37 replies to this topic

[PhoenixFire55]

MustrumRidcully, on 18 January 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

I calculate how many tonnage you need to invest on the weapon(s), the heat sinks and ammo to run them, with specific goals in mind. The goals are determined by:
- How long do I want to shoot before I have to cool off?
- How much damage do I want to inflict (at minimum, sometimes you can'T help but deal a bit more) until then?
- And how often do I want to repeat it (before I run out of ammo)

Really solid post most people should read. I've done similar calculations myself couple weeks ago just never thought about posting it. Results are what you'd expect really ... if I had 100 ton mech with 12 energy slots and 12 ballistic slots I'd load it with 12 small lasers and 12 MGs. Uber close range brawler of doom ...

[Noesis]

MustrumRidcully, on 19 January 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

Do you think that the situation would improve for the weapons that have excessive tonnage requirements now if we also set a limited amount of time needed between the engagements? Do you think there will be a significant qualitative change in the results (e.g. "Oh, look, ER PPC need a lot less tonnage now than AC/5s! OMG, Small Lasers need more tonnage than AC20s for similar results!)

That's the point though, you include the relevant balancing mechanics for ballistics that is already known to be weight and slots and over emphasise their longevity with the inclusion of more ammo than needed for the examples. But by virtue of omitting the equivalent balancing mechanic for longevity for other weapons which are more heat dependent e.g. energy weapons, heat management, you are missing an important aspect of balance and game mechanics.

I'm therefore not suprised that energy weapons are therefore recognised in your model as needing less tonnage, this is not major news as we are aware of their appropriate balancing characteristics which is heat. But to then try and convince people that this is an appropriate measurement of efficiency isn't then valid. That is my complaint with this model to do with effective use.

I will reiterate with examples using your model in real game play terms 2 AC10 can kill 4 mechs in the same time it takes 6 ML to kill 2. And the sustainable dps as confirmed by smurfy is also effectively doubled using these examples given. Thus for "effective" damage of killing the enemy ballistics are "twice as effective" or efficient in doing this by virtue of being able to sustain fire. And yet this is in direct conflict with the figures presented when measured by seeing the effects when appropriated by just emphasising the importance of tonnage to each weapon.

By then omitting other important balancing characteristics as a result with heat management you are not incorporating any "useful" metric for balance, efficiency or effective comparison as a result other than confirming that ballistics need more tonnage, which was/is not a suprise to being with.

[Mechteric]

FupDup, on 18 January 2014 - 07:50 PM, said:

If I'm reading your gigantic graphs correctly, this means that lasers are better for very short engagements (and ranges) but ballistics become better for prolonged fights and can deal higher damage over time?


Isn't BT supposed to be the other way around, with energy as sustainable and ballistics as the big punch that doesn't last long?

I don't think those graphs take into account how much ammo, and just assume you have as much ammo as you'll need for every engagement. Obviously that's a separate graph which charts ammo versus your chances to get it exploded before you've used it all up :-P

[MustrumRidcully]

CapperDeluxe, on 20 January 2014 - 05:56 AM, said:

I don't think those graphs take into account how much ammo, and just assume you have as much ammo as you'll need for every engagement. Obviously that's a separate graph which charts ammo versus your chances to get it exploded before you've used it all up :-P

No, the graphs also includes the calculation on how much ammo is needed for the total number of engagements of the stated length for the stated damage.

[MustrumRidcully]

Noesis, on 20 January 2014 - 05:18 AM, said:

By then omitting other important balancing characteristics as a result with heat management you are not incorporating any "useful" metric for balance, efficiency or effective comparison as a result other than confirming that ballistics need more tonnage, which was/is not a suprise to being with.

There is a reason I provide the values for different engagement lengths. It servers to show how the weight requirements change the longer you need to sustain your firepower. The scenario you are describing is basically about the longer length engagements. Don't just look at the 5 second intervals - look at the 15 second intervals, and you see how superior ballistics become over energy weapons.
Not for every weapon the 5 second itnerval is practical - medium lasers for example, you will usually be so close to the enemy that you can't expect to safely end the engagement after 5 seconds, you wil lneed more. But the 5 second interval is useful to understand stuff like the Jump Sniper meta - As a sniper, you are far enough from the enemy that you can more or less freely decide when to retreat to cover and end the engagement.

