65 replies to this topic

[Vapor Trail]

Ok, I was doing some analysis for general heat threads and I think I may have found the reason the devs are concerned about true Double Heat Sinks. Since the Devs haven't posed their rationale, I can only assume what I've discovered is correct.

First off, this is going to be highly theoretical using the weapons numbers from BEFORE yesterday's patch. It may not be an accurate picture of where the weapons are currently.

This also makes heavy use of the comparison of 'Damage Per Second per Ton mass' or DPSpT.

I'm also going to be seperating this into sections with spoiler tags.

Some preperatory work:

Calculation of DPSpT for a given weapon system is as follows:

Spoiler

"Damage/Shot of the Weapon" / "Duty Cycle" / ( "Weapon Mass" + "Ammo Tonnage" + "Heat sink Tonnage")

Where:
Damage/Shot and Weapon Mass are fundamental aspects of the weapon.

Duty Cycle is the reciprocal ('1/x') of Rate of Fire ('x'). This rate of fire is assigned and is the Max Rate of Fire for the weapon unless otherwise indicated. The reason this is done is convenience.

Ammo Tonnage is a variable. I chose to represent this variable as something I termed "Common Ballistic Base ammo load" or CBBal. Basically CBBal is a time. It is the total time for continuous fire. Basically if you leaned on the trigger your weapon would fire this long (ignoring heat and shutdown).
Example: A Gauss rifle with a CBBal of 160sec would be carrying exactly 4 tons of ammo. An AC/20 with the same CBBal applied would be carrying 5.714 tons. Due to the lack of rounding (haven't been able to implement it, yet) this is actually overprecise. It represents the weapons with partial tons of ammo. However, the change from that partial ton (up or down) is small.

Heat sink Tonnage is based on Heat per Shot of the weapon, Duty Cycle, and the Heat dissipation Rate (HdR) of a single heat sink, and the tonnage of a single heat sink.

"Heat per Shot" / "Duty Cycle" = "Heat per Second Generated @ Duty Cycle"

"Heat per Second Generated @ Duty Cycle" / "Heat dissipation Rate (for a single heat sink)" = "# of Heat sinks to render heat neutral @ Duty Cycle".

Duty cycle, Heat per Second Generated, # of heat sinks to render heat neutral are linked. The faster you fire, the more heat you generate, and the more heat sinks you need to sustain that average rate of fire.

You don't have to assign RoF to maximum for comparison. It's just convenient. I can explore relative DPSpT comparisons at RoFs other than maximum for different weapons later in the thread if there's a demand.

Lets explore these numbers for a second.

Spoiler

An ERPPC has a Heat per Shot of 13. And a maximum RoF of 1 shot every three seconds, for a duty cycle of 3 seconds per shot.

So Heat per Second Generated would be 13 / 3 = 4.333.
And the number of sinks would be 4.333 / .1 = 43.333
So at max RoF an ERPPC would need 43.333 heat sinks to render it heat neutral, and would have a DPSpT of 10/3/(7+43.333) = .06623

"But you can fire it slower!"
As a response I can only say "DUH! And you will lower, not raise your DPSpT by doing so."
If you set the rate of fire, for example, to one shot every ten seconds, you have a duty cycle of ten seconds per shot.
Therefore Heat per Second Generated would be 13 / 10 = 1.3.
Number of sinks would be 1.3 / .1 = 13
So at this RoF an ERPPC would need 13 heat sinks to render it heat neutral, and would have a DPSpT of 10/10/(7+13) = .05

In reality, the Average Rate of Fire for a weapon is set by how many heat sinks you have dedicated to that weapon. If you fire the weapon faster than you have heat sinks for, you build up heat. If you do that, you have to cool off. Once you've cooled off, you're no longer firing, nor affecting your ability to fire, .therefore time spent at baseline heat is not relevant to weapon balance.

Your Average Rate of fire is what dictates how often you can fire over a long period of time, regardless of if you fire very quickly and then spend a lot of time cooling back to baseline, or fire very slowly, cooling back to baseline each time.

Now for the pretty graphs.

Spoiler

I know I don't have the UAC/5 or LB10-X in these. For the UAC/5 I want to get the Jamming mechanic sorted out to something stable (and not DDR Mechwarrior), and I'd like to quantify the LB10X's damage vs range a bit better. It's a function of the expansion of the shot pattern area at range vs the area of the target mech... which changes based on what target you're shooting at.

