46 replies to this topic

[One Medic Army]

Personally I'd like to see the largest lasers have the shortest burn times, and the smallest lasers have the longest. Then we could remove the extra heat penalty on the smalls as well.

Something like
Large Laser: .75s (and bump the heat back up by +1)
Medium Laser: 1s
Small Laser: 1.25s (and back down to 1 heat)

ER LL: .5s (add some heat back in)
LPL: .25s (add some heat back in)
MPL: .5s
SPL: .5s (and down to 2 heat, they're kinda worthless now)

Edited by One Medic Army, 06 February 2013 - 11:56 PM.

[Aileen Dover]

While I'm not to bothered about the ER Large Laser changes, I am happy about the boosts to PPCs and now often take them over AC10s. More Heat sure but I prefer ammo-less weapons any day.

That and the performance changes seem to make my dual AC/5 (Can't stand UAC/5s) turn from paint chipper into mech gouger.

Still anyone else think that the LPL adjustment was a bit of a strange value? 7.3? I expected 8 or 7.5.

[MustrumRidcully]

One Medic Army, on 06 February 2013 - 11:53 PM, said:

Personally I'd like to see the largest lasers have the shortest burn times, and the smallest lasers have the longest. Then we could remove the extra heat penalty on the smalls as well.

Something like
Large Laser: .75s (and bump the heat back up by +1)
Medium Laser: 1s
Small Laser: 1.25s (and back down to 1 heat)

ER LL: .5s (add some heat back in)
LPL: .25s (add some heat back in)
MPL: .5s
SPL: .5s (and down to 2 heat, they're kinda worthless now)

Since the ER LL is still too hot, I see no reason why we'd increase is heat. Just lowering its beam duration seems fair enough to make it worth its current heat levels.

Aileen Dover said:

Still anyone else think that the LPL adjustment was a bit of a strange value? 7.3? I expected 8 or 7.5.

Maybe they have their own weapon charts like I do, and 7.3 was the chart where the weapon appeared perfectly balanced? Obviously they must use a different mathematical foundation than I do...

Or maybe it was just the decision because they wanted the LPL still to produce more heat than the LL?

[Deathlike]

I'm not exactly great in these discussions, but I have a few ideas.

I did kinda like the suggestion to increase the range outside of the optimal range for pulse lasers. Perhaps making them 2.5x their optimal range would be better (so, LPL's max range is 750m). 3x (300%) infringes on the ballistics. This might make it amenable. Someone would need to do the damage #s where it matches the large laser @ optimal range (if my math is correct, it would be 6.67 damage @ 450m). This would need to coincide with a range buff, @ 350m (875m max) or so (if my math is correct, it would be ~8.1 damage @ 450m). @ 360m (900m max), it would generate 8.3 damage @ 450m. This might be reasonable on all sides.

With ER PPCs/lasers, perhaps they need to add a special damage mechanic. Between 20% to 25% under the optimum range and 20% to 25% above optimum range, there would be a special damage bonus of 20% to 25% (the bonus would be less effective @ optimum range, but it'll slow down the damage loss).

So @ 506m (25% less from optimum range) with the ERL, you would be able to do 11.25 damage (25% damage increase). @ 607m (25% less from optimum range) with the ERPPC, you would be able to do 12.5 damage (25% damage increase). I believe the #s could be reworked of course, but you want to have a damage buff if you are outraging your opponents as these weapons are supposed to be designed for.

Since ER means the optimum range increase is 50%, maybe the adjustment is to expand the lower range of this damage bonus to 33% of the optimal range and give the 25% damage bonus. This might give a legit reason to use these weapons now, despite some people's dismay @ the heat generation. At least at long range, you should have ample cover to cooldown (since you're not usually harassed by flamers).

Edited by Deathlike, 17 February 2013 - 10:56 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Someone would need to do the damage #s where it matches the large laser @ optimal range

The Large Pulse shouldn't match the Large Laser because it weighs 2 tons more.The Large Pulse should be superior to the Large Laser in every single way other than range.

[Deathlike]

Khobai, on 17 February 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

The Large Pulse shouldn't match the Large Laser because it weighs 2 tons more.The Large Pulse should be superior to the Large Laser in every single way other than range.

The large pulse laser serves a different purpose than the large laser. That's the thing that people are missing the point in most of these discussions. LPLs should be better than the LL in some ways because of the tonnage spent... but it's supposed to be competitive as an alternative option/complement to the LL. Revamping SPL would make more sense, since it must compete against the medium laser and the small laser. The LPL is technically compared more against PPCs and ERPPCs because of the tonnage (not as much on the slot requirements).

