93 replies to this topic

[Dalfsson]

ummm... one more time in a language we can understand?

JamesBlond, on 03 May 2012 - 02:53 AM, said:

Sorry..
The AC10 can a Single Shot and Multi Shot !!
And the next :
PPC & AC is only for inner Pphere Weapons; on 3057 !
PPC = Short Att 1-6; min 3 / Med 7-12 / long 13-18
AC10 = Short 1-5 / Med 6-10 / 11-15 !

PS..
ER PPC = 15 Heat / 10 Dam / Short 1-7 / Med 8-14 / Long 15-23 / 7 Tons / 3 Crit !

[JamesBlond]

Dalfsson, on 03 May 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

ummm... one more time in a language we can understand?

Mech Warrior have 2 Races, Inner Sphere and Clan !

Have you Play a MW-Game ?
The Mech Warrior Paper Game ?
I have 3 Games for Mech Warrior and 2 Mech Comander Game´s and 2 Paper Games !
1-6 is Range in Hex-Field !

And your english *g* = Another time, in a language we can understand..

[JamesBlond]

pursang, on 03 May 2012 - 03:01 AM, said:

Er... yes depending on the manufacturer an AC/10 may fire faster smaller caliber shells, or fire slower higher caliber shells. Perhaps you where referring to the LBX-10 which can fire both standard HEAP rounds and specialized cluster munitions? Also, both the PPC and AC/10 is in production and in wide use by the time the game starts - in 3049.

No, sorry i can only in 3058 !
LBX-AC/10 = 2 Heat / 10 Dam. / Range Short 1-6 / Range Med. 7-12 / Range Long 13-18 / 11 Tons / 6 Crit / 10 Shot per Ammo in tons

LBX is Cluster Muni ( Shotgun )
1. Was taken?
2. How many have taken? ( 1 ~ 10 , 3 is min. )
3. Any damage will be calculated separately , max 10 x 1 Damage

Edited by JamesBlond, 03 May 2012 - 03:56 AM.

[Eithinan]

i have very few posts on here because no one really cares what i have to say BUT, not worring about lack of ammo has always lead me down the path of energy weapons. I even prefer the ppc version of the catapault.


lol i just realized i have been reading all this time and this is my first post:)

Edited by Eithinan, 03 May 2012 - 04:02 AM.

[JamesBlond]

Eithinan, on 03 May 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:

i have very few posts on here because no one really cares what i have to say BUT, not worring about lack of ammo has always lead me down the path of energy weapons. I even prefer the ppc version of the catapault.


lol i just realized i have been reading all this time and this is my first post:)

N´t Problem *g*

..but.. only Energy Wepons is a problem..
1) Ballistic Weapons have a greater range
2) A little less heat

It all depends on it, which rules the online game!
3050 , 3055, 3058 or 3060 !
( 3048/49 is bad *g* )

Edited by JamesBlond, 03 May 2012 - 04:18 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

Hmmm...

Standard PPC
Year: 2460
Weight: 7.0 tons
Volume: 3 criticals
Ammunition (salvos per ton): N/A
Damage (per salvo): 10
Heat (per salvo): 10
Minimum Range: 90 meters
Max. Effective Range: 540 meters
Price (weapon): 200,000 c-bills
Price (standard ammunition): N/A

ER-PPC
Year: 3037
Weight: 7.0 tons
Volume: 3 criticals
Ammunition (salvos per ton): N/A
Damage (per salvo): 10
Heat (per salvo): 15
Minimum Range: N/A
Max. Effective Range: 690 meters
Price (weapon): 300,000 c-bills
Price (standard ammunition): N/A

Standard AC-10
Year: 2460
Weight: 12.0 tons
Volume: 7 criticals
Ammunition (salvos per ton): 10
Damage (per salvo): 10
Heat (per salvo): 3
Minimum Range: N/A
Max. Effective Range: 450 meters
Price (weapon): 200,000 c-bills
Price (standard ammunition): 6,000 c-bills per ton

