106 replies to this topic

[SamsungNinja]

There was a day when PPCs were over-used. ERPPCs were even more over-used.

The heavy-handed heat nerf to the PPCs/ERPPCS have resulted in stagnation amongst viable energy weapon builds. As the most ubiquitous hardpoint, I feel like it comes up short against ballistics and missles.

One can do a myriad of LL/ML builds, but if one tries to branch out into PLs, PPCs, or (god forbid) Flamers, you start to run dry really quick. So the majority of energy builds become 1-3 LLs and 2-4 MLs, any combination of those.

Back to PPCs. Now that it's painful to equip 2 of this linked weapon type, and with a difference of 5 heat between the base and extended, it now forces you to choose between running cool enough to be viable, or closing the hole in your weapon range.

Now, I feel like heat on Ls and PLs is pretty balanced. You don't see 4 LPL builds running around like crazy, and I don't see PPC boats anymore. It's even pretty rare to see 2 PPC loadouts anymore.

With all that said, I feel like the heat nerfs to PPCs/ERPPCs got rid of the cheese builds, so maybe it's time to get rid of the dead zone in PPCs?

I understand if the deadzone is carry-over from the tabletop. I never played the TT. At any rate, I would still argue for the removal of the 90m dead zone, because energy builds could use a little more options in their loadouts. The heat of a single PPC makes it the most difficult weapon to build around, as it's the hottest weapon in the game.

Finally, I'd just like to close out that my only interest in posting this is to see more diverse energy builds, and while I like the screech of firing a PPC, it's not my favorite weapon. I'm not coming here because I want to see my favorite weapon zomg buffed.

If I'm guilting of seeking anything for personal interest, it's just that I have several of 'mechs with energy-heavy hardpoints and I feel like their builds all end up being rather samey. I feel like I can do a lot more and be more effective with missles and ballistics than I can with energy.

Energy just seems meh as a primary weapon type, compared to the other two.

[Noesis]

PPCs are ideally a sniper weapon. More effective when combined with other ballistics weapons fire. These combined arrangements being the dominant Meta.

Other energy based weapons who are in fact measured as under performing in relation to ballistics that are utilised at a shorter range provide energy based weapon options at shorter range.

If you simply remove the already effective PCC's weakness at short range considering that the ERPPC has much more heat to help balance it's use you will be effectively trying to make a weapon that can be used more for every situation.

The weakness also exists to give emphasis to the use of alternative weapon choices and this given the existing dominance with ballistic snipers (including energy ballistics) in the current Meta should not be given any further encouragement and other roles should be more encouraged to have a more diverse option of play styles in MWO and become more emergent, this then helping the interplay between these play styles.

In conclusion this request to remove the min range from PPCs would only prolong or substantiate the idea of limited role options in the game whilst removing a relative weakness that snipers have at short range. Something required for some effective counters to be relevant based on existing designs and balance considerations in the current game.

Compromises could be considered like those applied to ERPPC to raise the heat on PPC to counteract this increase in effectiveness or loss of weaknesses with use of this weapon.

Edited by Noesis, 12 January 2014 - 01:38 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

I think the dead zone is still needed, the PPC is one of the most effective weapons in the game, and sniping still dominates the game, and the ppc needs a penalty to of set this or it would be back in numbers nearly as great as it used to be.

[meteorol]

If they would remove the deadzone, you would see... lets think for a second... zero LL on the field 3 seconds later.
The deadzone is really the only reason to use LL at all. Pinpoint Dmg > DoT. This will never change

[Lukoi Banacek]

SamsungNinja, on 12 January 2014 - 01:22 AM, said:

Energy just seems meh as a primary weapon type, compared to the other two.

Everyone previous has covered the glaring holes in your request for a removal of the deadzone.

Secondly, while PPC's are technically an energy weapon (i.e. they have the advantage of needing/risking no ammo, less proportional weight and the disadvantage of heat) they act as ballistics (pinpoint damage front loaded) and are a fast ballistic at that.

