84 replies to this topic

[Baba Yogi]

Komagn, on 26 September 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

@Lupus

The ERPPC wasn't given drastic heat, it was brought back to what it is in TT and what it was in CB. The heats were lowerd because in CB, the speed was slow and it was hot and there was no HSR. They were really hard to use and too hot. Now, they are still faster than they were in CB and easier to use, but the heat is now back to what it was. I'm fine with it.

You assume its heat efficiency is same with TT. PGI reduced cooldowns of the weapons but hps values of heat sinks remained the same (exception out of engine dhs which is further reduced). That automatically reduces dps value of any energy based weapons. If we assume every weapon's cd was 5 secs, then hs value is halved. It is lower for every single weapon system so heat sinks have less than half their efficiency compared to TT. As everyone knows energy weapon's effectiveness highly dependent on heat sinks. Ballistics on the other hand has even lower cd than energy weapons. Since they are very heat efficient (it is next to impossible to overheat for most of them) they do even more dps. You see the problem here? In order to do the same dps energy weaponry needs to install even more heat sinks than it had to in TT(where it had a good balance). Dont tell me ballistics are heavy, i know it is their trade of for being heat efficient. But if heat sinks are inefficient then low heat weapons get automatically better.

ER ppc imo is unnecesserily hot. PPC can be managed but i think they should up the travel speed. I mean they feel worse than large lasers and i still feel lasers are {Scrap}.

[General Taskeen]

90m no damage non-sense needs to go away forever on the PPC. May as well put no damage min range on all direct fire weapons if that kind of nonsensical TT thing is going to be instituted. Hence why it never existed in any Mech Warrior game ( Fun > Nonsense)

Also what Lordhammer said is correct. Yeah the heat levels are the 'same' as TT, but the heat sink effectiveness is no where near a correct translation in MWO. Even MW3 got it right and they used TT heat levels for weapons. There are a lot of whacky translations in other areas too, like an AC/2 that is 20x more powerful (because they tried sticking with exact damage values), and incredibly heat in-efficient, when it was the most heat efficient AC in TT with just SHS. And also the made up heat sinks in MWO, rather than sticking with something more close to heat sink effectiveness of TT (again like MW3), are exactly why SHS are bad in the game.

So basically the heat levels of PPC's and other weapons in the game would be absolutely fine if heat sinks worked how they are supposed to, which is what it all comes down to.

Edited by General Taskeen, 26 September 2013 - 04:32 PM.

[Lefteye Falconeer]

Look at the tournament that is going on right now. Look at how many people are still using the PPC on the most efficient builds. No, the nerf was NOT excessive. PPCs are just about right now, ESPECIALLY due to the 0-90 damage nerf. Without that, everyone would just still be using PPCs + AC10 or UAC5.

And again, just look at the tournament, live now on twitch.tv. And tell me how many heavy or assaults you can find without PPCs. ESPECIALLY the pop-tarts ones.

[Joseph Mallan]

There's a tournament going on right now???

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 September 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

There's a tournament going on right now???

170+ in San Francisco, vying for prizes in the MWO Launch Party...

[Joseph Mallan]

Oh... So why isn't it in the standard server like all other tournaments? I have to fight every MWO player when I am in a Event like that!

[arghmace]

When you take 4 ML's as a base then of course AC5's are better than PPC's. But what if you have MG's or a Gauss as a base? Then taking PPC's is the better option.

[CaveMan]

Restoring the heat of the PPC to its canon values can not by definition be excessive. People have gotten spoiled by under-heating PPCs since the end of CB.

[MischiefSC]

Disagree with OP. The PPC does double the damage *to its initial hit location* that the AC5 does. For the AC5 to hit comparable DPS to the same target location for 5 seconds as opposed to the PPCs fraction of a second. Game combat is rarely decided via DPS but damage to a single hit location while moving. The ability to put 10 points in a specific spot at range and move into cover is vastly more powerful than the ability to stand in the open, taking fire while spreading your damage over your target.

Also the ammo issue. Ammo is explosive and can kill you for carrying it, which can not be said of DHS. Carrying enough ammo to make an AC5 viable is also quite dangerous in and of itself.

This game is about pinpoint damage, not so much DPS. The PPC/ERPPC fills a very specific role and it does it well, just like many of the weapons in the game. The problem came when the only thing offsetting the PPC/ERPPCs broad range of benefits, its high heat cost, was reduced. At this point the PPC was the go-to weapon in the game and in the aggregate outperformed everything else at every range.

