I've been making a real college try of using Light Laser Cannons. After all, at short and middle range (< 3000m), they deal some serious burst damage ... assuming you can land two or three consecutive shots. And you'd think, given what ships they are available on, that they should be at least somewhat competitive with Burst Laser Cannons.

The thing is ... they are simply too hard to hit with in short range combat, where it is very hard to keep an opponent near-center for any length of time (even with a Bloodmark using Tensor Field). Even fully upgraded, LLC's still suffer an oppressive tracking penalty of -1% per degree. Compare this to Rapids (which get -0.8%/degree) and Burst (which get a ridiculous -0.5%/degree).

I really don't see why the tracking penalty of any of these weapons needs to be different. They are all limited to the same base range (4000m), which means they should all be equally difficult to line up a centered target.

Plus, Light Laser Cannon already has a smaller maximum firing arc than Rapids or Burst--why does it need a bigger tracking penalty as well? As it stands, the Light Laser Cannon can hardly even make use of what firing arc it has because of the severity of the tracking penalty. The firing arc of LLC might as well be 20 degrees, since you really can't reliably and sustainedly hit anything outside of that.

Compare this with Bursts (and to a lesser extent Rapids), which you can often connect with targets at the edge of the massive firing arc. And don't forget LLC's already have the highest energy cost of all short-range lasers, meaning you can't "spray and pray" for long like you can with Rapids (and no I'm not saying Rapids are fine the way they are, but at least you can hit with them).

For LLC's to ever be competitive with BLC's, in terms of reliable DPS and close-fighting utility, they need to be able to land 2-3 consecutive hits on a reliable basis. Right now that just doesn't feel possible. And worse than that, missing all the time due to invisible RNG just isn't fun. It's no wonder people prefer BLC's, because you simply hit when you expect to. I'm even finding I prefer Rapids to LLC's for that reason--Rapids may take forever to kill something, but at least I am getting positive feedback for my aiming.

I recommend unifying tracking penalty for Rapids, BLC's and LLC's--tracking penalty should purely be determined by maximum range. Differentiate the three weapons by rate of fire, damage/range slope, and firing arc--but not accuracy. LLC's already have a smaller firing arc--let them at least play in that space reliably, so that they aren't so frustrating to use.

The thing is ... they are simply too hard to hit with in short range combat, where it is very hard to keep an opponent near-center for any length of time (even with a Bloodmark using Tensor Field). Even fully upgraded, LLC's still suffer an oppressive tracking penalty of -1% per degree. Compare this to Rapids (which get -0.8%/degree) and Burst (which get a ridiculous -0.5%/degree).

Don't compare with rapids; our standard line is that RFL is dominated by LLC, and the argument is unconvincing.

Moreover, you need to look at base accuracy too. At mid range RFL has a 5% accuracy penalty versus LLC, and so you would need 25 degrees of tracking penalty to equalize their accuracy.

The only reasonable comparison is BLC, and it's pretty clear the BLC's extremely low tracking penalty is intentional.

 

The only reasonable comparison is BLC, and it's pretty clear the BLC's extremely low tracking penalty is intentional.

But that's what makes no sense to me. With BLC's, all you need is one split second of lining up on your target's lead indicator and you deal significant damage in one shot. You don't need to keep your target centered for any length of time. You just need that brief glimpse every 1.3 seconds and you can maximize your BLC DPS. But with LLC's, you need to keep that target in your sights continuously--sub-second--in order to get even useful, let alone optimal DPS.

If any weapon could survive with a higher tracking penalty, it's BLC's--especially if they are on a Scout. The Scout should have no problem centering a target every 1.3 seconds. On a Gunship, the soft tracking penalty is more essential since the Gunship doesn't have the turning speed to reliably center a target at close range.

Gunships can have LLC's too, but there's no way for them to use them, because you simply can't keep a target centered for long enough (and by "long enough" I mean for a full 1 second) to deal competitive DPS.

