408 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Lupus Aurelius, on 30 October 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

BT ran almost 30 years, giving a lot of time to work out balance issues to get the relative strengths and weaknesses between weapons worked out. BT firing speeds were all the same, once per 10 sec, and the balance between weapons was based on heat and damage only. By changing the firing speeds, the balance between the direct fire weapons, energy and ballistic, was severely disrupted.

This is not about making all the weapons the same.. Both ballistics and energy weapons had their “apex” weapons, but they were balanced against each other by the 10 sec. turn. By altering that “firing” speed asymmetrically across those weapons, while trying to maintain the same or close to the same damage per shot,, radically altered the relative damage capabilities of each weapon.

Let’s start with the data:



The above chart shows what happened by changing the firing speeds in the way PGI did. What is important in this chart is the change in relationships between the weapons. Weapon balance in BT was damage per turn, and the relative strengths of those weapons was based on that. By changing that relationship, as with any closed dynamic system, you throw the process out of balance.

Example, the BT data has the DPS of the AC5 being 1/2 the PPC and ERPPC, which is as it should be, 5 damage vs. 10 damage in 10 seconds. But in the MWO data, the AC5 has a damage output of 1.332x that of the PPC/ERPPC.

The most obvious result are the ACs. AC10 and LB 10X quadrupled it’s damage output, AC5 and UAC5(not counting double shot) 7 times the damage output. The big winner here is the AC2, at over 19 times the damage, and the big loser for ballistics, AC20, at only 2.5 times the damage output.

Compare that to the energy weapons, the highest was SPL at 4.133, the SL at 3.133, and the LPL at 3.05 times the damage, with everything else less than 3 times. But, heat dissipation rates remain the same as in BT, excepting external DHS, which are less than BT at 1.4 heat/10sec instead of 2.0 heat/10 sec.

• -Ballistic firing speeds average at 2.36sec, or 4.24 times faster than BT, with average damage of 8.39, and an average heat of 2.14 .
  
• -Energy weapons firing speeds average 3.14 sec, or 3.19 faster than BT, with average damage of 6.67, and an average heat of 6.34 .

Even though the heat reservoir is increased from TT, the heat dissipation of DHS external to the engine has been severely nerfed at 1.4 heat/10 sec. In addition, the dissipation rate has remained the same for SHS and engine DHS,0 .1 and 0.2 heat respectively. So an engine with 10 internal DHS has a heat rating of 50, but it is only shedding 2 heat per sec.


As stated above, ballistic average 2.14 heat per second. With a heat reservoir of 50, doing 2.14 heat/sec, but shedding 2.0 heat/sec, that’s a net difference of 0.14 heat/sec. Over 357 shots. Energy weapons average 6.34 heat/sec, so the net difference there in 4.34 heat per sec. that’s 11.52 shots.

ACs, with lower heat, can fire 4 times faster and still not cap out the heat, but energy weapons firing barely over 3 times faster cannot, because the average heat for energy is 3 times greater than for ballistics, and the heat dissipation rates remain based on the 10 sec TT turn. Heat generation went up, but dissipation remained the same.

Ballistics fire on average 1.33 times faster with an average of 1.26 times more damage, than energy weapons. If you ratio the differences to bring them in line, in the 2.36 average firing time, energy weapons average 4.76 damage, vs 8.39 of ballistics. Thats half the damage in the same amount of time, on average.

Ballistics need to be balanced with other weapon systems. More heat and slower firing times to bring them back more in line with BT precedence. A quick fix would be to bring things back to the same relative values in TT.

If it fires 4 times faster than TT, have it generate 1/4 damage and 1/4 of the heat. Hard cap heat at 30, make DHS dissipate at 2.0 instead of 1.4. That would bring things back into the same relative balance from TT, and that that point, you look at armor and heat cap for mechs.

Could easily have kept the original armor amounts from BT, instead of having to had to double them, boating high heat/high alpha builds would never had been possible, and high alpha builds in general would not produce anywhere near the same damage output we currently see, making damage over time a more viable option, and truly making MWO more of a “thinking man’s shooter”.

