51 replies to this topic

[Corvus Antaka]

Remove the minimum range from the PPC's

With the light PPC in, the heavy PPC and normal PPC are sub par. Min range adds no value, and cripples build variety.

[ScrapIron Prime]

The normal PPC had its minimum range nerfed already. From 90m down to 0m its damage trails off proportionally.

This happened last July.

https://mwomercs.com...0-20-july-2021/

Edited by ScrapIron Prime, 10 March 2022 - 07:37 AM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

If I'm not allowed to question the "minimum of 10 heatsinks" rule on engines below 250 rating due to 'Lore' you certainly cannot expect my vote for removal of minimum range on PPCs due to 'Lore' reasons either ~smile~

[LordNothing]

i think the curved ramp in is more than adequate. given the rapid drop off, this mechanic is effectively the same as a minimum range but a lot more forgiving. you still want to maintain 90 meters for maximum damage, but if you get a couple meters too close you still get most of the damage, but get 30 meters inside the minimum and you are less effective than an lppc. its just softening the edge. id be fine with this mechanic on the hppc as well for consistency.

if your weapon has a minimum range, perhaps don't charge in. or use one of the other ppcs with no minimum range. i find when using weapons with a minimum range, you rarely see mechs close in to counter your weapon and maintaining distance is not hard at all.

[Escef]

Der Geisterbaer, on 10 March 2022 - 07:34 AM, said:

If I'm not allowed to question the "minimum of 10 heatsinks" rule on engines below 250 rating due to 'Lore' you certainly cannot expect my vote for removal of minimum range on PPCs due to 'Lore' reasons either ~smile~

You're allowed to question it, but it's a holdover from TT construction rules that isn't likely to be going anywhere.

As for the PPC minimum range, in TT the minimum range was due to interference from the field inhibitor on non-ER/Snub PPCs preventing proper particle beam cohesion as a safety feature (it prevents stray particles from ripping your own mech apart). Much like with LRMs, the minimum range merely was expressed as a penalty to hit, not as damage negation.

I'm rather ambivalent on PPC minimum range. The heat sink rule going away would benefit some lights, as crit slots and tonnage are often very tight for them; not sure how I feel about that one.

[ScrapIron Prime]

LordNothing, on 10 March 2022 - 09:57 AM, said:

i think the curved ramp in is more than adequate. given the rapid drop off, this mechanic is effectively the same as a minimum range but a lot more forgiving. you still want to maintain 90 meters for maximum damage, but if you get a couple meters too close you still get most of the damage, but get 30 meters inside the minimum and you are less effective than an lppc. its just softening the edge. id be fine with this mechanic on the hppc as well for consistency.

Seconded. Heavy peeps need this rule too.

Der Geisterbaer, on 10 March 2022 - 07:34 AM, said:

If I'm not allowed to question the "minimum of 10 heatsinks" rule on engines below 250 rating due to 'Lore' you certainly cannot expect my vote for removal of minimum range on PPCs due to 'Lore' reasons either ~smile~

No, PGI is flexible on it. After all, Autocannon 2's and 5's and even Light Gauss and Gauss Rifles have minimum ranges in tabletop, but balance in that game is different than in this one.

[An6ryMan69]

I agree with most of the suggestions here.

Minimum ranges suck; having a ramp down is a bit better than a hard minimum however. Another option is to reduce the minimum ranges significantly. I do understand that completely negating all minimum ranges may affect the meta in a way that's not acceptable. If all weapons with minimums had ramp up damage like the PPC currently does, and had minimum ranges halved, that would be ideal in my mind.

The heat sink thing, as it is, is silly too. I have suggested before that engine heat sinks should always be enough on their own to run a mech, regardless of engine size, and that additional heat sinks should always be optional for use by players who want them for heat generating weapons.

And PGI was right to get rid of range minimums on ballistic weapons; while partially believable theories could be made up to justify minimum ranges on things like missiles and PPC's, that's a no-go with any manner of ballistic weapon. Once that projectile leaves the weapon barrel, its live, period, and no amount of fiction should be convincing anyone otherwise!

Edited by An6ryMan69, 10 March 2022 - 10:50 AM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Escef, on 10 March 2022 - 10:05 AM, said:

You're allowed to question it, but it's a holdover from TT construction rules

Minimum ranges on weapons are also "a holdover from TT" rules

Escef, on 10 March 2022 - 10:05 AM, said:

that isn't likely to be going anywhere.

Oh indeed ... but not necessarily because it couldn't be changed by PGI but rather because both PGI and those who are influential enough to cause such a change are unlikely to ever approve it.

Escef, on 10 March 2022 - 10:05 AM, said:

As for the PPC minimum range, in TT the minimum range was due to interference from the field inhibitor on non-ER/Snub PPCs preventing proper particle beam cohesion as a safety feature (it prevents stray particles from ripping your own mech apart). Much like with LRMs, the minimum range merely was expressed as a penalty to hit, not as damage negation.

