534 replies to this topic

[Indoorsman]

Stabbitha, on 15 November 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

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...



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...

You say at the end there, imagine the Gausscat shoots the arms off... well it wasn't a build comparison so that's not where the PPC would be, they would be side torso just like the Gauss. Otherwise it's not an equal comparison. The scenario I laid out is 4 part, by the end neither mech had any advantage the other wasn't also given. The 4 parts combined are an equal comparison of PPC vs Gauss.

It's really very objective. Gauss wins 3/4 parts. That isn't a percentage that Gauss would win, because who knows how often there will or won't be cover and who will have it. It's much easier to pull off the Gauss RoF cover example than the PPC RoF cover example because the Gauss cat has 3 seconds to get behind cover before the PPC cat can fire again while the PPC cat has 1 second to get behind cover after its' 2nd volley. I didn't say the PPC cat would win 25% of the time because it probably would win less than 10% of the time. But this is subjective, even though it's probably right. I merely presented objective evidence earlier.

Dunno why you're debating this with me when we're both saying the same thing, Gauss > PPC. Seems like a waste of time to me :-p

[Apoc1138]

@ V T... every time I try to give you my observations on how your maths does not agree with the end results in game, you write another big massively flawed maths lesson on why what I see happening in game can't be true... I know your math is wrong, I don't need to invent math of my own to argue that point because PGI have already done all the maths that's needed, what I see is just the results... and the results I see from PGI's maths does not in any way correlate to the results of your calculations...

[Abrahms]

Did Indoorsman really just finally agree that the Gauss>PPC! Slowly but surely some can see!

Oh, and to the guy that said the PPC is better if you engage for exactly 6 seconds every 30 seconds, that the PPC wins over the gauss... well then yeah, I guess if we only fought below 90 meters, or over 1000 meters, that the gauss wins, therefore its better.

Seriously, how can some be SO illogical? Creating stupid, nonsensical hypotheticals that never exist to try and argue for the PPC. Sorry, the Gauss weighs half of what the PPC weighs for the SAME effect in MWO, Im pretty sure that a 3 sec CD v a 4 sec CD makes almost 0 difference over time, in a live environment. 0/10 for the trolls

[Indoorsman]

Abrahms, on 16 November 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

Did Indoorsman really just finally agree that the Gauss>PPC! Slowly but surely some can see&#

Dunno why my quote ended up like that but whatever. I've never disagreed that Gauss was > PPC. I WAS against discussing weapons balance from the perspective of TT though. I don't think that's an issue anymore because they've diverged even more from TT. I think this is the way we will get the best balance... By addressing each and every weapon. Just like they have been doing with ballistics lately

[Apoc1138]

Abrahms, on 16 November 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

Seriously, how can some be SO illogical? Creating stupid, nonsensical hypotheticals that never exist to try and argue for the PPC. Sorry, the Gauss weighs half of what the PPC weighs for the SAME effect in MWO, Im pretty sure that a 3 sec CD v a 4 sec CD makes almost 0 difference over time, in a live environment. 0/10 for the trolls

strawman

nobody said that

what some people have quite rightly pointed out is that a faster refire rate can sometimes be an advantage, just like having a lower DPS but lower heat can be an advantage if averaged over a long enough time period

in YOUR opinion you would rather have a double-the-weight weapon with lower the DPS over a high burst damage / high heat / lower weight weapon (or even 2 of them)

silly thing is, people want to include other items and systems (heatsinks) as part of the equation if the answer confirms their preconceived idea, but instantly discount the addition of other variables in to the equation if it starts to disagree with their preconceived idea

it's like arguing that a prius should win a le man 24 hour race because it has better fuel efficiency

Edited by Apoc1138, 16 November 2012 - 11:14 PM.

[Hurnn]

Weapon balance will never happen under the current heat system it favors low heat weapons far to much. SmL's ML's and gauss will dominate under the current heat system, TT weapons were balanced on a 10 second turn. Tripling fire rate but leaving heat dissipation the same only favors low heat weapons, just like it did in the frankly terrible Solaris 7 rules. Double or triple the current heat dissipation and high heat weapons become usable, which in turn makes many cannon mech builds viable instead of near useless jokes they are now.

[Velba]

But I run 4xMPL 2xSRM4+Artemis on a CN9-AL and I wreck people with an average of 500 damage a match.......


