68 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

no one, on 15 March 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

As far as PPC minimum range goes, I've always liked the idea of having a field inhibitor mechanic that could be toggled like missile doors.

Spoiler

"PPCs are equipped with a Field Inhibitor to prevent feedback which could damage the firing unit's electronic systems.^[6] This inhibitor degrades the performance of the weapon at close ranges of less than 90 meters. Particularly daring warriors have been known to disengage the inhibitor and risk damage to their own machine when a target is at close range."

Firing at point blank with the inhibitor off for full damage risks frying your PPC. Firing with the inhibitor on reduces your damage inside 90m either linearly, or not.

I think that is great for the minimum range as well as the max range, though I have to admit I don't exactly know how the damage dropoff is currently handled to compare them.

no one, on 15 March 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

Having a 'splash' damage that high is a bad idea. Depending on which location you hit, and what you count as an 'adjacent location' you would end up dealing ridiculous amounts of incidental damage.

The issue we had with LRM splash damage is the whole reason I avoided the "adjacent" setup. For instance, the head is technically adjacent to all three torso sections (six if you count the rear ones), meaning you have a very high likelihood of most splash damage hitting the head section, which is bad. If it is randomly applied, in addition to being "lightningy", it can have a percentage change of hitting each individual section, with the head percent extremely low. It doesn't have to determine adjacent based upon where it hit, since it can hit any section regardless of the impact spot, so that also makes less calculations on the server's part.

Edit: I can't count...

Edited by Cimarb, 15 March 2014 - 11:16 AM.

[no one]

Cimarb, on 15 March 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

. . . though I have to admit I don't exactly know how the damage dropoff is currently handled to compare them.

Presently, standard PPCs just stop doing any damage inside 90m, which most people agree is about as dumb as having medium lasers or AC/20 shells or SRMs hit an invisible wall at 270m.
. . . oh right, SRMs still do that.

Cimarb, on 15 March 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

The issue we had with LRM splash damage is the whole reason I avoided the "adjacent" setup.

Actually, the reason LRMs and SRMs had their splash damage removed was because PGI implemented it with an absolutely titanic area of effect. The explosive area of effect for a single SRM would encompass an entire commando and apply to every section in that area. So you'd hit a Jenner in the CT with a pair of SRM6s and it's arms and legs would fly off.

Cimarb, on 15 March 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

The head is technically adjacent to all three torso sections (six if you count the rear ones), meaning you have a very high likelihood of most splash damage hitting the head section, which is bad.

You could always exempt the head from taking damage or reduce the damage it takes. If you're only doing one damage to the head with each PPC shot to the center torso, you're going to run out of center torso before you run out of head.

Cimarb, on 15 March 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

(six if you count the rear ones)

The rear torso sections only count as being adjacent to each other, I think. Unless MWO's damage model is much more messed up than I'm aware.

Edited by no one, 15 March 2014 - 11:46 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

That makes sense, though I'd argue it's too little pinpoint damage for a PPC. Consider that the PPC has a travel time and you can't hold the damage on one point through careful aim, as with a laser.

Lasers dont hold damage on one point. If they did everybody would be using lasers instead of PPCs.

[no one]

Khobai, on 15 March 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

Lasers dont hold damage on one point. If they did everybody would be using lasers instead of PPCs.

A lot of people do use lasers. They're hot, but not PPC hot. They can spread damage, but they're also hit-scan. If you're hitting at mid to close range against a slow Medium, Heavy or Assault 'Mech it's not impossible to get most or all of your damage on one section. Compare that to a hit-or-miss 10-15 heat seven ton LB 10-X like system where you scatter nearly half of your damage uselessly, and I don't think we'd see be seeing many PPCs.

Edited by no one, 15 March 2014 - 12:37 PM.

[Coralld]

Nice to see the Lightning Arc idea is gaining some traction as it is in my honest opinion the best way to balance the PPC while still keeping its snap shot uniqueness.

