13 replies to this topic

[mike29tw]

It occurs to me that we hear a lot of cries for PPC nerf in the current sniping meta, but none of them says something about nerfing its damage. I'm actually curious about how you guys think. Does PPC have to do 10 damage per shot ?

What if we nerf it to...say...7.5 damage per shot but raise its optimal range to that of a gauss rifle so it remains a long range weapon that does pin-point damage. Lasers and SRMs should out-DPS PPC fairly easy up close.

So, what do you think about my proposed change ?

*edit for minor typo.

Edited by mike29tw, 18 June 2013 - 12:00 PM.

[El Bandito]

It doesn't have to deal 10 damage. PGI already changed Pulse Laser damages, thus showing us TT damage value is not sacred anymore.

There are tons of proposed changes to PPCs and some I consider better alternative than what you suggested, namely introducing convergence, make PPCs have streaming effect etc...

Edited by El Bandito, 18 June 2013 - 12:08 PM.

[General Taskeen]

Short answer, no it does not, but for the same reason I keep suggesting PGI change UAC's to a burst of X shells, instead of 2 full damage shells, you'll probably get the same response.

[FupDup]

El Bandito, on 18 June 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

It doesn't have to deal 10 damage. PGI already changed Pulse Laser damages, thus showing us TT damage value is not sacred anymore.

Don't forget the LL, Flamer, LRMs, [S]SRMs, and Machine Guns.

[MustrumRidcully]

While the recycle rate nerf wasn't aimed at nerfing the PPC for alpha strike purposes, it would have opened an intersting possibly - Currently, the PPC deals 10/4 DPS - why not 7.5/3 DPS?

The same could be done for other weapons. AC/20 - instead of 20/4, make it 15/3.
Going from 60 to 40 or from 40 to 30 damage alphas is not insignificant, but yet not so much of a nerf that the weapon would be useless.

But, oh, sorry, I mentioned the AC/20. Of course it must absolutely deal 20 damage per shot, it would confuse players if it didn't. You could just as well tell them "Oh, 8 heat + 8 heat + 8 heat is 24 heat, but 8 heat + 8 heat + 8 heat + 8 heat is 42 heat".

[One Medic Army]

Tell that to the guys in the thread I suggest halving damage, heat, and cooldown.

No, it does not need to deal 10 dmg a hit.
The fact it deals 10 dmg a hit, while weighing only 7 tons and using 3 crits is why it's currently overly good with pinpoint convergence.
If people don't want to mess with accuracy or convergence, the next logical step is to limit how much a single PPC deals in a single shot.

It's is not TT, we've already deviated heat, damage, and fire rates from TT.

Edited by One Medic Army, 18 June 2013 - 12:11 PM.

[Lefty Lucy]

MustrumRidcully, on 18 June 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

While the recycle rate nerf wasn't aimed at nerfing the PPC for alpha strike purposes, it would have opened an intersting possibly - Currently, the PPC deals 10/4 DPS - why not 7.5/3 DPS?

The same could be done for other weapons. AC/20 - instead of 20/4, make it 15/3.
Going from 60 to 40 or from 40 to 30 damage alphas is not insignificant, but yet not so much of a nerf that the weapon would be useless.

But, oh, sorry, I mentioned the AC/20. Of course it must absolutely deal 20 damage per shot, it would confuse players if it didn't. You could just as well tell them "Oh, 8 heat + 8 heat + 8 heat is 24 heat, but 8 heat + 8 heat + 8 heat + 8 heat is 42 heat".

Hence my idea of re-naming the autocannons "light/medium/heavy/assault" so PGI doesn't have that lame excuse not to mess with their damage numbers.

[MustrumRidcully]

One Medic Army, on 18 June 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

Tell that to the guys in the thread I suggest halving damage, heat, and cooldown.

