150 replies to this topic

[Asatruer]

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.

MustrumRidcully, on 31 October 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

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
...snip...

2) Rate of Fire
...snip...

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

The Lasers spreading their damage over the length of their beam time is also an additional element on top of the doubling of armor meant to tone done lasers' added hitscan aiming benefits over projectile weapons.

[RumRunner151]

This thread is as flawed as the title.

You want to know the real "Weapon Balance and Heat System - the Current State"?
1) Double heat sinks are broken.
2) There is another issue with heat that the devs have discovered but failed to disclose.
3) Gauss is OP - just like table top
4) PPC is friggen hot - just like table top.
5) The weapons are not very balanced - just like table top.


And based on #2 - and I quote:"During the testing of the DHS bug we uncovered a long standing heat related bug. This is also going to be addressed in the next patch. Expect some widespread changes. I will fill you later when the exact numbers are tested." Source: http://mwomercs.com/...heat-sinks-dhs/

So until we find out what else has been borked with heat and the analysis includes all variables like crit slots, hard points, etc. - this discussion is a waste of time.

[Asatruer]

While I cannot provide a link to it (since it was in the closed beta forums which are no longer accessible) one of the Dev's (I believe it was Bryan Ekman) started an Impromptu Q&A a day or two before Open Beta started in which he stated in response to a question about Heat issues that things were "close to balanced". I cannot say for certain that they had already discovered this "long standing heat related bug" by the time he made that comment, but timing wise, it seems pretty likely that he was aware of it at the time, and still considered the current heat system to be "close to balanced". I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that the bug that was discovered was the seemingly diminishing returns of heatsinks that I keep seeing posts cropping up about in the last couple days of closed beta, but who knows?
Seems to me it does not hurt anyone to try and discuss solutions to endemic problems based what we have been told is the way things work, and also what we have observed as how things work. If the current heat system is both broken based on the theory of how heat dissipation has been explained to us by the devs, and also by in-game observations (including said bug), then it does not hurt anyone nor does it waste anyones time to try and discuss solutions based on those points of data. If the theory of heat dissipation was not broken (0.1hps per shs and 0.2hps per dhs) was not demonstrably broken, but the in-game observations were, then we could calk up these observable heat issues to the bug and just wait. The problem is, if heat works as the devs have described sans-bug, the heat system is still flawed.

Edited by Asatruer, 31 October 2012 - 08:48 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Yes, Bryan's impromptu Q&A suggested that they believe heat to be close to balanced, and I just don't agree with them. It will take a lot of discussing and data to convince them otherwise. Or to convince me otherwise. But I am afraid I have yet to find the "counter-side" to provide the level of data and analyses I and others did, so I am pretty confident to be a bit closer to the truth than the people that say heat is fine.

Quote

4) PPC is friggen hot - just like table top.

But is that really all there is to the the PPC, that it'sf riggen hot? Or is it also that it's frigging hot but also dealing solid damage at a solid range, making the heat worth it? Or would you think a PPC that inflicts 20 heat or 30 heat on your mech would also be fine?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

The fact that the dev's think that "heat to be close to balanced," was fairly obvious from the fact that despite numerous threads on the subject nothing was done about it. Once we have DHS working I can see a few tweaks being made perhaps to the PPC and ERPPC but nothjng major like an overall (even if slight) increase in heat dissipation.
It may be that this is one of their factors for dealing with the Clans as most of their mechs will run even hotter than IS ones if you look at the builds. Extended range of weapons won't be a factor as much as most games degenerate into knife fights.
Will be interesting to see what does happen over the next few patches, assuming that bugs don't delay features.

[GeneralArmchair]

MustrumRidcully, on 31 October 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

But is that really all there is to the the PPC, that it'sf riggen hot? Or is it also that it's frigging hot but also dealing solid damage at a solid range, making the heat worth it? Or would you think a PPC that inflicts 20 heat or 30 heat on your mech would also be fine?

Damage wise it is equal to the AC10.....except it generates over 3x the heat of an AC10....and is useless at close range due to its outdated min-range drawback that dates back to the TT days when PPCs and LRMs were the kings of long range weapons....

So yeah, PPCs are hot and that's pretty much it.

edit:
There are two PPC weapons that inflict enough damage to make up for their high heat.

Clan ERPPCs, because clan gets all the best stuff. Their designs run hot, but their DHS only take up 2 crit slots so them running hot is usually a non-issue. Just take a look at the Hellstar some time. 4x CERPPCs and heat neutral thanks to its 30 DHS.

Heavy PPCs. All the damage of CERPPCS with none of the range. Don't expect to see this weapon for a LONG time.

