534 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Vlad Ward, on 03 November 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

The stock K2 is just awful, so I'll put that one aside.

Thanks for the Jenner. It doesn't seem we really get to all that different conclusions, here, though

Vlad Ward, on 03 November 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

The stock K2 is just awful, so I'll put that one aside.

is it? Then maybe forget the medium lasers and the Machine Guns. Just the 2 PPCs.

That probably won't change your opinion, but just as a remark - 2 PPCs and 20 heat sinks were heat neutral in the table top. A Gauss Rifle would still be better in the TT, but the gap is much lower...

Quote

As for Jenners, I can run through that.

A JR7-F with a 300XL engine and 4 Medium Lasers would have:
3.5 tons internals
238/32 = 7.43 tons of Standard armor
15.5 tons in the Engine
4 tons in weapons
0.5 tons in a JJ (most likely)
and 4 tons in SHS or DHS.
total: 34.43 tons

Will DHS fit on a JR7-F? Yes. So we'll go with DHS and convert all the sinks in the engine.

Will Endo Steel fit with the DHS? Yes. So we'll add that, save 1.75 tons, and add 2 more Chassis DHS.

That'll put us at 34.68 tons with max armor, JJ, maxed engine, and 4 medium lasers. I'll leave that last .32 tons alone.

Total heat capacity in this build: 30 + 16(2) = 62
Heat Dissipation: 16 x (.2) x 1.15 = 3.68/s

Where does the second 1.15 multiplier come from? Shouldn't the dissipation just be 8 HPS with 12 DHS? (Of course, now that DHS are nerfed to 1.4 Heat Sinks it be even less, but let's stick with real DHS for now)
It should be a dissipation of 3.2.

Quote

Maximum DPS: 8.0
Sustainability of Maximum DPS (with 2.0 DHS): 11 volleys, 30 seconds, 220 Damage
Heat Neutral DPS: 4.60

There seems to be a small error on your part here. A single Medium Laser has only a DPS of 1.25. The beam duration is added to the cooldown, so you will fire effectively "only" every 4 seconds, not every 3. For the same reason, it's heat per second is 1.
So, Maximum DPS is 5.0, Maximum HPS is 3.2, Difference 1.8 HPS.
Sustainability of Maximum DPS: 9 Volleys; ~34.4 seconds, 9 x 5 x 4 = 180 Damage
Heat Neutral DPS: 4

Quote

Maximum DPS: 8.0
Sustainability of Maximum DPS (with 2.0 DHS): 47 volleys, 103.5 seconds, 828 total damage
Heat Neutral DPS: 7.35

Small Lasers have a DPS of 1 and a HPS of about 0.66, so 6 have a DPS of 6 and a HPS of 3.96 (let'S make it 4)

Maximum DPS: 6.0; Net 0.8 HPS gained
Sustainability of Maximum DPS (with 2.0 DHS): 20 Volleys, ~78 seconds, 360 Total Damage
Heat Neutral DPS: 4.8 DPS

Quote

Conclusions: The SL build is vastly more heat efficient, but if DHS were implemented properly then both builds would be excessively cool - no one needs to deal 220 damage to kill a target, let alone 828, especially when the Mech is capable of running 140~ kph and disengaging at will.

Are you sure? 220 damage is really a lot, but you have to consider that not every shot will hit the intended target (e.g. either miss the mech entirely, or hit a different hit location, or spread the damage across hit locations). It will depend on how good of a shot you are....

Quote

Personally, I'd run the ML setup for the increased per-hit damage and cooler-looking lasers. The SL Jenner is a perfect example of a build that runs way cooler than anyone will ever need it to.

Edit: Does the poster above me not realize that 20 DPS for 10 seconds is 200 damage? That's hardly scratching the paint off anything. More like completely obliterating an Atlas and change.

I will agree with you that the Small Laser Jenner is too cool running. IN a "damage sprint" for 30 seconds, the medium laser build is better. Only if you really go the long distance the Small Lasers will be better.

But theoretically... we would have had weight for 2 more small lasers. The Jenner doesn't have the hard point, but another mech may have them. (For example, the Hunchback.))

But you're using the "real" Double Heat Sinsk for your equation. I really don't care to go through it again with single heat sinks... But that's the situation we have been running with two weeks ago. And there the choice was much clearer - you couldn't get 16 DHS, you only could get 16 SHS... And this would have reduced the MLs sustainability considerably.

[IIIuminaughty]

I rather see the math from a programmer that designed/helped designed MWO

[MustrumRidcully]

StrataDragoon, on 03 November 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

I rather see the math from a programmer that designed/helped designed MWO

That would be cool, wouldn't it? Then at least maybe would figure out why we have so different opinions.

