408 replies to this topic

[LORD ORION]

Lupus Aurelius, on 30 October 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

BT ran almost 30 years, giving a lot of time to work out balance issues to get the relative strengths and weaknesses between weapons worked out. BT firing speeds were all the same, once per 10 sec, and the balance between weapons was based on heat and damage only. By changing the firing speeds, the balance between the direct fire weapons, energy and ballistic, was severely disrupted.

This is not about making all the weapons the same.. Both ballistics and energy weapons had their “apex” weapons, but they were balanced against each other by the 10 sec. turn. By altering that “firing” speed asymmetrically across those weapons, while trying to maintain the same or close to the same damage per shot,, radically altered the relative damage capabilities of each weapon.

Let’s start with the data:

It's a little more complicated than DPS as there are other factors when shooting these weapons in real time, but...

The mainstay ballistics (AC20, 10, 5, U5) are trading alot of weight and space for less heat generaton, with the caveat that they also have ammo explosions and can run out of ammo in battle. Also there are not alot of mechs that can use more than 2 of these weapons.

So... the AC20, AC10, AC5 and UAC5 feel right.

The AC2 is way out of whack. It is not trading alot of space for that kind of DPS at long range. Its DPS should go down to around laser levels. Say maybe 1.5.

Gauss is in a really weird place....all that really needed to happen for gauss was to be around the 2.5 DPS of the PPCs. No need to add anything weird to it like the current "charge" mechanic. (that's right, I said it, 6 second reload mofos)

The Large Pulse is also way out of whack... this should be in the 3.33 DPS range as it is the opposite of an auto-cannon. It is trading range and heat to deal damage.

Edited by LORD ORION, 10 November 2013 - 10:57 AM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Lord Orion, I very much like your thinking on this one. While we may not agree on specifics entirely (I think the LPL deserves slightly lower heat than currently as well, and I think the AC/5s are still a bit high on damage compared to where they should be- not hugely, but a little bit), most of the stuff you're saying there is along the lines of what I feel should be done to balance things out better.

[Training Instructor]

The Battlemasters with low-hanging ballistic points are still using 2xAC5/AC2 and 3xAC2, despite the fact that the mount makes so many shots impossible due to it having the tendency to hit terrain a lot.

That this is more reliable than using their high-mounted energy points for heavy beam/ppc weapons pretty much tells you everything you need to know.

An ERPPC and 6 medium lasers on chain fire quickly overcomes 24 dhs worth of cooling. 5 large lasers on chain fire quickly overheats with 20dhs worth of cooling.

It's absolutely ********. Meanwhile, while you're busy overheating, some AC2/5 boating 65+ ton mech is coring you out while not worrying about heat at all. The ac2s will overheat, but the AC5s will not.

I play mechs with legs loaded with ammo. I almost always die to the second leg being blown off, not from ammo explosions in one of the legs brimming with ammo.

Edited by Training Instructor, 10 November 2013 - 01:03 PM.

[krolmir]

Ammo explosions are a moot ballistics argument because of CASE, at least if you run a Standard, with an XL your SOL no matter what (just another area PGI has screwed up balance by making Inner Sphere XLs even more brittle). If PGI were to lower the heat cap to 50, increase heat dissipation per second, so energy only mechs don't have to deal with massive DPS fall off things might balance out. Until then they should change the name to Ballistics Warrior Online.

Edited by krolmir, 10 November 2013 - 03:00 PM.

[akpavker]

Lupus Aurelius, on 30 October 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

It's not about "porting stuff". It's about balancing weapons, relative strengths and weaknesses. When you radically change a dynamic, such as firing time, you radically change the relationships. Translating that into a real time environment should have been done in such a way as to maintain those relative relationships in heat and damage output.

Increasing weapon firing speed, without increasing heat dissipation, creates an obvious imbalance between low heat and high heat weapons. Low heat weapons win big, whereas the converse is true for high heat weapons. That's not rocket science, that's just basic logic.

ffs so sick of seeing TT cry babys in the forum's. this is a multiplayer online simulator things are going to be different to table top so plz stop trying to compair them. if you want to play a pc BT game thats boring, turn based and has no player skill involved what so ever then go play somthing more like this.......

Edited by akpavker, 10 November 2013 - 04:37 PM.

[See Beelz]

Akpavker once again in with the "Stop whining and go home" constructive post. It's a bold strategy Cotton but will it pay off?

The heat scale needs to change for this game to be balanced. Otherwise the cycle of nerfs and fotm will continue.

[akpavker]

See Beelz, on 10 November 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

Akpavker once again in with the "Stop whining and go home" constructive post. It's a bold strategy Cotton but will it pay off?

The heat scale needs to change for this game to be balanced. Otherwise the cycle of nerfs and fotm will continue.

im sorry i thought the OP was about some guy rambling on about battle tech and try to compair the heat scaling from a table top game to an online game! sorry to inform you of this but TT games dont transfigure to well into pvp multiplayer online sim's! as for that mater i dont think any TT game has ever worked well as a online multiplayer. i wont dissagree that lasers and DOT weapons need to be buffed (heat scaling fixed) but that doesnt change the fact that this ISNT a table top game! we dont roll dice and its not turned based! stop trying to compair them!

