35 replies to this topic

[MechMaster059]

The patch tomorrow is one of the best patches ever released with all the exciting new weapons being added! That being said, with so much new stuff, something is likely to slip through the cracks. That something is the Plasma Cannon.

NEW WEAPONS AND AMMO TYPES
LAC/2, LAC/5
PAC/2, PAC/4, PAC/8
- These all look awesome.

THUNDERBOLT MISSILES
- These look cool too.

MAGSHOT
AP GAUSS
- It will be nice having a small ballistic range-matched to SRMs, a great addition.

SILVER BULLET GAUSS RIFLE
- This thing looks even more awesome!

BEAM LASER
- Very cool weapon. I'm especially looking forward to trying this thing out against lights.

PLASMA CANNON
A lighter variation of the Clan ER-PPC, this weapon deals a marginal amount of heat damage to targets as well.
Tech: Clan
Tonnage: 3 tons
Slots: 2 slots
Damage: 4.5 damage + 1 splash damage to each adjacent component
Cooldown: 3.5 seconds
Optimal Range: 540m
Max Range: 1080m
Heat: 7
Ghost Heat: 4
Velocity: 1650
Heat Damage: 0.25(this will result in 1-2% based on the heat capacity of the mech)
Quirk Families: Clan ERPPC, Light PPC
(Note: Not all of the Heat Damage in the Plasma Cannon is in the primary damage, some is in the splash damage as well. In order to land full heat damage on your target, you must hit them in a torso component. Hitting a limb will result in only 2/3 of the heat damage being dealt as some splash damage is lost)

- This does not correctly model how the weapon works in Table Top. In TT it deals 0 damage and 2D6 heat damage. I realize PGI has a tough choice here. Players HATE being overheated and not being able to use their weapons. It's not fun, but 0.25 heat damage is nearly unnoticeable. Also, weapons need to deal at least a little damage to avoid weird end-game situations where it's 1 vs 1 against an enemy with no ammo or no weapons that you have to finish off. If you're equipped with weapons that don't do damage this can result in frustrating drawn matches.
- As a result, PGI has instead implemented the weapon as a near copy of the IS Light PPC except for MASSIVELY more heat. 7 heat makes the weapon unusable. A damage / heat ratio less than 1 is not acceptable given that the heat damage component is so miniscule. This weapon is dead on arrival and once the novelty wears off no one will equip it.
- PGI has an opportunity here to add a truly unique weapon effect. It would be a shame to let it go to waste. Plasma Cannons need to do a significant amount of heat damage. Try this:
-- Same weight, slots, cooldown, velocity, range, etc.
-- 7 heat --> 6 heat, 4.5 dmg --> 4 dmg + same splash dmg, 0.25 splash heat dmg --> 2.5 splash heat dmg (Yes, 10x the heat damage)
-- It's important the heat used by the weapon be greater than the heat damage inflicted by it due to quirks and skills being able to reduce the heat cost. The weapon could become debilitating on the battlefield if it was too spammable due to quirks + skills making it much more heat efficient.

LIGHT TAG
- This and the Plasma Cannon are very important additions. They cover gaps in each sides technology, a light tag for STREAKs on the IS side and a light weight PPC weapon to break stealth armor on the Clan side. I had been thinking of making a post about these 2 tech gaps, now I won't have to.

WEAPON ADJUSTMENTS
LARGE LASER
Reduced heat to 5.9 (from 6.5)
- Bad change. I know large lasers are not sufficiently differentiated from Binary Laser Cannon's. Blue lasers already use too little heat so it shouldn't be reduced. (Check Table Top versions of blue lasers if you don't believe me when I say blue lasers use too little heat. I'm not saying MWO blue laser heat should be set to TT values but it's odd that they run so much cooler in MWO than in TT.)