This all would be obvious to a lobotomized chimp, and should have stood out like a sore thumb to PGI. In reality, ballistics have always been OP in MWO, but it took severely nerfing the energy suite to make it so visible.


Associated threads:
http://mwomercs.com/...34#entry2815834
http://mwomercs.com/...77#entry2774277
http://mwomercs.com/...35#entry2771535

MUSTRUMRIDCULLY's Weapon Balance Thread:http://mwomercs.com/...78#entry2829078

1) DPS is not an effective system to determine viability or non viability of weapons in a shooter.

2) Not all weapons are created equal nor are they supposed to be in damage and abilities. Different weapons = different uses in different situations.

3) Battletech was a failed system that they admited was skewed in many ways and wich they tried to fix by releasing multiple expansions wich failed to completely balance the game regardless and just added more flaws.

4) This is a shooter/simulation game, not battletech. It simply has a battletech face over top of it. Trying to compare this to that for damage values and how it SHOULD be is not going to be very effective since it does not translate well. Weapons are balanced based off pilot skill levels and what can be done with them within this game. Where as weapons in battletech were balanced minus any possible true pilot interaction taken into account.

Currently weapons are pretty balanced overall where they should be with some relegated to supportive roles which are still usefull to a team overall.

[MustrumRidcully]

Zyllos, on 24 December 2013 - 07:16 AM, said:

It's not that they have 10HP, it's that they only have a 10% chance of exploding, regardless if it was done by destroying the section or getting enough critical hit damage to break the ammo slot.

10%!!!...where is the danger in this?

A 90 % explosion chance for 200 damage would be just as ridiculous and people would probably treat ballistics as too risky to use at all.

I would like a 90 % explosion chance for the same damage as a Gauss Rifle (scaled by ammo still remaining). I think that could be fair, non-random and manageable.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 24 December 2013 - 08:33 AM.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Varent, on 24 December 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

1) DPS is not an effective system to determine viability or non viability of weapons in a shooter.

2) Not all weapons are created equal nor are they supposed to be in damage and abilities. Different weapons = different uses in different situations.

3) Battletech was a failed system that they admited was skewed in many ways and wich they tried to fix by releasing multiple expansions wich failed to completely balance the game regardless and just added more flaws.

4) This is a shooter/simulation game, not battletech. It simply has a battletech face over top of it. Trying to compare this to that for damage values and how it SHOULD be is not going to be very effective since it does not translate well. Weapons are balanced based off pilot skill levels and what can be done with them within this game. Where as weapons in battletech were balanced minus any possible true pilot interaction taken into account.

Currently weapons are pretty balanced overall where they should be with some relegated to supportive roles which are still usefull to a team overall.

Lupus Aurelius, on 30 October 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

It's not about "porting stuff". It's about balancing weapons, relative strengths and weaknesses. When you radically change a dynamic, such as firing time, you radically change the relationships. Translating that into a real time environment should have been done in such a way as to maintain those relative relationships in heat and damage output.

Increasing weapon firing speed, without increasing heat dissipation, creates an obvious imbalance between low heat and high heat weapons. Low heat weapons win big, whereas the converse is true for high heat weapons. That's not rocket science, that's just basic logic.

Lupus Aurelius, on 30 October 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

But it still goes back to the mammoth in the room...

Increasing weapon fire rates, but still using the 0.1/0.2 heat dissipated per second for engine SHS and DHS, and reducing the heat dissipation for external DHS to 1.4 heat per 10 sec.

They "ported" the TT heat dissipation unaltered, while increase weapon fire dramatically.

Lupus Aurelius, on 11 November 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

I disagree. DPS and burst damage are indicators. Granted, this is not like EVE, where DPS factors in heavily. But in MWO, it's an indicator of what a potential is. Same with burst damage, you are not always going to be able to apply all your weapons at once, nor maintain them indefinitely. But it is an indicator of potential.

