84 replies to this topic

[Lupus Aurelius]

Too frequently, people misuse the term “balance”. Weapon balance is not comparing one weapon system to another, but looking at to potential ways to maximize the potential of an entire platform, such as a mech. A balanced game would allow for variations that, due to the advantages and disadvantages of different components, would produce between 2 of the same mechs similar damage profiles, but with different advantages and disadvantages.

Balancing is also not about nerfing. Just because you prefer ballistics, or close range brawling, or that weapon was responsible for killing you 5 out the last 10 times, is not a justification to nerf something on the altar of balance. Don’t get me wrong, I have never been in favor of the 4-6 PPC stalker or the 6 large laser stalker for that matter, never used more than 2 ERPPCs ever. But neither am I in favor of 4-6 AC2, 2-4 AC5 builds either. It’s cheese, for one, and implies a lack of skill imho.

With the current ERPPC, and by extension, PPC, heat levels were put way out of balance with other weapon systems. For the purpose of demonstrating this, we’re going to work with 2 weapon systems on a single mech variant, the Fireband Jagermech, using exactly the same engine, structure, and armor, with the same base weapon systems, 4 medium lasers, and alternating between Dual AC5s and Dual ERPPCs.

The reason for the AC5 vs ERPPC build is because they both have similar damage profiles with comparable weights, as far as range, speed, and DPS, which I will demonstrate:
AC5:
· Range: 620m, 1700m max,
· Speed: 1300m/s
· DPS: 3.33
· Fitting: 8 tons, 4 slots
· Heat: 1
· Recycle: 1.5 secs
ERPPC:
· Range: 810m, 1650m max,
· Speed: 1500m/s
· DPS: 2.50
· Fitting: 7 tons, 3 slots
· Heat: 15
· Recycle: 4 secs
When you look at these 2 systems, they have similar ranges, weights and fittings. The damage potential of the AC5, however , is respectably higher. Some might argue that alpha matters solely, but that is inaccurate, since shots miss, and applying less damage, but at a much higher speed, alleviates the loss of that potential damage. Significantly cooler running assures that more damage can be applied over time without the risk of overheating, or having to have to cease fire to prevent an overheat. A Dual AC5 build can volley fire them indefinitely, with no risk of shutdown.

As far as the ammo requirement arguement, and AC5 with 3 tons of ammo is 11 tons and 7 crits, but even though the ERPPC is 7 tons and 3 crits, as I will demonstrate, you would need significantly more DHS, that are 1 ton and 3 crits each. Just 4 DHS per ERPPC would be 11 tons and 15 crits.

Firebrand Jagermech, both set up with the following:
· Armor 384 max 422
· Engine (130-340) STD ENGINE 260
· Speed 64.8 kph 71.3 kph
· Upgrades: Armor Standard ; Structure Endo-Steel ; Heatsinks Double ; Guidance Standard

Firebrand Jagermech - Armaments: MEDIUM LASER 4 ; ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM 1 ; AC/5 2
· Tonnage 65.0 max 65
· Firepower 30.00 max 175
· Max sustained DPS 4.90 max 11.67
· Cooling Efficiency 42% max 100%
· Stats
· Free slots 10
· Heatsinks 12
· Ammunition: AMS AMMO 1000 AC/5 AMMO 180
· Equipment and Modules: C.A.S.E. 1

Firebrand Jagermech - Armaments: MEDIUM LASER 4 ; ER PPC 2 ; ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM 1
· Tonnage 62.5 (2.50 free) max 65
· Firepower 40.00 max 175
· Max sustained DPS 2.70 max 10.00
· Cooling Efficiency 27% max 100%
· Stats
· Free slots 1
· Heatsinks 18
· Ammunition: AMS AMMO 1000
(2.5 tons free, no additional heatsinks can fit due to crit space. In theory, you could go with a larger engine, but maintaining the same armor levels, it would be a standard 270. With neither room nor weight to allow for another DHS)

From the point of view of performance, no one can argue against the dual AC5 build being completely superior.

· The dual AC5 does 10 volley damage every 1.5 secs, pinpoint, for 2. Max sustained DPS 4.90 max 11.67, Cooling Efficiency 42% max 100%. Dual AC5 generate 2 heat every 1.5 sec with 12 DHS. Due to the low heat, you can volley fire continuously without shutdown.
· The ERPPC however, is so hot that you have to chain fire them. Max sustained DPS 2.70 max 10.00, Cooling Efficiency 27% max 100%. So staggering the fire, you are doing 10 damage every 2 secs, pinpoint, for 15 heat, with 18 DHS. Even chain firing these, you will overheat in about 5-6 shots.

