228 replies to this topic

[Zergling]

Now for Light Gauss Rifle.

Comparison of the regular Gauss vs Light Gauss (LGR calculated at 0.50 second charge time); not considering damage/heat this time, as it is largely irrelevant to Gauss Rifles:
Gauss = 2.61 DPS, 0.174 DPS/ton, 660 optimal range, 1320 max range
Light Gauss = 1.45 DPS, 0.121 DPS/ton, 750 optimal range, 1500 max range

As can be readily seen, the Light Gauss is god-awful bad, having significantly less DPS/ton than the heavier Gauss.

The greater range of the Light Gauss isn't much of an advantage either, definitely not enough to offset its far inferior DPS/ton. In fact, it isn't until approximately 1040 meters range that they are equal in DPS/ton.
At that range, the regular Gauss is doing 6.36 damage versus the LGR doing 4.91, giving each weapon roughly equal 0.074 DPS/ton.

If the Light Gauss's only useful niche is 1000 meter+ sniping, it is pretty much a useless weapon.


What sort of DPS/ton should the Light Gauss have relative to the regular Gauss? Well, looking at autocannons:
AC2 = 0.463 DPS/ton
AC5 = 0.377 DPS/ton
AC10 = 0.333 DPS/ton
AC20 = 0.357 DPS/ton

Except for the AC10, the smaller weapons have greater DPS/ton than the bigger, in addition to greater range.

Based on that, the Light Gauss should probably have greater DPS/ton than the regular Gauss. To do that, I suggest reducing the cooldown from 5.0 to 3.0 seconds, which will increase DPS/ton from 0.124 to 0.190.

Comparison of Gauss to Light Gauss will then look like this:
Gauss = 2.61 DPS, 0.174 DPS/ton, 660 optimal range, 1320 max range
Light Gauss = 2.29 DPS, 0.190 DPS/ton, 750 optimal range, 1500 max range


Further, Light Gauss should have their simultaneous charge limit increased from 2 to 4. A 16 damage alpha is absurdly low, and 32 damage alpha is only 2 points more than currently allowed with a dual gauss build (while requiring some 48 tons without even accounting for ammo).

If the Light Gauss still requires further buffs, lowering its cooldown further may be required, and possibly removal of its charge mechanic.
At that point, it becomes close to the AC10 in characteristics, so comparisons to that weapon may be justified.

Technically, the Light Gauss could end up with better DPS than the regular Gauss, and still not be overpowered, as it would be more of a DPS than alpha damage weapon.


EDIT: adjusted figures a bit after testing charge time for LGR and HGR in the PTS; LGR seems to be 0.50 seconds, and HGR 1.0 seconds, versus regular Gauss at 0.75 seconds.

Edited by Zergling, 29 June 2017 - 12:13 PM.

[MovinTarget]

Zerg, should we start a gofundme page to cover your lost wages since you called in sick to do all these maths?

Edited by MovinTarget, 29 June 2017 - 12:59 PM.

[Uncle Totty]

Zergling, on 29 June 2017 - 11:18 AM, said:

[size=4]

Any ideas are good, ATMs are a difficult weapon to balance.

I was just testing their spread in the test server; under 180 meters they are definitely hitting in a fairly small area, so they would definitely be overpowered if the minimum range was removed with no other changes.
In comparison, Streak SRMs have a rather odd spread pattern; most of the missiles hit above waist height on the target mech, with a flat horizontal spread from left to right. The rest of the missiles hit around leg height with a smaller flat horizontal spread.

So far, I'm leaning towards removing the ATM minimum range and reworking their spread. Give them wider spread than Streaks at close range, but make sure the spread isn't wider than LRMs at medium and long range. And increase their ammo/ton from 72 to 108.

Remove lock-on when the target is within 270 meters. (There, fixed.)

[Luscious Dan]

Zergling, on 29 June 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

Now for Light Gauss Rifle.

Comparison of the regular Gauss vs Light Gauss (LGR calculated at 0.50 second charge time); not considering damage/heat this time, as it is largely irrelevant to Gauss Rifles:
Gauss = 2.61 DPS, 0.174 DPS/ton, 660 optimal range, 1320 max range
Light Gauss = 1.45 DPS, 0.121 DPS/ton, 750 optimal range, 1500 max range

As can be readily seen, the Light Gauss is god-awful bad, having significantly less DPS/ton than the heavier Gauss.

