Fist off, I should say that I'm very happy that the devs are still trying to address the heat problems of the large energy weapons. However, how are decisions made as to how much heat should be reduced? Why was it -1 for the PPC and -2 for the ERPPC? Also, how do we determine whether its enough or not? Is there a way to predict what heat should be reduced to?
One of the problems with weapons balance discussions is the lack of a consistent method for comparing weapons with different firing mechanics. For example, we know that lasers should overall be less damage / tonnage efficient than a similarly ranged projectile weapon (e.g. LL vs AC10) because of the laser’s lack of ammo and the increased accuracy. The question is … by how much?
I have developed a model for weapons balance based off of the weapons that we know are top tier (GRs, UAC5s, SRM6s, SSRM2s, LRMs) or near top tier (LLs, MLs, SLs). By basing the model on existing weapons that we know are good, it provides us with preliminary experimental validation of the model. First a TLDR on the model:
Damage efficiency decreases linearly for all classes of weapons by range
Damage efficiency is boosted or decreased based on negative or positive (respectively) characteristics of the weapon
The linear scale, and efficiency boosts are based on fitting the model to the top and near-top teir weapons
Now, for a TLDR version of the changes proposed to existing weapons based on the model
Standard ACs: Damage boost for AC10 and 20, reduction in heat for all ACs but the AC5, reduction in recycle for the AC5
LBX10: Damage boost to 14
UAC5: Slight recycle increase to bring in line with the AC5
GR: No change
Lasers: Reduction in heat to all standard lasers
Pulse Lasers: Reduction in heat and increase in range to match standard lasers
PPCs: Reduction in heat, minimum range on PPC removed
LRMs: Standardization of recycle time and reduction in heat for LRM10
SRMs: Reduction in heat for SRM2 and SRM4 and standardization of recycle times
SSRM2: No change
==============================
The Model
Overall, damage efficiency should decrease with increasing range. Currently, the decay of damage efficiency by range in MWO best fits a linear model. So, in the model, damage efficiency decreases linearly with range, at a rate consistent with current MWO. Details are below in spoilers:
Spoiler
The measure of damage efficiency is damage per second (DPS) per total tonnage required to run at maximum potential (TTons) or DPS/TTons. This is calculated by taking DPS over the base tonnage of the weapon, tonnage in heat sinks to fire the weapon constantly with no heat buildup, and ammo for 2.5 minutes of continuous fire (arbitrary, but in my experience that’s enough ammo to last out any normal fight with room to spare).
So how do we determine how much DPS/TTon should decrease as range increases? This is a major balancing decision: the more it decreases with increasing range, the more you skew the game towards infighting, and vice versa. Instead of trying to decide on my own, I went with the overall trend that already exists in MWO. First, I converted weapon ranges into range brackets. Basically, every weapon falls pretty well within 90m range brackets due to carry-over 30m hex based ranges from CBT. Next, I plotted all of the existing weapons’ DPS/TTon versus their range bracket and performed linear regression (I dropped LRMs for this part because they’re a huge outlier). Overall, data fit a linear model of DPS/TTon = -0.0175R + 0.31. I.e. DPS/TTon decreases by 0.0175 for every increase in range bracket (90m), starting at 0.310 at the theoretical range of 0m.
However, we can’t have all weapons following that line. Refer back to the LL/AC10 example: the LL and AC10 fall into the same range bracket, but the LL has advantages (hitscan, no ammo) that should be accounted for. To take into account this bonuses, I used something I call relative range. Basically, relative range = range bracket + bonuses + penalties – min range. If a weapon has a range bracket of 5, bonuses adding up to 3 and penalties adding up to -2, the relative range bracket is 4, meaning the weapon would have a higher DPS/TTon than a standard weapon at range 5. So what then is a standard weapon (i.e. a weapon with no bonuses or penalties)? Since the 0.0175R + 0.31 line passes directly through the GR’s DPS/TTon, I made the standard weapon a projectile weapon, requiring ammo, with a moderate recycle time.
