88 replies to this topic

[CancR]

Tonnage limits are the stop gap solution.

[Deathlike]

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...

Ironically, that was the case (because, PGI fails @ math) until they finally "fixed" that to be linear damage (as stated in patch notes about a month or so ago).

[Odins Fist]

DeadlyNerd, on 05 July 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

"Increase Ppc Min Range To 180M"

"NO"

Awful idea, just awful.... Stop, just stop.

[Jman5]

I think it's a viable tweak to test. I think the damage drop off is too forgiving right now for the PPC

[CancR]

1 damage min range for gauss and ppcs DO IT NOA

[DeadlyNerd]

Odins Fist, on 06 July 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

"NO"

Awful idea, just awful.... Stop, just stop.

You illiterate or ignorant? Read the readme parts of the OP and stop brainfarting all over.

MustrumRidcully, on 06 July 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

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?

AC/20, or even AC/40, is hardly the issue here, because few mechs can take XL engines and put in AC/20, or put in AC/20 in the first place. Almost every mech can put in PPCs.
Stopping boating is the real solution no doubt, but I'm just layin' this out there and doing what the devs should be doing.

Edited by DeadlyNerd, 06 July 2013 - 12:39 PM.

[Treye Snow]

Deathlike, on 05 July 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

Stuff in bold - these will NEVER be on the table due to stock/TT specs. Everything else is.

At this rate (of these bad ideas), I expect to see a PPC module that will "neutralize" or remove the min range requirement (just because PGI can).

And this is precisely why the game is so broken.

PGI Is trying to make a table top game into a real time shooter. The more they take from a game built around a dice and different rules the more the game will break.

PGI has yet to define what they want to do with the game and because of that, they're stuck in this problem where you have BT specs and such on a digital shooter platform. You have spiders running with guns that are supposed to be bigger than they are and several builds across all energy mechs boating PPC's that completely ignore the core balancing mechanic (heat) because there is extremely underwhelming penalties for doing so.

I just wish Blizzard or EA would buy them out and fire their Dev managers. That way they can actually have some leadership and get things done instead of putting newspaper over it as if it goes away if you don't look at it.

Perfect example of that is the latest patch's heat damage (the minuscule amount that it is) for overheating. That was probably the worst attempt at implementing a band-aid fix to penalize a problem temporarily that I've ever seen done to any game in FF/Alpha,Closed Alpha, or Closed Beta I've participated in.

[Angel of Annihilation]

I got a better one. How about we do away with minium range all together.

[FupDup]

Viktor Drake, on 06 July 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

I got a better one. How about we do away with minium range all together.

Yes, 4 PPC Stalkers definitely need a buff.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 06 July 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

Yes, 4 PPC Stalkers definitely need a to go in the buff.

Fixed for you.

Go Commando!

[SubRyan]

No. All values should be returned to TT values. Weapons need to be balanced based on projectile speed, weapon recycle time, and missile speed

[Lightfoot]

I promise you the problem with PPCs is DHS 1.4's Engine heatsink rating of 2.0. It allows heat free PPCs to be used by mechs. I am going to say two heat-free PPCs for any mech. So this allows players to mix mostly Ballistics and PPCs to create very high alpha configs. Higher than 4xPPCs.

If all DHS heatsinks had the same rating, say 1.6-1.7, PPCs could go back to 10 heat and ERPPCs to 15 heat and then anyone adding PPCs would have to properly heatsink them. Drawback would be all energy weapons would require correct heatsinking so no more high alpha Ballistic configs, they'd be hit by the Nerf-Hammer too. But you know it's Ballistics that are actually OP in MWO, you just see the PPCs better because they are this big blue bolt of lightning.

As far as any Ballistic with a 20 goes (AC20) the only place you will see these once we know what map we are dropping on is range-restricted maps like cities and canyons. That's because Gauss, PPCs, and LRMs rule the open maps. It's part of what sets MechWarrior apart from other shooters and makes it a Mech-Sim.

The need to match loadouts and tactics to each map and the fact that we just don't know what map we are dropping on gives PPCs an edge right now due to the odds of getting a long range map. So the PPC itself is not overpowered and needs no changes. It's working correctly.

Perhaps Large Lasers have too long a burn duration and this is actually what is out of balance.

[Inhibition]

DeadlyNerd, on 05 July 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

Seeing how it's a problem that PPC beats brawling, most logical thing would be to increase the range at which combat becomes brawling for a PPC user.

LRMs are pretty easy to counter that way, so why not PPC: Also, they've messed around with ranges for quite a few weapons and this wouldn't be the first "lore breaker".

I don't really care about being killed by a PPC, but I'm posting anyway since rest of the community is raging over it.

README : People are getting confused around ER PPC/PPC. I only meant regular PPC minimum range.
ER PPC already pays the price in ridiculously high heat and is designed to have no minimum range. Any minimum range on ER PPC would break the weapon and remove its intended use.

README 2 : If your argument isn't constructive, please don't bother writing anything. If I wanted to count how many people are against it, I would've put up a poll.

amazing. especially the fact that you suggested the range of 180m that I arbitrarily made.
Give credit where credit is due.

