534 replies to this topic

[Volthorne]

Jennest, on 06 November 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

-snip-

Well, Mustrum seems to have understood, and considering he's one of the big 3 for heat debates, I'll count that as mission success.

Asatruer, on 06 November 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

I am curious, which mechs have the Hardpoint, tonnage, and critical slots to pull that off?
Could you build me that mech so I can see it?

Literally every 'Mech ever.

[Asatruer]

Volthorne, on 06 November 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

Literally every 'Mech ever.

I hope you are ESL misusing literally like that.

But if actually every 'Mech ever could

Volthorne, on 06 November 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

start boating ERLLs, PPCs and other crap like that...

then show me the loadout of one 'Mech that can both boat a ridiculous amount of PPCs and alpha them every time at cooldown and not overheat like you are claiming proper TT heat dispersal would cause. Just one Mech build.

Edited by Asatruer, 06 November 2012 - 04:42 PM.

[Jubal Cornpone]

The OP states this not exactly as I would, but since he keeps me from having to write for half an hour I'll just say I completely agree with him.

All math aside, it's clear that PPCs are very much a second choice compared to Gauss rifles. This is non-canonical, because in TT, genre books, and previous games, PPCs have always been a favored weapon.

It's also clear the reason for this situation is that relative heat efficiency favors the rifles. The same could be said of some other weapons, for example large lasers are hurt similarly to PPCs while most ACs are helped similarly to Gauss rifles.

As the OP outlined, the rate of fire of PPCs (and everything else) has been approximately tripled. The rate of heat dissipation has been left at approximately the baseline. This situation dramatically favors low heat weapons. It should be expected that low heat weapons would dominate in this scenario, and that is what we are observing.

This is not really a game balance issue since everyone has the same ability to ditch PPCs and take Gauss rifles (or ditch large lasers and take any AC). However, it is an immersion breaking issue, since people who come to this game expect to be able to effectively play PPC configurations familiar from TT, genre books, and previous games.

I think this has been tolerated up to now because the game is still in beta and future balancing has been expected. Now it appears this expectation may be disappointed. I expect that people with less "old school" experience may be more willing to tolerate this while people with more "old school" experience will be less willing. If that's the case, I expect this to be a problem for the game, since people with "old school" experience are the obvious loyal customer base.

Part of the outcry over DHS is that people expected DHS to indirectly solve this problem. Again, this expectation has been disappointed.

There was an earlier thread in which devs requested builds that don't work under the current system. Here's one: the base Awesome. In TT, that thing could fire 3 PPCs per round for 3 rounds, then 2 PPCs per round for one round, and keep up that rotation about forever--almost continuous fire. In this game, you will get only a couple of cycles.

I believe this should be balanced by reference to TT rules, that is sync up the rates of fire of weapons with the rates of heat dissipation of heat sinks. However, it can be done several other ways. Regardless, the big energy weapons need to be made equally desirable compared to the weapons that are currently dominating them.

OK, I guess I went ahead and typed quite a bit after all. Bottom line, I do hope the devs will address this issue--heat balance dramatically favoring ammo weapons, even on mechs sporting what should be sufficient (say 30) heat sinks.

Regards,

Jubal

[Glythe]

Before this last patch there were quite a few viable weapons: Gauss, AC/5, UAC/5 (with unjam macro), AC/2, LRMs, SSRMs, ML, SL, LL (if you built for long range and had team support), SPL, MPL.

With the nerf to DHS and energy weapons I'd suggest you stick to medium lasers, Gauss, AC/2 and LRMs.

Jubal Cornpone, on 06 November 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

Regardless, the big energy weapons need to be made equally desirable compared to the weapons that are currently dominating them.

So true. If ever you even considered using the LPL you can forget about it with a 25% heat increase... rofl.

Edited by Glythe, 06 November 2012 - 05:59 PM.

[Stabbitha]

Indoorsman, on 06 November 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

I want YOU to stop and think about the REAL reason why RoF was increased. Wiki says TT/BT is from the 80s. This is 2012.

And...? Time doesn't invalidate a well balanced system...

Quote

Attention span of the average internet user is plummeting. Do you really expect people(gamers specifically) to even show remote interest in a game where you can't take actions more often than once every 10 seconds? People have changed, the medium of the game has changed, the way the game is played has changed.

