532 replies to this topic

[LordBraxton]

No.

PPCs and ERPPCs are finally balanced

stop your whining

[Artgathan]

Doing some more math...

Using the following conditions:

• 10 Engine DHS
  
• +Enough DHS to make the weapon heat neutral
  
• +3 Tons Ammo

An AC/10 has a DPS/Ton of 0.267 (and deals 0.667 damage per ton).

A PPC has a DPS/ton of 0.227 (it requires an additional 4 DHS to run heat-neutral)
An ERPPC has a DPS/ton of 0.125 (requiring an extra 13 DHS).

If we change the conditions to:

• Enough stuff to last a 1-minute engagement (not overheat, have enough ammo)
  
• 250 STD Engine w/DHS

We get:


AC/10: 0.286 DPS/ton (14 tons, 12 weapon + 2 ammo)
PPC: 0.357 DPS/ton (7 tons, 7 weapon + 0 DHS)
ERPPC: 0.192 DPS/ton (13 tons, 7 weapon + 6 DHS)

Note that these values change with Elite level skills unlocked (the PPCS require fewer heatsinks, increasing their DPS/ton).

These indicate that the ERPPC might be a bit warm - (it's 50% as efficient as an AC/10 running heat neutral, and 67% as efficient in a 1-minute engagement).

Of course, these calculations don't include the value of being able to fight at different ranges (but that's hard to factor in, unless you do a straight "range/1000m * DPS" calculation).

EDIT: Did calculations for "damage under the curve"

Damage under the Curve is essentially a weapon's damage potential if you fired it every meter starting at it's maximum range and ending at 0. I did this using both heat-neutral and 1-minute conditions, using the DPS/ton values from above.

The results?

1-Minute Condition
AC/10: 257.14
PPC: 257.14 (gasp!)
ERPPC: 233.65

Heat-Neutral Condition
AC/10: 480.00
PPC: 368.18
ERPPC: 303.75

What does this show? Essentially the ERPPC is always bad, even if you take into account the full size of it's range bracket (which, incidentally is only 270m further than the AC/10. Incidentally, at the AC/10's max range, the ERPPC deals 1.66 damage).

Edited by Artgathan, 16 October 2013 - 12:50 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

PPCs and ERPPCs are finally balanced

PPCs are not balanced... Top players are still using PPCs and AC5s almost exclusively in competitive play. Increasing heat was just another lazy fix that fails to address the core of the problem. The core of the problem being that pinpoint damage is outright better than damage-over-time. PPCs even in their nerfed state are still way better alternatives to lasers. And pulse lasers and SRMs are still useless which only continues to perpetuate the current sniping meta.

Edited by Khobai, 16 October 2013 - 01:05 PM.

[Vodrin Thales]

Khobai, on 16 October 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

PPCs are not balanced... Top players are still using PPCs and AC5s almost exclusively in competitive play. Increasing heat was just another lazy fix that fails to address the core of the problem. The core of the problem being that pinpoint damage is outright better than damage-over-time.

I think it would have been more correct to say PPC's are not underpowered and leave it at that. They are still pretty darn good even with their limitations.

[MustrumRidcully]

Artgathan, on 16 October 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

Doing some more math...

Using the following conditions:

• 10 Engine DHS
  
• +Enough DHS to make the weapon heat neutral
  
• +3 Tons Ammo

An AC/10 has a DPS/Ton of 0.267 (and deals 0.667 damage per ton).


A PPC has a DPS/ton of 0.227 (it requires an additional 4 DHS to run heat-neutral)
An ERPPC has a DPS/ton of 0.125 (requiring an extra 13 DHS).

But who drives a heat neutral mech? It's a waste of tonnage. You can deal 120 damage in 12 seconds or less, that is enough to kill any heavy mech on the field through the CT.