EDIT: You stay away from my build mother$*#&ers

Edited by Velba, 16 November 2012 - 11:57 PM.

[Sunstar]

I've played TT and I get your numbers and I can see why my PPC builds don't work now I have been waiting for the damage and heat numbers to appear on weapons in the Mech Lab to figure it out. - Why didn't they make Heat sinks absorb 3 times more heat? (thus if you fire 3 times more often it would have been balanced) surely that would have maintained the original and intended weapon balance? though they may have had to make ammo have 3 times more rounds per ton to balance that too.

Double Armour isn't an issue if everyone gets it. just my opinion on making a FPS game combat game from a TT as that means every one lives a bit longer and has more fun.

I can only guess that if the devs know it and don't care that they assume that the vast bulk of players are not TT and there for won't care?

[Asatruer]

Apoc1138, on 16 November 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

it's like arguing that a prius should win a le man 24 hour race because it has better fuel efficiency

Never heard of it before, but out of curiosity...
Does the le man 24 hour race put each car on a different route with different environmental conditions, or are all of the cars in the race given a roughly equal starting and course?

The problem with your claim that your other variables being valid and other people's other variables being invalid is that it shows you are trying to do the same thing you claim your debate opponents are, cherry pick your factors to try and win the debate.

The variables that you are choosing as the key and most important ones are external factors to the balance of a weapon, they are external factors to a mech, and have nothing to do with how a mech is build or designed. They are instead, factors of how you play the game. Remove cover and pilot skill differences and you get a balanced playing field, that is no fun to play.

Heat, heatsinks and ammo are all internal factors to how weapons in BattleTech are balanced against each other, they are factors that are completely internalized into the design decisions that went into making each and every stock mech, and are less about how you play the game, and more about core fundamental game design. Remove Heat (and thus heatsinks) and ammo and you wonder why anyone would ever pick an AC/10 over a PPC, or a Gauss rather than two PPCs, or 6 Machine Guns rather than 6 Small Lasers.

Your arguments in favor of the PPC are reliant on granting the dual PPC mech cover, while not doing the same for the dual Gauss mech. If you grant access to equal cover and ability to use it to each mech, the benefits of having the cover balance out and negate each other, essentially making it a non-factor in examining weapon balance.

Can you honestly say that the dual PPC mech is going to out perform the dual Gauss mech without PPCs getting two shots for every one shot of the Gauss? If they both have cover, the PPC's higher RoF is meaningless. If neither gets cover, the PPC's higher RoF does not make up for doing less damage.

Apoc1138, on 16 November 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

what some people have quite rightly pointed out is that a faster refire rate can sometimes be an advantage, just like having a lower DPS but lower heat can be an advantage if averaged over a long enough time period

in YOUR opinion you would rather have a double-the-weight weapon with lower the DPS over a high burst damage / high heat / lower weight weapon (or even 2 of them)

Risk vs reward? The riskier higher burst would probably be better.

In your opinion, would you rather have a double-the-weight weapon with higher DPS (or even 2 of them) over a burst damage / high heat / lower weight weapon (or even 2 of them)?

Remember that at first fire Gauss has done more damage (15 vs 10), PPC has done more at 3 seconds (15 vs 20), Gauss at 4 (30 vs 20), PPC matches at 6 (30 vs 30), Gauss more at 8 (45 vs 30), Gauss more at 9 (45 vs 40), Gauss more at 12 (60 vs 50), PPC equal at 15 (60 vs 60), Gauss more at 16 (75 vs 60)... so on and so forth.

The PPC's greater RoF only matters if it can cripple the Gauss wielding mech in the first two volleys.

[Indoorsman]

Asatruer, on 17 November 2012 - 12:47 AM, said:

The PPC's greater RoF only matters if it can cripple the Gauss wielding mech in the first two volleys.

Or if the PPC has cover and the Gauss does not.