I don't know how long you've been playing or at what level your competition is atm, but I think if you play a bit longer and actually run some PPC builds effectively, you'll find just how potent they are. They simply are one of the best weapons in the game right now and do not need any additional advantages granted to them.

[Soulscour]

This is a horrible idea. Yesterday I was in a match where the last two mechs were a stalker with 4 PPC and a cicada with 2 ERLL. When the cicada got in the stalkers face and the stalker could not do anything that stalker deserved to die. PERIOD
That pilot built his stalker with a glaring weakness and he deserved to die. The solution is to not take away the disadvantage but for people to build their mechs better. 2PPC + 1 AC is still the dominant meta and this proposal makes it even better.

[SamsungNinja]

It really was more of a question/hypothetical. I can see the reasons for it to exist.

I've been playing about 6 months and fancy myself a competent pilot, but not the best by any means. I just like to try out lots of different builds, to see what each chassis is actually capable of.

This thread came about because I was seeing lots of builds that might be good, but the 90m dead zone, combined with the heat, just made for a resounding "no".

Thanks for your input guys. It's appreciated

As much as finding out your ideas aren't good does suck, it's nice to know why they suck.

Cheers and happy piloting!

[Bront]

PPCs are still powerful, but they have some downsides in heat. That said, the min-range dead zone is silly, and I much prefer the damage build up (Why should by PPC at 89m do 0 and at 90m do 10?)

[FupDup]

While I do think the deadzone is kind of weird feeling, the PPC is total beastmode right now. I can say with full confidence that it still remains among the top 3 best weapons of the game even after all of the nerfs applied to it. If we remove this downsize, we should probably replace it with some other kind of weakness.

[Varent]

SamsungNinja, on 12 January 2014 - 01:22 AM, said:

There was a day when PPCs were over-used. ERPPCs were even more over-used.

The heavy-handed heat nerf to the PPCs/ERPPCS have resulted in stagnation amongst viable energy weapon builds. As the most ubiquitous hardpoint, I feel like it comes up short against ballistics and missles.

One can do a myriad of LL/ML builds, but if one tries to branch out into PLs, PPCs, or (god forbid) Flamers, you start to run dry really quick. So the majority of energy builds become 1-3 LLs and 2-4 MLs, any combination of those.

Back to PPCs. Now that it's painful to equip 2 of this linked weapon type, and with a difference of 5 heat between the base and extended, it now forces you to choose between running cool enough to be viable, or closing the hole in your weapon range.

Now, I feel like heat on Ls and PLs is pretty balanced. You don't see 4 LPL builds running around like crazy, and I don't see PPC boats anymore. It's even pretty rare to see 2 PPC loadouts anymore.

With all that said, I feel like the heat nerfs to PPCs/ERPPCs got rid of the cheese builds, so maybe it's time to get rid of the dead zone in PPCs?

I understand if the deadzone is carry-over from the tabletop. I never played the TT. At any rate, I would still argue for the removal of the 90m dead zone, because energy builds could use a little more options in their loadouts. The heat of a single PPC makes it the most difficult weapon to build around, as it's the hottest weapon in the game.

Finally, I'd just like to close out that my only interest in posting this is to see more diverse energy builds, and while I like the screech of firing a PPC, it's not my favorite weapon. I'm not coming here because I want to see my favorite weapon zomg buffed.

If I'm guilting of seeking anything for personal interest, it's just that I have several of 'mechs with energy-heavy hardpoints and I feel like their builds all end up being rather samey. I feel like I can do a lot more and be more effective with missles and ballistics than I can with energy.

Energy just seems meh as a primary weapon type, compared to the other two.

The nerfs to them are needed to to the prevalent meta of jump sniping and therefore not opening it up even further to them or creating more jump snipe capable mechs. Until jump jets are changed in a way to make jump sniping have some negatives the changes need to be kept in place so that things don't get even more ridiculous.

[SamsungNinja]

Didn't they use to ramp up 1dmg every 10 meters until they hit full power?

That makes way more sense to me, and still makes face-hugging the preferred method of dealing with a PPC boat.

