68 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

Coralld, on 18 March 2014 - 07:54 AM, said:

EDIT:
This is also a good way to balance CL ER PPCs as they hit for 15 damage, the same as a Gauss, but with the Lightning Arc mechanic we can make them a 11, 2, 2. This way they are still better then their IS ER counterpart but the disparity between the two are not laughably lopsided.

As PGI hasn't told us how Clan weapons will even work specifically, I don't even want to go down THAT road, lol. I think/hope they will be "different" enough already, but it's pure conjecture at this point.

[Coralld]

Cimarb, on 18 March 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

As PGI hasn't told us how Clan weapons will even work specifically, I don't even want to go down THAT road, lol. I think/hope they will be "different" enough already, but it's pure conjecture at this point.

I understand where you are coming from, and as you said, PGI is making Clan stuff different and all we can really do is speculate so I figured to throw in my own speculation if PGI decides to go the Lightning Arc rout for PPCs and how that could be applied.

[Cimarb]

"No changes needed" is running neck to neck with the #1 lightning arc, which is odd, since the huge majority of people complain that the PPC needs to be adjusted instead of (insert other weapon) every time a change is made.

For those of you saying the PPC is good where it is at, why do you think that? Did the higher heat balance it in your opinion, or do you just not like any of the other suggestions?

[Coralld]

Cimarb, on 18 March 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

"No changes needed" is running neck to neck with the #1 lightning arc, which is odd, since the huge majority of people complain that the PPC needs to be adjusted instead of (insert other weapon) every time a change is made.

For those of you saying the PPC is good where it is at, why do you think that? Did the higher heat balance it in your opinion, or do you just not like any of the other suggestions?

Agreed, I too wonder at their reasoning but after doing a quick read through the thread I see no one really giving a response as to why they want to keep PPCs as is.
If this continues to be the case with their lack of explanation then all we can do is speculate, which most would say is because they want to keep their FLD Alpha meta cheese, and I would agree that some voted for keeping PPCs the same for that very reason, to which I say they should grow a pair. While others think that the best way to fix everything is to deal with convergence, which PGI came out and stated that wasn't going to change, so those advocating for this are wasting their breath and are ultimately SOL.

Edited by Coralld, 18 March 2014 - 04:05 PM.

[trollocaustic]

Because PPCs aren't god enough to warrant nerfs, unlike gauss or AC/20, both of which need ammo/ton and recoil ramped up fast.

[Coralld]

trollocaustic, on 18 March 2014 - 05:15 PM, said:

Because PPCs aren't god enough to warrant nerfs, unlike gauss or AC/20, both of which need ammo/ton and recoil ramped up fast.

I already addressed the PPC vs Gauss thing so I am not going to go into that for now.

Increase ammo weight is a horrible idea and breaks stock builds. Increasing ammo to compensate for the increase in weight is just bad.
Also, you must not be familiar with fire arms, because if you were you would know recoil really only effects shots after the first so people are still being hammered by the 30 to 40 FLD Alpha cheese nonsense to a single location. Nothing would really change. The best way to deal with ACs is to make them burst fire, for example my idea, which is to make all AC weapons fire a 2 shell burst per cassetted (I have no idea if I spelled that correctly) round as was described in lore, but if you are interested in other burst fire ideas there are a number of threads on the forums that talk about that.
As for PPCs, well, every mech in the game can mount them easily with little problem which is the reason why they are the de facto weapon people gravitate to.

I will give you credit for you explaining your reasoning as to why you want to keep PPCs the same, even if it is a bit flawed and your solution is horrible.
Sorry for the backhanded compliment.

Edited by Coralld, 18 March 2014 - 06:21 PM.

[Cimarb]

trollocaustic, on 18 March 2014 - 05:15 PM, said:

Because PPCs aren't god enough to warrant nerfs, unlike gauss or AC/20, both of which need ammo/ton and recoil ramped up fast.

I was completely against the Gauss charge at first, because it wrecked my favorite Heavy META build, but it was needed because 2PPC+Gauss was just too effective at too many ranges. If you got good enough with the delay, you could still pull it off, though, which is why they also increased the PPCs heat. Gauss by itself is good, but nothing spectacular. It has good range and good damage, but is the heaviest weapon available and is the second largest weapon. The range is offset by the charge mechanic, which adds a large amount of skill to using it. If you really think it needs a nerf, you should try to use it for awhile - it rewards skill, but is by no means overpowered by itself now.

