269 replies to this topic

[MCXL]

Introduction,

First off let me say that this thread isn't going to be about my OPINIONS on this subject, but will simply lay out facts. If you want to know how I feel about the DHS hooplah you can search my posts in threads about it. I'm trying to keep any emotion about this topic out of this thread, to hopefully educate people, on both sides of this dance.

This analyses will have several sections, and it won't have have a TLDR. If you can't be bothered reading the thing and understanding what I'm on about, then don't bother me by responding please.

And, because someone will accuse me of it because that's what people do, I am NOT a TT purist, I just love game design. In fact I have never played BT TT, as much as I admire many TT games, I just cant sit there and play them, never was my thing. I do play turn based games, something about a tabletop setting just doesn't do it for me is all.

Moving on,

This will now be known as the...

MCXL MEGAPOST

MCXL MEGAPOST

MCXL MEGAPOST

MCXL MEGAPOST

MCXL MEGAPOST

MCXL MEGAPOST

CHAPTER ONE: Is It Hot In Here?

(Or is it just me?)

The sections are:

• The Source Material
  
• Heat as a Resource
  
• Text to Clock, The Conversion
  
• "What does this mean, double heat all the way"
  
• PGI's Design Goal, and the Outrage Over DHS
  
• The Good, The Bad
  
• The Question
  
• Thank You!
  
• Additional Reading

​Chapter 2: The Price of Freedom can be found here

Chapter 3: Power to the Player can be found here

Chapter 4: Players, Progression, Power, (And Balancing Around Them) 1/2 can be found here

Section One: The Source Material

(Gutenberg's TRO)

Battletech as we all know is a table top game first and foremost. Its stats and systems have been built around several core values in game play, and there are fundamental differences in how mech combat plays on dice, and how it plays in a sim. Since this post is focusing primarily on heat in game design I won't go too deep into this area, but there are certain things that need to be talked about from a design prospective.

Dice:

• Random hit location (even to the point of making impossible shots)
  
• Weapons with few exceptions hit only one area on the target
  
• Player controls more than one unit (effects decision making heavily)
  
• Range affects Chance to hit significantly based on weapon

Sim:

• Hit location is player determined (Both attacking and defending players)
  
• Weapons with few exceptions deal damage over a wide area (in the same period as a dice turn)
  
• Player IS the unit, cannot have same level of tactical coordination and trust in other units
  
• Range effects weapon damage output, and some weapons reliability to hit

Of course there is more to the obvious changes in each playstyle, but these are the primary ones I can see as a designer in balancing the weapon design.






Now since we are talking about weapon design lets look at some source numbers. I am honestly feeling lazy so we will use ten, but I'll provide the math on what I am doing throughout this post, so if you want to run the numbers on others to try and disprove me or back me up, feel free. For this examination we will only be using whats available to players now, nothing clan tech.

The ten weapons we will be using are:

• Small Laser (Tier 1 Tech)
  
• Small Pulse Laser (Tier 2 Tech)
  
• Medium Laser (Tier 1 Tech)
  
• Medium Pulse Laser (Tier 2 Tech)
  
• Large Laser (Tier 1 Tech)
  
• Large Pulse Laser (Tier 2 Tech)
  
• PPC (Tier 1 Tech)
  
• ERPPC (Tier 2 Tech)
  
• AC/2 (Tier 1 Tech)
  
• AC/20 (Tier 1 Tech)

Ok so we have our weapons, and for those that don't know TT is based on a 10 second turn so...

GUN....Damage....Heat

SL............3..........1

AC/2.........2..........1

SPL..........3..........2

ML............5..........3

MPL..........6..........4

AC/20........20........7

LL..............8..........8

LPL..........10.........9

PPC.........10.......10

ERPPC.....10.......15

As you can see, I plainly have no idea how to import graphs to this forum, (or if it's even possible) so that will be the last one I use :<

Note I am NOT using the Gauss in this analyses, mostly because it has no tech one equivalent.

Now these numbers don't tell the whole story about the weapons but as we are focusing on heat for this post, I am choosing to omit that layer in a specific sense. Just know that I'm aware of the range balance consideration, (and that WILL come up again later).

Section Two: Heat as a Resource

(I cast AC/20)

Most people don't know it, but heat is actually mana from a gameplay perspective. Yup, these robots we pilot, they are actually role playing characters.

Bear with me here, let's compare these two systems:

• Every attack you make uses a certain amount
  
• You regenerate a set amount per turn (or per second) based on items
  
• You gain a larger pool based on items

There are some unique quirks about a Battletech champion though,

• You use mana by moving
  
• You suffer penalties for using too much mana too quickly, (in TT)
  
• You lose courteousness (LOL I meant consciousness) if you overexert yourself fully, and depending on how much determines how long you'r out for.
  
• Getting hurt makes you regenerate mana slower (though this is a function of losing inventory as you get hurt)

I think the best way to look at the system is that Mana in BT is more of a 'lifesource' magical resource, then the more common, "I'm a mage and I hold this much mana in my backpack." type that most games employ. So all minor actions, including being conscious cost mana in BT.




The point of a resource system like mana is to restrict the player to the point that they make choices about what they do. Spend all my mana now? Doll it out slowly? Choices through restriction, pretty common in game design.

Oh also, Ammo is charges.

Section Three: Text to Clock, The Conversion

(you know because its HOT?)

I want to start this section by saying that there is no "right" way to convert a turn based game to real time, and anyone that thinks there is, is incorrect and has an overly simplistic view on game design.

