116 replies to this topic

[Freeride Forever]

I don't run gauss or PPC on anything, but this exclusionary post, like so many others, is essentially a waste of internets. The PPC doesn't require ammo, you can afford to miss with the PPC because you never run out've shots. Since it has a higher rate of fire, try losing the "alpha damage" focus & realize that a higher rate of fire makes a difference, especially if you miss. So run 2 PPCs & load more HS, or DHS. You can also use a PPC to help aim your gauss to avoid wasting it's precious ammo.

Only thing I saw as dumb about the PPC was the min range. Not sure if they still have that or not. PPCs are also supposed to have EMP effects. I figured if the PPC seemed weak it might be because those effects aren't implemented yet.

These selective posts have as much fundamental bias in them as one of my moms Christian preachings. You launch a complaint about how a GR stacks up against a PPC because why? Same projectile speed? How about the fact that a slot that accepts a 15 ton cannon also can only accept 1, 1/2 ton MG that would need a whole match to do half what a gauss can do in under a minute? No one's complaining about MG's anymore are they? Or its pointless energy equivalent for that matter.

For someone saying

Abrahms, on 04 December 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

We want all weapons to serve a purpose and place, why put them in the game otherwise?

it seems like you're QQing about an issue that, if an issue at all, is a comparatively small one. A PPC can supplement a gauss very nicely, it can also be brought along to support other primary weapons if there are a few tons/slots available on the mech. There's nothing wrong with a PPC just 'cuz it's not as effective as some other weapons for people that like to drive boats. If you're only going to run one kind of weapon, you should have to adapt to it's weaknesses to minimize the effects of them, while your opponents are trying to maximize those same effects. If you can't keep the weaknesses away from your opponents then maybe it's time to diversify.

Edited by Freeride Forever, 05 December 2012 - 01:09 PM.

[WardenWolf]

I will say that the build I have come back to consistently from the first game I played in closed Beta through to my latest D-DC setup with ECM is a pair of ERPPCs and a Gauss rifle. I love the complimentary nature: one has ammo, the other doesn't; one generates heat, the other doesn't; yet they both have roughly the same projectile speed and range, making aiming fell natural.

I'm actually worried that an upcoming buff to the speed of PPCs is going to hurt me by making the weapons feel more different in-game, though I suspect others will be glad of it:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1546429

Edited by WardenWolf, 05 December 2012 - 01:54 PM.

[Stabbitha]

DrAwkward, on 04 December 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

This thread is because you're mad Gauss Rifles got nerfed.

No, this thread is about a stupid change to try and make overly hot weapons more desirable by making a weapon that is working correctly undesirable...

Perhaps if you spend more time reading/comprehending and less time yawning/pontificating, you could have actually worked that out on your own.

The gauss is working almost exactly as it should, and as weapons get hotter, they get exponentially worse. The gauss is popular not because it's OP but because it is the only weapon that closely conforms to original tabletop stats in terms of heat buildup. So they try to make the gauss toxic in other ways to make it less attractive.

Vlad Ward, on 04 December 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

The problem is that many of those threads seem to call for a complete heat system overhaul when such a system wouldn't do anything to fix the fundamental, intentional imbalance of energy weapons. Want to lower the PPC's heat/shot? That's cool, man. Seriously. I'd be all for that. Same with the large laser. I may even support a damage/shot buff to both weapons (PPC 10>12 and LL 9>11) in addition to a heat decrease. But some of the suggestions I see in those massive threads are just not well thought out. As we saw with the doubled heat dissipation + halved heat capacity scenario, a minor buff to PPC DPS (and, honestly, a nerf to their precision) results in massively overpowering the already stronger SL/ML/MPLs.

It amazes me that people can state the problem exactly but be incapable of understanding why it is so...

True double heat sinks make small lasers far more effective because they are closer to heat neutrality than LL/PPCs etc because of increased rate of fire. The further you get from canon ROF, the worse high heat weapons get because it takes more and more sinks to keep them firing.

Nothing has fundamentally changed since the early posts on this issue when they started monkeying with ROF etc in closed beta and yet people still can't see what is blatantly obvious. High heat weapons are fundamentally flawed.

