[ModPack] dZ_Consolidated_Company_Commander

[me987654]

The gap does more than close. LRM10 and 20 are at 4.29 damage/ton and AC2 and 5 are at 3.46 and 3.65 and LL and PPC are at 3.24 and 3.46. That's a 15-30% damage increase. It is also a common misconception to assume that the missiles won't all hit but the other weapons will. At a 75% hit rate, 4 AC5's (or LL, or whatever) will hit 3 times (3/4) and 4 LRM10s will hit 30 times (30/40). The damage and stability damage does not vary because missiles fire more often.

If you aim to make ACs stability king they simply are not, especially at range. Per ton, an LRM will do nearly double the stability damage (even including misses) than an equivalent mass of ACs will (with heat and ammo considered). If ACs are stability kings, than LRMs are stability gods.

And then to top it off, ACs get refire penalties, whereas LRMs have indirect fire capabilities. LRMs have 15-30% more damage, 80% or more stability damage, no refire penalty, and indirect fire capabilities. Why would you use anything but? The only reasons I've seen are poor minimum range and "sandpapering" which really affects all weapons at range anyway. And poor minimum range really doesn't compensate for all those benefits.

And by the way, the movement-based pip numbers seems spot on. Well done. I thought it seemed like a concern with ace pilot spiders running around with 6 pips, but to be honest, spiders aren't very good anyway, so at least this would give them something.

I think you are underestimating the impact of sandpapering (esp once you start reducing armor some).... but it's certainly possible we need to nerf clustering even further.

Note that we played with stability for LRMs reduced to 1 per missile for quite some time and that made them basically useless for stability damage.

We could look at reducing the heat on ACs if people think they are underperforming.... I'm not opposed to that.


I will say that precision shot works WAY better with ACs and large energy weapons (even our nerfed version of precision shot).... same thing for called shots after a knock down

 

[me987654]

For clarity, that comment is regarding the modified values, not the vanilla, right?

Correct - Vanilla LRMs receive absurdly OP bonuses for the +/++/+++ versions

 

[me987654]

@don Zappo

I've been pretty busy with work/kids/vacation/etc and haven't had a chance to look at this stuff or play much the last few weeks. I would like to get an update out (increase ML heat to 12 and a few other tweaks)..... question - I noticed Amechwarrior released a new AI mod.... You think I could basically drop that in my mod?

 

[Max_Killjoy]

Correct - Vanilla LRMs receive absurdly OP bonuses for the +/++/+++ versions

I think we discussed this before, and I suggested limiting bonus damage and instability on the +/++/+++ to +1 each, because the things like +4 damage / +2 instability SRM+++ are just nuts.

 

[Forefall]

I think you are missing the fact that punching through armor is much easier with large single location damage weapons - particularly if you use positioning to get yourself a side shot (where you basically will almost always hit a leg or an arm).

While I agree the minimum range does not synergize with close range weapons, I build my long range mechs purely for long range (maybe excepting some support weapons). The +/++/+++ changes are a nice start, but look at the results. None of the + variants on other long range weapons have more damage or stability damage than even the base LRM. So it stops LRMs from being even more overpowered, but doesn't change the fact that their base variant is still overpowered.

As to damage penetration, I think if you actually test them side by side you might see that the LRM does a BETTER job (talking about at long range). The reason is all ranged weapons (maybe not gauss) do 55 damage or less, so will need multiple shots to start penetrating. Once you're firing multiple shots, you're going to be sandpapering. If you are firing at the right side and you can really only hit R leg, R arm with a smaller chance for R torso and CT, you're going to hit all those locations. Whether it's 20 shots with an AC2, 10 shots with AC5/LL/PPC, or 200 shots with an LRM, all long range weapons will be spread over those areas. The fact that the LRM deals more damage and more stability just means it will do it faster and be more likely to knock them down.

I think there is a natural bias present when using PPC or an AC and seeing it hit and penetrate the area you want versus waching the LRMs pepper at a mec. It seems like there is better and more focused damage but we ignore the misses or shots to untargeted areas. After multiple shots, the enemy is simply worse off after being hit by LRMs because the sandpapering happens to all mecs. With called shots this can be slightly worse, but it's not even that bad. And if you need multiple shots (which almost all mechs do) then they become relatively equivalent, even with dispersed clustering.

