17 replies to this topic

[MisterFiveSeven]

I've seen lots of "nerf PPC's!?" threads, and I feel like a lot of them miss a couple of the more important reasons PPC's are so prevalent and powerful.

It's not the heat. It's not the damage. It's not the projectile speed. It's not the range.

It's the combination of all of them together, and the fact that energy hardpoints are the most numerous.

There is an opportunity cost associated with every weapon system you mount. You need to pick a weapon that you will get the most utility out of every second of an engagement. Heat management is not as much of a factor as it should be, and this is the primary problem. Assault mechs had varied weapon systems in TT because you could generate WAY more heat than you could effectively manage easily, so large mechs would have:

LRM's and PPC's for long range, that would take up most of its heat capacity.
Large lasers and autocannons for medium range that would do the same thing.
Med las, AC20's, and SRMs for short range.

Without a far more punishing heat scale, every mech is being built to be able to shoot all of its weapons all of the time. This is compounded by the fact that the PPC is the best weapon AT ALL RANGES, and pretty much every mech has energy hardpoints. Alpha warrior is what it is because mechs are capable of alphastrikes in ways they never were before (in TT). Why on earth would a take a long range weapon (LRM's), even if they were AS EFFECTIVE as PPC's at range, when inside 200m I'm screwed? The answer is you wouldn't, and people don't.

Buff SRM's, AC10 projectile speed, make PPC projectiles slightly slower (just as long as they're not the same speed as guass because that gives them sick synergy), make a far more punishing heat scale, and *slightly* buff LRM's, and you're pretty much done. It only takes a slight imbalance, coupled with the prevalence of energy hardpoints, to get what you're getting in the current meta. The heat scale and the hardpoints really are the big ones that I feel people gloss over frequently.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not preaching the TT gospel (I love what they've done for AC2's and 5's, and I'm really okay with the doubling of armor). I just think there are some lessons that TT taught that could make this game better, and the only way those would be intuitive is if you actually played a bunch of TT.

[GODzillaGSPB]

Most of the things are either very obvious (the facts about the ppc ^^), have been discussed, are coming or are (imho) not necessary. LRMs for instance, I see them a lot, but there are not many boats. It's a support weapon, it seems perfect - to me.

[SweetWarmIce]

In TT PPCs were kept in check by the heat system. Which in MWO lets you fire 4+ PPCs over and over without any problem.

[MisterFiveSeven]

GODzillaGSPB, on 29 June 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

Most of the things are either very obvious (the facts about the ppc ^^), have been discussed, are coming or are (imho) not necessary. LRMs for instance, I see them a lot, but there are not many boats. It's a support weapon, it seems perfect - to me.

Lol the horse might be dead, but I kind of wanted to wait until the shrill tenor fo the consersation died a little bit.

The idea of a "support weapon" is meaningless.  Either the weapon is worth the tonnage, crit space and heat capacity, or it isn't.  That doesn't necessarily mean that it has to do as much damage (damage isn't the end all, there can be other strategic uses, like kill assists or versatility), but it has to pull its weight (pun intended).

However, I really haven't seen much discussion about the availability of energy hard points that hasn't sounded like "we need hardpoint size limits!"  Increased heat effects mitigate the need for sized energy hardpoints pretty succinctly, without adding some garbage mechanic layer.

[MisterFiveSeven]

You'd also see a hell of a lot more gauss and AC20 if there were more ballistic hardpoints. Instead, you just see a bunch of k2's and jagers.

[Ph30nix]

They need to fix one of the biggest problems in the game BEFORE they do any major over haul on the game meta.... Frankly they shouldnt have done the JJ nerf before fixing this problem either.

That problem is the lack of any restriction to prevent a team from all piloting the biggest heaviest things possible. HIghlander came out and guess what everyone wanted to play it, and ooh look they have JJ so people made use of them. i never heard ANY complaining about poptarts until highlanders hit the scene....

but you get a match makers where teams are more balanced as far as mechs on the fields ALOT of current problems will evaporate because they are only problems when they are seen on the field in mass ammounts,

[Roland]

SweetWarmIce, on 29 June 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

In TT PPCs were kept in check by the heat system. Which in MWO lets you fire 4+ PPCs over and over without any problem.

While PPC's are certainly hot in TT, this isn't really what prevented the viability of boating PPC's in the boardgame.

You could make a build which could fire 4 PPC's. That's 40 heat. With double heatsinks, just the internal engine heatsinks would dissipate half of that. With a few more, you'd be able to fire a few times before you built up enough heat to screw you up.

But the critical difference is that when you fired them, they'd hit 4 random locations.

If you could just dump them all on one location, that alpha strike would kill a ton of mechs in TT, since their armor would be half of what you see in MWO.

Again, all of the stuff that folks are talking about in terms of "problems" is just window dressing around the real issue, which is weapons convergence.

