88 replies to this topic

[ZippySpeedMonkey]

Increasing heat values would be the simplest solution (But we all know how often those are implemented)...

However I've always been a fan of just giving ERPPC's an extended minimum range of 180m....why you may ask well it's simple since they have an extended max range, they should have an extended min range above the standard 90m...

[vulpusrex]

I personally love playing ppcwarrior online (sarcasm) i hope to hell this **** gets fixed, im fine with people using them, but 9/10 of my deaths now are ppc damage only, and hugging them to get under that min range doesnt seem to do a ******* thing.

[Bors Mistral]

Sprouticus, on 05 July 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

The firing delay is not going to happen. It is just too annoying to users (look at the old AC delay and how annoying that was).

Why not? Unlike before, it's not going to be a random duration delay, but a fixed one. Think of it as the reverse of holding the lasers on target. It'll increase base skill necessary for using PPCs effectively, and give targets a slightly better chance at evading. All good stuff.

Meanwhile, about the extra heat for alpha builds... Instead of per-weapon stacking, why not just do something along the lines of (and those are just numbers to illustrate the principle) "an alpha of 20 heat generates further 4 extra heat, an alpha of 25 heat generates 6 extra heat, an alpha of 30 generates 10 extra heat..." and so on?

[Training Instructor]

2+ energy plus one ballistic slot in another location.

Those are the hardpoint standards most 70+ ton mechs are judged by these days.

That's a serious problem for game balance.

[WildeKarde]

Simply multiple the cooldown x the number of the same weapon fired. Fire 6 PPC's then 6 times the cooldown before you can use them again. Means more chain fire might happen of fewer in a single alpha

[Lightfoot]

Yes, I think all the weapons should have a minimum range of 180 meters. Even Small Lasers and Machine Guns. This would make MWO much safer for mechs.

Okay, just joking. The problem with PPCs is that DHS 1.4's Engine DHS set at 2.0 gives players free Energy weapons if they also carry Ballistics or some missiles. So suddenly Ballistics plus energy or PPCs becomes top dog due to all the weapons using Battletech balancing which uses DHS at a set value, Engine or not.

So if all DHS were set to 1.6-1.7 Ballistics and other configs would not get to use energy weapons without properly heatsinking them, including those with only energy weapons since these configs are always very hot. Except when they start out with free heat sinking. On the high end DHS would work better than they do now once you get past 17 or so, but by then you are excluding heavier ballistics by investing the weight in heatsinks. This is the balancing Battletech utilizes, but MWO circumvents.

[Kaspirikay]

I don't know what would fix PPC. They're like the AWP of CS.

[Fooooo]

Whilst I'm not exactly a proponent of this, its not exactly a bad idea.


Powerful long range weapons having less dmg at close range to me is a good balancing mechanic & I would somewhat agree that an increase of the minimum range would not be a bad thing...........for a few sniper type weapons......not just the ppcs.


Basically, at 180m min range like the OP suggested, the PPC would be doing 5 dmg at 90m, that is still a fair amount for a supposed long range weapon.

I wouldn't be against 240m being the min, but not much higher. (as long as normal ppcs and ER's got a slight range increase.)


Basically it gives a weakness to powerful long range hitters. (just like the short range weakness of the other weapons just in reverse)
Similar to how a sniper rifle fires 1 shot and takes a bit to reload in most FPS's. If the guy with the MG can avoid the shots (or absorb a few and avoid a few in MWO's case) then once they hit that min range, they gain the advantage somewhat 2x. (1 being the min range on the enemy weapons dropping their dmg output, and 2 being your close range weapons out dpsing/dmging at that range anyway)

Unlike now where the min range really does nothing at all.


All that said I don't really care if they increased it for the ppc and added it to the gauss + ERLL (providing the ERLL got a dmg boost) or just left it as is.

Edited by Fooooo, 05 July 2013 - 09:27 PM.

[SweetWarmIce]

The most logical thing would be to tune the actual brawling weapons so they are viable again. Increased minimal range wouldn't change anything.

[Rengakun]

The best way to prevent PPCs from effectively brawling is to increase it's cooldown time and heat. It's that simple.

TT heat values and 8 second ought to be good enough. (It may need a slight damage buff, though.)

[DeadlyNerd]

SweetWarmIce, on 06 July 2013 - 01:57 AM, said:

The most logical thing would be to tune the actual brawling weapons so they are viable again. Increased minimal range wouldn't change anything.

Most brawling scenarios occur between 50m and 180m. That way, 90m is pretty easy to achieve.
Increasing the minimum range to 180m would efficiently remove PPCs from use within brawling radius. Brawling weapons become viable once the only sniper-brawling weapon is excluded from the equation.

[Modo44]

It just needs to not do any damage below 90m. Get close -- get a free kill.

[PanzerMagier]

Instead of making the min-range to 180m. Reduce the damage Exponentially under 90m.

EX: at 75M, PPCs deal 5 damage.
50m: 2 damage
etc...

[DeadlyNerd]

PanzerMagier, on 06 July 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

Instead of making the min-range to 180m. Reduce the damage Exponentially under 90m.

EX: at 75M, PPCs deal 5 damage.
50m: 2 damage
etc...

Again, damage within 90m is not the problem as that distance can easily be achieved in any brawl and PPC will then do full damage.
It needs to be made obsolete in a brawl, and that is putting it in the same situation as LRMs.

Let's put it this way.

Give LRMs 90m minimum range and see what happens.
They're both long range weapons and easy to hit with, and thus need to be treated the same.

[Novakaine]

Aw hell no!

[DeadlyNerd]

Novakaine, on 06 July 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

Aw hell no!

Do I really need to repeat myself?

Constructive arguments or g t f o.

Edited by DeadlyNerd, 06 July 2013 - 09:39 AM.

[CancR]

PPCs and Gauss should only do 1 point of damage in a min range.

[Dephylr]

just increase heat value or add heat penalties that hurt as opposed to 2% internal damage to the ct.

[Blackadder]

part of the reason we have all these issues, is that PGI basically eliminated using a larger variety of weapons, when they elected to put soft range caps on weapons. Given that the actual range of a PPC is 90- 1080 meters, extending its range to 180 or 270 meters frankly makes sense.

Personally, i would really just wish PGI would revamp the ranges at which weapons work, and give every weapon a hard cap on min/max ranges and tailor each weapon to work well within its own range. Othwerise there will always be weapons that are pointless to use or become very powerful, such as the ER LL, AC10, or PPC/ERPPC on the other end.

its not like were actually using current TT values for range on weapons in MWO anyway.

Edited by Blackadder, 06 July 2013 - 09:49 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Stop Gap solution, but doesn't solve the fundamental boating problem with ballistic weapons particular.

Boating Single Shot Damage Weapon + Group FIre + Convergence = Awesome > Mixed weapon builds, laser builds, missile builds.

What do we with the AC/20? Lower the range to 180m?