37 replies to this topic

[EvangelionUnit]

okay, so only for laser and puls laser and ac's ?! insane medium laser. you can Balance the whole thing via hardpoints too. the more hardpoints of one type a mech got, the lower is the max dmg per shot per weapon that you can set via this slider, except for mgs

edit: writing in the forum with a mobilephone sucks haha

anyway b2t:

MLAS loses 0.0092 per meter
Damage 5
Heat 4
Cooldown 3
Duration 1

at 200m we have 3.16 damage

so that would be the middle position of said slider
move to fast fire we get like

MLAS loses 0.0092 per meter
Damage 2.5
Heat 4
Cooldown 1.5
Duration 1

same heat, so it levels out with the slower shooting (the laser just cause more heat when you fire everytime you can ... and you can cause the same over time damage)

i thought about adding 3 sliders, for Damage, Duration and Cooldown



oh and for AC's, yeah so for the

AC10 - Semi
Damage 10
Heat 3
Cooldown 2.5
Ammo per ton 15 (physical ammo)

the one shot end of the slider
so middle postion could be something like

AC10 - Burst
Damage 3.333
Heat 1
Cooldown 0.83
Ammo per ton 45

slowest end

AC10 - Auto
Damage 1
Heat 0.3
Cooldown 0.25
Ammo per ton 150

so you can shoot around with something like a pulse laser AC10, but its all about how good you aim with the gun, or if you want to use it again scouts or assault brawler

Edited by EvangelionUnit, 08 April 2013 - 06:57 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

OT was updated

Keep the slinder idea in mind.
There could be two types of sliders - variables are heat, RoF, damage

• 1 variable is constant, changing 1 variable change the third
  
• 1 variable is changed, both other variables are change with 50% effect

I will place such sliders in the "Kalles ZahlenWars" program I'm started to implement.


I was surprised that a "kind" of balancing between the MediumLaser and the LargeLaser is be done via heat.
The Medium Laser generate 4 heat and 5 dmg.
Means 2 Medium Laser generate more heat as a single large laser, for more damage.

If my calculation in the updated OT are correct the line where the medium laser and the large laser curves cross is somewhere at 345m. Means beyond that range the large laser is supperior.

I think its a working but cheap balance...because a Hunchback with 275Fusion and 6 MLAS can fire only 4 AlphaStrikes before shut down. However 120dmg at pinpoint in 12secs - isn't that bad.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 09 April 2013 - 04:49 AM.

[Tyren Dian]

I like the "Slider-Model". Tweaking your Gun to your favor from 1 hit to fullautomatic at decreased dmg per projectile is yay \o/ do want dakka...i am waiting for Kalles ZahlenWars update again.

[Bobzilla]

Shake from AC's could be a problem, as it would have to be scaled with damage. Maybe limiting the adjustments by different ammo types so it would be something like current or "speed loaders" that have faster RoF but less damge. Could even make it a module or upgrade.

[Karl Streiger]

Maybe every weapon should produce a shake.
As you know...even when the AC2 was a drilling shake gun...expericencd pilots were still able to answer fire...because only the view as shaken not the "aim" - of the weapons.

The shake should hardly be cause by kinetic impact alone but because the gyroscope of your Mech has to compensate the missing armor. If a ammunition explosion occure your mech have to thrown to a side.
Maybe we will see similar later in game.

[Bobzilla]

Shake does affect the crosshairs.

The problem is if lasers cause shake because of weght being stripped off (which it would melt/soften and not be flung off) then a projectile would do that too plus the impact.

I think keeping it as simple as possible, with least impact to current gameplay is more appealing. Even if, over many changes it ends up completely different.

[Karl Streiger]

Ok I have startet complete new:
First I started to compare different weapon stats. I assert that the damage of a weapon is affected in TT or S7 by the To-Hit Dice Roll...considering those chances...for a not moving target and not moving shooter based on Elite Gunnery.

I made different tables for TT values, S7 Values with Extreme Range Rules
After that i have smoothed the S7 values.
After that i made some range brackets (PB 75m Short 150m, Medium...Extreme) and calculated the Average Damage in theese brackets. (Those Brackets stay the same for EVERY weapon)

Next step was a lagrange interpolation based on these bracket damages:

Finaly i pasted all in a chart.... plus some addition of the MWO Weapons.



Next Step is the Medium Laser and the comparison between both, considering RoF, Heat, Damage/Heat/Weith Ratio,

[Karl Streiger]

Update at first page

If you want to try the curves self here is the formula:

DMG_at_Range= DMG_Base×(-0.0019®^2-0,012R+1)

For DMG_Base is the Base dmg of a weapon (for example 8)

The R
is a variable for: Actual Range * 20 / Maximum Range (example:
MLAS at 300m
R = 300*20/540
R = 11,111111
DMG = 3.16

Edited by Karl Streiger, 21 May 2013 - 04:30 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Ok, next round:
I have done a lot of calculating and cross checks with the original TT rules. As stated in the post above, I have figured out a formula that is a good compromise between MWO as it is and the original TT values with consideration of range brackets.
Just a reminder: actual we have following picture when you compare Large Laser, ER-Large Laser and 2 Medium Laser.

