Jump to content

Ppcs, Erppcs And C-Erppcs: How To Fix?


482 replies to this topic

#381 Quaamik

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 413 posts

Posted 23 December 2015 - 11:56 AM

Replicating the PPC bug outside of a dedicated test match in almost impossible. It's not like you can stop and get verification of you hit and if they took damage. It may be that they take damage and the paper doll doesn't update, or they take less damage than they should. No way to know.

That said, on the developer side they CAN replicate these things. Or at least check them out.


As to the c-ERPPC: I defeinately do NOT want to see it become any shorter range. Slow and requiring skill to hit with I can deal with. But the clans are already outranged by quirked IS LLs and by pinpoint damage on ACs. The c-ERPPC has to be effective at range.

#382 Zordicron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 2,547 posts

Posted 23 December 2015 - 03:47 PM

View PostBishop Steiner, on 22 December 2015 - 05:56 PM, said:

Wow.

You really did get your feelings hurt that I didn't hug and embrace your post.

I also didn't shoot it down. At least anymore than I shot down 90% of the posts on here. I don't see them getting all upset about it, so I have to assume it's tied into me daring to "welcome" a newbie to forum posting. Because if you were actually paying attention, I also politely pointed out that we were discussing simple ideas to him, also.

I'll be sure to tell new posters to piss off in the future if it makes you feel better?

As to the relevant side, I also did not run with or go out of my way to repress any posts on here. Some I commented on to the positive as to why, and others to the negative. End of story.

I set my topic up with some pretty simple outlooks because I would like to see SOMETHING, anything done to enhance PPC usability, and no offense, but anything past simple does not really seem to get looked at. If you want to go on ad infinitum with how you think it should be done, then by all means post a topic on it. I'm really not sure why you think I should turn my own discussion into a round robin about yours?

I'm sorry you took all this as a personal affront. It wasn't. And it isn't, but you seem very intent on taking it that way.

I'm really trying NOT to be a ***** about this (and since saractic is my nature, it's probably a losing battle), but you seem to be taking this way out off proportion.

Meh, you have been telling me I am butthurt for a while, and it is not so, you have simply miscontrued what i am getting at and read things into my posts that aren't there, or at lewast aren;t intended to be.

I fundamentally disagree with your approach of keeping it very, very minimal. I disagree, because once Russ/Paul make a tiny tweak, they will view the topic as closed for a loooong time, possibly another two years. I do not want to miss our chance, if Russ is seriously open to looking at the weapons, to present a plan that has both an immediate action to take and a longer term goal to finalize the weapon revitilization.

It's not black and white either, this isn't even about just me and what I put out there, you have turned down anything outside of small number tweaks "cause it's simple". I could care less about it being polite or not, I disagree that the entire discussion needs to be weeded down to talk about spreadsheet stats and only stats because you personally feel PGI will just poo poo anything else.

Like I said, you made this thread feining open discussion but mostly just dismiss anything not parallel to your numbers tweaks. I think asking about PPC changes to PGI and then telling them "we are good with just some number tweaks, it'll be easy" is a mistake and will not get us anywhere in the long run, and could actually be more hurtful to the cause as once a change is put live, Russ/Paul will move on and not look back for a substantial amount of time regardless of how the changes work out.

IF fixing PPC's was as easy as a spreadsheet change, pretty sure they would have done it sometime in the last year already.

#383 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 23 December 2015 - 03:55 PM

View PostEldagore, on 23 December 2015 - 03:47 PM, said:



IF fixing PPC's was as easy as a spreadsheet change, pretty sure they would have done it sometime in the last year already.

I've drawn that conclusion because of the shock and incredulity that you displayed that I welcomed a poster to the forums.....


If it ain't so, then dial back the jets, please.

And there are a LOT of things that had easy fixes, like Poptarting..... that PGI has bypassed. Just saying.

#384 Zordicron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 2,547 posts

Posted 23 December 2015 - 08:10 PM

View PostBishop Steiner, on 23 December 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

I've drawn that conclusion because of the shock and incredulity that you displayed that I welcomed a poster to the forums.....


If it ain't so, then dial back the jets, please.

And there are a LOT of things that had easy fixes, like Poptarting..... that PGI has bypassed. Just saying.

What jets?

I re-read my original reply that apparently had you assured I was flaming out... I can see my exasperation at how so many ideas were being dismissed outright was showing through.