The greater range of the Light Gauss isn't much of an advantage either, definitely not enough to offset its far inferior DPS/ton. In fact, it isn't until approximately 1040 meters range that they are equal in DPS/ton.
At that range, the regular Gauss is doing 6.36 damage versus the LGR doing 4.91, giving each weapon roughly equal 0.074 DPS/ton.

If the Light Gauss's only useful niche is 1000 meter+ sniping, it is pretty much a useless weapon.


What sort of DPS/ton should the Light Gauss have relative to the regular Gauss? Well, looking at autocannons:
AC2 = 0.463 DPS/ton
AC5 = 0.377 DPS/ton
AC10 = 0.333 DPS/ton
AC20 = 0.357 DPS/ton

Except for the AC10, the smaller weapons have greater DPS/ton than the bigger, in addition to greater range.

Based on that, the Light Gauss should probably have greater DPS/ton than the regular Gauss. To do that, I suggest reducing the cooldown from 5.0 to 3.0 seconds, which will increase DPS/ton from 0.124 to 0.190.

Comparison of Gauss to Light Gauss will then look like this:
Gauss = 2.61 DPS, 0.174 DPS/ton, 660 optimal range, 1320 max range
Light Gauss = 2.29 DPS, 0.190 DPS/ton, 750 optimal range, 1500 max range


Further, Light Gauss should have their simultaneous charge limit increased from 2 to 4. A 16 damage alpha is absurdly low, and 32 damage alpha is only 2 points more than currently allowed with a dual gauss build (while requiring some 48 tons without even accounting for ammo).

If the Light Gauss still requires further buffs, lowering its cooldown further may be required, and possibly removal of its charge mechanic.
At that point, it becomes close to the AC10 in characteristics, so comparisons to that weapon may be justified.

Technically, the Light Gauss could end up with better DPS than the regular Gauss, and still not be overpowered, as it would be more of a DPS than alpha damage weapon.


EDIT: adjusted figures a bit after testing charge time for LGR and HGR in the PTS; LGR seems to be 0.50 seconds, and HGR 1.0 seconds, versus regular Gauss at 0.75 seconds.

I could see some tuning for velocity and cooldowns. Dropping the LGauss by 1s and giving it a velocity bump could work. Instead of 2000/2000/1000 for LGauss/Gauss/HGauss, you could maybe try 2400/1800/1200 or something.

I think PPCs might need similar tuning to differentiate properly. Snub-nose for example could get a bit of a velocity drop but longer max range (I'd say 810m rather than 630). Light/heavy PPC could probably benefit from cooldown tweaking as well, 3s for light and 5s for heavy. Heavy PPC's limiting factors should be cooldown and massive heat, not forcing it to spread damage via splash.

Clan ER PPC has to spread because it's got the best range and weighs 6 tons. Make the 10-ton heavy PPC count as 2 PPC type weapons for the purposes of ghost heat to encourage chain-firing, and light PPC count as half so you're not stuck volley firing 2 at a time, and I think you have an appropriate spread between light, regular and heavy (with the ER and snub-nosed being tweaks of the standard PPC).

Edited by Luscious Dan, 29 June 2017 - 01:56 PM.

[ThiefofAlways]

Pretty much most of these "New Tech" are DOA. To hot, to much restrictions, to long to spin up, ect. ect. Heavy lasers were ok when you could take enough heat sinks to deal with the heat now with the was PGI has it having more than a few is way to hot and you cant deal with it. Add in other weapons and it is even worse. Minimal on ATMs, they are now a waste of time. RACs, as I understand it dont do damage/round but a set damage/second. They are a waste with the spin up/shut down. MRMs are one of the few I think will be useful. Laser AMS, better off with the old, way to hot and should be more effective. heat should be maybe 1. As is no reason to carry them.

BTW heat sinks should cool all the time. Just because you do something doesn't stop there effectiveness. Fix that to.

[Tarl Cabot]

Oberost, on 29 June 2017 - 08:12 AM, said:

Deduct the cockpit/gyro weigh from the engine weight, and add the weight of the heatsinks not included in the engine and you'll find that the XL weights 50% of an STD.

The cockpit and gyro weights the same in an STD or XL engine and in CBT wasn't included in the engine weight, so I stand by my previous post.

