534 replies to this topic

[Vapor Trail]

To fire at the max rate, which is the same between the two weapons, the Gauss requires 2.5 heat sinks, The AC/20 (now) requires 15. (6 heat per cycle / 4 seconds per cycle = 1.5 heat/second, which is the heat dissipation rate necessary to get the AC/20 firing at the same rate as the Gauss with the same end heat, which then allows you to compare the DPS).

To output the same average DPS and remain heat neutral, you need 11.25 single heat sinks.

It's a lot easier to fit a fast firing Gauss into a build than it a fast firing AC/20.

Edited by Vapor Trail, 15 November 2012 - 06:50 AM.

[Apoc1138]

heat neutrality fallacy

no one needs a weapon to be heat neutral... they only need it to fire long enough to kill the guy with the gauss, which is easy to accomplish

most atlas builds have anywhere from 20-30+ equivalent SHS, so your 11.25 is easily covered, in fact most atlases have more than that in their engine

it might be easier to fit a gauss than an AC/20... but the AC/20 has higher burst and sustained damage over the duration it takes to issue enough damage to kill the other atlas

Edited by Apoc1138, 15 November 2012 - 07:00 AM.

[Vapor Trail]

Which works only if you're considering a time period short enough that you don't have to worry about heat at the end.

Most Atlas builds dedicate half their heat sink total to cooling a single weapon? Dunno about you but the vast majority of Atlas builds I see are running Gauss, AC/2 or AC/5, not AC/20. There are rare exceptions though.

Point is: it is much more efficient to dedicate 10-15 percent of their heat sink total to cooling a single weapon and repurpose the remainder towards cooling the rest of the loadout.

[MustrumRidcully]

Apoc1138, on 15 November 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

heat neutrality fallacy

no one needs a weapon to be heat neutral... they only need it to fire long enough to kill the guy with the gauss, which is easy to accomplish

most atlas builds have anywhere from 20-30+ equivalent SHS, so your 11.25 is easily covered, in fact most atlases have more than that in their engine

it might be easier to fit a gauss than an AC/20... but the AC/20 has higher burst and sustained damage over the duration it takes to issue enough damage to kill the other atlas

I think it's more a heat neutral fallacy fallacy.

Sure, if you can kill your enemy in 12 seconds and the entire engagement is over and the next happens before you're cooled off, it doesn't matter whether your heat climbs to 5 % or 95 %. But this game is 8v8, so you're not just dueling one Gaussapult with your Whackapult or 9M or whatever, you're fighting together with 7 other dudes or dudettes against 8 guys or gals. Your engagement isn't necessarily over in 12 seconds.

But as a matter of fact - if you really do not want to just judge things based on heat neutrality, there are alternative methods and I used them. the overall trend is still the same, just some specifics change.

This is for heat neutrality:



This is if you use a targeted engagement time of 20 or 90 seconds (that means you don't need to fight longer than 20 seconds respectively 90 seconds in a single engagement.)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 15 November 2012 - 07:11 AM.

[Apoc1138]

I see a pretty much equal mix of AC' types, I would say if anything that Gauss Atlas are rarer than anything else, because Atlases tend to be built for brawling, and the low DPS of the gauss makes it less desirable, for all the reasons I've previously mentioned

you can either build mechs for brawling with high burst damage (e.g. guaranteed kill on the target) or you can build for sustained DPS over an arbitrarily long time period (e.g. supporting fire)... I wouldn't suggest bringing a sniper rifle to a knuckleduster fight

it is a team game and at some point you have to rely on your team mates to harass a target while you maneuver in for the next brawl

AC/2's look good on paper due to 4DPS... but in practice in terms of usable damage output the bigger AC's are in a practical sense better for killing things (AC/2's are good for plinking on a dragon though)

it's most efficient to kill stuff and remove it's DPS from the match, all the sustained DPS for as long as you want to calculate is for nought if it gets killed in the first 2 minutes by the mech with high burst damage who can then use cover to approach the next target

[Bubba Wilkins]

Vapor Trail, on 15 November 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

To fire at the max rate, which is the same between the two weapons, the Gauss requires 2.5 heat sinks, The AC/20 (now) requires 15. (6 heat per cycle / 4 seconds per cycle = 1.5 heat/second, which is the heat dissipation rate necessary to get the AC/20 firing at the same rate as the Gauss with the same end heat, which then allows you to compare the DPS).