In the table top, yo uwanted to be close to heat neutral, and you basically added 1 heat sink for every point of heat all of your weapons would produce, and then maybe remove 1-5 heat sinks for a half-way working build that can burst in a pinch.
You needed to be close to heat neutral because the danger of heat wasn't simply that you might eventually overheat. It was t hat you lost speed and accuracy and your ammo would blow up if you gained just a bit too much heat. You didn't generally fire to shutdown, you fired until the heat penalties stacked up too high that you'd rather retreat.

But that is not M:WO.
This is MW:O.

That doesn't meant that other analysis that take into account the "race to shutdown" heat model of M:WO couldn't also end up with the result that ballistics are superior. But an analysis just relying on heat neutrality would be distorting the difference too much in favor of low-heat weapons to be practicually useful.

[Slepnir]

Simple answer-PPC/EPPC are where they should have always been, DHS have not been switched back to compensate for the TT values on PPCs. solution to stop boating? even with DHS doing 2:0 instead of 1:4 Use the TT heat scale, its 30 points not 100 like it is in game currently. This prevents excessive boating of ALL weapons because you must have enough DHS to keep your heat down below 30 or you will shut down every single time you fire(especially in an alpha strike). this also rids us of the need for ghost heat.

Quote

But who drives a heat neutral mech?

...........................................................................................Most of my mechs are pretty darn close with a HE of 1.6 or better.

Edited by Slepnir, 17 October 2013 - 01:21 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Slepnir, on 17 October 2013 - 01:20 AM, said:

This prevents excessive boating of ALL weapons because you must have enough DHS to keep your heat down below 30 or you will shut down every single time you fire(especially in an alpha strike). this also rids us of the need for ghost heat.

So how should that work?
That means you have to chain all 3 ER-PPCs at the AWS-9M? You are not able to fire all of them in a single salvo?
That means - how long should you need to get the Mech able to fire its third ER-PPC - this time frame has to be shorter as 4sec. Because in any other case you don't need 3 ER-PPCs - that means the AWS-9M is not able to do what he should do - and this is the worst possible design flaw a game can have.

So ok - at least 15 heat within 3 seconds? Means per second you have to dissipate 5heat. With given 20DHS that means each DHS have a dissipation of 2.5 - that is a increase of 47% over the current 1.7 rating you have with 20DHS.

However with 5heat dissiption per second the AWS-9M is still a stupid build. So most will simple swap the 3rd PPC for something else.

So Alpha Boating.
Currently the maximum number of UACs is 4. -That gives a JaegerMech a possible damage of 20-40 each 1.5sec
Or with chance of jam and always double fire of 22,5 per second ~ 33 per salvo.
So without Ghost Heat or other mechanics - you are able to do with a Heavy Mech what you can't do with an Assault..

Oh I don't have a problem when energy weapons are - the bad. But you have to reduce drastically the ammount of ammunition. If it has to be over a logistic function (rearm is not possible for extensive waste of ammunition, or rearm costs or limited ammunition weight on a Mech (for example only 8t) or with a reduction in shots per ton (15 for AC 5 class cannon)

And I don't have considered MLAS, SRMs and all the other weapons.
Its not that easy.

I don't like Ghost Heat, I don't like Heavy Mechs that are slow as hell to mount 4 UAC 5s (even when there are canon mech with that low speed), I don't like heat work - but I'm not fully convinced that the most simple fix is the best.

[Artgathan]

MustrumRidcully, on 16 October 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

But who drives a heat neutral mech? It's a waste of tonnage.

That's why I also included data for enough equipment to last 60 seconds without overheating / running out of ammo. It was an attempt to impose "battlefield" conditions on the data. It's usefulness is debatable (I usually build my mechs to be able to dish out ~150+ damage in 15 seconds, at which point I should be around 90% heat).

[Lupus Aurelius]

LordBraxton, on 16 October 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

No.
PPCs and ERPPCs are finally balanced
stop your whining

Hmmm, math, logic, and analysis are whining? Lol, another farting orifice...

Vodrin Thales, on 16 October 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

I think it would have been more correct to say PPC's are not underpowered and leave it at that. They are still pretty darn good even with their limitations.

