263 replies to this topic

[Zaptruder]

Given that they've already given the middle finger to double heat sink canon, they should do the right thing and fine tune the balance of weapons without feeling the need to rigidly adhere to the TT rules.

I mean, I appreciated their goal in wanting to keep this as close to BT canon as possible... but you really can't sacrifice the playability of your game out of some misguided notion of... 'purity'.

Some energy weapons are adequately balanced. Some are not.

Fix the ones like ERPPCs and ER large lasers that are currently lame. PPCs and LLs could stand to take a little tweaking too.

Play with those distances.

Try to keep things within the intended spirit of the weapon... but I doubt the community (outside of some hardliners) will cry foul much at the tweaking of some values so that we get a better spread of viable weapons out on the battlefield.

Edited by Zaptruder, 10 December 2012 - 10:56 AM.

[FerretGR]

Heeden, on 10 December 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

With perks it would be a 81.6 cap and dissipating 4.37 (I think you meant 3.8, not 38) so you could easily get a couple of alphas without shutting down, wait a second or two then fire a third.

The second alpha would still overheat, doing the math in my head, to be fair. Not exactly the nonstop alpha machine the poster I was responding to feared, in any case

ETA: here's the math, correct me if I'm wrong:
4xERPPC = 52 heat, 3 sec cooldown
so he alphas, 3 seconds later, he's down to 38.89, he alphas, up to 90.89, he's overheated and shutdown for about 2 seconds. The next alpha, if he fires ASAP, he's overheated and shutdown for 10+ seconds.
That's with true 2.0 DHS. Scary, everyone, I know.

Edited by FerretGR, 10 December 2012 - 03:52 PM.

[MWHawke]

The post by Garth is a typical example of how they don't give a **** about canon nor feedback by community.. Sad to say..

[Red squirrel]

TruePoindexter, on 03 December 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

You test what they let you test. When I'm developing something for my clients I don't give them every bit and bob I may have worked on. I give them what I think represents a useful product for them to test/review.

But then you know I have not seen a single change to e.g. the PPC.
Everyone knows it is broken
The devs say it is broken
The devs say they are looking into it ... since June
And up to date not a sinlge whatsoever tweak?
And that's just one example.

My opinion is to just compare it to what dramatic changes were made to the economic system over the patches. And you see there seems zero interest in balancing. Just give it a shot let players use it for a week and see what happens. Change it back or tweak it again. After some iterations you get a result. But right now nothing happens and then at some point we get what the devs in their inner circle figured to be the best. Great beta......although I do agree on the DHS design decision.

[Heeden]

FiveDigits, on 10 December 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

How can it "feel right" when Lights and Mediums operate under 2.0 Double Heatsinks (courtesy of their engines) while Heavies and Assaults run only half DHS and the other half 1.4 Crapsinks?

To add insult to injury all of them use the same Small and Medium Lasers that are out of line balance-wise.

The only thing that seems out of line on the MLas stat-line is the damage to weight ratio - LLas has 1.7 x DPS for only 1.65 x HPS, making it more effective and marginally more efficient for killing stuff. It has 5 x the weight and 1.66 x the range which seems like a fair exchange, although it can be hard to tell in your typical PuG match where everything seems to happen either right in your face or as fire-from-the-sky.

What kind of nerf do you think the MLas needs, and why? Also why would you want to nerf the SLas, it's really only useful for knife-fighting lights and tends to be outshone by SSRMs?

FerretGR, on 10 December 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

The second alpha would still overheat, doing the math in my head, to be fair. Not exactly the nonstop alpha machine the poster I was responding to feared, in any case

ETA: here's the math, correct me if I'm wrong:
4xERPPC = 52 heat, 3 sec cooldown
so he alphas, 3 seconds later, he's down to 38.89, he alphas, up to 90.89, he's overheated and shutdown for about 2 seconds. The next alpha, if he fires ASAP, he's overheated and shutdown for 10+ seconds.
That's with true 2.0 DHS. Scary, everyone, I know.