If anyone wants elaboration on the original idea, please read further:

http://mwomercs.com/...age__mode__show

It tried to introduce more a strategical element to the game in order to calm a portion of
complaining player base.

Edited by Inhibition, 06 July 2013 - 09:42 PM.

[Inhibition]

CancR, on 06 July 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

Tonnage limits are the stop gap solution.

I agree. I've been putting out that the game modes we have don't restrict matches by tonnage,
making people whine as a light vs assault.

Jaguar Prime, on 05 July 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

Seriously..... If they smack a 180 minimum on the erppc, I want the heat lowered. Heat is the ERPPC's balancing factor.

You guys are getting nerf happy. The erppc is fine, the ppc is fine when not boated. If any of you have a problem with someone using 2 ppc's (not boated) in it's current form, then there is more a problem with the player than the weapon.

That's exactly what I was suggesting. An (arbitrary minimum EFFECTIVE range of) 180m would prevent
people who boat ppc's because a weapons disadvantages are amplified when boating. So a PPC boater
would be at huge advantage at close range.

If a mech can only equip two ppc's and no back up weapons in case of a brawl, then maybe
a light mech shouldn't be equipping two ppc's in the first place?

[DeathlyEyes]

fix srm's so they do damage reliably. PPCs are fine. An srm6 should do 12 damage and do it reliably. Right now it seems some of the SRM's don't actually do damage even if they all hit. Setting the damage to a minimum of 180 is unnecessary. If they engage really close as it is, odds are they will shut down if they are boating 4-6 ppcs. Please stop demanding nerfs, just have them fix the counters properly.

Edited by h4t3r4d3, 06 July 2013 - 10:22 PM.

[Inhibition]

h4t3r4d3, on 06 July 2013 - 10:20 PM, said:

fix srm's so they do damage reliably. PPCs are fine. An srm6 should do 12 damage and do it reliably. Right now it seems some of the SRM's don't actually do damage even if they all hit. Setting the damage to a minimum of 180 is unnecessary. If they engage really close as it is, odds are they will shut down if they are boating 4-6 ppcs. Please stop demanding nerfs, just have them fix the counters properly.

In my opinion I agree with you mostly. PPC's are fine, but the minimum range is a gift I suggested to make whiners happy.
PGI cares so much for its whiners. I'd rather have a minimum range than some idiotic nerfing method that doesn't involve much strategy (such as increasing heat for PPC's)

The dim reality is that PGI will most likely nerf PPC's though; PGI wants to protect their crying inexperienced players.
The part where I disagree with you is where an SRM6 should do 12 damage. SRM6 damage should be more than 12, maybe even 15.

[DeadlyNerd]

Inhibition, on 06 July 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

amazing. especially the fact that you suggested the range of 180m that I arbitrarily made.
Give credit where credit is due.

If anyone wants elaboration on the original idea, please read further:

http://mwomercs.com/...age__mode__show

It tried to introduce more a strategical element to the game in order to calm a portion of
complaining player base.

First, I keep things simple.
Second, don't call on copyright since then I should be suing everyone whoever posts a suggestion.
Third, you're hijacking a thread now. I do believe you just labeled yourself a hypocritical douche.
Fourth, if your thread fails due to bad presentation don't blame others who take the spotlight.
Fifth and most relevant, I'm talking about min range for regular PPCs, not ER PPCs. My "suggestion" is completely different. Read the README parts of the OP.

Edited by DeadlyNerd, 06 July 2013 - 11:56 PM.

[C E Dwyer]

Or just simply give it zero, naught, nadda, damage at under 90meters just how it was created in the original game, and like LRMs have an absolute minimum damage, and all missiles have an absolute maximum range.

I quite ike the idea of some stalker boat letting rip a PPC alpha at a comando from 89 meters and the comando standing there all give it sunshine I can take everything you dish out and return with intrest.

[Stelar 7]

TT PPC had a minimum range of 3, or 300 meters. However none of us are fighting at TT ranges, or with TT accuracy. Why do people keep blathering about TT? Seriously there is a new game for that.

I do like the idea of being able to get under the guns of a PPC mech, but only because I favor lasers and autocannons...

[MustrumRidcully]

DeadlyNerd, on 06 July 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

You illiterate or ignorant? Read the readme parts of the OP and stop brainfarting all over.



AC/20, or even AC/40, is hardly the issue here, because few mechs can take XL engines and put in AC/20, or put in AC/20 in the first place. Almost every mech can put in PPCs.
Stopping boating is the real solution no doubt, but I'm just layin' this out there and doing what the devs should be doing.

You need only one broken mech to get a problem.

For pop-tarting to become a problem,w e only needed the Highlander.
For PPC boating becoming a problem, we only needed the Stalker.

I suppose the only good thing about the AC/40 is right now that there isn't an ASsault that can do it.

Which points us to another problem the game has - Assaults are obviously still the most powerful and most important part of any mech team. Role Warfare isn't there yet.