532 replies to this topic

[Gaan Cathal]

Lupus Aurelius, on 07 October 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

I disagree. DPS and burst damage are indicators. Granted, this is not like EVE, where DPS factors in heavily. But in MWO, it's an indicator of what a potential is. Same with burst damage, you are not always going to be able to apply all your weapons at once, nor maintain them indefinitely. But it is an indicator of potential.

I really wish the system was closer to EVEs in result (although obviously not in method, wouldn't work at all for a mech-FPS) in that EVE is one of the few games where the DPS-Alpha trade off is fairly well balanced, and there are good reasons for using either method. In MW:O DOT weapons are uniformly weaker because PGI doesn't seem to understand that if you spread damage either spatially or chronologically you need to increase damage to compensate.

Ergo, DOT weapons need to do more DPS than pinpoint weapons and all spread weapons need to do more damage than pinpoint weapons (SRM/LRM are there, LB-X is not, SSRM are actually overbuffed).

Lupus Aurelius, on 07 October 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

The analysis in the OP is based on ranged direct fire weapons, so unless your mech is nothing but ranged weapons, you will never be applying full burst damage at range, you will be applying damage from your ranged weapons only. At that point, the consideration is how much damage you can throw downfield and how quickly, and for how long you can sustain it.

At this time, based on the data, the clear choice is to go ballistic weapons for ranged damage. That's not balance, if equipping a piece of equipment is a "no choice" or "last resort" sort of choice. Nor is having to go with ballistic heavy mechs only, because energy based mechs cannot sustain fire and deliver damage as quickly. When there is only 1 logical choice when looking for optimal performance, then it is not balanced.

Frankly the ascendancy of ballistics, IMO, doesn't have much to do with the ERPPCvAC/10 comparison (or the ERPPC at all, infact). It's a combination of the underpowered nature of beam-duration weapons (especially with pulse lasers taking so many penalties for reducing their beam duration that they're basically neutered) and the very low TTK on mechs if the aggressor can so much as aim straight. Either Internal Structure needs a buff (my preferred method, since it would make component destruction relevant in more than a tiny percentage of cases) or ammo needs reducing. That said, it's not necessarily that clear cut. The best brawler the game ever had was the AS7-D-DC (when SRM hit detection wasn't less accurate than a drunk trying to **** through a keyhole) largely due to the combination of low-heat-high-impact Ballistic and high-heat-low-impact SRM/Laser weapons.

Lupus Aurelius, on 07 October 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

A dual AC10 mech can sustain fire for much longer period of time, with much shorter recycle time than a Dual ERPPC. Both have the same damage per weapon. The dual AC10 mech will eat the ERPPC mech alive, for 2 reasons. First, because it's going to be doing 20 damage every 2.5 seconds, vs. the dual ERPPC mech at 20 every 4 seconds. Second, without using any backup weapons, the ERPPC mech will shutdown after 4 volleys max, if starting with 0 heat.

Ah, but the dual-AC/10 weighs ten tons more than the dual-ERPPC. For that significant an investment it probably should have advantages. Secondary to this, you're assuming firing on cooldown. I seldom do this with any direct fire weapon, particularly pinpoint ones, because I'd rather wait half a second and apply my second 20 damage to the CT/ST that I landed the first on (depending on target, ofc), which somewhat mitigates the slower refire rate. The main issue, however, is the extra ten ton investment for the dual-AC/10 setup. Sure, the dual-ERPPC requires a lot more DHS to function, but the dual-AC/10 setup basically mandates backup lasers due to the limited ammo available in a dual-ballistic build dropping 24 tons on gun in a 70t Heavy (the heaviest mech capable of dual-AC/10 currently is the Cataphract, unless I am mistaken). And that's not even mentioning the (admittedly somewhat dubious thanks to the stupid falloff design) range advantage an ERPPC has.