I think everyone knows that the ER weapons pay too much heat for the small advantage their range confers in this game, I was thinking of an Awesome armed with regular PPCs.

4 x PPC = 36 heat
3 sec cooldown = 22.89 heat
4 x PPC = 58.89 heat
3 sec cooldown = 45.78 heat
4x PPC = 81.78 heat - 0.18 heat over cap, hammer "o" as you fire this shot and calmly walk back in to cover.

Or if you were cycle firing one a second you could hammer them for 17 seconds, bearing in mind PPCs have an impulse value of 1.0 as opposed to other energy weapons' 0.1. Note that would only require 3 PPCs (I couldn't be bothered with the math for one shot every 0.75 seconds).

Edited by Heeden, 11 December 2012 - 12:54 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Heeden, on 10 December 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

The only thing that seems out of line on the MLas stat-line is the damage to weight ratio - LLas has 1.7 x DPS for only 1.65 x HPS, making it more effective and marginally more efficient for killing stuff. It has 5 x the weight and 1.66 x the range which seems like a fair exchange, although it can be hard to tell in your typical PuG match where everything seems to happen either right in your face or as fire-from-the-sky.

What kind of nerf do you think the MLas needs, and why? Also why would you want to nerf the SLas, it's really only useful for knife-fighting lights and tends to be outshone by SSRMs?



I think everyone knows that the ER weapons pay too much heat for the small advantage their range confers in this game, I was thinking of an Awesome armed with regular PPCs.

4 x PPC = 36 heat
3 sec cooldown = 22.89 heat
4 x PPC = 58.89 heat
3 sec cooldown = 45.78 heat
4x PPC = 81.78 heat - 0.18 heat over cap, hammer "o" as you fire this shot and calmly walk back in to cover.

Or if you were cycle firing one a second you could hammer them for 17 seconds, bearing in mind PPCs have an impulse value of 1.0 as opposed to other energy weapons' 0.1. Note that would only require 3 PPCs (I couldn't be bothered with the math for one shot every 0.75 seconds).

Still not rally scary, or is it?

[FerretGR]

Heeden, on 10 December 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

I think everyone knows that the ER weapons pay too much heat for the small advantage their range confers in this game, I was thinking of an Awesome armed with regular PPCs.

4 x PPC = 36 heat
3 sec cooldown = 22.89 heat
4 x PPC = 58.89 heat
3 sec cooldown = 45.78 heat
4x PPC = 81.78 heat - 0.18 heat over cap, hammer "o" as you fire this shot and calmly walk back in to cover.

Or if you were cycle firing one a second you could hammer them for 17 seconds, bearing in mind PPCs have an impulse value of 1.0 as opposed to other energy weapons' 0.1. Note that would only require 3 PPCs (I couldn't be bothered with the math for one shot every 0.75 seconds).

Sure, sorry, I assumed you were talking ERPPCs because that's what comes stock on the 9M.... its what makes the build into a sniper IMHO. Besides, who runs 4PPCs without any backup? You're gimping yourself at short range: almost as bad as an LRM boat with no backup weapons. At least the ERPPCs don't have a short range.

Again, I submit, this is not the "shoot forever without overheating" situation that the poster I was responding to is talking about. And again, as Mustrum points out, it's still not a frightening build. And yet again, this is with true 2.0 DHS. You're, at best, making a viable build (as opposed to an overpowered one), and you need 2.0 to do it.

Edited by FerretGR, 11 December 2012 - 05:12 AM.

[FerretGR]

Thontor, on 11 December 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

I dunno, that much burst at that range is pretty scary.

...and all it would take to make this iconic weapon the frightening thing it is in canon is 2.0 DHS

(and mounting 4 of them... there's that)

[DivineEvil]

Thontor, on 11 December 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

That's quite an impressive amount of damage over a short time.

120 damage in ~6 seconds... (Fire...3s....fire....3s...fire) out to 540m is impressive.

Sure it can't sustain high DPS, but it can pop up, expose itself for only a short time, minimizing damage from return fire, then duck back behind cover.