You can debate whether or not this is actually an issue, and whether it should be changed... but if you accept that the current meta is unsustainable, then you need to address convergence. Trying to dance around that issue by tweaking heat or specific mechs and weapons is not going to result in the desired outcome.

[Livewyr]

convergence is painful, but I would rather deal with the weapons themselves first.

if I wanted to play RNGwarrior.. I'd play tactics.

that said, I like the idea of allowing the reticle for various weapons slowed down, larger the weapon, slower that weapons reticle catches up with the user's reticle. still allows for skill shots, but with some time investment and not the instant core and turn repetition.

[Donnie Silveray]

A universal heat scale (as discussed by the devs) would pretty much resolve the issue. I'm just a bit miffed at their system. I'm not really sure what to think about their arbitrary selection of how much boating does what. In one manner it's a very simple system where they can easily tweak. 3 PPC limit not doing enough? Can drop to 2, among other things. It's very very simple at the core and has the somewhat potential to actually work, and again it can be easily tweaked.

I have some hope for the month after they introduce the system, but if they don't communicate what's going on then I may get a tad frustrated.

[Roland]

Livewyr, on 29 June 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

convergence is painful, but I would rather deal with the weapons themselves first.

if I wanted to play RNGwarrior.. I'd play tactics.

There are numerous ways to remove perfect weapons convergence, without introducing any randomness at all.

[Aidan McRae]

Livewyr, on 29 June 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

if I wanted to play RNGwarrior.. I'd play tactics.

The issue with this comment (and how often it's used) is that the game we are playing is entirely based off of one system,:Table Top BattleTech. Most functions of this game are drawn directly or suggested from that play format...except the RNG aspect. No wonder that pinpoint accuracy breaks the game...

So if you don't want RNGwarrior, then the *entire* game needs an overhaul, and not use Btech as source. OR. We could institute some small bits of cone of fire or other random aspects that won't nerf skill, but will make the system work as intended.

[SweetWarmIce]

Roland, on 29 June 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

Snip

.

I nearly mentioned convergence but OP seemed focused on the weapons themselves. Being able to quickly and easily put high damage into a single section breaks the game, since it uses TT a base.

[Blackadder]

Regardless of projectile speed, its simple to hit with PPC and Guass fired slightly after, and still hit the same spot a significant majority of the time. People are fooling themselves if they think slowing PPCs down will do anything but make it easier to hit mechs with both types of weapons. As is, all you do is fire your gauss after your PPC shot, and both still hit if you can aim at all. While PPC projectile speed is problematic, changing just projectile speed or heat, or damage wont really solve much. People need to stop complaining about individual weapons systems, and demand changes that effect everything in a positive manner, not just PPC's or large caliber ballistics, or LRMs, or whatever weapon of the moment is the top dog.

Until PGI adopts some of the suggestions posted by players or comes up with some reasonable or not so reasonable limitations on weapons systems across the board, nerfing PPCs in particular will have zero impact on overall gameplay, beyond players shifting to the next best weapon system, regardless of what it is. Its the same as people complaining about poptarts , the JJ changes did nothing to change the game, beyond players jumping from highlanders into stalkers.

[El Bandito]

MisterFiveSeven, on 29 June 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

I've seen lots of "nerf PPC's!?" threads, and I feel like a lot of them miss a couple of the more important reasons PPC's are so prevalent and powerful. It's not the heat. It's not the damage. It's not the projectile speed. It's not the range. It's the combination of all of them together, and the fact that energy hardpoints are the most numerous. There is an opportunity cost associated with every weapon system you mount. You need to pick a weapon that you will get the most utility out of every second of an engagement. Heat management is not as much of a factor as it should be, and this is the primary problem. Assault mechs had varied weapon systems in TT because you could generate WAY more heat than you could effectively manage easily, so large mechs would have: LRM's and PPC's for long range, that would take up most of its heat capacity. Large lasers and autocannons for medium range that would do the same thing. Med las, AC20's, and SRMs for short range. Without a far more punishing heat scale, every mech is being built to be able to shoot all of its weapons all of the time. This is compounded by the fact that the PPC is the best weapon AT ALL RANGES, and pretty much every mech has energy hardpoints. Alpha warrior is what it is because mechs are capable of alphastrikes in ways they never were before (in TT). Why on earth would a take a long range weapon (LRM's), even if they were AS EFFECTIVE as PPC's at range, when inside 200m I'm screwed? The answer is you wouldn't, and people don't. Buff SRM's, AC10 projectile speed, make PPC projectiles slightly slower (just as long as they're not the same speed as guass because that gives them sick synergy), make a far more punishing heat scale, and *slightly* buff LRM's, and you're pretty much done. It only takes a slight imbalance, coupled with the prevalence of energy hardpoints, to get what you're getting in the current meta. The heat scale and the hardpoints really are the big ones that I feel people gloss over frequently. Don't get me wrong, I'm not preaching the TT gospel (I love what they've done for AC2's and 5's, and I'm really okay with the doubling of armor). I just think there are some lessons that TT taught that could make this game better, and the only way those would be intuitive is if you actually played a bunch of TT.

