228 replies to this topic

[Oberost]

Dee Eight, on 29 June 2017 - 06:05 AM, said:

YES REALLY. Deal with it. That's the trade-off for not dying from a side torso loss. Also in this game, where they include the cockpit/gyro/free heatsinks into the engine weight math... its not actually a 50% drop in weight. A standard 325 as I said above is 30.5 tons where an XL 325 is 19 tons. The engine itself might be half the weight, but since our engine weights include those other parts...well...you do the math.

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?

McHoshi, on 29 June 2017 - 08:02 AM, said:

You wanted the clans to have that Penalty - Now live with dat exactly the same Penalty!

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...

Edited by Oberost, 29 June 2017 - 08:32 AM.

[Zergling]

Zergling, on 29 June 2017 - 07:41 AM, said:

Working on mathing out Clan Micro and Heavy Lasers, for the purpose of exactly what tweaks they need to be useful weapons.

Math done, cue wall of text!


First, the ER Micro Laser.

Look at the progression of DPS/ton and Damage/Heat for the original Clan ER Lasers, and the ER Micro on the PTS:
ER Large = 0.54 DPS/ton, 1.10 damage/heat
ER Medium = 1.47 DPS/ton, 1.17 damage/heat
ER Small = 2.60 DPS/ton, 1.67 damage/heat
ER Micro = 3.47 DPS/ton, 1.53 damage/heat

See the progression of DPS/ton and damage/heat both increasing with the smaller weapons, but ER Micro NOT increasing in damage/heat compared to the ER Small?
This means the ER Micro is too hot; it's 1.7 heat should be reduced to 1.4, bringing its damage/heat up to 1.86.


Next, the Micro Pulse, with progression of Clan Pulse Lasers again:
Large Pulse = 0.47 DPS/ton, 1.20 damage/heat
Medium Pulse = 0.96 DPS/ton, 1.50 damage/heat
Small Pulse = 1.54 DPS/ton, 1.48 damage/heat
Micro Pulse = 2.50 DPS/ton, 1.76 damage/heat

The Micro Pulse appears to work there, although the Small Pulse needs a heat reduction to give it better damage/heat than the Medium Pulse (but I'm only focusing on PTS weapons, so ignore that).

But compare ER Lasers to Pulse lasers:
ER Medium = 1.47 DPS/ton, 1.17 damage/heat, 405 optimal range
Small Pulse = 1.54 DPS/ton, 1.48 damage/heat, 165 optimal range

So for same weight, the Pulse weapon has superior DPS/ton and damage/heat, in exchange for much worse range.

Now compare the ER Small to the Micro Pulse:
ER Small = 2.60 DPS/ton, 1.67 damage/heat, 200 optimal range
Micro Pulse = 2.50 DPS/ton, 1.76 damage/heat, 90 optimal range

As can be seen, the Micro Pulse is doing less DPS/ton than the ER Small... and that 90 meter range is abysmal.

So I'd increase the Micro Pulse's damage from 3.0 to 3.3, and optimal range can go up to 120 (with maximum to 240). That would increase the Micro Pulse to these stats, giving it some advantages over the ER Small:
Micro Pulse = 2.75 DPS/ton and 1.94 damage/heat



Next up, Heavy Lasers; the biggest problem with those is their duration, which is simply too high to be usable. They are also focusing on alpha damage, so the tradeoff to that should be inferior DPS/ton to Clan ER and Pulse Lasers of the same weight.
And given their shorter range than Clan ER Lasers, they should actually have better damage/heat ratios, as they will be used in brawls more often where such energy efficiency is more important (worth noting that the Heavy Medium actually is more damage/heat efficient than the ER Medium in TT).

At the same time, they have greater range than Pulse Lasers of the same weight, so they should have inferior damage/heat to those Pulse Lasers. And due Heavy Lasers having superior alpha damage to Pulse Lasers, they should also have inferior DPS/ton ratios.

In effect, Heavy Lasers should be focused on alpha damage at the expense of DPS/ton efficiency, coming in between ER and Pulse Lasers in range and damage/heat ratios.


Now, starting with the Heavy Small, here it is compared to the ER Small and Micro Pulse (with my proposed stats for the Micro):
ER Small = 2.60 DPS/ton, 1.67 damage/heat, 200 optimal range, 1.1 duration
Micro Pulse = 2.75 DPS/ton, 1.94 damage/heat, 120 optimal range, 0.5 duration
Heavy Small = 2.35 DPS/ton, 1.41 damage/heat, 100 optimal range, 1.35 duration

As can be seen, the Heavy Small is totally inferior to the ER Small Laser, and also inferior to the Micro Pulse even without my suggested buffs!

First change I'd do to the Heavy Small is decrease duration from 1.35 to 1.20, then increase damage from 6 to 7, reduce heat from 4.25 to 4.0, and to prevent the DPS/ton from being too high, increase cooldown from 3.75 to 4.75 and lastly increase optimal range from 100 to 120 (100 is just too damn short).

