Erppcs - This Is Why They Are Too Hot
#61
Posted 06 October 2013 - 11:41 PM
its TT values in a non TT based game (Real Time).
we do have true DHS (Eng only) outside is different yes, and they do have diminishing returns past 16 total. However it is FAR FAR FAR better then SHS we used to have, so be effing happy we EVEN HAVE THIS TECH.
The BT crowed was all up in arms when ERPPC was reduced in heat and was no inline with BT values. Now every weapon is at there BT values, and its working quite well, and working as intended.
Ballistics are supposed to be the mainline guns for the IS, and energy is looked at as a secondary backup weapon system for when you run out of ammo or are too far from supply lines. They also are the most heat efficient weapons, since there true tonnage comes from the ammo, not the heat.
So I say this, STOP using PPC's as your main guns, and start using them as your backups or for something longer ranged to mix with your brawling SRMS/AC20/ML's and you too will be very happy.
#62
Posted 06 October 2013 - 11:44 PM
#63
Posted 06 October 2013 - 11:46 PM
Jman5, on 06 October 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:
PPCs are ENERGY WEAPONS that fill ENERGY HARDPOINTS. It doesn't matter how good or bad the PPC is if you're in the mechlab staring at an empty ballistic hardpoint. In fact I would argue that because it's an energy weapon that emulates a ballistic weapon it should be worse than legitimate ballistic weapons. Otherwise, what's the point of the ballistic weapon class?
A more practical analysis would be to compare the ER PPC with other energy weapons. This matters more because players have to make a choice between say an ER PPC and an ER Large Laser. When you do that the whole equation radically changes.
What you fail to consider - you have a choice which mech to use.
Energy weapons suck? Pick one with ballistic slots.
Ballistic weapons suck? Pick one with energy slots.
The match-making system will have you compete with another mech roughly your tonnage, not the same variant or a mech with identical hard points. So if you pick a mech with hard points for bad weapons only, then your enemy has a potential advantage because he could pick a mech with hard points for good weapons.
#64
Posted 07 October 2013 - 12:32 AM
SirLANsalot, on 06 October 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:
its TT values in a non TT based game (Real Time).
we do have true DHS (Eng only) outside is different yes, and they do have diminishing returns past 16 total. However it is FAR FAR FAR better then SHS we used to have, so be effing happy we EVEN HAVE THIS TECH.
The BT crowed was all up in arms when ERPPC was reduced in heat and was no inline with BT values. Now every weapon is at there BT values, and its working quite well, and working as intended.
Ballistics are supposed to be the mainline guns for the IS, and energy is looked at as a secondary backup weapon system for when you run out of ammo or are too far from supply lines. They also are the most heat efficient weapons, since there true tonnage comes from the ammo, not the heat.
So I say this, STOP using PPC's as your main guns, and start using them as your backups or for something longer ranged to mix with your brawling SRMS/AC20/ML's and you too will be very happy.
If you really want your precious TT values in the game, it's fine when we give ballistics a minimum range just like they had in TT, right? Right?
#65
Posted 07 October 2013 - 12:50 AM
At 900m a single ER-PPC is as effective as 2 Standard PPCs - so 20heat vs 15heat (so PPCs are too hot now?)
aniviron, on 07 October 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:
Why not?
Edited by Karl Streiger, 07 October 2013 - 12:50 AM.
#66
Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:02 AM
aniviron, on 07 October 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:
If you really want your precious TT values in the game, it's fine when we give ballistics a minimum range just like they had in TT, right? Right?
It's a stupid rule, but hey, if that works... But of course, never forget that minimum range didn't mean a weapon wouldn't work at close range. It just means it's more difficult to hit with, which is difficult to translate into a game with mouse aiming. The "old" PPC approach - just lower the damage output at closer range - should work just fine, however.
Karl Streiger, on 07 October 2013 - 12:50 AM, said:
At 900m a single ER-PPC is as effective as 2 Standard PPCs - so 20heat vs 15heat (so PPCs are too hot now?)
How many targets do you still hit at 900m? How long do targets at that range stay available and stay at that range?
Edited by MustrumRidcully, 07 October 2013 - 01:02 AM.
#67
Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:17 AM
MustrumRidcully, on 07 October 2013 - 01:02 AM, said:
Its 810m sry...that means we have a travel time of 1500m/s ~ 500ms....same as hitting a Spider at 1500m with 2000m/s - next you choose your targets at the chance to hit them... and "stupid" tank drivers - tend to move forward - backwards at the same place without much horizontal movement = good chance to hit them
So yes the ability to hit a target should be considered...i think it is more difficult to hit tragets at 300m and lower... but at this range i use SRMs, or MLAS or Large Pulse Lasers no ERPPCs....so if i use ER-PPCs at this range...so yes ER PPCs are to hot.
But its a logical fail - because the same view means that a PPC is much hotter when using below 90m
#68
Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:37 AM
aniviron, on 07 October 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:
If you really want your precious TT values in the game, it's fine when we give ballistics a minimum range just like they had in TT, right? Right?
