16 replies to this topic

[Eggs Mayhem]

Hello

One of the primary goals of PGI when creating this game is maintaining the feel of the battletech experience. Of course, a 1:1 real time translation is not how that's done, but maintaining some of the stats of each weapon system and maintaining their purpose in game. Currently MWO is the most balanced iteration of any mechwarrior game by a large margin, but I don't see that it really has the feel of battletech kept within it. Here are a list of trends that are maintained within the TT:

Energy Weapons:

- Damage to heat ratio decreases with range.

Smaller lasers are typically used as back-up weapons as the gap is closed. It is inefficient to use the larger lasers at close range (unless you have the heat for it) because it is more cost-effective to use your back up lasers.

- Damage per turn per ton decreases with damage.

Because of the nature of the RNG hit locations, larger weapons that can put all damage in one spot are valued more. To combat this, they are not as weight-efficient as their smaller counterparts.

Ballistic Weapons:

- Excluding the gauss rifle and the AC/2 (which we all know was trash in every game but MWO), the damage to heat ratio decreases with damage.

As before, weapons that are more capable of putting all damage on one spot are counterbalanced with less heat efficiency.

- Percent ammunition consumed per shot increase with damage.

Same reasoning here, the more capable a weapon is of putting lots of damage in one place, the less trigger-time it gets.

Missile Weapons:

- Damage to heat ratio increases marginally with salvo size.

This is to allow mechs to have a slight benefit of having all their missiles launch from one hit location. One LRM-20 is more easily destroyed than 4 LRM-5s, so there needs to be an upside for wanting to take the LRM-20. Same goes for SRMs.

- Damage per turn per ton remains same per type of launcher.

All LRM's are (roughly) the same, all SRMs are (roughly) the same, and SSRMs are less weight efficient than SRMs.

- LRMs are less heat efficient than SRMs

As with energy weapons, an increase in range means a decrease in heat efficiency.

Overall:

- Ballistics and missiles are more heat and weight efficient than energy

Counterbalanced by their large size, weight, and ammo dependence.

- Ballistics and energy weapons compliment each other with respect to range and heat.

Ballistics with shorter ranges have higher heat while energys with shorter ranges have lower heat, and vice versa. It allows for some mechs to focus on a certain range without being game-breakingly good or bad.

- A very large portion of stock mechs were built to be balanced and a threat at all ranges

Because of all of the aforementioned trends in the TT weapons, mixed loadouts are very nasty. They don't require high heat dissipation because they are only firing a portion of their weapons at any given time. This is especially prevalent on stock heavies and assaults, as smaller mechs usually don't have the tonnage to have balanced loadouts. However, a balanced mech that was caught fighting a specialized mech at the specialized mechs preferred range would generally be defeated.

- Heat is punishing

You very rarely want to push your heat in TT. Specialized builds are more capable of firing alpha strikes than balanced, but both are not capable of maintaining that amount of firepower for long.

When I think of TT battletech's way of designing mech loadouts, these trends come to mind. While some are maintained in MWO currently, I feel that the absence of a few key trends is troubling.

TT energy damage to heat hierarchy:

SL > ML > SPL > MPL > LL > PPC > LPL > ERLL > ERPPC

MWO energy damage to heat hierarchy:

SL > LPL > LL > ML > PPC > MPL > SPL > ERLL > ERPPC

Very backwards right now. At least the ERs are at the right side of the spectrum, but the rest is a mess, and likely was never considered during balancing. This is a very difficult thing to balance when you also have to consider the weight efficiency, which is actually currently in ok shape, considering.

On to ammo. I have yet to see any stock ballistic-centric mech that came with enough ammunition. "Enough" is subjective, but it's clear there's an issue when it's necessary to pack 10 tons of any amount of ammunition.

