147 replies to this topic

[Serpentbane]

One thing that could make this better is additional slots, lets say on the rear torso, none on lights, a few on mediums, more on heavies, and even more on assaults. Those could take ammo and HS only.

That way assaults would have better heat control than smaller mechs, and that would be natural, making them able to run more heavier energy weapons.

But, most mechs are poorly armored in the back, and critical hits would tear of those heatsinks in no time, making them hot as hell. Also ammo explosions would be a *****.

[Noesis]

Beam effects with lasers has more impact to lighter Mechs as they are in fact more dependent on energy use weapons than larger Mechs with the shorter weapon groups.

Subtly reducing heat of lasers e.g. ML 3.5 wont make lighter Mechs any less fragile or not allow assaults to shoot them to pieces with their increased damage potential, it will simply allow more sustainable use of these weapons over time to allow for certain styles of play to utilise these weapons more capably for the roles they are intended for. As such make them more effective where they are weak.

LL is a different animal but doesn't suffer so much with more acute angle use having a better range and not so much utilised by more mobile Mechs where the beam effect is more pronounced. But even with beam mechanics in effect some consideration to heat could be afforded to them to make them more worthwhile.

[Lightfoot]

Serpentbane, on 25 December 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

http://youtu.be/ry4cicee1vI?t=27s
http://youtu.be/ry4cicee1vI?t=6m15s
http://youtu.be/ry4cicee1vI?t=10m7s

For some reason I'm not able to embed these...

00:27 Round 1: PPC + ML
06:15 Round 2: LL + ML
10:07 Round 3: AC10 + AC5

Open a new window for each round placed side by side to compare.

This is a comparison between energy and balistic weapons in Mecwarrior online as they are today. In their work to balance the game, PGI has in my opinion destroyed energy weapons, making balistic oriented platforms superioir over energy.

In this runtrough I used the same mech, and three setups with weapons dealing the same amount of damage at each shot. To simulate battle, I ran the same cource three times with some weapons Sway to simulate actual gameplay, but I also tried to make each round as simmilar as possible, shooting at the same general area of each mech.

I had some issues with my recording software, but pay atention to heat build ups and shutdowns, and also the time used on the mission timer. Not only do the balistic build run the cource a lot faster, 3:20 compared to 6:30 and 5:30, it does so with no heat issues.

Now, the LL + ML build is similar to AC10 + AC5 regarding heat, but it's a lot less effective. Also, with the balistic build I can ad more weapons with no heat issues, but with the energy build this would also in most cases lead to Ghost Heat issues on top of the fact that the player also would have to remove heat sinks to fit more weapons.

So, I'm having trouble seing how the game is more balanced compared to a few months ago, before GH and nerfing of energy weapons.

QFT

Yep, it's not very Battletech-like in weapon balance. Battletech has all three weapons being equal, but having an inherent weakness. Unfortunately Energy's weakness is Heat so PGI's over zealous heat nerfing has warped them into something totally unrelated to Battletech. If you doubt this go try to play some matches in the AWS-9M stock loadout. A loadout which works fine in Battletech, but explodes due to overheat in MWO in what should be normal operation. You can also try to run it under PGI's heat-nerf restrictions, but since Ballsitics are unaffected by heat-nerfs you will die quickly to a 3x AC2 Jagermech at any range or some other likely ballistic mech.

MWO should have Battletech balance for the three weapon types since PGI is getting it's loadouts for these Mechs from Battletech lore.

[Elfman]

Being a glutton for punishment I have been mainly piloting Mediums using SRM's

The one thing I still don't get with Ghost heat (and yes it tripped me up recently)

3 SRM6 - no ghost heat 18 missiles 12 Heat
4 SRM4 - ghost heat 16 missiles 12.90 heat

I had to change my GRF-3M to use 3 SRM6 rather than the 4 SRM4 build

[Adrienne Vorton]

well i guess the issue is more that you have to play very different depending on the loadout...

i for my part am really fine with energy setups... an example:

1erppc, 1 LPLS, 3 medlasers... dunno if i have screenshots, if so, i´ll post it later... but 500+ damage and 3+ kills are not an exception..

the results with both energy and balistics setups are not very different, just the HOW-TO differs... it´s just like the ballistic is a standalone DD and the energy is a second row supporter...if you play both the same way, sure, the energy setup seems to be less effective...but the huge advantage is, that most energy builds are way lighter than balistic builds, and thus faster/ more agile... while the balistics tend to be slower (and in some cases less armored) but pack more immediate punch...

and if you boat heavy energy... well we all know by now that it´s a bad idea...

haha and btw: when they announced ghost heat early this year, i was saying: "no problem, none of my setups will suffer from it..." and guess what, i was right... ghost heat didn´t change much for me, since i almost always play mixed and heat efficient builds... the only thing that had an impact on one of my loadouts was the 2+ heatnerf on ERPPC´s... now i have to mix 1 er/ 1 ppc in my Cat... not much of a problem either

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 26 December 2013 - 03:32 AM.

