106 replies to this topic

[Prezimonto]

The ballistic weapons that should have dead zones should instead get a failure to converge(if multiple) or even random spread in their short range area.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 13 January 2014 - 08:20 AM, said:

That's your best answer, Direct Fire support should be the biggest and the baddest, end of story, all other roles go home?

And I don't think small moves in the game to allow other roles to have opportunities will end up with direct fire support losing their impact or suppressive capabilities.

It has been said many times that in order to retain the elements of game play associated with fire support doesn't mean that by losing it's dominance and allowing others more opportunity and effectiveness means that they in turn lose their role in the process. In fact others have gone out of their way for the interests of gaming balance to say that is not an intentional outcome for balance changes. So defending that is just a position of fear imho.

The LPL on paper should out perform the PPC at the ranges it is intended for. But it doesn't due to FLD and beam mechanics. The PPC already out ranges it giving it much more suppression capabilities as a result. That is apparent due to this range disparity for similar damage output. Yet you seemingly continue to argue that if a Mech were able to close range then the PPC should still be the more dominant weapon, then why have the LPL in the arsenal at all then?

There is no game play balance in this kind of approach, especially if by design you eliminate tech choices altogether.

The LPL needs help. I think that much is clear to everyone. It gets little to no play at all at any elo. And yes it should perform better at shorter ranges then the ppc. This is very much a fact. The problems with this weapon right now are to many to go into fully but to just list a few. Ghost heat limits it to 2 (should at least be 3). Its heat is too high for what it does. And its 2 tons extra for not much extra damage and reduced range over the large.

How to fix it? I wont even try to say that. There are alot of good suggestions out there though. I think anyone can just look over the forums and pick out a few good ones.

[Xyroc]

Noesis, on 13 January 2014 - 08:20 AM, said:

That's your best answer, Direct Fire support should be the biggest and the baddest, end of story, all other roles go home?

And I don't think small moves in the game to allow other roles to have opportunities will end up with direct fire support losing their impact or suppressive capabilities.

It has been said many times that in order to retain the elements of game play associated with fire support doesn't mean that by losing it's dominance and allowing others more opportunity and effectiveness means that they in turn lose their role in the process. In fact others have gone out of their way for the interests of gaming balance to say that is not an intentional outcome for balance changes. So defending that is just a position of fear imho.

The LPL on paper should out perform the PPC at the ranges it is intended for. But it doesn't due to FLD and beam mechanics. The PPC already out ranges it giving it much more suppression capabilities as a result. That is apparent due to this range disparity for similar damage output. Yet you seemingly continue to argue that if a Mech were able to close range then the PPC should still be the more dominant weapon, then why have the LPL in the arsenal at all then?

There is no game play balance in this kind of approach, especially if by design you eliminate tech choices altogether.

Yes the PPC should be better than the LPL ... I never use PPCs period. I like brawl or scout more than anything else but I have no issues running up on a PPC mech and crippling it as I take my pot shots before I go in for the kill.

The thing is everyone wants to fight a PPC mech on its playing field long range hit n dodge ... YOU SHOULD LOSE that is what the PPC is designed to do and be the best at. Now if you take that fight in closers moving swiftly in and out of cover that PPC mech will lose UNLESS you leave yourself open for easy attacks.

So in the end its how you are fighting NOT the weapon.

[Xyroc]

Prezimonto, on 13 January 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

The ballistic weapons that should have dead zones should instead get a failure to converge(if multiple) or even random spread in their short range area.

This actually does happen ... I dont believe they designed it that way though lol.

[Noesis]

Beliall, on 13 January 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:

Yes the PPC should be better than the LPL ... I never use PPCs period. I like brawl or scout more than anything else but I have no issues running up on a PPC mech and crippling it as I take my pot shots before I go in for the kill.

The thing is everyone wants to fight a PPC mech on its playing field long range hit n dodge ... YOU SHOULD LOSE that is what the PPC is designed to do and be the best at. Now if you take that fight in closers moving swiftly in and out of cover that PPC mech will lose UNLESS you leave yourself open for easy attacks.

So in the end its how you are fighting NOT the weapon.

Anecdotal evidence as a counter point to the original claim, interesting.

