228 replies to this topic

[Prezimonto]

Geminus, on 14 August 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

How is it easier to fit PPC over AC10? I can take a Jager or a Phract and run x2 AC10 just fine. Or x2 gauss.If you want to run a dual ballistic then you take a mech with the hardpoints for the dual balistic.
And where you can fit the PPC and the heat sinks in the same space it takes to fit AC10 and ammo, the AC10 will still out damage the PPC at medium and close range.
It has a faster reload time and less heat so it can sustain the volume of fire longer.
An ERPPC has a DPS of 2.5 an AC 10 has a DPS of 4. An ERPPC has a HPS of 2.75, an AC10 has a HPS of 1.2 They are both pinpoint.
I run 3 jagers in my mech bay. a 3d witch has its primary of 2 ERPPC equipped, it runs hot and is best at range. Its backup weapons are meant for defense at close range.
a 4x which has a primary weapons system of 2 AC10, its back up weapons are also close range. it runs cool and is a beast at close range.
a Ilya with a primary of 2 gauss, back up are for close range, runs cool and is best at range.

the ilya and 3d are not good close in, they will be bested every time by the 4x.

anytime I am in any of my builds that is sporting Gauss, PPC or ER Larges Ihave to be on the look out for the medium mechs with all the medium lasers, or jagers or phracts with AC5s or 10s. Those are the rock to my scissors.

This isn't about mech variants, it's a direct comparison of two weapon systems which fill roughly equal roles in terms of damage and range. The PPC is clearly the better weapon one on one in all but a short range brawl.

AC10 is 12 tons and 7 slots + 3 tons(and slots) of ammo (minimum as a primary weapon and can explode) + double heat sinks and you can fire it at will.
The ERPPC is 7 tons and 3 slots and needs no ammo (no risk to carry) + double heat sinks + 3 to 4 extra heat sinks... which might all fit in your engine for say 4 tons and no slots.

The ERPPC gets better range by 225, comes in at least 4 tons lower and possibly as much as 7 slots less. It's projectile speed is nearly double that of the AC10 as well, making it much easier to land shots at every range. On the extreme other end with 4 DHS all non-engine you come in a little over so it's slightly less ideal slot wise on small mechs with small engines... who still move fast enough to disengage quickly.

Add to that energy hardpoints are generally more prevalent in the game than ballistic... and you have a clearly superior weapon for nearly every situation.

You may argue the AC10 is in a bad place and the UAC5 is better:
5 slots and 9 tons + 3 tons/slots of ammo... still worse than the ppc in most situations.

ER lasers are vastly inferior because of damage spread at those ranges.

Short range weapons excel in the short range... but it is exceptionally difficult to close in the teeth of PPC spam without losing several mechs... at best losing your advantage and at worse losing most matches.

Missiles... only work well in coordination with others and when spammed. They also leave you vulnerable while you guide them home... for up to 10 seconds between lock and guidance. That's a massive disadvantage to fire and move weapons.

The PPC is a clear, absolutely clear, best choice weapon for it's various properties and this is demonstrated by the number of people that still use them whenever possible.

I would argue strongly that the projectile speed be nerfed back to the closed beta speed of 1200(about?). I would also argue for another half point to a point of heat added OR another second added to the cycle time.

DHS having no drawback breaks game balance badly by under emphasizing heat issues. Imagine if everyone ONLY had single heat sinks all the time, heat would a major consideration and very people would take more than one PPC. But that's a whole different issue. PGI even realized this finally and added totally bogus over the top heat problems (making single heat sinks even more worthless in the process) to compensate. Go PGI.

Edited by Prezimonto, 14 August 2013 - 08:41 PM.

[ghos t in the shel l]

This is not a complain thread. This thread is about PPC being ok and PPC+Gauss ok, meaning they are fine as is except for the hit registration bug. If there is any balancing that needs done, it is on other weapons, like I said if anything PPC and Gauss should be getting a boost and yet people are talking about lowering their effectiveness?

[Joseph Mallan]

I wouldn't go that far Ren. I don't see a need to boost PPCs or Gauss. I have used one each on my D-DC for a long time with acceptable results.

[MischiefSC]

No, PPCs are bad because their heat is off. I don't have a hit registration issue with them - mine as every bit as accurate as any other ballistic weapon - 90% or more. Most of my failed hits are on spiders. You may have some lag problems.

