13 replies to this topic

[Audacious Aubergine]

Just curious as to what the response to light PPCs was. Given all the other vocal reactions to RACs, MRMs, ATMs and heavy lasers, it doesn't seem like anyone had anything to say about these?
I'm unsure, personally. A pinpoint weapon with decent range and manageable heat but also comparatively low damage seems like it's balanced?

[The6thMessenger]

It's okay as far as PPCs go.

[SPNKRGrenth]

They're mostly good, but for what they are I think they should either take 1 slot, or take less heat to fire.

[Kaptain]

I think they are absolutely awesome. Running 3 on a raven instead of 2ERLL feel great. Gives it some much needed punch. (Stealth armor is fun also)

I also like 4 of them on a black jack. Fire one side then the other to avoid ghost heat or chain fire them to screw with your enemy.

Running 3 of them on the founders atlas -D instead of 4MLs/ERMLS give sit a much needed long range punch that can still work up close with decent heat efficiency.

They pair decent with AC5 and ultras 5s also.

Overall I really liked them.

[Y E O N N E]

Not great, bot bad. They allow some interesting builds, but being unable to fire 4 without penalty hurts their maximum competitive value. I found them most potent paired with UAC/5 on something like a Warhammer as DPS weapons.

[Katpocalypse Meow]

They aren't bad. Think they will probably be a pretty niche weapon overall. Just for light and medium mechs either for sniping or adding a little extra long range damage. Just wish they would change the ghost heat threshold to 4 instead of 2.

[The6thMessenger]

4 LPPCs shouldn't be a thing.

It takes 2 LPPCs and only 6 tons, to match a PPC but at 7 tons. It's already economical that way.

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 09 July 2017 - 12:09 AM, said:

4 LPPCs shouldn't be a thing.

It takes 2 LPPCs and only 6 tons, to match a PPC but at 7 tons. It's already economical that way.

Counterpoint:

Standard PPCs are not good enough for their tonnage.

[HIGH LORD KIT FAWKS THE WATCHFUL]

All things considered, it might be one of the few times I break my "No energy" rule for UM.

Very solid weapon design. I might try a build on it.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 09 July 2017 - 10:36 AM, said:

Counterpoint:

Standard PPCs are not good enough for their tonnage.

If we do that, it would obscure standard PPCs.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 July 2017 - 02:34 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 09 July 2017 - 02:32 PM, said:

If we do that, it would obscure standard PPCs.

What does that even mean? If the standard PPC were better for its weight (i.e. colder, slightly longer ranged, no min range, take your pick), there would be plenty of reasons to take a pair over 4x LPPC.

[Khobai]

Quote

Standard PPCs are not good enough for their tonnage.

The only thing wrong with Standard PPCs is the 90m damage deadzone. They dont have a 90m damage deadzone in tabletop so they shouldnt have a damage deadzone in MWO.

Since having an on/off toggle for PPC field inhibitors is not going to happen, the next best would be to give PPCs linear damage dropoff under 90m (linear not exponential)

I would be fine with Light PPCs having linear dropoff too.

But as a balancing point, I feel Heavy PPCs need to keep their exponential dropoff or go back to having a 90m damage deadzone.

And if you get rid of the damage deadzone on the STD PPC you probably need to do something to make the ERPPC slightly more appealing like lower its heat. I think the ERPPC would be fine at 13 heat. The snubnose PPC would probably need reduced heat too (9 or 9.5?) since giving the STD PPC linear dropoff makes the snubnose less good in comparison.

Edited by Khobai, 09 July 2017 - 03:03 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 09 July 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

The only thing wrong with Standard PPCs is the 90m damage deadzone. They dont have a 90m damage deadzone in tabletop so they shouldnt have a damage deadzone in MWO.

Since having an on/off toggle for PPC field inhibitors is not going to happen, the next best would be to give PPCs linear damage dropoff under 90m (linear not exponential)

I would be fine with Light PPCs having linear dropoff too.

But as a balancing point, I feel Heavy PPCs need to keep their exponential dropoff or go back to having a 90m damage deadzone.

That isn't the only thing wrong with them. The projectile isn't fast enough to reliably exploit the PPFLD DPS superiority PGI gave it over the cER PPC, it has the aforementioned dead zone, it is too hot to run with significant back-up weapons (Gauss or otherwise) on Medium 'Mechs, and at 540 m it is competing with vastly more capable weapons (like cLPL, isLL, UAC/10, cERPPC). As a result, the primary competitive use case for the standard PPC is as a supplement to UAC/5, the same role the LPPC fits best into for most of the same reasons as well as being able to only to fire three without penalty and a role which it can do better thanks to allowing two more heatsinks. The only exception was the BJ-3, which runs them at 8.55 heat and 650 meters range. That's a great place for them to be, and it was sometimes considered as an alternative to a similarly equipped HBK-IIC-A.

Such a PPC provides a lot of maneuvering room for the LPPC to distinguish itself (with lower range, worse heat efficiency, potentially shorter cool-down, lack of dead zone, etc.) and still be able to fire 4x.

[Khobai]

Quote

That isn't the only thing wrong with them. The projectile isn't fast enough to reliably exploit the PPFLD DPS superiority PGI gave it over the cER PPC

The projectile isnt fast for a reason. Its deliberate to make it harder to sync up gauss/ppc shots

It will never be faster as long as you can fire Gauss/PPC together. So wishing for it to be faster is just silly.