675 replies to this topic

[Noesis]

Been looking at my personal pilot stats (as I do considering that I have no life) and looked at the "applied" or real effectiveness of the various weapons from their base design parameters.

This is looking at the maximum damage they should apply and then evaluating what they actually put down range after accuracy.

The remaining stats being there for comparisons for some of the balance mechanisms applied.

Admittedly it would be more sensible to include more sampling to the data to have a much better confidence here, but I would encourage others to compare the relative effectiveness of their own weapons as applied.








What I find here is that whilst lasers are a more accurate weapon they don't actually then apply the most effective damage "per hit" as a result. My conclusion here is this is to do with the beam effects and ticks for lasers creating an effective reduction in damage transfer. And in the case of beams presumably with less pin point accuracy issues due to beams spreading over a Mech.

What we can also see is that Ballistics are high DPS but less accurate. And I kind of like the idea of these weapons having different styles. Ballistics being "hammers" and lasers being "scalpels".






Looking at overall effective "applied" damage from shots fired we can see that the beam lasers typically under performs with damage transfer in comparison to ballistic by at least 10%. Which in itself suggests an imbalance as we are comparing actual relative applied damage.

However I wouldn't want to suggest that any "under performing" weapons receive a damage boost as a result. It may be more preferable to allow more damage to be transferred over time in order for this lack of applied damage to occur more often.

As a proposal (that I have made before) I'd suggest lowering ML heat to 3.5 or even maybe 3 and perhaps increasing the short beam and pulse effective ranges slightly. In theory this would allow these weapons to at least be fired more often, which when you compare beam times and cool downs between the ML and AC20 they are the same but having an effective applied DPS disparity of 15%+. Alternatively reducing the beam spread times with whatever tick damage effects are applied to counter the effect may be the more direct way to do this, assuming that the overall cool down times don't end up destabalising current builds for some Mechs due to the effective HPS increase as a result.

This would favorably apply benefits to the short game where if the above effects as described are more representative could indicate why the longer Direct fire support Meta is most dominant with the use of ballistics and energy ballistics like the PPCs.

It would also help to bridge a gap with lighter Mechs (lights and mediums) who more typically can't fit any reasonable number of ballistic or energy ballistic weapons as their heavier counterparts. Though people try to do so given the current Meta.

Though please remember this change would also apply to any Mech platform that can fit these shorter range energy weapons.

It is also fair to say that some of the proposals with "cone fire" or "burst fire" may help to reduce the applied damage by ballistic weapons and assuming lasers were unchanged could apply a similar mechanism to bring ballistic type weapons down in effectiveness, but these appear on the forums to be unpopular changes as suggested.

So the idea of improving other elements of the game more in line with other weaponry but to actually improve on the differing styles of play the above suggestion to improve the shorter range energy weapons may help the short game but not actually nerfing the current meta. It is also a minimal change of current mechanics as opposed to generating new ones that require development time, testing and an extra sub-system to balance by PGI. This would keep the current characteristics of the ballistic weaponry but allow the use of shorter energy weapons to be sustained slightly better over time.

I realise this is a complicated scenario with lots of balancing mechanics with builds that may effect these details (heat, tonnage, ammo, slots, hard points etc) but I'm simply evaluating from the statistics what the effective applied damage is for these weapons based on the "shooting" mechanics as given.

As is however trying to argue on the forums that a 4 point ML is the same as an AC20 is not true given that from the figures above the effective DPS of ML is 2.08 and AC20 is 2.93 or the AC20 is 150% more effective an arrangement and presumably delivering a pin-point application to where it hits. This more relevant when you consider torso twisting, JJing and other movement possible to mitigate the pinpoint effects of lasers other than aiming.

[MustrumRidcully]

I've often noted that while ballistics have a seemingly lower accuracy, the effective "damage utilization" (e.g. damage dealt per shot fired on average vs. damage dealt per shot fired if all of them had hit) is better.

The accuracy stat is misleading for beams simply because a single tick out of several over the 0.5 to 1.0 seconds the beam lasts counts as a hit. Overall, lasers become less efficient weapons then pinpoint weapons.

It also seems that higher rates of fire further lower your precision. You'll likely note AC/2 and AC/5 being less precise than Gauss and AC/20 (despite the necessary lead times for them often being in the reverse order).

[Joseph Mallan]

MustrumRidcully, on 10 December 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

I've often noted that while ballistics have a seemingly lower accuracy, the effective "damage utilization" (e.g. damage dealt per shot fired on average vs. damage dealt per shot fired if all of them had hit) is better.