LB-X AC-10
Year: 3035
Weight: 11.0 tons
Volume: 6 criticals
Ammunition (salvos per ton): 10
Damage (per salvo): 10 (slug), 1/pellet (cluster)
Heat (per salvo): 2
Minimum Range: N/A
Max. Effective Range: 540 meters
Price (weapon): 400,000 c-bills
Price (ammunition): 12,000 c-bills per ton (slug), 20,000 c-bills per ton (cluster)

Personally, I would prefer the PPCs - lighter and less-voluminous (more weight and space for equipment, secondary weapons, etc), equal or lesser acquisition/replacement costs, no ammunition costs (translating into lower cost over time), no concerns over ammunition explosion, and longer effective ranges.

Personally, I think the only notable downsides of the PPCs would be heat generation per salvo (which hust means havint to be able to actually manage one's heat production, including *gasp* moderating one's fire), a possible lack of knockback (versus ballistic and projectile weapons), possible recycle times (though, I would be okay with a 10.0-second recycle for PPCs and 5.0-second recycle for class-10 ACs, as described in the S7/Duel rules), the loss of the flexibility provided by the ACs' special munitions, and vulnerability to defensive systems (specifically, Blue Shield systems and Reflective Armor).

*looks at House affiliation*
Though, the ACs are not bad weapons weapons - they're very effective in the right conditions (especially when special munitions are used), and are generally immune to the effects of special armor types; Reflective Armor affects energy weapons and Reactive Armor is designed to counter missiles and artillery (and is specifically stated to take normal damage from ballistic weapons), but there isn't a specifically "anti-ballistics" armor.

Your thoughts?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 03 May 2012 - 04:35 AM.

[pursang]

Nice write-up Strum Wealh and I mostly agree with your assessment about the PPCs. One more thing though, don't PPCs have a minimum effective range (at least in the TT?) I could be wrong, but that may be one of their major drawbacks. Also the Blue Shield and Reflective Armor aren't developed until 3053 and 3058 respectively. So I don't see a lot of cons aside from potential heat and minimum range.

[Strum Wealh]

pursang, on 03 May 2012 - 04:41 AM, said:

Nice write-up Strum Wealh and I mostly agree with your assessment about the PPCs. One more thing though, don't PPCs have a minimum effective range (at least in the TT?) I could be wrong, but that may be one of their major drawbacks. Also the Blue Shield and Reflective Armor aren't developed until 3053 and 3058 respectively. So I don't see a lot of cons aside from potential heat and minimum range.

"Particle Projector Cannons are equipped with a Field Inhibitor to prevent feedback which could damage the firing unit's electronic systems. This inhibitor degrades the performance of the weapon at close ranges of less than 90 meters. Particularly daring warriors have been known to disengage the inhibitor and risk damage to their own machine when a target is at close range.
Some inhibitors can degrade the performance of a PPC so much that it renders the weapon litle more than a "light show", this is a common practice on Solaris VII."

Also, from Q&A 05:

Quote

Will the ranges of the BattleMechs' weapons - and the relationships between them - be more similar to those from the BattleTech tabletop game (including, perhaps, some implementation of any of the minimum, short, medium, long, and extreme range brackets), or those from the previous MechWarrior computer games? –Strum Wealh

[DAVID] With minimum ranges, it depends on how justified we can be in putting them into the game without them being silly. For PPCs, there’s mentions in the lore about they don’t reach a full charge at close ranges so as not to damage the attacker’s own electronic systems. LRMs, being meant for long range, do not necessarily arm before they clear a certain distance. But it’s harder to justify why you can’t accurately fire an Autocannon/2 or Autocannon/5 up close, other than it was a balance to their long range in the tabletop game, so they won’t be affected by any sort of minimum range. The tabletop long ranges, on the other hand, we’re interpreting as the maximum effective range. Lasers, AC slugs, and whatnot will travel past this range, but will begin to do less and less damage, and the effects of gravity on any sort of physical projectile will make it harder to hit your target. Missiles reaching the limits of their range will automatically detonate.