I am one of the first to not give a **** if its TT value or not, since there are certain things that just dont work here that work fine in TT (aka stock mechs).
However I at least understand WHY the ERPPC is so hot, and hence use it accordingly, or use the PPC instead since range plays very little into this game (extreme range aka over 700+)
Edited by SirLANsalot, 07 October 2013 - 01:37 AM.
#69
Posted 07 October 2013 - 02:15 AM
PPCs are a niche weapon, to be fired off as your giant stompy robot (typically a heavy or assault) is wading towards the battle to engage with true weaponry.
But seriously, as has been stated, ppcs are not a main weapon and have never been. Even for those quoting the 8Q or whichever it is that's supposed to have three stock... That thing was called a bunker buster right? Meaning ... it fired at buildings that weren't going anywhere any time soon so it had plenty of time to manage heat... And likely didn't fire all three at once anyway...
If this game had started off with hard-point restrictions, the ppc likely would've never gotten out of hand and you never would've had so many chassis boating dual ppc +. But then again if this game had started off with hard-point restrictions, quite a few 'balance' issues would likely never even have cropped up. The ability to put any weapon you want into any chassis that has the 'appropriate' slots, is what tends to skew people's ideas of -how- to balance a weapon at all.
#70
Posted 07 October 2013 - 03:45 AM
As far as what they are supposed to be, alot of opinion on this page, but no facts. No where does it say that energy weapons are suppose to be backup only, or are not damage weapons. Nor were IS mechs mainly ballistics only with energy backups. Those are opinions, unsubstantiated by BT/MW.
Many IS mechs, such as the Marauder, Awesome, and Stalker, were focused around energy weapon builds.
Here is what they are: long range direct fire energy based weapon that delivers 10 damage every 4 seconds and generate 15 heat. And the question was, are the pros and cons balanced against ballistic weapons with the same range capability, which I have shown they are not.
Your feelings or opinions are not valid reasons nor justification for balance or unbalance. Data and math are, read the data and listen to what the data tells you, not to what you want the data to be. That's called logic, which trumps opinion.
Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 07 October 2013 - 03:52 AM.
#71
Posted 07 October 2013 - 03:50 AM
Edited by Joseph Mallan, 07 October 2013 - 03:51 AM.
#72
Posted 07 October 2013 - 04:17 AM
The AWS-9M stock mech has 3xERPPCs that it uses without shutting down, only missing a turn to cool down after 9 turns, in Battletech. In MWO it explodes on the second salvo!
PGI says they like Ghost Heat AND DHS 1.4. The overall game balance. However the real problem is the Mechs are too weak to support true Battletech loadouts. So the Clans which have the real weaponry will not be able to arrive until the Mechs are made a good deal stronger. PGI has said they plan a very much weakened type of Clan tech, but that seems unlikely to work if 3x Inner Sphere PPCs destroy game balance. Besides, why have the Clans invade at all if they are just like the Inner Sphere?
The current heat values of the PPC and ERPPC are based on full DHS 2.0 functionality and are too hot if DHS 1.4 is to be continued. Battletech says so.
#73
Posted 07 October 2013 - 04:17 AM
#74
Posted 07 October 2013 - 04:26 AM
Lupus Aurelius, on 07 October 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:
numbers?
quick made for german subforum - hope you understand it:
that is only measured in hit damage - not DPS or HPS or anything else (i can do that if you like)
But you see it clear and simple:
the ER-PPC is supperior to any other weapon but the Gauss - or lighter Ballistics above 1600m - UAC 5 is limited by jaming, Gauss is limited by charge - both are limited by weight.
If you have only 16t available - you can mount 2 ER-PPCs or a single Gauss with 10 shots.
To use logic means - to use the full arsenal of facts and figures. The argument vs Gauss or other weapons works only for Heavy or Assault Class Mechs - a single ER-PPC with 10DHS works fine.
However really interesting - and only secondary - that around 540m there is a change between weapon efficency. So here is the difference between long and medium range
Edited by Karl Streiger, 07 October 2013 - 04:27 AM.
#75
Posted 07 October 2013 - 04:33 AM
Karl Streiger, on 07 October 2013 - 04:26 AM, said:
quick made for german subforum - hope you understand it:
that is only measured in hit damage - not DPS or HPS or anything else (i can do that if you like)
But you see it clear and simple:
the ER-PPC is supperior to any other weapon but the Gauss - or lighter Ballistics above 1600m - UAC 5 is limited by jaming, Gauss is limited by charge - both are limited by weight.
If you have only 16t available - you can mount 2 ER-PPCs or a single Gauss with 10 shots.
To use logic means - to use the full arsenal of facts and figures. The argument vs Gauss or other weapons works only for Heavy or Assault Class Mechs - a single ER-PPC with 10DHS works fine
That is just a chart on ranges and damage, including falloff damage. Nothing more. It does not address heat, firing speeds, sustainability of fire, etc.
In other words, it does not address the topic at all, it is a single facet not directly related to the issue, but an adjunct to it. Nor does it factor in tonnage and heat dissipation For it to be relevant, it would have to factor in heat and sustainability of fire.
