26 replies to this topic

[Terror Teddy]

I was just bored and fiddled a little in excel converting weapon stats from the books to 10 second damage and then adding recycle times.



If we would have used regular armour values and the above cycle times the games would probably float somewhat what they do today but the damage from even high powered weapons would be dispersed in bursts over time.

Oddly enought the MG's dont even do the DPS they would have gained before doubled armour AND the boost all other ballistics got.

What we have on MG's are essentially a double nerf from the start with 0,4 DPS instead of 0,8 AND facing double armour.

Also, now the MG's would be a downright DEVASTATING weapon up close with twice the DPS of the AC/2 due to fire rate - And that might be a bit OP unless the same issue did not face the Small Laser.

In the end i wonder if the system would hav been better if PGI had stayed with the 10 second conversion and kept all weapon damage and cycle times to adher within those 10 second boundaries and kept regular armour.

The AC/20 would still be the weapon with the highest burst damage while lasers would be the quick shooters but suffer high heat.

EDIT
AC/10 damage is off and should be 1DPS and 1,5 damage per shot. Extreme range is 16-20 so between 480-600 meters.

MG damage is off as it should be 0,05/Shot
AC/2 should be 0,1 per shot.

Edited by Terror Teddy, 30 March 2013 - 10:41 AM.

[Sephlock]

Stop being reasonable. No one is going to listen to you.

People want QUADRUPLED armor, because they won't be satisfied until this is pillow fight warrior online: no flanking edition.

[Terror Teddy]

Sephlock, on 29 March 2013 - 01:53 AM, said:

Stop being reasonable. No one is going to listen to you.

[Felbombling]

What do your ammunition bin totals look like, Teddy? How much ammunition per ton would, say, the AC/20 have? You have it firing 24 times a minute at your current rate. I like your idea, which has been floated before in Closed Beta, to be honest, but wouldn't the game turn into an incredible click-fest with the recycle times you have suggested?

[Relic1701]

AC10 stats are wrong, range on them is 450m.

[Alistair Winter]

I like the idea, although I'm not too sure about the numbers themselves. I mean, a small laser fires 4 times per second? How many times per second would a pulse laser fire? 8?

[Mechteric]

Relic1701, on 29 March 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

AC10 stats are wrong, range on them is 450m.

the damage per shot is way off on the AC10 also, it says 0.15 compared with the AC20 at 5.0.... huh? That makes no sense

come to think of it most of those number don't look right at all. Bad maths?

[Viper69]

Alistair Winter, on 29 March 2013 - 06:31 AM, said:

I like the idea, although I'm not too sure about the numbers themselves. I mean, a small laser fires 4 times per second? How many times per second would a pulse laser fire? 8?

4 times in 10 seconds is what a small laser does.

This idea is smart because it brings weapon damages back down to TT levels per 10 second rounds. Heavy hitting weapons still hit hard. Its an idea I have been posting every time someone wants to change heat or armor or weapon damages. You just take a weapons base TT damage and divide it by how many times it fires in 10 seconds in MWO its cyclic rate. You do this for heat as well. Ammo should be increased proportionally I would think since its base damage is reduced. Keep the weapons damage per ton of ammo the same.

[Alistair Winter]

Viper69, on 29 March 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

4 times in 10 seconds is what a small laser does.

This idea is smart because it brings weapon damages back down to TT levels per 10 second rounds. Heavy hitting weapons still hit hard. Its an idea I have been posting every time someone wants to change heat or armor or weapon damages. You just take a weapons base TT damage and divide it by how many times it fires in 10 seconds in MWO its cyclic rate. You do this for heat as well. Ammo should be increased proportionally I would think since its base damage is reduced. Keep the weapons damage per ton of ammo the same.

Ah, I get it now.

Yep, really liking this idea. Probably never going to happen. But I like it.

[Peekaboom]

The MWO team shoud have looked closely at the BattleTech Solaris VII rules
(http://www.sarna.net..._The_Game_World)

Essentially, it broke the BattleTech "turn" down from 10 seconds to 4 2.5 second increments, and with it weapon firing delays, rebalanced damages, etc. to reflect shorter turns. Using the Solaris rules as a base would've been closer to the "real-time" experience of MWO and could have alleviated many of the current balance issues. Alas...

[Terror Teddy]

I made some math oops in there.

AC/10 should have 1 DPS and do 1.5 per shot and shoot every 1.5 second.

I've taken all maximum range from Sarna.net and multiplied them by 30 since I've read somewhere that each HEX is about 30 meters.

Ammo bins would be increased accordingly so the AC20 would have X4 times the ammo per tonne since it has the POTENTIAL to do 20 damage per 10 seconds (X4 shots per 10 seconds).

A small pulse laser would follow the same principle and perhaps shoot 8 times per second - essentially becoming a non-stop-fire weapon but build up heat faster per second.