They need their heat up to where they should be. They need their speed down to where it should be. Gauss need the minimum range they are supposed to have. Then they'll be balanced. Hit detection doesn't affect certain weapons - it's a product of relative lag between shooter and target.

So what you're saying is you want to keep all the buffs PPCs got to offset their 100% inaccurate hit detection but fix the hit detection issue.

Essentially what you're saying is you want PPCs to get a huge buff and Gauss to keep their no minimum range buff while fixing the issues they were put in to offset. All while lasers got a heat nerf and most ballistics got a heat nerf, in addition to requiring ammo and several times the weight and crit space requirements.

Which comes down to 'PPCs should be the best weapon in the game in terms of heat/weight/spaces/projectile speed/damage/ancilliary benefits (ECM disruption) because I like them'.

No. That's wrong. PPCs should be a balanced weapon. A good weapon as befits a 7 ton energy weapon, but not absolutely superior to every other. That's a bad meta and it's why they were balanced the way they were in TT.

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 August 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

16 hours. It takes 16 hours to make that change. (IIRC) It take at least 3 days to get from the jump point to the planet.

On an Omni Mech it takes less than one hour.

I stand corrected. According to the BattleTech Master Rules Replacing a weapon or piece of equipment takes a Base of 120 Minutes...


Replacing a destroyed section is 240 Minutes (4 Hours).

Replacing a blown off Limb? 180 Minutes (3 Hours)

Using my handy-dandy stopwatch, it took me approximately 6.22 seconds (including the time it took to save loadout changes) to replace one of my Catapult K2's ERPPCs with a LPL. Those Omnimechs must be pretty jealous right now.

Edited by FupDup, 14 August 2013 - 09:06 PM.

[Wolfways]

Prezimonto, on 14 August 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

This isn't about mech variants, it's a direct comparison of two weapon systems which fill roughly equal roles in terms of damage and range. The PPC is clearly the better weapon one on one in all but a short range brawl.

AC10 is 12 tons and 7 slots + 3 tons(and slots) of ammo (minimum as a primary weapon and can explode) + double heat sinks and you can fire it at will.
The ERPPC is 7 tons and 3 slots and needs no ammo (no risk to carry) + double heat sinks + 3 to 4 extra heat sinks... which might all fit in your engine for say 4 tons and no slots.

The ERPPC gets better range by 225, comes in at least 4 tons lower and possibly as much as 7 slots less. It's projectile speed is nearly double that of the AC10 as well, making it much easier to land shots at every range. On the extreme other end with 4 DHS all non-engine you come in a little over so it's slightly less ideal slot wise on small mechs with small engines... who still move fast enough to disengage quickly.

Add to that energy hardpoints are generally more prevalent in the game than ballistic... and you have a clearly superior weapon for nearly every situation.

You may argue the AC10 is in a bad place and the UAC5 is better:
5 slots and 9 tons + 3 tons/slots of ammo... still worse than the ppc in most situations.

ER lasers are vastly inferior because of damage spread at those ranges.

Short range weapons excel in the short range... but it is exceptionally difficult to close in the teeth of PPC spam without losing several mechs... at best losing your advantage and at worse losing most matches.

Missiles... only work well in coordination with others and when spammed. They also leave you vulnerable while you guide them home... for up to 10 seconds between lock and guidance. That's a massive disadvantage to fire and move weapons.

The PPC is a clear, absolutely clear, best choice weapon for it's various properties and this is demonstrated by the number of people that still use them whenever possible.

I would argue strongly that the projectile speed be nerfed back to the closed beta speed of 1200(about?). I would also argue for another half point to a point of heat added OR another second added to the cycle time.

DHS having no drawback breaks game balance badly by under emphasizing heat issues. Imagine if everyone ONLY had single heat sinks all the time, heat would a major consideration and very people would take more than one PPC. But that's a whole different issue. PGI even realized this finally and added totally bogus over the top heat problems (making single heat sinks even more worthless in the process) to compensate. Go PGI.

You do realize that to make a single ERPPC heat neutral you need 30SHS, or 20DHS (10engine+10external)? 10tons + engine weight...

[Tincan Nightmare]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 August 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

16 hours. It takes 16 hours to make that change. (IIRC) It take at least 3 days to get from the jump point to the planet.

On an Omni Mech it takes less than one hour.

