16 replies to this topic

[Greyhart]

No I am not proposing anything or saying anything on current balance. More the theory behind the balance between the ballistics and lasers.

The theory behind lasers is that they are small, light but hot. with heat sinks acting as a counterweight.

Ballistics are supposed to be large heavy and cool.

So the question is should damage output and heat accumulation of ballistics and lasers be equal if they occupy the same amount of space and weight when considered with ammo and heatsinks.

Seems to me AC5 and ML are a nice comparison for this theory. both have a damage of 5 and roughly 2 ML = same damage output as a AC5 in the same time period.

Now a AC5 with 1 ton of ammo is 9tons and 5slots. 2 MLs are 2t and 2s
(assuming of course 1 ton of ammo is sufficient for a normal engagement)

Difference between the 2 are 7T and 3s

First question is: How much Tonnage is a slot worth?

from the above figure it would appear that 1slot = just over 2 tons.

Now roughly speaking (I am going to stick with Single heatsinks, as that was the initial design) 3 Single heatsinks can't result in the same heat accumulation as the AC5 as that gives a tonnage advantage of 4T and doesn't account for ammo limitation. So a laser must have a slot disadvantage if it wants to have the same heat as a ballistic. But should it have the same tonnage or a tonnage advantage?

4SHS = 3T, -1S & ammo (unlimited v limited advanatge for the ML)
5SHS = 2T, -2S & ammo
6SHS = 1T, -3S & ammo
7SHS = 0T, -4S & ammo
and so on

Second Question: How Many SHS should 2 MLs need to have same heat accumulation as an AC5?

2 MLs have a heat of 8 and an AC5 has a heat of 1. So (again simplifying the SHS) the logic and simplicity suggests that 7SHS should make the 2MLs accumulate the same heat as an AC5. Hay 8H less 7SHS equals 1H = easy math.

This would mean that 2 MLs infinite ammo is worth the loss of 4 slots apparently. As the MLs would weigh the same as the AC5.

Now there are other factors like travel time, beam duration and range of course. However it seems to my simple mind that if you can create a formula for the basic tonnage v slots v heat you should be able to balance most of the weapons around that.

You could then go on to compare against LRM5s with 2H, 3T (ammo) 2S.

Third Question: Do people think it is viable to make a base formula and weapon for each group and then scale?

[Bud Crue]

Greyhart, on 14 September 2016 - 03:28 AM, said:

Now there are other factors like travel time, beam duration and range of course. However it seems to my simple mind that if you can create a formula for the basic tonnage v slots v heat you should be able to balance most of the weapons around that.

This stuff, plus pin point vs hitscan (which I don't think you mentioned either), also makes this sort of scaled formula or even merely a "value" comparison of weapons very difficult. Nothing is simple here.

[Greyhart]

Bud Crue, on 14 September 2016 - 03:36 AM, said:

This stuff, plus pin point vs hitscan (which I don't think you mentioned either), also makes this sort of scaled formula or even merely a "value" comparison of weapons very difficult. Nothing is simple here.

no but if you created a formula on H v S v T v D then those other factors could be balanced between themselves.

[Alistair Winter]

This has been my sentiment from I started playing MWO. In other games, you incentivize different weapon types by having different health types.
Shield + armor + structure vs shield disrupting ammo, armour penetrating ammo and explosive ammo.

In MWO, there aren't different types of damage or different types of health. So the logical alternative is to create synergy by having different base stats. In my opinion, it should be kind of like this:

Ballistics = Pinpoint damage, low heat, ammo-based, medium DPS
Gauss = Pinpoint damage, no heat, ammo-based, low DPS
PPCs = Pinpoint damage, low heat, infinite ammo, low DPS
Lasers = Laser beams, high heat, infinite ammo, high dps
SRMs = Spread damage, medium heat, ammo-based, high dps

For players to combine ballistics and lasers (e.g. Jagermech, Cataphract, Banshee, etc), one of those weapon types needs to be cool and the other needs to be hot. For players to combine PPCs and lasers (e.g. Thunderbolt, Black Knight, Battlemaster, etc) one of those weapon types needs to be cool and the other needs to be hot.

In other words, boating cool weapons means your DPS is too low. Boating hot weapons means your DPS is too low. Combining hot and cool weapons gives you good DPS. As long as ballistics and lasers are both hot, it makes little sense to combine them. As long as pps and lasers are both hot, it makes little sense to combine them.

The alternative to this approach is to universally nerf all heat capacity to the point where you can't fire multiple weapons simultaneously anyway, so you would bring different weapon types to maintain decent dps at all ranges. Long range? Switch to large lasers. Short range? Switch to SRMs. Medium range? Switch to ballistics, possibly combined with either long range or short range weapons.