Riddler9884, on 07 October 2013 - 05:14 AM, said:

DPS does tell you with such low numbers compared to other weapons it can’t fire fast enough or do enough damage to match others (but I wouldn’t base how balanced a gun is only by this figure). Granted you might want this value lower than the others because of advantages over other weapons (max distance, ammo usage, etc.). However, in the end its a game and in regards to the ppc its about how rewarding it is to use it.

DPS needs to inversely correlate with a) Damage/Shot and Damage Concentration (pinpoint>beamtime>spread), obviously modified for value of tonnage. The ERPPC should have a lower DPS than almost any other weapon in the game because it's a high damage, pinpoint impact, long ranged, ammoless weapon.

Riddler9884, on 07 October 2013 - 05:14 AM, said:

Currently brawls (not matches) are so short that you never get to appreciate the fact you don’t consume ammo with ppc’s and spending a brawl waiting for them to cool off is a bit frustrating. I used to be a big ppc fan (I wouldn’t be the guy shooting across the map of river city, short of hacking my eyes nor my screen would allow me to do so).

ERPPCs aren't really brawling weapons, which is fine. They don't need to be. I mean, you can do brawly things with them like run two and an AC/20 on a AS7-D-DC, but really they're mid-long range direct fire support, not brawling. The PPC is more of a brawling weapon, minimum range not withstanding, and has much more manageable heat. I mean, if you're brawling and have the slots, a pair of Medium Lasers will put out the same damage/shot as an ERPPC for just a sliver over half the heat/shot and weigh a lot less and fire faster.

So if you're dedicatedly brawling then the ERPPC isn't a good option, no. Use MLs if you have an abundance of energy hards, LLs if you don't (ERLLs if you've the tonnage/heatsinks and no backups).

Riddler9884, on 07 October 2013 - 05:14 AM, said:

I can also tell you that currently there is no point to carrying more than 2 ppc’s on to the field. If you do make sure most of your weight/slots is in heat sinks and be very stingy firing anything else. As opposed to the heat generated by any AC, they can be used consistently throughout the match as long as you don’t waste all your ammo shooting at the air.

It's the (joint) heaviest energy weapon in the game. There's nothing wrong with it not being worth taking more than two. It's barely worth bringing 4 LLs, and they're significantly lighter. You won't see anything running more than 2 AC/20s either, and I don't think more than 2 AC/10s will ever be likely, even if we get a mech capable of 3.

[FupDup]

Gaan Cathal, on 07 October 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

It's the (joint) heaviest energy weapon in the game. There's nothing wrong with it not being worth taking more than two. It's barely worth bringing 4 LLs, and they're significantly lighter. You won't see anything running more than 2 AC/20s either, and I don't think more than 2 AC/10s will ever be likely, even if we get a mech capable of 3.

Actually, the Ilya can already hold 3 AC/10 (but it has to make some sacrifices like only 6 tons of ammo and an XL255 engine).

[Rasc4l]

Lupus Aurelius, on 06 October 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

Multiple threads pro and con have been posted about the ERPPC/PPC heat increase, most of it subjective. The following is hard data as to the ERPPC performance with current heat mechanics, as compared to the long range ballistic weapons.

Let me first applaud you for presenting your case in a very clear manner. I would submit that you make certain false/misleading assumptions in the beginning, which basically make the case for you. Allow me to explain.

Lupus Aurelius, on 06 October 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

So we will assume 3 tons ammo for each ballistic weapon we are considering. Anything less is an issue, especially with 12 vs. 12 now, your major damage weapons would run out of ammo long before the end of the match, leaving you with only you short range weapons to fall back on.

Instead of ammo, we will figure on 5 external DHS for the ERPPC. ¹

So here are the figures with the inclusion of ammo on the ballistics, external DHS foe the ERPPC, and criticals:

And here we go wrong. This approximation does not work for the following reasons.

Lupus Aurelius, on 06 October 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

Data is data; math is math, and not subject to opinion nor feelings. In order to have balance, the pros and cons of each weapon need to balance out so that along with the disadvantages, there are enough advantages to make something worthwhile to utilize. The latest increase in heat for the ERPPC brought the heat levels up too high, negating any significant advantage compared to ballistics, and unbalanced them, as we will discuss next.