Heat per 10 seconds (firing every cooldown)
SL 8.9
ML 13.3
LL 21.5

ERLL 30.8

SPL 13.3
MPL 16.7
LPL 30.8

PPC 29.7
ERPPC 43.29
So for one single ERPPC doing 33 damage over 10 seconds, you could have 3 ML's doing 50 damage for slightly less heat and 4 extra heatsinks...

http://www.mwowiki.o...e:Weapons_Table

If the want ROF to be a fraction of the 10 seconds original time (for increased excitement or whathaveyou), divide the damage output and and the heat output at the same ratio. Balanced. Have slow fire heavy weapons and fast fire light weapons.

[RG Notch]

What boggles my mind is that the people who keep saying they have been pointing this out for months and it's not changing think that if they post it again suddenly PGI will realize how right they are and how simple the answer is and change it. Here's a clue, if its been mentioned for months and not changed and not even acknowledged in any meaningful way, then accept that's the way PGI is doing it and either move on or try to work with they way they are balancing it. Why would you expect them to suddenly realize you are so smart and have it all figured out now?
I'm not saying anything about the correctness of their stance, simply the consistency. There is clearly not going to be a major over haul to the Rof or heat system in general. They will keep tweaking individual weapons and systems to try to find the balance they want. Right or wrong that is what they clearly intend. No matter how much math you use, no matter how many times you post it or how many people like your posts or what not, at this juncture, after all these months it's clear they aren't listening to you.
So continue to bang on about how right you are and they will continue to ignore you. Better to try and work within their system, what ever the flaws then to waste your time reposting the same arguments they have ignore before.
Again, not saying they are right, but I am saying that is what they believe is right and how they are going about balancing.

[GaussDragon]

Aegis Kleais, on 04 December 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Balance is never a "we got it perfectly right on the first try", and you haven't even given the current implementation a full day of public testing. I know a lot of people talk as if balancing is as simple as doing a 1:1 port of Table Top rules to MWO, but it just isn't.

I think the calls for the 1:1 TT port have finally died down now that the rest of the community has shown its collective reasoning skills by totally shi tting on the people who made that tired argument over and over. These days, anyone caught doing that gets called out and (rightfully) shamed for being such an idio t. A year ago, this forum was dominated by a very vocal group of 'purists' who insisted on it being their way and nothing else. Thankfully, the arrival of beta has delivered us a substantial boost of players with observational skills. Thank god.

EDIT: Though, I agree with OP on a fundamental level: the PPC sucks. But I'll worry more about balance once the entire arsenal is in. Once that happens, I definitely want this game to be balanced, no question. However, I think these discussions are a little bit premature considering the current netcode completely rapes balance anyway.

Edited by GaussDragon, 05 December 2012 - 03:36 PM.

[Belorion]

Just because a hand full of people can't manage their heat, it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the way heat is implemented. It is supposed to be difficult to manage your heat.

[Aegis Kleais]

GaussDragon, on 05 December 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

I think the calls for the 1:1 TT port have finally died down now that the rest of the community has shown its collective reasoning skills by totally shi tting on the people who made that tired argument over and over. These days, anyone caught doing that gets called out and (rightfully) shamed for being such an idio t. A year ago, this forum was dominated by a very vocal group of 'purists' who insisted on it being their way and nothing else. Thankfully, the arrival of beta has delivered us a substantial boost of players with observational skills. Thank god.

True enough.

I'm all for respecting traditions, but this game is going from one of heck a medium change from table top to real-time simulation. Something had to give, and I'm glad it did.

[Stabbitha]

RG Notch, on 05 December 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

What boggles my mind is that the people who keep saying they have been pointing this out for months and it's not changing think that if they post it again suddenly PGI will realize how right they are and how simple the answer is and change it. Here's a clue, if its been mentioned for months and not changed and not even acknowledged in any meaningful way, then accept that's the way PGI is doing it and either move on or try to work with they way they are balancing it. Why would you expect them to suddenly realize you are so smart and have it all figured out now?
I'm not saying anything about the correctness of their stance, simply the consistency. There is clearly not going to be a major over haul to the Rof or heat system in general. They will keep tweaking individual weapons and systems to try to find the balance they want. Right or wrong that is what they clearly intend. No matter how much math you use, no matter how many times you post it or how many people like your posts or what not, at this juncture, after all these months it's clear they aren't listening to you.
So continue to bang on about how right you are and they will continue to ignore you. Better to try and work within their system, what ever the flaws then to waste your time reposting the same arguments they have ignore before.
Again, not saying they are right, but I am saying that is what they believe is right and how they are going about balancing.

