68 replies to this topic

[Typatty]

What would balance PPCs best?

Edited by Typatty, 21 July 2013 - 09:21 PM.

[Mystere]

Give everyone Urbanmechs armed only with two machine guns and fighting in a single 100 meter by 100 meter square and totally flat map. This should end all "nerf <anything>" threads like this one.

[Kanatta Jing]

Mystere, on 21 July 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

Give everyone Urbanmechs armed only with two machine guns and fighting in a single 100 meter by 100 meter square and totally flat map. This should end all "nerf <anything>" threads like this one.

But then Machine Guns would be OP.

[Tennex]

+1 heat to PPCs baby steps

[Rahnu]

Tennex, on 21 July 2013 - 09:45 PM, said:

+1 heat to PPCs baby steps

How about "no"?

We need to revert PPC heat back to the levels they were at before they got buffed (10 for PPCs, 13 for ER-PPCs). There is simply no reason not to. This is not enough, however, as PPCs also need their projectile speed reduced, and medium lasers should have their heat reverted as well. Then we'll finally see something approaching a semblance of balance (though LB X-10s, machineguns, flamers, AC/2/5/10s, and pulse lasers will all still need some form of buffing).

[xRatas]

Zyrusticae, on 21 July 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

How about "no"?

We need to revert PPC heat back to the levels they were at before they got buffed (10 for PPCs, 13 for ER-PPCs). There is simply no reason not to.

Actually, there is. They made up something completely weird and random, that affects (or is supposed to affect) PPC heat.

Indeed, better would be to put +1 heat to both PPCs, and keep doing so every patch until they start to vanish from the field. Then think carefully and maybe rollback the last +1. Much better than throwing big changes around.

I, personally, would make changes to PPC mechanics. My favorite would be laser like ray, that does not travel at light speed (I know it should be pretty close in theory, but won't complain if it is not). Minimum range would damage your own mech (all the reduction enemy gets would be dealt to your own mech's PPC location internals).

Then I would change pulse laser mechanics so that they have very short cooldown (i.e. less than second), so they would have really different mechanic and uses (Their RoF completely determined by heat). Buffing them would make brawling more balanced in relation to sniping, so this would effectively nerf PPC too. Balance with heat and damage as needed.

Edited by xRatas, 21 July 2013 - 10:37 PM.

[Aim64C]

I've written on this in a couple of places, but aside from my own personal thoughts - the first thing that needs to be done in order to balance the PPC is to bring their heat back up to 10 and 13 (or even 15).

Following that:

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2573209

Is a charge mechanic (think Spartan Laser, Torque Bow, BFG9000, etc).

[Teralitha]

Typatty, on 21 July 2013 - 09:20 PM, said:

What would balance PPCs best?

Decreasing projectile speed, but not just for PPC's, all projectile weapons. Its not the most popular solution, but it is certainly the best one.

[Unbound Inferno]

xRatas, on 21 July 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

Actually, there is. They made up something completely weird and random, that affects (or is supposed to affect) PPC heat.

Indeed, better would be to put +1 heat to both PPCs, and keep doing so every patch until they start to vanish from the field. Then think carefully and maybe rollback the last +1. Much better than throwing big changes around.

I, personally, would make changes to PPC mechanics. My favorite would be laser like ray, that does not travel at light speed (I know it should be pretty close in theory, but won't complain if it is not). Minimum range would damage your own mech (all the reduction enemy gets would be dealt to your own mech's PPC location internals).

Then I would change pulse laser mechanics so that they have very short cooldown (i.e. less than second), so they would have really different mechanic and uses (Their RoF completely determined by heat). Buffing them would make brawling more balanced in relation to sniping, so this would effectively nerf PPC too. Balance with heat and damage as needed.

That sounds extreme. I don't want to see us needing to wait until PPC are 12heat and ERPPC needing 20 for them to be gone.

Better off just going 10 Heat PPC and push ERPPC to 15 - the shock value will dump plenty and that'll be what starts seeing more variety out there.

[AnarchyBurger]

Other-PPC should give a slight splash value. Where the bulk of the damage (80% or so) should hit the target while the rest should be distributed to nearby areas.

