70 replies to this topic

[BrockSamsonFW]

I wanted to bring up something that I haven't really seen mentioned yet. It's the fact that you don't really gain a proportional amount benefit as you put more tonnage and critical slots into a laser-based weapon configuration. I don't claim to be the best writer or number-cruncher for this but I think that I can at least make enough of a point to get people discussing the situation. Consider, for example...


A 35 ton Jenner (http://mwo.smurfy-ne...9719f2ca74690b5) with 6xML and 18 DHS. The weapon system requires 14 tons and 30 critical slots which results in a 30 damage alpha and 3.9 sustained DPS.

An 85 ton Battlemaser (http://mwo.smurfy-ne...01f497d15632952) with 6xML and 25 DHS. The weapon system requires 21 tons and 33 critical slots which results in a 30 damage alpha and 5.1 sustained DPS.


We've gone from a 35 ton chassis to an 85 ton chassis and increased our weapon configuration by 7 tons and 3 critical slots, and yet we've only gained 1.2 sustained DPS. We have gained nothing in terms of alpha, range, or any other weapon-based factor. So for a huge increase in chassis size and weapon tonnage we've gotten only a small increase in performance. Some of you may have noticed that we still have quite a few tons to work with though, so lets take advantage of this and increase the weapony a bit.


An 85 ton Battlemaster (http://mwo.smurfy-ne...e0f3304133ed338) with 4xLL and 22 DHS. The weapon system requires 32 tons and 26 critical slots which results in a 36 damage alpha and 4.57 sustained DPS.


Comparing once again to the 35 ton 3xML Jenner, our chassis is 50 tons heavier and is using weaponry that requires 18 more tons and 4 less critical slots. In return we get 0.67 more sustained DPS and a 6 point higher firepower value that we can't actually use because ghost heat forces us to split it into two lower-damage volleys. All we really gained is 180m of optimal and 360m of maximum range. This is an benefit indeed, but consider this...


A 35 ton Jenner (http://mwo.smurfy-ne...552d1c9270ebe0b) with 1xLL and 3xSL. The weapon system requires 12.5 tons and 23 critical slots which results in an 18 damage alpha and 3.84 sustained DPS.


Both mechs have the same max range and although the Jenner can only hit with half of it's damage at long range it's still a meaningful amount. It also does 0.73 less sustained DPS, so it's not as good as the Battlemaster there either, but it's not that big of a difference and we're comparing a 35 ton light mech with 12.5 tons and 23 critical slots worth of weaponry to an 85 ton assault mech with 32 tons and 26 critical slots of weaponry!

That is a HUGE difference in chassis weight and weaponry tonnage for a relatively minor difference in performance. In fact if you compare almost any chassis with almost any laser-only loadout you will get very similar results. Most configurations will have a 15 to 30 damage alpha and 3.5 to 4.5 sustained DPS and it doesn't matter which chassis you take or how many tons or critical slots you put into it.

The result of this relatively flat damage across all configurations is that lasers are either underpowered on heavy and assault mechs or overpowered on light and medium mechs. I think this is one factor in why external DHS have 1.4 instead of 2 heat dissipation. Most mechs carry roughly the same amount of heatsinks so a straight buff to dissipation rates would increase the DPS across all chassis weights equally and and the lighter mechs would become absurdly powerful.

So how do you fix this? I won't claim that these are the best solutions or that they have no drawbacks but a few ideas to begin the discussion could be...

• Scale the external heat dissipation rate by the mech tonnage. Instead of a flat 1.4 dissipation rate you could do something like 1.5 for a 50 ton mech, 1.75 for a 75 ton mech, and 2.0 for a 100 ton mech. For mechs lower than 40 tons they could have a the existing 1.4 as a minimum value or they could let it scale lower depending on how the balance works out. This is a very fast and easy change to make and the formula can be tweaked to give exactly the right balance across chassis weights.

• Decrease the heat generation but increase the weight of lasers. This would shift the limiting factor away from heatsink count (which is capped by flat critical space across all mechs) and make it more about the quantity and size of the weapons themselves.