That's a hell of a long cooldown , but it results in the Heavy Small having these stats:
Heavy Small = 2.35 DPS/ton, 1.75 damage/heat, 1.20 duration, 120 optimal range


Next, Heavy Medium Laser, compared to its 1 ton counterparts:
ER Medium = 1.47 DPS/ton, 1.17 damage/heat, 1.25 duration, 405 optimal range
Small Pulse = 1.54 DPS/ton, 1.48 damage/heat, 0.60 duration, 165 optimal range
Heavy Medium = 1.52 DPS/ton, 1.25 damage/heat, 1.60 duration, 270 optimal range

Problem here is that again the duration is stupidly high, but the Heavy Medium is actually beating the ER Medium in both DPS/ton and damage/heat! This means that DPS/ton will be even higher when duration is decreased to a more reasonable level, necessitating another increase to cooldown.

I'd drop the duration to 1.35, increase cooldown from 5.0 to 5.75. Damage/heat is fine, so no changes to damage or heat are needed.

The stats end up like this:
Heavy Medium = 1.41 DPS/ton, 1.25 damage/heat, 1.35 duration, 270 optimal range

Also, if the Heavy Medium doesn't already have a ghost heat limit of 6, it needs to receive it, or else it doesn't have an alpha damage advantage over the ER Medium Laser, and is then worthless.



Lastly, the Heavy Large Laser, compared to the other Clan Large Lasers:
Large Pulse = 0.47 DPS/ton, 1.20 damage/heat, 1.09 duration, 600 optimal range
ER Large = 0.54 DPS/ton, 1.10 damage/heat, 1.35 duration, 740 optimal range
Heavy Large = 0.52 DPS/ton, 0.94 damage/heat, 1.70 duration, 450 optimal range

That Heavy Large duration is basically 'lightsaber' level, and obviously needs to be decreased. I'd decrease it to 1.45, and to keep DPS/ton below that of the ER Large, increase cooldown slightly from 6.00 to 6.25.
Damage/heat needs to go up too, so I'd reduce heat from 17 to 14.

Final stats:
Heavy Large = 0.52 DPS/ton, 1.14 damage/heat, 1.45 duration, 450 optimal range



Now for a final comparison of all ER Lasers versus Heavy Lasers, with current PTS stats for Heavy Lasers:
ER Large = 0.54 DPS/ton, 1.10 damage/heat, 1.35 duration, 740 optional range
ER Medium = 1.47 DPS/ton, 1.17 damage/heat, 1.25 duration, 405 optimal range
ER Small = 2.60 DPS/ton, 1.67 damage/heat, 200 optimal range, 1.1 duration
Heavy Large = 0.52 DPS/ton, 0.94 damage/heat, 1.70 duration, 450 optimal range
Heavy Medium = 1.52 DPS/ton, 1.25 damage/heat, 1.60 duration, 270 optimal range
Heavy Small = 2.35 DPS/ton, 1.41 damage/heat, 100 optimal range, 1.35 duration


Then ER Lasers versus Heavy Lasers with my proposed adjustments:
ER Large = 0.54 DPS/ton, 1.10 damage/heat, 1.35 duration, 740 optional range
ER Medium = 1.47 DPS/ton, 1.17 damage/heat, 1.25 duration, 405 optimal range
ER Small = 2.60 DPS/ton, 1.67 damage/heat, 200 optimal range, 1.1 duration
Heavy Large = 0.52 DPS/ton, 1.14 damage/heat, 1.45 duration, 450 optimal range
Heavy Medium = 1.41 DPS/ton, 1.25 damage/heat, 1.35 duration, 270 optimal range
Heavy Small = 2.35 DPS/ton, 1.75 damage/heat, 1.20 duration, 120 optimal range

[Scanz]

Now we get big guns with big DPS. but we didnt get a more HP.. so cointinue play Mechwarrior: quake online

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Zergling, on 29 June 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

Math done, cue wall of text!


First, the ER Micro Laser.

Look at the progression of DPS/ton and Damage/Heat for the original Clan ER Lasers, and the ER Micro on the PTS:
ER Large = 0.54 DPS/ton, 1.10 damage/heat
ER Medium = 1.47 DPS/ton, 1.17 damage/heat
ER Small = 2.60 DPS/ton, 1.67 damage/heat
ER Micro = 3.47 DPS/ton, 1.53 damage/heat

See the progression of DPS/ton and damage/heat both increasing with the smaller weapons, but ER Micro NOT increasing in damage/heat compared to the ER Small?
This means the ER Micro is too hot; it's 1.7 heat should be reduced to 1.4, bringing its damage/heat up to 1.86.


Next, the Micro Pulse, with progression of Clan Pulse Lasers again:
Large Pulse = 0.47 DPS/ton, 1.20 damage/heat
Medium Pulse = 0.96 DPS/ton, 1.50 damage/heat
Small Pulse = 1.54 DPS/ton, 1.48 damage/heat
Micro Pulse = 2.50 DPS/ton, 1.76 damage/heat

The Micro Pulse appears to work there, although the Small Pulse needs a heat reduction to give it better damage/heat than the Medium Pulse (but I'm only focusing on PTS weapons, so ignore that).

