25 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Would be interesting to get PPC Capacitors.

Maybe it'll be just +1 slot +1 ton attachment on a PPC, with +5 damage +5 heat, +50% projectile speed, and -1 Ghost-Heat, meaning: only 2 LPPC+Cap, 2 PPC+Cap, 2 SNPPC+Cap, 1 ERPPC+Cap, and 1 HPPC+Cap. Would be charged-up like a Gauss.

That's one way to make PPCs effective on certain lights. An 8-Ton weapon doing 20 PPFLD would certainly be no slouch.

[KursedVixen]

The6thMessenger, on 14 July 2025 - 02:01 PM, said:

Would be interesting to get PPC Capacitors.

Maybe it'll be just +1 slot +1 ton attachment on a PPC, with +5 damage +5 heat, +50% projectile speed, and -1 Ghost-Heat, meaning: only 2 LPPC+Cap, 2 PPC+Cap, 2 SNPPC+Cap, 1 ERPPC+Cap, and 1 HPPC+Cap. Would be charged-up like a Gauss.

That's one way to make PPCs effective on certain lights. An 8-Ton weapon doing 20 PPFLD would certainly be no slouch.

instead of a charge up how about increasing the cooldown? or you can shoot the ppc without the capacitor faster or let the capcitor charge up for a more poweful shot (not sure if that can be done.

and what of the clan version?

Edited by KursedVixen, 14 July 2025 - 03:04 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

KursedVixen, on 14 July 2025 - 02:31 PM, said:

instead of a charge up how about increasing the cooldown?

You mean it's just another PPC but more? Kind of boring.

KursedVixen, on 14 July 2025 - 02:31 PM, said:

you can shoot the ppc without the capacitor faster or let the capcitor charge up for a more poweful shot (not sure if that can be done.

I like the charge better, like an energy Gauss. The idea is that it's working within the limits of the existing weapon mechanics.

KursedVixen, on 14 July 2025 - 02:31 PM, said:

and what of the clan version?

[GreyNovember]

Lowest possible effort version that's most likely to see implementation is just a fixed PPC + Capacitor for all iterations of the weapon, with a massive cooldown penalty such that Light PPC + Capacitor isn't superior to standard PPC, with the cooldown penalty getting less intense as the weight of the base weapon ramps up.

I'd take an energy AC20 with bonkers range, sure.

[KursedVixen]

The6thMessenger, on 14 July 2025 - 10:40 PM, said:

Martian whined about me suggesting a clan only thing and not offering the IS something in return so, NO you

Edited by KursedVixen, 15 July 2025 - 08:28 AM.

[GargoyleVine]

a charge for PPC's like Mechassault, interesting

[Lollerisms]

AIUI charge on energy weapons cannot be implemented in a way that PGI would find acceptable.

[The6thMessenger]

KursedVixen, on 15 July 2025 - 08:24 AM, said:

Martian whined about me suggesting a clan only thing and not offering the IS something in return so, NO you

I never said there wasn't Clan, but you ALWAYS bring up Clan.

The PPC-Cap makes better context on the IS side for the reason they struggle more in putting mechs together. The Clans have a 6-ton variant doing 10 + 5 splash damage FFS -- the Plasma Cannon being LPPC but clan, and does nothing else novel but token heat damage, was a joke. It's not like clanner podspace struggle to fit two C-ERPPCs.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 15 July 2025 - 03:37 PM.

[BlueDevilspawn]

Capacitors are not happening for a number of technical, resource priority, and balance reasons.

1. All weapons have a class they are assigned to and all classes have certain specific attributes. Some are uniform like max range, dropoff, damage, etc. Others are specific like charge, spread, min range. Due to this class setup, ballistics like autocannon are different from gauss, because gauss has a charge attribute. Similarly, lock-ons like LRMs are different from Streaks in that lock-ons have a altitude floor and an indirect arc altitude along with spread while Streaks have no indirect attributes and no spread, but does have missile hit percentages on components (they all hit, just over diff parts of the target).

The issue is that you can't add attributes, so energy weapons currently don't have and will not get a charge mechanic like gauss without code work.

