1125 replies to this topic

[BreakinStuff]

Khobai, on 23 February 2018 - 09:59 PM, said:

thats the problem people dont bring that weapon. ever.

its not a strategic choice at all. its an obvious one: dont bring weapons with deadzones.

if you want people to use regular PPCs again, the damage deadzone needs to be removed.

Pretty much this.

Deadzones add nothing to the game for fun or realism. As was pointed out earlier, there is no deadzone in BT tabletop. Just a reduction in accuracy, brought upon by technojargon handwavium that pretty much ignored the laws of physics.

Much as I love the lore, the Lore needs to take a backseat to fun.

The Snub-PPC is a PPC. It's just crappier. and weighs slightly less. it was not one of CatLabs finest choices to put in the game for TT. It fills a niche that makes up for a -1 to -3 to hit at ranges where the answer in the TT game was "Fire anyway."

Arguing that Deadzones should persist to give the Snub PPC a reason to exist is not a good choice from a game design standpoint.

Arguing that deadzones should exist PERIOD is chuckleworthy.

that's right up there with arguing that certain mech chassis having a light mech run up and press a face to it's crotch and be below it's ability to depress and hit it being fair, or arguing that a light, 20 ton mech should be able to slow down an annihilator by pressing up to it, much less stop it without getting crushed like a tin can is fair.

Snub PPC is a derp weapon that is six tons to have a point-blank PPC. And useless at anything else. I can't blame PGI for it's existence, that honor goes to the TT game devs. PGI just imported it.

Arguing that a crap game mechanic should exist based solely on the strength of "This is why this weapon exists" doesn't wash in a game like this. Change the mechanic that does break the bejeezus out of the immersive aspects of the game, then alter the weapon that was introduced to plug the hole so it fills another niche.

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 23 February 2018 - 09:25 PM, said:

Isn't that the point of PPC+AC is to dump a lot of damage that converges into one location well? It could be done, yes sure, but wouldn't doing more damage with less exposure better? Wouldn't that be meta?

I'm not saying that people still won't go LPPC+AC, i'm just saying it's still not going to be better even if it's more of a choice, considering meta of course. I suppose i mis-spoke that "suddenly" part.

The meta is not that simple. More damage over less time is good, but that only covers trading. If you want to advance or receive an advance, you need builds that can sustain a stream of damage with fewer interruptions. You can go full ballistics for maximum stream at the cost of mobility, and that has its uses. In 2016, we had WHM-6Rs running 2x PPC + 2x UAC/5, a combo that offered something of a compromise between trading and DPS with average mobility; that build has been dead for going on two years now due to heat. A triplet of faster-firing LPPC on that build would skew it away from trading by 5 points in favor of a more frequent damage stream, and now we have an option back that we haven't had for some time.

Really, we can't have all of the PPCs trying to do the same thing. The HPPC is going to dominate mid-range poke, ERPPC sniping, SN-PPC brawling. LPPC ought to be DPS. So where does that leave the PPC? TBQH, we have one too many PPCs, though if we lower its heat it can serve as the "light" version of the mid-range poke that pairs better with lasers or something than HPPC.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 23 February 2018 - 11:23 PM, said:

The meta is not that simple. More damage over less time is good, but that only covers trading. If you want to advance or receive an advance, you need builds that can sustain a stream of damage with fewer interruptions. You can go full ballistics for maximum stream at the cost of mobility, and that has its uses. In 2016, we had WHM-6Rs running 2x PPC + 2x UAC/5, a combo that offered something of a compromise between trading and DPS with average mobility; that build has been dead for going on two years now due to heat. A triplet of faster-firing LPPC on that build would skew it away from trading by 5 points in favor of a more frequent damage stream, and now we have an option back that we haven't had for some time.

Oh, okay, so it's a good thing or bad thing? Is the PPC still a choice too if it's a good thing?