Never said the PPCs were. I said that the ERPPCs are too hot.

As far as the heat neutral discussions, no mech should be heat neutral. That is the balance point in the current mechanics, heat, and all mechs need some limitations. The problem right now is that ballistics can be heat neutral.

I am not advocating making the ERPPC heat neutral. What i have advocated is that ghost heat and the ERPPCs at 12 was sufficient to control the situation, and that PGI increasing heat 3 points in one fell swoop was not balanced to ballistic capability, leaving energy based mechs that wanted long range pinpoint damage at a severe disadvantage. It was another knee-jerk reaction by PGI based on player emotional reactions, and not based on hard data.

As stated previously, when there is only 1 good choice, there is not balance.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 17 October 2013 - 05:47 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Artgathan, on 17 October 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

That's why I also included data for enough equipment to last 60 seconds without overheating / running out of ammo. It was an attempt to impose "battlefield" conditions on the data. It's usefulness is debatable (I usually build my mechs to be able to dish out ~150+ damage in 15 seconds, at which point I should be around 90% heat).

That's basically what my efficiency charts also use. I used to go very long distances, but it turned out that this was pretty much practically irrelevant. The whole Quad PPC meta pretty much convinced me that covering engagement times of 0-15 seconds is sufficient and most useful. PPCs extremely drop in efficiency beyond 15 seconds (even prior to the recent heat increase and ghost heat), but in the 5 second TET*, they were notably superior to every alternative, and at long range, you can achieve 5 second TETs, because you are far enough that when you go to cover, no one is following you.

You can build a mech cooler than that, but most people won't, and they will out-damage and kill you before you can do it to them.

The heat nerf also pretty much lead to what I'd expect. PPCs no longer being good enough for the 5 second mark, and thus also turning uninteresting as a whole. Finding the real sweet spot... Probably not with this heat system.


*) Targeted Engagement Time

[Slepnir]

I think you miss the point karl. heat dissipation in TT is immediate. if I have 15 DHS I dissipate 30 heat=2ERPPCs firing +movement/jump heat. that means with proper heat builds according to TT rules your sacrificing a lot of space and tonnage to keep the heat down below 30 points. its the trade off between ballistic weapons and energy. ballistics require ammo that runs out and can explode but the heat is far less, energy weapons don't require ammo but do require craptons of heat dissipation via heatsinks Take my lovely grand dragon 5K as an example. it is a cannon design for the era the game takes place in. however currently it is nearly completely unplayable because of the mix of TT heat, solaris 7 rate of fire and PGI hamstrung DHS. it has 79% standard armor with standard frame. 1 ERPPC, 1 LRM 10 with 2 tons of ammo, and 3 medium lasers. it sports 13 DHS giving it a firing heat of 30 and a dissipation rate of 26. so I will gain a little heat every time I alpha strike. this forces me to be mindful of my heat and alternate my weapons fire.

[Karl Streiger]

Slepnir, on 17 October 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

I think you miss the point karl. heat dissipation in TT is immediate. if I have 15 DHS I dissipate 30 heat=2ERPPCs firing +movement/jump heat. that means with proper heat builds according to TT rules your sacrificing a lot of space and tonnage to keep the heat down below 30 points. its the trade off between ballistic weapons and energy. ballistics require ammo that runs out and can explode but the heat is far less, energy weapons don't require ammo but do require craptons of heat dissipation via heatsinks Take my lovely grand dragon 5K as an example. it is a cannon design for the era the game takes place in. however currently it is nearly completely unplayable because of the mix of TT heat, solaris 7 rate of fire and PGI hamstrung DHS. it has 79% standard armor with standard frame. 1 ERPPC, 1 LRM 10 with 2 tons of ammo, and 3 medium lasers. it sports 13 DHS giving it a firing heat of 30 and a dissipation rate of 26. so I will gain a little heat every time I alpha strike. this forces me to be mindful of my heat and alternate my weapons fire.