To output the same average DPS and remain heat neutral, you need 11.25 single heat sinks.

It's a lot easier to fit a fast firing Gauss into a build than it a fast firing AC/20.

If that is how you build your mechs, you're doing it wrong.

By default, you should be running 10DHS in the engine and therefore have no cooling issues with either weapon as your primary. You should be able to fire multiple weapons systems in fact to add additional DPS.

You can't isolate weapons and their effective cooling and determine that A is greater than B or vice versa. You either take the entire loadout as a whole or ignore the heat factor altogether.

[Vapor Trail]

Got class in twenty minutes, so I'm going to have to keep this one short.

Apoc1138, on 15 November 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

it is a team game and at some point you have to rely on your team mates to harass a target while you maneuver in for the next brawl

And it's a lot more flexible if you're running two Atlai if either of you can harrass from 1600m and still have a decent brawling weapon.

The Gauss is pretty good (~75% of the damage over time output, with 16% of the heat output) compared to the AC/20.
The Gauss is pretty good (~93% of the damage over time output, with 125% of the heat output) compared to the AC/2.

Gauss is basically a jack of all trades weapon, it might still be 'master of none' but it is so good in each of the different roles that it pushes the 'better' weapons for those roles so far out of the spectrum that they've become niche weapons, only preferable at the extreme ends of what should be their operational envelope.

[Apoc1138]

Vapor Trail, on 15 November 2012 - 07:36 AM, said:

Gauss is basically a jack of all trades weapon, it might still be 'master of none' but it is so good in each of the different roles that it pushes the 'better' weapons for those roles so far out of the spectrum that they've become niche weapons, only preferable at the extreme ends of what should be their operational envelope.

ah, but there in lies your mistake young grasshopper... if I build an atlas as a brawler, I tear your guass mech apart and you are then removed as both a tanker of damage and dealer of damage for your team, meaning your 100tons was wasted as part of the drop and even if I end up damaged I am still of benefit to my team and my team continue to deal big damage to the rest of yours

it doesn't matter how efficient per ton you are or over what time period, because in 20 seconds you are gone, meaning you are then 0 DPS per ton and anything I have over 0 is a benefit to my team from that point on

your model is incomplete

if I build a support mech, it is great at support and not so good at brawling, I don't engage head on, I... support
if I build a brawler, I hide and use cover, and only expose myself when it's expedient to do so (e.g. I know I can out DPS my opponent)

weapon balance is all about creating niches for weapons to fill... if all weapons were balanced according to DPS per ton allowing for heatsinks or ammo then this would be a much more boring game

MWO is all about creating niches for mechs and weapons to fill

Edited by Apoc1138, 15 November 2012 - 07:45 AM.

[Monkeystador]

Lots of BlahBlub. OP didnt even take the 15min match times and the advantages of lasers and ballistics into account.
You cant really balance Energy against Ammo without taking match times into considerations. Assume the map is 4 times the size and games are twice as long. When ammo runs out energy weapons take the lead.
There are more circumstances to this than just DPS / HPS.

[Vapor Trail]

Bubba Wilkins, on 15 November 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

If that is how you build your mechs, you're doing it wrong.

By default, you should be running 10DHS in the engine and therefore have no cooling issues with either weapon as your primary. You should be able to fire multiple weapons systems in fact to add additional DPS.

You can't isolate weapons and their effective cooling and determine that A is greater than B or vice versa. You either take the entire loadout as a whole or ignore the heat factor altogether.

I don't.

