675 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Craig Steele, on 02 February 2014 - 03:45 AM, said:

You know, I have yet to meet an AC advocate who thinks AC's are better than lasers once the ammo runs out.

More than one boom Jag pilot has though "wish I had some lasers" when he hears the 'click click' noise

Yeah, I remember that, back in my AC/20 Jagermech days... "Oh, dang, out of ammo, I hope someone of the team will mop up the rest of the mechs, too bad I won't get a fourth kill."

[Noesis]

Craig Steele, on 02 February 2014 - 03:45 AM, said:

You know, I have yet to meet an AC advocate who thinks AC's are better than lasers once the ammo runs out.

More than one boom Jag pilot has though "wish I had some lasers" when he hears the 'click click' noise

Like the pilot who uses lasers runs his heat to max. Likely to happen several times in a match and with similar awkward moments of either trying to sustain fire to defend yourself or missed opportunities due to the heat before the AC users worry about ammo? Or reducing the comparative damage potential due to being able to handle the heat build up from these kind of weapons.

Despite all this ballistics are still the more confidant and predominantly used weapons. Admittedly usually combined with other problematic energy ballistics. But lasers have their down time also due to above and usually more a consideration during a match than using ACs.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 01 February 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

Now if you make the changes you propose....

You basically make the ac2 useless for... well... any type of true fire support roll... Im actually unsure where it will fit after that change whatsoever.... Where as the ac20 simply becomes king....

The AC20 SHOULD be king and the AC2 used for long range harassing, not serious DPS. As I said in my original post, the problem we have now is that every single AC is currently doing AC20 damage over time, and doing it to far more distance than any of them should.

MustrumRidcully, on 02 February 2014 - 03:38 AM, said:

I think Crimarbs idea is interesting, just a few caveats:

The AC/2 and the AC/5 were underpowered guns in the table top game. I would ignore the canon values here and upgrade the AC/2 to a 4 DP5S and the AC5 to a 6 DP5S weapon. When doing so, I would look to make their rate of fire slower and their damage per shot higher than now. The AC/2 particularly cannot really benefit from her range with a high rate of fire - you need more time to aim at long range, and lose rate of fire.

Out of a similar consideration: When you ever get to the part where each AC/xs come in different variants, I would give higher damage per shot ACs a slightly lower DPS or some other disadvantage (maybe raise the heat per shot further.)
There are so many possibilities...

For example, let's get "crass" and do the opposite of what we did so far - instead of lowering the ROF with increasing AC, we increase it:
AC/2 (as 4 DP5S weapon): 4 damage and 2 heat per 5 seconds
AC/5 (as 6 DP5S weapon): 4.8 damage and 0.96 heat per 4 seconds
AC/10 (as 10 DP5S weapon): 6 damage and 1.8 heat per 3 seconds
AC/20 (as 20 DP5S weapon): 8 damage and 5.6 heat per 2 seconds

This notably lowers the alpha potential of the heavy ballistics (but the still retain an advantage), and improves the alpha potential of the lighter ballistics. But it means a lot of Dakka with the heavier ones.

I agree with that. My numbers were just examples, but the DP5S numbers could be anything around those classes. For instance, the current AC20 does 25 DP5S, but would round down to 20, and the current AC5 does 16 or so DP5S and rounds up to 20 as well. You could have a range for each class, such as 1-4 for AC2, 5-8 for AC5, 9-14 for AC10, and 15+ for AC20.

[Craig Steele]

Noesis, on 02 February 2014 - 07:09 AM, said:

Like the pilot who uses lasers runs his heat to max. Likely to happen several times in a match and with similar awkward moments of either trying to sustain fire to defend yourself or missed opportunities due to the heat before the AC users worry about ammo? Or reducing the comparative damage potential due to being able to handle the heat build up from these kind of weapons.

Despite all this ballistics are still the more confidant and predominantly used weapons. Admittedly usually combined with other problematic energy ballistics. But lasers have their down time also due to above and usually more a consideration during a match than using ACs.

LOL, OK to disspell the apparent confusion I'll try and spell my point out better.

I think the arguments back and forth about pin point dmg and ra ra ra are very narrow. Proponents on both sides are looking at only a small sliver of the total weapon. This seems to be pretty common with these forums where people focus on the result and try and address the symptons, not the cause.

So what it comes down to is this, AC's have their weaknesses just like lasers do. But every weapon can be utilised to it's fullest potential by the pilot, and some weapons may suit their style better than others.

If we are talking about lasers vs AC, well AC have ammo (explosion risk) heavier, bigger and are not sustainable in the field. Once the ammo is gone, guess what, it's gone. Now can a good player unlock maximum DPS from an AC, ofc, but how much is maximum.