But for the most part the weapons are in here. Descriptions of each are below.

Spoiler

This is straight Damage at range. Nothing really special here. If you fire one shot, this is the damage you expect to see hitting a target at the indicated range.

Spoiler

This is Damage per Second (at max RoF). No real surprises. If you fire a weapon at max RoF, this is the DPS you get at the range indicated. I know someone's going to look at the ERPPC and the Gauss, and say "See they're balanced because the graphs touch!"

BUUUZZZ! Wrong answer.
You've got to remember that these are weapons firing at Max RoF without regard to heat.

Spoiler

This is DPSpT using Single Heat Sinks. Note the ballistics, both as a group and as individuals. Now look at the area under each of their graphs. Gauss is top dog (huge area), but the AC/5 is right there in second place. Third is the AC/2 actually surpassing the Gauss in DPS at extreme range. AC/10 is next, followed by the AC/20.

But these numbers don't take any ammo mass into account.

Spoiler

This graph takes ammo tonnage into account. It does this by assigning what I termed "Common Ballistic Base ammo load" which is a time figure that details the maximum length of time a weapon can fire, at the assigned rate of fire, which is then converted to tonnage based on the shots per ton for that weapon, then added to the total tonnage. This brings down the DPSpT some with relation to the energy weapons, but it doesn't change the relative positions between the ballistic groups.

The load I chose for this graph was for 160 seconds of fire. Note the Small Laser.

*** Skip to here if you don't want to read the preperatory stuff ***

And now for the main event:

Spoiler

This is where we were with the last graph,:

Spoiler

Note the relative positions of the Ballistics group, the Small Laser, and the Medium Laser.

That graph describes the relative weapon balance that existed before the patch.
This next one shows the change that 2.0 Heat sinks would make.

Spoiler

Note the Small and Medium Lasers. The DPSpT of these two weapons is pushed pretty high. This is probably the cause for the Dev's concern. However, the current maximum Laser Boat is the HBK-4P with 9 mounts.

Total DPS, of 9 Small Lasers firing heat neutral at Max RoF:
3 damage/shot / 3 second DC = 1 DPS.
1 DPS x 9 = 9 DPS for the mech.
9/.26 DPS/T = ~34.6 tons Which probably goes to 35 in practice. So yes, this build is probably possible by tonnage.

Total DPS of 9 Medium lasers at Max Rof:
5 Damage/shot / 4.25 second DC = 1.1765 DPS
1.1765 DPS x 9 = 10.558
10.558 / .21 DPSpT = 50.276 tons, which probably goes to 51 in practice. So no, this build is impossible by tonnage.

But, a 7 Med Laser build is probably possible by tonnage on the AWS-8Q.

Here's the result of the SubDHS fix.

Spoiler

However, I say this: DHS are not the cause of this. The weapons in question ARE. To call them out, the Small Laser, and the Medium Laser. Tweaking DHS like this has effects way beyond the problem area. Note the effect on EVERY OTHER ENERGY WEAPON.

Yes the change to a .14 HdR "fixes" the Small and Medium Laser. But it ALSO "fixes" the Large Pulse Laser, ER Large Laser, PPC, ERPPC, AC/20... None of which needed "fixing" in this manner, and actually benefited from true (.2 HdR) DHS.

Here's even a possible set of fixes that should allow retaining DHS with a .2 HdR (and improve Small and Medium Pulse Lasers with regard to the regular versions at the same time)
Though some people are likely to scream about nerfing the small and medium lasers.

Spoiler

Small Laser
Decrease damage by one half point per shot.
Increase "burn time" by .25 second.
Increase the "cooldown time" by .25 second.
(Total duty cycle increase .5 seconds to a total DC of 3.5 seconds, Max Rof 1 shot every 3.5 seconds)

Medium Laser (if it actually proves a problem)
Increase "burn time" by .5 second.
Increase "cooldown time" by .25 second.
(Total duty cycle increase .75 second, to a total DC of 5 seconds. Max RoF 1 shot every 5 seconds)

The longer burn times puts greater emphasis on the pulse versions shorter burn times, and the longer duty cycle also makes the pulse weapons slightly better in comparison.

Graphs showing effects of these changes:

Spoiler

Single Heat sinks:

Spoiler

And using TRUE Double Heat sinks.

Spoiler

Again, if my supposition is correct, True DHS is not the problem. The Small and Medium Lasers are. And the solution should FIX the problem and not create or exacerbate others.