BINARY LASER CANNON
Increased beam duration to 1.3 seconds (from 1.25)
- Correct direction of the nerf but not nearly large enough. Try 1.25s --> 1.50s. That would be enough to differentiate BLC from LL. (This is a bigger problem than just the BLC, all Clan Heavy Lasers and all ER lasers should have their durations slightly increased)

LARGE X-PULSE LASER
Increased heat to 1.5 (from 1.35)
Reduced range to 450m (from 480m)
- Heat nerf: OK.
- Range Reduction: VERY BAD. De-normalizing Large X-Pulse from standard laser range. It's just 30m? What's the big deal? If this was the only change that de-normalized something it wouldn't be a big deal, but these kinds of changes are never one-offs. They keep happening and add up over time littering the game with weird inconsistencies. The Cauldron has far too cavalier an attitude towards making these kinds of changes. Table Top is very clear about X-Pulse lasers: 50% more heat for 50% more range. (There is no DPS increase in TT)


ADVANCED SENSOR PACKAGE
- No longer useless garbage but still not good enough. Try this:
-- 1.5T --> 2.5T, only usable in head slot, keep existing sensor buffs.
-- Targeting an enemy applies the "Tagged" condition as long as line of sight is maintained. No laser is emitted to establish this effect, merely seeing the targeted enemy mech in your field of view applies it. This effect is immune to 1 ECM. (2 will counter it)
-- This is not my idea, I read something to this effect on the SARNA website but cannot relocate the page I read it from. Being able to apply the tagged effect without using a laser slot and without the enemy knowing where it's coming from would be awesome.

MASC
- I'm glad to see the MASC nerfs. I've suspected for a while now that MASC was OP.

Edited by MechMaster059, 18 March 2024 - 03:11 PM.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Don't forget to post your feedback to the Discord server as well. It will start an argument a discussion here, but it won't get much traction with the folks coming up with the patch stats.

[Adam Sandler]

The 7 heat on the plasma cannon will make it unusable on almost all 'mechs except on Assault 'mechs. I believe this is what their goal was. It's a flamer, but you can use it at longer ranges. To balance that you need a lot of double heat sinks, and clan 'mechs have plenty. 1-2% heat gen is not a lot, however, your enemy is going to be shooting all of their weaponry at you. Using two plasma cannons would be 3-4% heat, this will either shut down the enemy 'mech, or push people who override into exploding.
To add, if you're using this as a team (WHICH YOU'RE MEANT TO BE DOING) and focusing fire, you will overheat the enemy.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Adam Sandler, on 18 March 2024 - 03:31 PM, said:

The 7 heat on the plasma cannon will make it unusable on almost all 'mechs except on Assault 'mechs. I believe this is what their goal was. It's a flamer, but you can use it at longer ranges

This was not the goal, the heat is high on plasma cannons, but they didn't want a repeat of HAG20s or binaries on release where they were OP and dominant so stats on pretty much everything (minus APG/Magshots IMO) is conservative.

That said, I'm also okay with them making heat damage very minimal (honestly I'd prefer it removed) just because that mechanic is busted and hard to balance even in traditional games. These shouldn't be treated as long range flamers like they are in TT, because that mechanic in this game is wonky (behavior of it is...is weird) but also can just be flat out broken.



Also for the last time (not aimed at the quoted poster, just in general), TT is not a guide for balance on a real-time FPS, please stop treating it as such.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 18 March 2024 - 03:44 PM.

[MechMaster059]

Adam Sandler, on 18 March 2024 - 03:31 PM, said:

The 7 heat on the plasma cannon will make it unusable on almost all 'mechs except on Assault 'mechs.

That would be a shame. Kind of defeats the purpose of giving the Clan a light PPC weapon to break stealth armor if most mechs can't use it.

Adam Sandler, on 18 March 2024 - 03:31 PM, said:

I believe this is what their goal was. It's a flamer, but you can use it at longer ranges.

Not at 0.25 heat damage per hit it's not. Even boating 3-4 of them won't inflict a significant amount of heat damage.

Adam Sandler, on 18 March 2024 - 03:31 PM, said:

... 1-2% heat gen is not a lot, however, your enemy is going to be shooting all of their weaponry at you. Using two plasma cannons would be 3-4% heat, this will either shut down the enemy 'mech, or push people who override into exploding.

To add, if you're using this as a team (WHICH YOU'RE MEANT TO BE DOING) and focusing fire, you will overheat the enemy.

That 1-2% heat damage inflicted is wrong. My understanding is that all mechs come with 50 heat capacity standard. External heat sinks add 0.5 heat capacity each and then there is a skill that can add up to +15% additional heat capacity. 0.25 of 50 is ½% which assumes no external heat sinks or skill points. The heat damage from getting hit by 2 Plasma Cannons wouldn't even be noticeable in a brawl with those numbers. Now imagine a Clan assault mech with 20+ heat sinks + heat capacity skills? They may as well take the 0.25 heat damage off altogether and call the weapon a Clan Light PPC if they have no real intention of making it inflict heat damage.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 18 March 2024 - 03:42 PM, said:

This was not the goal, the heat is high on plasma cannons, but they didn't want a repeat of HAG20s or binaries on release where they were OP and dominant so stats on pretty much everything (minus APG/Magshots IMO) is conservative.