But compare ER Lasers to Pulse lasers:
ER Medium = 1.47 DPS/ton, 1.17 damage/heat, 405 optimal range
Small Pulse = 1.54 DPS/ton, 1.48 damage/heat, 165 optimal range

So for same weight, the Pulse weapon has superior DPS/ton and damage/heat, in exchange for much worse range.

Now compare the ER Small to the Micro Pulse:
ER Small = 2.60 DPS/ton, 1.67 damage/heat, 200 optimal range
Micro Pulse = 2.50 DPS/ton, 1.76 damage/heat, 90 optimal range

As can be seen, the Micro Pulse is doing less DPS/ton than the ER Small... and that 90 meter range is abysmal.

So I'd increase the Micro Pulse's damage from 3.0 to 3.3, and optimal range can go up to 120 (with maximum to 240). That would increase the Micro Pulse to these stats, giving it some advantages over the ER Small:
Micro Pulse = 2.75 DPS/ton and 1.94 damage/heat



Next up, Heavy Lasers; the biggest problem with those is their duration, which is simply too high to be usable. They are also focusing on alpha damage, so the tradeoff to that should be inferior DPS/ton to Clan ER and Pulse Lasers of the same weight.
And given their shorter range than Clan ER Lasers, they should actually have better damage/heat ratios, as they will be used in brawls more often where such energy efficiency is more important (worth noting that the Heavy Medium actually is more damage/heat efficient than the ER Medium in TT).

At the same time, they have greater range than Pulse Lasers of the same weight, so they should have inferior damage/heat to those Pulse Lasers. And due Heavy Lasers having superior alpha damage to Pulse Lasers, they should also have inferior DPS/ton ratios.

In effect, Heavy Lasers should be focused on alpha damage at the expense of DPS/ton efficiency, coming in between ER and Pulse Lasers in range and damage/heat ratios.


Now, starting with the Heavy Small, here it is compared to the ER Small and Micro Pulse (with my proposed stats for the Micro):
ER Small = 2.60 DPS/ton, 1.67 damage/heat, 200 optimal range, 1.1 duration
Micro Pulse = 2.75 DPS/ton, 1.94 damage/heat, 120 optimal range, 0.5 duration
Heavy Small = 2.35 DPS/ton, 1.41 damage/heat, 100 optimal range, 1.35 duration

As can be seen, the Heavy Small is totally inferior to the ER Small Laser, and also inferior to the Micro Pulse even without my suggested buffs!

First change I'd do to the Heavy Small is decrease duration from 1.35 to 1.20, then increase damage from 6 to 7, reduce heat from 4.25 to 4.0, and to prevent the DPS/ton from being too high, increase cooldown from 3.75 to 4.75 and lastly increase optimal range from 100 to 120 (100 is just too damn short).

That's a hell of a long cooldown , but it results in the Heavy Small having these stats:
Heavy Small = 2.35 DPS/ton, 1.75 damage/heat, 1.20 duration, 120 optimal range


Next, Heavy Medium Laser, compared to its 1 ton counterparts:
ER Medium = 1.47 DPS/ton, 1.17 damage/heat, 1.25 duration, 405 optimal range
Small Pulse = 1.54 DPS/ton, 1.48 damage/heat, 0.60 duration, 165 optimal range
Heavy Medium = 1.52 DPS/ton, 1.25 damage/heat, 1.60 duration, 270 optimal range

Problem here is that again the duration is stupidly high, but the Heavy Medium is actually beating the ER Medium in both DPS/ton and damage/heat! This means that DPS/ton will be even higher when duration is decreased to a more reasonable level, necessitating another increase to cooldown.

I'd drop the duration to 1.35, increase cooldown from 5.0 to 5.75. Damage/heat is fine, so no changes to damage or heat are needed.

The stats end up like this:
Heavy Medium = 1.41 DPS/ton, 1.25 damage/heat, 1.35 duration, 270 optimal range

Also, if the Heavy Medium doesn't already have a ghost heat limit of 6, it needs to receive it, or else it doesn't have an alpha damage advantage over the ER Medium Laser, and is then worthless.



Lastly, the Heavy Large Laser, compared to the other Clan Large Lasers:
Large Pulse = 0.47 DPS/ton, 1.20 damage/heat, 1.09 duration, 600 optimal range
ER Large = 0.54 DPS/ton, 1.10 damage/heat, 1.35 duration, 740 optimal range
Heavy Large = 0.52 DPS/ton, 0.94 damage/heat, 1.70 duration, 450 optimal range

That Heavy Large duration is basically 'lightsaber' level, and obviously needs to be decreased. I'd decrease it to 1.45, and to keep DPS/ton below that of the ER Large, increase cooldown slightly from 6.00 to 6.25.
Damage/heat needs to go up too, so I'd reduce heat from 17 to 14.

