150 replies to this topic

[Targetloc]

Well, I've got a simple combat modelling program working (now to get it to spew graphs) and a fun little tidbit that I already knew from playing, but just confirmed with numbers... my AC20 Hunchback with 2 medium lasers actually does more damage only firing the AC20 past the first 20-24 seconds into a fight.

Roughly around the time it takes to core an Awesome with 100% accuracy. (~120 damage).

The Gauss version (1 less HS) has already killed an Atlas at that point (150 damage) because it can fire its mediums more often.


Gauss HBK > AC20 HBK. QED?


edit: this is with 6 heat AC20.
edit2: though some nights I feel like it, I'm probably not 100% accurate in most games.

Edited by Targetloc, 07 November 2012 - 07:54 PM.

[Indoorsman]

Well I see multiple posts about aiming, and how it shouldn't work like... aiming. There was no aiming in TT and there IS aiming in MWO. Rather than admit that this could affect weapon balance you guys are saying that maybe aiming is bad. If they remove convergence or add aiming penalties based on all the factors you guys just listed, rather than just balance the weapons different than TT, it would take much longer and be unfriendly to new players. Here's an example. Convergence, remove it and PGI has to recode the way lasers and ballistics fire and remove/replace/recode the convergence skill. Also, parallel beams would not prevent you from aiming at a certain component. They would make it to where only pros could hit the same component. People would bind weapons that are the closest together to different keys. Left arm lasers = weapons group 1, left torso lasers = grp 2, ct = grp3, rt = grp4, right arm = grp5. There, now a pro can know where his left arm lasers would hit in relation to his crosshair, and aim there. When his arm is done firing he adjusts to where his left torso, then center, right and then lastly right arm would hit. A pro would still be hitting the center torso, a new player would have no chance at all.

Now back to TT values themselves. You guys say if this game had them it would be balanced, despite the many differences these games have which would impact balance. So that is implying TT is balanced. I have seen people say TT wasn't exactly balanced. Let's say in TT weapon A is imbalanced. In TT a player may have 50+ weapons across his many mechs. Let's say 5 of them are weapon A. 10% of his weapons are imbalanced. Now if you transfer TT values to MWO and weapon A is still imbalanced, it's going to be much more apparent in MWO. Now instead of having 50+ weapons for 1 player, you have 4+. Let's say you have 6, that's probably a good representation of the average # of weapons on an MWO mech. So out of 6 let's say 1 or 2 are weapon A. That's 17-33% of your weapons being imbalanced. Some mechs use 4 energy and 2 missile. If the 4 energy were imbalanced you've got 66%. Because in this game individuals are using much fewer total weapons, any imbalance from TT is going to be magnified.

Edited by Indoorsman, 07 November 2012 - 09:07 PM.

[Farmer]

It's going to be really interesting when they try and implement the Blackjack if heat doesn't change. Outside of the original, all of those NEED proper heat. FASA even had to errata one of the builds to DHS, it was that broken. And a 45 ton CQC mech built around big guns that can't actually fire them is going to be useless.

[CCC Dober]

Let's hope the upper echelon of PGI is hit by a flash of inspiration originating from you gents. Your posts are top notch and dead on target. I wish you could be advisors for the rule design and make PGI see what went wrong at which point and how to undo the damage of seemingly thoughtless, reactive tinkering with the stuff that makes or breaks this game.

They really need help with that because I don't see them making any progress at all. Each patch I have seen to date brought more deviation from the original course that was set for a glorious revival of the franchise. Please, if you have any leverage, use it to bring this game back on course. Thanks.

[Kaijin]

Not wanting to start another thread on weapon balance, I decided to just stash this here.

At present, it seems some weapons are being balanced by what an Assault Mech can boat. For example, LRMs are now considered by some to be perfect...in an Awesome boating 4 LRM15s. Never mind that there was no Awesome variant that ever carried more than 2 LRM launchers, or an Atlas variant that carried more than 1. As a result, mechs designed to carry LRMs, but that don't have the tonnage to devote to more than 2 launchers (or the hardpoints) are made less useful than they normally would be, because LRMs had to be nerfed down to a level where Assaults boating them would not be OP.

I like the idea of variant-restricted hardpoints, but I don't think it goes far enough. Large weapons should not be able to be crammed into smaller hardpoint locations as per variant.