That out of the way, lets look at what PGI decided on as a course of action

• Rate of fire increased from 1 per 10 (THIS IS IMPORTANT, REMEMBER THIS)
  
• Armor increased by a factor of 2.0 per ton
  
• No RNG based hit detection or aiming
  
• Mechs now have a maximum of two firing points, the torso or fixed reticle, and the arm or reticle
  
• Limited information sharing between units, but still, some
  
• At this point no heat penalty other than overheating at ~100% heat capacity (there seems to be a small amount of leeway, might just be lag/a bug)

Ok so 4 and 5 are to this paper not important, but they are important balance and design decisions so I felt it was necessary to mention them.




Let's look at the weapons in MWO now (info from this thread thanks for re-posting it Glythe!)


Weapon_____________Slots___Tons___Damage___Heat___Cooldown___Duration___Range___Max Range____DPS____HPS

Small Laser____________1____0.5______3.0____2.0_______2.25_______0.75______90_________180___1.00___0.67

Medium Laser___________1____1.0______5.0____4.0_______3.00_______1.00_____270_________540___1.25___1.00

Large Laser____________2____5.0______9.0____7.0_______3.25_______1.00_____450_________900___2.12___1.65

Small Pulse Laser______1____1.0______3.0____3.0_______2.25_______0.50______90_________180___1.09___1.09

Medium Pulse Laser_____1____2.0______6.0____5.0_______3.00_______0.75_____180_________360___1.60___1.33

Large Pulse Laser______2____7.0_____10.0____9.0_______3.25_______0.75_____300_________600___2.50___2.25

PPC____________________3____7.0_____10.0____9.0_______3.00________N/A____540(Min 90) 1080___3.33___3.00

ER PPC_________________3____7.0_____10.0___13.0_______3.00________N/A_____810________1620___3.33___4.33

Weapon____Slots___Tons___Damage___Heat___Cooldown___Speed___Range___Max_Range___Impulse____DPS____HPS____SPT

AC/20________10___14.0_____20.0____7.0_______4.00_____750_____270_________810_______1.0___5.00___1.75______7

AC/2__________1____6.0______2.0____1.0_______0.50____2000_____720________2160_______1.0___4.00___2.00_____75

Section Four: "What does this mean? Double heat all the way!"

(more actually "Woah that's so intense!")

NOTE: NOT ALL NUMBERS ARE 100% ACCURATE SINCE THIS WAS WRITTEN MONTHS AGO, HOWEVER MOST ARE STILL PRETTY CLOSE OR IDENTICAL (LPL, PPC, ERPPC HAVE CHANGED MOST)

The main stats I will be using here are the DPS and HPS.

Before I get into my number crunching, I will point out some of my reasoning.

• I will be rounding anything I can down, to try and make the numbers less inconsistent. Numbers will be rounded to the next lowest 1/4th
  
• When I convert these stats back I will be using a 60 second period, that way anything that fires on, say a 3 or 4 second rotation wont throw off the damage per turn numbers (see where this is going yet?)

Lets start with the bread and butter weapon of every class, the Medium Laser.






In MWO the Med laser does 1.25 Damage Per Second, and generates 1.00 Heat Per Second.

Lets take a look at the MWO med laser in the Table top system.

Its total cycle time is 4 seconds, (1sec long shot and 3 sec of CD) , so we divide 60 by 4, getting us 15 shots. Now to find our per diceroll stats. Since a round in Table Top is 10 seconds, as I established earlier, we divide our 60 second stat by 6 to achieve a 10 second average round.

(15*5)/6 (damage) 12.5

(15*4)/6 (heat) 10

Then finally we have to deconstruct the armor change, so divide the damage by 2. To explain here, everything has roughly double HP so in order to show effective damage in a system where HP is half, we half the number. Paul and I had a conversation on the old TS where he said that internals aren't doubled, but I honestly don't know if that is factual and haven't seen any data on it, Paul could you tell me for 100%. <- This is why I decided to round down.

6.25 damage and 10 heat is what we get.

WOW! See that? We just went from 5 damage and 3 heat to 6.25 damage and 10 heat per turn of TT.

Maybe its just the medium lasers, (here is a hint, nope)

Lets jump to the weapon everyone says is useless, the PPC

Using our same formula of:

[(60/ROF)*(D or H)] / 6 = 33.333 Damage (Rounded 33.25) and 30 Heat

Now we take these numbers and plug them into the damage formula

(Damage)/2 16.625

So 16.5 damage and 30 heat per turn.

Now in fairness, the TT rules don't really work in decimals so lets just be nice to PGI and call it 17 damage and 30 heat.

Sorry, that doesn't really help the balance much does it...

To reiterate, that's three times the heat for a 70% damage boost.

The rest of the guns now converted back to a TT turn.

SL............. 5 Damage 6.5 heat
LL............. 10.5 Damage 16.25 Heat
SPL........... 5.25 Damage 10.75 Heat
MPL........... 8 Damage 13.25 Heat
LPL........... 12.5 Damage 22.5 Heat
AC/2.......... 20 Damage 20 Heat
AC/20.........25 Damage 17.5 Heat
ERPPC.......16.5 Damage 43.25 Heat

So yea...

Heat...

Just for fun lets convert these numbers back to the TT damage to see what the heat would be, (no rounding here) Formula is simple, divide both numbers by damage, then multiply them by whatever the TT damage is. So damage on this sheet is identical to TT values, heat is extrapolated based on MWO numbers.