7 heat isn't "conservative", it's dead.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 18 March 2024 - 03:42 PM, said:

That said, I'm also okay with them making heat damage very minimal (honestly I'd prefer it removed) just because that mechanic is busted and hard to balance even in traditional games. These shouldn't be treated as long range flamers like they are in TT, because that mechanic in this game is wonky (behavior of it is...is weird) but also can just be flat out broken.

This seems like a rather defeatist attitude...

Quicksilver Aberration, on 18 March 2024 - 03:42 PM, said:

Also for the last time (not aimed at the quoted poster, just in general), TT is not a guide for balance on a real-time FPS, please stop treating it as such.

That 7 heat cost is clearly pulled from Table Top despite the weapon being radically changed in how it operates for MWO. If they're going to completely change how the weapon operates, why stick to the 7 heat cost?

I've repeatedly been told on these forums that PGI is not at liberty to change weapon weights and slot costs from their TT values and this appears to largely be true since it's the only thing that the Cauldron nearly always adheres to. Slot/weight differences between MWO and TT are extremely rare. Given the tight coupling between MWO and TT it is thus legitimate to compare the two though there are instances where they're irreconcilable. (Targeting Computers come to mind)

Edited by MechMaster059, 18 March 2024 - 05:04 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MechMaster059, on 18 March 2024 - 05:02 PM, said:

7 heat isn't "conservative", it's dead.

This seems like a rather defeatist attitude...

That 7 heat cost is clearly pulled from Table Top despite the weapon being radically changed in how it operates for MWO. If they're going to completely change how the weapon operates, why stick to the 7 heat cost?

To be clear, I agree that at 7 heat it will likely be underpowered but yes I would consider it conservative given the fact it does still have a little heat damage and 7 heat happens to be around half the heat of the ERPPC anyway. I think it makes too many trade-offs around range, damage, ghost heat limit, and heat for having a shorter cooldown and heat damage but they are expecting to have to adjust weapons for the next few patches because for better or worse we are the test server :shrug:

[Alexander of Macedon]

Yep. "Underpowered on launch, buffed into a useful state" is better than "Overpowered on launch, nerfed into a fair state, all of the stat-carried crybabies whine about the nerf for the next six to eight months."

[MechMaster059]

Alexander of Macedon, on 18 March 2024 - 06:02 PM, said:

Yep. "Underpowered on launch, buffed into a useful state" is better than "Overpowered on launch, nerfed into a fair state, all of the stat-carried crybabies whine about the nerf for the next six to eight months."

I can accept that.

Am I reading the heat splash damage correctly? My understanding is that being hit with a single Plasma Cannon will inflict 0.25 heat damage TOTAL. (1/3 less if an arm or leg is hit) That just seems almost non-existent. They could have at least started out with heat damage set to 1.

[LordNothing]

il decide what sucks when i try to use it.

[ScrapIron Prime]

They’re in the PPC family, which means they will cancel ECM. At 3 tons, the clanners finally have a light PPC to fit on their streak, ATM, and Lurm boats. I dunno how 4 Plasma will work out just yet, but I can see a lot of builds with one.

[Ignatius Audene]

TT values are total garbage for an PC game. Like u already realise their is no dps, velocity, pin point accuracy... And TT balancing was already borderline (ACs terrible etc.). Heat DMG in mwo is the equivalent to stun lock. This is a bad mechanic in a PvP shooter. Reduce the heat ?Fine. Increase heat DMG BIG no.

Edited by Ignatius Audene, 18 March 2024 - 10:03 PM.

[Shineplasma]

With so many of these projectile weapons which will be strong on light and medium mechs entering the game at the same time, I don't think it is a bad thing for Plasma Cannon power level to start off lower and then be adjusted later if need be.

There are many clan light/medium mechs with high numbers of hardpoints which will benefit substantially from the addition of AP Gauss alone, perhaps keeping a natural supporting weapon for those builds in check isn't a bad idea.

Plasma cannons will still be good in dakka builds, I feel, similar to stacking LPPC/AC5's on the IS side for various medium, heavy and assault mechs. Just because they aren't strong enough to boat on their own doesn't mean they aren't a good addition to the game.

