53 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Alan Davion, on 26 January 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

Which is exactly why the system should never have been introduced in the first place.

moot point

It was introduced
It IS in the game
The game is built entirely upon that premise

Talking about what they "should" have done 3 years ago doesn't change the system you have today.

Khobai, on 26 January 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

PPCs should definitely be brawling weapons.
ERPPCs should not be brawling weapons.

That way theres a reason to use BOTH.


PPCs need their min range removed
ERPPCs need their projectile velocity increased, and their cooldown increased
and both need their heat decreased

brawling weapons that do no damage under 90 meters...

we definitely have different definitions of "brawling"

[Khobai]

Quote

PPCs have a minimum range. they were never designed to be brawling weapons.

MWO is NOT battletech. MWO should not worry about whats balanced in battletech. MWO should worry about whats balanced in MWO.

in MWO the min range on PPCs needs to be removed for PPCs to have a place in the game

Quote

brawling weapons that do no damage under 90 meters...

which is why they need to remove the dumb min range and make them do damage under 90m. derpa derp.

No weapon should just do 0 damage at point blank range. Thats re tarded, asinine, and makes absolutely no sense. Nobody likes min range on PPCs. Its as derided as chargeup on gauss.

In order for both to have a place in the game:
PPCs need to work best in the brawling to midrange rangebands
while ERPPCS work best in the longrange rangebands.

Edited by Khobai, 26 January 2016 - 10:11 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Khobai, on 26 January 2016 - 10:07 AM, said:

MWO is NOT battletech. MWO should not worry about whats balanced in battletech. MWO should worry about whats balanced in MWO.

in MWO the min range on PPCs needs to be removed for PPCs to have a place in the game

MW:O is a BattleTech game, it says so right in the title. Therefore, MW:O should stick to the values whenever possible. Neither ERPPCs, nor PPCs are imbalanced at this time.

PPCs DO have a place in the game. They are great if you don't need the range of ERPPCs, or do not want the extra heat.

[S13gtastic]

The biggest issue I have with PPC's is the worry that they would just become an ammo less AC10 if heat is reduced. Id much rather see them have a better mechanic or just something, hell even if it's just straight up making your HUD go super wonky for 20 seconds along with fizzling ECM.

[Sandpit]

Khobai, on 26 January 2016 - 10:07 AM, said:

which is why they need to remove the dumb min range and make them do damage under 90m. derpa derp.

I agree to an extent, but moot within this context. It DOES have a min range, making it ineffective as a brawling weapon.

I'd rather they add the field inhibitor option. You can choose to turn off the field inhibitor allowing damage under 90 meters, but you have the possibility of a "malfunction" which could work similar to the UAC jam mechanics.

Maybe increase heat a bit for that option as well.

But again, that doesn't change the fact that it currently does have the min range and in this context, the PPC just aren't a good brawling weapon because all the opponent has to do is close to 89 meters and your PPCs are useless.

[wanderer]

Quote

Ghost heat forces you to either pace your shots or use alternate weapons

Actually, it doesn't as you just watch the meta shift to mixed weapon types that dodge ghost heat and two-alpha-kill targets. Which it has. Repeatedly.

And you don't have to worry much about a dead opponent while you're cooling down behind cover. Heating a 'Mech to 50% of auto-shutdown would noticeably degrade performance in TT.

Nothing about heat degrades performance in MWO until you hit 101% heat, at which point random parts of your 'Mech melt until you drop low enough or die. Ghost heat really didn't break up boating, and the problem with the meta has, was, and will continue to be convergence.

[Almond Brown]

The PPC "inhibitor" was to prevent feed back damage to the shooter. Now if we wish to remove the "inhibitors" basic function then how much self inflicted damage would be the correct amount? And would that feed back damage be to the weapon itself, the internal components of the area it is installed or to the armor of that same area?

The "weapon itself" would not likely fly as it has a mere 10HP so say @5 damage per shot sans "inhibitor" allows 2 shot and then loss of the weapon.

The "internal components" of the area it is installed in is another likely no go as "internal components" currently are unaffected until armor is breached.

Thus what remains is to apply damage to the "armor of that same area" and for some Mechs with PPC's in their arms, armor is a luxury hard afforded.

So it would appear that PPC's over-all seem to be in a pretty good place as they are now, save for being a tad hot but that can usually be avoided by use of proper "fire discipline". The fact that so many players do not have such discipline, or just don't care about that Skill, is not really a valid reason to change the weapon and how it is currently set up...

Edited by Almond Brown, 26 January 2016 - 12:04 PM.

[Sandpit]

wanderer, on 26 January 2016 - 11:35 AM, said:

Actually, it doesn't as you just watch the meta shift to mixed weapon types

That's kinda the point.

What more do you want it to do? It helps diversify loadouts so you have less single weapon type boats.