No, it does not need to deal 10 dmg a hit.
The fact it deals 10 dmg a hit, while weighing only 7 tons and using 3 crits is why it's currently overly good with pinpoint convergence.
If people don't want to mess with accuracy or convergence, the next logical step is to limit how much a single PPC deals in a single shot.

It's is not TT, we've already deviated heat, damage, and fire rates from TT.

Yes, but the line must be drawn here! This far and no further!

Spoiler

If I wasn't so lame and boring and lazy, I would put up a version of this video with alternate subtitles, like those Bruno Ganz (as the famous dictator) Outbreak Videos from the "Der Untergang" movie.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 18 June 2013 - 12:18 PM.

[mike29tw]

MustrumRidcully, on 18 June 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

While the recycle rate nerf wasn't aimed at nerfing the PPC for alpha strike purposes, it would have opened an intersting possibly - Currently, the PPC deals 10/4 DPS - why not 7.5/3 DPS?

The same could be done for other weapons. AC/20 - instead of 20/4, make it 15/3.
Going from 60 to 40 or from 40 to 30 damage alphas is not insignificant, but yet not so much of a nerf that the weapon would be useless.

But, oh, sorry, I mentioned the AC/20. Of course it must absolutely deal 20 damage per shot, it would confuse players if it didn't. You could just as well tell them "Oh, 8 heat + 8 heat + 8 heat is 24 heat, but 8 heat + 8 heat + 8 heat + 8 heat is 42 heat".

Changing from 10/4 DPS to 7.5/3 DPS means that the sustained DPS is the same, but alpha damage is nerfed.
My suggestions are mostly based on two points. Keep in mind that I'm addressing weapons with similar tonnage.

• In order to achieve longer range, one must sacrifice DPS.
  
• In order to achieve guaranteed pin-point damage, one must also sacrifice DPS.

Therefore, compare PPC, a 7-ton energy weapon to large pulse laser, another 7-ton energy weapon, PPC should have inferior DPS potential based on those 2 points.

I'm thinking maybe 7.5/4 would do the trick. Gauss should receive similar treatment, but might need some more testing as there is really no comparable spread-damage weapon to Gauss in terms of its tonnage. ACs might be a little difficult. if PGI decide to maintain the 2/5/10/20 damage number, than AC20 will either need a range reduction or a RoF nerf, as the rest of the ACs are pretty balanced at this point.

[MustrumRidcully]

Quote

Therefore, compare PPC, a 7-ton energy weapon to large pulse laser, another 7-ton energy weapon, PPC should have inferior DPS potential based on those 2 points.

The problem is you cannot jut compare on a pure weapon tonnage basis. Heat and ammo also matters.

In the table top game, this was easy. 10 heat per shot? That was the equivalent of 10 tons of extra weight, or 5 tons with Double Heat Sinks. An AC/10 with 12 tons + 3 heat sinks +2 tons of ammo was basically the same as a 7 ton PPC with 10 heat sinks. 17 tons, 10 damage, a 450m long range bracket (3-540 for the PPC, 0-450 for the AC/10). Close enough for the 80s, I suppose.

But TT heat was more punishing - penalties set in when you just accumulated 5 heat, and a 1 point penalty on a 2d6 roll is not negligible. So we can't go to TT for the "weight equivalent" of heat. But it still exists.
One of the reasons why I push for lower heat capacity and higher dissipation is because the weight equivalent of heat will also be closer to the values from TT, which makes this stuff a bit easier to estimate.


But currently, the only weapon we can compare to is the LPL, and we observe:
It does slightly more damage now
at a vastly reduced range
producing more heat
and does come with a beam duration that tends to make the weapon spread damage more.

We could compare to the ML, however. 2 MLs:
2 tons vs 7 tons
2 crits vs 3 crits
2 hard points vs 1 hard point
8 heat vs 8 heat
beam duration vs projectile

The 5 ton difference could justify the range reduction. Does it also justify the beam duration vs projectile?
Would that be justifeable with a 2.5 damage reduction? Maybe it would b justifeable with a lower damage per shot, but a lower recycle time? DPS stays similar, but now you need to face your enemy more often if you want to utilize it, and the alpha strike potential is lower.