I cut off at 15 seconds because the accumulated damage in both cases would be sufficient to kill an Atlas, and even if you don't have hit with 100 of your hits, if just 1/3 of the shots hit, you can cripple or destroy any light or medium mech.


If you move up to the longer engagement times, it becomes very clear that ballistics gain the upper hand.

At the 10 second intervall, the Large Laser and the AC/10 are almost equal, the PPC is far more expensive, and at 15 seconds, it's not really a contest - the AC/10 fares better. And the AC/10 is not exactly seen as a strong weapon currently.
Oh, and we even see why the AC/10 is not that popular - the AC/5 needs slightly less weight, but has a better range.

It's also clear why the Large Pulse Laser is deemed underpowered - if you have the hard points, the Medium Laser with practically the same range is far more heat efficient. The 0.4 second difference on the pulse duration is obviously not sufficient to make it worth the effort.


I could also add a fourth scenario, for a 20 second and 25 second interval, or adjust the math to also include a requirement on the mech being able to repeat the engagement within a specificied time interval.

What do you think would be better? If you like to play around with the models: https://docs.google....cXc&usp=sharing
(the google document has not been updated in a while, the math hasn't changed, but the attributes of weapons might need to be changed.)

[Roland]

Quote

At the 10 second intervall, the Large Laser and the AC/10 are almost equal, the PPC is far more expensive, and at 15 seconds, it's not really a contest - the AC/10 fares better. And the AC/10 is not exactly seen as a strong weapon currently.

That's the thing though.. the graph really isn't telling the whole story, because the AC10 isn't really better than a PPC or a LL right now.

Another thing that must be considered is that you get 10 free DHS in your engine... which basically means that you get that first big energy weapon for free.

Lots of folks say things like "PPC's are too hot", but I see PPC's in every single game, always... they're part of the best builds. So it's obviously not true that they're too hot.

Overall though, a good attempt to collect some data.

[Mechteric]

MustrumRidcully, on 20 January 2014 - 06:01 AM, said:

No, the graphs also includes the calculation on how much ammo is needed for the total number of engagements of the stated length for the stated damage.

Right and that's exactly what I thought, its only assuming just enough ammo for the number of engagements in the chart, but no more than that number, so nothing exists outside the realm of the chart for when the mech starts running dry. Its an "ideal" numbers situation that makes sense within its limited number of engagements.

Which is fine and still informative, I was just referring it to the thought that ammo dependent weapons are ideal over long engagements, because that is only assuming your number of engagements match your ammo count. Once you run out of ammo, that number will drop.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 20 January 2014 - 06:59 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Roland, on 20 January 2014 - 06:42 AM, said:

That's the thing though.. the graph really isn't telling the whole story, because the AC10 isn't really better than a PPC or a LL right now.

Another thing that must be considered is that you get 10 free DHS in your engine... which basically means that you get that first big energy weapon for free.

Lots of folks say things like "PPC's are too hot", but I see PPC's in every single game, always... they're part of the best builds. So it's obviously not true that they're too hot.

Overall though, a good attempt to collect some data.

The 10 free DHS are not part of the tonnage you need, I assume every mech comes with 10 DHS as base (because who wouldn't buidl a mech like that if he has the option).

Again, the graph has part of the answer - it's because these weapons can actually oftne be run in the low engagement times.
Think of the Ridge Humper and Poptarter. How long do you need to expose yourself, and how long will you wait for the next shot?

It's not a 100 % accurate model fo the dynamics of these "sniper" builds, but it's an approximation.

If I wanted more detail, I'd have to throw Excel out and write a program. I could do that, but seriously - why should I or any other player bother, if we don't even get the impression that PGI put even half the effort in analyzing balance?
If we ever get a test server that is online 16/5 with balance tweaks every 2 weeks, maybe I reconsider. Or if I am too bored.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 20 January 2014 - 06:58 AM.

[Ngamok]

<sarcasm>

I think it's 90 tons.

</sarcasm>

[Noesis]

MustrumRidcully, on 20 January 2014 - 06:32 AM, said:

What do you think would be better? If you like to play around with the models: https://docs.google....cXc&usp=sharing
(the google document has not been updated in a while, the math hasn't changed, but the attributes of weapons might need to be changed.)

I would suggest first identifying that this model is only a helpful guide for some build considerations for alpha firing Mechs with very short engagements instead of identifying with it as a metric of efficiency or effectiveness for all game play.

