532 replies to this topic

[Lupus Aurelius]

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

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.

That's a very disingenuous argument. It's like saying "...I can't logically agrue against your point, nor do I have data to support my stance, but you are wrong...". Or like a bible thumper that can't accept that geology supports the fact of the earth being 5.5 billion years old.

As far as the "glory days of PPC", that was not advocated at all. The analysis was focused on the ERPPC, and if you read my closing paragraph in the OP, you would have seen this:

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

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.

Hardly demanding my own agenda, nor advocating a return to PPC boating online, it's a logical conclusion based on the data.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 17 October 2013 - 08:32 AM.

[Artgathan]

MustrumRidcully, on 17 October 2013 - 05:45 AM, said:

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

Now here's an interesting divergence in our data. You've shown that PPCs are not good for the 5 second mark, while I've shown that they are superior to an AC/10 for the 60 second mark.

Now the question is "at which point does the PPC become more useful than the AC/10 (in terms of DPS/ton)?" There must be a sweet spot where they are equal. Therefore there exist optimal conditions for PPC use - we just have to figure out what they are.

[Mothykins]

Pretty much the only way to run my Dual ERPPC build on my K2 is Just the guns and 21 DBL heatsinks.
And it still has massive heat issues. Add in two Mlas and you can just forget about it.

Yes, there is a serious problem with how they're balancing the game.
Yes, the heat on the thing is overly stupid.
Will they fix it? Not a chance.

PGI is focused on Band-aid fixes. Fast and sloppy, hoping that if they cover it you wont notice the gangrene setting in.

[MustrumRidcully]

Artgathan, on 17 October 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

Now here's an interesting divergence in our data. You've shown that PPCs are not good for the 5 second mark, while I've shown that they are superior to an AC/10 for the 60 second mark.

Now the question is "at which point does the PPC become more useful than the AC/10 (in terms of DPS/ton)?" There must be a sweet spot where they are equal. Therefore there exist optimal conditions for PPC use - we just have to figure out what they are.

Probably in the "below 2.5 second" mark currently. If you only ever take one shot, the PPC gets you the most damage per shot from the two per ton.

Finding a spot for the PPC stats where there is a "neat" room in the 0-10 second area without vastly overshadowing all the alternatives... With the current heat system, that's a female dog.

[Ashvins]

To The OP:

The one thing you FAILED to mention (and a BIG Fail at that), is that the ammo for your ballistics or the weapon it's self in case of the gauss are subject to AMMO EXPLOSIONS!!!!

No PPC or erPPC will EVER explode in this game hence taking all your math and throwing it out the window. Make PPC's and erPPC's explode with damage then sure you can reduce the heat on them. Until then, suffer with your heat as the drawback to energy weapons and ammo explosions for ballistics.

THAT is the balancing factor not heat.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Ashvins, on 17 October 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

To The OP:

The one thing you FAILED to mention (and a BIG Fail at that), is that the ammo for your ballistics or the weapon it's self in case of the gauss are subject to AMMO EXPLOSIONS!!!!

No PPC or erPPC will EVER explode in this game hence taking all your math and throwing it out the window. Make PPC's and erPPC's explode with damage then sure you can reduce the heat on them. Until then, suffer with your heat as the drawback to energy weapons and ammo explosions for ballistics.

THAT is the balancing factor not heat.

No, it is not the balancing factor. Nor was it forgotten. The OP is an analysis of performance. As far as the effects, I am quite familiar with them, but they can be mitigated. CASE, and storing ammo in certain locations can limit the effects, and ammo depletes over time, reducing the number of crits that can cause an explosion. Apparently, you may not have read the full OP, since there is a similar issue there:

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

· 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.

Taking out DHS does not generate an explosion, but it is 3 times as likely to be critted than a crit of ammo. And an explosion will only happen if the ammo is crit'ed, and that means you have lost your armor there, and that is only going to happen if you do not use cover, torso twisting, and maneuvering to avoid taking that much damage. Also, your ammo depletes over time, reducing the number of criticals that could be crit'ed to cause an explosion. If you have 6-12 mechs on you at the same time, and you die because of an ammo explosion, you would have died anyway with that amount of focused fire, so the ammo explosion at that point is inconsequential.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 17 October 2013 - 11:32 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Ammo also has only 10 % chance to actually explode (vs the 90 % a Gauss will explode) when destroyed by a crit.

And I am not complaining about that. If the ammo explosion chance was much higher, no one would dare using ballistics, since ammo explosion damage is ridinkolus in Battletech.

