42 replies to this topic

[Monky]

YueFei, on 18 August 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

The game punishes players trying to do DPS in general. High heat cap, but slow dissipation rate. =/

Koniving has a good idea how to fix the heat scale, just hard limit the heat cap at 30, done, end of story. No piloting efficiencies to increase the heat cap. Heat sinks do not raise the cap. Then make DHS true double heat sinks.

This, combined with allowing single heat sinks to raise heat cap since they dissipate slowly, allowing -some- sniping but preventing it from being viable in a brawl.

[Angel of Annihilation]

FupDup, on 18 August 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

If you're trying to maintain constant fire with PPCs--or anything except for AC/2 and UAC/5--then you're doing it wrong. Very wrong.

There is simply no way to put it politely. You just plain don't know how to utilize the weapon's strengths and minimize its weaknesses. The point of the weapon (and almost every other weapon in the entire game) is to take a quick snap-shot at the enemy's vital parts and then twist your torso to protect your own vital areas while you cool down and reload your weapons; and you should really have cover nearby to absorb enemy fire instead of standing out in the open. Maintaining DPS over time is severely overrated and it's not like our current high capacity and slow dissipation make DPS worthwhile anyways (blame Paul for that one).

No, I know very well how to maximim strengths and minimize weakness, which is why I am forced to move back to LLs or ER LLs to fill the mid-to-long range role IF I want to be able to maintain any sembalance of sustainable firepower. The issue I have is that I believe that being forced to use LLs is the wrong way to balance this game. There should be no reason why someone can't subsitute a PPC for a LL, in fact they should be pretty much interchangable considering the 2 ton weight difference a PPC has. At 8 heat, they were pretty comparable weapons both offering different advantages and disadvantages. Now at 9 heat they no longer are comparable and PPCs are ONLY good at being sniper weapons rather than being versitile enough to be used for multi-purposes.

This is the thing. The increase in heat DID NOT effect the sniper game which is what everyone complained about. It did however effect PPCs for use in any other role except as the sniper. This is why I think the increase is the incorrect path to balancing.

Quote

The funny thing is, the OP once made a thread about how the 4 PPC Stalker was supposedly less effective than a LL Stalker (Ice, I think you even replied to that thread?). It's all in his playstyle. For instance, I believe that he said he used chain fire "50% of the time" with the 4 PPC Stalker in his tests, which in and of itself says everything that needs to be said here.

Yep it was me who posted that thread. I specifically bought a Stalker, loaded up the infamous Quad PPC build and decided to prove or disprove for myself how OPed it was. What I found was that the Quad LL build was more effective due to better heat management abilities. Also LLs were easier to engage light mechs with. Then I also found that the Quad PPC build to be quite vulnerable to rush attacks where people would get right in your face, below the minium effective range of the PPC thus reducing your damage output to very minimal levels. This was something that couldn't be done with the LL or mixed build.

Finally, I pointed out that the biggest complaint about the Quad PPC build, the fact that it could do 40 pin point damage in a single volley wasn't really useable often and that through the course of about half the match, I was forced to fire my PPCs in pairs with significant pauses to keep heat in check. This of course goes very far to dispell the myth of 40 pin point damage if I can only fire 2 at a time most of the time.

My conclusion was that the Quad PPC build Stalker really provided no major advantage to someone using that build and in fact had several fairly large disadvantages at least in the framework of a PUG.

This of course was when PPCs were cooler weapons and did not have the heat penality for using 4 at a time. Now it is a pretty bad build for the most part.

The key here is that I actually "tested" what people were saying rather than blindly followed the party line or threw out random statments with no real background to back them up. I also tried to be as objective as possible in my test and also admited that competitive 8 vs 8 (since 12 vs 12 was in then) might change the usefulness of the build. Basically your absolutely right, the fact that I objectively tested the Quad PPC build IS everything that needs to be said here.

Edited by Viktor Drake, 18 August 2013 - 01:02 PM.

