408 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Lupus Aurelius, on 11 November 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

I disagree. DPS and burst damage are indicators. Granted, this is not like EVE, where DPS factors in heavily. But in MWO, it's an indicator of what a potential is. Same with burst damage, you are not always going to be able to apply all your weapons at once, nor maintain them indefinitely. But it is an indicator of potential.

DPS can't be ignored any more than alpha. At range, full alpha does not apply, unless all your weapons are long range. What becomes important then is being able to sustain fire with your long range weapons until the enemy closes. Once that occurs, alpha comes into play. But the AC mechs at close range can sustain that fire substantially longer than an ERPPC mech. So both at range and up close, ballistics excel way beyond the energy weapons for versatility due to the current heat issues.

The longer a mech can sustain fire of it's primary weapons, the more DPS becomes a factor. Both alpha and DPS are going to be affected by heat, but if you can keep your primary damage dealers running non-stop in an engagement, you are going to be doing significantly more damage as the engagement continues.

The fallacy in PGI's system is self evident. Keeping dissipation unaltered from TT rates, and in the case of engine external DHS reducing their dissipation from 2 heat/10sec to 1.4 heat/10sec, while increasing ROF, totally changes weapon balance. Instead of addressing the root cause, they continued with that system, modified heat and firing times, and implemented ghost heat, further shifting the system to an even more unbalanced state.

I think a DPS₅/DPS₁₀/DPS₁₅ might be a better indicator than DPS_infinity.
In DPS₅, the alpha damage is the strongest component - after 5 seconds, an AC/20 has dealt 40 damage (firing at 0 and firing at 4 seconds), an AC/2 22 damage.
In DPS₁₀, DPS becomes more relevant, and at DPS₁₅, it tends to dominate. Still, even at this point, the alpha component is not fully ignored, and we are overall closer to a realistic engagement then theorizing our weapons firing an infinite timespan at an immobile and indestructible target.

It becomes particularly important when we also consider heat generation. If we were just to use heat per second, we would theorize that any viable Dual PPC build would need 50 heat sinks (or 25 trueDubs) or it could never utilize its DPS potential - which is obviously nonsense. The heat threshold will allow any mech to fire at full DPS for a while, so we need to consider timespans. But of course, it also means we need to consider a potential heat thresold here, and that is not a weapon property, but a mech build property. WHich is why balancing weapons in a vacuum, without considering build configurations, is not possible, as long as the heat system is purely a "damage race to shutdown":

[Karl Streiger]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2013 - 06:04 PM, said:

So Mediums are dying as fast as they did on TT? Hunchback has 20 armor on Side Torsos so single AC20s stripped em and the next weapon hit hurt em bad. So seconds to cripple a Medium on TT too! Same as being hit by these 40 point Alphas that are to powerful. An 30 years of no complaints even with half the armor.

Come one - you say you have 30 years of knowlege?

The Hunchback with 20 armor is fine. Simple because of the fact that it is most unlikely that you get 2 shots in the same area. AFAIK the Hunchback is capable of eat up to 5 hits by a AC 20 in TT (may not happen - but you hardly kill it with 2 shots)

But that is again something why the Hunchback is called a 2nd line Brawler - armor and damage looks good at first glance but hardly capable of going face to face with an Atlas and survive - but even in open terrain its much more durable in comparison with MWO

With some luck - its possible to kill or cripple an Hunchback with a single salvo of an Atlas (AC 20 into LT) and a SRM or MLAS that hit there - to causing an critical: so chances for that is rolling an 8, than again a 8 and than again a +8 - so you have to roll 3 8s in a row
probability: 0.1388 * 0.1388 * 0.4166 = 0.008 -> for an ammunition explosion that will kill the Hunchback
So the chances are better to land a head shot with the first roll.

When you use a King Crab - with dual AC 20s. (MWO alpha damage of 2x40 or 80) you can core the center with 2 shots:
0.1666 * 0.1666 = 2,7% same chance as deliver a head shot.