[Shakespeare]

MustrumRidcully, on 17 October 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

Ammo also has only 10 % chance to actually explode (vs the 90 % a Gauss will explode) when destroyed by a crit.

And I am not complaining about that. If the ammo explosion chance was much higher, no one would dare using ballistics, since ammo explosion damage is ridinkolus in Battletech.

Yep, it'd be interesting, though, if the chance for ammo explosions went up, but the damage dealt goes down. I mean, right now it's every unspent round's worth of damage. That's a little obscene. It might be a better mechanic if it was a percentage damage.

[Sephlock]

Shakespeare, on 17 October 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

Yep, it'd be interesting, though, if the chance for ammo explosions went up, but the damage dealt goes down. I mean, right now it's every unspent round's worth of damage. That's a little obscene. It might be a better mechanic if it was a percentage damage.

Why WOULDN'T it be every unspent round's worth of damage?

I understand it's just a game etc etc no need for realism etc etc, but we're rapidly approaching the point where, if things keep going the way they're going, newbies are going to require a Ph.D in MW:O physics before setting foot into a cockpit.

Or, to paraphrase an older post of mine:

I'm not sure what the best way to appeal to new players is, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't look like this:

Edited by Sephlock, 17 October 2013 - 10:11 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Sephlock, on 17 October 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

Why WOULDN'T it be every unspent round's worth of damage?

Why would it be that damage? There is a reason we shoot bullets out of rifles and not just throw gunpowder at people.

it is certainly dangerous, but there is no reason to assume that 20 bullets exploding have the same firepower as 20 bullets being shot at you with a dedicated mechanism that is meant to not waste the explosive energy.

For all I care, an ammo explosion could deal 15 damage per ton of ammo and produce 15 heat. (Scaled by the fraction of bullets still inside)
That would probably be a figure that would make a 100 % ammo explosion chance workable, actually.

If we are talking missiles, you might have more of a point. Missiles don't gain firepower from their speed, they get it purely from the explosive. But missiles tend to direct their charge in one particular direction, so it stands to reason that an ammo explosion would not actually trigger them all, but only a subset.... Which could also happen to be about 15 damage per ton of ammo...

[CravenMadness]

You know what's -really- awesome? When you have no ammo, and still die to an ammo explosion because you -used- to have ammo in those components.

[Slepnir]

hey Karl great discussion, I was falling asleep during my last post, so I think I need to expand on a few points. 1.Some people keep saying that there are no heat neutral builds. this is completely false. I can list dozens of battletech mechs that produce heat equal to or less than their heat sink dissipation capabilities(I also know since I run many of them when I play TT). which is why the 30 point heat scale is so important to prevent mechs that can take certain weapons from abusing them. 2 the point I was trying to get across with my example of the dragon while not heat neutral it is very close because the heat dissipation in TT is active while the weapon fires more so than in MWO which tends to bleed it off after firing. ..................................................................................................Your always going to generate a little heat from walking/running/jumping (1/2 respectively on TT and jump a min of 5 or the number of hex's jumped) but even that taken into account if I were to alpha strike the 5K at a run my heat bar should only go up 6 points(the percentage of heat of course would read different on a 30 point scale VS a 100 point). firing just the 3 mediums(2 are supposed to be out the back so figure that one out) and the ERPPC if DHS were actually doubles and the TT was in line my heat bar would not move at all as I would be generating 15 for the ER and 3 each for the lasers(9) plus the run puts me at exactly 26. making the stock 5k build completely viable in the game without added mechanics like ghost heat. ......................................................................................The tonnage in DHS for IS mechs and the space requirement is whats going to prevent boating excessive builds. look ahead to the newer awesome 9Q build. it has 4 standard PPCs, a small laser and an ECM pod. only does about 50KPH and fills every available crit slot save the legs with 19 DHS. and it still is not truly heat neutral even standing still. .......................................................................................I think the real problem is that when PGI diverged to much from the TT in this manner (weapon heat/heat dissipation) they had to create a host of "fixes" that created new problems instead of staying with the system that worked fine originally. there is a reason why ravens do not run 2 ER/PPCs in the TT game.

Edited by Slepnir, 18 October 2013 - 12:59 AM.

[Frankdark]

The real Problem for me is not the PPC or ERPPC.

The Problem is the Heat System.

Specialy the DHS

They should switch it.
1,4 for Engine DHS
and 2 Heat readuction for External.