DPS can't be ignored any more than alpha. At range, full alpha does not apply, unless all your weapons are long range. What becomes important then is being able to sustain fire with your long range weapons until the enemy closes. Once that occurs, alpha comes into play. But the AC mechs at close range can sustain that fire substantially longer than an ERPPC mech. So both at range and up close, ballistics excel way beyond the energy weapons for versatility due to the current heat issues.

The longer a mech can sustain fire of it's primary weapons, the more DPS becomes a factor. Both alpha and DPS are going to be affected by heat, but if you can keep your primary damage dealers running non-stop in an engagement, you are going to be doing significantly more damage as the engagement continues.

The fallacy in PGI's system is self evident. Keeping dissipation unaltered from TT rates, and in the case of engine external DHS reducing their dissipation from 2 heat/10sec to 1.4 heat/10sec, while increasing ROF, totally changes weapon balance. Instead of addressing the root cause, they continued with that system, modified heat and firing times, and implemented ghost heat, further shifting the system to an even more unbalanced state.

Lupus Aurelius, on 12 November 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Not going to argue the survivability of a mech here, gentlemen.

However, I think there is something we all can agree on
-by altering weapon firing speeds asymmetrically, the damage relationships changed
-by "porting" the heat dissipation partially from TT, but reducing engine external DHS to 1.4, with the weapon firing speed increase, the functionality of ballistic heavy mechs vs. non ballistic mechs fundamentally changed
-by continuing to balance by heat, the problem is exacerbated.
-by having convergence be exact, any high alpha build can pinpoint that damage to a single location, unlike BT where it was randomized.

If a process is revised or changed, and you are getting wildly different results, the first thing you do is go back to the baseline of the process when it was stable, or you address the root cause of the issue.
-either return relative damage and heat to the "baseline" established in BT
-or revise the heat system and remove pinpoint convergence.

[Varent]

from this above post.... im reminded of an ostrich with his head in the sand saying "no no no no no".

I stand by my previous statements. Especially the fact that dps is a horrible thing to base ANY type of shooter off of. Shooters are all about movement and positioning and tactics. Not the amount of time you can hold down a trigger while staring at a target.

Edited by Varent, 24 December 2013 - 10:09 AM.

[YueFei]

Varent, on 24 December 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

from this above post.... im reminded of an ostrich with his head in the sand saying "no no no no no".

I stand by my previous statements. Especially the fact that dps is a horrible thing to base ANY type of shooter off of. Shooters are all about movement and positioning and tactics. Not the amount of time you can hold down a trigger while staring at a target.

You have to consider several factors that *dictate* your tactics when using energy-based loadouts, though. An energy-based mech must be able to engage/disengage smoothly with cover nearby, to prevent an enemy with superior sustained damage from laying fire on him for extended periods of time. That requirement to me is fine. You pop out, fire your weapons, and return to cover to cool off, and don't give your opponent the chance to take advantage of their cooler-running ballistic weapons.

The problem is the mechs themselves. Some mechs don't lend themselves well to performing this tactic. Stalkers are excellent because of the high weapon mounts, requiring minimal exposure. Other mechs are fast like hell, like Jenners. And other mechs have jump jets so they can fire from certain positions not possible for other mechs without jump jets. So folks use energy weapons on them and say energy weapons are fine. Other mechs, like Awesomes, on the other hand, have low-slung weapon mounts, no jump jets, and most variants are *sloooow*. To fire, it takes ages to creep out of cover, fire a shot, and duck back into cover. Trying to reposition to keep cover between you and an opponent takes awhile, too, so if you start moving too late, you're in trouble.

This problem can be solved by a couple things:
1.) Add the ability to crouch
2.) Give certain mechs superior acceleration. Those slow Awesome variants can still have crappy top speed, but if they can accelerate/decelerate faster, they can get in and out of cover more rapidly.

[Varent]

YueFei, on 24 December 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

You have to consider several factors that *dictate* your tactics when using energy-based loadouts, though. An energy-based mech must be able to engage/disengage smoothly with cover nearby, to prevent an enemy with superior sustained damage from laying fire on him for extended periods of time. That requirement to me is fine. You pop out, fire your weapons, and return to cover to cool off, and don't give your opponent the chance to take advantage of their cooler-running ballistic weapons.