• You could increase the dissipation rate but increase the weight of heatsinks. Instead of everyone being limited by critical slots and taking almost the same amount of heatsinks regardless of mech, smaller mechs would get the current dissipation rate with fewer heatsinks while larger mechs with extra tonnage could take more heatsinks and get a higher dissipation rate.

I'm sure some of you have some really great ideas that would work very well, so what does everyone think?

Edited by BrockSamsonFW, 03 November 2013 - 08:18 PM.

[Roland]

Some things you need to consider:
1) The "max sustained DPS" stat on Smurfy really doesn't actually mean anything. You would be best served ignoring that statistic, as it doesn't really apply to real world usage of weapons in Mechwarrior.
2) A mech like a battlemaster isn't really supposed to be a laser boat. Certainly not with medium lasers. Heavier chassis are able to utilize heavy, large weapons like PPC's and Autocannons.

So, for a mech like a battlemaster, the answer isn't to try and make it such that medium lasers are somehow more effective on that mech (which is really not a good idea, from any perspective). The answer is to take some medium lasers perhaps, but as secondary weapons in a configuration which is using some of the large, heavy hitting weapons.

The only mechs which are really confined to only using the small caliber energy weapons are basically light and medium chassis.

[Treye Snow]

Also not taking into account survivability and its role as an Assault (When roles come into existence anyway)

While yes, the damage capability is meager when considering tonnage values, you're talking about scores more of armor and Effective Health pools.

One thing that DOES however irritate me is the absurdity of being able to fit any type of weapon into a hardpoint so long as it complies with the type, be it energy, ballistic, or missile.

I really freaking hate seeing PPC's on spiders or large lasers in wrist-mounted hardpoints. It doesn't make sense and it is honestly the single most ******** core "feature" this game has, discounting bugs like spider htboxes and ghost heat

Also, ghost heat is equally ridiculous.

[BrockSamsonFW]

I don't think you can ignore the sustained DPS at all. If there was no ghost heat than lasers would have the alpha advanatge while ballistics have the DPS advantage. Unfortunately there is, so the alpha ability of larger mechs is limited and you end up in a DPS situation whether you want it or not. Most fights are going to begin with a laser user already having a moderate heat level so you only get one or two shots before you are limited by your heat dissipation and sustained DPS.

As far as the Battlemaster goes, I choose it because it can carry 25 DHS which I believe is the most heat dissipation that is possible to have. If you'd like to make some exampes with a Stalker, Awesome, or other energy-capable mech than you are welcome to do so.

[Roland]

Quote

I don't think you can ignore the sustained DPS at all.

I'm not saying that heat does not play a factor.
I'm saying that the little simplistic value given in Smurfy isn't really a useful metric. I believe that you are overvaluing that number in terms of actual gameplay impact.

In real play, you don't just start shooting at 10 paces and keep going until the other is dead. Or at least, you shouldn't.

Quote

As far as the Battlemaster goes, I choose it because it can carry 25 DHS which I believe is the most heat dissipation that is possible to have. If you'd like to make some exampes with a Stalker, Awesome, or other energy-capable mech than you are welcome to do so.

And again, with those mechs, you're better served by using the larger heavy hitting weapons. If you want energy, you can go with PPC's. But the answer isn't to just load up a bunch of medium lasers onto them.

[BrockSamsonFW]

Mr Terribad, on 03 November 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

Also not taking into account survivability and its role as an Assault (When roles come into existence anyway)

While yes, the damage capability is meager when considering tonnage values, you're talking about scores more of armor and Effective Health pools.

It does have much more armor yes, but it is also much more vulnerable because it is much larger, much slower, and not nearly as maneuverable. On larger slower mechs like this the sustained DPS rating becomes even more important because you can't simply run away and escape. A Jenner can hit-and-run for 30 damage alphas all day long. A Battlemaster will fire a few times, overheat, and die. The sustained DPS is not nearly enough to brawl so your only choice is to snipe with a few LL/PCC and hope that nobody gets close to you.

