99 replies to this topic

[Greyboots]

Lefty Lucy, on 13 November 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

It has been posited that weapon balance is in a good place because there are "tradeoffs" between weapon classes. Ballistics use ammo and weigh a lot in exchange for low heat, etc. This is true, and good. Tradeoffs should exist, as they increase the variety of game play. A laser should play different from an autocannon, which should play different than SRMs, etc.

However, there is another aspect of tradeoffs that has been overlooked: the tradeoffs must be significant enough in order to make the utility/cost (not monetary, but tonnage and slot usage costs) ratio of the different weapon systems roughly equal.

It's for this reason that the vastly increased rates of fire of AC2s/5s is legitimate, because without those increased rates of fire, their utility/cost ratio would be disastrously low. They simply weigh too much to justify using a weapon with extremely low DPS. We saw this back in CB before their fire rates were increased substantially.

Agreed 100%.

Quote

Similarly, I think PPCs (not their ER variant however) have a good utility/cost ratio when used in conjunction with ballistics. They're in a good place as builds that combine PPCs with AC5s/10s/20s are very popular and strong. This is because pin-point damage reigns supreme, and PPCs do provide a way to get pin point damage without using ammo, at the expense having a very heat-limited DPS. That's a tradeoff that displays good balance. ERPPCs, however, have a tradeoff that does not display good balance. They get superior range and no minimum in exchange for absurdly high heat. The absurdly high heat makes them so useless, however, that the tradeoff is not worth it.

This however, I'd like to argue.

I play a Blackjack that runs a single ERPPC and 3 medium lasers. But what, exactly, does this do for me?

Well, it gives me the longest direct-fire optimal range in the game with no minimum range and no ammo consumption. I'm still blasting away at 800m without losing damage. Because I'm only running one on a medium mech heat is not an issue. Larger mechs? Yup, they run into issues. They're sporting AC's and such which take up space and they just aren't able to get the sort of heat dissipation I am. In this case? Yes, the ERPPC is providing a poor tradeoff.

Quote

Lasers are in a spot that is similar to ERPPCs. Sure, they tradeoff high heat and low tonnage for no ammo, however their DPS is limited, they don't do that damage to a pin-point location, and their range is lackluster, especially with the 2x max range cap for energy weapons. We often see mechs with multiple ballistic slots and a few energy slots eschew the use of those energy slots for more ammo for their small-caliber autocannons. This means that the utility/cost ratio of a single medium laser is not even as good as a ton of AC5 ammo.

Again I'll disagree with this part. On a larger mech it makes sense to go for the extra ton of ammo. You can't power very many laser weapons without heating yourself up too far and your weapons are already taking up too much space to afford more heat sinks to power the new weapon. AC's on the other hand function perfectly well as short range weapons so the extra ton of ammo is a valid choice.

But why? Well, because there's 3 separate and distinct controls effecting DPS for a mech: Weapons selected, ammo and heat.

More weapons means more potential damage.
Heat puts a limit on burst damage. You can blaze away with a massive amount of damage for a very short time but then heat kicks in and you can only fire your weapons as fast as the heat will go away.
Ammo ensures that stronger weapons require additional weight the longer you want them to function.

These factors mean that different weapons are the logical choice for different mechs. On another Mech? The Laser weapon will be the logical choice. You can cover the heat and it gives you extra short-ranged punch because buying another heatsink is like throwing bricks in the grand canyon or you can cover the heat but it's all you have the weight or space for. Something cooler to fire in the place of the bigger, hotter weapon is the more logical choice.

The AC5 is a good weapon by your standards but you don't see a lot of AC5 spiders as an example. Balance can simply be about a lot more than "this has equal value to that".

Edited by Greyboots, 13 November 2013 - 10:34 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Roland, on 13 November 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

Streaks had problems not simply because they all hit your ct, but rather because they did so without the shooter needing to even need to aim. You basically just held down the trigger and did constant damage. The weapon required no skill at all to use, unlike weapons that you actually aim yourself.