Thanks for explaining something to me that I'm perfectly aware of ... both in terms of "Lore" and how it was implemented within the rules.

Escef, on 10 March 2022 - 10:05 AM, said:

I'm rather ambivalent on PPC minimum range. The heat sink rule going away would benefit some lights, as crit slots and tonnage are often very tight for them; not sure how I feel about that one.

While I stick to my earlier comment: With people unwilling to relinquish the "10 heat sinks rule" due to "Lore" on a strictly principal level I'm equally unwilling to relinquish minimum ranges and "hate" (not really) those instances where they already deviated from the "Lore" ... regardless of the fact that I'm actually not truly principled in such stubborn manner.

*******************

ScrapIron Prime, on 10 March 2022 - 10:18 AM, said:

No, PGI is flexible on it.

PGI and (more importantly) most of the forum dwellers have proven to be rather unflexible about that. So far whenever this was mentioned you eventually got someone trying to needlessly explain the hows and whys of the TT constructions rules instead of trying to actually debate the potential merrits or flaws of such a change. Just look at how Escef just (needlessly) "explained" to me the "Lore" and subsquent rule implementation for minimum ranges.

ScrapIron Prime, on 10 March 2022 - 10:18 AM, said:

After all, Autocannon 2's and 5's and even Light Gauss and Gauss Rifles have minimum ranges in tabletop, but balance in that game is different than in this one.

Which usually highlights the double standards those who accept those particular changes without resistance but insist on saying that other changes - like the removal of the "10 heat sinks minimum" - would fundamentallly break the "Lore" / "premises" of "the game".

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 10 March 2022 - 10:52 AM.

[Escef]

Der Geisterbaer, on 10 March 2022 - 10:50 AM, said:

Thanks for explaining something to me that I'm perfectly aware of ... both in terms of "Lore" and how it was implemented within the rules.

Should I apologize for not being a mindreader?

[Der Geisterbaer]

Escef, on 10 March 2022 - 10:56 AM, said:

Should I apologize for not being a mindreader?

As usual: We're entering false dilemma territory

[Escef]

Der Geisterbaer, on 10 March 2022 - 10:58 AM, said:

As usual: We're entering false dilemma territory

You, someone I don't know, complained about lore. I explained lore. You then complained that I bothered to explain lore you already knew to you, despite the fact that we don't know each other. WTF is your damned problem? Take the stick out of your exhaust port, chummer.

[CFC Conky]

Would there be any quid pro quo to eliminating minimum range like more heat and/or longer cool down or should the standard PPC just get a straight buff?

If I run PPCs it's usually on faster/more mobile mechs so keeping my distance is easier. If I boat them and get rushed, I get rushed, just like if I run a LRM boat without backup weapons.

As Ray Lafleur would say: 'Way of the road buddy...'

Good hunting,
CFC Conky

Edited by CFC Conky, 10 March 2022 - 12:44 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Escef, on 10 March 2022 - 10:59 AM, said:

You, someone I don't know, complained about lore.

That would be an indicator that you failed reading comprehension: I certainly did not complain "about lore" but indicated that if "lore" is used to prohibit questioning a certain state then the same does apply to other demands that would change "lore" aspects.
You merely leapt to the conclusion that I somehow required a lore explaination and now you're trying to paint yourself as not having made that mistake.

Escef, on 10 March 2022 - 10:59 AM, said:

I explained lore.

Which was and still is unnecessary

Escef, on 10 March 2022 - 10:59 AM, said:

You then complained that I bothered to explain lore you already knew to you,

Now you're trying to attribute motive by alleging that I "complained" - to quote you there:

Escef, on 10 March 2022 - 10:59 AM, said:

despite the fact that we don't know each other.

So how about we stop this here? Because quite frankly I have little expectations that this is going to lead anywhere "productive" from here on out.

Escef, on 10 March 2022 - 10:59 AM, said:

WTF is your damned problem?

You're clearly not in a proper mindset to even remotely understand what my "damned problem" is or ...

Escef, on 10 March 2022 - 10:59 AM, said:

Take the stick out of your exhaust port, chummer.

... who actually has a stick in their "exaust port".

Note: You went from needlessly educating me to fallacious reasoning straight into attempts of insulting. /applauds

TL;DR: I suggest you don't try taking this any further because you'll only end up as a source of my personal entertainment at your expense.

[Escef]

Annnnd another one for the block list. Wow, been a while since I felt the need for that one.

Edited by Escef, 10 March 2022 - 11:19 AM.

[LordNothing]

the 10 heat sink thing is good. you know what mechs this rule keeps in check? lights. maybe a few mediums, but mostly lights. can you imagine the explosion of "lights op" threads this would cause. many heat neutral light builds, and there are a lot of them, would suddenly get a lot of free tonnage if they could make do with fewer sinks. id be able to do that dual ac2 pirates bane i always wanted and hmg piranhas with maxed engines, i could even upgrade my fury to dual uac10s. now i wouldnt mind this being a heatsink cap reduction quirk for select underperforming mechs, and no more than -2 (8 sinks). this would be really disruptive to balance otherwise.