And that is no comparison to MWO - like Khobai said - Hunchbacks with XL engine - die in FOUR seconds...4 not even 10 (they die that fast since CB) - the chances differt if that pilot makes some torso twisting - but with the 3rd salvo that Mech is open.

However the weapon damage values of MWO are wrong - simple wrong.
http://www.heavymeta...com/bv_calc.htm

place the values of a AC 20:
20 damage , ranges 0,3,6,9

you see the damage values:
18.33 til 90m
14.44 til 180m
8.33 til 270m
when you say shots at short range are made with 6 out of 10, medium range 3 out of 10 and long range 1 out of 10. You can say a AC 20 should have a damage of 16.63.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 12 November 2013 - 02:31 AM.

[mike29tw]

Khobai, on 11 November 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

Yeah but this isnt TT. In MWO the weight classes are supposed to be more equalized. A Hunchback is supposed to contribute as much to winning as an Atlas despite the 50 ton difference.

I'd wish I could like this more than once.

This went right over so many people's head when they compare MWO balance to TT.

[Joseph Mallan]

Karl Streiger, on 12 November 2013 - 02:28 AM, said:

Come one - you say you have 30 years of knowlege?

The Hunchback with 20 armor is fine. Simple because of the fact that it is most unlikely that you get 2 shots in the same area. AFAIK the Hunchback is capable of eat up to 5 hits by a AC 20 in TT (may not happen - but you hardly kill it with 2 shots)

But that is again something why the Hunchback is called a 2nd line Brawler - armor and damage looks good at first glance but hardly capable of going face to face with an Atlas and survive - but even in open terrain its much more durable in comparison with MWO

With some luck - its possible to kill or cripple an Hunchback with a single salvo of an Atlas (AC 20 into LT) and a SRM or MLAS that hit there - to causing an critical: so chances for that is rolling an 8, than again a 8 and than again a +8 - so you have to roll 3 8s in a row
probability: 0.1388 * 0.1388 * 0.4166 = 0.008 -> for an ammunition explosion that will kill the Hunchback
So the chances are better to land a head shot with the first roll.

When you use a King Crab - with dual AC 20s. (MWO alpha damage of 2x40 or 80) you can core the center with 2 shots:
0.1666 * 0.1666 = 2,7% same chance as deliver a head shot.

And that is no comparison to MWO - like Khobai said - Hunchbacks with XL engine - die in FOUR seconds...4 not even 10 (they die that fast since CB) - the chances differt if that pilot makes some torso twisting - but with the 3rd salvo that Mech is open.

However the weapon damage values of MWO are wrong - simple wrong.
http://www.heavymeta...com/bv_calc.htm

place the values of a AC 20:
20 damage , ranges 0,3,6,9

you see the damage values:
18.33 til 90m
14.44 til 180m
8.33 til 270m
when you say shots at short range are made with 6 out of 10, medium range 3 out of 10 and long range 1 out of 10. You can say a AC 20 should have a damage of 16.63.

You can quote statistics all you want, I know em really really well. I spent years documenting SPC data and helping to establish a major car company's R&E toolroom's short run SPC program. 6, 7 and 8 are THE most rolled numbers on 2d6 as 3.2 is the statistical average roll. So hitting your Right torso is more probable than any other location. So please spare me. If you don't like Convergence I agree with you, but if you are complaining about the amount of damage one burst of damage does, sit down.

Your comparing realtime to the pulled out of the ether made up number. It actually takes me the time required to announce the mech I am firing at, what weapons I am firing, the time to roll said damage, and the time for the opponent to tick off his points. 4 seconds in a realtime game firing

Quote

enough firepower to level a city

an one vehicle is supposed to last longer than 4 seconds? I have seen Atlases fold in a single round on TT, and that is only half a turn, My half of that 10 seconds. There is no problem with being killed in short order when you are being pummeled by two or more enemy. Game or not, you are a combatant, you are going to kill or be killed, if you are upset cause it happened in seconds, you don't need to playing a combat game! Shock and Awe are as effective defeating an enemy as good tactics.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 12 November 2013 - 05:49 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2013 - 05:48 AM, said:

So please spare me. If you don't like Convergence I agree with you, but if you are complaining about the amount of damage one burst of damage does, sit down.

