111 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

Noesis, on 09 December 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

Thus when you look at dps stats for effective hitting in a larger way, the ML actually looking as a weapon providing 2.5 to 3 damage. Something an AC20 slug as a single round to a point does not suffer from on an equivalent basis when talking about pinpoint accuracy.

So they are not "completely" equivalent models to compare and still have their own balancing components. To be able to compare them for all cases as equals with pinpoint accuracy you'd have to make MLs have instantaneous damage to a point with no beam effects as result.

I've been looking into this a bit recently (trying to work out the effective damage of weapons), and while it is a work in progress, here's what my spreadsheet looks like so far:



It seems I'm a crack shot with an AC/20 by my own standards, but pretty much suck in my gunnery overall

Either way, the point is that the effective damage of energy weapons is mandated by two things; your aim and the portion of the beam hitting the target (so those impressive 80%+ accuracy stats don't look so hot when you realize that you're only doing about 55% damage), whereas the effective damage of ballistics is more of an either-or proposition; either you hit and do full damage, or you miss and do no damage.

As you can see by the last column there, I do about 50% effective damage with ballistics, whereas I do about 45% effective damage with energy weapons.

I find these numbers interesting, if only because I thought the difference would be larger - it probably would be if my aim wasn't so atrociously bad

[Noesis]

Yes so you can see that even with this limited sample from your own figures that longer range ballistic sniping weapons have a much more effective dominance by about 10% more efficiency than energy beam counterparts. And this is before considering their range advantage.

But as you can see from your own figures damage per hit is 20.25 for an AC20 designed to do 20 and yet only 2.6 for a ML designed to do 5. So they are in equivalence not the same looking at applied damage as a result. This since laser weapons don't present a consistent pinpoint damage equivalence.

Edited by Noesis, 09 December 2013 - 08:02 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 09 December 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

I've been looking into this a bit recently (trying to work out the effective damage of weapons), and while it is a work in progress, here's what my spreadsheet looks like so far:



It seems I'm a crack shot with an AC/20 by my own standards, but pretty much suck in my gunnery overall

Either way, the point is that the effective damage of energy weapons is mandated by two things; your aim and the portion of the beam hitting the target (so those impressive 80%+ accuracy stats don't look so hot when you realize that you're only doing about 55% damage), whereas the effective damage of ballistics is more of an either-or proposition; either you hit and do full damage, or you miss and do no damage.

As you can see by the last column there, I do about 50% effective damage with ballistics, whereas I do about 45% effective damage with energy weapons.

I find these numbers interesting, if only because I thought the difference would be larger - it probably would be if my aim wasn't so atrociously bad

That chart is what I have known instinctively St! he damage balances in teh hit or miss style f damage from front loaded weapons.

[MustrumRidcully]

stjobe, on 09 December 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

I've been looking into this a bit recently (trying to work out the effective damage of weapons), and while it is a work in progress, here's what my spreadsheet looks like so far:



It seems I'm a crack shot with an AC/20 by my own standards, but pretty much suck in my gunnery overall

Either way, the point is that the effective damage of energy weapons is mandated by two things; your aim and the portion of the beam hitting the target (so those impressive 80%+ accuracy stats don't look so hot when you realize that you're only doing about 55% damage), whereas the effective damage of ballistics is more of an either-or proposition; either you hit and do full damage, or you miss and do no damage.

As you can see by the last column there, I do about 50% effective damage with ballistics, whereas I do about 45% effective damage with energy weapons.

I find these numbers interesting, if only because I thought the difference would be larger - it probably would be if my aim wasn't so atrociously bad

I think the AC/20 is the weapon I am most precise with, too. I think the lower range compared to other ACs and the slow recycle time help it a lot. Still, in general, my ballistic stats look better than my laser stats.