"Hard" data can easily be misleading due to false assumptions so please don't try to exclude factors outside your assumptions with "hard data is the truth" argument.

Lupus Aurelius, on 06 October 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

· But, ERPPCs don’t need ammo!

Yes they do, heat sinks are the ammo of ERPPCs. Due to the current heat levels, you have no choice but to run DHS, because the engine HS actually run as double HS. In order to compensate for using SHS, and additional 10 tons and 10 crits is necessary, just to get you to the level of a DHS engine.

And, ammo takes 1 crit, DHS take 3 crits. When taking critical internal damage, the DHS are extremely vulnerable, and even though they do not explode, taking out DHS on an enemy mech means in the heat of battle, you lose capability to fire. So in that respect, they function like ammo.

For the sake of conversation, shall we keep the terms at least clear? Ammunition is something you need to fire your weapon. PPCs never reach the point of no return when the weapon simply stops working like ballistics. Your conversion of heatsinks to ammo with PPCs does not negate this fact.

Lupus Aurelius, on 06 October 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

· But, ERPPCs don’t run out of ammo!

No, they do not, but as noted, crit the DHS enough, and you will slow their firing. But that isn’t the main issue here. Matches are 15 minutes long, 12 vs. 12. If each ballistic weapon has 3 tons of ammo each has the potential to deliver 450 damage. A dual AC2 / AC5/ UAC5/ AC10/ Gauss mech can each put out 900 damage during that match.

Now, unless you are a very bad shot, that’s pretty significant. If the matches were 30 minutes to an hour long, against 24 mechs, then there would be a chance to run out of ammo and the ERPPC would shine a bit more then. But at current match sizes and times it’s hard to justify using ERPPCs, because normally, with 3 tons of ammo per gun, you are not going to run out, or if you do, it will be near the end of the match if you survived that long.

Your assumption of 3 tons of ammo for a ballistic is ridiculous. It is possible to "waste" 450 points of damage already to a single atlas who knows how to torso twist. I bring no less than 35 shots (5 tons) with my Atlas, which has a SINGLE AC/20. For a dual AC/20 Jäger, the number is easily almost double that. Anything less and I've learned that I run out of ammo. With other ACs, the amount of needed is similar in tons what I said with AC/20. This makes me wonder whether you have really played with autocannons.

You are basically wanting to balance things based on how things go in the first 5 minutes of the match. With your settings, the ACs will have run out of ammo too soon. All the less heat for (ER)PPC guys basically seem to forget their weapon works until destroyed and they don't need to worry about ammo explosions.

Another thing taking much ground from under your argument is that all your calculations were done with ERPPCs. Just take a PPC and you only have 2/3 of the heat to worry about. Also, clan PPC with 15 heat AND damage is gonna be a killer so ERPPC heat cannot be any less.

Lupus Aurelius, on 06 October 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

This is the problem with PGI balancing by heat. Approaching the historical issues by addressing the root causes, such as convergence, the heat system in general, and the fitting mechanics would have addressed those issues in a more accurate way. Specifically, fitting, due to current mechanics making all mechs effectively omni mechs. Limiting criticals in a location for the weapon types allowed there would have prevented most of the major boating issues.

I think PGI has done a fine job with the recent weapon balance updates. I'm not saying that TT numbers always work but they do here.

[Corvus Antaka]

PPC/ER is fine. Ballistics are too cool, spec. the ac5/uac5/ac10

[Lupus Aurelius]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 07 October 2013 - 07:15 AM, said:

PPC/ER is fine. Ballistics are too cool, spec. the ac5/uac5/ac10

Lupus Aurelius' said:

In no way am I advocating that ERPPCs should be heat neutral or near heat neutral. ERPPC heat needs to be lowered back down to 12, or possibly 13, and the ghost heat penalty needs to be increased for ERPPCs used beyond 2 volley fired, to prevent excessive boating. The other option, however, is that the AC10, AC5/UAC5, and Gauss be brought more in line with the current profile for the AC2. This would “balance” out these systems.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 07 October 2013 - 07:21 AM.