So even though the Dual ERPPC build has a higher alpha, that alpha due to the high heat would be impractical to execute more than 2-3 times, whereas the Dual AC5 could fire significantly longer. This effectively give them a similar damage profile over time, with the Dual ERPPC being chain fired versus the Dual AC5 being volleyed fired, but at radically different heat levels.

Not figuring for dissipation, the Dual AC5 build (with just the AC5s) is doing 6.66 DPS for 1.34 heat per second just firing the AC5s, whereas the Dual ERPPC (with just the ERPPCs) is doing 5.0 DPS for 7.5 heat per second. That is more than 5.5 times heat, with 50% more DHS, for the Dual ERPPC than for the Dual AC5.

This is hardly balanced, far from it. Yes, there should be a disadvantage as well as an advantage, but even with adding 50% more DHS, the Dual ERPPC build is still 5.5 times hotter, with the only advantage compared to volley fired Dual AC5s being no ammo, and frequent inability to fire due to preventing a overheat shutdown.

People will argue that the ERPPC does not use ammo as a justification. Even with 1.5 times the DHS, a 2-3 times heat, would be acceptable, but 5.5 times the heat with 1.5 times the DHS is beyond reason, for the “advantage” of running without ammo and an energy weapon that does not require you to stand in the open for beam duration.

On the beam duration note, that is the main issue with lasers. Ballistics, you can move from cover, fire instantly, and immediately duck back into cover. same with ERPPCs. Lasers, however, you have to stand exposed for a second until the beam duration finishes, while at the same time staying on component on a moving target. This is one reason the ERPPCs were favored over lasers, more accurate damage with less exposure, despite the significant heat differences.

Twelve heat, with ghost heat and overheat penalties, were more than sufficient to “control” their use, even if the heat was 13. But to have raised it from 12 to 15 was excessive, and unnecessarily punitive to mechs having energy/missile build, or have the flexibility to be energy and/or ballistic build.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 20 September 2013 - 08:22 PM.

[Christof Romulus]

I disagree.

The starting heat values of the PPC / ERPPC was 10 and 15 respectively. I played back in those days and used both PPC and ERPPC. Honestly, I found that reducing the heat these weapons generated was a bad move to begin with (though I was in favor of the 2000 m/s speed).

All they did was restore this weapon to the starting values - and I actually have no problems with that (because I was good with them to begin with).

In the here and now, the heat the PPC's generate is manageable, and all things considered, is an appropriate price to pay. The heat ERPPCs currently generate is a smidge high, and when the game first came out I was all for reducing the heat on those weapons (and it was reduced to 13, which was still pretty high). But at the time, long range direct fire encounters were far less common than they are now, meaning players were unwilling to pay 2 more heat for just some range. At this juncture, I'm pretty sure there are many who will be willing to make that exchange.

The only issue that I have with the system currently is that the poor Awesome got nerfed in this phantom heat zone.

[Lord Ikka]

^^ This.

With PPC hit detection not borked like it was in Closed Beta, the original heat from the PPC is not a "nerf" so much as it is a decent balance for the weapon. PPCs are not meant to be constantly fired while remaining heat neutral, they are weapons designed sniper like play- hit and hide or at least hit and get cover.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Lord Ikka, on 20 September 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

...
With PPC hit detection not borked like it was in Closed Beta, the original heat from the PPC is not a "nerf" so much as it is a decent balance for the weapon. PPCs are not meant to be constantly fired while remaining heat neutral, they are weapons designed sniper like play- hit and hide or at least hit and get cover.

Correction, they are long range weapons, as is the AC2, AC5, Gauss. They can be used to snipe, or in long range engagement. Based on your premise, neither should the ballistics be able to be constantly fired while remaining heat neutral. Even if the ERPPC heat were dropped to 12 or 13. they still would not be heat neutral. Whereas dual AC5, and Gauss currently are heat neutral.

Based on your statement, then, heat needs to be increased on those ballistics so they will not be heat neutral when used at range.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 20 September 2013 - 08:39 PM.

[Lord Ikka]

Ballistics are "heat neutral" but have ammo dependency- different mechanics for different systems. Shoot forever but have to worry about heat or don't worry about heat but have limited ammo.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Lord Ikka, on 20 September 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

Ballistics are "heat neutral" but have ammo dependency- different mechanics for different systems. Shoot forever but have to worry about heat or don't worry about heat but have limited ammo.

No where, in this game nor in Battletech, is that statement ever made. Please quote the source for that criteria. Otherwise, it is just your opinion on what it should be, unsubstantiated by any data. Please restrict yourself to the data as published by MWO and the BattleTech franchise.