Yeonne Greene, on 23 February 2018 - 11:23 PM, said:

Really, we can't have all of the PPCs trying to do the same thing. The HPPC is going to dominate mid-range poke, ERPPC sniping, SN-PPC brawling. LPPC ought to be DPS. So where does that leave the PPC? TBQH, we have one too many PPCs, though if we lower its heat it can serve as the "light" version of the mid-range poke that pairs better with lasers or something than HPPC.

So giving LPPC the DPS role for PPCs, that only leaves the standard PPCs. Hmm what if we raise GH of standard PPC to 3? So we can choose 3 STD-PPCs for 30 damage but faster ROF, but 2 HPPCs for better heat efficiency, better convergence, while also lighter? (aside from cooler weapon of course)

@ Tarogato

Further playing the LPPCs, i realize something. Isn't that majority of the ROF issue with PPCs is that they ran hot right? This isn't the case with the LPPCs cause there's just 3 of them resulting in 15 heat, compare that to 19 heat of 2x PPC, the result of which is less heat accrued overtime therefore I have the luxury of shooting a bit more frequently than otherwise the downtime is used to cool down.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 February 2018 - 12:29 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Really, we can't have all of the PPCs trying to do the same thing. The HPPC is going to dominate mid-range poke, ERPPC sniping, SN-PPC brawling. LPPC ought to be DPS. So where does that leave the PPC? TBQH, we have one too many PPCs, though if we lower its heat it can serve as the "light" version of the mid-range poke that pairs better with lasers or something than HPPC.

ideally each type of PPC should be dominant at one thing. unfortunately thats hard for the regular PPC because it doesnt really excel at one thing, its just kindve in the middle of the pack.

SNPPC = dps/brawling/heat efficiency
LPPC = tonnage/crit efficiency and overall compactness
PPC = ???
HPPC = damage
ERPPC = range/velocity

so its really the regular PPC thats struggling to find a role.

theres just not much of a reason to take x3 PPC over x2 HPPC, assuming PPC ghost heat is even raised to 3.

there arnt really enough stats you can change to differentiate 5 types of PPCs. The only way I can think of to differentiate the regular PPC would be to give it a non-quantifiable ability like HUD disruption. And then make the normal PPC the best at it. Give the regular PPC x2 HUD disruption duration or something like that.

Edited by Khobai, 24 February 2018 - 01:57 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 24 February 2018 - 01:40 AM, said:

they have to make each type of PPC dominant at one thing.

SNPPC = dps/brawling/most heat efficiency
LPPC = fast-firing/tonnage/crit efficiency and overall compactness
PPC = jack-of-all-trades/heat-efficient/long range
HPPC = damage
ERPPC = longest range/velocity

so its really the regular PPC thats struggling to find a role.

theres not much of a reason to take x3 PPC over x2 HPPC, assuming PPC ghost heat is even raised to 3.

ftfy

Considering that 21 tons of 3x PPC would have an increase of 20% DPS, versus 2 tons of HPPC, that's not really that bad of a deal, assuming one can make use of the faster rate of fire. Even then, making 3x PPC have better heat than 2 HPPC would make it a better high-powered choice.

You just need better imagination.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 February 2018 - 02:17 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Considering that 21 tons of 3x PPC would have an increase of 20% DPS, versus 2 tons of HPPC, that's not really that bad of a deal, assuming one can make use of the faster rate of fire. Even then, making 3x PPC have better heat than 2 HPPC would make it a better high-powered choice.

nope. youre going to be overheating so much from firing 3 PPCs that you wont be able to maintain the higher dps.

the 20% faster DPS doesnt matter with PPC vs HPPC. their rate of fire isnt limited by their cooldowns, its limited by heat.

once you hit the heat wall you cant fire any faster than your heat decreases.

regular PPCs need an actual advantage over the other types of PPCs.

Quote

You just need better imagination.

Yeah then I could be like you and imagine weapons are fine when theyre not lol.

Edited by Khobai, 24 February 2018 - 02:07 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 24 February 2018 - 02:00 AM, said:

nope. youre going to be overheating so much from firing 3 PPCs that you wont be able to maintain the higher dps

the 20% faster DPS doesnt matter on PPC vs HPPC. theyre not limited by their cooldowns. theyre limited by their heat.