In the end, I have stated my piece on how I would fix the PPC's. I do not think your minimalist method of fixing PPC's will work. A more complete solution is needed, or we will simply be stuck with slightly altered, still sub-par PPC's with no acutely defined roles where either the IS PPC or ERPPC is left in the dust, again, and the clan ERPPC is left trailing behind clammer lazors where it is right now.

We need more than just a spreadsheet fix. it's a starting point, but that is all it is. Unfortunatly, as you just confirmed, PGI is more than happy to let an issue go... for years.... after making a change and dusting their hands off and walking away. If all they do is give us a starting point, and then walk away for two years, again......

#385 Kraftwerkedup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 504 posts

Posted 23 December 2015 - 08:55 PM

View PostMcgral18, on 22 December 2015 - 09:07 PM, said:


I agree with the velocity, but MWO is too fast a game for 8s recycles. The only other weapon system which has that is Arty+Air, at 10 seconds (but 350 damage potential).

6 seconds is really the threshold in my opinion, as the Gauss shows (at 6.25s min cycle). 5.5s being my preferred starting point for a significant velocity buff.



Yeah my only worry is theres still some pretty serious quirks. None of those are on mechs that can mount enormous alphas, but if you really ramp velocity, those become no brainers in CW again.

No one wants that Quirkening Thunderbolt back.

Those mechs could easily lose those quirks tho if PPCs are well balanced with everything else. Theyre just not a good sniping weapon as it stands, and they dont brawl as well as anything else anymore.

You want to somehow not make them super brawlers again, while making them valid long range weapons. The projectile moving fast enough to hit things, is the key to that.

Then you have to work on the other end to make them not 40+ PPFLD cannons fired from jump jetting mechs at 200m.

The longer the recycle, the easier brawlers can kill you. 4-5s definitely is a minimum unless you want to negative quirk just the problem mechs when they pop up. 5 PPC Jokecadas and Hexastalkers are silly dumb, but theyre also ROFL in the hands of CW tryhards. Put me and 8 other guys in 5 PPC stalkers with great velocity projectiles, nothing gets to the generators.

You just dont want it to swing to far back into the other direction. As it stands theyre barely niche, but theyve easily gone overboard with slight changes before. I get why theyre gunshy with PPCs.

Then again, they act the same way about alot of other weapon systems that are actually broke...so who knows.

#386 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 23 December 2015 - 09:59 PM

View PostEldagore, on 23 December 2015 - 08:10 PM, said:

What jets?

I re-read my original reply that apparently had you assured I was flaming out... I can see my exasperation at how so many ideas were being dismissed outright was showing through.

In the end, I have stated my piece on how I would fix the PPC's. I do not think your minimalist method of fixing PPC's will work. A more complete solution is needed, or we will simply be stuck with slightly altered, still sub-par PPC's with no acutely defined roles where either the IS PPC or ERPPC is left in the dust, again, and the clan ERPPC is left trailing behind clammer lazors where it is right now.

We need more than just a spreadsheet fix. it's a starting point, but that is all it is. Unfortunatly, as you just confirmed, PGI is more than happy to let an issue go... for years.... after making a change and dusting their hands off and walking away. If all they do is give us a starting point, and then walk away for two years, again......

actually, the Quirkening TDR-9S show how easily a spreadsheet fix can make them viable...and how easily it can make them OP Meta again. So logic says if current spreadsheet abilities are too weak, but TDR-9S uberquirked were too strong, that probably somewhere in between? Will be just about right. Posted Image

And then after the basic combat functionality of the weapon is sound?

Then would be a good time to look at peripherals, and how they can be applied.

#387 Ultimax

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,979 posts

Posted 23 December 2015 - 10:21 PM

View PostKraftwerkedup, on 23 December 2015 - 08:55 PM, said:

No one wants that Quirkening Thunderbolt back.


The height of the TDR-9S was based on two quirks:

1) -50% heat gen
2) High % CD

That's it.

IIRC it actually did not have ANY velocity at all - what it had was a high recycle and enough -heat gen to utilize it. (so even though you missed with the lower velocity, you were able to fire repeatedly to make up for it)

On top of that we had TWO MAPS in CW - one of them being a long range ice map...




That's why people felt it was "spammy".