I've created a similar spreadsheet once, and shared it on Google Docs: https://docs.google....MVE&usp=sharing

interestingly, someone else seemed to have actually used it since the last time I looked at it!
To use it yourself, you can actually just copy & paste the statistics from your profile. Only problem is that the damage values I had to enter manually, and this means if your weapons are slightly different ordered, then you'll have to adjust those values. (For example, I haven't used the LRM20 ever since record keeping started, and so it's missing from the list, and it's apparantly sorted somewhere in the beginning. The sorting of the stat page is pretty bad.)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 09 December 2013 - 08:13 AM.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 December 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

That chart is what I have known instinctively St! he damage balances in teh hit or miss style f damage from front loaded weapons.

Almost, but not quite; my instant-damage weapons are on average 5% more effective than the beam-duration ones.

And we're just talking percentages here, not battlefield efficiency. Look at the effective damage column; only a single energy weapon does more than 5 damage (the LPL), whereas everything above the AC/5 does so for ballistics.

Edited by stjobe, 09 December 2013 - 08:14 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 09 December 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

Almost, but not quite; my instant-damage weapons are on average 5% more effective than the beam-duration ones.

And we're just talking percentages here, not battlefield efficiency. Look at the effective damage column; only a single energy weapon does more than 5 damage (the LPL), whereas everything above the AC/5 does so for ballistics.

Which is perfectly acceptable as any collection of data has 3-5% error anyway.
And we wanted lasers to be like that, but having different types of weapons deserves different means of delivering damage. Ballistics should be hammers and lasers scalpels.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 December 2013 - 08:18 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

stjobe, on 09 December 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

Almost, but not quite; my instant-damage weapons are on average 5% more effective than the beam-duration ones.

And we're just talking percentages here, not battlefield efficiency. Look at the effective damage column; only a single energy weapon does more than 5 damage (the LPL), whereas everything above the AC/5 does so for ballistics.

More interesting are weapons that share many similar characteristics.

For example, the Ultra AC/5 and the AC/2 are really fast firing weapon. It might technically be an AC and pinpoint damage, but practically you can have similar issues as with DOT weapons.

A comparision between AC/20, AC/10, Gauss, ML, LL, ER LL, PPC and ER PPC might yield the most interesting data.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 09 December 2013 - 08:21 AM.

[Noesis]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 December 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

Ballistics should be hammers and lasers scalpels.

In which case they should have better damage capabilities over time, hence why I'd like to see ML's have their heat reduced to 3.5 as opposed to 4.

It would help restore some confidence to the short game, but also help a whole suite of lighter Mechs (lights and mediums) become better on a par who cannot fit the larger ballistic or energy ballistic weapons but are in fact limited to these kinds of weapons or SRMs which we know are "fubarred" anyhow.

But remembering of course that this change will assist every Mech that can fit an ML with the applied use of shorter ranged weaponry.

[OneEyed Jack]

Bear in mind that there are other factors. Such as using lasers for unlikely, or extreme range shots because they're "free" shots. Or perhaps a tendency to use lasers for shooting at lights, because you're more likely to get at least some damage, but unlikely to stay on-target enough for the percentages to be good. Not that those specifically apply to you, but similar factors are going to play into the outcome of your spreadsheet stats.

[Joseph Mallan]

Noesis, on 09 December 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

In which case they should have better damage capabilities over time, hence why I'd like to see ML's have their heat reduced to 3.5 as opposed to 4.

It would help restore some confidence to the short game, but also help a whole suite of lighter Mechs (lights and mediums) become better on a par who cannot fit the larger ballistic or energy ballistic weapons but are in fact limited to these kinds of weapons or SRMs which we know are "fubarred" anyhow.

But remembering of course that this change will assist every Mech that can fit an ML with the applied use of shorter ranged weaponry.

Better damage over time IF you can hit your target accurately.

I would also LIKE to see ML have 3 heat... I won't complain if it stays as is though.And I do use Medium Lasers often.

Medium Laser Stats
Fired 11,797 times, Hit 9,529 times, 80.77% accuracy for 25,294 damage

AC20 Stats
Fired 2,979 times, Hit 1,657 times, 55.62% accuracy for 33,435 damage.

Looks like its working fine to me. More accurate less damage for Lasers and less accurate high damage for ACs. Just like a BFG should be.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 December 2013 - 08:35 AM.