However, I am not in favor of the random arcing as I believe hitting adjacent locations would be easier to put in and for the game to keep track of. Now some may have reservations about this because of possible damage arcing to the head and I understand the concerns about this, but that's easily solved by exempting the head from being hit by the PPC arcing.

So, if PGI were to put this in game for the PPCs as well as introduce a burst fire mechanic for ACs which can be seen being talked about in here http://mwomercs.com/...-to-burst-fire/ we would then be able to rain in the FLD Alpha meta which has been plaguing the game for the better part of 2 years.

Edited by Coralld, 15 March 2014 - 12:58 PM.

[Wolfways]

I would vote for the lightning option if the PPC hit caused the targets whole UI to flicker for 3 seconds and the PPC's heat was reduced.
Otherwise i vote no change needed.

[General Taskeen]

no one, on 15 March 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

As far as PPC minimum range goes, I've always liked the idea of having a field inhibitor mechanic that could be toggled like missile doors.

Spoiler

"PPCs are equipped with a Field Inhibitor to prevent feedback which could damage the firing unit's electronic systems.^[6] This inhibitor degrades the performance of the weapon at close ranges of less than 90 meters. Particularly daring warriors have been known to disengage the inhibitor and risk damage to their own machine when a target is at close range."

Firing at point blank with the inhibitor off for full damage risks frying your PPC. Firing with the inhibitor on reduces your damage inside 90m either linearly, or not.

While I had implored PGI to do exactly that countless times, it fell on their deaf ears. Instead they pick and choose want they want from TT, which is counter-intuitive to balancing a real-time MW game.

Kind of like this:
*Add Stock Awesome Mech
*Add PPC, but add a non-toggleable min-range in a real-time game
(Awesome regular PPC now totally defunct at min-range, while 90% of all other weapons get to do their damage)
Conclusion: Lack of foresight in core game design

[Cimarb]

Coralld, on 15 March 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

Nice to see the Lightning Arc idea is gaining some traction as it is in my honest opinion the best way to balance the PPC while still keeping its snap shot uniqueness.

However, I am not in favor of the random arcing as I believe hitting adjacent locations would be easier to put in and for the game to keep track of. Now some may have reservations about this because of possible damage arcing to the head and I understand the concerns about this, but that's easily solved by exempting the head from being hit by the PPC arcing.

So, if PGI were to put this in game for the PPCs as well as introduce a burst fire mechanic for ACs which can be seen being talked about in here http://mwomercs.com/...-to-burst-fire/ we would then be able to rain in the FLD Alpha meta which has been plaguing the game for the better part of 2 years.

Random or not can always be adjusted, but I would be happy with either version.

I am also pushing for those same burst-fire changes to ballistics. We have had long discussions about it in several other threads before the one you linked, such as the one in my signature, but I probably need to move my suggestion to your linked thread, since it is newer and currently active.

[trollocaustic]

Make the PPC shake it's target, remove the ridicoulous minimum range.

The PPC needs to be able to stand up to gauss-spewing idiots somehow.

[Coralld]

trollocaustic, on 17 March 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

Make the PPC shake it's target, remove the ridicoulous minimum range.

The PPC needs to be able to stand up to gauss-spewing idiots somehow.

Last time I checked PPCs do shake their target. Also, 90m minimum range is really not that big of a deal.

PPC: 7 tons, 3 crits, 10 damage, 10 heat, easy to put 2x PPC on most mechs with little problem VS. Gauss: 15 tons, 7 crits, 15 damage, 1 heat, with very few mechs that can carry 2x Gauss and even then these mechs have to run XL engines and have weak armor. PPCs are far more prevalent then Gauss.

[trollocaustic]

and in order to run dual PPC anywhere near effectively, you cover your entire mech in fifty tons of DHS while the gauss has no heat requirement whatsoever.