You makes some good points but sadly PGI is not known for listening to community's ideas. Especially the good ones.

[Josef Nader]

OP makes a very good point. The lack of a punishing heat scale means that there is no need to manage your range brackets. Looking at a lot of tabletop builds lately, and very, very few of them are "heat neutral" if they alpha strike. Quite a few of them halt and catch fire after an alpha strike. Instead, they are built to focus on different range brackets. All weapons within a bracket are heat neutral. A mech can continue to fight within it's range bracket until it runs out of ammo or dies. Without a harsher heat scale, there's absoloutely zero penalty for putting all of your weapons in the same range bracket. You didn't do this in Battletech because your mech would explode. You do this here because it won't.

It's the same reason that almost every IS mech in canon has an LRM and a medium laser, regardless of the rest of their loadout. The LRM is one of the best options for long range fights that doesn't take up a lot of tonnage, and the medium laser is one of the best options for close range fights that doesn't take up a lot of tonnage. It gives the mech options at ranges. With the focus on super fast mechs and high alphas, this is less important.

With the oncoming movement nerfs, combined with whatever they do to try an address alpha striking, hopefully this will do more to force variance. That's really what this all breaks down into. Mechs aren't -supposed- to use all of their weapons all of the time, yet the MWO community seems to have this obsession with holding all the buttons down to get your kills. There needs to be more reason to force players into more complex builds.

[Lightfoot]

They could fix the heat scale by making all DHS the same value, say DHS 1.7. Then all the weapons would have to be accounted for when adding them to a config and PPCs would not be free adds to a Ballistic mech.

DHS 1.4 was, I guess supposed to curtail energy boating, but it had the opposite effect because it requires a soft heat cap. Although a hard heat cap that killed the mech could work with DHS 1.4. But of course Ballistic configs would still get 2 heat free PPCs.

[Livewyr]

Roland, on 29 June 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

There are numerous ways to remove perfect weapons convergence, without introducing any randomness at all.

Well yeah.. I suggested one.

Aidan McRae, on 29 June 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

The issue with this comment (and how often it's used) is that the game we are playing is entirely based off of one system,:Table Top BattleTech. Most functions of this game are drawn directly or suggested from that play format...except the RNG aspect. No wonder that pinpoint accuracy breaks the game...

So if you don't want RNGwarrior, then the *entire* game needs an overhaul, and not use Btech as source. OR. We could institute some small bits of cone of fire or other random aspects that won't nerf skill, but will make the system work as intended.

This game is loosely based on TT, it gave up TT with the whole "real time moving" thing.

Just like the things that become broken with aimed shots, there are defenses players get against aimed shots. (Real time speed, torso twisting, cover and things like that.)

If we want to reduce the pinpoint damage problem, I propose two things:

Putting things' heat back where they should be. (PPC- since heat was it's only balancing feature in comparison to other ballistics)
And reducing the AC20s max range from 810 down to 540. (20dmg at 270, 0 at 540)
(could probably consider doing that with all of the ballistics.. 2x range, not 3x)

And bam the actual range disadvantage of the AC20 comes to light.. and the PPC becomes unwieldy to boat.
-----------------------------

More complicated than easy mode RNG.. but "luck" doesn't dictate a fight. (as much- we still have stupid bugs.. but you get the idea)

[Jonny Taco]

Roland, on 29 June 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

While PPC's are certainly hot in TT, this isn't really what prevented the viability of boating PPC's in the boardgame.

You could make a build which could fire 4 PPC's. That's 40 heat. With double heatsinks, just the internal engine heatsinks would dissipate half of that. With a few more, you'd be able to fire a few times before you built up enough heat to screw you up.

But the critical difference is that when you fired them, they'd hit 4 random locations.

If you could just dump them all on one location, that alpha strike would kill a ton of mechs in TT, since their armor would be half of what you see in MWO.

Again, all of the stuff that folks are talking about in terms of "problems" is just window dressing around the real issue, which is weapons convergence.

Yeah, no thanks on rng warrior online...

Oh yeah, stop comparing apples to oranges (mwo to TT)

The problem with this game is that it's too similar... Not that it's not similar enough... Trying to stick to TT rules has set this game back probably half a year and we still have god awfull balance...

What's needed is a size resitriction for each weapon slot in the current crit slot system as well as an objective look at current weapon values w/o comparing them to TT.

Edited by lartfor, 30 June 2013 - 04:24 AM.