36 replies to this topic

[ltwally]

Deadoon, on 31 October 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

.4 goes into 1, 2.5 times.
.5 goes into 1, 2 times.

The rate of fire increasesby .5 out of 2 which is .25 out of 1, before you call a math fail do it yourself.

If anything is done to the ac/2 i'd say halve the heat generation because why should it generate the same heat as the ac/5?

When you calculate the Percentage change of something, you use the following formula: Change / Previous Value.

He's going from .5 to .4. The Change is .1

The Previous Value is .5.

.1 / .5 == .2. (aka. 20%)

My math holds up.

It's ok, a lot of folks don't understand how this works.

Edited by ltwally, 31 October 2012 - 01:58 PM.

[Deadoon]

ltwally, on 31 October 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

When you calculate the Percentage change of something, you use the following formula: Change / Previous Value.

He's going from .5 to .4. The Change is .1

The Previous Value is .5.

.1 / .5 == .2. (aka. 20%)

My math holds up.

It's ok, a lot of folks don't understand how this works.

The change of fire delay is by 20%, yes but the rate of fire change is 25%

.1 is 50% of .2 but this is divided into 60 to get rate of fire.

60/.4 = 150
60/.5 = 120

150/120 = 1.25
Stom misinterpretting what he said to twist what he said to be wrong, it is correct.

You are purposefully missing the fact thos values are out of a second and to get rate of fire in rpm you need to get it into the minute spectrum, he is comparing rate of fire( rounds per minute), not fire delay(time between shots).

Edited by Deadoon, 31 October 2012 - 02:05 PM.

[ltwally]

Deadoon, on 31 October 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

Stom misinterpretting what he said to twist what he said to be wrong, it is correct.

He said:

Quote

Cooldown: 0.4 (ROF up by 25%)

Thus, he's saying that the ROF went up by 25%. That there was a 25% increase in ROF. (If there had been a 25% increase in ROF, the cooldown would be .375s)

I was correcting his math. Not maliciously. Not making fun of him. Just pointing out that his math was wrong.

I stand by my correction, and hope that we can all live happily.

I am, on occasion, a complete dumbass.

Edited by ltwally, 31 October 2012 - 02:27 PM.

[Deadoon]

ltwally, on 31 October 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

He said:


Thus, he's saying that the ROF went up by 25%. That there was a 25% increase in ROF. (If there had been a 25% increase in ROF, the cooldown would be .375s)

I was correcting his math. Not maliciously. Not making fun of him. Just pointing out that his math was wrong.

I stand by my correction, and hope that we can all live happily.

Rate of fire is not fire delay. You are looking at fire delay not rate of fire, The ak has a fire delay of .1 and a rate of fire of 600 the m16 has a rof of 900, and a delay of 0.0666... the difference is 0.0333 or 33% but the rate of fire difference is 50%. Do you understand now?

He says by decreasing it by 20% you increase the rate of fire by 25%, which is mathmaticaly correct. You are still misinterpretting what he said.

Edited by Deadoon, 31 October 2012 - 02:16 PM.

[ltwally]

You are correct. I was calculating Cooldown, not ROF.

I apologise.

[MustrumRidcully]

ltwally, on 31 October 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

You seem to want more powerful weapons, across the board... except with ballistics.

Honestly, and I mean no offence here, I think pretty much all of your changes would screw up game balance and make the game significantly less fun, borderline broken.

In a way, you are correct. But you have to realize that I am just balancing the weapons by improving the energy weapons to be on the level of ballistics. (And bringing down missiles a bit closer to the ballistics level, though I am not sure if it's enough).

The damage output is already possible - if you use ballistics. Poster child would be the Gauss Cat.
And we will soon have more chassises that will focus on ballistics (and are not just using them because of the hardpoint system, but because they were build around them) - Cataphract and Jagermech are coming.


Weapon Efficiency - Current Stats:

Heat Neutrality
This chart contains 2 curves - one based on damage over time (DPS/Weight) and one on the weighted values for damage per shot and damage over time (DPS_ID/Weight)

Single Heat Sinks



For double heat sinks




Possible Damage/Weight Efficiency with my Stats

Single Heat Sinks


Double Heat Sinks


More Stuff (including other efficiency models, based on how long a typical combat may last and not just on heat neutrality)
http://mwomercs.com/...state-20121030/

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 01 November 2012 - 06:05 AM.

[LordHarco]

Xandralkus, on 30 October 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

This is the first of a large number of posts I will be doing, in which I discuss weapon balance. This one is dedicated to the AC-2.

