Jump to content

Weapon Balance and Heat System - the Current State (2012/10/30)


150 replies to this topic

#101 IS GunGrave

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 44 posts
  • LocationEurope

Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:53 AM

View PostDraco Argentum, on 06 November 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:



I'd have to grind for three hours in a trial mech to get a Jenner to pilot. I know because I did the test in closed beta. They have about two patches to fix the NPE or I'm out and will just be hoping for a miracle email when PGI realises they have problems to fix.


I don't wanna sound like a noob but what is NPE?

#102 SteelPaladin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 715 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:56 AM

New Player Experience

#103 Squidhead Jax

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,434 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:57 AM

View PostIS GunGrave, on 06 November 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

I don't wanna sound like a noob but what is NPE?


New Player Experience, I think.

#104 ExavierMacbeth

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, Az, USA

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:40 AM

Personally I wish the would use the tweaked stats in the original post for their weapons then work from there. Would definatly be more balanced than what we currently have I think.

#105 Draco Argentum

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,222 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:59 PM

Yep, new player experience. Its currently rotten. I even made a mistake, its about 4 hours of legitimate play to get a Jenner. Two hours if you rambo grind but I don't play games to do unfun crud like that.

#106 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:29 AM

Hmm. I wonder if I should redo the graphs for 1.4 DHS now... Or is there even any point to all of this, because who other than my personal echo chamber cares for it - PGI certainly didn't seem to get it so far...

#107 Draco Argentum

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,222 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:32 AM

View PostMustrumRidcully, on 07 November 2012 - 02:29 AM, said:

Hmm. I wonder if I should redo the graphs for 1.4 DHS now... Or is there even any point to all of this, because who other than my personal echo chamber cares for it - PGI certainly didn't seem to get it so far...


Maybe a new thread with a poll. Everyone likes polls.

#108 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:47 AM

View PostDraco Argentum, on 07 November 2012 - 02:32 AM, said:


Maybe a new thread with a poll. Everyone likes polls.

The board software is pretty cool with polls, I give them that.

#109 CCC Dober

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 03:11 AM

@Mustrum

I've read another post today, where a gent narrowed down the whole problem to a set of parameters that cover the basic rules of the game. In essence, the whole balance hinges on scaling them in unison or as close as possible to the TT stats.

1. Rate of Fire -> currently ~3x faster than TT
2. Armor -> currently 2x better than TT
3. Heat production -> currently ~3x faster than TT
4. Heat dissipation -> currently as fast as TT, 60% worse for DHS

A set of (3; 2; 3; 3) would help to bring the stats back in line. What this solution can't do is deal with the low heat, fast firing weapons, such as small/medium lasers, Gauss, streaks etc.

In the bigger picture however, it is much, much easier to balance a couple of outliers (see above), rather than redo balance for the vast majority. Possible solution: decreased rate of fire for low heat weapons. Adding heat penalties might be another way. That wouldn't make a lot of sense though because these weapons are known to be heat efficient.

In closing, I think PGI is very close to make this game work as intended, but something or somebody is very protective of low heat weapons and that causes the whole game to degenerate into the overheating mess we are dealing with. This kind of approach is ultimately selfish and doomed to fail. I wonder what it takes to make PGI see that? Another wave of refunds/chargebacks maybe?

#110 Indoorsman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 792 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 07 November 2012 - 03:38 AM

View PostCCC Dober, on 07 November 2012 - 03:11 AM, said:

parameters that cover the basic rules of the game. In essence, the whole balance hinges on scaling them in unison or as close as possible to the TT stats.

Sure the board game can be used to set a hierarchy, weapon A>B>C but it should NOT be used to determine actual weapon values. MWO is real time, first person, controlling one mech, the player aims, uses a mouse/keyboard/computer. TT is turn based, 3rd person, controlling many mechs, roll dice for hit locations, use a board/figures/props. Those are all variables that define how the games work and are played. None of them match up. You cannot take the balance from one and apply it or a ratio/derivative to the other, aside from a general A>B>C hierarchy. PGI has to balance this game on its own, seperate from TT.

