245 replies to this topic

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Varent, on 20 March 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

pretty much ya. Seems all the major posters are getting along and agreeing.

Wich is.... wierd....

It just means that it's fine. And the only people complaining are people who don't really invest much effort into being good.

If you look at the players who post a lot, regardless of whether we agree, a lot of us are pretty decent at the game.

FupDup, on 20 March 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

Hmm, I only read that previous quoted post of yours. I didn't see the part about boating being the specific issue. I'm too lazy to page through the whole thread.

That's because he picks and chooses what he says when it fits his argument.

[DivineEvil]

Appogee, on 20 March 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

Hang on.  

I've been arguing all along that LRMs are fine, it's the boating of them that's the problem.

So when you say I ignored weapon tonnage and state that a more balanced loadout will be better'' .. then you are actually agreeing with what I have been saying all along!


PIlot C had a pair of AC40s.   I got bored doing the maths halfway through adding him, so he never made it to the field of battle.   But he would still have been outpointed by the LRM boat by a long way, because his effective range was limited, and he hit his heat threshold sooner.

Pilot D on the other hand had three AC5s.   He was doing ok until I lost interest

Boating is not a problem. Boating is a choice to excel at somthing for the price of being vulnerable to a certain counterplay. Finally Mediums has something to do in this game aside from finishing beaten-up Heavies.

Edited by DivineEvil, 20 March 2014 - 10:19 AM.

[Varent]

Appogee, on 20 March 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

I agree it's a factor.

But look at the 800m scenario. Can a PPC user reliably land his 80% of shots on one component of a jinking target at that range, while he is taking incoming fire? I doubt it. Even if he can, he is still doing one sixth the damage of the LRM boat. The LRM boat is still way ahead.

Now look at the 500M scenario. The target is moving about, as targets do. Can a PPC user reliably land his 80% of shots on one component of a jinking target at that range? Sure, he will land some of them. But then, most targets are smart enough to cover their damaged components, too. Regardless, the PPC user still has to land heaps more shots - and before he hits his heat threshold - to compensate for the fact that he's only doing half the DPS of the LRM Boat.

So I don't think factoring in ''aimed shots'' actually negates my examples.

You are assuming he will be constantly rocked. You are assuming cover wont come into play. That said, 800 meters is actually not very hard to hit a center torso or side torso at with a ppc. At all. Especially with advanced zoom module if you like.

[AlmightyAeng]

Appogee, on 20 March 2014 - 09:49 AM, said:

But why would we assume PPCs 100% hit? They don't, any more than 100% of LRMs hit. Perhaps some maths will illustrate my point:

Pilot A is using LRM60,
Pilot B is using a pair of PPCs.
Pilot C is using a trio of AC5s.

Rather than use hypothetical % for hits, I'll give you mine.

Instead of separating Pilot B and Pilot C, let's combine then by giving the pilot 2 PPC and 2 AC5.

PPC's have a DPS of 2.5. AC5's have a DPS of 3.33. Two of each and you have 11.66 Max DPS.

3 LRM20's have a combined potential DPS of 13.89.

So far since the stat reset, my PPC's have hit 72.00% of the time. My AC5's have hit 61.01% of the time. This is factoring in that I'm taking return fire. It's the overall average from my combined games.

(.72)(5) + (.6101)(6.66)=7.66 DPS.

My LRM20's have a 36.71% hit percentage. The highest percentage in my LRM's, actually.

(.3671)(13.89) = 5.099019

5.1 < 7.66. How are LRM's vastly overpowered again? To be fair, if you take my archived hit% stats, then those numbers for AC5 and PPC change, and the combined DPS is 6.53. Still higher than current LRM's.

As far as damage goes, my highest LRM average match damage is sitting at 351.83.

PPC's are sitting at 390 average damage per match. AC5's are sitting at 342.66 damage per match. I'm using them together. So...an average match damage of 732.66 for the Meta.

Again, I would submit that LRM's aren't overpowered, or out of line when compared with other weapons systems.

-------------------------
Edit: Granted...these are all averages...and every game is situational. But still...it doesn't seem wildly out of line.

Edited by Ghost Badger, 20 March 2014 - 10:28 AM.