[Apoc1138]

I'm not trying to cherry pick, I'm trying to get all factors considered... in some circumstances the gauss is better, without a doubt, but in some circumstances the PPC's are better

to be clear, I am comparing a single gauss to twin PPC's because for less crits and less weight I can fit 2 PPC's on my mech - I also carry alot of heatsinks because other weapons also need them and I have those other weapons for tackling light mechs, which neither the PPC nor gauss is particularly great at tackling, barring lucky shots or mistakes by the light pilot

assuming both mechs have a similar build barring heatinks (e.g. medium lasers and SRM6's)
assuming all other things are equal - e.g. we both miss a couple of shots

I can fire 9 shots before shutdown, so that's 27 seconds and 180 points of damage (6.66 DPS)... in the same time the gauss user has issued 90 points of damage... even with a couple of misses, chances are I've killed him

if we use cover, when we're not firing I'm extending my chances of maintaining 6.66DPS, where as he is just wasting damage output, he's actually helping me if he ducks in to cover

yes there are some builds that can mount 2 Gauss, he has both greater burst and sustainable damage output, however he also has less armour than me, and currently the only mech that can do dual gauss also has a much bigger CT hit box

you have to consider the whole system and not each weapon in isolation, otherwise it becomes atlas online

[Indoorsman]

Apoc1138, on 17 November 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

I'm not trying to cherry pick, I'm trying to get all factors considered... in some circumstances the gauss is better, without a doubt, but in some circumstances the PPC's are better

to be clear, I am comparing a single gauss to twin PPC's because for less crits and less weight I can fit 2 PPC's on my mech - I also carry alot of heatsinks because other weapons also need them and I have those other weapons for tackling light mechs, which neither the PPC nor gauss is particularly great at tackling, barring lucky shots or mistakes by the light pilot

assuming both mechs have a similar build barring heatinks (e.g. medium lasers and SRM6's)
assuming all other things are equal - e.g. we both miss a couple of shots

I can fire 9 shots before shutdown, so that's 27 seconds and 180 points of damage (6.66 DPS)... in the same time the gauss user has issued 90 points of damage... even with a couple of misses, chances are I've killed him

if we use cover, when we're not firing I'm extending my chances of maintaining 6.66DPS, where as he is just wasting damage output, he's actually helping me if he ducks in to cover

yes there are some builds that can mount 2 Gauss, he has both greater burst and sustainable damage output, however he also has less armour than me, and currently the only mech that can do dual gauss also has a much bigger CT hit box

you have to consider the whole system and not each weapon in isolation, otherwise it becomes atlas online

The problem is, when using PPC INSTEAD of Gauss, if your mech has ballistic you are using a higher heat generating weapon. Then any other weapons, missiles or maybe lasers, are very heat limited. So you sacrifice range and dps on the rest of your loadout for those PPC. Ideally you'd use PPC and Gauss together, they compliment each other well. But if it comes down to a mech using PPC vs a mech using Gauss... the mech using Gauss will most likely have higher average range/dps than the PPC mech. Not saying that's a problem, because Gauss are now going to be super squishy apparently, and they re-stated that PPC are getting ECM. We'll just have to wait and see how those 2 additions turn out.

[MustrumRidcully]

Indoorsman, on 17 November 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

Or if the PPC has cover and the Gauss does not.

Do PPCs come equpped with automatic cover deployment drones or something like that?

THis is the "Small Lasers are overpowered, because if I have a mech with 2 Gauss Rifles and a destroyed leg, a Jenner with a single small laser can kill me because he's always behind me and I deal 0 damage and he deals 1 DPS."

[Indoorsman]

MustrumRidcully, on 17 November 2012 - 02:53 AM, said:

Do PPCs come equpped with automatic cover deployment drones or something like that?

THis is the "Small Lasers are overpowered, because if I have a mech with 2 Gauss Rifles and a destroyed leg, a Jenner with a single small laser can kill me because he's always behind me and I deal 0 damage and he deals 1 DPS."

I have never said PPC WILL have cover and therefor beats Gauss. I keep saying WHEN or IF PPC has cover and gauss does not, RoF can be manipulated FTW.

Cover is equal opportunity. Over 1 million matches between equally well played, identical mechs aside from PPC vs Gauss, they will each have cover the same amount of time. They will both be in the open the same amount of time. So if we were to look at whatever % of the engagements that the PPC has cover while the Gauss does not, the PPC would have a greater win % than the other 3 situations.

Yet you say that this is the same as comparing not only different variants but mechs which are 2 classes apart, and vastly different speeds.

Edited by Indoorsman, 17 November 2012 - 03:21 AM.

