Pulse Laser Tweaks

[Retry]

I'll keep this brief.

Clan pulse lasers are kind of excessively good, even for Clan weapons.  Their range is good and combined with their incredible -2 modifier to hit they are just inhumanly competent.  IS Pulse lasers are significantly less good.  Despite having that same -2, their range is very poor, so the bonus is kind of squandered trying to keep up with their standard counterparts.

This set of modifications is an attempt to both dial back most Clan pulse lasers and make the IS Pulse lasers feel a bit more like a laser upgrade instead of a sidegrade.

-All Pulse Lasers: To-hit bonus reduced to -1 (from -2)
-IS Pulse Lasers: Range adjusted to be equal to normal lasers (3/6/9 medium pulse, 5/10/15 large pulse)
-X-Pulse Lasers: Range adjusted to be equal to ER lasers
-Clan Small Pulse: Damage increased to 5 (from 3)
-[Optional] Pulse weapons gain a -2 flak bonus
-All Pulse Lasers: BV reconfigured to match their new stats.

Overall, Pulse lasers remain an accurate alternative to other weapons, but the bonus is a bit more reasonable in a game system with a 2D6 to-hit curve.  The Clan Pulse Lasers remain significantly better than the IS ones, but the gulf is nowhere near as massive.

If the optional flak bonus is used, Pulse Lasers also become anti-aircraft guns, and actually exceed the performance of the vanilla pulse lasers in that specific niche.  This mostly pertains to large pulse variants since those are the ones that actually have enough range to hit fighters, but even the medium pulses gain a use as a light-weight sidearm to keep VTOLs honest.  Of course, nothing beats the LB 2-X for sheer range (other than AA Arrows), but the pulse lasers can still be a useful deterrence.

[Sabelkatten]

Not a bad alternative. Thought the small XPL actually gets worse range as you've written this - 2/4/5 rather than the current 2/4/6... Flak bonus is a nice touch. :)

I was looking at just adjusting the ranges since I kind of like the extreme point-blank bonus. My thought went like this:
ISSPL: 2/3/4
ISMPL: 2/5/7
ISLPL: 4/8/12
cSPL: 2/4/6
cMPL: 3/7/10
cLPL: 5/11/17

This would give the medium/large PLs some range bands where they shine beyond their short range (with the exception of the IS LPL to SNPPC. But the SNPPC is just sick...). E.g. ISMPL at range 5 beats any other IS ML, so while ERMLs might be a better option at range 3-4 you can now laugh at them from one hex farther out.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Although I agree that clans pulse lasers are too good, and the large one is even overpowered(for it's effectively the standard weapon with longest range), but will the pulse lasers worth a look with this? Remember that the tonnage of the small/medium pulse lasers are twice as heavy than the normal lasers. Yes the overall heat is not twice as much but the tonnage does matters heavily.

For the double weight it gains -2 to the difficulty, and this compensates only a half of guns by the better accuracy. However only -1 makes it not so effective. -2 changes the chance by 58.33% -> 83.33% at worst and 2.77% ->16.66% at best. That would be goes to 58.33->  72.22% /2,77% ->8.33%. 12+ would be the extreme case so 10->8 could be the better example, though. So will it still useful? Also note that the better accuracy also effectively compnsates for its range too.

[Sabelkatten]

Somewhat oversimplified but...

IS ML is 2.5 tons with DHS, IS MPL is 4 tons.

-1 TN is reasonably worth about a 25% damage increase.

So IS ML ~5/2.5 = 2 damaged/ton.

IS MPL ~(6*1.25)/4 = 1.9 damage/ton.

Decently close. If you expect to shoot a lot at higher TNs (e.g. on a jumping mech, or shooting fast targets), definitely worth it.

For comparison, my take on the IS MPL (-2 TN, 7 range), I'd value at ~(6*1.5*7/9)/4 = 1.75. But then that's definitely for when you explect high TNs!

[DevianID]

So pulse lasers are too good because of the way accuracy is priced.  If all accuracy was priced equally, then pulse lasers wouldn't be too good.