SL 3 Damage 3.9 Heat
ML 5 Damage 8 Heat
LL 8 Damage 12.38 Heat
SPL 3 Damage 6.14 Heat
MPL 6 Damage 9.93 Heat
LPL 10 Damage 18 Heat
AC/2 2 Damage 2 Heat
AC/20 20 Damage 14 Heat
PPC 10 Damage 18.46 Heat
ERPPC 10 Damage 26.61 Heat

For kicks, I'd love for a TT purist to play a round of combat of the 8 basic stock mechs (the ones that have the PCGAMER skin available) using these numbers, and see how it plays...

Section Five: PGI's Design Goal, and the Outrage Over DHS

(what is the goal?)

So you can see from the above chart that things are more different then most would think when it comes to the implementation of heat. And this is where things start taking a different path.

PGI hasn't made it clear what they actually want the game play to be like.

Like I said before I have no real attachment to the TT, and while I played the other games, the balance of multiplayer was never a concern to me because I didn't play online. The designer in me absolutely recognizes that changes MUST be made, in order to make the game... Good.

I have a great respect for any game designer that will tout their goals, and in many regards PGI has done this in spades. From the posts on the pillars of the game, and goals for mech effectiveness, I get the overarching theme. But at this point, I don't think I've seen a design goal on how mech combat should actually proceed.

Basically what it looks like to me, is that there was a critical choice made that upset the relation of the different game balance figures with each other, because all these systems interact.

By changing Armor to 2x, they reduced the risk of burst, and made overall DPS more important as a killing factor. This changes some of the power scale between weapons, but to me that's not the point of this post. If people want me to make a weapon relation post I will, just let me know.

Then by changing the rate of fire, they started to change the damage to heat relationship, by an accelerating factor.

There was a lot of clamoring when they changed to double armor that they also needed to double the amount of ammo per ton. In many cases they did, but in others they did not (AC/20, is now sitting at an extra 40% per ton for example) Ammo is a raw measurement of how much killing potential you have, so when you increase armor you reduce the maximum amount of mechs one can kill.

This is also true for heat.

By effectively reducing damage by 50% the design team at PGI effectively made the amount of heat you needed to generate to kill a mech double what it was.

Going back to mana, this would be the same as making a spell do 50% less damage for the same mana cost. That's a pretty rough nerf.

People wanted DHS not because they are over-powered, but because right now, SHS are wildly under-powered. Even though most people actually don't understand that, the desire is strong.

PGI's choice not to implement 2.0 Heatsinks makes total sense, because they allow builds that are beyond impossible with singles, and it would have a huge impact on the games balance. More than that though people would start to feel the interaction between these items better.

Double Armor, Double Ammo, Double HS efficiency. That's how you make matchups between different builds play out in, (roughly) the same way as they would with TT values, while making them take longer. From there you can balance the different weapons into what you want.

Section Six: The Good/The Bad

(The end)

There are positives of sticking with the current system:

• By lowering heat tolerance, you can make punishments more defined and clear (no 20% penalty etc either you are over limit or not) without as many effects to game balance. This makes things more clear for the average player, and with a learning curve like this game has, every bit counts.
  
• Lowering the heat limit discourages high power alpha strikes, and helps limit burst potential, which was the main goal of the 2X armor change
  
• With proper balance you can force a player to focus on a specific role.

There are disadvantages as well

• The overall weapon balance is skewed wildly
  
• "Stock" mech builds, both with SHS and DHS perform considerably worse than their TT counterparts, even on 'focused' mechs like the swayback and the Awesome PPC varients
  
• The game can feel frustratingly unforgiving when shooting single shots removes 30% of your mana pool (this is part of player dissatisfaction)
  
• You effectively disallow the fun of building a heat neutral mech, that is able to keep up with overall DPS (with some exceptions like missiles)

Section Seven: The Question?

(WHATS IN THE MECH?!?!?!?)

"What is the goal for mech combat in this game, BEYOND, the balance between the different weight classes, and why?"

Section Eight: Thank You!

(Electronic world for every boy and every girl)

If you have made it through this series of posts, and have comments, questions whatever, I would love a non emotional discussion to happen here. I know that my thread isn't the first about the heat systems overall, but I think mine might be the most comprehensive.

Let me know what you think, and to anyone on the design team, If you can't talk about these things publicly I would love to talk in a less open way, because as a design enthusiast I am REALLY interested in this.

Thanks everyone!

-MCXL

Oh, also I type too long.

Section Nine: Additional Reading

(MORE?!?!?!!?!?!?)

If you are interested in MORE READING, MunstrumRidcully did a really good post using some similar data to talk about weapon balance. HERE And another about heat optimal battle builds HERE and finally if you are intereted in a dataset like mine but for everything, he has one about the back to TT conversion HERE

Great minds right?

If you have another great info thread, let me know and I will add it to the OP

Also in case you missed them, here are links to the other Chapters:
Chapter Two: The Price of Freedom
Chapter Three: Power to the Player
Chapter Four: Players, Progression, Power, (And Balancing Around Them) 1 of 2

Edited by MCXL, 18 May 2013 - 07:32 AM.

[MonkeyDCecil]

WTF man finish the post

[MCXL]

What?

WHAT?!

Edited by MCXL, 04 November 2012 - 12:33 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Tip: If you want to export charts - copy & paste them in an image editor, save them as file, upload it to a service that allows hotlinking like photobucket. That's how I did my charts, like below

Spoiler

Fore more details, read one of my threads

Feedback:
Good research. I did something similar in Closed Beta (not bragging, just wanting to tell you that you are not alone out here!)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 04 November 2012 - 12:34 PM.