TT tons of ammo required per weapon(as per stock loadouts):

- AC/2: 0.5-1
- AC/5: 1-2
- AC/10: 2
- AC/20: 2
- UAC/5: 1-2
- LB 10-X: 2
- Gauss: 2
- MG: 0.5-1
- LRM5: 1
- LRM10: 1-2
- LRM15: 2
- LRM20: 2
- SRM2: 0.5-1
- SRM4: 1
- SRM6: 1-2
- SSRM2: 0.5-1

MWO tons of ammo required per weapon (as per anecdotal evidence through gameplay and other player's builds):


- AC/2: 3-4
- AC/5: 2-3
- AC/10: 3
- AC/20: 3-4
- UAC/5: 3
- LB 10-X: 3
- Gauss: 3-4
- MG: 0.5-1
- LRM5: 1
- LRM10: 2
- LRM15: 3
- LRM20: 4
- SRM2: 1
- SRM4: 1
- SRM6: 2
- SSRM2: 1

In order to keep stock ammo-dependent builds viable, the ammo amounts per ton need to be changed so that the bottom list roughly matches the top list. This is of course contrary to keeping the same amount of potential damage per ton, but I feel it's necessary for keeping everything viable.

Speaking of ballistics, the AC/2 needs work. In TT, this weapon was outside of the trend of the other autocannons and was also one the least used weapons in the game (assuming you ran non-stock builds). MWO's current iteration of the AC/2 is currently usable, but still not where it should be. It is the least heat efficient of all ballistic weapons and deals the least amount of damage, second only to the machine gun, which is not in-line with the other autocannons. Its heat needs to be brought down significantly, even as much as 75%.

Now missiles. They're currently being worked on, but it's clear that the damage on all missiles needs to increase, and the splash needs to be reworked (if not removed) so that the CT is not hit every time. It may be necessary to further increase the speed of LRMs, instead of increasing their damage, in order to get hit-rates in-line with tabletop hit rates.

Now on to everyone's favorite - high alpha builds. The mechanic that currently allows them to exist is the very high heat cap. It needs to be brought down hard (possibly remove that base 30 heat) and dissipation needs to increase (and I know I'm not the only one pushing for this). Applying penalties for firing multiples of the same weapon is only going to get exploited, and applying penalties for firing multiples of any weapon is only going to hurt people that don't poptart. Just a flat decrease in heat capacity, and and a flat increase in heat dissipation. High alpha builds are still threatening but don't have the ability put all of their damage at one spot at the same time. This will encourage chain-firing and will make alpha striking a last-resort fighting style for most. Also, single heat sinks should be considered viable when compared to DHS but that's another thread.

Of course, playing with heat dissipations will fudge up the relative heat efficiencies, so a complete remake of weapon stats would be necessary. I've made an example here, with 2x heat dissipation. When taking HPS into account, it falls close to how TT works, but without there being such a large performance gap between weapons:

Spoiler

This game is good, but I feel that it could be much better and much more in line with what we all pictured in our heads when we first heard of this game coming.

Disagree with any points at all? I understand that there is some reluctance to be had when completely redoing every weapon, but it would be the only way to accommodate a new heat system.

Edit: Formatting

Edited by EmperorMyrf, 02 June 2013 - 02:53 PM.

[Ningyo]

I like alot of what you said, I do disagree on a couple points and want to clarify why one thing is off.

Ammo/ton is off because they double armor on all mechs without altering damage/ton of ammo, if you doubled that too they would near perfectly match up. (not proposing it get doubled, but likely somewhere between 1.5-2 times would be good)

AC/2 might be one of the highest heat to dmg ratio ballistic weapons, however in its present form it is also THE highest dmg to space ratio weapon in the game (4 dps for 1 slot, also 1.5 dps/ton : PPC is 0.83 dps, 0.36 dps/ton) It also works in this game totally different than every other weapon except sort of the UAC 5. In addition to that it causes screen shake and just functions sooo differently.

In your suggested stats for weapons parts your figures are based on an incorrect assumption. Lasers have a shot duration of 1 second making their rate of fire 1 per 4 seconds, not 1 per 3. Pulse lasers have a 0.75 second shot duration too. So you may want to rework your numbers.

I do like alot of what you said though.

[Eggs Mayhem]

Ningyo, on 02 June 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

In your suggested stats for weapons parts your figures are based on an incorrect assumption. Lasers have a shot duration of 1 second making their rate of fire 1 per 4 seconds, not 1 per 3. Pulse lasers have a 0.75 second shot duration too. So you may want to rework your numbers.