I stand corrected. According to the BattleTech Master Rules Replacing a weapon or piece of equipment takes a Base of 120 Minutes...


Replacing a destroyed section is 240 Minutes (4 Hours).

Replacing a blown off Limb? 180 Minutes (3 Hours)

Except your talking about customization and modification, not replacement, which is covered in that rulebook on pg. 87 where it states
'When Battlemechs are designed, their component are place in certain parts of the Mech's body for good reason. The entire structure of the Mech must be balanced to support its weapons and other equipment. Changing this arrangement through customization can seriously upset the balance and hinder the performance of a Mech.
Therefore, the ideal customization replaces a component with another component that takes up the exact same tonnage and critical spaces in the same location of the Mech. For example, replacing an SRM2 and a ton of ammo with a medium laser and a single heat sink (each weighs 2 tons and occupies 2 critical slots) is easy enough. The balance of the Mech and its internal-space allocation is maintained. Such customizations do not produce any additional modifiers or other problems.
More radical modifications can cause serious problems. If the tonnage and crit slot requirements of new parts do not match the requirements of the parts removed, an additional Technician Skill roll must be made to maintain the balance of the design.'
This is followed by the rules required to perform such a change, and the costs and penalties that could occur. Now I am not arguing that the mechlab should be changed, or our ability to modify mechs getting nerfed, but the lore is that stock mechs are not easily modified or changed (though it could be done, just at great cost) and that they were rarely changed from their existing loadout. Otherwise, if the IS could swap out equipment and weapons on their mechs at will, why was the Omnimech such a big deal to begin with.
Again, I'm fine with the current mechlab and I am constantly switching out loads to experiment with, but arguing that standard Mechs are easily modifiable in the lore is just incorrect.

[Tincan Nightmare]

RENZOKUKEN, on 14 August 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

This is not a complain thread. This thread is about PPC being ok and PPC+Gauss ok, meaning they are fine as is except for the hit registration bug. If there is any balancing that needs done, it is on other weapons, like I said if anything PPC and Gauss should be getting a boost and yet people are talking about lowering their effectiveness?

I don't understand how you can be asking for a boost to those weapons, when you yourself have stated that they are currently not registering all of their hits. If that gets fixed (though who knows anymore with this game) both weapons get an effective boost right there, and if that every happens the stats might need to be adjusted again to reflect that new capability.

[Wolfways]

Has anyone tried using ERPPC's and AC10's?
I have and the AC's are just massively better! Fire twice as fast and generate a lot less heat. Yes AC's are heavy, need ammo, etc. but in battle that means nothing. All that matters is how much damage i do to the enemy.
When using ERPPC's at close/medium range, firing a few times then getting shot to pieces while i do nothing, waiting for my heat to drop, is not fun. AC10 don't have that problem.
But the AC10 is as good at sniping as the ERPPC.

[NineTails]

Wolfways, on 14 August 2013 - 09:16 PM, said:

Has anyone tried using ERPPC's and AC10's?
I have and the AC's are just massively better! Fire twice as fast and generate a lot less heat. Yes AC's are heavy, need ammo, etc. but in battle that means nothing. All that matters is how much damage i do to the enemy.

Isn't the additional weight cost of the AC/10 directly related to how much damage you do to the enemy?

[Joseph Mallan]

Tincan Nightmare, on 14 August 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

Except your talking about customization and modification, not replacement, which is covered in that rulebook on pg. 87 where it states
'When Battlemechs are designed, their component are place in certain parts of the Mech's body for good reason. The entire structure of the Mech must be balanced to support its weapons and other equipment. Changing this arrangement through customization can seriously upset the balance and hinder the performance of a Mech.
Therefore, the ideal customization replaces a component with another component that takes up the exact same tonnage and critical spaces in the same location of the Mech. For example, replacing an SRM2 and a ton of ammo with a medium laser and a single heat sink (each weighs 2 tons and occupies 2 critical slots) is easy enough. The balance of the Mech and its internal-space allocation is maintained. Such customizations do not produce any additional modifiers or other problems.
More radical modifications can cause serious problems. If the tonnage and crit slot requirements of new parts do not match the requirements of the parts removed, an additional Technician Skill roll must be made to maintain the balance of the design.'
This is followed by the rules required to perform such a change, and the costs and penalties that could occur. Now I am not arguing that the mechlab should be changed, or our ability to modify mechs getting nerfed, but the lore is that stock mechs are not easily modified or changed (though it could be done, just at great cost) and that they were rarely changed from their existing loadout. Otherwise, if the IS could swap out equipment and weapons on their mechs at will, why was the Omnimech such a big deal to begin with.
Again, I'm fine with the current mechlab and I am constantly switching out loads to experiment with, but arguing that standard Mechs are easily modifiable in the lore is just incorrect.