[Koniving]

I couldn't select more than one. Chose explanation.

Explained:
First: Remove the penalty system on this or modify it slightly. Though I'd prefer a true fix to the heat threshold system because 3 ER PPCs fired at the same time is supposed to instantly kill the pilot and detonate the reactor/engine. (In TT you can't fire all weapons at once, they are queued over 10 seconds). To generate 45 heat at once is instant suicide, even on mechwarrior 3. On MWO with the rising threshold, it's 53% heat.

After:

• Decrease PPC projectile speed to 1500m/s (still faster than the gauss rifle). (Possibly: Keep ER PPC at 2000m/s as penance for the next step.)
  
  • Alternatively, have standard PPCs projectile speed 2000m/s but put the acceleration back into the game (0.5 seconds to reach full speed), as it'd make sense with step 6 since Capacitors built up the energy and then projected it forward instead of the instant heat spike of ER PPCs. The effect looked awesome in Closed Beta.
    
  • ER PPCs in this alternate case would still have their instant acceleration but possibly cut their speed back to 1800m/s or less to avoid the 'instant click and you die' phenomena.
• Increase heat back to 10 and 15 (unlike tabletop our excess heat bar can be up to 80 threshold, where TT is 30).
  
• Then, either increase recharge rate of standard PPCs (fire more frequently) or decrease it for ER PPCs (fire less frequently) to encourage diversity against benefits.
  
• Remove the linear damage decline of standard PPCs to go from 10 to 0 at less than 90 meters. Instead, allow a Capacitor toggle (lore friendly) which allows you to do full damage at below minimum range at 20 heat per PPC and risk of the weapon exploding. (Note with the alternate projectile speed option, Capacitors off would also remove the 0.5 seconds required for full acceleration, allowing the PPC to fire instantly as a pro to the high risk involved). If the PPC explodes, perhaps damage in the 5 to 10 range to the user's internals.

Finally, wait for the complete rescripting of missile damage, as according to NGNG Podcast 79 found here at 32 to 40 minutes in, the long term plan for PPCs is that they are going to get added to explosive weapons and have a 25% "or so" splash effect. (While it's an idea I've had in the past, this part is PGI's stated long term plan).

I should note the rescripting of missiles was mentioned for a reason:

Currently, splash multiplies the base damage. So if PPCs were added to it now, it'd take 10 base damage and multiply it into the splash, creating an overall damage multiplier that against a commando (due to max splash) would generate (2.5 damage missile multiplies up to 18 damage per missile, so divide that by 2.5 and we get a 7.2 multiplier. 10 multiplied by 7.2 and we get) 72 damage for 1 PPC. Bad idea at the moment.

After the rewrite, explosive weapons will subtract from a base damage, and then throw that into splash. So 2.5 damage per SRM, subtract 25% = 1.875 at impact site + 0.625 in total splash. I'm only assuming 25% it could be larger or smaller.

This means a PPC with the quoted 25% from Russ Bullock (CEO of the company), would take the base damage of 10 and subtract 25% into splash. It would generate 7.5 damage on the impact site and 2.5 damage into a neighboring component. If there are two neighboring components in the splash, the 2.5 damage would be split between the two of them.

When you look at the graphical effects of a PPC hitting a target this makes sense.


And for fun: A Gauss Rifle impact.

Spoiler

Edit: Cleared up the splash mechanic a bit better.

Edited by Koniving, 22 July 2013 - 09:30 AM.

[Unbound Inferno]

Koniving, on 22 July 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

This means a PPC with the quoted 25% from Russ Bullock (CEO of the company), would generate 7.5 damage on the impact site and 2.5 damage into a neighboring component.

That's supposed to reduce PPC frequent use - HOW?

You just made PPC more dangerous as you don't need to have a good CT hit all the time to kill the mech, just enough close enough and you'll kill it.

Quite counter-productive that way.