Either the players got it wrong or the programmers. Considering what I see in game, I think it's the programmers that are off. Sounds like hybris, right?
But I am playing the game. I am seeing what is going on. I see te types of mechs I see, what kind of builds are deemed powerful and useful. That seems to support Abrahms or my math better than whatever model the devs have that's saying things are balanced or closed to balanced.

[Keifomofutu]

StrataDragoon, on 03 November 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

I rather see the math from a programmer that designed/helped designed MWO

If the math is true from ingame tests who cares who posts the numbers?

[Yokaiko]

StrataDragoon, on 03 November 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

I rather see the math from a programmer that designed/helped designed MWO

I'll let you in on a not so secret, players found the heatsink AND laser bugs that are being addressed....not the Devs.

[Vlad Ward]

MustrumRidcully, on 03 November 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

Thanks for the Jenner. It doesn't seem we really get to all that different conclusions, here, though

is it? Then maybe forget the medium lasers and the Machine Guns. Just the 2 PPCs.

That probably won't change your opinion, but just as a remark - 2 PPCs and 20 heat sinks were heat neutral in the table top. A Gauss Rifle would still be better in the TT, but the gap is much lower...

I can if need be. It's just not really a design that interests me, ha. Poor form, I know.

MustrumRidcully, on 03 November 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

Where does the second 1.15 multiplier come from? Shouldn't the dissipation just be 8 HPS with 12 DHS? (Of course, now that DHS are nerfed to 1.4 Heat Sinks it be even less, but let's stick with real DHS for now)
It should be a dissipation of 3.2.

That's the 15% extra heat dissipation added by Elite-tier Cool Run, which I'm assuming most end-game players will have available to them on their Mechs of choice.

MustrumRidcully, on 03 November 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

There seems to be a small error on your part here. A single Medium Laser has only a DPS of 1.25. The beam duration is added to the cooldown, so you will fire effectively "only" every 4 seconds, not every 3. For the same reason, it's heat per second is 1.
So, Maximum DPS is 5.0, Maximum HPS is 3.2, Difference 1.8 HPS.
Sustainability of Maximum DPS: 9 Volleys; ~34.4 seconds, 9 x 5 x 4 = 180 Damage
Heat Neutral DPS: 4

I wasn't aware that beam duration was added to the cooldown. The Maximum DPS cannot be determined from (Damage/Recycle Time)*Weapons, though, as you neglect the first volley being fired at t=0s. Maximum DPS in an exothermic weapon system can only be determined by taking the total damage dealt before overheat and dividing by how long it took to generate that damage.

After looking at the adjustments for recycle time, I came up with the following:

Maximum DPS: 5.5
Sustainability of Maximum DPS: 11 volleys, 40 seconds, 220 damage
Heat Neutral DPS: 3.74

Heat is still rising by 16 h/s for 1 second and then dropping by 3.68 h/s for 3 seconds. The only difference in these scenarios is that the firing is being treated as a 1-second long process rather than an instantaneous one, which is more correct if the recycle time does not start until after the beam has ended.

MustrumRidcully, on 03 November 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

Small Lasers have a DPS of 1 and a HPS of about 0.66, so 6 have a DPS of 6 and a HPS of 3.96 (let'S make it 4)

Maximum DPS: 6.0; Net 0.8 HPS gained
Sustainability of Maximum DPS (with 2.0 DHS): 20 Volleys, ~78 seconds, 360 Total Damage
Heat Neutral DPS: 4.8 DPS

Oops. Looks like I goofed here. I treated the Small Lasers as firing on 3s cooldown, not 2.25. Fixing that.

Using a 0.75s beam duration for the Small Laser that does not count as part of the recycle time, I come up with the following:

Maximum DPS: 6.5
Sustainability of Maximum DPS: 13 volleys, 36 seconds, 234 damage
Heat Neutral DPS: 4.48

Note: You can't use the difference between heat generated and heat dissipated to calculate Maximum volleys on its own. You have to remember that any volley that brings total heat above the maximum heat capacity will cause the mech to shutdown. Jargon: Heat will look more like a step function with linear components than a purely linear function.

The longer beam duration on the Mlasers not counting towards recycle time pretty much kills that build. How sad.

MustrumRidcully, on 03 November 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

Are you sure? 220 damage is really a lot, but you have to consider that not every shot will hit the intended target (e.g. either miss the mech entirely, or hit a different hit location, or spread the damage across hit locations). It will depend on how good of a shot you are....


I will agree with you that the Small Laser Jenner is too cool running. IN a "damage sprint" for 30 seconds, the medium laser build is better. Only if you really go the long distance the Small Lasers will be better.