The accuracy stat is misleading for beams simply because a single tick out of several over the 0.5 to 1.0 seconds the beam lasts counts as a hit. Overall, lasers become less efficient weapons then pinpoint weapons.

It also seems that higher rates of fire further lower your precision. You'll likely note AC/2 and AC/5 being less precise than Gauss and AC/20 (despite the necessary lead times for them often being in the reverse order).

Likely caused b the desire to have the best opportunity to hit with the heavy hammer over spray and prey.

[Noesis]

Might be more to do with spray and pray use here, it certainly reflects in my UAC5 stats and how I apply them at range, I do tend to spend more effort lining up that AC20 shot as a result for obvious benefits.

[KinsonRavenlock]

The problem with the premise is first there is no measurement of time on target with lasers, and secondly the diminishing returns based on the range you fire the lasers at.
If you're averaging only 50% effective damage with say medium lasers, is it because you're firing at 50% past the optimal range or only hitting the target for 50% of the time you actually land.
Or some combination of both....

[Noesis]

KinsonRavenlock, on 10 December 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

The problem with the premise is first there is no measurement of time on target with lasers, and secondly the diminishing returns based on the range you fire the lasers at.
If you're averaging only 50% effective damage with say medium lasers, is it because you're firing at 50% past the optimal range or only hitting the target for 50% of the time you actually land.
Or some combination of both....

This is a consideration, but don't you think that as this is still a comparison of "applied" shooting mechanisms which incorporates effective ranges given to these weapons that it reflects within these statistics?

[KinsonRavenlock]

MEDIUM LASER 832 43,192 37,409 86.61% 3 days 04:45:26 107,202
Those are my medium laser statistics and I consider myself a mediocre shot with them and I shoot them out to 500metres consistently if nothing else to harass the enemy and to throw off their aim shooting back at me .
With ballistics like the ac/20 almost all chassis can only effectively carry 28 shots or so.
For myself I generally am much more careful of the ranges I will shoot an ac/20 at.
Whereas with most matches the average engagement ranges are within the optimal ranges of weapons such as the ac/5,ppc..
I can ask a few pilots I know that use medium lasers almost exclusively to post their stats here, and we'll see if the given disparity is as much as I'm positing it will be.

[Noesis]

All for it as more sampling would be a much better study as mentioned.

It would be useful to compare values you have for ML with other weapons including ballistics however as it may just be that overall you are a better shot. But without seeing a relative comparison between beams and ballistics for yourself it wont be a similar comparison of weapon use to see the differences in context as applied use.

By only offering ML stats you don't then see your applied equivalence with other weapon types.

Also it is worth mentioning I favour fast Mechs so could be a factor to how I utilise certain weapons. Needless to say this study has allowed me personally to reappraise some builds to incorporate much better effective weaponry use for myself.

Edited by Noesis, 10 December 2013 - 09:46 AM.

[Kobold]

Look at your own first chart. Check the damage per second per ton. They are all fairly closely grouped, and the single BEST weapon by far on that measure is an energy weapon, the ubiquitous Medium Laser.

[Noesis]

Kobold, on 10 December 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

Look at your own first chart. Check the damage per second per ton. They are all fairly closely grouped, and the single BEST weapon by far on that measure is an energy weapon, the ubiquitous Medium Laser.

Yes, but look at damage per heat the ML not being the best.There are numerous balancing factors incorporated into weapon selection as a result. This is still a study of applied effectiveness.

The point I'm trying to make is that the beam duration for laser weapons means you cannot compare them in a similar way to ballistics in a pinpoint argument about effective weapon use. And that when people argue about the fact of the ML putting out 5 damage as a comparator to other debate it is in effect not a true statement and that in reality the value is much less. Around 60% to 75% of that value actually being applied.

[Tynan]

A lot of the concerns I would have about this have been brought up by others, but yes, it's very important to considering intended usage of a given weapon when looking at these numbers. The obvious examples would be longer range weapons with high or no ammunition count, like PPCs and AC2s. I tend to use both at extreme ranges for suppression effect, and as a result my accuracy is much lower than with shorter range weapons. Additionally, the lack of ammunition on energy weapons makes some pilots (I include myself in this) more likely to fire them at first opportunity, where weapons like AC20 and Gauss I'm going to line up my shot more.

AC20 is the obvious counterpoint, but my SPL numbers are very, very different from yours, likely because I almost exclusively use them on my Locust and Jenner at close range for hunting down damaged heavies and assaults.