[ArmandTulsen]

StaggerCheck, on 30 October 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Another way to look at it would be that they went overboard with the firing / recycle rates on some weapons, if they indeed intend to stick to the 10 second heat sink cycle. You could easily reign in the Small Laser, for example, by adding another 2.5 seconds into the cooldown or duration... or a combination of both. There is zero reason why a filler weapon should be the wonder weapon it currently is.

Seriously, THIS.

There is something horribly wrong with the status quo if small laser boats are kicking ***.

[Strangefolk]

AllGamer, on 30 October 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

That's basically saying, don't follow the table top BattleTech "rules/specs"

it's indeed hard to balance a game of this magnitude, without breaking too many of the original table top specifications while maintaining true to the MW Universe

"Because that's how we've done it in the past" is the argument from tradition - a logical fallacy that's been around a long time. I want a fun, balanced game. Not simply the TT rules skinned over in the Cryengine.

[MustrumRidcully]

Here's a few things on how Battletech and a "real time, mouse aiming" game need to differ.

Range - RNG vs Player Aim
Range in Battletech affects your hit chance considerably. A Large Laser doesn't have just the advantage over a Medium Laser that it can hit targets the ML can't reach - it also has the advantage that within the ranges of the Medium Laser, it has a much higher hit probability. That means, overall, it's average damage will be increased as well, since it hits more often.

In a game where the player aims (with a mouse even), the difficulty of aiming is not based on a weapon's range, but only on two factors
1) Weapon flight/firing characteristic (Ballistic, Instant Hit, Firing Duration, Missile Lock, Spread)
2) The distance of the target.

Ballistics (including PPCs for this purposes) require you to lead the target. The slower the projectile, the more difficult it is to aim. Energy Weapons with a beam duration become more harder to aim the longer the beam lasts. For Missiles, Missile Lock is basically always equally difficult, but the spread can increase or reduce the effectiveness of the missiles.

The distance of the target - independently of weapon used - makes aiming more difficult.

The table top game balanced weapon stats (if at all) around how much range did affect the likely damage output of a weapon, based on the range influence on the dice roll outcomes.
The inlfuces on player aim on range are different, so having a range of 500m in MW:O may not have the value as having a range of 500m in the table top.

To balance the range advantage, we will probably do a mix of
- nerf low range weapons a bit (less damage for similar heat mostly)
- buff long range weapons a bit (more damage for similar heat.)

Single Hit Location Damage - RNG vs convergence and player aim
Hit locations in the table top were rolled - you could aim, but it was not the norm (at least until Elite pilots with targeting computers and pulse lasers arrived.).
This gave a special value for weapons that just had a single target damage. 4 Medium Lasers and 1 AC20 deal the same damage per turn - but the AC20 will deal it all to one hit location. As you can see - an AC20 is heavier and needs more critical slots than 4 Medium Lasers, and adding heat sinks and ammo needs doesn't really improve the situation much.

But in MW:O, we benefit from convergence and player aim. That means 4 Medium Lasers can pinpoint all their damage into one, player selected hit location (within the players ability to maintain the beam and to actually aim where he wants to hit.)
This alters the balance between weapons as well. it is no longer sufficient to just look at the damage of a weapon on its own - we basically have to consider "How much Damage can I get per ton/crit?".

But heat output vs heat generation and ranges need to stay similar
Weapon ranges and heat output vs heat generation need to stay similar, simply because this affected what mechs were designed for. It makes little sense, for example, to lower the range of a Gauss Rifle - that would turn it from a sniper-like weapon to a brawler weapon! Likewise, if a mech suddenly rapidly overheats when he was very cool running, he can no longer fuflfill his original role. The Awesome was designed to deliver PPC barrages and simply dominate the battlefield with his presence. Of course one could also use the PPC as a sniper weapon -but the Awesome was too cool running for that -a "Sniper" mech may have had 4 PPCs and less armour and heat sinks. (Let's say 3 tons of armour less, for 3 extra heat sinks, but 7 heat sinks lost to fit a 4th PPC, for a total of 24 HS and a heat generation of 40 heat per turn - A single alpha strike could lead a mech like this to a potential shutdown!)

[shadN]

1. I LOVE THIS GAME! Thank you so much for creating this!

2. Has weapon firing/cycling time been in the original ruleset? How did balancing go?

Asatruer, on 31 October 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

You have made that claim before, but were not able to back it up then either. Please, demonstrate where in core BattleTech rules can a weapon other than an UAC be fired more than once per turn. If you can, I would love to be able to cite it and use it next time I play BattleTech.