Edited by GeneralArmchair, 31 October 2012 - 10:14 AM.

[Aerik Lornes]

Fantastic job Mustrum. Really appreciate the work.

I'd vote for option 3. Those saying TT was/is unbalanced are correct but it's way better than what we have now. Also I'm not the one claiming to have based things on TT then not doing it except in the most superficial sense.

I'd even vote for an option 4: Ignore TT, go with the fluff description and pseudo-realistic interpretations of that. Give us real MGs, not 90 meter popguns.

[GeneralArmchair]

Aerik Lornes, on 31 October 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

Fantastic job Mustrum. Really appreciate the work.

I'd vote for option 3. Those saying TT was/is unbalanced are correct but it's way better than what we have now. Also I'm not the one claiming to have based things on TT then not doing it except in the most superficial sense.

I'd even vote for an option 4: Ignore TT, go with the fluff description and pseudo-realistic interpretations of that. Give us real MGs, not 90 meter popguns.

IMHO, MG's are just silly in an environment with no infantry. Against mechs, they're mainly useful for crit-seeking against un-armored sections.

The moment infantry are involved, then MG's are a great way to add some flexibility to a mech's loadout.

[MustrumRidcully]

GeneralArmchair, on 31 October 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

IMHO, MG's are just silly in an environment with no infantry. Against mechs, they're mainly useful for crit-seeking against un-armored sections.

The moment infantry are involved, then MG's are a great way to add some flexibility to a mech's loadout.

I do not entirely agree. The table top MGs still dealt the same damage sa the AC/2 or 2/3 of a small laser. That's nothing stellar, but they worked against other mechs. In MW:O, their damage output compared to any other weapon is so incredibly low that they will not do anything noteworthy.

And their crit-seeking ability doesn't exist in MW:O at least. The system in MW:O still requires you to deal damage, not just hit the unarmored location - you must burn through10 hit points per internal equipment you want destroyed - and the thing that the MG is worst at is still dealing damage.

[Asatruer]

GeneralArmchair, on 31 October 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

IMHO, MG's are just silly in an environment with no infantry. Against mechs, they're mainly useful for crit-seeking against un-armored sections.

The moment infantry are involved, then MG's are a great way to add some flexibility to a mech's loadout.

Tangent time: BattleTech had no infantry to begin with. MG's were part of BattleTech from the beginning, they were never meant to be an anti-infantry only weapon, FASA included them in BattleTech because FASA intended that the MGs be used against Mechs. Also, consider that the Mech born MGs weigh half-a-ton, that is heavier than the nearly 1/3 ton GAU-8 of A-10 Warthog fame, it is hard to believe that it is an anti-infantry weapon.

[MustrumRidcully]

Asatruer, on 31 October 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Tangent time: BattleTech had no infantry to begin with. MG's were part of BattleTech from the beginning, they were never meant to be an anti-infantry only weapon, FASA included them in BattleTech because FASA intended that the MGs be used against Mechs. Also, consider that the Mech born MGs weigh half-a-ton, that is heavier than the nearly 1/3 ton GAU-8 of A-10 Warthog fame, it is hard to believe that it is an anti-infantry weapon.

Though I find it easy to believe that such a weapon would work well against infantry... WHich is kinda what Battletech eventually ended up doing, didn't it? Giving he MG special anti-infantry rules.

[SteelPaladin]

Asatruer, on 31 October 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Tangent time: BattleTech had no infantry to begin with. MG's were part of BattleTech from the beginning, they were never meant to be an anti-infantry only weapon, FASA included them in BattleTech because FASA intended that the MGs be used against Mechs. Also, consider that the Mech born MGs weigh half-a-ton, that is heavier than the nearly 1/3 ton GAU-8 of A-10 Warthog fame, it is hard to believe that it is an anti-infantry weapon.

That's because in TT, they were basically short-range AC/2s w/drastically reduced weapon and ammo weight/size from the standard AC/2. That kept them within the bounds of "dangerous to mechs," if at the lower edge of it. MWO doesn't give them damage approaching an AC/2, so they're nothing more than mosquito bites.

[GeneralArmchair]

Asatruer, on 31 October 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Tangent time: BattleTech had no infantry to begin with. MG's were part of BattleTech from the beginning, they were never meant to be an anti-infantry only weapon, FASA included them in BattleTech because FASA intended that the MGs be used against Mechs. Also, consider that the Mech born MGs weigh half-a-ton, that is heavier than the nearly 1/3 ton GAU-8 of A-10 Warthog fame, it is hard to believe that it is an anti-infantry weapon.