So your solution to an obvious problem is to accept it rather than joining the crowd of people trying to get a positive change...

The only point, given the current strategy, where high heat weapons will be viable again is when every good alternative is tainted. Gauss are now risky to run, SSRM's are foiled to a certain extent by ECM, similarly LRM's etc. Trial mechs are, by and large, a joke. Default configs of hero mechs are a joke (Ilya Muromets, which is a non-canon variant, is really bad... srsly, no heatsink in the extra engine slot??).

When all weapons are made equally bad, will you still be as sanguine/apathetic?

[GaussDragon]

Aegis Kleais, on 05 December 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

True enough.

I'm all for respecting traditions, but this game is going from one of heck a medium change from table top to real-time simulation. Something had to give, and I'm glad it did.

I'd like to point out I'm a fan of your letter grade rating of MWO. I'd probably give the visuals a bit higher of rating (they're the game's strongest point) and I'd give the netcode below an F if I could. Hell, I give anything server-authoritative an F on principle alone.

Edited by GaussDragon, 05 December 2012 - 03:40 PM.

[Aegis Kleais]

GaussDragon, on 05 December 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

I'd like to point out I'm a fan of your letter grade rating of MWO. I'd probably give the visuals a bit higher of rating (they're the game's strongest point) and I'd give the netcode below an F if I could. Hell, I give anything server-authoritative an F on principle alone.

lol.

MWO definitely has great visuals; their models are beautiful and nicely textured as well. I think what can help bring this game up into the rafters of an 'A' is to start adding visual effects that help sell the sensation of me being in the actual game world. Shadows moving across my instrument panels, raindrops cascading down my cockpit (as opposed to my visor earlier in the game, which didn't make sense unless I had a big hole in my mech), etc. That kinda stuff, you know.

And yeah, that netcode is just ugh right now. I'm SO afraid of dealing with Jenners and lights and SO frustrated when they run around taking me apart piece by piece while my shots that hit them don't even register. I sometimes feel like a good netcode in this game will never see the light of day.

[GaussDragon]

Aegis Kleais, on 05 December 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

lol.

MWO definitely has great visuals; their models are beautiful and nicely textured as well.

This could explain why I'm a huge fan of Alex's work. That and perhaps the fact that every time I see/talk to him, the words "Nova" and "Cat" are mentioned. A bit of fandom and ulterior motive.

Aegis Kleais, on 05 December 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

I think what can help bring this game up into the rafters of an 'A' is to start adding visual effects that help sell the sensation of me being in the actual game world. Shadows moving across my instrument panels, raindrops cascading down my cockpit (as opposed to my visor earlier in the game

That would all be pretty neat if I could actually focus on it and other visuals more, and not the component called Guardian LAG that has been in the game since day 1.

Aegis Kleais, on 05 December 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

I sometimes feel like a good netcode in this game will never see the light of day.

They're insisting on sticking with server-side, that's probably why you're getting that feeling.

[RG Notch]

Stabbitha, on 05 December 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

So your solution to an obvious problem is to accept it rather than joining the crowd of people trying to get a positive change...

The only point, given the current strategy, where high heat weapons will be viable again is when every good alternative is tainted. Gauss are now risky to run, SSRM's are foiled to a certain extent by ECM, similarly LRM's etc. Trial mechs are, by and large, a joke. Default configs of hero mechs are a joke (Ilya Muromets, which is a non-canon variant, is really bad... srsly, no heatsink in the extra engine slot??).

When all weapons are made equally bad, will you still be as sanguine/apathetic?