Putting the PPCs back to the correct heat value has vastly broadened the viability of other builds. I see DPS builds, PPC sniper builds, LRM boats, laser boats and SRM carriers with pretty equal frequency now. That's far, far more how it should be. While several months overdue the return of the PPCs heat to its correct value was the best balance decision PGI has made since closed beta.

[MisterPlanetarian]

Yep.

I still use PPC's on occation but It's not like you can run them with the usual token 12 DBL heatsinks. You need to build more around them now with backup weapons and enough heatsinks to make a difference

[Lupus Aurelius]

MischiefSC, on 27 September 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

Disagree with OP. The PPC does double the damage *to its initial hit location* that the AC5 does. For the AC5 to hit comparable DPS to the same target location for 5 seconds as opposed to the PPCs fraction of a second. Game combat is rarely decided via DPS but damage to a single hit location while moving. The ability to put 10 points in a specific spot at range and move into cover is vastly more powerful than the ability to stand in the open, taking fire while spreading your damage over your target.

Also the ammo issue. Ammo is explosive and can kill you for carrying it, which can not be said of DHS. Carrying enough ammo to make an AC5 viable is also quite dangerous in and of itself.

This game is about pinpoint damage, not so much DPS. The PPC/ERPPC fills a very specific role and it does it well, just like many of the weapons in the game. The problem came when the only thing offsetting the PPC/ERPPCs broad range of benefits, its high heat cost, was reduced. At this point the PPC was the go-to weapon in the game and in the aggregate outperformed everything else at every range.

Putting the PPCs back to the correct heat value has vastly broadened the viability of other builds. I see DPS builds, PPC sniper builds, LRM boats, laser boats and SRM carriers with pretty equal frequency now. That's far, far more how it should be. While several months overdue the return of the PPCs heat to its correct value was the best balance decision PGI has made since closed beta.

That's just it, dual AC5s are 10 damage pinpoint every 1.5 seconds, because they are volley fired. Whereas due to heat, you have to mostly chain fire the ERPPCs. So with the ERPPC, chain fired, you are doing 10 damage every 2 seconds, assuming that you are firing the next shot half way thru the first ERPPC cycle, versus 10 damage every 1.5 seconds volley firing the dual AC5s.

In addition, Chain firing the dual ERPPCs generates 15 heat every 2 seconds, versus volley fire of the dual AC5s doing 2 heat every 1.5 seconds.

So, no, the alpha vs DPS argument doesn't fly here. Both are long range suppression builds, so the short range weapons don't some into play unless it gets into a brawl. Even if you argue that at range you can volley fire the ERPPCs, you'll get off 3 volleys before a shutdown, versus the dual AC5s going steady delivering 10 damage every 1.5 seconds, with no risk of a shut down.

[MischiefSC]

Lupus Aurelius, on 27 September 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

That's just it, dual AC5s are 10 damage pinpoint every 1.5 seconds, because they are volley fired. Whereas due to heat, you have to mostly chain fire the ERPPCs. So with the ERPPC, chain fired, you are doing 10 damage every 2 seconds, assuming that you are firing the next shot half way thru the first ERPPC cycle, versus 10 damage every 1.5 seconds volley firing the dual AC5s.

In addition, Chain firing the dual ERPPCs generates 15 heat every 2 seconds, versus volley fire of the dual AC5s doing 2 heat every 1.5 seconds.

So, no, the alpha vs DPS argument doesn't fly here. Both are long range suppression builds, so the short range weapons don't some into play unless it gets into a brawl. Even if you argue that at range you can volley fire the ERPPCs, you'll get off 3 volleys before a shutdown, versus the dual AC5s going steady delivering 10 damage every 1.5 seconds, with no risk of a shut down.

So if we're talking dual AC5s we should be talking dual ERPPCs, so you're talking the ability to put 20 points on a single location at 600m then step into cover vs having to stand in enemy fire for 3 seconds to drop 2 sets of 10 points on or around the same location.

Not that dual AC5s at 22 tons worth of gun and ammo are not a good setup - they should be. For me to put 80 points on a torso however I've got to land 8 shots in the same location, dual PPCs need 4. With the AC5s I need to stand exposed to fire for most of that while the PPCs can snipe and move into cover. This makes the PPCs a far, far more effective way to do that at range and the ACs a better way to do that while brawling. The ACs however put 6 slots worth of explosiveness in your mech while 2xERPPCs and 8 DHS (probably 3 in the engine and 5 spread out in torso) doesn't suffer the same risk.