Sometimes I swear I spend more time THINKING about Mechwarrior than PLAYING Mechwarrior.

Edited by Vapor Trail, 07 November 2012 - 06:28 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Vapor Trail, on 07 November 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

Ok, I was doing some analysis for general heat threads and I think I may have found the reason the devs are concerned about true Double Heat Sinks. Since the Devs haven't posed their rationale, I can only assume what I've discovered is correct.

First off, this is going to be highly theoretical using the weapons numbers from BEFORE yesterday's patch. It may not be an accurate picture of where the weapons are currently.

This also makes heavy use of the comparison of 'Damage Per Second per Ton mass' or DPSpT.

I'm also going to be seperating this into sections with spoiler tags.

Some preperatory work:

Calculation of DPSpT for a given weapon system is as follows:

Spoiler

"Damage/Shot of the Weapon" / "Duty Cycle" / ( "Weapon Mass" + "Ammo Tonnage" + "Heat sink Tonnage")

Where:
Damage/Shot and Weapon Mass are fundamental aspects of the weapon.

Duty Cycle is the reciprocal ('1/x') of Rate of Fire ('x'). This rate of fire is assigned and is the Max Rate of Fire for the weapon unless otherwise indicated. The reason this is done is convenience.

Ammo Tonnage is a variable. I chose to represent this variable as something I termed "Common Ballistic Base ammo load" or CBBal. Basically CBBal is a time. It is the total time for continuous fire. Basically if you leaned on the trigger your weapon would fire this long (ignoring heat and shutdown).
Example: A Gauss rifle with a CBBal of 160sec would be carrying exactly 4 tons of ammo. An AC/20 with the same CBBal applied would be carrying 5.714 tons. Due to the lack of rounding (haven't been able to implement it, yet) this is actually overprecise. It represents the weapons with partial tons of ammo. However, the change from that partial ton (up or down) is small.

Heat sink Tonnage is based on Heat per Shot of the weapon, Duty Cycle, and the Heat dissipation Rate (HdR) of a single heat sink, and the tonnage of a single heat sink.

"Heat per Shot" / "Duty Cycle" = "Heat per Second Generated @ Duty Cycle"

"Heat per Second Generated @ Duty Cycle" / "Heat dissipation Rate (for a single heat sink)" = "# of Heat sinks to render heat neutral @ Duty Cycle".

Duty cycle, Heat per Second Generated, # of heat sinks to render heat neutral are linked. The faster you fire, the more heat you generate, and the more heat sinks you need to sustain that average rate of fire.

You don't have to assign RoF to maximum for comparison. It's just convenient. I can explore relative DPSpT comparisons at RoFs other than maximum for different weapons later in the thread if there's a demand.

Lets explore these numbers for a second.

Spoiler

An ERPPC has a Heat per Shot of 13. And a maximum RoF of 1 shot every three seconds, for a duty cycle of 3 seconds per shot.

So Heat per Second Generated would be 13 / 3 = 4.333.
And the number of sinks would be 4.333 / .1 = 43.333
So at max RoF an ERPPC would need 43.333 heat sinks to render it heat neutral, and would have a DPSpT of 10/3/(7+43.333) = .06623

"But you can fire it slower!"
As a response I can only say "DUH! And you will lower, not raise your DPSpT by doing so."
If you set the rate of fire, for example, to one shot every ten seconds, you have a duty cycle of ten seconds per shot.
Therefore Heat per Second Generated would be 13 / 10 = 1.3.
Number of sinks would be 1.3 / .1 = 13
So at this RoF an ERPPC would need 13 heat sinks to render it heat neutral, and would have a DPSpT of 10/10/(7+13) = .05

In reality, the Average Rate of Fire for a weapon is set by how many heat sinks you have dedicated to that weapon. If you fire the weapon faster than you have heat sinks for, you build up heat. If you do that, you have to cool off. Once you've cooled off, you're no longer firing, nor affecting your ability to fire, .therefore time spent at baseline heat is not relevant to weapon balance.

Your Average Rate of fire is what dictates how often you can fire over a long period of time, regardless of if you fire very quickly and then spend a lot of time cooling back to baseline, or fire very slowly, cooling back to baseline each time.

Now for the pretty graphs.

