116 replies to this topic

[Tombstoner]

Doctor Proctor, on 13 December 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

That doesn't really matter all that much here actually due to just the sheer disparity between the numbers. You telling me that if I cut out all the Light mechs that suddenly my average damage per shot on a ML is going to jump to almost double what it is now? Because unless it does, then it's actual damage values will still fall short of it's optimal values, which gives it a comparative disadvantage to ballistics because they perform very close to, or even exceed their optimal values. It's like saying you can't be sure if the sports car really is faster than the go kart unless they're on the same street, since there could be different bumps or pavement conditions.

from personal experience i can keep lasers on target far easier for large slow targets then small fast. so yes damage interacts with target size and speed. The only way to determine who is faster is to have both vehicles run each track. then you can see the effect track conditions have on speed.

i understand the desire and premise to equate skill with damage delivered and then compare the two but target type affects damage done. so the answer is yes you could make a fit function but you need hit rate and damage done by target. then you can say for small fast target this is my skill/ efficiency with theses weapons and this is it for large slow. you'd wind up with a curve that has mech size along the bottom and damage done on the left with multiple lines for each weapon.

I expect that you will see very different results depending on target. the larger the target the closer to max damage delivered.
conversely the smaller the target damage levels should diverge with harder to use weapons delivering less damage.

using the tabulated data is problematic. since you cant extract out target size. you might be because of ELO facing more heavy mechs then lights and bias the curves. but each curve is really jsut a fit of individual skill for each weapon. not ac-s are better then lasers.

I personally think ac's are harder to use and you can see that in the accuracy values, but are harder to deliver max damage due to the beam nature of lasers and the all or nothings ac round. i'll take lasers for partial damage all the time.

[Doctor Proctor]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 December 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

See an AC doesn't do its damage over time (DpS) It does it in one quick shot every 1.52-4.0 seconds A Laser has to do it by hitting ans staying on target over time. Thats where the difference is, I miss with my AC I get no damage till I hit again. So my AC20 hiting 55% of the time is hitting around once every 8 seconds not once every 4 and that means I am doing a bit more than 2.5 DpS.

I intend on keeping my Hammer to augment my Scalpel.

Yes, but the question is, what is the DPS value on your lasers that you're using? Even with higher accuracy, mine are all doing well less than one third of the DPS of that AC/20, meaning I have to bring a LOT of lasers to outperform it even when accounting for your 55% hit rate.

For example, take the 4P Hunchback versus the 4G. On the 4P you have let's say 9ML and STD250 engine, with 3ML and AC/20 with a STD250 on the 4G. These are both pretty solid and classic builds that are the same weight, same size and have similar movement profiles due to being the same chassis with the same engine size.

The 4P has a DPS of 0.55 for each ML, or 4.95 DPS total. Ignore Ghost Heat for the moment, since that would require firing a group of 6 and a group of 3 separately with a 1.5s spacing between (1 second for burn time, 0.5 to reset Ghost Heat).

The 4G has a DPS of 3.11 for the AC/20 and 1.65 for the 3xML, or 4.76 total. While they're very similar profiles here, the 4G has a huge advantage in terms of front loaded damage and heat management, and this is before bringing Ghost Heat in to things. The 4P generates 4*9, or 36 heat per volley; whereas the 4G generates (4*3) + 6, or 18 heat per volley. This is why that whole "AC's weigh a lot more though" argument doesn't hold that much water. Sure, lasers are lighter, but you make up for the difference with all the extra heat sinks you're forced to carry.

Simply put, the 4G here will probably run cooler than the 4P, and more of his damage (going by damage per hit, almost 60%) will be pinpoint and instant due to not having a burn time on the AC/20. This means that he will do more damage to single panels and have a greater chance of disabling or killing his opponent with each shot, whereas the 4P will have to work VERY hard to concentrate his damage in the same way.

[MustrumRidcully]

Bhael Fire, on 13 December 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

Energy weapons do not require skill to use....at least no more than ballistics.

You are almost guaranteed a hit whenever you pull the trigger...unlike a ballistic weapon, which requires some leading, accuracy and good timing to land a shot against a moving target.

You're almost guaranteed some damage with lasers, but in practice, targets are moving, your mech is moving, and their are possible obstacles in the way. And so, the precision of lasers is not as high. It would be if they didn't have a beam duration, but they have.

It's a good thing they have a beam duration, because we would otherwise be back to MW4 und MW3 where hitscan lasers dominated the game because they compensated lag and made targeting the easiest.
But unfortunately that wasn't enough, because even though ballistics need lead to compensate for the projectile speed and enemy movement, the pinpoint damage turns out to be very advantageous in practice. You need to lead, but you don't need to track your target over the course of a weapon's discharge. And the tracking process is similar to leading, because you must anticipate the enemy movement as well or your beam goes off in the wrong direction. In effect (going by various statistics we've seen for people posting their statistics) it's a bit harder than leading pinpoint weapons.