[MCXL]

Mustrum I am to dang lazy to make Images of graphs, that's like taking a picture of my TV.

Also, I saw your post during closed beta, it was badical, Jawsome even. I'd love to see it here again.

EDIT: To follow up on that, Mustrum I know we woprked a lot of similar data, aabut my post isnt actually about weapon balance, which I think is what people are too dang focused on. The cries of, "PPC BAD, GAUSS GOOOD" are skipping the part where heat is like 100-2000% off for weapons which sort of overshadows DPS differences.

Edited by MCXL, 04 November 2012 - 12:40 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

MCXL, on 04 November 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

Mustrum I am to dang lazy to make Images of graphs, that's like taking a picture of my TV.

Also, I saw your post during closed beta, it was badical, Jawsome even. I'd love to see it here again.

EDIT: To follow up on that, Mustrum I know we woprked a lot of similar data, aabut my post isnt actually about weapon balance, which I think is what people are too dang focused on. The cries of, "PPC BAD, GAUSS GOOOD" are skipping the part where heat is like 100-2000% off for weapons which sort of overshadows DPS differences.

Spoiler

Weapon Name Range Damge Heat Cooldown Duration Slots Tons Ammo/Shot Cycle Time DPS HPS APS TT Damage TT Damage without Double Armour TT Heat Machine Gun 90 0,04 0,00 0,10 0,00 1,00 0,50 10,00 2000,00 0,10 0,40 0,00 100 4 2 0 AC/20 270 20,00 7,00 4,00 0,00 10,00 14,00 1,00 7,00 4,00 5,00 1,75 0,25 50 25 17,5 AC/10 450 10,00 3,00 3,00 0,00 7,00 12,00 1,00 15,00 3,00 3,33 1,00 0,333333 33,33333 16,66667 10 AC/5 540 5,00 1,00 1,70 0,00 4,00 8,00 1,00 30,00 1,70 2,94 0,59 0,588235 29,41176 14,70588 5,882353 LB10-X AC 540 10,00 2,00 2,50 0,00 6,00 11,00 1,00 15,00 2,50 4,00 0,80 0,4 40 20 8 Ultra AC/5 600 5,00 1,00 1,10 0,00 5,00 9,00 1,00 25,00 1,10 4,55 0,91 0,909091 45,45455 22,72727 9,090909 Ultra AC/5 Double Shot 600 5,00 1,00 0,92 0,00 5,00 9,00 1,00 25,00 0,92 5,41 1,08 1,082251 54,11255 27,05628 10,82251 Gauss Rifle 660 15,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 7,00 15,00 1,00 10,00 4,00 3,75 0,25 0,25 37,5 18,75 2,5 AC/2 720 2,00 1,00 0,50 0,00 1,00 6,00 1,00 75,00 0,50 4,00 2,00 2 40 20 20 Flamer 64 0,40 0,60 0,50 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,50 0,80 1,20 0 8 4 12 Small Laser 90 3,00 2,00 2,25 0,75 1,00 0,50 2,25 1,33 0,89 0 13,33333 6,666667 8,888889 Small Pulse Laser 90 3,00 3,00 2,25 0,50 1,00 1,00 2,25 1,33 1,33 0 13,33333 6,666667 13,33333 Medium Pulse Laser 180 6,00 5,00 3,00 0,75 1,00 2,00 3,00 2,00 1,67 0 20 10 16,66667 Medium Laser 270 5,00 4,00 3,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 3,00 1,67 1,33 0 16,66667 8,333333 13,33333 Large Pulse Laser 300 10,00 9,00 3,25 0,75 2,00 7,00 3,25 3,08 2,77 0 30,76923 15,38462 27,69231 Large Laser 450 9,00 7,00 3,25 1,00 2,00 5,00 3,25 2,77 2,15 0 27,69231 13,84615 21,53846 PPC 540 10,00 9,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 7,00 3,00 3,33 3,00 0 33,33333 16,66667 30 ER Large Laser 675 9,00 10,00 3,25 1,00 2,00 5,00 3,25 2,77 3,08 0 27,69231 13,84615 30,76923 ER PPC 810 10,00 13,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 7,00 3,00 3,33 4,33 0 33,33333 16,66667 43,33333 Streak SRM2 270 5,00 2,00 3,50 0,00 1,00 1,50 2,00 100,00 3,50 1,43 0,57 0,571429 14,28571 7,142857 5,714286 SRM2 270 5,00 2,00 3,50 0,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 100,00 3,50 1,43 0,57 0,571429 14,28571 7,142857 5,714286 SRM4 270 10,00 3,00 3,75 0,00 1,00 2,00 4,00 100,00 3,75 2,67 0,80 1,066667 26,66667 13,33333 8 SRM6 280 15,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 3,00 6,00 100,00 4,00 3,75 1,00 1,5 37,5 18,75 10 LRM5 1000 10,00 2,00 3,25 0,00 1,00 2,00 5,00 180,00 3,25 3,08 0,62 1,538462 30,76923 15,38462 6,153846 LRM10 1000 20,00 4,00 3,75 0,00 2,00 5,00 10,00 180,00 3,75 5,33 1,07 2,666667 53,33333 26,66667 10,66667 LRM15 1000 30,00 5,00 4,25 0,00 3,00 7,00 15,00 180,00 4,25 7,06 1,18 3,529412 70,58824 35,29412 11,76471 LRM20 1000 40,00 6,00 4,75 0,00 5,00 10,00 20,00 180,00 4,75 8,42 1,26 4,210526 84,21053 42,10526 12,63158

Hey, it almost looks as if you can copy & paste tables directly from excel in the forum editor. Let's see how it looks afterwards.