#111 CCC Dober

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 05:04 AM

View PostIndoorsman, on 07 November 2012 - 03:38 AM, said:

Sure the board game can be used to set a hierarchy, weapon A>B>C but it should NOT be used to determine actual weapon values. MWO is real time, first person, controlling one mech, the player aims, uses a mouse/keyboard/computer. TT is turn based, 3rd person, controlling many mechs, roll dice for hit locations, use a board/figures/props. Those are all variables that define how the games work and are played. None of them match up. You cannot take the balance from one and apply it or a ratio/derivative to the other, aside from a general A>B>C hierarchy. PGI has to balance this game on its own, seperate from TT.


Okay, that's the approach that will net you the most work for the least outcome and most friction. And yes, I actually know what I'm talking about here. If you had been part of the Mektek Beta for a while you would know that by heart now. I know I do and when you have seen sweeping changes across the board just to deal with new weapons/systems that are influenced by some basic parameters, such as the ones listed above, then you know where to do tweaks.

Leave the weapons and systems alone as much as possible. They represent an ocean of parameters to get right. Instead, focus on time as a parameter that affects them all. TT stats worked within a 10 second window and represent the baseline. Stats that are proven to work.

If MWO feels too slow, then all you have to do decrease the time window across the board for all weapons and systems equally. That's how you scale properly and keep the game in one piece.

If you don't do that and start cherry picking time tweaks, then look no further than the current heat system of MWO. It's a steaming pile of dung and only a select few 'peasants' revel in it.

Edited by CCC Dober, 07 November 2012 - 05:06 AM.


#112 Indoorsman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 792 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:11 PM

View PostCCC Dober, on 07 November 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

I actually know what I'm talking about here. If you had been part of the Mektek Beta for a while you would know that by heart now. I know I do

You can't just assume because a smart guy said something that he said something smart. That would not be smart.

View PostCCC Dober, on 07 November 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

TT stats worked within a 10 second window and represent the baseline. Stats that are proven to work.

The way the game is played is not equal or even similar to the way TT was played. The stats are "proven" to work for a board game, not a computer game. Are you ignoring the variables of how this game is played? It's 100% different than a board game as far as HOW you play it. You can't just change the weapon stats so that you still do the exact SAME damage over a 10s window. That's just a dirivative/ratio of TT stats. The only way it would make sense is if this game wasn't first person, you DID control multiple mechs, it still had a tile layout etc.. In otherwords if this was TT on the computer then you could use TT values. It's not so it shouldn't.

#113 CCC Dober

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:37 PM

Look indoor, I know you try hard, but there are facts that you can't BS your way around.

Of course the game is not exactly the same as TT because real time is NOT turn-based. Everybody with 2 working brain cells gets that and doesn't need to be reminded.

If you have trouble drawing parallels between both games ASIDE from that fact and can't acknowledge that MW is based on TT, then you are beyond help. TT has a proven set of rules that have to be adapted to real time and that is all. Read again: I wrote RULES. That does not even touch hard values for weapons or systems.

As it so happens, PGI did just that. The time window has been selectively compressed. If they did it across the board you would have no complaints from anybody because they would have stuck to the program. Every BT nerd and his grand daddy could recalculate their values and they would play the same game just a tad faster than they used to do on TT.

Alas they can't and this is where MWO fails hard. Half the weapons and Mechs are rendered useless because the time window where important stuff such as damage and heat dissipation happens was tuned selectively and not in unison. Cherry picked you could say, to the point that energy weapons have become utterly useless.

Who do you want to sell on a MW game where you shut down 3 times faster than ever before and where your actual skills are nerfed by the netcode? Where Light Mechs drown in buffs and everything that doesn't field Streaks against them can go packing. You are so deep in it, if you actually believe this is the game people have signed up for and tell their friends about. It's incredible that you didn't choke on the brown stuff already.

Edited by CCC Dober, 07 November 2012 - 01:37 PM.


#114 Nik Van Rhijn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,905 posts
  • LocationLost

Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:59 PM

View PostCCC Dober, on 07 November 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Look indoor, I know you try hard, but there are facts that you can't BS your way around.

