1125 replies to this topic

[Johnathan Tanner]

Wing 0, on 10 February 2018 - 03:37 PM, said:

Agreed.

Heres something that PGI should've done to that at first.

2 Gauss 1 PPC Should trigger Minor GH 30% heat instead of 70% .Trade off is the Ammo.

2 PPC 1 Gauss Should trigger Major GH . 60% heat instead of 95% Trade off is the Energy Weaponry.

2 PPC 2 Gauss Should trigger Massive GH 85% heat instead of 95% near Insta shutdown. Trade off is preventing any constant Alpha Strikes.

Any other weapons firing with any of those combinations with should trigger multiple GH trouble. like for example, firing 2 Gauss 1 PPC and 1 Medium Laser will just add more to the GH making it worse.

This is just an opinon of what it should've been. Adjustment would've been less severe than what it was given. sure it still be useable in some cases but it wouldn't be a completely "Viable Combo" overall.

I did some testing grounds to see where each GH of those combinations went and yeah. Its way too high. Keep in mind, My numbers might not be exactly accurate because of the skilltree involved. Clan ERLs or other Energy weapons have way a better leeway on the GH and pilots can get away with it easily.

I know they nerfed it to prevent the Mad Cat MKII from being OP which was understandable but the way they approached it before the MKII first came out was simply bad excuse based on the notes by the devs meaning (Paul). They should've toned it down based on certain combinations like I mentioned to where they could still be used but with some trade that a pilot would have to be dealing with. Right now it needs major readjustments. Firing 1 PPC 2 Gauss triggers way too high on its penalty going 70% heat vs other combinations which are just as bad. Then again, the Nightstar would get some major value again to be wanted to be used more since this would help that mech as well.

Since the Fafnir is coming and right now the HVY Gauss got that stupid buff that wasn't needed period. If I see 12 Fafnirs in any game with a same HVY Gauss build in particular, PGI will have failed. Right now I have seen Cyclops and Annis running something similar to HVY Gauss builds and they hurt more than a 1 PPC 2 Gauss build atm which only does 40 dmg without PPC its 30 dmg. HVY Gauss does 25 Dmg Each. 2 of them would be 50 dmg.

I already see trouble incoming. 1 PPC 2 HVY Gauss. 60 dmg. That should trigger 90 Heat near Shutdown. Lets not forget that clans cant use HVY Gauss.




I agree. A good satisfying answer is needed and has to be very persuasive. MKIIs don't have those quirk buffs to start with right off the bat plus they don't have the kind of GH penalties that I.S has leeway on. Seen too many BLRS and its really old and repetitive.




LOL. Timberwolfs and NTGs are nothing to be scared about compared to a Kodiak, King Crab, Supernoob, or even a MIIC with 2PPC 2Guass. Sure the MKII can do that but as it stands right now with the current GH, nope.

Thats why I support combination of 3, not 4. And 2 heavy guass and a ppc might sound scary on google docs. It really wouldn't be very good in game.
1st the range synergy is non existent.

2nd that could only be mounted on THE BIGGEST, SLOWEST mechs in the game. Just kite the stupid thing.

[naterist]

Johnathan Tanner, on 10 February 2018 - 03:54 PM, said:

Thats why I support combination of 3, not 4. And 2 heavy guass and a ppc might sound scary on google docs. It really wouldn't be very good in game.
1st the range synergy is non existent.

2nd that could only be mounted on THE BIGGEST, SLOWEST mechs in the game. Just kite the stupid thing.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...33f47ec69e2dc88

60 pinpoint at about equally short ranges. yes, delete ALL the armour, yeeesssssss.

[Johnathan Tanner]

naterist, on 10 February 2018 - 04:17 PM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...33f47ec69e2dc88

60 pinpoint at about equally short ranges. yes, delete ALL the armour, yeeesssssss.

That thing zero back armor aside would live long enough to fire MAYBE 3 times. IDK about you, But id rather have more ammo and a useful level of speed. Good troll build tho.

