106 replies to this topic

[Wildstreak]

Why PPCs still need the 90m dead zone.

- If removed, why need ERPPCs? Range? Meh, they would hardly see play.
- I ran an Awesome 8Q recently with nothing but 2PPCs and 2LLs the second being for close defense in that 90m range. You take that dead zone out, this build and others like it becomes even worse on targets. It is a murder machine already.
- You want similar damage in 90m? Take LPLs, they do near the same damage and run cooler than PPCs. Remove the dead zone and the only reason to take LPLs goes away.

Conclusion: Removing the 90m dead zone makes standard PPCs too good and renders 2 other weapons to be less valuable and used thus needing more balance work on weapons.

Adding the field inhibitor rules mentioned might be nice but are not a priority.

[wanderer]

Sandpit, on 13 January 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

What other weapons currently in game had a TT min range????

AC/2's and AC/5' + Ultra/5s - which could at least end up in "splash" and reduced damage modes inside their minimums. It'd make them at least NOT have a great reason to use in nose-picking ranges. And Gauss rifles, natch.

As for AC's having splash, virtually no AC save the incredibly huge 185+mm ones (we're talking AC/20's only, folks and virtually none of those- in fact, there's maybe two canonical examples and they're both "maybes"...one of which specifically is on an assault-weight TANK) fire single shots per "round" of ammo. Pinpoint damage, they really shouldn't be.

[Varent]

wanderer, on 13 January 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

AC/2's and AC/5' + Ultra/5s - which could at least end up in "splash" and reduced damage modes inside their minimums. It'd make them at least NOT have a great reason to use in nose-picking ranges. And Gauss rifles, natch.

As for AC's having splash, virtually no AC save the incredibly huge 185+mm ones (we're talking AC/20's only, folks and virtually none of those- in fact, there's maybe two canonical examples and they're both "maybes"...one of which specifically is on an assault-weight TANK) fire single shots per "round" of ammo. Pinpoint damage, they really shouldn't be.

Those weapons in cannon dont have minimum ranges... They also are heavily used in alot of brawling mechs.

[Trauglodyte]

Varent, on 13 January 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

Those weapons in cannon dont have minimum ranges... They also are heavily used in alot of brawling mechs.

They, and the Gauss Rifle, did have minimum ranges but I believe that they were simply to-hit roll modifiers and not the traditional minimum range like LRMs.

[Joseph Mallan]

Trauglodyte, on 13 January 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

Anyway, give PPCs a 5m splash radius and we're good to go.

You want to give a PPC almost a 15' splash radius???

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 13 January 2014 - 11:10 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 January 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

You want to give a PPC almost a 15' splash radius???

I'm not a dev Just tossing out [scrap] to see what sticks. Anyway, they've got the splash working with Artillery so why not go back and apply it where needed?

Edited by Trauglodyte, 13 January 2014 - 11:16 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Trauglodyte, on 13 January 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

I'm not a dev Just tossing out [scrap] to see what sticks. Anyway, they've got the splash working with Artillery so why not go back and apply it where needed?

Cause a splash measured in meters is easier to code than one measured in cm maybe???

[Noesis]

Splash has complications.

It needs to be big enough to transfer across assaults with differing morphology for effect.

It has the possibility of more readily transferring damage to the head, or from front to rear, or across defensive arms.

It also allows you to damage a Mech even without hitting it, e.g. just aim at the ground near a Mechs feet.

A better idea would be to have some kind of diffusion mechanic where the PPC hits a certain location but damage is transferred through the Mech to neighboring hit boxes, with some avoidance of front to rear or to head transfer of damage.

[Joseph Mallan]

Noesis, on 13 January 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

Splash has complications.

It needs to be big enough to transfer across assaults with differing morphology for effect.

It has the possibility of more readily transferring damage to the head, or from front to rear, or across defensive arms.

It also allows you to damage a Mech even without hitting it, e.g. just aim at the ground near a Mechs feet.

A better idea would be to have some kind of diffusion mechanic where the PPC hits a certain location but damage is transferred through the Mech to neighboring hit boxes, with some avoidance of front to rear or to head transfer of damage.

Or we could just K.I.S.S.

[Trauglodyte]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 January 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

Or we could just K.I.S.S.

Damn right.

Btw, what do you think if PGI went full on military and put "how to" descriptions on all of the weapons? I still crack up to this day over the fact that the claymore and LAW had a "point in direction of enemy" direction painted on it.

[Noesis]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 January 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

Or we could just K.I.S.S.

Don't know what you mean. Since MWO isn't a real life model and is using more simplified models for gaming purposes it needs to allow for these mechanics. It already is simple, but hence the reason for the problem associated with trying to apply real life physics.

Splash in real life would have more of a surface connection for impact with an inverse square law from the blast point. This in itself making it rather complicated to model. And would cause problems in the way that MWO organises the current hit box application for simplicity trying to apply that. Hence you need to account for this model with appropriate mechanics to not make things overly complicated by trying to model it with real life physics.