Of course the game is not exactly the same as TT because real time is NOT turn-based. Everybody with 2 working brain cells gets that and doesn't need to be reminded.

If you have trouble drawing parallels between both games ASIDE from that fact and can't acknowledge that MW is based on TT, then you are beyond help. TT has a proven set of rules that have to be adapted to real time and that is all. Read again: I wrote RULES. That does not even touch hard values for weapons or systems.

As it so happens, PGI did just that. The time window has been selectively compressed. If they did it across the board you would have no complaints from anybody because they would have stuck to the program. Every BT nerd and his grand daddy could recalculate their values and they would play the same game just a tad faster than they used to do on TT.

Alas they can't and this is where MWO fails hard. Half the weapons and Mechs are rendered useless because the time window where important stuff such as damage and heat dissipation happens was tuned selectively and not in unison. Cherry picked you could say, to the point that energy weapons have become utterly useless.

Who do you want to sell on a MW game where you shut down 3 times faster than ever before and where your actual skills are nerfed by the netcode? Where Light Mechs drown in buffs and everything that doesn't field Streaks against them can go packing. You are so deep in it, if you actually believe this is the game people have signed up for and tell their friends about. It's incredible that you didn't choke on the brown stuff already.

Excellent summation Dober, unfortunately PGI's vision of the game doesn't seem to include this. At the present rate I'm not sure we will reach the Clans.

#115 Indoorsman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 792 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:09 PM

View PostCCC Dober, on 07 November 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Look indoor, I know you try hard, but there are facts that you can't BS your way around.

Of course the game is not exactly the same as TT because real time is NOT turn-based. Everybody with 2 working brain cells gets that and doesn't need to be reminded.

If you have trouble drawing parallels between both games ASIDE from that fact and can't acknowledge that MW is based on TT, then you are beyond help. TT has a proven set of rules that have to be adapted to real time and that is all. Read again: I wrote RULES. That does not even touch hard values for weapons or systems.

RULES: A set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere. That would be things like weapons generate heat, generate too much heat and you shut down, XL engines take up side torso space, LL>ML>SL, hunchbacks weigh x amount.

Those are rules, and they are easy to transfer to a different game. But as for TT ML dps/hps values, that has no place in MWO. Balance has to make it so an individual can have a chance against other individuals. In MWO that means 1 mech vs 1 mech, so an assortment of 4-9 weapons vs 4-9 other weapons. That is what an individual in MWO is, 4-9 weapons. In TT an individual w/8 mechs was 32-72 weapons. An individual in TT could use every single weapon in the game at the same time, and lots of them. In MWO you are very limited in comparison. That's why MWO balance is completely different than TT balance. Every single weapon has to be balanced well so that you can pick your 2-3 weapons and do good with them.

There, I just broke down one more of my points since you only chose to address the real time issue, and badly at that.

#116 Asatruer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 235 posts
  • LocationSeattle

Posted 07 November 2012 - 05:27 PM

View PostIndoorsman, on 07 November 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

The way the game is played is not equal or even similar to the way TT was played. The stats are "proven" to work for a board game, not a computer game. Are you ignoring the variables of how this game is played? It's 100% different than a board game as far as HOW you play it. You can't just change the weapon stats so that you still do the exact SAME damage over a 10s window. That's just a dirivative/ratio of TT stats. The only way it would make sense is if this game wasn't first person, you DID control multiple mechs, it still had a tile layout etc.. In otherwords if this was TT on the computer then you could use TT values. It's not so it shouldn't.
It is true that aiming with the mouse is completely different than 2d6 to determine chance of hit based on some environmental factors, and 2d6 to determine which locations successful attacks do damage to. This does not necessarily mean that there is something inherent about moving to a mouse aiming system that throws using TT values for weapons out of a desired hierarchical balance.

Let us have a look at what effect the differences between TT and MWO's aiming systems have on chance to hit.

TT's environmental factors that affect the chance to hit are: Cover (Woods, water, hills, and building), Attacker speed and stance, target speed and stance, Damaged actuators, Damaged sensors, and Heat.

