532 replies to this topic

[Gaan Cathal]

Lupus Aurelius, on 07 October 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:

I think I have shown that ERPPCs are not the most powerful weapon in the game, far from it, with the lowest DPS and highest HPS, with one of the 2 slowest rate of fire, of the direct fire ranged weapons .

......

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.

DPS isn't really a particularly relevant number for anything at all, so that argument goes out of the window from the start. And "raw data" doesn't work for situations like this, it doesn't take into account subjective factors. Beam time, the fact that frontloaded damage massively exceeds damage per second in actual effectiveness, the nature of the MW:O hitbox system, the damage falloff side effects, the influence of ammo constraints, the varying degrees of hardpoint availability in different weight categories (no ballistic-centric assault yet).

Joseph Mallan, on 07 October 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

Nearly the exact opposite of what is needed to be an effective machine of war.

Or a good game.

[Gladewolf]

Very nice post, it would be nice if the ERPPC was cooled down a bit. The weapon has taken more standing nerfs than any other in the game at this point...heat, speed and recharge time. The only thing I absolutely cannot agree with on the OP is the comparison with the AC 10 which has a max full damage range of 450 VS the ERPPCs 810...I'd say that's a pretty strong balance point.....but that's the only weapon on the list with a massive range discrepancy. (Leave my mid-range brawl weapon alone)

[Lupus Aurelius]

Gaan Cathal, on 07 October 2013 - 04:53 AM, said:

DPS isn't really a particularly relevant number for anything at all, so that argument goes out of the window from the start. And "raw data" doesn't work for situations like this, it doesn't take into account subjective factors. Beam time, the fact that frontloaded damage massively exceeds damage per second in actual effectiveness, the nature of the MW:O hitbox system, the damage falloff side effects, the influence of ammo constraints, the varying degrees of hardpoint availability in different weight categories (no ballistic-centric assault yet).

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.

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.

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.

DPS is not an issue in the above example, but combine it with HPS, it's an indicator of sustainability. Which is why the analysis in the OP is not based on DPS, it shows burst heat on the charts, and DPS is adjunct data for comparison between weapons systems.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 07 October 2013 - 05:18 AM.

[Riddler9884]

beat me too it...

Gaan Cathal, on 07 October 2013 - 04:53 AM, said:

DPS isn't really a particularly relevant number for anything at all, so that argument goes out of the window from the start. And "raw data" doesn't work for situations like this, it doesn't take into account subjective factors. Beam time, the fact that frontloaded damage massively exceeds damage per second in actual effectiveness, the nature of the MW:O hitbox system, the damage falloff side effects, the influence of ammo constraints, the varying degrees of hardpoint availability in different weight categories (no ballistic-centric assault yet).

I disagree about the DPS, granted you are correct about it not taking all of those things into account.

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.

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).

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.

Edited by Riddler9884, 07 October 2013 - 05:18 AM.

[Tom Sawyer]

I like my Atlas D_DC

I am running it with 2 ER-PPC's, an AC20, and a LRM15

I agree that the heat gen on the PPC's forces me to constantly watch the temps. All too often in the midst of a good brawl I will loose track and wham shutdown. My own fault but yeah the heat gen on the ER-PPC's can suck

[Voivode]

All of the ballistic weapons you compared are a greater commitment in weight and come with ammo that is an explosion liability. Since you stated a minimum of 3tons ammo, that's three possible ammo crits minimum and it puts even the AC2 at two tons heavier than the ERPPC.

Beyond that, the ERPPC has one of the best range characteristics in the game, deals damage in a pinpoint manner, and does not require ammo. These are all advantages for the weapon and the uniquely high heat is it's disadvantage. Every weapon should have its ups and downs and right now most of the weapons feel pretty solid***, including the ERPPC. I use both regular and ERPPCs on different builds and as long as you manage the heat well they can be tremendously effective.

***NARC beacon and flamer notwithstanding

Edited by Voivode, 07 October 2013 - 05:18 AM.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Voivode, on 07 October 2013 - 05:17 AM, said:

All of the ballistic weapons you compared are a greater commitment in weight and come with ammo that is an explosion liability. Since you stated a minimum of 3tons ammo, that's three possible ammo crits minimum and it puts even the AC2 at two tons heavier than the ERPPC.

Beyond that, the ERPPC has one of the best range characteristics in the game, deals damage in a pinpoint manner, and does not require ammo. These are all advantages for the weapon and the uniquely high heat is it's disadvantage. Every weapon should have its ups and downs and right now most of the weapons feel pretty solid***, including the ERPPC. I use both regular and ERPPCs on different builds and as long as you manage the heat well they can be tremendously effective.