The argument as proposed, if you read above however, is that the LPL should be less effective than the PPC at short range, thus making the PPC the go to weapon choice at all ranges. Even if by inspection it seems that others are similarly providing anecdotal evidence that the PPC is currently the more dominant weapon even at short range conrtary to your view.

My viewpoint being that the LPL should have a purpose for use. I'm not suggesting it is "useless" or if you can use it well, that isn't the claim being made by this discussion, just that by game design there is still a better option for more cases regardless, thus indicating the LPL as a redundant weapon choice or not really having a place in the game.

[Varent]

Beliall, on 13 January 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:

Yes the PPC should be better than the LPL ... I never use PPCs period. I like brawl or scout more than anything else but I have no issues running up on a PPC mech and crippling it as I take my pot shots before I go in for the kill.

The thing is everyone wants to fight a PPC mech on its playing field long range hit n dodge ... YOU SHOULD LOSE that is what the PPC is designed to do and be the best at. Now if you take that fight in closers moving swiftly in and out of cover that PPC mech will lose UNLESS you leave yourself open for easy attacks.

So in the end its how you are fighting NOT the weapon.

these weapons should be situational. LPL is a weapon designed for in close fighting. It in fact is very SPECIFICALLY designed for that. However when this weapon is not used for that at all and actually for the weight, slots and everything about it is inferior to just about every weapon out there. Thisis a major issue. This has nothing to do with the PPC. This has everything do do with the fact that the weapon currently has no use and in every situation other things are better. There is not even a versatility to it. Thats very bad.

[Prezimonto]

Beliall, on 13 January 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

This actually does happen ... I dont believe they designed it that way though lol.

not within the 180 or 90 meter or whatever they should be.. .it's more like 30 meters and under.

[General Taskeen]

The PeePeeCee's weakness is because the balancing of it is kind of cherry-picked. The PPC has a "min-range," but notice that it is cherry-picked, since no other weapon, besides LRMs, were given the "tt min range weakness." The last part of the cherry-picking TT nonsense is that even though it was added, its other ability with the "field inhibitor," to essentially apply a min-range modifier, is not present in-game.

"TT" to Real-Time Game Format Design Decision #432 Because Reasons

[Sandpit]

General Taskeen, on 13 January 2014 - 08:57 AM, said:

The PeePeeCee's weakness is because the balancing of it is kind of cherry-picked. The PPC has a "min-range," but notice that it is cherry-picked, since no other weapon, besides LRMs, were given the "tt min range weakness." The last part of the cherry-picking TT nonsense is that even though it was added, its other ability with the "field inhibitor," to essentially apply a min-range modifier, is not present in-game.

"TT" to Real-Time Game Format Design Decision #432 Because Reasons

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

[Red1769]

Quote

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

I think the lighter autocannons (2s and 5s of all kinds) did. Maybe even the light and heavy PPCs (not in game, I know). I'm sure Joseph Mallan knows for sure, I'd have to be at home to check to be sure myself. Oh, and the gauss and HAGs (not in game either) did. I think that's it. But with those ballistics, it really didn't make much sense to have min ranges in a real time game, where something might be explained a bit with the standard PPC, and those were to hit modifiers on the TT, which didn't matter much with elite pilots unless the weapons were missiles.

Edited by Red1769, 13 January 2014 - 09:44 AM.

[Varent]

Red1769, on 13 January 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

I think the lighter autocannons (2s and 5s of all kinds) did. Maybe even the light and heavy PPCs (not in game, I know). I'm sure Joseph Mallan knows for sure, I'd have to be at home to check to be sure myself. Oh, and the gauss and HAGs (not in game either) did. I think that's it. But with those ballistics, it really didn't make much sense to have min ranges in a real time game, where something might be explained a bit with the standard PPC, and those were to hit modifiers on the TT, which didn't matter much with elite pilots unless the weapons were missiles.

The PPC and LRM are currently the only weapons in game that should have an actual Minimum range if your going bt TT concepts. The other weapons did not. This says nothing for the weapons not implimented yet. That said TT probly should be thrown out at this point to focus on building a balanced gaming system.

[Almond Brown]

Bront, on 12 January 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

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?)

Oh I don't know. How about for the same reason when you roll a 5 in Monopoly but need a 6, you only advance 5 places and not 6.

They are called rules.

[Joseph Mallan]

Noesis, on 13 January 2014 - 08:20 AM, said:

That's your best answer, Direct Fire support should be the biggest and the baddest, end of story, all other roles go home?

