142 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

ZenFool, on 17 January 2016 - 01:05 PM, said:

I just scanned through some of the posts, so if anyone mentioned it already sorry.

Have you thought about what this does to some of the superquirked mechs? Most of the ones with ballistic velocity aren't great, but there is a blackjack variant with nice velocity quirks. I use the ac10 as an ac5 on it and its amazing. Give me more speed with it and guass becomes complete rubbish.

Yes, from the start we've said that you'd probably want to reduce the velocity quirked mechs to compensate. This isn't rocket science; it's pretty obvious and straight forward.

[Wintersdark]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 January 2016 - 01:15 PM, said:

Why do you leave out the biggest disparity between the two I wonder?
Let's talk about range, especially with decent quirks.
297m on the BJ-1X vs 165m on the SCrow. It may sound like a small gap but when you start including the range where it does 50% or more damage it starts to look worse. 446m on the BJ-1X vs 231m. With most quirks as well, the iML is around 3.6 heat because of 10% heat gen quirks. The comparison with general quirks (which are what the iML should have just in general) begins to look less one sided. Not to mention the cSPL can't be combined with other small or medium lasers to get around ghost heat, but iMLs can.

This.

I've long argued that ISML's should go down to 4 heat, actually - though that would have to come alongside a reduction/removal of all the Energy Heat Gen quirks IS side.

The cSPL is a potent brawling weapon, but that range limitation is huge. The ISML is firing at a substantially increased range, and that's where the additional heat comes in.

[Deathlike]

Wintersdark, on 17 January 2016 - 01:37 PM, said:

I've long argued that ISML's should go down to 4 heat, actually - though that would have to come alongside a reduction/removal of all the Energy Heat Gen quirks IS side.

Knowing Paul.. if we were to get said change, he'd still leave those energy quirks intact. Because reasons.

That's part of the problem.


For instance, the efficiency change was necessary, but the problem is that many mechs (many of the unquirked) do need some of that former bonus back (through quirks).

I'm sure it'll get addressed in July or something like that.

Edited by Deathlike, 17 January 2016 - 03:17 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Deathlike, on 17 January 2016 - 03:17 PM, said:

Knowing Paul.. if we were to get said change, he'd still leave those energy quirks intact. Because reasons.

That's part of the problem.


For instance, the efficiency change was necessary, but the problem is that many mechs (many of the unquirked) do need some of that former bonus back (through quirks).

I'm sure it'll get addressed in July or something like that.

Of 2017. After eight other things have changed complicating the whole situation and ensuring that fixing those quirks doesn't do what it would have done.

And then it'll be "See, we did what you wanted and it didn't work, because you're stupid."

/bitter

[Y E O N N E]

Yes.

Tangent:

You guys realize that 1000+ m/s is hyper-velocity territory in artillery terminology, right? And that 1700+ is hypersonic in aerodynaic terminilogy?

Yes?

k.

[Strum Wealh]

Another factor to consider is the time-to-target-at-range for each of the non-hitscan weapons.
The times-to-range in MWO ((time) = (distance)/(speed)) really aren't that long, in an absolute sense...

• PPC (@1100 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@540 meters): 0.491 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1080 meters): 0.982 seconds
• ER-PPC (@1200 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@810 meters): 0.675 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1620 meters): 1.350 seconds
• AC/2 (@2000 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@720 meters): 0.360 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1440 meters): 0.720 seconds
• AC/5 (@1150 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@620 meters): 0.539 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1240 meters): 1.078 seconds
• AC/10 (@950 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@450 meters): 0.474 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@900 meters): 0.947 seconds
• AC/20 (@650 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@540 meters): 0.491 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1080 meters): 0.982 seconds
• UAC/5 (@1150 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@600 meters): 0.522 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1200 meters): 1.043 seconds
• LB 10-X (@1100 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@540 meters): 0.491 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1620 meters): 1.473 seconds
• Gauss Rifle (@2000 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@660 meters): 0.330 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1980 meters): 0.990 seconds
• LRMs (@160 m/s)
  
  • Time to maximum range (@1000 meters): 6.250 seconds
• SRMs (@400 m/s)
  
  • Time to maximum range (@270 meters): 0.675 seconds
• SSRMs (@250 m/s)
  
  • Time to maximum range (@270 meters): 1.080 seconds

The majority of the weapons can reach targets at their respective maximum ranges within about one second (1.000s ± 0.100s), with notable outliers being the SRMs (0.675 seconds to a target at max range of 270 meters) & the AC/2 (0.720 seconds to a target at max range of 1440 meters) at the low end, and the ER-PPC (1.350 seconds to a target at max range of 1620 meters), the LB 10-X (1.473 seconds to a target at max range of 1620 meters), and the LRMs (6.250 seconds to a target at max range of 1000 meters) at the high end.