***NARC beacon and flamer notwithstanding

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

...
First question you might ask, is why you would even use ERPPC at this heat level, and the lowest DPS of all the sniping weapons? Speed is now the same as the AC5/UAC5s, so it still has a faster travel time than the AC10, same damage as the AC10. The fact of having less than a third the crits necessary for an AC10 is not significant, since that amounts to, on the dual setups, 14 more crits, which is 4 more external DHS. The data presented earlier is based on 5 external DHS, which makes the ERPPC 18 crits and 12 tons.

· 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.

· 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.

· But, ERPPCs take less crits!

No, they take more. Look at the figures for Effective Heat Sinks (EHS) to be heat neutral. For 1 ERPPC, it takes 38 EHS. So, you have 10 actual doubles in the engine, that’s 20. You need an additional 12.86 DHS to make a mech with 1 ERPPC heat neutral.

Problem is, with weapons, AMS, equipment, and ammo for the other weapons you will be carrying; you will have room for maybe 8-10, maybe 11. So there is no possibility of getting even 1 ERPPC, never mind 2, heat neutral or even close to it. Dual AC10 mechs CAN BE heat neutral; they each require only 12 EHS. Same with Gauss, at 3 EHS, and AC5/UAC5/UAC5/UAC5 at 7 EHS each and can still fire other weapons, like SSRMs, small and medium lasers, for significantly long periods of time.

..

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.

Did you read the OP?

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 07 October 2013 - 05:27 AM.

[Maerawn]

i didnt read any of the replys, and i couldnt even get through the first diagram.... because your comparison is completely invalid.

your comparing apples to oranges... yes ppc's act like ballistic weapons with pin point lump sum damage. THEY ARE NOT BALLISTIC WEAPONS. They are energy weapons and should be compared to other energy weapons. They do more damage and therefore higher pin point DPS then any other energy weapon due to the duration or burn of a laser. They are longer range then any energy weapon, save the erLL.

No PPCs are not too hot, they are the pinnicle of the energy weapon group and require the most energy from the engine to fire, therefore should be hotter then the suns surface to fire...

[CravenMadness]

I would like to toss my hat into the 'get rid of ghost heat' ... It was almost specifically put in to counter the ppc spam... which.. the raised(returned?) heat on ppcs/erppcs has done, and that combined with gauss delay has taken the 'snap' out of that shot.

[RG Notch]

Gorgo7, on 06 October 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

Hey Captain Cynic! You came here and read it. Your inability to deal with personal feelings of inadequacy vis-a-vie MWO have no influence over PGI OR any of the interested players.
See a therapist.
Get laid.
Make peace with your parents.
Keep it to yourself.

You keep telling yourself that if it helps you feel you're not wasting your time. Sure I read it, thew question is did anyone who matter read it or care about it? If anyone needs therapy or certainly to get laid its those folks who write up these pointless posts that won't make one iota of difference in the development of the game.
I get it, when some one points out the uselessness of your actions it kinds of hurts but no need to attack the messenger. If I hit too close to home I apologize, I'm guess this type of stuff gets tangled up with your self esteem. Don't worry, people will discuss it and you can feel important. Even if or should I say when PGI goes about it's work without one thought to all the effort and time put into this. Of course I doubt the people behind it have anything more important to do with their time, so I guess it's better than whatever other pointless thing they would do.

[Karl Streiger]

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.

That is something i can agree with.

You can say that the ER-PPC guy can dive for cover or if it is fast enough keep distance - that is for most maps but Alpine or caustic impossible.

That in general is really a problem - there has to be some artificial shortage of ammunition a Mech can carry. If this happens - yes AC 10 are the better choice but after (example) 30 shots - the AC10 Mech don't have any ammunition.


instead of DPS or Alpha somebody with enough spare time should start to calculate the WoE damage. Although the option for 2 AC 10 is limited for heavy mechs only.

So you have to add this factor in the comparison between dual AC 10s vs dual ER-PPCs...for example the Trebuchet made 115 with elite skill - and enough heat sinks for 3-4 shots with 20damge -

OK but considering EHS, DPS, Range and Weapon Weight only -
the AC 10 got a value of 13,16 and the ER-PPC of 6,722 so on heat neutral mechs a single AC 10 is as effective as 2 ER-PPCs (but mechs don't have to be heat neutral - important is the time you are on target (WoE) )

Edited by Karl Streiger, 07 October 2013 - 05:35 AM.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Maerawn, on 07 October 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

i didnt read any of the replys, and i couldnt even get through the first diagram.... because your comparison is completely invalid.

your comparing apples to oranges... yes ppc's act like ballistic weapons with pin point lump sum damage. THEY ARE NOT BALLISTIC WEAPONS. They are energy weapons and should be compared to other energy weapons. They do more damage and therefore higher pin point DPS then any other energy weapon due to the duration or burn of a laser. They are longer range then any energy weapon, save the erLL.

