93 replies to this topic

[Owl Cutter]

I think it would be more about play style and easier to balance the more the different types behave differently. I just posted my thoughts on this in another thread, but in a nutshell it is easier to keep one option from overpowering the other if they are more different in how they are supposed to be used. Making beams cheaper to operate in the long run would make it safer, easier and more valuable to tweak things so they are less powerful on the field, since the long-term cost vs. skill to use effectively tradeoff will make their niches much more different.

As for realism-oriented considerations, expecting a ray gun to be more difficult to maintain or replace than a slug thrower several centuries from now is probably more extreme than expecting today's quartz-oscillator timepieces to never have surpassed wind-up mechanical ones in cost and availability just because they're "higher tech." As the technology matures and industry tools up, things tend to change. The canonical tech ratings and availability ratings reflect this as well, though I can't draw examples off the top of my head better than that the LB-10 is much higher-tech than the PPC, which is in turn higher-tech than the bog standard AC/10 and Large laser. Of all of those, the PPC is the only one whose availability rating seems to never sink below that for a battlemech fusion engine, which means it is arguably the most practical of those in general while the "oversized shotgun" is the most high-tech. (one rating below the highest, IIRC) I don't know why the good old Large Laser becomes less easy to obtain than the higher-tech PPC during the technological and industrial nadir just before the Helm Core, you'd have to ask some one who worked for FASA whenever that was decided, but it is a dramatic illustration...

[Strum Wealh]

Owl Cutter, on 06 May 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

Did any one suggest that it would not "have kinetic impact?"

I believe it came from a number of people latching onto a statement from my previous post:
"...a possible lack of knockback (versus ballistic and projectile weapons)..."
It seems most people stopped at "knockback" and did not take the remainder of the statement into consideration; my argument was to indicate that one possible downside of PPCs vs AC-10s would be that while the PPCs would have some knockback, that knockback would be rather small relative to the AC-10 and a number of the other ballistic (ACs, GRs, MGs) and projectile (missiles, artillery) weapons.

And, separately from and in addition to the actual knockback from the weapon(s), there would/should be the unbalancing effects of armor loss...

Yeach, on 03 May 2012 - 05:18 AM, said:

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.

Yet, recycle rates are arguably one of the higher-importance elements of the weapons in a real-time setting.
I would imagine that the vast majority of people - even those who would like to see MWO implemented the maximum feasible adherence to the BattleTech rules - would mind greatly if every single weapon (including, and especially, the smaller weapons like all variants of Small Lasers, Medium Lasers, Machine Guns, and so on) had a 10+ second recycle time.
And any and every weapon with a recycle time of less than 10.00000 seconds is going to fire twice in the equivalent time of a standard TT turn, anyway.
The difference in recycle times is, IMO, a large part of what will make or break the feasibility of nearly all of the weapons outside of the heaviest-hitters (ERLL, PPC/ER-PPC, Gauss, AC-20).

The recycle times from the 'Mech Duel Rules are relevant because they represent an effort to present some idea of the weapons' real-time performance.
And as they were presented in an official FASA product (Solaris VII: the Game World), they would technically be the canonical recycle times (for as long as the product itself is canon... and there are no indications that the canonicity of the original official version (discounting the modifications made to the German version) has ever actually been revoked).

And under those rules:
PPC: 10 second recycle (fires at t = 0.00s, 10.00s, 20.00s, 30.00s,...)
ER-PPC: 10 second recycle (fires at t = 0.00s, 10.00s, 20.00s, 30.00s,...)
AC-10: 5 second recycle (fires at t = 0.00s, 5.00s, 10.00s, 15.00s, 20.00s, 25.00s, 30.00s,...)
LB-X AC-10: 5 second recycle (fires at t = 0.00s, 5.00s, 10.00s, 15.00s, 20.00s, 25.00s, 30.00s,...)
(full list for IS weapons posted here)

IMO, the two most viable ways to do it are:
1.) Use the S7 recycle times to determine refire rates, and set the damage-per-salvo and heat-per-salvo to values the standard TT-listed damage-per-turn and heat-per-turn for a 10-second period of sustained fire (holding the trigger from t = 0.00s to t = 10.00s).
2.) Use the S7 recycle times to determine refire rates, and set the damage-per-salvo and heat-per-salvo equal to the standard TT-listed damage-per-turn and heat-per-turn.

