122 replies to this topic

[LordBraxton]

Livewyr, on 31 May 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

Really can't stand

your posting

format braxton,

but I

like your post

anyways.

PPC Heat is


TOO DAMN LOW.

It became a habit

because every properly formatted paragraph I would post

would elicit cries of TLDR!

[Livewyr]

cyberFluke, on 31 May 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

Wrong.

Everything else heat too high, current heat cap for mechs, too damn high.

Yes, heat cap is too high,but no, PPC heat is too low.. read post 32.

[cyberFluke]

Livewyr, on 31 May 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

Yes, heat cap is too high,but no, PPC heat is too low.. read post 32.

If mech heat cap was 30, is it still too low? 3 PPCs becomes the max alpha.

[Skinflowers]

No they're not.

Weapons hitting one spot is too good. There is a significant difference between individual weapon balance and convergence. They're not the same problem.

[Rahnu]

Skinflowers, on 31 May 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

No they're not.

Weapons hitting one spot is too good. There is a significant difference between individual weapon balance and convergence. They're not the same problem.

This is true, but they also feed into each other.

PPCs would still be a superior weapon to large lasers even if convergence were fixed due to the high beam duration of lasers. Instantaneous damage application will always be > damage over 3/4-1 second(s).

Edited by Zyrusticae, 31 May 2013 - 12:53 PM.

[LordBraxton]

Zyrusticae, on 31 May 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

This is true, but they also feed into each other.

PPCs would still be a superior weapon to large lasers even if convergence were fixed due to the high beam duration of lasers. Instantaneous damage application will always be > damage over 3/4-1 second(s).

this

you would simply be chain firing PPCs or chain firing large lasers

in which case PPCs would still be better

[Skinflowers]

Convergence is a problem for both weapons.

Again, detatch one issue from the other and deal with them individually.

[Livewyr]

I'm still on the fence with convergence.. adding RNG takes a lot away from precision and gives it to luck.
(And gauging how much RNG room at what distance.. etc..)

I don't like the idea of 40+ point alphas to one area, but I like the possibility of missing a perfect shot, just because, even less.

-----

But back on topic, Weapons need to be balanced against them selves- in comparison to others.

Edited by Livewyr, 31 May 2013 - 01:01 PM.

[Shakespeare]

Behemothk, on 31 May 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

One more "PPC OP" topic. I hate PPC but this is ridiculous. You are not original dude. Is it hard for you to write it all in other such topic? Are you like to start new ones?

The goal is to make some noise - there aren't as many of these topics as you think, and not all of them actually mention PPCs in the title (because people are idiots when it comes to thread titles. but I digress). It's not spam, it's topic churn burying the old ones when there's still a lot to say.

[Vodrin Thales]

Lightfoot, on 31 May 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

4 Large Lasers = 20 tons, 36 damage, 28 heat

3 PPCs = 21 tons, 30 damage, 27 heat, minimum range.

3 ERPPCs = non-functional in combat. Shutdown too often to win a shootout.

2 ERPPCs = 14 tons, 20 damage, 22 heat.

That's perfectly balanced actually. You want a Nerf not balance.

The fix for anti-boating is a hard heat cap, where the mech explodes from overriding automatic shutdown 80 percent of the time. To add that they need to add DHS 2.0 so players don't blow themselves up with Medium Lasers. Until then players will boat energy weapons and just override the shutdowns.

In MWO right now Medium Lasers are still the OP energy weapon, followed by MPLAS and LLAS. PPCs have a slight range advantage and have travel time instead of beam duration.

I think this is just that there will always be one weapon that is best. Right now I see more Large Lasers than PPCs.

Not quite correct PPC's are currently 8 heat, not 9 each. So in your example the 3 PPC's generate 24 heat and have a significant advantage. You seem to be arguing for the fix I proposed which is to add back 1 heat to both PPC's and ERPPC's. Reverting completely back to pre-buff levels is too much. You'd see them almost completely abandoned again if that was done.