[Gabrielpendragon]

Or scale all weapons to their TT stats with the change in ROF, double ROF, halve Heat per shot, half damage per shot, double ammo per ton, this would give a weapon that performs exactly the same as the TT values at least on paper.

[Indoorsman]

Gabrielpendragon, on 17 November 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:

Or scale all weapons to their TT stats with the change in ROF, double ROF, halve Heat per shot, half damage per shot, double ammo per ton, this would give a weapon that performs exactly the same as the TT values at least on paper.

This is precisely what I am against. BV is what made TT balanced, take that away and transfer scaled weapons values to MWO and you've got a mess.

[Slanski]

I ask the participants of the discussion not to engage in pointless skirmish.

Fact remains: The proportions of various mech resources (HS, ammo, weight per DPS on weapons) have been distorted to the point of producing min maxing Frankenmechs. Until a general proportion has been restored which brings Ballistics "built in heat sinks causing less heat per shot" (those have been trippled along with general rate of fire) back into line with Energy drawing on mech heat sinks (which have not been trippled), we will see mostly non canon optimizing builds.

Restore proportion to the weapon systems and their resources, then rebalance from there.

Edited by Slanski, 17 November 2012 - 04:17 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Indoorsman, on 17 November 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

This is precisely what I am against. BV is what made TT balanced, take that away and transfer scaled weapons values to MWO and you've got a mess.

I don't think the 3025 Tech (that'sw without ERLLs, ERPPCs, Ultra ACs, Gauss Rifles and DHS) doesn't need Battle Value all that much. And so at least those weapons should be balanced similary as they were in the table top.

And the other problem is not that of balance, but how mechs were designed and played - even if the Jagermech with 2 AC/5 and 2 AC/5 may have been underpowered for his weight - he was a heat neutral mech. Turning him into a mech that can overheat within 6 seconds is not really a reasonable change from TT to MW:O. Even if he now would put out much more damage than he could in the table top in those 6 seconds, it's still unreasonable.

I could see him getting hotter in exchange for more damage - but not that hot.

[Apoc1138]

Indoorsman, on 17 November 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

The problem is, when using PPC INSTEAD of Gauss, if your mech has ballistic you are using a higher heat generating weapon. Then any other weapons, missiles or maybe lasers, are very heat limited. So you sacrifice range and dps on the rest of your loadout for those PPC. Ideally you'd use PPC and Gauss together, they compliment each other well.

and then you have a 1 trick pony again, and you lose 4 DHS' to do it (0.56 heat per second of diss) making your PPC's less effective and removing your ability to fit weapons that might be used against fast moving targets... I think I would have to drop down engine size which would also lose me a heatink or two depending on how much ammo I wanted for the gauss (subject to testing how quickly it runs out based on how trigger happy I am)

which is fine, if you want to build a pure sniper / fire support mech but you would have to also be more wary of your speed and maneuverability and getting caught out by a light mech which is all too easy in an atlas

this is what I mean by compromises, all weapons involve compromises and it's possible to find a combination that work for you, without using a gauss and even using the "broken" PPC's which are part of the "broken" heat system

Edited by Apoc1138, 18 November 2012 - 06:08 AM.

[Stabbitha]

Indoorsman, on 15 November 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

You say at the end there, imagine the Gausscat shoots the arms off... well it wasn't a build comparison so that's not where the PPC would be, they would be side torso just like the Gauss. Otherwise it's not an equal comparison. The scenario I laid out is 4 part, by the end neither mech had any advantage the other wasn't also given. The 4 parts combined are an equal comparison of PPC vs Gauss.

As I said, you are inventing variables to make the test say what you want.

Quote

It's really very objective.

Your tests are subjective, the create a set of circumstances that a) aren't boiled down to the absolute basic constants and generally won't happen in the game.

Quote

Gauss wins 3/4 parts. That isn't a percentage that Gauss would win, because who knows how often there will or won't be cover and who will have it. It's much easier to pull off the Gauss RoF cover example than the PPC RoF cover example because the Gauss cat has 3 seconds to get behind cover before the PPC cat can fire again while the PPC cat has 1 second to get behind cover after its' 2nd volley. I didn't say the PPC cat would win 25% of the time because it probably would win less than 10% of the time. But this is subjective, even though it's probably right. I merely presented objective evidence earlier.