That was before I made some fine balancing (Heat, damage, weight, 50% more power for ER-Weapons)
I also tried to balance things not only with damage cycle time and heat. I also tried to consider the weight of that weapon.
So I created a value: Damage per Second / Number of EHS+ Ammo (if necessary for 2min of constant shooting + weapon weight)
So you have efficient weapons or you have high ROF weapons with low damage or you have sniping weapons with large heat burden and low RoF but incredible high damage per shot.
I have separated them into Short, Medium and Long Range weapons…I didn’t consider Missiles and Point Blank Weapon yet.

In general Ammunition Feed weapons deal more damage in a shorter period, but they need ammo to do so. I'm not happy with the missing RnR so that there is no "penalty" for wasting ammo. But I hope the advantage isn't that big.

Here are Short Range weapons... i toyed with the Medium Lasers and gave them a short recycle time but for only light damage on hit.

I recognize that i have wrote Damage...please read it as DPS....


Here are the Medium Range Weapons...i have toyed arround with the PPC...given the minimum range and a boost of damage shortly after the charged bolt is created.
The ERLLAS deals more damage on hit, but has reduced recharge rate over the standard large Laser.


Extreme Range weapons (above 1000m)
The Gauss Weapon is a real killer...even with reduced RoF it is thanks to its base damage and low heat a really really efficient weapon.



Last not least I have also made a table for better understanding. I have only taken the MAX damage of each weapon.



I look forward for some constructive criticism.

As said when you look for efficience you have to take the Medium Pulse Laser and the Gauss...

[Karl Streiger]

I realized that i have reduced damage for some weapons into oblivion:
The LightAC as well as the Medium Laser are too weak.

Another benchmark is the average damage (with consideration of range) for a weapon based on a 10sec cycle, even with a constant reduction of damage a weapon should deal at least 100% of its TT damage.

MLAS: 3,11 - to weak
MPLAS 6,1
ERLLAS 7,82
LLAS 8,21
LPLAS 10,1
PPC 10,07
ER-PPC 9,72
AC 2 6 - feels to weak but has the trippled damage buff....
AC 5 9,54 - doubled
AC 10 14,28 - 150%
AC 20 22,75 -110%
Gauss 14,93

[Rattazustra]

I dislike almost anything that is linear in simulated physics, because more often than not it is just blatantly stupid and feels wrong. The real world loves curves and Gaussian distributions. Wherever those are present in games, things start to feel more realistic and life like.

The only reason real falloff behaviour is not in any tabletop game or pen and paper simulation is due to either suffering from an insane amount of math work, or a need for ludicrous amounts of pre-calculated artillery tables. But none of that is an issue here. This is a computer game and all these unfriendly chunks of math can get done by our computers without us ever seeing the gruesome details. When there is an opportunity to do something right without any visible effort and without clogged up intuitivity I say go for it and do it RIGHT instead of doing it the lazy way.

[Karl Streiger]

Just for the comparison i have done the same for MWO weapons like they are in the moment:
I have concentrated on the interesting bracket (375 to 1375m) because here you have some changing
as above i have made some diagramms for damage on hit; dps and the mass efficency (mass, ammunition 90s, EHS)





Nice to know: the AC 20 can outgun any other weapon - but the Gauss until 580m. till 360-390m the AC 20 is even better in terms of DPS over the AC 10.



Here the final result, as it should be already know the AC 5 is the most efficent gun in the game:

Edited by Karl Streiger, 03 June 2013 - 05:15 AM.

[Ralgas]

Interesting thesis, and i'd add that my no vote is simply personal opinion as i'd have to see it in action and what the community decided to do with it.

The only rebuttal i'd have is that we have an aim penalty at range tt doesn't have to account for (or partly is by the modifier....) target scaling by range, try hitting a moving jenner @ 270m+ with a ballistic or putting a laser all on the same section. It's also one of the reasons the 4x full zoom gets a big NO in my book....

[MustrumRidcully]

You might want to alter the name from "damage reduction" to "damage drop-off".

Damage reduction is usually describing something that reduces the damage "after the fact", like damage reduction from armour. Damage drop-off is often implicitely linked to drop-off by range.

[Enigmos]

You are attempting to evaluate a complex system with incomplete data. If the only good decision is an informed decision you are making an at-best lucky guess and proposing a 'solution' based thereon. I'll go with the judgment of those who have all the numbers to work with, thanks.

[Karl Streiger]

OriginalTibs, on 02 July 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

You are attempting to evaluate a complex system with incomplete data. If the only good decision is an informed decision you are making an at-best lucky guess and proposing a 'solution' based thereon. I'll go with the judgment of those who have all the numbers to work with, thanks.

Oh I gladly would have to take a look at that data.

All I have - is the value of a weapon as given, the RoF as given and the range from 100% damage till zero damage.
So yes I make some guessing.

But on the other hand i have taken another layer of weapon balancing from TT - that was completely ignored.

[Dirus Nigh]

YES.

One of the biggest problems with alpha sniping and double AC20 builds is that the weapons are doing viable damage well mast the effective range.

[Big Giant Head]

This is something new
Range balancing
(there are also others like cooldown balance, hardpoint, heat, crit size, targeting, speed,...)
Not always heat, heat - becomes boring