228 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

Thirdstar, on 14 August 2013 - 09:55 PM, said:

Learn to aim.

Obviously there's nothing wrong with my aim, but PPC's just...i don't know, feel weird. Somehow they are just harder to hit a target with. I know there were many in CB saying the same thing but don't know how others feel about it now.

Quote

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.

It was enough to take out a mech. It helped my team and that's all that matters. But i wouldn't go head-to-head with a PPC mech. Noone should go head-to-head with any mech if they can help it.

Quote

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."

Isn't that the point of using a bigger mech?

Quote

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

Efficient heatsinks = the number required (SHS) to negate the heat from a weapon.

[NineTails]

Wolfways, on 14 August 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

Efficient heatsinks = the number required (SHS) to negate the heat from a weapon.

I begin to doubt the value of your contributions to this discussion when you start citing Single Heat Sinks as a meaningful metric by which to view weapons.

[Wolfways]

NineTails, on 14 August 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

I begin to doubt the value of your contributions to this discussion when you start citing Single Heat Sinks as a meaningful metric by which to view weapons.

lol i didn't say i used SHS. But the info is here: http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/

Oh btw, it takes 20DHS (10engine + 10external) to negate heat from one ERPPC.

Edited by Wolfways, 14 August 2013 - 10:18 PM.

[Thirdstar]

Wolfways, on 14 August 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

Obviously there's nothing wrong with my aim, but PPC's just...i don't know, feel weird. Somehow they are just harder to hit a target with. I know there were many in CB saying the same thing but don't know how others feel about it now.
.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're talking about the old PPC with had more heat, terrible hitreg and shot speed slower than the AC20.

That PPC is gone.

And please don't use SHS in your mech. You'll make mech babby Jesus cry.

[Wolfways]

Just realised i made a mistake in an earlier post.

AC10 - 12tons + 12tons EHS + say around 4tons ammo = 28tons
ERPPC - 7tons + 30tons EHS = 37tons

Fixed.

Thirdstar, on 14 August 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're talking about the old PPC with had more heat, terrible hitreg and shot speed slower than the AC20.

That PPC is gone.

And please don't use SHS in your mech. You'll make mech babby Jesus cry.

Hmm, maybe i just need more practice with it. I haven't played for a long time...Although i'll have to find another mech to use, that K2 head hitbox is getting really annoying.

And no, i don't use SHS

[Thirdstar]

To recap though you compared a weapon with shorter range, longer travel time, more weight and slots and ammo to the PPC, the current meta king which you reliably stick 2 of on many chassis for the best pinpoint damage in the game.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 August 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

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.

Hey, I'm totally happy with MWO's techs being able to replace an MG on a K2 with a gauss rifle without breaking a sweat, or swapping out a sm. laser with a PPC without having to find a way to fit the extra 6.5 tons in that tiny spot. I have no problem with the mechlab at present, or hitting what I aim at, I'm just not trying to rewrite the lore to justify it, or throwing out a table that shows the time it takes to repair a component and saying it proves my point on how easy and quick it would be to change a standard engine with an XL, or replace a Mechs standard internal structure with an Endo Steel skeleton. If you somehow got the idea that I'm quoting from the rulebook because I want long wait times and/or potential failures from modding a Mech your wrong. I just thought it was foolish that you were trying to compare a time table for repairing a mech from damage taken in the field, to rearranging its internal components and entire construction.

[Wolfways]

Thirdstar, on 14 August 2013 - 10:24 PM, said:

To recap though you compared a weapon with shorter range, longer travel time, more weight and slots and ammo to the PPC, the current meta king which you reliably stick 2 of on many chassis for the best pinpoint damage in the game.

Look at it this way.
If you're sniping and you fire PPC's at an enemy mech who is close to cover he'll immediately move back into cover and you'll get maybe two hits. With the faster firing speed of the AC's you'll hit him a few times more before he's out of sight.
At closer range cover is rarely involved, and firing non-stop with AC's is better than a few shots with PPC's then waiting for your mech to cool.

Like i said though, i may just need more practice. But as of now i honestly feel that the AC10 is better than the PPC.

Edited by Wolfways, 14 August 2013 - 10:34 PM.

[NineTails]

Wolfways, on 14 August 2013 - 10:24 PM, said:

Just realised i made a mistake in an earlier post.

AC10 - 12tons + 12tons EHS + say around 4tons ammo = 28tons
ERPPC - 7tons + 30tons EHS = 37tons

Fixed.

I am reasonably sure that I don't understand what you mean when you say EHS or how the math on them is supposed to work.

EDIT: Oh, I see where on Smurfy they're talking about EHS. And.... they don't have any better explanation for it than you do. Huh.

Well, in that case, all I can say is.... nobody, anywhere, ever, uses 30 tons of anything to offset the heat of an ER PPC. Ever. Anywhere. Your math is as disconnected from the reality of MWO play as any I've ever seen. I suggest that, rather than depending on a speculative interpretation of an unexplained statistic, you express your ideas in terms that more people will understand.

Edited by NineTails, 14 August 2013 - 10:44 PM.

