532 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

I wonder if I should redo my heat efficiency charts for the current stats and mechanics... The old ones are still in my sig.

[Gorgo7]

Thank you very much for this posting. The graphs and analysis are telling.
Heat dissipation is the real issue (for lasers as well) and should be an easy fix without nerfing Cannons or their utility.

Thanks again!

Gorgo7

[Jabilo]

Yes, ERPPCs are slightly too hot.

A small reduction in heat would make them better balanced.

I find it hilarious that the entire hated ghost heat mechanic was introduced because of the PPC.

A couple of weeks later they then just increase the heat of ERPPCs so much as to make them near as damn unusable.

[Warsdisciple]

An excellent in depth few of the math behind the ERPPC and ballistics OP. The ERPPC does run a wee bit too hot with current mechanics.

I see a lot of people bring up TT mechanics in regards to things like damage and heat, etc. But they are always forgetting, or don't realize, the biggest factor that throws all of that off. "TIme interval". TT runs on 10 sec intervals. if we played live action table top, the AC/2 would fire once every 10 seconds. in fact, everything would. The AC/2 is x20 as hot and powerful as its TT counterpart. And the ERPPC x2.5. That means 2.5 the heat sinks need to keep it working. throw in that every DHS over 10 is at 1.4 capacity, you see that the ERPPC is heat excessive.

Although reducing its heat is one way to fix this, it may not be the best. other, less obvious methods could show more merit, although they escape me. I would love to see the ERPPC brought into a more workable fashion. I do really like it.

[Nryrony]

Team Leader, on 06 October 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

Good post but.. I think thats the point. Even if they were overnerfed, they also have one of the longest ranges of any weapon so, yeah, high heat sniper weapon that just takes a while to shoot and always can shoot. I don't see a problem. Use backup weapons of put all your weight into DHS. Your choice.

In the end, i don't think they where actually overpowered, its just that most mechs have energy hard-points, and only some have ballistics, of these only a few have multible ballistic hardpoints - on diffrent places and the tonnage to use them.

I mean, even a Spider can use a PPC...

Next thing is that you also have to consider the tonnage and to role of the weapon. Ballistics consume ammo and weight more then energy weapons, so its okay for them to produce less heat. In MWO all energy weapons produce far too much heat - and heat-sinks are very ineffective. They should at-least fix the heat-sinks...

To balance PPC, let them require 2 hard-points... this would limit the number a mech can mount - without the requirement of ghost-heat.

A last word, the range of PPCs, ER PPCs and LRMs needs to be extended, its funny to see an AC5 having basically 50% more range then both of them.

[Gorgo7]

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.

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.

[Mazgazine1]

Dual Gauss calculation is wrong . 6 volleys is 180 damage.

[Kaijin]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 October 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

I wonder if I should redo my heat efficiency charts for the current stats and mechanics... The old ones are still in my sig.

I love your heat efficiency charts, and would be appreciative of an update.

[Nryrony]

Skizzors, on 06 October 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

The only buff i want to see for PPC and ERPPC is the projectile speed increased. Its to slow, very hard to aim on max range with it.

Same deal with a lot of the ballistics, if your enemy stands still however, it doesn't matter...

And this happens more often then you think.

Edited by Nryrony, 06 October 2013 - 01:20 PM.

[Bront]

Every energy weapon other than the ERLL needs a heat reduction of .5-1.5 (I'd drop SL, SPL, ML, and MPL by .5, LL, LPL, and PPC by 1, and ERPPC by 1.5). Currently balistic weapons are too good, and it's all because heat dissipates so slowly compared to how easy it is to heat up.

That, or DHS need a buff for heat dissipation, but I think the heat fix would help energy weapons as a whole.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Mazgazine1, on 06 October 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

Dual Gauss calculation is wrong . 6 volleys is 180 damage.

TYVM. The dangers of copy/paste and manual editing. It has been corrected.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 06 October 2013 - 12:59 PM.