Indeed, the level of skill involved is low and the randomisation is non existent. The power is min/maxing builds (and teamwork, but that's a given in most games).

Quote

Yet you and the other TT defenders are being inflexible to change. The way to decrease lethality with and increased RoF is to have a heat penalty and increased armor. If you remove the heat penalty as you are suggesting, and don't change RoF then what can be done to increase survival? Triple, quadruple armor? Decrease damage dealt? In other words make each individual action mean less while allowing more total actions. That is what you and other TT defenders are saying.

Which could all be balanced by re-adding the things on TT that this (and most other MW games) never bothered to attempt.

Randomisation. Proper heat effects including slowdown, inaccuracy etc.

Adding bloom/scatter to the weapon system would result in combat more reminiscent of the tabletop experience while increasing the TTK (time to kill). Missed shots incur heat, so players would need to be more circumspect and pick their times for alpha strikes. You could increase ROF, increase heat dissipation, slightly up the armour and end up with a game where you take your best shot and there is some luck involved rather than pinpoint salvos.

TT rules don't work in the real game because tabletop invokes a level of luck that just isn't present in the game.

Asatruer, on 06 November 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

The HBK-4P was not a problem in TT compared to the HBK-4G. An alpha from the -4G dealt 30 points of damage for a neat rise of 1 if standing still. An alpha from the -4P does 40 damage for a net neat rise of 1 point if standing still. Did allowing the -4P in BattleTech alpha strike all day long make it HBK-4PTech? No, because heat was not the point of balance that made boating lots of weapons disadvantageous over one big weapon, it was the RNG hit location tables. Heat "neutrality" is not the cause of the problem, and should not be the method used to fix the root cause of the problem. Using heat to balance aiming is a bad solution, it drives people to low heat and high accuracy weapons (such as the gauss and small lasers).

Bingo.

The only way to fix it is to up the heat on those systems considerably (because most low heat builds can run on stock heatsinks), or drop lots of heat from hot weapons (like 50%... yeah right..). So everyone overheats after a few salvos or no one does.

I guess they could always nerf cool weapons ammo and or range as well.

And this is what you want Indoorsman. A minor tweak of heat isn't going to fix an ERPPC, it's just miles too hot under the current system. To balance it against a gauss (which is what it should be balanced against), you would need to fundamentally change either or both weapons away from what they are. May as well get rid of both and just have a mid heat/mid damage gau-pc...

[Undead Bane]

Can we get this sticked?
If no, it won't be a problem for me, for example, to bump this thread as soon as it gets down (if it ever would).

And (finally) DHS got released to prove they DO NOT solve the dead and rotting heat system/balance.

PGI, beat you indoor tester to a pulp, please, and listen to us about the heat! I really want to mount PPCs, LLs, ERs, AC10/20s, and not just only ******** LRMs + Gauss + SSRMs. Damit, my lance in TT had ONE LRM mech in it, for support. And now all teams have like 4 LRMs + 4 CATs (Gauss or SSRM). This is nuts....

[Undead Bane]

Oh, and yeah. Speaking of TT. I don't mind the balance being totally different from TT (e.g. AWS-8Q not being a zombie badass mech), different damage, heat and stuff. But I (as many here) want to have some balance, want to have a variety of weapons equipped, challenge, when creating a viable build etc. NOT Macross (missles) online (though, I love Macross), not Gauss online. I really want the game to be interesting, challenging, have variation.

Also, I read the post of a mod, who played it at the very early stages - when the game was direct TT translations - and that this was totally not fun. I can easily believe in that.

But while such balancing factors like randomness are thrown away, the mechanics don't have much of a choice, but to balance everything with DPS/heat ratios. Which are now completely off.

[Draco Argentum]

Indoorsman, on 06 November 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

Second, I looked @ the WoT Tankopedia because I don't play that game. But after looking at TWO tanks I say weapons with RoF over 20 rounds per minute, most were more than 10 rounds per minute. I saw 1 weapon with ~6 rounds per minute which was the slowest firing that I saw and that is ~ your example of firing once every 10 seconds. Most weapons in WoT don't fire that slow it looks like to me.