The question was how long does it take to replace X with Y. I answered that question with a hard game Mechanics answer. You countered with Rule book Fluff explanation. BattleTech Master Rules Page 91 Repair and Replacement Table.

[Thirdstar]

Wolfways, on 14 August 2013 - 09:16 PM, said:

But the AC10 is as good at sniping as the ERPPC.

[Wolfways]

NineTails, on 14 August 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

Isn't the additional weight cost of the AC/10 directly related to how much damage you do to the enemy?

AC10 - 12tons + 12tons EHS + say around 4tons ammo = 28tons
ERPPC - 7tons + 20tons EHS = 27tons
Not really much of a difference.

Thirdstar, on 14 August 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

Not my problem if you can't aim.

[Thirdstar]

Wolfways, on 14 August 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

Not my problem if you can't aim.

AC10 optimum range 450m
ERPPC optimum range 810m

Not to mention that aren't any platforms that can boat AC10s. Heck carrying even 2 is a feat reserved for only a few chassis. PPCs also travel twice as fast as AC10 rounds.

Yeah, clearly the issue is aiming.

There is nothing at all the AC10 is good at (in this game) that cannot be done better than even another ballistic system, you haven't stumbled upon some grand revelation.

You may realize this if you ever manage to climb out of the underhive.

Edited by Thirdstar, 14 August 2013 - 09:52 PM.

[NineTails]

Wolfways, on 14 August 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

AC10 - 12tons + 12tons EHS + say around 4tons ammo = 28tons
ERPPC - 7tons + 20tons EHS = 27tons
Not really much of a difference.

EHS?

[Wolfways]

Thirdstar, on 14 August 2013 - 09:40 PM, said:

AC10 optimum range 450m
ERPPC optimum range 810m

Yeah, clearly the issue is aiming.

There is nothing at all the AC10 is good at (in this game) that cannot be done better than even another ballistic system, you haven't stumbled upon some grand revelation.

You may realize this if you ever manage to climb out of the underhive.

Tbh i don't care if my shot does less damage than optimal. Any damage is better than none.
Just today i took out a Raven (non-headshot) at around 1500m firing multiple shots from dual AC5's. No idea if i could do that with AC10's but i know i couldn't with PPC's, and i've been using ER/PPC's since CB, and AC's for about a month.

NineTails, on 14 August 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

EHS?

Efficient heatsinks to negate heat.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 August 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

The question was how long does it take to replace X with Y. I answered that question with a hard game Mechanics answer. You countered with Rule book Fluff explanation. BattleTech Master Rules Page 91 Repair and Replacement Table.

Except once again you are talking about a table for repairing an item or replacing it with a like item. If a Warhammer goes out and gets its left PPC damaged, that table explains how long it takes to repair that PPC or replace it with a new PPC. It does not reflect replacing that PPC with a large laser or AC5. That is covered under 'customizing and retrofits' on pg 87, and it isn't 'fluff' it is the rules.
'If the tonnage and critical-slot requirements of new parts do not match the requirements of the parts removed, and additional Technician Skill roll must be made to maintain the balance of the design. Make a separate roll for each location that experiences a change in space and/or tonnage. If only the tonnage or critical space is altered, add +2 modifier to the target number. If both tonnage and critical space is altered, add +4 modifier. If using the MechWarrior RPG rules, apply a -2 modifier if the tech has the engineering skill. If the roll fails, the design's balance has been disrupted by the customization. In the case of leg and torso customization, this imbalance results in a +1 modifier to all piloting skill rolls for that Mech.'
So the point I am making, is that while the table you quote represent the time to repair or replace a part, it does not reflect the difficulty in modifying a standard Mech. Yes, some unique versions of Mechs do exist in the BT universe, but they are the exception not the rule. Attempting to change the load of a standard Mech could actually result in penalties and reduced performance, which is hardly what we have in MWO. We currently have all the benefits of Omnimechs, plus the ability to change armor and structure and engines, with only a limiting factor of hardpoints.