TL;DR version: weapons used for suppression or at very long range (where accuracy is likely to be more suspect) vs. point-blank brawling weapons are going to skew this chart. Not to say the data aren't helpful and worth considering, but there are a huge number of factors at play with these numbers.

[Noesis]

I wouldn't put any confidence in my SPL figures with only 2 matches being there, and ton for ton your better off with MPL use anyhow as it is the same output for extra range. Though of course the locust has limitations with tonnage being a premium.

There are a lot of factors yes, but it is still representative of "applied figures" as opposed to some "maximum" fictional apportionment people like to associate with certain weapons for debating purposes based on the weapon details.

I haven't even mentioned the additional effects from shake due to ballistics fire.

Realistically PGI will know the overall figures here and whether there is any disparity as a result of differing mechanics. I wont use the more simple argument about how the current meta is dominated by long range fire "support" however, which I assume by effectiveness is happening as a result of some appreciation of what might work best in the game currently .

Fix SRMS, make ML have 3.5 heat we might see more variance and diversity in people opting to play the more shorter game but helping to bring this play style more on a par with other choices.

Edited by Noesis, 10 December 2013 - 12:53 PM.

[MerryIguana]

Sandpit, on 10 December 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

I'm glad somebody finally go the nerve to post about this

-1

[Adiuvo]

In your stats lasers count as a hit even if you're only able to hit with one tick out of the entire beam duration. Any calculation of damage done per hit is useless because of this.

[Sug]

This is so weird. I just turned in my doctoral dissertation on why ballistics are better than beams.

[Noesis]

Adiuvo, on 10 December 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

In your stats lasers count as a hit even if you're only able to hit with one tick out of the entire beam duration. Any calculation of damage done per hit is useless because of this.

No it isn't as the overall applied effect is still reflected in the statistics for the hit apportioned values, this since it is still associated with the accuracy values as applied by PGI, we still see the applied damage for given hit amount for a number of times the weapon has been fired. What isnt reflected is the spread of the beam over the surface of the Mech where normally you need to hold a point to maximise the damage for the weapon. Otherwise if your suggesting that the accuracy is actually worse due to this then aren't you actually stating that the effectiveness of the beam weapons could in fact be much worse as a result? And hey presto the figures show this.

I relate these values as due to this beam effect on the main otherwise we'd expect an effective damage in the high 80% values if it related one to one with the accuracy, but it doesn't, the applied damage for this is actually less. It would be 4 if accuracy was the only effective mechanic, but it isn't it is 2.5 around 50%. Though it doesn't say where this damage is focused either so if it is just overall damage applied when looking at pinpoint effects the spread of a laser due to a beam effect could apportion itself across a few hit boxes and not the one like a ballistic round will do. So from a pinpoint argument the effects could be even worse than I have analysed.

Otherwise are you saying that this beam effect has no relevance and that each ML shot that hits in range causes 5 damage to the first point struck? No of course it doesn't but people want to argue that it does when debating weapon balance.

Edited by Noesis, 10 December 2013 - 02:42 PM.

[Noesis]

Sug, on 10 December 2013 - 02:00 PM, said:

This is so weird. I just turned in my doctoral dissertation on why ballistics are better than beams.

Have a mince pie for your contribution to science.

[Lightfoot]

The other thing is that the Clan stomps Inner Sphere in Ballistics (UAC10, UAC20, LB-20X) and missiles (SSRM4, SSRM6, LRMs weigh half), but in Energy and Gauss Rifles the Clan is only slightly better. And yes, this is the drawback to only using Heat to nerf DPS, you can't have a Clan Invasion, sorry.

[Noesis]

If clan tech is kept the same as TT understanding then in 18 MWO years the game will be dominated by this: http://www.sarna.net..._Gauss_Rifle_40

But PGI have stated they are going to change the understanding of clan tech to be more on a par with IS tech anyhow.

[Lightfoot]

Noesis, on 10 December 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

If clan tech is kept the same as TT understanding then in 18 MWO years the game will be dominated by this: http://www.sarna.net..._Gauss_Rifle_40

But PGI have stated they are going to change the understanding of clan tech to be more on a par with IS tech anyhow.

Yes, I have known since they HAD to change DHS to DHS 1.4 that MWO would not support the Clan Invasion, I think I told PGI this the day DHS 1.4 HAD to be used for Inner Sphere's junky DHS. Nerfing a MechWarrior game with only heat nerfs is never going to work. Now they have to re-make every Clan Tech item and I sure that will be completely headache-free with no forum rants about "New MetA Must Stop NOW!!!!".

Edited by Lightfoot, 10 December 2013 - 08:47 PM.