Edited by Deathlike, 17 February 2013 - 11:29 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Deathlike, on 17 February 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

The large pulse laser serves a different purpose than the large laser. That's the thing that people are missing the point in most of these discussions. LPLs should be better than the LL in some ways because of the tonnage spent... but it's supposed to be competitive as an alternative option/complement to the LL. Revamping SPL would make more sense, since it must compete against the medium laser and the small laser. The LPL is technically compared more against PPCs and ERPPCs because of the tonnage (not as much on the slot requirements).

I think PPC and ER PPC is the wrong thing to compare to. Its range just doesn't fit there. And I think range is the more important criterion here, since it describes its tactical role. It's a brawling weapon, not a direct-fire support/sniper weapon.

The LPL competes with the Medium Laser and the AC/20 in terms of range. And it sits in the middle between them weight-wise. So a brawler mech that can choose between ML, AC/20 and LPL will have his options here. He can equip several 4 MLs, 1 AC/20 or 2 LPLs yield roughly the same damage output. AC/20 and LPL are close weight-wise here, but the ML stick out. So now we have to think about heat sink investment and ammo investment required to run these.

That's what my charts do, basically.

[Warma]

De La Fresniere, on 06 February 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

PPCs... it allows boaters to fire them more often, but they're still mostly unusable by "smaller" mechs. This is because individually they're pretty bad weapons, but if boated they can fire at the same time and do concentrated damage to a single spot. Buff should have been a weight reduction.

You are a founder.
You are suggesting that the devs should change loadout-critical parameters such as weapon tonnage.
What is going on here?

[Splinters]

I agree with a few earlier posts that Mech speeds and smaller maps have negated a large portion of the range weaponry as viable.

Previous posts about mech speeds not being different from TT ignore the fact that the variety of engines mounted on a mech went from 6-10 engine possibilities to about ~20-25 sizes. This allows people to min/max the speed of their mech once they find an ideal weapon/heat loadout. Ranges that TT used assumed slower mechs. Light mechs were considered fast at 7-11 movement which is roughly 118 kph but how often are we seeing light mechs top 140 or 150kph? On top of that speed tweak giving that extra 10% really pushes the average mech speed up from 60-80 to 70-95. Doesn't sound like much but all those QQ threads about lag shield tell the tale otherwise.

Combine that with the fact that TT ranges were used for the weapons as a base, PGI also decided on smaller maps for quicker engagements and faster games (more pew-pew, more fun, ergo more money) which really tilted weapons in favor of short range weapons (<270m). So yes, you can see why all the 6 energy point Jenner's run 6 SL's. It is more efficient and push out the highest dps possible. By the same token, Brawlers are more common than LRM mechs for the same reason. LRM boating was popular briefly when their dps was spiked higher than other weapons and had the Super "Will-E-Coyote" 90-degree drop angles, but other than that, we've been primarily a short-ranged game.

Thank you to the OP for the stats outline, it only proves out what many have been saying anecdotally this point. We do need the bigger maps to balance this out.

-S

Edited by Splinters, 04 March 2013 - 03:40 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Hey, there is now a game balance forum. I wonder if this thread can get moved there?

[Shumabot]

Shock, SRMs do 3 times what everthing else does, short of LRMs. Shock, gasp, surprise.

Splinters, on 04 March 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

I agree with a few earlier posts that Mech speeds and smaller maps have negated a large portion of the range weaponry as viable.

Previous posts about mech speeds not being different from TT ignore the fact that the variety of engines mounted on a mech went from 6-10 engine possibilities to about ~20-25 sizes. This allows people to min/max the speed of their mech once they find an ideal weapon/heat loadout. Ranges that TT used assumed slower mechs. Light mechs were considered fast at 7-11 movement which is roughly 118 kph but how often are we seeing light mechs top 140 or 150kph? On top of that speed tweak giving that extra 10% really pushes the average mech speed up from 60-80 to 70-95. Doesn't sound like much but all those QQ threads about lag shield tell the tale otherwise.

Combine that with the fact that TT ranges were used for the weapons as a base, PGI also decided on smaller maps for quicker engagements and faster games (more pew-pew, more fun, ergo more money) which really tilted weapons in favor of short range weapons (<270m). So yes, you can see why all the 6 energy point Jenner's run 6 SL's. It is more efficient and push out the highest dps possible. By the same token, Brawlers are more common than LRM mechs for the same reason. LRM boating was popular briefly when their dps was spiked higher than other weapons and had the Super "Will-E-Coyote" 90-degree drop angles, but other than that, we've been primarily a short-ranged game.

Thank you to the OP for the stats outline, it only proves out what many have been saying anecdotally this point. We do need the bigger maps to balance this out.

