534 replies to this topic

[Orzorn]

Terror Teddy, on 12 November 2012 - 01:49 AM, said:

I agree. it seems to be the best solution atm.

At longer range it wont really matter but when a Hunchback is throwing AC20 rounds in your face it will be a problem.

Honestly, I don't think it would be an issue if gauss had a minimum range. The minimum range gives the gauss superiority at range, and inferiority (read: not useful at all) in the close range. Without that minimum, it becomes superior at all ranges.

We're basically down to the wire. Add gauss minimum range (funny that the PPC has a minimum range when its such a weak weapon. They give the PPC a minimum because its canon, but not the gauss because it "doesn't make sense"? You can't go removing balancing factors like that and expect items to remain balanced) or alter the firing rate to 6 seconds, reducing the weapon's close range capabilities in exchange for being really great at taking long ranged shots.

[Undercover Brother]

Let's just hope this is remedied before Clan-tech comes around... A Puma (my favorite hit & run specialist) is built around 2 ERPPCs... Its supposed have the punch to scare the crapout of Assault pilots... It'd really suck if a design such as that became a toothless waste.

[Jennest]

Indoorsman, on 12 November 2012 - 01:55 AM, said:

I've agreed for a long time PPC are too hot. I think if ER PPC was slightly higher heat than PPC is right now, it would be fine. I think PPC should probably do slightly less damage in exchange for a little less heat. Maybe 8 or 9 damage for 6-8 heat instead of 10 dmg 9 heat. That seems like a good solution for PPCs w/o changing anything else.

Great idea. Make the PPC do 9 damage for 7 heat.

...

...

...

That's a Large Laser, genius. Except it fires faster and weighs more.

This is what it always comes down to. There is no way to balance weapons as they stand without overhauling heat. There are three choices: Overhaul it systematically, overhaul it hodgepodge, or try to change damage instead. You see, there's no way to reduce the PPC's heat enough to make it a viable weapon without stepping on the Large Laser's toes. if the PPC is 9d/7h, what's the Large Laser? 5d/4h maybe? Then the Medium can be 3d/2h and the Small Laser can be 1d/1h I guess. I won't even mention Pulse and Extended Range. Then you get to look at ballistics and missiles to bring them into line with the new paradigm. How is that not a complete heat overhaul if you're changing the heat of every single weapon?

It's all well and good to say we should balance weapons without taking radical steps like basic division, but what's the alternative? Your incredibly well thought out balance suggestion gave us a Heavy Large Laser. Yippee. The other way to go is altering damage, but If you want a PPC with a DPS/ton competitive with the Gauss Rifle's, say hello to 18 damage per shot. Which means you can also say hello to 108-alpha Awesomes. Enjoy.

There just isn't any room. Battletech weapons don't have many parameters, this game removed half of them with a single stroke by implementing perfect accuracy at all times, and the factors which are left are just integers running from 1 to 20, 1 to 10 for energy weapons. PGI seems allergic to decimals except when they're nerfing heat sinks (because who could have foreseen the tech advances which resulted in battlemechs mounting more firepower might result in battlemechs mounting more firepower?). That means every single energy weapon has to sit somewhere on a ten-point scale as far as heat and damage. You say we should just buff the PPC if it's so bad? How? There isn't anything that can be done with it in the game as it stands without either leaving it useless or rendering another weapon obsolete. There's no design space.

Revamping the conversion from turn-based to real time and making the PPC do 1 dps and 1 hps may seem like a crazy step if you don't actually examine the alternatives. If you do, it stands out as the simplest, most elegant, and most effective method of bringing weapons into the same room so you can even start balancing them.

[Matist]

BoomDog, on 11 November 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

Saw a guy in a hunchback today running around with 9 small pulse lasers. It's just getting silly.

I used to run this build until they nerfed small pulse into the ground. Now that mech runs 9 medium lasers. The thing of it is that engagements in this game are all pretty short range and it's extremely easy to close range on a target safely just by using terrain.

[Allekatrase]

Bubba Wilkins, on 12 November 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

Actually no, you have that backwards.

Effective Cooling Rate is 34.27H/10s before map ambient is applied. It's over 40 on Frozen City.

Generally it's:

AC/5's at Long Range.
PPC's + AC/5's at Midrange.
AC/5's, Streaks, and ERPPC's up close.

At mid range, I can fire 3-4 ERPPC salvos with the AC's before I need to hold off and let things cool. At close range I'm usually already warm and can only fire the PPC's twice while still using the AC's and missiles. Occasionally, I'll have to back off both the Missiles and PPC's, but the AC's still pack enough punch.

So what you're saying is you rely on the AC/5s as your primary damage (you use them at all ranges) and only use the PPCs occasionally. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he said.

And still you're generating more heat every 3 seconds than you dissipate in 10 seconds if you fire everything.