But you dealt damage faster, you consumed your heat-gauge faster and thus could have killed someone faster. You could go to hide and cool down earlier than usual, and then you can get back in shooting earlier than usual.

Just, that, simple.

It's not really supposed to be a complete go-to, but hey at least it's a choice if they have tonnage to spare.

Khobai, on 24 February 2018 - 02:00 AM, said:

once you hit the heat wall you cant fire any faster than your heat decreases.

regular PPCs need an actual advantage over the other types of PPCs.

But you still shot MOAR bolts overtime.

Also Heat, give it better heat, it would be a good alternative.

Khobai, on 24 February 2018 - 02:00 AM, said:

Yeah then I could be like you and imagine weapons are fine when theyre not lol.

Or you know, got out of one-dimensional thinking. Also argue better, cause most of the time you might as well flatly say "because i say so".

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 February 2018 - 02:14 AM.

[Antares102]

Probably pointed out already.
CAC10 currently has 2 heat but the document says "Buff heat to 2.5."
If anything that would be a nerf.

Edited by Antares102, 24 February 2018 - 02:22 AM.

[Tarogato]

Antares102, on 24 February 2018 - 02:22 AM, said:

Probably pointed out already.
CAC10 currently has 2 heat but the document says "Buff heat to 2.5."
If anything that would be a nerf.

It's a "nerf" actually. Considering our buff is to reduce cAC10 to two shells instead of three, we thought maybe ease back on its heat, as it is presently actually colder than the IS AC10.

[The6thMessenger]

Spreadsheet thoughts:

Hmm, since we're raising the IS Small-Laser damage from 3 to 4, maybe the C-ER Micro Lasers could get 3.0 damage and 3.5 Damage for Micro-Pulse?

Also, glad that RAC2 getting 1 damage/shot is now official. I still think that LGR needs 10 damage though, raise the Cooldown to 2.75s if you must.

C-UAC20 does 3 shells than 4, i think this is too good. I mean the C-UAC20 could be double-tapped. Couldn't we just raise the GH to 2 just as every other AC20s but retain the 4-shell volley?

Can we increase ATM health to 1.5? Can we also make it so that ATMs fly straight than middle flight-angle of LRMs?

I don't think the LPPC, HPPC, and PPC should have synced projectile speeds, that way each couldn't be a filler to one another and stifle the convergence. Maybe the HPPC should be at 1500, the PPC at 1350, and LPPC at 1200, and then SNPPC at 1050. The SNPPC is used at short ranged, so at 1050, it should still be fine and further limits it close range use. For scale the AC20 is still at 850.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 February 2018 - 05:11 AM.

[Mystere]

And this is the point where I say lore, imagination, and creativity can be all mixed together by implementing the Field Inhibitor.

Let it cause damage, heat increase, HUD disruption, and all other "undesirable" effects when the PPC/LPPC/HPPC is fired under minimum range and make the risk and level of all those side effects be inversely proportional to the distance to target.

At the same time, also give PPC-type weapons different or different levels/duration of HUD disruption, heat increase, targeting loss, sensor loss, and other "undesirable" effects caused on the target.

There, problem solved.

[The6thMessenger]

Mystere, on 24 February 2018 - 05:06 AM, said:

And this is the point where I say lore, imagination, and creativity can be all mixed together by implementing the Field Inhibitor.

Let it cause damage, heat increase, HUD disruption, and all other "undesirable" effects when the PPC/LPPC/HPPC is fired under minimum range and make the risk and level of all those side effects be inversely proportional to the distance to target.

At the same time, also give PPC-type weapons different or different levels/duration of HUD disruption, heat increase, targeting loss, sensor loss, and other "undesirable" effects caused on the target.

There, problem solved.

I'd make the PPCs with minimum range not a deadzone but a gradual damage decrease to 25% minimum -- BUUUT -- it will damage the user at the component where the firing PPC is located within 90m raising to 75% self-damage at pointblank.