[Jman5]

Ok, I think we've theorycrafted this about as far as we can on a forum. Now it's time apply this theory to real-world builds and experiment. In the OP, he pointed to a thread that compared 4ML + dual AC5 jager with a 4ML + dual ER-PPC. I would argue that this is not a fair comparison because you're doing Ballistic+Energy with Energy + Energy.

First thing I would do is I would make 2 builds from the same mech or similar variant and do a strict ER PPC vs AC/10. Then I would play a bunch of games with one and then the other. So something like this:
ILYA MUROMETS
versus
CTF-1X

After that I would move onto more practical/complex equations where you make the ER PPC the main guns and fill out 1 or 2 ballistic hardpoint with a small ballistic like the machine gun. Then do a build where AC/10s are the main guns and fill out 1 or 2 energy hardpoints with small energy like small laser.

[Almond Brown]

RG Notch, on 06 October 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

People really post things on here and expect PGI to notice let alone do anything about them? Can you sell those ERPPCS for real money? If not IGP./PGI not interested. All that math for nothing. These forums aren't where they go for ideas and they aren't interested in what the forums has to say on anything, balance in particular.

Given the Forums history, after OB at least, and given how the conspiracy types make "everything" out to be a plot against the players, can you blame them. The latest conspiracy. The New ready button was placed solely to "Slow C-Bill generation". LOL OMG! This place is a joke and the Dev should ignore 99.99% of the bs found here.

[Riddler9884]

My post was about PPC not ERPPC's, the point I was trying to make was that PPC are hot ERPPCs are more so. I wouldn't touch ERPPC with a 10 foot pole.

Gaan Cathal, on 07 October 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

[/size]
ERPPCs aren't really brawling weapons, which is fine. They don't need to be. I mean, you can do brawly things with them like run two and an AC/20 on a AS7-D-DC, but really they're mid-long range direct fire support, not brawling. The PPC is more of a brawling weapon, minimum range not withstanding, and has much more manageable heat. I mean, if you're brawling and have the slots, a pair of Medium Lasers will put out the same damage/shot as an ERPPC for just a sliver over half the heat/shot and weigh a lot less and fire faster.

So if you're dedicatedly brawling then the ERPPC isn't a good option, no. Use MLs if you have an abundance of energy hards, LLs if you don't (ERLLs if you've the tonnage/heatsinks and no backups).

While I agree with you when it comes to the Atlas, the hard points allow for variety that I have come to appreciate now more than ever. However when you are working with Stalkers thats things get hairy, who short of the Misery do not have Ballistic slots. The Mech by definition doesnt move fast, turn fast and all of them have have more than half of their hard points dedicated to energy.

You could argue that the problem with the Mech not the weapon, and I probably agree with you. However, until PGI decides to change the hard points on the Stalkers the state in which the weapons are is not balanced.

The PPC's aren't in a bad place but between the ghost heat and the current high heat they generate they are in need of a minor heat buff. I was about to put up a STK build as an example but I cant accurately recall it and it wouldn't mean its balanced for all the other weight classes.

Gaan Cathal, on 07 October 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

[/size]
It's the (joint) heaviest energy weapon in the game. There's nothing wrong with it not being worth taking more than two. It's barely worth bringing 4 LLs, and they're significantly lighter. You won't see anything running more than 2 AC/20s either, and I don't think more than 2 AC/10s will ever be likely, even if we get a mech capable of 3.

Again see above.

Edited by Riddler9884, 07 October 2013 - 08:43 AM.