And you may claim LLC's are dominant over Rapids, but honestly I'm not so sure. When I had Rapids on my Bloodmark, I feel like I could much more reliably down targets. It took time, but that time was fairly predictable and consistent--and the target never got a chance to begin shield regen. With LLC's, my success is much more streaky. Sure, I can melt a poorly piloted Bomber or Strike that sits in front of me ... but against other Scouts or even nimble Bombers, it's very hard to finish them off with LLC's.

And of course when I switch to BLC's, on any ship, it suddenly feels like I'm playing an entirely different (and much more fun) video game. Hitting is just so much easier and more predictable.

But that's what makes no sense to me. With BLC's, all you need is one split second of lining up on your target's lead indicator and you deal significant damage in one shot. You don't need to keep your target centered for any length of time. You just need that brief glimpse every 1.3 seconds and you can maximize your BLC DPS. But with LLC's, you need to keep that target in your sights continuously--sub-second--in order to get even useful, let alone optimal DPS.

 

If any weapon could survive with a higher tracking penalty, it's BLC's--especially if they are on a Scout. The Scout should have no problem centering a target every 1.3 seconds. On a Gunship, the soft tracking penalty is more essential since the Gunship doesn't have the turning speed to reliably center a target at close range.

You are missing that BLCs are "shotguns" and therefore are supposed to be generically really good at hitting stuff at close range without worrying about precision.

And you may claim LLC's are dominant over Rapids, but honestly I'm not so sure.

Can we not reopen this? The math is pretty clear. RFL's only statistical advantage is in power consumption.

You are missing that BLCs are "shotguns" and therefore are supposed to be generically really good at hitting stuff at close range without worrying about precision.

 

 

 

Can we not reopen this? The math is pretty clear. RFL's only statistical advantage is in power consumption.

Name a game where a shotgun reticle takes up 70% of the screen, like BLC's does.

A BLC could be still be a shotgun by having a firing arc of 20 degrees and virtually no tracking penalty, because of its ability to deal the bulk of its damage in bursts. Instead it has a huge firing arc AND virtually no tracking penalty because reasons. But I'm not even arguing for any changes to be made to BLC's. They are one of the few weapons in the game that feel potent and fun to use.

Saying BLC's are supposed to be shotguns does nothing to address the fact that LLC's are virtually unusable on Gunships and Bombers and frustratingly difficult to use on Scouts. Again, this isn't about BLC's--I'm not arguing for any changes to them. All I'm saying is that you could easily reduce the LLC tracking penalty and it would instantly make them more viable and desirable and fun. BLC's would still be overwhelmingly chosen where available, due to the advantage of their large firing arc, burst potential, inherent crit chance, and the shield or armor piercing. It's not like the exclusivity of their low tracking penalty is required in order to justify the existence or use of BLC's.

Reducing Rapid and LLC tracking penalties to -0.5/degree would improve the meta across all ships without hurting anyone or anything. It'd make the game more fun for new players, who don't fully grasp concepts like tracking penalties, and it'd give ships without BLC's some decent killing power.

I really don't see the downside, but I'm willing to entertain one if presented.

Well I've found that with LLC it helps taking the T4 right upgrade rather than the left one which gives a crit bonus. That's because, as far as I can tell, the reduction of tracking penalty by 5% is a straight up elimination of the first 5% of tracking penalty. Which means you have to be 10 degrees off center to have a 5 degree tracking penalty instead of only 5 degrees off center.

This is also why I think BLCs are so bloody accurate. They get that bonus as a T3 upgrade. Combined with their low tracking penalty it means they have to be pretty far off center before they're suffering any sort of tracking penalty.

I do like the idea of standardizing tracking penalties for every close range weapon (perhaps use RFL tracking penalty as a middle ground between BLC and LLC?)

Well I've found that with LLC it helps taking the T4 right upgrade rather than the left one which gives a crit bonus. That's because, as far as I can tell, the reduction of tracking penalty by 5% is a straight up elimination of the first 5% of tracking penalty. Which means you have to be 10 degrees off center to have a 5 degree tracking penalty instead of only 5 degrees off center.

 

This is also why I think BLCs are so bloody accurate. They get that bonus as a T3 upgrade. Combined with their low tracking penalty it means they have to be pretty far off center before they're suffering any sort of tracking penalty.