I think dropping stability would be nice, so at least I can use LRM for best damage but don't get to knock down the enemies so easily.

 

[me987654]

While I agree the minimum range does not synergize with close range weapons, I build my long range mechs purely for long range (maybe excepting some support weapons). The +/++/+++ changes are a nice start, but look at the results. None of the + variants have more damage or stability damage than even the base LRM. So it stops LRMs from being even more overpowered, but doesn't change the fact that their base variant is still overpowered.

As to damage penetration, I think if you actually test them side by side you might see that the LRM does a BETTER job (talking about at long range). The reason is all ranged weapons (maybe not gauss) do 55 damage or less, so will need multiple shots to start penetrating. Once you're firing multiple shots, you're going to be sandpapering. If you are firing at the right side and you can really only hit R leg, R arm with a smaller chance for R torso and CT, you're going to hit all those locations. Whether it's 20 shots with an AC2, 10 shots with AC5/LL/PPC, or 200 shots with an LRM, all long range weapons will be spread over those areas. The fact that the LRM deals more damage and more stability just means it will do it faster and be more likely to knock them down.

I think there is a natural bias present when using PPC or an AC and seeing it hit and penetrate the area you want versus waching the LRMs pepper at a mec. It seems like there is better and more focused damage but we ignore the misses or shots to untargeted areas. After multiple shots, the enemy is simply worse off after being hit by LRMs because the sandpapering happens to all mecs. With called shots this can be slightly worse, but it's not even that bad. And if you need multiple shots (which almost all mechs do) then they become relatively equivalent, even with dispersed clustering.

I think dropping stability would be nice, so at least I can use LRM for best damage but don't get to knock down the enemies so easily.

I suppose a lot of this depends on what you are shooting at and how heavily armored it is.

Honestly if I had a heavy or assault I'd want both LRMs and direct damage weapons.

It's certainly possible you are right - I never use more than one LRM boat mech.... maybe if I used 3 or 4 I'd be wiping out everything in OP fashion.


I will say that LRMs need to do more damage since they rarely all ever hit....... but maybe we should make them 1 stability damage. If they are really that good at regular damage cutting their stab damage in half would certainly make ACs pretty attractive.

 

[don Zappo]

@don Zappo

I've been pretty busy with work/kids/vacation/etc and haven't had a chance to look at this stuff or play much the last few weeks. I would like to get an update out (increase ML heat to 12 and a few other tweaks)..... question - I noticed Amechwarrior released a new AI mod.... You think I could basically drop that in my mod?

Yes. Since you use permanent evasion as well, you should grab his permenent evasion fork. For my mod pack I also changed the single conservative shot value from 40% to 20%. That's my only change and it works very well. If you want to be very lazy, just download my mod pack and grab the files in Better AI to use. Those are exactly what you need.

 

[me987654]

Yes. Since you use permanent evasion as well, you should grab his permenent evasion fork. For my mod pack I also changed the single conservative shot value from 40% to 20%. That's my only change and it works very well. If you want to be very lazy, just download my mod pack and grab the files in Better AI to use. Those are exactly what you need.

Thanks! I may go over to using your permanent evasion system once I take a closer look at it (I use 3 a flat value of 3 pips and ONLY for ACE Pilots).

 

[RyuKazuha]

I can see where Forefall is coming from. Quickly doing some math:

30 rounds of shooting for an heat neutral AC2 get you 3dmg/t +1Stb/t
30 rounds of shooting for an heat neutral AC5 get you 3.21dmg/t +1.07Stb/t
30 rounds of shooting for an heat neutral LRM5 get you 4dmg/t +2Stb/t
30 rounds of shooting for an heat neutral LRM20 get you 3.63dmg/t +1.88Stb/t.

The LRM is king of it's range bracket no questions asked. Wether that's a problem is another question.

 

[don Zappo]

I think you are underestimating the impact of sandpapering (esp once you start reducing armor some).... but it's certainly possible we need to nerf clustering even further.

Note that we played with stability for LRMs reduced to 1 per missile for quite some time and that made them basically useless for stability damage.

We could look at reducing the heat on ACs if people think they are underperforming.... I'm not opposed to that.


I will say that precision shot works WAY better with ACs and large energy weapons (even our nerfed version of precision shot).... same thing for called shots after a knock down

ZOMG, reducing the clustering even further? How about 4/3/2 and finally let me live one of my dreams? If you did that and made AC/2 have+5 ammo per ton and AC/20 have +1 you'd make my brain explode with joy.