Old SSRMs: No Aim + Pinpoint / CT Hits
Autocannons, Gauss & PPCs: Aim + Pinpoint / CT Hits
Lasers: Aim + No Pinpoint
LRMs and no Streaks: No Aim, No Pinpoint
SRMs and MGs: Aim, No Pinpoint

Decide, Group by Group or Weapon by Weapon - are the trade-offs aim or no pinpoint balanced by something else?

[Sephlock]

LRMs trade damage for tear generating capacity.

Still trying to decide if it's worth it.

[mike29tw]

MustrumRidcully, on 14 November 2013 - 12:59 AM, said:

Old SSRMs: No Aim + Pinpoint / CT Hits
Autocannons, Gauss & PPCs: Aim + Pinpoint / CT Hits
Lasers: Aim + No Pinpoint
LRMs and no Streaks: No Aim, No Pinpoint
SRMs and MGs: Aim, No Pinpoint

Decide, Group by Group or Weapon by Weapon - are the trade-offs aim or no pinpoint balanced by something else?

Well I guess if you're OK with the SSRM mechanism requiring almost zero player input to reach maximum weapon efficiency, then yes the SSRM does have a trade off.

[Murphy7]

mike29tw, on 14 November 2013 - 01:04 AM, said:

Well I guess if you're OK with the SSRM mechanism requiring almost zero player input to reach maximum weapon efficiency, then yes the SSRM does have a trade off.

Since they fixed the targeting bug with SSRMS, there is a lot more to holding a lock now, but still an order of magnitude easier than location aiming with direct fire weapons.

SSRMS still partially fill a niche where they were a best option to hit mechs for which hit detection was not great. This was a bad hit detection / bad weapon mechanic matchup, so two wrongs were not making a right, but were covering for each other a bit.

[stjobe]

Otto Cannon, on 13 November 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

It's a shame they had to stick to canon as far as ppcs are concerned.

I'm going to use the words "PPC" and "canon" as a jump-off point for a bit of a rant; you have been warned

One of the best things PGI did was to make lasers a beam-duration weapon; it makes them need higher skill to place all their damage potential in the same location and therefore negates much of the pin-point issues that plague the ACs/PPCs (and thereby the whole game). With that in mind, one might wonder why the ACs and the PPC are still one-projectile, pin-point damage? Especially curious it becomes if one refers to the canon fluff about these weapons (source sarna.net, emphasis mine):

Quote

An Autocannon is a type of rapid-firing, auto-loading direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) or kinetic rounds at targets in bursts. It is, basically, a giant "machine gun" [...] The exact same caliber of shell fired in a 100 shot burst to do 20 damage will have a shorter effective range than when fired in a 10 shot burst to do 2 damage due to recoil and other factors.[...] With the fluffed number of shells and caliber being specified, no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each "round" or burst of fire.

Quote

The Particle Projector Cannon (or PPC) is a unique energy weapon. PPCs fire a concentrated stream of protons or ions at a target, causing damage through both thermal and kinetic energy [...] The ion beam also extends to much farther ranges than autocannon fire, though PPCs generate large amounts of waste heat.

From these quotes it should be obvious that according to lore, neither ACs nor PPCs are one-projectile pin-point damage weapons; ACs fire in bursts of multiple shells and PPCs fire an ion beam. Why is this important?

Well, missiles do not suffer from pin-point damage, they have inherent spread. Energy weapons do not suffer from pin-point damage, their beam duration spreads their damage. It's only the ACs and the PPC that do have pin-point damage, and I for one think the game would be much better if these weapons were redesigned to be burst-fire and beam duration respectively. It would also fit better with their canon descriptions.

Edited by stjobe, 14 November 2013 - 04:10 AM.

[B1zmark]

There is very little wrong with weapon balance at the moment. ERPPC's are difficult to balance. Right now there is a trade-off, and i see multiple sucessfull drop setups using ERPPC/PPC/AC5 to great effect.

The only real balance issue i see right now is the 'boating' penalty for large lasers. You should be able to fit 3, if not 4 before hitting a heat penalty.

Medium lasers are literally the best weapon in the game in terms of efficiency and effectiveness VS cost. Small lasers though do need a range buff, at least to 120 meters. AT LEAST. I'd say 150 is more reasonable.