[Gorgo7]

ER/PPC heat is not the issue.
It is DHS that act like 1.4 HS. Dissipation is the issue.
No one is advocating for an unlimited number of PPC shots for brawling. We are advocating for a reasonable number of shots down range before shutting down and exploding.
Out of the hopper are two very expensive Assault machines that come equipped with three (ER)PPC's as standard armament. Awesome 8Q and the Awesome 9M.
Given the current heat dissipation system it is false advertising and damn it, I want my AWESOMES to be able to equip PPC's and ERPPC's, and have a reasonable chance based on skill of winning against other assaults and heavies which is why I bought them in the first place.
For those who would say that Lasers are a perfectly good substitution take a look at your personal Stats and figure out your average damage per hit with any given laser and compare it to it's max damage. In addition the damn lasers hit two or three locations as they wander about a moving target. Splash damage if you will.
Keep the heat, Keep the Ghost heat!

Fix the bloody DHS!!

[AC]

I don't believe your UAC numbers are correct. The potential DPS is about double what you have listed as there really is no way to fire them in standard (single rate) mode.

[Tyman4]

"Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl." -Frederick II of Prussia

I'm sorry you don't get to spam ERPPC bolts anymore. The game sucked when you could. - Tycho von Gagern

You sir just made My day. LOLZZZ

OP: Agreed, the heat is so bad as to make the ERPPC a completely ignored weapon. I literally do not see them on the battlefield. I do see PPC's, and if you have time I would ask if you can run your maths on the difference between running PPC and ERPPC. Since the tonnage is the same but the heat is very different, could a range versus damage relationship be created? Or perhaps versus time? THX

[DarkDevilDancer]

I have to agree ERppcs are too hot now and I'm talking a single weapon not a pair, I had one erppc on my protector and it would over heat after three shots, that's not a viable weapon system.

Ppc spam needed to be fixed and it was, the last increase in heat was not needed.

[AC]

Gorgo7, on 07 October 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

ER/PPC heat is not the issue.
It is DHS that act like 1.4 HS. Dissipation is the issue.
No one is advocating for an unlimited number of PPC shots for brawling. We are advocating for a reasonable number of shots down range before shutting down and exploding.
Out of the hopper are two very expensive Assault machines that come equipped with three (ER)PPC's as standard armament. Awesome 8Q and the Awesome 9M.
Given the current heat dissipation system it is false advertising and damn it, I want my AWESOMES to be able to equip PPC's and ERPPC's, and have a reasonable chance based on skill of winning against other assaults and heavies which is why I bought them in the first place.
For those who would say that Lasers are a perfectly good substitution take a look at your personal Stats and figure out your average damage per hit with any given laser and compare it to it's max damage. In addition the damn lasers hit two or three locations as they wander about a moving target. Splash damage if you will.
Keep the heat, Keep the Ghost heat!

Fix the bloody DHS!!

or..... as an alternative.... increase the cool down on all weapons slightly. This will give high heat weapons more time to dissipate heat before the ballistics mechs obliterate it. PGI has stated they wanted to slow the mech deaths down, but yet they give us incredibly fast cool down times on weapons (compared to past MW titles). I have watch mechs be obliterated in seconds before, and have also been victim of that as well.

[Joseph Mallan]

Gorgo the issue is we have weapons firing 2-3 times as fast as they do on TT but sinks still vent at TT standards. AND they are less effective as doubles are in fact NOT double.

[focuspark]

keep the heat, increase the projectile velocity.

[Riddler9884]

Gorgo7, on 07 October 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

ER/PPC heat is not the issue.
It is DHS that act like 1.4 HS. Dissipation is the issue.
No one is advocating for an unlimited number of PPC shots for brawling. We are advocating for a reasonable number of shots down range before shutting down and exploding.
Out of the hopper are two very expensive Assault machines that come equipped with three (ER)PPC's as standard armament. Awesome 8Q and the Awesome 9M.
Given the current heat dissipation system it is false advertising and damn it, I want my AWESOMES to be able to equip PPC's and ERPPC's, and have a reasonable chance based on skill of winning against other assaults and heavies which is why I bought them in the first place.
For those who would say that Lasers are a perfectly good substitution take a look at your personal Stats and figure out your average damage per hit with any given laser and compare it to it's max damage. In addition the damn lasers hit two or three locations as they wander about a moving target. Splash damage if you will.
Keep the heat, Keep the Ghost heat!