But theoretically... we would have had weight for 2 more small lasers. The Jenner doesn't have the hard point, but another mech may have them. (For example, the Hunchback.))

But you're using the "real" Double Heat Sinsk for your equation. I really don't care to go through it again with single heat sinks... But that's the situation we have been running with two weeks ago. And there the choice was much clearer - you couldn't get 16 DHS, you only could get 16 SHS... And this would have reduced the MLs sustainability considerably.

I could use the 1.4 DHS, but it just makes me sad.

[IIIuminaughty]

Yokaiko, on 03 November 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

I'll let you in on a not so secret, players found the heatsink AND laser bugs that are being addressed....not the Devs.

I still rather see the math from the programmer him/herself

[Keifomofutu]

StrataDragoon, on 03 November 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

I still rather see the math from the programmer him/herself

If history is any indication he'd tell you something that would then be proven wrong.

[XTRMNTR2K]

StrataDragoon, on 03 November 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

I still rather see the math from the programmer him/herself

Math is math is math. 2 plus 2 equals 4, no matter who says so.

Just sayin'.

[Keifomofutu]

XTRMNTR2K, on 03 November 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

Math is math is math. 2 plus 2 equals 2.8, no matter who says so.

Just sayin'.

FTFY

Edited by Keifomofutu, 03 November 2012 - 02:24 PM.

[Yokaiko]

Keifomofutu, on 03 November 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

FTFY

Clever.

[Beo Vulf]

Abrahms, on 03 November 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

Yeah buts that is mostly due to lagshield more than weapon balance. Of course when direct hits dont register, and its impossible to lead because the lag is inconsistent (so ever changing lead distance) then LRMs and SRMs take the throne because of auto-guidance.

.

Yeh when the jenner is running right to left, and you give him 20 feet left lead and still shot 20 feet behind him when you are only 50 feet away there is a problem with code, not with weapons balance. When you shot a jenner flat dead center in the chest with an AC 20 from 50 feet and do 2% damage there's a weapons problem. I have witnessed both, and have had both happen. This is not a quick fix there is a major problem some were in their code that is not only effecting shot placement, but weapons damage as well.

[Lyteros]

Vlad Ward, on 03 November 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

I suppose that's more a player issue than a Mech issue. I can't do much about that.

Personally, I prefer running laser-heavy builds for this very reason. I'm able to place my shots very precisely with them, so even when I miss my intended target I'll still do extreme damage to one component. It's rare that anything survives more than 2-3 Alphas from my Brawler, except the occasional Atlas which I can run circles around (85kph beats 48kph every time).

Anything that I totally wiff and can't kill, I just outrun. That's why speed and the ability to engage/disengage is also extremely important when looking at Mech heat dissipation. Slow Mechs need to be more heat-conscious than fast Mechs if for no other reason than their inability to extricate themselves from a fight and cool down.

And none of the mentioned has to do with imbalances of the weapons due to heat we talked about...?

For player skill: yes it does matter a lot here, but you can't calculate based on optimal situations. It's not the situation that will take place in game. It's ignoring given information and drawing a flawed conclusion based on assuming 100% ct hit with the damage.
The 50% above was just a number that somehow feels reasonable (or maybe not lol) but one does get the point, I think.

Misses will draw out the battle and increase time spent fighting, which in turn lowers the DPS drastically on energy based weaponary due to the heat issues. And personally I've seen battles going over several minutes with constant shooting. (or at least opportunity to do so)

The longer the range of the weapon the more constant you can pewpew with it (=> due to more targets of opportunity in range, if your actual target died or is hidden). The sad part is: the energy weapons with the highest range are also those with the highest heat. So beeing able to have somewhat constant DPS is giving you an edge here, which means stockpile heatsinks (ineffective build compared to ballistic / LRM).

Even if you can run off to cool yourself, the one who can stay and deal more constant DPS has an edge over the one who runs of to cool here. Especially if you run or stop shooting just to cool off, and not to avoid / redirect damage (tactical retreat).

Edited by Lyteros, 03 November 2012 - 02:42 PM.

[Vlad Ward]

As far as the original metric goes, however, I'll use my personal Mech as an example.

According to the "Principle of Tonnage for Heat Neutrality", a Medium Pulse Laser takes up "17 tons" with SHS and "9 tons" with DHS 2.0.

Assuming an 80 ton Mech with Standard Armor/Internals, you have:
8 tons internals
29 tons for a XL385 engine
494/32 = 15.5 tons of armor
= 52.5 tons total, leaving 27.5 tons free space

If I were to be heat neutral, I could only fit 1~2 MPLAS in my Awesome with SHS and 3 with DHS 2.0.