For the AC20, I agree that it needs some nerfs. ALL ACs do, actually. They need to be normalized to each other (instead of all doing roughly the same DPS as they are now). They also need to be changed back to a x2 range modifier, as the current x3 range is much too far compared to the other weapon systems. Lastly, while the front-loaded damage doesn't necessarily have to completely go away, they need to figure out a way to balance it against some burst-fire versions, where the burst-fire versions do more DPS, but deliver it over a duration, and the FLD versions have higher cool downs to slow down their DPS to compensate for the front-loaded delivery.

As Coralld mentioned, though, the PPC needs adjusted because it is currently the defects ruler of energy weapons. If you can equip one, you are hurting yourself if you don't. It delivers all of its damage immediately upon impact to one section, has a very fast projectile speed, has a greater range than any other energy weapon, AND disrupts ECM. We need the ECM removal until ECM is fixed, slowing the projectile down is just going to sync it up better with ballistics (which is bad), and we need an energy weapon that can compete with ballistics until the range on them is fixed. That leaves damage delivery, which brings us back on topic

[trollocaustic]

The charge exists yes, but overall, and especially in the tactical sense, a gauss doesn't generate heat, which is why I want it nerfed as much as I do, attaching a PPC is simple, being able to use it properly is the opposite.

A single ERPPC generates 15 to the Gauss's 1, and thus requires a careful ammount of restraint, compared to the "Shoot a bullet whenever you want" style of the gauss.

I've already said ACs should be burst fire, which means recoil will put each sucessive round further and further away from the target.

Gauss charge is a half-baked solution to the fact that Gauss is always the best weapon in Battletech, being a headchopper with long range and no heat. Even the Clan ERPPC has a heat rating.

The current "Rule" of energy weapons is that they get screwed over while ballistics are better, the PPC rewards skill, the gauss doesn't, it rewards being willing to cheat.

Compare the PPC requiring a constant eye at your heat gauge, even with a packed-to-the gills with heat sinks mech will take a serious hit on their heat meter once they fire one, whereas using even a quarter of that much on a gauss's ammo is excessive.

[Cimarb]

trollocaustic, on 19 March 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

The charge exists yes, but overall, and especially in the tactical sense, a gauss doesn't generate heat, which is why I want it nerfed as much as I do, attaching a PPC is simple, being able to use it properly is the opposite.

A single ERPPC generates 15 to the Gauss's 1, and thus requires a careful ammount of restraint, compared to the "Shoot a bullet whenever you want" style of the gauss.

I've already said ACs should be burst fire, which means recoil will put each sucessive round further and further away from the target.

Gauss charge is a half-baked solution to the fact that Gauss is always the best weapon in Battletech, being a headchopper with long range and no heat. Even the Clan ERPPC has a heat rating.

The current "Rule" of energy weapons is that they get screwed over while ballistics are better, the PPC rewards skill, the gauss doesn't, it rewards being willing to cheat.

Compare the PPC requiring a constant eye at your heat gauge, even with a packed-to-the gills with heat sinks mech will take a serious hit on their heat meter once they fire one, whereas using even a quarter of that much on a gauss's ammo is excessive.

I'm not arguing that the heat system in general needs fixed. I think there is a vast majority of the populace that feels the same way, including me. The reason (that I have been given, at least) for the screwed up heat system and addition of ghost heat was because PGI was trying to limit the damage being thrown around. Unfortunately, like many of the adhoc rules that PGI has came up with, it is a bandaid over a gushing wound, and doesn't solve the issue.

If we can remove, or at least lessen, the front-loaded damage of ballistics and PPCs, then we can lessen and eventually remove ghost heat, and possibly even get the whole heat management system reverted to a more logical version, such as what was used in the TT game. This system would have a 30 heat maximum, with anything above that quickly adding penalties to movement and firing, possible ammo explosions and internal damage, and eventually shutdown and even reactor explosion. This would be an immensely better system, as it would penalize you for pushing your heat without immediately shutting you down once you hit a certain threshold.

It all revolves around getting PGI to start acting upon things, though, and a PPC change to bring them in line with other energy weapons would be a very easy place to start, hence this thread.

