Pjwned, on 02 April 2015 - 05:26 PM, said:
There aren't other high damage energy based pinpoint weapons though.
There are, but you don't acknowledge it because it is "balanced" by the high heat. This was the irony in your "moving goal posts" statement is that YOU added that it is unique not just because it is a high damage PPFLD energy weapon, but also that it has low heat. That is also ignoring the fact that how does that even matter anyway? Most matches can be accounted for ammo wise so that advantage isn't a large one. The drawback of ballistics isn't really ammo, it is the high initial tonnage investment you have to make to mount one. The I-Gauss requires 18 tons to run effectively as opposed to the PPC's 7 tons (because those 10 free DHS can cover a single PPC's heat) with more PPCs only increasing the tonnage required to be effective thanks to heat and DHS to a point where the Gauss is a better investment tonnage wise. This is exemplified by the power of Gauss Vomit for the Clans, and why it is better than pure laser vomit even in some cases of CW.
Pjwned, on 02 April 2015 - 05:26 PM, said:
The charge-up mechanic handled that far more gracefully than a minimum range penalty on a ballistic weapon, especially because the resulting massive projectile velocity increase really cemented its role as a solid long range weapon.
I agree.
I would actually prefer the charge up in exchange for higher velocity and no minimum range on the PPC.
Edit: Adding clarification for Soy, no I would do not advocate a charge up as stands currently, but if the fear is that any significant buffs were to turn the PPC back into a god weapon at long range, I would much prefer a charge up mechanic as opposed to a minimum range as a balancing mechanic.
Pjwned, on 02 April 2015 - 05:26 PM, said:
I don't see better alternatives for PPCs because increasing the heat sounds dumb and it makes the weapon worse for people that don't consider the minimum range a big deal, and LRMs have a minimum range penalty for a very good reason.
You havn't said this yourself, but you must ask, if minimum range isn't a big deal (which it isn't outside PUGlandia), why does it need to have more heat to remove the minimum range? If it isn't a significant factor in the weapon, why is it there as a balancing mechanism in the first place, especially given that it currently is not a good weapon.
I agree that LRMs have a minimum range penalty for a good reason, but that is just because LRMs were implemented poorly in MWO which is something I think we can both agree on.
Pjwned, on 02 April 2015 - 05:26 PM, said:
I still don't find it flawed because the minimum range is small enough that even with the current system it's really not such a big deal, you take several steps away (if that) from the enemy and you're clear to fire, and if you can't then you either played badly or got outplayed. I find it flawed how exactly the penalty is implemented, but not that it exists.
It isn't that big of a deal, until you encounter that situation, and at that point it leaves you feeling cheated because there is nothing you can do at that point. That is a bad thing to happen in any game, you should have some ability to fight back, which linear falloff does allow for, but as I said is still a flawed approach to balancing a midrange weapon like that.
Edited by WM Quicksilver, 02 April 2015 - 05:56 PM.