Likewise, most of the non-missile weapons reach their respective optimal/effective ranges within about a half-second (0.500s ± 0.100s), with notable outliers being the AC/2 (0.360 second to a target at optimal range of 720 meters) & the Gauss Rifle (0.330 second to a target at optimal range of 660 meters) at the low end, and the ER-PPC (0.675 seconds to a target at optimal range of 810 meters) at the high end.

To put that into perspective:

• "The average reaction time for humans is 0.25 seconds to a visual stimulus, 0.17 for an audio stimulus, and 0.15 seconds for a touch stimulus."
  
• "The reaction times of the best fast draw shooters is 0.145 seconds, which means that the gun is cocked, drawn, aimed (from the hip), and fired in just over 0.06 seconds."

The reaction time of the average human is around one quarter-second for seeing something & reacting to that is seen, while the peak reaction times of highly-trained & highly-practiced individuals can be as little as one-seventh of one second.

Personally, I would prefer to see PGI normalize the time-to-optimal values for the ACs to 0.450 ± 0.050 seconds.

• AC/2: 2000 m/s → 1440 to 1800 m/s (1600 m/s for r=720m & t=0.450s)
  
• AC/5: 1150 m/s → 1240 to 1550 m/s (1378 m/s for r=620m & t=0.450s)
  
• UAC/5: 1150 m/s → 1200 to 1500 m/s (1333 m/s for r=600m & t=0.450s)
  
• AC/10: 950 m/s → 900 to 1125 m/s (1000 m/s for r=450m & t=0.450s)
  
• LB 10-X: 1100 m/s → 1080 to 1350 m/s (1200 m/s for r=540m & t=0.450s)
  
• AC/20: 650 m/s → 540 to 675 m/s (600 m/s for r=270m & t=0.450s)

The AC/20 is in a fairly good place as it is, the AC/10 & LB 10-X could use minor velocity increases (to 1050 m/s and 1200 m/s, respectively), while the AC/5 & UAC/5 could use somewhat more substantial velocity increases (to 1350 m/s and 1300 m/s, respectively), and the AC/2 could use a velocity drop (from 2000 m/s to 1600 m/s) to bring it into line with the times-to-optimal values of the rest of the AC family.

IMO, the Gauss Rifle can stay where it is (2000 m/s, with a 0.330s time-to-optimal at r=660m), while the standard PPC could use a velocity increase to 1550 m/s (giving it a time-to-optimal of 0.348s at r=540m) and the ER-PPC could use a velocity increase to 2300 m/s (giving it a time-to-optimal of 0.352s at r=810m). Essentially, it would normalize these weapons around a time-to-optimal value of 0.350 ± 0.050 seconds.

The corresponding Clan weapons would be normalized to the same values in the same manner (e.g. all Clan autocannons would have times-to optimal of 0.450 ± 0.050 seconds, the Clan Gauss Rifle & Clan ER-PPC would have times to optimal of 0.350 ± 0.050 seconds); as Clan weapons tend to have equal or longer optimal ranges than their IS counterparts, the result would be that Clan weapons having correspondingly equal or higher velocities compared to their IS counterparts.

Thoughts?

[Pariah Devalis]

Strum Wealh, on 17 January 2016 - 06:04 PM, said:

Another factor to consider is the time-to-target-at-range for each of the non-hitscan weapons.
The times-to-range in MWO ((time) = (distance)/(speed)) really aren't that long, in an absolute sense...