[Panzerkampfwagen IV]

I understand your calculations take into account the effective weight/space used by DHS needed to make the ERPPC heat neutral: However, how do you account for when one chooses to use the weapon in a sub-optimal heat situation?

Let's say I want to play a spider or a cicada with only 10 DHS and 2 ERPPCs, it is completely do-able to fit those weapons onto the chassis and run them heat-inefficient. I do not have the same option to do so with 2x AC10 because they will not work due to slot/weight restrictions. I do NOT have the option to run those weapons at suboptimal levels.

Now that heat is at a correct level, it is no longer viable to run a 2 ERPPC spider or cicada due to the NEED for more DHS to run at a playable level.

The strength of the ER PPC is in its versatility, you can put it on many different chassis because it is not as limited by weight or hardpoint and it works at all ranges. The price you pay for that versatility is heat penalty. When you create a situation where the ER PPC is equal to all other weapons and can fit all chassis with no significant penalty, then you create a situation where there is no incentive to use anything other than ER PPCS (hence the PPCwarrior of the past few months).

Edited by Asian Tupac, 06 October 2013 - 12:59 PM.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Asian Tupac, on 06 October 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

...stuff...

That is a rather disingenuous argument. Versatile or not, tonnage is tonnage and crits are crits, but I'll run with it

Cicada CDA-2 Standard Engine
Tonnage 39.6 (0.35 free) max 40 Armor 274 max 274
Firepower 20.00 max 175 Max sustained DPS 1.35 max 5.00

Cooling Efficiency 27%

Stats:
Free slots 8
Engine (100-340) STD ENGINE 210 Speed 85.1 kph 93.6 kph
Heatsinks 11

Armaments: ER PPC 2

Upgrades: Armor Ferro-Fibrous / Structure Endo-Steel / Heatsinks Double / Guidance Standard

Cicada CDA-2 XL Engine

Tonnage 39.6 (0.35 free) max 40 Armor 274 max 274
Firepower 20.00 max 175
Max sustained DPS 1.60 max 5.00

Cooling Efficiency 32%

Stats
Free slots 2
Engine (100-340) XL ENGINE 265 Speed 107.3 kph 118.1 kph
Heatsinks 13

Armaments: ER PPC 2

Upgrades:Armor Ferro-Fibrous / Structure Endo-Steel / Heatsinks Double / Guidance Standard

In both cases, your max alpha is 20, you are running with 11 DHS and 13 DHS, respectively, In the std. engine, only 8 of the DHS are engine DHS, and 1 is an external. In the XL engine version. 10 are engine DHS and 3 are external. In both cases, these are your only weapons, and due to DHS and the weight of the ERPPCs, the std engine is slow for a cicada.

Yea, you are going to get them on lights, but the max alpha you're going to get compared to other mechs is low, and with the high heat, you need crits. and 28 are going to get used just in ferro and exo.

If you make a choice to go suboptimal, that's your choice, and has nothing to do with the available systems being balanced. You see plenty of lol fit ballistic builds on lights too, but singling out a class is not looking at the whole dynamic, and represents a minority of cases.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 06 October 2013 - 01:33 PM.

[Nryrony]

Asian Tupac, on 06 October 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

The strength of the ER PPC is in its versatility, you can put it on many different chassis because it is not as limited by weight or hardpoint and it works at all ranges. The price you pay for that versatility is heat penalty. When you create a situation where the ER PPC is equal to all other weapons and can fit all chassis with no significant penalty, then you create a situation where there is no incentive to use anything other than ER PPCS (hence the PPCwarrior of the past few months).

I agree to a certain point:

Energy slots are common, and PCCs require less tonnage as well as crits.

The price you pay for that is heat/heatsinks.

Yet our current heatsinks are so ineffective that its almost pointless.


Example:

An Awesome with 3 PPCs (normal ones) should be able to run them heat neutral, or very close to it, as long as he doesn't equip other weapons.