I suppose a lot of this depends on what you are shooting at and how heavily armored it is.

Honestly if I had a heavy or assault I'd want both LRMs and direct damage weapons.

It's certainly possible you are right - I never use more than one LRM boat mech.... maybe if I used 3 or 4 I'd be wiping out everything in OP fashion.


I will say that LRMs need to do more damage since they rarely all ever hit....... but maybe we should make them 1 stability damage. If they are really that good at regular damage cutting their stab damage in half would certainly make ACs pretty attractive.

I really like the idea of MLas at +2 heat and scaling back AC heat just like they did in the patch. Well, maybe not exactly their values - this is what you have your spreadsheets for to find the right balance.

I can say that LRMs are quite effective at knockdown. But so is melee and ACs. I think LRMs are more effective, especially for guaranteeing that last bit of instability since some of them will hit. I a free with scaling back their instability again. At the very least this would address one of the most vocal complaints about your balance changes. Then, you could bake in some instability into plusses if you really wanted to... I don't know if SRMs should get a similar nerf as, honestly, I rarely use them. It is more about the mechs I've looked than a hatred of those weapons.

This balance discussion is white nice and quite valuable! We've been looking for some high quality feedback on the state of missiles.

 

[Forefall]

Just to expand on called shots.

Let's take 4 Large Lasers with heat dissipation and compare it to 4 LRM15s with heat dissipation and ammo. A called shot to say a left leg which depending on your skill puts the left leg to a 50% hit rate. The left leg has already been injured and has 10 armor remaining and 90 life. Let's also assume a 50% chance to hit of all weapons (it may normally be higher, but this will make calculations easier and not vary the outcome).

LL: The first round the LL mech fires a called shot and 2 of the 4 shots hit (50% chance) and then 1 shot hits the left leg and another a random other part. This amounts in the left leg taking 45 damage and being reduced to 0 armor with 55 life. 2 more rounds and the leg will be destroyed (with +20 overdamage directed to CT) and there were 3 shots that hit other components. In 3 rounds of called shots the leg was destroyed with 155 damage to other components (sandpaper effect).

LRM: The first round the LRM mech fires a called shot and half of those called shots will hit the leg while the others other areas. Of those that hit the leg, only half hit due to accuracy, and then another half hit another location due to clustering (approximate). Additionally, the other half of the salvo will hit other body parts, again with half missing, and half of the hitting missiles targetting other components (including the leg). Assuming clutering allows 50% of shots to follow the original, an average salvo, 30 will aim for the leg with 7.5 hitting it (30 damage) and 7.5 hitting other components (30 damage) and then 7.5 hitting a non-leg component (30 damage) and 7.5 due to clustering hitting random components (25 damage and 5 to leg). This results in 35 leg damage reducing the armor to 0 and the life to 65. 2 more rounds and the leg will be destroyed. In 3 rounds of called shots the leg was destroyed with 255 damage to other components (sandpaper effect).

So while the LL build would do more focused damage due to clustering (approximately 45 vs 35) it's not as different as you might think. But the LRM ends up doing 33% more total damage. This is assuming 50% clustering and I think it actually might still be higher but I'm not sure. Regardless, it's hard to justify 25% more focused damage for 33% less overall damage on called shots. And this is with called shots at 50%. Most shots in battle aren't called shots and the focused damage becomes negligible at normal hit rates under 30%, so just end up with less damage for no appreciable benefits.

And then add on the BEST stability damage and the ability to indirect fire to LRMs. And ACs have it even worse with refire penalties. So unless you have a tactics focused "only called shot" firing mech or a mech who wants to fire their long-range weapon at closer ranges, LRMs would seem be the superior option in every long range case.

 

[Forefall]

Just saw donZappo's response and got to say I LOVE the idea of making LRM's cluster 4/3/2 or even less. See, people say they sandpaper but they really don't that much (example above). If we truly made them cluster randomly they would sandpaper more and there would be a reason to take other weapons. LRMs would still do the most damage, most stability damage, and be able to indirect fire, but they wouldn't be useful for called shots. So at least there would be some substantial reason not to use them compared to other weapons.

I'd actually prefer to see their damage reduced as well, but that's my personal preference.