 

I'm not sure LLCs need to have their tracking penalty changed, reduce it further and it just makes RFLs that much more inferior. But I do like the idea of standardizing tracking penalties for every close range weapon (perhaps use RFL tracking penalty as a middle ground between BLC and LLC?)

Oh for sure, taking the tracking penalty upgrade is MANDATORY if you want any hope of LLC's dangerously. But that means no crit chance, which BLC's get in T2.

A BLC could be still be a shotgun by having a firing arc of 20 degrees and virtually no tracking penalty, because of its ability to deal the bulk of its damage in bursts.

Irrelevant. The developers clearly believe that the given statistics are thematically appropriate for a "shotgun"-type weapon. Their interpretation isn't facially ridiculous. Therefore it would be inconsistent with the developers' thematic vision to remove these statistics from BLC or to add them to other weapons. BLC or other weapons need to be adjusted in ways that don't challenge these themes.

The rest of your post isn't worth addressing, although I'll reject the premise that the 1%/degree tracking penalty is crippling on LLC.

Why do people always thing BLC is supposed to be a shotgun.

1) its single target

and

2) it doesn't even look like a shotgun blast.

Besides Shotguns are not actually that great of a shortrange weapon. What makes a weapon good at shortrange is its compactness and ability to be moved in tight quarters, neither of which are inherent characteristics of a shotgun.

Besides Shotguns are not actually that great of a shortrange weapon.

Umm....? Sarcasm?

What makes a weapon good at shortrange is its compactness and ability to be moved in tight quarters, neither of which are inherent characteristics of a shotgun.

A pistol is about as compact and movable as it gets. That being said, if you have a pistol and you hear another person's "Ca-*****!" shotgun loading noise -- your *** will start running the other way. Always. Both in real life and in games.

Umm....? Sarcasm?

Its true, there is a reason swat teams use assault rifles.

A pistol is about as compact and movable as it gets. That being said, if you have a pistol and you hear another person's "Ca-*****!" shotgun loading noise -- your *** will start running the other way. Always. Both in real life and in games.

Getting shot with a pistol will still kill you, the only different between the two is the degree of mutilation of the body, shotguns don't make you any more dead.

Also the reason shotguns are feared in games is because in games stuff generally doesn't kill you with one shot and pistols are in every game I have ever played a weak weapon. I have also never played a game that takes into account a weapon's size. I.e I have never been running around in a game with a giant meter long sniper rifle and gotten hung up on something.

Its true, there is a reason swat teams use assault rifles.

 

Getting shot with a pistol will still kill you, the only different between the two is the degree of mutilation of the body, shotguns don't make you any more dead.

Depends on what you mean by "more dead", which I can only assume is meant for the prevention of zombies. In this instance, a shotgun does make you more dead because of the potential limb loss / much bigger hole than a pistol (excluding a D.Eagle @ close range, but they have large caliber bullets for a pistol). To me, more dead = less likely you have the potential to come back as a zombie.

Please note, I have read The Zombie Survival Guide, and as such can enter a valid opinion on the discussion of more dead and zombies. LLCs should get a buff to make them playable

Why do people always thing BLC is supposed to be a shotgun.

1) its single target

and

2) it doesn't even look like a shotgun blast.

 

Besides Shotguns are not actually that great of a shortrange weapon. What makes a weapon good at shortrange is its compactness and ability to be moved in tight quarters, neither of which are inherent characteristics of a shotgun.

Because shotguns in video games are defined by how shotguns are actually portrayed in popular FPS e.g. Halo. Blah blah but that's not realistic blah blah tough deal with it. Video game tropes are video game tropes and you don't get to whine that video games use them.

Also the animation very clear shows "scattered" "pellets" that are very clearly meant to imply a shotgun-like weapon.

Also the flavor text for BLC is "the starfighter equivalent of a scattergun", in SWTOR scattergun = "Star Wars shotgun".