Weapons balance.

Weapons balance drives build strategy. Weapons balance coupled with build strategy drives combat tactics for that build.

For build strategy, you decide what you want the mech to do. Then you figure out the weapons load that would allow you to best accomplish your objective.

For my Splatapult, I started with the objective of "Oneshot-Headshot, with good sustainable damage for short range city-fighting." The way I approach city fighting is a bit different than most people brawl. I decided the best way to accomplish my objective was dual AC/20. Weaponed the mech. Decided how much ammo I needed. Ammoed the mech. Decided how much heat dissipation was needed. Sinked the mech. Armored the mech with what was left over. Re approached the mech from the armor end asking "Is there enough armor, and how is the distribution?" Tweaked armor distribution.

Ran it, several times. Was it working? Not as well as I liked. Needed slightly more armor. Pulled a heat sink, rearmored.
Rant it, several times. Was it working? Still not as well as I liked. Shut down too fast. Pulled a ton of ammo, replaced heat sink.
Ran it, several times. Was it working? Acceptably. Still slightly light in the ammo department, but enough that I could do quite a bit of damage.

Hope that's clear enough for a picture of my thought process when building. I've got class.

[Asatruer]

Tactics, cover, and chassis variables are all important elements in over-all game balance, but they are not factors of weapon comparative balance (save in the single case of LRMs that can still operate from cover against a target in cover.) These are macro level balancing issues, while weapon balancing issues are on a micro scale.

For statistical modeling, you could test 1000 fights between a -K2 equipped with dual PPCs vs a -K2 equipped with dual Gauss, where the PPC-K2 has access to cover, but then you have to run 1000 fights where the Gauss-K2 has access to cover, and should do another 1000 where neither does, and another 1000 where both do. To do otherwise biases the results.

Or, you apply the scientific inquiry principle of ceteris paribus and consider all other variables as equal.



following stuff snipped, due to a memory access error in my brain, thanks for the catch Indoorsman

Indoorsman, on 15 November 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Why 28 damage and not 40? Don't PPC do 10 damage per shot, x2 PPC x2 shots = 40 dmg for 2 volleys?

Edited by Asatruer, 15 November 2012 - 01:01 PM.

[Indoorsman]

Asatruer, on 15 November 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

PPC-K2 will be doing two volleys (due to use of cover) of dual PPC for 28 points of damage to the Gauss-K2's 30 points of damage per one volley.

Why 28 damage and not 40? Don't PPC do 10 damage per shot, x2 PPC x2 shots = 40 dmg for 2 volleys?

[Vapor Trail]

Apoc1138, on 15 November 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

ah, but there in lies your mistake young grasshopper... if I build an atlas as a brawler, I tear your guass mech apart and you are then removed as both a tanker of damage and dealer of damage for your team, meaning your 100tons was wasted as part of the drop and even if I end up damaged I am still of benefit to my team and my team continue to deal big damage to the rest of yours

it doesn't matter how efficient per ton you are or over what time period, because in 20 seconds you are gone, meaning you are then 0 DPS per ton and anything I have over 0 is a benefit to my team from that point on

your model is incomplete

if I build a support mech, it is great at support and not so good at brawling, I don't engage head on, I... support
if I build a brawler, I hide and use cover, and only expose myself when it's expedient to do so (e.g. I know I can out DPS my opponent)

weapon balance is all about creating niches for weapons to fill... if all weapons were balanced according to DPS per ton allowing for heatsinks or ammo then this would be a much more boring game

MWO is all about creating niches for mechs and weapons to fill

So, 20 second damage output race? Only stipulation is that both builds are built to maximize damage output in twenty seconds, and one must use AC/20, the other a Gauss?

Two mechs builds. Start with same chassis design, Atlas-K. Same engine.
Start with an AC/20 on one side, and a Gauss Rifle on the other, and a twenty second time frame in which to deal damage and not shut down..

AC/20 fires five times, deals 100 damage.
Gauss fires 5 times, deals 75 damage.

