Jump to content

Ppc Speed


122 replies to this topic

#1 Bigbacon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,088 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 09:33 AM

least in the testing grounds...

I would say it needs to be faster...no way you are hitting a moving target, especially something fast, at long range with that speed. It is REALLY slow...

#2 Bigbacon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,088 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 09:42 AM

finally got into a match...

yea even at like 700m, even a slowish (say 60-70) mech can back away from a PPC round.

#3 Ironwithin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 2,613 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 08 August 2014 - 11:29 AM

View PostBigbacon, on 08 August 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:

least in the testing grounds...

I would say it needs to be faster...no way you are hitting a moving target, especially something fast, at long range with that speed. It is REALLY slow...


If you read the latest command chair post you'll see that that is EXACTLY the reason why they made that change.

#4 Temptis

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 68 posts
  • LocationLuthien

Posted 08 August 2014 - 11:51 AM

Pepps are fine.
at least as fine as they can be in an environment where a company thinks it knows better than 30 years CBT balancing.
they broke it, now they struggle to fix it without realising what their problem is.

#5 GargoyleKDR

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 404 posts
  • LocationBlaine, WA

Posted 08 August 2014 - 11:51 AM

Quote

PPC as it has been out of alignment in terms of what we wanted its role to be in the game. Yes it is meant to be a mid to long range weapon but right now it's a long long range weapon. We still want the weapon to be accurate but we also want to pull in its effective distance. By effective distance we mean full damage range. We could pull in the actual max range value but that would no longer allow the PPC to reach out to 540m at full damage levels.


The game's design of Max Range = (Range x 2) * (Linear Dropoff of Damage) is what makes the weapon work as a long long range weapon instead of a medium to long range one. It seems to me that re-engineering the doubled range value is a better answer than slowing the projectile speed. If an IS PPC did full damage out to 540 meters and then had an independent variable Max Range value (let's say a value equal to one quarter of the of the overall range on this weapon) you could make the thing perform in line with the goal.

Example:
IS PPC: Speed 1500, Range = 540m, Max Range = 540m + 135m (a variable set at 1/4 of Range for this wpn), Damage = 10 (up to Range) then drops to Zero by the Max Range distance.

In this example you now have a weapon that can only reach out to 675m yet is accurate and has an effective distance without a reduction of its full damage at the desired distance.

The projectile slow down is a band-aid, and doesn't efficiently or effectively achieve your goal of making it accurate while pulling in its range because you still have the double range elephant sitting on your chest. Decoupling the Max Range = Range x 2 does a better job at reaching your goal.

- Garg.

Edited by GargoyleKDR, 08 August 2014 - 12:15 PM.


#6 Ted The Prussian Striker

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 40 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 12:23 PM

Guys, you probably don't take into account, how PGI programmed this game. Setting a new speed limit is changing one value in the code base. Any other change would involve more programming work. Which basically costs money.

I'll bet they had a meeting where someone turned up that point and the decided to go down the easy road. Maybe the guy who originally coded the linear decrease in damage already left the company and noone knows how to change that code anymore. Happens a lot in so called "industrial" code bases, which often turn out to be a pile of taped junk.

To me this is really more a hint about the code quality of this game then anything else. It is not about the devs not understanding battletech or better solutions (homeless bill's idea), but about the complexity of an existing code base. In fact, I assume that was the reason for ghost heat: Someone saw an easy-to-implement patch.

Never assume evil-doing where incompetence also fits as an explanation :D.

Oh and btw: another strong indicator for my theory is that we never, ever see multiple solution attempts tested out against each other. Why not code up a power-limit and test it on a public test? Because they cannot afford to implement it!

Edited by Ted The Prussian Striker, 08 August 2014 - 12:26 PM.


#7 GargoyleKDR

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 404 posts
  • LocationBlaine, WA

Posted 08 August 2014 - 12:32 PM

View PostTed The Prussian Striker, on 08 August 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

Setting a new speed limit is changing one value in the code base. Any other change would involve more programming work. Which basically costs money.

I'll bet they had a meeting where someone turned up that point and the decided to go down the easy road.

I understand the cost/benefit/risk equation of their choice. However, the cheaper solution they chose isn't necessarily the best solution for what their stated goal is. It was, at best, a compromise that probably has the least impact to their CW delivery schedule.

#8 Temptis

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 68 posts
  • LocationLuthien

Posted 08 August 2014 - 12:33 PM

View PostTed The Prussian Striker, on 08 August 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

Never assume evil-doing where incompetence also fits as an explanation
</p>thinking you know better is not evil doing. it's arrogance.and yes i do think there is no-one left at PGI in a position that matters that understands CBT

#9 warner2

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,101 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 01:01 PM

View PostGargoyleKDR, on 08 August 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:


The game's design of Max Range = (Range x 2) * (Linear Dropoff of Damage) is what makes the weapon work as a long long range weapon instead of a medium to long range one. It seems to me that re-engineering the doubled range value is a better answer than slowing the projectile speed. If an IS PPC did full damage out to 540 meters and then had an independent variable Max Range value (let's say a value equal to one quarter of the of the overall range on this weapon) you could make the thing perform in line with the goal.