Take an extreme example. Pro Player A in his all laser mech is landed (gotta love MM) in a team of 11 newbies in trial mechs. Pro Player B in his AC Boom Boom mech is landed in a team with 11 newbies in trial mechs.

Pro player B has a heap of fun, smashing up 11 newbies. Pro player A the same. They meet in the middle of battlefield after wiping each others team. I am backing the Pro player A has more sustainable DPS at this point and handily wins the encounter.

Heat is a renewable in battle resource (ie, cooling down is effected by heat sinks), ammo is not. If you want to compare weapons on a pull of the trigger basis, you are neglecting to factor in the entirity of the weapon.

[Noesis]

Craig Steele, on 02 February 2014 - 05:13 PM, said:

If you want to compare weapons on a pull of the trigger basis, you are neglecting to factor in the entirity of the weapon.

Like your neglecting the effects of heat management for more heat dependent weapons thinking only ballistics have the worst downsides.

Also the benefits of this weapon clearly shows its confidence and advantages over lasers. This more demonstrated as much at the competitive level as Pugging with the predominance of ballistic use. If ammo was a significant factor to then why aren't we seeing a lack of appeal in their use across the board, get real.

AC/PPC is the effective Meta and your in denial thinking that how ammo is set at the moment is a significant factor to make them any less effective than the balancing aspects that are utilised for lasers. Also ammo explosions, these are anything but hardly significant and also seriously reduced as per the TT values. More DPS, more range, more ammo, less chance of explosion, less heat dissipation and greater capacity, pinpoint damage, FLD.

If anything ammo could do with being reduced for ballistics so it is actually something to consider and shots are picked with more thought than currently.

[Craig Steele]

Noesis, on 02 February 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

Like your neglecting the effects of heat management for more heat dependent weapons thinking only ballistics have the worst downsides.

Also the benefits of this weapon clearly shows its confidence and advantages over lasers. This more demonstrated as much at the competitive level as Pugging with the predominance of ballistic use. If ammo was a significant factor to then why aren't we seeing a lack of appeal in their use across the board, get real.

AC/PPC is the effective Meta and your in denial thinking that how ammo is set at the moment is a significant factor to make them any less effective than the balancing aspects that are utilised for lasers. Also ammo explosions, these are anything but hardly significant and also seriously reduced as per the TT values. More DPS, more range, more ammo, less chance of explosion, less heat dissipation and greater capacity, pinpoint damage, FLD.

If anything ammo could do with being reduced for ballistics so it is actually something to consider and shots are picked with more thought than currently.

I don't think I'm neglecting anything.

All the arguments and discussion put forward here seem to focus on a very short time frame for comparison, the longest is the Cooldown on the lasers.

I think that's not the full picture. If you're going to take a DPS snapshot over 15 minutes of both weapons firing as often as heat and CD's allow, the laser will do more DPS because it is a renewable energy source (as in, no ammo). That picture includes a pilot managing heat to avoid shut down's. Aa harder job for the laser guy, less so for the AC guy.

It still comes down to though, many of the arguments presented here are focussing on a narrow part of the weapons total damage potential in a game by discounting battle duration.

[Noesis]

Craig Steele, on 02 February 2014 - 07:16 PM, said:

It still comes down to though, many of the arguments presented here are focussing on a narrow part of the weapons total damage potential in a game by discounting battle duration.

This study incorporates complete game stats from their outcome encompassing all of the balancing and shooting mechanics as a result. This helps to demonstrate in real terms how less effective lasers are to ballistics even if by a marginal amounts, still this disparity exists as demonstrated with the applied use of weapons as it is a comparison of potential effectiveness.

This also echoed in the game with the demonstrated confidence of ballistics use as being the predominant meta. This is to say it does not say lasers are useless only that ballistics are effectively better even with all the balancing issues associated with weapons.

[Craig Steele]

Noesis, on 02 February 2014 - 07:24 PM, said:

This study incorporates complete game stats from their outcome encompassing all of the balancing and shooting mechanics as a result. This helps to demonstrate in real terms how less effective lasers are to ballistics even if by a marginal amounts, still this disparity exists as demonstrated with the applied use of weapons as it is a comparison of potential effectiveness.

This also echoed in the game with the demonstrated confidence of ballistics use as being the predominant meta. This is to say it does not say lasers are useless only that ballistics are effectively better even with all the balancing issues associated with weapons.

Yes, well the current meta game includes fragile as **** mechs so the front end loaded dmg of AC's is going to be more effective when a match is effectivily over in 60 seconds of firing.