I figure part of the reason is because while leading requires a bit more skill than hitscan - it's just something that the human brain can handle relatively well, because it's a skill that was useful for survival the moment we had the idea to throw stuff at targets instead of getting it with our bare hands.

[El Space Doctor]

I'd love the AC20 to deliver 10 shots with a thundering roar over a short period of time. It would be better if the sound would echo across the battlefield for a couple of seconds after that.. However, even though the burst thing seems like an obvious thing to do as it is sorta of kinda canon (technically sorta kinda mitigated by the single hit location on TT) it would make me wonder.. To equip an AC20 with the minimal amount of ammo to be worthwile would be a 15 ton proposition. 16, if you count a DHS for it. To get the same damage with medium lasers would be 8 tons considering 4 DHS for them. Crit slots would be even. So one would be half the weight and unlimited ammo while the other would be 21 shots with a remote chance of the ammo blowing up. How mad would one have to be pick the AC if the both had the beam/ burst duration mechanic? I mean, I probably would, simply because ever since the laser meta of MW2 I have been opposed to huge hulking war machines carrying the least cool "future" weapons of every genre ever aka. the laser and also to hear that 10 shot noise, but I'd probably be very much alone with it.

[OneEyed Jack]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 December 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

I don't know Mc. This is my first FpS type game in over 12 years, It does not feel like skill to me. Its point and click to me.

Frankly, that's all any of them are.

Grits N Gravy, on 13 December 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

Anyway, if you really want to reduce the effectiveness of the current AC meta, just reduce ammo counts by 65%.

Half the TT value with double the armor. That would certainly reduce effectiveness... to totally useless.

stjobe, on 13 December 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

BattleTech - the word doesn't conjure images of fast-paced instant-death, does it?

You must never have died to a single head shot or a CT crit through the armor to take out the Engine or Gyro on a pristine mech. Or, for that matter, have ever been shot by an AC20, let alone UAC20.

[Greyboots]

SaJeel, on 12 December 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

OK, not gonna try to explain something that someone else has done so well, so if you want to get a basic gist of designing skill to power in video games check out Extra Credits: Balancing For Skill.
The autocannons are high damage dealing weapons, 3 acs putting a player at about 9 dps, this damage is pintpoint and near instant, the skill needed is low, easy stuff for any decent fps player and effective at range. Now when you compare that to the other types of weapons, energy weapons require a much greater skill to use, you have to maintain you crosshair on the target and mitigate heat much more than an autocannon. LRMS are a lowskill weapon, much easier than ACs, but they are also much less powerful. They can easily be countered by ECM or blocking them using terrain(which is more of an issue given they're indirect nature), and require a team to work together, something im sure you all know often doesn't happen. Srms... yea lets not get me started on the problems I see with srms >.<, thats a whole other post.
Ac's have some of the highest Power, and require the least skill, and this needs to change

I don't think you really understood the video but... It says more than enough.

There's a resaon people are dissatisfied with the game and looking for answers.

If I drop into Crimson Strait I KNOW where the battle is going to take place and it plays out roughly the same way every time.

The team starting on the F line are going to take the railyard (with snipers/LRMs on the island sometimes) and the team starting on the B line are going to put a lance in D5 and swing the rest around to C3 ish. Every damned time. Then each is going to try to kill enough opponents to make a push.

And that's the newest map where the dev team was "loking forward to the tactics players come up with". It's the same damned tactics as every other map. Find the best defensible area you can as close to your base as possible. Those that start the closest to one of those points will have the other team trying to push out of it.

Meh.

You can predict how 90% of your matches are going to go as soon as you drop.

This is the fault of a poor tactical structure in MWO. Long-ranged pinpoint weapons are where it's at. Annihilate some mechs early on because as soon as you have a numerical advantage the game is all but over. There's no coming back because your strike mechs will get wasted by the same pinpoint damage as the long ranged ones will. You can't afford to advance over open ground because there's no coming back from that. 500m or 50, the pinpoint damage on those long-ranged weapons is just as effective and you're too damaged to make any headway when you get there.

So you only charge once you have the upper hand. There's no clever tactics. There's no "game changers". It's all use these weapons on these mechs and do as much early pinpoint damage as possible. And load up on AC ammo because they're just as effective at short range as they are at long range.

It gets really really dull after a while. To the point where a good ELO is actually stopping you from having fun. At least the newbies are unpredictable sometimes.

[Antarus]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 December 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

There is a choice though. Do I take the high caliber thumper and for go sustain able damage, or go with a smaller caliber and more sustainable damage. It is a very important choice.