So the model is as follows:
Expected DPS/TTon = -0.0175(R + B + P - MR) + 0.31
Where:
R = range bracket
B = bonuses
P = penalties (always a negative value)
MR = minimum range
Altering damage efficiency by weapon firing mechanics
Not all weapons are directly comparable in MWO due to different firing mechanics. Some mechanics, like missile spread on SRMs, are penalties (i.e. a weapon with identical stats, but no missile spread is clearly superior) and others, like the hitscan mechanics of lasers, are bonuses (i.e. a weapon with identical stats, but without laser-hitscan is clearly inferior). Based on weapon mechanic bonuses and penalties, damage efficiency is boosted or decreased. Details are shown below in spoilers:
Spoiler
Ammo vs Energy: Being an energy based weapon is a clear advantage, due to being free of ammo and its risks, and due to increased boatability/flexibility since heat isn’t a hard limit. Being an energy weapon is therefore a bonus.
Laser weapons: On top of being energy weapons, laser weapons are more accurate due to being hitscan. Pulse lasers, due having shorter discharge times are even more accurate. Therefore, being a laser weapon is a bonus (on top of being an energy weapon) and being a pulse laser is an even bigger bonus.
LRMs: Being an LRM is a massive penalty. The weapon requires a lock, which can be broken. It’s the only weapon the game that can effectively be dodged by taking cover … and you get a warning for incoming missiles. The LRM penalty is on top of, and does not include, the minimum range penalty.
SRMs and LBX: These weapons spread their damage in similar ways. This damage spreading is a penalty.
SSRMs: These weapons are highly accurate. Their accuracy is a bonus
UACs: UAC DPS, for the purposes of the model is calculated by taking into account jam time and calculating average recycle time. On average a UAC will jam once in every 2/x (x = jam frequency) trigger pulls, generating (2/x)-1 shots. UAC recycle ® is represented as half of its posted recycle since it can fire twice per recycle time. Therefore, there will be (2/x)-2 normal recycles and a J+2R (J = jam time) after the (2/x)-1th shot when the UAC jams. Average recycle is therefore (2R + xR + xJ)/(2-x). Given a DPS/TTon calculated using average recycle, being a UAC is a bonus because your recycle time and DPS can be much much higher for bursts of time.
Rate of fire: For two weapons with identical DPS/TTon values, the weapon with the lower rate of fire has an disadvantage. This weapon will be doing its damage in smaller packets, leaving less time to aim between shots, and increasing the possibility of spreading damage. Therefore, fast rate of fire is considered a penalty.
The magnitude of the bonuses/penalties were calculated by taking the top (UAC5, GR, LRM, SRM6) and near-top (LL, ML, SL) tier weapons and adjusting the magnitudes of the modifiers to fit them to model. The magnitudes allowed for no changes or slight nerfs were applied to the top tier weapons and moderate buffs were applied to the near-top tier weapons. The exact numeric values for the bonuses/penalties are as follows
Ammo/Energy
Ammo based: 0
Energy based: 1
Weapon mechanic
Projectile, not UAC: 0
UAC: 4
Laser: 2
Pulse laser: 3
LRM: -9
SRM/LBX: -3
Recycle time
<1: -2
1-2.99: -1
3-5.99: 0
6+: 1
So, relative range = range bracket when the weapon is ammo based, a projectile but not a UAC, and has a recycle from 3 to 5.99.
For example, LRMs have a range bracket of 11, and a minimum range bracket of 2. The relative range for the LRM is 11 (base) -9 (LRM mechanic) -2 (minimum range) = 0. This how the LRM’s massive DPS/TTon is accounted for.
Another example: the UAC5 has a recycle of 0.55, and a range bracket of 7. The relative range for the UAC5 is 7 (base) + 4 (UAC mechanic) -2 (RoF <1) = 9. The LL is an laser weapon weapon with a range bracket of 5. The relative range for the LL is 5 (base) + 2 (energy weapon) + 2(laser mechanic) = 9. Therefore, the DPS/TTon of the LL and UAC5 (using the average recycle calculation) should be approximately the same.
