532 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

CravenMadness, on 08 October 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

Actually, repair and re-arm would be something to use as an argument against buffing ppcs again... Making it so that you have to repair those highly explosive gauss guns, or renew the ammo spent every match for the Ac's would throw an extra variable into the equation and emphasize the bonus of running energy weapons that don't require ammo and are only destroyed if you lose that body part.

Actually R&R has been a bad idea for MW:O and I don't want to repeat all the arguments. It was one of PGI's better decisions to get rid of it.

[VagGR]

good post..and i appreciate the effort to do such an analysis. but i cant help but notce that even though your heat chart are good you seem to focus too much on them and bypass other features that make those weapons different.


a couple of examples:

you compare ERPPC with AC10 but dont mention the fact that the AC round drops over distance. you mention that the ERPPC has slighlty more range than the AC10 but do not mention the fact that the ERPPC effective range is almost double that of the AC10 (810-450 meters)

you keep talking about the DPS potential of those weapons but you seem to bypass the pinpoint dmg capability of the PPC. in order to infict 20dmg on a single location dual AC2s would have to stay aimed on that location for around 3 secs. dual PPCs on the other hand can put 20 dmg on the exact same location within a single click.

so, even though your analysis is very interesting there are other factors you need to consider before you decide that the ERPPCs need their heat reduced.

[C E Dwyer]

Makes alot of sense and the data is good, clear and well written and most importantly not a rant, just hard facts, and the L2P people are just making themselves look stupid.

However the current system is a claw back of balance by ppc, ppc/guass boats caused by the very open customisation possibilities, which gimps a very fair double erppc build.

Calls for weapon aim time, reduced customisation were all greeted with howls of this is MWO not table top. reguardless of the technical problems involved in changing the system, which was another possible balance choice, not adopted.

I do think the current metafavours, quad ac2, duo ac10 builds, but the balance is far closer than when the ppc/guass builds ruled.

With on the most part, the praise, that was given for the current modifications given to the ppc weapons, I think this is going to be a hard sell

[Gladewolf]

Lupus Aurelius, on 07 October 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

They are both direct fire
They are both pinpoint damage

Sounds like apples to apples to me. They behave the same, how it generates the damage does not change that they function the same. Also, at a 2.5 recycle time, so even with less damage at 1000m, it's doing it faster. Also, it is easy on the heavies and assaults that have the crits to fit 2 AC10s with 3 tons ammo each. That's 450 potential damage per weapon, 900 total potential damage total, and low comparative heat.

That is 450 potential damage......AT 450 METERS. AT 900 meters, that's 225 POTENTIAL AND TOTAL (with 3 tons of ammo)damage...emptying the clip and then 0 damage until next match...WHY would a sane pilot using the AC-10 EVER engage at 1K range knowing this?!? I agree that the ERPPC was roughly handled and nerfed way too far into the ground. I agree that it's heat needs lowered back down and quite frankly, the weapon speed adjustment was ALSO not reasonable as it makes it harder to use the weapon at the ranges it was MADE FOR. SUGGESTING that AC10s should possibly be "realigned" with a broken weapon(the ERPPC) is ludicrous. Suggesting that an equal skill ERPPC user should have an equal shot in combat against a AC10 user with the same number of main weapons at 450 meters also ludicrous...because that is the ONLY reason to use an AC10 INSTEAD of an ERPPC.....THE ERPPC IS A LONG RANGE WEAPON-APPLE. THE AC-10 is a mid to short range weapon.....that COULD scratch your paint at long range ORANGE. ...To the best of my knowledge...there IS NO Assault currently in MWO that can carry 2 AC-10s....because the WEAPON has too many critical slots at 7. I am rooting for a ERPPC fix. This game does not need to devolve into a "scorched earth" nerf policy.

Edited by Gladewolf, 08 October 2013 - 07:07 AM.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Gladewolf, on 08 October 2013 - 06:01 AM, said:

stuff just about AC10

Go back and read the OP. It's an analysis of the heat/damage profiles of long range capable ballistics to the heat/damage profile of the ERPPCs. You, and others, keep focusing on a single weapon system, the AC10, but ignoring the rest. The analysis is of all long range capable ballistics, and granted, the AC10 is on the low end of that capability. But it is long range capable, so is included in the study.

Also, you made a statement that energy weapons should only be compared / balanced to energy weapons, and ballistics to ballistics, which is ludicrous, and logically inconsistant. What the weapons do define their capability. Pinpoint damage, direct fire, able to hit over 1000m, if it falls in all those categories, then how they do it is inconsequential, they all function the same.

So I suggest you go back, read the data again for all the weapons in the study, and stop trying to focus on one weapon to the exclusion of everything else.