MWO's environmental factors are the same, but lack stances (no crouch or prone currently), critical hits and Heat. All pretty self explanatory, we all know that trying to hit a Jenner running at 128 kph is harder than one standing still, and similarly but to a lesser degree trying to hit as that Jenner running at 128 kph is harder. Cover also quite clearly has an effect. The trick comes in trying to determine if the real time mouse aiming nature of MWO makes some or all of these factors more pronounced, or less pronounced. We can agree that they do have an effect in both gameplay methods.

Do these differences in how MWO's environmental factors affect hit chance change the hierarchical balance of weapons? No, because all of these factors affect all weapons equally (I hear an argument brewing, wait for a few points), thus do not move any individual weapon up to down in hierarchy.

Beyond environmental factors, let us look at weapon factors.
TT's weapon values that affect the chance to hit are: Short, Medium and Long range and that is it.

Does the distance from the attacker to the target affect hit chance in mouse aiming? Yes, it is harder to consistently hit a target that is smaller in pixel/screen-percentage size than one that is larger in size, but it is not the weapons range value in MWO that affects hit chance, but the raw distance between the attacker and target, making this more of an environmental effect in MWO. MWO's weapon range value does not affect hit chance, so hit chance by the weapon's range value is the same for all weapons. This is the first factor that throws a monkey wrench in the hierarchical balance of weapons, where some weapon have greater or lesser ranges (and thus hit chance at those ranged) than other weapons to balance them in respect to their damage, weight, heat production, or ammo consumption. In an attempt to keep TT's weapon balance PGI makes weapons do less damage over range past the weapon's range value. The specific effects this had on the weapon balance hierarchy, I really could not say, and honestly have little desire to attempt to fully analyze if it caused any repositioning of weapons in the hierarchy. I am going to guess damage drop-off has little appreciable effect on the hierarchy due to any notable complaints about it in the CB or OB forums.

MWO does throw in an additional weapon factor in chance to hit that does not exist in TT by adding in additional elements such as the various ballistic properties of each weapon's shot, making some weapons easier to hit with than other weapons as some projectiles take longer to travel the same distance as another weapon. This is the second factor that throws a monkey wrench into the desired weapon hierarchy, and again I am not going to really analyze it, but I know it has a notable effect on the overall weapon balance hierarchy, such as AC/20s being harder to brawl with at 270m than a Gauss rifles.


Moving on from chance to hit, to location of a hit:
In TT there are no weapon values that affect the location of a hit. No value of a weapon affects the 2d6 roll. It could be argued that the scatter tables for multiple submunitions of LRMs, SRMs, SSRMs, LBX ACs, and UAC have an effect here.

In MWO, mouse aiming affects all direct fire non-guided weapons equally. So by itself, mouse aiming does not change the hierarchical balance of individual weapons compared to each other in where they hit when they hit. Just like in chance to hit, the MWO factor that does have an effect on the balance of where weapons hit compared to each other is the ballistic qualities of the shot as a slower projectile might strike a moving mech farther in the direction it is moving away from. In this regard, PGI added to laser weapons damage over the duration of beam time (making them more likely to multiple locations rather than one single location) to try and bring them back in-line with the other weapons that do not instantly hit.

We should be able to agree that there is nothing inherent in mouse-aiming that causes individual (non-guided) weapons in the balance hierarchy to shift up or down in relation to the other weapons, as they all benefit equally. Where they do not benefit equally is when other elements not specifically related to aiming with a mouse are added, such as differing ballistic properties of a weapon's shot.


The heat generated by a weapon and the heat dissipation rate of heat sinks have no effect on aiming, hitting, or where a hit deals damage. Trying to use these two factors to try and balance issues perceived to be caused by shifting to a mouse driven aiming system is fundamentally flawed. Should we get rid of mouse aiming? No. Should we get rid of varying ballistic qualities of weapons? Maybe...

PGI introduced different ballistic qualities to shots being a factor in hitting, so any effects these have on a weapon's place in the weapon balance hierarchy is due completely to PGI's design decisions related to the speed of the projectile, but are not an inherent issue with mouse aiming, and certainly not related to using TT weapon values with mouse aiming.