Ah well. This is all academic by now.

[Bud Crue]

Greyhart, on 14 September 2016 - 03:44 AM, said:

no but if you created a formula on H v S v T v D then those other factors could be balanced between themselves.

Sorry, but I don't follow you in re "balanced between themselves". Anything can be assigned a value and thus those values can be compared, but with at least 6 variables identified I am not sure of such a value comparison, regardless of the formula you might come up with to get to those values, would be simple or basic or frankly be of much practical use.

But honestly wth do I know. I say good on ya if you or anyone else could come up with something to provide a simple formulaic comparison.

[Greyhart]

Bud Crue, on 14 September 2016 - 03:52 AM, said:

Sorry, but I don't follow you in re "balanced between themselves". Anything can be assigned a value and thus those values can be compared, but with at least 6 variables identified I am not sure of such a value comparison, regardless of the formula you might come up with to get to those values, would be simple or basic or frankly be of much practical use.

But honestly wth do I know. I say good on ya if you or anyone else could come up with something to provide a simple formulaic comparison.

What I mean is you should "box them off" so you get a balance between the T v H v S. So that there is no "advantage" only a trade off of Slots, tonnage and heat.

Then with PPFLD, range, beam duration, hitscan, cooldown etc use them to balance between themselves without adjusting T,H or S.

But of course not easy.

But i think you identify 1 of each type of weapon system that are equivalent like AC5 2xML and LRM5 and balance those between themselves then use that formula for other weapons

[Greyhart]

OK I am no math wiz. But I think I have a formula

1 Slot = 1
1 Ton = 2
1 Heat = 3

So
1H = 1T + 1S (SHS) ps - I got lost in the meaning of the next 2 bits but there you go.
1S = 1H - 1T
1T = 1H -1S

The formula is

Damage = Ton + Slot + Heat / time

So as I said in the first post we are looking at 10 damage over a 3 second period

AC5 = (9*T)+ (5*S) + (2*H) / 3 = 10
18 + 5 + 6 /3 = 10
2ML = (2*T)+ (2*S) + (8*H) / 3 = 10
4 + 2 + 24 /3 = 10

The AC 5 is slightly out due to roundings.

So we should be able to balance Cooldown, damage, tonnage, Heat and Slots.

[El Bandito]

Alistair Winter, on 14 September 2016 - 03:51 AM, said:

In MWO, there aren't different types of damage or different types of health. So the logical alternative is to create synergy by having different base stats. In my opinion, it should be kind of like this:

Ballistics = Pinpoint damage, low heat, ammo-based, medium DPS
Gauss = Pinpoint damage, no heat, ammo-based, low DPS
PPCs = Pinpoint damage, low heat, infinite ammo, low DPS
Lasers = Laser beams, high heat, infinite ammo, high dps
SRMs = Spread damage, medium heat, ammo-based, high dps

PPCs with low heat just doesn't sound right.

[Greyhart]

an interesting question occurs to me:

What damage output would a 1slot no tonnage no heat weapon have?

[Greyhart]

Ok I know it's bad form to reply to your own post but I think I have the formula to normalise heat, tonnage, slots, damage and range.

Slots S=1
Tonnage T=2
Heat H=3
Damage D=1
Range R 100m =1 or 1km=10 or 10m=0.1

I am taking the stats from http://www.sarna.net...Equipment_Lists as these were balanced for one shot over 1 round for all weapons and the ranges come from PGI.

The formula is

H+T+S/D =R or H+T+S/R=D

Notes on the formula.

the formula does not take account of Cooldown or how the damage is applied. This is because the TT rules didn't have cooldown and there was no spread, beam duration, travel time, or hit scan.

Also note that some of the PGI figures are out according to these calculations, but usually it is because of variations from TT or slightly different distances.

So small laser is: H*1+S*1+T*.05=5
damage is 3 so distance should be 166m a bit of extra range (135)

Medium laser: H*3+S*1+T*1= 12
damage is 5 so distance is 240 reduction in range (270)

Large laser H*8+S*2+T*5=36
damage according to TT should be 8 (PGI has 9) range is 450m which is bang on.

ER LL: H*12+S*2+T*5= 48
damage in TT is 8 and therefore range should be 600m
Note heat has been reduced from TT of 12 to 8 and damage increased to 9 range is also more.

It works for ballistics too:

AC2: H*1+S*1+T*6= 16
damage as the name suggest is 2 therefore range is 800m

AC5: H*1+S*4+T*8 = 23
damage 5 means a range of 460

AC10 H*3+S*7+T*12= 40
damage of 10 means a range of 400

AC20 H*7+S*10+T*14 = 59
Damage of 20 so range should be 295m


Missiles present a problem for the game in that they are fixed range but looking at the TT stats they remain reasonably constant as 220m with damage. Obviously that is not range but says they remain consistent in terms of damage output for tonnage, slots and heat. I think the LRM 10 is marginally the most efficient

Looking at this ERLL has a massive buff over TT.