[El Bandito]

Viktor Drake, on 18 August 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

Ok I am prepared to get shouted down on this but it still needs to be said. Prior to the patch, I ran about a 30/70 mix of PPC/LL on my mechs. 30% of my mechs used 1-2 PPCs or ER PPCs and 70% would use a LL instead. Now with the changes, I have removed PPCs from all but one of my mechs due to heat issues. To put it bluntly, between the lighter weight and less heat a LL offers, I can't justify a weapon that causes shutdowns after 3 shots and/or significant pauses in my DPS while I wait for weapons to cool enough to resume fire, not when I can mount a LL and not have to deal with either of these issues. Basicaly the increase in heat has reduced me to the closed beta builds I was forced to run. It definately does not offer any diversity in builds. Now I realize this is largely subjective especially since each person is going to have a different tollerance for heat build up on the mechs he runs but I feel the game definately went backward with the increase in heat on the PPC and ER PPC. Additionally the heat increase didn't fix the problem which is snipers builds that fire very sporadically and thus aren't as effected by heat as someone who uses a mixed build for mixed roles. Basically the heat nerf just punishes those players who use PPCs as part of mixed build, i.e. people who use 1-2 PPC/ER PPCs supported by MLs or SRMs for mixed long and short range fighting. Therefore I think we should revert back to the previous values on PPCs and reevaluate what is actually the problem then come up with an alternative solution that actually works without breaking something that wasn't an issue in the first place.

It takes dual PPC+Gauss Highlander to fire SIX shots before it shuts down.

At any rate, you should post it in patch feedback.

[Trauglodyte]

Viktor Drake, on 18 August 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

Ok I am prepared to get shouted down on this but it still needs to be said.

Prior to the patch, I ran about a 30/70 mix of PPC/LL on my mechs. 30% of my mechs used 1-2 PPCs or ER PPCs and 70% would use a LL instead.

Now with the changes, I have removed PPCs from all but one of my mechs due to heat issues.

To put it bluntly, between the lighter weight and less heat a LL offers, I can't justify a weapon that causes shutdowns after 3 shots and/or significant pauses in my DPS while I wait for weapons to cool enough to resume fire, not when I can mount a LL and not have to deal with either of these issues.

Basicaly the increase in heat has reduced me to the closed beta builds I was forced to run. It definately does not offer any diversity in builds.

Now I realize this is largely subjective especially since each person is going to have a different tollerance for heat build up on the mechs he runs but I feel the game definately went backward with the increase in heat on the PPC and ER PPC.

Additionally the heat increase didn't fix the problem which is snipers builds that fire very sporadically and thus aren't as effected by heat as someone who uses a mixed build for mixed roles. Basically the heat nerf just punishes those players who use PPCs as part of mixed build, i.e. people who use 1-2 PPC/ER PPCs supported by MLs or SRMs for mixed long and short range fighting.

Therefore I think we should revert back to the previous values on PPCs and reevaluate what is actually the problem then come up with an alternative solution that actually works without breaking something that wasn't an issue in the first place.

PPCs, and all non-LRM weapons for that matter, should be used efficiently and effectively. The best way to get a kill is to head shot someone. Given the difficulty in doing that on most mechs, especially when moving, you want to either CT core, side torso core in the case of an XL, or double leg on lighter mechs and Centurions. In the case of torso shots, good pilots will torso twist to protect their damaged areas thus putting you in a position of either needing to hold your fire until they expose the locations or wasting heat/damage on unnecessary areas. You should always hold your fire an maximize your damage potential instead of spreading damage across the mech. For legs, it doesn't really matter as long as you fire at their hips cause you'll hit them both. Anyway, that being said, the PPC isn't a DPS weapon and should be used sparingly when you can get the most out of it.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Steelbuns, on 18 August 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

They actually said no to this because people could "exploit heat neutral builds"... I find that silly because if you got something heat neutral you'd probably be sacrificing DPS or it would be heat neutral anyways with the current system. Its so simple and would get rid of these high alpha builds and they would need to chain fire or switch to a better loadout. If they lowered the cap and increased heat dissipation it would make the gameplay so much better.

The funny thing is I don't have a clue how someone could exploite a heat neutral build when you consider that each weapon still has a set recycle time and set damage. For example a PPC fires every 4.0 seconds whether I am at zero heat or 50% heat so if I am running a heat neutral build with 2 PPCs, I am still never going to be able to exceed 20 damage every 4 seconds or 5 DPS.

See this is the thing about heat neutral builds. They will ALWAYS have a maximum cap on the damage they can do and the only way to break that cap is to run hot.

[Trauglodyte]

Heat neutral mechs don't really exist. You'd need 17 DHSs just to keep your heat gained per second from a single PPC to under 1 and that doesn't take map environment or movement into account. Who would want to run 17 DHSs to bleed out the heat generated from 1 PPC or 2 Md Lasers?