Without these simple adjustments you end up with mechanics that simply generate easier use of splash damage weapons to take out critical hit box locations more readily as it requires less aiming to their specific location or allow you to hit a Mech at all with less need to aim since you could miss but hit a close surface contact but the splash then still apply to the Mech.

If anything then I am trying to keep things simple by avoiding real life physics and the complications it generates for the applied MWO models.

Edited by Noesis, 13 January 2014 - 12:09 PM.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Malleus011, on 12 January 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

The PPC deadzone is a lazy solution and should go. If the AC/5 doesn't have one, why should the PPC? LRM mechs and PPC boats were *never* helpless at close ranges in the old school rules. Making canon designs - like the stock Awesome - helpless except for a small laser under 90m is poor game design and shows that the developers do not understand the system they are adapting to a direct-fire simulator.

There are several good solutions to 'minimum range' from the old TT ruleset. The current lazy version is giving them headaches trying to make Clan weapons work. (Oh noes, what do we do with Clan LRMs?) We could have scaled damage (the old solution, which was fine, and closer to TT), or an 'inhibitor coil' mechanic, or ... oh, why bother, they never listen anyway.

In the end, one could simply do the math, figure out the effective damage drop off of say, a hundred PPC shots at 0-30 meters, and simply have the weapon deal that damage at that range. This isn't rocket science, but PGI seems intent on building a bastardized Battletech game full of {Scrap} like Ghost Heat.

Its because PGI isn't a good game developer.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 13 January 2014 - 12:04 PM, said:

Don't know what you mean. Since MWO isn't a real life model and is using more simplified models for gaming purposes it needs to allow for these mechanics. It already is simple, but hence the reason for the problem associated with trying to apply real life physics.

Splash in real life would have more of a surface connection for impact with an inverse square law from the blast point. This in itself making it rather complicated to model. And would cause problems in the way that MWO organises the current hit box application for simplicity trying to apply that. Hence you need to account for this model with appropriate mechanics to not make things overly complicated by trying to model it with real life physics.

Without these simple adjustments you end up with mechanics that simply generate easier use of splash damage weapons to take out critical hit box locations more readily as it requires less aiming to their specific location or allow you to hit a Mech at all with less need to aim since you could miss but hit a close surface contact but the splash then still apply to the Mech.

If anything than I am trying to keep things simple by avoiding real life physics and the complications in generates for the applied MWO models.

hes reffering to an old military axiom Keep It Simple Stupid.

That said its an adiom used for military things in the field when dealing with people that are basically grunts.

That said weapon balance is a monster that must be tackled both scientifically and intrinsically with alot of playtesting to achieve true balance either way.

its not a matter of keeping it simple.

[Joseph Mallan]

K.I.S.S.

Keep
It
Simple
Stupid

No need to apply all the real world physics, as it is a SciFi game to some extent (we don't have weapon grade lasers, FL travel etc). Stop pin point convergence of multiple weapons and most of the crying will die. Many of m buils did over 40 damage per Alpha... not a single outcry over that! Fix that one problem and the tears of pain will become considerably less.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 13 January 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

hes reffering to an old military axiom Keep It Simple Stupid.

That said its an adiom used for military things in the field when dealing with people that are basically grunts.

That said weapon balance is a monster that must be tackled both scientifically and intrinsically with alot of playtesting to achieve true balance either way.

its not a matter of keeping it simple.

I know what KISS means. Hence why I focus on the simplicity in my post with emphasis.

The MWO models are simple, so you cannot readily apply some real life mechanics to them.

This before you consider whether it helps with gaming balance.

[Varent]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 January 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

No need to apply all the real world physics, as it is a SciFi game to some extent (we don't have weapon grade lasers, FL travel etc). Stop pin point convergence of multiple weapons and most of the crying will die. Many of m buils did over 40 damage per Alpha... not a single outcry over that! Fix that one problem and the tears of pain will become considerably less.

Actually... We do to a degree have close to weapon grade lasers. We have weapons that surpass the Gause Rifle (Rail Gun) and weapons that surpass the srm and lrm. I would argue we are 'close' with the AC if you look at alot of our artillery.

Sadly no where close to a ppc.

[Trauglodyte]

Quote

The PPC deadzone is a lazy solution and should go. If the AC/5 doesn't have one, why should the PPC? LRM mechs and PPC boats were *never* helpless at close ranges in the old school rules. Making canon designs - like the stock Awesome - helpless except for a small laser under 90m is poor game design and shows that the developers do not understand the system they are adapting to a direct-fire simulator.

There are several good solutions to 'minimum range' from the old TT ruleset. The current lazy version is giving them headaches trying to make Clan weapons work. (Oh noes, what do we do with Clan LRMs?) We could have scaled damage (the old solution, which was fine, and closer to TT), or an 'inhibitor coil' mechanic, or ... oh, why bother, they never listen anyway.