Rebalancing weapons based on the model
Combining the linear model with adjustments based on weapon mechanics allows us to calculate a predicted damage efficiency for each weapon. I did this using the following guidelines:
Top tier weapons (GR, UAC5, SRM6, LRMs, SSRM2) remain unchanged or receive slight nerfs
Near top tier weapons (LL, ML, SL) receive minor buffs
Base tonnage is never changed
Final damage efficiency should be within 0.0175 of expected (see model details)
Weapon details are below in spoilers. Note that old stats/efficiencies, expected DPS/TTon and new values/efficiencies aer shown.
The heavy standard ACs get a damage boost and all ACs, except the AC5, get a heat reduction. The recycles of the AC5 and UAC5 were changed to make the UAC5 exactly twice as fast in ultra mode as the AC5. This also makes the AC5 a better weapon than the UAC5 in non-ultra mode. The LBX 10 received a damage boost to make it a much better weapon than the AC10 at close ranges. The GR is unchanged.
All energy weapons saw their heat reduced, with PPC heat being reduced the most. If I increased PPC damage to 12, heat could have stayed at 7 for the PPC and 11 for the ERPPC. However, given that PPCs are easier to boat, I decided to leave damage at 10 and drop heat. I also removed the minimum range on the PPC for two reasons: one, I don’t see the reason for its existence (especially when the ERPPC and GR don’t have min ranges), and two, keeping it would have required more buffs to fit the model. Pulse lasers had their ranges increased to match their non-pulse versions. The idea is that with the PLs, you trade damage efficiency for a higher alpha (in the case of MPLs and LPLs) and higher accuracy due to shorter discharge time (note, discharge time is not shown: “cool” is discharge +cooldown).
LRM recycle times were standardized to an overall slightly slower cycling time. If LRMs seem underpowered now, I suspect its really mainly due to ECM needing some tweaks. Trying to balance for ECM would make LRMs way off the charts. The other SRM launchers had their recycle times standardized to the SRM6, but had their heat reduced to bring them in line. The SSRM2 remains unchanged.
Here is a chart of the DPS/TTon under the modified stats, and DPS/TTon under the old/current stats for all of the weapons currently in MWO:
Adding new weapons
One of the advantages of having a model is that it makes adding new weapons very easy. You already have a guideline of where that weapon should fall. Below are the same weapons charts, but with some CBT weapons that haven’t been added yet, but probably will be later. To do this, I followed the pattern of the other weapons (i.e. how MWO translated them from CBT to MWO) as a starting point, and then adjusted to the model. So, for the new weapons the “old” stats are the direct translation from CBT to MWO, following the pattern of other weapons, and the “new” stats are adjustments to fit the balancing model.
Following the LBX10, the LBX20 gets a damage boost over the AC20. All of the LBXs are designed to have lower heat and longer range than the standard ACs, balanced out by their damage spreading mechanics. For the lower caliber LBXs, I would imagine giving them submunitions that do 0.5 damage (i.e. number of submunitions = damage/2), but give them much tighter spread cones. The other UACs follow the same pattern of the UAC5, with the exception of the UAC2. The extra weight of the UAC2 is so significant in its DPS/TTon calculation, that it needed to be given a lower heat value to keep it in line with the model. The other gauss rifles translate over pretty well. I’m ignoring the damage drop off and recoil mechanics for the HGR found in CBT, as I don’t really see its purpose here.
The only things added here are the ER versions of the SL and ML. The fractional increases in heat may not seem like much, but they do change the heat equation enough for their marginal increases in range.
The SSRM4 and 6 were added following the template of the SSRM2. MRMs are assumed to have a firing mechanic similar to the SRMs (they receive the same weapons mechanics modifier as SRMs), although probably with a faster missile speed to account for their longer range. Heat values for the MRMs had to be tweaked to bring them in line with the model. Given that the other missiles had their damage/missile increased, a damage boost and corresponding heat increase may be in order.
Here is chart showing DPS/TTon for the weapons in MWO + other CBT weapons that I added according to the model, their DPS/TTon, and their expected/ideal DPS/TTon under the model:
Advantages of the model
The advantage of the model is that it essentially gives you a testable hypothesis for weapons balancing. The numerical modifiers also make it easy to tweak expectations. If after balancing weapons according to the model they still feel weak or overpowered, then you go back to the weapons mechanics modifiers and tweak them up or down respectively and try again. I’ve already mentioned that it makes adding new weapons easy, but it also makes adjusting current weapons to fit new roles easy. A few examples follow:
Case study: what if PPCs are two powerful according to the model?