2. So why doesn't PGI program in new attributes? While many of their original engineers/coders are still around, they are resourced on to MW5 DLCs (and hopefully conceptualizing MW Next but that's my wish). For those of you who naively say "just spend 2 weeks on it" that's not how resourcing your most valuable people works. They work on what they're assigned to because it's the company's flagship. Not to mention it would take that time to refamiliarize themselves with a code base they likely haven't touched in years. Get with the program with your thinking. This is a business tasking/prioritizing decision.

3. Finally on balance... the IS has 5 types of PPCs and all have to be balanced for their purpose whether range, damage, velo, heat, weapon combos. Doubling that number with capacitors does not help balance, it hurts it. Clans ironically have a better setup with a do-all PPC in the ERPPC and the Plasma Cannon (which is a Clan LPPC) for weight flexibility. Yes capacitors are a thing in tabletop but in a pvp shooter when all weapons are balanced to be relevant, it has no bearing.

[GreyNovember]

BlueDevilspawn, on 16 July 2025 - 08:50 AM, said:

Capacitors are not happening for a number of technical, resource priority, and balance reasons.

Well thougt out post detailing why we can't on a technical level, and why we shouldn't

I'll just go ahead and say the unspoken thing out loud.

"But I want it, so that's more important than anything else."

[Ilfi]

What new weapons are still missing, anyway? I'm only familiar with Long Toms, Bombast Lasers, Inferno SRMs and maybe MRMs with better grouping (wishful thinking-- they suck bad currently). For Long Toms specifically, they definitely shouldn't be added if they're equivalent to the MW4 version; more LRM-esque indirect splash damage spam is the last thing this game needs.

Also, as mentioned above: more important than new weapons, is making sure the current set of weapons actually have a use case. A lot of weapons (and Mechs, for that matter) flat out suck and should never be taken if you are playing with the intent to win.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ilfi, on 16 July 2025 - 02:55 PM, said:

For Long Toms specifically, they definitely shouldn't be added if they're equivalent to the MW4 version; more LRM-esque indirect splash damage spam is the last thing this game needs.

There's a big difference between long toms and LRM-esque indirect fire. Namely one isn't homing, while the other is. The other being that LRMs don't have splash but that's a different discussion.

[KursedVixen]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 16 July 2025 - 03:14 PM, said:

There's a big difference between long toms and LRM-esque indirect fire. Namely one isn't homing, while the other is. The other being that LRMs don't have splash but that's a different discussion.

CERPPCs and Hyper gauss don't have splash either, but they do for some balance reason in MWo....

thing is how do you balance a huge gun that fires a single projectile that does up to 25 damage not counting splash, not to mention how does AmS deal with it and is it really fair to have artillery in this game???

we already got thunderbolt missiles why not just use those?

i assume you want arrow IV now? (may have quoted the wrong person)

Edited by KursedVixen, 16 July 2025 - 04:34 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

KursedVixen, on 16 July 2025 - 04:31 PM, said:

CERPPCs and Hyper gauss don't have splash either, but they do for some balance reason in MWo....

Yeah, but a Long-Tom is obviously a lot more powerful than just a regular CERPPC. It's gonna do area damage, and if it fires over a deadzone, it's not going to be a fun time. If you remember the original Long Tom strikes in FP, it's going to be that.

Maybe more realistic is a Thumper Cannon (snub-nosed version of Thumper Artillery), and possibly doing the same explosion as the ones in Artillery Strike, but not a barrage. But same issue applies, it's easy area damage over a deadzone, invalidating cover.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 16 July 2025 - 04:37 PM, said:

Long Tom strikes in FP, it's going to be that.

I would hazard against any comparison to FP "Long Toms". FP Long toms were more tactical nuke and less an actual long tom. They had splash but the damage was a stupid amount and the splash radius was also stupid. MW4 already had long toms and is probably the best comparison. They were slow trajectory weapons that could arc over some pieces of cover and were good for dealing with entrenched or camping enemies and that was about it. They were in no way a problem like LRMs have been in MWO's history because they target areas and not mechs and they don't home.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 16 July 2025 - 06:33 PM.

[martian]

BlueDevilspawn, on 16 July 2025 - 08:50 AM, said:

Capacitors are not happening for a number of technical, resource priority, and balance reasons.