In the end, one could simply do the math, figure out the effective damage drop off of say, a hundred PPC shots at 0-30 meters, and simply have the weapon deal that damage at that range. This isn't rocket science, but PGI seems intent on building a bastardized Battletech game full of {Scrap} like Ghost Heat.

I won't deny that doing 0 damage within 90m wasn't a little sloppy. But, given some of the coding needed and us not knowing whether it is possible within Cry Engine 3 or if they have the capability of coding it, the solution worked. Simply put, people were using the PPC for the end all be all weapon for all situations. Why use 2 Md Lasers when you can use a PPC for the same damage, slightly more heat, and a ton more range for situations where the Md Laser won't work? So, PGI decided to force players' hands by making them choose between excellent piloting so that they never suffer from the 90m dead zone, to backing it up with other weapons, or going with the much hotter option of the ER PPC so that they could still play the way that they did before. Notice that you don't see people running tons and tons of ER PPCS?

Btw, I often wonder if the current hard point situation is what got us here. I'm not talking about hard point sizes but rather the inability to move beyond hard points. People use PPCs for everything because a lot of heavy chassis are energy limited which means that you've got to take something that works for many situations. If we weren't confined by hard points, I wonder if the game would still be like it is?

Varent, on 13 January 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

hes reffering to an old military axiom Keep It Simple Stupid.

That said its an adiom used for military things in the field when dealing with people that are basically grunts.

That said weapon balance is a monster that must be tackled both scientifically and intrinsically with alot of playtesting to achieve true balance either way.

its not a matter of keeping it simple.

Exaclty. PGI might do a lot of things that we don't agree with but some of those decisions are done because we can't save ourselves. We will do whatever is easiest and sometimes the concept of reality or what we think is easy simply doesn't apply. Then again, nerfs never make sense to the player base because we're too close to the product. Its why, after gmaing online since UO in 1998 that every patch makes some percentage of the population cry profusely. It is just the way it is.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 13 January 2014 - 12:26 PM.

[Varent]

Trauglodyte, on 13 January 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

Exaclty. PGI might do a lot of things that we don't agree with but some of those decisions are done because we can't save ourselves. We will do whatever is easiest and sometimes the concept of reality or what we think is easy simply doesn't apply. Then again, nerfs never make sense to the player base because we're too close to the product. Its why, after gmaing online since UO in 1998 that every patch makes some percentage of the population cry profusely. It is just the way it is.

This.

HOWEVER.

Pgi is doing one major thing wrong. Many gaming titles will announce 'why' they are doing a nerf. If for no other reason then to help the population undersand there methodology.

Pgi is very bad at this so far. Actually bad at communication in general.

[NRP]

I think the PPC's minimum range doesn't make sense from a physics perspective, but I can see its purpose from a balance perspective.

One thing I will say however is that PPCs are too hot right now. I think PGI went too far with the individual weapon nerfs to try to contain high pinpoint alpha damage builds. The PPC should have got either a projectile speed decrease or a base heat increase, but not both. Same with the gauss rifle firing mechanic. It shouldn't exist for single gauss rifle builds. It should only exist for multiple gauss or gauss+PPC/AC builds.

[Trauglodyte]

Varent, on 13 January 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

This.

HOWEVER.

Pgi is doing one major thing wrong. Many gaming titles will announce 'why' they are doing a nerf. If for no other reason then to help the population undersand there methodology.

Pgi is very bad at this so far. Actually bad at communication in general.

This x1000. In all of the years of WoW, as an example, they always stated why they made changes. Tons of people still disagreed but we all were given a reason for why things changed. You can more easily get behind change when you know why as opposed to being left in the dark.

NRP, on 13 January 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

I think the PPC's minimum range doesn't make sense from a physics perspective, but I can see its purpose from a balance perspective.

One thing I will say however is that PPCs are too hot right now. I think PGI went too far with the individual weapon nerfs to try to contain high pinpoint alpha damage builds. The PPC should have got either a projectile speed decrease or a base heat increase, but not both. Same with the gauss rifle firing mechanic. It shouldn't exist for single gauss rifle builds. It should only exist for multiple gauss or gauss+PPC/AC builds.

This has always been one thing that has really bothered me about MW:O and it isn't really PGI's fault. A lot of builds used are based on multiples of few weapons types. Mass amounts of Medium Lasers isn't really an issue because they're hot and limited in range. You could run 20 Small Lasers and nobody would care because you still need to get from point A to point B to get within 90m of your target. But, as we've seen, when it comes to boating weapons, balance goes down the toilet. Yes, Battle Tech has many boats and it is part of the game. PGI's addition of Ghost Heat, while extremely clunky and lacking in description in game or anywhere handy, was meant to curb it and it has worked. But, it failed to balance one weapon versus 2+ weapons. A good example of that is the UAC5. The jamming mechanism is an absolute beast for a single but when you add one or even two of them, the jamming isn't an issue. PPCs, LRMs, etc are all the same. So, we end up getting other nerfs to try to compensate which just enrages the community when it is the community that is causing the problem.