So AC/20 gains an early lead in damage.

With this weapon and sink load AC is sitting at 10 heat. (6*5) = 30, 30 - 10*.1*20 = 2
And Gauss is sitting at 0 heat. 5*1= 5, 5 - 10*.1*20 =-15, can not be less than 0 ==> 0.

So lets add four medium lasers to both builds.

AC/20 + 4 Mediums fires five times.
(6+(4*4)) * 5 = 110 heat. 110 - (10 * .1 * 20) = 90
Current heat cap is 40.

To prevent shut down the AC mech needs heat sinks. How many? Create an equation and solve for x.
Heat - ((# extras + #engine) * SinkRate * seconds) = HeatCap

110 - ((x + 10) * .1 * 20) = x + 40
- ((x+10) * .1 * 20) = x - 70
- (2x+20) = x - 70
-2x - 20 = x - 70
-2x = x - 50
3x = 50
x = 16.667

No partial sinks => 17

So:

110 - ((17 + 10) * .1 * 20) <= 20 + 40

110 - ((27) * .1 * 20) <= 20 + 40

110 - () <= 60
56 <= 60
Riding just below the heat cap.


Total tonnage for this build: 14 tons (AC) + 4 tons (4*MedLas) + 17 tons (heat sinks) + x tons (ammo).

35 tons + BallisticAmmo. Any tonnage you add here, The Gauss build can add as well.


Gauss + 4 Mediums fires five times.
(1+(4*4)) * 5 = 85 heat. 85 - (10 * .1 * 20) = 65
Current heat cap is 40

To prevent shutdown the mech needs heat sinks.
65 - ((x + 10) * .1 * 20) = x + 30
- ((x + 10) * .1 * 20) = x -35
- (2x + 20) = x -35
2x + 20 = -x +35
3x = 15
x=5

65 - ((5 + 10) * .1 * 20) <= 5 + 30
65 - ((15) * .1 * 20) <= 5 + 30
65 - (30) <= 35
35 <= 35
Riding JUST at the heat cap. Gotta press O, but not a problem.

Total tonnage for this build: 15 tons (Gauss) + 4 tons (4*MedLas) + 5 tons (heat sinks) + x tons (ammo).

24 tons + ammo.

As it stands now the Gauss is 25 damage behind in damage, but 11 tons ahead in tonnage cost.

If I install 2 SSRM 2, (2 * 1.5 = 3 tons) 1 ton of ammo (1 ton) and 7 heat sinks (7 tons, total 11 tons), I can fire the SSRMs about every 6 seconds and still not over heat. Actually with those additions my heat buildup over 20 seconds actually comes down. That's ~thirty extra damage in 18 seconds. Therefore the Gauss build just surpassed the the AC/20 build's output by 5 points.

I could install a single SSRM6 (4 tons), 1 ton of ammo(1 ton) and 6 heat sinks (6 ton, total 11 tons)... and only fire the SRM6 every 6.667 seconds. (~three times in 20 seconds). That's an additional 45 damage output to the lasers and Gauss, exceeding the damage output of the AC mech by 20.

But this is why I avoid missiles. Because if I do, someone's going to start in on hit percentages and so on. If I weren't limited by hardpoints, I'd simply add another medium laser and call it in favor of the Gauss build. Not a big fan of SRMs in general.

But with the SRM6, I have to land 55.56% of the missile damage on the same location to equal the damage of the AC build.

As it is, it's photo finish with neither build being a clear victor in the Brawler area... but the Gauss build has the range and extra ammo capacity to harrass a bit with the Gauss rifle. So whatever you lose in actual "Brawling capacity" you gain in flexibility.

I'd have to run the numbers on an AC/20 + 4MedLas + 2 SRM6 build (which maxes the hardpoints). If the hardpoints and RoF over 20 seconds are maxed, the AC/20 will probably win.

