408 replies to this topic

[Lupus Aurelius]

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:



The above chart shows what happened by changing the firing speeds in the way PGI did. What is important in this chart is the change in relationships between the weapons. Weapon balance in BT was damage per turn, and the relative strengths of those weapons was based on that. By changing that relationship, as with any closed dynamic system, you throw the process out of balance.

Example, the BT data has the DPS of the AC5 being 1/2 the PPC and ERPPC, which is as it should be, 5 damage vs. 10 damage in 10 seconds. But in the MWO data, the AC5 has a damage output of 1.332x that of the PPC/ERPPC.

The most obvious result are the ACs. AC10 and LB 10X quadrupled it’s damage output, AC5 and UAC5(not counting double shot) 7 times the damage output. The big winner here is the AC2, at over 19 times the damage, and the big loser for ballistics, AC20, at only 2.5 times the damage output.

Compare that to the energy weapons, the highest was SPL at 4.133, the SL at 3.133, and the LPL at 3.05 times the damage, with everything else less than 3 times. But, heat dissipation rates remain the same as in BT, excepting external DHS, which are less than BT at 1.4 heat/10sec instead of 2.0 heat/10 sec.

• -Ballistic firing speeds average at 2.36sec, or 4.24 times faster than BT, with average damage of 8.39, and an average heat of 2.14 .
  
• -Energy weapons firing speeds average 3.14 sec, or 3.19 faster than BT, with average damage of 6.67, and an average heat of 6.34 .

Even though the heat reservoir is increased from TT, the heat dissipation of DHS external to the engine has been severely nerfed at 1.4 heat/10 sec. In addition, the dissipation rate has remained the same for SHS and engine DHS,0 .1 and 0.2 heat respectively. So an engine with 10 internal DHS has a heat rating of 50, but it is only shedding 2 heat per sec.

As stated above, ballistic average 2.14 heat per second. With a heat reservoir of 50, doing 2.14 heat/sec, but shedding 2.0 heat/sec, that’s a net difference of 0.14 heat/sec. Over 357 shots. Energy weapons average 6.34 heat/sec, so the net difference there in 4.34 heat per sec. that’s 11.52 shots.

ACs, with lower heat, can fire 4 times faster and still not cap out the heat, but energy weapons firing barely over 3 times faster cannot, because the average heat for energy is 3 times greater than for ballistics, and the heat dissipation rates remain based on the 10 sec TT turn. Heat generation went up, but dissipation remained the same.

Ballistics fire on average 1.33 times faster with an average of 1.26 times more damage, than energy weapons. If you ratio the differences to bring them in line, in the 2.36 average firing time, energy weapons average 4.76 damage, vs 8.39 of ballistics. Thats half the damage in the same amount of time, on average.

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.

If it fires 4 times faster than TT, have it generate 1/4 damage and 1/4 of the heat. Hard cap heat at 30, make DHS dissipate at 2.0 instead of 1.4. That would bring things back into the same relative balance from TT, and that that point, you look at armor and heat cap for mechs.

Could easily have kept the original armor amounts from BT, instead of having to had to double them, boating high heat/high alpha builds would never had been possible, and high alpha builds in general would not produce anywhere near the same damage output we currently see, making damage over time a more viable option, and truly making MWO more of a “thinking man’s shooter”.

This all would be obvious to a lobotomized chimp, and should have stood out like a sore thumb to PGI. In reality, ballistics have always been OP in MWO, but it took severely nerfing the energy suite to make it so visible.


Associated threads:
http://mwomercs.com/...34#entry2815834
http://mwomercs.com/...77#entry2774277
http://mwomercs.com/...35#entry2771535

MUSTRUMRIDCULLY's Weapon Balance Thread:http://mwomercs.com/...78#entry2829078

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 30 October 2013 - 12:57 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

CBT is a tabletop game.

I don't know if you know this. That's why you can't port stuff straigh tfrom it.