Changes like those proposed all fall flat, because of the final bit put in 'BV reconfigured to match their new stats'.

In my 'BV analysis' fan article I started work on, I go into how the current weapon formula works.  With your change, a 3/6/9 medium pulse with -1 to hit would cost 56 without the -1 part (aka 6 damage worth of standard medium laser), and 65 with the -1 part.  So providing that -1 to hit would be an increase of 1.16.  Seeing as gunnery increases are 1.2 for the entire mech, and targeting computers/AES are 1.25, nothing has been done to address the actual problem... this new pulse laser would still be the most over powered weapon.

As for range, the IS medium pulse laser is a great weapon.  Its a brawler weapon extraordinaire, and its low range is what makes is so good.  The stock medium pulse is 48, while a medium laser is 46.  You get a ton of value for 2 BV.  Something like the wraith is such a monster mech because the short range pulse is so cheap, that the entire wraith package is very inexpensive.  With clan pulse lasers, the BV of the wraith goes way up, but its short range brawling ability doesnt really change.

I would much rather have the 6 range current IS medium pulse then a range 9 medium xpulse (assuming I have the heat for it) because I dont want to pay the +50% bv markup the xpulse laser has from the longer range. 

Clan Large pulse with a range of 20 is only OP because of the accuracy pricing.  If they paid fairly for accuracy, then the large pulse versus the ER large would be a totally fair comparison.  AKA, if increasing your gunnery by 2 was ~the same cost as upgrading a gun to pulse (and it should be), then the large pulse wouldnt be an issue, nor would its range... the IS would be able to mostly match its range with IS ER Large Lasers, which in quantity at range of 19, with the same accuracy pricing, would mean an elite gunner could actually trade at range with a Rifleman IIC.

tl;dr... the change you seek is found in the weapon BV formula, not the weapon statistics.

[Retry]

tl;dr... the change you seek is found in the weapon BV formula, not the weapon statistics.

Not really, no; most of what I did (on a basis of hrs spent) were campaigns, so BV was a (rough and imperfect) measure of unit effectiveness and not a currency in itself.  Changing the weapon BV formula would help refine the estimates but wouldn't have actually changed the campaign scenarios themselves.

[Daryk]

Speaking of optimization... a clanner Large Pulse Laser with a pilot with the Sniper SPA is shooting 10 points of damage at EXTREME range with +1 over gunnery.  Make one of THOSE go as fast as you can, and... YIKES!

[DevianID]

Not really, no; most of what I did (on a basis of hrs spent) were campaigns, so BV was a (rough and imperfect) measure of unit effectiveness and not a currency in itself.  Changing the weapon BV formula would help refine the estimates but wouldn't have actually changed the campaign scenarios themselves.

I dont understand what you are saying.  Are you saying that you played a campaign that used tonnage or something to balance the forces?  Like each player got 80 tons to fool around with?  Tonnage is not a good measure of balancing scenarios, BV is still better in all the campaigns I play and run.

For chaos campaigns, the players draw up their forces, and the opfor will scale based on the mission, usually the defender gets 100% the value, but some missions in tukayyid and others have the defender getting 50% but with some on map bonuses.  For campaign operations, the opfor scales based on deployed sortie strength, so if the players want a smaller battle they need to send out smaller BV forces, and the enemy rolls their random chart for contact.

EDIT: aka, if the pulse laser cost more, then the large pulse laser would be mathmatically equal to a number of IS er large lasers.  Tonnage might not be the same, but thats why we dont balance by tonnage, so things like the Jagermech can exist and be cool at 65 tons instead of always taking a cauldron born clan mech with your 65 tons.

[Retry]

I dont understand what you are saying.  Are you saying that you played a campaign that used tonnage or something to balance the forces?  Like each player got 80 tons to fool around with?  Tonnage is not a good measure of balancing scenarios, BV is still better in all the campaigns I play and run.