[Xenok]

no one, on 13 March 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

Man-made Lightning (arc spread): The PPC shoots a lightning bolt that hits the target point for {8} damage, then arcs to between one and four adjacent sections of the 'Mech for an additional {1} point each. For example, if the PPC hits the front RT, it does {8} points of damage, then arcs to the RA for {1} point of damage and the CT for another {1} point of damage, for a total of {10} points of damage. (OPTIONAL: the lightning can hit internal structure even if their is armor remaining on that section)

Clan Variant: The CerPPC shoots a lightning bolt that hits the target point for {9} damage, then arcs to between one and four adjacent sections of the 'Mech for an additional {2} points each. For example, if the PPC hits the front RT, it does {9} points of damage, then arcs to the RA for {2} points of damage and the CT for another {2} point of damage, for a total of {13} points of damage.

I eliminated the other options in the quote becuase well I do not like them. This is the only vaible change, however in both case I would have the hit area be 6 damage only. Have the splash damage be 4 rather than 2 on the clan version. Still an advanatage but far less advanatage than 9 focused damage.

[Coralld]

trollocaustic, on 19 March 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

The charge exists yes, but overall, and especially in the tactical sense, a gauss doesn't generate heat, which is why I want it nerfed as much as I do, attaching a PPC is simple, being able to use it properly is the opposite.

PPCs are only hard to manage if you spam the crap out of them and have little to no idea how to manage your heat. However, my self and other included don't mind the idea of giving ghost heat to Gauss when fired in an Alpha like the AC20. Which still boggles my mind as to why PGI didn't do that in the first place when they were putting in ghost heat.

trollocaustic, on 19 March 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

A single ERPPC generates 15 to the Gauss's 1, and thus requires a careful ammount of restraint, compared to the "Shoot a bullet whenever you want" style of the gauss.

Yes a single ER PPC produces 15 heat and is the number one reason why people don't use 2x of them on their builds because they are so hot. However, a single ER PPC is still easy to manage heat wise over 2x standards.
As Cimarb pointed out, a lot of people would like the heat system to be set to something close to TT levels and heat dissipation with DHS actually being 2.0, however, even then you wouldn't be able to fire 2x ER PPCs as you would shut down every time you fired which would still lead to 2x standard PPCs being better.
And no, Gauss is hardly a "Shoot when ever you want" weapons because of the charge up as its not a simple snap shot like the PPCs are. So I guess one could say that neither weapon is a shoot when ever weapon as both have systems in place that prevents that.

trollocaustic, on 19 March 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

I've already said ACs should be burst fire, which means recoil will put each sucessive round further and further away from the target.

Glad you and I are on the same page when it comes to ACs. However, you don't need recoil when you can space the shells apart so as they don't hit the same location as long as the target is moving laterally from the shooters position. In fact, any movement at all would cause the rounds to spread unless your target is an idiot and running straight at you.

trollocaustic, on 19 March 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

Gauss charge is a half-baked solution to the fact that Gauss is always the best weapon in Battletech, being a headchopper with long range and no heat. Even the Clan ERPPC has a heat rating.

I agree with you to some degree on the part that Gauss was always considered the better weapon over ACs in BT but it was stupidly hard to take a mech and replace an AC and swap it for a Gauss, you would have to completely take a mech apart and rebuild it from scratch which was VERY expensive and VERY time consuming. Problem is we can't properly replicate this in a shooter sim as for a number of reason. First off, doing so would make Omni mechs pointless because in BT, given enough time and money, you could out fit a mech any way you wont. That's a problem. Or, we make it so all Battlemechs are stuck in their stock build. Which is also a problem. So what we are left with is to try and balance Gauss with ACs and not simply make Gauss de-facto better simply because its suppose to be in BT lore and TT, just like how ACs should not be better then Gauss in MWO. But the same can be said for PPCs as they are better with only heat being a balancing factor currently which is not that big of a deal when one knows how to handle it, not to mention PPC are more versatile compared to Gauss because ANY mech can mount 1 or 2 with ease.

trollocaustic, on 19 March 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

The current "Rule" of energy weapons is that they get screwed over while ballistics are better, the PPC rewards skill, the gauss doesn't, it rewards being willing to cheat.

Lasers are screwed over by ballistics because ACs are currently FLD weapons, and the "rule" is FLD Alpha wins most of the time. Which PPCs are a part of. PPCs don't really reward skill, Gauss does, but to what extent we can argue about till we are blue in the face. And you are really grasping at straws by saying Gauss rewards cheating.

trollocaustic, on 19 March 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

Compare the PPC requiring a constant eye at your heat gauge, even with a packed-to-the gills with heat sinks mech will take a serious hit on their heat meter once they fire one, whereas using even a quarter of that much on a gauss's ammo is excessive.