Also for those arguing for a reduced heat cap. I do not think that is necessary. Just give more penalties for running at high heat. Reduce top speed. Slow weapon cooldown. Give a chance for ammo explosion. Maybe even give a finite time you can run at red heat levels continuously before taking internal damage. I'd rather see that than a reduced heat cap and it should be just as effective at properly controlling the effectiveness of boating energy weapons. We may need additional penalties for group firing boated weapons, but this would be a good start.

By the way, a great fix for the convergence problem that would not necessitate funky coding to aiming would be to give substantial heat penalties for group firing multiple weapons of the same type. Something PGI is investigating. They just would have to make exceptions for rapid firing weapons like machine guns, AC2's, and Ultra AC5's.

Livewyr, on 31 May 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

I'm still on the fence with convergence.. adding RNG takes a lot away from precision and gives it to luck.
(And gauging how much RNG room at what distance.. etc..)

I don't like the idea of 40+ point alphas to one area, but I like the possibility of missing a perfect shot, just because, even less.

-----

But back on topic, Weapons need to be balanced against them selves- in comparison to others.

I prefer a solution of penalizing firing multiple weapons at the same time. If you have to chain fire your pinpoint weapons it makes hitting the same part of the target mech more difficult without penalizing those who have exceptional aim.

[Skinflowers]

Livewyr, on 31 May 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

I'm still on the fence with convergence.. adding RNG takes a lot away from precision and gives it to luck.
(And gauging how much RNG room at what distance.. etc..)

I don't like the idea of 40+ point alphas to one area, but I like the possibility of missing a perfect shot, just because, even less.

-----

But back on topic, Weapons need to be balanced against them selves- in comparison to others.

Only in a computer game would anything be so precise. Isn't this supposed to be a simulation? A "soft" simulation to be sure but still a simulation. Nothing is ever that certain. Ever.

The unforseeable, random element affects everything. The problem with MWO is the fact that unerring precision is skewing the game. Fatally in my opinion.

[Livewyr]

Vodrin Thales, on 31 May 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

I prefer a solution of penalizing firing multiple weapons at the same time. If you have to chain fire your pinpoint weapons it makes hitting the same part of the target mech more difficult without penalizing those who have exceptional aim.

You know the funny thing.. I proposed that back in CBT.. nobody liked it.. it was too complicated.

[cyberFluke]

Zyrusticae, on 31 May 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

This is true, but they also feed into each other.

PPCs would still be a superior weapon to large lasers even if convergence were fixed due to the high beam duration of lasers. Instantaneous damage application will always be > damage over 3/4-1 second(s).

Unless you give lasers a faster convergence to balance them... The more punch in one a shorter time, the slower convergence should be. Easy.

[Profiteer]

PPCs are SUPPOSE to be devastating weapons on the battlefield.

But you're not suppose to be shoe-horning up to 6 on a single mech.

I was running with a guy last night packing 2 x ERPPCS on a spider...


It's been said a thousand times already - the problem is BOATING, not the weapons themselves.

We need hard-point restrictions or REAL heat penalties, or both.

Edited by Profiteer, 31 May 2013 - 02:01 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

imho with the cycle timer at 4 seconds now, increasing the heat by 1-2+ points might be viable.

[Livewyr]

profit, what do you think allows people to boat ppcs?
CPVinson- agreed, 2 points would be good. lol

Edited by Livewyr, 31 May 2013 - 02:32 PM.

[LordBraxton]

Shakespeare, on 31 May 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

The goal is to make some noise - there aren't as many of these topics as you think, and not all of them actually mention PPCs in the title (because people are idiots when it comes to thread titles. but I digress). It's not spam, it's topic churn burying the old ones when there's still a lot to say.

your name is fitting

I like the way you think

and love what you write

[Tarl Cabot]

IMHO, most of the suggestions supplied, not just this thread but other threads only puts a band-aid on (ER)PPC. There are several other ideas in this and other threads that is not a band-aid fix.

1. IS PPC/ERPPC does only 10pts of damage - equates to AC10 with range but no ammo restrictions. GR are 15pts dmg
2. ERPPC has a much longer reach than PPC as well as no close range penalty.
3. ER/PPC now has the recycle time of GR. The likely reason for their previously 3 sec recycle rate was so they could do the same amount of damage as a gauss rifle in the same time frame. It takes 3 PPC shots to equal 2 gauss shots, or 4.5 PPC to equal 3 GR shots.