[Appogee]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 20 March 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

That's because he picks and chooses what he says when it fits his argument.

Nicholas, on the other hand, doesn't bother to make any arguments. He just tries to bully and demean the people that don't agree with him, without addressing the facts patiently put before him.

And then, once he gets a few likes in the thread, he tries to claim that ''all the good players agree with me'' and "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a bad player".

LOL, what a transparent and convenient reality distortion field.

Edited by Appogee, 20 March 2014 - 10:23 AM.

[DivineEvil]

Appogee, on 20 March 2014 - 10:19 AM, said:

Nicholas, on the other hand, doesn't bother with arguments, he just tries to demean the people that don't agree with him, without addressing the facts patiently put before him.

And then tries to claim that ''all the good players agree with me'' and "anyone who doesn't is a bad player".

LOL, what a convenient reality distortion field.

Pretty much the same as generalizing everything to the comforting point. Game isn't as general as you chosen to believe.

Edited by DivineEvil, 20 March 2014 - 10:22 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

DivineEvil, on 20 March 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:

Pretty much the same as generalizing everything to the comforting point. Game isn't as general as you chosen to believe.

I'm just over him. I'll reply to real arguments from good players. Haven't seen too many.

[Appogee]

Ghost Badger, on 20 March 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

Rather than use hypothetical % for hits, I'll give you mine.

Fair example. But you haven't factored in that the PPC and AC5 combination is hitting its heat limit much faster than the LRM20s (and much faster than my example above).

I don't know enough about heat dissipation rates to work out the effect of that over time. But I suspect (?) even your example may end up with the LRM20s still having a slightly higher DPS overall once you factor in the need for the PPC/AC5 to cool down.

But I can't be sure of that.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 20 March 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

I'm just over him. I'll reply to real arguments from good players. Haven't seen too many.

Given you have defined ''good players'' as "people who agree with me" then it's no wonder you're not seeing any "real arguments" from them, is it.

It's starting to become obvious that you actually lack the intellectual capacity to argue factually. Others have demonstrated they are thinking about the issues raised, and have been making good thoughtful counterpoints. And I am taking their points of view onboard, like rationale adults do. You on the other hand have a repertoire of comebacks which spans the "gamut" of "I know better" and "people who agree with me are right" and "people who don't agree with me are idiots".

Personally, I think you need to get over yourself before you start trying to get over other people.

Edited by Appogee, 20 March 2014 - 10:39 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Appogee, on 20 March 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

Fair example. But you haven't factored in that the PPC and AC5 combination is hitting its heat limit much faster than the LRM20s (and much faster than my example above).

I don't know enough about heat dissipation rates to work out the effect of that over time. But I suspect (?) even your example may end up with the LRM20s still having a slightly higher DPS overall once you factor in the need for the PPC/AC5 to cool down.

But I can't be sure of that.

Given you have defined ''good players'' as "people who agree with me" then it's no wonder you're not seeing any of what you consider to be "real arguments", is it.

Personally, I think you need to get over yourself before you start trying to get over other people.

You keep making that definition. I point you to Rolands post. We fundamentally disagree with the concept of "chain fire is all LRM boats use" being accurate.

I replied to him.

Roland is a smart good player.

Done.

[DivineEvil]

Appogee, on 20 March 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

Fair example.   But you haven't factored in that the PPC and AC5 combination is hitting its heat limit much faster than the LRM20s (and much faster than my example above).

I don't know enough about heat dissipation rates to work out the effect of that over time.   But I suspect (?) even your example may end up with the LRM20s still having a slightly higher DPS overall once you factor in the need for the PPC/AC5 to cool down.

But I can't be sure of that.

Appogee, on 20 March 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

Fair example.   But you haven't factored in that the PPC and AC5 combination is hitting its heat limit much faster than the LRM20s (and much faster than my example above).

I don't know enough about heat dissipation rates to work out the effect of that over time.   But I suspect (?) even your example may end up with the LRM20s still having a slightly higher DPS overall once you factor in the need for the PPC/AC5 to cool down.

But I can't be sure of that.