[LordNothing]

dont like a couple things you are suggesting being done with ballistics. namely pellet count reductions and ammo normalization. the aggressive ballistics buffs, while totally appreciated, seem like a recipe for a new meta that will be as hard to kill as the current laser based meta. i think the advantage of running the current meta should be as razor thin as possible so that its really only relevant to dedicated comp players who consider a fraction of a percentile point a huge advantage. id like to see situations where being good with a preferred weapon could always trump being mediocre with a meta weapon.

i always found the arguments against burst fire autocannons silly and catering to the lowest common denominator. for one thats the way they are supposed to work in lore, and i strongly disagree that it has any strong effect on the accuracy of the weapon. the weapons just require the same follow through that laser people use. ive never really considered it a major drawback to their use, you just need to be more familiar with your chosen weapons system. after all the main reason clan ballistics "suck" is because they dont, its just that clan lasers are so powerful to the point where you have to ask "why would you even used ballistics?". they just arent different enough from their is counterparts, burst really being the main defining factor.

ammo normalization is another thing that really doesnt belong. and thats mostly because of the effect of having good ammo efficiency on weapons like racs and ac10s. while i do think that many weapons need more ammo, i do not think normalization is the answer. the cac2 buffs alone would put my ultraviolet on such a high plateau meta that the mech itself would have to suffer greatly. the only thing really keeping it (and other 2-class boats) in check is the ammo limits. it forces you to choose between firepower and sustainability. id be able to drop ammo and add heat sinks or lasers to make those builds even more deadly. less viable weapons definately need more ammo, and powerful ones need to stay put. id like to see ac20 ammo brought up to 8 rounds a ton, so that half ton ammounts dont cost ammo efficiency, but this being a very powerful weapon would not be a great idea. instead give the half ton 4 round while keeping the 1ton magazine at 7. you can waste crits to get more ammo efficiency, not only the cost of the wasted space but also the danger of placing ammo in more areas risking ammo explosions. 8/4 rounds would be ok for the lb20. other lbs would get small ammo buffs.


ok thats what i dont like about your suggestions from the document on the op post, now heres my own suggestions:

i did suggest in another thread that lock-based convergence override needs to exist for all projectile weapons. since you often have your boresight aimed at the dead space in front of a moving target causing the game to compute an incorrect range for proper convergence. using a target lock to get range would help a lot and give ballistics users an option to get the kind of convergence laser users take for granted. this alone might give ballistics the edge that they so desperately lack. before people scream in terror about the potential for such ppfld alphas converging on a single component, the highest sustainable ballistic alpha you can pull off is with a cac60 (2x 10s, 2x 20s) is only 60 points. compare that to some of the laser alphas out there and remember that you have to lead as well. on direct shots on unmoving targets you already have perfect convergence.

ghost heat needs to be removed from ballistic weapons, spread removed from racs and reduced for lbs, but this would be replaced with a new mechanic. ghost spread. spread builds up durring high dps barrages so you are forced to stop firing to dissipate the vibrations caused by recoil. this would apply to all ballistic weapons, some weapons its more pronounced than others. high ballistic alphas would also have the same reticle deflection mechanic that the hgauss has. unlike ghost heat, the ghost spread mechanic is cumulative so more firepower means more spread.

jam mechanics need to be completely revised. for the racs id get rid of all randomness to their jamming. you jam when bar full. with the ghost spread mechanic you can actually extend the bar considerably since multiple racs would quickly scatter as much as lbs when used in anything but short controlled bursts. uacs are just annoying to use. id like to see jam mechanics that give the player more control over their damage output vs jam potential while maintaining its distinctive randomness (differentiate from racs). with single shot uacs, this can be accomplished by a ramping jam chance where time between taps dictates how much jam chance there is. burst uacs might be hold to fire weapons like racs, but with a maximim clip size and no spinup. the total damage potential for a full clip needs to be between 1.5x and 2x the weapon rating. you can fire as many rounds as you want by holding the trigger but the jam potential goes up with each round.