Under (1):
Both PPCs and ER-PPCs would fire one salvo at no faster than 10-second intervals, with each salvo delivering 10 units of damage to the target and generating 10 units of heat for the firing 'Mech.
Both standard AC-10s and LB-X AC-10s would fire one salvo no faster than 5-second intervals, with each salvo delivering 5 units of damage and generating 1.5 units of heat (AC-10) and 1 unit of heat (LB-X AC-10) for the firing 'Mech with each salvo.

Under (2):

Both PPCs and ER-PPCs would fire one salvo at no faster than 10-second intervals, with each salvo delivering 10 units of damage to the target and generating 10 units of heat for the firing 'Mech.
Both standard AC-10s and LB-X AC-10s would fire one salvo no faster than 5-second intervals, with each salvo delivering 10 units of damage and generating 3 units of heat (AC-10) and 2 units of heat (LB-X AC-10) for the firing 'Mech with each salvo.

As far as these specific weapons:
The performance of the PPCs is identical under both (1) and (2) after 20 seconds of sustained fire - two salvos for a total of 20 damage to the target and 20 units of heat to the firing 'Mech.
Under (1), the AC-10 would, after 20 of sustained fire, would fire four salvos, dealing a total of 20 damage to the target and 6 heat to the firing 'Mech.
Under (1), the LB-X AC-10 would, after 20 of sustained fire, would fire four salvos, dealing a total of 20 damage to the target and 4 heat to the firing 'Mech.

Under (2), the AC-10 would, after 20 of sustained fire, would fire four salvos, dealing a total of 40 damage to the target and 12 heat to the firing 'Mech.
Under (2), the LB-X AC-10 would, after 20 of sustained fire, would fire four salvos, dealing a total of 40 damage to the target and 8 heat to the firing 'Mech.

Personally, I am okay with with either (1) or (2), though I would prefer the former (that is, (1)) over the latter (that is, (2)).

Your thoughts?

[Yeach]

Strum Wealh, on 06 May 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

Yet, recycle rates are arguably one of the higher-importance elements of the weapons in a real-time setting.
I would imagine that the vast majority of people - even those who would like to see MWO implemented the maximum feasible adherence to the BattleTech rules - would mind greatly if every single weapon (including, and especially, the smaller weapons like all variants of Small Lasers, Medium Lasers, Machine Guns, and so on) had a 10+ second recycle time.
And any and every weapon with a recycle time of less than 10.00000 seconds is going to fire twice in the equivalent time of a standard TT turn, anyway.
The difference in recycle times is, IMO, a large part of what will make or break the feasibility of nearly all of the weapons outside of the heaviest-hitters (ERLL, PPC/ER-PPC, Gauss, AC-20).

I didn't even mention recycle time in my post;
all I suggest is that both AC10 and PPC SHOULD do 10 damage in 10 seconds. whether its 1 sec, 5 secs, 10 seconds; the equivalent of damage should be 10 in those 10 seconds.

Fore more dicussions on some weapon recycle damage values see this thread.
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

Strum Wealh, on 06 May 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

The recycle times from the 'Mech Duel Rules are relevant because they represent an effort to present some idea of the weapons' real-time performance.
And as they were presented in an official FASA product (Solaris VII: the Game World), they would technically be the canonical recycle times (for as long as the product itself is canon... and there are no indications that the canonicity of the original official version (discounting the modifications made to the German version) has ever actually been revoked).

And under those rules:
PPC: 10 second recycle (fires at t = 0.00s, 10.00s, 20.00s, 30.00s,...)
ER-PPC: 10 second recycle (fires at t = 0.00s, 10.00s, 20.00s, 30.00s,...)
AC-10: 5 second recycle (fires at t = 0.00s, 5.00s, 10.00s, 15.00s, 20.00s, 25.00s, 30.00s,...)
LB-X AC-10: 5 second recycle (fires at t = 0.00s, 5.00s, 10.00s, 15.00s, 20.00s, 25.00s, 30.00s,...)
(full list for IS weapons posted here)

IMO, the two most viable ways to do it are:
1.) Use the S7 recycle times to determine refire rates, and set the damage-per-salvo and heat-per-salvo to values the standard TT-listed damage-per-turn and heat-per-turn for a 10-second period of sustained fire (holding the trigger from t = 0.00s to t = 10.00s).
2.) Use the S7 recycle times to determine refire rates, and set the damage-per-salvo and heat-per-salvo equal to the standard TT-listed damage-per-turn and heat-per-turn.