• PPC (@1100 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@540 meters): 0.491 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1080 meters): 0.982 seconds
• ER-PPC (@1200 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@810 meters): 0.675 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1620 meters): 1.350 seconds
• AC/2 (@2000 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@720 meters): 0.360 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1440 meters): 0.720 seconds
• AC/5 (@1150 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@620 meters): 0.539 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1240 meters): 1.078 seconds
• AC/10 (@950 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@450 meters): 0.474 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@900 meters): 0.947 seconds
• AC/20 (@650 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@540 meters): 0.491 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1080 meters): 0.982 seconds
• UAC/5 (@1150 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@600 meters): 0.522 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1200 meters): 1.043 seconds
• LB 10-X (@1100 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@540 meters): 0.491 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1620 meters): 1.473 seconds
• Gauss Rifle (@2000 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@660 meters): 0.330 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1980 meters): 0.990 seconds
• LRMs (@160 m/s)
  
  • Time to maximum range (@1000 meters): 6.250 seconds
• SRMs (@400 m/s)
  
  • Time to maximum range (@270 meters): 0.675 seconds
• SSRMs (@250 m/s)
  
  • Time to maximum range (@270 meters): 1.080 seconds

The majority of the weapons can reach targets at their respective maximum ranges within about one second (1.000s ± 0.100s), with notable outliers being the SRMs (0.675 seconds to a target at max range of 270 meters) & the AC/2 (0.720 seconds to a target at max range of 1440 meters) at the low end, and the ER-PPC (1.350 seconds to a target at max range of 1620 meters), the LB 10-X (1.473 seconds to a target at max range of 1620 meters), and the LRMs (6.250 seconds to a target at max range of 1000 meters) at the high end.



Likewise, most of the non-missile weapons reach their respective optimal/effective ranges within about a half-second (0.500s ± 0.100s), with notable outliers being the AC/2 (0.360 second to a target at optimal range of 720 meters) & the Gauss Rifle (0.330 second to a target at optimal range of 660 meters) at the low end, and the ER-PPC (0.675 seconds to a target at optimal range of 810 meters) at the high end.

To put that into perspective:

• "The average reaction time for humans is 0.25 seconds to a visual stimulus, 0.17 for an audio stimulus, and 0.15 seconds for a touch stimulus."
  
• "The reaction times of the best fast draw shooters is 0.145 seconds, which means that the gun is cocked, drawn, aimed (from the hip), and fired in just over 0.06 seconds."

The reaction time of the average human is around one quarter-second for seeing something & reacting to that is seen, while the peak reaction times of highly-trained & highly-practiced individuals can be as little as one-seventh of one second.



Personally, I would prefer to see PGI normalize the time-to-optimal values for the ACs to 0.450 ± 0.050 seconds.

• AC/2: 2000 m/s → 1440 to 1800 m/s (1600 m/s for r=720m & t=0.450s)
  
• AC/5: 1150 m/s → 1240 to 1550 m/s (1378 m/s for r=620m & t=0.450s)
  
• UAC/5: 1150 m/s → 1200 to 1500 m/s (1333 m/s for r=600m & t=0.450s)
  
• AC/10: 950 m/s → 900 to 1125 m/s (1000 m/s for r=450m & t=0.450s)
  
• LB 10-X: 1100 m/s → 1080 to 1350 m/s (1200 m/s for r=540m & t=0.450s)
  
• AC/20: 650 m/s → 540 to 675 m/s (600 m/s for r=270m & t=0.450s)

The AC/20 is in a fairly good place as it is, the AC/10 & LB 10-X could use minor velocity increases (to 1050 m/s and 1200 m/s, respectively), while the AC/5 & UAC/5 could use somewhat more substantial velocity increases (to 1350 m/s and 1300 m/s, respectively), and the AC/2 could use a velocity drop (from 2000 m/s to 1600 m/s) to bring it into line with the times-to-optimal values of the rest of the AC family.



IMO, the Gauss Rifle can stay where it is (2000 m/s, with a 0.330s time-to-optimal at r=660m), while the standard PPC could use a velocity increase to 1550 m/s (giving it a time-to-optimal of 0.348s at r=540m) and the ER-PPC could use a velocity increase to 2300 m/s (giving it a time-to-optimal of 0.352s at r=810m). Essentially, it would normalize these weapons around a time-to-optimal value of 0.350 ± 0.050 seconds.

The corresponding Clan weapons would be normalized to the same values in the same manner (e.g. all Clan autocannons would have times-to optimal of 0.450 ± 0.050 seconds, the Clan Gauss Rifle & Clan ER-PPC would have times to optimal of 0.350 ± 0.050 seconds); as Clan weapons tend to have equal or longer optimal ranges than their IS counterparts, the result would be that Clan weapons having correspondingly equal or higher velocities compared to their IS counterparts.

Thoughts?