-S

Big maps don't work very well in an 8x8 format with either of the games two objectives and would take many, many months to meaningfully integrate into the game. What the game needs is a reduction in SRM strength.

Edited by Shumabot, 06 March 2013 - 09:59 AM.

[WolvesX]

And again a great job from one of MWOs most dedicated players!

[MustrumRidcully]

Niko Snow, on 06 March 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

This thread is going on space voyage. Mind the gap.

Thanks!

[MustrumRidcully]

This was an interesting post by Mr 144...

Mr 144, on 16 March 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

I agree, which is why we did in-game testing of the two most common Dakka Builds faced off at 100 paces We were testing the mech builds themselves, but we can extrapolate some data.

Testing shows:
2xAC5 > UAC5+3xML every single time in-game tested
so...this is not entirely accurate, but we can get a best guess range from this
ML = 1.25 DPS
AC5 = 2.94
Both figures relatively predictable
So 5.88 DPS for the 2xAC5
Total DPS for the UAC5+3xML must be less than 5.88, so...
5.88 - 3.75 = 2.13
Never in any test did the Ilya win out against the 4X build, so at most...in actual gameplay, the UAC5 only puts out less than 2.13 DPS over a sustained 100 point damage CT coring spam contest....dissapointing ain't it?

Now ya know factors such as managing jams with re-positioning, luck of the spam, burst damage, etc. are all mitigating factors in build choice, but inherently, the AC/5 is a superior DPS 'Dakka' weapon...sure don't feel like it though.

Mr 144

Edit: sorry for the De-Railing Homeless Bill

[Mr 144]

/subscribed

I don't know if adjusting the charts based on my tests would neccesarily be accurate. We did these tests shortly after the introduction of Jam %s, but we only did 'face-offs' between 3 different builds. Looking back, we should have just done a 3xAC5 vs 3xUAC as a control group double check....

The builds we used (mentioned in an earlier post from the thread Mustrum quoted me...
CTF-4X: 2x UAC5 + 2x AC5
CTF-IM: 3x UAC5 + 3x ML
...in a direct CT coring spam contest face-to-face at ~100 meters. The 4X won handily...every single time. I didn't think much of the data then, it was just a cool experiment between builds.

The UAC is so hard to nail down a firm number on though. I've run my Ilya with both UACs and with AC5s and my UACs far surpass the ACs on the damage charts, so burst damage and luck of the spamjam play more important roles in a 'real' match than sustainability....most Ilya pilots would agree. When a bad jam occurs, people just cover or reposition waiting for the auto-clearing so really, mostly the lucky spam is actually used in matches. IIRC, the math thread on Jam rates puts the theoretical number higher than mine, and is probablly more accurate as a real world representation.

tl;dr: no one really stands still at 100 paces to core each other out in game, it was just a test on dakka sustainability.

Mr 144

[General Taskeen]

Damage to Weight Efficiency between MG and SL, still hilarious.

[MustrumRidcully]

It's kinda ironic that my charts already show that LRMs and SRMs were highly efficient - but they didn'T even consider the splash damage. I guess it will be time for a new version when the LRMs and SRMs get their "final" fix.

[Deathlike]

MustrumRidcully, on 25 March 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

It's kinda ironic that my charts already show that LRMs and SRMs were highly efficient - but they didn'T even consider the splash damage. I guess it will be time for a new version when the LRMs and SRMs get their "final" fix.

That would explain some of the threads that were saying they were OPed.

On the other hand, parts of the LRM mechanics needs a buff (missile speed) while lowering damage...

With regards to the (pre-LRM Armaggedon v2) LRMs are "underpowered" in the sense that continually getting the spotting done is difficult, vs the smarter player (that doesn't even begin to factor in ECM). If LRMs were truly fire and forget, then no buffs would be needed.

There are ironic truths to both sides to the LRM argument, but both sides who argue it tend to be myopic at the implications of such...

[Just wanna play]

Vapor Trail, on 06 February 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

I'm with the people that think that the LPL should have an incredibly short (.25-.33 second) burn time... while the medium and small are longer. (from .5 to up to about .75 seconds).

I'm still wondering what reason there is to take a small pulse over a medium laser.

lol, then the dps difference between the pulse and regular would be even bigger, i think the lpl should have a faster recycle rate then the ppc

[Just wanna play]

Warma, on 18 February 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

You are a founder.
You are suggesting that the devs should change loadout-critical parameters such as weapon tonnage.
What is going on here?

how are they bad weapons? essentially, the erppc is the pulse version of the large pulse laser

shorter shot duration, more heat, although increased range, i wouldn't say they are bad individual weapons, considering they are currently the strongest energy weapons