[BreakinStuff]

The6thMessenger, on 24 February 2018 - 05:17 AM, said:

I'd make the PPCs with minimum range not a deadzone but a gradual damage decrease to 25% minimum -- BUUUT -- it will damage the user at the component where the firing PPC is located within 90m raising to 75% self-damage at pointblank.

Then you run face-first into the old problem:

No One will use it.

Lore is great and all but it needs to take a backseat to fun.

Edited by BreakinStuff, 24 February 2018 - 09:39 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 24 February 2018 - 01:40 AM, said:

LPPC = tonnage/crit efficiency and overall compactness

This isn't a role because this isn't a battlefield application, because:

1. Any 'Mech that can do this effectively isn't going to use more than two, and in that case they can all still find the extra ton for the standard PPC

2. That isn't some form or method of damage application

This is the same thing as saying the role for small lasers is "being able to fire even when hot" which, really, doesn't mean sh*t because the damage is so low that it's not worth spending.

The6thMessenger, on 24 February 2018 - 12:21 AM, said:

Oh, okay, so it's a good thing or bad thing? Is the PPC still a choice too if it's a good thing?

If we have varied PPCs, it's a good thing. The PPC still being a choice in this arrangement is the conundrum that we are trying to solve.

Quote

So giving LPPC the DPS role for PPCs, that only leaves the standard PPCs. Hmm what if we raise GH of standard PPC to 3? So we can choose 3 STD-PPCs for 30 damage but faster ROF, but 2 HPPCs for better heat efficiency, better convergence, while also lighter? (aside from cooler weapon of course)

We could do that, and I suppose the advantage to 3x PPC at 21 tons and 9 slots vs. 2x HPPC for 20 tons and 8 slots would be a higher RoF, but even at 8 heat the 2x HPPC would be so much more heat efficient.

There are other approaches, though. Giving the PPC range between where it is now and ERPPC, for one. Giving it no min-range and using heat+cooldown to distinguish the SN-PPC from it is another. Open to ideas.

Quote

@ Tarogato

Further playing the LPPCs, i realize something. Isn't that majority of the ROF issue with PPCs is that they ran hot right? This isn't the case with the LPPCs cause there's just 3 of them resulting in 15 heat, compare that to 19 heat of 2x PPC, the result of which is less heat accrued overtime therefore I have the luxury of shooting a bit more frequently than otherwise the downtime is used to cool down.

But the thing is that we're trading too much damage for the heat efficiency. Lower raw DPS, lower damage per poke.

[Khobai]

Quote

This isn't a role because this isn't a battlefield application, because:

of course compactness is a battlefield application.

thats why er medium lasers are so popular, because they give a lot of bang for the buck.

likewise, LPPC should be the compact PPFLD alternative to the ERML.

Quote

1. Any 'Mech that can do this effectively isn't going to use more than two, and in that case they can all still find the extra ton for the standard PPC

x2 LPPCs also take up two energy hardpoints so they should be slightly better than x1 PPC which only uses one energy hardpoint.

LPPCs should fire slightly faster than regular PPCs (3.5s cooldown) and be slightly more heat efficient (6 damage for 5 heat). But LPPCs should not have a 2.5s cooldown thats absurd.

as for making the regular PPC worthwhile, they should give all PPCs a hud disruption skill, but the regular PPC should be the best at it (give them x2 disruption duration). then theres a utility reason to use regular PPCs.

HUD disruption should be the PPC skill in the firepower tree and it should scramble a mech's HUD/sensors and prevent that mech from targeting anything for 0.5-1 seconds. Although there should also be EMP hardened skill nodes in the sensor tree that makes you resistant/immune to HUD disruption.

Heavy lasers should also cause HUD disruption for the mech firing them. That comes straight out of the battletech rules for heavy lasers. Theyre supposed to screw up your sensors bigtime when you fire them.

