150 replies to this topic

[SmoothCriminal]

increasing heatsinking efficiency just means more whoosh. No-one wants that. So, to quote another thread that dealt with this yesterday, we need to balance heat generation on energy weapons for more pew pew.

[Aym]

All meaningless because we don't have DHS. None of your analysis covers crit slots, for instance a PPC using 3 while a Gauss rifle uses... 9 was it? 7? Either way, twice as much. This directly relates to the ability to use Endosteel, XL engine, and DHS. Furthermore heat is being revamped as mentioned in a dev post yesterday.
TL:DR Balance once systems are in place. Although I do tend to agree with the general thesis of low-heat weapons benefiting more from increased RoF, the actual metrics aren't ready for analysis yet.

[MustrumRidcully]

Draco Argentum, on 31 October 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

I'd post my attempt but excel charting functions kicked my butt. I'm still wrestling with it.

Hmm. What version are you using? There may be some helpful videos out there online, for example:

Spoiler

I am not really an Excel Guru, I just learned as I was doing. Basically, one of the first "challenges" is to figure out that you need to select the chart you inserted, and go to the Design Ribbon (if you're using a "Ribbonized" version of Excel in the first place), and then press "Select Data". Select the entire chart and then remove all the columns you don't care for...

[MCXL]

The OP is spot on. This is what I want. I also really like the idea of making DHS have the lower heat capacity drawback.

Aym, on 31 October 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

Although I do tend to agree with the general thesis of low-heat weapons benefiting more from increased RoF, the actual metrics aren't ready for analysis yet.

I don't think that's fair to say. The metrics are ready for analysis, it's just that they are a moving target. We don't know what PGI is going to change yet, but this thread points out the current flaws eloquently and accurately and proposes a way to fix them.

This is Beta after all, they are looking for feedback.

Edited by MCXL, 31 October 2012 - 04:38 AM.

[Wolke]

I applaud the effort put into this analysis and agree that there are still a few stats to change for weapon balance.

I noticed you completely left "accuracy" or "ease of use" out of your calculations though - any reason for that? Handling of weapons (usually) didn't really matter in tabletop, you had your range and rolled to hit based on that (+target modifiers). Here in game though we have projectile speed, firing delay, duration and such all affecting balance.

So why do you think you can ask for change based on your stats and completely leave out other balancing factors?

Edited by Wolke, 31 October 2012 - 04:37 AM.

[MCXL]

I think that talking about handling at this point is premature with how bad hit detection is. That is one area that waiting for a more final product to analyze matters, because currently, the only reliable weapons are guided (leading targets with Lazorz... Insanity)

I think that's a big factor in why LRMS feel strong at the moment for most players; because they are the only weapon system that is functioning as intended. (Streaks will have a spread to their lock soon, taking that down a notch)

Edited by MCXL, 31 October 2012 - 04:47 AM.

[Vapor Trail]

Accuracy/ease of use is a secondary factor. You can use it to tweak on a weapon to get it exactly where you want it, once you've got the weapon roughly in balance other ways.

Look at it like this, if you were to balance a weapon that was hugely powerful to one that wasn't so powerful, solely through "ease of use" tweaking, you'd probably wind up with something that might actually require use of the moniker "mooninite quad-laser."

The weapon would be insanely powerful, but to hit someone with it, they'd have to be asleep.

[Sayyid]

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.

Google "Solaris VII Rules"

There is your source for ROF for Battletech.

And the OP has damage and heat wrong on several weapons in his final chart, I couldnt tell if it was his adjusted chart or one he is using for the current game.

[MustrumRidcully]

Sayyid, on 31 October 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

Google "Solaris VII Rules"

There is your source for ROF for Battletech.

Solaris VIII rules are not classic Battletech, they present their ruleset. They also have nothing to do with the MW:O stats. And they are also breaking balance assumptions from the original Battletech Board Game. Unfortunately, most of the threads and posts discussing this have been gone to the Closed Beta Archives. But they present similar problems as M:WO did.
For example, the table top suggests that in one turn, PPC can deal 10 damage and causes 10 heat over 10 seconds, and Medium Lasers deal 5 damage and 3 heat over 10 seconds. Solaris rules effectively double the output of a Medium Laser over 10 seconds. So suddenly, the Medium Laser becomes even better. The PPC only advantage is that it deals more single-shot damage to one target location, but damn it, it's 7 times heavier and produces twices the heat of the medium laser over 10 seconds. Is that really worth the advantage range and target-location damage? What's so different about Solaris that these two advantages are worth enough that you can cut away the weapon's damage per turn advantage?

Quote

And the OP has damage and heat wrong on several weapons in his final chart, I couldnt tell if it was his adjusted chart or one he is using for the current game.

The weapon values are my own. The weapon values currently used in MW:O I didn't replicate, I used Ohmwrecker's charts.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 31 October 2012 - 05:16 AM.

