88 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Sajuk Kar, on 01 December 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

So does the ER PPC having no minimum range really all boil down to a printing error? Like some people have said? Because how they work in the TT or this game doesn't really make sense. Like how does pumping even more power through a PPC, to give it more range, then somehow make it safe to use up close with its field inhibitor turned off? If anything it should do MORE damage to you if its used under 90m. If its all due to a messed up rulebook, I wouldn't be surprised though.

Well, the PPC isn't exactly a realistic weapon. So I'd say they developed a Feedback Compensator for the ER PPCs. Maybe the tech was developed to enable the extended range in the first place.

Think of it as a Flux Compensator or a Heisenberg Compensator.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 01 December 2012 - 09:10 AM.

[Sajuk Kar]

MustrumRidcully, on 01 December 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

Well, the PPC isn't exactly a realistic weapon.

You're right it isn't. But one thing that's important for a game to have is INTERNAL consisitency. Meaning that it has to make sense in the fictional world, even if it doesn't make sense in ours. Right now the only explaination for it is "it's magic", which isn't good enough.

They need to explain it either way eventually though, because the TT seemingly never has. Either it has to be like a normal ppc, except longer range, and will damage you will the field inhibitor turned off, and do reduced damage with it on. Or it has some advanced piece of techology that allows it to be fired up close without damaging you.

Edited by Sajuk Kar, 01 December 2012 - 02:07 PM.

[SpiralRazor]

The very best argument for this is that it was dropped for the Gauss Rifle.



And also, the PPC is gimp anyway so what could it hurt.

[Super Mono]

Ballistics and Gauss also have minimum range in the TT but it was removed in MWO but kept for the PPC. The way the TT rules and stats are cobbled piecemeal into MWO without any real outline or plan is disgusting.

[Dagnome]

Why should they take away the minimum range? So people can have the advantage of a PPC without having to gain increased heat or tonnage? As far as ballistics go it makes sense for them not to have a min range because if I shoot you point blank with a pistol it does not take that bullet 1m to "arm". A Particle Projectile however, well just read:

"The Particle Projection Cannon is a unique hard-hitting Energy weapon. Since it shoots hi-energy charged particles, it does both Heat and Energy damage, resulting in a good damage rating. Targets hit by several hits from a PPC may experience equipment malfunctions.
Since the PPC has an EMP-like effect, a limiter engages at ranges below 90m to protect the firer from the side effects of the weapon. However, damage drops off steeply."

That will obviosuly make more sense once they implement the "EMP" effect on the PPC.

[Super Mono]

Dagnome, on 01 December 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Why should they take away the minimum range? So people can have the advantage of a PPC without having to gain increased heat or tonnage? As far as ballistics go it makes sense for them not to have a min range because if I shoot you point blank with a pistol it does not take that bullet 1m to "arm". A Particle Projectile however, well just read:

"The Particle Projection Cannon is a unique hard-hitting Energy weapon. Since it shoots hi-energy charged particles, it does both Heat and Energy damage, resulting in a good damage rating. Targets hit by several hits from a PPC may experience equipment malfunctions.
Since the PPC has an EMP-like effect, a limiter engages at ranges below 90m to protect the firer from the side effects of the weapon. However, damage drops off steeply."

That will obviosuly make more sense once they implement the "EMP" effect on the PPC.

If we're going to bring lore into this why not mention that autocannons and gauss are suppose to have targeting and accuracy issues and argue to introduce those into the game?

[Dagnome]

Super Mono, on 01 December 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

If we're going to bring lore into this why not mention that autocannons and gauss are suppose to have targeting and accuracy issues and argue to introduce those into the game?

Psst that's from the mwowikki.

[SpiralRazor]

Dagnome, on 01 December 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Why should they take away the minimum range? So people can have the advantage of a PPC without having to gain increased heat or tonnage? As far as ballistics go it makes sense for them not to have a min range because if I shoot you point blank with a pistol it does not take that bullet 1m to "arm". A Particle Projectile however, well just read:

"The Particle Projection Cannon is a unique hard-hitting Energy weapon. Since it shoots hi-energy charged particles, it does both Heat and Energy damage, resulting in a good damage rating. Targets hit by several hits from a PPC may experience equipment malfunctions.
Since the PPC has an EMP-like effect, a limiter engages at ranges below 90m to protect the firer from the side effects of the weapon. However, damage drops off steeply."

That will obviosuly make more sense once they implement the "EMP" effect on the PPC.

Because it was done for the Guass and ACs.... You seriously dont think the PPC+sinks to fire it weighs almost as much as the Gauss, or generates considerably more heat???


You also cant argue BUT PPC GET EMP OMGZORS!!! Because Guass and AC/20 are going to retain their considerable cockpit shake...and do more damage to boot.

Edited by SpiralRazor, 01 December 2012 - 12:15 PM.

[LaserAngel]

I'm not fond of the heat or minimum range but the PPC needs to have something that prevents it from being superior to the 2 ML litmus test or vs. ballistics. An increase in damage is a good place to start and I do know it has a much better effective long range compared to the Medium Laser.