[Serpentbane]

Adrienne Vorton, on 26 December 2013 - 03:19 AM, said:

well i guess the issue is more that you have to play very different depending on the loadout...

i for my part am really fine with energy setups... an example:

1erppc, 1 LPLS, 3 medlasers... dunno if i have screenshots, if so, i´ll post it later... but 500+ damage and 3+ kills are not an exception..

the results with both energy and balistics setups are not very different, just the HOW-TO differs... it´s just like the ballistic is a standalone DD and the energy is a second row supporter...if you play both the same way, sure, the energy setup seems to be less effective...but the huge advantage is, that most energy builds are way lighter than balistic builds, and thus faster/ more agile... while the balistics tend to be slower (and in some cases less armored) but pack more immediate punch...

and if you boat heavy energy... well we all know by now that it´s a bad idea...

haha and btw: when they announced ghost heat early this year, i was saying: "no problem, none of my setups will suffer from it..." and guess what, i was right... ghost heat didn´t change much for me, since i almost always play mixed and heat efficient builds... the only thing that had an impact on one of my loadouts was the 2+ heatnerf on ERPPC´s... now i have to mix 1 er/ 1 ppc in my Cat... not much of a problem either

If you rely on other players, play it "safe", and so on, you will be able to do damage with energy builds. I did several hundered dmg and lots of kills with AWS-8Q running small pulse lasers only too, but that is not what we're talking about here. This has nothing to do with energy being OK, but the other players not being on par.

If I see you running 1ERPPC, 1LPLS and 3 ML, I'd run you over because you'd be running 3ML only after a short while, waiting for cool downs to fire those heavy weapons. I'd be pumping you up with a constant flow of AC X.

I have all kind of mechs, so I know what can be done.

[Varent]

YueFei, on 25 December 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

Um, you realize AC10+AC5 weighs 20 tons before you put any ammo in, right?

PPC+ML is 8 tons. LL+ML is only 6 tons. Did you realize you can use that extra tonnage to shove in a bigger engine and go faster, put in jump jets to jump higher, put in other gear like BAP or AMS, etc? Use your higher speed to engage on your terms, instead of just charging at enemies staring at them until one of you dies?

You can't analyze these things in a vacuum, you have to put it into context.

yeeeeuuuuppppp.

Also consider when community warefare DOES come out and you have more extended combats without the ability to reload ammo energy weapons will be more of a premium.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 25 December 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

I like the ghost heat mechanic. I think it does what in was intended to do. Would I love my lasers to produce less in heat penalties? Of course I would. That means I could pew pew pew with a 7 LL Bmaster with impunity and destroy the game balance. That's not good for the game and balancing though. SO, no, it shouldnt' be done in my opinion

I'd enjoy going after your 7 Large Battlemaster! It'd be like taking on a Supernova!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 26 December 2013 - 07:26 AM.

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 26 December 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

I'd enjoy going after your 7 Large Battlemaster! It'd be like taking on a Supernova!

Bring it on old man
I've also got a 6LL variant that it actually deadlier. It's just one steady beam of death. Think ghostbusters streams

[AlmightyAeng]

Instead of comparing weapons systems of equal damage value and completely ignoring weight...take that into account to.

So, if you're going to build a mech with an AC5 and AC10, and let's say, 4 tons of ammo for each, please take that weight into account.

You can trade that weight into Large Lasers and heatsinks and still run at completely tolerable and doable heat ratios.

It also doesn't help your case that your laser fire sprays all over the side/center torsos, while the nature of ballistics helped keep your shots to a single area.

TL;DR Your test was flawed because it ignored the other part of what balances these two weapon systems.

Edited by Ghost Badger, 26 December 2013 - 11:38 AM.

[Varent]

Ghost Badger, on 26 December 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

Instead of comparing weapons systems of equal DPS and completely ignoring weight...take that into account to.

So, if you're going to build a mech with an AC5 and AC10, and let's say, 4 tons of ammo for each, please take that weight into account.

You can trade that weight into Large Lasers and heatsinks and still run at completely tolerable and doable heat ratios.

It also doesn't help your case that your laser fire sprays all over the side/center torsos, while the nature of ballistics helped keep your shots to a single area.

TL;DR Your test was flawed because it ignored the other part of what balances these two weapon systems.

again.... this...

so tired of people using faulty information and number skewing to try and prove there points.

well said!

[Noesis]

Varent, on 26 December 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

again.... this...

so tired of people using faulty information and number skewing to try and prove there points.

well said!

Comprehension fail, lol.

He is saying that lasers suffer comparatively due to their beam mechanics whereas ballistics have pinpoint damage that makes them more effective, yet both systems have their own balancing characteristics for use.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 26 December 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

Comprehension fail, lol.