Every high tier heavy tank (not including British, that tree is the high rof tree) and virtually every high tier TD has a reload longer than 10 seconds. Often substantially so. Artillery is even more extreme. Do better research before spouting off next time.

[Tuoweit]

Vapor Trail, on 05 November 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

MWO's fakeApple is a green effing CUBE.

I agree with what you're saying, but I can't resist...

[Indoorsman]

Asatruer, on 06 November 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

Per action means just that. You cannot say that per action a weapon does ~3/2 damage because that is three actions. You started talking per action, I continued talking per action, and then you claim I am wrong because I was talking per action rather than per three actions? If I was feeling less charitable I would apply Hanlon's Razor here, but I am guessing you are just overworked and feeling overly defensive so are not paying as much attention to what you are arguing as you should be.

My bad. We are doing less per individual action. You guys want alot less per individual action though.

Stabbitha, on 06 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

And...? Time doesn't invalidate a well balanced system...

The "And..?" was answered in my next quote, but here's some more. A well balanced turn based strategy board game does not equal a well balanced real time tactical first person shooter computer game. What could possibly invalidate a well balanced system for a board game? You guys are quick to point out the slightest variables and differences in values between weapon stats of TT vs MWO. Let's compare the variables of the games themselves?

TT

• take turns
  
• multiple mechs
  
• roll dice
  
• top down view
  
• board, figures, tiles

MWO

• real time
  
• one mech
  
• aim
  
• first person
  
• mouse, keyboard, computer

The way this game works, is played and how it's played are absolutely different than a board game. The only similarity this game should have with TT balance is the hierarchy. Weapon A < B < C. Not weapon A = 5 damage 2 heat 10s reload 300 range... or any ratio/fraction of TT values.

Stabbitha, on 06 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

adding the things on TT that this (and most other MW games) never bothered to attempt.

Randomisation. Proper heat effects including slowdown, inaccuracy etc.

Adding in new mechanics, not values, from TT sounds interesting. Heat effects sounds interesting. Randomisation though I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean that you could randomly miss even w/o overheating I'd have to say that's a bad idea. For TT it can make sense because you are commander of the mech lance. You tell your mech to shoot an enemy mech and it misses. Understandable since it wasn't actually you taking the shot. But if you ARE the one taking the shot, it's a different scenario. Then it's the mech missing despite the pilot aiming properly.

Stabbitha, on 06 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

this is what you want Indoorsman.

I have specifically stated what I want, in this post here that you read, replied to and then forgot apparently...

Indoorsman, on 05 November 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Tweak heat dissipation carefully not haphazardly, as in a little at a time. Tweak the hot weapons heat down independent of heat dissipation changes and perhaps the Gauss or other cool outliers heat UP.

[Indoorsman]

Draco Argentum, on 06 November 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

Every high tier heavy tank (not including British, that tree is the high rof tree) and virtually every high tier TD has a reload longer than 10 seconds. Often substantially so. Artillery is even more extreme. Do better research before spouting off next time.

I didn't do research, I looked so see if it was possible to shoot more often than 10 seconds if you wanted to and it's possible to shoot much faster than once or less every 10 seconds. The game has a variety of rounds per minute was my entire point. Did you notice the other examples Jennest used, and the context in which he used them? Care to correct him? Of course not because you wouldn't correct him even if he was wrong because he shares your stance. So I'll show you how he was wrong again. I said people wouldn't play this game if they couldn't use their abilities more often than once every 10 seconds. That's how TT works, 10s RoF was standard across the board right?

Jennest, on 06 November 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

If we think about all the games in which players have multiple abilities, can we find any where any ability has a longer cooldown than 10 seconds? Does World of Warcraft ring any bells? FTL? League of Legends? Halo Reach? Guild Wars?

He asks of ANY game with ANY ability w/a cooldown longer than 10s. How is that even remotely similar to ALL abilities having a 10s cooldown. WoW has tons of abilities than have no cooldown at all. GCD doesn't count because there are abilities which let you ignore it.

[Jennest]

Jennest, on 06 November 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

Second of all, yes. World of Tanks is far more popular than this game could ever hope to be, and most high tier tanks fire slower than once every 10 seconds. That's with only a single weapon per tank. If we think about all the games in which players have multiple abilities, can we find any where any ability has a longer cooldown than 10 seconds? Does World of Warcraft ring any bells? FTL? League of Legends? Halo Reach? Guild Wars?