 

[me987654]

ZOMG, reducing the clustering even further? How about 4/3/2 and finally let me live one of my dreams? If you did that and made AC/2 have+5 ammo per ton and AC/20 have +1 you'd make my brain explode with joy.

I really like the idea of MLas at +2 heat and scaling back AC heat just like they did in the patch. Well, maybe not exactly their values - this is what you have your spreadsheets for to find the right balance.

I can say that LRMs are quite effective at knockdown. But so is melee and ACs. I think LRMs are more effective, especially for guaranteeing that last bit of instability since some of them will hit. I a free with scaling back their instability again. At the very least this would address one of the most vocal complaints about your balance changes. Then, you could bake in some instability into plusses if you really wanted to... I don't know if SRMs should get a similar nerf as, honestly, I rarely use them. It is more about the mechs I've looked than a hatred of those weapons.

This balance discussion is white nice and quite valuable! We've been looking for some high quality feedback on the state of missiles.

I'm not opposed to changing the Ammo values either.... (esp the AC/2...and really the AC/20 is not big deal either... .you still need 2 tons).... in fact I'll likely do that.

Changing AC/10 from 8 to 10 would likely make it a lot more powerful.....to the point where we'd have to nerf damage.

We can try LRMs back down to 1 stability damage.... if there's a consensus that LRMs are too good I'm not opposed to it.

We can change to your 4/3/2 clustering values... but I'm not convinced that's going to have a very significant result. The first number is the one that really matters..... in fact if we really wanted to nerf it more we'd probably be better off with 3/3/2 or 3/2/1 or something (or even something like 2/2/1... heck maybe we should just do that)


What would you guys like to try?

I'm ok with doing:

MLs to 12 heat
AC/2 +5 ammo per ton
AC/20 +1 ammo per ton
Minor adjustments to AC heat (I'll have to play with the numbers... but probably something similar to stock).
Some minor lostech heat buffs

Questions:

It seems people think we need to nerf LRMs more (which is funny, we already have nerfed them a lot compared to vanilla - when I was listed nerfs above I forgot to mention that LRM15 and 20 heat is higher also!).... what's the best approach (we should pick one of the two below to start with)?
- Nerf clustering further? (I'd honestly suggest 2/2/1 or something if we do this.... that cuts the chance of hitting the same location in half)
- Reduce stability damage by 1? (this would cut stability damage in half)

Small Laser - is everyone ok with the current heat value of 4 or should we put it back up to 5 (the vanilla value)?

AC/10 - do people like it as is? It's currently balanced around having to carry 2 tons of Ammo.
- We could make the ammo 10 shots per ton... if we leave damage as is it's a pretty decent buff (but still well below AC/20 dmg/ton and stab/ton).... I'm considering upping it to 10 shots per ton since it is a heavy weapon which costs a lot to carry.... going from the same efficiency as the AC/5 to something between the AC/5 and AC/20 probably isn't going to be some crazy huge change.

LL/PPC - are people good with the current balance? Even though it does more damage our LL is not as good as the stock LL after the huge changes for it in 1.1. I'm hesitant to buff the LL much further as we don't want to make it straight up better than the AC/5 like it now is in stock (unless you really care about the increased AC/5 range)

Would love some feedback.

 

[Max_Killjoy]

I changed the AC10 to 10, the AC5 to 20, and the AC2 to 45 (to match CBT/TT values) and it felt more like removing a nuisance than increasing their power. The AC10 still needs 2 tons of ammo to avoid a high risk of going "bingo" in most battles. The AC2 now gets to feed multiple weapons from one bin.

The AC20 already matched the CBT/TT value of 5, and I saw no reason to increase it.

Spoiler: OT aside about AC20

But I've never been a fan of any weapon doing more than 15 (ie, 75 in this game) damage to a single location in a single shot.

 

[Forefall]

I don't personally like nerfing stability because I think that's a cool role that LRM's play. me987654, aren't the values for clustering relative? Like 6/4/2 is identical to 3/2/1. If so, I'd suggest making it even across the board at 1/1/1 or 2/2/2 or whatever. That way 1/3 hit the target, 1/3 around, and another 1/3 at distant sites. Another neat little nerf you could do that I've seen and really liked, was an accuracy penalty to LRMs and possibly SRMs too. Say just 1 or 2. It just tones down their damage slightly.

i definitely think SL could use more heat as it's an amazing weapon and almost always my go to for the support slot. Could also consider boosting flamer as this is a campaign only mod and flamer utterly sucks right now.