EDIT: Ah, horrible.

Guess upload to photobucket will have to remain the standard procedure:



Posted this also as seperate thread: http://mwomercs.com/...into-table-top/

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 04 November 2012 - 01:00 PM.

[MCXL]

Spoiler

Weapon Name Range Damge Heat Cooldown Duration Slots Tons Ammo/Shot Cycle Time DPS HPS APS TT Damage TT Damage without Double Armour TT Heat Machine Gun 90 0,04 0,00 0,10 0,00 1,00 0,50 10,00 2000,00 0,10 0,40 0,00 100 4 2 0 AC/20 270 20,00 7,00 4,00 0,00 10,00 14,00 1,00 7,00 4,00 5,00 1,75 0,25 50 25 17,5 AC/10 450 10,00 3,00 3,00 0,00 7,00 12,00 1,00 15,00 3,00 3,33 1,00 0,333333 33,33333 16,66667 10 AC/5 540 5,00 1,00 1,70 0,00 4,00 8,00 1,00 30,00 1,70 2,94 0,59 0,588235 29,41176 14,70588 5,882353 LB10-X AC 540 10,00 2,00 2,50 0,00 6,00 11,00 1,00 15,00 2,50 4,00 0,80 0,4 40 20 8 Ultra AC/5 600 5,00 1,00 1,10 0,00 5,00 9,00 1,00 25,00 1,10 4,55 0,91 0,909091 45,45455 22,72727 9,090909 Ultra AC/5 Double Shot 600 5,00 1,00 0,92 0,00 5,00 9,00 1,00 25,00 0,92 5,41 1,08 1,082251 54,11255 27,05628 10,82251 Gauss Rifle 660 15,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 7,00 15,00 1,00 10,00 4,00 3,75 0,25 0,25 37,5 18,75 2,5 AC/2 720 2,00 1,00 0,50 0,00 1,00 6,00 1,00 75,00 0,50 4,00 2,00 2 40 20 20 Flamer 64 0,40 0,60 0,50 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,50 0,80 1,20 0 8 4 12 Small Laser 90 3,00 2,00 2,25 0,75 1,00 0,50 2,25 1,33 0,89 0 13,33333 6,666667 8,888889 Small Pulse Laser 90 3,00 3,00 2,25 0,50 1,00 1,00 2,25 1,33 1,33 0 13,33333 6,666667 13,33333 Medium Pulse Laser 180 6,00 5,00 3,00 0,75 1,00 2,00 3,00 2,00 1,67 0 20 10 16,66667 Medium Laser 270 5,00 4,00 3,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 3,00 1,67 1,33 0 16,66667 8,333333 13,33333 Large Pulse Laser 300 10,00 9,00 3,25 0,75 2,00 7,00 3,25 3,08 2,77 0 30,76923 15,38462 27,69231 Large Laser 450 9,00 7,00 3,25 1,00 2,00 5,00 3,25 2,77 2,15 0 27,69231 13,84615 21,53846 PPC 540 10,00 9,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 7,00 3,00 3,33 3,00 0 33,33333 16,66667 30 ER Large Laser 675 9,00 10,00 3,25 1,00 2,00 5,00 3,25 2,77 3,08 0 27,69231 13,84615 30,76923 ER PPC 810 10,00 13,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 7,00 3,00 3,33 4,33 0 33,33333 16,66667 43,33333 Streak SRM2 270 5,00 2,00 3,50 0,00 1,00 1,50 2,00 100,00 3,50 1,43 0,57 0,571429 14,28571 7,142857 5,714286 SRM2 270 5,00 2,00 3,50 0,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 100,00 3,50 1,43 0,57 0,571429 14,28571 7,142857 5,714286 SRM4 270 10,00 3,00 3,75 0,00 1,00 2,00 4,00 100,00 3,75 2,67 0,80 1,066667 26,66667 13,33333 8 SRM6 280 15,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 3,00 6,00 100,00 4,00 3,75 1,00 1,5 37,5 18,75 10 LRM5 1000 10,00 2,00 3,25 0,00 1,00 2,00 5,00 180,00 3,25 3,08 0,62 1,538462 30,76923 15,38462 6,153846 LRM10 1000 20,00 4,00 3,75 0,00 2,00 5,00 10,00 180,00 3,75 5,33 1,07 2,666667 53,33333 26,66667 10,66667 LRM15 1000 30,00 5,00 4,25 0,00 3,00 7,00 15,00 180,00 4,25 7,06 1,18 3,529412 70,58824 35,29412 11,76471 LRM20 1000 40,00 6,00 4,75 0,00 5,00 10,00 20,00 180,00 4,75 8,42 1,26 4,210526 84,21053 42,10526 12,63158

OH GOD, MY EYES!

Edited by MCXL, 04 November 2012 - 12:55 PM.

[blindoracle]

Wow that's an increadible post and explains many of the things I have felt as a new player who enjoyed the table top game. It's frustrating from a new player's perspective to heavy laser somone 3 or 4 times and feel like your getting nothing out of it and then have to back off because your close to your heat limit, when in a comparative sense, sustained heavy laser fire could be withering on the table top.