Anyway I know that this has probably been done before and is not that exciting but I am please I figured this out.

Of note in TT double heat sinks are clearly advantageous over single as they should really weigh 1.5T to keep consistency. or dissipate 1.7 heat not 2

I think applying a consistent formula for tonnage, slots, heat, damage and range would make balancing easier.

Answer to my question above is if it was 1 damage it would be 100m in range.

Machine Gun H*0+S*1+T*0.5 = 2
damage is 2 so range is 100m. So with a damage of 0.08 range = 250m

[kapusta11]

Laser and ballistic builds are already balanced. The former has high alpha but low sustained dps and the latter has much higher dps.

Edited by kapusta11, 15 September 2016 - 04:23 AM.

[Greyhart]

kapusta11, on 15 September 2016 - 04:23 AM, said:

Laser and ballistic builds are already balanced. The former has high alpha but low sustained dps and the latter has much higher dps.

In part this was entirely an intellectual exercise.

But this wasn't about what role the weapon system fulfilled. It was about is there a logical pattern to Tonnage, Slots, Heat, Distance and damage.

i.e. if you know 4 out of the 5 can you figure out what the missing figure should be.

The role that a weapon would fulfill would be determined by cooldown times. Now can you factor in cooldown times? Given that the TT version is round based and weapons only fire once then the answer is No. It might be possible with MWO if they have explicitly tied cooldown into heat. tonnage, slots, range and damage.

Actually the formula is to calculate what should be the range of the weapon.

[Lily from animove]

The difference is still the generated heat which limits how long you can fire them all.

Greyhart, on 15 September 2016 - 04:34 AM, said:

In part this was entirely an intellectual exercise.

But this wasn't about what role the weapon system fulfilled. It was about is there a logical pattern to Tonnage, Slots, Heat, Distance and damage.

i.e. if you know 4 out of the 5 can you figure out what the missing figure should be.

The role that a weapon would fulfill would be determined by cooldown times. Now can you factor in cooldown times? Given that the TT version is round based and weapons only fire once then the answer is No. It might be possible with MWO if they have explicitly tied cooldown into heat. tonnage, slots, range and damage.

Actually the formula is to calculate what should be the range of the weapon.

No the role is not defined as you say.

in MWO weapons roles are defined as: Damage available, damage delivered.

Pinpoint delivers a lot damage, hiscan less, lrm the least (unless a compelte derp in positioning is the target).
Damage itself is not limited by the cooldown, except those neutral running smaller Ballistics, damage is limited by heat, because even Ac 20's run hot. and basically all laserconfigs run hot. Available damage is therefore heaviyl depending on heatefficiency as in: into how much damage can you transform your current available heattreshold.

"The logical pattern fo tonnage" therefore is the investment into a more complex damage delivered/damage available ratio.

But this is already where your formula if one would exist will start to fail.

1st ammo need, you can't say how much ammo is needed, because thats depend on playstyle and survival and positioning skill of a pilot.
2nd, a weapons accuracy, this does not only account for PP vs hitscan and or spread. This ability to hit, this matters too much on the opponents, map.
3rd the chassis, the chassis of MWO and the synergy effects they generate by available hardpoints and their locations (not even taking quirks into account) differs and imbalances already on its own way. Thats like trying to make a standardised engine for a "fair" race setup while the engine for once gets put into a an old tractor at driver one while driver 2 gets a formula 1 vehicle.

these are just now 3 variables out of many more which balance would have to take into account, but can't because these things are influenced by randomess of the MM and map chosen. you can therefore not make such a "balance" formula

Alone the difference between quickplay vs FW is shifting the ammo needs and therefore making every attemp to balance the weapons.

Edited by Lily from animove, 15 September 2016 - 06:31 AM.

[Greyhart]

Lily from animove, on 15 September 2016 - 06:14 AM, said:

The difference is still the generated heat which limits how long you can fire them all.




No the role is not defined as you say.

in MWO weapons roles are defined as: Damage available, damage delivered.

Pinpoint delivers a lot damage, hiscan less, lrm the least (unless a compelte derp in positioning is the target).
Damage itself is not limited by the cooldown, except those neutral running smaller Ballistics, damage is limited by heat, because even Ac 20's run hot. and basically all laserconfigs run hot. Available damage is therefore heaviyl depending on heatefficiency as in: into how much damage can you transform your current available heattreshold.

"The logical pattern fo tonnage" therefore is the investment into a more complex damage delivered/damage available ratio.

But this is already where your formula if one would exist will start to fail.