[TSB101]

I see a thread like this and I just shake my head.

Go watch a competitive match (or more) and you will see three things in common:

1) PPC
2) PPC
3) Gauss

Now are you telling me that every competitive team has it wrong and this is in fact not the most effective/efficient build in the game? Notice any common themes in these weapon systems? Say, I don't know, long range pin-point damage? 80% of the Mechs on a team will use exactly this build. Usually on a CTF-3D. Maybe a HGN for funsies.

MWO is not Table Top. Where your shots land is not determined by a random roll of dice. It is determined by where you click on the enemy Mech. That - in and of itself - completely changes the dynamic of balance within the game. If you can point me to a high-level match where victory was not centered around squeezing as much potential out of this setup as possible I will be more than happy to listen. Otherwise - YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

If you could theoretically mount 2x PPC's and a Guass on a Mech in Table Top - tell me: What are the odds of all three shots landing on the same spot on an enemy Mech? What are the odds in MWO?

Edited by TSB101, 14 August 2013 - 10:41 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Tincan Nightmare, on 14 August 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

Hey, I'm totally happy with MWO's techs being able to replace an MG on a K2 with a gauss rifle without breaking a sweat, or swapping out a sm. laser with a PPC without having to find a way to fit the extra 6.5 tons in that tiny spot. I have no problem with the mechlab at present, or hitting what I aim at, I'm just not trying to rewrite the lore to justify it, or throwing out a table that shows the time it takes to repair a component and saying it proves my point on how easy and quick it would be to change a standard engine with an XL, or replace a Mechs standard internal structure with an Endo Steel skeleton. If you somehow got the idea that I'm quoting from the rulebook because I want long wait times and/or potential failures from modding a Mech your wrong. I just thought it was foolish that you were trying to compare a time table for repairing a mech from damage taken in the field, to rearranging its internal components and entire construction.

Replacing an Engine= a base of 6 hours. I would assume replacing a Standard with an XL would take longer. Replacing the MG with a Gauss Stats at 2 hours. Do Remember though, The Master rules even though Updated, Have been superseded by more recent rules. Why the ones in the Solaris 7 Map Pack would literally make your head explode on how easy it is to swap out X for Y. You get 6-10 configuration points. Using this method I changed the King Crab-005 into the King Crab-005b. That was my Submission for a contest BattleCorps held.

[Joseph Mallan]

TSB101, on 14 August 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

I see a thread like this and I just shake my head.

Go watch a competitive match (or more) and you will see three things in common:

1) PPC
2) PPC
3) Gauss

Now are you telling me that every competitive team has it wrong and this is in fact not the most effective/efficient build in the game? Notice any common themes in these weapon systems? Say, I don't know, long range pin-point damage? 80% of the Mechs on a team will use exactly this build. Usually on a CTF-3D. Maybe a HGN for funsies.

MWO is not Table Top. Where your shots land is not determined by a random roll of dice. It is determined by where you click on the enemy Mech. That - in and of itself - completely changes the dynamic of balance within the game. If you can point me to a high-level match where victory was not centered around squeezing as much potential out of this setup as possible I will be more than happy to listen. Otherwise - YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

If you could theoretically mount 2x PPC's and a Guass on a Mech in Table Top - tell me: What are the odds of all three shots landing on the same spot on an enemy Mech? What are the odds in MWO?

Do I get a Targeting Computer?

Depending on the dice, up to a 33% chance. Statistically 2d6 hits 7 more often than any other combo.

[Wolfways]

NineTails, on 14 August 2013 - 10:35 PM, said:

I am reasonably sure that I don't understand what you mean when you say EHS or how the math on them is supposed to work.

EDIT: Oh, I see where on Smurfy they're talking about EHS. And.... they don't have any better explanation for it than you do. Huh.

Well, in that case, all I can say is.... nobody, anywhere, ever, uses 30 tons of anything to offset the heat of an ER PPC. Ever. Anywhere. Your math is as disconnected from the reality of MWO play as any I've ever seen. I suggest that, rather than depending on a speculative interpretation of an unexplained statistic, you express your ideas in terms that more people will understand.

lol i'm not saying you need to use 30tons of heatsinks. You can't.
The point is that energy weapons need a lot of heatsinks. So saying ballistic weapons are heavier because of the weight of the weapon plus ammo means nothing.

[TSB101]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 August 2013 - 10:50 PM, said:

Do I get a Targeting Computer?

Depending on the dice, up to a 33% chance. Statistically 2d6 hits 7 more often than any other combo.

Those two PPC's in my left arm are going to hit the same spot 100% of the time. Usually I can get the Gauss to land there too. Quite a difference from TT to MWO.

Targeting computers use tonnage do they not? I can perform better than a targeting computer and I only weight 200 lbs. So no, you don't get a targeting computer. =P

What are the odds without a targeting computer? Not that I really should care - MWO should not cling too heavily to TT to balance the game. My point remains.

Also I realize you were just answering my question and not actually arguing against my point. I may come off aggressive. Thank you for the information.