MG's were only a threat to mechs if you had some kind of custom abomination with dozens of mega-guns so that you could sandpaper someone at point blank range and hope for a through-armor-critical on their ammo bin. They're a significant step up above a .50 cal, but they're still mostly a weapon for engaging soft targets like technicals or light armor.

In a mech vs. mech scenario, the MG is basically a waste of time and a liability. The MG's are unlikely to accomplish anything of worth against an armored target. The far more likely outcome of equipping MG's is that the ton of MG ammo will explode like a bomb inside your mech. If there are no soft-targets on the field, you're pretty much better off jettisoning you MG ammo at the first possible moment.

[Stanton Langley]

OP: interesting analysis and some of the points have a lot of merit. I do think you've disregarded a number of other points that are applicable in this discussion, and I'm curious if it is because they go against your recommendations. I do agree that the increased firing rates without increased heat dissipation is a significant problem for gauss rifles and small lasers. However, there are a couple of counterpoints that reduce the scale of this problem. In Tabletop a big benefit of a gauss is that it does 15 damage. With random hit locations and 9 armor + 3 internal in the head, the gauss has the potential for a single-shot head kill. This potential is mostly absent in MWO, or at least less biased in favor of the gauss over other weapons. Second, ammo is a big factor in MWO. Running out of ammo means you have a 15 ton paperweight; lasers can fire indefinitely. Also, energy weapons tend to have greater endurance as a result of occupying fewer crit slots.
Missiles are briefly mentioned in your analysis, but I feel that they highlight another reason that gauss rifles, and other low-heat ballistics, are closer to being balanced than many people believe: they have different targeting mechanics than energy weapons (yeah, PPCs are interesting too). Lasers hit wherever the reticle is, and have some amount of adjustment available mid-shot. Ballistic weapons not so much. Hitting a fast mech with lasers isn't too hard; hitting them with a gauss or AC takes more skill (or luck). Granting a bonus to skilled players doesn't feel like a bad thing to me.
Range is an issue for gauss in particular. No effective minimum range, and almost the longest maximum range along with good damage and low heat is just too strong of a combination. LRMs have a very noticeable minimum range; if something similar was implemented for gauss it would lend much more balance to it. Tabletop gauss have a 2 hex minimum range, but I haven't seen any implementation of this in MWO.

[Beo Vulf]

Thank god another intellegent, well thought out, and written post.

[Asatruer]

GeneralArmchair, on 31 October 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

MG's were only a threat to mechs if you had some kind of custom abomination with dozens of mega-guns...

Like the Piranha?

GeneralArmchair, on 31 October 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

... so that you could sandpaper someone at point blank range and hope for a through-armor-critical on their ammo bin.

The shotgun approach, take five MGs and you get close to an equivalent of an LB10X, but with a terrible range though with double the damage per cluster... On the plus side, it produces no heat, is 1/4th the weight, and when damaged just reduces in effectiveness rather than being completely destroyed.

GeneralArmchair, on 31 October 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

In a mech vs. mech scenario, the MG is basically a waste of time and a liability. The MG's are unlikely to accomplish anything of worth against an armored target.

All of what you just said their applies to the Small Laser pretty much as much the MG, by TT standards. The Small Laser is viable here in MWO, the MG is not. The MG should be similar to the Small Laser, but with the trade off of slightly less damage and needing ammo for the price of not producing heat.

GeneralArmchair, on 31 October 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

The far more likely outcome of equipping MG's is that the ton of MG ammo will explode like a bomb inside your mech. If there are no soft-targets on the field, you're pretty much better off jettisoning you MG ammo at the first possible moment.

In TT one ton of MG ammo will feed five MGs for 40 shots, that is four times the number of shots per ton of the LB10X. How is four tons of LB10X ammo a liability?

But that is not how things are here in MWO. Here the MG's ammo is a liability due to the gun itself being worthless, when it should be nearly as good as the Small Laser. Is it too much to ask that a weapon included in this game actually be worthwhile? If boating five Small Lasers is not over-powered, how could boating five MGs that do .66 DPS (2/3rds SL DPS, and in-line with the difference between TT MGs and SLs) be over-powered?

We have Jenners with 6 small lasers, and with Hunchbacks we see 9 small lasers. The worst we would ever see for MGs is probably the Cicada (or maybe a JagerMech) with 4. How is that scary?

[MustrumRidcully]

Stanton Langley, on 31 October 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

OP: interesting analysis and some of the points have a lot of merit. I do think you've disregarded a number of other points that are applicable in this discussion, and I'm curious if it is because they go against your recommendations. I do agree that the increased firing rates without increased heat dissipation is a significant problem for gauss rifles and small lasers. However, there are a couple of counterpoints that reduce the scale of this problem. In Tabletop a big benefit of a gauss is that it does 15 damage. With random hit locations and 9 armor + 3 internal in the head, the gauss has the potential for a single-shot head kill. This potential is mostly absent in MWO, or at least less biased in favor of the gauss over other weapons.