He is saying that lasers suffer comparatively due to their beam mechanics whereas ballistics have pinpoint damage that makes them more effective, yet both systems have their own balancing characteristics for use.

second comprehension fail. Watch the video, he doesnt hold it on target.

lasers are instantaneous damage but require you to hold on target. for full effect which can cause skewing.

Ballistics are instant damage but have a delay in getting there (for some) that require you to lead to hit at longer ranges.

that said they both have there characteristics which are neither balanced nor unbalanced but simply 'are'.

[Kyle Reece]

Ghost Badger, on 26 December 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

So, if you're going to build a mech with an AC5 and AC10, and let's say, 4 tons of ammo for each, please take that weight into account.

Sure. 2 Large lasers is 4.24 DPS, 1 AC10 is 4 DPS. We need some arbitrary numbers so let's do a 3 minute engagement for both, needing let's say 5 tons of ammo to cover the AC10.

To run the LGL cold you'd need an additional 10 heat sinks (using DHS and a 250 engine).

Total tonnage so far: 2 LGL is 20 tons, the AC10 is 17 tons. Slot usage is off the charts for the energy build, for the autocannon it's not so bad.

Now no-one runs at cold on their 'mechs (alright, next to no-one), so let's say we're happy with around the 73% efficient mark. That'd be 3 heat sinks so we're now at 13 tons for the LGL v the AC10's 17 tons.

Our 3 minute engagement, assuming every shot is a hit, that's 750 points of damage for the AC10.
For the LGL they could do 762 damage theoretical maximum, but because we're not running heat neutral it'll have to stop and cool off at least 4 times reducing that output to around 487. Effectively reducing the overall DPS of the LGL to around the 2.7 mark (Smurfy's calculates it at 2.1, blame rounding) rather than the published 4.24.

Then of course that AC10 is still doing 9 5 points of damage at 900m (the point when the LGL isn't burning paint), and is still dishing out damage right the way out to 1350m.

4 tons of weight for better range performance, better heat performance, no need to hold on target and higher DPS for brawling? I'll take mine to go thanks.

Note: maths done under influence of alcohol

Edited by Kyle Reece, 26 December 2013 - 12:18 PM.

[NRP]

The example I like to use is this:

HGN-733C
XL325
AC/20
2 LLs
3 streaks
BAP
Endo, DHS, 2 JJs

HGN-733P
XL325
2 PPCs
2 LLs
3 streaks
BAP
Endo, DHS, 2 JJs

Identical firepower on paper. Yet the 733C is superior in practice. Drastically so on the hotter maps.

[Varent]

NRP, on 26 December 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

The example I like to use is this:

HGN-733C
XL325
AC/20
2 LLs
3 streaks
BAP
Endo, DHS, 2 JJs

HGN-733P
XL325
2 PPCs
2 LLs
3 streaks
BAP
Endo, DHS, 2 JJs

Identical firepower on paper. Yet the 733C is superior in practice. Drastically so on the hotter maps.

you may want to take into account the fact that the one with ppc will be attacking the one with the ac20 at a drastically higher range.

Considering they would both be moving at the same speed you may also want to add in how long it will take the ac20 user to get into effective range to bring his weapon to bare while the ppc user is doing damage that whole time.

yet another reason using straight dps as an example of weapons is a horribad idea.

[NRP]

In theory, yes, but I'm not talking about some hypothetical 1v1 between these two mechs or any other bizarre DPS theory crafting exercise.

I'm talking about building both, running each for 50 drops, then comparing the results.

TL:DR
Ballistic based builds are just flat out better.

[PropagandaWar]

Gigastrike, on 25 December 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Now make a video comparing an AC/5 to 8 medium lasers.

lol. Yeah that'll be fun to watch! Because being shut down is for winners! Weeeeeeee. Oh can I have 18 DHS to go with that!

[Varent]

NRP, on 26 December 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

In theory, yes, but I'm not talking about some hypothetical 1v1 between these two mechs or any other bizarre DPS theory crafting exercise.

I'm talking about building both, running each for 50 drops, then comparing the results.

TL:DR
Ballistic based builds are just flat out better.

one of the mechs is designed to brawl, another is a long distanced support.

you close distance on one mech too much and they cant bring there ppc to bear. You get caught out in the open with two large lasers and an ac20 and your ripped to shreds.

you cant compare two mechs that are designed to do different things.

With that in mind every weapon has its roll and place.

What many people are bickering about is the symptoms of an overall illness which is the lack of community warefare.
You take in longer extended fights and you suddenly realize your out of ammo with that auto cannon... where as the other build is still fighting with its all energy base.

Most people try and treat the symptoms of an illness by saying you need to buff energy weapons...

which with community warefare coming then those builds would be incredibly overpowered and just outlast ballistic ones.

Energy weapons are supportive in nature with their main strength being in there unreliance for ammo. This issue needs to be addressed before you can fully state what is better.

[NRP]

Fine, replace the 2 PPCs with 2 LPLs.

The conclusion will not change.