lb autocannons have always bugged me how you have both range falloff and spread stacking to make the weapons defacto falloff curves rather aggressive, much more than what they are balanced against. we can fix this in a few ways, we can tighten the spread a lot and make the distance fall off a lot more gadual, bringing in the optimal range somewhat. this way even at longer ranges the pellets still more or less land all on the mech, but are attenuated. this is much better than one or two pellets hitting with full damage. the other way is to get rid of the fallof entirely or at least make it much more abrupt but with a longer optimal range with all damage attenuation coming from spread. groupings at optimal range need to be only slightly larger than assault mech size, about 90% of pellets should hit. fire an lb20 at an annihilator at its optimal range it should do about 16 damage to the enemy but spread to all components. all lbs need ammo efficiency and cd buffs.

Edited by LordNothing, 10 February 2018 - 04:34 PM.

[Tarogato]

Sereglach, on 10 February 2018 - 02:02 PM, said:

They're in desperate need of a complete rework to fixed flat values, as the whole premise of the exponential scaling leaves them either broken to uselessness or broken OP (see what happened in Flamergeddon).

And my whole goal with this proposal is to avoid reworks and only suggest minor edits that make balance better. Imo, it is too much to ask of PGI for reworks in one large all-encompassing proposal. If you want a rework for flamers, or racs, or uacs, or lrms, or whathaveyou, then go for it. Independently.

Edited by Tarogato, 10 February 2018 - 04:26 PM.

[FupDup]

LordNothing, on 10 February 2018 - 04:24 PM, said:

dont like a couple things you are suggesting being done with ballistics. namely pellet count reductions and ammo normalization. the aggressive ballistics buffs, while totally appreciated, seem like a recipe for a new meta that will be as hard to kill as the current laser based meta. i think the advantage of running the current meta should be as razor thin as possible so that its really only relevant to dedicated comp players who consider a fraction of a percentile point a huge advantage. id like to see situations where being good with a preferred weapon could always trump being mediocre with a meta weapon.

i always found the arguments against burst fire autocannons silly and catering to the lowest common denominator. for one thats the way they are supposed to work in lore, and i strongly disagree that it has any strong effect on the accuracy of the weapon. the weapons just require the same follow through that laser people use. ive never really considered it a major drawback to their use, you just need to be more familiar with your chosen weapons system. after all the main reason clan ballistics "suck" is because they dont, its just that clan lasers are so powerful to the point where you have to ask "why would you even used ballistics?". they just arent different enough from their is counterparts, burst really being the main defining factor.

ammo normalization is another thing that really doesnt belong. and thats mostly because of the effect of having good ammo efficiency on weapons like racs and ac10s. while i do think that many weapons need more ammo, i do not think normalization is the answer. the cac2 buffs alone would put my ultraviolet on such a high plateau meta that the mech itself would have to suffer greatly. the only thing really keeping it (and other 2-class boats) in check is the ammo limits. it forces you to choose between firepower and sustainability. id be able to drop ammo and add heat sinks or lasers to make those builds even more deadly. less viable weapons definately need more ammo, and powerful ones need to stay put. id like to see ac20 ammo brought up to 8 rounds a ton, so that half ton ammounts dont cost ammo efficiency, but this being a very powerful weapon would not be a great idea. instead give the half ton 4 round while keeping the 1ton magazine at 7. you can waste crits to get more ammo efficiency, not only the cost of the wasted space but also the danger of placing ammo in more areas risking ammo explosions. 8/4 rounds would be ok for the lb20. other lbs would get small ammo buffs.

The point of more ammo per ton is to effectively reduce the amount of tonnage and critslots needed to mount ballistic weapons. The main reason why energy weapons are so much more common is the fitting requirements: you can put them on literally anything that has a hardpoint. Ballistics on the other hand are a big sacrifice even for a medium mech. They're just too heavy to mount and PGI will never directly reduce their tonnage, so 200 damage per ton of ammo is a nice way to indirectly address this problem.