Quote

Second of all, yes. World of Tanks is far more popular than this game could ever hope to be, and most high tier tanks fire slower than once every 10 seconds.

Quote

. . . most high tier tanks fire slower than once every 10 seconds.

Quote

high tier tanks

My good friend Indoorsman, I'm afraid in your haste to debunk my claims, you failed to read them.

Quote

He asks of ANY game with ANY ability w/a cooldown longer than 10s. How is that even remotely similar to ALL abilities having a 10s cooldown.

It isn't. It doesn't have to be. I already proved people are in fact willing to have no weapons which fire faster once every 10 seconds. I then moved on to note people are even more willing to have some abilities with cooldowns longer than 10 seconds. This demolishes the idea PGI absolutely had to increase the rate of fire of every single weapon by 2.5 to 5 times.*

However, you're treating my examples refuting the idea every weapon has to fire faster than once per 10 seconds as if it were intended to refute the idea any weapon has to fire faster once per 10 seconds. That is based entirely on your dismissal of my claim about World of Tanks, which you didn't actually counter at all. How disingenuous.

edit: *this is a special bonus demolition, because as I stated earlier, it would be perfectly fine to have every single weapon fire faster than 10 seconds if heat and damage ratios were maintained. You chose to ignore that part, though, except for making the claim changing the PPC's heat per shot from 10 to 9 and the Medium Laser's from 3 to 4 is both changing most weapons and anything like having the PPC do 3 damage and 3 heat per shot, which is where it would start in a sane conversion.**

**In the ideal system I would suggest, it would do 300 damage before balance tweaks.***

***But not really, because I would like it to have a rate of fire lower than once per 10 seconds to really make it stand out.

Edited by Jennest, 06 November 2012 - 11:03 PM.

[Volthorne]

Asatruer, on 06 November 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

I hope you are ESL misusing literally like that.

But if actually every 'Mech ever could then show me the loadout of one 'Mech that can both boat a ridiculous amount of PPCs and alpha them every time at cooldown and not overheat like you are claiming proper TT heat dispersal would cause. Just one Mech build.

Assuming you tripled heat dissipation to match RoF increase (or nerfed RoF back to TT) and regular DHS (2.0 dissipation)...

JR7-LOL (-D mod)
x2 PPCs
Biggest engine you can equip (don't have access to weight table right now)
10 DHS (engine freebies)

CPLT-ROFL (-K2 mod)
x4 PPCS
300XL
20 DHS (12 go in engine, 8 outside in arms/torso

AWS-PFFFT (-9M mod)
x6 PPCs
Biggest standard engine possible (multiple of 25, mind!)
Install as many DHS as possible

For all of the above:
1) begin match
2) go as fast as you can
3) ???
4) Alpha strike as much as you want

Considering almost every 'Mech would have 2 or more laser hardpoints, it's really not hard to come up with PPC/LL boating configs for literally EVERYTHING.

Edited by Volthorne, 06 November 2012 - 11:03 PM.

[NovaFury]

Asatruer, on 06 November 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

show me the loadout of one 'Mech that can both boat a ridiculous amount of PPCs and alpha them every time at cooldown and not overheat like you are claiming proper TT heat dispersal would cause. Just one Mech build.

Not that person, but AWS-8Q can, standing, firing 3 PPCs/turn and only gain 2 heat. At any time it elects to only fire 2 PPCs, it loses 8 heat, or can run and lose 6 heat.

9M Awesome can fire 3 ERPPcs/turn and gain five heat. Using regular PPCs, it would LOSE ten heat. It could even fire four regular PPCs continually and not overheat at all with a simple modification.

The MAD-2R Marauder has two ERPPCs and 32 dissipation. It can run and fire them both every turn. It has other weapons, but it can fire the PPCs every time they're available.

Cat-K2? The mech that we already have in game? If it holds position it can also fire both PPCs continually. It only ever overheats if it walks/runs or fires it's secondary weapons. Even then, not by much (1-6 points)

There's more, all inner sphere mechs, some without even DHS. You get to clan mechs and you have stuff like the Hellstar and Warhawk Prime firing Clan ER-PPCs for 15 damage each and being heat-neutral or close to it with targetting computers. Both mechs I named mount four.