Though I know for a fact that last time I played back in the early 90s, no such thing was possible, thus easily disproving your, "always had" claim.

The boardgame had such a system, but only in a special rule set called "Solaris". The developers should definitely check into that rule set if they havent yet.

When we built our Solaris mechs we encountered several balancing issues regarding light weapons like MGs oder small lasers. These were absolute power houses and the long range weapons were no good at all. This problem was not only based on heat and firing cycles but also smaller ranges, but the same problem could be encountered that we see now in MWO.

3. LRM
They are just one thing: Too powerful! I think that with lock on and fire and forget system the damage must be toned down. I dont think that SRMs have a similar problem, as they are harder to hit with.

Or to make it short: The weapon system has severe balancing problems, and only hard measures can change this. Luckily we are in a beta state, and the developer can test things like this without whiners going all the way to "don´t change anything, I have already spent money".

[Indoorsman]

MustrumRidcully, on 11 November 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

The Awesome was designed to deliver PPC barrages and simply dominate the battlefield with his presence.

And that's the kind of balance we want for MWO? One mech designed to dominate the battlefield? Either you're exaggerating the Awesomes' capabilities in TT or else TT wasn't balanced.

Also, RNG means it took more hits to kill a mech in TT, more shots fired is more heat. Accurate shots means less shots and less heat to kill a mech. So even though we're generating more heat per shot, it takes fewer shots to kill a mech.

You seem to be one of the intelligent people discussing balance. So...

What do you think about the BV system in TT... Were TT weapons balanced, or did BV create the illusion of weapons balance? If weapons were balanced, why was BV needed and not just tonnage matching? If you listed reasons BV was needed, are they affecting balance in MWO? Are there other balance issues unique to MWO?

[Keifomofutu]

Indoorsman, on 11 November 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

And that's the kind of balance we want for MWO? One mech designed to dominate the battlefield? Either you're exaggerating the Awesomes' capabilities in TT or else TT wasn't balanced.

Also, RNG means it took more hits to kill a mech in TT, more shots fired is more heat. Accurate shots means less shots and less heat to kill a mech. So even though we're generating more heat per shot, it takes fewer shots to kill a mech.

You seem to be one of the intelligent people discussing balance. So...

What do you think about the BV system in TT... Were TT weapons balanced, or did BV create the illusion of weapons balance? If weapons were balanced, why was BV needed and not just tonnage matching? If you listed reasons BV was needed, are they affecting balance in MWO? Are there other balance issues unique to MWO?

A gausscat created in TT vs a PPC awesome in TT would be roughly equal. Both could continue firing at each other for quite a few rounds. The gausscat would still have the advantage of a potential one shot kill on any headshot.

Gauss being the expensive BV hog that it is would probably put the gausscat near the same Battle Value as an Awesome 8Q.

Edited by Keifomofutu, 11 November 2012 - 02:09 PM.

[VoidConductor]

I don't know but I think it is better to make fine tuning everywhere.
Each tweaking bolt require another ...

• DHS -> 2.0
  
• Gauss reload should be decreased ... to be similar in DPS with ER-PPC with some DHSs (>heat wise)
  
• ERPPC speed increase 10 - 50 km/s + EMP effect
  
• Min range PPC "damage" change to: damage to own mech section where PPC is mounted by chance (RNG) depending on range (lowest range, highest chance)
  
• LL and ER-LL lower duration (good tweak bolt for balance)
  
• DPS decrease of SLAS & MLAS ... or ... heat increase to lower dmg/hps ratios
  
• AC's speed increase (to 1.5 km/s), doubling ammunition (due to double armor).
  
• then LRM / SRM tweaking ...
  
• then Artemis effectiveness
  
• additionally balance of available critical slots

[MustrumRidcully]

Indoorsman, on 11 November 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

And that's the kind of balance we want for MWO? One mech designed to dominate the battlefield? Either you're exaggerating the Awesomes' capabilities in TT or else TT wasn't balanced.

Also, RNG means it took more hits to kill a mech in TT, more shots fired is more heat. Accurate shots means less shots and less heat to kill a mech. So even though we're generating more heat per shot, it takes fewer shots to kill a mech.

You seem to be one of the intelligent people discussing balance. So...