TL:DR - Skip to bold text

Current raw stats:
Damage: 2
Cooldown: 0.5
Heat: 1
Ideal Range: 720
Max Range: 2160
Slots: 1
Tonnage: 6

Current derived stats:
Damage per Second: 4
Heat Per Second: 2
DPS per ton: 0.666
Alpha per ton: 0.333
Damage per Heat: 2

Let's see how the AC-2 stacks up against two other well-used, effective, player-approved weapons: the Gauss Rifle and the Medium Laser.

Gauss Rifle

Damage: 15
Cooldown: 4
Heat: 1
Ideal Range: 660
Max Range: 1980
Slots: 7
Tonnage: 15

Current derived stats:
Damage per Second: 3.75
Heat Per Second: 0.25
DPS per ton: 0.25
Alpha per ton: 1.00
Damage per Heat: 15

The AC-2 has a 32% advantage over the Gauss Rifle in DPS-per-ton.
The Gauss has 3 times (a 200% advantage over) the AC-2's alpha-per-ton.
The Gauss has 7.5 times (a 650% advantage over) the AC-2's damage-per-heat.

The AC-2 is quite underpowered in comparison to the Gauss (a ballistic weapon of similar range). A 32% DPS advantage is not worth the Gauss's 200% alpha-per-ton advantage and 650% damage-per-heat advantage; not in any universe. Let's compare it to the Medium Laser now, and see how it measures up:

Damage: 5
Cooldown: 3
Heat: 4
Ideal Range: 270
Max Range: 540
Slots: 1
Tonnage: 1

Current derived stats:
Damage per Second: 1.666
Heat Per Second: 1.5
DPS per ton: 1.666
Alpha per ton: 5
Damage per heat: 1.25

The Medium Laser has 2.5 times (a 150% advantage over) the AC-2's DPS-per-ton.
The Medium Laser has 15 times (a 1400% advantage over) the AC-2's alpha-per-ton.
The AC-2 has a 62% advantage over the Medium Laser's damage-per-heat.

The medium laser is an energy weapon, and I would expect a ballistic weapon to have a marked increase in damage-per-heat over an energy weapon. I would also expect the energy weapon to have higher DPS-per-ton and alpha-per-ton in exchange for the damage-per-heat dropoff.

While a 150% advantage in DPS per ton may be...plausibly understandable given the circumstances, a 1400% advantage in alpha-per-ton shows that something is clearly amiss. These weapons are not even close to being balanced against one another.

Ultimately, the AC-2 is supposed to be a rapid-fire ballistic weapon; we can balance it without altering these fundamental characteristics. The AC-2's alpha-per-ton needs to be increased - not drastically, but subtly (after all, it is not intended to be a high-alpha weapon). More importantly, the DPS-per-ton and damage-per-heat need to be modified so that they make up for the weapon's natural (though no longer debilitating) alpha-per-ton.

Suggested AC-2 Raw Stats:

Damage: 2.3 (up by 15%)
Cooldown: 0.4 (ROF up by 25%)
Heat: 0.6 (down by 40%)
Ideal Range: 720
Max Range: 2160
Slots: 2 (up by 100%)
Tonnage: 6

Suggested derived stats:
Damage per Second: 5.75
Heat Per Second: 1.5
DPS per ton: 0.958
Alpha per ton: 0.383
Damage per Heat: 3.833

Now let's see how the AC-2 v2.0 stacks up against the Gauss:

The AC-2 would have 3.83 times (a 283% advantage over) the Gauss Rifle's DPS-per-ton.
The Gauss would have 2.61 times (a 161% advantage over) the AC-2's alpha-per-ton.
The Gauss would have 3.91 times (a 291% advantage over) the AC-2's damage-per-heat.

I increased the size of the AC-2 from one critical to two. Ballistic weapons, historically, are always larger than the other classes of weapons, and the new AC-2 is actually worth its own weight. Increasing the size from one to two criticals will not in any way compromise any existing stock configuration.

The tonnage of the AC-2 remains unchanged through my proposed balancing. No alterations need to be made to existing mechs that use the AC-2.

The rate of fire has been increased by 25%, ammunition count per ton for the AC-2 should go up by 25% to match, or 94 rounds per ton.

The role of the AC-2 has not changed. It is a low-alpha, high-ROF weapon with long range, low weight, and good damage output, outclassed by the Gauss Rifle in terms of heat efficiency per damage and alpha damage per ton.

ac2 stats are almost fine as they are just needs the heat redused to give it back its low heat qualities. say .5 heat per shot i think would do. its rate of fire would keep if from being op do to the fact that i requires mega ammo to keep it functional an entire match

[Adamski]

I'm pretty sure the current stats for the AC2 in game are:
2 damage
.5 heat
.5s reload

So really, they arent needing any tweaking at all.