It would not generally be by tonnage (though availability of Jumpships/Dropships can place an upper limit on such).  There are "constraints" that are dependent on the scenario and the campaign.  If in the campaign you're a far-away group on an expedition in support of the allied forces against the Blakists, you'll have to manage resources extra carefully since you won't be able to pull extra manpower and battlemech frames very often to replace the ones you'll lose (though the coalition may be able to spare some ammunition).  If you're the defender being surprised in an invasion situation you might not even have 'Mechs for the first two encounters and the goal might be something along the lines of "don't lose too hard" until backup arrives.  If the campaign follows a Merc group instead of a governmental military, C-Bill management will be more important, etc.

Each fight in the campaigns are not necessarily 50-50 chance to win (though they sometimes were).  There's some milk runs, there's some ambushes.  The results of the other fights can influence the other ones to a greater or lesser extent:  Knock out a key bridge and the Demolisher won't be able to get to the next fight's objective, stuff like that.  If someone comes up with something really clever they can really clean up the next objective or even win the campaign right there.

We rejected strict BV balancing for campaigns for more objective-driven scenarios where the results of the last fight can change how the next one is fought, "Rubber-banding" is kept to a minimum.  If the campaign fights were all just 50-50 all the time, it's not substantially different from just running a bunch of pick-up games back-to-back.  If salvaging a clan MPL and field refitting it to replace an IS one wouldn't cause the OPFOR to magically gain a point of Elementals or an OPFOR mech automatically upgrading to a model 5-10 tons heavier to exactly cancel out any effects you may have gained from said upgrade, then you're really just walking on a treadmill.

[DevianID]

Ah I see.  Yeah me and the other players for my RPG campaigns get 'soft' abilities like mech quirks, special pilot and unit abilities, and edge.  So we use those systems to skew player upgrades and mission objectives, but indeed each game is a stand alone game with its mission/objective as part of a contract or chaos campaign track arc.  Salvage is mostly used for redundancy, but someone wants to bring an atlas that means the mission does get harder versus them bringing a stinger, so that each week the mission has a modicum of challenge for the players that came to play that week, but also no one is overly punished for bringing a light or less powerful mech.

Im also a big fan of the chaos campaign structure, like in tukayyid, where two sides have pretty balanced games barring the few 50% ambush defense style missions.  In these, the BV is important because it isnt a GM telling an RPG story where the players dont really lose, but two player groups facing off where both sides want the same chance to win, and one player group will lose, before everyone resets and moves onto the next. 

The chaos campaign or pickup versus style is my frame of reference for 'fixing' pulse lasers, by adjusting BV.  More BV for pulse lasers means less off them in a given mission scenario of x BV per side.  Since RPG style games are not balanced, the pulse laser being too good is like saying 'sniper' or 'jumping jack' or 'narrow/low profile' is too good--but narrative games arnt supposed to be balanced so that's fine.  So in that context, since from your last post you play really cool narrative GM style games, specifically how are the clan pulse lasers giving you trouble in your games?  Nerfing the rules of pulse lasers when so many moving parts are going into a narrative campaign is like missing the forest for the trees.

If you didnt want to change BV on pulse lasers, but still somewhat use BV in estimating units effectiveness in your campaign, then since the BV formula prices the -2 of pulse as only +28%, but a tcomp is +25% for -1, you can simply make all pulse that is -2 as -1.  This would make a pulse laser about as good as a standard laser with a tcomp, without needing to change the range or anything.  I like having the -2, just with an appropriate higher cost, to hit those evasive units.  But changing all pulse to -1 to avoid dealing with the BV formula is an easy shorthand for you.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Anyway, since there is the targeting computer, simply reduce -2 to -1 isn't a good move at all. For you have really no reason to take the pulse lasers because you can do this by combine normal lasers and targeting computer, which costs far lighter weight. Thus even for the 'better' range it is simply the inferior choice over normal lasers.

What about to make it the other way rather than simply reduce the accuracy? Else the more better solution is just remove the pulse lasers groups entirely from your game.

[Sabelkatten]

Anyway, since there is the targeting computer, simply reduce -2 to -1 isn't a good move at all. For you have really no reason to take the pulse lasers because you can do this by combine normal lasers and targeting computer, which costs far lighter weight. Thus even for the 'better' range it is simply the inferior choice over normal lasers.