The above are current facts. Changing the heat generated by ER/PPC will not change anything.

1. Total heat package - other than mech damage/destruction on excessive heat (IF override is active), the mechs come to a stop. Yes, they are inactive allowing direct fire weapons to be fired onto them but until they do shut down, they can do every normal thing as a mech that has not fired a single shot. That needs to change but the base line has to be done on stock mechs/single heat sinks. The lack of any real penalties and the number of HS INCREASING the hard cap is bad for this game cause then no one really needs to manage their heat.....

2. Convergence, or the lack thereof, the pinpoint accuracy for the most part. A cone of fire based on both range and mech activity. I would add that ZOOM is actually part of the issue equation. At extreme range you can see the mech but the general aim area is still a rough call. Add default zoom/module zoom with non-variable cross hairs (or no cone of fire) allows a player to really pick the spot.

3. Hardpoint restrictions with several different permutations.

a. 2 or 3 max Extra Long range of the same weapon class - Energy/Ballistic/Missile

b. specific number Medium range

c. short range, no limit or specific restrictions based on variant

d. Limits on number of specific weapons per weight class/chassis/variant

Edit.

On ER/PPC one time that may have an effect would be to change how the PPC shot is handled. The issue would be, could the following be coded. The PPC shot expands after a set distance. The core shot hits but the outer diameter could hit at different section, sorta like missiles' splash damage. The effect though would be if it hit the CT along the RT section, 7pts to the CT, 2pts to the RT. The closer to the seam the shot hits, the more the damage is split up.

Just an afterthought.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 31 May 2013 - 03:49 PM.

[the pole]

True retical shake, bam we are done. All we need to do is steal World of Tanks rng circle and apply it any time you jumpjet. I'm frankly surprised we haven't yet considering almost everything else we st....borrow, cough harumph....

[Braggart]

the game would feature better balance if lasers had no freaking duration. Currently the ability to deliver massive amounts of damage to a single spot changes everything about this game, where high alpha means everything, and dps means nothing.

It doesnt help that hit detection against lights is still quite broken when you are using lasers and ballistics. I can keep my lasers and acs on mechs quite easily, but some how those mechs using jump jets ignore what should be enough to critical them. instead, i havet use ppcs or guass/ac20 that deal such supreme damge, that i drop their torso's instantly. my ballistic/ppc/gauss aim is no different from my laser gameplay.

PGI had decided that mechs that are heavier can carry weapons that when carried multiple amounts can absolutely destroy a mech of lesser weight. There is nothing a black jack can do to successfully fight against an equally skilled stalker, even though they get matched against each other (regardless of how much ******** PGI throws our way, we see this much more often than they claim happens.).

8 vs 8 gameplay is nothing special, the fact we cant even get 12 vs 12 gameplay on team means alot. we have seen 32 vs 32 or more in games over the last 10 years. I don't care if these people are you friends or not. You need to realize when you screwed up and salvage this game. get your **** together or see PGI die.

at this point, i think the game has evolved to where it will be at Community warfare. I think they know they screwed up, but I don't they they are willing to admit it. Even though this is the most expensive beta of a game ever released. at this point, I laugh everytime clans are mentioned in the forums, because PGI has no idea what they are doing with regular IS weapons, let alone clan.

as much as i hate to admit it, Hawken is the better game. Match making, balance, and overall design is better. I am a Btech vet, and MWO has given me nothing to convince me it will be a decent simulator. 12 vs 12 will focus on alpha damage more than 8vs8 did, because PGI refuses to weight match.

i dont even regret what happens to PGI, they have never met their goals or releases. Community warfare is gonna be a joke. Great we can take over certain planets.............. the ones that never will make a difference. Then what.................................. It is a flawed system from the start, only PGI refuses to admit it, even though the people who have been here from the beginning keep telling them over and over and over, and over.. Lets add modules that make it impossible to flank, and negate heat while we are at it also.............................

Edited by Braggart, 31 May 2013 - 10:27 PM.