Do you seriously think editing a post is bad???

Uninstall.

Soy, on 05 January 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

No you haven't.

Cuz I said so in this thread.

Im going to stop arguing with you, because you are obviously ********.

Tell you what, I am on the NGNG outreach server RIGHT now; Come and show me your terribad damage scores and low kill counts using your LPL based mechs......lets do say...5 drops, and i will record and average your scores, and post them afterwards.

Edited by SpiralRazor, 05 January 2013 - 12:41 PM.

[Soy]

Ironic how you got just as annoyed when I said stupid **** out of context with no basis for it out of speculation, kinda like you did previously to me a few posts back.

If it means that much to you, why don't you come by Comstar TS so I can crap all over your ego. I could care less to go out of my way but if you want to drop a couple times, by all means.

Edited by Soy, 05 January 2013 - 12:43 PM.

[De La Fresniere]

BerryChunks, on 05 January 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

and if you want to do high damage alpha and overheat, PPCs or mass medium lasers or SRMs are better already.

No way.

Replacing my four LLs with four PPCs, they would have more max range and do 4 (lol) more damage, but they'd cost me 8 tons I don't have and would make me almost helpless against short range targets, they'd generate a *lot* more heat, plus they're not quite as accurate. They'd be way way way way worse.

Again, I don't have 8 energy hardpoints. Mass MLs aren't usually possible. I'll admit they'd be good though.

SRMs do cause a lot of damage and are pretty much unbeatable short-range, can't argue against that. But it's nowhere as accurate and they don't have anywhere as much range, so I wouldn't say they're "better".

LLs are just the most versatile, accurate and efficient...

[Vapor Trail]

For the 2 LPL Jenner vid...

For the same tonnage invested (14 tons weapons) you could have mounted 4 Medium Pulse Lasers and six heat sinks instead, plus whatever heat sinks you had installed with the Larges... The only real argument against it was if you've already maxed your heat sinks... (12 doubles taking into account weapon criticals, plus whatever was in engine, with a 35 ton mech I seriously doubt you had that many).

Max possible DPS would have climbed from 5 to 6.4 DPS. With the same tactics (close range hide and seek), you could have been dealing better damage. Fewer salvos to kill, etc. Heat would have climbed from 18 per salvo to 20 per salvo, so an increase in heat per second of about .76.

LPLs really only out-perform MPLs at > 180m at which point the better weapon is probably a ML. In any case, LPLs have an incredibly narrow window where they're arguably superior, and if you're not in that sweet spot and have decent aim, you're carrying sub-optimal weaponry.

[shintakie]

SpiralRazor, on 05 January 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

Well sir.....

Here is the real data on your Small Pulse Laser(after it was nerfed into the ground because of the Swayback)

Small laser..... DPs 1.00 HPS .67 Beam duration: .75
SPulse laser DPS 1.09 HPS 1.09 Beam duration .50

You are getting a .25 OF A SECOND shorter duration on holding that beam on target for a .09 increase in damage. PLUS a full .42 HPS increase, almost the amount of a full nother Small laser.

now do you get why they are bad? .09 increase for tons more heat for POINT 25 second less duration.

bad.

And that .25 duration is enough to allow me fire between buildins with point blank accuracy without slowin down and without wastin shots. Its a knife fighter weapon that you use to maximize damage output while minimizin damage intake. Its also great for kill stealin .

The problem a lot of people like you have is you only look at the straight up stats of weapons without lookin at the overall package. In a straight up fight between 2 mechs that are standin still and facin each other would the 1 with SPL lose to the 1 with SL or ML instead? Yes, definitely. However those situations are rarer than the situation where 2 fast mechs are duelin in an area with cover and you only have a very short window of opportunity to put out damage to your opponent before you lose sight of them.

I've lost tons of damage while usin ML because I only got half the beam duration off on the target before they jumped behind cover and that half damage was spread across 3 seconds. With my SPL I can get all that damage into them to a single location without any issues.

The problem with weapons like the SPL, and to a lesser extent the MPL and LPL, is that their niches can not be derived from a spreadsheet. Based off the spreadsheets they are completely inferior to their non pulse versions in every possible way. However if you ignore the spreadsheets and actually look at in game applications they can shine if used correctly. They're not as everyday weapony as the ML and SL, but they are definitely much more effective at what they actually are designed for than the ML and SL. Could they use buffs? Sure. I wouldn't be opposed to up to a 1 point increase in damage to the SPL and possibly a small heat reduction for the LPL and MPL, but they're not outright useless like the MG and Flamer are.

[shintakie]

Vapor Trail, on 05 January 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

For the 2 LPL Jenner vid...

For the same tonnage invested (14 tons weapons) you could have mounted 4 Medium Pulse Lasers and six heat sinks instead, plus whatever heat sinks you had installed with the Larges... The only real argument against it was if you've already maxed your heat sinks... (12 doubles taking into account weapon criticals, plus whatever was in engine, with a 35 ton mech I seriously doubt you had that many).

Max possible DPS would have climbed from 5 to 6.4 DPS. With the same tactics (close range hide and seek), you could have been dealing better damage. Fewer salvos to kill, etc. Heat would have climbed from 18 per salvo to 20 per salvo, so an increase in heat per second of about .76.

LPLs really only out-perform MPLs at > 180m at which point the better weapon is probably a ML. In any case, LPLs have an incredibly narrow window where they're arguably superior, and if you're not in that sweet spot and have decent aim, you're carrying sub-optimal weaponry.