[Bront]

SamsungNinja, on 12 January 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

Didn't they use to ramp up 1dmg every 10 meters until they hit full power?

That makes way more sense to me, and still makes face-hugging the preferred method of dealing with a PPC boat.

They used to ramp up linearly from 0 to 90 meters in damage (0 at 0m, 10 at 90m, so 5 at 45m). I would have no problem if they did it even in some more complex format (say, 5 damage at 60m rather than 45) to keep it down, but it's silly that at 89m, the damage is 0.

[Deathlike]

Bront, on 12 January 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

They used to ramp up linearly from 0 to 90 meters in damage (0 at 0m, 10 at 90m, so 5 at 45m). I would have no problem if they did it even in some more complex format (say, 5 damage at 60m rather than 45) to keep it down, but it's silly that at 89m, the damage is 0.

Well technically, for the longest of time.. PGI claimed the damage was linear, when it was actually exponential. Then it was fixed... and then subsequently this is the current result.

Right now, it's fine, since PPCs were kinda used for brawling for a while (especially when it had the 3 sec cooldown at the height of the PPC meta).

[Sandpit]

min range in min range. That's the bonus to taking ER PPC instead

[Bront]

Sandpit, on 12 January 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:

min range in min range. That's the bonus to taking ER PPC instead

But not only is that not how MIN range works in TT, in this case (unlike missiles, where I can understand to a point), it makes little to no sense. It also still severely limits damage for mechs at extreme close range.

If PPCs still can disrupt ECM in min range, why can't they do damage?

[OneEyed Jack]

I didn't think it needed it in the first place. The increased heat limits effective rate of fire enough that the damage drop-off would likely have been plenty. But we never got the chance to test it, as PGI in their infinite wisdom decided to to leap before looking, rather than do something as silly as incremental changes.

On the other hand, at this point the weapons in the game have devolved to a state such that PPCs probably do need the deadzone to maintain something akin to PGIs version of "balance."

[Lukoi Banacek]

Bront, on 12 January 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

but it's silly that at 89m, the damage is 0.

Well...I'm not sure how serious it is supposed to be considering we are playing a robot-stompy game with magic for physics.

I'm not busting your chops here Bront, but at some point, suspension of disbelief and BALANCE have to be made to work and giving PPC's more help would hurt the latter imo. And I'm fairly certain I'm not the only one. Given the prevalence of PPC's, ESPECIALLY in 12-person competitive play, I think it is safe to say they are in a damned good spot right now.

More interesting, I am seeing an increase in people playing with mechs purposefully designed past the ghost-heat limit, which means people are becoming more and more comfortable with heat management and the 90m minimum, a trend that also argues against removing the 90m requirement.

I would rather see the Devs make LPL's more viable, or SRMs a smidge better or hell even flamers, before they do anything more positive for PPCs at this point.

[Bront]

Lukoi, on 12 January 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:

I would rather see the Devs make LPL's more viable, or SRMs a smidge better or hell even flamers, before they do anything more positive for PPCs at this point.

I don't disagree there, I just dislike the change to the PPC minimum range, as it's counter-intuitive (from both a gameplay, and a common sense standpoint) and poorly documented (then again, everything is).

I just don't like the 1 meter cliff. Heck, I'd be happy if the cliff was simply very steep (think 5 damage at 75 m, 2.5 at 50m, etc), meaning it did almost nothing, but absolute 0 just bugs me.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

No, the dead zone is not needed.

I'd rather have a canon system in place where the PPC safety inhibitor is disabled and...

@90m - 0 damage to weapon, 10 damage to opponent
@81m - 1 damage to weapon, 9 damage to opponent
...
@45m - 5 damage to weapon, 5 damage to opponent
...
@>8m - 0 damage to opponent - 10 damage to weapon -> ppc instantly destroyed.

[Deathlike]

mwhighlander, on 12 January 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

@>8m - 0 damage to opponent - 10 damage to weapon -> ppc instantly destroyed.

I'm sure that'll be great for the weapons tutorial that we have right now!

New Thread Title: Why do PPCs blow up instantly after I fire them?