Under (1):
Both PPCs and ER-PPCs would fire one salvo at no faster than 10-second intervals, with each salvo delivering 10 units of damage to the target and generating 10 units of heat for the firing 'Mech.
Both standard AC-10s and LB-X AC-10s would fire one salvo no faster than 5-second intervals, with each salvo delivering 5 units of damage and generating 1.5 units of heat (AC-10) and 1 unit of heat (LB-X AC-10) for the firing 'Mech with each salvo.

Under (2):

Both PPCs and ER-PPCs would fire one salvo at no faster than 10-second intervals, with each salvo delivering 10 units of damage to the target and generating 10 units of heat for the firing 'Mech.
Both standard AC-10s and LB-X AC-10s would fire one salvo no faster than 5-second intervals, with each salvo delivering 10 units of damage and generating 3 units of heat (AC-10) and 2 units of heat (LB-X AC-10) for the firing 'Mech with each salvo.

As far as these specific weapons:
The performance of the PPCs is identical under both (1) and (2) after 20 seconds of sustained fire - two salvos for a total of 20 damage to the target and 20 units of heat to the firing 'Mech.
Under (1), the AC-10 would, after 20 of sustained fire, would fire four salvos, dealing a total of 20 damage to the target and 6 heat to the firing 'Mech.
Under (1), the LB-X AC-10 would, after 20 of sustained fire, would fire four salvos, dealing a total of 20 damage to the target and 4 heat to the firing 'Mech.

Under (2), the AC-10 would, after 20 of sustained fire, would fire four salvos, dealing a total of 40 damage to the target and 12 heat to the firing 'Mech.
Under (2), the LB-X AC-10 would, after 20 of sustained fire, would fire four salvos, dealing a total of 40 damage to the target and 8 heat to the firing 'Mech.

Personally, I am okay with with either (1) or (2), though I would prefer the former (that is, (1)) over the latter (that is, (2)).

Your thoughts?

First option should be the one that should be used.
I think Mechcommander indeed used those rules (or somewhat similar) and it was the best IMO Battletech-computer related game in regards to weapons balance
AC10 (autocannon) at 5 secs
AC20 (Heavy autocannon) at 7.5 secs
PPC at 7.5 secs (instead of 10 secs)

Look at MW4; using close to Solaris duel rules and what did it have to do to compensate for all that damage in such a shorter time?
MW4 adjusted the armor values to twice the BT values (can someone check that value).

Remember there is a precious balance in Battletech
between weapon damage, armour levels and heat/ammo.

Also on a personnal inquiry note.
Strum have you played using Solaris dueling rules and then compare later using regular Battletech rules to see if there was a difference in gameplay? Just a friendly wondering.

Edited by Yeach, 06 May 2012 - 08:07 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

MW4 Max. Armor for Marauder (75-ton BattleMech):
HD: 18
LA/RA: 42
LT/RT: 54
LL/RL: 66
CT: 66
Rear: 27

MW4 IS Standard PPC
Range (meters): 850.00
Damage (units per salvo): 12.00
Heat (units per salvo): 11.00
Recycle (seconds): 6.00

MW4 Clan ER-PPC
Range (meters): 925.00
Damage (units per salvo): 15.00
Heat (units per salvo): 15.00
Recycle (seconds): 8.00

MW4 IS Standard AC-10
Range (meters): 600.00
Damage (units per salvo): 10.00
Heat (units per salvo): 1.00
Recycle (seconds): 3.00

MW4 IS LB-X AC-10
Range (meters): 450.00
Damage (units per salvo): 14.00
Heat (units per salvo): 1.00
Recycle (seconds): 3.30

-----

For the most part, MW4 goes with option (2) from my previous post, and then does any one or more of 1.) decreases the recycle times further, 2.) increases the damage beyond the canon values, 3.) decreases the heat generated below the canon values, and/or 4.) increases the range well beyond the canon values.