This since it does not help to compare more sustained use of Mechs or builds more appropriate for more managed Mech use. I find it a false claim to measure only a distorted view of effectiveness like this as a result. And especially more so as it encompasses tonnage needs in the model as part of balance behaviour but not the full aspects of heat management.

Otherwise as a more helpful guide would be to use specific examples with satisfied or recognised builds using only the one weapon type and compare how many Mechs they can potentially kill with those builds over differing periods of time. And including time scales that go well beyond just 15s of engagement.

These case studies at least offering to review comparative benefits of differing builds with the differing weapons even if not a complete picture. You could then compare these with other mixed weapon types as hybrid examples to offer how effective certain arrangements are. Also this helps to review things in more practical terms than just speculative or hypothetical builds/scenarios. It would also offer useful comparisons of real benefit to pilots that would then have more meaningful data.

How you then incorporate range, beam mechanics, accuracy and other situational aspects associated with game play on this "spreadsheet" to make it more accurate a reflection of how they are then best applied in game is another matter. But again as long as this is recognised that the above it a reflection of "ideal or perfect" conditions as opposed to actual effectiveness then it would be a more credible study that might be of use to pilots.

[Zyllos]

The effectiveness of ballistic and PPC weapons are how efficient they are with their limiting factors. What limits ACs in the long run and PPCs in the short term is how often you can get each shot to land on a location that will take down a mech.

The problem arises when this expectation that frontloaded style weapons don't have mechanics that make this style of weapon limited. ACs and PPCs are of the same style of weapon but have opposite time perspectives. ACs deal amazing damage in the short term with little drawback, but long scale engagements are issues due to ammo. PPCs deal good damage over a length of time, but terrible in the short term due to high heat.

But this drawback does not manifests itself because how the convergence and aiming works in this game. ACs do not feel limited by ammo, unlike LRMs or SRMs, because it's easy to land shots exactly where you need them to take out a mech. PPCs don't feel limited because in the short term, you can heavily damage a mech before running into that heat issue because of the few amount of shots needed to just break open a side torso or center torso.

If the frontloaded style of weapons distributed their damage out through a system that controls the ability to place a high majority of their shots onto the location they want, these style of weapons wouldn't be so much an issue.

This is exactly the mismatched style between an armor system that assumes randomly distributed damage along side a mechanic that convergence all shots into a single point when fired together.

ACs would still be kings of the short engagements, pumping out high amounts of damage. But ammo becomes a factor because while trying to land shots on a center torso, you end up landing shots on the side torsos or miss, leading to low ammo in the later stages of the game. PPCs would be the ultimate survivor's weapon, allowing damage to be constantly be applied against a target, but trying to fire PPCs as fast as possible in order to bring down a mech quickly will usually always lead to heat issues before dropping the mech due to hitting different locations than is needed to bring down a mech.

This is why I advocate for a CoF system that plays off the targeting computer (Homeless Bill's idea) that limits the amount of damage a player can do with the current convergence. I also advocate for weapons to aim perpendicular to bones on the mech to make the entire game feel higher in quality. Instead of lasers all firing into a single point like the Death Star, weapons come out in the patterns in which they are mounted. Weapons firing from the arms landing in slightly different locations, showing the amount of movement and play involved with the mechs. All the while balancing the entire game around taking more shots at a mech to take it down.

This is only one of the five fundamental issues with this game. Hopefully PGI and the community sees how and why this is one of the issues.

Edited by Zyllos, 20 January 2014 - 09:20 AM.

[Tombstoner]

The concept tonnage needed to use effectively i believe presumes heat neutrality for the time interval. Did you include the heat capacity mechanic or did you add in sufficient heat sinks/ ammo needed to fulfill the damage/time requirement per weapon type. i did read it i just may have missed that point.

The heat cap system effectively gives you a set number of free shots before you need to worry about dissipation rates. This i think is one of the reasons auto cannons function so well. A Mechs engagement time is limited to how long it takes to shut down when continuously alphaing. part of the the reason 6ppc stalkers where able to function before ghost heat. one alpha and your red lining but then you hide. so a 4 seconds engagement for 60 point alpha. not bad. a gimic yes

but when you dial back the damage to 40 things change. engagement times extend and cool down time shorten. over all things are never heat neutral as per design. except for some weapons. so things are more of a sudo heat neutral game design.