-50% heat is what was required to allow it to alpha without generating a ludicrous heat spike for what is such a small amount of damage and even then when you alpha'd it was more than 30 heat for 30 damage.

It's now had it's -heat quirk chopped down to -20% from -50%, which means it can't alpha without quickly frying itself, and can't win trades vs. laser vomit.

If it could you would see people in T1 or competitive matches using it (most would prefer PPCs over Lasers), but that's not what they are using - because it loses all of it's trades vs. laser vomit, is too hot to brawl and doesn't have enough velocity yet to really be reliably "long ranged".

Edited by Ultimatum X, 23 December 2015 - 10:23 PM.


#388 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 23 December 2015 - 10:46 PM

View PostUltimatum X, on 23 December 2015 - 10:21 PM, said:


The height of the TDR-9S was based on two quirks:

1) -50% heat gen
2) High % CD

That's it.

IIRC it actually did not have ANY velocity at all - what it had was a high recycle and enough -heat gen to utilize it. (so even though you missed with the lower velocity, you were able to fire repeatedly to make up for it)

On top of that we had TWO MAPS in CW - one of them being a long range ice map...




That's why people felt it was "spammy".



-50% heat is what was required to allow it to alpha without generating a ludicrous heat spike for what is such a small amount of damage and even then when you alpha'd it was more than 30 heat for 30 damage.

It's now had it's -heat quirk chopped down to -20% from -50%, which means it can't alpha without quickly frying itself, and can't win trades vs. laser vomit.

If it could you would see people in T1 or competitive matches using it (most would prefer PPCs over Lasers), but that's not what they are using - because it loses all of it's trades vs. laser vomit, is too hot to brawl and doesn't have enough velocity yet to really be reliably "long ranged".

in point of fact, it did also have a 15% velocity boost. Add all those factors to 2 extremely high hardpoints? And instant Meta, just add Tbolts.
https://static.mwome...%20December.pdf
Mind you, not claiming 15% (and speed was about 150 m/s slower to begin with back then) is the same as 30-50%, but it did matter.

The issue, really, is that if you push any of 2 factors too far Heat or Velocity, they easily become the "go to weapon" because PP-FLD all things being equal is always better than DPS. All damage concentrated, and the shooter able to twist immediately to spread incoming fire.

Which is why until PPCs became "unreliable" because of velocity, they were superior to lasers.

Meta ALWAYS will defer to the most bang for the buck, and least skill investment for most rewards. It's not a knock on comp players, just a simple truth.

Anyhow, I would rather boost them, have them still a little too slow/too hot, and need another incremental tweak than do the PGI balance YoYo, and have them become the overnight meta again. I think MOST reasonable people would feel that way.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 23 December 2015 - 10:46 PM.


#389 zudukai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Trinary Star Captain
  • Trinary Star Captain
  • 1,707 posts

Posted 24 December 2015 - 01:59 AM

So, if you were to choose a single variable of each class of PPC to try first with another change later (second increment), what value would be first? damage? heat? i doubt anyone would want a shorter cooldown with current level PPC..

i am going to list only what i would tweak, and i would assume all other values to maintain their current values.

i would start with;
  • IS PPC cooldown -.5 = 3.5s
  • IS ERPPC heat -2 = 13
  • C ERPPC dmg +3 = 13+1+1
second try if too little
  • PPC cooldown -1 =3.0s heat -1 = 9
  • ERPPC cooldown -.5 = 3.5s, velo +200 =1400m/s
  • CERPPC DMG +3 = 13+1+1, heat -1~2 = 14
if too much, revert to today's values and then try;
  • PPC heat -2 =9
  • ERPPC heat -3 =12
  • CERPPC heat-3 =12
today's values for reference
Spoiler

*edit* formatting

Edited by zudukai, 24 December 2015 - 02:02 AM.


#390 Quaamik

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 413 posts

Posted 24 December 2015 - 10:19 AM

View Postzudukai, on 24 December 2015 - 01:59 AM, said:

So, if you were to choose a single variable of each class of PPC to try first with another change later (second increment), what value would be first? damage? heat? i doubt anyone would want a shorter cooldown with current level PPC..

i am going to list only what i would tweak, and i would assume all other values to maintain their current values.