Yeah I pointed that out earlier. LPL only actual advantage over the other pulse weapons is its range, however the range of a pulse laser is fairly irrelevant since they're not really meant to be used at range, not only that but its not really a very long range anyway since it almost perfectly matches that of the ML which weighs 6 tons less to use. The ML also has less heat, even if you use 2 of them, and the exact same damage. The minor advantage of .25 seconds less on the beam time doesn't really seem worth the extra 6 tons to use it over the ML.

About the only reason I can see usin 1 LPL over 2 MPL is if you're super duper starved for energy slots.

[lordkrike]

Pr8Dator, on 05 January 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

Fooled around with a 5 PPC Cataphract build and found it incredibly fun to play! LOL! Easy kills but easy heat suicide as well.


So now, I actually have a 3 Large Pulse Laser Fang, 4 Large Laser Flame, 5 PPC Cataphract and I love them all and they all OWN. So, in conclusion, I would say all three weapons are great!

I was messing around in the Mechlab. Would you please post your 4LL Flame? I can't figure out how you heatsink that thing enough.

Perhaps I'm putting too big of an engine in it, but I wouldn't want to go below 300ER in a Dragon...

[CoolLew]

JohnnyC, on 05 January 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

I would suspect that the "Extended Range" is taken to be mean extended on the low end as well as the high.

ahh, good point... I have been scratching my head about why a longer range weapon wouldn't have the same min range (or greater) than its normal counter part...

[Soy]

Vapor Trail, on 05 January 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

For the 2 LPL Jenner vid...

For the same tonnage invested (14 tons weapons) you could have mounted 4 Medium Pulse Lasers and six heat sinks instead, plus whatever heat sinks you had installed with the Larges... The only real argument against it was if you've already maxed your heat sinks... (12 doubles taking into account weapon criticals, plus whatever was in engine, with a 35 ton mech I seriously doubt you had that many).

Max possible DPS would have climbed from 5 to 6.4 DPS. With the same tactics (close range hide and seek), you could have been dealing better damage. Fewer salvos to kill, etc. Heat would have climbed from 18 per salvo to 20 per salvo, so an increase in heat per second of about .76.

LPLs really only out-perform MPLs at > 180m at which point the better weapon is probably a ML. In any case, LPLs have an incredibly narrow window where they're arguably superior, and if you're not in that sweet spot and have decent aim, you're carrying sub-optimal weaponry.

Yes, of course. That's the entire point... that a sub-optimal weapon layout can still be quite effective if utilized in a proper manner...

...anyone who limits their play to just a few weapons cuz of min/maxing, I mean if you're all about the 'win' I understand but there is more to this game than winning, for me winning comes second to having fun. You can have a lot of fun with every weapon in the game and simply punish players if you are good with any weapon that you learn to be effective with. Will it be the mech/layout you go to in a competitive match? Probably not, rightfully so.

[De La Fresniere]

lordkrike, on 05 January 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

I was messing around in the Mechlab. Would you please post your 4LL Flame? I can't figure out how you heatsink that thing enough.

Perhaps I'm putting too big of an engine in it, but I wouldn't want to go below 300ER in a Dragon...

Don't know what loadout this guy's using, but the standard 4xLL Flame one uses a 300 XL, ES, 19 DHS and 400 armor.

[BerryChunks]

De La Fresniere, on 05 January 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

No way.

Replacing my four LLs with four PPCs, they would have more max range and do 4 (lol) more damage, but they'd cost me 8 tons I don't have and would make me almost helpless against short range targets, they'd generate a *lot* more heat, plus they're not quite as accurate. They'd be way way way way worse.

Again, I don't have 8 energy hardpoints. Mass MLs aren't usually possible. I'll admit they'd be good though.

SRMs do cause a lot of damage and are pretty much unbeatable short-range, can't argue against that. But it's nowhere as accurate and they don't have anywhere as much range, so I wouldn't say they're "better".

LLs are just the most versatile, accurate and efficient...

I count efficiency as the ability to disable or destroy an enemy mech as quickly as possible so they arent a threat.

LLs fail in that respect, due to tonnage, heat, and the way they deal damage. IF you hit 6 PPCs right torso and cause ammo explosion you can get an instant kill, which is way more efficient than plinking soomeone hoping they die before you.

It doesn't matter how INefficient a weapon system is, as long as the goal is met as efficiently as possible. ML and PPC and SRM spam are efficient. They meet the goal (disable or destroy enemy) efficiently. LL and LPL are inefficient, AND they meet the goal inefficiently.

It's opposite ends of the spectrum and this shouldn't be up for debate.

Soy, on 05 January 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

Yes, of course. That's the entire point... that a sub-optimal weapon layout can still be quite effective if utilized in a proper manner...

...anyone who limits their play to just a few weapons cuz of min/maxing, I mean if you're all about the 'win' I understand but there is more to this game than winning, for me winning comes second to having fun. You can have a lot of fun with every weapon in the game and simply punish players if you are good with any weapon that you learn to be effective with. Will it be the mech/layout you go to in a competitive match? Probably not, rightfully so.

And I agree with the sentiment that less weapons and more use for different weapons = more fun. But fun turns into frustration after the 10th time of having a stock variant bottom out on you from heat, while someone is using 6x6SRM alphas on your face, or 6 ML or 6 PPC.

If your side is that all weapons SHOULD have a place, and people shouldnt boat, but should carry an appropriate number of the right size of weapons for their mech chassis, Im on your side. That still doesn't change facts of the game as it is now.

Edited by BerryChunks, 05 January 2013 - 03:19 PM.

[lordkrike]

De La Fresniere, on 05 January 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

Don't know what loadout this guy's using, but the standard 4xLL Flame one uses a 300 XL, ES, 19 DHS and 400 armor.

It just runs hotter than I'd like, I suppose.