[Roadbeer]

The one thing I often see forgotten (I've even done it myself) in the trade off discussion is ammo. I see it mentioned as a weight/space factor, but there is a lot more that should be going on with it, that isn't

First, had armor not been doubled to prolong matches, there is no way in hell people would be carrying that much ammo, it'd be just plain suicide. Even with the doubled armor, I often wonder if those who claim that ballistic weapons are OP (especially the ones who use them predominately) ever happen to look at their cause of death. By the nature of the Mechlab and hardpoint system, you are required to place ammo in some very squishy places or next to vital components. Also, with the maximization mentality, few people actually use CASE because that 1/2 ton, with some armor stripping is an extra ton of ammo. With my strictly anecdotal information, I would say my cause of death by ammo explosion on my ballistic builds is around 60+%.

Second, cost. Were there an economy in the game that had some sort of risk, you'd never see these builds as the cost of rearming would be just too damn high. I remember back when R&R was a thing, and the first week that ARTEMIS was released, to pilot my Catapults and be marginally effective with LRMs as the primary weapon, it actually COST ME MONEY to drop. I remember one instance specifically, I was using my Founders Cat on premium time on a River City drop. It had 2 LRM 15s and 1080 rounds. I lived, with medium damage and completely depleted ammo, and my reward was around 158,000. My R&R after the match was 160,000.

THIS is where the problem with balance comes into play. It isn't a burst damage argument, it isn't even a NERF/BUFF argument. the numbers on the weapon systems are fine. The issue is the inherent risks will running ammo dependent systems aren't in play.

I don't want to turn this into an R&R discussion, but I have to wonder if the ballistic argument wouldn't be going the other way if there was a natural cost to running them.

While typing this a thought occurred to me. Completely remove Ghost Heat and implement a rearm cost, and I'm willing to bet that would have had a completely different meta that didn't require mathematical voodoo and an esoteric Gauss charge system to bring it in line.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 14 November 2013 - 04:07 AM, said:

I'm going to use the words "PPC" and "canon" as a jump-off point for a bit of a rant; you have been warned

One of the best things PGI did was to make lasers a beam-duration weapon; it makes them need higher skill to place all their damage potential in the same location and therefore negates much of the pin-point issues that plague the ACs/PPCs (and thereby the whole game). With that in mind, one might wonder why the ACs and the PPC are still one-projectile, pin-point damage? Especially curious it becomes if one refers to the canon fluff about these weapons (source sarna.net, emphasis mine):

I will, agree with StJobe that an AC (present day) can fire between 90-2,500 shells a minute. A MW:O AC2 is an Auto Cannon. Everything else is a Cannon.

But I am happy with our bigger guns having a slower rate of fire with up front damage. Having saturation weapons (LRM/SRM), damage per second(Laser), Front loaded (ACs) is a must. There has been so many people who say we need More choices (yourself included), Those choices should include how we want the damage to be delivered.

Me personally, My Mechs have a mix of all three types of damage(where available) because I understand the need for each.

[RF Greywolf]

Roadbeer, on 14 November 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

While typing this a thought occurred to me. Completely remove Ghost Heat and implement a rearm cost, and I'm willing to bet that would have had a completely different meta that didn't require mathematical voodoo and an esoteric Gauss charge system to bring it in line.

I don't usually disagree with Roadbeer, but I would think that this would just mean that any mech that depends on ballistics would be considered 'useless' and only energy weapons would be used. The only ballistic that you would see would be Gauss due to the pairing with ERPPC's. I'm not saying that it would be that way 100%, I am just afraid that it would turn to that. I would rather see the multi shot AC's and beam PPC.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 05:00 AM, said:

I will, agree with StJobe that an AC (present day) can fire between 90-2,500 shells a minute. A MW:O AC2 is an Auto Cannon. Everything else is a Cannon.

I disagree. The fluff clearly says even AC/20s fire a "stream of bullets", and that "none are fluffed as being a single shot per round".

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 05:00 AM, said:

But I am happy with our bigger guns having a slower rate of fire with up front damage. Having saturation weapons (LRM/SRM), damage per second(Laser), Front loaded (ACs) is a must. There has been so many people who say we need More choices (yourself included), Those choices should include how we want the damage to be delivered.