[Master Q]

I find it funny how every time someone says sensible things about the way instant convergence and the crazy outsized weapon distances are hurting the game, we get brain donors chiming in on "waah don't nerf our autoaim software."

I'm sorry but this is something that needs fixing. You should have to fire each weapon, individually, and compensate for the offset if you want to fire a pinpoint shot. If you want to fire an alpha strike, it shouldn't be able to hit a pinpoint - the weapon offsets themselves should cause a known spread pattern. That's what has harmed every Mechwarrior game prior to this - Mechwarrior 2's laser boating issues, the same for MW3, the same issues in Mechwarrior 4. Pinpoint aiming has fundamentally unbalanced every Mechwarrior game in the past and it's harming this one to a great extent by making the pinpoint weapons inherently more "optimal" than the spread weapons.

And before some other whinerbaby comes going "waah dont randomize my shots" - we're not talking about randomized cone-of-fire here. We're talking about KNOWN offsets. Consistent every time, but you get a spread if you fire an alpha strike.

They could make this game so much more entertaining if they'd bother to do it right.

[Noesis]

It may well be a factor Jack, but I'd expect Laser weaponry to do better for close range fast movers anyhow so if anything if this was the dominance in use, maybe then it might reflect better in the stats, all I can assume is it doesn't appear to. But a larger sample would be beneficial here certainly.

Still it still suggests that however these weapons are being used there is a disparity in effectiveness.

[William Mountbank]

Interestingly, after I had a quick look at how my stats measured up, I found out that I do more than 10 damage per PPC hit.

322 hits for 3238 damage, or 10.06 damage per hit. Do you think it's some sort of bug to do with the old system of scaled damage below 90m?

[Zyllos]

There are simple ways to allow players to be pin point accurate without being alpha strike pin point accurate.

There is a system developed by Homeless Bill, that is extremely straight forward on balancing this.

Basically, the most damage a player can do with pin point accuracy is 20 points per 2.0s. This means any single shot of any weapon in the game will aim exactly where your crosshair is at.

Firing more weapons with a total damage higher than 20 points per 2.0s will lead to deconvergence (CoF).

All weapons in the game has a TCL value assigned, by dividing the damage of the weapon by 20 points, then dividing by the duration of the weapon (1 for any non-DoT weapons) times 100. Thus, a Large Laser would have a TCL of (9 / 20 / 1.0) = 45. A Medium Pulse Laser would have a TCL of (6 / 20 / 0.6) = 50.

TCS, Targeting Computer Stress, is the total TCL, Targeting Computer Load. TCS is decreased by 100 per second with a threshold of 200. If at any time you fire a weapon that in which it's TCL + TCS > 200, a CoF is introduced around the crosshair based on the weapon's range.

In doing this, you can add modifiers to TCS and TCL values for chassis quirks, actions (like jump jetting), and unique modifiers (Pulse Lasers have -25% TCL).

What this accomplishes is allowing a sniper player to take accurate shots at any range without any randomness. But players who want to lay down fire power, like many autocannon shots in a short amount of time, will have to contend with a CoF due to high volume of fire.

In doing this, I think weapon's RoF will need to be decreased slightly and ghost heat removed completely.

Edited by Zyllos, 09 December 2013 - 09:34 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

William Mountbank, on 09 December 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

Interestingly, after I had a quick look at how my stats measured up, I found out that I do more than 10 damage per PPC hit.

322 hits for 3238 damage, or 10.06 damage per hit. Do you think it's some sort of bug to do with the old system of scaled damage below 90m?

The theory is that ammo explosions count as damage inflicted, and nowadays, crits also deal extra damage. The effect would not be apparent on lasers since we don't actually know how many laser "ticks" hit the target.

[Joseph Mallan]

William Mountbank, on 09 December 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

Interestingly, after I had a quick look at how my stats measured up, I found out that I do more than 10 damage per PPC hit.

322 hits for 3238 damage, or 10.06 damage per hit. Do you think it's some sort of bug to do with the old system of scaled damage below 90m?

I have read that it is damage from Ammo explosions and such that ad the extra damage. I can follow that but t isn't the weapon that s the excess...