Spoiler
Lets say PPCs and ERPPCs are rebalanced to fit the model as shown above, but they end up being too dominant. Lets say at the same time that lasers feel fine. To tweak down PPCs, you could change the energy weapon modifier from 2 to 3, and reduce the laser modifiers from 2 and 3 for lasers and pulse lasers (respectively) to 1 and 2. This alters the expected DPS/TTon, and results in an increase in heat by one point for both weapons _______________________________________________New_____New_____New_____New____New______Exp_____________New Wpn______Dmg______Ht____Cool___Min Rng__Rng____Dmg______Ht____Cool___Min Rng__Rng_____D/Tton__D/Tton__D/Tton PPC_____10.0____8.00____3.00______1______6____10.0____6.00____3.00______0______6_______0.153___0.128___0.157 ERPPC___10.0___11.00____3.00______0______9____10.0___10.00____3.00______0______9_______0.100___0.100___0.108
Case study: Pulse lasers and infighting weapons instead of accuracy tradeoff weapons
Spoiler
In my rebalancing scheme, I saw PLs as higher alpha/accuracy tradeoffs to the standard lasers. This meant that I increased the range on the PLs to match their non-pulse versions. Well, what if we want them to be shorter ranged, higher damage weapons instead of just different versions of the standard lasers? Well, we just reduce their ranges, which increase their expected DPS/TTon, and increase their damage to match. The SPL doesn’t change because its range was always the same as the SL. _______________________________________________New_____New_____New_____New____New______Exp_____________New Wpn______Dmg______Ht____Cool___Min Rng__Rng____Dmg______Ht____Cool___Min Rng__Rng_____D/Tton__D/Tton__D/Tton SPL______3.0____3.00____2.75______0______1_____3.0____1.50____2.75______0______1_______0.223___0.124___0.223 MPL______6.0____5.00____3.75______0______2_____7.0____4.00____3.75______0______2_______0.188___0.139___0.194 LPL_____10.0____7.30____4.00______0______3____13.0____6.50____4.00______0______3_______0.170___0.125___0.175
Conclusion
I have presented here a mathematical model for balancing the weapons in MWO. It allows for modifiers based on different weapons mechanics and is easily adaptable in case the predictions of the model don’t end up matching up with reality. This may not be the perfect model, but I think that having a model is a better way to approach weapons balance than by dropping or adding points of heat and damage here and there and hoping you make things balanced. The model as it stands predicts bold changes, but these are changes that are at least internally consistent, and can be changed in an internally consistent manner.
Edited by zorak ramone, 13 February 2013 - 08:51 AM.
This is not spreadsheet warrior online. A lot of times, a 'gut feeling' for where a weapon's balance is can be more important than where the spreadsheet says it ought to be.
Gut feeling? The LL always was spot-on. Making the PPC and ERPPC more like the LL is perfect.
Having 5 large lasers or 5 different weapons that are all large lasers is boring. I want my M-16 to be different then my AK-47 and play differently. I dont want 5 M-16s.
Redshift2k5, on 08 February 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:
This is not spreadsheet warrior online. A lot of times, a 'gut feeling' for where a weapon's balance is can be more important than where the spreadsheet says it ought to be.
Gut feeling? The LL always was spot-on. Making the PPC and ERPPC more like the LL is perfect.
Mechwarrior, or at least the building of mechs, is actually a very mathematical game. The only thing that isn't straight up math is how to compare weapons with different firing mechanics. This is a method to quantify those bonuses.
Gut feelings don't mean much.
Take those LLs. I have a CTF-3D that runs 2xGR(6 tons ammo) and 2xML. If I drop the weapons and devote the same tonnage to 4xLL and all the DHS I can fit, the mech is demonstrably worse. The Alpha at range is only 2 points higher, and 8 points lower up close. The mech overheats every third shot or so, while the GR config can fire all day forever. The question is whether the accuracy/no ammo bonuses you get are worth the overheating ... testing would say no.
Ripnfly, on 08 February 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:
Having 5 large lasers or 5 different weapons that are all large lasers is boring. I want my M-16 to be different then my AK-47 and play differently. I dont want 5 M-16s.