Yes, mechs that can already use ballistics effectively would benefit too, but the mechs that can only barely use an AC or not at all would maybe finally be able to at least attempt to use those weapons for once.

I agree that I don't like the gradual creep towards making Clan ACs more and more pinpoint, aka just a reskin of IS ACs. I would rather have their multi-pellet nature amplified and instead compensated with other advantages like velocity or whatever to make up for it.

Edited by FupDup, 10 February 2018 - 04:36 PM.

[Tarogato]

LordNothing, on 10 February 2018 - 04:24 PM, said:

dont like a couple things you are suggesting being done with ballistics. namely pellet count reductions and ammo normalization. the aggressive ballistics buffs, while totally appreciated, seem like a recipe for a new meta that will be as hard to kill as the current laser based meta.

The shell count reductions are only for the grossly underperforming Clan standard autocannons, and the only ultra autocannon that is effected is the clan UAC20, which we all agreed is not a good weapon and needs buffs.

Quote

ammo normalization is another thing that really doesnt belong. and thats mostly because of the effect of having good ammo efficiency on weapons like racs and ac10s. while i do think that many weapons need more ammo, i do not think normalization is the answer.

It's not about ammo normalisation. It's about giving more ammo to ballistics in order to help them being more viable choices against other families. Personally, I do not want the ammo buffs to be as great as they are shown, and I will ask again to have them lowered (I would like the AC2s, 5's, and 20's to be 160 damage per ton or 180. I believe 200 is too much.

Quote

i did suggest in another thread that lock-based convergence override needs to exist for all projectile weapons. since you often have your boresight aimed at the dead space in front of a moving target causing the game to compute an incorrect range for proper convergence. using a target lock to get range would help a lot and give ballistics users an option to get the kind of convergence laser users take for granted. this alone might give ballistics the edge that they so desperately lack. before people scream in terror about the potential for such ppfld alphas converging on a single component, the highest sustainable ballistic alpha you can pull off is with a cac60 (2x 10s, 2x 20s) is only 60 points. compare that to some of the laser alphas out there and remember that you have to lead as well. on direct shots on unmoving targets you already have perfect convergence.

Game mechanic changes are out of the question right now. Lest this whole entire thing be disregarded by PGI on the grounds that it asks for too much.

Quote

ghost heat needs to be removed from ballistic weapons, spread removed from racs and reduced for lbs, but this would be replaced with a new mechanic. ghost spread. spread builds up durring high dps barrages so you are forced to stop firing to dissipate the vibrations caused by recoil. this would apply to all ballistic weapons, some weapons its more pronounced than others. high ballistic alphas would also have the same reticle deflection mechanic that the hgauss has. unlike ghost heat, the ghost spread mechanic is cumulative so more firepower means more spread.

Yeah, there's a couple of people floating around there that would like "ghost spread" instead of ghost heat. But again... that's a game mechanic change, so it's out of the question. Take that idea to another thread dedicated to the topic.

Quote

jam mechanics need to be completely revised. for the racs id get rid of all randomness to their jamming. you jam when bar full. with the ghost spread mechanic you can actually extend the bar considerably since multiple racs would quickly scatter as much as lbs when used in anything but short controlled bursts. uacs are just annoying to use. id like to see jam mechanics that give the player more control over their damage output vs jam potential while maintaining its distinctive randomness (differentiate from racs). with single shot uacs, this can be accomplished by a ramping jam chance where time between taps dictates how much jam chance there is. burst uacs might be hold to fire weapons like racs, but with a maximim clip size and no spinup. the total damage potential for a full clip needs to be between 1.5x and 2x the weapon rating. you can fire as many rounds as you want by holding the trigger but the jam potential goes up with each round.