[MustrumRidcully]

Master Q, on 09 December 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

I find it funny how every time someone says sensible things about the way instant convergence and the crazy outsized weapon distances are hurting the game, we get brain donors chiming in on "waah don't nerf our autoaim software."

I'm sorry but this is something that needs fixing. You should have to fire each weapon, individually, and compensate for the offset if you want to fire a pinpoint shot. If you want to fire an alpha strike, it shouldn't be able to hit a pinpoint - the weapon offsets themselves should cause a known spread pattern. That's what has harmed every Mechwarrior game prior to this - Mechwarrior 2's laser boating issues, the same for MW3, the same issues in Mechwarrior 4. Pinpoint aiming has fundamentally unbalanced every Mechwarrior game in the past and it's harming this one to a great extent by making the pinpoint weapons inherently more "optimal" than the spread weapons.

And before some other whinerbaby comes going "waah dont randomize my shots" - we're not talking about randomized cone-of-fire here. We're talking about KNOWN offsets. Consistent every time, but you get a spread if you fire an alpha strike.

They could make this game so much more entertaining if they'd bother to do it right.

I think the problem is that the "known offsets" would be pretty big. Think about how far apart the lasers from an Atlas are.

Unless you have a way to show these offsets in the UI, I think it would be impractical. It's like asking a sniper to switch between 4 badly aligned sniper rifles that each have a lead that will make a difference of several meters already at 400ms. A very skilled, professional sniper might be able to handle that, the casual gamer at home will just ragequit.

OF course, there are compromise solutions.
- Whenever you group fire or alpha-strike, no convergence happens.
- When you fire only a single weapon (and haven't fired another weapon in the last x seconds, where x might depend on the weapons fired), then you have convergence.

But I think even that isn't necessary:
- Keep convergence, Group Fire, Alpha Strikes and all that.
- All single projectile damage weapons that deal more than 2 damage are changed into burst fire weapons or DOT weapons or can no longer be group-fired (being put on a 0.5 second GCD when other weapons are fired and putting other weapons on a 0.5 second GCD)
- Alter the armour ratios so that coring is no longer the most efficient way to disable an enemy mech. If the CT was more strongly armored but the arms and legs had to sacrifice some armor, then coring would become inefficient - you reduce the enemies firepower more quickly by taking out his weapons or rendering immobile then by coring him.

[Mister Blastman]

OneEyed Jack, on 08 December 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

Convergence can and should happen. It can because it's simply not that difficult to use hydraulic screws in the weapon mounts to be able to adjust the precise point of aim. It should because trying to guess where your shot is going to go in a futuristic war machine is absurd.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

In Battletech, a Targeting Computer is required for convergence!!!!!!!

Targeting Computers take up tonnage and critical slots! They make you give up a lot in weaponry, speed or ammunition to use them. Targeting Computers are not just computers, but they are also the ancillary equipment that is added to each weapon to allow them to pivot and converge!

Right now, we are getting targeting computers for free and it is disgusting.
From a thread I made months ago:

Quote

Everything. It would fix this game fast.

You know what is interesting... The solution to ALL our problems... Has been in the Battletech source all along. It is a simple thing called a Targeting Computer. The rules read something like this:

Quote
The Targeting Computer was introduced by Clan Mongoose in 2860.[1] Targeting Computers are sophisticated pieces of electronics that, unlike normal targeting systems, physically help MechWarriors target their opponents. Recoil compensators and gyroscopic stabilizers are used to prevent normal weapon drift from factors such as recoil and movement while the computer accounts for atmospheric and other conditions to present an accurate "lead" on the target. This allows for more surgical precision of weapons fire, especially with naturally accurate systems, allowing for the user to hit specific parts on the target vehicle.


Further, they continue with the most important part:

Quote
The Targeting Computer can be used to help aim all direct fire weapons, including most energy and ballistic weapons. This results in a -1 to-hit modifier for all eligible weapons that tie in, or the ability to aim for a location that is not the head with a +3 to-hit penalty. Clan Targeting Computers weigh one ton and occupy one critical slot for every five tons of equipment they control (rounded up), while a comparable Inner Sphere version weighs one ton and occupies one critical slot for every four tons it controls (also rounded up). Total Warfare updated the rules to specify that Pulse Lasers (including Variable Speed Pulse Lasers and X-Pulse Lasers) as well as multi-shot firing autocannon cannot aim their fire, unless the affected autocannon are fired in single shot mode. In addition, an LB-X autocannon only receives the benefits if it is firing solid rounds instead of cluster ammunition.