Weapon mechanics are different, so weapons aren't homogenized. Their stats have been altered to take into account their different mechanics.
GRs are still better sniping weapons than UACs, and UACs are better brawling/burst weapons because of their Ultra mechanics. Energy weapons are still more flexible due to their low base tonnage/high heat.
Having 5 large lasers or 5 different weapons that are all large lasers is boring. I want my M-16 to be different then my AK-47 and play differently. I dont want 5 M-16s.
The PPC is still higher heat, pin-point, and with a large min-range. The ERPPC is still much hotter while also being pinpoint. The ERLL has a lot more heat than the LL as it's ante for it's enhanced range. The LPL has greatly reduced range and still more heat than the LL in exchange more more damage and a faster burn time.
you do not have five different large lasers. They are are still very different weapons.. but for playability, the LL was excellent and the others were verging on unusable. changes had to be made, and the LL was a great benchmark for the heat curve for all large energy weapons.
Just a couple things right off. The game is played under certain constraints outside of the raw DPS Maths we see over and over. No Match will last a day, and no ammo load will last forever. The fact you said otherwise would indicate you know they should be accounted for.
If, and when, the defacto final Chart of Maths comes in, it will be less than 24 hours (conservative) before the best of the best Mech builds will appear, with Perks and Modules included and after that, to even compete in any form of CW those few will be "what has to be used to compete".
With, even some moderate disparity, and or allowing the games unpredictability to play out, the game is better for it.
The perfect "Balance Model" has been done and it was quickly discovered that it also sucked the life and FUN out of any game that strictly adhered to it for any length of time. It is the players ability to create for themselves and not have to get into a Pigeon Hole that often separates the mediocre game from the true Classics.
Let's try and leave a little flex in the games muscle, for fear of it cramping up and simply grinding to a halt...
This is calculated by taking DPS over the base tonnage of the weapon, tonnage in heat sinks to fire the weapon constantly with no heat buildup, and ammo for 2.5 minutes of continuous fire
One problem with your model is that it doesn't factor in the maximum number of heatsinks a mech can have or how many crit slots a weapon takes up (the more crits a weapon takes up the more the maximum number of heatsinks is reduced by). So for example, an AC/20 is denying you upto four extra double heatsinks compared to an AC/2 which is only denying you upto one extra double heatsink.
Interesting. One thing I started to do with my weapon efficiency calculations was - take into account that you use the weapons in the context of a mech. This creates a few considerations
1) There is a maximum amount of weapons and gear you can equip.
2) You get "free" heat sinks. You will have them, whether you want or need them or not. But since you have them, you should utilize them. THis can change a lot. A 35 ton mech with 10 Double Heat Sinks can install 4 Medium Lasers completely consequence-free in terms of heat. That means to get a DPS of 5 with a Medium Laser, you only need to invest 4 tons on this mech. But on the other hand - if you want to increase the DPS of this mech to 10 - it wouldn'T cost you 4 tons. It might cost you 24 (20 DHS and 4 Medium Lasers.) That will probably mean the Light Mech can forget about equpping 8 MLs - but it can also mean that a heavier mech suddenly suffers a sharp efficiency failure.
3) You don't need to negate all heat. A mech has a heat capacity, and you're not gonna fire forever. This makes it again important to consider a weapon in the context of a build. If you had no heat sinks at all, you could fire a Medium Laser for 30 seconds! But with 2, you would only last 15 seconds. So you need to consider how multiple weapons affect the overal heat load of the mech, and figure out how long you realistically need to last.
4) You don't fire your weapons forever. The actual timing of shots can be important. In 4 seconds, a A Gauss Rifle can fire 2 shots for a total of 30 damage. An AC/2 can fire 9 times, for a total of 18 damage. Considering that the theoretical DPS of the AC/2 is 4, and the theoretical DPS of the Gauss is 3.75, this might be unexpected. But it can be important in practice. (And this doesn'T just affect damage - it also affects heat.)
Well, that's ultimately why my mech efficiency charts work very different from the typical "heat neutral" approaches to balancing. I personally think - the more models we have, the more likely we can synthesize one that gets closer to the truth.