1st ammo need, you can't say how much ammo is needed, because thats depend on playstyle and survival and positioning skill of a pilot.
2nd, a weapons accuracy, this does not only account for PP vs hitscan and or spread. This ability to hit, this matters too much on the opponents, map.
3rd the chassis, the chassis of MWO and the synergy effects they generate by available hardpoints and their locations (not even taking quirks into account) differs and imbalances already on its own way. Thats like trying to make a standardised engine for a "fair" race setup while the engine for once gets put into a an old tractor at driver one while driver 2 gets a formula 1 vehicle.

these are just now 3 variables out of many more which balance would have to take into account, but can't because these things are influenced by randomess of the MM and map chosen. you can therefore not make such a "balance" formula

Alone the difference between quickplay vs FW is shifting the ammo needs and therefore making every attemp to balance the weapons.

absolutely no account is taken of ammo or how damage is delivered. The thing is flawed but an interesting intellectual exercise. I've gone down this rabbit hole and I want to see where it leads

I am currently considering how cooldown factors into the entire thing.

Interestingly this is where lasers and AC diverge.

the Higher Damage, Heat, slots, Tonnage the slower the cooldown.

However in lasers the shorter the Range the quicker the cooldown. In ACs the longer the range the quicker the cooldown.

Edit:

I might be on to something with ACs

Assuming H+T+S=V

V= value of the Heat, tonnage and Slot

10/V*D=cooldown

So AC2 V=16 so 10/16*2 = 1.25sec
AC5 10/23*5= 2.17sec
AC10 10/40*10 = 2.5sec
AC20 10/59*20 = 3.38 sec.

Lasers I am working on

Edited by Greyhart, 15 September 2016 - 06:44 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Greyhart, on 15 September 2016 - 06:38 AM, said:

absolutely no account is taken of ammo or how damage is delivered. The thing is flawed but an interesting intellectual exercise. I've gone down this rabbit hole and I want to see where it leads

I am currently considering how cooldown factors into the entire thing.

Interestingly this is where lasers and AC diverge.

the Higher Damage, Heat, slots, Tonnage the slower the cooldown.

However in lasers the shorter the Range the quicker the cooldown. In ACs the longer the range the quicker the cooldown.

damage delivered is the efficiency of available damage to bring into a target, it is a MAJOR factor for people to decide. and energy always means "ammo" is already taken into account= infinite ammo (or at least matctime/cooldown), while ammo wepaons heavily diffe rin their usuablity depend on match length. and this means you will have already different variables in here: scouting, quickplay and Invasion mode.

cooldown is the theoretical ammo max because it is limited by match lenght.
On the other side heat dissipation is the "second" ammo for all wepaons because you over a matctime only a specific amount of "heat ammo" can be generated basically matchtime*dissipation. And this is a ressource all weapons have to share. becaue you will never build a 6E mech truly heat neutral EVER.

also the time of enemy contact would have to be factored in, because everytime you are at 0 heat and not generatign heat by firing wepaons you basically waste heat as an ammo which is not transformed into possible damage fired.

as said a player is choosing wepaons by the the damage available it can possibly deliver efficiently. That is where you need to balance weapons. Because thats what makes good pilots decide what laodout to use. CERLL for example are considered bad, because very heat inefficient and bad beamdurations make the damage not get delivred efficiently, because even slowpokes can twist it away.

Edited by Lily from animove, 15 September 2016 - 06:50 AM.

[Idealsuspect]

Greyhart, on 14 September 2016 - 03:28 AM, said:

No I am not proposing anything or saying anything on current balance. More the theory behind the balance between the ballistics and lasers.

The theory behind lasers is that they are small, light but hot. with heat sinks acting as a counterweight.

Ballistics are supposed to be large heavy and cool.

So the question is should damage output and heat accumulation of ballistics and lasers be equal if they occupy the same amount of space and weight when considered with ammo and heatsinks.

Seems to me AC5 and ML are a nice comparison for this theory. both have a damage of 5 and roughly 2 ML = same damage output as a AC5 in the same time period.

You did forgot something important... range.
Heavier is the AC smaller is his range totally inverse with lasers.
Well in your case AC5 simply outrange the medium lasers.

And you also forgot something else pinpoint/duration dispersion of damage.
Lasers can be counter by side torso twisting when AC simply can't be counter.


All yours "maths" are funny but you should use Li song mechlab.. you will have nice graps about trues values DPS/range, sustained DPS/range

Edited by Idealsuspect, 15 September 2016 - 07:05 AM.

[Greyhart]

Of course you're all right on this.

Let me be clear I don't think this has any practical benefit at all. I have gone well past that I think.

I am working manly off TT figures as they have not been "balanced" for hit scan, beam duration etc.