Who cares about DPS? Damage is inferior to an ability to kill your opponent. PPCs and Ballistics are those, which excels at that. To kill someone with LRMs, you'd probably going to break the whole thing away, never having a chance to head-shot or focus any target at all. DPS is good on a support point-of view, that's what LRM's are for.

Take a ballistic boat, or energy boat against LRM boat 1v1. There's where you're going to see the difference.

Edited by DivineEvil, 20 March 2014 - 10:38 AM.

[AlmightyAeng]

Appogee, on 20 March 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

Fair example. But you haven't factored in that the PPC and AC5 combination is hitting its heat limit much faster than the LRM20s (and much faster than my example above).

I don't know enough about heat dissipation rates to work out the effect of that over time. But I suspect (?) even your example may end up with the LRM20s still having a slightly higher DPS overall once you factor in the need for the PPC/AC5 to cool down.

But I can't be sure of that.

Given you have defined ''good players'' as "people who agree with me" then it's no wonder you're not seeing any of what you consider to be "real arguments", is it.

Personally, I think you need to get over yourself before you start trying to get over other people.

Perhaps. The full math is more than I currently have brainspace for here at work...just pointing out that the disparity, if there is one, isn't nearly as big as you think...(and I'd argue still leans in favor of the pinpoint).

The 'average damage done per game' might help with that argument, since those numbers include using those builds with their heat.

Now, granted, I never take JUST LRM's...I'll take ML too. I'm guessing that those ML's in combo with LRM's just about even those numbers out.

DivineEvil, on 20 March 2014 - 10:35 AM, said:

Who cares about DPS? Damage is inferior to an ability to kill your opponent. PPCs and Ballistics are those, which excels at that. To kill someone with LRMs, you'd probably going to break the whole thing away, never having a chance to head-shot or focus any target at all. DPS is good on a support point-of view, that's what LRM's are for.

Take a ballistic boat, or energy boat against LRM boat 1v1. There's where you're going to see the difference.

It's true, but he was making a numbers only argument, so I responded in kind. The ability to place that pinpoint in the most damaging area is another one of the huge advantages it gets...but how do you quantify that? Kills per game? I support "the brawl" in my missile mechs and sometimes gets that lucky shot into a damaged side torso or CT.

If PGI tracked the accuracy by COMPONENT....well...then we coudl talk

Edited by Ghost Badger, 20 March 2014 - 10:38 AM.

[Abivard]

Appogee, on 20 March 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

Fair example. But you haven't factored in that the PPC and AC5 combination is hitting its heat limit much faster than the LRM20s (and much faster than my example above).

I don't know enough about heat dissipation rates to work out the effect of that over time. But I suspect (?) even your example may end up with the LRM20s still having a slightly higher DPS overall once you factor in the need for the PPC/AC5 to cool down.

But I can't be sure of that.

Given you have defined ''good players'' as "people who agree with me" then it's no wonder you're not seeing any of what you consider to be "real arguments", is it.

Personally, I think you need to get over yourself before you start trying to get over other people.

I can give you a hint, 3 LRM20's are more heat than the 2 ppc,2 ac5 combo. due to ghost heat.

I am sure you knew that already, and that you just did not want to say it as it hurts your case even more.
I mean, how could you not know it? You said you knew all about this kind of stuff when you started making your claims.

[Appogee]

Abivard, on 20 March 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

I can give you a hint, 3 LRM20's are more heat than the 2 ppc,2 ac5 combo. due to ghost heat.

I'm not group firing the LRM20s. Or the PPCs, as I said in the scenario. Therefore, ghost heat won't be a factor for either, right?

Abivard, on 20 March 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

I am sure you knew that already, and that you just did not want to say it as it hurts your case even more. I mean, how could you not know it? You said you knew all about this kind of stuff when you started making your claims.

Well, it seems I knew more about it than you did. But setting aside your faux pas, why on earth would I try to deliberately misrepresent the scenario?!

This isn't an episode of Mechwarrior Judge Judy. I'm interested in exploring the truth of the game balance situation, not scoring some kind of lame internet debating victory... doubly so against people who are only interested in making ad hominem personal attacks, or claiming to know better while never discussing the facts at all.

If there are flaws in my facts or my reasoning, I actually appreciate them being brought to my attention, because that is how I learned to be the successful pilot that I am.