Spoiler

I know I don't have the UAC/5 or LB10-X in these. For the UAC/5 I want to get the Jamming mechanic sorted out to something stable (and not DDR Mechwarrior), and I'd like to quantify the LB10X's damage vs range a bit better. It's a function of the expansion of the shot pattern area at range vs the area of the target mech... which changes based on what target you're shooting at.

But for the most part the weapons are in here. Descriptions of each are below.

Spoiler

This is straight Damage at range. Nothing really special here. If you fire one shot, this is the damage you expect to see hitting a target at the indicated range.

Spoiler

This is Damage per Second (at max RoF). No real surprises. If you fire a weapon at max RoF, this is the DPS you get at the range indicated. I know someone's going to look at the ERPPC and the Gauss, and say "See they're balanced because the graphs touch!"

BUUUZZZ! Wrong answer.
You've got to remember that these are weapons firing at Max RoF without regard to heat.

Spoiler

This is DPSpT using Single Heat Sinks. Note the ballistics, both as a group and as individuals. Now look at the area under each of their graphs. Gauss is top dog (huge area), but the AC/5 is right there in second place. Third is the AC/2 actually surpassing the Gauss in DPS at extreme range. AC/10 is next, followed by the AC/20.

But these numbers don't take any ammo mass into account.

Spoiler

This graph takes ammo tonnage into account. It does this by assigning what I termed "Common Ballistic Base ammo load" which is a time figure that details the maximum length of time a weapon can fire, at the assigned rate of fire, which is then converted to tonnage based on the shots per ton for that weapon, then added to the total tonnage. This brings down the DPSpT some with relation to the energy weapons, but it doesn't change the relative positions between the ballistic groups.

The load I chose for this graph was for 160 seconds of fire. Note the Small Laser.

*** Skip to here if you don't want to read the preperatory stuff ***

And now for the main event:

Spoiler

This is where we were with the last graph,:

Spoiler

Note the relative positions of the Ballistics group, the Small Laser, and the Medium Laser.

That graph describes the relative weapon balance that existed before the patch.
This next one shows the change that 2.0 Heat sinks would make.

Spoiler

Note the Small and Medium Lasers. The DPSpT of these two weapons is pushed pretty high. This is probably the cause for the Dev's concern. However, the current maximum Laser Boat is the HBK-4P with 9 mounts.

Total DPS, of 9 Small Lasers firing heat neutral at Max RoF:
3 damage/shot / 3 second DC = 1 DPS.
1 DPS x 9 = 9 DPS for the mech.
9/.26 DPS/T = ~34.6 tons Which probably goes to 35 in practice. So yes, this build is probably possible by tonnage.

Total DPS of 9 Medium lasers at Max Rof:
5 Damage/shot / 4.25 second DC = 1.1765 DPS
1.1765 DPS x 9 = 10.558
10.558 / .21 DPSpT = 50.276 tons, which probably goes to 51 in practice. So no, this build is impossible by tonnage.

But, a 7 Med Laser build is probably possible by tonnage on the AWS-8Q.

Here's the result of the SubDHS fix.

Spoiler

However, I say this: DHS are not the cause of this. The weapons in question ARE. To call them out, the Small Laser, and the Medium Laser. Tweaking DHS like this has effects way beyond the problem area. Note the effect on EVERY OTHER ENERGY WEAPON.

Yes the change to a .14 HdR "fixes" the Small and Medium Laser. But it ALSO "fixes" the Large Pulse Laser, ER Large Laser, PPC, ERPPC, AC/20... None of which needed "fixing" in this manner, and actually benefited from true (.2 HdR) DHS.

Here's even a possible set of fixes that should allow retaining DHS with a .2 HdR (and improve Small and Medium Pulse Lasers with regard to the regular versions at the same time)
Though some people are likely to scream about nerfing the small and medium lasers.

Spoiler

Small Laser
Decrease damage by one half point per shot.
Increase "burn time" by .25 second.
Increase the "cooldown time" by .25 second.
(Total duty cycle increase .5 seconds to a total DC of 3.5 seconds, Max Rof 1 shot every 3.5 seconds)

Medium Laser (if it actually proves a problem)
Increase "burn time" by .5 second.
Increase "cooldown time" by .25 second.
(Total duty cycle increase .75 second, to a total DC of 5 seconds. Max RoF 1 shot every 5 seconds)

The longer burn times puts greater emphasis on the pulse versions shorter burn times, and the longer duty cycle also makes the pulse weapons slightly better in comparison.