Final stats:
Heavy Large = 0.52 DPS/ton, 1.14 damage/heat, 1.45 duration, 450 optimal range



Now for a final comparison of all ER Lasers versus Heavy Lasers, with current PTS stats for Heavy Lasers:
ER Large = 0.54 DPS/ton, 1.10 damage/heat, 1.35 duration, 740 optional range
ER Medium = 1.47 DPS/ton, 1.17 damage/heat, 1.25 duration, 405 optimal range
ER Small = 2.60 DPS/ton, 1.67 damage/heat, 200 optimal range, 1.1 duration
Heavy Large = 0.52 DPS/ton, 0.94 damage/heat, 1.70 duration, 450 optimal range
Heavy Medium = 1.52 DPS/ton, 1.25 damage/heat, 1.60 duration, 270 optimal range
Heavy Small = 2.35 DPS/ton, 1.41 damage/heat, 100 optimal range, 1.35 duration


Then ER Lasers versus Heavy Lasers with my proposed adjustments:
ER Large = 0.54 DPS/ton, 1.10 damage/heat, 1.35 duration, 740 optional range
ER Medium = 1.47 DPS/ton, 1.17 damage/heat, 1.25 duration, 405 optimal range
ER Small = 2.60 DPS/ton, 1.67 damage/heat, 200 optimal range, 1.1 duration
Heavy Large = 0.52 DPS/ton, 1.14 damage/heat, 1.45 duration, 450 optimal range
Heavy Medium = 1.41 DPS/ton, 1.25 damage/heat, 1.35 duration, 270 optimal range
Heavy Small = 2.35 DPS/ton, 1.75 damage/heat, 1.20 duration, 120 optimal range

Nice work on the math.

One addition to the list of problems with the HL. As above they all have unfavorable dmg to heat and dps ratios...except for the medium HL (which is a couple hundredths of a point better on both). The problem is that even with the medium HL's you are more often than not, going to actually lose heat efficiency and sustained dps over using erML's due to the inability to mount the additional heat sinks you could with erML. To mount 6 mHLfor example is the same tonnage as mounting 6 erML...however those 6 slots are going to come into play on a lot of builds. It probably won't effect lights or mediums under 50 tons..as they couldn't mount a lot of heatsinks anyway. However, most heavier traditional laser-boats can't sacrifice the heatsinks to go to HML's. Heavier Omni mechs particularly won't have the slots to employ these as an alternative to ErML. If you want them as an alternative to what we have now...slot count on HML and HLL needs to go down by 1 each

Edited by Marquis De Lafayette, 29 June 2017 - 08:58 AM.

[Zergling]

W E N D I G O, on 29 June 2017 - 08:51 AM, said:

Well, this definitely goes into the right direction. Not necessarily these exact numbers, but generally it would make them CHLs an option. And that's all they should be - not a must have and better, but filling a role not covered before.

Props for all the effort and time invested to calculate and then post this, thank you.

NP, thanks!

The best niche I could find for Heavy Lasers, that is fairly close to what PGI is going at, is 'high alpha at the expense of DPS'.
I don't think PGI is gonna give up on them having longer duration than Clan ER Lasers, so I reduced the Heavy Laser durations to around 7-9% above the equivalent ER Laser.

In damage/heat efficiency and range, they end up between Clan ER and Pulse lasers, but their focus on alpha gives them a niche besides being a middle-ground in those factors.

Marquis De Lafayette, on 29 June 2017 - 08:57 AM, said:

Nice work on the math.

One addition to the list of problems with the HL. As above they all have unfavorable dmg to heat and dps ratios...except for the medium HL (which is a couple hundredths of a point better on both). The problem is that even with the medium HL's you are more often than not, going to actually lose heat efficiency and sustained dps over using erML's due to the inability to mount the additional heat sinks you could with erML. To mount 6 mHLfor example is the same tonnage as mounting 6 erML...however those 6 slots are going to come into play on a lot of builds. It probably won't effect lights or mediums under 50 tons..as they couldn't mount a lot of heatsinks anyway. However, most heavier traditional laser-boats can't sacrifice the heatsinks to go to HML's. Heavier Omni mechs particularly won't have the slots to employ these as an alternative to ErML. If you want them as an alternative to what we have now...slot count on HML and HLL needs to go down by 1 each

Yeah, they could use further tweaking.

Improving their damage/heat ratios further wouldn't be a bad idea, considering their bulk as you have pointed out.


I think next up is working on MRMs or ATMs. MRMs are pretty easy, as they just have to be compared to SRMs, so I'll probably do that next.

Edited by Zergling, 29 June 2017 - 09:00 AM.

[MovinTarget]

Zerg, you need a hobby...

...okay, i mean you need a different hobby...

[Marquis De Lafayette]

MovinTarget, on 29 June 2017 - 09:00 AM, said:

Zerg, you need a hobby...

...okay, i mean you need a different hobby...

Shhh...we need math-lovers like him to do all the hard work....so we don't have to....just think how much smarter he is going to make you sound when you try to explain exactly why HL's aren't viable to teammates.....yes...sure we could all figure it out sort of..but now we have math to back us up...

So, carry on Zerg....you do you...math your heart out!