Nope as far as i can tell - I'm just complaining about your statement that the damage output is ok. It would been ok with a better convergence resolution - the current system can not work and will never work - without armor values that are directly dependend on the propability that this location is hit. (so for example side torsos of the Catapult should have less armor - although when this happens people would aim more often for those weak spots instead of firing at head and CT)

However - with current pin point even 20 damage to a single location is to much - and torso twisting is a myth (only have seen 1 or 2 players that did toros twisting for some success)

regarding statistics (have worked for 6 years for a company were i get firm with data mining and statictics )

As you know I didn't said its hard to hit the right torso - all i said it is hard to hit the side torso twice in a row.
Even an Atlas that is killed within one round have to be the exception not the rule.
A lance of Allacorn IV have troubles of killing an average Assault in a single round.

[Joseph Mallan]

Karl Streiger, on 12 November 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

Nope as far as i can tell - I'm just complaining about your statement that the damage output is ok. It would been ok with a better convergence resolution - the current system can not work and will never work - without armor values that are directly dependend on the propability that this location is hit. (so for example side torsos of the Catapult should have less armor - although when this happens people would aim more often for those weak spots instead of firing at head and CT)

However - with current pin point even 20 damage to a single location is to much - and torso twisting is a myth (only have seen 1 or 2 players that did toros twisting for some success)

regarding statistics (have worked for 6 years for a company were i get firm with data mining and statictics )

As you know I didn't said its hard to hit the right torso - all i said it is hard to hit the side torso twice in a row.
Even an Atlas that is killed within one round have to be the exception not the rule.
A lance of Allacorn IV have troubles of killing an average Assault in a single round.

And yet the levels of damage work just fine on TT. 12 Gauss from 4 Alacorns will lay waste to most Mechs in a single turn, And what they don't they kill in the second. Tell me how many MW:O mechs would survive 12 30 point shots(260)?

I just use Rick "HeavyMetalPro" Raisley's Random dice program, (12 rolls=4 Alacorn),3,8,6,7,8,2,7,6,10,11,5,3
So 2 hits on a Atlas
Right Torso
Center Torso
Left Torso

Second Roll: 6,6,9,9,8,5,12,9,6,9,8,9
3 more hits Right torso
2 More Left Torso\

Dead Atlas 20 seconds.

As to 20 pin point being to much... An AC20 is to much damage to you? If this is true you need to find a different game. Against MW:O double armor you are feeling the effect of an AC10 or PPC n TT.

[Karl Streiger]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

As to 20 pin point being to much... An AC20 is to much damage to you? If this is true you need to find a different game. Against MW:O double armor you are feeling the effect of an AC10 or PPC n TT.

Heck even the 2 points of a AC 2 are to much.

Simple because of the fact - that hardly any of my shots will go for the legs or the arms. so roughly 30% or a mechs armor doesn't work = the armor concept of MWO doesn't meet the way how damage is applied.
Until that is fixed...every moment there will be another topic (weapon x is op, weapon y is broken - unti as you have said quiete often: every weapon has the same, range, damage and heat)

Its neighter damage or convergence allone - its the sum of both that bothers me. When devs don't want to touch hit zones and convergence - the only way is to reduce DPS drastically - and increase the RoF. (more shots = better distribution of hits -> so maybe the arms or the legs of a mech got damaged even when the attacker didn't aim for them)

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

Tell me how many MW:O mechs would survive 12 30 point shots(260)?

as you made your rolling - you see fewer as in TT - because all of them will hit the CT in a single moment.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

And yet the levels of damage work just fine on TT. 12 Gauss from 4 Alacorns will lay waste to most Mechs in a single turn, And what they don't they kill in the second. Tell me how many MW:O mechs would survive 12 30 point shots(260)?