Yet again, game mechanic revisions are out of the question for right now. Let's agree on simple things like "this weapon is underperforming and needs a buff" or "this weapon is too strong and needs a nerf", not "this weapon is weird and should behave differently."

[The6thMessenger]

Hey Tarogato, was Navid A1's changes for RACs accepted?

[Sereglach]

Tarogato, on 10 February 2018 - 04:26 PM, said:

And my whole goal with this proposal is to avoid reworks and only suggest minor edits that make balance better. Imo, it is too much to ask of PGI for reworks in one large all-encompassing proposal. If you want a rework for flamers, or racs, or uacs, or lrms, or whathaveyou, then go for it. Independently.

It's not a full fledged rework. It IS simple XML changes that fix the weapon functionality. Set the exponential scaling value (effect scale) to 0, and ramp up and ramp down times (trgheatinctime, heatinctime, and RampDownDelay, respectively) which shuts off the exponential scaling and "fire window" mechanics. Then set heat damage, damage, and heat to the fixed flat values. It's literally that simple.

So maybe you might want to look into what is and isn't a simple XML edit to fix any given weapon system. This fix is completely viable and potential for inclusion in your objectives.

[Fleeb the Mad]

Tarogato, on 10 February 2018 - 03:13 PM, said:

To answer your primary concern:

All of the changes are considering the context of how the weapons perform in the game right now compared to each other when you put them on mechs and actually use them. Our collective experience is what drives these changes, rather than mindless spreadsheet warrior. This is contingent upon people looking at the changes we come up with and telling us if our experiences have misguided us. (hence 1,134 comments across forums and reddit so far)

For instance, if you put SRMs in fights against small pulses or laservomit. Or for an IS SRM boat like the Griffin, Trebuchet, or Bushwacker against a clan mech like the Huntsman, Stormcrow, or Shadowcat. Or to better answer that question, which would you prefer using, and why? If you consistently choose the IS mechs with SRMs, over the clan mechs with SRMs... why? What can we fix about the clan SRMs to make answering that question more difficult to answer, and more worthy of debate?

Of course muddying this all is the reality of PGI's quirks, especially on the IS side. Which means that while it may look like we overbuff a clan weapon, that's only because the IS mechs all have quirks that inflate their performance in ways that you won't necessarily see on a spreadsheet.

That's dangerous logic for an endeavor that is supposed to be about weapon balance and weapon balance only. It seems that actively betrays the OP.

I mean, this is in the opening post:

Quote

And do remember that this is concerning weapon balance only, which is only a single slice of the pie. There are other things that should probably be addressed by PGI:

- Mech quirks
- Mech mobility
- Overbearing consumables
- Skill Tree as a whole (ie., are enough people unhappy to justify significant changes?)
- New player experience (hey, it’s still not good)
- Matchmaking (the PSR system is fundamentally broken as it stands)

The popular IS mechs that carry those weapons tend to be supported by powerful quirks. Given that's not a reflection across all chassis and those quirks can and will be changed, it's a mistake in principle to consider quirks at all.

The fact you've said this greatly shakes my faith in the effort honestly.

The imbalances are real and bypassing the discussion with 'Well there's quirks' is honestly rather lazy and implies bias. Address the points.

Clan SRMS don't need to be buffed because Bushwackers and Assassins are good. Bushwackers and Assassins are propped up by large non-weapon quirks. Mechs like Javelins are not. IS SRMS need to be improved because they're quite frankly completely outclassed on chassis that can't afford the tonnage tax, or are badly outgunned by a Clan SRM boat of the same weight with no commensurate advantages.

The points about the cACs have been brought up in this thread numerous times yet nothing has changed. Creating a Clan AC that's flatly superior to the IS one with the same firing mechanics is terrible.

The relative weakness of IS lasers has also been brought up several times with no action. Rather than reducing cooldown and requiring even more facetime, the appropriate action seems to be reducing their durations back to the pre energy rebalance levels so there's a meaningful difference between how long an IS laser machine needs to stay exposed to deal damage against opponents that can deal much more total damage for the price of less than a quarter second.