Sure it is useless at close range, but that's what teammates are for..

Double gauss can't even come close, would take twice as long to do that much damage (fire...4s....fire....4s.....fire....4s.....fire), exposing itself to return fire.

I dunno, that much burst at that range is pretty scary. But it needs support from teammates to keep enemies from tearing it up up-close.

I think once they buff the velocity of the PPC we are going to be seeing them a LOT more...

What you expect? It's the heaviest weapon of Energy group. It is scary in longer perspective, since you dont have ammo, but it is pretty hard to use against melee engages with ballistic/missile mechs, who can just throw all their ammo at you, and also rather useless against Light mechs, who you can barely "core-down".

With 1.4 DHS it all comes to shooting a volley and then waiting for several seconds to fire any additional single shots, or to shoot 2 volleys and then leaving the combat for 15-20 seconds until you're cool again. Not quite what you expect from iconic weapons like PPCs. Making heavy Energy weapons useless in that concern is not the way to balance things out. Energy weapon is an alterantive type of weapon, not a secondary weapon group to Ballistics.

They're going to buff AC projectiles speed as well, so I don't expect much changes from today meta. Experienced players know how to land 90% of PPC shots, but as long as they quickly turn you into a furnace, it doesn't really matter.

Edited by DivineEvil, 11 December 2012 - 06:42 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

FerretGR, on 11 December 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

...and all it would take to make this iconic weapon the frightening thing it is in canon is 2.0 DHS

(and mounting 4 of them... there's that)

This or shorten the time a "turn" is to around 4 seconds instead of 10.

[MaddMaxx]

MustrumRidcully, on 10 December 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

And so it boils down to analyzing the problem not just with counting arguments pro/contra, but actually make a mathematical model.

I did so, I encourage others to do the same and find one that not just simply shows off that PPCs or ER PPCs are decent weapons - but that also reflects game reality.

It's not like I started from the assumption that I must prove that PPCs are underpowered. I just put in the numbers in a model. I didn't know what would result. I had expectations - the Gauss being completely OP, for example. All energy weapons being bad.
I got a Gauss Rifle that was actually underpowered if you had a weapon that had more than 2 ballistic hard points (and one that spread them across mech sections. I got small and medium lasers that were completely out of line. But I saw confirmed that weapons that were deemed underpowered are also underpowered under the analysis. It explained what I saw happening i nthe game - small laser boats with single heat sinks, medium laser boats with double heat sinks, ER weapons and PPCs being ignored.

But there is no model that can replicate the actual gameplay, as it is played in real time. Yes the Charts and Maths show the mathematical outcome of what A+B+C is equal to, and those who would build for min/max use them as the holy grail.

But when you hit the turf running and the proverbial feces hits the fan, then those raw numbers lose much of their meaning. If the best combo of weapons on the best Chassis actually existed, as per the Maths, then why isn't everyone with the slightest competitive bone using it, and only it. FoTM builds emerge and fade as fast as the game can be Patched, but the one constant is one Mech will not dominate the field because the they do not run in auto mode.

The one factor that no Chart or hard Maths can account for is the fact that the Mechs are Piloted. That is the true beauty of MechWarrior. In the end, it is the Pilot that can and will make the difference under a massive set of varying circumstances.

Numbers are wonderful and feed those who see them as the end all and be all but they also trap many players and cause them to play specific builds and or chassis all the time, the game can start to feel bland and finally they think. Is this all there is? But until that finally sinks in, it was the Charts and #'s that they thought gave then the best chance to Win. According to those Maths and Charts they read on the Forums it was as good as it gets. The numbers surely cannot be wrong, right.

DPS, HPS, HPP, etc etc etc ad infinitum... some are surely pulled from orifices better left alone. Numbers are wonderful but becoming a slave to them, eventually, just sucks the FUN out it all.

But that is the way of things for many and as such each to their own. There is no issue with different perspectives but so many would force theirs on the new comers and then call them noobs for deviating. These Forums are proof of that.