Funny thing is - I also use a Flame with Grand Dragon loadout in MWO difference is 17 DHS and but only a small 325 engine.
I know what this build is capable of - what not - even with 11 heat for the ER-PPC it was a really really hot build - i was shuting down most of the time - when forced to fire the weapons as fast as possible.

And you know what - it doesn't feel much hotter... the ER-PPC - the heat difference means that i only have to wait 1.5 seconds longer to cool down per shot - because it has really really short engagements it is some how playable - hardly more as 2-3seconds per PPC shot and LRM volley.

Only in short range i got problems - but that was with 11 heat per ER-PPC as well a problem.

That is another odd thing: You can balance the game perfectly arround 1 weapon of each kind
but with the 2 weapon of a kind - problems went off the road.

For example the Flame with 2 ER-PPCs - 8 additional heat and 22 DHS = I need 2.2 seconds to cool that additional heat.
Thats more as half the time of reloading each weapon - not to mention that ther are still 22 heat to cool down - what will need additional 6seconds.

On a heavy Mech that is really a problem.

[Jon Gotham]

Damocles69, on 06 October 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

so... you want PPC warrior back? NO they are fine L2P

Thank you for your intelligent and concise contribution. This was validated especially by the "l2p" at the end, that makes any argument valid on the internet....apparently.

I use ppcs, most of my builds have at least one-mainly for ECM lock out. I utterly DESPISE ECM trolls, and will make it my personal mission every game to keep that ECM turned off for as long as possible.

[Mister Blastman]

LordBraxton, on 16 October 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

No.

PPCs and ERPPCs are finally balanced

stop your whining

They are but they aren't. Lasers (ESPECIALLY mediums and pulse lasers) are far too hot and have too strict a penalty and SRMs still don't do enough damage and spread out too much.

This is why at the highest ELO levels you see PPC+Autocannon meta dominating everything else. Pinpoint high alpha damage is still reigning strong as king.

[Trip Hammer]

I will agree in principal with the OP, however I do not agree on how it should be taken adjusted. I agree with RandomLurker about how heat is implemented.

PGI ran afoul of the problems inherent in converting a Turn Based TT game into a RT shooter, and had to make adjustments to the way weapons were implemented in order to get what THEY felt was a good fit. I don't really like their model due to the number of tweaks its taken to get to this point, but I am happier with the current implementation as it stands now in regards to PPC/ERPPC's as they were really screwing up the game IMO.

I would rather have seen them take a much different tack to weapon damage and heat management then what they choose, but its what they gave us and I don't think any amount of bitching on our parts will make them change their minds

I would have liked to see something along this line but I'm not making a claim that it WOULD have been better.

Spoiler

Scale Weapon Damage over a 10 (or 5) second period of time dividing the damage out on a per shot basis. ie: PPC does 10 damage in TT make it do 3.33 damage and 3.33 heat, and fire roughly every 3.3 seconds

All Mechs would have to have a hard cap on their heat (I think 30 was what was used in the TT) and heat sinks would be used to dissipate x amount of heat over the 10 second period of time.

Damage for weapons might not look as clean this way but I think it could work well with the exception of missiles and MG's. I'll admit that I'm not sure how you would handle missiles or MG's with this method.

They could scale back the armor if they implemented this.

Lastly (and most importantly) I would put in place of series of heat penalties depending on where you are on the scale at any given time. I don't think that having all of the penalties that they used in TT would work here as it might be too restrictive but I do think some of them would work. Specifically Movement Penalties, Internal Damage and Chance of Shutdown I think would work well.

Edited by The Faceless, 17 October 2013 - 06:50 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

The Faceless, on 17 October 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

Spoiler

regarding your spoiler.

While I'm pretty sure most people will dispise it - simple they never fought in an enviroment were all other players were bound to the same basis.
What I'm talking about is the heat level. Had 3 battles after the patch - 2 12 men teams using 3025 tech only (and i'm no veteran in 3025 battles)
Currently it is still 1:1 the TT dissipation + some other stuff. That allows you to frontload some damage.