Edited by akpavker, 10 November 2013 - 09:12 PM.

[See Beelz]

He's saying that the game was half *** ported from TT values and the disparity causes imbalance.

[akpavker]

See Beelz, on 10 November 2013 - 04:36 PM, said:

He's saying that the game was half *** ported from TT values and the disparity causes imbalance.

Lupus Aurelius, on 30 October 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

Ballistics need to be balanced with other weapon systems. More heat and slower firing times to bring them back more in line with BT precedence. A quick fix would be to bring things back to the same relative values in TT.

sorry but it but it doesnt come across that way!

[See Beelz]

That doesn't deny the fact that PGI did in fact half *** port TT values into a FPS game. That and the convoluted heat scale are the root of all evil in this game.

[akpavker]

See Beelz, on 10 November 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

That doesn't deny the fact that PGI did in fact half *** port TT values into a FPS game. That and the convoluted heat scale are the root of all evil in this game.

that doesnt change the fact that what works in TT wont work well here!!

[See Beelz]

That's kind of what...im saying?

[krolmir]

I have to agree with See Beelz, and they did a poor interpretation of TT rules, they happen to be Solaris Rules; but they totally BF'd the bunker whilst doing it. They raised the rate of fire, but not the rate of Heat dissipation. What does this directly cause? It is a direct buff to the effectiveness off ballistics, and a direct Nerf to energy weapons. Everyone is so terrified off a possible return to PPC meta that they have indubitably strapped on their blinders and refuse to see the glorious light of the real balancing issue. Our heat cap is around 120, in TT that number is simply impossible. In TT you would be hard pressed to get above a heat cap of 50 with Clan tech for Gods sake, and yet in MWO we have 2.5 times that amount. So, what does this also cause? It allows for multiple alphas from high heat mechs, back to back, ergo sniper meta superior!!! The simple and best fix, Impose a heat cap of 50 across the board, increase the heat per second dissipation rate (which with 10 DHS right now gives a paltry 2 heat per second reduction, 20 DHS only gives 3.4 HPS reduction); which would allow all energy based mechs a chance to keep firing at least some of their weapons. Which brings up another point ballistics proponents always seem to ignore, reload vs. recycle time. An AC/10 has 3.33 DPS vs. a
medium lasers' 1.25 DPS. Hell lets make it AC/10 vs. 2 Mediums, 3.33 vs. 2.5 DPS; and lets not forget heat, AC/10 vs. 2 Mediums. So 3 heat vs. 8 heat, for the same damage done, except lasers will inevitably spread that damage instead of front loading it. So the medium lasers will reach heat shutdown in 15 shots for 150 damage. The AC/10 will be able to fire 40, I repeat 40 times before reaching shutdown from heat, for 400 damage, and did I mention a significant range advantage for the AC/10. Also, did I mention that the DHS take 3 crits each, and to run 20, your mech will lose 20 to 30 crit slots; and still be woefully inefficient, and ineffective vs. Any ballistic based chassis with the same Alpha? Ultimately, the question for ballistic lovers is how much of an advantage do you need to beat a mech with lower DPS, higher HPS, and a propensity to shutdown after doing a third of the damage you have?

[Frankdark]

@akpavker
i loved the old Mechwarrior game.
It was tacktical and made a good time before 2000

@ Weapon
for my point of view i see it exactly like krolmir

The Problem started with the halve use of TT values and Mechanics.

Problem 1 ( Hit Spread )
- All Weapons fire to a focus point special alphas are extrem deadly
- Medium Players can aim to 1 Point.

Problem 2 ( Heat Mechanic )
- No Heat Penaltys
- To high Trashhold
- To low Reduction for RoF

Problem 3 ( RoF )
- Weapons brought out of Balance

they tryed to fix it, but in my opinion from the wrong side.


First, Hit Spread

Maybee not one hit point but for each weapon one could fix id better.
or a Spread in a Aim Circul

Second Fire Times.
I don`t like the high RoF idea.
Mechwarrior was based on "Wait for the right shot", not "hope for a hit, before wasting rof"

The solaris base should be taken
but with making weapons more stylish
AC Burstfirng ...

Heat Mechanic
Balancing the Heat with a over Time factor would made the hole system more flexible.
Think of a PPC with 5 Sek Reload and 25% heat @ firing and the rest over 4 seconds.


Possible Options and diversions.
Mechwarrior has diffrent Production Lines of Weapons.
With this system, it would be possible to make x numbers of diffrent PPC´s.
One with 4,5 sek Firetime and more heat, maybe wone with 6 sek and Less 10% initial heat and rest over 6 seconds
...

[Galenit]

Frankdark, on 11 November 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

@akpavker
i loved the old Mechwarrior game.
It was tacktical and made a good time before 2000

@ Weapon
for my point of view i see it exactly like krolmir

The Problem started with the halve use of TT values and Mechanics.