When the numbers and Charts and hard Maths override the FUN, then any game will wither and die. That is a well known fact as well...

[MustrumRidcully]

MaddMaxx, on 11 December 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

But there is no model that can replicate the actual gameplay, as it is played in real time. Yes the Charts and Maths show the mathematical outcome of what A+B+C is equal to, and those who would build for min/max use them as the holy grail.

But when you hit the turf running and the proverbial feces hits the fan, then those raw numbers lose much of their meaning. If the best combo of weapons on the best Chassis actually existed, as per the Maths, then why isn't everyone with the slightest competitive bone using it, and only it. FoTM builds emerge and fade as fast as the game can be Patched, but the one constant is one Mech will not dominate the field because the they do not run in auto mode.

THey may lose their meaning in an individual, very specific match. But on average, I think, they will reflect the game realities pretty well and will be confirmed by trends in the game - weapon choices, win/loss statistics based on weapon loadouts, and so on.

I am not a great pilot. I may theoretically know what the best loadout is, but I will be beat by a player with a worse loadout than mine that just knows how to maneuver and aim better. But I wouldn't fight any better with a worse loadout, and the other player wouldn't fight worse with a better loadout. And if the other player would find his equal, the one with the better loadout would probably beat him more often then he would beat him.

Statistical models will never be able to predict every specific instance. But they can predict the overall, typical or average outcomes. And I do not believe my model is that far off from reality. If it was, you may have a point, I'd be obviously on the wrong track.

MaddMaxx, on 11 December 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

When the numbers and Charts and hard Maths override the FUN, then any game will wither and die. That is a well known fact as well...

I just say this - When analyzing the math and the chart is more fun than the combat, there may be a problem with you - or the game.

Mustrum "I may have a problem" Ridcully.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 11 December 2012 - 09:02 AM.

[Heeden]

FerretGR, on 11 December 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

...and all it would take to make this iconic weapon the frightening thing it is in canon is 2.0 DHS

Thank goodness we don't have 2.0 DHS then!

Edit: although I'm fairly certain even in canon the PPC was considered a high heat weapon, not something to be spammed with impunity.

Quote

(and mounting 4 of them... there's that)

Not too hard when they're only 7 tonnes a piece - 4 PPCs plus the 9 heatsinks weigh the same as 3 AC10s with 1 ton of ammo (15 shots).

@Mustrum
Sims and theorycrafting can go a long way towards helping you choose the loadout you want for the role you perform but cherry-picking a few stats and making them in to graphs can not give you an accurate depiction of how the weapons are balanced in combat.

Edited by Heeden, 11 December 2012 - 10:59 AM.

[FerretGR]

Heeden, on 11 December 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

Thank goodness we don't have 2.0 DHS then!

What I was getting at was that they SHOULD be a scary weapon. They are fearsome in canon (ie. the novels as well as the TT... in novels they are a fearsome weapon). If we had 2.0 DHS, they might approach this again to a certain extent.

Heeden, on 11 December 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

Not too hard when they're only 7 tonnes a piece - 4 PPCs plus the 9 heatsinks weigh the same as 3 AC10s with 1 ton of ammo (15 shots).

That said, what I was getting at wasn't that they're hard to mount, but that it took 4 of them for us to get to a point where the fearful weapon as described above starts to show itself. A single PPC blast in the fluff was something to be taken seriously. We have to dedicate our build to boating them in order to achieve that in MWO. That's sad IMHO.

[bob1234567890]

making them 2 is to smart. Their "prepatch testers" who probably play other games because every patch is just as bad as the last don't understand that DHS REPLACE SHS. instead they want both to be viable and in doing so make one of them obsolete and expensive

[FerretGR]

Thontor, on 11 December 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

I think my point is, I'm fine with the PPC doing less damage per shot relative to armor. It balances out with the higher rate of fire, convergance, and the ability to place our shots.

I'm not fine with producing double the heat to do the same amount of damage relative to armor.