Not even going to touch the tabletop talking points. Those are neither here nor there in a first person shooter/real-time sim like MWO.

Edited by Shineplasma, 18 March 2024 - 10:59 PM.

[crazytimes]

I love the work you've done here- do you have a more engineering in depth analysis of your conclusions? I'm particularly interested in how you came to your conclusions on plasma cannons. Do you have some more maths on that? And some more lore?

[Curccu]

MechMaster059, on 18 March 2024 - 05:02 PM, said:

That would be a shame. Kind of defeats the purpose of giving the Clan a light PPC weapon to break stealth armor if most mechs can't use it.

If purpose of this weapon is to disable ECM/Stealth then this is super awesome, damage or DPH doesn't matter almost at all if is not primary weapon, instead more like support weapon to enable use of SSRM/ATM/LRM.

If point of this weapon would be to have light PPC equivalent to clans then it is not that great because bad DPH.

[MechMaster059]

I don't want to constantly come across like I'm dumping on PGI/Cauldron by having this thread dwell too much on the inadequacies of Plasma Cannons. The March 2024 patch obviously required a lot of effort and will dramatically improve the game so PGI/Cauldron deserve to be celebrated for it. My intent here is to save Plasma Cannons from becoming another dead/under utilized weapon. Also, Plasma Cannons in particular have the potential to add new depth to the game with their heat damage mechanic.

Judging by the replies I'm seeing in this thread, my concerns about the weapon are justified. People seem to have an undue fear of the heat damage component of the weapon and thus a very cavalier attitude towards removing it altogether or keeping it set at a negligible value.

In the spirit of celebrating the latest patch rather than criticizing it, I'm going to try to limit my replies to this thread after this reply.

ScrapIron Prime, on 18 March 2024 - 08:01 PM, said:

... I can see a lot of builds with one.

I suppose one is better than none. Wouldn't a Tag be a much better choice for this all things considered?

=====

Ignatius Audene, on 18 March 2024 - 10:03 PM, said:

TT values are total garbage for an PC game...

Then why are weight and slot values so rigidly adhered to? Why does MWO have no original weapons of its own that don't exist in TT?

It's interesting how suddenly making any reference to TT is considered silly. How convenient. This dismissal of TT values is a lazy attempt to sideline what I'm saying about Plasma Cannons.

Ignatius Audene, on 18 March 2024 - 10:03 PM, said:

Heat DMG in mwo is the equivalent to stun lock. This is a bad mechanic in a PvP shooter. Reduce the heat ?Fine. Increase heat DMG BIG no.

Is 0.25 heat damage on a 3T weapon with a 3.5s cooldown capable of inflicting a "stun lock"? The current heat damage is so low it's negligible. It won't even be noticed. Getting hit by 4 of them can be dissipated by 10 heat sinks in ½ a second. Lets do a little compare and contrast between Plasma Cannons WITH my proposed 10x of the heat damage vs flamers:

PC: 3T, Flamer: ½T
PC: 2.5 heat dmg / 3.5s, Flamer: 3.5 heat dmg / 1s
PC: 6.5 dmg, Flamer: 0.1 dmg / 1s
PC: 540+m, Flamer: 90m

As you can see from these numbers, the Plasma Cannon would still be grossly inferior at dealing heat damage compared to a flamer even if the PC's heat damage was boosted 10x up from 0.25 as I suggest. The big advantage of the PC of course is its ability to deal damage and apply the heat at range. What these numbers suggest is that the PC has the potential to lay down impressive SUPRRESING FIRE by making targets hide behind cover to avoid the heat damage.

The real danger of being "stun locked" by such a weapon only comes from it being boated by a coordinated lance of mechs that intentionally design their mech load-out around the weapon. This is why I suggest the heat cost of the weapon always be significantly higher, even after quirks and skills, than the heat damage it can inflict. I think a good recommendation would be to have the weapon always cost about 2x more heat to fire, after quirks and skills, than the heat damage it inflicts. This is why I recommended a heat value of 6. This can easily be brought down to 5 heat through skills and quirks which is 2x more than the 2.5 heat damage inflicted I recommend. This means 2 mechs equipped with 2 PCs firing upon the same target would result in all of them increasing their heat by the same amount. (10 heat for each mech to fire, 10 heat inflicted upon the target) A coordinated lace that chose to go down this path would be badly gimping their damage output as a trade-off due to the weapon's horrible dmg / heat efficiency.