From the above, it seems like a possibility that the minimum range for only certain weapons (like PPCs and LRMs) could actually be implemented (which doesn't seem to have been a common practice in the other MW games)...

[pursang]

Strum Wealh, on 03 May 2012 - 04:56 AM, said:

"Particle Projector Cannons are equipped with a Field Inhibitor to prevent feedback which could damage the firing unit's electronic systems. This inhibitor degrades the performance of the weapon at close ranges of less than 90 meters. Particularly daring warriors have been known to disengage the inhibitor and risk damage to their own machine when a target is at close range.
Some inhibitors can degrade the performance of a PPC so much that it renders the weapon litle more than a "light show", this is a common practice on Solaris VII."

Also, from Q&A 05:


From the above, it seems like a possibility that the minimum range for only certain weapons (like PPCs and LRMs) could actually be implemented (which doesn't seem to have been a common practice in the other MW games)...

Ah yes the inhibitor. Would be interesting if you could switch it on or off at will and run the risk that your PPC may meltdown.

[Ursus_Spiritus]

PPC over AC/10

No reliance on Ammo, extra weight could be used for Heat Sinks or Med lasers/armor.

Yes PPCs have a min range, however the AC/10 isn't ideal at longer ranges. I would rather have a less effective/higher to hit roll over a not a chance at hitting.

I can cool down the mech faster then it can be reloaded.

Strum Wealh, on 03 May 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

Personally, I think the only notable downsides of the PPCs would be heat generation per salvo (which hust means havint to be able to actually manage one's heat production, including *gasp* moderating one's fire), a possible lack of knockback (versus ballistic and projectile weapons), possible recycle times (though, I would be okay with a 10.0-second recycle for PPCs and 5.0-second recycle for class-10 ACs, as described in the S7/Duel rules), the loss of the flexibility provided by the ACs' special munitions, and vulnerability to defensive systems (specifically, Blue Shield systems and Reflective Armor).

Your thoughts?

The PPC has a knock back effect at least in TT, as if you hit with two, that is 20pts = +1 to piloting I believe?

There is kinetic energy witht he PPC being a Particle Projection Cannon and that was displayed in at least MW3. Getting hit with 3/4 PPCs would put you on your ***.

Edited by 8100d 5p4tt3r, 03 May 2012 - 05:21 AM.

[Yeach]

Strum Wealh, on 03 May 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

Personally, I think the only notable downsides of the PPCs would be heat generation per salvo (which hust means havint to be able to actually manage one's heat production, including *gasp* moderating one's fire), a possible lack of knockback (versus ballistic and projectile weapons), possible recycle times (though, I would be okay with a 10.0-second recycle for PPCs and 5.0-second recycle for class-10 ACs, as described in the S7/Duel rules), the loss of the flexibility provided by the ACs' special munitions, and vulnerability to defensive systems (specifically, Blue Shield systems and Reflective Armor).

Your thoughts?

Please let's not use the Solaris Duel argument; use the standard rules assuming 10 pts of damage (for 10 seconds) for BOTH the PPC and the AC10. Why? If you play TT what is the frequency you would use the dueling rules? Lets just stick with the normal TT damages please. Thanks.

I made this comparison on this assumption that the damage was the same; introducing different recycle times just screws up the comparison.

8100d 5p4tt3r, on 03 May 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

PPC over AC/10

No reliance on Ammo, extra weight could be used for Heat Sinks or Med lasers/armor.

Yes PPCs have a min range, however the AC/10 isn't ideal at longer ranges. I would rather have a less effective/higher to hit roll over a not a chance at hitting.

I can cool down the mech faster then it can be reloaded.

This isn't just a comparison of which one is better.
It is a comparison of costs; for what extra/less cost would a PPC approximately equal an AC10.