Irrelevant. The developers clearly believe that the given statistics are thematically appropriate for a "shotgun"-type weapon. Their interpretation isn't facially ridiculous. Therefore it would be inconsistent with the developers' thematic vision to remove these statistics from BLC or to add them to other weapons. BLC or other weapons need to be adjusted in ways that don't challenge these themes.

 

The rest of your post isn't worth addressing, although I'll reject the premise that the 1%/degree tracking penalty is crippling on LLC.

Yes I agree that the theme of the BLC was certainly that of a space-borne scattergun. Though personally I think it was a poor decision to have one at all--shotguns and other insta-gib short-range weapons are very difficult to balance, and in general they ruin more multiplayer shooter games than they enrich (see Gears of War), since they turn everything into sprinting melee combat.

The BLC, as designed, is the perfect weapon for the Gunship to have as an emergency "get away from me!" defensive weapon. In that limited case, the BLC is balanced by the Gunship's limited ability to close on a target, and the BLC's wide angle viability works well with the Gunship's slow turning speed. On T1 Gunships, BLC's feel like excellently designed, situationally strong/weak components.

Unfortunately, for some godawful reason BioWare decided to put BLC's on a Scout, and soon they're putting it on a Gunship with Turning Thrusters and Interdiction Missiles. The latter they are forced to do, because not having BLC's on the "dogfighting" Gunship--while the sniper Gunship has them--would be ridiculous.

You can talk all you want about "themes", but I'm more concerned with balance and accessibility, and how that will affect the long-term health of GSF (if there is to be any). Clearly things have gotten out of hand if BLC is ALWAYS the best in slot choice for ships that can equip it. The only build that can choose a BLC but might not is a Quads+Pods build, which is for an entirely different (and I'd argue less versatile) mid-range playstyle. And I say that as someone who normally runs Q+P. When I occasionally switch to BLC's on my Republic Scout, I feel like all of a sudden I'm playing the game on easy-mode. Instead of having to line up a steady stream of quads/pods on someone (being careful not to wander too far off center because of tracking penalty), I instead just boost up to them, pplbttt--pplbttt--pplbttt and they're dead.

Meanwhile droves of new pilots try out GSF and then quit because they can't figure out why in the world their lasers don't seem to hit things, even when they are shooting at something within their firing arc. None of them know about Tracking Penalty, and if you tried to explain it to them, most of them would say, "Forget this."

As for LLC's, they are not a sensible weapon choice for anything but a Blackbolt, and even then I'd recommend a MLC/Pods build over LLC's. The short range + tracking penalty is just too restrictive for the weapon to feel good.

Personally, I think you could do away with the tracking penalty mechanic completely. If you want a weapon to only be viable in a narrow arc, then make its firing arc narrow. I understand tracking penalty is there to make accuracy-boosting more strategically interesting, but I feel like the price you pay (missing all the time when you feel like you shouldn't) is too high, especially when it comes to first impressions of inexperienced players.

And getting back to my specific request, I still feel like you could equalize the tracking penalty of BLC's, LLC's and Rapids without impugning the "theme" of BLC-as-shotgun. The BLC's rate of fire is so outlandishly low, compared to LLC or Rapid, that of course it feels very distinct. And it has natural crit. And it has a huge damage/range slope. And it has shield or armor piercing. Does it really need the exclusively best tracking penalty in the game for you to agree that it feels "shotgunny" enough? It could still have the widest firing arc--just nerf Rapids arc a bit as you decrease their tracking penalty and boom--BLC's are king of wide-angle shooting. But meanwhile Rapids and LLC's can actually make full use of the arcs that they do have--which they cannot right now, especially LLC's.

Wouldn't you like a wider variety of builds and choices? Wouldn't you like to have to think, even if for the briefest moment, about taking LLC's instead of BLC's on your Mangler or Sting? Wouldn't you like for Quells and Imperiums and Blackbolts and Bloodmarks and Bombers to actually have a viable short-range weapon that could compete with BLC's?