[LordNothing]

FupDup, on 10 February 2018 - 04:30 PM, said:

The point of more ammo per ton is to effectively reduce the amount of tonnage and critslots needed to mount ballistic weapons. The main reason why energy weapons are so much more common is the fitting requirements: you can put them on literally anything that has a hardpoint. Ballistics on the other hand are a big sacrifice even for a medium mech. They're just too heavy to mount and PGI will never directly reduce their tonnage, so 200 damage per ton of ammo is a nice way to indirectly address this problem.

Yes, mechs that can already use ballistics effectively would benefit too, but the mechs that can only barely use an AC or not at all would maybe finally be able to at least attempt to use those weapons for once.

I agree that I don't like the gradual creep towards making Clan ACs more and more pinpoint, aka just a reskin of IS ACs. I would rather have their multi-pellet nature amplified and instead compensated with other advantages like velocity or whatever to make up for it.

im just against normalization. thats how unfunning happens. more ammo is good but it needs to be dolled out on a per weapon basis. some need it more than others. case in point 200dpt saved the 10 class from obivlion. do that for the ac20 and you got a recipe for op. go up to 8/4 (or 160dpt) i think is the best bet for the 20. 180dpt for the ac2 tops otherwise the ultraviolet will be a monster. the versitility of the 5 class tends to lessen its ammo requirements, 160-180 dpt works there.

i dont mind burst reductions on cacs as i think its the uacs that need the long bursts to give them the flavor that they need. there does need to be some differentiation between is and clan ballistics as well, but other than stats (range for cd) im not sure what direction that should take.

Edited by LordNothing, 10 February 2018 - 04:58 PM.

[PocketYoda]

HammerMaster, on 10 February 2018 - 09:40 AM, said:

Your "stats" are not relevant to this discussion.
Which is it? Toss the books or take liberties? Or translate the spirit where 1 to 1 is untenable?

I don't want arguing I want change.
If you stand on the shoulders of a name , you have to produce that legacy. Otherwise it's your named homebrew.

Toss the books.. I like Battletech i used to play it tabletop but this game is floundering because of people like you expecting a 1 to 1 copy of tabletop in a FPS environment, its not going to happen because they are fundamentally different completely..

[LordNothing]

Tarogato, on 10 February 2018 - 04:33 PM, said:

The shell count reductions are only for the grossly underperforming Clan standard autocannons, and the only ultra autocannon that is effected is the clan UAC20, which we all agreed is not a good weapon and needs buffs.




It's not about ammo normalisation. It's about giving more ammo to ballistics in order to help them being more viable choices against other families. Personally, I do not want the ammo buffs to be as great as they are shown, and I will ask again to have them lowered (I would like the AC2s, 5's, and 20's to be 160 damage per ton or 180. I believe 200 is too much.




Game mechanic changes are out of the question right now. Lest this whole entire thing be disregarded by PGI on the grounds that it asks for too much.



Yeah, there's a couple of people floating around there that would like "ghost spread" instead of ghost heat. But again... that's a game mechanic change, so it's out of the question. Take that idea to another thread dedicated to the topic.


Yet again, game mechanic revisions are out of the question for right now. Let's agree on simple things like "this weapon is underperforming and needs a buff" or "this weapon is too strong and needs a nerf", not "this weapon is weird and should behave differently."

will try to keep mechanics changes out of the discussion in the future, but that doesnt change the fact that i think that some of the mechanics pgi has concocted are deeply flawed and contribute to the balance issues. having programmed a few weapon mechanics myself, i kind of think that its well within pgi's abilities.

i have my doubts that they are willing to accept ANY community help at all with reguards to balance. on one hand its a terrible attitude to have. on the other, if you give in too much you can seriously undermine your own design. i do believe that pgi needs community help, but they may just be way too stubborn to allow that.

Edited by LordNothing, 10 February 2018 - 05:07 PM.