What do you think about the BV system in TT... Were TT weapons balanced, or did BV create the illusion of weapons balance? If weapons were balanced, why was BV needed and not just tonnage matching? If you listed reasons BV was needed, are they affecting balance in MWO? Are there other balance issues unique to MWO?

"Dominating the Battlefield" is not the same thing as "my god, this thing is totally op". It'S still just only 3 PPCs - but you know that these 3 PPCs won't stop firing if there are targets in range and view. It's just the particular role of a direct fire support mech. He's not even necessarily the kill-shot type of guy - that may still be the Atlas when he gets close and delivers an AC20 to your vitals.

[Asatruer]

Comparing BVs of some stock mechs and a customized gausskat (-G2) that has dropped all the weapons for two Gauss Rifles with 5 tons of ammo, standard ten heatsinks, 10.5 tons of armor (half a ton more than the standard -K2) and a standard 195 engine.

Atlas AS7-K - BV 2,175
Atlas AS7-D - BV 1,897
Awesome AWS-8Q - BV 1,605
Awesome AWS-9M - BV 1,812
Catapult CPLT-K2 - BV 1,319
Catapult CPLT-G2 - BV 2,020

Edited by Asatruer, 11 November 2012 - 09:00 PM.

[Draco Argentum]

Indoorsman, on 11 November 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

And that's the kind of balance we want for MWO? One mech designed to dominate the battlefield? Either you're exaggerating the Awesomes' capabilities in TT or else TT wasn't balanced.

Sustained direct DPS is a role. You use it to lock down areas of the map so the enemy can't advance whereever they want. You can counter with high alpha snipers who pop in and out of cover thereby denying the Awesome its advantage. Against a competant team the Awesome shouldn't do much damage, its mostly there for the control of their movement options, thus battlefield dominance.

[Volthorne]

Draco Argentum, on 11 November 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

Sustained direct DPS is a role. You use it to lock down areas of the map so the enemy can't advance whereever they want. You can counter with high alpha snipers who pop in and out of cover thereby denying the Awesome its advantage. Against a competant team the Awesome shouldn't do much damage, its mostly there for the control of their movement options, thus battlefield dominance.

Except in TT there was quite literally no way to get CLOSE to an AWS-8Q unless you had cover of n+2 (where n = height of terrain AWS is on). Trying to close with one guaranteed a barrage of hich-velocity particles headed your way regardless of movement speed, and if the pilot was good (elite) or got lucky, you'd get toasted before a good to-hit for MLas occured. The Awesome was, quite literally, broken in TT for the BV it cost.

[Vapor Trail]

In which case, you did what you would do in MWO, spot him and bring the rain. LRMs outreach PPCs. Only with the introduction of the 9Q (and ERPPCs) did the PPC centric Awesome's reach exceed 540m. LRMs had 630m.

And with the introduction of the 9Q there's several different systems for dealing with him, without endangering your mechs. AC/2 would do it, if you had the time and ammo. But even better was the Arrow IV.

Enemy in a position that you can't crack any other way? Call for the hard rain. Enough Arrow IV's on the position and even the most nuts pilot will get the hint.

Of course, that's assuming you brought the systems. If you didn't your butt's in a crack and you have to get out of it somehow... and if you have to break that position, and all that you can do is a direct assault... well... direct assault it is. Everybody goes and someone's gonna take damage. But if you all go at once and focus fire, he can only kill one of you.

If you're a solo mech facing a solo Awesome in some sort of duel, and you allow him to get this kind of advantage... well maybe losing is in the cards.

That's what happens when you let the enemy dictate pretty much the entire engagement. His ground, his positions, his strengths.

Edited by Vapor Trail, 12 November 2012 - 12:47 AM.

[Draco Argentum]

Volthorne, on 11 November 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

Except in TT there was quite literally no way to get CLOSE to an AWS-8Q unless you had cover of n+2 (where n = height of terrain AWS is on). Trying to close with one guaranteed a barrage of hich-velocity particles headed your way regardless of movement speed, and if the pilot was good (elite) or got lucky, you'd get toasted before a good to-hit for MLas occured. The Awesome was, quite literally, broken in TT for the BV it cost.

Real time game now, alpha sniping works when you can move before and after shooting. And we have what I can only assume is better terrain than a tabletop where you need to make sure the models don't fall over.