I honestly don't know why you would feel the need to cast such aspersions in engaging in what I have tried to keep a factual discussion.

Edited by Appogee, 20 March 2014 - 11:42 AM.

[DivineEvil]

Ghost Badger, on 20 March 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

Perhaps. The full math is more than I currently have brainspace for here at work...just pointing out that the disparity, if there is one, isn't nearly as big as you think...(and I'd argue still leans in favor of the pinpoint).

The 'average damage done per game' might help with that argument, since those numbers include using those builds with their heat.

Now, granted, I never take JUST LRM's...I'll take ML too. I'm guessing that those ML's in combo with LRM's just about even those numbers out.



It's true, but he was making a numbers only argument, so I responded in kind. The ability to place that pinpoint in the most damaging area is another one of the huge advantages it gets...but how do you quantify that? Kills per game? I support "the brawl" in my missile mechs and sometimes gets that lucky shot into a damaged side torso or CT.

If PGI tracked the accuracy by COMPONENT....well...then we coudl talk

Numbers doesn't solve any question when Range parameter is involved. Range is a stat that has never been any way scalable with DPS math in any game. LRMs are Long Goddamn Range Missiles, of course they excel at dealing 100% of their per-missile damage over highest range, but completely useless in twice the minimum range of a PPC. Not even speaking about time of flight. Ballisics and PPCs are traveling in fractions of a second, Lasers and MGs hit instantly, LRMs still takes seconds you can use to take cover or get closer with AMC or ECM-carrying allies. I don't see what to discuss here beyond that.

[Appogee]

DivineEvil, on 20 March 2014 - 10:35 AM, said:

Who cares about DPS? Damage is inferior to an ability to kill your opponent. PPCs and Ballistics are those, which excels at that. To kill someone with LRMs, you'd probably going to break the whole thing away, never having a chance to head-shot or focus any target at all.

Very good and valid point. You are right.

The whole DPS issue came up because of the perceived effectiveness of a couple of LRM boats ''drenching'' a target with LRMs. The thought was that the higher DPS all over the target makes them too effective, because they doing a lot of DPS everywhere - including the critical locations. In effect, the same as doing lower DPS but in a more targeted way.


By the way, here is my first post in this thread...

Appogee, on 19 March 2014 - 11:27 PM, said:

I hardly ever use LRMs (I find them boring) but I agree some LRM speed buff was needed, so they could hit Lights once again.
As it stands, LRMs aren't a problem... multiple Mechs boating them is the problem.

In a PUG match, it's rare to be able to get together enough of a posse to successfully go back and take out the LRM boats spamming remote locks from on the opposite side of the map. And one player usually can't take out say three boats by themself.

But hopefully the casual boaters will get bored with them and the game will go back to something more approaching normal within a week or two.

You know, to me that doesn't seem all that controversial, really.

Edited by Appogee, 20 March 2014 - 11:15 AM.

[AlmightyAeng]

DivineEvil, on 20 March 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

Numbers doesn't solve any question when Range parameter is involved. Range is a stat that has never been any way scalable with DPS math in any game. LRMs are Long Goddamn Range Missiles, of course they excel at dealing 100% of their per-missile damage over highest range, but completely useless in twice the minimum range of a PPC. Not even speaking about time of flight. Ballisics and PPCs are traveling in fractions of a second, Lasers and MGs hit instantly, LRMs still takes seconds you can use to take cover or get closer with AMC or ECM-carrying allies. I don't see what to discuss here beyond that.

Thanks for agreeing with me? But rather than put up subjective, non-measurable pros and cons to convince people that LRM's are fine, I saw an opening with Appogee and went the numbers route.

[Osric Lancaster]

Appogee, on 20 March 2014 - 12:27 AM, said:

I'd appreciate if you'd make it clearer that all the text after the gif that you responded to didn't actually come from me. You could perhaps add an additional quote tag for whoever did say those things.

We're not individual people with individual opinions. We aren't agreeing with him so he doesn't need to respond to individual arguments because he knows the motivations of malicious, talentless LRM using cheaters. As in -

Master Maniac, on 19 March 2014 - 08:15 PM, said:

"I love LRMs. Thank you for improving the effectiveness of my preferred playstyle. "
Fixed that for you.