[YueFei]

Sustained DPS often requires you to put yourself at greater risk maintaining LOS with a target... and in turn putting yourself in his LOS for extended time. This runs the risk that maybe his friends show up and get you in LOS also, and suddenly you're eating firepower from 2 or 3 enemies at once.

That's why sustained DPS, while it is a factor, may not be the biggest factor to consider.

Shock action typically yields a better risk/reward ratio.

[PEEFsmash]

BrockSamsonFW, on 03 November 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

I wanted to bring up something that I haven't really seen mentioned yet. It's the fact that you don't really gain a proportional amount benefit as you put more tonnage and critical slots into a laser-based weapon configuration. I don't claim to be the best writer or number-cruncher for this but I think that I can at least make enough of a point to get people discussing the situation. Consider, for example...


A 35 ton Jenner (http://mwo.smurfy-ne...9719f2ca74690b5) with 6xML and 18 DHS. The weapon system requires 14 tons and 30 critical slots which results in a 30 damage alpha and 3.9 sustained DPS.

An 85 ton Battlemaser (http://mwo.smurfy-ne...01f497d15632952) with 6xML and 25 DHS. The weapon system requires 21 tons and 33 critical slots which results in a 30 damage alpha and 5.1 sustained DPS.


We've gone from a 35 ton chassis to an 85 ton chassis and increased our weapon configuration by 7 tons and 3 critical slots, and yet we've only gained 1.2 sustained DPS. We have gained nothing in terms of alpha, range, or any other weapon-based factor. So for a huge increase in chassis size and weapon tonnage we've gotten only a small increase in performance. Some of you may have noticed that we still have quite a few tons to work with though, so lets take advantage of this and increase the weapony a bit.


An 85 ton Battlemaster (http://mwo.smurfy-ne...e0f3304133ed338) with 4xLL and 22 DHS. The weapon system requires 32 tons and 26 critical slots which results in a 36 damage alpha and 4.57 sustained DPS.


Comparing once again to the 35 ton 3xML Jenner, our chassis is 50 tons heavier and is using weaponry that requires 18 more tons and 4 less critical slots. In return we get 0.67 more sustained DPS and a 6 point higher firepower value that we can't actually use because ghost heat forces us to split it into two lower-damage volleys. All we really gained is 180m of optimal and 360m of maximum range. This is an benefit indeed, but consider this...


A 35 ton Jenner (http://mwo.smurfy-ne...552d1c9270ebe0b) with 1xLL and 3xSL. The weapon system requires 12.5 tons and 23 critical slots which results in an 18 damage alpha and 3.84 sustained DPS.


Both mechs have the same max range and although the Jenner can only hit with half of it's damage at long range it's still a meaningful amount. It also does 0.73 less sustained DPS, so it's not as good as the Battlemaster there either, but it's not that big of a difference and we're comparing a 35 ton light mech with 12.5 tons and 23 critical slots worth of weaponry to an 85 ton assault mech with 32 tons and 26 critical slots of weaponry!

That is a HUGE difference in chassis weight and weaponry tonnage for a relatively minor difference in performance. In fact if you compare almost any chassis with almost any laser-only loadout you will get very similar results. Most configurations will have a 15 to 30 damage alpha and 3.5 to 4.5 sustained DPS and it doesn't matter which chassis you take or how many tons or critical slots you put into it.

The result of this relatively flat damage across all configurations is that lasers are either underpowered on heavy and assault mechs or overpowered on light and medium mechs. I think this is one factor in why external DHS have 1.4 instead of 2 heat dissipation. Most mechs carry roughly the same amount of heatsinks so a straight buff to dissipation rates would increase the DPS across all chassis weights equally and and the lighter mechs would become absurdly powerful.

So how do you fix this? I won't claim that these are the best solutions or that they have no drawbacks but a few ideas to begin the discussion could be...

• Scale the external heat dissipation rate by the mech tonnage. Instead of a flat 1.4 dissipation rate you could do something like 1.5 for a 50 ton mech, 1.75 for a 75 ton mech, and 2.0 for a 100 ton mech. For mechs lower than 40 tons they could have a the existing 1.4 as a minimum value or they could let it scale lower depending on how the balance works out. This is a very fast and easy change to make and the formula can be tweaked to give exactly the right balance across chassis weights.