Some would argue beefing up mechs durability, others would argue nerfing weapons are solutions to that. Halving ammo certainly isn't a terrible place to start.

I would just like to see an argument for and against not disregard the total damage potential of either.

[MustrumRidcully]

The problem with the typical discussion about "balance" between ballistics and enegy weapons is that people list advantages and drawbacks, but that is just enumerating some points.

With that method, I could also argue that horses are balanced with automobiles:

o Carts:
+ Fuel (Grass) grows everywhere and is avaialble for free
+ Can walk even if pilot is asleep.
+ Heal
- Slow
- Defecate
- Can get rabies

o Autombiles
+ Fast
+ Can carry multiple persons
+ Can be climatized
- Full can only be acquried at specific places and costs money
- Can Rust
- Produce a lot of CO2 and dust particles


You have to consider the impact of the drawbacks and advantages, in the context of the game. That's why I did stuff like my efficiency charts and my weight requirement charts, to consider the context of the game better.

[Sturmforge]

What about reducing the beam duration on the those weapons? From 1.00 to 0.75 for medium and large, 0.6 to 0.4 for medium and large pulse, 0.75 to 0.6 small laser, and 0.5 to 0.3 for the small pulse, or something similar. Lasers are easy to defend against just by turning and torso twisting.

Or even front-load the damage a bit. Say 1/4 to 1/2 of the damage hits on the first tick, with the rest spread out over the beam duration.

Though from playing Centurions and Cataphracts for a while, 2 Large Lasers with heat sinks is pretty close to a Gauss Rifle or AC-20 with ammo. The problem is while leading a target can be hard, so is keeping the beam on target. Feels like just a small tweak could bring them closer. Ammo explosions were almost never a concern and the Gauss exploded for me like maybe as much as 20% of my matches, though I think it may be less. In a sustained fight the AC-20 could heat up a mech, but the 2 large lasers guaranteed that I rode redline almost the entire time. That was in combination with my backup weapons, Medium Lasers and SRMs. Never a big user of PPCs. Though I did try to copy the Yen-Lo-Wang in the Centurion AL with 2 PPC and 2 Medium Lasers to some success, AC-20 Damage out to PPC range on a fast mover. Though I also only did that before the change from 3 second cool down to 4. Feels like just a small tweak could bring them closer.

Just throwing out ideas.

Edited by Sturmforge, 03 February 2014 - 02:17 AM.

[Noesis]

MustrumRidcully, on 03 February 2014 - 01:19 AM, said:

You have to consider the impact of the drawbacks and advantages, in the context of the game. That's why I did stuff like my efficiency charts and my weight requirement charts, to consider the context of the game better.

Your efficiency charts are not efficiency charts at all though, and to try and claim such is false. They are a way to advise people how to combine weapons to do the best 15s alpha build possible. And they also exclude an important aspect of the management of heat which is vitally important to the "balancing factors" of heat dependent weapons in the game. As a result they offer a miss leading interpretation for "effectiveness" or efficiency as a result.

In the context of the game your "study" has little value as a result as they are not really looking at all the applied factors or in a realistic way it only covers very situational examples and for a specific test with a very limited period of use. It also uses virtual spreadsheet values in how things are calculated not taking into account applied values in game or other mechanics that could effect them, it is merely a construct using virtual data as a result. And the examples used don't really help to cover or understand most builds managed or mixed that people use in the game.

So from a point of considering things in the "context of the game" your virtual 15s of a specific test for a limited case of examples with few realistic examples using virtual values from the spreadsheet data has very little beneficial value to pilots when considering "real" game play use.

(Also your thread describes an overly complicated virtual "construct" of little use that makes it hard even for some to even understand as has been commented about it, and so it is also not very appealing as a model either and covers very little realism as a result or something that could be considered more of an applied affinity to piloting).

This study as provided at least uses the outcome from using actual applied in game statistics that then incorporate mechanics and balance mechanisms reviewing their actual potentials as a comparison. And as such then actually incorporates the complete spectrum of how weapons are actually being "used" when compared against each other as it is using real data from actual game play data sampled over 1000's of games.

Edited by Noesis, 03 February 2014 - 06:47 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Is it ok that I like your thinking but not the reason Must? Getting hit with an AC20 is supposed to suck. It is a(thee) BFG. And whether it is a solid slug or vomiting lots of smaller rounds, It is designed to make you say, "OUCH! WTF was that?"

[Noesis]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 February 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

Is it ok that I like your thinking but not the reason Must? Getting hit with an AC20 is supposed to suck. It is a(thee) BFG. And whether it is a solid slug or vomiting lots of smaller rounds, It is designed to make you say, "OUCH! WTF was that?"