Edited by TSB101, 14 August 2013 - 11:05 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

TSB101, on 14 August 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:

Those two PPC's in my left arm are going to hit the same spot 100% of the time. Usually I can get the Gauss to land there too. Quite a difference from TT to MWO.

You didn't play TT with some of the guys I did. My daughter is a local legend. She is known as quite the head hunter. Winning quite a few tournaments by rolling exactly what she needed to hit, then follow it up with a Boxcar head shot.

Oh and statistically there is no such thing as 100%.

[TSB101]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 August 2013 - 11:01 PM, said:

Oh and statistically there is no such thing as 100%.

Pretty sure 1+1 = 2 100% of the time.

And yes, I am well aware of what feats are capable by the dice gods. I have played many matches of Warhammer 40k. Sometimes that last Sergeant with a powerfist refuses to die. Or rolling three natural 20's in a row in D&D. These things happen. But they are extraordinary. Me hitting your CT three times in a row? Not really an anomaly.

But I digress. My point stands.

Also kudos for being a cool enough dad to have your daughter play TT.

Edited by TSB101, 14 August 2013 - 11:14 PM.

[Ranik Kaminski]

TSB101, on 14 August 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

I see a thread like this and I just shake my head.

Go watch a competitive match (or more) and you will see three things in common:

1) PPC
2) PPC
3) Gauss

Now are you telling me that every competitive team has it wrong and this is in fact not the most effective/efficient build in the game? Notice any common themes in these weapon systems? Say, I don't know, long range pin-point damage? 80% of the Mechs on a team will use exactly this build. Usually on a CTF-3D. Maybe a HGN for funsies.

MWO is not Table Top. Where your shots land is not determined by a random roll of dice. It is determined by where you click on the enemy Mech. That - in and of itself - completely changes the dynamic of balance within the game. If you can point me to a high-level match where victory was not centered around squeezing as much potential out of this setup as possible I will be more than happy to listen. Otherwise - YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

If you could theoretically mount 2x PPC's and a Guass on a Mech in Table Top - tell me: What are the odds of all three shots landing on the same spot on an enemy Mech? What are the odds in MWO?

TSB101, on 14 August 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:

Those two PPC's in my left arm are going to hit the same spot 100% of the time. Usually I can get the Gauss to land there too. Quite a difference from TT to MWO.

Targeting computers use tonnage do they not? I can perform better than a targeting computer and I only weight 200 lbs. So no, you don't get a targeting computer. =P

What are the odds without a targeting computer? Not that I really should care - MWO should not cling too heavily to TT to balance the game. My point remains.

Also I realize you were just answering my question and not actually arguing against my point. I may come off aggressive. Thank you for the information.

You are basically correct. As someone who has played the tabletop and just about every form of Mechwarrior videogame. The differences are fundemental. And you are never going to balance around Tabletop stats with non Tabletop mechanics.

As much as I love fire support via PPC/Gauss/LRM's as it's my favorite style of gameplay. It is simply too effective in the current peekaboo and alpha playstyle of MWO.

Edited by Ranik Kaminski, 14 August 2013 - 11:13 PM.

[Thirdstar]

Wolfways, on 14 August 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

But as of now i honestly feel that the AC10 is better than the PPC.

I don't know what to tell you. I've pointed out how's it's objectively worse in MWO and you've chosen to ignore it while citing hypothetical scenarios and anecdotal data.

You want long range boated AC5 or UAC5 is better. If you can deal with the strange ghost heat boated AC2 is also a valid option.

None of those are pinpoint like PPC though.

[Karl Streiger]

Ranik Kaminski, on 14 August 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

You are basically correct. As someone who has played the tabletop and just about every form of Mechwarrior videogame. The differences are fundemental. And you are never going to balance around Tabletop stats with non Tabletop mechanics.

Simple QFT

But i have to outline it again:
YOU can not balance this game arround TT values - that you don't even understand - without TT mechanics

Totally missing:

• range brackets
  
• heat penaltys for over exceeding the heatsink threshhold

I would also argue that they should drop internal components, heat at all and ammuniton.... i don't think the experience will differ

[MrZakalwe]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 August 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

Holy subject chance Batman!

Hit Reg is an issue for some/many/most. But isn't that a different discussion?

The role of a PPC is heavy hitting energy weapon with good range. The role of ERPPC is heavy hitting Energy weapon with Better range. It is supposed to be respected and feared. We keep trying to nerf it it will be back to being a laughing stock.

2 PPCs is not OP A Gauss Rifle is not OP the combination is a perfect hammer.

And I'd like PPCs to stay a good and deadly weapon I'd just like to see a slightly reduced projectile speed so that I don#t have such an easy time snuffing out the lives of smaller, faster mechs and so that realistically the PPC + Gauss alpha will only hit one location against a target that is stationary to you.

I'd like to see the Gauss rifle's projectile speed increased and its cooldown increased making it the best sniper weapon in the game then both have a role that doesn't overlap, I'm encouraged to take weapons other than PPCs and feel like I'm not gimping myself and there is more gamplay to go around.