What about to make it the other way rather than simply reduce the accuracy? Else the more better solution is just remove the pulse lasers groups entirely from your game.

Nothing stops you from adding a TC to your pulse lasers, thus keeping their TN bonus compared to standard lasers.

However, given the limited usefulness of IS pulse lasers as is, I'm with the OP in that reducing the pulse bonus should be compensated for by increasing range.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

But that is ridiculously costly compared by the effort, and with the effort that able to do so you can make your firepower a double instead, making it simply the inferior choice anyways. Also note that the effective range of pulse lasers are NOT shorter than the normal lasers - for example, both medium laser and medium pulse laser hit the target 6 hex apart with +2 to the difficulty. Consider it's unlikely to hit a target on the range bracket with +4 to the difficulty, I do think that both weapons' effective range are almost same.

Sure unless you have employed C3 network, but even on this case you need something close to the target and you could make up the accuracy issue by use the better range bracket instead.

Perhaps, if the pulse lasers are only requires same or 50% more tonnage than the normal laser(non-large) or only 1 more ton(large) then only add -1 to the difficulty would be viable. But without change either the tonnage and/or heat, it end up with just make it inferior to the normal lasers.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

And if pulse lasers are on the same range but the accuracy makeup is only at -1, then, it is fine to aim for the target on the same range, right?

For example medium laser vs medium pulse laser and also consider the tonnage of the heat sink(with DHS on both), standard version have the better damage output per tonnage until it goes to 8+, and at that point it would be (5÷(1+(3÷2)))x(15÷36)=0.833..(normal laser) vs (6÷(2+(4÷2)))x(21÷36)=0.875(pulse). And the gap is max at 0.055 vs 0.125 on 12+(10+ for pulse), although it's obvious.

If you add the targeting computer on the medium laser(counted for +0.25 ton, for IS targeting computer requires a full ton per each 4 tons on the weapons), however, even on 12+ it's 0.125 vs 0.15152.., means it's simply the better choice.

If you also add the targeting computer on the pulse side?(+0.5 ton for the same reason above) It does beats the medium laser with targeting computer at 9+ or better, although on 9+ it's 0.7575 vs 0.7777 so it's almost as same, and on 10+ it's 0.50505 vs 0.55555, on 11+ it's 0.30303 vs 0.37037, on 12+ it's 0.15152 vs 0.22222.

So, maybe, against nimble target pulse laser do have some uses. But still it's clear that if the targeting computer is an option it's pointless to use the pulse laser unless you ALSO add the targeting computer. A weapon that requires the targeting computer to be viable seems very, very weird.

[DevianID]

Anyway, since there is the targeting computer, simply reduce -2 to -1 isn't a good move at all

So, pulse lasers are still better then regular lasers despite the minus 1 versus -2, mathematically, if that was your worry.  Yeah, a medium laser with TCOMP is the same hit bonus, but it costs more, and cant be stacked like pulse + tcomp, and its easier to take a pulse laser then a tcomp on most designs.  Pulse also does more infantry damage since OP mentioned campaign play. 

If you increase the pulse laser's range to 9 and give it a -1, I mentioned above that if you are using the weapon BV calculator its the same issue as with standard pulse... the -1 accuracty in the weapon BV formula is still too cheap, like how -2 accuracy in the formula is too cheap.  The 9 range -1 pulse would be cheaper then a medium laser with a tcomp in BV, meaning range 9 pulse is the best possible weapon still.  At least with reduced range, pulse is an interesting tradeoff between range and accuracy, and the price of 48 on pulse and 46 on standard lasers reflects that, while the change from -2 to -1 would make pulse, especially clan pulse, less abusive for the price.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

So, pulse lasers are still better then regular lasers despite the minus 1 versus -2, mathematically, if that was your worry.  Yeah, a medium laser with TCOMP is the same hit bonus, but it costs more, and cant be stacked like pulse + tcomp, and its easier to take a pulse laser then a tcomp on most designs.  Pulse also does more infantry damage since OP mentioned campaign play. 