Too hard for you?


Ok, give the IS the Clan XL if we are going to have the same penalties...

You make no sense, you know?

BTW, where exactly do I asked for a penalty in a Clan XL torso loss?

Both of you don't have a ******* idea about what "balance" means...

The LFE issue is that previous discussions about providing the isXL engine w/movement-heat penalties, ie similar benefits as the cXL in not dying to the loss of one side torso. IS equipment is heavier than Clan equipment and since PGI is not going to give a fully function engine crit system, keeping only ONE part of an archaic rule from a boardgame in a FPS does not make sense.

There have been other threads also where many thought LFE should come with no penalties, just like the Clans ran with it for 4 months before the initial 20% heat penalty, then ANOTHER 14 before 20% movement/agility penalty. Each time PGI said this is a placeholder until an actual functional engine crit system.

What sort of BSMFBSIT?

17-JUN-2014 Clan Release - pre-order release
11-DEC-2014 CW
07-OCT-2014 Clan XL - Heat Penalty w/loss of one side torso

Spoiler

Destruction of a Clan Side Torso

Although we hope to eventually put in a full engine critical hit system that would affect both IS and Clan 'Mechs, we are going to start out with a change to place some penalty on a Clan 'Mech that loses a side torso. Essentially, there needs to be some penalty for losing 2 critical engine slots. Using the tabletop game as a guideline, we have decided to not make movement a part of the penalty but to save that for some future implementation on the effects of heat on your 'Mechs functionality. A Clan engine has a total of 10 critical engine slots and the destruction of a Side Torso in a clan ‘Mech means the loss of two of those slots, or 20%. With this in mind, we have decided to implement a rule that the destruction of a side torso in a Clan 'Mech will result in a loss of 20% of the engines internal heat sink capacity. By way of example, a Timber Wolf with 15 internal engine heat sinks will lose the cooling equivalent of 3 of those heat sinks. A small penalty, but we feel that heat sink loss along with the loss of everything in that torso and arm will be enough.

01-DEC-2015 Skill Tree Reduction, ERLM/smaller Clan Energy weapons max range reduced, loss of C-XL torso/speed reduction
24-JAN-2017 Increasing cXL heat penalty from 20% to 40%.

No one was asking to give cXL more or higher penalties after the original two penalties, we were asking to equalize cXL vs isXL with similar penalties. The LFE is a bandaid.

Actual penalties
STD - no penalties
LFE - low penalties
isXL - higher penalties

STD - no penalties
cXL - low penalties

[NocturnalBeast]

Some of what I am reading is very disappointing. Hopefully the worst issues will be worked out in the final release.

[MechaBattler]

To me RACs feel like you're hitting the enemy with a limp noodle. I was hoping they would be a good single ballistic weapon. Especially for my ballistic Wolverines. But I'm thinking I'll be using a UAC10 instead.

MRMs spread is pretty bad. Sure I came away with 'high' damage. But how much of that was wasted? They really are as I feared. Direct fire LRMs. I think they can be saved. A tighter spread and higher velocity.

[ArmageddonKnight]

Problems with RAC 2 vs AC2.

So heres what im seeing.

With skills chosen around an AC boat one has the following stats on a KGC-000

AC2

Tonnage 6

ROF 0.6

DMG 2 (3.33 DPS)

Heat 0.57 (0.95 HPS)

Max Range 1613

Optimal Range 806

Proj Speed 2040

No Jaming, No projectile spread.


RAC2

Tonnage 8

DPS 4

Heat 1.91

Max Range 1210

Optimal range 605

Proj Speed 1173

Charge Up, Projectile spread 0.19, Jams


So for 0.34 DPS u loose max range, loose optimal range, have increased heat, loose projectile speed, gain projectile spread, you jam, loose ability to 'alpha', and it Weighs more.

Additionaly, Weapon CD bonuses from the skill tree ,and ballistic CD bonuses from quirks needs to affect RAC's in some way otherwise its going to loose out even more so.
Ballistic quiked mechs ALL pritty much have Balistic CD as a quirk, and the weapon CD nodes within the skill tree will become pointless when aiming for Ammo capacity and RAC skill nodes.

These things need to be taken into account when balancing the base stats of the RAC's, which i honestly dont think have been thought through.

