Zelda Dislikes PPCs

Can you post a link to the build (or at least mention which variant it is)?

Avacado, I guess that's a fair point, but most people at that point would just opt for something that can go faster and put in a bigger engine with more DHS. Why go in with 9 MLs if you're only going to use 4 at a time? Instead, get a Trebuchet 5J and go in with 5 MLs, jump jets, and a bigger engine.

 

This is the build, I also made it a Link in my post:
http://www.mechspecs.com/showthread.php?1571-TBT-7K-quot-L-C-B-quot-%28ER-L-GAUSS-AMS-99-8-kph%29&p=9321#post9321

 

2 comments to this:
1) That's the point, isn't it? To get away from the uber alpha pinpoint builds as much as possible. If this made the meta go in the direction you've mentioned, then that would appear (at least on its face) to be a good thing.

2) You don't completely shut down the ability to alpha, it just becomes more of a gamble so people should save it for a critical point in a duel rather than spamming it every time it's available. Make it so alternating is sustainable, and an alpha here and there is not crippling, but only alphaing every chance you get becomes a bad idea. That seems (to me) like the goal that would strike a happy medium.

I would actually argue that this is very much different from the x6 ERPPC build that started the thread.

 

Is it indeed ? Maybe in design, but not in substance. It puts as much large guns on as it can reasonably carry, although there would be room for some small ones as well. But there just is no point in adding those to the arsenal - dead weight, much better spent for heat sinks or ammo.

 

Nah, this is as many big guns as you could fit when you take heat out of the equation (note - this was slapdash and could most likely be tweaked to actually be somewhat viable... ):

http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=62&l=ff93af7a2866c72c416f95f3e5c4da131832d088

 

You can raise the Cool Efficiency from 29% to 30% but that is the best you can do with the 3x ERPPC and AMS+1 Ton Ammo. You simply run out of free critical spaces.

http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=62&l=61210cc3e1b6d3fd4643b29e8f6fe50a5ad5dbdc

The best way to do it would be to drop from ERPPCs to straight PPCs.

What?!?!?! I'm just throwing in my .02

 

The Gauss rifle is heavy, but it is very low in heat. This is why Gauss + PPC combinations are so powerful (might be possible on a 50-ton mech with a 255 XL). However, what you will notice with your build is that you need to maintain a second on target to use the ER LL, and you're leading the two weapons differently. A 3xPPC build means you aim, shoot, and then leave. At almost 100 kph you could easily duck behind cover long enough to cool off. You might not do as much sustained DPS, but your damage is all pinpoint and you have a lot more safety with it. So Marec, your build is better balanced in terms of damage potential, but it is less capable of using defensive maneuvers.

Killer, on 1) the goal isn't to make high-alpha builds bad. The goal is that if you are able to play defensively and retain full output, you are less capable of dealing output while tunnel-visioning on damage, but if you require more time-on-target to be effective, you are able to make use of that time. While I agree with higher penalties for overheating and higher heat on PPCs, I disagree with making riding high heat a problem, which a lot of people seem to think should happen.

On 2), the 4P would be built with a burst-and-defend strategy. Remember, the high alpha isn't going to melt through a component before you starting hitting the heat threshold (if armor is increased), meaning you could choose between using your alphas and playing defensively, or going for something with less MLs and more DHS that will give you more time on target.

My goal wouldn't be to nerf high alphas by making them bad, but rather to make sustained DPS a more appealing alternative.

 

Sorry, I did not intend to highjack this threat for a discussion about my build, I meant this as an example, that just adding a heat penalty doesn't mean you change the way you set up a mech (as an alpha build, rather than a dps build).

The one big issue that prevents DPS from being as useful as Alpha is: As it is, you'll always loose a lot of damage. Some of the shots will go wild. Some will hit other areas of the target. Some might miss because you and your target have different pings.
All of this means, that your "10 DPS" will rather be "5 real DPS" or so.
Unless you enter some skill or equipment that permitts players to keep a lock on a particular body part (like Streaks, for example) you're loosing so much damage that you just go back to your Alpha builds:
Aim straight and squeeze off the shot, then you hit, no matter wether you slide down a ledge afterwards, or the target spidermech goes apeshit on his jump jets, zooming around at 150 kph.

 

It was in context with the comparison between your build and a PPC boat (which I feel at the 50-60 ton level, 3 PPCs is a good amount).

Yep, this is what basically ended up being the point of my thread on how to effectively deal damage. A pinpoint alpha of PPCs and slow ballistics means you shoot and then have 4 seconds to maneuver before incurring a DPS loss. I think if the shock weren't there and the light-and-fast were able to sustain, those big hits would still be good, but people would be more likely to opt for faster hitting weapons.

Ballistics will always be tricky because of their low heat, though.

 

You guys are missing the real problem. People are boring assholes.

They just want to win and there's no incentive for creativity for uncreative boring assholes.