[Zergling]

W E N D I G O, on 29 June 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

I gotta disagree here. Same for people asking to reduce slot requirements for IS ballistics. Those values have to stay at TT values, and in the particular case of the HLs this is even more true. Don't think this is even a topic to discuss for PGI, just saying. They are very strict with that kind of stuff, just look at those extremely limiting Omnimech construction rules.

Yep, I'm not even considering ton/slot changes at all for my proposals.


And MRMs are done!

I'll start with a comparison of DPS/ton and damage/heat figures for Inner Sphere LRMs vs SRMs vs MRMs with PTS values:
LRM5 = 0.77 DPS/ton, 2.08 damage/heat
LRM10 = 0.54 DPS/ton, 2.50 damage/heat
LRM15 = 0.54 DPS/ton, 3.00 damage/heat
LRM20 = 0.47 DPS/ton, 3.33 damage/heat
SRM2 = 2.15 DPS/ton, 2.53 damage/heat
SRM4 = 1.43 DPS/ton, 2.87 damage/heat
SRM6 = 1.08 DPS/ton, 3.23 damage/heat
MRM10 = 0.78 DPS/ton, 2.50 damage/heat
MRM20 = 0.66 DPS/ton, 3.33 damage/heat
MRM30 = 0.70 DPS/ton, 3.00 damage/heat
MRM40 = 0.70 DPS/ton, 3.33 damage/heat

As can be seen with the LRMs and SRMs, DPS/ton goes down and damage/heat goes up as launcher size increases.
MRMs are strange in that there is a dip in DPS/ton with the MRM20, and a dip in damage/heat with the MRM30.

Also note that the MRM10 is directly interchangable with the SRM6; they both weigh 3 tons and take 2 slots, while the larger MRM launchers should still be compared to the SRM6, as they are comparable to multiple SRM6 racks.


Firstly, the DPS/ton and damage/heat figures of MRMs should be evened out for a logical progression.

Reduce MRM10 and MRM20 cooldown from 4.3 to 4.0, increase MRM40 from 4.75 to 4.8.
Increase MRM20 heat from 6 to 7

MRMs end up like this:
MRM10 = 0.83 DPS/ton, 2.50 damage/heat
MRM20 = 0.71 DPS/ton, 2.86 damage/heat
MRM30 = 0.70 DPS/ton, 3.00 damage/heat
MRM40 = 0.69 DPS/ton, 3.33 damage/heat


Next and much more importantly, MRM spread drastically needs to be decreased.

Right now their spread work similarly to LRMs; they start with a large amount of spread, which does increase with range, but not drastically.
SRMs in comparison, start with a small amount of spread, that increases significantly with range (similar to LBXs).

MRMs working like LRMs in spread is fine, but the amount of spread they have needs to be at least halved. I don't know enough about how spread works in MWO to say more than that, but it is currently far too high.
As it stands, MRMs are less tonnage efficient than SRMs (as they should be), but they are also incapable of filling a useful niche beyond SRM range.

If they retained their existing spread, MRMs would need far higher DPS/ton and much less damage/heat than SRMs, along with more ammo per ton to work, because of their inability to concentrate damage like SRMs can.

Also note that I haven't considered ammo weight, as that makes things much more complicated.


EDIT: working on ATMs now, this one will be a bit more math involved than MRMs. MRMs didn't really have much wrong with their damage or heat figures, it is is just their spread that makes them bad.

ATMs have all the damage at range things to consider, plus ammo per ton.

Edited by Zergling, 29 June 2017 - 09:37 AM.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

W E N D I G O, on 29 June 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

I gotta disagree here. Same for people asking to reduce slot requirements for IS ballistics. Those values have to stay at TT values, and in the particular case of the HLs this is even more true. Don't think this is even a topic to discuss for PGI, just saying. They are very strict with that kind of stuff, just look at those extremely limiting Omnimech construction rules.

Plus, there are actually Clan Omnis which do not have that many energy hardpoints (not on all pods) and can potentially make good use of those - if they are tweaked a bit (the slow lights for example) to make them a bit more viable. To focus damage is key in this game, even if you use highend "mouse" with dpi switch whatever, plus being "motorically gifted", staying on target component is not really possible when both your and your target Mech are moving at moderate to higher speed.

That is fine to leave them as is...I actually don't care about the slots, except in they add to the argument that HL's "as is" in this PTS, have too many drawbacks to find their way into traditional laser-platforms. My point was the drawbacks seem to numberous to make HL's an improvement on nearly any Heavy or assault build. Slots were just one of the drawbacks, I am fine with more slots if they can make them viable by reducing the other disadvantages...which zerg listed out. They just have to reduce some of those drawbacks...that was my point.

We just can't have a viable weapon that has basically 1 advantage (dmg) over other types, but is inferior in every other way....dmg advantage just doesn't trump the rest of HL's drawbacks.

Edited by Marquis De Lafayette, 29 June 2017 - 10:02 AM.

[Zergling]

Now for ATMs; they are best compared to Clan Streak SRMs for close range, and Clan LRMs for longer range. They are also a pain in the *** to math out due to their damage/range drop.