Graphs showing effects of these changes:

Spoiler

Single Heat sinks:

Spoiler

And using TRUE Double Heat sinks.

Spoiler

Again, if my supposition is correct, True DHS is not the problem. The Small and Medium Lasers are. And the solution should FIX the problem and not create or exacerbate others.

Sometimes I swear I spend more time THINKING about Mechwarrior than PLAYING Mechwarrior.

That's only because the math of Mechwarrior is more fun than playing it. I am looking forward to the day this changes!

BTW - my TET charts did actually show a similar trend for the Small and Medium Laser - they spike significantly. In the TT, Medium Lasers were known to be very strong and effective, but small lasers low range was not making them attractive despite their theoretically efficiency. In MW:O, the range disadvantage isn't as significant. In TT, hitting with a medium laser at 90m was difficult, and if you got even closer, the enemy mech may just end up hitting you in melee and kicking your mech to trash.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 07 November 2012 - 06:35 AM.

[Apoc1138]

I totally agree with everything you've just said and although it's a bit of hard work to even read through all your data (and my hat goes off to you in having taken the time to prepare it all), I can't fault it and is the verbose way of saying what I've been saying regarding wanting to nerf some light mechs / medium builds at the expense of nerfing every single heavy / assault build by a worse factor

there are much better ways of letting DHS' not be so OP on small mechs, and handicapping assault mechs by 30% is not one of them... true DHS' still don't allow PPC's to be heat neutral so PPC's wouldn't be the issue, if the problem is small and medium lasers and mechs with too many hardpoints, then nerf the problem weapons and mechs, not everything else in retaliation

there is a little more to weapon balance than just pure stats - in the case of small lasers they still seem to be a bit OP at close range on your charts as they touch the gauss line, but in the case of small and medium lasers the nerf on beam duration actually helps in gameplay terms as well as it makes it more difficult to hit with the full damage to a single location, so you don't need to go further on a pure maths basis

Edited by Apoc1138, 07 November 2012 - 06:40 AM.

[riverslq]

if their qa test team is hiring, apply. i wonder what goes through their brains sometimes...

[Vapor Trail]

Yeah... I'm good with numbers and building data.
Not very good at clarity or conciseness most of the time.

[Vapor Trail]

riverslq, on 07 November 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

if their qa test team is hiring, apply. i wonder what goes through their brains sometimes...

I would. I'm between jobs at the moment and going to school for an Associates in Computer Science.

BUT...
I'm not even a full year into the degree track (therefore not qualified for the jobs listed here http://piranhagames....rs_General.html )
and I'd have to telecommute from where I live now... Not planning on moving in the near future.

Edited by Vapor Trail, 07 November 2012 - 06:46 AM.

[riverslq]

Vapor Trail, on 07 November 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

I would. I'm between jobs at the moment and going to school for an Associates in Computer Science.

BUT...
I'm not even a full year into the degree track (therefore not qualified for the jobs listed here http://piranhagames....rs_General.html )
and I'd have to telecommute from where I live now... Not planning on moving in the near future.

If they'd only have a beta test server open like WoT does so the community can get their hands on early patches to find out problems they missed. Yeah, I know MWO is still in 'beta', but the crap they've been sending out is pushing away old users and pretty much killing off the new ones too.

For the amount of stuff the community finds, and their team doesn't... I think they need our help (and god knows if they listen.,..)

[Zyllos]

Extremely informative post. It also shows that devs are going wrongly with the DHS.

What should be happening is weapons that are becoming completely crazy with DHS will just need minor adjustments. DHS themselves should only provide the same maximum heat benefits of SHS. Then, there needs to be penalties for even having heat built up, like slowing of the mech, slowing torso turning, slowing arm movement, reduced damage with energy weapons, slowing lock of locking weapons, slower RoF for direct fire weapons, internal damage before reaching 100%, allow internal damage from heat to have a chance to cause a critical hit.

With these changes, then you can allow DHS to be 0.2/per and reduce the maximum back to the same as SHS. This allows for SHS to have larger maximum, thus more heat before receiving penalties but dissipation is less efficient.

[Zyllos]

Bump, this thread needs more visibility.

[Viper69]

Dont try to rationally deal with PGI. They honestly dont want your well thought out idea, just the praise of the mass volleys of crap.