[Angel of Annihilation]

Trauglodyte, on 18 August 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

PPCs, and all non-LRM weapons for that matter, should be used efficiently and effectively. The best way to get a kill is to head shot someone. Given the difficulty in doing that on most mechs, especially when moving, you want to either CT core, side torso core in the case of an XL, or double leg on lighter mechs and Centurions. In the case of torso shots, good pilots will torso twist to protect their damaged areas thus putting you in a position of either needing to hold your fire until they expose the locations or wasting heat/damage on unnecessary areas. You should always hold your fire an maximize your damage potential instead of spreading damage across the mech. For legs, it doesn't really matter as long as you fire at their hips cause you'll hit them both. Anyway, that being said, the PPC isn't a DPS weapon and should be used sparingly when you can get the most out of it.

Thing of it is, they too heavy and require too many heat sinks, especially now to be a weapon you use only sparingly....IF....your anything but a sniper who is going to hang back behind everyone else. They take up too much mass on the majority of mechs to be useful in a mixed build at the current heat levels because they have to be a go to weapon, not a fire every 20 second weapon. Also mixed build are engaged in fighting at mixed ranges which means your weapons loadout has to function at all ranges, not just at long ranges and has to be at least somewhat sustainable.

Prior to the heat increase, PPCs and ER PPCs where just that, if barely. You traded off a bit more heat and less free weight on your mech for being able have that instant fire ability that would allow you to hit and run. It was also sustainable enough to be OK (just ok, not good) in a grand melee where sustainability often wins the fight. There were better weapons for when you were in the grand melee but weren't as good at long range or hit and run so it became a trade off. LLs for better heat management and a little extra free weight at the expense of not being as effective at hit and run, MLs for maximum heat management and free weight but at the expense of range or PPCs for long range at the expense of maximum firepower/heat management and reduced effectiveness in the close ranged melee. Basically you had alot of options and choices for how you wanted to run your mixed builds.

Now, PPCs and especially ER PPCs have totally lost their ability to be sustainable in the grand melee battles and really don't allow enough heat budget to using any secondary weapons at all thus cutting your firepower substancially in any role except Sniper.

There is something to keep in mind here. I am talking about specific usage, mechs that would mount 1 or 2 PPC/ER PPCs supported mostly by MLs and SRMs but occassionally MGs, ACs as well. Basically mechs designed to function and be effective at all ranges. Obviously as I keep mentioning, in the Sniper role PPCs and ER PPCs weren't really affected by the change. Keep this in mind when your making judgements about the PPC. I feel like most of the complaints all come from a very limited scope and context without any regard to their use in any other role. This is a very narrow minded view point that should be avoided.

Edited by Viktor Drake, 18 August 2013 - 01:35 PM.

[Wolfways]

Don't bother with PPC's. Using them means that when you get into a brawl (which you always do) then you will be outgunned by the enemy mech easily, especially if he's using AC's, as you will hardly get to fire your primary weapon.

If i had to choose only one weapon that i could use...it would either be AC5 or AC10, and i prefer lasers on mechs...but not with this heat system.

[Trauglodyte]

Well, the whole "sniper meta/sniper brawling meta" is pretty lame. I use PPCs on damned near everything because I roll my PPCs with shorter ranged weapons. My Cicadas all run 1 PPC backed up my Md Lasers. My BJ-1 runs a UAC5 with a PPC. My Dragon runs 2 PPCs with Md Pulse Lasers and SRMs. My Jager runs dual UAC5s with a PPC. The Awesome just speaks for itself while my Victor runs either 2 PPCs, 1 AC10 and SRMs or 2 PPCs and 2 AC5s. In all of those cases, the PPC is my ranged weapon while I get into range (Mediums and Heavies) while my BJ, Awesome, and Victor play their roles as ranged fire support and have be designed to do so since long before MW:O or the prior MW titles ever were released.

[One Medic Army]

Most of my mechs run at about 30%-40% heat efficiency, this includes the brawlers.
The only one which can actually maintain (full-rate) fire is my 4 AC/5 build.

This is because situations where I can maintain fire for about 20seconds and still have something left to shoot are incredibly rare in MWO, so there's no point building for them.

I totally infight with my hot builds, it's just more about waiting for the proper time to shoot than keeping a constant stream on the other guy.

Edited by One Medic Army, 18 August 2013 - 01:48 PM.

[Devils Advocate]

Can we not completely focus all of our heat discussion around 2 PPC + Gauss? Can we not completely forget about mechs like the Awesome that don't have the luxury of the OP-as-**** Gauss rifle? Seriously. I mastered 3 awesomes which are almost completely useless now due to the massive nerfs on boating and the designs of the awesomes being specifically tailored to boating. I picked up a Jager-DD and strapped two gauss rifles to it and 90 rounds and I'm averaging 500-700 damage every round. Every round. Even when my team gets completely stomped I'm making 400 damage because of how absurd these weapons are. Meanwhile if I try to do the same amount of damage at less range by taping 3 PPCs together I get ghost heat and shut down in two shots on a mech with 20 double heatsinks on it.