The problem is the mechs themselves. Some mechs don't lend themselves well to performing this tactic. Stalkers are excellent because of the high weapon mounts, requiring minimal exposure. Other mechs are fast like hell, like Jenners. And other mechs have jump jets so they can fire from certain positions not possible for other mechs without jump jets. So folks use energy weapons on them and say energy weapons are fine. Other mechs, like Awesomes, on the other hand, have low-slung weapon mounts, no jump jets, and most variants are *sloooow*. To fire, it takes ages to creep out of cover, fire a shot, and duck back into cover. Trying to reposition to keep cover between you and an opponent takes awhile, too, so if you start moving too late, you're in trouble.

This problem can be solved by a couple things:
1.) Add the ability to crouch
2.) Give certain mechs superior acceleration. Those slow Awesome variants can still have crappy top speed, but if they can accelerate/decelerate faster, they can get in and out of cover more rapidly.

actually really strongly agree with this. that is more of a mech problem though. Awesome's are sadly not that awesome right now, wich is rather dissapointing. Also both of those would be great options. I also know for awhile they were talking about possibly putting in small tweak customizations to certain chasis... id love to see awesome get more heat dissipation, even on a small level to make up for there sheer reliance on only energy weapons or perhaps get bonuses on aiming with them, something.... at this point right now the mech is simply too heavy not to rely on major large laser weapons and ppc on it simply do not work well just do its bulky shape and its tendency to draw fire. I have found some success running srm on the mech but even then the shape of it alone does not work well for brawling.

[Sandpit]

Know what's hilarious? 3 Threads sitting right on top of one another on the front page

http://mwomercs.com/...s/page__st__140
http://mwomercs.com/...id/page__st__60

and this one. Yet noone sees a problem with this and how it might be difficult to have centralized information for players, devs, and new players to get ideas, voice their opinions, and possibly learn something new about the game. Keep on keeping on forumites.

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 24 December 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

Know what's hilarious? 3 Threads sitting right on top of one another on the front page

http://mwomercs.com/...s/page__st__140
http://mwomercs.com/...id/page__st__60

and this one. Yet noone sees a problem with this and how it might be difficult to have centralized information for players, devs, and new players to get ideas, voice their opinions, and possibly learn something new about the game. Keep on keeping on forumites.

there is no way to centralize information if you put so many posts into one central post that no one bothers reading them all in general. Easier to have them seperate and let someone pick and choose unless someone wants to take the time to break them all apart and condense them into a reading format wich then people will all comment on and continue to make more posts on.

Its called a forum, its the nature of it.

[Sandpit]

Varent, on 24 December 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

there is no way to centralize information if you put so many posts into one central post that no one bothers reading them all in general. Easier to have them seperate and let someone pick and choose unless someone wants to take the time to break them all apart and condense them into a reading format wich then people will all comment on and continue to make more posts on.

Its called a forum, its the nature of it.

No, it's called "My idea is "better" than the others so I'll start a new thread on the exact same subject so I'll get it read."

It just really is getting out of hand when every other thread is the exact same on the front page. 2-3 dupes? THAT'S the nature of a forum. When I can search the word balance and there's 10+ threads or I can look through the first two pages and half of them are the exact same? That's getting to be ridiculous. I'm all for exchanging ideas and helping direct and shape the game. I'm not, however, all for dozens of posts cluttering the forums so that other areas and ideas can't be found and exchanged.

[Zyllos]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 December 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

A 90 % explosion chance for 200 damage would be just as ridiculous and people would probably treat ballistics as too risky to use at all.

I would like a 90 % explosion chance for the same damage as a Gauss Rifle (scaled by ammo still remaining). I think that could be fair, non-random and manageable.

If weapon's acted exactly like TT, I would suggest that yes, it should be 100% chance for explosion, but I understand this game is different.

But 10% is ridiculous. There is very little penalty in that, especially the amount of work needed in actually dealing 10 HP to a single critical slot versus the power received in equipping ammo based weapons.