What I like for example in zarok's model - an attempt to evalulate things like locks, Scatter Shot and the like, and range. My model just implies - if the range goes up, we want a lower efficiency. But I don't really know yet how much worse it should be. And I still haven't provided something to consider the implications of of scatter effects, hit scan or projectile speeds. I think they should also play a role. I model the advantages of different fire rates in a different manner than zarok (as mentioned above, I use a targeted engagement time and calculate how many shots are really fired. This gives an advantage to weapon with a low rate of fire - and the advantage is exactly the maximum possible level of advancement you could possibly have from it if you're a perfect shot and can really fire uninterruptedly for that time.)
Edited by MustrumRidcully, 08 February 2013 - 12:01 PM.
Redshift2k5, on 08 February 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:
This is not spreadsheet warrior online. A lot of times, a 'gut feeling' for where a weapon's balance is can be more important than where the spreadsheet says it ought to be.
Gut feeling? The LL always was spot-on. Making the PPC and ERPPC more like the LL is perfect.
Strongly disagree.
Gut feelings are subjective; Additionally, every major on-line game I've ever seen, including this one, has had the developers at one point admit they made a balance mistake they had to go back and fix.
Who's gut feelings do you go with then? The majority? Balancing by consensus definitely doesn't work.
Some of the best game designers in the world (WoC, Blizzard) say you gotta start with solid numbers. Good, lasting game balance requires extensive statistical analysis.
The only hard numbers to get are the fuzzy usability elements like how projectile speed or beam duration affects the weapon's actual damage.
Luckily, these are the things you can find through open beta by comparing the average user accuracy with different weapons and get real values for what the realistic DPS and 'high end' DPS will be for weapons.
Hopefully PGI is actually looking at those values (and their standard deviations) rather than just the total usage numbers for the weapons.
I do generally agree with the concepts of mathematical balance for weapons, were there grave balance problems.
But, for all the whining, the weapon selection is exceptionally balanced. Far more than any previous MechWarrior title. There are a few notably weak weapons, but most weapons are useful in some situation or another. No weapon or equipment feels close to "obligatory," even for a balanced group, with the lone exception of ECM.
As for your specific numbers, your broad reductions in heat show a flaw in your system. Energy weapons are NOT underpowered, and do NOT need a major buff. SPL and ERLL need specific buffs. ML and LL do not.
Energy weapons are NOT underpowered, and do NOT need a major buff
Nope. And I explained why. Its because energy weapons take up a smaller number of crit slots which means you can add more heatsinks in that location. Which his equation fails to factor in. The more critslots a weapon takes up the less overall heatsinks your mech can have, thats a crucial element to the balance equation thats missing.
Best weapons in game in each category = LRM15, SSRM2, SRM6, Sml/MedLas, UAC/5, Gauss. If your math model indicates anything else, you did it wrong.
zorak ramone, on 08 February 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:
Mechwarrior, or at least the building of mechs, is actually a very mathematical game. The only thing that isn't straight up math is how to compare weapons with different firing mechanics. This is a method to quantify those bonuses.
good thing I suck at math. Thing is PPC's require some skill to hit with. That combined with its quick recycle time mean you still can suffer from over heating when carrying multiples. Another thing to consider with your "math" is in all other game iterations and TT if you had 20 double heatsinks you could easily boat 4 of them without much fear of overheating.
zorak ramone, on 08 February 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:
Now, for a TLDR version of the changes proposed to existing weapons based on the model
Standard ACs: Damage boost for AC10 and 20, reduction in heat for all ACs but the AC5, reduction in recycle for the AC5
LBX10: Damage boost to 14
UAC5: Slight recycle increase to bring in line with the AC5
GR: No change
Lasers: Reduction in heat to all standard lasers
Pulse Lasers: Reduction in heat and increase in range to match standard lasers
PPCs: Reduction in heat, minimum range on PPC removed
LRMs: Standardization of recycle time and reduction in heat for LRM10
SRMs: Reduction in heat for SRM2 and SRM4 and standardization of recycle times
SSRM2: No change
manner.
While your weapon to weapon balance methods are not bad, you are ignoring other game factors that make some of these suggested changes ludicrous.