Don't balance everything against the Gauss rifle builds because after they 'desync' it there wont be a 100% reliable Gauss+PPC build anymore.

[LoveLost85]

Dear god... I have to stop shooting every once in a while?? I should have more than one/two weapon groups?? My builds should be more balanced??? Omgomg!!??!? Lmao

[Angel of Annihilation]

Trauglodyte, on 18 August 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

Heat neutral mechs don't really exist. You'd need 17 DHSs just to keep your heat gained per second from a single PPC to under 1 and that doesn't take map environment or movement into account. Who would want to run 17 DHSs to bleed out the heat generated from 1 PPC or 2 Md Lasers?

The thing of it is, in TT using Table Top heat scales, thresholds and penalites there are tons of heat neutral builds.

For example you could run 2 PPCs and 2 ML heat neutral on about 16 DHS if you included movement heat as well. This is what we are talking about when we discuss heat neutral builds. Basically TT used a 1:1 ratio. If a weapon generated 1 heat, it took 1 heat sink to competely cool that weapon.

The converse of this is that unlike the current heat system in MWO, you really could never use 4 PPCs on 16 DHS because you couldn't sink that much heat without starting to see some dire concequences. Using 4 PPCs would put you 10 over on the heat scale. 10 heat would put you at a negative 2 movement modifer and negative 1 to hit your target. This would be equalivant to a Stalker being reduced to only being able to move like 10-15 KPH top speed and having at least 1 PPC miss the target totally. If it fired the Quad PPCs twice in a row, it would be at 20 on the scale and at 20 on the scale, the mech would be completely stationary, likely overheated and more than likely suffering from any ammo it has being cooked off by the heat and exploding.

Basically while Table Top had heat neutral mechs or mechs that could fire all their weapons all the time without every worrying about heat, their firepower was typically extremely limited and the rules did not really allow any boat builds to be remotely effective. It is a much better system than what we currently have if you ask me.

However this is VERY off topic I think as the heat system is totally different than just talking about how one weapon functions within that heat system.

[FupDup]

Viktor Drake, on 18 August 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

No, I know very well how to maximim strengths and minimize weakness, which is why I am forced to move back to LLs or ER LLs to fill the mid-to-long range role IF I want to be able to maintain any sembalance of sustainable firepower. The issue I have is that I believe that being forced to use LLs is the wrong way to balance this game. There should be no reason why someone can't subsitute a PPC for a LL, in fact they should be pretty much interchangable considering the 2 ton weight difference a PPC has. At 8 heat, they were pretty comparable weapons both offering different advantages and disadvantages. Now at 9 heat they no longer are comparable and PPCs are ONLY good at being sniper weapons rather than being versitile enough to be used for multi-purposes.

You don't need to sustain firepower. This game isn't about sustaining firepower, because of Paul's irrational fear of heat neutral mechs. Because of his heat scale, you only need to take one quick shot and then hide or at the very least torso twist while cooling down. You say that you know how to take advantages of the pros/cons of the PPC, but what you're describing is trying to use the weapon for sustainable damage when it's not supposed to be sustained--you're playing to the weapon's weakness in other words. It's a burst weapon. Using PPCs for constant firing is like trying to use AC/2s for high-alpha damage. You're using it backwards.


You also seem to be under the impression that the LL is objectively superior to the PPC. It isn't. The LL does certainly have a few abilities that the PPC lacks (damage under 90m, hitscan means no hit detection issues), but the PPC has a lot of tricks up its sleeve as well.

The main advantage of the PPC is that damage is dealt in a single projectile. This means that the shooter doesn't have to expose himself very long. Beam durations give your opponent time to shoot back and/or torso twist. The PPC is instant. There isn't nearly as much time to react to it. If you hill hump effectively enough, you can get a shot off and watch with satisfaction as 4+ enemy mechs waste ammo on the terrain and not hit you a single time. You have no idea how satisfying it is to watch as half the enemy team can't even touch you because of how quick your hillhumping is (for best results, use a mech with high-mounted arms like a Catapult K2).

The projectile nature also means that it is better at dealing with hard-to-hit targets such as lights. Duration weapons often end up spreading damage all over the tiny body of a light mech and/or the terrain around it. Single-projectile weapons are much more effective at swiftly ripping off a specific body part such as a leg or the CT. Even with hit detection issues, my ERPPCs are pretty good at hacking off light mech parts (when damage registers).