If you increase the pulse laser's range to 9 and give it a -1, I mentioned above that if you are using the weapon BV calculator its the same issue as with standard pulse... the -1 accuracty in the weapon BV formula is still too cheap, like how -2 accuracy in the formula is too cheap.  The 9 range -1 pulse would be cheaper then a medium laser with a tcomp in BV, meaning range 9 pulse is the best possible weapon still.  At least with reduced range, pulse is an interesting tradeoff between range and accuracy, and the price of 48 on pulse and 46 on standard lasers reflects that, while the change from -2 to -1 would make pulse, especially clan pulse, less abusive for the price.

Not really since it's only heavier for the same result, and thus adding pulse laser only makes the unit weaker unless you also add the targeting computer on it. Sure pulse laser would costs less BV, but that's just because it surely become the inferior equipment, as well as heavier weight prevents the unit to having more guns. The only point on this seems to be, spamming those on the custom unit that is intended to be 'pillow fisted' cannon fodder role - for it surely have the cheaper BV, obviously.

[Retry]

The chaos campaign or pickup versus style is my frame of reference for 'fixing' pulse lasers, by adjusting BV.  More BV for pulse lasers means less off them in a given mission scenario of x BV per side.  Since RPG style games are not balanced, the pulse laser being too good is like saying 'sniper' or 'jumping jack' or 'narrow/low profile' is too good--but narrative games arnt supposed to be balanced so that's fine.  So in that context, since from your last post you play really cool narrative GM style games, specifically how are the clan pulse lasers giving you trouble in your games?  Nerfing the rules of pulse lasers when so many moving parts are going into a narrative campaign is like missing the forest for the trees.

The thing with the clan LPL (and the MPL to a lesser extent) is it's so good at its job it has an outsized impact on the battlefield, with a relatively small amount of the guns being enough to crowd out most lights and even some mediums.  As it mostly nullifies speed as a protection mechanism, effective Battlemechs have to sacrifice speed for armor, which generally drives up the average weight of deployed Battlemechs greatly and reduces the variety of useful 'mechs.  So if the GM isn't careful they can accidentally make roughly 1/3rd of the Battlemech catalogue functionally obsolete while encouraging Assault spam, which is something we'd like to avoid.

So the clan pulse lasers without any changes need to be a "controlled substance", given out only sparingly so they can't gain a sort of "critical mass" to change the character of the game.  They're not actually unique in that regards - Artillery and Arty cannons are also controlled by us due to their effects - but unlike those two the clan Pulse Lasers are far more common so it can be easier to accidentally throw in too many of them.  Managing that is a bit annoying; I'd rather the pulse lasers not shape the battlefields in that way so I wouldn't have to worry about pulse laser management at all.

(And it still happens in BV balanced play, unfortunately, due to the system significantly undervaluing the -2 to-hit buff.)

[Daryk]

The cLPL was effectively the introduction of a 14-hex short range for a 10-damage weapon.  To say that was anything other than a major game changer is disingenuous at best.  Not even AOE weapons can match that (since they all do damage in 5-point groups).  That's the universe we live in today.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Yeah it is deadly, but that's because it's clans LPL, which is one of the best long ranged direct fire standard weapon.

If that's your problem, what about something exclusive for that, such as remove -2 to the difficulty on the long range bracket, or additional difficulty against the light mechs?

[Daryk]

One of?  I think it exceeds the 15-pointers because it's much less likely to miss, and can still crit a cockpit...

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

One of?  I think it exceeds the 15-pointers because it's much less likely to miss, and can still crit a cockpit...

'One of~' is the common idiom to avoid unwanted argument. :p If I'd opt to just pick one among the best broken long ranged direct fire weapon for the standard size then I'd pick that without a doubt. Seriously, if the 'long ranged' is the requirement, why not to choose the weapon with the longest range among those?