In other words, you can't just throw a non-relevant chart up and claim it invalidates the data presented in the OP, you have to show how it is relevant to the issue, which you have not
It's just a range/damage chart.
PS: only 16 tons available? Based on what?
A single ERPPC with 10 engine DHS even does not work fine, it takes 38 EHS to make 1 ERPPC heat neutral. Remember, the data presented was based on dual ERPPCs with 10 engine DHS and 10 external DHS, and it still overheats fast. Right now, there is no reason not to use long range ballistics, compared to the ERPPC, and a balanced system would have advantages and disadvantages for both that would make neither superior to the other.
You have done nothing to refute the analysis in the OP. Your argument is disingenuous.
Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 07 October 2013 - 04:46 AM.
#76
Posted 07 October 2013 - 04:39 AM
SirLANsalot, on 06 October 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:
its TT values in a non TT based game (Real Time).
we do have true DHS (Eng only) outside is different yes, and they do have diminishing returns past 16 total. However it is FAR FAR FAR better then SHS we used to have, so be effing happy we EVEN HAVE THIS TECH.
The BT crowed was all up in arms when ERPPC was reduced in heat and was no inline with BT values. Now every weapon is at there BT values, and its working quite well, and working as intended.
Ballistics are supposed to be the mainline guns for the IS, and energy is looked at as a secondary backup weapon system for when you run out of ammo or are too far from supply lines. They also are the most heat efficient weapons, since there true tonnage comes from the ammo, not the heat.
So I say this, STOP using PPC's as your main guns, and start using them as your backups or for something longer ranged to mix with your brawling SRMS/AC20/ML's and you too will be very happy.
The current heat values of the PPC and ERPPC are based on full DHS 2.0 functionality and are too hot if DHS 1.4 is to be continued. Battletech says so. And everyone agreed at the time that since DHS 1.4 was how Double Heatsinks would be portrayed in MWO that the heat of certain weapons especially PPCs and ERPPCs would have to be lowered to keep the game in line with Battletech styled gameplay. So they were. And I took part in that discussion at the time in the Closed Beta.
You say they should not be main weapons, but in Battletech the PPC and ERPPC are main weapons and frequently the only weapon the mech carries, so that is factually incorrect. AWS-8Q, AWS-9M are even in MWO. So they were ruined by Ghost Heat and it is true that Ghost Heat has turned large Energy weapons into auxillary weapon systems, but Ghost Heat is not from Battletech.
If I were to apply the same type of nerf to Ballistics it would be Ghost Weight, since Weight is the inherent weakness of Ballistics in the same way that Heat is the inherent weakness of Energy. Ghost Weight will say that your first UAC5 is 9 tons, but the second is 18 tons and the third is 27 tons. Gauss Rifle, first is 15 tons, second is 30 tons, etc. So Ghost Weight would turn Ballistics into auxillary weapons in the same way the Ghost Heat and DHS 1.4 have turned MWO's Energy weapons into auxillary weapon systems. Is that fair or logical? Of course not.
#77
Posted 07 October 2013 - 04:40 AM
on my AWS-9M (my highest damage 'mech!?!?) I loved to equip one single ERPPC, some medium lasers and missiles and if XL engine 22 DHS (16 if not XL)
I can barely use the ERPPC unless I'm standing at a far enough distance to allow time to cool off.
This tells me that if their purpose was to turn the weapon into long range use (terribly inefficient in close quarters) they've achieved that.
Edited by M4NTiC0R3X, 07 October 2013 - 04:41 AM.
#79
Posted 07 October 2013 - 04:47 AM
Lupus Aurelius, on 07 October 2013 - 04:33 AM, said:
heat neutral? really?
just another of those just examples?
HBK-4H
here - only using the gauss keep you heat neutral.
HBK-4H
here - the same with 2 ER-PPCs - you can fire both ER-PPCs only twice - before you need a time for cool down - so for thick fighting not the best mech - but for sustained firing you can swap one ER-PPC...that means only using HPS you can fire for 2 minutes.
Next you can't use EHS and DHS in the same argument.
the rating of the DHS needed to create a heat neutral weapon - is depended on the number of installed heat sinks you need ~ 22 DHS for 38 EHS
#80
Posted 07 October 2013 - 04:51 AM
Karl Streiger, on 07 October 2013 - 04:47 AM, said:
just another of those just examples?
HBK-4H
here - only using the gauss keep you heat neutral.
HBK-4H
here - the same with 2 ER-PPCs - you can fire both ER-PPCs only twice - before you need a time for cool down - so for thick fighting not the best mech - but for sustained firing you can swap one ER-PPC...that means only using HPS you can fire for 2 minutes.
Next you can't use EHS and DHS in the same argument.
the rating of the DHS needed to create a heat neutral weapon - is depended on the number of installed heat sinks you need ~ 22 DHS for 38 EHS
Not sure if EHS are meant to be effective heat sinks or engine heat sinks.
In the end, a problem with the heat system is that it's never about heat neutrality, but only about if you can fire long enough. The system overall makes balancing weapons rather difficult.
9 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 9 guests, 0 anonymous users