With one caveat. Perhaps ERPPC should not be traveling at 2300 m/s. That... seems incredibly excessive. Yeah, I know, normalizing the travel time and all, but at 2300 m/s, there would be practically zero need to lead at most ranges one would actually engage in. Don't think I like that.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 17 January 2016 - 06:21 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Strum Wealh, on 17 January 2016 - 06:04 PM, said:

Another factor to consider is the time-to-target-at-range for each of the non-hitscan weapons.
The times-to-range in MWO ((time) = (distance)/(speed)) really aren't that long, in an absolute sense...

• PPC (@1100 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@540 meters): 0.491 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1080 meters): 0.982 seconds
• ER-PPC (@1200 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@810 meters): 0.675 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1620 meters): 1.350 seconds
• AC/2 (@2000 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@720 meters): 0.360 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1440 meters): 0.720 seconds
• AC/5 (@1150 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@620 meters): 0.539 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1240 meters): 1.078 seconds
• AC/10 (@950 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@450 meters): 0.474 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@900 meters): 0.947 seconds
• AC/20 (@650 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@540 meters): 0.491 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1080 meters): 0.982 seconds
• UAC/5 (@1150 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@600 meters): 0.522 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1200 meters): 1.043 seconds
• LB 10-X (@1100 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@540 meters): 0.491 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1620 meters): 1.473 seconds
• Gauss Rifle (@2000 m/s)
  
  • Time to optimal range (@660 meters): 0.330 seconds
    
  • Time to maximum range (@1980 meters): 0.990 seconds
• LRMs (@160 m/s)
  
  • Time to maximum range (@1000 meters): 6.250 seconds
• SRMs (@400 m/s)
  
  • Time to maximum range (@270 meters): 0.675 seconds
• SSRMs (@250 m/s)
  
  • Time to maximum range (@270 meters): 1.080 seconds

The majority of the weapons can reach targets at their respective maximum ranges within about one second (1.000s ± 0.100s), with notable outliers being the SRMs (0.675 seconds to a target at max range of 270 meters) & the AC/2 (0.720 seconds to a target at max range of 1440 meters) at the low end, and the ER-PPC (1.350 seconds to a target at max range of 1620 meters), the LB 10-X (1.473 seconds to a target at max range of 1620 meters), and the LRMs (6.250 seconds to a target at max range of 1000 meters) at the high end.


Likewise, most of the non-missile weapons reach their respective optimal/effective ranges within about a half-second (0.500s ± 0.100s), with notable outliers being the AC/2 (0.360 second to a target at optimal range of 720 meters) & the Gauss Rifle (0.330 second to a target at optimal range of 660 meters) at the low end, and the ER-PPC (0.675 seconds to a target at optimal range of 810 meters) at the high end.

To put that into perspective:

• "The average reaction time for humans is 0.25 seconds to a visual stimulus, 0.17 for an audio stimulus, and 0.15 seconds for a touch stimulus."
  
• "The reaction times of the best fast draw shooters is 0.145 seconds, which means that the gun is cocked, drawn, aimed (from the hip), and fired in just over 0.06 seconds."

The reaction time of the average human is around one quarter-second for seeing something & reacting to that is seen, while the peak reaction times of highly-trained & highly-practiced individuals can be as little as one-seventh of one second.


Personally, I would prefer to see PGI normalize the time-to-optimal values for the ACs to 0.450 ± 0.050 seconds.

• AC/2: 2000 m/s → 1440 to 1800 m/s (1600 m/s for r=720m & t=0.450s)
  
• AC/5: 1150 m/s → 1240 to 1550 m/s (1378 m/s for r=620m & t=0.450s)
  
• UAC/5: 1150 m/s → 1200 to 1500 m/s (1333 m/s for r=600m & t=0.450s)
  
• AC/10: 950 m/s → 900 to 1125 m/s (1000 m/s for r=450m & t=0.450s)
  
• LB 10-X: 1100 m/s → 1080 to 1350 m/s (1200 m/s for r=540m & t=0.450s)
  
• AC/20: 650 m/s → 540 to 675 m/s (600 m/s for r=270m & t=0.450s)

The AC/20 is in a fairly good place as it is, the AC/10 & LB 10-X could use minor velocity increases (to 1050 m/s and 1200 m/s, respectively), while the AC/5 & UAC/5 could use somewhat more substantial velocity increases (to 1350 m/s and 1300 m/s, respectively), and the AC/2 could use a velocity drop (from 2000 m/s to 1600 m/s) to bring it into line with the times-to-optimal values of the rest of the AC family.