I just use Rick "HeavyMetalPro" Raisley's Random dice program, (12 rolls=4 Alacorn),3,8,6,7,8,2,7,6,10,11,5,3
So 2 hits on a Atlas
Right Torso
Center Torso
Left Torso

Second Roll: 6,6,9,9,8,5,12,9,6,9,8,9
3 more hits Right torso
2 More Left Torso\

Dead Atlas 20 seconds.

As to 20 pin point being to much... An AC20 is to much damage to you? If this is true you need to find a different game. Against MW:O double armor you are feeling the effect of an AC10 or PPC n TT.

Karl Streiger, on 12 November 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

Nope as far as i can tell - I'm just complaining about your statement that the damage output is ok. It would been ok with a better convergence resolution - the current system can not work and will never work - without armor values that are directly dependend on the propability that this location is hit. (so for example side torsos of the Catapult should have less armor - although when this happens people would aim more often for those weak spots instead of firing at head and CT)

However - with current pin point even 20 damage to a single location is to much - and torso twisting is a myth (only have seen 1 or 2 players that did toros twisting for some success)

regarding statistics (have worked for 6 years for a company were i get firm with data mining and statictics )

As you know I didn't said its hard to hit the right torso - all i said it is hard to hit the side torso twice in a row.
Even an Atlas that is killed within one round have to be the exception not the rule.
A lance of Allacorn IV have troubles of killing an average Assault in a single round.

Not going to argue the survivability of a mech here, gentlemen.

However, I think there is something we all can agree on
-by altering weapon firing speeds asymmetrically, the damage relationships changed
-by "porting" the heat dissipation partially from TT, but reducing engine external DHS to 1.4, with the weapon firing speed increase, the functionality of ballistic heavy mechs vs. non ballistic mechs fundamentally changed
-by continuing to balance by heat, the problem is exacerbated.
-by having convergence be exact, any high alpha build can pinpoint that damage to a single location, unlike BT where it was randomized.

If a process is revised or changed, and you are getting wildly different results, the first thing you do is go back to the baseline of the process when it was stable, or you address the root cause of the issue.
-either return relative damage and heat to the "baseline" established in BT
-or revise the heat system and remove pinpoint convergence.

And if we are going to throw RL qualifications around, 30 years in military and aerospace Quality Assurance, one time QA manager, and with my last 8 years as one of the lead Quality Systems auditor for a jet engine manufacturer in the USA. Not that any of that matters here. But it does explain my sig "In the god's we trust, all others bring data!"

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 12 November 2013 - 06:41 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Karl Streiger, on 12 November 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

Heck even the 2 points of a AC 2 are to much.

Simple because of the fact - that hardly any of my shots will go for the legs or the arms. so roughly 30% or a mechs armor doesn't work = the armor concept of MWO doesn't meet the way how damage is applied.
Until that is fixed...every moment there will be another topic (weapon x is op, weapon y is broken - unti as you have said quiete often: every weapon has the same, range, damage and heat)

Its neighter damage or convergence allone - its the sum of both that bothers me. When devs don't want to touch hit zones and convergence - the only way is to reduce DPS drastically - and increase the RoF. (more shots = better distribution of hits -> so maybe the arms or the legs of a mech got damaged even when the attacker didn't aim for them)


as you made your rolling - you see fewer as in TT - because all of them will hit the CT in a single moment.

Convergence is your complaint not the total damage. Though I agree Convergence is an issue, the total amount of damage is not. Specially at the 30 point range, 30 damage on our double armor is a single PPC on TT.

[Joseph Mallan]

Lupus Aurelius, on 12 November 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

And if we are going to throw RL qualifications around, 30 years in military and aerospace Quality Assurance, one time QA manager, and with my last 8 years as one of the lead Quality Systems auditor for a jet engine manufacturer in the USA. Not that any of that matters here. But it does explain my sig "In the god's we trust, all others bring data!"