Almond Brown, on 26 January 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:

The PPC "inhibitor" was to prevent feed back damage to the shooter. Now if we wish to remove the "inhibitors" basic function then how much self inflicted damage would be the correct amount? And would that feed back damage be to the weapon itself, the internal components of the area it is installed or to the armor of that same area?

The "weapon itself" would not likely fly as it has a mere 10HP so say @5 damage per shot sans "inhibitor" allows 2 shot and then loss of the weapon.

The "internal components" of the area it is installed in is another likely no go as "internal components" currently are unaffected until armor is breached.

Thus what remains is to apply damage to the "armor of that same area" and for some Mechs with PPC's in their arms, armor is a luxury hard afforded.

PPC's seem to be pretty good where they are now, save for a Tad hot but that can usually be avoided by proper fire discipline. The fact that so many do not have such discipline is not a valid reason to change the weapon and how it set up...

uhm only if you stick strictly to the TT version and explanation.

So again, just give it a jam chance and the inhibitor option. That adds a decent balance to the choices of that weapon. There's no need to get anymore complicated than that.

[Hotthedd]

Sandpit, on 26 January 2016 - 12:03 PM, said:

uhm only if you stick strictly to the TT version and explanation.

So again, just give it a jam chance and the inhibitor option. That adds a decent balance to the choices of that weapon. There's no need to get anymore complicated than that.

There is no need to get any more complicated than it already IS.

You realize you are asking for a randomly generated chance.

[Sandpit]

Hotthedd, on 26 January 2016 - 12:10 PM, said:

There is no need to get any more complicated than it already IS.

You realize you are asking for a randomly generated chance.

and?
So? lol

It's a decent trade-off for the min range of PPCs. Any adjustment on heat and/or damage just means it becomes the "normal" replacement to ER PPC as it takes away every advantage of the ER PPC except min and max ranges.

[Hotthedd]

Sandpit, on 26 January 2016 - 12:14 PM, said:

and?
So? lol

It's a decent trade-off for the min range of PPCs. Any adjustment on heat and/or damage just means it becomes the "normal" replacement to ER PPC as it takes away every advantage of the ER PPC except min and max ranges.

Aren't min and max ranges the only advantages to the ERPPC?

[Sandpit]

Hotthedd, on 26 January 2016 - 12:17 PM, said:

Aren't min and max ranges the only advantages to the ERPPC?

no, the velocity speed is different as well as heat.
The heat is for the extended max range, reduce the heat a bit if you want to balance against the regular PPC. The PPC itself can't be adjusted without adjusting the ER PPC as well, which means then the rest of the weapons have to be rebalanced as well.

It's not as simple as "buff this weapon" or "nerf that weapon", that's the problem with a lot of the balancing suggestions and discussions on the forums honestly. They try to balance a single weapon or system in a vacuum, without any thought or regard to how it affects not only that weapon, but all the mechs quirked for that weapon, all of the other weapons in comparison to that weapon, as well as effectiveness when compared to clan tech as well.

It's a lot more complicated than "just balance it" most times. The solution I suggested above solves the min range issue, gives an alternative, requires no real extra coding (since the code already exists with UACs), and doesn't involve changing that specific weapon's damage, range, or heat profiles.

That's something you have to consider when coming up with ideas.

[wanderer]

Quote

What more do you want it to do? It helps diversify loadouts so you have less single weapon type boats.

I don't want it to do anything, because the problem it was meant to solve was never fixed in application.

The problem wasn't 4 PPCs on that Stalker. It was 4 PPCs that all converged pixel-pefect on a single spot for 40 damage.
Lots of damage. Single point. Quick and easy. The only difference has been the best guns to apply that to your opponent.

Fix that. You'd solve a real problem then, not mask it under a shell game of nerf/buffs.

[oldradagast]

A few thoughts:

- Had they maintained the jump-jet shake, even at reduced levels, during the fall after the jets are turned off, many of the later nerfs to prevent pop-tarting, including Gauss nerf, PPC nerf, jump-jets becoming hover-jets, etc, would not have been needed. I cannot think of a single good reason why the shake was not maintained through the whole jump - these are mechs, not fighter jets - except that somebody at PGI either likes jump sniping or wants to keep it as a boogie-man to use as an excuse when nerfing something else into the ground. So, easy solution passed up in favor of more complex ones and more nerfs.

- Had the game been given a small cone of fire, similar to a small version of the jump-jet shake, at all times, it would have been more realistic - no way in heck do weapons magically converge instantly on a single pixel at any range - and it would also have meant that they could have ditched ghost heat and other kludged together mechanics and nerfs designed to prevent absurdly large pinpoint alphas. It also would have prevented the current pixel-perfect, instant damage laser vomit meta. Again, another golden opportunity missed, and the game engine can handle this, unlike delayed convergence and how it interacts with host state rewind.

Lost chances, and yet no surprises, sadly.

Edited by oldradagast, 26 January 2016 - 04:09 PM.