So aged master, where resides the pebble? The niche build that gambles all or nothing on being able to engage at it's optimum range, or a build with the flexibility to engage at multiple ranges?

[Abrahms]

After reading their latest future balancing changes, Im pretty sure PGI has no idea how to balance.

I played a ton in early BETA when it was fresh. Ive barely played for 1 hour since open beta because the balance is just terrible. Seriously, terrible. And we have very little changes in between patches to really fix the problem.

Pro tip: using a fairly balanced system with tonnage and heat, and tripling ROF totally ***** with the effective weight of a weapon. News at 11.

p.s. - making the gauss break really easy wont change anything except ruin quality of life.

[Felicitatem Parco]

The OP's math assumes that all MW:O battles are fought toe-to-toe at max RoF. This is an incorrect presumption.

In MW:O, I can fire my 3xPPC volly twice when the 2xGauss Player can only return fire once because the PPC has a faster RoF. Advantage: PPC, in this case, by 30 points of damage per engagement. I can fire, they retrn fire, I fire again, and then I scoot before they fire a second time. Repeat a couple times and the PPC player beats Gauss player in this situation.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 15 November 2012 - 07:36 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

How many time does the same poster have to start the same QQ thread before it is considered spam?

[Keifomofutu]

Prosperity Park, on 15 November 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

The OP's math assumes that all MW:O battles are fought toe-to-toe at max RoF. This is an incorrect presumption.

In MW:O, I can fire my 3xPPC volly twice when the 2xGauss Player can only return fire once because the PPC has a faster RoF. Advantage: PPC, in this case, by 30 points of damage per engagement. I can fire, they retrn fire, I fire again, and then I scoot before they fire a second time. Repeat a couple times and the PPC player beats Gauss player in this situation.

Easily countered by the gauss user only showing himself when he has a shot. Or getting within 90 meters of you lol.

[Stabbitha]

Indoorsman, on 14 November 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

Ummm no? The only variable between the 2 mechs in my examples is their ONE unique weapon, which they each have 2 of. This makes it a comparison of 2 PPC vs 2 Gauss. Build balance would be discussing 2 PPC on a C1 vs 2 PPC in the arms on a K2.

Your tests are entirely subjective and add a plethora of variables (even assuming equal skill) that are irrelevant to weapon balance. Come on mate, the least you can do is to display some intellectual honesty in your "testing" methods, and I use the term loosely.

When you are testing for balance, you are only testing very limited parameters. Damage output. Heat output. Time period.

***********
Quick example of a balance test.

Base 10 heatsinks.

1 PPC vs 1 Gauss

For each extra heatsink, add one tonne of ammo. Ergo, the smallest test you can do is 11 HS PPC vs 10 HS + 1 tonne of ammo for the gauss. Assume 100% hit rate, no pilot lab heat dissipation buffs etc, just weapon v weapon.

Fire both weapons as rapidly as possible until the following conditions are met:

1) Either the PPC overwhelms heat capacity, in effect shutting down the mech or the gauss runs out of ammo.

2) Which ever occurs first, the other weapon will take it's last shot. Total time is from first shot to last shot. ie. PPC overheats and GR has 2 seconds left on refire, test doesn't end till the GR get's the last shot off.

Take total shots, multiply by damage, divide by time, taadaa, you have DPS...
***********

This is similar to the methods others have used to demonstrate why the PPC (and hot weapons in general) aren't balanced. If the answer to a straight math problem, which weapon fires longer and/or hits harder with less limitation, can only be debated by anecdotal tales of how the PPC is fine or convoluted tests that involve a plethora of variables irrelevant to actual weapon balance, then it becomes patently obvious that the math stands and everything else is, in fact, irrelevant...

Quote

edit:

you had an "even if" so here's my even if. Even if you want to call my comparisons "build balance", doesn't really matter if you do IMO, my point is that the examples are entirely RELEVANT to "weapon balance". So call it build balance if you like, it's NOT irrelevant to this discussion on weapons balance though.