[Hatachi]

I agree with almost everything you've just said and wrote a very similar post in closed beta. However, I can't control my snarkiness enough to not post this picture.

Battlemechs are roleplaying characters.

[MustrumRidcully]

MCXL, on 04 November 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

Spoiler

Weapon Name Range Damge Heat Cooldown Duration Slots Tons Ammo/Shot Cycle Time DPS HPS APS TT Damage TT Damage without Double Armour TT Heat Machine Gun 90 0,04 0,00 0,10 0,00 1,00 0,50 10,00 2000,00 0,10 0,40 0,00 100 4 2 0 AC/20 270 20,00 7,00 4,00 0,00 10,00 14,00 1,00 7,00 4,00 5,00 1,75 0,25 50 25 17,5 AC/10 450 10,00 3,00 3,00 0,00 7,00 12,00 1,00 15,00 3,00 3,33 1,00 0,333333 33,33333 16,66667 10 AC/5 540 5,00 1,00 1,70 0,00 4,00 8,00 1,00 30,00 1,70 2,94 0,59 0,588235 29,41176 14,70588 5,882353 LB10-X AC 540 10,00 2,00 2,50 0,00 6,00 11,00 1,00 15,00 2,50 4,00 0,80 0,4 40 20 8 Ultra AC/5 600 5,00 1,00 1,10 0,00 5,00 9,00 1,00 25,00 1,10 4,55 0,91 0,909091 45,45455 22,72727 9,090909 Ultra AC/5 Double Shot 600 5,00 1,00 0,92 0,00 5,00 9,00 1,00 25,00 0,92 5,41 1,08 1,082251 54,11255 27,05628 10,82251 Gauss Rifle 660 15,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 7,00 15,00 1,00 10,00 4,00 3,75 0,25 0,25 37,5 18,75 2,5 AC/2 720 2,00 1,00 0,50 0,00 1,00 6,00 1,00 75,00 0,50 4,00 2,00 2 40 20 20 Flamer 64 0,40 0,60 0,50 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,50 0,80 1,20 0 8 4 12 Small Laser 90 3,00 2,00 2,25 0,75 1,00 0,50 2,25 1,33 0,89 0 13,33333 6,666667 8,888889 Small Pulse Laser 90 3,00 3,00 2,25 0,50 1,00 1,00 2,25 1,33 1,33 0 13,33333 6,666667 13,33333 Medium Pulse Laser 180 6,00 5,00 3,00 0,75 1,00 2,00 3,00 2,00 1,67 0 20 10 16,66667 Medium Laser 270 5,00 4,00 3,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 3,00 1,67 1,33 0 16,66667 8,333333 13,33333 Large Pulse Laser 300 10,00 9,00 3,25 0,75 2,00 7,00 3,25 3,08 2,77 0 30,76923 15,38462 27,69231 Large Laser 450 9,00 7,00 3,25 1,00 2,00 5,00 3,25 2,77 2,15 0 27,69231 13,84615 21,53846 PPC 540 10,00 9,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 7,00 3,00 3,33 3,00 0 33,33333 16,66667 30 ER Large Laser 675 9,00 10,00 3,25 1,00 2,00 5,00 3,25 2,77 3,08 0 27,69231 13,84615 30,76923 ER PPC 810 10,00 13,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 7,00 3,00 3,33 4,33 0 33,33333 16,66667 43,33333 Streak SRM2 270 5,00 2,00 3,50 0,00 1,00 1,50 2,00 100,00 3,50 1,43 0,57 0,571429 14,28571 7,142857 5,714286 SRM2 270 5,00 2,00 3,50 0,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 100,00 3,50 1,43 0,57 0,571429 14,28571 7,142857 5,714286 SRM4 270 10,00 3,00 3,75 0,00 1,00 2,00 4,00 100,00 3,75 2,67 0,80 1,066667 26,66667 13,33333 8 SRM6 280 15,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 3,00 6,00 100,00 4,00 3,75 1,00 1,5 37,5 18,75 10 LRM5 1000 10,00 2,00 3,25 0,00 1,00 2,00 5,00 180,00 3,25 3,08 0,62 1,538462 30,76923 15,38462 6,153846 LRM10 1000 20,00 4,00 3,75 0,00 2,00 5,00 10,00 180,00 3,75 5,33 1,07 2,666667 53,33333 26,66667 10,66667 LRM15 1000 30,00 5,00 4,25 0,00 3,00 7,00 15,00 180,00 4,25 7,06 1,18 3,529412 70,58824 35,29412 11,76471 LRM20 1000 40,00 6,00 4,75 0,00 5,00 10,00 20,00 180,00 4,75 8,42 1,26 4,210526 84,21053 42,10526 12,63158

OH GOD, MY EYES!

What has been seen cannot be unseen*.


* Unless you're sued by Harmony Gold [/Battletech Caveat]

[MCXL]

Blindoracle,

My analyses sort of provides the proof that "Sustained Heavy Laser Fire" isn't like, a thing. So Its totally understandable how you feel.

Hatachi...

I LIKE THIS!



So, I just feel like running the numbers on one more gun, the master of QQ, the GAUSS

The Raw TT converted number is 18.25 damage and 2.5 Heat, or if we convert the damage over to the TT value 15 damage and 2.1 Heat.

Edited by MCXL, 04 November 2012 - 01:03 PM.

[MCXL]

MustrumRidcully, on 04 November 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

What has been seen cannot be unseen*.