No PPCs are not too hot, they are the pinnicle of the energy weapon group and require the most energy from the engine to fire, therefore should be hotter then the suns surface to fire...

Shame, this was one of the replies.

Lupus Aurelius, on 06 October 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

It's not about balancing energy weapons to energy weapons, or ballistics to ballistics, only. It's about balancing all weapon systems, so that based on mech configurations, you can come up with builds that can compete against other mechs that utilize different systems. It's not like mechs with missile and ballistics slots only fight each other.

On mechs that have the ability to fit both, it should never be a clear cut choice, and right now, if you have 2 ballistic slots and 2 energy slots on a mech, the clear choice is go ballistic for your heavy damage. That's not balance.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 07 October 2013 - 05:32 AM.

[Gladewolf]

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.

Most AC 10 builds do not have enough ammo to screw around with suppressive fire at 1k meters...where they also do less than half damage...ERPPCs should still be doing close to full damage at that range....again these 2 weapons are the only apples to oranges comparison on the list.

[Cybermech]

really nice thread btw.

The OP really points out that some AC's are too cool and need some heat increase.
Ac5's do really show this.

But the erppc works best in single use since its heat would be too high from doubling.
Which leaves the erppc builds more specialized, where if you want dual you take PPC's and deal with the 90m penalties.

[Lord Perversor]

PPL asumptions are the reason for some misguided ideas.

In real life soldiers receive assault rifles capable to fire in auto mode and empty their ammo within seconds. Yet they are trained to keep calm and firing in burst maximizing precision and dmg.

In TT the combat are resolved in 10 second windows wich we can safely assume it's like modern day soldiers, trained ppl who carefully plan their shoots to maximize accuracy and dmg.

In TT a soldier forcing it's weapons fire rate to maximize dmg perform a maneuver know as Alpha strike wich it's taxative in ammo and Heat for the mech.

in MWO we are giving a close to full auto weapons when compared to TT and everyone assume everything else is broken, because our Mech can't keep up with the heat rates....

you know it's an odd idea of mine but maybe you should start to not consider a balanced game because
EVERYTHING SHOULD BE ALPHA STABLE.

Edited by Lord Perversor, 07 October 2013 - 05:36 AM.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Gladewolf, on 07 October 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

Most AC 10 builds do not have enough ammo to screw around with suppressive fire at 1k meters...where they also do less than half damage...ERPPCs should still be doing close to full damage at that range....again these 2 weapons are the only apples to oranges comparison on the list.

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.

[Karl Streiger]

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.

And you can run a workable medium to have 2 ER-PPCs
so you have to add to your formula:
Trebuchet with jumpjets and 325 XL vs a Catapult K2 or JaegerMech with dual AC10s.... how does the comparison work now?

Edited by Karl Streiger, 07 October 2013 - 05:47 AM.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Karl Streiger, on 07 October 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

And you can run a workable medium to have 2 ER-PPCs
so you have to add to your formula:
Trebuchet with jumpjets and 325 XL vs a Catapult K2 or JaegerMech with dual AC10s.... how does the comparison work now?

Is this your version of the Chewbacca defense?!?!?!?!

Does not address the OP in any way, has nothing to do with the topic, and is no where relevant to the discussion.

[Karl Streiger]

Lupus Aurelius, on 07 October 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

Is this your version of the Chewbacca defense?!?!?!?!
Does not address the OP in any way, has nothing to do with the topic, and is no where relevant to the discussion.

Nope - its just a point of view that has to be considered.

I can add - twist and turn rate as well...

If you reduce your point of view just to a single spot:
- the AC 20 vs 4 MLAS for example - 14t+ammo vs 4t - MLAS are OP nerf MLAS or Buff AC20
- the AC 20 vs 4 MLAS wiht heat neutrality - omg the AC 20 is OP - nerf AC 20.

The full discussion is just biased when you just consider a small ammount of facts.
Considering all those facts the ER-PPC is still a great weapon if you know how to use it and where not.

The comparison of AC 10 vs ER-PPC in the way it was used in the last couple of post only work when comparing a Dual AC 10 K2 vs a Dual ER-PPC K2.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 07 October 2013 - 06:15 AM.

[Charons Little Helper]

Ballistics are good primary weapons for heavies / assaults since they have the tonnage. Energy are good backup since they're the most weight efficient.

For smaller mechs energy weapons are great primary weapons as they don't have the weight to burn on ballistics.

I don't really see the problem.