It's a good balance and has made the overall game experience vastly, vastly, superior to the PPC dominated meta from before PPC heat was returned to balanced levels.

I absolutely get that having a pinnacle weapon can be convenient. It's easier, you have a go-to combat experience that you can carry across most builds so you don't have to re-learn tactics with each chassis, there are benefits to having one weapon inherently superior to the others. We had that for many months. Most people hated it as it destroyed variety and created a sniper-driven meta in the game that only people who liked sniping enjoyed.

That meta is dead now. My main regret is that I didn't get to mock it and imply that I was going to seduce its soon-to-be widow right before it got two shots to the back of the head. It's currently burning in flaming torment, consigned to the abyss of bad game metas and every other weapon in MWO is signing and dancing on its grave, happy to see sunlight again.

You can still use PPCs just fine. People do constantly. Watch the livestream of the competitive games at the launch event. Play 12 mans and spectate. Just now they're not inherently superior. I get that you want them to be and justify it as 'balanced' by interpreting metrics for other weapons like AC5s. Nobody who played the game under the prior meta is going to be fooled by this though. There is more to game balance than just DPS/HPS and everyone who plays the game knows that, you included.

I know it's frustrating to have something you enjoy taken away. Having PPCs the superior, go-to weapon for sniping, brawling and just sightseeing was clearly something you enjoyed. Nobody else did though. Now the weapon is no better or worse than any other weapon OVERALL, though it is stronger in some areas and weaker in others. The whole game is better for it for every player. Small consolation I know but that's about all there is to it. By and large people are not only happy that it happened but unhappy that it didn't happen sooner.

[MaddMaxx]

Lupus Aurelius, on 24 September 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

Seriously! Learn to read. Someone made the statement that ballistics were meant to be heat neutral / no heat. I responded that no where in BT does it ever say that, and it does not.

Secondly, BT values are based on a 10 sec turn, with heat based on firing that weapon once every 10 seconds. Under Solaris rules, it's every 2.5 seconds per rounds, but each weapon still can only be fired every 10 seconds. Converting heat scale from a turn based to a realtime play means that it all has to be adjusted. So saying that it is the same heat in BT does not mean it is balanced here.

Go back to school, take reading comprehension and logic classes again, if you ever had them in the first place, surat.

I just wanted to say thanks to numb-nuts here for the stellar reminder why this Cess-pool remains a Cess-Pool as long as numb-nuts like himself infest its threads. Thanks numb-nuts.

Adios amigo's, he's all yours. LOL!

[Losobal]

Makes you wonder what happens if/when they add clan variants. Will there be a rebalance making the new clan stuff equal to the stuff we have now, with the stuff we have now ground down into lesser values they are now?

[Iron War]

The Heat on PPC/ERPPC is manageable but then they slow the projectile speed way down. Make the projectile speed on them faster. A particle accelerator should have a projectile speed close to the speed of light . . . other wise shouldn't it have a drop rate like other ballistics?

Keep the heat, make the projectile speed instantaneous.

[Gabriel Amarell]

If the goal is balance start from a point of balance and work back, to this end my argument begins with a weapon that I believe is relatively well balanced, the AC/10.
Dmg Heat CD Tons Crits DPS DPT DPC HPS
AC/10 10 3 2.5 12 7 4 .833 1.428 1.2

So then, aside from the weapon we need ammo, and also heat dissipation, ammo is easy so let's do that first, 15 shots per ton, 1 Crit per ton, 30 shots is what I consider the minimum to really use the weapon, so add 2 crits and 2 tons of weight.

Now heatsinks, were going to use doubles, going to assume 16, and a 275 engine. Why? A 275 carries 10 in engine heatsinks with one slot for an additional heatsink, that's 11 heatsinks at .2 HPS for 1 ton 0 slots and 5 outside the engine at .14 HPS, 3 crits and 1 ton each. Together that is 6 tons 15 slots 2.9 total HPS dissipated. Do the math and on average a double heatsink then weighs .375 tons takes up 1.066 crits and dissipates .18125 HPS,

We want 50% heat dissipation, 1.2 HPS (The heat per second generated by the weapon) /2 = .6 /.18125 (The heat per second dissipated by 1 double heatsink) = 3.31 double heatsinks to dissipate 50% of the AC/10's heat. That means an additional 1.241 tons, and 3.531 crits.