I find the ACs are not balanced around the fact that they also have a refire penalty, so any buff to them would be better. Personally, I'd like to see their damage tweeked up a bit across the board.

For LL and PPC they have the advantage that they have unlimited ammo and can fire even without heat dissipation (so a one shot alpha striker). Those aren't big advantages, but they also don't have a refire penalty. On the other hand, they don't do stability damage. Overall, I think lasers should receive a similar buff to ACs. Instead of nerfing heat, you could make them more accurate as that would allow them to play a more varied role. AC's would hit harder with stability damage but get a refire penalty, whereas lasers would be better at hitting hard to hit targets. This adds strategy to the tactical layer, using your lasers to focus on small mechs and your autocannons on heavier ones.

 

[don Zappo]

What would you guys like to try?

I'm ok with doing:

MLs to 12 heat
AC/2 +5 ammo per ton
AC/20 +1 ammo per ton
Minor adjustments to AC heat (I'll have to play with the numbers... but probably something similar to stock).
Some minor lostech heat buffs

Absolutely. I think these are 100% adds.

It seems people think we need to nerf LRMs more (which is funny, we already have nerfed them a lot compared to vanilla - when I was listed nerfs above I forgot to mention that LRM15 and 20 heat is higher also!).... what's the best approach (we should pick one of the two below to start with)?
- Nerf clustering further? (I'd honestly suggest 2/2/1 or something if we do this.... that cuts the chance of hitting the same location in half)
- Reduce stability damage by 1? (this would cut stability damage in half)

As much as it pains me, if I have to choose one over the other I'd choose the stability nerf. The main complain seems to be the stability damage for LRMs from what I hear, and this will make a lot of people very happy. I personally think they could both be added in, though. Increasing the sandpapering isn't that big of an issue (IMO). If we add them both and find they are too weak now, then you can do another balance pass before you take off again.

Small Laser - is everyone ok with the current heat value of 4 or should we put it back up to 5 (the vanilla value)?

I may be in the minority, but I find the small laser to be an extremely powerful weapon for dealing with lights and mediums since it ignores evasion. I use this almost exclusively over the MGs and Flamers. I would actually advocate for a small nerf to this and returning the heat to 5 seems reasonable, especially since the other super efficient weapon (MLAs) also got a heat nerf. I see they nerfed the SLas all the way up to 6. I'd even support that change if you wanted to do it.

AC/10 - do people like it as is? It's currently balanced around having to carry 2 tons of Ammo.
- We could make the ammo 10 shots per ton... if we leave damage as is it's a pretty decent buff (but still well below AC/20 dmg/ton and stab/ton).... I'm considering upping it to 10 shots per ton since it is a heavy weapon which costs a lot to carry.... going from the same efficiency as the AC/5 to something between the AC/5 and AC/20 probably isn't going to be some crazy huge change.

I have a really hard time deciding to take the AC10 over the AC5 or AC20. It's always in an awkward place for me. A buff to ammo capacity on this does seem like a small bonus and could be added to see if it changes anything significantly. One thing to consider, I guess - are there stock loadouts that only carry a single ton of AC10 ammo? If so, then a buff to AC10 ammo would help the AI as well (which I am in favor of). @Justin Kase - can you chime in on this since you seem to have all loadouts imbedded in your head?

One other note on this - if you did this buff, you would then be increasing the ammo for AC2, AC10, and AC20. You might want to consider an increase to AC5 just to be consistent. Maybe not, though. I haven't looked at the numbers for balance on this, it just seems odd to have one missing.

LL/PPC - are people good with the current balance? Even though it does more damage our LL is not as good as the stock LL after the huge changes for it in 1.1. I'm hesitant to buff the LL much further as we don't want to make it straight up better than the AC/5 like it now is in stock (unless you really care about the increased AC/5 range)

I personally like LLas and PPCs because I like their engagement range. I hadn't really considered their balance numbers, though, as they felt fine so I didn't worry about them. Although, looking at your speadsheet now I can see the nature of your concern. The LLas and AC5 are almost the same weapon! Same damage, almost the same engagement range, and almost identical damage per adjusted ton!