Edited by Terror Teddy, 29 March 2013 - 07:46 AM.

[Corwin Vickers]

The new recycle times are arbitrary though right?

In the TT the PPC shoots 1 time in 10 seconds and does 10 damage 1 time. Not 4 times in 10 seconds, 1/4 the damage each shot.

The MWO recycle times are not based on a TT damage balance. They are made up for the system PGI decided they needed to transition to real time while making weapons unique and different.

Shouldn't the recycle times be looked at if you're going to redo the damage (changing it from MWO to TT balance)?

[MustrumRidcully]

Terror Teddy, on 29 March 2013 - 01:29 AM, said:

I was just bored and fiddled a little in excel converting weapon stats from the books to 10 second damage and then adding recycle times.



If we would have used regular armour values and the above cycle times the games would probably float somewhat what they do today but the damage from even high powered weapons would be dispersed in bursts over time.

Oddly enought the MG's dont even do the DPS they would have gained before doubled armour AND the boost all other ballistics got.

What we have on MG's are essentially a double nerf from the start with 0,4 DPS instead of 0,8 AND facing double armour.

Also, now the MG's would be a downright DEVASTATING weapon up close with twice the DPS of the AC/2 due to fire rate - And that might be a bit OP unless the same issue did not face the Small Laser.

In the end i wonder if the system would hav been better if PGI had stayed with the 10 second conversion and kept all weapon damage and cycle times to adher within those 10 second boundaries and kept regular armour.

The AC/20 would still be the weapon with the highest burst damage while lasers would be the quick shooters but suffer high heat.

EDIT
AC/10 damage is off and should be 1DPS and 1,5 damage per shot. Extreme range is 16-20 so between 480-600 meters.

I don't quite get why you increase the DPS of the Machine Gun compared to the DPS of the AC/2?
Both start with 2 damage per 10 seconds. But suddenly, the MG gets 0.8 damage in 0.25 (3.2 DPS) seconds, but the AC/2 gets 0.4 in 0.5 seconds? (2.5 DPS)

I think there is something off in your math.

Quote

The MWO team shoud have looked closely at the BattleTech Solaris VII rules
(http://www.sarna.net..._The_Game_World)

Essentially, it broke the BattleTech "turn" down from 10 seconds to 4 2.5 second increments, and with it weapon firing delays, rebalanced damages, etc. to reflect shorter turns. Using the Solaris rules as a base would've been closer to the "real-time" experience of MWO and could have alleviated many of the current balance issues. Alas

The only problem is that Solaris did it wrong, at least the version I saw. There, the the MG turned into a 0.8 DPS weapon, while the PPC still was a 1 DPS weapon. The MG for some reason kept the table top damage per shot, but could fire 4 times in 10 seconds, while the PPC fired 1 once in 10 seconds.
I think the only one that one might want to take from Solaris is the recycle time itself, but I am not convinced of even that - 10 seconds is a lot of time.

Corwin Vickers, on 29 March 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

The new recycle times are arbitrary though right?

In the TT the PPC shoots 1 time in 10 seconds and does 10 damage 1 time. Not 4 times in 10 seconds, 1/4 the damage each shot.

The MWO recycle times are not based on a TT damage balance. They are made up for the system PGI decided they needed to transition to real time while making weapons unique and different.

Shouldn't the recycle times be looked at if you're going to redo the damage (changing it from MWO to TT balance)?

The Table Top sets no recycle times at all, it just says what happens over 10 seconds. Several descriptions of Auto-Cannons however show that they usually are not the 1 shot in 10 second type. Of course, this is only specifically noted for ACs, it would not necessarily apply to other weapons. I guess that's then artistic/game designer's license.

[TheForce]

What about group fire and pinpoint accuracy?

[Terror Teddy]

MustrumRidcully, on 30 March 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

I don't quite get why you increase the DPS of the Machine Gun compared to the DPS of the AC/2?
Both start with 2 damage per 10 seconds. But suddenly, the MG gets 0.8 damage in 0.25 (3.2 DPS) seconds, but the AC/2 gets 0.4 in 0.5 seconds? (2.5 DPS)

I think there is something off in your math.

Yea, I made a math boboo.

The damage per shot would be 0,2/4 for the MG so it's actually 0,05/shot and the AC/2 does 0,2/2 so it has 0,1/shot. Will edit in EDIT file since I dont have the basic data anymore.

TheForce, on 30 March 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

What about group fire and pinpoint accuracy?

That would remain the way it is - this is merely about weapon damage values converted to a realtime example and using standard armour values.

[MustrumRidcully]

TheForce, on 30 March 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

What about group fire and pinpoint accuracy?

Cannot be solved well on the weapon level, I think. Unless you want cone of fire and similar stuff, I'd tweak armour values.