Dmg Heat CD Tons Crits DPS DPT DPC HPS
AC/10 10 3 2.5 12 7 4 .833 1.428 1.2
+2 +2
+1.241 +3.531

So here are the real stats of the AC/10
Dmg Heat CD Tons Crits DPS DPT DPC HPS
AC/10 10 3 2.5 15.25 12.5 4 .656 .8 1.2

Here are the Base stats of the PPC in order to equalize DPS we need 1.6 PPC's (AC/10 = 4.0 DPS, PPC = 2.5) DPS 2.5 * 1.6 = 4.0
Dmg Heat CD Tons Crits DPS DPT DPC HPS
PPC 16 16 4 11.2 4.8 4 1.429 3.333 4

Let me Crunch the numbers for you, here are the real stats of the 1.6 PPC's, again 50% heat dissipation
Dmg Heat CD Tons Crits DPS DPT DPC HPS
PPC 16 16 4 11.2 4.8 4 .043 .966 4
+4.125 +11.733

Dmg Heat CD Tons Crits DPS DPT DPC HPS
PPC 16 16 4 15.33 16.55 4 1.043 .966 4

So, what do the numbers really mean? The numbers indicate that when enough PPC's (1.6) are carried to equal the DPS of an AC/10: (assuming 50% heat Dissipation)
PPC damage per crit is ~20% better than an AC/10
PPC damage per ton is ~60% better than an AC/10
PPC heat per second is ~ 333% higher than an AC/10

The Question then is:
Is an extra 100 meters of range, 20% better damage per crit, 60% better damage per ton and infinite ammo worth 3.3 times the heat. No ammo explosions but a cooldown 1.6 times as long meaning missing hurts a lot more with the PPC, on the other hand firing at beyond max range for partial damage does not hurt your potential maximum damage the way it does with a ballistic, neither does missing entirely for that matter. With the PPC you can take that 50/50 shot at 750 meters, with the AC/10 you really need to be at 450 or closer or you're wasting those precious 30 shots. The actual weapon stats are much more balanced than most of us believe (yes there is room for improvement *Cough* ERPPC) but weapon stats are not the real problem issue in most cases.

The REAL ISSUE is BOATING. (But Gabe boating is cannon, lots of cannon mechs were boats) Indeed, many cannon mechs were boats but mechs were laid out in standard configurations that could not be changed. The entire point of omnitech was to make mechs re-configurable. If we say that all mechs are omnimechs we are already throwing out cannon and the result is the boating problem mechwarrior has always suffered from. So what's the solution? Well, IMO Mechwarrior 4 had it right, PPC = 3 crits, if the energy slot in that right arm isn't 3 crits or bigger you can't put a PPC there, also 3 one slot energy hard points are not the same as a 3 slot, you can put 3 small lasers in a 3 slot, but you can't put a PPC in 3 one slot energy hard points. IMO this would at the very least reduce boating and I think the game would be better for it, that's just my opinion of course so feel free to discuss.

Edited by Gabriel Amarell, 28 September 2013 - 02:31 AM.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Gabriel Amarell, on 28 September 2013 - 02:29 AM, said:

Stuff

That was a totally disingenuous argument. Rating damage by ton, and totally ignoring the heat/DPS/HPS issue does nothing to refute the initial post's data. Also, due to the speed and range of the 2 weapon system you presented, they are not even close to the same capabilities as long range direct fire support.

Regardless, if you were to look at the HPS/DPS of these 2 systems, you still find that the HPS of the AC10 is 1.2, vs the ERPPC at 3.75. The difference in weight, however, is negated by the number of DHS you need to effectively use the ERPPC, above and beyond what is native to the engine.

In addition, you post presents data in a seemingly detailed fashion, however, it is deceptive, since the approch of strictly limiting the discussion to damage per ton, based on the weapons alone, and not an integrated platform and it's damage to heat potential and it's role functionality. If you are going to debate the topic, then debate it honestly, working with the same data, instead of inserting an argument that appears reasoned, but is actually disingenuous to the topic.

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 September 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

Oh... So why isn't it in the standard server like all other tournaments? I have to fight every MWO player when I am in a Event like that!

You could have attended. Did you apply? There was limited space for this Special "Away Tourney".

[Joseph Mallan]

Well played Almond, But sill does not address the fail that is MWO tournaments.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

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

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:


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.

ya check out my post on ghost heat,

http://mwomercs.com/...n/page__st__220

ac2's make WAAAAY to much heat and all the other ac's are overshadowed by the ac5, ultra 5, and ac20. realistically none of the other ac weapons compete at all, the lbx 10 is nice but the ac20 craps all over it if your not packing a lbx 20 (2x lbx 10's), which is both heavier and hotter then 1 ac20.