Example:
IS PPC: Speed 1500, Range = 540m, Max Range = 540m + 135m (a variable set at 1/4 of Range for this wpn), Damage = 10 (up to Range) then drops to Zero by the Max Range distance.

In this example you now have a weapon that can only reach out to 675m yet is accurate and has an effective distance without a reduction of its full damage at the desired distance.

The projectile slow down is a band-aid, and doesn't efficiently or effectively achieve your goal of making it accurate while pulling in its range because you still have the double range elephant sitting on your chest. Decoupling the Max Range = Range x 2 does a better job at reaching your goal.

- Garg.

Wow. This seems sensible. Effective within it's range but not beyond it. Seems like a good idea to me.

P.S. PGI I hate slow projectiles. They are so boringly not fun. Tanks don't fire slow moving projectiles out of their cannons that other tanks can dodge. It's a lazy way of balancing. I was going to play some games tonight but got presented with this slow PPC nonsense so I'm out of here.

P.P.S. PGI please read this quoted post it sounds like rather a good idea.

Edited by warner2, 08 August 2014 - 01:01 PM.


#10 Lightfoot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,610 posts
  • LocationOlympus Mons

Posted 08 August 2014 - 02:03 PM

PPC is too slow to use at 400 meters on a Medium mech. That's pretty bad for a lightning bolt weapon. Anyway it's over slow for a 4 second recharge weapon. Any ballistic is much more powerful and they don't heat up. I feel like I am playing 'Fluffy Mech Game' now.

I mean one hand says Clan mechs too powerful, the other says Inner Sphere PPCs too powerful? Isn't that almost an oxymoron?

Not intending to be rude, but I see weapons (various) that are reasonably okay being heavily nerfed. It makes gameplay very one dimensional and blocks player initiative.

Edited by Lightfoot, 08 August 2014 - 02:35 PM.


#11 FireDog

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Defiant
  • The Defiant
  • 377 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 02:22 PM

Another nerf of Fun.... PPCs way too slow. PGI is killing this game nerf by nerf by nerf....

#12 GunnyKintaro 01

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,072 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 02:24 PM

Here is a fun test take a Death knell and have it race your ppc .... lol

#13 GunnyKintaro 01

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,072 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 02:27 PM

it's sad really ... time to look for a new mech game i think

#14 spectralthundr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 704 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 06:49 PM

Terrible change, now the game has devolved into the next iteration of LRMAGGEDON. Not fun at all.

#15 Lightfoot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,610 posts
  • LocationOlympus Mons

Posted 08 August 2014 - 07:49 PM

Just too slow. You see it when you try to aim PPCs at a moving mech and it looks very fake. It breaks the game's realism. Plus players are saying they can fire most large AC's with it now and everything hits at about the same time. So you gave it Convergence with rapid-reload AC10's. That's a big PPC buff. Very big because they will all hit at once no matter what the player does.

I think the old PPC was fine, maybe a little slower if you want, but it was locked down by Heat Scale and overheat already. Players will always complain when their mech gets destroyed, that doesn't mean it's always bad though.

Again, after playing MW2-MW4 online for many years I feel MWO's mechs are just a bit too weak and it's not from the weapon damage being over-powered. I think the weapon convergence deflection I get from moving laterally in MWO is better than MechWarrior's previous games. The mechs are just a bit too weak.

Edited by Lightfoot, 08 August 2014 - 07:53 PM.


#16 Cyborne Elemental

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,943 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 08 August 2014 - 08:08 PM

1250 would have been sufficient, 850/950 is near useless for its intended role as a snipe weapon under its current mechanics.

Especially for regular PPC's.

Syncing up with the AC-10 isn't a buff, ERPPC + AC-10 gets real hot, real fast, that and engagement range for AC-10 still has to deal with the ballistic drop.

Edited by Mister D, 08 August 2014 - 08:52 PM.


#17 Impyrium

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 2,104 posts
  • LocationSouth Australia

Posted 08 August 2014 - 09:20 PM

Wow, you lot must be really terrible, because I can still use PPCs perfectly fine. And I run an Awesome.

Seriously, stop over reacting over every change that PGI does that makes you play a little differently.

#18 Jabilo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,047 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 11:45 PM

ERPPCs too slow.

ER stands for Extended Range. These weapons pay the price for their long range effectiveness with their very high heat and now they are unable to perform this function.

If you are set on the velocity change then reduce heat per shot.

#19 DeathlyEyes

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Messenger
  • 940 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationMetaphorical Island somewhere in the Pacific

Posted 08 August 2014 - 11:49 PM

All they needed to do is increase it's recycle time to 6 seconds. That would make it vulnerable in a close range fight and balance it. The current way it's implemented is it is not nearly as useful in long range engagements as it should be and still really useful as a mid to close range weapon.

#20 Modo44

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 3,559 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 11:58 PM

There was no reason to nerf the IS PPC further beyong both ERPPCs. Its use at long ranges was limited already, and it is not like the "fast" ERPPCs are easy to aim @1km. But hey, at least it takes care of the one remaining IS advantage over Clans.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users