Problem 1 ( Hit Spread )
- All Weapons fire to a focus point special alphas are extrem deadly
- Medium Players can aim to 1 Point.

Problem 2 ( Heat Mechanic )
- No Heat Penaltys
- To high Trashhold
- To low Reduction for RoF

Problem 3 ( RoF )
- Weapons brought out of Balance

Problem 4 (Ranges)

Missilies 1x
Energy 2x
Ballistics 3x

I see no problem with 2x energy & 2x ballistics and 1x missilies, that would left a balanced pallet of ranges.

[Nryrony]

LORD ORION, on 10 November 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

It's a little more complicated than DPS as there are other factors when shooting these weapons in real time, but...

The mainstay ballistics (AC20, 10, 5, U5) are trading alot of weight and space for less heat generaton, with the caveat that they also have ammo explosions and can run out of ammo in battle. Also there are not alot of mechs that can use more than 2 of these weapons.

So... the AC20, AC10, AC5 and UAC5 feel right.

The AC2 is way out of whack. It is not trading alot of space for that kind of DPS at long range. Its DPS should go down to around laser levels. Say maybe 1.5.

Gauss is in a really weird place....all that really needed to happen for gauss was to be around the 2.5 DPS of the PPCs. No need to add anything weird to it like the current "charge" mechanic. (that's right, I said it, 6 second reload mofos)

The Large Pulse is also way out of whack... this should be in the 3.33 DPS range as it is the opposite of an auto-cannon. It is trading range and heat to deal damage.

This DPS chart is a nice comparison, yet this doesn't consider the MWO heat system or things like beam duration.

An energy boat in MWO is simply inferior in therms of dps over a pure ballistics or mixed build. Even if you chain-fire, almost every energy build has dramatic heat problems. Heat-sinks are simply not effective enough.

The second issue would be beam duration vs pinpoint/bullet like dmg. If we had the 80th lasers like in Star Wars, they would be more balanced. But since we don't have that, beam weapons will be inferior unless the significantly out dps the bullet like weapon systems.

[Turist0AT]

Enegry, nerft and not fun anymore. Missiles, nerft and not fun anymore. And you wonder why ppl use Balistics, what are you reeetarded?

[MustrumRidcully]

Quote

The mainstay ballistics (AC20, 10, 5, U5) are trading alot of weight and space for less heat generaton, with the caveat that they also have ammo explosions and can run out of ammo in battle.

What I find important to note:

ou can make builds that do effectively not run out of ammo. That's okay. The point is that you have to invest tonnage if you want that, tonnage you cannot spend on armor, heat sinks, engine or additional firepower.
That is the whole concept behind heat, ammo, weight and basically the entire mech construction rules of Battletech - at least in the table top
-Yes, you can install enough heat sinks that you never suffer heat penalties and fire all day long. But that means tonnage spend on heat sinks you can't spend for more firepower, or higher speed, or better armor, or special equipment (ECM, BAP, whatever)
- Yes, you can install enough ammo that you're not gonna run out over the course of a typical battle (especially considering that the enemy shoots back and will damage you eventually and so you have to run out of something - ammo or armor - at some point), but it will cost you in firepower, armour or speed, or special equipment (ECM, BAP, whatever)

MW:Os problem is that PGI has decided that heat neutrality is the most evil thing you can do in Battletech and must be destroyed at all cost. That lead to a completely different heat system and any trade-offs that might have been originally been designed to be fair no longer quite work. But it doesn't follow that we suddenly need to lower the ammo count so that mechs definitely run out of ammo, which honestly seems to be some people want to achieve. That doesn't solve anything, just introduces more problems.

[Joseph Mallan]

See Beelz, on 10 November 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

Akpavker once again in with the "Stop whining and go home" constructive post. It's a bold strategy Cotton but will it pay off?

The heat scale needs to change for this game to be balanced. Otherwise the cycle of nerfs and fotm will continue.

Why is it that when something is thought to be OP the first thing said is, "Make IT weaker."? I don't disagree that he heat scale does not feel like it is from the BattleTech Universe. There is no losing target lock cause we are to hot, no Ammo explosion cause the ammo cooked off, Nothing, Our mechs shut down. Big woop!

[Tiamat of the Sea]

MustrumRidcully, on 11 November 2013 - 04:05 AM, said:

MW:Os problem is that PGI has decided that heat neutrality is the most evil thing you can do in Battletech and must be destroyed at all cost. That lead to a completely different heat system and any trade-offs that might have been originally been designed to be fair no longer quite work. But it doesn't follow that we suddenly need to lower the ammo count so that mechs definitely run out of ammo, which honestly seems to be some people want to achieve. That doesn't solve anything, just introduces more problems.

It's worth noting that they also increased the ammunition for ballistic weapons by 50% (roughly) per ton, and the only change they made to missile weapon ammo was not requiring different ammo for different rack sizes (which is not an equivalent alteration by any means).

Edited by Elli Gujar, 11 November 2013 - 07:50 AM.