[stjobe]

Vassago Rain, on 30 October 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

CBT is a tabletop game.

I don't know if you know this. That's why you can't port stuff straigh tfrom it.

You can do a damn sight better job of it if you don't do it halfway, like PGI did.

[Prezimonto]

And now lets factor in pin point damage vs. beam duration spread.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Vassago Rain, on 30 October 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

CBT is a tabletop game.

I don't know if you know this. That's why you can't port stuff straigh tfrom it.

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.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 30 October 2013 - 01:02 PM.

[Stelar 7]

Lupis, TT comparisons break. If MWO resembles any of the TT games is it Solaris 7 (Which people who talk about TT here online seem to hate) which was the most accurate TT game for replicating the action as described in Stackpole's excellent novels.

You are also ignoring the elephant in the room, shot travel time, and ammo. Beam weapons trade their lower DPS for increased survivability, (no ammo explosions) and end game viability (Infinate shots). The more a ballistics mech piles in ammo the less it can survive incoming fire.

Basically though, arguing for TT balance is fail in this play dynamic, they are not the same games, at all. If you want to argue energy builds should be more like ballistics ones do it by comparing the weapons in MWO to the weapons in MWO. Dragging TT in just obfuscates the relevant points with nonsense.

Edited by Stelar 7, 30 October 2013 - 01:26 PM.

[FupDup]

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. ...

I'm going to call out this part right here. BT never worked out balance issues. Ever. There were and still are many, many underpowered if not utterly useless weapons in TT, as well as several overpowered ones. Something that exasperated this was the constant release of power creep, i.e. new technology that made stuff before it suddenly become useless. There was always a clear-cut meta since the very beginning. That doesn't make it a bad game per se, that just means we shouldn't use it as a gold standard.

The most dramatically underpowered ones include the AC/2--the single WORST weapon of all time bar none--, Flamers, MGs, SRM2, and Small Lasers (there were many more underpowered weapons, these are just the big ones). The overpowered weapons included but were not limited to PPCs (in 3025), Medium Lasers, Gauss Rifles, Clan ERPPCs, and Clan LPL (especially when linked to a targeting computer... -3 to-hit FTW). The original 3025 Autocannons were all garbage except for the '20, and that became useless as soon as the Ultra and LB-X 20 came out.


-----------


Yes, PGI has made some mistakes in their balancing. Yes, we need to make some changes (namely the heat system...), but it's not because of straying from BT in most cases. I would argue that MWO is actually better balanced than TT by a mile.

Edited by FupDup, 30 October 2013 - 01:40 PM.

[DaZur]

Stelar 7, on 30 October 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

You are also ignoring the elephant in the room, shot travel time, and ammo.

Don't forget weapon and ammo weight, ballistic drop-off at range and the necessity to lead ones target... They are the Hippopotamus and the Rhinoceros in the other corner.

[Lupus Aurelius]

DaZur, on 30 October 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Don't forget weapon and ammo weight, ballistic drop-off at range and the necessity to lead ones target... They are the Hippopotamus and the Rhinoceros in the other corner.

But it still goes back to the mammoth in the room...

Increasing weapon fire rates, but still using the 0.1/0.2 heat dissipated per second for engine SHS and DHS, and reducing the heat dissipation for external DHS to 1.4 heat per 10 sec.

They "ported" the TT heat dissipation unaltered, while increase weapon fire dramatically.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 30 October 2013 - 01:50 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Stelar 7, on 30 October 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

Lupis, TT comparisons break. If MWO resembles any of the TT games is it Solaris 7 (Which people who talk about TT here online seem to hate) which was the most accurate TT game for replicating the action as described in Stackpole's excellent novels.

No, it is not the most accurate. It's completely idiotic, actually.