[Karl Streiger]

Lupus Aurelius, on 08 October 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

So I suggest you go back, read the data again for all the weapons in the study, and stop trying to focus on one weapon to the exclusion of everything else.

OK I have read it for the second time - and as I have stated before it is not that kind of easy.

You just picked a tiny part of the full picture and declare that it is valid. While that may work - you have to take much more small bits from the picture and prove your statement:

Make the same study on a Cicada 3M but instead of double mount with single mount.
Make the same study on a Ilya with a tripple Mount
Make the same study ona Atlas with single or double mount of ballistic if possible vs double mount.

Add ER-Large Lasers to the equotation (you can multiple damage with 0.6-0.7 to reflect the DoT)

Please understand I don't say your findings are wrong - that is not true.
In the Case of a heavy Mech with dual mount it is valid.

[C E Dwyer]

Gladewolf, on 08 October 2013 - 06:01 AM, said:

That is 450 potential damage......AT 450 METERS. AT 900 meters, that's 225 POTENTIAL AND TOTAL (with 3 tons of ammo)damage...emptying the clip and then 0 damage until next match...WHY would a sane pilot using the AC-10 EVER engage at 1K range knowing this?!? I agree that the ERPPC was roughly handled and nerfed way too far into the ground. I agree that it's heat needs lowered back down and quite frankly, the weapon speed adjustment was ALSO not reasonable as it makes it harder to use the weapon at the ranges it was MADE FOR. SUGGESTING that AC10s should possibly be "realigned" with a broken weapon(the ERPPC) is ludicrous. Suggesting that an equal skill ERPPC user should have an equal shot in combat against a AC10 user with the same number of main weapons at 450 meters also ludicrous...because that is the ONLY reason to use an AC10 INSTEAD of an ERPPC.....THE ERPPC IS A LONG RANGE WEAPON-APPLE. THE AC-10 is a mid to short range weapon.....that COULD scratch your paint at long range ORANGE. ...To the best of my knowledge...there IS NO Assault currently in MWO that can carry 2 AC-10s....because the WEAPON has too many critical slots at 7. I am rooting for a ERPPC fix. This game does not need to devolve into a "scorched earth" nerf policy.

You can't fit dual ac10 on asaults, but you can on heavies, prachts and jaegers which allows them to punch well above their weight, current meta they are the only mechs I think twice about going head to head in with an atlas, which is of course to slow to out manuver them, and are a favorite target when the roles are reversed.

Its a reason I think increasing the engine size on the CTF is a bad idea, a faster one with paired ac2/ac5or ultra would be a total killer.

the best balance is going to make paired erppc a practical choice, while gimping the boat, and there doesn't seem to be a good way using the currant mechanics' and a complete rebuild is out the question, or cw would become a pipe dream

[Joseph Mallan]

Cathy, on 08 October 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

You can't fit dual ac10 on asaults, but you can on heavies, prachts and jaegers which allows them to punch well above their weight, current meta they are the only mechs I think twice about going head to head in with an atlas, which is of course to slow to out manuver them, and are a favorite target when the roles are reversed.

Hammerhands says what?

[C E Dwyer]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 October 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

Hammerhands says what?

another heavy, and not available

[Butane9000]

One can argue back and forth how the math means PPCs are too hot to be useful. But I'm running 2 PPCs in my Orion K and doing extremely well with them. I also chain fire them so as not to generate 40%+ heat instantly.

[Zyllos]

This entire thread reeks of issues that the core game of MechWarrior in general has always had problems with, and it didn't start with MWO, but it continues to exist and be perpetuated by the powers at be:

• Pin point accuracy

If weapons, when fired together, don't all hit the same location, then ammo dependent weapons would have a huge drawback. Ammo is a limiting factor of a heavy ballistic weapon. The issue is that players can be extremely efficient with ammo due to not having shots hit locations that do not kill the mech. So soon as that starts happening, energy weapons become much more important because no mech in existence would be able to take out multiple mechs the way they do now because of pin point convergence.


Basically, ammo-based weapons only out perform energy weapons of similar types due to weapons being super accurate, thus ammo being less of a factor because less is needed to take out a target. That is why many players can get away with ballistic only with ammo builds and provide high damage mounts over the entire course of a 15:00 minute battle, their shots are always hitting kill shot locations.

All weapons damage needs to be more spread out to balance out the differences between ballistic and energy weapons.

The balance between energy and ballistic, is that ballistic will almost always win out in the short term while long term fights generally wins out by energy. This balance is broken by super accurate, converging weapons fire.

Edited by Zyllos, 08 October 2013 - 07:32 AM.