[MustrumRidcully]

Tombstoner, on 25 January 2014 - 09:14 AM, said:

The concept tonnage needed to use effectively i believe presumes heat neutrality for the time interval. Did you include the heat capacity mechanic or did you add in sufficient heat sinks/ ammo needed to fulfill the damage/time requirement per weapon type. i did read it i just may have missed that point.

Yes, the heat threshold mechanic is accounted for. If it wasn't, the energy weapon figures would be a lot higher. That's also why the engagements are time-limited. Without accounting for the heat threshold, then you really only had to go by heat neutrality. These builds are decidedly not heat neutral, many (particularly energy weapon builds, but not all of them) would not last a salvo longer without overheating.

[Tombstoner]

One concept i came across recently involves an armor penetration factor. each weapons has some % of damage transfer to the internals. this damage is then applied to the internals and is involved with critical hits. one balancing element is CT has the best resistance to penetration with lower values for the RT,LT and arms/legs being lower. later reactive and glazier armor types could be added to further modify armor resistances.

In that context i could see energy weapons having greater penetration values to compensate for the mass needed to use. The pulse effect for lasers carry's with it an inherent penetration advantage. this i think would make them very popular with the brawler crowd.

What are your thought for balancing tonnage to use effectively with damage penetration?

[Prezimonto]

FupDup, on 18 January 2014 - 07:50 PM, said:

If I'm reading your gigantic graphs correctly, this means that lasers are better for very short engagements (and ranges) but ballistics become better for prolonged fights and can deal higher damage over time?


Isn't BT supposed to be the other way around, with energy as sustainable and ballistics as the big punch that doesn't last long?

That's because we're never ammo limited. Ammo cost, risk, and tonnage all play into this. With no rearm, and no real risk of explosion, there's no reason to not always pack as much ammo as you might need onto a mech. So instead of using AC's and short high DPS burst weapons (which also have pin point damage) then become high dps, long range beasts.

Lasers are in a bad spot, because they are best used in short engagements, but don't have the pinpoint advantage that AC's do.

Basically... make ammo explode a lot more often, and perhaps players will try to pack less on a mech, and use AC's in a different manner.

[CygnusX7]

Interesting results. Thanks for sharing. Will have to get my bachelors in MWO done before I can understand it.

[D Sync]

Use the force, Luke.


Seriously though, watch the heat efficiency and find where you pilot best. Some people can use a heat efficiency of .9 and smash all day while others need something closer to 1.5 to be an effective player.


Test and tune, find what works for you.

[Osric Lancaster]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 19 January 2014 - 12:22 AM, said:

ballistics are: longer range, lesser heat, no true ammo concerns & pinpoint dmg

People are always going to carry just enough ammo for an engagement if the weapon is effective. They increase ammo count, it decreases weapon effective tonnage ans vis a vie. Ammo based weapons already rapidly eat tons of ammo, which is part of why people never use stock load-outs. The only way to enforce ammo limitations would be if they had allocated ammo bins as a hardpoint type or set limits on it per chassis for 'Mechs in the first place, then upped ammo count along with armor values. Sadly we will never see the terrible hardpoint system change under PGI's regime.

Zyllos, on 20 January 2014 - 09:16 AM, said:

I also advocate for weapons to aim perpendicular to bones on the mech to make the entire game feel higher in quality. Instead of lasers all firing into a single point like the Death Star, weapons come out in the patterns in which they are mounted. Weapons firing from the arms landing in slightly different locations, showing the amount of movement and play involved with the mechs.

I'd argue for basic convergence of weapons based on hardpoint location and tonnage. That is, weapons normally align as you suggested, focusing on a point at infinity. When you have an enemy targeted or under your reticule, weapons will (slowly) focus or converge to that range. How quickly a weapon can focus depends on how heavy it is, where it is mounted, and the weapon's form factor. Eg -
1 - AC/5s are only 8 tons but have a 'long' form factor, meaning they can easily converge at long range, but cannot converge to a point closer than 120 meters, unless mounted in an arm.
2 - AC/20s are 14 tons, and so converge much more slowly, but have a 'short' form factor, and can converge to a point outside 30 meters. ( For you BT diehards that's including the internal spacing of the hexes of 30m being 0 range. )

A - Mounting more tonnage of weaponry in an arm slows the arm's tracking speed. Two ac/5s in one arm and a Gauss in another would have similar weights, and thus travel speed.

B - Lasers aren't a pinpoint damage dealer, so I'd give them relatively quick convergence speed.

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 28 January 2014 - 05:17 PM.