Thank you for proving my point that you have absolutely no sodding idea of what balance is, and simply want to hate on energy weapons.
A broken heat system harms the entire game. I’m sorry you’re incapable of understanding that.
Energy vs Ballistic
- Thread starter Wenatchee Willie
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Thank you for proving my point that you have absolutely no sodding idea of what balance is, and simply want to hate on energy weapons.
A broken heat system harms the entire game. I’m sorry you’re incapable of understanding that.
I mean, you said it yourself; the Awesome's alpha with those PPCs is 150 damage. You think it's fine to do that every turn without heat concerns because a Cent kitted for fire support can kick out 105.
Why is this a good paradigm?
Energy weapons have the largest possible burst damage without needing to worry about ammunition, while being comparatively light weaponry to mount. Saying they should also be heat efficient is ridiculous. They would eclipse all other armaments and render it pointless to bother trying to fit ballistics if they didn't require heat management.
Why is this a good paradigm?
Energy weapons have the largest possible burst damage without needing to worry about ammunition, while being comparatively light weaponry to mount. Saying they should also be heat efficient is ridiculous. They would eclipse all other armaments and render it pointless to bother trying to fit ballistics if they didn't require heat management.
On the contrary, changes in the combat mechanics make it incredibly easy to concoct the new meta and design accordingly.
I simply hate a design concept that fundamentally cripples a significant portion of an equipment category while simultaneously allowing others to overperform.
I want a design framework where every weapon, from the SL and SRM2 all the way up to the PPC and AC/20 are viable and have a place on non-niche builds. Until heat gets sorted out, that’s not going to happen.
They are perfectly viable. You just can't boat & alpha them like you can in TT. Different doesn't translate in useless.
Are you playing tabletop games without enough terrain or something? Don't blame the Awesomes, blame the battlefield.
Seriously though, I've never had a problem against Awesomes on TT, and rarely if ever fielded them.
What I think is sadder is that the iconic 3 PPC version is rubbish in this game, but this version:
AWS-8T
is incredibly effective.
EDIT: Autocorrect fail
Stop putting words in my mouth.
For the second time: asking for heat balance is not remotely wanting to stand and blast with every barrel of every weapon every turn without concern.
An Awesome gets one Alpha Strike in a battle. One. It’s a specialist unit that is neutered because heat doesn’t allow it to actually use its gear without taking damage.
A unit half it’s size, kitted for the same role, using non-energy weapons is capable of outperforming the Awesome. That’s broken balance.
The funny thing is here, you’re makeing claims about what energy weapons would be, without seeming to realize that at present ballistic weapons already do all of this. They do more damage, at better ranges, for less heat, while imparting significant instability. Their only weakness at present is ammunition dependency, which is only a concern for the AC20.
Also please show me the energy weapons that can out-damage an AC10 or AC20.
The biggest disadvantage to AC/2's and 5's plus PPC, is in the beginning of the game. Your pilots simply don't have the gunnery to make up for the minimum distance penalty. Since ranges in the start are pretty close from what I've seen on the streams, due to large number of lights, vehicles and medium mech's that closes very fast. Add the penalty to AC's for firing twice in a row, and they are simply not worth their tonnage, as you will likely face very low percentages to hit. Later on, you don't want AC/2's because they don't pack a punch, while AC/5's might be useful in conjunction with a PPC on a medium later on. LRM's are the exception regarding minimum distance. They don't heat as much, each missile gets a ToHit and the in-direct fire is gold.
As soon as possible at start, I will equip my Blackjack with 2xLL, 2xML, strip the jump-jets and throw in a bunch of HS. Reason being, that I won't be firing those AC/2's close up anyways, leaving me with 4ML's in stock build. My approach will have more firepower up close and long range compared to stock, while not being totally heat neutral, it just means that sometimes I will have to forego firing one or two ML's, and still have the same firepower as a stock BlackJack (which will also build up a lot of heat just from 4ML's and less HS)
As soon as possible at start, I will equip my Blackjack with 2xLL, 2xML, strip the jump-jets and throw in a bunch of HS. Reason being, that I won't be firing those AC/2's close up anyways, leaving me with 4ML's in stock build. My approach will have more firepower up close and long range compared to stock, while not being totally heat neutral, it just means that sometimes I will have to forego firing one or two ML's, and still have the same firepower as a stock BlackJack (which will also build up a lot of heat just from 4ML's and less HS)
No, ballistics don't actually do more damage in practice, because you can't actually fit more than 1-2 onto a mech until you get into Assault builds. Yeah, in abstract on a spreadsheet they have higher damage - that doesn't matter when a single AC/5 or AC/10 eats all of your available weight, whereas 2-3 PPCs or LLAS will fit into the same platform.
I mean, check the number of autocannons you can mount on a Shadow Hawk or Vindicator. Now check the number of PPCs or LLAS you can fit. Compare the alpha damage. Which one wins, if we assume heat being no object? And that's totally better balance, definitely.
The story becomes different when you have an Atlas or King Crab or Awesome and then AC/20s can be mounted on platforms with much more available tonnage... but I just don't even care. The fact that PPCs & LLAS are mid game sniping weapons instead of lategame facerolling weapons doesn't make them broken, and people that are butthurt that the old Awesome cheese is dead have no business talking about game balance.