[Lord Ikka]

Lupus Aurelius, on 20 September 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

No where, in this game nor in Battletech, is that statement ever made. Please quote the source for that criteria. Otherwise, it is just your opinion on what it should be, unsubstantiated by any data. Please restrict yourself to the data as published by MWO and the BattleTech franchise.

Really? Cause last time I checked every ballistic has ammo as a limiting factor.

[Tsig]

Lupus, you seem to be under the assumption that Ballistics and Energy Weapons have to be exactly the same? PPCs were always meant to be the Energy Weapon version of the ACs. PPCs are free from Ammo constraints, but have high heat to compensate. Auto-Cannons have low heat, but have to carry ammo to do their damage. Thus, they both should, ideally, weigh the same amount after ammo/heatsinks are brought in.

[MisterFiveSeven]

Lupus Aurelius, on 20 September 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

No where, in this game nor in Battletech, is that statement ever made. Please quote the source for that criteria. Otherwise, it is just your opinion on what it should be, unsubstantiated by any data. Please restrict yourself to the data as published by MWO and the BattleTech franchise.

No one cares about canon source. This is not BT (and I love BT).

However, your posts make it obvious that you don't play with ballistics. My x3 ac2 hunchie is hotter than hell; what dream world are you playing in?

[Lupus Aurelius]

Tsig, on 20 September 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

Lupus, you seem to be under the assumption that Ballistics and Energy Weapons have to be exactly the same? PPCs were always meant to be the Energy Weapon version of the ACs. PPCs are free from Ammo constraints, but have high heat to compensate. Auto-Cannons have low heat, but have to carry ammo to do their damage. Thus, they both should, ideally, weigh the same amount after ammo/heatsinks are brought in.

If you read my post, no, I do not believe they need to be exactly the same. I do believe based on the data that 5.5 times the heat with 1.5 more DHS is excessive, and that with current heat mechanics, 12-13 heat would be sufficient. It still is no where even close to heat neutral at 12-13 heat, nor should it be. At the current level, however, the heat disadvantage with lower DPS severely unbalances ERPPCs in the favor of ballistics, the AC5. UAC5, and Gauss builds are all heat neutral.

At one time people complained that there is no reason not to use them, therefore they were "op". But based on the data in my original post, the opposite is now true. The heat level is so excessive now that between those 2 mechs, the so-called advantage of no ammo makes the overall performance of the mech significantly inferior. The disadvantage of such high heat levels negates the advantage of no ammo.

Edit: Going to add to post instead of creating new one and answer this here:

MisterFiveSeven, on 20 September 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

...However, your posts make it obvious that you don't play with ballistics. My x3 ac2 hunchie is hotter than hell; what dream world are you playing in?

Really, how so? Based on what data? Because I do. UAC5, AC5, Gauss on my Misery, guass, dual AC5, dual UAC5s, AC10, and AC20 on my Atlai, frequently. So yes, I do know how they behave versus energy weapons.

And whereas this is not Battletech, it is part of the design pillars that Battletech is the standard upon which the game is based. Deviate from the standard too far, and it no longer is what it claims to be.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 20 September 2013 - 10:40 PM.

[Deathlike]

PPCs are fine. 2 PPCs are still pretty good even if you go with straight DHS with a 250+ engine.

ERPPCs are unusable beyond 1, unless you really plan to sit around and cool off with 2... as its not viable beyond short term engagements.

[Errinovar]

I disagree for the most part simply because you are downplaying a couple of balancing factors, first of which is the alpha.. sure shots miss, but that is a driver error, not a weapon balancing factor. I've been making it a point for myself to boost my weapon accuracy, and even though I take less shots overall now I do more damage because I miss a lot less. Point is burst damage matters and the difference between 10 and 20 can be huge. Second, while you are correct about the ammo vs DHS crit and weight costs, what you failed to note is that every ballistic user is gambling his or her mech any time a part containing ammo is critically hit. Ammo explodes, and ammo explosions often kill when they happen whereas heatsinks don't. In fact heatsinks can soak up criticals protecting other assets in those areas from critical destruction.

Lastly I really don't put a lot of stock in DPS, because while it is a potential measurement, most people never come close to what the potential DPS is in actual use, other than single bursts. Maybe this is just me, but my weapon cool down is secondary to whether or not I have a good shot lined up especially if I am using ballistics.