[Farmer]

Vapor Trail, on 12 November 2012 - 12:46 AM, said:

Enemy in a position that you can't crack any other way? Call for the hard rain. Enough Arrow IV's on the position and even the most nuts pilot will get the hint.

Of course, that's assuming you brought the systems. If you didn't your butt's in a crack and you have to get out of it somehow... and if you have to break that position, and all that you can do is a direct assault... well... direct assault it is. Everybody goes and someone's gonna take damage. But if you all go at once and focus fire, he can only kill one of you.

Yeah, wolfpack lights ATE Awesomes. Their speed, especially the Flea and the Locust and their ilk, negated most of the advantages from upgrading pilot and gunnery skills in the awesome, and if you kept out of range and were patient, you could all swarm at once.

[Lazy Eye]

Farmer, on 12 November 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

Yeah, wolfpack lights ATE Awesomes. Their speed, especially the Flea and the Locust and their ilk, negated most of the advantages from upgrading pilot and gunnery skills in the awesome, and if you kept out of range and were patient, you could all swarm at once.

And this works, because, with the exception of certain weapons, the basic IS gear is balanced against itself, so for equivalent BV, you could use skill to out-play the slow, only-got-a-small-laser-at-short-range Awesome.

Indoorsman, on 11 November 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

What do you think about the BV system in TT... Were TT weapons balanced, or did BV create the illusion of weapons balance? If weapons were balanced, why was BV needed and not just tonnage matching? If you listed reasons BV was needed, are they affecting balance in MWO? Are there other balance issues unique to MWO?

I can prove that most of the weapons in TT are balanced against each other. Notable exceptions are the AC 2, 5 & 20, all of which should be lighter and/or smaller.

An interesting thing about the BV system, is that, essentially, it is based on the damage/range/accuracy of weapons. This means that if, for example, you make the AC/2 the "correct" size (2.5t, if you were wondering), you don't need to modify it's BV, because you'll add more weapons to the 'mech, increasing it's overall BV, balancing-out the smaller weapon.

Conversely, what you will notice if you study BVs, is that 'mechs with AC/2's will have a significantly lower overall BV than varients with say large lasers or other types of AC...

For example, from the official Record Sheets 3039 Unabridged:

Clint CLNT-1-2R (1 MLas, 1 AC/10 + 1ton, 10 HS, 0JJ): BV = 707
Clint CLNT-2-4T (1 MLas, 2 AC/2 + 1ton, 10 HS, 0JJ): BV = 619
Clint CLNT-2-3T (2 MLas, AC/5 + 1ton, 10 HS, 6JJ): BV = 770
Clint CLNT-2-3T Denton (2 MLas, LLas, 14 HS, 6JJ): BV = 873

Now, of course, part of the difference comes from the ammo; ammo without a CASE decreases BV (because it explodes), but the reality is more that the excessive size of the ACs reduces the room for additional weapons/equipment, reducing the overall BV of your unit. In the Clint with the AC/2s, at 2.5 tons, instead of 6, you'd have 7 tons spare... enough for 6 JJs and an extra MLas, that would bring the BV up to something close to the 800 mark...

For those who care, base IS AC stats should be:

Weapon Tons Crits Heat Balanced Against
AC/2 2.5 2 0 AC/5 & MG (No direct comparison available)
AC/5 5.0 4 1 PPC (Same range)
AC/10 12.0 7 3 Large Laser (Same range)
AC/20 9.0 9 5 Medium Laser (Same range)

All other stats remain unchanged (including BV).

Summary of method:

• Assume 10 HS from engine
  
• Take number of lowest-heat weapon that generates 10 heat (e.g. 4 x AC/10).
  
• Take number of comparison weapon that matches damage output (e.g. 5 x LLas)
  
• For ballistic weapons, include enough ammo for 10 turns of shooting.
  
• Balance out remaining heat (counting the 10 from engine) with additional HS.
  
• Compare total tonnage and critical usage.

Qty Weapon Dmg Ht Total Tonnage Total Criticals

4 x AC/10 40 12 (4x12)+4+(12-10) = 54 (4x7)+4+(12-10) = 34
5 x L Las 40 40 (5x 5)+0+(40-10) = 55 (5x2)+0+(40-10) = 40

Yes, it ends up that AC/10 is slightly more space-efficient... but then you've got the issue of ammo explosions to consider... AC/10 is "better" but comes with higher risk == balanced.