Or, if you are so dead-set against equalizing tracking penalty for the three short ranges weapons, how would you instead propose we fix them? Stuff is broken right now. If you don't like my suggestions, then fine. But saying, "No, BLC's need to have exclusively lowest tracking penalty because shotguns!" is a very limited outlook in my opinion. And personally I'm surprised that you of all people would prioritize maintaining flawed thematic/tropish decisions made months ago over correcting gross component balance and accessibility issues in the present. I've always thought you were more of a realist than that.

BLC tracking penalties are there for the players that need gear based crutches to be competitive in a dogfight.

Get an a strike, learn to fly, and you won't find that there's anything that bad about LLCs' firing arc. If you need practice gear up a Pike or Quell with proton torpedoes, concussion missiles, and heavy lasers and then start dueling Flashfires/Stings around bomber free satellites in domination games (you may have to server hop a bit to find bomber free satellites). When you can consistently land HLC shots at 1.5 km shooting from a strike with speed thrusters, then switch to anything with light lasers and it'll feel like using a grenade instead of a gun.

As far as the worthwhile blasters go LLCs are pretty good in the firing arc department. BLCs are the anomalous ones. They share the same design flaw that has plagued type 2 scouts and type 1 gunships since launch, they have attribute selections that have a bit too much stacking of advantages and not quite enough of paying with tradeoffs.

LLCs are probably fine, BLCs are not quite fine, but since they're designed for ease of use at close range I think mild nerfs to damage or indirect damage nerfs ( armor or shield piercing) would be more called for than an adjustment of tracking penalties.

BLC tracking penalties are there for the players that need gear based crutches to be competitive in a dogfight.

 

Get an a strike, learn to fly, and you won't find that there's anything that bad about LLCs' firing arc. If you need practice gear up a Pike or Quell with proton torpedoes, concussion missiles, and heavy lasers and then start dueling Flashfires/Stings around bomber free satellites in domination games (you may have to server hop a bit to find bomber free satellites). When you can consistently land HLC shots at 1.5 km shooting from a strike with speed thrusters, then switch to anything with light lasers and it'll feel like using a grenade instead of a gun.

 

As far as the worthwhile blasters go LLCs are pretty good in the firing arc department. BLCs are the anomalous ones. They share the same design flaw that has plagued type 2 scouts and type 1 gunships since launch, they have attribute selections that have a bit too much stacking of advantages and not quite enough of paying with tradeoffs.

 

LLCs are probably fine, BLCs are not quite fine, but since they're designed for ease of use at close range I think mild nerfs to damage or indirect damage nerfs ( armor or shield piercing) would be more called for than an adjustment of tracking penalties.

Actually if they really want to stick with the "shotgun' theme they just need to drop its max range from 4k to 3k and the damage and accuracy it has at 4k it would now have at 3k scaling the same.... thus at 500 it would act like it does at 1500 or at 2k it would be same as 3k right now.... but honestly I dont know why we talk about what should be... its not going to be.... so there is that.

I think a big reason why shotguns do not work so well in GSF is because it is very difficult to stop someone (especially a Scout) from approaching you.

In Halo, if you are running at me with a shotgun, and I have an assault rifle, I will drop you well before you get into range, no matter how well you juke and jump. Additionally, as you're running toward me, I can backpeddle to give myself more time--something you can't do in GSF. Plus in most game types the shotgun is a power weapon that spawns on the map--which means not everyone can have one at once.

In Call of Duty or Titanfall, most weapons kill in one or two hits, meaning running around with a shotgun is really only useful in close quarters combat. Using one in open space is suicide.

In those two games, shotguns are well-balanced.

Compare this with Gears of War, where everyone starts with an assault rifle and a shotgun. In Gears of War single player game, it's all about using mid- and long-range weapons from cover, with shotguns being reserved for hordes of small and fast melee enemies. But in multiplayer, it's all about shotgun-rolling. By rolling continuously, you close distances far too fast for mid- and long-range weapons to get a sustained bead on you. You roll right up to someone's face and shotgun them once or twice to kill them. Eventually everyone is shottie-rollin'. That's not to say that type of gameplay doesn't involve a skillset of its own ... but it completely invalidates the core of the rest of the game, and it makes many other weapons irrelevant.