Edited by NovaFury, 06 November 2012 - 11:18 PM.

[Jennest]

Volthorne, on 06 November 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

Assuming you tripled heat dissipation to match RoF increase (or nerfed RoF back to TT) and regular DHS (2.0 dissipation)...

JR7-LOL (-D mod)
x2 PPCs
Biggest engine you can equip (don't have access to weight table right now)
10 DHS (engine freebies)

With nerfed RoF, 2 PPCs would do the same damage as 4 Medium Lasers. Which is what the Jenner comes with stock. Terrifying!

Quote

CPLT-ROFL (-K2 mod)
x4 PPCS
300XL
20 DHS (12 go in engine, 8 outside in arms/torso

40 damage! Who can stop this monstrosity? By the way, the Catapult K4 has 2 Heavy PPCs and 2 ER Medium Lasers. That's 40 damage total.

Quote

AWS-PFFFT (-9M mod)
x6 PPCs
Biggest standard engine possible (multiple of 25, mind!)
Install as many DHS as possible

60 damage? What can match that kind of firepower? Maybe the Thug 13K, which has 2 PPCs, 3 Heavy PPCs, and 2 Medium Pulse for a PPC alpha of 65 damage or a complete alpha of 77 damage.

I suspect when Astrauer asked for mechs boating ridiculous amounts of PPCs, he meant more than canon. It's clear evidence of how much PGI's heat system has distorted things when canon mechs look overpowered.

[glassshadow]

I really don't understand PGI, they said they would address heat before Open Beta.

They have done no such thing.

If I had known what a travesty this was, never would have spent money on it :/ I don't care particularly about cannon/TT but I do care about how badly they have distorted weapon balance.

[Indoorsman]

Jennest, on 06 November 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

My good friend Indoorsman, I'm afraid in your haste to debunk my claims, you failed to read them.

I read them just fine and got alot more out of them than you did by saying them apparently. Let's analyze: "Most high tier tanks fire slower than once every 10 seconds". First... MOST. That means not all high tier tanks. Second... HIGH TIER. That means time investment. I don't play the game but I know that it is free to play. So it must have a grind. A grind involving playing something other than high tier tanks. Which would have all the other weapons I saw with much faster rates of fire. I am going to assume that more people play non-high tier tanks/high tier tanks w/quicker RoF than people who play high tier tanks w/slow RoF. In other words I am assuming you are wrong. Seems like a good assumption to me. Prove more people play tanks w/slower RoF than 10s in WoT than don't, not just that MOST of the best tanks are slow RoF.

Jennest, on 06 November 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

It isn't. It doesn't have to be. I already proved people are in fact willing to have no weapons which fire faster once every 10 seconds. I then moved on to note people are even more willing to have some abilities with cooldowns longer than 10 seconds. This demolishes the idea PGI absolutely had to increase the rate of fire of every single weapon by 2.5 to 5 times.*

edit: *this is a special bonus demolition, because as I stated earlier, it would be perfectly fine to have every single weapon fire faster than 10 seconds if heat and damage ratios were maintained. You chose to ignore that part, though, except for making the claim changing the PPC's heat per shot from 10 to 9 and the Medium Laser's from 3 to 4 is both changing most weapons and anything like having the PPC do 3 damage and 3 heat per shot, which is where it would start in a sane conversion.**

**In the ideal system I would suggest, it would do 300 damage before balance tweaks.***

***But not really, because I would like it to have a rate of fire lower than once per 10 seconds to really make it stand out.

Special bonus refute! You proved there are some people willing to play WoT w/slow RoF. What % though? Are those the best builds? Let's discuss WoT in depth some more, anything to distract you guys from TT!*

*maintaned to a board games standards. Dunno why when I state over and over that this game should not be based on board game stats(lore/weapon hierarchy is fine) you try to keep saying that's the solution w/o reason.

Jennest, on 06 November 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

You chose to ignore that part, though, except for making the claim changing the PPC's heat per shot from 10 to 9 and the Medium Laser's from 3 to 4 is both changing most weapons

Pretty sure I said...

Indoorsman, on 06 November 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

Ballistics have had RoF changes lately, LRMs and SRMs have differing RoF from smallest to largest. They've adjusted heat generated values on several weapons.