But after your heat o meter is full - you are only able to fire your weapons as fast as your heatsinks are able to dissipate.
The BattleMaster is an exceptional example with its 18 heat sinks - it would have been capable of cooling 6 MLAS with TT heat value of 3.

So strictly spoken - each Mech in that game was only able to fire a weapon 1 time every 10 second - after some seconds in battle. So it was basically the same what you suggested. And the double armor is still acceptable (because you hardly has shots that wander of for arms or legs)

The only difference is when your mechs are cool and you move into the fight - you are able to deal much more damage as your mech was supposed to do - but on another level i like it - because it is more a kind of attack - regroup - attack - regroup.

So that the heat scale should at least be 40 - with 15 as beginning of penalties - so that you are able to deal more damage in the first moments of engagement - but maybe heat and damage could be tweaked:

for example instead of 3.33; 3.5 heat and damage

[CravenMadness]

Using 'maths' to support the argument is like a nerd bullying jocks.

The numbers might show your point, but in the end you are looking for a way to push your expectations on your audience and when people disagree, you just point to the charts and say 'But the MATHS!'.

People are trying to go back to their 'golden days' of ppcs on every mech and as many as you can because that's the way it's been for so damn long that folks don't understand that's not how the game was meant to be played.

And seriously, what's all this about 'heat neutrality'? Most all of my mechs run around 1 - 1.3 heat efficiency and don't have issues overheating unless I'm being an r-tard. Fact of the game is you aren't going to be 'heat neutral' because that's just not the way things work in the game. It's hilariously amusing to watch how the 'community' picks and chooses which bits of 'table top' that they try to analog this game to, and which they like to ignore for 'playability sake'.

It's like watching uninformed bible thumping mothers rail away with single quotes or cherry picked 'passages' to berate those who support abortions.

[Karl Streiger]

CravenMadness, on 17 October 2013 - 07:03 AM, said:

The numbers might show your point, but in the end you are looking for a way to push your expectations on your audience and when people disagree, you just point to the charts and say 'But the MATHS!'.

You know that i have disagreed more as one time - until i did some math on myself. And 13 heat or 16 or 17 or 12.5 even 12 for ER-PPC simple doesn't matter.
Not as long there is still ghost heat - and the Gauss Charge.
Its only a tiny buff - a cosmetic buff if you like - to make the choice between ballistics and ER-PPC a little bit harder.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 17 October 2013 - 07:12 AM.

[PropagandaWar]

Khobai, on 16 October 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

PPCs are not balanced... Top players are still using PPCs and AC5s almost exclusively in competitive play. Increasing heat was just another lazy fix that fails to address the core of the problem. The core of the problem being that pinpoint damage is outright better than damage-over-time. PPCs even in their nerfed state are still way better alternatives to lasers. And pulse lasers and SRMs are still useless which only continues to perpetuate the current sniping meta.

lol competitive players. HAHAHAHAHAHA. Wait you mean {Scrap} arse cheese builds that really just aren't that great anyway. Top Players will kick butt with Machine guns and small lasers. Thats why they are top players.

[CravenMadness]

Hey, I'm one hundred percent for getting rid of this 'Ghost Heat' ... The one and only thing it was ever put in for was to relegate the high number of pepsi builds (those are 'high ppc builds'), which was done just as simply by returning ppcs to their original heats. Though I do think the charge on gauss was necessary, though I'd be interested in seeing what folks think if it were put on the ppc instead.

Nobody was worried about six ac/2s (except the people bitching about screen shake)
Nobody was worried about nine medium lasers
Nobody was worried about dual ac/20s ... oh wait, yea those needed to go too...
Nobody was worried about six srm six mostly because hit reg doesn't work and only 2 launchers hit.
Only lights were worried about six ssrms ... but nobody cares about them right?
Nobody was worried about LRMs being fired more than four launchers at a time...

Edited by CravenMadness, 17 October 2013 - 07:21 AM.