Armour
You can try with something like this. If you use this approach, you should probably double all weapon damage, maybe even more.
Starting with the table top stats:
1) Internal Structure Changes:
Head: +200 %
Center Torso: +200 %
Side Torso: +100 %
Leg: +100 %
Arm: +50 %
2) Armour Changes
Give the mechs bonus armour points equal to his current armour (for future mechs, each ton of armour adds twice the amount of armour points) and spread around across all hit locations as you see fit, still maintaining the rule that maximum armour per hit location may not exceed twice the structure points.

Overall, the armour will be doubled with this approach, but the armour ratios will have changed. This means coring takes the longest to achieve and it might be worth shooting for the arms first.
With these values, CT on a 100 ton mech may be armoured with about 186 points (plus internals), while the arms are only at 51 - so it can be more economical to shoot off the arms instead of going for the CT. Or you go for the side torsos (84 armour), taking out both an arm and the torso. Depending on the mech you're facing, different choices might make more sense. (A mech like the Hunchback - take out the Side Torso. A mech like the Catapult - take the Arms.)

And for head shots, if they still seem to be a concern:
Have head take only half damage from each attack, and the other half transfered to the center torso.

Weapon
Here's an algorithm on how to take the table top values and adjust them.

Take the table top damage, divide it by 12* to determine a base damage value.
Then find a factor for damage that will be used as recycle time. The factor should be either 6, 4, 3, 2 or 1, and ensure that the base damage value * factor never exceeds 4, nor exceed half of the table top damage value.
If possible, try to also ensure that the damage per shot is at least equal, or exceeds the damage of a weapon that deals less damage in the table top weapon then the current weapon.
Table Top Heat / 12 * Weapon Factor is the heat value.
Table Top Ammo / Ton / 12 * Weapon Factor is the heat value
Special: Pulse lasers should probably have much shorter cycle times then normal lasers,

Optional Step: If values don't look neat, too small or too high, find a factor for damage and if necessary, adjust armour values by that factor as well.

Possible Results
Small Laser: 1.5 damage and 0.5 heat / 6 seconds (with 1.5 second of the recycle time being beam duration)
Medium Laser: 1.66 damage and 1.5 heat / 4 seconds (with 1 second of the recycle time being beam duration)
Large Laser: 2 damage and 2 heat / 3 seconds (with 0.5 second of the recycle time being beam duration)
ER Large Laser 2 damage and 3 heat / 3 seconds (with 0.5 second of the recycle time being beam duration)

Small Pulse Laser: 0.75 damage and 0.5 heat / 3 seconds (with 0.75 second of the recycle time beig beam duration)
Medium Pulse Laser: 1 damage and 0.66 heat / 2 seconds (with 0.5 second of the recycle time being beam duration)
Large Pulse Laser: 1.5 damage and 1.66 heat / 2 sec (with 0.25 second of the recylce time being beam duration)

PPC: 2.5 damage and 2.5 heat / 3 seconds
ER PPC: 2.5 damage and 3 heat / 3 seconds

AC/2: 1 damage / 6 seconds
AC/5: 1.66 damage / 4 seconds
AC10: 2.5 damage / 3 seconds
AC/20: 5 damage and 2 heat / 3 seconds
Gauss Rifle: 3 damage and 0.25 heat / 3 seconds
Ultra AC/5: 1.66 damage / 4 seconds; Or 1.66 damage / 2 seconds with Jam Chance

SRM6: 3 damage / 3 seconds
SRM4: 2 damage / 3 seconds
SRM2: 1 damage / 3 seconds
SSRM2: 1 damage / 3 seconds

LRM20: 5 damage / 3 seconds
LRM15: 3 damage / 3 seconds
LRM10: 2.5 damage / 3 seconds
LRM5: 1.66 damage / 4 seconds

Example Alpha Strike Values from current builds (these would still be great builds if you want to min/max alpha damage)
Dual AC/20: 10 damage vs Normal Armour (20 vs double armour) and 4 heat
Quad AC/20 (Annihlator/Devestator, anyone?: 20 damage vs Normal Armour (40 vs double armour) and 8 heat
Dual Gauss: 6 damage vs Normal Armour (12 vs double armour) and 0.5 heat
Quad Gauss: 12 damage vs Normal Armour (24 vs double) and 1 heat
Hexa PPC: 15 damage vs Normal Armour (30 vs double armour) and 15 heat
Hexa ER PPC (currently instant overheat): 15 vs Normal Armour (30 vs double armour) and 18 heat
8 Medium Laser: 13.33 vs Normal Armour (26.66 vs double armour) and 12 heat

These values can't be final, of course, since the table top values for some weapons are not really balanced at all - AC/2 and AC/5 are too weak, for example.

If we have no real heat scale, but no heat capacity:
The heat capacity for every mech should be at around 15 to 20. (30 would probably be too high).