[MustrumRidcully]

riverslq, on 07 November 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

If they'd only have a beta test server open like WoT does so the community can get their hands on early patches to find out problems they missed. Yeah, I know MWO is still in 'beta', but the crap they've been sending out is pushing away old users and pretty much killing off the new ones too.

For the amount of stuff the community finds, and their team doesn't... I think they need our help (and god knows if they listen.,..)

Most game companies seem to have a test server that they use for testing before they release a patch.

[Squidhead Jax]

Yep. Proper DHS would bring large energy weapon performance in-line with ballistic performance on SHS, wheras for space and cost reasons ballistics-focused builds might still find SHS preferable.

It's the proud nails (that everyone already knew about, but thanks for framing this in a graph that finally makes the current system look like it almost makes sense) that need knocked down, not DHS.

[zorak ramone]

Excellent work, although what you are about to find out is that there are alot of people on this forum that are really really hostile towards mathematical analyses of weapons balance. They're dead wrong, but they're also vehemently convinced that PPCs and LLs are just fine in the current balance.

Vapor Trail, on 07 November 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

Again, if my supposition is correct, True DHS is not the problem. The Small and Medium Lasers are. And the solution should FIX the problem and not create or exacerbate others.

I'm not sure that they are a problem. Shouldn't shorter ranged weapons have a higher DPS/Total Tonnage than long ranged weapons? This is the whole range for damage tradeoff from battletech. I think that the ML, SL, SRMs, and heavy ACs should have higher DPS/ total tonnage than the GRs, and AC5s, with AC20>SL>ML since the AC20 is an ammo based weapon.

[Ferret Thorn]

my suggestion...

First change the name from Double Heat Sinks to Large Heat Sinks. Change the slot cost of 3 slots to 2. Keep the
effect of 1.4 and the CBill cost to install and repair as they are now.

Later add the Double Heat Sinks as a true 2.0 heat sink and adjust cost of slots and cbills to a bit more than the large.
Can even make the Double Heat Sinks available for only a certain class mechs. A medium or an assult, or whatever...

This is a game, of which they do have the right to add/create content. I understand they want to keep to what is already in the past and lore of mechwarrior. But there would be nothing wrong with this, just common sense to understand that someone in the past decided to try a larger heat sink and not just jump from single to a double.

Edited by Ferret Thorn, 07 November 2012 - 08:18 AM.

[BA Dillard]

http://mwomercs.com/...nd-matchmaking/

Have you guys read this? Sounds reasonable to me.

Edited by BA Dillard, 07 November 2012 - 08:11 AM.

[Apoc1138]

BA Dillard, on 07 November 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...heat-sinks-dhs/

Have you guys read this? Sounds reasonable to me.

We have read that, however it doesn't seem reasonable. 1.4 DHS' are only viable for small mechs and 2.0 are only a problem / cheese build on small mechs... nerfing all large mechs and large energy weapons via the only thing we had coming in that might fix them is not a viable solution

there were much easier and specific ways to fix the small laser problem without nerfing EVERY other weapon in the game... what they've done by nerfing DHS' is remove the only balancing factor they were willing to use and now the only option remaining is to wander even further from TT values in reducing the heat on every other weapon that is currently too high in heat... it would have been much simpler to increase 1 value on the 1 or 2 problem weapons, instead of having to reduce heat on every other weapon and keep messing around with DHS'

I rarely see large lasers on the field and virtually never see PPC's (maybe the very rare trial mech)... this tells me something is wrong with the heat system if the only weapons you see are mid range ballistics, LRM's and small / medium lasers

DHS' were supposed to fix the high heat weapons but all they've done is made them worse

the single biggest change they made to weapons when converting from TT was rate of fire and having some weapons with a duration and others not... they could have stuck to TT values for everything else if they were more willing to play with the values they added... instead they are digging themselves a deeper and deeper hole further away from TT... which in itself isn't a huge issue as long as what they end up with is balance... but at the moment they are getting further away from balance, not closer, and forcing people to use fewer and fewer weapon choices because others simply don't work

Edited by Apoc1138, 07 November 2012 - 08:20 AM.

[Matist]

Really nice post. It also tends to confirm a lot of what I feel in play.

[Vapor Trail]

zorak ramone, on 07 November 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

Excellent work, although what you are about to find out is that there are alot of people on this forum that are really really hostile towards mathematical analyses of weapons balance. They're dead wrong, but they're also vehemently convinced that PPCs and LLs are just fine in the current balance.