The factors you are ignoring are:
Hard Point Numbers.
Tonnage
Dynamics of In Game Weapon Usage.
For example, you say reduce PPC heat and remove minimum range. The PPC does 10 damage, like the AC10. This is highly effective single location damage. How many mechs can run more than 3 AC10s? None, because of the weight. How many mechs can run 4, 5, or even 6 PPCs? A lot. If you remove minimum range and/or lower heat the PPC boat would become a massively dominating build due to PPCs low weight, and the abundance of energy hard points. The same argument can be made against lowering Laser heat. The only thing that keeps energy weapons in check is the heat.
Mathematics balance of weapons is not sufficient in a dynamic game like this. People do not stand in front of each other and hold down the fire button. ACs don't need lower heat, they are naturally fired less thank their full rate of fire because you have to line up shots and lead. You can't balance weapons against each other like this. This is not a weapon vs weapon game, it is a build vs build game.
That said you do point out several tweaks that make perfect sense (AC5 is out in the cold right now).
MustrumRidcully, on 08 February 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:
Interesting. One thing I started to do with my weapon efficiency calculations was - take into account that you use the weapons in the context of a mech. This creates a few considerations
1) There is a maximum amount of weapons and gear you can equip.
I can't really think of a way to factor this in easily. However, as the number of mechs in MWO increases, the number of configs that are impossible will drop, so I'm not sure its a big concern.
Quote
2) You get "free" heat sinks. You will have them, whether you want or need them or not. But since you have them, you should utilize them. THis can change a lot. A 35 ton mech with 10 Double Heat Sinks can install 4 Medium Lasers completely consequence-free in terms of heat. That means to get a DPS of 5 with a Medium Laser, you only need to invest 4 tons on this mech. But on the other hand - if you want to increase the DPS of this mech to 10 - it wouldn'T cost you 4 tons. It might cost you 24 (20 DHS and 4 Medium Lasers.) That will probably mean the Light Mech can forget about equpping 8 MLs - but it can also mean that a heavier mech suddenly suffers a sharp efficiency failure.
The free engine HS are essentially 14.28 free tons (2.0/.14)that have to be devoted to DHS. This benefits all weapons, but benefits the energy weapons more. This is factored into the equation via the "energy weapon" penalty: the free engine DHS are part of the energy weapon advantage, but its not exclusive the energy weapons (I have multi-AC5/UAC5 configs that burn through those DHS without any energy weapons).
If we applied these changes, and the energy weapons became overpowering, then it means that I underestimated the energy weapon penalty. We would then increment it up, modify energy weapon stats to fit the model and try again. See, with a model, you have a standard by which to compare and modify weapons.
Quote
3) You don't need to negate all heat. A mech has a heat capacity, and you're not gonna fire forever. This makes it again important to consider a weapon in the context of a build. If you had no heat sinks at all, you could fire a Medium Laser for 30 seconds! But with 2, you would only last 15 seconds. So you need to consider how multiple weapons affect the overal heat load of the mech, and figure out how long you realistically need to last.
Efficiency at maximum is, IMO the best way to index weapons. If, for example, you were to try and index at 50% efficiency, the total tonnage would not go up linearly, but exponentially (compare DHS required for 1 PPC at 50%, vs 2 and 3 PPCs) ... and it would go up at the same rate for each weapon.
Quote
4) You don't fire your weapons forever. The actual timing of shots can be important. In 4 seconds, a A Gauss Rifle can fire 2 shots for a total of 30 damage. An AC/2 can fire 9 times, for a total of 18 damage. Considering that the theoretical DPS of the AC/2 is 4, and the theoretical DPS of the Gauss is 3.75, this might be unexpected. But it can be important in practice. (And this doesn'T just affect damage - it also affects heat.)
This is factored in via the bonuses/penalties for high and low recycle times. A weapon that did 15 damage in 3 seconds would have a lower expected DPS/TTon than a weapon that did 5 damage in 1 second.
Quote
Well, that's ultimately why my mech efficiency charts work very different from the typical "heat neutral" approaches to balancing. I personally think - the more models we have, the more likely we can synthesize one that gets closer to the truth.