A Heat Scale with this model could be something like this:
Speed Penalty: For every point of heat, you lose 3 % max speed and turning rate (so at 30 heat, you'd lose 90 % of your speed and turn rate!)
Attack Penalty: For every point of heat, you lose 2 % torso twist speed and range as well as arm movement speed
Ammo Explosions and Structure Damage: After 5 seconds at heat level 15 or higher, and each 5 seconds thereafter, one randomly determined ammo bin explodes. If there are no ammo bins to explode, instead each hit location takes 2 points of damage. Does not occur if the mech is shutdown.
Shutdown I : Reach 10 heat, and the mech powers down after 1 second unless overriden or heat dropped below 10.
Shutdown II: Reach 15 heat, and mech powers down after 1 second unless overriden or heat dropped below 10..
Shutdown III: Reach 20 heat, and mech powers downa after 1 second unless overriden or heat dropped below 10..
Shutdown IV: Reach 30 heat, and mech powers down. Cannot be overriden.

Heat Dissipation Rates would be like table top suggests 0.1 point per second for SHS, 0.2 for DHS. No bonus heat capacity from sinks at all. The heat gained per shot should be low enough that you indirectly spread your fire around enough that you should generally be able to worst heat spikes. Unless you overdo it and play Nova.




*) Why 12 and not 10? Mostly because it makes neater recycle times. 12 can be divided by 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 without a remainder.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 30 March 2013 - 10:58 AM.

[Nonsense]

I don't really have a problem with the way things work in general as it is. This suggestion was always strange as it basically amounts to LOADS of clicking (or holding down the trigger) and a LOT less emphasis on individual shots. It fails to punish missing, which de-emphasizes aiming ability as a component of the game, placing more emphasis on teamwork.

This would all be fine, except teamwork is lacking in a mostly PUG, F2P environment. Sure, it means newbs don't rage when they get destroyed by superior configs and aim, but so what? That's gaming.

Quote

Overall, the armour will be doubled with this approach, but the armour ratios will have changed. This means coring takes the longest to achieve and it might be worth shooting for the arms first.
With these values, CT on a 100 ton mech may be armoured with about 186 points (plus internals), while the arms are only at 51 - so it can be more economical to shoot off the arms instead of going for the CT. Or you go for the side torsos (84 armour), taking out both an arm and the torso.

People make this suggestion a lot, but it always fails to address the fact that making people take longer to kill tends to force combat into short range because longer range (relative high damage high heat) weapons can't do enough damage to stop someone with short range (relative low damage low heat) weapons from getting to a range where their more efficient weapons will carry the fight.

Edited by Nonsense, 30 March 2013 - 11:03 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Nonsense, on 30 March 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

People make this suggestion a lot, but it always fails to address the fact that making people take longer to kill tends to force combat into short range because longer range (relative high damage high heat) weapons can't do enough damage to stop someone with short range (relative low damage low heat) weapons from getting to a range where their more efficient weapons will carry the fight.

It all depends on the actual damage figures, doesn't it? If it takes only 2 alphas with a mech to take out an equally or smaller sized mechs arm, range will still give a significant advantage. Yes, it takes much longer to actually kill a mech, but a mech that lost half its armament is easier to deal with then someone with all guns blazing. It's certanly a big change from typical FPS, where Snipers are there to give you kills - in MW:O, they'd be there to "soften up" the enemy by taking their guns or legs, because a sniper probably won't get a chance to do much more than that before the enemy is at close range.

The thing is - just doubling armor across the board is a stop gap. it deals with 40 point damage alphas against vital spots. But it doesn't encourage trying to destroy non-vital components on a mech - and that part is what distinguishes Battletech from any other game.
So instead of doubling armour across the board, the armor must be shifted from less critical locations to more critical locations.

[Cebi]

More shots = more aiming = more skill required. I approve.

[Nonsense]

I don't disagree, especially since the percentages are increases from TT values and not current values, but it's not that cut and dry.

If the object is to force player choice away from "CT CT CT" to "What's the best for my current situation", simply changing armor values won't do that, because everyone will simply target whatever kills or neuters someone the next-fastest. Hypothetically, how much fun will have been added to the game if matches devolve into multiple armless/torsoless mechs are bumping into each other at the end because arms are so comparatively easy to destroy?

So you put a premium on CT hardpoints then? What about 2-critical clan PPCs in the CT? If your arm weapons are vulnerable, is it going to be worth putting heavier weapons in them? What does that do to current mech hardpoint location balance? Is the HBK-4P insane now?

All I'm saying is, it's a LOT more complicated than "hey devs just increase armor by these amounts and it's all balanced, yay!"

Cebi, on 30 March 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

More shots = more aiming = more skill required. I approve.

It doesn't take "more aiming" when the shots are taken in close quarters because nobody dies outside 300m

Edited by Nonsense, 30 March 2013 - 11:58 AM.