[Wolf Ender]

Teralitha, on 22 July 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

Decreasing projectile speed, but not just for PPC's, all projectile weapons. Its not the most popular solution, but it is certainly the best one.

this is the conclusion i have come to (at least when it comes to PPCs. for autocannons i can say i'm leaning towards this but not entirely convinced yet) but if memory serves me correctly, and this is pretty subjective, but i can remember a time in MWO that PPC's were pretty much never used and anyone you ask would prefer to use large lasers.

then we had PPC's get their heat reduced (marginally) and also projectile speed buffed. we also had host state rewind for energy weapons come in shortly after that. I believe that it's the projectile speed more than the heat reduction that make PPC's such a powerful weapon now. the fact that you get all your damage front-loaded without having to lead your target that much just makes it a great weapon and it's worth the heat penalty.

Edited by Wolf Ender, 22 July 2013 - 09:30 AM.

[Koniving]

xRatas, on 21 July 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

Then I would change pulse laser mechanics so that they have very short cooldown (i.e. less than second), so they would have really different mechanic and uses (Their RoF completely determined by heat). Buffing them would make brawling more balanced in relation to sniping, so this would effectively nerf PPC too. Balance with heat and damage as needed.

You're describing weapon variants. Since it's unrelated to PPC balancing my response is in a spoiler. Should still be an interesting read.

Spoiler

Also, back when LPL generated 11 heat (and PPCs did 10), I did this with just 2 of them and 2 SRM-2s. Not streaks, SRM-2s. Stalker 3H, first one I had, not much if anything on the unlocks, as many DHS as I could stuff in it, maximum standard engine.


There's nothing wrong with them and they are buffed compared to back then. I should note most of my enemies were brawling Atlases, too, with the fun SRM damage multipliers.

----------

On the variants topic:
Ideas have been put forth. Since there's over 44 variants of medium laser in lore, I gave a couple of types for thought to regular lasers to expand on how they could do variants:

Burst Laser -- think MW-LL, but with a charge up. You press the button and the barrel holding the laser begins to build up energy, emitting smoke through its vents (a warning to the enemy) before firing an instant damage laser, and requiring a cooldown. It would have identical DPS to a medium laser but not require you to 'hold' the target. The best comparison is the Spartan Laser on Halo. The charge up is to keep it from being a 1-ton AC/5, but the charge up also cuts down 0.5 seconds on the cooldown, too, in order to keep the dps identical.

Stream Laser -- Non-stop, no cooldown laser generating 1.25 damage (for medium stream laser) per second (identical DPS to regular laser). It never stops, but the longer you hold it the faster it generates heat.

I did a vid on autocannon 20 variants.

[Koniving]

Unbound Inferno, on 22 July 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

You just made PPC more dangerous as you don't need to have a good CT hit all the time to kill the mech, just enough close enough and you'll kill it.

Quite counter-productive that way.

The 2.5 would be to the "close to it" damage to the CT. An exact hit is a 7.5 damage. Very different compared to 10 directly.
6 PPCs directly to CT = 60 damage. 6 PPCs with splash directly to CT = 45 damage + 7.5 to left torso and 7.5 to right torso.

It wouldn't be any more dangerous. If anything it'd be slightly less dangerous.

That alone is not supposed to reduce their frequency, just PGI's plan to lighten the pinpoint damage. PGI's penalty system is supposed to reduce frequency.

[Unbound Inferno]

Koniving, on 22 July 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

The 2.5 would be to the "close to it" damage to the CT. An exact hit is a 7.5 damage. Very different compared to 10 directly.
6 PPCs directly to CT = 60 damage. 6 PPCs with splash directly to CT = 45 damage + 7.5 to left torso and 7.5 to right torso.

It wouldn't be any more dangerous. If anything it'd be slightly less dangerous.

That alone is not supposed to reduce their frequency, just PGI's plan to lighten the pinpoint damage. PGI's penalty system is supposed to reduce frequency.

Knowing PGI's splash mechanic - unless they really did a good job overhauling it - means its 60 damage CT, 7.5 damage LT/RT

or a torn off LT/RT and 7/5 damage to CT

Loose-loose on the recieving end really.

[Koniving]

Unbound Inferno, on 22 July 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

Knowing PGI's splash mechanic - unless they really did a good job overhauling it - means its 60 damage CT, 7.5 damage LT/RT

It's "lose-lose", actually.
I see you failed to read the explanation of the before and after script rewrite from the Core Cryengine 3 Splash Mechanic (not made by PGI, but is what was used in the original missiles which had the issue) to PGI's Planned Splash Mechanic..
I shall repeat it, in large letters for you.