The fact that a PC has a cooldown, combined with its weight, greatly hinders its ability to use heat as a "stun lock". A more appropriate term would "debilitating". PC's might force enemy players to use chain-fire to manage heat when firing their weapons or wait a little longer to fire them. (low tier players might actually have to learn how to use chain-fire... LOL, THE HORROR)

=====

Shineplasma, on 18 March 2024 - 10:59 PM, said:

...

There are many clan light/medium mechs with high numbers of hardpoints which will benefit substantially from the addition of AP Gauss alone, perhaps keeping a natural supporting weapon for those builds in check isn't a bad idea.

The current numbers aren't keeping Plasma Cannons "in check", they're making them garbage.

Shineplasma, on 18 March 2024 - 10:59 PM, said:

Plasma cannons will still be good in dakka builds, I feel, similar to stacking LPPC/AC5's on the IS side for various medium, heavy and assault mechs. Just because they aren't strong enough to boat on their own doesn't mean they aren't a good addition to the game.

Why would you stack such a high heat / low damage weapon with ballistics? Doing so would just limit how long you can fire your dakka due to heat issues.

Shineplasma, on 18 March 2024 - 10:59 PM, said:

Not even going to touch the tabletop talking points. Those are neither here nor there in a first person shooter/real-time sim like MWO.

So we're going to pretend TT doesn't exist when it's inconvenient to acknowledge it. I can assure you PGI wasn't ignoring table top when they set the weapon's heat to 7 since that value is pulled directly from TT.

=====

crazytimes, on 19 March 2024 - 12:08 AM, said:

I love the work you've done here- do you have a more engineering in depth analysis of your conclusions? I'm particularly interested in how you came to your conclusions on plasma cannons. Do you have some more maths on that? And some more lore?

This is the sarna.net page for Plasma Cannons: https://www.sarna.ne...i/Plasma_Cannon

This website is a wiki for Battletech Table Top. Notice 7 heat, 3 tons, 1 slot, requires ammo. PGI has dumped the ammo requirement and increased the slot cost by 1. (This slot cost discrepancy between MWO and TT is VERY rare in MWO. The only other weapon I'm aware of with a different slot cost compared to TT is the LBX2 at 3 slots in MWO instead of 4 for TT.)

Compare this to an IS Light PPC: 4.5 heat, 3 tons, 5.5 dmg. The heat difference of the PC makes it grossly inferior to an IS LPPC on its face. You don't need to be a genius to figure this out. There is no significant heat damage component on PC's to compensate for this inferiority, thus it's obvious to me the weapon will be dead on arrival. The only use case for it is the one ScrapIron Prime suggests of mounting 1 of them to disable ECM for STREAKs/ATMs/LRMs, but even then a Tag would be a much better choice.

I recommend you browse the Sarna site. I've been doing so here and there for a couple of weeks now comparing weapons in MWO to TT and lets just say it's been an eye opener. I had always viewed adherence to TT as a bit of a ball and chain limiting design choices so me being cast as some kind of TT religious zealot in this thread is somewhat amusing. That being said, after browsing Sarna I can now see there are some issues in MWO that are a direct result of NOT adhering to TT design choices. (Check out blue lasers in particular. They're WAYYYYY more powerful in MWO than TT. No wonder so many people complain about them on the forum...)

=====

Curccu, on 19 March 2024 - 12:29 AM, said:

If purpose of this weapon is to disable ECM/Stealth then this is super awesome, damage or DPH doesn't matter almost at all if is not primary weapon, instead more like support weapon to enable use of SSRM/ATM/LRM.

If point of this weapon would be to have light PPC equivalent to clans then it is not that great because bad DPH.

If it's not going to inflict a noticeable amount of heat damage then it's not a Plasma Cannon and shouldn't be called one. PGI should change its name to "Super Hot Clan Light PPC" and change the color of the energy blast from green to light blue like standard PPCs. Calling it a "Plasma Cannon" with the current numbers is a misnomer and false advertising. It's sooo NOT a Plasma Cannon.

Edited by MechMaster059, 19 March 2024 - 04:21 AM.

[Shineplasma]

Mechbuilding, piloting and the reality of weapon balance is much more nuanced than your simple flat comparisons to IS light ppcs and damage per heat napkin math, my good spreadsheet warrior.