[Vapor Trail]

Kind of wondering where that fractional heat/10 sec is coming from.
.27...

34.27 - 20 (10 true DHS in engine) = 14.27 HdR.
10 *1.4 = 14 ==> 10 DHS outside engine...

Where's that extra .27 come from?

Nothing major, just seems odd.

AH I see it.... 15% from the efficiencies... still the .27 isn't much.

---

Anyway. Just with 34/10 or 3.4 heat per second, the AC/5s are extremely cheap to run at Max RoF, speaking from the standpoint of heat.

Even if you dedicate your entire cooling capacity to your PPCs, you can only fire themat an average rate of once every five seconds or so... so your average DPS from them won't exceed 4.

With a 34 HdR, you can fire the AC/5s at full rate and still dissipate heat to the tune of ~2.22 heat per second.

With that 2.2 heat per second, if you reserve .2 heat per second for running, you can fire your AC/5s continuously at Max RoF, and your set of PPCs an average of once every ten seconds

What's the difference between using the AC/5s as primary damage producers and using the PPCs?

AC/5 set DPS @ max RoF is (5/1.7) * 2 = 5.88 and you have (quite a bit of) cooling capacity left over.

PPC set DPS @ max sustainable RoF on this mech (~3.4 heat/sec HdR)
18 heat per salvo / 3.4 heat per second = 5.294 seconds per salvo duty cycle.
20 damage / 5.294 seconds = 3.778 DPS, and you have NO cooling capacity left over.

The difference in using your PPCs as your main damage producer, and your AC/5s as your main damage producer is 2.11DPS and cooling capacity to spare.

Edited by Vapor Trail, 12 November 2012 - 11:42 AM.

[BoomDog]

Matist, on 12 November 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

I used to run this build until they nerfed small pulse into the ground. Now that mech runs 9 medium lasers. The thing of it is that engagements in this game are all pretty short range and it's extremely easy to close range on a target safely just by using terrain.

That's another problem with the long range, high alpha weapons from TT. All the maps in MWO provide so much cover, that it's extremely easy to get into close range for every engagement.

Part of the reason the PPC was so effective in TT wasn't just that it had long range, but it did 10 damage to a single location. To most stock medium mechs on down, this was devastating. The problem in MWO is they doubled the armor, so in order for the PPC to maintain the same alpha from TT, it would need a damage of 20. Even the AC20, which was certain doom to stock mechs in TT, isn't that effective.

I completely get, that you can't have weapons in the game that can one shot a light mech. Some kind of balance must be reached. As it stands though, it all boils down to simple DPS. The high alpha weapons need a boost, not necessarily DPS, but give them something that makes people care if they're hit by one.

[Indoorsman]

Jennest, on 12 November 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

That's a Large Laser, genius. Except it fires faster and weighs more.

Except it
1. fires faster(much faster)
2. weighs more
3. has a minimum range
4. has a greater range
5. has no beam duration
6. causes cockpit shake
7. will have EMP on hit effect

ppc would be very different from a large laser, even w/same heat and damage and w/o #7

until the on hit effect works... it's kinda pointless for PGI to balance it now.

[Thirdrail]

Thank you for actually doing the math on what, I think, many of us instinctively decide after using ppcs for a while.

My suggestion was that they give ppcs a group discount on heat. I've run mechs with one ppc, and the heat is pretty reasonable. I never think, "ZOMG WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO THIS POOR WEAPON?!" when I'm just using one ppc.

The minute you have more than one ppc, though, they start to become a nightmare. The three ppcs on the Awesome 9M are just impossible to get under control, even if you strip the mech down to nothing to carry as many heat sinks as possible, switch to a tiny engine, and trade the er ppcs out for regulars. I've tried every permutation of that mech I can think of, sparing no expense, and I never get anything even remotely comparable to the weapons that aren't broken.

I think it all goes back to the diminishing returns on heat sinks. I totally believe the diminishing returns HS theory, after my lengthy (and very expensive) 9M experiments.

[Vapor Trail]

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

Except it
1. fires faster(much faster)
2. weighs more
3. has a minimum range
4. has a greater range
5. has no beam duration
6. causes cockpit shake
7. will have EMP on hit effect

ppc would be very different from a large laser, even w/same heat and damage and w/o #7

until the on hit effect works... it's kinda pointless for PGI to balance it now.

Which

1. it can't use without even more heat sinks than the Large Laser requires. 7 heat / 3 seconds = 2.3 heat per second requirement for full RoF usage. So this "newPPC" would require thirty tons of mass invested to get full RoF out.

2. Yup. Higher DPS per ton mass invested at equal rates of fire. LL weighs 5 tons, PPC 7. PPC costs you two more tons to install at the same rate of fire, be that one shot in 4.25 seconds or one shot in 4.25 millenia.