[Charistoph]

Not really since it's only heavier for the same result, and thus adding pulse laser only makes the unit weaker unless you also add the targeting computer on it. Sure pulse laser would costs less BV, but that's just because it surely become the inferior equipment, as well as heavier weight prevents the unit to having more guns. The only point on this seems to be, spamming those on the custom unit that is intended to be 'pillow fisted' cannon fodder role - for it surely have the cheaper BV, obviously.

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where your math adds up that something that does 1 point more Damage 1 point more accurately, at the cost of 1/2-2 tons makes something weaker.  I mean, if you're spamming them like in a Hunchback 4P, then over all total Damage capacity is weaker, but the ability to hit more often across the board has some balancing out in that factor.  At worse, I do believe it would come out as wash.

However, Mechs which spam either MedLas or MPLs are rather rare.  At most we're seeing only 2-3 of either on a Mech.

[idea weenie]

However, Mechs which spam either MedLas or MPLs are rather rare.  At most we're seeing only 2-3 of either on a Mech.

Check out the Hunchback HBK-4P, it removes the AC/20 and replaces it with 6 Medium Lasers (for a total of 8) and adds 10 Heat Sinks.

Any Mech with an AC/20 and 4 free crits can swap out their AC/20 for a total of 14 Medium Lasers and Heat Sinks (i.e. 4 ML + 10 HS, 5 ML + 9 HS, or 6 ML + 8 HS), and each ton of AC/20 ammo is also a 1 ton/1 crit swap for more Medium Lasers/Heat Sinks.


For me, for Pulse Lasers they should get a shorter range than standard lasers of their tech level, no to-hit bonus, but a higher damage amount.  A shotgun laser rather than a rifle or sniper laser.

[Retry]

So you'd prefer Pulse Lasers to be heavy/improved heavy lasers, basically?

[idea weenie]

So you'd prefer Pulse Lasers to be heavy/improved heavy lasers, basically?

Roughly the following (all weapons would be the same tech level)
Pulse Laser - short range, higher than average damage
Regular laser - average range, average damage
ER Laser - long range, less than average damage


Heavy Lasers - they already fire a single beam so would not be the laser shotgun effect.  Their ranges would be identical to the equivalent 'regular laser'
Heavy Lasers - get rid of their to-hit penalty, and just make them larger/hotter
Improved Heavy Lasers - the explosion risk is already similar to Gauss weapons, so I'd leave them alone

[Charistoph]

Check out the Hunchback HBK-4P, it removes the AC/20 and replaces it with 6 Medium Lasers (for a total of 8) and adds 10 Heat Sinks.

Oh, I'm aware.  There's also the Nova Prime and Black Hawk-KU Prime (as well as a later variant with ER Medium Lasers) as well as a few other Omnimech variants where one arm is all Medium Lasers.

However, I didn't say they didn't exist, just that they were rare, meaning uncommon.  You won't find another Mech in TRO 3025 that carries more than 4 Medium Lasers.

For me, for Pulse Lasers they should get a shorter range than standard lasers of their tech level, no to-hit bonus, but a higher damage amount.  A shotgun laser rather than a rifle or sniper laser.

Honestly, I think having the To-Hit bonus is fine, but they should Cluster considering their burst fire affect.  Even more fun is if they could Rapid-Fire like a Rotary.  Instead of "Jamming", the circuits over-heat and the unit's cooling system needs time at full strength to chill the weapon out.

[Daryk]

The bog standard Battlemaster has six (yes, two of them are rear facing, but still...).

[Retry]

Roughly the following (all weapons would be the same tech level)
Pulse Laser - short range, higher than average damage
Regular laser - average range, average damage
ER Laser - long range, less than average damage


Heavy Lasers - they already fire a single beam so would not be the laser shotgun effect.  Their ranges would be identical to the equivalent 'regular laser'
Heavy Lasers - get rid of their to-hit penalty, and just make them larger/hotter
Improved Heavy Lasers - the explosion risk is already similar to Gauss weapons, so I'd leave them alone

My point with the heavies is that, for the Clan tech base specifically, they effectively function as you describe (albeit with caveats): They sacrifice the range of "standard" Clan lasers for more punch.