#117 Squidhead Jax

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,434 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 06:24 PM

View PostAsatruer, on 07 November 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

stuff


That's mostly true. Where mouse aim and TT show the most severe divergence is in clustering of identical direct-fire weapons. 2 gauss rifles would almost never hit the same component on the same turn, and could easily miss separately. A Swayback in TT has all the single-point accuracy of reflections off a disco ball. This leads to more deviation from TT heirarchies on weapons that stack together more easily (hello, med/small laser family). With frequent Daily Doubles like the Gausscat, that wouldn't be as much a factor. Since a pair of weapons approaches being a standard array for all but the biggest, and the big boys have a degree of their single-point advantage shaved off anyway by doubled armor and directible aiming, I don't much mind that effect as it applies to pairs, so long as the weapons in the pair are balanced within the system.

Death Stars, on the other hand, throw the balance assumptions behind lasers - efficient, but small packets of spray-fire - out the window and the current 'counter' to it is bad. Smear makes small numbers of lasers used as a primary array for lightly-armed 'mechs and a backup array for others less useful proportionately, while Death Stars of whatever stripe are still doing enough per burn-pulse to concentrate damage heavily - even if it's across 2 or 3 sections, it would normally end up spraying the whole 'mech.

Forcing bigger groups of lasers to have more burn, or forcing chainfire on more than 2 or 3 weapons triggered in the same short span, should alleviate that issue. Since analysis by others suggests that that's what had the devs panicking about true 2.0, fixing that might bring the barrier down and let PPCs fly as they were meant to.
I wish.

#118 Asatruer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 235 posts
  • LocationSeattle

Posted 07 November 2012 - 06:40 PM

View PostSquidhead Jax, on 07 November 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

That's mostly true. Where mouse aim and TT show the most severe divergence is in clustering of identical direct-fire weapons.
Mostly so, but I was trying to deal only with the balance of individual weapons, rather than clusters of weapons. The balance issues of multiple weapons is easy to see in the balance difference between the HBK-4G and the HBK-4P. In TT the -4P does 40 (8 x 5)damage scattered around the target for a little more heat than the -4Gs focused 30 (20, 5, 5) damage for just a little less heat, here the -4P does all that damage in a much more focused fashions, but still not as focused as the -4G due to laser damage over beam time balancing act.

Mind you, this is still not directly an issue of mouse-aim, but rather of weapon convergence. If weapon's did not converge all on the same spot, the 8 MLs of the -4P would not be nearly as much of an issue. We could have mouse aim without weapon convergence.

Edited by Asatruer, 07 November 2012 - 06:45 PM.


#119 Targetloc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 963 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 06:54 PM

If pin-point convergence is here to stay, about the only sensible way to balance it is to not make grouping large numbers of small weapons more efficient than using an equal tonnage of larger weapons.

Adding extra penalties (like additonal heat) to similar weapons in the same section is unintuitive to both new and experienced players (it makes their paper doll stats completely subjective), and has the side-effect of penalizing some builds purely on their hardpoints.

They pretty much need to increase the recycle time on medium and small lasers so their DPS/ton is more in line with other weapons in the same range bracket.

Edited by Targetloc, 07 November 2012 - 06:58 PM.


#120 Joachim Viltry

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 227 posts
  • LocationTexas, USA, Terra, SOL System, Inner Sphere

Posted 07 November 2012 - 06:59 PM

View PostAsatruer, on 07 November 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

Mind you, this is still not directly an issue of mouse-aim, but rather of weapon convergence. If weapon's did not converge all on the same spot, the 8 MLs of the -4P would not be nearly as much of an issue. We could have mouse aim without weapon convergence.


Oddly enough this was one of the very first topics brought up when the MWO forums came online, complete with loooong in deapth discussion, graphs, and comparisons. and essentially all of the warnings about this very thing whent unheaded, and instead you get the pinpoint damage due to convergence model we have, rather than a more reasonable parallel beam/ set convergence distance model; that could fix the problem.





6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users