[Thirdstar]

Wolfways, on 14 August 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

No idea if i could do that with AC10's but i know i couldn't with PPC's

Learn to aim.

At 1500m the damage from an AC5 will have dropped off to nearly nothing. If you engage an ERPPC mech at over 800m it will wreck you and your AC10 before you so much as scratch it.

Also from the edited portion of my post - "Not to mention that aren't any platforms that can boat AC10s. Heck carrying even 2 is a feat reserved for only a few chassis. PPCs also travel twice as fast as AC10 rounds."

What are efficient heatsinks? There's only SHS and DHS in this game, so I don't understand what you're talking about.

Edited by Thirdstar, 14 August 2013 - 09:58 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Tincan Nightmare, on 14 August 2013 - 09:53 PM, said:

Except once again you are talking about a table for repairing an item or replacing it with a like item. If a Warhammer goes out and gets its left PPC damaged, that table explains how long it takes to repair that PPC or replace it with a new PPC. It does not reflect replacing that PPC with a large laser or AC5. That is covered under 'customizing and retrofits' on pg 87, and it isn't 'fluff' it is the rules.
'If the tonnage and critical-slot requirements of new parts do not match the requirements of the parts removed, and additional Technician Skill roll must be made to maintain the balance of the design. Make a separate roll for each location that experiences a change in space and/or tonnage. If only the tonnage or critical space is altered, add +2 modifier to the target number. If both tonnage and critical space is altered, add +4 modifier. If using the MechWarrior RPG rules, apply a -2 modifier if the tech has the engineering skill. If the roll fails, the design's balance has been disrupted by the customization. In the case of leg and torso customization, this imbalance results in a +1 modifier to all piloting skill rolls for that Mech.'
So the point I am making, is that while the table you quote represent the time to repair or replace a part, it does not reflect the difficulty in modifying a standard Mech. Yes, some unique versions of Mechs do exist in the BT universe, but they are the exception not the rule. Attempting to change the load of a standard Mech could actually result in penalties and reduced performance, which is hardly what we have in MWO. We currently have all the benefits of Omnimechs, plus the ability to change armor and structure and engines, with only a limiting factor of hardpoints.

So 2 hours an a dice roll! And wow It can be done. Imagine that. But since we don't want dice rolls in MWO, Our Techs have Mad Skillz! And can replace everything as easy as 2 PPCs and a Gauss Can Converge on one Pixel. Which by BattleTech rules, that kind of Accuracy (called shot) can only be performed on a shut down Mech OR with the use of a Targeting Computer.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 August 2013 - 10:06 PM.

[Lyoto Machida]

MischiefSC, on 14 August 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

Love of god. The solution is the silliest thing in the world to fix.

PPC/ERPPC heat was reduced because prior to HSR they were incredibly inaccurate. They also had a slower projectile speed. So in order to compensate for their lack of accuracy they had a 4pt heat reduction for ERPPCs and a 2pt heat reduction for PPCs and a projectile speed buff of 60% - from1200 to 2,000.

Now they are accurate. Undo the buffs they got to compensate for the lack of accurate hit detection.

Heat for PPCs - 10pts/shot. Heat for ERPPCs - 15/shot. Put speed down to 1600 or so.

Gauss should have a minimum range, ERPPCs don't. This makes snipers still effective - high pinpoint damage at great range but energy weapons (without ammo limits and lower weight) are painfully hot and gauss are heavy and have a minimum range - not viable for brawling.

Boom. Balanced, and balanced wonderfully. Much like an LRM boat is balanced - it's got a nieche that it fills and fills well but is nearly helpless at point blank. The issue right now absolutely is that a PPC/ERPPC/Gauss build is just as good at brawling as it is at long range - A little warm but not too bad and you've got gauss to brawl with while your heat from your PPCs recycles down.

This never was an issue to fix. Ghost heat is a bad idea IMO. Just balance the weapons.

Why is this so hard for PGI (and some people on here) to see? I'm guessing the ones pushing for the status quo don't want to give up the advantages they have with the PPCs right now. Yes, it should be a fearsome mid-long range weapon but with a burden of heat.

Basically, there are only two options. Either the devs are too dumb to figure out this fix themselves and dont read the forums or they are intentionally not implementing it for some reason (even though it was able to be implemented in reverse months ago). I can't think of any other scenario, so I'm basically assuming they feel that this is where PPCs should be.