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.
As far as energy weapons not requiring ammo, yes they do, heat sinks are the ammo of energy weapons. Due to the current heat levels, you have no choice but to run DHS, because the engine HS actually run as double HS. In order to compensate for using SHS, and additional 10 tons and 10 crits is necessary, just to get you to the level of a DHS engine.
And, ammo takes 1 crit, DHS take 3 crits. When taking critical internal damage, the DHS are extremely vulnerable, and even though they do not explode, taking out DHS on an enemy mech means in the heat of battle, you lose capability to fire. So in that respect, they function like ammo. Crit the DHS enough, and you will slow their firing. But that isn’t the main issue here. Matches are 15 minutes long, 12 vs. 12. If each ballistic weapon has 3 tons of ammo each has the potential to deliver 450 damage. A dual AC2 / AC5/ UAC5/ AC10/ Gauss mech can each put out 900 damage during that match.
Now, unless you are a very bad shot, that’s pretty significant. If the matches were 30 minutes to an hour long, against 24 mechs, then there would be a chance to run out of ammo and the energy weapons would shine a bit more then. But at current match sizes and times it’s hard to justify using only energy weapons, because normally, with 3 tons of ammo per gun, you are not going to run out, or if you do, it will be near the end of the match if you survived that long.
As far as energy weapons taking less crits and weight, no, they take more. Look at the figures for Effective Heat Sinks (EHS) to be heat neutral. For 1 ERPPC, it takes 38 EHS. So, you have 10 actual doubles in the engine, that’s 20. You need an additional 12.86 DHS to make a mech with 1 ERPPC heat neutral.
Problem is, with weapons, AMS, equipment, and ammo for the other weapons you will be carrying; you will have room for maybe 8-10, maybe 11. So there is no possibility of getting even 1 ERPPC, never mind 2, heat neutral or even close to it. Dual AC10 mechs CAN BE heat neutral; they each require only 12 EHS. Same with Gauss, at 3 EHS, and AC5/UAC5/UAC5/UAC5 at 7 EHS each and can still fire other weapons, like SSRMs, small and medium lasers, for significantly long periods of time.
Ammo explosions, you say, no ammo explosions for energy weapons. Well, that is true. But if you get an ammo explosion, that means you let your armor get toasted, doesn't it? You cannot crit ammo if there is armor. And ammo gets used up, so the more you shoot the less ammo you have to crit. Whereas the energy weapons run on DHS mostly, 3 crits each and very fragile. You have 3 times more the change of criting DHS that 1 ammo, and every DHS you knock out, means that much less firing that mech can do
Sandpit, on 08 November 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:
It amazes me how you can show examples and people still sit in denial because it doesn't fit into their agenda.
I could easily take any comparable weapon systems and show the trade-offs. I'm not going to because I don't feel the want or need to. I've played long enough here to know what true OP and imbalance is and we are FAR from that. Just because a certain weapon balance performs in a different manner doesn't make it "better".
Ignoring data and facts is what I call denial, and promoting an agenda. If the data does not support your statements, then your statements are incorrect. Sounds like it's you protecting your agenda, regardless of data.
Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 08 November 2013 - 11:43 AM.
7