I don't show it, but beam length is accounted for. That 3 seconds includes beam time. In addition, though I failed to mention it in the thread, I feel pulse laser beam time needs to be shorter, to better simulate the hit bonus in TT. If it's going to weigh more, have a shorter range, and have higher heat than their basic counterparts, then they need to have a very valid reason to be chosen.

But again, it's just an example. The stats that I made are meant to show off the relationship of DPS/ton and DPS/heat between all the weapons.

[Felbombling]

A good read, EmperorMyrf. As already stated, some very good, valid points put forth. This is the kind of thread we used to see frequently during Closed Beta... and they are sorely missed.

One thing I've been floating as a counter to high alpha builds is taking direct fire weapons in the higher damage value range and giving them a longer reload/recycle time... say five to eight seconds. Essentially taking ballistic weapons of 10+ tons and energy weapons of 5+ tons to give them that 'big gun' feel. The lighter weapons would look very similar to your vision. Adjust ammunition and damage levels to balance the heavier weapons against the lighter weapons. It wouldn't exactly fix everything, but it is a step in the right direction imo.

Also, your point about ammunition levels is spot on. It is taking available tonnage away from equipment or weapon hard points and thus creating an imbalance where boating almost occurs as a result of arming a missile or ballistic weapon. I wonder how many other people have invested four tons of ammunition towards an LRM 20, only to think...

"Well, may as well put another LRM launcher in that extra missile slot... screw the SRM rack I was thinking about."

I sure know I've done that in the past.

[Rahnu]

EmperorMyrf, on 02 June 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

In addition, though I failed to mention it in the thread, I feel pulse laser beam time needs to be shorter, to better simulate the hit bonus in TT. If it's going to weigh more, have a shorter range, and have higher heat than their basic counterparts, then they need to have a very valid reason to be chosen.

Too true. Even with the reduced heat generation in your proposed stats, pulse lasers would still not have enough to incentivize their use over regular lasers. A shorter duration (perhaps 1/2 that of normal lasers instead of 3/4) would go a long way towards that.

I really do like your hypothetical numbers a lot more than what we currently have, particularly with regards to the lasers. Currently the lasers provide very little incentive to choose them over PPCs due to having such a minor advantage in terms of heat generation while having massive disadvantages in damage output due to the fast, instant-damage projectile and the incredibly high heat ceiling. Lasers having such a large advantage in damage/heat would go a long way to helping to curb the current situation where PPCs are pretty much the end-all be-all, and lowering the heat cap would go further towards incentivizing the use of lasers over PPCs.

I also appreciate how the ACs see dramatically less DPS/ton as you go up in caliber. It's true that being able to put all of your damage within a single location is a massive advantage in this game, and it seems like PGI does not give that enough weight. Weapons that do damage over time should automatically be more efficient in terms of heat and weight to compensate for such a large disadvantage. In the current state of the game, you'll see AC40 boats capable of gunning down an assault mech in three (sometimes two) salvos while a similar weapons platform fielding AC/5s instead of AC/20s isn't capable of anywhere near as much concentrated damage output due to the nature of high ROF weapons in this game (particularly when it comes to being able to torso twist to avoid damage on weakened subsystems).

And I must echo the concern with regard to ballistics ammunition counts. They really need to be addressed. I'd say 250 dmg/ton of ammo would be a fair amount to aim for (versus the 150/ton we currently get).

Edited by Zyrusticae, 02 June 2013 - 05:43 PM.

[HC Harlequin]

If they got rid of the 2x/3x range damage capability and kept things to max range only there would be a significant change to those numbers. People are too used to fighting at 1200-1500 meters range atm and they are using the weapons that reflect the best at those ranges.

[MustrumRidcully]

HC Harlequin, on 02 June 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

If they got rid of the 2x/3x range damage capability and kept things to max range only there would be a significant change to those numbers. People are too used to fighting at 1200-1500 meters range atm and they are using the weapons that reflect the best at those ranges.