[FupDup]

trollocaustic, on 17 March 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

and in order to run dual PPC anywhere near effectively, you cover your entire mech in fifty tons of DHS while the gauss has no heat requirement whatsoever.

Most top-tier "meta" builds using dual PPCs need roughly 14 DHS -- 10 of which are already built in to the engine and thus not an issue.

[trollocaustic]

as a result, thats 2 DHS per ppc, which makes a ppc 9 crit each, and 9 tons, not to mention still has heating issues compared to the "KEEP SHOOTING" of the gauss

[FupDup]

trollocaustic, on 17 March 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

as a result, thats 2 DHS per ppc, which makes a ppc 9 crit each, and 9 tons, not to mention still has heating issues compared to the "KEEP SHOOTING" of the gauss

Using those numbers, that's 18 tons and 18 crits for 2 PPCs. The Gauss has a base tonnage of 15 and requires roughly 3 tons of ammo, making the final product weigh 18 tons and take up 10 slots. Besides these numbers, the PPCs have the disadvantage of heat and a min range of 90m. Gauss has the disadvantages of low health and 90% explosion chance, slower RoF (due to charge up), not being infinite ammo, and requiring a charge to fire (which makes it harder to snapshot with, and gives the target slightly more time to react).


Unless your engine is smaller than a 275, you can use engine slots to eat up the crit slot requirements of some DHS. In the case of a Highlander using a STD/XL 300, they can mount 2 of those dubs within the engine. For the Victor, which probably uses something around an XL340, it can mount 3 of those sinks in the engine.


The Gauss isn't much of a "keep shooting" weapon because of the charge-up mechanic. It's best for taking a shot and then hiding, just like other pinpoint weapons (PPCs and most ACs).

Edited by FupDup, 17 March 2014 - 04:24 PM.

[Coralld]

trollocaustic, on 17 March 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

and in order to run dual PPC anywhere near effectively, you cover your entire mech in fifty tons of DHS while the gauss has no heat requirement whatsoever.

FupDup, on 17 March 2014 - 03:06 PM, said:

Most top-tier "meta" builds using dual PPCs need roughly 14 DHS -- 10 of which are already built in to the engine and thus not an issue.

I found out you can actually get away with just 12 DHS. So that's 2 tons and 6 crits less required.

Edited by Coralld, 17 March 2014 - 05:37 PM.

[MrEdweird]

I think what you're describing as an LBX PPC already exists.

Namely, a Snub-Nose PPC as was in Kerensky's Orion.

http://www.sarna.net...i/Snub-Nose_PPC

[TehSBGX]

I'd like some kind of beam duration lightning. It would look amazing, and the beam duration would spread the damage.

[Cimarb]

TehSBGX, on 17 March 2014 - 05:53 PM, said:

I'd like some kind of beam duration lightning. It would look amazing, and the beam duration would spread the damage.

Well the actual graphic implementation would be up to PGI, and that is something I personally think they excel at. The lightning could be a bolt from the PPC that arcs during a short duration, or could shoot quick like the current version and then arc locally on the target.

[Kiiyor]

Once upon a time, some intrepid forumite devised something similar that I liked the sound of: An initial hitscan wallop of 5 damage, then a laser like DOT with the remaining 5 damage being applied over 1/2-3/4 of a second. That way, stationary targets would still be suitably punished, and fast movers like lights would be less prone to ZOMGWTH where-did-my-leg-go one shots.

In my head, the initial wallop has (visual only) arcs of lightning that flash out to nearby structures/mechs/the ground.

[Coralld]

The Lightning Arc mechanic could also be a good way to buff ER PPCs. If the standard PPCs are more like a 6, 2, 2, weapon with the 6 being the FLD with the two 2s being the arcing damage then we can make the ER PPCs a 8, 1, 1. This would make ER PPCs more desirable than their standard counter parts because of a more FLD while their naturally high heat keeps them from being abused.

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.

Edited by Coralld, 18 March 2014 - 08:15 AM.