[wuselfuzz]

Sayyid, on 31 October 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

Google "Solaris VII Rules"

There is your source for ROF for Battletech.

Solaris 7 duel rules are a variation of the original BT rules. They're not the classic BattleTech rules and therefore would not apply to a classic BT match.

Here you go

[Tombstoner]

I cant agree with your conclusions since the TT damage balance takes into account the hit location mechanic.
MWO has a skill based hit mechanic and this necessitates a complete re balancing of all TT weapon damages for MWO, but that would deviate too much from cannon.

In TT an ac-20 hit is devastating vs 4 med hits. simply because its in all one location. in MWO the med's get a buff from alpha striking one spot due to player skill. this fundamentally lowers the atlases survivability :just core the CT and gives weapons like the Gauss a massive buff.

Skill based targeting and damage location means a complete departure from TT damage values and re balancing. i don't see that happening and lots of QQ around this topic. of course Gauss is powerful when you can hit the ct almost every time for no heat at long range, if it hit randomly people would be QQ less.

[Wolke]

I disagree with the statement that handling is secondary.

It is just an as important issue an heat efficiency or DPS. Look at the LBX-AC for example. It's on paper damage is good, it's weight/dps stat better than the AC10 but yet many people chose to not use it due to a completely different and for many people worse handling.

Look at unguided SRMs.
On paper their damage rocks, but once in game you will find it hard to compete against mechs that have loaded up the same tonnage of better handling weapons.

Sure, the hitboxes are a problem, but they effect all weapon except guided ones to some degree - and you could even argue that weapons with e.g. a spread (SRM, LBX) would be less affected by it, yet they don't show the kind of advantage in game over other weapons that they should have on paper, if you exclude handling from the equations.

Edited by Wolke, 31 October 2012 - 05:39 AM.

[John Norad]

Lyteros, on 30 October 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Its not about getting TT balance (hat enough imbalance there), its about balancing out the weapons for MWO.
Right now its mathematically proven that high heat weapons are far weaker then ballistics and LRM.
Adressing this issue will also make trialmechs drastically better.

Doubled (roughly) rate of fire, which means double the heat, yet not doubled heat dissipation. Simple as that.
20t to fire a gauss (roughly) twice per 10s, yet 25t to fire a ppc twice per 10s, with less range and damage.
20t = 15t +3t (ammo) +2t heat sinks.
25t = 7t + 18t heat sinks

Imho TT balance is better, even with the op med laser.

[Sicarus]

I applaud the OPs in depth analysis on the subject. If nothing else, it gives us a baseline to argue against (and a great baseline at that). I don't even feel like arguing with the numbers, since they seem accurate enough that I didn't pick up any discrepencies.

One thing I'd like to focus on within the charts though is your analysis of TET (Targeted Engagement Time). I think this part hits spot on what MWO is trying to achieve, and I hope that the devs have a similar chart going in their offices right now to work on weapon balance.

You mention in the graphs that they are nearly identical for SHS and DHS, but I don't think that's entirely accurate. The shapes of the graphs are the same (relative engagement time within each class stays roughly similar), but between the classes the graphs change. With DHS equipped, large energy weapons are suddenly on par with heavy ballistic weapons. The PPC has more engagement time on your graph than the Gauss Rifle does.

Suddenly, the relative merits of the weapons can now be discussed: you get extra range and easier heat management from the Gauss, but at the cost of very limited ammo (I can't seem to finish a match in my gauss-cat without running out of ammo, consistently). The PPC has unlimited ammo, but you're paying for that by needing extra crit slots for Double Heat Sinks and more limiting range requirements. In the PPC's case, your ammo is your DHS.

ERPPC is still heat heavy, with a limited engagement time, but considering the power of the weapon (no ammo, long range, no minimum), there should be limitations even with DHS.

As a counter, the Gauss has extremely long range. But I challenge anyone to hit me consistently at a 1+km while I'm moving with the GR. Even the best Catapult pilots in Run Hot or Die were unable to, and those guys are really, really good.

When (if) Heat sinks in the engine count as DHS, I will want to see how well the large energy weapons work. There's still the issue of this being a skill based game, so pure numbers won't always be the only say, but I think PPCs will become much more competitive. We've already seen that there are people opposed to buffs of any kind, but I'm willing to ride it out and see the consequences, good or bad.

[Sayyid]

MustrumRidcully, on 31 October 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

Solaris VIII rules are not classic Battletech, they present their ruleset. They also have nothing to do with the MW:O stats. And they are also breaking balance assumptions from the original Battletech Board Game. Unfortunately, most of the threads and posts discussing this have been gone to the Closed Beta Archives. But they present similar problems as M:WO did.
For example, the table top suggests that in one turn, PPC can deal 10 damage and causes 10 heat over 10 seconds, and Medium Lasers deal 5 damage and 3 heat over 10 seconds. Solaris rules effectively double the output of a Medium Laser over 10 seconds. So suddenly, the Medium Laser becomes even better. The PPC only advantage is that it deals more single-shot damage to one target location, but damn it, it's 7 times heavier and produces twices the heat of the medium laser over 10 seconds. Is that really worth the advantage range and target-location damage? What's so different about Solaris that these two advantages are worth enough that you can cut away the weapon's damage per turn advantage?