• Decrease the heat generation but increase the weight of lasers. This would shift the limiting factor away from heatsink count (which is capped by flat critical space across all mechs) and make it more about the quantity and size of the weapons themselves.

• You could increase the dissipation rate but increase the weight of heatsinks. Instead of everyone being limited by critical slots and taking almost the same amount of heatsinks regardless of mech, smaller mechs would get the current dissipation rate with fewer heatsinks while larger mechs with extra tonnage could take more heatsinks and get a higher dissipation rate.

I'm sure some of you have some really great ideas that would work very well, so what does everyone think?

YOU POSTED A 127KPH JENNER AS AN EXAMPLE OF A JENNER.

Dear ***** lord.

Jenners typically have between 13 and 14 DHS.

Edited by PEEFsmash, 03 November 2013 - 09:02 PM.

[dario03]

I'm not really seeing a problem. Assault are already better at pure fighting because of armor and they usually are going to have heavier weapons with more range. I don't see why lights or mediums need to be nerfed.

[MustrumRidcully]

I have to agree with Roland, "sutained DPS" really means little. It only becomes relevant after 10 to 20 seconds of uninterrupted fire. Until then, your damage output is much higher ,and in fact, often so high that your target is dead - or your target has killed you. Or you ran away from each other / into cover and are cooling off again.

6 ML produce 30 damage and 24 heat every 4 seconds and 21 DHS give you a thresold of 65.4 and let you dissipate 14.16 heat every 4 seconds. So you can fire 6 salvos before you overhaet, dealing 180 damage. 180 damage can core an Atlas (if all of it will hit, not all of it will hit, however, but if you manage to hit with 2/3 of that damage, it's still enough to core a 65t mech)
The Jenner has only a threshold of 55.6 and dissipates only 10.24 heat every 4 seconds, giving it only 4 shots for 120 damage before it overheats.

The Battlemaster wins any prolonged engagement, the Jenner must use its speed not only to avoid getting hit with its much lower armor, but also to get into safety to cool off.

I am not saying balance is fine, but relying on sustained DPS won't tell you the truth.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 04 November 2013 - 01:34 AM.

[BrockSamsonFW]

YueFei, on 03 November 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

Sustained DPS often requires you to put yourself at greater risk maintaining LOS with a target... and in turn putting yourself in his LOS for extended time. This runs the risk that maybe his friends show up and get you in LOS also, and suddenly you're eating firepower from 2 or 3 enemies at once.

That's why sustained DPS, while it is a factor, may not be the biggest factor to consider.

Shock action typically yields a better risk/reward ratio.

Lasers have beam duration where you must maintain your aim directly at the enemy and cannot twist or spread out incoming damage at all. Because of ghost heat, larger mechs need to fire bigger weapons in multiple volleys which increases this duration to 1.5x or even 2.5x. Even if you started in an ideal situation with no heat level, in almost every battle you will reach 100% heat and end up limited to 4 or 4.5 DPS regardless of which chassis or configuration you have. If any other enemies show up good luck because you have no chance at all.

When was the last time you saw an Awesome that was competitive? When was the last time you even saw an Awesome at all?

[BrockSamsonFW]

PEEFsmash, on 03 November 2013 - 09:02 PM, said:

YOU POSTED A 127KPH JENNER AS AN EXAMPLE OF A JENNER.

Dear ***** lord.

Jenners typically have between 13 and 14 DHS.

The examples were to show that an 85 ton mech with the maximum possible amount of DHS can only perform marginally better than a 35 ton mech. If you feel that the Jenner is a bad example than you are welcome to show us any laser configuration on any chassis that you would like and I can guarantee that it too will have a nearly flat amount of damage and capability.

[dario03]

BrockSamsonFW, on 04 November 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

Lasers have beam duration where you must maintain your aim directly at the enemy and cannot twist or spread out incoming damage at all. Because of ghost heat, larger mechs need to fire bigger weapons in multiple volleys which increases this duration to 1.5x or even 2.5x. Even if you started in an ideal situation with no heat level, in almost every battle you will reach 100% heat and end up limited to 4 or 4.5 DPS regardless of which chassis or configuration you have. If any other enemies show up good luck because you have no chance at all.