How much damage can a single MG deal in 10 seconds in the table top game.
2..
How much damage can a single MG deal in 10 seconds in the Solaris 7 game?
8.
How much damage can a single PPC deal in 10 seconds in the table top game?
10.
How much damage can a single PPC deal in 10 seconds in the Solaris 7 game?
10.
How much damage can a single Medium Laser deal in 10 seconds in the table top game?
5.
How much damage can a single Medium Laser deal in 10 seconds in the Solaris 7 game?
10.
These two games do not represent the same game world.
That's like having one planetary simulation where the Earth follows an elliptic path around the sun, and the other flies in a helix around Sun and Jupiter.
They don't describe the same planetary system.

The idea of splitting the TT 10 second turns into 4 2.5 second turns wasn't bad, but they did it pretty badly. The responsible designer's math teacher is probably rolling in his grave whenever Solaris VII gets mentioned.

---

Damage per Time tends to be a statistic that can be translated between real time and turn based environment pretty easily and should be translated with care because it is a major balance aspect.

There can be mitigating factors (high DPS, low ROF is better than high DPS, high ROF; FIring multiple weapons at once vs spreading them out due to mechanical differences or hard rules over a time frame, stuff like that). But quadrupling a DPS value should generally raise some eye brows.

The biggest factor that complicates everything in balance discussions is however also the heat system.
In the table top, you wanted to be close to heat neutral. Not because you feared shutdown (though sometiems you did that too), but also to avoid penalties.
In MW:O, you have no penaltie to worry about, only the shutdown.

That's why I create monster excel calculations like the one in my signature.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 30 October 2013 - 11:15 PM.

[Stelar 7]

DaZur, on 30 October 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Don't forget weapon and ammo weight, ballistic drop-off at range and the necessity to lead ones target... They are the Hippopotamus and the Rhinoceros in the other corner.

I can see the drop offs and leading targets, but not on weight. When you factor in heatsinks the energy weapons get both heavier and more space hoggie, DHS eat 3 slots per ton and that means you also may lose endo or xl weight savings to stuff them in.

[Vodrin Thales]

Prezimonto, on 30 October 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

And now lets factor in pin point damage vs. beam duration spread.

That is the much larger issue. AC's were pretty crappy in table top, especially if you had DHS. And energy vs. AC's would seem pretty balanced if the pinpoint issue was addressed.

[Stelar 7]

MustrumRidcully, on 30 October 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

No, it is not the most accurate. It's completely idiotic, actually....

Because?

Your entire premise rests on the flawed notion that the weapons were balanced in the TT game. They weren't, not even close in fact. If you were using AC2 or MG in TT you were doing it wrong. MG existed to provide your opponent a really juicy ammo bin for crit hits.

You are right that the games were different, they were at different levels of abstraction. Regular BT was never meant to represent the maximum potential DPS of the various weapons, but an abstract of what an individual mechwarrior could accomplish in 10 seconds. Solaris, cut the time and introduced a system for time management because the MW no longer had time to use all their weapons, they could shoot one weapon, or one TIC (weapon group). Battleforce went the other way and amalgamated each lance into a single unit with a uniform damage potential and set of damage conditions. Succession Wars took it even further and merged regiments into a single chit. (I own them all). None of them is more or less Battletech than any others. This game operates in the same universe and the mechanics of the game more closely resemble the rules presented in Solaris 7 than any of the rest. (Including the ability in S7 to aim your shots, though not as well as we can)

The weapon cycle times in Solaris are every bit as cannon as the ones in Battletech. They were both FASA products.

If you want to make an argument for why cycle times on all weapons should be increased to 10 second time I'm interested to read it but I see no reason to shift the meta to the biggest hardest hitting thing we can each carry. S7 made a lot more weapons viable, and nearly killed the PPC, I don't think we should port it's rules directly either, but to call this game with it's cycle times on a per weapon basis and reliance on weapon grouping, more like TT than Solaris is just ignorant.

[stjobe]

Stelar 7, on 30 October 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

If you were using AC2 or MG in TT you were doing it wrong. MG existed to provide your opponent a really juicy ammo bin for crit hits.