What crowd? Seriously people get out of the echo chamber. Like I said keep banging your head pointlessly against a wall and accomplish nothing. Please point one time the devs have ever acknowledge any issue with the entire system or about adjusting RoF globally? They are happy with the system and are going to tweak individual weapons as evidenced by the dev reply in this very thread. Even when massive uproar about 3rd person appeared it didn't stop them from working on it, they just don't talk about it now. IF you think there is even close to that amount of people who are pushing for a total heat revamp I encourage you to post a poll and see how many votes you get. Other than that issue the forums are pretty much apathetic, even the over priced paint scheme didn't get a lot of traction. Better to try to work with them to do something to fix the system than keep posting the same stuff for months and accomplish a whole lot of nothing. Is it ideal? No but those seem to be your options. So good luck with your massive forum uproar that is making them rethink their entire system.

Edited by RG Notch, 05 December 2012 - 03:53 PM.

[Kyrie]

Aegis,

Your eval of MWO in your sig is pretty harsh :-). The netcode isn't quite F level. I'd day C-. It sort of works, most of the time with glaring exceptions.

[Aegis Kleais]

Kyrie, on 05 December 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

Aegis,

Your eval of MWO in your sig is pretty harsh :-). The netcode isn't quite F level. I'd day C-. It sort of works, most of the time with glaring exceptions.

Sorry, I would have responded to you quicker, but I only get notified if people quote me.

Well, it might seem that ways, and to each their own if you feel the grades should be higher/lower in other areas, but MWO, as much as I love MW, is in a semi-rough condition. Its technical stability is particularly irksome as of late, but, hey, it's Beta, so we stick with it.

The guys at PGI have nailed down the core essence of MW, IMO, and they are moving in the right direction (so chances are, these grades are gonna keep going up). We just all are impatient and want them to be further along than they are; heck I even think THEY want that too.

As for the 'F' on netcode, you got to remember, that's subjective. You might have a COMPLETELY different experience with the netcode compared to me. I mean, I know it's not an issue of low bandwidth; I play the game with a 25Mbps down and 3.5Mbps up connection, usually pinging in the area of 60-80ms. And my shots register as I expect on larger, slower mechs just fine (very VERY rarely they don't, but usually the game is hiccuping at the moment). Hopefully their upcoming revisions will show some marked improvements; I don't like seeing an 'F' there any more than they probably do, but I had to be true about it and pull no stops.

[Kyrie]

Aegis Kleais, on 05 December 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

Sorry, I would have responded to you quicker, but I only get notified if people quote me.

Well, it might seem that ways, and to each their own if you feel the grades should be higher/lower in other areas, but MWO, as much as I love MW, is in a semi-rough condition. Its technical stability is particularly irksome as of late, but, hey, it's Beta, so we stick with it.

The guys at PGI have nailed down the core essence of MW, IMO, and they are moving in the right direction (so chances are, these grades are gonna keep going up). We just all are impatient and want them to be further along than they are; heck I even think THEY want that too.

As for the 'F' on netcode, you got to remember, that's subjective. You might have a COMPLETELY different experience with the netcode compared to me. I mean, I know it's not an issue of low bandwidth; I play the game with a 25Mbps down and 3.5Mbps up connection, usually pinging in the area of 60-80ms. And my shots register as I expect on larger, slower mechs just fine (very VERY rarely they don't, but usually the game is hiccuping at the moment). Hopefully their upcoming revisions will show some marked improvements; I don't like seeing an 'F' there any more than they probably do, but I had to be true about it and pull no stops.

I agree that there are serious problems. A few patches ago there was a video that illustrated just how badly broken it was: in it the mech pilot scored the kill shot on a jenner with lasers leading the target so far ahead he was shooting at blank white space, easily 4-5 jenner lengths ahead of the target. It has improved a bit since then I think.

[Aegis Kleais]

Kyrie, on 05 December 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

I agree that there are serious problems. A few patches ago there was a video that illustrated just how badly broken it was: in it the mech pilot scored the kill shot on a jenner with lasers leading the target so far ahead he was shooting at blank white space, easily 4-5 jenner lengths ahead of the target. It has improved a bit since then I think.

If they fix up the hitboxes on all mechs, no matter what size/speed, I could easily see the 'F' turn towards a C or B. Part of the netcode judges how reliable their matchmaking services are, and those have been kinda spotty at times, even for being on production servers.