I'd also argue that the PPC is still plenty versatile both before the heat increase and after it. My main ride is a Catapult K2 with 2 ERPPCs (therefore more heat) and 2 ML, and it has just as much damage up close as it does at long range--actually more damage up close because of the ML. Oh sure, I might have to pause firing after a little while, but that time is used productively for torso twisting--twisting time is even more important because of the Catapult's huge CT.

Viktor Drake, on 18 August 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

This is the thing. The increase in heat DID NOT effect the sniper game which is what everyone complained about. It did however effect PPCs for use in any other role except as the sniper. This is why I think the increase is the incorrect path to balancing.

This is the one true point that you have; that heat doesn't stop people from sniping. Then again, I don't think that the issue with the PPC is its long-range effectiveness, as the whole point of the weapon is long-range fire support. The issue with it is that it's too effective in almost all situations. It needs to have a much more narrow niche than it does now.

Viktor Drake, on 18 August 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

...
I was forced to fire my PPCs in pairs with significant pauses to keep heat in check.
...

You weren't "forced" to do anything. I'm going to guess that you just got impatient and didn't feel like waiting a few more moments to get off a full alpha. The world won't end if you aren't firing constantly. Use the time between shots for hiding/twisting. [Note that I drastically cut down the size of this quote because most of it would just get a similar response as the previous sentences].

Viktor Drake, on 18 August 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

The key here is that I actually "tested" what people were saying rather than blindly followed the party line or threw out random statments with no real background to back them up. I also tried to be as objective as possible in my test and also admited that competitive 8 vs 8 (since 12 vs 12 was in then) might change the usefulness of the build. Basically your absolutely right, the fact that I objectively tested the Quad PPC build IS everything that needs to be said here.

The key here is that I've also used the 4 PPC Stalker and the 2/2 split PPC Stalker for a while, and you should NOT be firing in pairs (prior to ghost heat) unless you're using the split 2/2 build and somebody is at extreme range or within 90m (use ER versions in those cases and hold back the standard PPCs), or if you get sucked into a brawl with either variation (and try to avoid such situations in the future). Pair-firing more than once in a while is only good for a PPC Stalker after the introduction of ghost heat.

Edited by FupDup, 18 August 2013 - 01:57 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

The one thing that I think this game got right is the whole give and take. DPS has been king in every non-FPS on the face of the planet. Faster was always better because it turned crit chances into a damage multiplier by increasing the number of opportunities for crits. As you can see in this game, crits only happen internally and only with the worst weapons possible. So, the pendulum swung the other way to where you need/want to hold your fire until the best possible moment to strike. With missiles and, to a lesser degree, lasers, you can pop them off whenever you really want because they spread damage around so much anyway. Granted, if your target is arm shielding, you still want to hold fire but you know that most of what you fire from an SRM6 isn't going to land in just that torso that is about to fall off. It is this fact that has made PPCs and Autocannons so practical while also making the AC2 and the AC5 less practical. They do little damage but fire often but good opponents won't let you hit them in that same spot over and over again with paper cuts. You can burn through an arm, deprive them of a possible weapon mount, and then continue on through the torso but some mechs *cough* CENTURION *cough cough* have absurd issues with damage transfer.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

Bring PPC/ERPPC heat up by 1 each

[Trauglodyte]

Anyway, what really kind of bothers me about the PPC vs Autocannon is, and I'm taking my CDA-3M as an example, I have 4 energy points and one ballistic and I would rather take a PPC and a MG then any of the ACs that I can fit in that slot. It is more efficient and just as heat manageable as any option that I have available. The AC2 and AC5 do less damage per shot and I have to hope my target is bad enough to let me DPS a location while the UAC, as good a weapon as it is, is a liability as a stand alone weapon.

[Angel of Annihilation]

FupDup, on 18 August 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

You don't need to sustain firepower. This game isn't about sustaining firepower, because of Paul's irrational fear of heat neutral mechs. Because of his heat scale, you only need to take one quick shot and then hide or at the very least torso twist while cooling down. You say that you know how to take advantages of the pros/cons of the PPC, but what you're describing is trying to use the weapon for sustainable damage when it's not supposed to be sustained--you're playing to the weapon's weakness in other words. It's a burst weapon. Using PPCs for constant firing is like trying to use AC/2s for high-alpha damage. You're using it backwards.