It would be interesting to see if there was any sort of statistically significant convergence between the two models. If so, it would mean that we're measuring the same thing, but in different ways. However I don't know how to test this.
Edited by zorak ramone, 08 February 2013 - 12:30 PM.
Interesting post, I like it, and when I look at the current the AC values, they look skewed which suggests there is no consistent model behind their values, but I've really no idea.
Any game developers out there? Do you think PGI do something like this? Or do they balance by tweaking values, testing, and then seeing how much they are used? I'm just wondering whether it's normal practice or not.
While your weapon to weapon balance methods are not bad, you are ignoring other game factors that make some of these suggested changes ludicrous.
The factors you are ignoring are:
Hard Point Numbers.
Tonnage
Dynamics of In Game Weapon Usage.
I would encorage you to review the OP, because I actually do address tonnage and weapon dynamics. For example, the energy weapon modifier adresses the whole "heat isn't a hard limit like base tonnage" thing, and each weapon is modified by firing mechanics (projectile, beam, etc).
As for hardpoints, as the number of mechs in MWO is increased, the amount of impossible configs due to hardpoints will decrease.
Quote
For example, you say reduce PPC heat and remove minimum range. The PPC does 10 damage, like the AC10. This is highly effective single location damage. How many mechs can run more than 3 AC10s? None, because of the weight. How many mechs can run 4, 5, or even 6 PPCs? A lot. If you remove minimum range and/or lower heat the PPC boat would become a massively dominating build due to PPCs low weight, and the abundance of energy hard points. The same argument can be made against lowering Laser heat. The only thing that keeps energy weapons in check is the heat.
Again, this is addressed by the energy weapon penalty. In one of the case studies in the "advantages of the model" section, I suggest that if PPCs ended up being too powerful, the modifier for energy weapons could be incremented up, and heat for the PPC increased to re-fit the model.
The other thing is that, as you alluded to, heat is not a hard limit. I saw a 6 PPC Awesome last night, and several 4 PPC mechs. Incidentally, the didn't do so well, and I imagine that once the novelty of the 8 heat PPC wears off, people will be switching back to the real top tier weapons.
Quote
Mathematics balance of weapons is not sufficient in a dynamic game like this. People do not stand in front of each other and hold down the fire button. ACs don't need lower heat, they are naturally fired less thank their full rate of fire because you have to line up shots and lead. You can't balance weapons against each other like this. This is not a weapon vs weapon game, it is a build vs build game.
First of all, ACs do need lower heat. Currently, the AC20 and AC10 have a lower DPS/TTon than the GR, and aproximately the same DPS/TTon as the new PPC ... and the PPC has a lower base tonnage and no ammo requirement. The AC2 has almost the lowest DPS/TTon in the game. This has everything to do with their heat. In MWO, a single point of heat means much more than it did in CBT because the weapons are cycling faster.
As for refire rate, you can factor this in. Recycle time is factored in via the bonuses/penalties for recycle time. This has everything to do with the fact that, given two weapons with identical DPSs but different recycle times, the lower cycling weapon can do damage in larger chunks (concentrated damage/pop sniping) and has more time to aim (or maneuver/hide crit sections) between shots.
Quote
That said you do point out several tweaks that make perfect sense (AC5 is out in the cold right now).
With the AC5, its obvious because the UAC5 is so close in its implementation. There are many other weapons out in the cold, but in less obvious ways.
Tennex, on 08 February 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:
i'm sure this is a great method.
but the Devs arn't mathematicians, statisticians or PHDs.
so it seems like they just do it by feel. trial and error wat not.
It may be worth mentioning that in the next 6th months I'll be a PhD in genetics, with a statistics background (population genetics)
Redshift2k5, on 08 February 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:
This is not spreadsheet warrior online. A lot of times, a 'gut feeling' for where a weapon's balance is can be more important than where the spreadsheet says it ought to be.
Gut feeling? The LL always was spot-on. Making the PPC and ERPPC more like the LL is perfect.
Yes MWO not EVE online
Targetloc, on 08 February 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:
The majority? Balancing by consensus definitely doesn't work.
given the history of lrms balancing by majority (or the loudest qq) seems to be what these guys ARE doing
1