IMO, the Gauss Rifle can stay where it is (2000 m/s, with a 0.330s time-to-optimal at r=660m), while the standard PPC could use a velocity increase to 1550 m/s (giving it a time-to-optimal of 0.348s at r=540m) and the ER-PPC could use a velocity increase to 2300 m/s (giving it a time-to-optimal of 0.352s at r=810m). Essentially, it would normalize these weapons around a time-to-optimal value of 0.350 ± 0.050 seconds.

The corresponding Clan weapons would be normalized to the same values in the same manner (e.g. all Clan autocannons would have times-to optimal of 0.450 ± 0.050 seconds, the Clan Gauss Rifle & Clan ER-PPC would have times to optimal of 0.350 ± 0.050 seconds); as Clan weapons tend to have equal or longer optimal ranges than their IS counterparts, the result would be that Clan weapons having correspondingly equal or higher velocities compared to their IS counterparts.

Thoughts?

I am 100% on board with this.

I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Pariah Devalis, on 17 January 2016 - 06:14 PM, said:

With one caveat. Perhaps ERPPC should not be traveling at 2300 m/s. That... seems incredibly excessive. Yeah, I know, normalizing the travel time and all, but at 2300 m/s, there would be practically zero need to lead at most ranges one would actually engage in. Don't think I like that.

I... dunno.

If they left the atrocious heat where it is (Russ has spoken of slightly reducing it, after all); a 15 heat/10 damage long range lightning bolt projector... Is it that bad?

The advantage of ERPPC's (if quirks are fixed at the same time!!!!!) is that they are so hot, it's extremely difficult to use more than one or maaaaaybe two effectively. They're just too hot.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pariah Devalis, on 17 January 2016 - 06:14 PM, said:

With one caveat. Perhaps ERPPC should not be traveling at 2300 m/s. That... seems incredibly excessive. Yeah, I know, normalizing the travel time and all, but at 2300 m/s, there would be practically zero need to lead at most ranges one would actually engage in. Don't think I like that.

Considering how bad ERPPCs are currently, I think 2300-2500 m/s is would be a nice test and may justify the 15 heat per shot.

[Pariah Devalis]

Wintersdark, on 17 January 2016 - 06:28 PM, said:

I am 100% on board with this.

I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.



I... dunno.

If they left the atrocious heat where it is (Russ has spoken of slightly reducing it, after all); a 15 heat/10 damage long range lightning bolt projector... Is it that bad?

The advantage of ERPPC's (if quirks are fixed at the same time!!!!!) is that they are so hot, it's extremely difficult to use more than one or maaaaaybe two effectively. They're just too hot.

Yeah... but if I had to choose between 14 heat ERPPC with a chance for them increasing the actual pinpoint damage of the Clan version vs 15 heat ERPPC that was so easy to hit with it might as well be a point and click adventure.... Reducing the require lead also reduces the amount of skill one needs to effectively place shots on a target. I mean, too slow is too slow and becomes damned near unusable, but too fast is too easy, and too easy very quickly, as this community has shown time and again, becomes too easily abused and overused.

I'd rather a more difficult to use weapon with great payoff over an easy to use weapon with an OK return. What can I say? I am a sucker for things that take a little effort to use well - as long as they do, indeed, pay off when used well.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 17 January 2016 - 06:35 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pariah Devalis, on 17 January 2016 - 06:33 PM, said:

too easy very quickly, as this community has shown time and again, becomes too easily abused and overused.

The difference is that most of the abused weapons have never been as hot as the ERPPC.

[Pariah Devalis]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 January 2016 - 06:39 PM, said:

The difference is that most of the abused weapons have never been as hot as the ERPPC.

Didn't stop the Thuds. Granted, after quirks the heat generation was basically at approximately, what, 13 per ERPPC, but the speed of the ERPPC was even lower than the suggested. Almost overnight they became omnipresent.

That said, it's a place to put a difference between IS and Clan ERPPC. Make one faster, and make one hit harder. One works better for long ranged poke, the other provides a medium ranged heavy hitter. By no means, however, should it be combined with heat reductions, on either case. You know, to safeguard against breaking the system and boating them to excess.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 17 January 2016 - 06:45 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pariah Devalis, on 17 January 2016 - 06:42 PM, said:

Didn't stop the Thuds. Granted, after quirks the heat generation was basically at approximately, what, 7.5 per ERPPC, but the speed of the ERPPC was even lower than the suggested.