Edited by Khobai, 24 February 2018 - 02:12 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 24 February 2018 - 01:46 PM, said:

of course compactness is a battlefield application.

thats why er medium lasers are so popular, because they give a lot of bang for the buck.

likewise, LPPC should be the PPFLD alternative to the ERML.

The bang is the operative part there, not the compactness.

So, no. it's not. The LPPC is 5 damage for 3 tons. No matter what you do to its heat, being PPFLD does nothing to improve its bang.

Quote

x2 LPPCs also take up two energy hardpoints so they should be slightly better than x1 PPC which only uses 1 energy hardpoint.

Technically, 2x LPPC already are better than 1x PPC.

[Khobai]

Quote

So, no. it's not. The LPPC is 5 damage for 3 tons. No matter what you do to its heat, being PPFLD does nothing to improve its bang.

It should be 6 damage not 5 damage. Been saying that all along.

[Antares102]

Heavy Small Lasers should really have a GH limit of 6 if heavy medium lasers will have one of 5.

Heavy Large Laser:
The sentence "Maintains existing damage to heat ratio." is wrong since 18/16 != 17/15.
More appropriate would be damage/heat distance.

If ISAC and ISLBX are supposed to be in the same GH group the same should apply to CAC and CLBX.

Edited by Antares102, 24 February 2018 - 02:50 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Heavy Small Lasers should really have a GH limit of 6 if heavy medium lasers will have one of 5.

all the small lasers need higher ghost heat limits

theres no point to using small lasers when medium lasers get bigger alphas

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 February 2018 - 12:28 PM, said:

If we have varied PPCs, it's a good thing. The PPC still being a choice in this arrangement is the conundrum that we are trying to solve.

Yeonne Greene, on 24 February 2018 - 12:28 PM, said:

We could do that, and I suppose the advantage to 3x PPC at 21 tons and 9 slots vs. 2x HPPC for 20 tons and 8 slots would be a higher RoF, but even at 8 heat the 2x HPPC would be so much more heat efficient.

How could it be more heat-efficient? HPPC does 14.5 heat/shot with current, 13.5 Heat/shot with the consensus, that means currently HPPC does 9.666667 heat for the same 10 damage, while the PPC only does 9.5 heat, and the new consensus of 13.5 does 9 heat for 10 dps, where the PPC does 8.

Do you mean it overheats faster? So what, it does better damage/heat right? What if people can just choose the 3x PPC route if they have spare tonnage and heat? I mean lots of people go for hot builds too because they can handle it right?

I think it's fine as a Jack-Of-All-Trades as an individual weapon it's something that just works, something so general that it's not exactly the choice for min-maxing, just a choice for bracket-builds that would work well with most other weapons. It's not really about giving it a specific role, but at least it could do the roles of the other PPCs.

It's cool enough and fast ROF enough to do the LPPC's role but more of pokey than starey, do the HPPC's damage though less convergence when en-masse but could fire faster, perhaps faster projectile speed so it can hit almost as well at long range as ER-PPC, and maybe remove the deadzone but turn it into damage being lowered with proximity, so it can work well in the ranges of SNPPC.

Yeonne Greene, on 24 February 2018 - 12:28 PM, said:

But the thing is that we're trading too much damage for the heat efficiency. Lower raw DPS, lower damage per poke.

Yeah i know. That was just appending my answer to Tarogato why i felt that LPPCs have high rate of fire.

I think it's nice that LPPCs are less of a poke weapon and more of a suppressive weapon, like ACs.

Khobai, on 24 February 2018 - 03:21 PM, said:

theres no point to using small lasers when medium lasers get bigger alphas

Or you know, as weapons for lights cause they don't have much tonnage, weapons for brawl, C-ERML runs too hot and has long beam duration. The point is that, C-ERSLs and C-SPLs are Clan lasers for brawl, where the C-ERML and C-MPL is for poking -- with C-MPL borderline brawl.

And i'm pretty sure that IS-SLs and SPLs already have no ghost-heat limit.

Again with your one-dimensional thinking.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 February 2018 - 04:50 PM.