It's called 'mind reading', and it's one of the forms of distorted thinking. We're not 'people':

Master Maniac, on 20 March 2014 - 12:23 AM, said:

EDIT: below, I am addressing "the other guy."

. . . seriously?

Master Maniac, on 20 March 2014 - 12:23 AM, said:

"I doubt you even average 10 damage out of that after AMS and cover. "

lol, "cover." Somebody doesn't get the problem with the flight speed increase. lolololol

Actually, I know that you do. You're just deflecting. Which is fine. Have a lovely day, now.

Actually, I'd just like you to put a metric on your own LRM use yourself so you could compare it to other weapons. If using cover is impossible and AMS isn't really a factor you should have a high accuracy with LRMs right?

Master Maniac, on 20 March 2014 - 12:23 AM, said:

*lasers*

Actually lasers and missiles are a pretty similar in function in a direct fire role.
1 - You need to keep your cursor on the enemy, for either the beam duration or lock + travel time.
2 - Both missiles and lasers spread damage. Missiles always do, and moving or twisting spreads that damage more with either weapon.

Sure, LRMs are lower heat, but heavier, ammo dependent , have hard counters and some travel time. The only instance in which LRMs differ much from lasers is in an indirect fire role where someone else is spotting for you, which by the way is what my suggestion on missile balance was addressing, and why I was talking about LRMs as weapons for individual 'Mech use.

Master Maniac, on 20 March 2014 - 12:23 AM, said:

LRMs *are* the problem if they are a problem when boated. People are saying they're overpowered. LRMs are NOT "individual" weapons in that they are entirely player controlled. They are algorithm controlled. The player merely picks their victim. In this, they are not to be judged the same as a direct fire weapon. As I stated before, LRMs cannot *not* be broken (double negatives for emphasis, baby) if they're "okay individually" but "a problem when boated." Nooo. That's not how it works. If they're a problem when boated, that means they're a problem, given the complete lack of a need for skill to use them effectively. Player error is only about 10% of the equation where LRMs are concerned.

Again, as long as missiles are bound to one 'Mech you can't call boating them an issue unless you're willing to admit that the same hold true for every other weapon. The only case in which LRMs can step outside the bounds of this restriction is when indirect firing. Also you keep saying LRMs are 'computer controlled', as if that's a good thing. Have you used LRMs? I've had them fly straight down into the dirt when shooting an enemy I had line of sight on because they were lower than me. Bad pathing aside and more importantly, you CAN'T aim them. LRMs suffer from the same damage spreading mechanics as an LB 10-X.


The missile warning is a little late, so it'd be nice to get a lock on warning, but then I think people would end up fitting SSRM2s just to psych people out.

Master Maniac, on 20 March 2014 - 12:23 AM, said:

Heat levels need a blanket increase. Seriously. Every other weapon in the game is choked by heat, EXCEPT for LRMs, which can be fired constantly with chainfire from a safe position with barely a pause between targets.

Every other weapon but ballistics you mean? So basically "they're not as hot as energy weapons".

Master Maniac, on 20 March 2014 - 12:23 AM, said:

I personally bear a distaste for indirect fire tactics. I really do.

Really, that seems to be coloring your opinion a lot.

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 20 March 2014 - 11:09 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Green Mamba, on 20 March 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

Game Is doomed ...Too many White Knighters Rushing to Slurp on PGI

Balance is doomed. The whining from the last MG buff got it nerfed back down. Too many bads? We can't say for sure.

Let that sink in, one of the worst weapons in the game got a buff that made it useable in pairs, was nerfed because people wandered into their 120M range, to deal a single DPS, which you had to face the target the ENTIRE time to deal, and it had a cone of fire on top of that.



I'm fairly certain PGI will end up caving with the LRM buff, same tale as the machine guns. But I'll enjoy them while they last. Something other than dakka that's effective is very good to keep the game fresh, especially considering how stale the meta was.