When was the last time you saw an Awesome that was competitive? When was the last time you even saw an Awesome at all?

That's probably more to do with the giant CT of the Awesome. They were rare long before ghost heat.

[BrockSamsonFW]

dario03, on 03 November 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

I'm not really seeing a problem. Assault are already better at pure fighting because of armor and they usually are going to have heavier weapons with more range. I don't see why lights or mediums need to be nerfed.

Lights and mediums don't need to be nerfed. The point was that laser performance doesn't scale proportionally with chassis tonnage like other weapons systems do so as you increase your chassis tonnage a laser-based loadout becomes less and less competitive. What we need is a way to slightly buff laser performance on heavier mechs without unintentionally overpowering the lighter mechs.

[dario03]

BrockSamsonFW, on 04 November 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

Lights and mediums don't need to be nerfed. The point was that laser performance doesn't scale proportionally with chassis tonnage like other weapons systems do so as you increase your chassis tonnage a laser-based loadout becomes less and less competitive. What we need is a way to slightly buff laser performance on heavier mechs without unintentionally overpowering the lighter mechs.

Your suggestions are nerfs to lights and mediums. The first is indirect since its a buff to the heavier mechs but the second and third option are nerfs to lights and mediums since they have less weight to use. But besides that I just don't see why this is a problem. In a straight up fight Assaults and heavies have the advantage already why do they need to have bonuses for beam weapons?

[BrockSamsonFW]

dario03, on 04 November 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

That's probably more to do with the giant CT of the Awesome. They were rare long before ghost heat.

The Orion has this problem too. Despite that fact it is one of the more popular mechs right now thanks to the competitive weapon configurations that it can take.

The Awesome is much more reliant on it's energy hardpoints and this cripples it's ability to field a competitive weapon configuration when compared to other mechs of similar chassis size.

[BrockSamsonFW]

dario03, on 04 November 2013 - 11:34 PM, said:

Your suggestions are nerfs to lights and mediums. The first is indirect since its a buff to the heavier mechs but the second and third option are nerfs to lights and mediums since they have less weight to use. But besides that I just don't see why this is a problem. In a straight up fight Assaults and heavies have the advantage already why do they need to have bonuses for beam weapons?

With the second idea we would increase the weight of lasers but in return we are reducing the amount of heatsinks required to run them. With the third idea we would increase the weight of heatsinks but make them better so you don't need as many. In either case the buff/nerf combo would be balanced so that light and medium mechs retain roughly the same performance that they have now.

If done correctly these buff/nerf combos would change little or nothing for lighter mechs. The changes would occur only for heavier mechs which would get a small buff proportional to the amount of extra tonnage that they can dedicate to their weapon systems.

[YueFei]

BrockSamsonFW, on 04 November 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

Lasers have beam duration where you must maintain your aim directly at the enemy and cannot twist or spread out incoming damage at all. Because of ghost heat, larger mechs need to fire bigger weapons in multiple volleys which increases this duration to 1.5x or even 2.5x. Even if you started in an ideal situation with no heat level, in almost every battle you will reach 100% heat and end up limited to 4 or 4.5 DPS regardless of which chassis or configuration you have. If any other enemies show up good luck because you have no chance at all.

When was the last time you saw an Awesome that was competitive? When was the last time you even saw an Awesome at all?

Yes, lasers have beam duration, to balance out their hit-scan and boatable nature.

But as it's already been pointed out, sustained DPS only enters the equation after about 12 to 20 seconds of continuous shooting. If you're in an exchange of fire that lasts that long, that's more due to intent / positioning, and the fact that you have to space your shots out to get off an entire volley is a problem with ghost heat, not with high heat cap / low dissipation.

Sure, you can sustain your DPS longer with a ballistics setup, but that's kind of the point of ballistics. Higher weight, less heat, greater sustained DPS as long as ammunition remains.