Now, what that means, for example is, say, you have a 2x PPC, 2x ERPPC Stalker. That's 28 tons of equipment. So per the rules, the Targeting Computer (and components) would weigh 7 tons and take up 7 crits !!!!!!

That right there... That is a HUGE penalty. You want pinpoint aim? Great! You have to pay for it... bigtime. The Targeting Computer was not only the computer itself, but included things like servos and actuators to move and align the weapons.

I'm not sure but some things I've read said this tech wasn't available to the IS until 3062. Either way, THIS NEEDS TO BE REPRESENTED in this game. It'd go a LOOOOONG way towards fixing this steaming pile of poop.

No Targeting Computer... Tough! No pinpoint convergence! You want it... pay for it.

Case closed. PGI just needs to stick to the rules and implement them as they were written for some things. By not doing so, they end up breaking the game and then putting convoluted, obfuscated systems that make no sense and don't work better than breaking the game worse than it already is.

Vote for the Targeting Computer... Today!

Edit: I am NO WAY endorsing a Cone of Fire. Not one bit. Don't even think of accusing me of doing so. Cones of fire SUCK!

No Targeting Computer--weapons shoot straight ahead. No convergence at all. They shoot straight ahead and you can still hit what you're aiming at if you know their relative impact point--which is consistent barring terrain changes/movement changes to your mech's position on the X/Y/Z axes.

Edit: Furthermore... what about the ARMS?! The Arms already move. So they should be able to aim perfectly... right? Well, from far away, yes. Without a targeting computer they might take a little longer to achieve perfect convergence. But then, we're forgetting something important... The arms can only actuate so much. Some arms in this can move 10 degrees to each side. Others can move 20 or 30. While some (Stalker and Jenner) can't move to the side at all. Just up and down.

So wait... what's that mean? Well, up close, the arms would have to exceed their movement limits. If a mech is in your face, you can't exactly actuate a arm that is limited to 10 degrees to a 50 degree angle to line up a shot. But, with a targeting computer installed on the mech, the weapons on the arm itself could self-actuate even further to dramatically improve convergence beyond the movement ability of the arm.

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

We have Artemis. We have Ferro-Fibrous. We have Endo-Steel. There is no reason we shouldn't have a Targeting Computer. They nerfed Jump Jets. Nerf targeting for craps sake to bring it in-line with the game and what it should be.

Boo-hoo about losing crits or tonnage. You want to snipe... you have to pay to play.

[OneEyed Jack]

Mister Blastman, on 09 December 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

In Battletech, a Targeting Computer is required for convergence!!!!!!!

No.

Every mech has a targeting computer (lower case). It's the basic system that translates moving the crosshairs on the HUD to pointing divergent weapon systems where you want them to go. Clan Targeting Computers (capitalized) are a much improved version. Tell me where it's ever been suggested in canon that IS mechs had no system for actually aiming their guns.

It's like saying mechs don't have sensors unless you equip a BAP.

"Convergence can and should happen." =/= Convergence should be perfect. So don't be gettin yer little panties in a bundle.

[Joseph Mallan]

OneEyed Jack, on 09 December 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

No.

Every mech has a targeting computer (lower case). It's the basic system that translates moving the crosshairs on the HUD to pointing divergent weapon systems where you want them to go. Clan Targeting Computers (capitalized) are a much improved version. Tell me where it's ever been suggested in canon that IS mechs had no system for actually aiming their guns.

It's like saying mechs don't have sensors unless you equip a BAP.

"Convergence can and should happen." =/= Convergence should be perfect. So don't be gettin yer little panties in a bundle.

And many of these lesser targeting systems are unable to handle the complex calculations to truly aim the multiple systems. Some even required bypasses to allow for more weapons!