BLC's have the same impact in GSF, I feel. In GSF, a Scout can easily and rapidly close the distance from 7000m to < 3000m. As long as they don't fly precisely head-on in a joust, they'll be very hard to hit--certainly almost impossible to kill outright--before they get into short-range combat. And that's just with mildly evasive flying--to say nothing of Distortion Field. Once they close to short range, their BLC will own any other weapon, and no matter what the non-Scout does, they won't be able to put distance between themselves and the BLC's.

In BLC's were only found on Type 1 Gunships, this wouldn't be an issue, since the Gunship would have a hard time keeping close to a target that doesn't want to be close to it. For a Gunship, they are a primarily defensive weapon.

BLC's have the same impact in GSF, I feel. In GSF, a Scout can easily and rapidly close the distance from 7000m to < 3000m. As long as they don't fly precisely head-on in a joust, they'll be very hard to hit--certainly almost impossible to kill outright--before they get into short-range combat. And that's just with mildly evasive flying--to say nothing of Distortion Field. Once they close to short range, their BLC will own any other weapon, and no matter what the non-Scout does, they won't be able to put distance between themselves and the BLC's.

 

In BLC's were only found on Type 1 Gunships, this wouldn't be an issue, since the Gunship would have a hard time keeping close to a target that doesn't want to be close to it. For a Gunship, they are a primarily defensive weapon.

Even in a head on joust a scout can rapidly close the distance on a striker and evasion can help mitigate the range advantage a striker's lasers briefly have. That's one of the contributing factors I think to BLCs on scouts - they have evasion that reduces the probability of getting gunned down before they close the gap.

In that regard I can see an argument being made for eliminating tracking penalties. For sustained DPS weapons (namely everything other than BLCs) it would improve their ability to gun down a scout before they can close to BLC range which would create shotgun balance you find in Halo or COD.

From what I understand, Jimmy McMillan agrees with you.

I have no opinion because when I fly anymore, it's usually heavy ion cannon with a side of HLC. -bp

Additionally, as you're running toward me, I can backpeddle to give myself more time--something you can't do in GSF.

Retros.

I've been making a real college try of using Light Laser Cannons. After all, at short and middle range (< 3000m), they deal some serious burst damage ... assuming you can land two or three consecutive shots. And you'd think, given what ships they are available on, that they should be at least somewhat competitive with Burst Laser Cannons.

They actually don't so much deal burst damage as sustained damage. LLCs are the highest dps cannon in the game.

The thing is ... they are simply too hard to hit with in short range combat, where it is very hard to keep an opponent near-center for any length of time (even with a Bloodmark using Tensor Field).

I'm not really sure. While I do share your difficulty, especially compared to BLC, I think it's one of those things that rewards very good aim a whole lot.

Even fully upgraded, LLC's still suffer an oppressive tracking penalty of -1% per degree. Compare this to Rapids (which get -0.8%/degree) and Burst (which get a ridiculous -0.5%/degree).

Rapids are worse than Lights, period. You can see my thread here:

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=723029

The thing is, Lights are more dps- and normally more accurate- than rapids, because rapids have such a poor accuracy. But the terrible dps means that there's never any situation you would want light over rapids. The tracking penalty is therefore meaningless. Stop analyzing components piecemeal! Sometimes it is not appropriate!

I really don't see why the tracking penalty of any of these weapons needs to be different. They are all limited to the same base range (4000m), which means they should all be equally difficult to line up a centered target.

Ignoring the worthless rapids, I'll give you a good reason:

Lights have the highest dps, so the tracking penalty is part of that disadvantage.

For LLC's to ever be competitive with BLC's,

Do we need to make MORE things into BLCs?

 

Do we need to make MORE things into BLCs?

Lowering the tracking penalty of LLC's hardly makes them BLC's. There's still that pesky rate of fire thing, the smaller firing arc, the lack of crit, the lack of shield/armor piercing.

And honestly, even if LLC's were more like BLC's, at least a much wider variety of ships would have them, and undersat fighting could involve all classes, not just BLC Scouts and Bombers.