First, ATMs do 3 damage per missile up to 270 meters, dropping to 2 damage at 546 meters, then 1 damage at 823 meters. Also, the ATM3 is fairly close to the cStreak SRM4; 1.5 vs 2.0 tons, the ATM3 is also similar to the LRM5 at 1.0 tons and the ATM9 is identical to the cLRM20 at 5 tons.

DPS/ton and damage/heat comparisons of cLRMs, cStreak SRMs and ATMs at various ranges:
LRM5 = 1.43 DPS/ton, 2.08 damage/heat
LRM10 = 1.00 DPS/ton, 2.50 damage/heat
LRM15 = 1.00 DPS/ton, 3.00 damage/heat
LRM20 = 0.87 DPS/ton, 3.33 damage/heat
Streak SRM2 = 1.33 DPS/ton, 2.35 damage/heat
Streak SRM4 = 0.89 DPS/ton, 2.67 damage/heat
Streak SRM6 = 0.67 DPS/ton, 3.00 damage/heat
ATM3 at 181-270 meters = 1.50 DPS/ton, 3.60 damage/heat
ATM6 at 181-270 meters = 1.03 DPS/ton, 4.00 damage/heat
ATM9 at 181-270 meters = 1.08 DPS/ton, 3.86 damage/heat
ATM12 at 181-270 meters = 1.03 DPS/ton, 4.00 damage/heat
ATM3 at 546 meters = 1.00 DPS/ton, 2.40 damage/heat
ATM6 at 546 meters = 0.69 DPS/ton, 2.67 damage/heat
ATM9 at 546 meters = 0.72 DPS/ton, 2.57 damage/heat
ATM12 at 546 meters = 0.69 DPS/ton, 2.67 damage/heat
ATM3 at 823 meters = 0.50 DPS/ton, 1.20 damage/heat
ATM6 at 823 meters = 0.34 DPS/ton, 1.33 damage/heat
ATM9 at 823 meters = 0.36 DPS/ton, 1.29 damage/heat
ATM12 at 823 meters = 0.34 DPS/ton, 1.33 damage/heat

The ATM performance when it is doing 3 damage is a problem; it is out-performing Streak SRMs significantly, while allowing for a far greater alpha damage throw-weight with less hardpoints.
Eg, 2x Streak SRM6 weighs in at 6 tons (not including ammo) and delivers 4.00 DPS, while a single ATM9 weighs 5 tons and delivers 5.40 DPS up to 270 meters range, only dropping to 4.00 DPS at 485 meters range.

But at the same time, ATMs are terrible compared to LRMs; the ATM per missile damage drops to 2.4 damage at 433 meters, resulting in the ATM9 only delivering 0.86 DPS/ton at that range.
Between 180 and 435 meters, the ATM9 would out-perform the LRM20, but beyond 435 meters, the LRM20 will be doing better.

So as the ATMs work now, they are basically 'LRM Plus', that only out-performs LRMs between 180 and 435 meters, are useless at 180 meters or less, and worse than LRMs beyond 435 meters.
This is such a small niche that ATMs are pretty much garbage.


But how can this be fixed? If the minimum range was eliminated they'd be a more useful weapon (as they should be), but they'd be overpowered compared to Clan Streak SRMs. At the same time, keeping the minimum range forces them into the 'LRM Plus' niche, as that sort of minimum range disadvantage is so great that it will force players to maintain long range.

One option would be to decrease their short range damage and decrease the damage drop with range, so they they are less powerful than Streak SRMs at close range, while somewhat improving their performance above LRMs at all but long range... but then they'd just be long range Streak SRMs, and I'm not sure if that is a terribly useful or interesting niche for ATMs to occupy.

Another would be to mess around with their spread, maybe give them a larger spread than Streak SRMs (if they don't already have it), so they can retain their high damage at close range.
That would allow the minimum range to be removed.

I honestly don't know what is the best idea for improving ATMs, so I'm open to suggestions.


There is another topic to consider with ATMs; their ammo per ton, which is currently 72 missiles per ton. Further, 72 is directly divisible by 3, 6, 9 and 12 to whole numbers, so any increased ammo count should be the same.

At 181-270 meters range / 3 damage per missile, that is 216 damage per ton
At 546 meters range / 2 damage per missile, that is 144 damage per ton
At 823 meters range / 1 damage per missile, that is 72 damage per ton

Given ATMs are probably gonna be used a lot of the time beyond 270 meters range, 72 missiles per ton really isn't enough.

The next number that is divisble as a whole number by 3/6/9/12 is 108, that will give the following damage per ton at each damage figure:
3 damage per missile = 324
2 damage per missile = 216
1 damage per missile = 108

And next above that is 144 missiles:
3 damage per missile = 432
2 damage per missile = 288
1 damage per missile = 144

I think 108 is probably the best amount; it allows a decent damage per ton at mid-range without the short range damage per ton being stupidly huge.

[Dee Eight]

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?

I know perfectly well how the math for engines in MWO works. That I explained how it works in what you quoted....just shows you're a troll and not worthy of anymore of my time.