The need to sustain firepower is largely dependant on playstyle and the role of your mech. I run alot of skirmisher type mechs. These types of mechs are constantly in the battle weaving in and out of the fray. You have to be ready and able to fire when and if an opportunity presents itself and be able to sustain your firepower to survive. You can't be standing around for long seconds waiting for your mech to cool or heaven forbid deal with an Overheat.

Quote

You also seem to be under the impression that the LL is objectively superior to the PPC. It isn't. The LL does certainly have a few abilities that the PPC lacks (damage under 90m, hitscan means no hit detection issues), but the PPC has a lot of tricks up its sleeve as well.

The main advantage of the PPC is that damage is dealt in a single projectile. This means that the shooter doesn't have to expose himself very long. Beam durations give your opponent time to shoot back and/or torso twist. The PPC is instant. There isn't nearly as much time to react to it. If you hill hump effectively enough, you can get a shot off and watch with satisfaction as 4+ enemy mechs waste ammo on the terrain and not hit you a single time. You have no idea how satisfying it is to watch as half the enemy team can't even touch you because of how quick your hillhumping is (for best results, use a mech with high-mounted arms like a Catapult K2).

The projectile nature also means that it is better at dealing with hard-to-hit targets such as lights. Duration weapons often end up spreading damage all over the tiny body of a light mech and/or the terrain around it. Single-projectile weapons are much more effective at swiftly ripping off a specific body part such as a leg or the CT. Even with hit detection issues, my ERPPCs are pretty good at hacking off light mech parts (when damage registers).

I have time and time again posted why LLs are at the very least equal to a PPC. They offer numerous advantages offset by only one single disadvantage, this instant fire and application of damage. However this ONE advantage doesn't trump all the LL advantages, not by a long shot. Prime example, my Quickdraws.

I can mount either 2 LLs, 15 DHS and a 330XL engine or I can chose 2 PPCs, 14 DHS and a 300XL engine. When you compare the two, the LL version runs significantly cooler which in turn means I can fire the LLs alot more times than the PPCs. It also is 10 kph faster. Which is better? Lets just throw this out for giggles. LLs fired 5 times each vs PPC fired 3 times each. This is about the pace I can fire two builds over a given 30 second time frame. That is 90 potential damage vs 60 potential damage in that timeframe. This means I can "Spread" 30% of my LL damage and still equal the same concentrated damage as the PPC build and that spread damage is still damage which may kill or cripple the enemy mech I am targeting.

As to the question of which is better against lights, I don't see a difference. Sure IF you hit the light mech you going to be doing full damage with a PPC but it has been my experince through use, spectating and the operation of a light mech that most people miss more often than hit with a PPC. However when I am using a laser I am always going to get at least partial damage. Sure I might only do 2-5 damage per shot on the light mechs legs, but that is consistant every shot. Again I ask you to do a little math. 5 shots with a PPC with a 60% miss rate vs 10 shots with a Laser doing 4 damage per shot. PPC = 20 damage, LL 40 damage.

The point I am making here is not that one is better than the other but rather they are a hell of alot more comparable than the vast majority give credit and this was before the added PPC/ER PPC heat. Now we have a situation where heat is making them a worse choice than LLs for alot of builds rather than a comparable but different choice.

Quote

I'd also argue that the PPC is still plenty versatile both before the heat increase and after it. My main ride is a Catapult K2 with 2 ERPPCs (therefore more heat) and 2 ML, and it has just as much damage up close as it does at long range--actually more damage up close because of the ML. Oh sure, I might have to pause firing after a little while, but that time is used productively for torso twisting--twisting time is even more important because of the Catapult's huge CT.

Before I would agree with you, now not near as much. Sure you can still use them and in fact I still do use them myself on a few builds. The problem and my complaint is that now with the heat increase, the mech builds they are useful in now is very limited compared to being fairly open before. I use to run ER PPCs and PPCs on 8 of my 18 mechs. Now only 3-4 use them and most of the 3-4 that use them only use one single PPC, not multiples.

Quote

This is the one true point that you have; that heat doesn't stop people from sniping. Then again, I don't think that the issue with the PPC is its long-range effectiveness, as the whole point of the weapon is long-range fire support. The issue with it is that it's too effective in almost all situations. It needs to have a much more narrow niche than it does now.

This is also my biggest issue with the change. It limits the use of the weapon in a game that, lets face it, has little diversity to begin with. As far as it being a "only" a long range firesupport weapon, who says? You? Seriously who determined such a thing because I have been playing Battletech and related game for almost 30 years, not to mention having read nearly all the novels and not once do I recall any of the source material refering to the PPC as solely a long range weapon. It has always been a weapon that is effective in most situations which is why it was one of the most popular weapons in the IP. Just because someone like you wants it to be only useful as a sniper weapon, doesn't mean the PPC was every intended solely for this role.