Moreover, the MW4 armor values are between 2x and 3x the TT's per-area values.

IMO, the increase in armor was less a result of shorter recycle times and more a result of the fact that there are a lot of 'Mechs that carry (or can carry) armaments like 6-8 Clan ERLL, or 2-3 each of PPC/ER-PPC and Gauss (for a total of 4-6 weapons), or 5 Clan LB-X AC-10s, with all of those having front-loaded damage.

At that point, recycle time is a probably a lower-level concern when one can generally punch through any normally-armored 'Mech (and the majority of MW4's "super-armored" 'Mechs) with one or two salvos from extreme range while popping in and out from behind cover.

Fortunately, it seems that there are systems being put into place (including convergence and the hardpoint/critical system) that will be put into place to mitigate that particular set of issues.

Personally, I feel that the S7 times (that is, (1) from the previous post)could work, but that the damage should be changed to reflect the CBT per-turn/per-second values; going by the full S7 rules, IMO, would lead to several weapons (particularly Small and Medium Lasers (and their ilk) and SRMs, both alone and in clusters) having dramatically higher damage-over-time capability than they should (and subsequently skewing the armor/durability-versus-firepower/damage balance a bit too heavily in favor of the latter).

-----

Also, I've never had the pleasure of playing under the actual S7 rules.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 07 May 2012 - 01:17 PM.

[Sassori]

The problem with altering the recycle times is it makes weapons /grossly/ out of balance with everything else.

Let's take those listed ratio's from MW4 just as an example:

AC-10 is spitting out 10 damage every 3 seconds, while a PPC is shooting 10 damage every /10/ seconds.

That is assuming both shoot at 0: 0 Seconds AC = 10, PPC = 10, 3 seconds AC = 20, 6 Seconds AC = 30, 9 Seconds AC = 40, 10 seconds PPC = 20.

That is a massive discrepancy in applied firepower.

If a weapon is going to have a smaller re-use time than 10 seconds then it's damage and heat need to be reduced as well so that the discrepancy isn't so disgusting but the damage overtime needs to be as close as possible to TT stats.

Let's continue with the AC-10 vs PPC.

If the AC shoots every 3 seconds instead of every 10 seconds it needs to do 4 damage per shot instead of 10. Then we have a damage spread as follows: 0 seconds - AC = 4, PPC = 10, 3 seconds AC = 8, 6 seconds AC = 12, 9 seconds AC = 16, 10 seconds PPC = 20, 12 seconds AC = 20, 15 seconds AC = 24, 18 seconds AC= 28, 20 seconds PPC = 30, 21 seconds. AC = 32, 24 seconds AC = 36, 27 seconds AC = 40, 30 seconds AC = 44, PPC = 40.

You'd also have to adjust the ratio of ammo per ton as well to accomodate, otherwise there is absolutely no point in picking an energy weapon over an AC at all, an AC-10 that fired for 10 damage every 3 seconds would core out an Atlas before the PPC could shoot twice.

Certainly anyone can see how broken that is and this is why adjusting firing rates is tricky business as it /will/ lead to imbalance far worse than 10 second recycle times.

What needs to be done cost wise is add a maintenance cost into energy weapons that is comparable to 3 or 4 tons of comparable ammo. Call it recalibration or whatever. That keeps the weapon costs in line and puts price/performance back into a slight lead for ballistics/missiles but with the possibility of running out of ammo.

[Deathz Jester]

AC 10 should cost less, due to the fact that you have to buy ammunition for the AC10. also the AC (in my opinion) shouldn't be as high maintenance as a PPC

The PPC has infinite shots, causes heat, and if it hits you generally (going off of Mechwarrior series) scrambled your hud systems.

The AC10 however had the benefit of knocking you around, now if you're a larger battlemech then the chance is lowered, but I'm just going off of what I think and have seen in the games.

for example In MW4 Mercs I was hit by an AC10 while piloting a Raven and it jostled me pretty bad. The PPC would have an impact but less than the AC10.

I guess what I'm trying to say is they both have ups and downs, however the AC10 should cost less because you have to pay for the ammunition of the one and the other you just have to deal with the heat/put heat sinks in.