I want to see you put three PPCs on a Shadow Hawk. I really do. You’ll hit 90 heat on the first volley, unless of course you don’t shed your 7 tons of armor for additional heatsinks.
Can you record video of that please?
It's pretty clear that the PPC and LL put out too much heat. If HBS doesn't fix it I'll very likely mod those weapons to product less heat shortly after release. I'm also not convinced the damage is quite high enough either.... but the heat definitely needs to come down.
Also the AC/10 should have 10 ammo per ton. 8 is just silly
Also the AC/10 should have 10 ammo per ton. 8 is just silly
You can run 3xAC/5 or 3xLL without overheating at roughly similar tonnage, and pretty similar output. They seem fairly well balanced to me.
With sustainable heat levels the PPC did just fine at 50 damage in the beta v2 context. It’s instability and imparted accuracy debuff did a lot of heavy lifting.
Agreed on the LL. It was quite lackluster even at cooler levels.
Currently the best use I can see for a PPC is bracket builds. Use the PPC to snipe prior to reaching the next bracket. Next bracket could be mlas or arms depending upon mech hardpoints etc.
I do agree though that the awesome 3 PPC gameplay should feel similar to TT in terms of how long you can sustain firing. I don't say that because I'm a fan of the awesome, but because I don't like iconic designs being useless due to game design issues in the new iteration of the game.
I'm not sure where the answer on PPC rebalance will end up, but I would be hopeful they adjust heat down even if that means they adjust damage or some other feature down a bit. For those who simply see this as being an issue for awesome a consider the 2 highly popular iconic unseen mechs. If they make it into the game and the issue of PPC heat is still where it is you won't see people keeping those 2 PPC builds. You will see folks dropping dual ppcs builds on the curb and looking to use at least one of those hardpoints in another way.
I do agree though that the awesome 3 PPC gameplay should feel similar to TT in terms of how long you can sustain firing. I don't say that because I'm a fan of the awesome, but because I don't like iconic designs being useless due to game design issues in the new iteration of the game.
I'm not sure where the answer on PPC rebalance will end up, but I would be hopeful they adjust heat down even if that means they adjust damage or some other feature down a bit. For those who simply see this as being an issue for awesome a consider the 2 highly popular iconic unseen mechs. If they make it into the game and the issue of PPC heat is still where it is you won't see people keeping those 2 PPC builds. You will see folks dropping dual ppcs builds on the curb and looking to use at least one of those hardpoints in another way.
But that's precisely the point - you can't, because heat gates you from doing it, because if it didn't then PPCs & LLAS would be way too good. Thus my caveat, 'if heat was no object'.
I'll just use a BJ-1 as a baseline example, since it has a good mix of HP to play with and is in the HBS game:
BALLISTIC BJ-1
1x AC/5 (40 DMG)
1x AC/2 (25 DMG)
2x MLAS (50 DMG)
115 DMG Alpha
ENERGY BJ-1
2x PPC (100 DMG)
1x LLAS (40 DMG)
1x MLAS (25 DMG)
165 DMG Alpha
Gee whiz, which of those is better?
And of course you will say, 'BUT YOU CAN'T ALPHA WITH THAT ENERGY BUILD BECAUSE IT WILL MELT DOWN!' and I will say of course. This is why heat works the way it does - because if it didn't, you'd be a fool not to just boat energy all the time, because look at that damage. It's not even a contest.
Let's examine that first, a Jagermech with stock armour, 3x AC/5 an enough ammo to last a long time looks like this:
JM6-S
and is heat neutral if it doesn't add its medium lasers to its shot.
While one with 3 large lasers looks like this:
JM6-S
and still gains 6 heat when it alphas.
The AC/5 Jager also has 2 medium lasers on top for a better alpha or to shoot at short range.
Tale of 2 Mechs
Both 50 tons, 4/6, with 7.5 tons armor. Same range, minimum range, and almost same damage.
Mech 1: 2 AC-5 w/2 tons ammo, 2 ML, with 4 tons leftover for whatever. Hunchback 4G maybe.
Mech 2: 2 PPC, 2 ML, 8 tons heat sinks and still not enough to keep it cool just using the PPCs. Could be a Centurion AL
Both 50 tons, 4/6, with 7.5 tons armor. Same range, minimum range, and almost same damage.
Mech 1: 2 AC-5 w/2 tons ammo, 2 ML, with 4 tons leftover for whatever. Hunchback 4G maybe.
Mech 2: 2 PPC, 2 ML, 8 tons heat sinks and still not enough to keep it cool just using the PPCs. Could be a Centurion AL
This is not entirely accurate. At beta v3 numbers you need ten sinks per LL for a total equipment investment of 35 tons.
Triple Ac5s can run off the in-engine sinks, and therefore only require additional allocations for ammo. With one ton apiece that comes out to six tons lighter (20% relative difference) while dealing marginally more damage.
Yup. Post math & an actual build that exists in the game, people will counter with blank slate builds that you can't actually kit together.
No one is suggesting that energy weapons shouldn't build heat, they are suggesting that the heat values for the PPC and large laser are a bit too high. You're being slightly silly.
Actually both of those mechs I posted can be built. Both with the variants I listed.