9 replies to this topic

[Brain Cancer]

It can't be minimum range = no damage. Many weapons with minimum ranges from TT don't have any such problems, including most Gauss weapons and smaller AC's.

It can't even be a class of weapon. IS LPPC/PPC/HPPC all have minimum ranges, but the HPPC gets damage reduction while the others simply deal no damage at all (but briefly the HPPC got damage reduction instead, on Test). Clan LRMs have no deadzone (or TT minimum) while IS LRMs are completely deadzoned. ATMs, of course also have a deadzone.

Why are we making weapons totally useless up close, especially with how unevenly that penalty is applied? Deadzones for weapons doesn't exist in TT, period. It's also a crippling punishment on many maps, where any kind of tight terrain instantly can bring your firepower down, possibly to zero.

Shouldn't all minimum ranges be represented by damage reduction instead?

Set IS LRMs to go from 1/missile to, say .25 at 0 meters over 180->0m. Likewise, have PPCs drop from 100% to 25% from 90m->0m.

Clan ATMs can be more creative to go with the multistage ammo. 120m->70m is from 3->2 damage (third stage fails to arm), 70m->20m is 2->1 damage (second and third), 20m->0 is 1->.25 damage.

I can't count how many fights have been reduced to farces because someone happened to get 2m closer and magically, the opponent has no guns at all. That's just wrong, especially with how some weapons with minimum ranges never even have one applied to begin with.

Edited by Brain Cancer, 22 November 2017 - 01:54 PM.

[FupDup]

As a correction, the HPPC currently uses the same zero-damage deadzone as the other min-range guns.

What you're thinking of is the PTS version of the gun. PGI let it have a linear dropoff min range as a compromise for when it only dealt 12 PPFLD plus splash. When PGI bumped it up to 15 PPFLD they removed that exception.

And yeah, it's a super annoying mechanic. It's especially stupid from a game logic standpoint that the PPC variant with way more range and velocity is BETTER in close combat than the shorter ranged variants.

[Potatomasher69]

I like to think of it as a safety feature for those looking in the zoom window aiming PPCs or too busy looking through their sensors looking for LURM targets to notice a friendly assault passing in front of them.

Also, with that said, I also think that the safety feature should be on a toggle/override.

Edited by She Plays For Me, 22 November 2017 - 01:42 PM.

[FupDup]

She Plays For Me, on 22 November 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

I like to think of it as a safety feature for those looking in the zoom window aiming PPCs or too busy looking through their sensors looking for LURM targets to notice a friendly assault passing in front of them.

Also, with that said, I also think that the safety feature should be on a toggle/override.

Funny thing is that there are in fact advanced TT rules for this. It's called the PPC Field Inhibitor. You can turn off your inhibitor in order to remove your min range penalty, but you have a chance of the weapon backfiring and damaging itself.

For MWO a random chance like that would be just as dumb as the zero-damage deadzone, so I'd suggest something like dealing splash instead of full PPFLD, increased heat, or something else of that sort.

[Brain Cancer]

There's also hotloading LRMs in TT as well, which negates the minrange at the cost of reducing damage.

But seriously, it's a special kind of wrong. There are no weapons that suddenly deal zero damage in Battletech because you were one meter too close. They may have trouble hitting, They may even hit with fewer bits of damage. But being too close never prevents a weapon from dealing damage to begin with- except in MWO. As a gameplay "feature", it's a no-fun mechanic.

Kill it with fire.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Because according to something something technobabble, bolts of charged, superheated particles, fired with enough energy to punch through a Battlemech at half a kilometer, phase out of the physical plane of existence for exactly the first 90m out of the barrel unless you attach certain magic words to the weapon's name before you fire it.

It's Science!

[Jun Watarase]

What PGI dont seem to get is that PPCs and LLs were balanced this way in the TT :

LL : 8 damage, 8 heat
PPC : 10 damage, 10 heat, +3 max range, +3 min range

So while PPCs were better at longer range, they had the downside of having a min range.

In MWO, LLs and ER LLs in particular **** all over PPCs because they are hitscan, have a higher ghost heat cap, are more heat efficient and have no min range.

I mean, just look at LLs vs ER LLs.

LL : 9 damage, 7 heat, 450m range
ER LL : 9 damage, 8 heat, 675m range

Meanwhile the comparison of PPC vs ER PPCs looks like this :

PPCs : 10 damage, 9.5 heat, 540m range
ER PPC : 10 damage, 13.5 heat, 810m range

WTF???

And ER LL vs PPC comparisons are just...LOL.

3x ER LLs : 15 tons, 6 slots, 27 damage, 24 heat, 675m range
2x PPCs : 14 tons, 6 slots, 20 damage, 19 heat, 540m range, 90m min range

If you want to give PPCs a min range then 2x PPCs have to be better than 3x LLs or 3x ER LLs but thats obviously not the case currently. And the massive heat tax that ER PPCs have is dumb.

Edited by Jun Watarase, 22 November 2017 - 05:28 PM.

[FupDup]

Jun Watarase, on 22 November 2017 - 05:25 PM, said:

What PGI dont seem to get is that PPCs and LLs were balanced this way in the TT :

LL : 8 damage, 8 heat
PPC : 10 damage, 10 heat, +3 max range, +3 min range

So while PPCs were better at longer range, they had the downside of having a min range.

The fact that the weapon with better range had the same damage-per-heat ratio was incredibly dumb. Nobody in their right mind used the IS LL in TT outside of stock builds or a single filler weapon (if you couldn't find something else to fill in). The PPC pretty much invalidated every type of IS large-class laser and most of the autocannons as well.

And no, 2x PPC should not be superior to 3x LL. We had that back when the IS LL ghost heat cap was at just 2 like the PPC. It was awful and anybody wishing for it to come back needs to be slapped with a fish.

The 3x LL has shorter range, some exposure time (not PPFLD), a little more heat, a little more tonnage, and an extra hardpoint. If anything the triple LL should be better within its medium range bracket, with the PPC of course being better once you start getting further out in range.

Edited by FupDup, 22 November 2017 - 05:33 PM.

[Jun Watarase]

It wasnt perfectly balanced but you could see the logic the original designers were going with. Every weapon with more than 15 max range had a min range penalty applied to it (talkig about intro tech).

The thing is 2x PPCs weigh 14 tons, 3x LLs/ER LLs weigh 15. PPCs have the disadvantage of much lower damage and a min range. Why use PPCs when you can boat LLs and ER LLs instead? I mean, this is precisely why people are not using PPCs anymore. And ER PPCs are even worse when compared to ER LLs.

Dont compare 3x LLs to 2x PPCs...compare 3x ER LLs to 2x PPCs instead. The ER LLs are more heat efficient to boot. And the range on ER PPCs is pointless because when you get to long range, the limiting factor on PPFLD is velocity.

You forgot the reason why LLs/ER LLs couldnt match PPCs was because the ghost heat cap was 2 and they had worse stats (Especially the ER LL). Right now we should be balancing 3x LLs/ER LLs vs 2x PPCs/ER PPCs. And right now PPCs just cannot compete which is why nobody uses them anymore.

Edited by Jun Watarase, 22 November 2017 - 05:43 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

For PPCs specifically, I've been advocating for a long while now that instead of 0 damage inside the minimum they do partial damage to the target and to the weapon's location, proportion scaling by proximity (as in, closer to 90m it does most of the damage to the target and only a little to the user, while at 10m it does most of its damage to the user and a little bit to the target).