3. Yup. 90m of distance you can't use quite as effectively. But...

4. Yup. Longer by exactly the 90m minimum range.

5. Yup. This is the first significant difference. Damage concentration is significant. Otherwise Pulse Lasers would be absolute garbage. However, this is counteracted by having to be able to figure windage in your head because the PPC isn't hitscan. Degree of difficulty in use is about the same.

6. Yup. Though one shake is of such short duration that it's only of use if you have multiple weapons causing shake at high rates of fire to get any real benefit. Back to #1.

7. Believe it when I see it. It'll have to be some effect to bring up to par vs ballistics.

[MustrumRidcully]

BoomDog, on 12 November 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

That's another problem with the long range, high alpha weapons from TT. All the maps in MWO provide so much cover, that it's extremely easy to get into close range for every engagement.

Part of the reason the PPC was so effective in TT wasn't just that it had long range, but it did 10 damage to a single location. To most stock medium mechs on down, this was devastating. The problem in MWO is they doubled the armor, so in order for the PPC to maintain the same alpha from TT, it would need a damage of 20. Even the AC20, which was certain doom to stock mechs in TT, isn't that effective.

I completely get, that you can't have weapons in the game that can one shot a light mech. Some kind of balance must be reached. As it stands though, it all boils down to simple DPS. The high alpha weapons need a boost, not necessarily DPS, but give them something that makes people care if they're hit by one.

All the cover wouldn't be such a big issue in the table top. Because even at closer ranges, long range weapons have an advantage - the to-hit roll at 270m for a Medium Laser is much higher than for the Large Laser at 270m. One is at its long range, the other at it's close(?) range.

Without cone of fire or similar methods, it is impossible to replicate this effect in a real time game with mouse aiming. This is actually a factor I barely analyzed until now, and that does significantly affect how we must value range. Even if we took well balanced examples from the table top and transplanted them to MW:O dividing damag and heat by ROF, we would likely still need to tweak things.
One thing to do may be: The shorter a weapon's range, the higher it's ROF (lowering alpha potential and making it more difficult to aim precisely), and the slower it's projectile (for ballistics and PPC) or the longer it's beam duration (for lasers).

[Corvus Antaka]

its broken because a cicada can alpha strike 4 erppcs, and an awesome can alpha strike 6.

The heatcap should rise with heatsinks, and firing more than 4 large lasers or 3 erppc should put you over 100% and shut you down..doing this twice should kill you probably.

if instead the heatcap is brought down so without an egnine/heatsinks you can only fire max 4 large lasers/3 erppc worth of heat...

then an increase in dissapation would still force effective heat management while making heat efficient mechs viable builds and heat heavy mechs able to somewhat pace themselves.

right now the biggest gripe I have outside the way to high heatcap is that with 1.4DHS (which I like) SHS being forced on the heavies/assaults means they are stuck with horrid heat management/caps.

buffing SHS dissapation by 25% could be sufficient to fix this, if the heatcap itself is lowered slightly.

I run a 9 medium laser hunchback, and its much too easy to kill a mech before having any heat problems. the dissapation with DHS is in a good place on this mech, but being able to drop 27 mediums lasers worth of damage into an enemy mech as fast as they recycle before having to shut down IS a problem.

and yet I think medium lasers/weapons in general are in a good place. MWO just needs to encourage more working with the dissapation and less big bang/enemy dead/shutdown mechaniks.

[AC]

Orzorn, on 12 November 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

Honestly, I don't think it would be an issue if gauss had a minimum range. The minimum range gives the gauss superiority at range, and inferiority (read: not useful at all) in the close range. Without that minimum, it becomes superior at all ranges.

We're basically down to the wire. Add gauss minimum range (funny that the PPC has a minimum range when its such a weak weapon. They give the PPC a minimum because its canon, but not the gauss because it "doesn't make sense"? You can't go removing balancing factors like that and expect items to remain balanced) or alter the firing rate to 6 seconds, reducing the weapon's close range capabilities in exchange for being really great at taking long ranged shots.

I would be in favor of a change to fire rate over a min range for gauss. I think min range for PPC should be eliminated too. Yeah its cannon, but this is a video game. One thing I learned in all the years of MW4 and Mektek patches, was that you can't hold cannon up as the bible in a video game. Weapons have to be balanced for video game play, and that includes deviations from Cannon.

Edited by AC, 12 November 2012 - 02:27 PM.

[Jubal Cornpone]

Good evening,

Since this subject is important to me and seems to be drifting now in not particularly useful directions, let me just say this:

I, for one, don't really care if TT rules are exactly implemented. They already aren't, after all. What I do care about is that the PPC is a usable weapon, in accordance with canon, and other weapons are all equally usable, also in accordance with canon.

In this regard, I would like to point out that "heat limited" has never meant (until now) that the PPC can't be allowed to fire more or less continuously on cooldown. Rather, it means you can't bring more PPCs to the fight than you can pair with 10 heat sinks.

