11 replies to this topic

[Shroomicide]

It has occurred to me that ER PPC cannons have no minimum range, while PPC cannons do. Since these are the same projectiles, one with a higher energy output (and thus more heat), I do not understand why one has a minimum range and the other does not.
Furthermore, it is an energy projectile and not ballistic or missile, meaning that all energy and speed it has when exiting the chamber is the most it will ever have. A minimum range does not make sense to me based on the physics surrounding the weapon.

Thank you dearest Devs, Shroomicide. Keep up the great work!

[Greg Djekow]

Battle Tech isn't always about Physics. However I believe the reason behind this mechanic is the TableTop rules, where standard PPCs have a minimum range of 3 hex (90m) where they get a to hit penalty. Something about the Charging process and stuff. To Hit penalties seem to be translated into "does reduced/no damage". Same with LRM, which have a minimum range of 6 in the Table top.

ERPPCs, being newer tech, does not have the minimum range.

Edited by Greg Djekow, 09 November 2012 - 06:37 AM.

[Stickjock]

Quote

PPCs are equipped with a Field Inhibitor to prevent feedback which could damage the firing unit's electronic systems.^[6] This inhibitor degrades the performance of the weapon at close ranges of less than 90 meters.

The ER PPC however, has NO minimum range to it... but pays for that bonus in the higher amounts of heat that it generates...

[Shroomicide]

That does make sense, if kept in the context of the tabletop game. The PPC cannon is simply supremely underwhelming at close ranges, only dealing .5% damage or so, while dealing 2-5% at optimal range. For being an energy cannon, it surprises me, despite the technology involved.

[LogicSol]

IIRC the lore reason is the std PPC has a field inhibitor to prevent EMPsplashback at low ranges, While the ER PPC does not.
So the ER PPC should cause the user some electronic distress when used under 90m

[Hoshi Toranaga]

The minimum range on TT was due to balance issues which do not apply in MWO and hence should be dropped, as the PPC is far to underwhelming even without the min range.

[Strum Wealh]

Shroomicide, on 08 November 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

It has occurred to me that ER PPC cannons have no minimum range, while PPC cannons do. Since these are the same projectiles, one with a higher energy output (and thus more heat), I do not understand why one has a minimum range and the other does not.
Furthermore, it is an energy projectile and not ballistic or missile, meaning that all energy and speed it has when exiting the chamber is the most it will ever have. A minimum range does not make sense to me based on the physics surrounding the weapon.

Thank you dearest Devs, Shroomicide. Keep up the great work!

Terry Ward, on 09 November 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

The minimum range on TT was due to balance issues which do not apply in MWO and hence should be dropped, as the PPC is far to underwhelming even without the min range.

The minimum range was originally a targeting/"to-hit" modifier, but was changed to be attributed to a component called a "Field Inhibitor".
In addition to the Standard PPC, both the Heavy PPC (available in 3067) and the Light PPC (available in 3067) have minimum ranges, and are thus implied to be subject to the need for a Field Inhibitor.
By contrast, the ER PPC and the Snub-Nose PPC (available in 3067) have no such minimum range, and are thus implied to work in such a way as to not need a Field Inhibitor.
(Additionally, the Blue Shield Particle Field Damper (reaching prototype stage in 3053) is known to have an effect on all PPC-type weapons, including those that do not normally have Field Inhibitors; perhaps it's possible that the BSPFD is based on the same tech/process/principles as the FI?).

Personally, I would like to see that the player would be able to engage/disengage the Field Inhibitor via a manual toggle, with the appropriate consequences.

Quote

The PPC minimum range can be attributed to a component called a Field Inhibitor, which is intended to "prevent feedback which could damage the firing unit's electronic systems".

Quote

In the Tactical Handbook, a PPC Field Inhibitor could be disabled by a player before firing. This allowed the unit to fire a PPC at units inside the minimum range. The normal minimum range modifiers were then ignored. The to hit rolls were resolved as normal, but the controlling player had to roll 2D6 to determine if the PPC exploded due to feedback. If the target was 1 hex away, the firing unit had to roll a 10 or more to avoid the explosion. A target at 2 hexes away required a roll of 6 or higher, and a target 3 hexes away needed a roll of 3 or more. A successful roll indicated no damage occurred to the unit firing the PPC.

If the firing player failed to get the roll needed, the PPC was immediately destroyed and critical slots for the PPC were crossed off the record sheet. The firing unit also took ten points of damage to the internal structure of the location housing the PPC.