Edited by Yeach, 03 May 2012 - 05:20 AM.

[Ursus_Spiritus]

In the long run I believe the PPC woudl cost less, at the very least do to Ammo consumption. At least for the damage to cost ratio.

[Major Tom]

I thought this was going to be a discussion about player based economy and auction houses.

But even in the vendor economy economic rules should still apply.
If a lot of people are buying PPCs the demand is up, and unless you live under a PPC tree, the supply will go down. Which ultimately means the price is going to go up. While at the time, some poor shop keeper is sitting on a warehouse full of AC/10s that no one wants, he will be practically giving them away.

So you decision on whether to mount a PPC or AC10 may be based on the availability of the weapon, not its technical specs.

[Dalfsson]

there are NOT 2 races. both clanners and spheroids are humans.

i've probably been playing battletech and mechwarrior games longer than you have been alive. i started with the original tabletop game back in about 1982.i might even still have one or two of the old plastic mechs from the original set somewhere. went from that to pretty much every computer version of the game that has been made. both the online multiplayer battletech started by the kesmai game company and the seperate mechwarrior games.(mech 4 with it's "hardpoint" megamunch crap killed it for me) i'm familiar with all the tech readouts up to about 3060. so, yes, i am just a BIT familiar with the game, and the weapons.
i never did like the lvlel 3 tech- they went overboard with the munchkinism in the post 3060 mechs and the level 3 rulesets.

as for the AC10/ PPC debate- i've always liked the auto cannons and the gauss rifles for the most part, over energy weapons. the LRMs not so much.

JamesBlond, on 03 May 2012 - 03:41 AM, said:

Mech Warrior have 2 Races, Inner Sphere and Clan !

Have you Play a MW-Game ?
The Mech Warrior Paper Game ?
I have 3 Games for Mech Warrior and 2 Mech Comander Game´s and 2 Paper Games !
1-6 is Range in Hex-Field !

And your english *g* = Another time, in a language we can understand..

[Dalfsson]

the "knockdown" from getting hit with 3 or 4 ppcs isn't from the impact. it's from the gyros not being able to compensate fast enough after losing all that mass from the mech. sort of like what would happen if somone had 160 pounds on a barbell, and you take 20-30 pounds off of one side without letting them get ready for it. you loose all that weight from the front, and the back will be out of balance. pulling you back.

8100d 5p4tt3r, on 03 May 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

PPC over AC/10

No reliance on Ammo, extra weight could be used for Heat Sinks or Med lasers/armor.

Yes PPCs have a min range, however the AC/10 isn't ideal at longer ranges. I would rather have a less effective/higher to hit roll over a not a chance at hitting.

I can cool down the mech faster then it can be reloaded.






The PPC has a knock back effect at least in TT, as if you hit with two, that is 20pts = +1 to piloting I believe?

There is kinetic energy witht he PPC being a Particle Projection Cannon and that was displayed in at least MW3. Getting hit with 3/4 PPCs would put you on your ***.

[Kudzu]

pursang, on 03 May 2012 - 03:01 AM, said:

Er... yes depending on the manufacturer an AC/10 may fire faster smaller caliber shells, or fire slower higher caliber shells. Perhaps you where referring to the LBX-10 which can fire both standard HEAP rounds and specialized cluster munitions? Also, both the PPC and AC/10 is in production and in wide use by the time the game starts - in 3049.

TacOps P.100 has an optional rule allowing regular AC's to rapid fire like an ultra, there's just a higher chance for a jam (4 or less on the to-hit roll) and a chance to explode the round in the barrel (roll of 2).

Let's not forget that AC's have access to specialized munitions that expand their usefulness. AP, Flak, Flechette, Tracer, Precision, etc all offer advantages in certain situations that a PPC would not.