FTFY. Even at 11.25 heat the ERPPC isn't worth it on the 9S.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 January 2016 - 06:48 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Pariah Devalis, on 17 January 2016 - 06:42 PM, said:

Didn't stop the Thuds. Granted, after quirks the heat generation was basically at approximately, what, 13 per ERPPC, but the speed of the ERPPC was even lower than the suggested. Almost overnight they became omnipresent.

That said, it's a place to put a difference between IS and Clan ERPPC. Make one faster, and make one hit harder. One works better for long ranged poke, the other provides a medium ranged heavy hitter. By no means, however, should it be combined with heat reductions, on either case. You know, to safeguard against breaking the system and boating them to excess.

No, it was 7.5 heat


HALF heat, the coolest PPCs had EVER been (8 heat for the normal PPC at the height of the PPC meta).

[Pariah Devalis]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 January 2016 - 06:47 PM, said:

FTFY. Even at 11.25 heat the ERPPC isn't worth it on the 9S.

Mcgral18, on 17 January 2016 - 06:48 PM, said:

No, it was 7.5 heat


HALF heat, the coolest PPCs had EVER been (8 heat for the normal PPC at the height of the PPC meta).

I stand corrected. All the same, I am not a fan of dumbing down usability to that extreme. Speed increase is one thing. Covering 800 meters in a third of a second is just silly. Half a second, sure, why not, that is both usable and needs some thought at where you'll be leading with at 2x optimal.

The weapon needs help, but in moderation. No reason to go overboard with it just because it's bad now.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 17 January 2016 - 06:55 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pariah Devalis, on 17 January 2016 - 06:54 PM, said:

I stand corrected. All the same, I am not a fan of dumbing down usability to that extreme.

You mean like ERLLs or lasers period ?

[Strum Wealh]

Pariah Devalis, on 17 January 2016 - 06:14 PM, said:

Perhaps ERPPC should not be traveling at 2300 m/s. That... seems incredibly excessive. Yeah, I know, normalizing the travel time and all, but at 2300 m/s, there would be practically zero need to lead at most ranges one would actually engage in. Don't think I like that.

At what range, in meters, are we talking about?

As an example, a speed-tweaked Mad Cat can run at 87.075 kph, which works out to 24.1875 m/s.
Within the span of the average human reaction time (0.25s, one-quarter of one second), this Mad Cat can displace itself by up to 6.047 meters.
Within the span of the peak human reaction time (0.145s, roughly one-seventh of one second), this Mad Cat can displace itself by up to 3.507 meters.

At 2300 m/s, an ER-PPC bolt would reach 575 meters from the firing 'Mech in 0.250 seconds.
At 2300 m/s, an ER-PPC bolt would reach 333.5 meters from the firing 'Mech in 0.145 seconds.

In other words: we're still talking about the possibility of a multiple-meters lead against a circling fast heavy 'Mech at the effective ranges of higher-damage autocannons (unless the target 'Mech is stationary, or moving directly toward (or away from) the firing 'Mech, or moving rather slowly, or is very close to the firing 'Mech).
Against most light 'Mechs & faster medium 'Mechs that manage to establish a "circle of death", we're necessarily still looking at significant (or, at least, not-insignificant) leading being necessary at even rather close (e.g. sub-300m) ranges, despite the proposed ER-PPC velocity, yes?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 17 January 2016 - 07:29 PM.

[FupDup]

Wintersdark, on 17 January 2016 - 01:37 PM, said:

I've long argued that ISML's should go down to 4 heat, actually...

You mean 3 heat, right?

Strum Wealh, on 17 January 2016 - 06:04 PM, said:

• AC/2: 2000 m/s → 1440 to 1800 m/s (1600 m/s for r=720m & t=0.450s)

...and the AC/2 could use a velocity drop (from 2000 m/s to 1600 m/s) to bring it into line with the times-to-optimal values of the rest of the AC family.

Thoughts?

Why the f$#% would you nerf the AC/2? It's one of the crappiest weapons in the game.

[El Bandito]

I'm fine with C/ERPPC getting more velocity than regular PPC, but PGI should have the ER version of PPC to have minimum range and remove it from the regular PPC.

[Wintersdark]

FupDup, on 17 January 2016 - 07:28 PM, said:

You mean 3 heat, right?

lolwhoops, yeah.

My bad