(source is Tactical Handbook, pg. 47)

Based on the description from Tactical Handbook, disabling the Field Inhibitor could potentially(?) be programmed to have the following effects in MWO if the option is made available:

• Damage is no longer reduced for salvos fired within the normal minimum range (less than 90.00 meters) while the Field Inhibitor is disengaged.
  
• If the target is at a distance of 89.99 to 60.01 meters from the firing platform and the Field Inhibitor is disengaged, the PPC has a 2.77% chance of exploding.
  
• If the target is at a distance of 60.00 to 30.01 meters from the firing platform and the Field Inhibitor is disengaged, the PPC has a 27.82% chance of exploding.
  
• If the target is at a distance of 30.00 meters or less from the firing platform and the Field Inhibitor is disengaged, the PPC has an 83.35% chance of exploding.

If the PPC explodes, it does 10 units of damage the the BattleMech's internal structure, and behaves as if it were an ammo explosion.

Your thoughts?

[Shroomicide]

Strum Wealh, on 09 November 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

Personally, I would like to see that the player would be able to engage/disengage the Field Inhibitor via a manual toggle, with the appropriate consequences.

In keeping with the spirit of BattleMech lore, that would make the most sense.

However, for most builds, 7 tons of space for a weapon that is useless if the enemy sneaks up on you is difficult to get past play-wise. They have several downsides as it is, even without the chance of destruction of the weapon/damage involved. As a Commando with two medium lasers, I took down a catapult with 3 PPC cannons because it couldn't do enough damage to bother me.

For one, they are hard to aim, especially in close-combat tangles with fast 'Mechs.

They still generate a large amount of heat. Their weight is quite large, especially for use in light 'Mechs, which already limits their usefulness to heavier 'Mechs (which can generally afford an extra 3 heat sinks for an ER, while lights cannot).

A Catapult with LRMs would use an ER PPC (as opposed to the PPC) for most engagements because of the range involved.

They don't do enough damage to outer armor, even at optimal range, to make them unbalanced for close combat.


I tried to outfit a commando with an ER PPC cannon, but the extra heat prevented me from being useful. The PPC cannon was perfect for the heat, but I was always in close combat with another 'Mech.

All in all, while I still care about where the technology came from, PPC cannons are virtually unused, and generally for a good reason.

[unwary]

Yes, the devs should remove the minimum range limit and perhaps even tone down the heat generated by both. They've already shown that they are willing to bend the rules in favor of game balance (I'm looking at you double heatsinks and artemis).

[Flit Asuno]

unwary, on 10 November 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

Yes, the devs should remove the minimum range limit and perhaps even tone down the heat generated by both. They've already shown that they are willing to bend the rules in favor of game balance (I'm looking at you double heatsinks and artemis).

Actually the idea about Artemis IV was that you had to have line of sight for the benefit to apply. So I believe they were tweaking it in favor of that. Also, to likely keep TAG and NARC relevant.

The primary problem we're seeing on weapons like PPC is heat generation. Heat sinks operate off a 1 heat dissipated per 10 seconds time frame. While the average rate of fire and thus heat accumulation has been tripled. So heat sinks compared to tabletop heat values now only do a third of the job. With double heatsinks (the engine ones functioning properly) only doing 60% of a properly adjusted heatsink's job.

The worry over the over abundance of heat neutrality is hurting weapons like the ppc, ac 10/20, er ppc, and larger lasers. Energy weapons overall are being under-utilized compared to gauss, ac/2, and ac/5. So since they don't want to give everyone access to better heatsinks, they need to lower the heat generation on some of the energy weapons.

Oh, and PPCs should have the 90 meter minimum range removed. It may not be accurate to TT/BT lore, but it's definitely a gameplay issue and would improve PPCs without making them utterly broken.

Edited by Flit Asuno, 10 November 2012 - 07:50 PM.

[Elizander]

Terry Ward, on 09 November 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

The minimum range on TT was due to balance issues which do not apply in MWO and hence should be dropped, as the PPC is far to underwhelming even without the min range.

I do think the damage drop is too significant. I think it would be fair enough to reduce the damage to 7.5 instead of 10 at under 90m roughly based on faulty math used to get the probability chance reduction to hit based on average pilot skill on the TT.

[TygerLily]

Hello! I wanted to resurect this topic. I know it's not cannon but I think the minimum range for regular PPC's could be swapped with the ER's for good effect. I think it would make sense that the lower range PPC also has a lower minumum range (i.e. none) versus a long range weapon that has a longer minimum range (90m).

Cheers!