In particular, a mech with 10 single heat sinks should be able to fire one PPC continuously "on cooldown" throughout a battle. By the same token, a mech with 20 single heat sinks should be able to fire two PPCs, and a mech with 30 heat sinks should be able to fire three PPCs. This will balance at about a 50 ton mechs carrying one PPC, a 70 ton mechs carrying two, a 80 ton mechs carrying three, and a 100 ton mechs carrying four--which is pretty much exactly canonical.

At the same time, to preserve balance between weapons, the PPC should do twice the damage of a medium laser, a bit more than a large laser, and a bit less than a Gauss.

The balance decision between a PPC and a Gauss should be a close one, made primarily on the idea that the Gauss does more damage but can run out of ammo or blow up, the PPC does less damage but can fire forever and doesn't blow up. In terms of heat/weight, it's supposed to be a wash, because the PPC weighs less but has to use that weight to buy heat sinks.

Following TT will achieve most of this, but achieving it another way is fine with me.

It's not so much that the game is unbalanced--it isn't. Nor that it has to be balanced a certain way to be playable--it doesn't. It just has to be balanced a certain way to resemble the Battletech/Mechwarrior canon on which it is supposedly based. Otherwise it might as well be called Stompy Robot Online.

I like stompy robots, and it might even be a great game, but it's not based on the particular world it is trying to inherit, which at least to me is important.

Regards,

Jubal

[Indoorsman]

MustrumRidcully, on 12 November 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

The shorter a weapon's range, the higher it's ROF (lowering alpha potential and making it more difficult to aim precisely), and the slower it's projectile (for ballistics and PPC) or the longer it's beam duration (for lasers).

RoF on ballistics is already like this aside from AC20 right? Not sure on the projectile speeds, but it may already be that way for this too?

The beam durations being longer for short range lasers and short duration for long range lasers should be done. Would give large lasers that benefit you guys seek in short range w/o changing accuracy. This has been suggested before, I like the idea though and wonder why they haven't done it.

[MustrumRidcully]

Indoorsman, on 12 November 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

RoF on ballistics is already like this aside from AC20 right? Not sure on the projectile speeds, but it may already be that way for this too?

For AC's it is pretty much all over the place - it seems the higher the damage per shot, the lower the ROF, which for ACs also means that the ROF is faster the higher the range. Exactly the opposite of what would be needed, I think. Raising the AC/2s ROF was certainly a buff, but not necssarily the right one - it dilutes its potential as sniper weapon, and what else is the range good for then?

A problem here is PGI's insistence to retain the AC/x damage per shot as x. The AC/2 was too weak in the TT with a damage of 2 - I believe a damage of 3 or 4 would have been necessary to balance its weight.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 12 November 2012 - 10:51 PM.

[Terror Teddy]

Vapor Trail, on 12 November 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Yup. This is the first significant difference. Damage concentration is significant. Otherwise Pulse Lasers would be absolute garbage. However, this is counteracted by having to be able to figure windage in your head because the PPC isn't hitscan.

You know, making the PPC a hitscan weapon with instadamage would very much make it WORTH the heat of that weapon.

I mean, the damn thing is described as "man-made lightning" so it should move at lightspeed like a lightningstrike.

The heat output alone would make the alpha damage enough and you would not boat such a weapon due to the excessive heat. It would also make the Awesome damn frightening with 3 of them.

Heat would still be its problem.

[Terror Teddy]

Indoorsman, on 12 November 2012 - 01:55 AM, said:

Also, decrease gauss ammo per ton to 8 rounds. I've suggested that back during closed beta. That would increase tonnage and make em less boatable if we get mechs w/many ballistic pts. And that wouldn't change heat or RoF since a few posters now say that would change the feel of em.

I have to disagree. The main problem with the gun is not the tonnage - it's that the weapon is superior at all ranges.

-Superior at all ranges
-Is supposed to have a minimum range penalty

A fire delay or longer recycle time would make it difficult to use in close combat due to (perceived) faster moving targets.

Not a problem at range but a problem up close.

Edited by Terror Teddy, 13 November 2012 - 12:18 AM.

[Volthorne]

Terror Teddy, on 13 November 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

I mean, the damn thing is described as "man-made lightning" so it should move at lightspeed like a lightningstrike.

Despite being called "lightning", lightning doesn't actually move at the speed of light.

[Grizley]

Volthorne, on 13 November 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

Despite being called "lightning", lightning doesn't actually move at the speed of light.

Lightning moves at 224,000MPH.

Light in a vacuum moves 670,616,629MPH. So yes, it's faster. HOWEVER, compared to a big stompy robot the point is moot. It's on such a different scale than your speed that you can consider them equivalent, instantaneous

Edited by Grizley, 13 November 2012 - 12:28 AM.