4 LL, 6 ER PPC, 3 PPC, 2 ER PPC-Gauss sniper, 6x SSRM2, blaaaaah

And here I come with my 3x SSRM2 for close quarters fighting, UAC5 for ranged and main dps finished off by a pair of medium lasers to complete the package on my CN9-A.... Except what's the use when I'm just gimping myself vs 5 LL Stalker or 4 LL Cataphract. Or any other boat.

Its a game built around alpha strike and the more similar your weapons are the easier / better your alphas are to pull off with consistent range and damage.

Like I've said before, limit weapons per chassis which would make mechs even more unique. Like only the Awesome can equip 3 PPC's where as Stalkers can only fit 2 PPC's so it has to add a variety of smaller weapons to fill up the tonnage.

It would make sense when you take into account the physical space of the mech designs and bring unique stats to certain mechs. I love Awesomes but they're not nearly as popular as other assaults, if they have the unique ability to equip 3 PPC's they would be.

Gauss Rifle drains too much energy from the reactor, can't fire it at the same time as energy weapons. Oh noz no poptart alphas.

It would increase the skill involved with keeping shots on target and balancing weapons to keep a healthy variety to constantly chain fire as heat allows and make things less burst more attrition.

 

I don't think limiting alphas is the answer, though. I think making high-alpha builds the only way to play is the problem, but taking away the option entirely would go too far in the other direction.

I don't think the problem is that people are boring or uncreative. It's that in this game (like many, many, many games), 99.9% of builds that are built for "creativity," "balance," "utility," or "personal choice" usually end up being bad. I've seen it when I played Diablo 2 and better articulated it in MMOs. Giving players more choices doesn't mean you give them more competitive options. Usually it means you're giving them more opportunities to be bad.

Rarely does Build A = Build B = Build C. Usually Build A > Build B >>>>>> Build C. When Build D is added, it is usually either >>Build A, thus either doing nothing for the balance or tipping the balance further. Very rare is it for multiple options to be even on close footing with each other. I'd like to see a game where options have legitimate pros and cons, instead of "well, this is better in theory, but in reality you should just go big alpha." Getting rid of alpha strikes is like getting rid of Build A. I'd rather bump Build B up a bit and Build C up a lot so they're all good options.

 

Didn't watch the vid.

But yeah. Good thoughts, cept for the hunchback hijack for a grip [lookin @ u Marec]. I still maintain that it's just an issue of other weapons not being fun+good enough... yet.

The video was boring and I'm an uncreative asshole? I'm just looking for things to take offense at, I'm kidding. Sorta.

No, but seriously. I don't get that comment. How can you extrapolate stuff like 'creativity' out of a build someone runs. Have some perspective for a sec - maybe they play a poptart in a creative way. Derp, there goes that subjective bullshit of an angle.

 

Soy, it's the cookie-cutter vs. personalization idea. Most gamers want to play the game THEIR way and not be pidgeonholed into specific builds. Just like how most teenagers want to be different so they get their face pierced. Then when they need to be competitive (for victory in-game or for a job in-real-life), they realise that maybe conformity with the cookie-cuter would have been better. This usually manifests in both scenarios as the "individual" person attributing blame either correctly to the system or incorrectly to the individual who has success. I actually have coworkers who tell me that I must not know much about life because I haven't made many mistakes to learn from (I don't have any stories about being arrested, waking up in random places with no idea how I got there, etc). Similarly, someone who plays this game with "creative" builds can either A) conform and go cookie cutter, B) call people who use cookie cutter builds names, or C) complain about balance. I choose A and C, although B is also fun

In a video game it would be nice if there weren't a whole lot of tantalizing "bad" options out there. I brought it up in my other thread - it shouldn't be that AC/20 is always better than 2xUAC/5. That's how it is in-game. 2xUAC/5 is better on paper, 1xAC/20 is better in practice. Creativity largely goes out the window when your build plan basically involves how to most effectively mount Gauss+PPC.

 

Soy that wasn't directed at you specifically or the video. Its just my thoughts on the meta being like previous MW titles of boating and alpha'ing. Everyone just being boring and uncreative. Hell I ran my cataphract 3D with 4 LL because its the only way to compete so I was a boring asshole too.

 

I also choose A and C like Skribs posted. The whole point of the mechlab is the ability to fully customize and tweak your mechs to your heart's content but really its just slapping on as many of one type of weapon as you can fit.

That takes a big dump on that entire part of the game for me. Big massive war machines that can leap 120 meters at a time while storming across battlefields at 86 kph. Armed with a large laser and a large laser and a large laser and a large laser and a large laser and a large laser. The mechlab is especially unrewarding besides having to conform because most of my matches if I don't take a meta-mech and try to carry the PUG I'm going to have a miserable time.

There's no room for tinkering and tweaking unique builds.

 

I will point out that its possible to have success with non-meta builds, but by and large that success requires a combination of very specific tactics and luck. I've found that more defensive builds (i.e. zombies with shield arms) tend to get cored CT pretty quick in the sniper/missile meta, and high-TOT-high-DPS builds only work if you can get a lot of time on target without them attacking you.