I am not happy with it, and I do not agree that it is a "must" to have pin-point damage. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it is a must to get rid of pin-point damage. The system can't handle it.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 14 November 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

I disagree. The fluff clearly says even AC/20s fire a "stream of bullets", and that "none are fluffed as being a single shot per round".

This is one of those cases where a Live action game can break from Canon Fluff. The TT Mechanics of a AC is Up front damage as is a Laser, If we are OK with changing a Laser to a DpS from Canon we can also change the way a AC works from Canon.

Quote

I am not happy with it, and I do not agree that it is a "must" to have pin-point damage. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it is a must to get rid of pin-point damage. The system can't handle it.

The system handles it fine St, The players are the ones without a spine. ACs have done Up front damage for 30 years, and it has been fine.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 November 2013 - 05:20 AM.

[Roadbeer]

RF Greywolf, on 14 November 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

I don't usually disagree with Roadbeer, but I would think that this would just mean that any mech that depends on ballistics would be considered 'useless' and only energy weapons would be used. The only ballistic that you would see would be Gauss due to the pairing with ERPPC's. I'm not saying that it would be that way 100%, I am just afraid that it would turn to that. I would rather see the multi shot AC's and beam PPC.

That was kind of my point. All things being equal, if you were to implement a cost for using ballistics after the initial. Everyone would say that ballistics were useless because the cost is too damn high.

Everyone throws around DPS numbers, pin point damage arguments, DD Vs. DoT, and the like. When what it really boils down to is that the broken mechanic isn't in the weapons systems, it's in the economy.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roadbeer, on 14 November 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

That was kind of my point. All things being equal, if you were to implement a cost for using ballistics after the initial. ALMOST Everyone would say that ballistics were useless because the cost is too damn high.

Everyone throws around DPS numbers, pin point damage arguments, DD Vs. DoT, and the like. When what it really boils down to is that the broken mechanic isn't in the weapons systems, it's in the economy.

FTFY, I wouldn't be saying it, If you were around during R&R You will remember I was defending us paying for making war. And I carried 11 tons of LRM ammo for 2 LRM20! I blew up... A lot!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 November 2013 - 05:24 AM.

[Roadbeer]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

FTFY, I wouldn't be saying it, If you were around during R&R You will remember I was defending us paying for making war. And I carried 11 tons of LRM ammo for 2 LRM20! I blew up... A lot!

Fair enough, everyone but myself, Joe and those who understood the place of R&R in the first place as a balance against the very "problem" that is perceived right now.

Edit: Cost analyst.

If you think about it. Let's take the AC/20 as an example. Say you carried 6 tons of ammo, and you averaged burning half your ammo/match, and replacing your ammo cost you 50% of the cost of the ammo to rearm.

3 Tons x .5 = 1.5 x 10,000 = 15,000 to rearm each match.

Edited by Roadbeer, 14 November 2013 - 05:38 AM.

[Prezimonto]

Sandpit, on 13 November 2013 - 05:07 PM, said:

Did we need a new thread on this subject.....? Good ideas and well thought out post but it's still just a subject that's being rehashed in several other threads right now

The better question is why do you never seem to post anything useful in these threads? If you're tired of arguing and have already made your point before, a copy and paste of a well thought out argument against the OP would be much more constructive, particularly if no one has already put holes in to it. Even a link to the old topics would be better.

Roland, on 13 November 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

Streaks had problems not simply because they all hit your ct, but rather because they did so without the shooter needing to even need to aim. You basically just held down the trigger and did constant damage. The weapon required no skill at all to use, unlike weapons that you actually aim yourself.

SRMs should get a mild lock mechanism... where they bone target like SSRMs, but only work in a 30° arc in front of your mech. They should still be fireable without a lock, but with really bad spread. SSRMs should behave the same way but travel 2x faster and do a little less damage. They should not be fireable without a lock. LRM's should also target mech bones in packs of 5, and have the damage increased a little more.

Greyboots, on 13 November 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

But why? Well, because there's 3 separate and distinct controls effecting DPS for a mech: Weapons selected, ammo and heat.