But thats just me.



unless someone already said this already lol

Edited by Iron Harlequin, 06 May 2012 - 03:12 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Christopher Dayson, on 06 May 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

If a weapon is going to have a smaller re-use time than 10 seconds then it's damage and heat need to be reduced as well so that the discrepancy isn't so disgusting but the damage overtime needs to be as close as possible to TT stats.

-----

You'd also have to adjust the ratio of ammo per ton as well to accomodate, otherwise there is absolutely no point in picking an energy weapon over an AC at all, an AC-10 that fired for 10 damage every 3 seconds would core out an Atlas before the PPC could shoot twice.

I generally agree with the above points - specifically, that the damage delivered and heat generated for each salvo should be calculated with respect to the weapons' recycle rate so that the average damage per second would be equivalent to what would be expected/implied by the TT stats.

One issue, however, is that the responses in the other thread indicate that there is a sizable number of posters that take the stance that the ACs - particularly the heavier ACs - need to deliver all of their damage to a single area in order to be practical/useful; in effect, there is a vocal "Option (1) Camp" and a vocal "Option (2) Camp".

Additionally, this becomes an issue with the smaller ACs, as dividing what relatively little damage they can deliver (in other words, applying option (1)) arguably hurts their relative effectiveness, while applying option (2) universally can lead to their larger brethren becoming overwhelmingly powerful.
And, of course, applying either piecemeal, or mandating a universal 10-12 second recycle will likely not be well-received.

Moreover, with the recycle rate comes considerations of ammunition consumption, and how much more expensive the ballistic and projectile weapons become over time when they're going through ammunition that much more quickly.

And, somewhat amusingly, I would imagine that this discussion mirrors that which likely took place during the planning session(s) that lead to the S7 Duel Rules in the form in which we know them today...

[HIemfire]

PPC Cost: Weapon + Heatsinks to achieve a manageable level of heat control (loadout dependant)+ repair costs of weapon + Repair cost of mech if inhibitor is overridden (if that functionality makes it into the game) .

AC/10 Cost: Weapon + Heatsinks (if the AC + other weapons push over manageable levels) + Cellular Ammunition Storage Equipment (CASE)(if able to be installed, dependant on what is allowed in Mech Lab, may be part of the variant in use) + Ammunition + Mech repairs (irregardles C.A.S.E. if is installed or not, just prevented total loss of
mech in Table Top due to ammunition explosion) if ammunition "cooks off" or takes a hit.

There is a fair number of variables to factor in as it stands. Table Top cost wise the PPC is much cheaper over time to use than the AC/10 and normally has a lower start up investment, atleast if you don't try for a an all or nothing point blank with PPCs.

Edited by HIemfire, 06 May 2012 - 05:28 PM.

[Yeach]

HIemfire, on 06 May 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

There is a fair number of variables to factor in as it stands. Table Top cost wise the PPC is much cheaper over time to use than the AC/10 and normally has a lower start up investment, atleast if you don't try for a an all or nothing point blank with PPCs.

That was why I started this thread.
The startup fee for the PPC and AC10 are really close.
However, heatsinks don't cost money when you use them up but ammunition does.
1 ton of AC10 ammo is 3% the cost of the AC10 and is not reusable when gone.
1 heatsink is 1% the cost of the PPC is reusable.

[Cifu]

Faster firing AC's...:

Well, this actually only boosting the PPC, because give them an edge of Alpha strike (damage per one shoot / salvo).
When you in a battle, you never always have the chance to fire all the time, because the enemy use a corner to take cover, using jump jets or so. So all-in-all, the larger alpha in many times means stronger weapons....

[Sassori]

As they are currently, AC-10's and PPC's have the exact same Alpha and damage per second. For way less heat. It's a trade off. Takes 9 heat sinks to get an AC-10 to the same ratio of heat per shot, so they're really not as far apart as some people seem to think.

That said... Might be fun to see if there's an Awesome variant that could mount AC-10's instead of PPC's, rip out the extra heat sinks, dakka dakka dakka...

[UncleKulikov]

Ravn, on 02 May 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

I voted PPC because I love to harass and work the fringes. The AC10 does not have that capability. You need to commit to an engagement with an AC because you are limited by Ammo.

Edit: This to me makes the PPC worth more.