Dunno why you're debating this with me when we're both saying the same thing, Gauss > PPC. Seems like a waste of time to me :-p

I'm debating it because you've got the right answer and still can't see the obvious conclusion.

The PPC/ERPPC/LPLas are all pretty awful currently because they get exponentially worse for every extra point of heat generated. That people can jump through hoops to make them work doesn't mean squat. To put it in extreme terms, I could probably kill a person with a plastic spork, doesn't mean I want to fight it out with someone wielding a machine gun.

Indoorsman, on 16 November 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

Dunno why my quote ended up like that but whatever. I've never disagreed that Gauss was > PPC. I WAS against discussing weapons balance from the perspective of TT though. I don't think that's an issue anymore because they've diverged even more from TT. I think this is the way we will get the best balance... By addressing each and every weapon. Just like they have been doing with ballistics lately

/drily

Yes, I noticed that they intend gauss rifles to be more "fragile" to discourage people from brawling with them...

*ahem* Let's forget that AC20's, with more critical locations, was actually more likely to get destroyed from a critical penetration than the gauss...

PGI are creating bizarre circumstances (not only non canon but nonsensical) to try and dissuade users from going from the obvious and most potent choice. Same with no 360 degree sensors (yes, we can make a fusion engine but the concept of a sensor package that can detect a 10m tall war engine 30 feet behind you is apparently beyond us...)

Here's a solution that satisfies most of their requirements:

Requirements (as I understand them)

-Combat should last a certain amount of time, TT directly translated = people die way too fast
-Apparently people have the attention span of hummingbirds and can't wait 10 seconds for a weapon to cool down, faster ROF
-Builds should be equally viable ie. a scout should be able to take on an assault mech (lolwut)

Possible Solutions (starting from stock TT rules, ie. reset heat etc to the values set down already)

-Add bloom to the reticule to reduce accuracy, partially emulating tabletop randomisation. I shouldn't hit a foot with one laser and a head with other if both fire from the same location) Reticule would bloom more due to movement (higher speed = more boom), rough terrain.
-Implement heat effects, running hot would cause your weapons to be sluggish, reduce your speed etc, risk ammo explosion. Players should manage their heat and risk effects when a good alpha strike will finish off an enemy.
-Adjust ROF depending on the size of the weapon. MG's/Flamers obviously fire very fast, gauss/ppc's etc are slow with other weapons scaling depending on size.
-Divide the total original damage of the weapon by number of shots per 10 seconds. eg. a PPC will produce 10 heat per 10 seconds per 1 shot, gauss = 1 per 10 per 1, AC2 might fire 5 times but do 1/5th damage for 1/5th heat, AC20 would be 1 shot/salvo* per 10 etc.
-Keep original heat values for weapons, HS's, DHS etc.
-Adjust armour up across the board depending on desired TTK. 2x is now unnecessary due to less accurate fire

Rationale:

-Enables devs to keep original damage for weapons + original heat (eliminates geometric heat problems in hotter weapons)
-More pew pew or more deliberate big alpha depending on your personal choices. This is essentially cosmetic (although, as usual, a missed shot from a big alpha gun is a severe loss of DPS, but when it lands it hurts)
-Armour scaling can be tweaked to achieve desired TTK without messing with the other core stats.
-Hotter weapons are now viable but don't do OTT damage (still restricted to damage/10 seconds in effect). eg. Pulselasers could be hitscan continuous stutter fire (like a MG) but the larger the variant, the more damage, the more heat.
-Weapons with on hit effects (EMP, penetration, shock and awe etc) could have their ROF tweaked to limited spam, eg. PPC's on a 1 shot in 10 would mean that it would be smarter to chain fire them to keep the EMP effect going rather than go for huge alpha salvos.

Of course, it would be a lot of work now that the current system is in place, but, to me at least, it seems to be the easiest solution that would reduce tweaking down to three factors.

Rate of Fire
Armour Value
Per weapon effects (ie. the strength of the effect, duration etc)

I understand this is a computer game and not tabletop and there will be intrinsic differences between the two, I am not arguing for remaking MWO as a turnbased dice roll game. Do you accept that the TT rules are a good place to start (having already been balanced to death) and with a relatively minor amount of work as suggested above could be made to work quite well in the current game?

*I mention salvo because I always envisaged each 'reload' for an AC to be a burst of shells rather than a single shot. Either way, the effect is roughly similar