I would do these as a single, first pass change:

IS PPC: -1 heat (result in 10 damage / 9 heat)
IS ERPPC: +5 splash damage (result in 10+2.5+2.5 damage / 15 heat)
C-ERPPC: +1 pinpoint damage (result in 11+2.5+2.5 damage / 15heat)

#391 Quaamik

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 413 posts

Posted 24 December 2015 - 10:22 AM

But that above assumes it's ONLY a first pass for the test servers. I'd want more tweaking, balancing done before it went live. I'd also like to see some secondary effects added (though that's for "flavor", not as core balancing. And I'd like them to plan on looking at it 1 - 2 months after going live (no sooner, no later) to verify if it needed to be re-tweaked to keep it from becoming too dominant.

#392 Kraftwerkedup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 504 posts

Posted 24 December 2015 - 10:28 AM

View PostUltimatum X, on 23 December 2015 - 10:21 PM, said:


The height of the TDR-9S was based on two quirks:

1) -50% heat gen
2) High % CD

That's it.

IIRC it actually did not have ANY velocity at all -




-


They upped the velocity in the same Quirkening patch across the board for PPCs. It became a monster.

#393 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 24 December 2015 - 10:52 AM

View PostKraftwerkedup, on 24 December 2015 - 10:28 AM, said:

They upped the velocity in the same Quirkening patch across the board for PPCs. It became a monster.

http://mwomercs.com/...49-04-nov-2014/
well, a month before, actually. And the base speed was boosted 100 m/s. so post quirkening the TDR-9S was 1207.5 m/s. Not exactly murderous on it's own, but when they were using 7.5 heat ERPPCs every 3 seconds, it didn't matter if they were Carlos Hathcock. The skies were filled with Lightning.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 24 December 2015 - 10:52 AM.


#394 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 24 December 2015 - 11:39 AM

Quote

IS PPC: -1 heat (result in 10 damage / 9 heat)
IS ERPPC: +5 splash damage (result in 10+2.5+2.5 damage / 15 heat)
C-ERPPC: +1 pinpoint damage (result in 11+2.5+2.5 damage / 15heat)


yeah i dont agree with that. theres no reason at all to use the ISPPC if the ISERPPC does 5 extra damage.

plus it removes the asymmetrical differences between IS and Clan. Clan weapons should do more damage but with the downside of higher heat and longer cooldown (the CERPPC should have a longer cooldown than the ISERPPC because it does more damage).


1) ISPPC should fire faster than the ISERPPC in order for the ISPPC to have a purpose. It needs to be outright better than the ISERPPC inside a certain range band or theres no point in using it. Something like: ISPPC = 4.0 cooldown, ISERPPC = 4.5 cooldown, CERPPC = 5.0 cooldown. Min range on the ISPPC should also be removed because its stupid.

2) ERPPC and CERPPC need much higher projectile velocities. Because they have very high max ranges. Weapons with high max ranges should have equally high projectile velocities in order to hit things at their max range. Again this is why LRMs are failsauce, theyre supposed to be long range missiles, but their projectile velocity is so pathetic they can be easily dodged at long range even by assault mechs.

3) Heat needs to be reduced by at least 1-2 (possibly more) on all PPCs just because its currently way too high compared to lasers.

4) PPC/ERPPC/CERPPC should all do splash damage in order to avoid the problems of the past with boated PPCs. You should be able to run mechs with 3-4 PPCs like the Awesome/Masakari without being stomped by ghost heat. This allows for ghost heat limits on PPCs to be more lax.

5) PPCs need some kindve HUD/sensor disruption ability to help differentiate them from other energy weapons. In MWLL you could even shoot friendly mechs with PPCs and knock out any NARC beacons on them lol.

Edited by Khobai, 24 December 2015 - 12:05 PM.


#395 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 24 December 2015 - 12:00 PM

View PostKhobai, on 24 December 2015 - 11:39 AM, said:


5) PPCs need some kindve HUD/sensor disruption ability to help differentiate them from other energy weapons. In MWLL you could even shoot friendly mechs with PPCs and knock out any NARC beacons on them lol.

dunno if they "need" it, and not sure I want to depend on peripherals for balancing, but most of what you said, yeah.

#396 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 24 December 2015 - 12:07 PM

Quote

dunno if they "need" it, and not sure I want to depend on peripherals for balancing, but most of what you said, yeah.