[Equalizer]

A lot of good arguments on this thread, and awesome OP. The only thing I don't understand, however, is why people think ERPPCs are fine in their current state. They should be viable just as any other weapon IMO, and they currently are not by far.

Let's take the Jagermech for example - it is actually easier to make a 4x AC5 S or DD variant with 6 tons of ammo (which is 38t total weight btw) than make dual ERPPC Firebrand work (24t with extra 10 DHS). Both have exactly the same damage at similar range and projectile speed, with the notable difference that the AC5 boat will rip apart any mech that's out in the open or close in mere seconds. Arguments like "it uses ammo" or "is worse at long range" have no practical substance in actual gameplay in my experience - you still have the potential to do 900 damge with the aforementioned AC5 build, while it is hardly possible to do half as much with the ERPPC 20 DHS mech. This is an extreme example of course, but I don't see how anybody in his right mind would take an ERPPC over an AC5/10 if he has to choose between an energy or ballistic slot. And that I think, speaks volumes as to why ERPPCs are not OK in the current meta.

Edited by Equalizer, 08 October 2013 - 07:32 AM.

[Helican]

JimboFBX, on 07 October 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

the fact of the matter is that a mech with both energy and ballistic hard points is capable of being better than an equivalent mech with only energy hard points.

that's by design, and makes perfect sense. You trade heat for high tonnage and limited ammo, so naturally being able to use both simultaneously makes you powerful.

the thread is stupid and is snowballing from people with no idea what they are talking about feeding off of each other because they share the same incorrect beliefs

You say that a similar mech with ballistics will be more powerful that one with just energy...and you don't see a problem?

[christophermx4]

I think the heat should be toned down just a bit for PPCs and ER-PPCs. Not a lot, maybe 1-2 points. Keep the ghost heat though.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Helican, on 08 October 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

You say that a similar mech with ballistics will be more powerful that one with just energy...and you don't see a problem?

Of course they do. The problem is threefold. First, people fear the return of the 4-6 PPC builds, which is kind of funny, because the OP is about the ERPPC, which was never boated that way. Second, people who prefer ballistics were happy with the nerf, no matter how unbalanced, and want to keep it that way. Third, people will argue from the position of opinion or emotion, not on data or logic, especially when it's something they perceive as effecting them personally.

As already noted, the real issue is the heat system itself, the convergence issue, and current fitting abilities that render mechs as basically omni mechs. PGI does not seem to want to change that system, so the only way to argue the case is damage/heat under the current mechanics.

[Khobai]

Quote

Weapons that run out of ammo aren't fun to use either. I demand unlimited ammo and PGI can balance ballistic weapons some other way.

That analogy makes no sense. Ballistic weapons dont run out of ammo provided you bring enough ammo. That's why ballistic weapons arnt balanced around ammo, theyre balanced around tonnage. If ballistics were balanced around ammo, you would not be allowed to spend tonnage to bring extra ammo.

Conversely, its currently impossible to trade tonnage for enough DHS to run ERPPCs heat neutral (because you run out of crit slots too fast). That's the difference. That's why ERPPCs need to run cooler and be balanced in ways other than heat. Ballistics can trade tonnage to overcome their main weakness. ERPPCs cannot. And thats why the game has devolved into Autocannons Online.

Making weapons generate more or less heat is not the only way or even the best way to balance weapons. And in the case of the ERPPC, increasing its heat substantially, has made it next to useless.

Edited by Khobai, 08 October 2013 - 10:58 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Cathy, on 08 October 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

another heavy, and not available

And punching well within its weight.

[MischiefSC]

The ERPPC is too hot to be a primary weapon for anyone but long range snipers - which is exactly as it should be. The PPC is a more standard weapon and correspondingly more common.

They still do great and heat issues aside pinpoint damage > DPS. The difference isn't nerfing PPCs to make them less viable, it simply makes DPS a bit more viable instead of pointless. PPCs still trump just not as clearly.

[AvatarofWhat]

I think 13 heat is about right. 5 heat is too much to pay for the advantages the ER offers over the basic variety, but 3 heat sounds more about right. If you bring it down to 12 heat... you might not see many regular ppcs anymore.

[MischiefSC]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 October 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

And punching well within its weight.

Come on, be honest. Regardless of all other balance issues most of us play this game for the pure childish fun of owning big stompy robots. Gotta catch 'em all! Whatever else happens in MWO PGI will continue to trickle out new mechs every few weeks because that's what opens wallets. More than Community Warfare, 1PV/3PV or anything else it's having the pretty pretty 50 ft tall engines of destruction that spew all the BOOM, PEW and FA-WHOOSH! you can manage and look good doing it.