The problem is that ammo isn't all that much of a limiting factor match to match. You can easily put enough ammo on a mech to run AC, even many AC's. Ammo's biggest limiting factor is the logistical supply chain that's behind the scenes... that doesn't exist. I suggested, a while back, that we add secondary points to maps that had be capped for a defined time limit or you lose a little ammo per ton the next match (down to a fixed point so you always can have some ammo) but this would force players to spread out and achieve side objectives to maintain peak efficiency with mechs. You could apply this to repairs for engines, upgrades, armor, ammo, even weapons... where match to match you'd have to take certain types of supply, or even generic supply to ensure that your mechs are ready to go in peak shape for the follow up.

Edited by Prezimonto, 14 November 2013 - 05:46 AM.

[FupDup]

Roadbeer, on 14 November 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

-snip-

While typing this a thought occurred to me. Completely remove Ghost Heat and implement a rearm cost, and I'm willing to bet that would have had a completely different meta that didn't require mathematical voodoo and an esoteric Gauss charge system to bring it in line.

There are some kinks in that plan. Namely, we need to remember that this is a Free2Play game. As such, it allows players to purchase "convenience" items for real life dollars that make grinding earning easier. Basically, people running premium time and/or hero mechs would be a complete advantage over space hobos in terms of weaponry, because they would get to enjoy fearsome dakka dakka while the poors would be nearly forced to run SHS trial Swaybacks most of the time...those non-premium mechs wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Mordor.

Edited by FupDup, 14 November 2013 - 05:38 AM.

[RF Greywolf]

Roadbeer, on 14 November 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

That was kind of my point. All things being equal, if you were to implement a cost for using ballistics after the initial. Everyone would say that ballistics were useless because the cost is too damn high.

Sorry, misread your post as a suggestion not a hypothetical situation.

Roadbeer, on 14 November 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

Everyone throws around DPS numbers, pin point damage arguments, DD Vs. DoT, and the like. When what it really boils down to is that the broken mechanic isn't in the weapons systems, it's in the economy.

The problem is that you can't fix the economy with so many players sitting on the mountain of C-bills that some are. It will just penalize the players that are new and don't have the disposable income, so to speak. I agree that the economy should be part of the balance, just how to get it right without screwing new players and limiting the players with millions of C-bills laying around...

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

The system handles it fine St, The players are the ones without a spine. ACs have done Up front damage for 30 years, and it has been fine.

It is because of the massive pin-point, front load damage strikes that cause players to hide for 90% of the game. It is really bad for new players, who haven't figured out the ways to get close to them. I would like the game to have the balance between high pinpoint and DoT. Right now, pinpoint is clearly superior to DoT since you can twist and spread damage or shoot then duck back into cover. Some of the games I play seem to devolve into a 'wack a mole' style game where whoever has the quickest trigger has the upper hand. I just want this game to be more than a twitch shooter.

[Khobai]

Quote

The system handles it fine St, The players are the ones without a spine. ACs have done Up front damage for 30 years, and it has been fine.

ACs never did up front damage in battletech. They did less damage than energy equivalents in most cases and weighed significantly more. ACs were among the worst weapons in the game until ultra autocannons came out. And even most of the ultra autocannons were inferior to energy weapons, but they werent completely unusable like standard autocannons at least.

Autocannons were BAAAAD thats why they had such low BV compared to other weapons. AC/10s had like 2/3rds the battle value of PPCs. They weren't equal to PPCs at all.

MWO unfortunately does not have battlevalue, so we cant have a system of asymmetrical weapon balance like Battletech had. Weapons have got to be equal. And the AC/10 needs to be significantly better than the PPC because of all of its drawbacks.

Quote

It is because of the massive pin-point, front load damage strikes that cause players to hide for 90% of the game.

Yep and the primary offenders are still PPCs and to a lesser extent the AC/20. Those weapons need to be nerfed to spread damage around more. AC/5s may or may not need a nerf as well.

Edited by Khobai, 14 November 2013 - 05:50 AM.

[Lefty Lucy]

It's a myth that repair and rearm ever changed the meta. It simply allowed 8-man pugstompers to play the best equipment all the time, where everyone else had to struggle.