Crits worked both ways. MGs were no-heat (read: free) extra crit chances, and a lucky crit from one could end the fight immediately.

[Stelar 7]

stjobe, on 30 October 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

Crits worked both ways. MGs were no-heat (read: free) extra crit chances, and a lucky crit from one could end the fight immediately.

While that is true, they worked only at knife range, short 1 hex, med 2 and long 3 remember? You also had 200 rounds and could only use 1 per shot. I tore them off anything I could. The risk of a 192pt ammo explosion was way too great.

However in solaris they were very powerful, free heat, ammo could be used at reasonable rates and the range was 4x better due to scale reduction. All solaris fights were at or near knife range.

Edited by Stelar 7, 30 October 2013 - 03:05 PM.

[stjobe]

Stelar 7, on 30 October 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

While that is true, they worked only at knife range, short 1 hex, med 2 and long 3 remember? You also had 200 rounds and could only use 1 per shot. I tore them off anything I could.

I've been over this ground several times with Joe Mallan, another MG hater. You could buy half-ton lots of ammo, and the increased chance of a crit out-weighed the risk of ammo explosion rather handsomely; especially if you could afford to mount two or more MGs.

As for range, it wasn't a problem. Either you had the armour to get in close, or you had the speed.

Stelar 7, on 30 October 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

However in solaris they were very powerful, free heat, ammo could be used at reasonable rates and the range was 4x better due to scale reduction. All solaris fights were at or near knife range.

I don't know how to tell you this, but Solaris VII's balance sucked worse than MWOs, and it was infinitely worse than BTs. Everyone I tricked into playing it refused to play it again after a few matches, simply because it was so bad.

[DaZur]

Stelar 7, on 30 October 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

I can see the drop offs and leading targets, but not on weight. When you factor in heatsinks the energy weapons get both heavier and more space hoggie, DHS eat 3 slots per ton and that means you also may lose endo or xl weight savings to stuff them in.

Understood... But in fairness you can't run ballistics without heatsinks... so heatsinks are kind'a a wash.

[Stelar 7]

stjobe, on 30 October 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

I've been over this ground several times with Joe Mallan, another MG hater. You could buy half-ton lots of ammo, and the increased chance of a crit out-weighed the risk of ammo explosion rather handsomely; especially if you could afford to mount two or more MGs.

As for range, it wasn't a problem. Either you had the armour to get in close, or you had the speed.

If I was close I was using physical attacks, not MG. I much preferred MG weight in Medium Lasers or heatsinks; more use and less risk.

stjobe, on 30 October 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

I don't know how to tell you this, but Solaris VII's balance sucked worse than MWOs, and it was infinitely worse than BTs. Everyone I tricked into playing it refused to play it again after a few matches, simply because it was so bad.

LOL my friends and I all switched to Solaris once we got it. There were indeed many broken things, but we all learned to use them. Especially when the NAIS supliment came out and made things severely broken. I was a dirty dirty munchkin in my BT days.

[stjobe]

Stelar 7, on 30 October 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

If I was close I was using physical attacks, not MG. I much preferred MG weight in Medium Lasers or heatsinks; more use and less risk.

Again, physical attack = 1 attack; 1 crit chance.
MGs = 1 attack/MG; 1 crit chance/MG, in addition to your other weapon attacks and crit chances.

Physical attacks were almost always suboptimal choices. Fun, but rarely the most effective strategy. In fact, they were mostly acts of desperation, both in fiction and in matches.

Stelar 7, on 30 October 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

LOL my friends and I all switched to Solaris once we got it. There were indeed many broken things, but we all learned to use them. Especially when the NAIS supliment came out and made things severely broken. I was a dirty dirty munchkin in my BT days.

I think you may actually be the first BT player I've heard of that liked Solaris VII. I guess it really does take all kinds

Edited by stjobe, 30 October 2013 - 03:19 PM.

[Roland]

People also tend to ignore the fact that ballistics require ammo, and ammo can explode and kill your mech.