* Unless you're sued by Harmony Gold [/Battletech Caveat]

I honestly don't want to intimidate people. If you agree, if you don't, if you don't care, I'm still interested in your feedback.

Edited by MCXL, 04 November 2012 - 01:23 PM.

[Hatachi]

I would like to add one more common example to the brawler/assassin heat ideas. You need to remember the builds that rely on bracket fire. The classic example being the standard trebuchet. You can either fire your medium lasers or fire your LRMs. You CAN fire both but you're taking an awful lot of heat for the turn in doing so. So, it's really made to do one or the other based on target range. A large majority of clan mechs are built around this idea.

[MCXL]

For those that are interested in the conversion process, (back to TT) Munstrum just posted this gem which I really like.

I also added an additional reading section to the OP.

I'm gonna go watch some TV then go to sleep, I think, but I want to come back to some interesting posts gosh darn it!

[Lefty Lucy]

I love this post, thanks a lot MCXL.

One of the big problems with 1.4 DHS is really exemplified by the AWS-9M. Even with 2.0 DHS, it still can't fire more than once per 10 seconds with all of its guns.

With 1.4 DHS you're looking at a mech that can only fire effectively about every 15 seconds. That's just broken.

[valrond]

Excellent post. Great explanation why the game isn't working as it should and why it doesn't feel like BT or MW at all.

[MCXL]

I think ill try making some example builds as a follow up to this post later, when I get up.

The AWS-9M is an interesting example to go into, but tech level 1 mechs like the 8Q and the swayback are even more pertinent because of the fact that the system is changed to such a core level.

[Super Mono]

MCXL, on 04 November 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

I think ill try making some example builds as a follow up to this post later, when I get up.

The AWS-9M is an interesting example to go into, but tech level 1 mechs like the 8Q and the swayback are even more pertinent because of the fact that the system is changed to such a core level.

Just stuff like the JR7-F is completely screwed with these numbers as 1 medium laser completely overwhelms its heat sinks.

[Vapor Trail]

I think there is some merit to a point that was raised in a couple of the threads. The Devs may have made a deliberate decision to leave HdR alone while raising RoF. The raise in RoFs is supposed to give some option to firing faster, at the expense of heat.

Basically:
TT fire and dissipation rates are the "default" mode.
You can fire faster than TT rates, at the expense of building up heat, or sacrificing weapon tonnage (and therefore burst damage) to extra heat sinks for improved long term DPS.

The problem with this premise is, of course, the Gauss Rifle.

Eventually the Gauss needs to be looked at.

Open at own risk:

Spoiler

The biggest problem with the Gauss isn't it's low heat, or high damage. It's the Dev's chosen RoF.

To fire the Gauss at TT's RoF you need 1 heat sink.
The Gauss' chosen max RoF of once every four seconds generates 2.5 heat every ten seconds. or .25 heat per second. This is dissipated most evenly by having 3 heat sinks. The 'average RoF limiter' of the Gauss effectively is the RoF limit. It will be at any reasonable setting of max RoF.

The ERPPC, as both the biggest heat generator in the game, and the Gauss' closest competitor for long range power is an easy choice for comparison.

To fire the ERPPC at TT's RoF you need 13 heat sinks.
The ERPPC's max RoF of once every three seconds generates 43.333 heat every ten seconds, or 4.333 heat per second. This is dissipated most evenly by having 44 heat sinks. The 'average RoF limiter' of the ERPPC is how many heat sinks you can throw at it.

But you can front load the ERPPC by firing it at it's max RoF until you can't fire any more due to heat.
So the 'length of time at max RoF limiter' is the heat cap. But since heat cap is 30 + # of heat sinks, this also is based on how many heat sinks you can throw at it.

At TT RoF heat neutral sink numbers (13) heat cap is 43. This means you can fire the ERPPC three times at max RoF before worrying about shutdown, because you wind up at 35.1 heat. You have to wait an extra 3.85 seconds to avoid shutdown, and then fire the fourth shot. Which raises your heat to just short of shutdown. The fifth shot comes ten seconds after that, and every shot thereafter must come at the average rate of fire (once every ten seconds)

Total damage output in before average RoF limits is forced, 40.
Total time after first shot (first shot fired at t = 0) until the fourth shot is fired, 12.85 seconds.

What I'm starting to think happened was someone thought:
"Gauss should do 1.5x the maximum damage of the ERPPC at max RoF in the same amount of time. "
"12.85 seconds is close to 12."
1.5 * 40 Damage = 60 Damage
60 Damage /15 Damage per shot = 4 shots
12 seconds / 4 shots = 4 seconds / shot (with one shot at 0, 4, 8, and 12 seconds)
==> 1 shot every 4 seconds RoF.
Therefore "This is where we should set Gauss."

This is flawed mathematically. The Gauss' easily maxed RoF is "balanced" against a single ERPPC's max RoF. But that balance holds for, guess what, 12.85 seconds against a single ERPPC. Outside that time period, the Gauss is 3.75 times better than the ERPPC.

Evidence of this being bad weapon balance is obtained by noting what happens when you double up on the weapons systems. Two Gauss put out 120 damage in 16 seconds (including cooldown on the ends of all the shots, 12 seconds if you're only concerned about the shots themselves). If the weapons are balanced, the ERPPCs should be able to keep pace, right?

But two ERPPCs can't put out 80 in 12 seconds (or even 16 seconds). Why? Because you only get +13 heat cap for the second PPC system, not +43.