Like do I use twin light blades or a Great Sword! Both get the job done, one looks cooler(whirling Dervish) the other looks more impressive(Meat Cleaver). The wise player finds that good balance for themselves!

The PPC/PPC/AC5/AC5 plague has already puzzled this one out for you, over and over again. They use the fact we have too much heat to burn to fire PPCs for high damage, high heat, and then in the too-slow cooldown they eat what is left with the more-than-enough sustained DPS of Autocannons. The combo is why that build is dominating this game and ******* anyone who doesn't capitulate and buy a Shadowhawk/Jager/Cataphract/Highlander/Victor/Battlemaster and run that build.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Wanted to provide more numbers calculating Actual DPS. Also looked at Avg Damage per match.

Spoiler

We need Ballistics to provide either DPS or Front-Loaded Damage, and increasing weapon variety would be a bonus in the process. I'd also like to look at making front-loaded ballistics fire slower and even make them semi-automatic in nature (as a gameplay mechanic), needing the player to click for each shot to fire (not like the Gauss with it's charge though).

Here's a table with some examples of what would be nice to see (and should be possible to pass over to Clan mechs as other means of balancing them in relation to IS mechs):

[Joseph Mallan]

Antarus, on 14 December 2013 - 02:21 AM, said:

The PPC/PPC/AC5/AC5 plague has already puzzled this one out for you, over and over again. They use the fact we have too much heat to burn to fire PPCs for high damage, high heat, and then in the too-slow cooldown they eat what is left with the more-than-enough sustained DPS of Autocannons. The combo is why that build is dominating this game and ******* anyone who doesn't capitulate and buy a Shadowhawk/Jager/Cataphract/Highlander/Victor/Battlemaster and run that build.

Dude I win v those builds enough to know it is whine. I roll an AC20, 2 larg, 2 medium (F)Atlas.

[Joseph Mallan]

Doctor Proctor, on 13 December 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

Yes, but the question is, what is the DPS value on your lasers that you're using? Even with higher accuracy, mine are all doing well less than one third of the DPS of that AC/20, meaning I have to bring a LOT of lasers to outperform it even when accounting for your 55% hit rate.

For example, take the 4P Hunchback versus the 4G. On the 4P you have let's say 9ML and STD250 engine, with 3ML and AC/20 with a STD250 on the 4G. These are both pretty solid and classic builds that are the same weight, same size and have similar movement profiles due to being the same chassis with the same engine size.

The 4P has a DPS of 0.55 for each ML, or 4.95 DPS total. Ignore Ghost Heat for the moment, since that would require firing a group of 6 and a group of 3 separately with a 1.5s spacing between (1 second for burn time, 0.5 to reset Ghost Heat).

The 4G has a DPS of 3.11 for the AC/20 and 1.65 for the 3xML, or 4.76 total. While they're very similar profiles here, the 4G has a huge advantage in terms of front loaded damage and heat management, and this is before bringing Ghost Heat in to things. The 4P generates 4*9, or 36 heat per volley; whereas the 4G generates (4*3) + 6, or 18 heat per volley. This is why that whole "AC's weigh a lot more though" argument doesn't hold that much water. Sure, lasers are lighter, but you make up for the difference with all the extra heat sinks you're forced to carry.

Simply put, the 4G here will probably run cooler than the 4P, and more of his damage (going by damage per hit, almost 60%) will be pinpoint and instant due to not having a burn time on the AC/20. This means that he will do more damage to single panels and have a greater chance of disabling or killing his opponent with each shot, whereas the 4P will have to work VERY hard to concentrate his damage in the same way.

Once again the foolishness of "That's doing good, break it." Mentality. WHy in the world do I want my Heavy hitting ACs to be broken cause Energy weapons are not doing enough damage??? Seriously This is dumb thinking.

Lasers are not as good as ACs... ruin ACs! It is backwards logic. Increase the performance of Lasers so they are doing damage on par of Ballistics! I don't want weaker weapons, I want my opponents to drop over dead faster. That won't happen your way.

Increase Lasers DpS to be on par with Ballistics. And while we are at it buff Missiles as well.

[Jman5]

One of the biggest problems with autocannons is that that its 3x range makes it too ubiquitous on the battlefield. A medium laser and an AC/20 both have an optimal range of 270. However, the medium laser zeroes out at 540 meters, wile the AC/20 goes all the way to 810 meters. This creates a much gentler decline in damage past optimal range than energy weapons making it more flexible and powerful.

I have read that the concern going into MWO was that ER Large Lasers would dominate the sniping game like it had in previous iterations, so they made ballistics 3x range. However, the laser works completely different. It doesn't front load damage like it did in the past and instead is a DPS beam you have to hold steady.