[chucklesMuch]

Hey PGI,

Thanks for PTS. And for giving us crazy amounts of mc/cbills to play with. (It's been fun buying whatever I want to try/test/compare).

It seems like you have taken the cautious approach to new tech stats, if so then it's a good place to start. I'm looking forward to seeing a few tweaks/ buffs as many of the new weapons won't get much use as they are (imho).

Initial thoughts...

Cosmetically; can we have different colours for both micro lasers and heavy lightsabers?

Racs: loving the smoke and fine with the mechanic, but the crazy heat spikes or GH bug (as you are aware is limiting these)
Mrms; I really want to like these (missile lbxs), think they spread a bit much... and velocity a bit slow
ATMs; would you please remove or at the very least shrink the minimum range and increase the ammo per ton.
Heavy lightsabers; not sure what I think about these. (Too hot and duration too long).

HMGs; seem okay, decent but with very short range ammo hungry.
Light gauss and light ppcs; any chance these could have their respective only charge two at a time and GH of 2 limit raised?

Light engines are a nice option to have
Is it intended that IS TCs don't increase laser range?

Edited by chucklesMuch, 29 June 2017 - 11:14 AM.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Zergling, on 29 June 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

Now for ATMs; they are best compared to Clan Streak SRMs for close range, and Clan LRMs for longer range. They are also a pain in the *** to math out due to their damage/range drop.


The ATM performance when it is doing 3 damage is a problem; it is out-performing Streak SRMs significantly, while allowing for a far greater alpha damage throw-weight with less hardpoints.
Eg, 2x Streak SRM6 weighs in at 6 tons (not including ammo) and delivers 4.00 DPS, while a single ATM9 weighs 5 tons and delivers 5.40 DPS up to 270 meters range, only dropping to 4.00 DPS at 485 meters range.

But at the same time, ATMs are terrible compared to LRMs; the ATM per missile damage drops to 2.4 damage at 433 meters, resulting in the ATM9 only delivering 0.86 DPS/ton at that range.
Between 180 and 435 meters, the ATM9 would out-perform the LRM20, but beyond 435 meters, the LRM20 will be doing better.

So as the ATMs work now, they are basically 'LRM Plus', that only out-performs LRMs between 180 and 435 meters, are useless at 180 meters or less, and worse than LRMs beyond 435 meters.
This is such a small niche that ATMs are pretty much garbage.


But how can this be fixed? If the minimum range was eliminated they'd be a more useful weapon (as they should be), but they'd be overpowered compared to Clan Streak SRMs. At the same time, keeping the minimum range forces them into the 'LRM Plus' niche, as that sort of minimum range disadvantage is so great that it will force players to maintain long range.

One option would be to decrease their short range damage and decrease the damage drop with range, so they they are less powerful than Streak SRMs at close range, while somewhat improving their performance above LRMs at all but long range... but then they'd just be long range Streak SRMs, and I'm not sure if that is a terribly useful or interesting niche for ATMs to occupy.

Another would be to mess around with their spread, maybe give them a larger spread than Streak SRMs (if they don't already have it), so they can retain their high damage at close range.
That would allow the minimum range to be removed.

I honestly don't know what is the best idea for improving ATMs, so I'm open to suggestions.


There is another topic to consider with ATMs; their ammo per ton, which is currently 72 missiles per ton. Further, 72 is directly divisible by 3, 6, 9 and 12 to whole numbers, so any increased ammo count should be the same.

At 181-270 meters range / 3 damage per missile, that is 216 damage per ton
At 546 meters range / 2 damage per missile, that is 144 damage per ton
At 823 meters range / 1 damage per missile, that is 72 damage per ton

Given ATMs are probably gonna be used a lot of the time beyond 270 meters range, 72 missiles per ton really isn't enough.

The next number that is divisble as a whole number by 3/6/9/12 is 108, that will give the following damage per ton at each damage figure:
3 damage per missile = 324
2 damage per missile = 216
1 damage per missile = 108

And next above that is 144 missiles:
3 damage per missile = 432
2 damage per missile = 288
1 damage per missile = 144

I think 108 is probably the best amount; it allows a decent damage per ton at mid-range without the short range damage per ton being stupidly huge.

A couple of thoughts on what they could do....just spitballing here

1. If they are committed to min range...go to 90 meters. This would allow a more useable window for the 3 damage, you could probably keep ammo count the same, would involve a trade off in a brawl...keeping SRM's the brawl king and Streaks viable in a knife fight against lights
2. Increase velocity. This would be a legitimate reason to use them at longer ranges (vs. carrying LRMs). Speed matters. 160 is LRM speed and really slow to be a streak replacement. As they won't be often able to get to a fast light before they get into to cover. The missles just won't gain on them fast enough. Maybe 200 on velocity. Fast enough to matter at long ranges (vs. slower LRMs) but slower than streaks (less effective against lights)


Maybe an either or...or both....just throwing an idea out there

[Oberost]

Dee Eight, on 29 June 2017 - 10:47 AM, said:

I know perfectly well how the math for engines in MWO works. That I explained how it works in what you quoted....just shows you're a troll and not worthy of anymore of my time.