And I don't think small moves in the game to allow other roles to have opportunities will end up with direct fire support losing their impact or suppressive capabilities.

It has been said many times that in order to retain the elements of game play associated with fire support doesn't mean that by losing it's dominance and allowing others more opportunity and effectiveness means that they in turn lose their role in the process. In fact others have gone out of their way for the interests of gaming balance to say that is not an intentional outcome for balance changes. So defending that is just a position of fear imho.

The LPL on paper should out perform the PPC at the ranges it is intended for. But it doesn't due to FLD and beam mechanics. The PPC already out ranges it giving it much more suppression capabilities as a result. That is apparent due to this range disparity for similar damage output. Yet you seemingly continue to argue that if a Mech were able to close range then the PPC should still be the more dominant weapon, then why have the LPL in the arsenal at all then?

There is no game play balance in this kind of approach, especially if by design you eliminate tech choices altogether.

First of all, PPCs are a main battle weapon as illustarted by Multiple Heavy Mechs, and PPCs are proven to NOT be sniping weapons cause of how they are used.

I am a heavy weapons fighter, Assault Mech Pilot, ShadowRun Troll Heavy Weapons Gunner, Super strength superhero... Yes, That is exactly my style of play! I am a BFG gamer. I wanted that front loaded damage since before I got to play with the M-203! My Fighters went great sword and no shield since the days it was called a Two Handed sword and D&D came in a Box! And I went that way so I could dish more damage faster.

The Large Pulse Laser was only more accurate than a PPC on TT. But that was mitigated by its lack of range. A Pulse laser should have a better DpS than a straight beam laser to simulate that +2 to hit bonus. I always took the PPC cause I could start shooting at you long before you got into the Pulse range and that has been my determining factor for ages. Hit you hard and long before you can bring weapons to bear on me.

[Trauglodyte]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 January 2014 - 06:19 AM, said:

I had to stop after reading this! There are way to many Mechs that have been designed around PPCs as a main weapon that are front line brawlers for this to be true.

Warhammer, Marauder, Awesome, just to name a few.

Technically, in all of those cases, the PPC was either the mainstay weapon on a mech designed as pure long range support (Awesome and the Marauder) or it was a heavy weapon meant to soften up targets at range to then be finished off by short ranged weapons more suited to the task (Warhammer). In the 3025 TRO, the only mechs whose primary variant carried PPCs were:

Panther
Vindicator
Griffin
Scorpion
Warhammer
Marauder
Awesome
Goliath
Battlemaster
Banshee

All of those mechs were either way in the back and supported by mechs with short range firepower or had short ranged backup weapons to finish the job when their target was in close range or someone else was. The PPC was used like an energy version of the LRM just like the Large Laser. In all cases, you switched weapons based on which one was best for the situation. In MW:O, we don't do that because we don't have to and that is kind of sad.

Back to the topic at hand, the minimum range is absolutely needed and shoudl stay. The only thing that I would say is that both need a splash mechanic put into place. You could argue, though, that one should have a tighter spread than the other but that is more of a semantics king of thing. Regardless, when you fire a plasma based weapon, it should splash because it isn't a solid projectile. ACs should be the lone area of point, click, damage one spot.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 13 January 2014 - 10:06 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 January 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

stuff

I always took the PPC cause I could start shooting at you long before you got into the Pulse range and that has been my determining factor for ages. Hit you hard and long before you can bring weapons to bear on me.

And the sole reason there is and will always be a Meta based on the larger and longer ranged weapons. While that is 100% acceptable, what is required is to have more of them have Short range weaknesses or similar drawbacks just like the PPC, the one class of weapons that does front loaded without ammo. (and heat is not an issue for the poptarts)

Word is ammo is not actually an issue in MWO. Why is that exactly. Would likely make the AC class a more balanced weapons set...

Edited by Almond Brown, 13 January 2014 - 10:16 AM.

[Noesis]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 January 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

[Preferences and personal interpretations]

The Large Pulse Laser was only more accurate than a PPC on TT. But that was mitigated by its lack of range. A Pulse laser should have a better DpS than a straight beam laser to simulate that +2 to hit bonus. I always took the PPC cause I could start shooting at you long before you got into the Pulse range and that has been my determining factor for ages. Hit you hard and long before you can bring weapons to bear on me.