Fix the bloody DHS!!

They could probably get away with establishing a fixed heat cap and making DHS true DHS, but I think they are too far down the rabbit hole for that one. Can you imagine the work involved re-balancing all the weapons and Mechs? As it is there are a couple of mechs out there that need some TLC (Bad hitboxes - chief among them, oversized cockpit windows, has no distinguishing characteristics from other variants and less hardpoints).

Edited by Riddler9884, 07 October 2013 - 09:26 AM.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Riddler9884, on 07 October 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

They could probably get away with establishing a fixed heat cap and making DHS true DHS, but I think they are too far down the rabbit hole for that one. Can you imagine the work involved re-balancing all the weapons and Mechs? As it is there are a couple of mechs out there that need some TLC (Bad hitboxes - chief among them, oversized cockpit windows, has no distinguishing characteristics from other variants and less hardpoints).

Currently, MWO mechs function more like omni-mechs, with the ability to fit way beyond what the original balancing concepts of BattleTech and MW computer games. Heatsinks remain badly broken, as well as the whole heat system, allowing for builds that can fire indefinitely without ever overheating. A variety of mechs are being fitted with weapon systems they never would have been able to before, a good example is the Dual AC20 Catapult, whereas the 2 ballistic spots originally were machine guns.

It still boils down to these two items that have been brought up for a long time now. Heat and the fitting mechanics.

Heat:

Currently, heatsinks add heat levels to a mech, as well as heat dissipation speed. This encouraged use of lower heat-high damage builds. Dual to quad AC5 and UAC5 builds that deliver pinpoint damage at range with almost no heat now rule. In the past, it was the 4-6 PPC Stalker, or the 6 LL Stalker, jump sniping PPC/Gauss Highlanders, the list goes on. But the real issue here has always been HPS – how much damage can you put out for as long as possible. Instead, heat should be handled as follows:

• -Each Mech has a base heat amount, unique for the most part, with bigger mechs having better heat than lighter ones.
  
• -Engines are not only rated by speed but also by heat level, larger engines having better heat than smaller ones. This would be an interesting mechanic, do you go for a larger engine for more speed and heat, but less firepower, or a smaller engine to save weight and add firepower, but with less heat?
  
• -Heat sinks do not add more heat level to the mech, they merely increase the heat dissipation rate, so the more heatsinks you have, the faster the heat dissipates. DHS at that point can actually be "double" single heat sinks, and there would actually be a reason at times to use single heat sinks.

High heat alphas would have been reduced to 1 possible with an immediate shutdown, and possibly internal heat damage, with the above mechanic. Also, it would allow for a more balanced heat rating for weapons, instead of AC5/UAC5 doing 1 heat every 1.5 secs vs ERPPCs doing 15 heat every 4 seconds. Ballistics would still have lower heat, but the ability to fire multiple ballistics at one time continuously could also be curtailed.

Heat handled per the above would also reduce the use of alphas to a "last resort" type of maneuver, since doing more than 1, or possible 2, alphas would shut down almost any mech. Now it would be an issue of how to deliver damage over time instead of all at once, making the games longer with more variety of tactics.

Weapon Hardpoints:

Until the introduction of omni-tech to the IS, there were the stock models only. Modifications cost dearly, and also could be the source for significant issues in running a mech. That’s fine for tabletop, but in a computer game, you want people to have some ability to customize their ride. But the current mechanics make all mechs basically omni-mechs. So long as there are open criticals in that location and you have the tonnage, you can fit any of that type of weapon in that location, up to the quantity limit.