Speaking about trolls...

[Weeny Machine]

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".

Edited by Bush Hopper, 29 June 2017 - 11:09 AM.

[Koniving]

I'm downloading the PTS from MWO's "Portal" but it is slower than dogshit.

Is there any way to get onto the PTS through steam, such as installing the PTS / Beta via steam so that I can get on that way? Steam can actually download stuff.

[Zergling]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 29 June 2017 - 11:01 AM, said:

A couple of thoughts on what they could do....just spitballing here

1. If they are committed to min range...go to 90 meters. This would allow a more useable window for the 3 damage, you could probably keep ammo count the same, would involve a trade off in a brawl...keeping SRM's the brawl king and Streaks viable in a knife fight against lights

2. Increase velocity. This would be a legitimate reason to use them at longer ranges (vs. carrying LRMs). Speed matters. 160 is LRM speed and really slow to be a streak replacement. As they won't be often able to get to a fast light before they get into to cover. The missles just won't gain on them fast enough. Maybe 200 on velocity. Fast enough to matter at long ranges (vs. slower LRMs) but slower than streaks (less effective against lights)

Maybe an either or...or both....just throwing an idea out there

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.

Edited by Zergling, 29 June 2017 - 11:18 AM.

[fireball 4]

tested it in the academy rac 2 does .2/shot and rac 5 does 1.2/shot. also projectile seems slower than their uac siblings. (also someone explain the ghost heat bug on these bc i keep getting heat spiked by them

stealth armor: wow its hot. in tt it gives +10 heat when turned on similar to 2 crits on a engine so shouldnt they gen the same heat as each other in mwo.

uac: as stated ammo is off

heavy lasers: as someone pointed out it should have a long burn time to reflect the +1 to hit in tt.

ATM: people seam to elude to it but the atm needs some sort of min otherwise the c-srms are toast. also remember the atm does not have the ability to clear cover like lrms they fly rather flat after launch.

missile general: dont forget that the travel time can be adjusted for balance as well. perhaps atms could start out slow and as they drop dmg they could speed up giving them use at both ranges but still adjustable.

and yes heavy mg is a nightmare got jumped by a nova with micros and them

[Oberost]

Koniving, on 29 June 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

I'm downloading the PTS from MWO's "Portal" but it is slower than dogshit.

Is there any way to get onto the PTS through steam, such as installing the PTS / Beta via steam so that I can get on that way? Steam can actually download stuff.

I don't think so...

AFAIK the PTS can only be downloaded through MWO Portal, so good luck with that.

[DAYLEET]

The heavy ml was unexpectedly good on a cheatah, they are going to be popular. 1.44 duration for 40 points of damage at 300meters for 4 ton and low heat is nasty. The higher damage make up for it plenty versus the cer,l mpl imo.


The heavy LL was insane hot, 3 on a shadowcat lol. Not a snipey kinda pilot and i didnt try very hard to make it work because in a 4v4 environment they are counter productive. In a 12v12 they could theoricaly perform well. But 4v4 you cant really afford a guy dicking around with 3 heavy LL. 4v4 has to be a brawl, no other way. Could be useful for some people, lotsa damage that could be bursted before taking cover, still not my style of play and pts is no place to test it. Its very niche, that niche you and me dont like, but theres not just you and me playing. I think its a valid niche.


Forced myself to use 6 heavy small on a cheatah as well. It did fine... the clan suffer from having good chassis/tech, put a **** weapon on it and you still do fine. I wouldnt try it on another chassis that cant shrug off damage easily and position itself quickly. I still cant justify it's existence when the ersl exist. the Clan finaly have their IS SL counterpart. A weapon that doesnt even have a niche.


The RAC5, 3 on an Ilya, pretty nice. Very satisfying to shoot. The mechanic where you cant keep the weapon spooled up without increasing the charge bar remove all claim of "skill" required to use it. It also severely diminish any tactical use like for example the gauss when you charge it before a target comes out of cover. The spread only happens at over 300 meters and thats acceptable. It's a burst weapon, it has better damage to justify it's existence but other ac's still keep their relevance.

It's not near as bad as people make it. They obviously not expected a situational weapon which make no sense unless you delete the other ac from the game. It will requires to gitgud though. I WISH cooldown nodes increased the charging values for longer firering before jam. I thought it did and initially made my build accordingly.


MRM. Not being able to aim it, coupled very low velocity and streaming means you can't seriously use it at it's supposed range and have to brawl. That negates it's niche. Being able to torso twist immediately after shooting lend itself to brawling which is good but Spread and Streaming means brawling with it is very ineffective and then srm are superior in every way.

So if you cant shoot a whale going down a slope at 300 meters or reliably damage a whale point blank... what is it suppose to do? Either highlight its medium range by greatly increasing velocity(my choice), Or you can reduce drastically the spread which makes boaters pretty strong, Or remove the stream firing and remove its unique flavor and also make boaters pretty strong.

Edited by DAYLEET, 29 June 2017 - 11:37 AM.