Quote

You weren't "forced" to do anything. I'm going to guess that you just got impatient and didn't feel like waiting a few more moments to get off a full alpha. The world won't end if you aren't firing constantly. Use the time between shots for hiding/twisting. [Note that I drastically cut down the size of this quote because most of it would just get a similar response as the previous sentences].

Well your right, I wasn't forced. Nothing prevents me from building a mech that explodes the second it fires all its weapons except for the fact I actually would like to use a competitive and effective build. Under those constraints, combined with my playstyle, I am definately force to re-evaluate the PPC as a useful weapon in my builds.

Quote

The key here is that I've also used the 4 PPC Stalker and the 2/2 split PPC Stalker for a while, and you should NOT be firing in pairs (prior to ghost heat) unless you're using the split 2/2 build and somebody is at extreme range or within 90m (use ER versions in those cases and hold back the standard PPCs), or if you get sucked into a brawl with either variation (and try to avoid such situations in the future). Pair-firing more than once in a while is only good for a PPC Stalker after the introduction of ghost heat.

Yep. Did alot of reading on how to use the Quad PPC Stalker before the test and did my best to follow that advice. However often your forced into close range engagements against your will. Also there are times when your not able to fire once then go hide for 10 seconds. When that wasn't the case, when the stars aligned, I found the build better than average though never clearly overwhelming although I could see with the proper support and coordination how it could be effective in competitive teamplay. My test was about PUGs though. Also it was limited to one build, the Quad PPC build. A 2/2 Split would have fixed some of the issues while causing others but since I didn't test that out, I can only speak theoretically about it.

[FupDup]

Viktor Drake, on 18 August 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

The need to sustain firepower is largely dependant on playstyle and the role of your mech. I run alot of skirmisher type mechs. These types of mechs are constantly in the battle weaving in and out of the fray. You have to be ready and able to fire when and if an opportunity presents itself and be able to sustain your firepower to survive. You can't be standing around for long seconds waiting for your mech to cool or heaven forbid deal with an Overheat.

So, in other words, you were in fact using the PPCs in a playstyle doesn't mesh very well with the pros/cons of the weapon.

Viktor Drake, on 18 August 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

I have time and time again posted why LLs are at the very least equal to a PPC. They offer numerous advantages offset by only one single disadvantage, this instant fire and application of damage. However this ONE advantage doesn't trump all the LL advantages, not by a long shot. Prime example, my Quickdraws.

I can mount either 2 LLs, 15 DHS and a 330XL engine or I can chose 2 PPCs, 14 DHS and a 300XL engine. When you compare the two, the LL version runs significantly cooler which in turn means I can fire the LLs alot more times than the PPCs. It also is 10 kph faster. Which is better? Lets just throw this out for giggles. LLs fired 5 times each vs PPC fired 3 times each. This is about the pace I can fire two builds over a given 30 second time frame. That is 90 potential damage vs 60 potential damage in that timeframe. This means I can "Spread" 30% of my LL damage and still equal the same concentrated damage as the PPC build and that spread damage is still damage which may kill or cripple the enemy mech I am targeting.

As to the question of which is better against lights, I don't see a difference. Sure IF you hit the light mech you going to be doing full damage with a PPC but it has been my experince through use, spectating and the operation of a light mech that most people miss more often than hit with a PPC. However when I am using a laser I am always going to get at least partial damage. Sure I might only do 2-5 damage per shot on the light mechs legs, but that is consistant every shot. Again I ask you to do a little math. 5 shots with a PPC with a 60% miss rate vs 10 shots with a Laser doing 4 damage per shot. PPC = 20 damage, LL 40 damage.

The point I am making here is not that one is better than the other but rather they are a hell of alot more comparable than the vast majority give credit and this was before the added PPC/ER PPC heat. Now we have a situation where heat is making them a worse choice than LLs for alot of builds rather than a comparable but different choice.

Before I would agree with you, now not near as much. Sure you can still use them and in fact I still do use them myself on a few builds. The problem and my complaint is that now with the heat increase, the mech builds they are useful in now is very limited compared to being fairly open before. I use to run ER PPCs and PPCs on 8 of my 18 mechs. Now only 3-4 use them and most of the 3-4 that use them only use one single PPC, not multiples.

The heat increase didn't make PPCs a downgrade to the LL, even if using more than one. There are still plenty of reasons to use the weapon (see previous post for recap).