1200 to 1500 is not really where fights happen, it's more 500m to 900m but I definitely start using my AC/20s at 500m, and even if you had used the extreme range option rules from the table top where this range would even be possible, the hit chance would be a lot lower than mine is in practice.

[Eggs Mayhem]

HC Harlequin, on 02 June 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

If they got rid of the 2x/3x range damage capability and kept things to max range only there would be a significant change to those numbers. People are too used to fighting at 1200-1500 meters range atm and they are using the weapons that reflect the best at those ranges.

Because the weapons at those ranges are simply the best, and they can be fired all at once. All my suggestions lead to creating a balance between long and short range weapon brackets. So long range builds will have a tough time at close range and close range builds will have a tough time at long range, all while toning down the surgical, concentrated blasts we currently see at both ranges.

[MustrumRidcully]

Emperor, I would actually recommend keeping the AC/20 at its current DPS of 5, but raise the AC/10 and LBX to have the same DPS.

I think there is a justification for making the 6 tons of extra weigh the AC/20 requires and its lower range to upgrade not just its alpha value, but also its DPS. And the AC/10 is only 2 tons lighter, and loses significant alpha ability for increased range, so I think raising its DPS to 5 would also be fair.

[Eggs Mayhem]

MustrumRidcully, on 03 June 2013 - 04:20 AM, said:

Emperor, I would actually recommend keeping the AC/20 at its current DPS of 5, but raise the AC/10 and LBX to have the same DPS.

I think there is a justification for making the 6 tons of extra weigh the AC/20 requires and its lower range to upgrade not just its alpha value, but also its DPS. And the AC/10 is only 2 tons lighter, and loses significant alpha ability for increased range, so I think raising its DPS to 5 would also be fair.

My reasoning for them all being 4 is as follows.

Using the extremes of the spectrum, I'll compare the AC/2 with the AC/20. By "upgrading" from a 2 to a 20, you get 18 more initial damage, which is important because the fight starts at t=0. Both weapons will land an initial hit and then their DPS will decrease asymptotically to its "steady state" DPS after an infinite amount of time. Even after 6 seconds, the AC/20's average DPS is triple that of the AC/2 and continues to hold the advantage ad infinitum. I know you like graphs so here's one showing the average DPS of the autocannons during an engagement:

Spoiler

Another strong advantage that you gain from upgrading to the AC/20 is the ability to torso twist without harming your DPS. If you were to get equal weight here and grab 2 AC/2s against 1 AC/20, the AC/20 will not only outdamage the AC/2s in raw damage, but the AC/20 will also be able to twist out a significant portion of that damage. Then the final advantage is putting damage out 20 at a time and on your terms.

I feel that those advantages are significant enough that the AC/20 doesn't also need a boost in DPS relative to the other basic ACs.

[MustrumRidcully]

The AC/20 is still heavier and has a shorter range than the AC/2, so I think it is justified of having a burst damage advantage. Though I tend to think the AC/2 just doesn't work as a 0.5 second recycle time weapon. No weapon does. Because of this:

Quote

Another strong advantage that you gain from upgrading to the AC/20 is the ability to torso twist without harming your DPS.

I think this might be one of the underrated aspects in the discussion of "boats" and all that. Shooting all your guns every 4 seconds gives serious defensive advantages.

I really should try to run a Jagermech with a STD engine and see how well that works. I think my current Dual AC/20 Jager with XL engine cannot benefit as much from torso twisting as other builds could... But the speed loss in movement and twisting could negate the benefits.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 03 June 2013 - 07:13 AM.

[HC Harlequin]

MustrumRidcully, on 02 June 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

1200 to 1500 is not really where fights happen, it's more 500m to 900m but I definitely start using my AC/20s at 500m, and even if you had used the extreme range option rules from the table top where this range would even be possible, the hit chance would be a lot lower than mine is in practice.