Don't disagree.

But the comparison of potential only states what the applied use of each weapon is "as designed", not what the potential actually is. So you get to keep your AC20 as and AC20 in this study, you keep your ML as an ML, the flavours don't change, you just identify how much these differing characteristics are actually diluted when compared to what should be their own 100% flavour.

[Joseph Mallan]

So long as I can keep firing a 203mm Shell every 4-6 seconds instead of burping out 15-20 in 4-6 seconds, then I will be happy. I dont play this game to DpS. I play it to crush you, and as such I accept when I am crushed. I don't complain either way.

I was much happier as a grenadier than I was as a Machine Gunner. Damage was done in a much more pleasing way for me.

[Craig Steele]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 February 2014 - 07:05 AM, said:

So long as I can keep firing a 203mm Shell every 4-6 seconds instead of burping out 15-20 in 4-6 seconds, then I will be happy. I dont play this game to DpS. I play it to crush you, and as such I accept when I am crushed. I don't complain either way.

I was much happier as a grenadier than I was as a Machine Gunner. Damage was done in a much more pleasing way for me.

So Joseph, are you saying you don't like spraying it around all over the place?

[Joseph Mallan]

Craig Steele, on 03 February 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

So Joseph, are you saying you don't like spraying it around all over the place?

That is exactly what I am saying. I want it to go where I put it, with a little bit of slash depending on what I am shooting.

I did get our innuendo BTW!

[Craig Steele]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 February 2014 - 07:16 AM, said:

That is exactly what I am saying. I want it to go where I put it, with a little bit of slash depending on what I am shooting.

I did get our innuendo BTW!

No innuenda, pure insinuation. LOL

[Joseph Mallan]

Craig Steele, on 03 February 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

No innuenda, pure insinuation. LOL

I stand corrected sir!

[MustrumRidcully]

Noesis, on 03 February 2014 - 06:39 AM, said:

his study as provided at least uses the outcome from using actual applied in game statistics that then incorporate mechanics and balance mechanisms reviewing their actual potentials as a comparison. And as such then actually incorporates the complete spectrum of how weapons are actually being "used" when compared against each other as it is using real data from actual game play data sampled over 1000's of games.

Yes, that is what I like about this approach. But it's not an attempt to be predictive, and I think you need that, too, otherwise it's too much guessing on what you need to do to deal with a trend you see in the statistics.

But it would be really great if we had some way to get anonimized statistics on this over the entire player base.

[Noesis]

MustrumRidcully, on 03 February 2014 - 07:23 AM, said:

Yes, that is what I like about this approach. But it's not an attempt to be predictive, and I think you need that, too, otherwise it's too much guessing on what you need to do to deal with a trend you see in the statistics.

But it would be really great if we had some way to get anonimized statistics on this over the entire player base.

That's why I was speculative and cautious to "suggest" as to what kind of subtle changes might best help with this issue (see above).

It is easy to identify an issue or disparity in potential with this as you say, but considering where best to resolve it is a different matter and could be a combination of factors. All it really implies is that ideally the applied use of weapons need normalising in certain ways to make them as comparatively effective as they are designed, but this does not mean changing the understanding of how they operate in relation to each other with any significance as a result.

Of late I have also been considering whether my UK latency and Hit detection issues may be affecting beam mechanics in comparison to ballistics. But I also get HD issues with other weapons also and other pilots more close to the server identify with this also in a similar way. I'm just wondering however if the volume of ticks in the beam mechanic might be a factor to it, I cannot really determine that with any confidence. But something in relation to the way lasers operate makes them show a comparative loss in potential despite accuracy as a result so has to be in some way related to how the beam mechanics work or technically operate.

If there is a root cause problem then it would be nice to be fixed of course. This would be better than considering small adjustments here and there to mask over any issues if and where they exist. However, this approach has been applied for SRMs for their HD issues. Otherwise beam mechanics might need adjusting. But if not beneficial then alternative adjustments in a number of places even if small or slight might help to correct the overall disparities here and not change how things are used or how they are perceived in the pecking order.

Other associated benefits with weapons might of course be separate issues since this is looking at a comparison of how weapons are used. As a result I often think it might be more useful to see kills with weapons as a statistic also. But even that could be a parameter that could miss lead things. However normally you can positively correlate that damage potential is an important factor to being able to kill even if you would like to kill with less damage, excluding kill stealing of course. It aslo depends on what targets you go after as lighter Mechs need less damage to kill. But the "potential" to cause damage should be a good indicator of the potential to kill imho.