Edited by LordNothing, 10 March 2022 - 11:50 AM.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Der Geisterbaer, on 10 March 2022 - 10:50 AM, said:

Which usually highlights the double standards those who accept those particular changes without resistance but insist on saying that other changes - like the removal of the "10 heat sinks minimum" - would fundamentallly break the "Lore" / "premises" of "the game".

10 heat sinks minimum isn't a lore argument, its a MATH argument. Every engine comes with 10, but some of them need placed externally. PGI made the inexcusable decision that players might be confused by placing "zero tonnage free heat sinks" and so they lowered the engine weights and forced players to re-buy the heat sinks. it was a dumb decision, and many of the people who object to the 10-sink-rule don't know about it.

Here's the real engine weights (XL are half, Light are 3/4, round up to next 1/2 ton), they all come with 10 heat sinks, but only rating/25 (round down) fit inside. And in MWO, they added the weight of the gyro and the cockpit to it.



For anything 250 and over its fine. Engine weight +3 tons for cockpit, plus 1 to 4 for the Gyro (depending on engine rating)... and behold the MWO numbers. Fine. But it's below that they messed with the math.

Take that 180 rated engine used by a lot of light mechs. A standard weighs 7 tons, plus 2 tons for the gyro, plus 3 tons for the cockpit. 12 tons, comes with 10 heat sinks, 3 of which have to be placed external to the engine. But PGI thought that would be complicated. So it only weighs 9 tons, and you have to buy back the heat sinks you want to put outside the engine.

And here comes the stupid part. See that 60 rated engine that the Urbanmech can use? It SHOULD cost 1.5 tons plus 1 ton for the Gyro, plus 3 for the cockpit, total of 5.5 tons. But MWO decided it weighs -2.5 tons and comes with only the 2 internal heat sinks, and forces you to buy 8 more... for the 8 tons you would have spent originally if they didn't screw this up in the mech lab.

So the real argument isn't "why do I have to buy these heat sinks for small engines", its "why didn't PGI just do this in the mech lab instead of making us do it?"

Apologies if you knew this already, but I won't assume.

[Alex Morgaine]

ScrapIron Prime, on 10 March 2022 - 07:32 AM, said:

The normal PPC had its minimum range nerfed already. From 90m down to 0m its damage trails off proportionally.

This happened last July.

https://mwomercs.com...0-20-july-2021/

oh they did the scaling damage like from beta? good to know. thought it was still nothing at 89m

[Weeny Machine]

I haven't played the TT for ages but when I played it, I though there was stated that every engine (regardless of rating) comes with 10 heatsinks. Does my memory trick me here?

[Escef]

Weeny Machine, on 10 March 2022 - 01:05 PM, said:

I haven't played the TT for ages but when I played it, I though there was stated that every engine (regardless of rating) comes with 10 heatsinks. Does my memory trick me here?

It does. However, there's the question of how many need to be allocated on your critical hit diagram. Engine rating divided by 25, rounded down is the number of heat sinks that can be built into the engine. If the result is less than 10, than the difference needs to be allocated to your critical charts. If it is greater than 10, you can build additional heatsinks into the engine simply by paying the tonnage, no need to allocate them until you go over that number.

For example, a 200 rated engine can fit 8 sinks. It still comes with 10, but two of those need to be allocated. A 300 rated engine can fit as many as 12 sinks, but you still must pay tonnage for sinks number 11 and 12. The 160 rated engine that the 1V Locust comes stock with comes with a total of 10 heat sinks, but only 6 of them fit in the engine, the remaining 4 must be allocated to critical space.

MWO uses a kludge for engine weights. It adds the tonnage of the gyro (1 ton per 100 points of engine rating, rounded up to whole tons) and the cockpit and related systems (3 tons total) to the engine weight, and also discounts from this 1 ton for each of the base 10 heat sinks that won't fit in the engine. So, a 300 STD engine in TT is normally 19 tons, but in MWO it is 25 (19+3 gyro + 3 cockpit). It's because of this kludge that we have the unusual scenario of the Urbanmech's stock 60 STD having a negative tonnage. A 60 STD in TT is 1.5 tons, + 1 ton for the gyro, +3 tons for the cockpit is 5.5 tons. But only 2 of the initial 10 sinks fit in the engine, so MWO discounts 8 tons from the engine and forces you to allocate those heat sinks the same as you would additional heat sinks. The end result is an engine with a mass of -2.5 tons. Obviously, this system was never intended to be applied to such a ludicrously small engine, but here we are.

[Heavy Money]

Heavy PPCs bring a degree of PPFLD alpha strike that makes them worth using despite minimum range issues.

The problem is that for vanilla PPCs, they do not bring a level of alpha or damage efficiency that's worth it. The solution should be to make them even more heat efficient or something, rather than making them even more like other existing weapons. Make that min range worth the trouble.