I'm currently working on 3 Centurions and 1 Trebuchet (all elited, working on master). I have a CN9-A Zombie, a CN9-D with AC/2, SSRMs and MLs, and a YLW with AC/20, and then my TBT-5N LRM dinghy. My CN9-A can do well if the enemy is retarded. If they know what a zombie build is they can easily focus my CT and take me down. My CN9-D does great against enemies that either don't focus me or don't know how to torso twist, but is pretty dismal otherwise. My Trebuchet is great if I can keep the enemy in range, but is terrible against snipers (king of meta right now) and lights. Only my Yen-Lo is consistently good whether or not the enemy is, because I can generally hit them pretty hard before losing an arm.

In the examples above, you can see how both playstyle (knowing how to effectively use the build) and luck (going against enemies who don't know how to effectively fight your build) play into whether or not I win.

 

A good analogy with current meta is imagine Ironman, but having 4-6 chest energy beams instead of any other weapon. No micro missiles no hand blaster things no nothing. Its his most powerful attack why have anything else?

Or predator with just 6 shoulder cannons. Waddles around alpha striking, no need for claws, spear, discus or net launcher etc.

Imagine how dull those movies would be.

This game needs to cater to all weapons and builds somehow.

 

I've actually suggested power requirements for weapons matched against whatever power a specific engine puts out and then the pilot/tech can assign priority to each weapon in terms of its' charge rating.

In the Blood of Kerensky series Rhyanna is talking with Phelan about his fight with Vlad and it goes something like (paraphrase) "Vlad tried to fire everything he had however due to the enormous power requirements of (whatever weapon) the combat computer had to cycle the weapons in order of priority".

Basically this would prevent 6 PPCs from going off at once or 2 gauss rifles from going off at once. You would assign a priority number to your weapons and that is how your onboard reactor would feed power to launch/discharge/fire/whatever each weapon system.

"But but but that won't work because PPCs have a capacitor they draw power from"

Ok, I have a way around that too... Consecutive Recharge versus Concurrent Recharge like we have now. A PPC has a 4 second cooldown right? So it would look like...

4 seconds > CHARGED... 4 seconds > CHARGED... 4 seconds > CHARGED... etc. etc. Essentially it would take 24 seconds to recharge all 6 of the PPCs. Or you could fire 2 PPC after 8 seconds, or 3 PPC after 12 seconds etc. The reason for this is because the fusion reactor can only put out so much power. It can't simply maintain normal operations and "refill" the capacitor of all 6 PPCs.

What would all this do? It would force people to use a variety of weapons.

Why? Because LRM launchers require a fraction of the power needed for PPC, Ballistics require a fraction of the power required for a Large Laser. PPC and Gauss Rifles draw enormous power requirements and thus would have the most determent to mounting more than 1 or 2.

Those were my thoughts and so far they fall upon deaf ears.

 

I had a good post talking about burst vs sustained damage, especially dealing with PPCs on another thread. I'll highlight the main thoughts here:

I don't think Gauss rifles are nearly so much a part of the problem as PPCs (or other energy weapons):

I've got another perspective to add to the discussion. One of the most effective tactics in MWO (really any team game) is focus-firing. What boating does is artificially allow a single mech to focus-fire.

Let's consider the case of a first-person shooter. Some weapons are more powerful than others, but ultimately each player can only wield one at a time (even if they can carry more than one). A player can get the big, nasty sniper rifle or heavy machine gun, but they only carry one.

In MWO a player can get the sniper rifle or heavy machine gun (ERPPC, Gauss, AC20) can use more than one at a time.

A team made up of mechs with a varied loadout of weapons may bring the same overall firepower to a fight. Assume both teams have 16 PPCs total, one has 2x on each mech, and the other puts 4x on 4 mechs. The available PPC firepower is equal. But the team with 4x PPC can focus-fire and coordinate their attacks much easier.



So long as the gamemodes are basically single-spawn Deathmatch boating tactics will be effective. I'd much rather see refinements and more game modes rather than drastic changes to alpha-strikes like charging rates and power ratings.

 

That's exactly what I'm talking about Michael.

It's from that Trial of Position in the novel that made it clear to me how these energy-greedy weapons should work.

Even shunting power from a light mech's engine to be able to fire a gauss or PPC that would slow it down temporarily.

Adding recoil to ballistics would be another mechanic to prevent ballistic boating. 6 AC2 Jager? Multiplitive recoil times six = HUD jolting around too much to hit broadside of a barn. Double AC20? Mech should swing wildly and be off target for a couple seconds to regain control.

Missiles should be limited to how many tubes you have period. No LRM20 from NARC tubes. If you have 3 missile slots but 10 tubes in chest the biggest LRM you can mount is 1 LRM10 or two LRM5.


And then we had balance...