[Dagger906]

AC2 gives an infinite % more sustained rocking compared to medium laser. That's the only stat that mattered in this case.

If all weapons can be reduced to stats, the game will be very boring.

[MaddMaxx]

AC2 Stats

name="AutoCannon2">
<WeaponStats Health="10" slots="1" type="0" projectileclass="bullet" numFiring="1" damage="2" heatdamage="0" impulse="1.0"

heat="1.0" cooldown="0.5" ammoType="AC2Ammo" ammoPerShot="1" minRange="0" longRange="720" maxRange="2160" tons="6"

duration="0.0" lifetime="10.0" speed="2000" volleydelay="0" gravity="0,0,-9.8" maxDepth="10.0"/>

Dissect as required.

[Xandralkus]

These changes make the AC-2 a weapon, not a piece of CC equipment. It is absolutely ludicrous to infer that the AC-2 (a weapon) should somehow not compete with the Gauss (also a weapon). In fact, it should be balanced to compete with every other weapon in the game.

The primary purpose of a weapon is to do damage. The value of a weapon is determined by its ability to do damage. Any other secondary effect that a weapon causes aside from damage (such as viewshake) should be purely secondary and play little if any role on the battlefield. A niche like viewshake should be a purely secondary effect, not a primary effect.

I'm relatively confident that a lot of people browsing the forums here do not recreationally study game design, game balance, and game mechanics as a hobby, so it might not be obvious why a piece of equipment such as a weapon should do damage as a primary effect, and perform other niche roles in a purely ancilliary role rather than as their primary function. The reason is quite simple: we are limited by the amount of weapons we can carry (by tonnage, hardpoints, and in some cases, by criticals too). If a weapon's entire purpose is to perform a purely niche role, then it has to be so profoundly overpowered at performing that one niche role that it is actually worth mounting - because the rest of the time, it will be useless or near-useless. Even so, it will still be rarely worth carrying, though absolutely game-breaking in its narrowly constrained niche role. Having such narrowly constrained overspecialization in increasingly niche roles is never, ever, under any circumstances, good for game design.

However, giving an already balanced weapon a subtle quirk that makes it perform slightly better in one of these niche roles adds another layer of intricacy and subtlety to the game. It gives the weapon a bit of flair and personality, giving it some uniqueness without compromising its day-to-day usability.

Viewshake for the AC-2 would most obviously need to be reduced, likely to near-zero. Viewshake is a form of CC, preventing the other player from taking action. In a game such as this, CC has absolutely no role and should not exist in any statistically significant form.

Original post has been edited to reflect this.

Edited by Xandralkus, 01 November 2012 - 11:57 AM.

[Dagger906]

Xandralkus, on 01 November 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

These changes make the AC-2 a weapon, not a piece of CC equipment. It is absolutely ludicrous to infer that the AC-2 (a weapon) should somehow not compete with the Gauss (also a weapon). In fact, it should be balanced to compete with every other weapon in the game.

The primary purpose of a weapon is to do damage. The value of a weapon is determined by its ability to do damage. Any other secondary effect that a weapon causes aside from damage (such as viewshake) should be purely secondary and play little if any role on the battlefield. A niche like viewshake should be a purely secondary effect, not a primary effect.

I'm relatively confident that a lot of people browsing the forums here do not recreationally study game design, game balance, and game mechanics as a hobby, so it might not be obvious why a piece of equipment such as a weapon should do damage as a primary effect, and perform other niche roles in a purely ancilliary role rather than as their primary function. The reason is quite simple: we are limited by the amount of weapons we can carry (by tonnage, hardpoints, and in some cases, by criticals too). If a weapon's entire purpose is to perform a purely niche role, then it has to be so profoundly overpowered at performing that one niche role that it is actually worth mounting - because the rest of the time, it will be useless or near-useless. Even so, it will still be rarely worth carrying, though absolutely game-breaking in its narrowly constrained niche role. Having such narrowly constrained overspecialization in increasingly niche roles is never, ever, under any circumstances, good for game design.

However, giving an already balanced weapon a subtle quirk that makes it perform slightly better in one of these niche roles adds another layer of intricacy and subtlety to the game. It gives the weapon a bit of flair and personality, giving it some uniqueness without compromising its day-to-day usability.

Viewshake for the AC-2 would most obviously need to be reduced, likely to near-zero. Viewshake is a form of CC, preventing the other player from taking action. In a game such as this, CC has absolutely no role and should not exist in any statistically significant form.

Original post has been edited to reflect this.

Cockpit rocking has been a vital part of MW games, and lore, since forever. It's balanced just fine, it doesn't need removing...