One of the goals should be to try and move people away from laser vomit. Incentivizing PPCs more helps do that. By giving PPCs a unique disruption ability it would set them apart from lasers and add a weapon that can scramble enemy HUDs/Sensors. There would of course be a module that counteracts that effect, thats a given. Like a ruggedized/shielded sensor array module or something.

Edited by Khobai, 24 December 2015 - 12:11 PM.


#397 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 24 December 2015 - 12:11 PM

View PostKhobai, on 24 December 2015 - 12:07 PM, said:


One of the goals should be to try and move people away from laser vomit. Incentivizing PPCs more helps do that.

well, I would find being able to reliably punch big PP-FLD holes in the other guy at range without toasting my chestnuts, pretty decent incentive.

Like I said, I ain't against the idea, just would hate to lose out some damage direct damage dealing because they thought HUD fuzz made up for it (like they did with PPCs disrupting ECM).

I'd just like to see their combat effective vs /heat actually fixed first and foremost. To me the rest is largely window dressing.

#398 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 24 December 2015 - 12:13 PM

Quote

well, I would find being able to reliably punch big PP-FLD holes in the other guy at range without toasting my chestnuts, pretty decent incentive.


can already do that with clan pulse lasers though, the beam durations are short enough to put virtually all the damage in the same spot, hence why laser vomit is so effective. PPCs need to be differentiated even more from pulse lasers.

#399 Quaamik

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 413 posts

Posted 24 December 2015 - 12:16 PM

View PostKhobai, on 24 December 2015 - 11:39 AM, said:


yeah i dont agree with that. theres no reason at all to use the ISPPC if the ISERPPC does 5 extra damage.

plus it removes the asymmetrical differences between IS and Clan. Clan weapons should do more damage but with the downside of higher heat and longer cooldown (the CERPPC should have a longer cooldown than the ISERPPC because it does more damage).
.


Here is the thing, unless you bring the IS ERPPC to heat neutral or better (damage => heat) it will never be viable outside a a few overly tweaked builds. Yes, people will use it because they "like" PPCs. But they will use it occasionally, when they don't really mind if they lose.

Dropping the heat will do it. But people scream that the sky will fall at the thought of a 10 heat ERPPC - no matter the velocity. So as "one" item to do to balance them I chose damage, as it makes them the same as the current c-ERPPC which no one thinks is over powered.

The reason to pick the PPC over the ERPPC is heat. You sacrifice range to make heat manageable. The velocity difference isn't worth noticing. The drawback that keeps people from picking PPCs is they have minimum range limits, can't perform as well in combat as ERLLs or LLs and take the same weight / footprint as the LPL and ERPPC.

The CERPPC should hit harder and have more heat than the IS ERPPC. But everyone will cry foul at a CERPPC that hits for 20, even if 10 of it is splash.

One of the big problems here is the fear of ERPPC -agedon, and the skies filling with lightning, unless its made a weapon that no one wants compared to the other IS weapons. Yet at the same time insisting that the CERPPC has to be quantomly better.

#400 Lockon StratosII

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 80 posts
  • Locationin a country run by a gravedigger

Posted 24 December 2015 - 12:38 PM

View PostMauttyKoray, on 22 December 2015 - 09:02 PM, said:

Not a fan of the splash mechanic to begin with, but on top of that, nerfing the CERPPC? Plus its literally the ERPPC but with 2 more damage. That's asking for an IS-boot licker to scream Clans OP all over again (originally an IS pilot taken bondsman by clans).


How is that a nerf? It gets higher overall DPS while maintaining same HPS, it trades 3 points of pin point damage for lower heat, lower cooldown and increased speed. All it changes in grand scheme of events is that you need to click and aim at your target 3 times instead of 2 in the span of 8.4 seconds, all of that while being lighter and more compact than IS counterpart.

I am not a fan of splash either, but if I were to only propose a reduction in pin point damage, without keeping the reduced amount on the weapon in some way, nobody would even consider looking at it. Fact is, if you keep pin point damage above 7.5 (maybe 8) and make weapon viable by reducing heat/increasing speed it's gonna lead to the same thing that brought it in this state in the first place (unless you add absurdly high cycle rate at which point I don't see any need for heat reduction because it is gonna cool itself by the time it's ready to fire again and still enables alphas that could still strip a side torso on a heavy mech in one punch or blow it off of a medium or core a light)





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users