[EDMW CSN]

RedDragon, on 02 May 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

If you only look at the weapon's stats, you can't compare the heat-efficency of both weapons. You have to factor in that your mech comes with 10 heat sinks. This gives the AC/10 a huge advantage. You can mount two AC/10 without adding any heat sinks to your mech and you'll never run hot (without outside influence), making it only cost 406.000c (with one ton of ammo). You'd even have two heat points left to spend on other weapons (if you mount no JJs), so you could substract the cost for 2 HSs (for the sake of comparing), making the ACs cost only 386.000c. Now if you mount two PPCs, you need at least 10 heat sinks and still will run hot over time when moving. You'd need 12 extra sinks to be heat neutral, making them cost 520.000c.

10 base heat sinks = 0 weight.
2 AC-10s = 24 tons
4 tons of ammo
Total = 28 tons of gear
Total heat capacity = 8/10 (assuming running generates heat)


10 base heat sinks = 0 weight
2 PPCs = 14 tons
Extra heatsinks = 12 tons
Total tonnage = 26 tons
Total heat capacity = 22/22 (assuming running generates heat)

Advantage still leaning towards the PPC just a little. Especially once you factor in ammo cost. Even with 20 reloads, the AC mech will labour his shots very soon, especially if ACs are going to fire faster.

A cunning PPC boat might not even lose a heatsink in most battles while ammo will definitely go fast.

So forget trying to keep the economic balance. Overtime the AC will be extremely costly, so might as well make them worth the C-bill. By making ACs fire a lot faster than PPCs.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 03 May 2012 - 09:33 AM.

[RedDragon]

[EDMW]CSN, on 03 May 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

10 base heat sinks = 0 weight.
2 AC-10s = 24 tons
4 tons of ammo
Total = 28 tons of gear
Total heat capacity = 8/10 (assuming running generates heat)


10 base heat sinks = 0 weight
2 PPCs = 14 tons
Extra heatsinks = 12 tons
Total tonnage = 26 tons
Total heat capacity = 22/22 (assuming running generates heat)

Advantage still leaning towards the PPC just a little. Especially once you factor in ammo cost.
So to keep the balance, just make sure ACs fire a lot faster than PPCs.

I was only talking about the cost of both weapons as was the OP
If you just compare the weapons' stats, there's no way the AC can beat the PPC. But fluff-wise, there are many reasons to prefer th AC (easier to maintain, firing rate, different types of munition etc.).

[EDMW CSN]

RedDragon, on 03 May 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

I was only talking about the cost of both weapons as was the OP If you just compare the weapons' stats, there's no way the AC can beat the PPC. But fluff-wise, there are many reasons to prefer th AC (easier to maintain, firing rate, different types of munition etc.).

I would prefer we ignore the entire economy aspect because if a player use an AC-10 for a year and a PPC for a year, the advantage will swing towards the PPC, always. So instead of trying to balance C-bill cost, it would be better if PGI made ballistics more attractive to use.

But I concede, that is for another topic.

[Ursus_Spiritus]

Dalfsson, on 03 May 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

the "knockdown" from getting hit with 3 or 4 ppcs isn't from the impact. it's from the gyros not being able to compensate fast enough after losing all that mass from the mech. sort of like what would happen if somone had 160 pounds on a barbell, and you take 20-30 pounds off of one side without letting them get ready for it. you loose all that weight from the front, and the back will be out of balance. pulling you back.

The "knock back" is the impact, and then corresponding loss of armor. 20-40(IS), or 30-60(Clan) points is a lot to get hit with and of course you will lose armor. None the less, that is siginificant amount of energy transfer from point of origin to destination and the armor coming off is just a result more then a cause.

The impact alone would cause the pilot and the mech to react and part of that reaction is the loss of armor. Same being said for an LRM barrage. If something of significant size/momentum/density impacts you, even if you lose no armor/flesh it will still transfer it's energy to you.
The PPC isn't like a laser. It isn't like a beam of light, more like a focused stream of lightning. Which usually has a significant impact in and of itself because it is concentrated energy. That is kinetic as well as electrical, and heat damage.