1. All weapons have a class they are assigned to and all classes have certain specific attributes. Some are uniform like max range, dropoff, damage, etc. Others are specific like charge, spread, min range. Due to this class setup, ballistics like autocannon are different from gauss, because gauss has a charge attribute. Similarly, lock-ons like LRMs are different from Streaks in that lock-ons have a altitude floor and an indirect arc altitude along with spread while Streaks have no indirect attributes and no spread, but does have missile hit percentages on components (they all hit, just over diff parts of the target).

The issue is that you can't add attributes, so energy weapons currently don't have and will not get a charge mechanic like gauss without code work.

2. So why doesn't PGI program in new attributes? While many of their original engineers/coders are still around, they are resourced on to MW5 DLCs (and hopefully conceptualizing MW Next but that's my wish). For those of you who naively say "just spend 2 weeks on it" that's not how resourcing your most valuable people works. They work on what they're assigned to because it's the company's flagship. Not to mention it would take that time to refamiliarize themselves with a code base they likely haven't touched in years. Get with the program with your thinking. This is a business tasking/prioritizing decision.

3. Finally on balance... the IS has 5 types of PPCs and all have to be balanced for their purpose whether range, damage, velo, heat, weapon combos. Doubling that number with capacitors does not help balance, it hurts it. Clans ironically have a better setup with a do-all PPC in the ERPPC and the Plasma Cannon (which is a Clan LPPC) for weight flexibility. Yes capacitors are a thing in tabletop but in a pvp shooter when all weapons are balanced to be relevant, it has no bearing.

Thanks for the explanation.

Is this the same reason why some tabletop plasma weapons (Plasma Rifle / Plasma Cannon) will not happen? Energy weapons, but requiring ammunition?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

martian, on 16 July 2025 - 08:32 PM, said:

Thanks for the explanation.

Is this the same reason why some tabletop plasma weapons (Plasma Rifle / Plasma Cannon) will not happen? Energy weapons, but requiring ammunition?

It's the reason the plasma cannon does not have ammo yes. The plasma rifle though is pretty much identical with the standard IS PPC but it has an ammo tax. In TT it does heat to target but just like with the plasma cannon, adding to people's heat is kind of an unfun mechanic meaning the plasma rifle would be a pointless addition unless it was significantly reworked, and like Blue said, the IS PPC design space is currently pretty full, not really sure what role it would fill that needs filled.

[LordNothing]

i wouldnt mind having another ppc on the clan side, but there doesnt seem to be anything in lore except maybe the support ppc, which i dont think is a clan weapon. its more of an infantry/battle armor weapon. perhaps call it a micro-ppc, 2 tons 2 damage. but its kind of in the same design space as the ap-gauss. i can imagine it getting somewhat problematic in builds that have both.

i wouldnt mind re-visiting some dead weapons, like rocket launchers. and really the only thing i think has some design space is a midrange dumbfire clan missile launcher of sorts.

[KursedVixen]

LordNothing, on 16 July 2025 - 10:25 PM, said:

i wouldnt mind having another ppc on the clan side, but there doesnt seem to be anything in lore except maybe the support ppc, which i dont think is a clan weapon. its more of an infantry/battle armor weapon. perhaps call it a micro-ppc, 2 tons 2 damage. but its kind of in the same design space as the ap-gauss. i can imagine it getting somewhat problematic in builds that have both.

i wouldnt mind re-visiting some dead weapons, like rocket launchers. and really the only thing i think has some design space is a midrange dumbfire clan missile launcher of sorts.

I'd have to check but i think Elementals can carry a manpack PPC which would be like micro ppcs i guess

the support PPC is too heavy for infantry to carry it's more like a towed cannon.


https://www.sarna.ne...PC_AToWComp.jpg

Edited by KursedVixen, 16 July 2025 - 10:37 PM.

[LordNothing]

KursedVixen, on 16 July 2025 - 10:34 PM, said:

I'd have to check but i think Elementals can carry a manpack PPC which would be like micro ppcs i guess

the support PPC is too heavy for infantry to carry it's more like a towed cannon.

i suppose you could give the sppc to one tech base and the mppc to the other.