[Dagnome]

SpiralRazor, on 01 December 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

Because it was done for the Guass and ACs.... You seriously dont think the PPC+sinks to fire it weighs almost as much as the Gauss, or generates considerably more heat???

I am aware they got rid of min ranges for Ballistics and that falls back into the argument of "How TT rules do not always apply piratically in the digital world". Why dont we just remove the min range on LRM's while were at it? When the EMP effect is in and if the PPC had no minimum range then you would be in theory "EMP'ing" yourself. How many of you would then cry and say "well lets take off the min range for damage but have a minimum range for the EMP effect".

This discussion could go in circles for a while couldn't it?

[Super Mono]

Dagnome, on 01 December 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

I am aware they got rid of min ranges for Ballistics and that falls back into the argument of "How TT rules do not always apply piratically in the digital world". Why dont we just remove the min range on LRM's while were at it? When the EMP effect is in and if the PPC had no minimum range then you would be in theory "EMP'ing" yourself. How many of you would then cry and say "well lets take off the min range for damage but have a minimum range for the EMP effect".

This discussion could go in circles for a while couldn't it?

There currently is no EMP effect so I don't see anything to argue about.

LRMs get a tradeoff for being able to fire and do damage without LOS on the target.

[CG Oglethorpe Kerensky]

Cole Allard, on 30 November 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

NO...

PPC: 3 cases min, 18 cases max.
1 case is 30m = 90m min range on PPC is canon.

And where is the canon minimum range on AC/2, AC/5 and Gauss Rifles?

Yes that's right, all of these weapons had minimum ranges, but ONLY the PPC got it added in game. The entire 'canon' argument falls on its face when you realize that of the 4 direct fire weapons with minimum ranges, only one actually had it implemented.

[Dagnome]

Super Mono, on 01 December 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

There currently is no EMP effect so I don't see anything to argue about.

LRMs get a tradeoff for being able to fire and do damage without LOS on the target.

They will be getting the EMP effect so it is worth taking into account for this "Discussion".

[Squid von Torgar]

How the PPC works in MWO is far from Cannon. The thing was in TT it was harder to hit with it inside minimum range, but if you managed it you still did the 10 pts of full damage.

In MWO due to the convergence issue (the gun convergence will be set to whatever your sights are pointing at rather than the targets actual range) this means that any ballistic type weapon is incredibly hard to hit with close up against a moving target. You have to lead to hit it, but the convergence system will automatically throw off your guns.

Now that to me is a pretty big downpoint of the ppc. Its actually cannon in so much as it makes the PPC very hard to hit with close up.

Having a damage nerf on it too is just too much. The PPC and ER PPC both are hard to manage heat wise (The ER PPC isnt really worth taking at all).

By getting rid of the damage reduction it would allow skilled players at least a chance when things get toe to toe.

So yes, I say get rid of the damage reduction.

If you think that would make the PPC OP (Seriously?!) then make it so its convergence can not go lower than a minimum of 90m

Edited by Squid von Torgar, 01 December 2012 - 12:31 PM.

[Super Mono]

Dagnome, on 01 December 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

They will be getting the EMP effect so it is worth taking into account for this "Discussion".

The EMP effect will do what? Likely it will just take away the HUD, so anyone with tape and a marker can bypass this effect. I can deal with that to have the minimum range taken away.

[LaserAngel]

Super Mono, on 01 December 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

The EMP effect will do what? Likely it will just take away the HUD, so anyone with tape and a marker can bypass this effect. I can deal with that to have the minimum range taken away.

I would hope it would interrupt lock-ons as well. I can see a mechwarrior doing something like that in reality too.

[verybad]

Cole Allard, on 30 November 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

NO...

PPC: 3 cases min, 18 cases max.
1 case is 30m = 90m min range on PPC is canon.

Knowing your weapons is part of being successful...or if you wanna make your forum name sound true.

And...just for you...the technology-level went up to 2, there is the ER PPC...no minimum range, extened max range...just a tick more heat.

Yeah, and all min range did in TT was make it a little bit less accurate (essentially like it was firing at medium rang rather than short) Not make the near light speed particles stop doing damage to the target!)

[Hatachi]

Cole Allard, on 30 November 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

NO...

PPC: 3 cases min, 18 cases max.
1 case is 30m = 90m min range on PPC is canon.

Knowing your weapons is part of being successful...or if you wanna make your forum name sound true.

And...just for you...the technology-level went up to 2, there is the ER PPC...no minimum range, extened max range...just a tick more heat.

This is a common misunderstanding of the reason for the minimum range. It isn't that the weapon does less damage. It's that the field inhibitor deliberately stops the weapon from firing if it calculates that the lighting will feedback on the weapon damaging it. If you're wondering where I got this information. It's explained in the rules for removing the field inhibitor in the Tactical Operations core rulebook.

[SpiralRazor]

Thats true.

[Randodan]

Is PPC considered a ballistic weapon? If so, it should cause damage as soon as the projectile leaves the barrel.

That's the same as saying that when shooting someone with a gun, they have to be x amount of meters away before the gun hurts them. Imagine this in the real world: "Uhm... could you back up a little because otherwise my gun really doesn't hurt you but your coming at me with a knife..."