I bring 28 years of killing and dying in this universe, along with what statistical background I have, an a few years as a Grunt. Complaining about 30 damage to one location is the same as complaining that I was hit with a Gauss on TT. I could care less how you hit me with that damage, I can take it and a couple more before I die. I need to make the most of the time I have left or die silently cause I didn't get the job done.

[Zyllos]

Look, one of ballistic's drawback, ammo, is heavily mitigated due to how accurate weapons fire is.

Fire 4 AC/5s and they all hit a single location. What the killer of ammo was the fact that damage was spread out, thus hard to take out mechs single handedly.

If weapons damage was distributed like TT, you would see more predominance in energy weapons due to extended engagements.

Heck, you don't even need to have weapon damage to act like TT to make ammo much more important. A simple CoF would make ballistic weapons almost always run out of ammo before the match is over due to the inefficiency, which was the drawback of ammo in TT.

Ammo based weaponry should be high DPS and low heat for the weight.

Energy should be low DPS and high heat for the weight.

But all weapons should be spreading their damage.

Edited by Zyllos, 12 November 2013 - 07:15 AM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Lupus Aurelius, on 12 November 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Not going to argue the survivability of a mech here, gentlemen.

However, I think there is something we all can agree on
-by altering weapon firing speeds asymmetrically, the damage relationships changed
-by "porting" the heat dissipation partially from TT, but reducing engine external DHS to 1.4, with the weapon firing speed increase, the functionality of ballistic heavy mechs vs. non ballistic mechs fundamentally changed
-by continuing to balance by heat, the problem is exacerbated.
-by having convergence be exact, any high alpha build can pinpoint that damage to a single location, unlike BT where it was randomized.

If a process is revised or changed, and you are getting wildly different results, the first thing you do is go back to the baseline of the process when it was stable, or you address the root cause of the issue.

This for truth. I don't care what your background is or what you've done for how long or how long you've played the game.

What we're looking at here is a game design decision in which a number of related things were changed unevenly at the same time, which is neither good game design nor good science experimentation. You change one thing and test with that alteration, then amend the degree to which you have changed that one thing until it feels right, then you move on to the next change. Otherwise you've got little to no idea which alteration brought about the desirable change in your result and which alteration brought about the undesirable change and you have to either roll back one of your alterations at a time until you find the culprit or make another change to try and patch things up.

Demonstrable: Varied range, firing rate, ammunition changes plus pinpoint accuracy change plus heat scale change plus heat sink change= things dying too fast. Leads to doubling armor and structure in this case, because PGI for whatever reason didn't want to try and amend the changes they'd already made.

The where they went wrong here is a where they went wrong in game design or a science experiment- changing too many things at once and then clinging to those changes rather than giving their original choices a going-over. This cascaded into overuse of poptarting and ridiculous degrees of boating until various heat changes, including ghost heat, most recently.

While it's understandable that the development team would make a mistake like this, as a new studio, and they've done pretty well since trying to play catch-up with themselves on fixing this stuff, the fact of the matter is that it was a mistake (or series of mistakes) and they -are- playing catch-up with themselves.

[Joseph Mallan]

Zyllos, on 12 November 2013 - 07:14 AM, said:

Look, one of ballistic's drawback, ammo, is heavily mitigated due to how accurate weapons fire is.

Fire 4 AC/5s and they all hit a single location. What the killer of ammo was the fact that damage was spread out, thus hard to take out mechs single handedly.

If weapons damage was distributed like TT, you would see more predominance in energy weapons due to extended engagements.

Heck, you don't even need to have weapon damage to act like TT to make ammo much more important. A simple CoF would make ballistic weapons almost always run out of ammo before the match is over due to the inefficiency, which was the drawback of ammo in TT.

Ammo based weaponry should be high DPS and low heat for the weight.

Energy should be low DPS and high heat for the weight.

But all weapons should be spreading their damage.