This is the give and take with energy vs ballistics. Energy are light weight compared to ballistics, the PPC is 7 tons and does 10 FLD to one location. The only weapon that comes close weight wise is the AC2, which is ammo dependent, and only does 2 damage. Damage wise, the AC10 does the same damage as a PPC but weighs 5 tons more than the PPC and that's not counting ammo. In short, ballistics are suppose to be big, heavy, and ammo dependent, but what they get in return is low heat. Energy weapons are suppose to be small, light, no ammo, but pay out the A-hole in heat.

Edited by Coralld, 19 March 2014 - 02:02 PM.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

Cimarb, on 13 March 2014 - 05:30 PM, said:

What is the best way to handle PPC damage? We all have opinions, but which one would the most people be happy with?

Here are the extended descriptions of proposed ways to alter the damage delivery of PPCs. I have made some up myself, and some taken from what other's have described. All damage and associated numbers are open to adjustment, of course, and this is solely about the actual DELIVERY of that damage. Heat and all other metrics would remain the same unless otherwise noted or balance required.

• Man-made Lightning (random arc spread): The PPC shoots a lightning bolt that hits the target point for {6} damage, then arcs to two random spots anywhere on the mech for an additional {2} points each. For example, if the PPC hits the front RT, it does {6} points of damage, then arcs to the rear LT for {2} points of damage and the RL for another {2} points of damage, for a total of {10} points of damage. (OPTIONAL: the lightning can hit internal structure even if their is armor remaining on that section)
  
• Plasma Blob (energy LBX): The PPC functions like a small-radius LBX, with 10 plasma blobs that fire in a cone from the barrel, spreading to a {20m} cone at max range and dealing {1} point of damage per blob that hits.
  
• Ion Cannon (charge): The PPC charges up for {0.5} seconds. During this time, a tag-like laser shows where the beam will shoot. After {0.5} seconds, the PPC discharges, shooting a beam of ionized particles along the laser to instantly do {10} points of damage. (NOTE: This may function like the Gauss charge, or possibly fire automatically after the charge up)
  
• Ion Beam (duration): This functions like the Ion Cannon, charging for {0.5} seconds, but then delivers {3} points of damage every {0.5} seconds after that for as long as the trigger is held. (Optional: Heat grows exponentially as the beam is held (so {1} heat the first tick, {2} the second, {4} the third, etc.))
  
• No change needed: The current method of damage delivery is fine the way it is.

If you have any other methods that you think would be interesting, feel free to share as well.


Edit 3-14: added optional heat increment to Ion Beam per FupDup's suggestion

the problem with PPC's is simply pinpoint i say simply make them do splash damage so they aren't like an insta-hit-laser-beam-of-death.

simple and effective and it completely destroys pop-sniping and hill humping with PPC's which is the problem.

[Cimarb]

Mellifluer, on 19 March 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

the problem with PPC's is simply pinpoint i say simply make them do splash damage so they aren't like an insta-hit-laser-beam-of-death.

simple and effective and it completely destroys pop-sniping and hill humping with PPC's which is the problem.

That is what I am trying to do, actually.

[Coralld]

Mellifluer, on 19 March 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

the problem with PPC's is simply pinpoint i say simply make them do splash damage so they aren't like an insta-hit-laser-beam-of-death.

simple and effective and it completely destroys pop-sniping and hill humping with PPC's which is the problem.

Cimarb, on 19 March 2014 - 01:47 PM, said:

That is what I am trying to do, actually.

Pretty much. The reason why so many like the Lightning Arc mechanic is because it allows the weapon to do its 10 damage but with a way to make it balanced because of the FLD being the most powerful setups. The reason for the Lightning Arc is because splash is borked in the game that has a nasty habit of breaking things. Hence the two arc locations.

Edited by Coralld, 19 March 2014 - 02:15 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Has any thought been given to the actual feasibility of these ideas? First thing PGI is going to do is vet these suggestions by seeing if the cumulative gain to balance is worth the total artistic revamp and programming time. If it doesn't pass that cost-benefit test, it's not happening. And my wild guess is that the first three would not pass that test, while the fourth basically makes the PPC a laser.