We are agreed then The PPCs would be "fearsome" as I keep going back to if they could be used regularly, and it takes fixing their heat to make that an option.

[LaserAngel]

FerretGR, on 11 December 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

We are agreed then The PPCs would be "fearsome" as I keep going back to if they could be used regularly, and it takes fixing their heat to make that an option.

I play with two friends, that along with myself run the Awesome 9M. 4 LL, 1ML is preferred and it's 21 tons too! The other runs 3 PPC with Streak 2s. Given our energy builds we try out other energy weapons too. The ER Large Laser is just barely manageable and soon we'll look at the ER PPC.

We tend to stick to Large Lasers or PPCs and believe they're just about right.

I know it sounds tired and old but keep the PPC/ER PPC heat where its at. Increase the damage and cool down slightly. I believe MustrumRidcully even pointed out in another thread that even the lackluster AC/10 managed to put out just a little more DPS.

[Lanessar]

Not to get nitty gritty, but I think the thing making PPCs un-scary is inherent differences from TT to FPS. It was a hard-hitting weapon delivering 10 damage to a single location, and while it generated heat, it could be dispersed within a round using 5 DHS/10 SHS.

The only thing that could rival a PPC in TT was a Gauss rifle, which had it's own quirks (easily damaged, explodey). We're seeing the Gauss quirks now (and people aren't liking it), but nothing making the PPC stand out.

Additionally, and I'm not positive of this, but it does seem like there's a splash damage mechanic in play with the PPC - it's not 10 to a single point, but 6 to the target area, 2 to adjacent areas. Additionally, the PPC "bullet" being so slow doesn't help, nor does triple heat to an already high-heat item.

Just off the top of my head, if the PPC were tweaked in this fashion, I think it would see more use:

1. Deliver 10 points of damage to primary location, 1-2 points to splash locations (up to 3).
2. Adjust heat generation of the weapon downward slightly.
3. Adding the EMP effect the devs noted.
4. Speeding up the "bullet".

Devs have already mentioned 3 & 4, but honestly, I think it will require either 1 or 2 in order to become more used than the Gauss, even with the explodey changes.

I'm armchair quarterbacking this, mind you. I've used PPCs, but haven't done a full analysis on them.

[FerretGR]

Thontor, on 11 December 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

You do have to be careful though..
The heat doesn't have to be reduced much.
...
Extended Range doesn't give near the advantage in MWO that it does in TT. So the cost in heat should not be as much either.

Agreed. No need to go overboard. I might make slightly larger tweaks than you (I'd reduce ERPPC heat to 10, for example), but I mean, that's what beta testing is for... if a number gets tweaked and the outcome isn't ideal, we just tweak it again. At this point I'd settle for any tweaking on the weapons in question... at least then the process will have begun.

ETA: I'd agree with your assessment, Lanessar. Joseph Mallan talks about the increase in fire rate per turn without a corresponding increase in heat dissipation per turn. I like his solution of increasing the rate of dissipation to match the decreased turn time, but I haven't really thought about the impact of doing so outside of PPCs. I also agree that the coming tweaks are necessary and will make the weapon more attractive.

Edited by FerretGR, 11 December 2012 - 02:18 PM.

[Lanessar]

FerretGR, on 11 December 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

ETA: I'd agree with your assessment, Lanessar. Joseph Mallan talks about the increase in fire rate per turn without a corresponding increase in heat dissipation per turn. I like his solution of increasing the rate of dissipation to match the decreased turn time, but I haven't really thought about the impact of doing so outside of PPCs. I also agree that the coming tweaks are necessary and will make the weapon more attractive.

My more radical suggestion would be pooh-poohed immediately. It would, however, make people carp their pants seeing a 9M on the field.

My more radical suggestion is just charge 10 heat per ten seconds and allow unlimited firing with a 2.5 second recharge for each PPC. I'm pretty sure that would make Gausskitties, streakcats and even lights run for the hills when they see a PPC awesome.

Edited by Lanessar, 11 December 2012 - 02:42 PM.