That's my issue. Only 10 rounds per ton of ammunition, when the AC 10 is already 5 tons more than the PPC? Blrghghgrgh. Ammunition is both a limiting factor and a penalty, since it can be cooked off or detonated during combat and can run out. PPCs don't have that problem and have higher range.

Oh wait. Except we don't know any of the important variables in MWO, like fire rate and time to target

Edited by UncleKulikov, 07 May 2012 - 12:41 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

PPC's do have the 90m min range which is a definate drawback on something like the Awesome. This becomes irrelevant when it is part of a more mixed weaponry where it is backed up with ballistic weapons or lasers. Having said that energy weapons are always more economical to run. The only redeeming factor for ballistics is TACs which may not be in. The problems of increasing the rate of fire have been shown, especially when damage is reduced proportionally.
To be honest I don't think that we will know enough to make judgements until we are actually playing. It has been made very clear by a number of people on this forum that a 10 second cycle time is "impossible" for a real time game.. MW4 showed what happened when you played around with the properties. I just hope that the mechanics are transparent in game rather than hidden.

[Cifu]

Christopher Dayson, on 06 May 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

As they are currently, AC-10's and PPC's have the exact same Alpha and damage per second. For way less heat. It's a trade off. Takes 9 heat sinks to get an AC-10 to the same ratio of heat per shot, so they're really not as far apart as some people seem to think.

I'm directly noted about the faster firing AC's idea...

Nik Van Rhijn, on 07 May 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

PPC's do have the 90m min range...

Do they? I believe in most MW games the PPC don't really have any kind of penalty for short range (at least i won't noticed). I'm interested how the PG wanna implement the min. range in the game...

[Karl Streiger]

Cifu, on 07 May 2012 - 05:12 AM, said:

I'm directly noted about the faster firing AC's idea... Do they? I believe in most MW games the PPC don't really have any kind of penalty for short range (at least i won't noticed). I'm interested how the PG wanna implement the min. range in the game...

it is described that the focus need 90m to create a bolt - at ranges below you may have several bolts of raw energy but not focused to a "plasma" ball...so you have a chance that a spark will damage your weapon. Damage could be handled like LBX cluster ammunition making the PPC in without field inhibitor in a potential deadly weapon at short range versus a damaged target.

[MaddMaxx]

All this talk of HS's being the balancing factor...sadly only the Ballistics user is forced to add weight to their machine in order to operate their weapon of choice.

The AC10 cannot go without Ammo, the PPC can be run on a very "short" HS # given a knowledgeable pilot or Lance. Proper tactics and game play also contribute to the "best use" of either weapon. One Team allows the AC10 a few shots at different targets from range, they assume a 10% miss rate and after a short time, the ammo carrier has to cease and desist. or run out, the PPC user can pot shot all day, assume a 25% miss rate and when the enemies ammo runs dry, over there, now trhe real game is on.

The best solution is to FORCE the PPC user to have to have the required weight in HS's on board at all times. It does not prevent the ammo vs the none required disparity, but at least the balance of weight/Heat ratio for the weapon types is more in line with the core rules.

That is Heat balance. Don't leave it up to the individual. Make it a requirement...

Edited by MaddMaxx, 07 May 2012 - 05:46 AM.

[FaustianQ]

I honestly think messing with the cycle times of the AC weapons is in fact the way to go here, along with possibly doubling ammo per ton. If weight and critical slots are going to remain the same, and ammo explosions are to remain as obscenely devastating in TT, ballistic mechs need Burst Damage. Allow faster fire rates, but have a cassette/drum holding a specific amount of rounds before recycle. An example could be a AC/5 gets 9 shots, 3 seconds between shots, and then 15 seconds before a new drum is loaded into the feed system.

This allows a ballistic based mech to wail on an enemy mech quickly and efficiently at the cost of being extremely vulnerable while reloading, and makes ballistic weapons vastly different from the other weapons systems.

[Sassori]

MaddMaxx, on 07 May 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

All this talk of HS's being the balancing factor...sadly only the Ballistics user is forced to add weight to their machine in order to operate their weapon of choice.

The AC10 cannot go without Ammo, the PPC can be run on a very "short" HS # given a knowledgeable pilot or Lance. Proper tactics and game play also contribute to the "best use" of either weapon. One Team allows the AC10 a few shots at different targets from range, they assume a 10% miss rate and after a short time, the ammo carrier has to cease and desist. or run out, the PPC user can pot shot all day, assume a 25% miss rate and when the enemies ammo runs dry, over there, now trhe real game is on.