I suggest you take your complaints to the cauldron feedback discord.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Shineplasma, on 19 March 2024 - 05:20 AM, said:

Mechbuilding, piloting and the reality of weapon balance is much more nuanced than your simple flat comparisons to IS light ppcs and damage per heat napkin math,

While your general thought isn't incorrect, this ...

Shineplasma, on 19 March 2024 - 05:20 AM, said:

my good spreadsheet warrior.

... dismissive jab of "spreadsheet warrior" is unintentionally funny (or even ironic) when considering that in the most recent pod-cast that previewed these new weapons our dear Frost_Byte literally confirmed that while he personally has access to a dev client/server as part of his job the cauldron does the balancing based on (guess what?) ... spreadsheets.

[ScrapIron Prime]

MechMaster059, on 19 March 2024 - 03:47 AM, said:

I suppose one is better than none. Wouldn't a Tag be a much better choice for this all things considered?

For LRMs and arguably ATMs a TAG is a better investment, yes. But not Streaks. You ever try to hold a TAG laser on a light that is circling you and chewing your kneecaps off? One blast from a PPC family weapon will allow your streaks to target him and hold lock while he's behind you.

A single plasma is a better investment for that, 3T instead of 6T.

[1Exitar1]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 18 March 2024 - 03:42 PM, said:

This was not the goal, the heat is high on plasma cannons, but they didn't want a repeat of HAG20s or binaries on release where they were OP and dominant so stats on pretty much everything (minus APG/Magshots IMO) is conservative.

That said, I'm also okay with them making heat damage very minimal (honestly I'd prefer it removed) just because that mechanic is busted and hard to balance even in traditional games. These shouldn't be treated as long range flamers like they are in TT, because that mechanic in this game is wonky (behavior of it is...is weird) but also can just be flat out broken.



Also for the last time (not aimed at the quoted poster, just in general), TT is not a guide for balance on a real-time FPS, please stop treating it as such.

If you're going to take away the heat aspect of the plasma cannon, then you might as well remove the weapon from the game. That is the big difference between a plasma cannon and a light ppc and the plasma cannon doesn't even do as much damage as the lppc.
The heat from this weapon should be making people rethink their builds. They should be worrying "Do I have enough heatsinks to take care of the heat I might get from those weapons?" Yes, this could make a HUGE shift in mech building. Is that a bad thing? People have been building their mechs for the most firepower to heat ratio they can get. It's time for a change, I think. Just like when AMS was introduced. Do you want to get hit by missiles or shoot them down? Or when ECM was introduced. Do you want to be 'hidden' or do you want another weapon?
I think the heat on the plasma cannons should be increased and so should the damage. As it stands, if you use them in play, as they currently are made, you are almost certainly going to go down in PSR because you CAN'T DO DAMAGE!

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1Exitar1, on 19 March 2024 - 08:53 PM, said:

The heat from this weapon should be making people rethink their builds. They should be worrying "Do I have enough heatsinks to take care of the heat I might get from those weapons?" Yes, this could make a HUGE shift in mech building.

No, that's not how this works. There is no flamer ramp-up to keep this weapons in check. The whole idea of heat damage is badly done because typically they are either mutually ensured destruction in that they generate the same amount of heat to the target as the user, or they do more heat to the target than the user ending up becoming stun lock. The whole idea that this "forces people to use heat sink" is not based in any sort of reality, all it translates is to stun-lock or you just abuse Gauss/MGs with Flamers/Plasma since Gauss/MGs are practically unaffected by heat. Which is why this take is bad:

1Exitar1, on 19 March 2024 - 08:53 PM, said:

If you're going to take away the heat aspect of the plasma cannon, then you might as well remove the weapon from the game.

PGI has little appetite for a bunch of non-canon weapons so if this is what it takes to fill those holes in tech base weapons I'm okay with them co-opting a weapon from lore to fill that hole, especially if that weapon's mechanic in lore just would not make sense in a PvP mechwarrior. Honestly the plasma cannon even in lore is just goofy. Flamers and the Plasma Rifle can both do damage, yet the cannon can't? Just another weird inconsistency with lore weapons.


Again, that said, it definitely feels underwhelming. You trade pretty much every other stat for better cooldown vs cERPPC. It's why I will take a cERPPC over 2 plasma.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 20 March 2024 - 07:32 AM.