[mike29tw]

MustrumRidcully, on 18 June 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

The problem is you cannot jut compare on a pure weapon tonnage basis. Heat and ammo also matters.

In the table top game, this was easy. 10 heat per shot? That was the equivalent of 10 tons of extra weight, or 5 tons with Double Heat Sinks. An AC/10 with 12 tons + 3 heat sinks +2 tons of ammo was basically the same as a 7 ton PPC with 10 heat sinks. 17 tons, 10 damage, a 450m long range bracket (3-540 for the PPC, 0-450 for the AC/10). Close enough for the 80s, I suppose.

But TT heat was more punishing - penalties set in when you just accumulated 5 heat, and a 1 point penalty on a 2d6 roll is not negligible. So we can't go to TT for the "weight equivalent" of heat. But it still exists.
One of the reasons why I push for lower heat capacity and higher dissipation is because the weight equivalent of heat will also be closer to the values from TT, which makes this stuff a bit easier to estimate.


But currently, the only weapon we can compare to is the LPL, and we observe:
It does slightly more damage now
at a vastly reduced range
producing more heat
and does come with a beam duration that tends to make the weapon spread damage more.

We could compare to the ML, however. 2 MLs:
2 tons vs 7 tons
2 crits vs 3 crits
2 hard points vs 1 hard point
8 heat vs 8 heat
beam duration vs projectile

The 5 ton difference could justify the range reduction. Does it also justify the beam duration vs projectile?
Would that be justifeable with a 2.5 damage reduction? Maybe it would b justifeable with a lower damage per shot, but a lower recycle time? DPS stays similar, but now you need to face your enemy more often if you want to utilize it, and the alpha strike potential is lower.

And that's my point exactly. Pin-point damage, weight, heat, range, DPS......

With all these things to tweak with, you'd think we can make every weapon viable with its own style while not overpowered. At this stage of development, I really don't think messing with convergence is necessary to balance the game.

[Karl Streiger]

mike29tw, on 19 June 2013 - 12:53 AM, said:

I really don't think messing with convergence is necessary to balance the game.

No it is not necessary - when PGI say good bye to these component armor - that system does not work in any acceptable way.

But - i also want to see a difference between firing a PPC or a ERPPC at ranges of 180m. I also want to see a difference between the large and the ER-Large Laser when firing at 270m.

But there are still dozen of values still copy & pasted from TT...

But any approach bring me back to heat - and how heat in MWO is handled.

I can fire a PPC 2.5 as fast as in TT - but my heatsinks only work exactly (or worse) as in TT.
But because of the extra "heat" threshold it is no problem...fire now worry later?

Why they didn't take the S7 approach: 1hs can reduce heat by 1 every round (1 quarter of 10sec) - means that 10 heat sinks can reduce 40 heat in 10sec.... but to keep that in check they increased the heat for each weapon:

40 heat for every PPC....sounds bad? Is bad.
Look at the Awesome: 28shs - firing all 3 PPCs bring him towards 2heat
In S7 he is forced to fire each PPC in another round:
1 shot - 12heat
2 shot - with penaltys for the mech 24heat - serious penaltys for the Mech
3 cool - phase - 0 heat afterwards
4 round 12 heat afterwards.

If they had made heat on this system - the guys comparing ballistics with energy weapons and that they need more ammo- will qq that energy weapons are to bad - and ballistic weapons need less ammo

[Ralgas]

Theres dozens of ideas out there to balance it. Heck even just dropping the projectile speed back to ac/20 or so and leaving it alone otherwise could work.

We just have to sit and wait in hope

[Karl Streiger]

Ralgas, on 19 June 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

We just have to sit and wait in hope

Hope is a illusion - and as far as i can remember the story of Pandora's Box - Hope is still inside.