Finaly, Ghost Heat needs removing from the RAC2 and 5 completly. For one, its broken*, and secondly, it isnt present on the normal AC2's and 5's so theres no need for it on the RAC's. Ghost Heat was a mistake and continues to be one, balance the RAC's from the ground up, dont use Ghost heat.

Im finding it hard to find the balance in this as it stands now.

*The heat spike people are noticing is from when multiple RACs become desynced from each other, usualy after a JAM, or if the user purposly stagered the fireing order. Ghost heat gets confused, and thinks ur firing an aditional RAC each time the stagger order ticks over each round, so u stager 2 RAC's, by the 3rd round it thinks 3 r firing, by the 4th, 4 and so on. With the high ROF of the RAC's within seconds Ghost heat can think u are shooting like 10 weapons, causing insane levels of heat.

[Arkhangel]

Bush Hopper, on 29 June 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

Some thoughts after toying around with the weapons:

MRMs

In their current iteration they are worthless because they suffer from 3 considerable drawbacks:

1. Stream firing - even targets which move at around 80 km/h will automatically evade a part of the missile stream if it moves sideways. However, you have to face the problem even if the targets is doing other maneuvers. To circumvent this, you have to fire the MRMs at close range...for which you can use SRMs which are better in this case. This alone begs the question: why MRMs and not SRMs?

2. Spread - combine with the stream the spread is hilarious. The damage is sprayed over the whole mech. A LBX is a pin point weapon compared to that

3. Flight speed - for a mid range weapon the flight speed is too low especially when combined with stream firing the missiles.


Proposal: Make the missiles semi-guided. Let them follow your crosshair. This would also give the weapon a unique touch plus would also be balanced because in order to guide the missiles you need "face time".

They're NOT making MRMs semi-guided. the entire point of the things was being a crapload of small dumbfired missiles. though, ironically, SRMs are actually SUPPOSED to be semi-guided.

Honestly, MRMs really are two things, death to people who like to stand around like morons (you know who you all are) and slower Heavies and Assaults.

should also be noted the reason MRMs are as light as they are is the lack of a guidance system.

also, for the guy asking for the Clan RAC, they never adopted the thing. they developed the HAG instead. If we're adding in experimental-only tech, there's at least six IS weapons systems right off the bat i could name that would probably make Clanners cry, like the Blazer.

Should probably also be noted the reason why you guys probably didn't get the HAG is the fact... we'd get the Plasma Rifle, which would probably single handedly kill Clanners using energy weapons due to having, you know, Napalm on them constantly.

[William Warriors]

The ATM system is completely stuffed. You don't need locked on like streak or LRM to fire.. only Improve ATM has it.

It shouldn't have a minimum range, and damage should be spread over distance.

[-Ramrod-]

MRMs seem fine to me. I'm probably the only one who thinks that.

RAC's are kinda weak.

ATM's minimum range should be 90m's.

Heavy Lasers are fine.

Various PPCs and Gauss's can kiss my butt. Nothing I hate worse than PPC/Gauss meta builds.

My overall verdict? A simple "ok". Granted I haven't tested everything. Just a little tinkering on a few things is all I'd suggest. I'm not gonna waste my time doing math. I play the game and I see the damage done and how well the weapon performs. Screw all the damn math.

[Zergling]

Uncle Totty, on 29 June 2017 - 01:13 PM, said:

Remove lock-on when the target is within 270 meters. (There, fixed.)

That's a great idea, but I'm not sure if PGI could implement it.

It'd be great if they could though, as it would totally prevent ATMs from beating Streak SRMs at close range.

Luscious Dan, on 29 June 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

I could see some tuning for velocity and cooldowns. Dropping the LGauss by 1s and giving it a velocity bump could work. Instead of 2000/2000/1000 for LGauss/Gauss/HGauss, you could maybe try 2400/1800/1200 or something.

I think PPCs might need similar tuning to differentiate properly. Snub-nose for example could get a bit of a velocity drop but longer max range (I'd say 810m rather than 630). Light/heavy PPC could probably benefit from cooldown tweaking as well, 3s for light and 5s for heavy. Heavy PPC's limiting factors should be cooldown and massive heat, not forcing it to spread damage via splash.