MW:O removes randomness here with player skill.

I think there ar etwo reasons why, compared to MW:O, armour needed to be doubled:

• Instant Head Shots with AC20s or Dual Gauss or Quad PPCs that could kill an enemy before he even knew he was under fire.
  
• Vastly increased rates of fire overall leading to even the worst shot putting out damage much too fast.

Quote

Second, ammo is a big factor in MWO. Running out of ammo means you have a 15 ton paperweight; lasers can fire indefinitely. Also, energy weapons tend to have greater endurance as a result of occupying fewer crit slots.

I do consider ammo in the efficiency calculations, of course, and I think that I probably am assuming enough ammo to be practically sufficient in a typical MW:O match.

That said - it is absolutely true that some weapons, especially once you consider the ammo you also need to carry, cannot hope to equip some of the more efficient weapons. At least the ballistics. Note that Small Lasers are still relatively efficient, and we have seen people move away from mediums to small lasers on lighter platforms like the Hunchback or the Jenner.

Quote

Missiles are briefly mentioned in your analysis, but I feel that they highlight another reason that gauss rifles, and other low-heat ballistics, are closer to being balanced than many people believe: they have different targeting mechanics than energy weapons (yeah, PPCs are interesting too).

I am not convinced yet that the targeting mechanism of the LRMs really are a drawback. The minimum range certainly is, but being able to fire indirectly at targets that cannot shoot back is a really strong benefit. I am more leaning towards thinking that LRMs are overpowered.

SRMs on the other hand - they really suffer from the weird clustering they do. They are good because when they hit, they deliver a lot of damage for little heat and weight, but they are still hampered by their targeting mechanism.

The recent rise of the "Streakapult" could highlight that they would be too good if they have targeting precision similar to LRMs - and if they are, you have to wonder if the LRMs, which are even more efficient, and can use indirect fire, aren't too strong as well.

Quote

Lasers hit wherever the reticle is, and have some amount of adjustment available mid-shot. Ballistic weapons not so much. Hitting a fast mech with lasers isn't too hard; hitting them with a gauss or AC takes more skill (or luck). Granting a bonus to skilled players doesn't feel like a bad thing to me.

While you can adjust your Laser shot mid-shot, it always comes at the expense of damage. I think for both weapon types, skills matter a lot in bringing them to target.

Quote

Range is an issue for gauss in particular. No effective minimum range, and almost the longest maximum range along with good damage and low heat is just too strong of a combination. LRMs have a very noticeable minimum range; if something similar was implemented for gauss it would lend much more balance to it. Tabletop gauss have a 2 hex minimum range, but I haven't seen any implementation of this in MWO.

I don't really like minimum ranges. I think the best way to balance a range advantage is for a weapon to simply have a low damage to weight efficiency. That means that a shorter range weapon will outdamage a long range weapon, assuming similar weight investment.

[MustrumRidcully]

I am also coming to the conclusion that the LRM stats are too good right now. For them to work reasonable, they would need to miss about 50 % of the time, otherwise their damage output potential is just too high compared to that of any other weapon.

Instead of increasing the damage per missile, PGI should have simply given them more missiles per ton. I think that would work more reasonable.

Of course, things may change if they alter the way LRMs fly and reduce hit probabilities - but then I'd say they would need to be compensated by also getting more ammo per ton.
We have no idea yet what the Artemis system will do to them...

[RAM]

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.

Solaris – learn it, live it, love it. But then, ignorance is bliss I suppose.


RAM
ELH

[Draco Argentum]

MustrumRidcully, on 01 November 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

I am also coming to the conclusion that the LRM stats are too good right now. For them to work reasonable, they would need to miss about 50 % of the time, otherwise their damage output potential is just too high compared to that of any other weapon.

Instead of increasing the damage per missile, PGI should have simply given them more missiles per ton. I think that would work more reasonable.

Of course, things may change if they alter the way LRMs fly and reduce hit probabilities - but then I'd say they would need to be compensated by also getting more ammo per ton.
We have no idea yet what the Artemis system will do to them...

The other LRM problem is AMS. In a pug where there is less AMS and its spread out while the LRMs are also spread out there is one balance. In a tourney there is another balance where AMS is clustered and LRMs are focus fired. I don't se any way to resolve this other than making AMS only shoot at missiles targeted at your won mech.