@ the moment there is no real point in not using DHS. ( maybee only for 20t mechs )

[Trip Hammer]

Karl Streiger, on 17 October 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

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

I can see your points, and I really have never worked out the math for this angle so I have no Idea how well or poorly it might work out but I still think it has merit.

Still I like your point.

[Lupus Aurelius]

The Faceless, on 18 October 2013 - 06:52 AM, said:

I can see your points, and I really have never worked out the math for this angle so I have no Idea how well or poorly it might work out but I still think it has merit.

Still I like your point.

An easier way to look at this is the heat to heat dissipation. Without the math, what we have are weapons that fire anywhere from 19 times faster ( AC2 ) to 2.1 times faster (LRM20). However, the heat dissipation rate was kept from TT, and DHS external to the engine have a 1.4 heat / 10 sec rate vs. engine DHS at 2.0 heat / 10 sec dissipation rates.

PGI's "fix" was to have heatsinks also increase the mech's heat capacity, unlike TT which was a hard cap.

Obviously, low heat weapons are less effected by the reduced external DHS dissipation rate. An AC5 has a heat of 1 heat/1.5 sec, so firing it 6.67 times faster is not an issue. An ERLL, however does 8.5 heat/3.25 sec.

The fallacy in PGI's system is self evident. Keeping dissipation unaltered from TT rates, while increasing ROF, totally changes weapon balance. Instead of addressing the root cause, they continued with that system, modified heat and firing times, and implemented ghost heat, further shifting the system to an even more unbalanced state.

Ideally, what should have occurred is that mechs had hard caps for heat, and weapon heat prorated based on firing times, if dissipation rates remained the same. So in that case, and ERPPC would actually do 6 heat each time fired, but the mech would have a hard cap of 30 heat, and external DHS would still dissipate 2x faster than SHS.

Instead, PGI has scrambled the original TT heat relationships trying to balance out the impact of SHS and DHS adding to the heat cap of the mechs, while maintaining a heat dissipation rate based on a 10 sec turn. It's ludicrous, and should have been self evident to them right from the get-go, and now with the addition of ghost heat and the scrambled heat relationships, it's a total mess.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 18 October 2013 - 10:16 AM.

[Deathlike]

TBH, I think the heat containment upgrade as mentioned by some in other threads is broken... as it is not doubled after eliting the mech.

If it was working, the % of heat gained after firing hot weapons like PPCs would change... I had been kinda testing this with an Awesome (for a troubled bit) and using 1 ERPPC + PPC and 2 ERPPC combos. I believe if that the heat containment upgrade was working, the ERPPC heat generation problem would be less of an issue.

[Bacl]

Nryrony, on 06 October 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

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.

Using 2 hardpoints per PPC is not the solution since it would "eat another" possible weapon, however make them take more critical slot, you could still fit a large laser or a medium laser under it but would limit the capacity to stack 2 PPC's on top of the other on certain mechs, make them like 4 or 5 critical slot like certain AC, and buff their heat a bit since now they are close to useless. Will be much more complicated to equip one of these on smaller mechs and thus will be less present on the battlefield.

Edited by Bacl, 18 October 2013 - 10:43 AM.

[Inkarnus]

ask your selfs what ppc are in TT heat dumps
in 12v12 they are very good too since they need no ammo
just the peekaboo alpha alpha hide all love to play

[Lupus Aurelius]

Bacl, on 18 October 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

Using 2 hardpoints per PPC is not the solution since it would "eat another" possible weapon, however make them take more critical slot, you could still fit a large laser or a medium laser under it but would limit the capacity to stack 2 PPC's on top of the other on certain mechs, make them like 4 or 5 critical slot like certain AC, and buff their heat a bit since now they are close to useless. Will be much more complicated to equip one of these on smaller mechs and thus will be less present on the battlefield.

Inkarnus, on 18 October 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

ask your selfs what ppc are in TT heat dumps
in 12v12 they are very good too since they need no ammo
just the peekaboo alpha alpha hide all love to play

People seem to be getting confused - OP is about ERPPC being too hot compared to long range ballistics. Not the PPC...

[Lupus Aurelius]

Something else that came to mind, though there is only currently one example, is the heat ratio between the LL and ERLL. LL is 7 Heat, ERLL is 8.5, or 1.214 times greater. PPC at 10 (which is fine, PPC is not the focus of the OP) and ERPPC at 15, 1.5 times greater. Using that same ratio as LL/ERLL, would make the ERPPC 12.14 heat, which is pretty much what is advocated in the OP.