The weapon values are my own. The weapon values currently used in MW:O I didn't replicate, I used Ohmwrecker's charts.

He asked for ROF. Which I provided the rules where that is discussed. It was put out by FASA for Battletech and thus was OFFICIAL RULES.

[Cobolo]

Excellent post. I've been waiting months for the Devs to start making more than token weapon balance changes.

I had hoped that once double heat sinks were in they would start making a serious attempt at it, but the fact they are even considering not making the engine heat sinks double when you upgrade to double heat sinks is making me lose faith.

This post makes a logical and well reasoned case for balancing weapon heat to bring high heat weapons and low heat weapons in line with each other.

[Asatruer]

Sayyid, on 31 October 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

He asked for ROF. Which I provided the rules where that is discussed. It was put out by FASA for Battletech and thus was OFFICIAL RULES.

No, I asked for where in "core BattleTech" these RoF rules where, to the claim that BattleTech always had RoF rules. Solaris is not even remotely "core BattleTech", and MustrumRidcully's response was spot on. Core BattleTech (i.e., the oldest, or the most basic rules) did not have different RoF as a factor in weapon balance (other than UACs, which is the exception I already mentioned).

As Vapor Trail pointed out, yes, technically all (again, exept UACs) weapons in core BattleTech have a Rate of Fire of one shot per turn, which would make RAM's statement about rate of fire, be both technically true, but also completely without value for being brought up other than for the sake of being argumentative. Personally I chose to be charitable and assume (possibly incorrectly) that RAM was attempting to bring forward a valid debate about whether or not BattleTech had always had different Rates of Fire on weapons, (again, other than UACs). My charitable assumption is that RAM is not and was not Trolling with nitpicking sophistry.

[Asatruer]

Sicarus, on 31 October 2012 - 05:50 AM, said:

You mention in the graphs that they are nearly identical for SHS and DHS, but I don't think that's entirely accurate. The shapes of the graphs are the same (relative engagement time within each class stays roughly similar), but between the classes the graphs change. With DHS equipped, large energy weapons are suddenly on par with heavy ballistic weapons. The PPC has more engagement time on your graph than the Gauss Rifle does.

Tech Level 1 weapons should be balanced to each other using Tech Level 1 Single Heat Sinks, without having to resort to Tech Level 2 Double Heat Sinks to bring balance where it is disparate. While there is some value in arguing that TL2 DHS should be considered when trying to balance a TL1 PPC with a TL2 Gauss Rifle, TL2 DHS should not really be part of the same balancing of TL1 Small Lasers compared to a TL1 PPC, or TL1 Medium Lasers. Nor should we assume that DHS are a necessary component in proper weapon balance, as most (if not all) of the unmodified mech variants that will be being used as Trial mechs will not have DHS. If weapons are only balanced using tech that is unavailable to the mechs that new players will have to use to grind up enough cbills to get their first good mech, the starting experience of the game will be pretty poor.

[MustrumRidcully]

Tombstoner, on 31 October 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

I cant agree with your conclusions since the TT damage balance takes into account the hit location mechanic.
MWO has a skill based hit mechanic and this necessitates a complete re balancing of all TT weapon damages for MWO, but that would deviate too much from cannon.

I think I can point to two simple instances why armour needed to be doubled, and it is hard to say which one is more important - I'd actually say they may be equally important.

1) Mouse Aiming
Being able to pinpoint accurately hit a head location with an AC20 dealing 20 points of damage or 4 converging Medium lasers for 20 damage will destroy any mech. A skilled player will nail such shots rather reliably, unless all mechs get Atlas head hit boxes.
For that reason alone, you need more armour.

2) Rate of Fire
You can deal damage 2 or 3 times as fast as in the table top with any weapon. It's easier with some weapons than others, but doubling the damage output means that even if you're not the headshot sniper and spray your damage as badly you would in the table top, you would still kill enemy mechs twice as fast as you would in the table top.

Doubling Armour addressed both. Both problems could also have been adressed by adjusting damage values.

[Orzorn]

I think one of the best solutions was solution 3. Altering the heat generation based on fire rate would be a good idea because the total heat generation would be the same as the tabletop. Then, heat can be adjusted from there to fix issues that only appear in a real time environment that might cause one weapon to dominate over the others, such as velocity, firing arcs, etc.

Excellent work, and I think it really does show that it isn't so much the gauss that is out of wack, but everything around the gauss. The reason the gauss stands out is because it is at an extreme of heat, and the increased fire rates for all weapons benefits the gauss the most because its heat is so small we don't notice any increase in heat generated by firing it more often. Even if you fired the Gauss every second the standard 10 heat sinks of an engine would still keep you heat neutral.