Mine don't But that is due to my Chain firing the twin AC5 on my Atlas.

[Davers]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

And yet the levels of damage work just fine on TT. 12 Gauss from 4 Alacorns will lay waste to most Mechs in a single turn, And what they don't they kill in the second. Tell me how many MW:O mechs would survive 12 30 point shots(260)?

I just use Rick "HeavyMetalPro" Raisley's Random dice program, (12 rolls=4 Alacorn),3,8,6,7,8,2,7,6,10,11,5,3
So 2 hits on a Atlas
Right Torso
Center Torso
Left Torso

Second Roll: 6,6,9,9,8,5,12,9,6,9,8,9
3 more hits Right torso
2 More Left Torso\

Dead Atlas 20 seconds.

As to 20 pin point being to much... An AC20 is to much damage to you? If this is true you need to find a different game. Against MW:O double armor you are feeling the effect of an AC10 or PPC n TT.

Are you actually saying that 2 alpha strikes to kill an Atlas is totally fine in MW:O?

Maybe in TT that would be fine, since the Atlas was only one of your units and those 2 turns might have taken 20 minutes to play out. But that would be pretty unenjoyable in a FPS.

[Roadbeer]

Davers, on 12 November 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

Are you actually saying that 2 alpha strikes to kill an Atlas is totally fine in MW:O?

Maybe in TT that would be fine, since the Atlas was only one of your units and those 2 turns might have taken 20 minutes to play out. But that would be pretty unenjoyable in a FPS.

Wasn't this the reason that armor was doubled over TT values in the first place?

Said it before, I'll say it again. TT does NOT translate well into a 3D Real Time environment, ever.

Everyone, please STOP with the TT analogs.

[Joseph Mallan]

Davers, on 12 November 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

Are you actually saying that 2 alpha strikes to kill an Atlas is totally fine in MW:O?

Maybe in TT that would be fine, since the Atlas was only one of your units and those 2 turns might have taken 20 minutes to play out. But that would be pretty unenjoyable in a FPS.

As an Atlas Pilot, it would depend on the actual Alpha but yeah two Alphas of 6 PPCs should kill me just fine in two salvos. I never complained about it when it was a thing, why would I now???

[Davers]

For a real BT/MW game to work you pretty much need combined arms (infantry, vehicles, aircraft). There is really no point in putting mechs designed for crowd control and telling them to fight much heavier opponents.

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

As an Atlas Pilot, it would depend on the actual Alpha but yeah two Alphas of 6 PPCs should kill me just fine in two salvos. I never complained about it when it was a thing, why would I now???

If all you ever faced was Alacorns, would you still enjoy playing?

[Joseph Mallan]

Davers, on 12 November 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

For a real BT/MW game to work you pretty much need combined arms (infantry, vehicles, aircraft). There is really no point in putting mechs designed for crowd control and telling them to fight much heavier opponents.


If all you ever faced was Alacorns, would you still enjoy playing?

I played every other weekend for 4-5 years against a player who fielded at least 2 Alacorns and up to another 10 Gauss every game. I won about a third of the matches, those were the ones where I was the player not the GM.

[Davers]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 November 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

I played every other weekend for 4-5 years against a player who fielded at least 2 Alacorns and up to another 10 Gauss every game. I won about a third of the matches, those were the ones where I was the player not the GM.

Oops, I forgot who I was talking to! You are the guy that wants the Clans to be totally OP so the IS can experience the horror of fighting them where it takes 12 men to bring down one Daishi.

[Joseph Mallan]

Davers, on 12 November 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

Oops, I forgot who I was talking to! You are the guy that wants the Clans to be totally OP so the IS can experience the horror of fighting them where it takes 12 men to bring down one Daishi.

Yes. I am that guy. I want to face the Boogieman at his fiercest an kick him in the teeth If I can or take the expected loss that is supposed to happen. Seriously, anything less and you cannot call yourself Competitive!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 12 November 2013 - 09:01 AM.