Viktor Drake, on 18 August 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

This is also my biggest issue with the change. It limits the use of the weapon in a game that, lets face it, has little diversity to begin with. As far as it being a "only" a long range firesupport weapon, who says? You? Seriously who determined such a thing because I have been playing Battletech and related game for almost 30 years, not to mention having read nearly all the novels and not once do I recall any of the source material refering to the PPC as solely a long range weapon. It has always been a weapon that is effective in most situations which is why it was one of the most popular weapons in the IP. Just because someone like you wants it to be only useful as a sniper weapon, doesn't mean the PPC was every intended solely for this role.

Here's a an ancient Chinese secret about game balancing. The two options for balancing most equipment are:
A. Very very good at a specific task but sucky at all others. Example: SRMs are good up close but useless beyond 270 meters.
B. Decent in many tasks but excels at none--"jack of all trades but a master of none." Examples: ML and LL are pretty versatile but get beaten at long range by sniper weapons and in close range by things like AC/20.


What you're asking for (or at least what it looks like to me) PPCs to be is a jack of all trades and a master of everything. Can you not see the issues that arise from such balancing? No weaknesses means that there's no effective counter. Maybe I'm on an island here, but I'm pretty sure that it's bad for a game if a player can mindlessly choose one single loadout option and roll over everything in his path without worrying about being countered.

I'm sorry, but you shouldn't be able to be rock, paper, and scissors all at the same time. It completely wrecks competitive PvP games and turns them into "metarape" fests of spamming the best build.

Viktor Drake, on 18 August 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

Well your right, I wasn't forced. Nothing prevents me from building a mech that explodes the second it fires all its weapons except for the fact I actually would like to use a competitive and effective build. Under those constraints, combined with my playstyle, I am definately force to re-evaluate the PPC as a useful weapon in my builds.

You only explode from firing due to ghost heat's effect of 3+ PPCs being alpha'ed. Firing only 2 at a time (which is a necessity now due to ghost heat) won't ever make you explode unless you deliberately try to make it happen.

Viktor Drake, on 18 August 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

Yep. Did alot of reading on how to use the Quad PPC Stalker before the test and did my best to follow that advice. However often your forced into close range engagements against your will. Also there are times when your not able to fire once then go hide for 10 seconds. When that wasn't the case, when the stars aligned, I found the build better than average though never clearly overwhelming although I could see with the proper support and coordination how it could be effective in competitive teamplay. My test was about PUGs though. Also it was limited to one build, the Quad PPC build. A 2/2 Split would have fixed some of the issues while causing others but since I didn't test that out, I can only speak theoretically about it.

In most of my experiences the close engagements don't usually start happening until ~4-5 minutes into the match, when most people have taken some damage and some mechs are dead. Up until that time, most mechs are exchanging potshots from behind hidey hills. The ones that survive that long are often wounded enough to finish off easily, or they lack enough support to take you (a PPC Stalker) down. The key is to cripple as many enemies as you can before people on both teams get impatient and start boxing matches. Having a fast mech like a K2 (I go 86.4 KPH) can help you run away from most enemies if you sense that things are about to get bad.

One very anecdotal case I remember was being stuck with an enemy AC/40 Jagerbomb and Wang (prior to ghost heat) with a 2/2 Stalker at the Frozen City dropship. I was able to kill the Jagerbomb and get one or two shots on the Wang before dying. Unfortunately I can't remember what healths were at before it happened, but what I do know is that the Jager and Wang (and myself) were in pretty decent condition before it happened.

Another less dramatic case was more recent with my K2 on Tourmaline. Basically, my CT was at orange exposed internals and I then got stuck in a duel with a Hunchie who had his AC/20 gone and 3 Medium Lasers still functional. The instant-fire nature of ERPPCs meant that I only need to look at him just long enough to squeeze a shot off. With a duration weapon, I would have died to CT laser fire due to having to stare directly at him for a moment for each shot. I'm also lucky that he was stupid enough to waste his ML shots on my fresh rear armor like I baited him into doing (I mooned him for most of the duel) instead of being smart and waiting for me to twist for him to fire.

Edited by FupDup, 18 August 2013 - 03:41 PM.

[Sahoj]

PPC's feel just about right to me. I can keep up a fairly solid stream from 2x PPC's on a Centurion AL with a STD250 and approx 15 DHS or so. When a brawl happens I swap them to chainfire and get a little more careful.

PPC's are still an incredible value for their weight, damage, accuracy and ecm reduction benefits.