[Tarogato]

Fleeb the Mad, on 10 February 2018 - 04:46 PM, said:

That's dangerous logic for an endeavor that is supposed to be about weapon balance and weapon balance only. It seems that actively betrays the OP.


The popular IS mechs that carry those weapons tend to be supported by powerful quirks. Given that's not a reflection across all chassis and those quirks can and will be changed, it's a mistake in principle to consider quirks at all.

The fact you've said this greatly shakes my faith in the effort honestly.

So that said, which weapons would you like to see removed from the proposal?

Quote

The imbalances are real and bypassing the discussion with 'Well there's quirks' is honestly rather lazy and implies bias. Address the points.

Clan SRMS don't need to be buffed because Bushwackers and Assassins are good. Bushwackers and Assassins are propped up by large non-weapon quirks. Mechs like Javelins are not. IS SRMS need to be improved because they're quite frankly completely outclassed on chassis that can't afford the tonnage tax, or are badly outgunned by a Clan SRM boat of the same weight with no commensurate advantages.

The points about the cACs have been brought up in this thread numerous times yet nothing has changed. Creating a Clan AC that's flatly superior to the IS one with the same firing mechanics is terrible.

The relative weakness of IS lasers has also been brought up several times with no action. Rather than reducing cooldown and requiring even more facetime, the appropriate action seems to be reducing their durations back to the pre energy rebalance levels so there's a meaningful difference between how long an IS laser machine needs to stay exposed to deal damage against opponents that can deal much more total damage for the price of less than a quarter second.

My interpretation of the above as follows:

- remove cSRM changes entirely
- buff SRMs
- remove shell count buff from all cACs and cUAC20
- buff IS laser durations instead of cooldowns (which?)



Is this an accurate abbreviation?

[The6thMessenger]

Hmm, what if we buff the SNPPC like this?

Optimal Range: 405m
Max Range: 540m
Heat: 8.5

Would the extra SNPPC optimal range (retaining max range) make it more poke than brawl?

LASTLY:

Hey Tarogato, whatever happened to the RAC changes Navid A1 and i compromised with?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 10 February 2018 - 05:16 PM.

[Tarogato]

The6thMessenger, on 10 February 2018 - 05:16 PM, said:

Hmm, what if we buff the SNPPC like this?

Optimal Range: 405m
Max Range: 540m
Heat: 8.5

Would the extra SNPPC optimal range (retaining max range) make it more poke than brawl?

Yes, but why would you do that? That is the job of the PPC and LPPC. The job of the SNPPC is to be smaller, lighter, and brawl-capable (no minrange).

[FupDup]

The6thMessenger, on 10 February 2018 - 05:16 PM, said:

Would the extra SNPPC optimal range (retaining max range) make it more poke than brawl?

Yes, that would, and the issue with that is you're starting to step on the toes of the normal PPC types. Better to focus it as the brawl PPC with heat and cooldown reductions.

[HammerMaster]

Tarogato, on 10 February 2018 - 04:26 PM, said:

And my whole goal with this proposal is to avoid reworks and only suggest minor edits that make balance better. Imo, it is too much to ask of PGI for reworks in one large all-encompassing proposal. If you want a rework for flamers, or racs, or uacs, or lrms, or whathaveyou, then go for it. Independently.

I'm glad you spelled this out.

[The6thMessenger]

Tarogato, on 10 February 2018 - 05:17 PM, said:

Yes, but why would you do that? That is the job of the PPC and LPPC. The job of the SNPPC is to be smaller, lighter, and brawl-capable (no minrange).

Lore.

Although i could settle for 330m.

[HammerMaster]

Samial, on 10 February 2018 - 04:56 PM, said:

Toss the books.. I like Battletech i used to play it tabletop but this game is floundering because of people like you expecting a 1 to 1 copy of tabletop in a FPS environment, its not going to happen because they are fundamentally different completely..

Heresy.
Then it's Paul bot gunram tech. Not Battletech.