I think there are two choices here on dealing with range. Either you reduce the max range from 3x to something more reasonable like 2 - 2.5x, or you replace the linear decay model with exponential decay (curved slope).

Edited by Jman5, 14 December 2013 - 10:34 AM.

[LordBraxton]

It takes as much skill to keep AC2s on target as it does to keep lasers

sure you might never miss with your AC2s, but to get them t hit the same location everytime takes skill

[MustrumRidcully]

Jman5, on 14 December 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

One of the biggest problems with autocannons is that that its 3x range makes it too ubiquitous on the battlefield. A medium laser and an AC/20 both have an optimal range of 270. However, the medium laser zeroes out at 540 meters, wile the AC/20 goes all the way to 810 meters. This creates a much gentler decline in damage past optimal range than energy weapons making it more flexible and powerful.

I have read that the concern going into MWO was that ER Large Lasers would dominate the sniping game like it had in previous iterations, so they made ballistics 3x range. However, the laser works completely different. It doesn't front load damage like it did in the past and instead is a DPS beam you have to hold steady.

I think there are two choices here on dealing with range. Either you reduce the max range from 3x to something more reasonable like 2 - 2.5x, or you replace the linear decay model with exponential decay (curved slope).

I always thought that the whole idea of lasers as damage-over-time beam was the best idea PGI ever had. And was a bit confused why they made so many questionable implementation and balance decisions despite someone with such good ideas in the team.

Eventually I learned that the idea wasn't theirs, but came from Mecharrior Living Legends, a fan Crysis/Crytek mod.
It all started to make sense then.

They copied the idea, but didn't really get what it would do, and consequently, worried about stuff that didn't need worrying and forgot stuff they really should have worried about.

[Joseph Mallan]

COmpletely with you on Ballistic ranges Jman5. I can easily work with 2x range if that will help quiet the tears about Ballistics.

[WarZ]

Asmudius Heng, on 12 December 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

What makes ACs unique is that single damage punch and its 3x range ... Those are not bad things to keep but if we do not have burst firing I am not sure what additional skill mechanic we can apply.

The other element that makes them very powerful is low cooldown times. Even the big AC20 has a shorter cool down than large lasers. The ac10's are awesome at only 2.5s. Multiple ac5's are simple brutal.

Also dont forget to add in some of the strongest screen shake in the game making 5's and 2's even better because of countering the enemy's ability to aim.

Right now they have the best of all elements in the game, except tonnage and ammo. BUT...

... even though all that extra tonnage and ammo requirement seems like a big deal on paper, you can build them just fine, and get absolutely brutal damage output that you can sustain all match.

That being said, IMO it seems like the only thing that really needs to be done to them is increase the cooldown times a bit and address excessive screen shake.

If AC10's were on a 4'ish second cooldown, and ac20's on a 6-7 second cool down, then they can earn that massive pinpoint damage effect.

[Asmudius Heng]

WarZ, on 14 December 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

The other element that makes them very powerful is low cooldown times. Even the big AC20 has a shorter cool down than large lasers. The ac10's are awesome at only 2.5s. Multiple ac5's are simple brutal.

Also dont forget to add in some of the strongest screen shake in the game making 5's and 2's even better because of countering the enemy's ability to aim.

Right now they have the best of all elements in the game, except tonnage and ammo. BUT...

... even though all that extra tonnage and ammo requirement seems like a big deal on paper, you can build them just fine, and get absolutely brutal damage output that you can sustain all match.

That being said, IMO it seems like the only thing that really needs to be done to them is increase the cooldown times a bit and address excessive screen shake.

If AC10's were on a 4'ish second cooldown, and ac20's on a 6-7 second cool down, then they can earn that massive pinpoint damage effect.

Very true, I was looking for at mechanics of the weapon not the stats. Stats are easy to change mechanics harder but more rewarding skill wise

[kapusta11]

Where does this urge to nerf everything comes from? Balistics are the only weapons that work without any issues, srms have hit registration problems, energy weapons have terrible heat system. How can you adequately compare something that works fine with something that is flawed in its core?

[stjobe]

Seeing what Paul's ideas are to balance Clan weapons, I have little hope they will ever do anything to balance IS tech.

They just do not have a single clue.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Oh they have a single clue - its keep posting about what we are going to do in the future while selling mechs for more and more money. As long as enough people keep buying, why should they woorry about "fixing" things?

[3endless8oogie]

kapusta11, on 15 December 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

Where does this urge to nerf everything comes from? Balistics are the only weapons that work without any issues, srms have hit registration problems, energy weapons have terrible heat system. How can you adequately compare something that works fine with something that is flawed in its core?

Lets just use jaegers and we have balance , it´s so simple