Ppc Speed
#1
Posted 08 August 2014 - 09:33 AM
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
Posted 08 August 2014 - 09:42 AM
yea even at like 700m, even a slowish (say 60-70) mech can back away from a PPC round.
#3
Posted 08 August 2014 - 11:29 AM
Bigbacon, on 08 August 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:
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
Posted 08 August 2014 - 11:51 AM
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
Posted 08 August 2014 - 11:51 AM
Quote
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
Posted 08 August 2014 - 12:23 PM
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 .
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
Posted 08 August 2014 - 12:32 PM
Ted The Prussian Striker, on 08 August 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:
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
Posted 08 August 2014 - 12:33 PM
Ted The Prussian Striker, on 08 August 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:
#9
Posted 08 August 2014 - 01:01 PM
GargoyleKDR, 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
Posted 08 August 2014 - 02:03 PM
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
Posted 08 August 2014 - 02:22 PM
#12
Posted 08 August 2014 - 02:24 PM
#13
Posted 08 August 2014 - 02:27 PM
#14
Posted 08 August 2014 - 06:49 PM
#15
Posted 08 August 2014 - 07:49 PM
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
Posted 08 August 2014 - 08:08 PM
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
Posted 08 August 2014 - 09:20 PM
Seriously, stop over reacting over every change that PGI does that makes you play a little differently.
#18
Posted 08 August 2014 - 11:45 PM
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
Posted 08 August 2014 - 11:49 PM
#20
Posted 08 August 2014 - 11:58 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users