Well aware of this, trust me. It's not them I have to convince however. I'm just hoping that if we throw enough math at them the Dev's might actually start looking at it in depth.

zorak ramone, on 07 November 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

I'm not sure that they are a problem. Shouldn't shorter ranged weapons have a higher DPS/Total Tonnage than long ranged weapons? This is the whole range for damage tradeoff from battletech. I think that the ML, SL, SRMs, and heavy ACs should have higher DPS/ total tonnage than the GRs, and AC5s, with AC20>SL>ML since the AC20 is an ammo based weapon.

Gauss rifle's balance is a different set of graphs (which I was working toward when I popped up with this set. Serendipity happens.). Frankly, I feel the Gauss rifle's Duty Cycle is too short, and probably should be about 8 seconds. I'll probably do up another thread discussing the Gauss and heat overall eventually. But the basic thing is, IMHO either the Gauss is broken, or heat is. And anything balanced with the Gauss in mind (looking at LRMs (before yesterdays patch) AC/2s (post "Suppression" tweak) and maaaaaybe AC/5s in particular) is probably broken as well.

The whole premise of "sticking close to TT" is that you wind up with a similar (not "the same") weapon balance. And having the Gauss deal 3.75 times the damage of an ERPPC at the same tonnage investment is not "close to TT." In fact it's more than double the difference in their relative DPS in TT.

Ok, ok... stopping now. Gauss threads will be --------------------> Thataway.

Edited by Vapor Trail, 07 November 2012 - 08:43 AM.

[Tuhalu]

Nice post. Quite well worked out. I did notice your MPL optimal range seems to be a bit high though. You seem to have it at 240m in your graphs rather than 180m.

The problem with small and medium lasers (of the regular and pulse varieties!) can be laid at the feet of their Rate of Fire. Small lasers of both types have a Beam duration 0.25 seconds shorter than any other laser and a cooldown an entire second shorter than the large versions! Medium lasers of both types have a cooldown 0.25 seconds shorter than their large versions.

The Rates of Fire (Duty Cycles) for lasers should be like this:
Small Laser 4.00 seconds
Medium Laser 4.25 seconds
Large Laser 4.25 seconds
Small Pulse Laser 3.5 seconds
Medium Pulse Laser 3.75 seconds
Large Pulse Laser 3.75 seconds

The beam duration of all regular lasers would be 1 second and of all pulse lasers would be 0.75 seconds, with the cooldowns being the remainder. This takes away most of the PGI-given advantages of Small Lasers and all of the PGI-given advantage of Medium Lasers. Then the only thing to "fix" for true 2.0 DHS would be the TT given power of Medium Lasers.

[BA Dillard]

Apoc1138, on 07 November 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

We have read that, however it doesn't seem reasonable. 1.4 DHS' are only viable for small mechs and 2.0 are only a problem / cheese build on small mechs... nerfing all large mechs and large energy weapons via the only thing we had coming in that might fix them is not a viable solution

there were much easier and specific ways to fix the small laser problem without nerfing EVERY other weapon in the game... what they've done by nerfing DHS' is remove the only balancing factor they were willing to use and now the only option remaining is to wander even further from TT values in reducing the heat on every other weapon that is currently too high in heat... it would have been much simpler to increase 1 value on the 1 or 2 problem weapons, instead of having to reduce heat on every other weapon and keep messing around with DHS'

I rarely see large lasers on the field and virtually never see PPC's (maybe the very rare trial mech)... this tells me something is wrong with the heat system if the only weapons you see are mid range ballistics, LRM's and small / medium lasers

DHS' were supposed to fix the high heat weapons but all they've done is made them worse

the single biggest change they made to weapons when converting from TT was rate of fire and having some weapons with a duration and others not... they could have stuck to TT values for everything else if they were more willing to play with the values they added... instead they are digging themselves a deeper and deeper hole further away from TT... which in itself isn't a huge issue as long as what they end up with is balance... but at the moment they are getting further away from balance, not closer, and forcing people to use fewer and fewer weapon choices because others simply don't work

You understand the 1.4 is the lower end starting point, yes? They can, and probably will tweek it over time. Be patient young Padawan, be mindful of the Living Force.

Now, I will admit to the fact that I have not yet personally tried DHS yet. However I have heard from some that some builds benifit and some do not. So I understand some of your frustration. The Devs are aware of your frustration, they are a small company trying their best to please everyone. Relax, go and test some more. Have fun.