Clan ER PPC has to spread because it's got the best range and weighs 6 tons. Make the 10-ton heavy PPC count as 2 PPC type weapons for the purposes of ghost heat to encourage chain-firing, and light PPC count as half so you're not stuck volley firing 2 at a time, and I think you have an appropriate spread between light, regular and heavy (with the ER and snub-nosed being tweaks of the standard PPC).

Yeah, I've been thinking along those lines, and I'll be getting to the Heavy Gauss and PPCs soon.

[Ery]

Anyone tryed ATMs against AMS? I think the ATMs are to slow an the min range is to large, so most of the missiles will be destroyed.

[Genesis23]

ok, the rotarys should run cooler. i mean the whole point of having turning barrels is to build up heat slower than you would with one alone, so with all the drawbacks the rotary allready have they should at least not block the use of energy weapons as a backup.

and the LFE should not suffer from the same penalty the clans have with the loss of a ST. it saves only 25% to the clans 50% and since the IS tech is supposed to be more rugged and sturdy it would make sense to only have half the penalty of the clans - since its also only saving half the weight.

or maybe only having either a movement OR a heat efficiency penalty to compensate for the inferior weight savings.

Edited by Genesis23, 29 June 2017 - 11:44 PM.

[Lily from animove]

unfortunately i am not havign time to test :/ but many DPH and bema durations on wepaons look so wrong no one is going to use them.

and the stelath armor? what is that good for? unless ecm is changed this is pointless as it is a lot investment and basically just counters tag and counter ecm.

[Widowmaker1981]

Based on those paper stats... lol.

no change to slots for LBX20 = 100% useless. No one will ever mount one unless they are a moron.

Absurd burn times for heavy lasers. No one in their right minds is going to use those either. 1.7s for the HLL, with a DPH under 1? LOL.

WTF is that HPPC damage? Its 10 fricking tons and 4 fracking slots. No one except an idiot will use it, when you can stack LPPCs for higher damage and less tonnage, or run a standard PPC at the same range with almost the same damage but for 3 tons lighter, 1 slot smaller and much better DPH. Idiots, make it 15 damage

Stealth armour is completely useless too unless it blocks your thermal signature (specifically including at range on hot maps). I very much doubt it does, but that needs testing.

RLs might be OK for mechs with 3 or 4 missile hardpoints along with primary energy ports as a backup splat.

RACs look OK. Need to test that as spin up times are pretty important and not specified.

ATMs look OK. pretty much what i was expecting, though i think ammo per ton is on the low side. Thats only the same dmg/ton as the SRMs at point blank range, at longer ranges dmg/ton will be terrible in comparison.

No beam range boost on IS TCs? WTF...

LFEs ... ST loss penalties? they are not specified. If none, maybe PGI did something right....

[Widowmaker1981]

W E N D I G O, on 30 June 2017 - 01:17 AM, said:

And the LFE is working as intended, loosing sidetorso means you loose a part of your engine, so less speed and less heat dissipation. Also your percentage of weight savings are not correct, XL engines don't save 50% weight, be it Clan or IS variant. Same for the assumed flat 25% for LFEs.

Clan XL is considerably lighter than LFE, around 5 tons at a 300 rating. Therefore penalties should be lower / non existent for the LFE, because... tonnage is a kinda important stat for an engine.

They do save 50% and 25% weight, its just the values for MWO engines include the gyro and some other stuff, so the values dont exactly work like they do in TT.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 30 June 2017 - 01:39 AM.

[Cpt Contego]

Love the IS ER Med Laser sounds, it's awesome.

Edit: All the new sounds are awesome, and why is the Mauler so damn twitchy?
Edit 2: 4 Crit Slots for LB2X?? Really??

Edited by El Contego, 30 June 2017 - 01:54 AM.

[Mjr Disaster]

The IS updates seem a mixed bag, some good (Hgauss,MRM's, LPPC) some not (HPPC), the Clan tech is poor:
ATM's: As another poster posited remove the lock on function at under 180m and give a hard minimum of 90m, otherwise they are just too inefficient.

Hlasers: Too hot, too big, too slow. Here's a fix, they are the same tonnage as CERL's make them the same size as CPL's, give them ranges in between that of the ER and P, with greater heat and damage than the ER's, but longer durations, such that they have the same DP's as a PL, but longer burn times, and reduce their cooldowns to that of the ERL's.