[CrashieJ]

The problem is with this game is that Ballistics outpurpose Energy weapons due to the playstructure not allowing Energy weapons the time to outshine their ammuntion-dependent counterparts

if we were able to break the game into rounds where mechs are brought over with their remaining ammuntion count we would see a shift towards meaningful builds where players have risks and rewards. Take for instance Alpine, Alpine can be split into 3 parts (Alpine Mountains, Alpine Coast, Alpine City)

Round 1: Alpine Mountains (Long range weps are viable, short rang weps are at a disadvantage)
Round 2: Alpine City (Short Range weps viable, Long range weps are a disadvatage)
Round 3: Alpine Coast (both are at equal levels)

we will end up seeing more energy based builds as players will try either

-save their ammunition and expend it at the last round to increase their points
-expend their ammunition early on to score the most points and then fall back to their energy weps

---
extend the play, extend the choices.

[Mechsniper]

The problem may be the ghost heat added to the higher heat values. This heat is ridiculously excessive. The 9M and 8Q Awesomes are worthless in their intended forms as is. The ghost heat must be dropped and the heat value needs to be a little lower than it is. Otherwise every multi PPC mech in battle tech is worthless. Sorry some of you can't play against snipers. Really, how hard is it to use cover??? Brawlers are better in cities, snipers are better in open maps. Nerfing either is disingenuous and reeks of noobdom. The Awesome was a feared mech even close in. ERPPC's were not meant to be useless in close, nor was the Gauss. I can't agree with where the QQ has brought these 2 weapons at the moment.

[Amsro]

Lupus Aurelius, on 20 September 2013 - 09:12 PM, said:

And whereas this is not Battletech, it is part of the design pillars that Battletech is the standard upon which the game is based. Deviate from the standard too far, and it no longer is what it claims to be.

Battle Tech has both weapons at 10 and 15 heat respectively, I use them still and am quite effective with them. The trade off is heat for pinpoint 10 damage, NO other energy weapon does this.

After ballistic mechs have run out of ammo the PPC is still going.

I think the main problem stems from the Ghost Heat system which effectively stacks the regular + ninja heat to make things insane when fired in tandem.

Drop Ghost Heat mechanic and the game will be better for it.

Edited by Amsro, 21 September 2013 - 06:35 AM.

[ZippySpeedMonkey]

No it certainly was not.........

[Rasc4l]

Lupus Aurelius, on 20 September 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

When you look at these 2 systems, they have similar ranges, weights and fittings. The damage potential of the AC5, however , is respectably higher. Some might argue that alpha matters solely, but that is inaccurate, since shots miss, and applying

Do you play the same game? The damage potential of PPCs are UNLIMITED because it has UNLIMITED ammo. The damage potential of autocannons is limited to the amount of ammo.

Lupus Aurelius, on 20 September 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

From the point of view of performance, no one can argue against the dual AC5 build being completely superior.

I can. The performance of AC5 drops to zero upon ammo depletion and before that you risk ammo explosions. The performance of PPCs never drop to zero. "But it does when I shutdown due to heat!". Yeah, so it does with AC5 when you shutdown due to heat.

[Charons Little Helper]

Lupus Aurelius, on 20 September 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

Correction, they are long range weapons, as is the AC2, AC5, Gauss. They can be used to snipe, or in long range engagement. Based on your premise, neither should the ballistics be able to be constantly fired while remaining heat neutral. Even if the ERPPC heat were dropped to 12 or 13. they still would not be heat neutral. Whereas dual AC5, and Gauss currently are heat neutral.

Based on your statement, then, heat needs to be increased on those ballistics so they will not be heat neutral when used at range.

I don't understand why you think an ERPPC should be as good as an AC5. The ERPPC It weighs less and takes up fewer slots (even before ammo). The ERPPC also has more pinpoint damage. Plus said ammo may explode. Of course it shouldn't have as good DPS.

If you want DPS - take the AC5.

If you want high alpha - and then take cover - take double PPC. (and why would you chain-fire 2 of them? - ghost heat doesn't hit until 3)

[East Indy]

I didn't start using PPCs with any regularity until I picked up a Protector two weeks ago and turned it into a Warhammer analog.

PPCs seem to be in a good place. The heat of ERs is a solid tradeoff for expanded minimum and maximum ranges; there's real thought as to when and where. The regular weapon, for its part, is just good, visceral fun to use.

[Mister Blastman]

OP: NO. Absolutely NO. PPCs are not too hot right now nor ineffective. On the contrary. In every high-level 12 man drop, you will see MULTIPLE mechs fielding PPCs right now.

If they were junk, you wouldn't see them being used there. They're still really darn good--you just have to also be really darn good to make great use of them (which is completely fine).