I would suggest having 50% of explosion for 10 HP damage critical hits and 10% for when an armor section is removed and ammo critical slots exist in those slots.

Edited by Zyllos, 24 December 2013 - 12:11 PM.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Varent, on 24 December 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

from this above post.... im reminded of an ostrich with his head in the sand saying "no no no no no".

I stand by my previous statements. Especially the fact that dps is a horrible thing to base ANY type of shooter off of. Shooters are all about movement and positioning and tactics. Not the amount of time you can hold down a trigger while staring at a target.

Since you are repeating yourself, I think the ostrich comment applies to you.

In this, and 2 other threads, I give actual data, and analysis based on that data, to substantiate my hypothesis. You, on the other hand, offer nothing but your subjective opinion. When you can debate the topic with actual data to substantiate your claims, then maybe you will have a leg to stand on.

http://mwomercs.com/...34#entry2815834

http://mwomercs.com/...35#entry2771535

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 24 December 2013 - 12:13 PM.

[Varent]

Lupus Aurelius, on 24 December 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

Since you are repeating yourself, I think the ostrich comment applies to you.

In this, and 2 other threads, I give actual data, and analysis based on that data, to substantiate my hypothesis. You, on the other hand, offer nothing but your subjective opinion. When you can debate the topic with actual data to substantiate your claims, then maybe you will have a leg to stand on.

http://mwomercs.com/...34#entry2815834

http://mwomercs.com/...35#entry2771535

yes, because dps makes no sense in a shooter. DPS is a system used to calculate how much damage is needed to take down a raid boss. I see no raid bosses in MWO. However I will offer specific data for you.

http://mwomercs.com/...eds-to-be-said/

weapons overall are where they need to be at.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Varent, on 24 December 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

yes, because dps makes no sense in a shooter. DPS is a system used to calculate how much damage is needed to take down a raid boss. I see no raid bosses in MWO. However I will offer specific data for you.

http://mwomercs.com/...eds-to-be-said/

weapons overall are where they need to be at.

None of the points in the OP of that post offers any data or quantifiable analysis, it's all your subjective point of view. I see no data, no math, no statistical analysis. I do see opinion presented as factual data, however.

In the gods we trust, all others bring data!

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 24 December 2013 - 12:24 PM.

[Varent]

Lupus Aurelius, on 24 December 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

None of the points in the OP of that post offers any data or quantifiable analysis, it's all your subjective point of view. I see no data, no math, no statistical analysis. I do see opinion presented as factual data, however.

In the gods we trust, all others bring data!

your data is based of DPS, which is flawed, your offering up incredibly flawed pointless data and serving it as fact.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Varent, on 24 December 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

your data is based of DPS, which is flawed, your offering up incredibly flawed pointless data and serving it as fact.

Opinion.

Please provide data to substantiate your claims. Prove it.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 24 December 2013 - 12:26 PM.

[Varent]

Lupus Aurelius, on 24 December 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

Opinion.

Please provide data to substantiate your claims.

DPS is a system used to calculate how much damage is needed to take down a raid boss.

http://en.wikipedia....mage_per_second

http://en.wikipedia....i/Shooting_game

DPS does not take into account, cover, concealment, alpha capability, target lock capability, ammo, overly hot or cold environments, the ability to expend a weapon for free with an energy weapon, the different range variables, spread damage, strengths and weaponeses of spread damage....

I could go on and on really.

DPS is a HORRIBLE system to use to calculate the strength and weakness of weapon systems in a shooter.

[Zerberus]

Sandpit, on 24 December 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

No, it's called "My idea is "better" than the others so I'll start a new thread on the exact same subject so I'll get it read."

It just really is getting out of hand when every other thread is the exact same on the front page. 2-3 dupes? THAT'S the nature of a forum. When I can search the word balance and there's 10+ threads or I can look through the first two pages and half of them are the exact same? That's getting to be ridiculous. I'm all for exchanging ideas and helping direct and shape the game. I'm not, however, all for dozens of posts cluttering the forums so that other areas and ideas can't be found and exchanged.