[Xandralkus]

Let's do a little bit of physics then, to demonstrate that viewshake in its present state makes no sense from a perspective of realism OR game design...

With current viewshake, the point that your weapons are aligned to does not change, only the camera position in the cockpit. Despite the mech being shaken by kinetic energy, mechs are stable enough already to not have their weapons un-aligned.

With the single exception of having a gauss rifle slug pierce the cockpit and knock the pilot's seat loose, this kind of pilot viewshake with no actual disruption of firing alignment could never happen. Perhaps more importantly, if a 200-pound kinetic impactor skewers the cockpit, travelling in excess of a kilometer per second, you have much bigger issues than simple viewshake.

If viewshake does exist at all, it should cause slight disruptions in the mech's actual firing trajectory for a fraction of a second. The general model of Mechwarrior 4 viewshake was roughly accurate (although it should have been about 20-30% less severe).

Let's not even get started on the fact that current viewshake is completely arbitrary, and that a 200 pound kinetic impactor at over a kilometer per second causes only very slight viewshake, and a few LRM's (which weigh much less and generate far less kinetic energy) somehow cause viewshake so severe, the only suitable analog is 'orbital strike'.

The entire model of viewshake makes no sense in this game, and requires a fundamental redesign.

And perhaps far more importantly, viewshake should never be statistically significantly impairing to the viewshaken pilot for more than a split-second, even under the most extreme of circumstances. Mechwarrior online REALLY drops the ball on this one.

No weapon should cause debilitating viewshake, least of all the AC-2.

Edited by Xandralkus, 01 November 2012 - 12:50 PM.

[hercules1981]

i look at the ac2 as a group weapon. have 2 of them and they r great. some1 had already stated about how it shakes the mech. Plus it is a great long range direct weapon, so when mechs are chillin on top of a hill u can pop them real quick and they still need to lock on to u and ive seen most just back up and take cover. I will say that the heat should come back just a bit but ive been able to have 2 defferent mechs with 2 of them and shoot for a long time even in a fire fight while shooting other weapons.
Great weapon and would put them in a group of 2 or more on any mech if i could. Oh and i forgot to mention the best thing about it. 1 critical slot .

Edited by hercules1981, 01 November 2012 - 01:44 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

AC/2 is ok as is.

The coming change to DHS is going to make it run a lot cooler, too.

[Xandralkus]

Solis Obscuri, on 01 November 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

AC/2 is ok as is.

The coming change to DHS is going to make it run a lot cooler, too.

Not on a mech without DHS. Heat system is borked beyond recognition in this game. I have 37 heat sinks on an Atlas, and the 100% to zero heat cooldown time is still laugably slow.

You will know when heat is fixed - when trial mechs no longer run stupidly hot. Until then, heat is not balanced.

Also one of my suggested changes involves decreasing the heat of the AC-2 such that its damage-per-heat is increased to competent levels.

Edited by Xandralkus, 01 November 2012 - 11:36 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

The current stats are not good as is.

The stock Jagermech comes with 2 AC/2, 2 AC/5, and 2 Medium Lasers. The Jagermech was able to fire all these weapons while stationary and not gain any heat. Because he had 10 heat sinks, which were sufficient to counter all the heat.

In MW:O, the same Jagermech would overheat in 6 seconds.

The only thing that MW:O and Battletech would share for the Jagermech is the name of the weapons and the mech, and the general looks. But they would be utterly different in battlefield behavior.

Of course, the Jagermech in BT was using 2 relatively weak weapons - the AC/2 and the AC/5 would be better if they were AC/3 and AC/6s, if you go by the damage/tonnage efficiency of weapons with comparable range. But changing a mech from undergunned and heat neutral to overgunned and rapidly overheating is not reasonable at all IMO.
MW:O would do better to turn the Jagermech into something like "reasonably armed" and "warm".

I think the OP primarly wants to make the AC/2 more reasonably balanced ,which I understand and agree with. But I am also considering the original mechs that used to use these weapons. And 1.5 HPS is just too much if many stock mechs that will use AC/2s were designed around the idea they would have 0.1 HPS.

And I absolutely agree with him that the cockpit shakings are ridicilous and that you have to be extremely careful with "CC" effects. In any game, really, but particularly in a Battletech derived game. CC is barely existent in Battletech. The strongest examples may be the "Dual PPC Strike EMP" effect and the general effect of a mech needing to check for a knockdown if it takes a high amount of damage.



And I really suggest the OP to read my thread on the state of the game balance - I get the impression we actually have pretty similar thoughts - we just may have different solutions.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 02 November 2012 - 02:00 AM.