He has the tonnage and the space to equip massive amounts of single heatsinks or double heatsinks, yet its basicly impossible to cool PPCs down. (Impossible with shs, even if you have the tonnage...)

Same deal with basicly every energy weapon, they all run way to hot, and the heatsinks are just not cutting it.

For balance remove the increased heatcap.

Edited by Nryrony, 06 October 2013 - 01:32 PM.

[Jman5]

What bothers me about this analysis is that he compares the ER PPC with Ballistics.

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.

Edited by Jman5, 06 October 2013 - 01:33 PM.

[Lupus Aurelius]

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.

[MegaZordTrololo]

My scores when using PPC do tend to be subpar, though I do not see this as a problem.

The PPC sniper meta of a couple of patches ago must be avoided at all costs. It made the game miserable. Extreme range alpha builds should not be capable of the best damage in the team. They should be a low risk low reward build. If people want to sit at the back plinking with PPC that's fine, just never allow them to dominate and dictate how the game is played.

Edited by MegaZordTrololo, 06 October 2013 - 01:44 PM.

[Navy Sixes]

Not really into DPxS comparisons. Not doubting your data or assessment of that data, just thinking I'd rather do 80 points in 12 seconds, broken into 4 20pt pinpoint strikes than however-many 4 pt strikes a pair of AC2s will deliver over that same amount of time (you're better with numbers than me... I couldn't find that information, and I think it's far more interesting).

It is feasible to believe a PPC gunner could deliver those four pp strikes in 12 seconds, what's more deliver them all to the CT. I don't think there are Mech-drivers out there dumb enough to let you dump AC2 rounds into them for 12 seconds straight, and even if there were, I doubt there are many AC2 gunners out there who could put every round into the CT.

For all that heat, a pair of ERPPCs will have plenty of time to cool down after those four shots, since they will have probably cored-out whatever they were aiming at.

Gauss has that additional delay mechanism to consider, so there are skill considerations that don't really factor into your math, do they?

So yes. The numbers do lie, or at least paint an incomplete picture. Especially anytime someone throws DPxS into the equation. It makes for great arguments on paper, but doesn't take any battlefield variables into account.

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

[Deathlike]

The ERPPC is fine in the aspect that it's the hottest weapon and the minimal use of it on the field shows this.

On the other hand, the ERPPC heat value despite being @ its stock value is too hot. This has actually allowed the ERLRG which is effectively as cool as the "OP" version of the older PPC stats to be more prominent, but not really that OP.

In sum, deal with it, and it's not meant to be a goto weapon like it was in the height of the PPC meta.

2 PPCs or even 1 ER + reg PPC is the way to go anyways.

Edited by Deathlike, 06 October 2013 - 01:46 PM.

[Bront]

Jman5, on 06 October 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

What bothers me about this analysis is that he compares the ER PPC with Ballistics.

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.

The issue is that the PPC should be useful but with no damage under 90 and high heat, the PPC will turn away most people (And it shouldn't be THE go to energy weapon, just A go to energy weapon), and the ERPPC doesn't have the range issue, but has heat so oppressive you can't mount much else weapon wise because of all the heat, which is very much NOT how things worked in TT that MWO is trying to emulate.

The issue is more how Balistics are simply superior in most sutuations. DPS? Ballistics. D/H? Ballistics. Sure, they need ammo and weigh more, but 2 AC2s should not be a more viable weapon than the PPC in every way outside of ammo usage! Particularly since 2 AC2s + Ammo are actually comperable to 2 PPCs + HS to deal with the heat (tonnage and space wise), and the AC2 is supposed to be the worst Balistic!

Basically, Ballistics fire faster and can be sustain fired longer than energy weapons. Energy weapons meanwhile simply are only superior to balistics for being direct fire, even if that's both a blessing and a curse (miss less, but spread damage). Yes, they're lighter, but they create so much heat, and since heat doesn't dissipate quickly, balistics that simply don't generate it in the first place have a huge edge. It's the most apparent when you look at the PPC (which does emulate ballistics to a point)