The best solution is to FORCE the PPC user to have to have the required weight in HS's on board at all times. It does not prevent the ammo vs the none required disparity, but at least the balance of weight/Heat ratio for the weapon types is more in line with the core rules.

That is Heat balance. Don't leave it up to the individual. Make it a requirement...

No, definitely not this. I /want/ to see people explode their mechs from cooking their PPC's to hot A single PPC will overwhelm stock 10 heat sinks if you even move one inch, your heat will start climbing. A /single/ PPC.

That's the trade off. You can load an AC-10 and 5 tons of ammunition and run around and fire that thing all day long (I'd actually be surprised if you lived long enough to get 50 shots off personally) without overheating. That's the trade off.

For a PPC to run as cool as an AC-10 it needs 9 additional heat sinks. that's 16 total tons and 12 critical slots total... Imagine that.

The problem is when you start getting into double heat sinks, /they/ are the real culprit. A moderately sized engine can hold 12 double heat sinks without taking up space. That can dissipate 24 heat, that's two PPC's, a medium laser, and walking without building up noticable heat.

The way to really balance that is for double heat sinks to all take 3 times the space. So if a normal engine can hold 12 heat sinks (for example) then that is 12 crit spaces, which would only hold 4 double heat sinks (Inner Sphere version) so the other 24 crit slots for those 12 heat sinks would have to be found...

Then again, that's pretty much ruining the point of double heat sinks almost, so dunno on that.

Still the larger the mech, the more efficient ballistic weapons become.

[Aelos03]

Christopher Dayson, on 07 May 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

No, definitely not this. I /want/ to see people explode their mechs from cooking their PPC's to hot A single PPC will overwhelm stock 10 heat sinks if you even move one inch, your heat will start climbing. A /single/ PPC.

That's the trade off. You can load an AC-10 and 5 tons of ammunition and run around and fire that thing all day long (I'd actually be surprised if you lived long enough to get 50 shots off personally) without overheating. That's the trade off.

For a PPC to run as cool as an AC-10 it needs 9 additional heat sinks. that's 16 total tons and 12 critical slots total... Imagine that.

The problem is when you start getting into double heat sinks, /they/ are the real culprit. A moderately sized engine can hold 12 double heat sinks without taking up space. That can dissipate 24 heat, that's two PPC's, a medium laser, and walking without building up noticable heat.

The way to really balance that is for double heat sinks to all take 3 times the space. So if a normal engine can hold 12 heat sinks (for example) then that is 12 crit spaces, which would only hold 4 double heat sinks (Inner Sphere version) so the other 24 crit slots for those 12 heat sinks would have to be found...

Then again, that's pretty much ruining the point of double heat sinks almost, so dunno on that.

Still the larger the mech, the more efficient ballistic weapons become.

you are totally right its clear what are advantages and drawbacks of balistic and energy weapons, and i think what you said about double heat sinks taking more space it good way to balance it out.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Karl Streiger, on 07 May 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

it is described that the focus need 90m to create a bolt - at ranges below you may have several bolts of raw energy but not focused to a "plasma" ball...so you have a chance that a spark will damage your weapon. Damage could be handled like LBX cluster ammunition making the PPC in without field inhibitor in a potential deadly weapon at short range versus a damaged target.

I don't understand the reasoning here. In the TT rules, the PPC (just like LRM's and a few other systems) have minimum ranges that make it harder to hit the target. There is no additional danger to the firing unit, just the chance of wasting a shot. I know they had the optional rule of turning of the feedback inhibitor that could then damage the PPC, but with the inhibitor working you could fire a PPC all day at a close target without fear of damaging yourself, you would just be less accurate (and overheating.) Maybe to simulate this, firing a PPC at under 90 meters generates a random chance of the shot missing the target, which increases as the range closes. Possibly countered as your gunnery skill (if we have one) increases. Would seem like a closer scenario to the TT rules, plus it would be a possible reason to carry an AC/10 vs a PPC if your an infighter (though balanced by the fact that missing with the PPC doesn't cost you ammo.)