The AC20 "balance" is supposed to be knockdown. That's why it existed in the form it did in TT. Short range but one hit chance to knockdown. w/o a ballistic damage knockdown capability and no heat scale balance then of course, the rapid fire/high heat/low tonnage/low crit space weapons will be the best in slot

[Eggs Mayhem]

HC Harlequin, on 03 June 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

The AC20 "balance" is supposed to be knockdown. That's why it existed in the form it did in TT. Short range but one hit chance to knockdown. w/o a ballistic damage knockdown capability and no heat scale balance then of course, the rapid fire/high heat/low tonnage/low crit space weapons will be the best in slot

I really hope that never makes it to the game. Just as with tackle dragons, that will get abused so fast

[MustrumRidcully]

EmperorMyrf, on 04 June 2013 - 03:37 AM, said:

I really hope that never makes it to the game. Just as with tackle dragons, that will get abused so fast

The 20 damage knock effect was also independent of the AC/20 - it just required taking 20 damage per turn. The AC/20 could do that, but 4 Medium Lasers or an AC/10 and 2 Large Lasers could do it as well. The turn limitation doesn't translate well to a real time game.

[MaddMaxx]

Weapon balance based on some engagement criteria does not tell the whole tale at all. The AC20 has punch, you miss you lose all of it until the next attempt, when your turned away from your target, who can shoot you at will with the lighter, faster shooting AC2's say.

If you face a slow Mech with 2 AC20's they have great damage/killing potential, but if you face a fast Mech, that potential is reduced substantially. So the graph shows over time the potential, but under real combat conditions, the AC20 Mech that misses the odd full blast will not often get to many more opportunities to use said great potential.

The 4 PPC popper has the same issue. It has great potential but also when it misses, depending on the circumstance, can be its own downfall.

The potential of the raw numbers is often curbed under live combat exercise. That is why many new players get trapped in Mechs that have great potential and have to learn the hard way, there drawbacks.

P.S. I am not arguing against the OP's suggestion, just pointing out that the Graphs are all neat and wondrous, but often do not hold up under actual fire.

[Eggs Mayhem]

MaddMaxx, on 04 June 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

Weapon balance based on some engagement criteria does not tell the whole tale at all. The AC20 has punch, you miss you lose all of it until the next attempt, when your turned away from your target, who can shoot you at will with the lighter, faster shooting AC2's say.

If you face a slow Mech with 2 AC20's they have great damage/killing potential, but if you face a fast Mech, that potential is reduced substantially. So the graph shows over time the potential, but under real combat conditions, the AC20 Mech that misses the odd full blast will not often get to many more opportunities to use said great potential.

The 4 PPC popper has the same issue. It has great potential but also when it misses, depending on the circumstance, can be its own downfall.

The potential of the raw numbers is often curbed under live combat exercise. That is why many new players get trapped in Mechs that have great potential and have to learn the hard way, there drawbacks.

P.S. I am not arguing against the OP's suggestion, just pointing out that the Graphs are all neat and wondrous, but often do not hold up under actual fire.

Idk about yours, but my accuracy with the AC/20 is a good 7% higher than the rest of my AC's (73% compared to ~66%). But yes, a miss with the AC/20 is much more punishing than a miss with any other AC, especially the initial hit. But at least, regardless if you hit or miss, you're able to twist around and distribute hits as you please (maneuverability permitting) without hurting any future damage opportunities, which is exclusive to the AC/20 (and to some extent the AC/10 on smaller platforms)

To adjust that graph to encompass your hit average, all you'd have to do is multiply the amplitude of each point by your hit percentage as a decimal. The ratios remain roughly the same, though the slow hitters will deviate in a very sudden fashion when they do on an engagement-to-engagement basis. So if you were to graph out a single engagement, there's a decent chance that you won't see my above graph. If you were to average several engagements (>100) then you would see this same curvature, with similar ratios.

Edit: spelling

Edited by EmperorMyrf, 04 June 2013 - 09:55 AM.

[Eggs Mayhem]

Bumping, as this is still quite relevant, especially with the high alpha "fix" coming soon. I'll hold judgment till I see how it works in-game, but I'm not too optimistic about it.

Also, I fully support Homeless Bill's suggestion. I feel that starting with that as a foundation and fixing weapons accordingly as I have suggested (but not necessarily 1:1 with my chart) will really improve the game by increasing the number of viable builds and making stock mechs a threat, unlike their current situation.