[Master Maniac]

Osric Lancaster, on 20 March 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

We're not individual people with individual opinions. We aren't agreeing with him so he doesn't need to respond to individual arguments because he knows the motivations of malicious, talentless LRM using cheaters. As in -



It's called 'mind reading', and it's one of the forms of distorted thinking. We're not 'people':

. . . seriously?



Actually, I'd just like you to put a metric on your own LRM use yourself so you could compare it to other weapons. If using cover is impossible and AMS isn't really a factor you should have a high accuracy with LRMs right?



Actually lasers and missiles are a pretty similar in function in a direct fire role.
1 - You need to keep your cursor on the enemy, for either the beam duration or lock + travel time.
2 - Both missiles and lasers spread damage. Missiles always do, and moving or twisting spreads that damage more with either weapon.

Sure, LRMs are lower heat, but heavier, ammo dependent , have hard counters and some travel time. The only instance in which LRMs differ much from lasers is in an indirect fire role where someone else is spotting for you, which by the way is what my suggestion on missile balance was addressing, and why I was talking about LRMs as weapons for individual 'Mech use.



Again, as long as missiles are bound to one 'Mech you can't call boating them an issue unless you're willing to admit that the same hold true for every other weapon. The only case in which LRMs can step outside the bounds of this restriction is when indirect firing. Also you keep saying LRMs are 'computer controlled', as if that's a good thing. Have you used LRMs? I've had them fly straight down into the dirt when shooting an enemy I had line of sight on because they were lower than me. Bad pathing aside and more importantly, you CAN'T aim them. LRMs suffer from the same damage spreading mechanics as an LB 10-X.


The missile warning is a little late, so it'd be nice to get a lock on warning, but then I think people would end up fitting SSRM2s just to psych people out.



Every other weapon but ballistics you mean? So basically "they're not as hot as energy weapons".


Really, that seems to be coloring your opinion a lot.

Lasers are hitscan weapons. Missiles are projectiles. Their SOLE SIMILARITY is the fact that they do not do burst damage. I'm simply floored that you would be silly enough to suggest otherwise.

And, yes, ballistics are "choked by heat." They're already pretty darn hot for what they are. Given my experience in previous Mechwarrior games (and that's what counts because I couldn't possibly care less about TT - it's NOT relevant beyond establishing basic guidelines), ballistics are minimal to low heat weapons. That was their chief advantage, offset by their massive tonnage requirements and heavy, explosive ammunition. Now, a single AC/20 can cause as much as a twenty to thirty percent heat spike, depending on build/environmental factors. Pair 'em up and BOOM, Ghost Heat. So, yes, don't be silly - ballistics are NOT heat free.

Not that they shouldn't be, or anything. I'm just pointing that out.

I'm not going to apologize for personally disliking indirect fire weapons, either, if that's what you were hoping for. As long as the weapons require neither skill nor precision to be effective, they should NOT be held to the same standards of performance and functionality as those that do.

Introduce a skill mechanic, and then it'll be different.

[Roland]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 20 March 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

You keep making that definition. I point you to Rolands post. We fundamentally disagree with the concept of "chain fire is all LRM boats use" being accurate.

I replied to him.

Roland is a smart good player.

Done.

To be clear, I didn't say that chainfire is ALL that good players use with missiles... or at least I didn't intend to.

What I said was that if ghost heat is screwing up your missile boat, then it means you're an imbecile, because ghost heat's impact on missiles is of trivial significance since it doesn't really affect the primary facet of weapon usage that ghost heat is meant to... namely, with direct fire weapons, being forced to fire multiple times will result in a loss of precision, since you will need to land multiple shots to achieve the optimal effect.

With LRM's, you aren't actually aiming anything, so all your missiles will be equally accurate regardless of whether you chainfire them or alpha fire them.

While firing everything at once can have some benefit, in that you can overwhelm AMS, and it'll generally all hit from the same direction in that case, chainfiring also has very large advantages with missiles anyway due to the large degree of knock generated.

So, the point stands, that Ghost Heat really doesn't impact missiles to anywhere close to as large a degree as it does for direct fire weapons like PPC's. A missile boat with ghost heat is pretty much as effective as a missile boat without ghost heat.. But a 4 PPC build with ghost heat is SIGNIFICANTLY worse with ghost heat than it is without ghost heat.