So the PPC already has suppression then due to range. But seemingly the LPL under performs at shorter range even though it should be more accurate in theory?

And really the PPC is already proving very effective in the sniper role due to these range advantages you mention. My point being that I would not be happy with the idea of the PPC being dominant in all ranges as it usurps the idea of having an LPL at all.

Thus I believe the LPL needs some love by comparison and the PPC does not need to consider a stronger short range capability, hence I like the min range restrictions MWO and TT has as a result.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 13 January 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

So the PPC already has suppression then due to range. But seemingly the LPL under performs at shorter range even though it should be more accurate in theory?

And really the PPC is already proving very effective in the sniper role due to these range advantages you mention. My point being that I would not be happy with the idea of the PPC being dominant in all ranges as it usurps the idea of having an LPL at all.

Thus I believe the LPL needs some love by comparison and the PPC does not need to consider a stronger short range capability, hence I like the min range restrictions MWO and TT has as a result.

This.

Why are we even arguing this honestly... I mean... really I want to head desk right now.... the PPC is a very strong weapon with a very legitimate draw back. It should die to brawlers and the 90meter minimum range ensures that. It creates a nice balance in the game.

On the sidenote of LPL. Maybe I just am at an ELO where they arent played but I literally cant remember the last time I saw one on a mech.... ever....

Problem? Perhaps.......

Food for thought.

[Joseph Mallan]

Noesis, on 13 January 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

So the PPC already has suppression then due to range. But seemingly the LPL under performs at shorter range even though it should be more accurate in theory?

And really the PPC is already proving very effective in the sniper role due to these range advantages you mention. My point being that I would not be happy with the idea of the PPC being dominant in all ranges as it usurps the idea of having an LPL at all.

Thus I believe the LPL needs some love by comparison and the PPC does not need to consider a stronger short range capability, hence I like the min range restrictions MWO and TT has as a result.

That would be because of its stupid short range for the IS model. The Clan Large Pulse Laser is a very painful weapon. What MW:O does to a PPC at short range is not a accurate, a firing delay like on the Gauss is perfect. you may not every time but if you do you still do damage!

Trauglodyte, on 13 January 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

Technically, in all of those cases, the PPC was either the mainstay weapon on a mech designed as pure long range support (Awesome and the Marauder) or it was a heavy weapon meant to soften up targets at range to then be finished off by short ranged weapons more suited to the task (Warhammer). In the 3025 TRO, the only mechs whose primary variant carried PPCs were:

Panther
Vindicator
Griffin
Scorpion
Warhammer
Marauder
Awesome
Goliath
Battlemaster
Banshee

All of those mechs were either way in the back and supported by mechs with short range firepower or had short ranged backup weapons to finish the job when their target was in close range or someone else was. The PPC was used like an energy version of the LRM just like the Large Laser. In all cases, you switched weapons based on which one was best for the situation. In MW:O, we don't do that because we don't have to and that is kind of sad.

Very well said. But made a bit pointless after 3050. Many more mechs carried PPCs and i think the 30 67 TRO had very few mechs without a PPC of some kind

[Mister Blastman]

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

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?

No. Just no. No no no no no no no no no. No.

[Trauglodyte]

In the 3050, you could add in the:

Grand Dragon
Caesar
Hatamoto-Chi
Shogun
pIMP (added P for sexiness )
Marauder II

I imagine that you're right, though, that they add in more PPCs as time goes on. The PPC was a much better option for long range encounters than the Large Laser. With the proliferation of DHSs, why not take the PPC for 2 more tons to get more range, damage, and a negligable amount of heat? Anyway, as time goes on, you'd end up seeing much less use of the Lrg Laser and more use of its upgraded ER version. When you could afford the weight and space, the Large was replaced by the PPC. I'd say that we call that a straight upgrade in power.

Anyway, give PPCs a 5m splash radius and we're good to go. The current meta goes away and we worry about what happens after. I've been a PPC lover since I rolled out in my WHM-6D back in '91 and I won't mind splash one bit. Like I said, when you toss out a magnetic shell containing ionized gas, it isn't going to bore or burn through armor like a physical shell. Think about what happens with a raw egg or water balloons. That is what the PPC actually is in a much more contained fashion.