I wonder if the production servers are fine handling the load, and it's just the code that's causing the issues?

[Kyrie]

Aegis Kleais, on 05 December 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

If they fix up the hitboxes on all mechs, no matter what size/speed, I could easily see the 'F' turn towards a C or B. Part of the netcode judges how reliable their matchmaking services are, and those have been kinda spotty at times, even for being on production servers.

I wonder if the production servers are fine handling the load, and it's just the code that's causing the issues?

One thing is for sure, when its finally all fixed and working proper... lights are in for a very brilliant shock. :-)

[Aegis Kleais]

Kyrie, on 05 December 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

One thing is for sure, when its finally all fixed and working proper... lights are in for a very brilliant shock. :-)

Hell yes, my brother, I will raise a glass to that! The golden age will come CRASHING down, and light mechs are going to choke the battlefields with their wreckage.

[Stabbitha]

Aegis Kleais, on 05 December 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

True enough.

I'm all for respecting traditions, but this game is going from one of heck a medium change from table top to real-time simulation. Something had to give, and I'm glad it did.

The fall down is accuracy.

TT rules are balanced around weighted randomisation. Skill etc modify your chances but ultimately your hit/miss is determined by dice. I've never played a TT game where an alpha strike all hit the same location.

Add some level of randomisation (ie. reticule bloom based on what you are doing). Keep canon heat, adjust ROF for the size of the weapon. If the refire is less than 10 seconds, divide canon damage and heat output by the same amount (so output per 10 seconds is the same). Oh yeah, and add in heat related performance impairment as you climb the heat scale, rather than making it inconsequential as long as you don't shut down.

Once you do the above, adjust armour to give desired time to kill (TTK). If a weapon is over/under performing at this level, tweak grouping (lrm's/srms/streaks/lbx), secondary effects (PPC EM disrupt, AC rocking the target mech) or travel time (AC's and PPC's).

I'm not saying (and have never said) that TT is perfectly balanced, Solaris rules with faster ROF demonstrated that perfectly. But they are adhering to canon values in certain areas and ignoring them in others. They did the lazy (and ironically the hardest) option, took some of the values and tossed the rest which resulted in the current imbalance.

And if anyone thinks that things are fine as is, go drive a stock Awesome 9M for a while... Lemme know how that works out for ya...

http://mwomercs.com/...en-heat-system/

= P

[Aegis Kleais]

Stabbitha, on 05 December 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

The fall down is accuracy.

TT rules are balanced around weighted randomisation. Skill etc modify your chances but ultimately your hit/miss is determined by dice. I've never played a TT game where an alpha strike all hit the same location.

Add some level of randomisation (ie. reticule bloom based on what you are doing). Keep canon heat, adjust ROF for the size of the weapon. If the refire is less than 10 seconds, divide canon damage and heat output by the same amount (so output per 10 seconds is the same). Oh yeah, and add in heat related performance impairment as you climb the heat scale, rather than making it inconsequential as long as you don't shut down.

Once you do the above, adjust armour to give desired time to kill (TTK). If a weapon is over/under performing at this level, tweak grouping (lrm's/srms/streaks/lbx), secondary effects (PPC EM disrupt, AC rocking the target mech) or travel time (AC's and PPC's).

I'm not saying (and have never said) that TT is perfectly balanced, Solaris rules with faster ROF demonstrated that perfectly. But they are adhering to canon values in certain areas and ignoring them in others. They did the lazy (and ironically the hardest) option, took some of the values and tossed the rest which resulted in the current imbalance.

And if anyone thinks that things are fine as is, go drive a stock Awesome 9M for a while... Lemme know how that works out for ya...

http://mwomercs.com/...en-heat-system/

= P

That sounds like PGI's stance in part. Start OFF with TT values, but then just adjust where needed. Of course, they're still in the midst of balancing, so something they've already adjusted might be revisited down the line.

I've never been a fan off dice rolling. I'll always choose skill over luck. The former requires time and effort to acquire, and the latter is so fleeting, it's about as reliable a lotto scratch-off.