Instead,hardpoints should not open to all the crits in that location. Besides the number of weapons of that type, there also needs to be a limit as to the number of crits that can be used for those weapon types. All of the crit slots in that location would no longer be able to fit that weapon type. So, having 3 energy on a right torso might mean there were only 6 energy crits there. You could fit 3 large lasers, 2 PPCs but not 3 PPCs, or a PPC/LL/ML. Same for ballistics and missiles, 2 ballistics in an arm, but only 5 ballistic slots, so you could fir 2 AC2, an AC2 and an AC5, but not 2 AC5s. Similar to the way it was in MW4.

These 2 mechanics combined would remove a lot of the boating issues, and actually force balanced builds. It would also make each mech more unique, giving more variety for lance compositions and not just seeing the same handful of mechs all the time, boating whatever the FOTM is. Chasis with heavy energy build would have higher base heat, so mech like the Awesome would actualy be able to do what it was designed for, be a PPC platform, Mechs with heavy ballistic builds might have lower heat, but more crit space for ballistic weapons. It would make each mech more unique, as well as more balanced in relation to each other. And also would help eliminate the ridiculous balancing by nerfing or adding unnecessary mechanics..

Approaching the historical issues by addressing the root causes, such as convergence, the heat system in general, and the fitting mechanics would have addressed those issues in a more accurate way. However, under the current mechanics, PGI is balancing by heat, therefore the premise of the OP.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 07 October 2013 - 10:26 AM.

[Vodrin Thales]

Lupus Aurelius, on 06 October 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

Their range is on par with AC5 / UAC5, and shorter than Gauss and AC2, and only slightly longer than the AC10.

ERPPC has a signficantly longer effective range than the AC10. AC10 is not worth firing beyond 900m, ERPPC does full damage to 850. ERPPC/PPC needed a slight overnerf due to being overbuffed previously. Currently I am good with where they are (despite the limitations). You still see them in competitive matches, just not on every mech that can mount them (like it was prior to the nerfs).

[Almond Brown]

Just set Cool-Down to total Alpha discharged.

1 x AC20 = 20 damage - CD = 10s
2 x AC20 = 40 damage - CD = 10s + 5s (for second gun)

1 x (er)PPC = 15 damage - CD = 7.5s
2 x erPPC = 30 damage - CD = 7.5s + 3.75s = 11.25s (for second gun)

1 x AC10 = 10 damage - CD = 5s
2 x AC10 = 20 damage - CD = 5s +2.5s = 7.5s

etc etc

Now players select an Alpha value and have to eat the Cool Down. Not many would choose Mechs which could exceed a 15s cool down per Alpha strike. LOL

Edited by Almond Brown, 07 October 2013 - 10:33 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Riddler9884, on 07 October 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

My post was about PPC not ERPPC's, the point I was trying to make was that PPC are hot ERPPCs are more so. I wouldn't touch ERPPC with a 10 foot pole.

For what it's worth, my CPLT-K3+ does perfectly fine with it's Dual-ERPPC primary armament, insofar as a Catapult can. The problem is the bullet-magnet Centre Torso, not the weapons.

Riddler9884, on 07 October 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

While I agree with you when it comes to the Atlas, the hard points allow for variety that I have come to appreciate now more than ever. However when you are working with Stalkers thats things get hairy, who short of the Misery do not have Ballistic slots. The Mech by definition doesnt move fast, turn fast and all of them have have more than half of their hard points dedicated to energy.

I certainly wouldn't put PPCs on a Stalker any more, but that's largely because it's a poor use of the Mech. 4 (ER)PPCs isn't workable (which I maintain is fine) and Altai/Highlanders/Victors are much better platforms for a pair because lateral arm movement/jumpjets. The Stalker doesn't need PPCs though, you can stuff it full of Medium Lasers and SRMs and make a reasonably scary brawler (although SRM hit detection being shonky makes it less than it should be) or, as I run my STK-3F, slap 4 (ER)Larges in the arms and fill it full of heatsinks. It gets respectable scores if you know how to keep it alive and can keep a beam on target.