Incorrect.

Imagine the gauss cat shoots the arms (to disable the other mechs weaponry) whereas the PPCcat has to shoot the torso? You did not consider this key variable (nor did you consider whether or not the gauss user reallocated armour from the rear to the front to game the test). You did not consider that the arms of a k2 are a much easier target than the right/left torso. You did not consider that the gauss cat can add extra weapons and use them more effectively because they aren't heat stressed. You didn't specify tonnage of ammo or tonnage of heatsinks ie. would you stack in tonnes of ammo if you only expected to fight one other mech.

That is, you artificially limited your test because all the other variables (and there are literally hundreds of variables that could be added to the 'test') are irrelevant. You just haven't pared your test down to the constants (and I really can't emphasise that enough) required to establish whether or not the parts are balanced or not in their own right.

Constants for weapons:

Ammo per tonne (obviously for weapons that require ammo)
Heat per shot
RoF
Range constraints
Weight
Damage

Then of course you end up with derivatives like DPS, DPH etc. And that's where weapon balance ends. If there are savants that can make bad weapons work for them, g'luck to em, doesn't make the weapon good...

[Stabbitha]

Prosperity Park, on 15 November 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

The OP's math assumes that all MW:O battles are fought toe-to-toe at max RoF. This is an incorrect presumption.

Because it's a pure showdown to test the relative strength of the weapon, not the tactics and skills of the pilot using the weapon...

If the above sentence doesn't make sense to you, don't bother responding to it. You'll just say the same misguided junk about how subjective tests are actually valid when talking about an objective comparisons and somewhere in the world an actual scientist or mathematician will explode.

Quote

In MW:O, I can fire my 3xPPC volly twice when the 2xGauss Player can only return fire once because the PPC has a faster RoF. Advantage: PPC, in this case, by 30 points of damage per engagement. I can fire, they retrn fire, I fire again, and then I scoot before they fire a second time. Repeat a couple times and the PPC player beats Gauss player in this situation.

So let's just ask people to line up, engage you only one at a time and only in an area where you have adequate cover to "scoot" to...

Let's just make up any test. I have one small laser and you have a full equipped Atlas K. Your feet are glued to the ground and you can't turn. The small laser is overpowered because it does more damage than your full build, right? Err, wrong you say? But in the test that I designed to give me exactly the answer I wanted to see, the small laser does more damage, DPS, DPH etc.

As soon as you start creating scenarios, your test is as irrelevant as my ridiculous example. Yes, you might win with the PPC (good for you), but the weapon is not balanced...

[Targetloc]

Prosperity Park, on 15 November 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

The OP's math assumes that all MW:O battles are fought toe-to-toe at max RoF. This is an incorrect presumption.

In MW:O, I can fire my 3xPPC volly twice when the 2xGauss Player can only return fire once because the PPC has a faster RoF. Advantage: PPC, in this case, by 30 points of damage per engagement. I can fire, they retrn fire, I fire again, and then I scoot before they fire a second time. Repeat a couple times and the PPC player beats Gauss player in this situation.

Well, you're also assuming that you can disengage in less than 1 second. And you're both 100% accurate.

Those 2 shots you take are the only two shots you're taking for a while. You need to spend between 50 to 60% of the fight out of LOS to maintain your damage advantage. I think that's the biggest place where the PPC falls down.

20-30% would be a lot more doable. How long can you avoid a determined attacker that's closing in on you? The game is intentionally designed so that being able to shoot your target also means he's closing in on you faster than you can retreat.


And if he's not closing in because your team is holding the line, then he's got lots of other targets to contribute damage on while you're hiding and cooling for 50% of the match.

And who's in more trouble if you're both hanging back when "Suddenly, Jenner!"


I like the concept of the PPC. I use them sometimes because this TRO era is supposed to be all about hot PPC lovin'... but they're not a very effective weapon except for very niche max alpha headshot shenanigans, when they're supposed to be more of a workhorse cannon.