That doesn't mean it's necessarily *smart* to go in guns blazing and engage in a sustained fight that lasts longer than 20 seconds. Hell it's probably not smart to engage in a fight that lasts longer than 12 seconds. The longer you linger, the more time other enemies have to make it over there. If you're in a 1v1, and your opponent targets you, you can bet your top C-bill that every other enemy nearby with nothing better to do is gonna see that red triangle, target you as well, and start stomping their way over there.

There's a good reason that real life self defense emphasizes rapid action that disentangles you from an attacker and gets you safely out of immediate danger. It's not about "fighting", it's about survival. The top German ace of WW2 said, "See, decide, attack, reverse."

That's why, while sustained DPS can't be entirely ignored, it doesn't tell the whole story, either.

I most often run a Hunchback-4SP, and the heat efficiency is atrocious. I've got 5 medium lasers and 2xASRM6, and only 14 DHS. But I try to play it as a striker instead of brawling people. If I do it properly, the crappy heat efficiency is not a problem. If someone gets an angle on me that lets them use sustained DPS to kick my teeth in, they just made a good move and I made a mistake.

Now, I do think that they should lower the heat cap and make DHS into true double heat sinks. That would reduce burst damage, but increase the sustained damage output, making for more fast-paced action without reducing the time-to-kill.

Edited by YueFei, 04 November 2013 - 11:55 PM.

[dario03]

BrockSamsonFW, on 04 November 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

With the second idea we would increase the weight of lasers but in return we are reducing the amount of heatsinks required to run them. With the third idea we would increase the weight of heatsinks but make them better so you don't need as many. In either case the buff/nerf combo would be balanced so that light and medium mechs retain roughly the same performance that they have now.

If done correctly these buff/nerf combos would change little or nothing for lighter mechs. The changes would occur only for heavier mechs which would get a small buff proportional to the amount of extra tonnage that they can dedicate to their weapon systems.

Buffing heavier mechs is a indirect nerf to lighter mechs. You basically make lighter mechs less effective compared to heavier mechs. But even if we ignore that, why do heavy mechs need a buff? Are they not effective on the battlefield? It doesn't seem like that to me. So again I just don't see why this is needed.

[BrockSamsonFW]

MustrumRidcully, on 04 November 2013 - 01:33 AM, said:

I have to agree with Roland, "sutained DPS" really means little. It only becomes relevant after 10 to 20 seconds of uninterrupted fire. Until then, your damage output is much higher ,and in fact, often so high that your target is dead - or your target has killed you. Or you ran away from each other / into cover and are cooling off again. 6 ML produce 30 damage and 24 heat every 4 seconds and 21 DHS give you a thresold of 65.4 and let you dissipate 14.16 heat every 4 seconds. So you can fire 6 salvos before you overhaet, dealing 180 damage. 180 damage can core an Atlas (if all of it will hit, not all of it will hit, however, but if you manage to hit with 2/3 of that damage, it's still enough to core a 65t mech) The Jenner has only a threshold of 55.6 and dissipates only 10.24 heat every 4 seconds, giving it only 4 shots for 120 damage before it overheats. The Battlemaster wins any prolonged engagement, the Jenner must use its speed not only to avoid getting hit with its much lower armor, but also to get into safety to cool off. I am not saying balance is fine, but relying on sustained DPS won't tell you the truth.

You guys are both assuming an ideal situation where a laser user begins a fight within optimal range and with 0 heat. It just doesn't work like that.

In reality you spend a lot of time taking pot shots at enemies who pass through your view but might be close to maximum range. You aren't doing 30 damage to one location you are doing 10 or 15 damage spread out across 3 or 4 locations. Not only that but you are spreading your shots between 2 or 3 enemies as they come out from cover one at a time. This will do a decent amount of overall damage but your per-location damage is only a few points. The entire time you're at a constant 50-80% heat level. When things get closer you can usually fire 2 volleys and then you're at your heat cap and limited to your sustained DPS value.

It's fine on a smaller mech but on larger mechs it simply isn't competitive.A ballistic mech will tear you apart every single time.