I said several weapons had heat generated values changed. Several weapons have had damage values changed. All weapons have had RoF changed. All weapons have been changed from TT values in 1-3 ways. That's like changing MOST weapons, except ALL weapons.

Edited due to whacky double post post

Edited by Indoorsman, 07 November 2012 - 12:54 AM.

[Asatruer]

Indoorsman, on 06 November 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

You guys want alot less per individual action though.

I think that less damage per action would lead to damage being spread out between locations, and thus longer engagements due to mechs surviving longer. Is that a bad thing?

Indoorsman, on 06 November 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

The only similarity this game should have with TT balance is the hierarchy. Weapon A &lt; B &lt; C. Not weapon A = 5 damage 2 heat 10s reload 300 range... or any ratio/fraction of TT values.

I think you will find that most of us TT fanboys who think heat is broken and want better weapon balance would have few qualms about keeping similar weapon hierarchy, as long as it solves the problems of weapon balance.

Moving on to builds that boat a ridiculous amount of PPCs. I am not going to bother with the quoting, but let's start here...
I should have been a bit more specific about what I ment by boat, clearly it is not two, three or four PPCs, as such is not even remotely intimidatng, nor over powered. Additionally, we are talking about the scope of MWO, but with TT heat dissipation, not BattleTech in general, as we all know that crazy stuff can be done there. See here my first request for such a build.

Asatruer, on 06 November 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

I am curious, which mechs have the Hardpoint, tonnage, and critical slots to pull that off?

I mentioned Hardpoints, so we are not talking TT build freedom.
Moving on to the actual builds brought up. As Jennest already mentioned, the lol and rofl are no more intimidating than builds we already nor various stocks ... Same goes for the ones NovaFury brought up, all within reason. None of these have the look of overpowered, except maybe that 6 PPC boating AWS-PFFFT Volthorne brought up, but as a AWS-8Q not AWS-9M, and even then it would only have room for five DHS outside of the engine, or 24 SHS which it probably does not have the tonnage for, 30 or 34 heat dissipation is not enough for 6 PPCs

[Volthorne]

Jennest, on 06 November 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

With nerfed RoF, 2 PPCs would do the same damage as 4 Medium Lasers. Which is what the Jenner comes with stock. Terrifying!

But PPCs will be hitting far outside the range of MLas, meaning you're taking a hard-to-hit target and making it harder by adding distance.

Quote

40 damage! Who can stop this monstrosity? By the way, the Catapult K4 has 2 Heavy PPCs and 2 ER Medium Lasers. That's 40 damage total.

We don't have Heavy PPCs yet. Argument invalid.

Quote

60 damage? What can match that kind of firepower? Maybe the Thug 13K, which has 2 PPCs, 3 Heavy PPCs, and 2 Medium Pulse for a PPC alpha of 65 damage or a complete alpha of 77 damage.

Again, no Heavy PPCs...

Quote

I suspect when Astrauer asked for mechs boating ridiculous amounts of PPCs, he meant more than canon. It's clear evidence of how much PGI's heat system has distorted things when canon mechs look overpowered.

LLs would be slightly easier to work with, taking up one less crit than PPCs, and 2 less tonnes (Jenners would have access to 4 LLs, K2 to however many hardpoints - I don't play K2 EVER - and the AWS-9M would just put them on chain-fire and never let go of the trigger). PPCs were always the bulky, overweight, red-headed step-child of the energy family until all the good Tech2 variants arrived.

EDIT: I just realized I forgot to put Endo and FF on the Jenner, which would give it enough extra tonnage for x2 MLas alongside the PPCs.

Edited by Volthorne, 07 November 2012 - 12:57 AM.

[Indoorsman]

Asatruer, on 07 November 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

I think that less damage per action would lead to damage being spread out between locations, and thus longer engagements due to mechs surviving longer. Is that a bad thing?

I'd say there's a fine line between doing too much and not enough damage. That's called balance. It's what this entire thread is about.

Asatruer, on 07 November 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

I think you will find that most of us TT fanboys who think heat is broken and want better weapon balance would have few qualms about keeping similar weapon hierarchy, as long as it solves the problems of weapon balance.

Then we have common grounds. Keep the hierarchy, ditch ratios and/or derivatives of TT values entirely.