Agreed 100%.

But that`s what happens when you have a community rife with semi-informed attention whores that all think that their idea is the holy grail, no matter how often exactly that has failed in the past or how much their idea is dissociated from reality. You get 10000 threads with 2 posts each all saying the exact same thing but maintaining that everyone else is wrong.

Ironically, it`s exactly this childish, egotistical behavior that got GD nuked.... so, what does the apparent lack of a lesson learned tell us about the typical MWO Forumwarrior?

Edited by Zerberus, 24 December 2013 - 12:36 PM.

[Varent]

Zerberus, on 24 December 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

Agreed 100%.

But that`s what happens when you have a community rife with semi-informed attention whores that all think that their idea is the holy grail, no matter how often exactly that has failed in the past or how much their idea is dissociated from reality. You get 10000 threads with 2 posts each all saying the exact same thing but maintaining that everyone else is wrong.

agreed. not gonna change though, such is the way of the internet and the online gaming community.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Varent, on 24 December 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

DPS is a system used to calculate how much damage is needed to take down a raid boss.

http://en.wikipedia....mage_per_second

http://en.wikipedia....i/Shooting_game

DPS does not take into account, cover, concealment, alpha capability, target lock capability, ammo, overly hot or cold environments, the ability to expend a weapon for free with an energy weapon, the different range variables, spread damage, strengths and weaponeses of spread damage....

I could go on and on really.

DPS is a HORRIBLE system to use to calculate the strength and weakness of weapon systems in a shooter.

Neither one of those links prove your statement. In fact. the DPS link says the following"

"As a measure of capability, it is more accurate than a simple damage value that does not reflect how often the damage can be dealt. In Eve Online, the players' weapons fire in volleys, while in more traditional MMOs the player strikes with melee weapons or fire ranged weapons or spells, which may need to 'recharge'. While an attack may deal 500 points of damage, if the weapon can only fire once every 5 seconds, the damage will be calculated as 100 damage per second. It is therefore a useful metric both to game players and game designers."

"Sustainable DPS[edit]

.... The other way is being able to withstand a boss's attacks and continue to produce damage indefinitely. In general, sustainable DPS refers to the ability to produce damage over a long period of time through their attack chain. In a raid specifically, this refers to the ability to stand and fight however long it takes until the boss is defeated.
Achieving sustainable DPS in a boss fight can be challenging; energy/mana, consumables, ammo and chaos control can all be serious barriers to the ability to stage a long-term fight. Raid bosses also often cull inattentive players, making extended vigilance a problem as well. Since the burn-down fights are faster and more convenient, they are often preferred, saving sustainable DPS as a last resort."

[Varent]

Lupus Aurelius, on 24 December 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

Neither one of those links prove your statement. In fact. the DPS link says the following"

"As a measure of capability, it is more accurate than a simple damage value that does not reflect how often the damage can be dealt. In Eve Online, the players' weapons fire in volleys, while in more traditional MMOs the player strikes with melee weapons or fire ranged weapons or spells, which may need to 'recharge'. While an attack may deal 500 points of damage, if the weapon can only fire once every 5 seconds, the damage will be calculated as 100 damage per second. It is therefore a useful metric both to game players and game designers."

"Sustainable DPS[edit]

.... The other way is being able to withstand a boss's attacks and continue to produce damage indefinitely. In general, sustainable DPS refers to the ability to produce damage over a long period of time through their attack chain. In a raid specifically, this refers to the ability to stand and fight however long it takes until the boss is defeated.
Achieving sustainable DPS in a boss fight can be challenging; energy/mana, consumables, ammo and chaos control can all be serious barriers to the ability to stage a long-term fight. Raid bosses also often cull inattentive players, making extended vigilance a problem as well. Since the burn-down fights are faster and more convenient, they are often preferred, saving sustainable DPS as a last resort."

sigh...

the sad part is you looked and read right over it and your unable to see it still.

DPS is an amazingly bad system to prove the worthy of any weapon in a shooter, enough said.