+13 to heat cap puts it at 56.
First salvo brings heat to 26. Which cools to 18.2.
Second salvo brings heat to 44.2. Which cools to 36.4.
Third salvo would bring heat to 62.4. Overheat, so must cool.
Heat at 44.2, cools 2.6 every second, cools to just under 30 (which allows the salvo to fire yet not shut down) in 5.46 seconds additional.
Third Salvo fires.
Bringing heat to just under shutdown level, and every shot thereafter is fired at average RoF (one shot every 10 seconds.)

Total time from first salvo (fired @ t = 0) 11.46 seconds. Damage dealt, 60. Time to deal 80: 21.46 seconds. ~7.5 seconds greater than the target. During this time, the Dual Gauss would have fired twice more.

So, Gauss is firing much too fast at one shot every 4 seconds.

I haven't run the numbers yet to prove it, but I suspect that the Gauss would be MUCH better balanced with a max RoF closer to 8 seconds than 4.

[Lefty Lucy]

Vapor Trail, on 04 November 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

I think there is some merit to a point that was raised in a couple of the threads. The Devs may have made a deliberate decision to leave HdR alone while raising RoF. The raise in RoFs is supposed to give some option to firing faster, at the expense of heat.

Basically:
TT fire and dissipation rates are the "default" mode.
You can fire faster than TT rates, at the expense of building up heat, or sacrificing weapon tonnage (and therefore burst damage) to extra heat sinks for improved long term DPS.

The problem with this premise is, of course, the Gauss Rifle.

Eventually the Gauss needs to be looked at.

Open at own risk:

Spoiler

The biggest problem with the Gauss isn't it's low heat, or high damage. It's the Dev's chosen RoF.

To fire the Gauss at TT's RoF you need 1 heat sink.
The Gauss' chosen max RoF of once every four seconds generates 2.5 heat every ten seconds. or .25 heat per second. This is dissipated most evenly by having 3 heat sinks. The 'average RoF limiter' of the Gauss effectively is the RoF limit. It will be at any reasonable setting of max RoF.

The ERPPC, as both the biggest heat generator in the game, and the Gauss' closest competitor for long range power is an easy choice for comparison.

To fire the ERPPC at TT's RoF you need 13 heat sinks.
The ERPPC's max RoF of once every three seconds generates 43.333 heat every ten seconds, or 4.333 heat per second. This is dissipated most evenly by having 44 heat sinks. The 'average RoF limiter' of the ERPPC is how many heat sinks you can throw at it.

But you can front load the ERPPC by firing it at it's max RoF until you can't fire any more due to heat.
So the 'length of time at max RoF limiter' is the heat cap. But since heat cap is 30 + # of heat sinks, this also is based on how many heat sinks you can throw at it.

At TT RoF heat neutral sink numbers (13) heat cap is 43. This means you can fire the ERPPC three times at max RoF before worrying about shutdown, because you wind up at 35.1 heat. You have to wait an extra 3.85 seconds to avoid shutdown, and then fire the fourth shot. Which raises your heat to just short of shutdown. The fifth shot comes ten seconds after that, and every shot thereafter must come at the average rate of fire (once every ten seconds)

Total damage output in before average RoF limits is forced, 40.
Total time after first shot (first shot fired at t = 0) until the fourth shot is fired, 12.85 seconds.

What I'm starting to think happened was someone thought:
"Gauss should do 1.5x the maximum damage of the ERPPC at max RoF in the same amount of time. "
"12.85 seconds is close to 12."
1.5 * 40 Damage = 60 Damage
60 Damage /15 Damage per shot = 4 shots
12 seconds / 4 shots = 4 seconds / shot (with one shot at 0, 4, 8, and 12 seconds)
==> 1 shot every 4 seconds RoF.
Therefore "This is where we should set Gauss."

This is flawed mathematically. The Gauss' easily maxed RoF is "balanced" against a single ERPPC's max RoF. But that balance holds for, guess what, 12.85 seconds against a single ERPPC. Outside that time period, the Gauss is 3.75 times better than the ERPPC.

Evidence of this being bad weapon balance is obtained by noting what happens when you double up on the weapons systems. Two Gauss put out 120 damage in 16 seconds (including cooldown on the ends of all the shots, 12 seconds if you're only concerned about the shots themselves). If the weapons are balanced, the ERPPCs should be able to keep pace, right?

But two ERPPCs can't put out 80 in 12 seconds (or even 16 seconds). Why? Because you only get +13 heat cap for the second PPC system, not +43.

+13 to heat cap puts it at 56.
First salvo brings heat to 26. Which cools to 18.2.
Second salvo brings heat to 44.2. Which cools to 36.4.
Third salvo would bring heat to 62.4. Overheat, so must cool.
Heat at 44.2, cools 2.6 every second, cools to just under 30 (which allows the salvo to fire yet not shut down) in 5.46 seconds additional.
Third Salvo fires.
Bringing heat to just under shutdown level, and every shot thereafter is fired at average RoF (one shot every 10 seconds.)

Total time from first salvo (fired @ t = 0) 11.46 seconds. Damage dealt, 60. Time to deal 80: 21.46 seconds. ~7.5 seconds greater than the target. During this time, the Dual Gauss would have fired twice more.

So, Gauss is firing much too fast at one shot every 4 seconds.

I haven't run the numbers yet to prove it, but I suspect that the Gauss would be MUCH better balanced with a max RoF closer to 8 seconds than 4.

I feel like if they *drastically* decreased the RoF of Gauss and LRMs then the game would be improved greatly. Gauss should probably fire once every 7-8 seconds.