Just leave the appearance and give it splash damage (a mechanic already in the game).

[Cimarb]

Rebas Kradd, on 19 March 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

Has any thought been given to the actual feasibility of these ideas? First thing PGI is going to do is vet these suggestions by seeing if the cumulative gain to balance is worth the total artistic revamp and programming time. If it doesn't pass that cost-benefit test, it's not happening. And my wild guess is that the first three would not pass that test, while the fourth basically makes the PPC a laser.

Just leave the appearance and give it splash damage (a mechanic already in the game).

Well, the lightning arc could technically be done with the current graphic, but maybe add a little more "splash" when it hits. The plasma blob could seriously be the same as an LBX, but change the skin of the bullets to instead be energy-looking skins.

[Osric Lancaster]

Rebas Kradd, on 19 March 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

Just leave the appearance and give it splash damage (a mechanic already in the game).

PGI's current version of splash damage? The one that got SRMs nerfed into oblivion, n'er to return because it was based on a splash radius scaled to an Atlas's hitboxes? That's the splash damage you want them to apply to PPCs? Hokay.

But seriously, there's limits to how much you should rely on canned code. All you're talking about is a little " If (PPC hits atlas crotch){+1damage.atlasrightleg; +1damage.atlasrighttorso; +1damage.atlaslefttorso; +1damage.atlaspride; +1damage.atlasrightleg};" statement.

[Strum Wealh]

Rebas Kradd, on 19 March 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

Has any thought been given to the actual feasibility of these ideas? First thing PGI is going to do is vet these suggestions by seeing if the cumulative gain to balance is worth the total artistic revamp and programming time. If it doesn't pass that cost-benefit test, it's not happening. And my wild guess is that the first three would not pass that test, while the fourth basically makes the PPC a laser.

Just leave the appearance and give it splash damage (a mechanic already in the game).

The third option ("Ion Cannon") would, for the most part, be mechanically identical to the charge-up mechanic of the Gauss Rifle (and would likely reuse the same code), with the visual effect for TAG (reused graphic effect) active during the charge-up stage.
As the elements that form the basis of the change already exist within the game's resources, much of the underlying work is effectively already-done.

Also, the third option should, IMO, have its name changed from "Ion Cannon" to "Electrolaser", as the latter (which is arguably a subset of the former, anyway) actually functions specifically on the behavior being described ("...uses lasers to form an electrically conductive laser-induced plasma channel (LIPC). A fraction of a second later, a powerful electric current is sent down this plasma channel and delivered to the target..."; the electric current could easily be interpreted as (or substituted for) a charged particle beam).

[Cimarb]

Strum Wealh, on 19 March 2014 - 08:46 PM, said:

The third option ("Ion Cannon") would, for the most part, be mechanically identical to the charge-up mechanic of the Gauss Rifle (and would likely reuse the same code), with the visual effect for TAG (reused graphic effect) active during the charge-up stage.
As the elements that form the basis of the change already exist within the game's resources, much of the underlying work is effectively already-done.

Also, the third option should, IMO, have its name changed from "Ion Cannon" to "Electrolaser", as the latter (which is arguably a subset of the former, anyway) actually functions specifically on the behavior being described ("...uses lasers to form an electrically conductive laser-induced plasma channel (LIPC). A fraction of a second later, a powerful electric current is sent down this plasma channel and delivered to the target..."; the electric current could easily be interpreted as (or substituted for) a charged particle beam).

Wow, very interesting that we already have a base for that technology - I had no idea. I'll change the name. Very cool.

[Gas Guzzler]

Strum Wealh, on 19 March 2014 - 08:46 PM, said:

The third option ("Ion Cannon") would, for the most part, be mechanically identical to the charge-up mechanic of the Gauss Rifle (and would likely reuse the same code), with the visual effect for TAG (reused graphic effect) active during the charge-up stage.
As the elements that form the basis of the change already exist within the game's resources, much of the underlying work is effectively already-done.

Also, the third option should, IMO, have its name changed from "Ion Cannon" to "Electrolaser", as the latter (which is arguably a subset of the former, anyway) actually functions specifically on the behavior being described ("...uses lasers to form an electrically conductive laser-induced plasma channel (LIPC). A fraction of a second later, a powerful electric current is sent down this plasma channel and delivered to the target..."; the electric current could easily be interpreted as (or substituted for) a charged particle beam).