AC5s can shoot longer, while Large Lasers can engage at point blank range. LLas have a bonus to hit, while AC5s do stability damage. I remember this discussion from your early balance passes now that I see it...

Anyways, changing these values without changing the other seems tricky. It seems to me that if you decrease LLas heat, you've really got to bump AC5 stability damage.

Would love some feedback.

After writing all this, I went back and looked at the 1.1 changes. What HBS/Paradox is trying to encourage seems to be a more violent battlefield. Less heat overall so you can fire your toys more often. I think we should get on board with this new design philosophy. I'd seriously consider for the next update having global heat buffs similar to what they did and rebalancing around the specific points.

 

[don Zappo]

I don't personally like nerfing stability because I think that's a cool role that LRM's play. me987654, aren't the values for clustering relative? Like 6/4/2 is identical to 3/2/1. If so, I'd suggest making it even across the board at 1/1/1 or 2/2/2 or whatever. That way 1/3 hit the target, 1/3 around, and another 1/3 at distant sites. Another neat little nerf you could do that I've seen and really liked, was an accuracy penalty to LRMs and possibly SRMs too. Say just 1 or 2. It just tones down their damage slightly.

i definitely think SL could use more heat as it's an amazing weapon. Could also consider boosting flamer as this is a campaign only mod and flamer utterly sucks right now.

I find the ACs are not balanced around the fact that they have a refire penalty, so any buff to them would be better. Personally, I'd like to see their damage tweeked up a bit across the board. And I'd be careful with the AC5, as if it's too comparable to the AC2 there wi

For LL and PPC they have the advantage that they have unlimited ammo and can fire even without heat dissipation (so a one shot alpha striker). Those aren't big advantages, but they also don't have a refire penalty. On the other hand, they don't do stability damage. Overall, I think lasers should receive a similar buff to ACs. I'd like them to see them get a minor reduction in heat.

Well, heck, if you advocate for sandpapering over stability then I change my vote to sandpapering if we only get one of the two options. I don't think true sandpapering is the way to go as it seems reasonable that there should be some sort of clustering if they are fired as a packet. I like the 2/2/1 idea of all the choices.

I had never considered the idea of +1 to-hit penalty for LRMs/SRMs. That would be easy to add, actually, but is it reasonable? Hmmm. What do you think, @me987654 ?

Don't forget that lasers not only *don't* have a refire penalty, but have a global to-hit bonus for being a tracking weapon!

 

[Forefall]

2/2/1 seems very reasonable but they still would be quite formidable. A 1 to-hit penalty would draw them more relative to other weapons, still superior in most aspects, but can't be focused. I think that would be a more reasonable balance.

I recognize that lasers already have a to-hit bonus, but at +1 it does tend to be a minor factor. Moving it up another notch can be a minor buff and help to start distinguishing it from other weapons. The AC could be stronger with stability damage but less accurate. The laser no stability damage (or less w PPC) but can hit evasive targets much better. Creating these niches adds depth to tactical play.

 

[don Zappo]

2/2/1 seems very reasonable but they still would be quite formidable. A 1 to-hit penalty would draw them more relative to other weapons, still superior in most aspects, but can't be focused. I think that would be a more reasonable balance.

I recognize that lasers already have a to-hit bonus, but at +1 it does tend to be a minor factor. Moving it up another notch can be a minor buff and help to start distinguishing it from other weapons. The AC could be stronger with stability damage but less accurate. The laser no stability damage (or less w PPC) but can hit evasive targets much better. Creating these niches adds depth to tactical play.

I was about to suggest that lasers ignore one pip of evasion as well as have a +1 to-hit bonus, but then it occurred to me that that is like giving them +3 to-hit. I don't think we want to do that. By the way, this is what pulse weapons do, though. They ignore 2 pips of evasion. @me987654 has made LosTech Great Again!

I actually am very intrigued by what you have suggested:

+2 to-hit for lasers
+0 to-hit for ACs and PPCs
-1 to-hit for SRMs and LRMs

That does help energy weapons in the land of high evasion while making ACs/PPCs/missiles able to wreck heavies and assaults quite well.

 

[don Zappo]

Oh, I think I'm mistaken. Looking at the spreadsheet it seems that pulses get +1 accuracy, not ignoring of pips. I'd actually somewhat advocate for them to get the same to-hit bonus as lasers but to ignore one pip on top of it...