Spoiler

Currently, splash multiplies the base damage. So if PPCs were added to it now, it'd take 10 base damage and multiply it into the splash, creating an overall damage multiplier that against a commando (due to max splash) would generate (2.5 damage missile multiplies up to 18 damage per missile, so divide that by 2.5 and we get a 7.2 multiplier. 10 multiplied by 7.2 and we get) 72 damage for 1 PPC. Bad idea at the moment.

After the rewrite, explosive weapons will subtract from a base damage, and then throw that into splash. So 2.5 damage per SRM, subtract 25% = 1.875 at impact site + 0.625 in total splash. I'm only assuming 25% it could be larger or smaller.

This means a PPC with the quoted 25% from Russ Bullock (CEO of the company), would take the base damage of 10 and subtract 25% into splash. It would generate 7.5 damage on the impact site and 2.5 damage into a neighboring component. If there are two neighboring components in the splash, the 2.5 damage would be split between the two of them.

[Unbound Inferno]

Koniving, on 22 July 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

[/size]

It's "lose-lose", actually.
I see you failed to read the explanation of the before and after script rewrite from the Core Cryengine 3 Splash Mechanic (not made by PGI, but is what was used in the original missiles which had the issue) to PGI's Planned Splash Mechanic..
I shall repeat it, in large letters for you.

Spoiler

Currently, splash multiplies the base damage. So if PPCs were added to it now, it'd take 10 base damage and multiply it into the splash, creating an overall damage multiplier that against a commando (due to max splash) would generate (2.5 damage missile multiplies up to 18 damage per missile, so divide that by 2.5 and we get a 7.2 multiplier. 10 multiplied by 7.2 and we get) 72 damage for 1 PPC. Bad idea at the moment.

After the rewrite, explosive weapons will subtract from a base damage, and then throw that into splash. So 2.5 damage per SRM, subtract 25% = 1.875 at impact site + 0.625 in total splash. I'm only assuming 25% it could be larger or smaller.

This means a PPC with the quoted 25% from Russ Bullock (CEO of the company), would take the base damage of 10 and subtract 25% into splash. It would generate 7.5 damage on the impact site and 2.5 damage into a neighboring component. If there are two neighboring components in the splash, the 2.5 damage would be split between the two of them.

Repeat all you want.

I DON'T TRUST PGI TO GET IT RIGHT AT ALL.

Seriously. If it was as simple as they'd said, you'd think they would have fixed it for LRMs before making them dirt useless again.

[VanillaG]

If you want to reduce the amount of pinpoint damage a PPC can do, turn it into a beam weapon like all other energy weapons. If you want to do pinpoint damage, use a ballistic and deal with all of the downsides of ballistics. The PPC gets the benefit of up front damage but it is lighter, smaller, uses no ammo, and has the fastest projectile speed.

The reason that PPC were bad in closed beta had to do with the fact that ballistics had poor hit detection and they had the highest heat generated of any ballistic style weapon. Every miss generated a lot heat and with beam weapons allowing you to get at least some damage done, people went with the other energy weapons.

[Koniving]

Unbound Inferno, on 22 July 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

Seriously. If it was as simple as they'd said, you'd think they would have fixed it for LRMs before making them dirt useless again.

They never said it was simple. Apparently they tried 3 times, and broke the game. It's a "core" gameplay script that when changed, breaks multiple other scripts. For example when commenting splash out of the script or setting it to zero, the SRMs, LRMs, etc., suddenly lost all flight patterns, spread, and went in straight lines to their targets.

Listen to NGNG podcast 79 32 minutes to 40. It's explained as something that has been extremely difficult and they are not getting any support on the matter by CryEngine's creators.

Edit: "nit" typo fixed to "not."

Not everyone at PGI is as overly complex in finding triple-baked solutions that avoid the actual problems as Paul is.

A past issue they've had long-standing, and a detailed explanation.
http://mwomercs.com/...-hud-bug-brief/

Edited by Koniving, 22 July 2013 - 10:17 AM.