These would leave me with a DPS of 1.25~2.5 and 3.75 respectively.

In reality, I can throw 6 MPLAS on that Awesome and fit 23 total DHS.

This gives me:

Heat Capacity: 30 + 2(23) = 76
Heat Dissipation: 23(.2) * 1.15 = 5.29/s

Maximum DPS: 11.25
Sustainability of Maximum DPS: 5 volleys, 16 seconds, 180 damage
Heat Neutral DPS: 5.4

Does this help show why these "Heat Neutral Tonnage" numbers are bollucks?

[Vlad Ward]

Lyteros, on 03 November 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

And none of the mentioned has to do with imbalances of the weapons due to heat we talked about...?

For player skill: yes it does matter a lot here, but you can't calculate based on optimal situations. It's not the situation that will take place in game. It's ignoring given information and drawing a flawed conclusion based on assuming 100% ct hit with the damage.
The 50% above was just a number that somehow feels reasonable (or maybe not lol) but one does get the point, I think.

Misses will draw out the battle and increase time spent fighting, which in turn lowers the DPS drastically on energy based weaponary due to the heat issues. And personally I've seen battles going over several minutes with constant shooting. (or at least opportunity to do so)

The longer the range of the weapon the more constant you can pewpew with it (=> due to more targets of opportunity in range, if your actual target died or is hidden). The sad part is: the energy weapons with the highest range are also those with the highest heat. So beeing able to have somewhat constant DPS is giving you an edge here, which means stockpile heatsinks (ineffective build compared to ballistic / LRM).

Even if you can run off to cool yourself, the one who can stay and deal more constant DPS has an edge over the one who runs of to cool here. Especially if you run or stop shooting just to cool off, and not to avoid / redirect damage (tactical retreat).

The only Mechs I can think of that should be sitting in the middle of a fight and never moving in/out of the action are Atlases, and that's only because they're unable to. Why, oh, why would anyone choose to sit and trade blows with an enemy for more than a few seconds? Piloting like that is what keeps my KDR padded.

I ride builds that don't require the ability to stand still and fire their weapons for 3 minutes straight because I'm never standing still and firing my weapons for 3 minutes straight. I get in at 85kph, I deal 72 damage to an enemy mech in 5 seconds flat, and I get back out at 85 kph. Am I heat neutral during those 5 seconds? Hell no. Does it matter? Not really. If I'm feeling really confident, I'll even shoot for a third alpha to bring me up to 108 damage in 9 seconds before scooting off.

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, y'all.

[Knightwyvern]

IIRC all heat sinks, Double and single alike, only raise the total heat capacity by one, meaning that a DHS equipped mech almost always has a lower total heat capacity than a SHS equipped mech, despite the obvious difference in heat dissipation.

Secondly; why use MWO Rate of Fire numbers, damage numbers etc, and use TT DHS heat dissipation numbers? Being sad about it doesn't change the fact that all the results using those erroneous combinations of factors will be heavily flawed; am I missing something?

[Lyteros]

@ Vlad

on first post:

so you get 11 dps max for 180 damage, (5 dps stustained) with 6 mpl on an assault? I'll raise you a dualgauss cata with 11 dps constant on 6 times longer range at 15 tons less drop weight.

on second post:

Agree on that strat. I wasnt implying standing still and "keeping the LRM spam button pressed" with what I described.

Combat movement, getting in good position, avoiding fire and using obstacles and terrain - all included.

But unlike your "flyby" expample, mine is rather keep in the fight and keep hitting the targets without need getting out to cool, rather just continue shooting the whole time you can and start a tactical retreat if you get focused or in a bad situation, to come back later and continue the bombardment.
Without the need to leave for cooldown.

Especially in smaller mechs it often takes 2-3 mechs in your team to die, before you get focussed... If you can spend the entire time pumping out dps instead of having short streaks of high dps and then continued low dps (or cycles of high dps, cool, high dps...) I think the ability to have a more constant dps is the better option.
I'm not talking of 5+ minutes here, rather 30-120 seconds should suffice, but not the 10 sec high intensity phases you seem to talk about. And going constantly cool at rather high sustained dps is for sure NOT a disadvantage.

Edited by Lyteros, 03 November 2012 - 03:12 PM.

[Vlad Ward]

Knightwyvern, on 03 November 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

IIRC all heat sinks, Double and single alike, only raise the total heat capacity by one, meaning that a DHS equipped mech almost always has a lower total heat capacity than a SHS equipped mech, despite the obvious difference in heat dissipation.

Secondly; why use MWO Rate of Fire numbers, damage numbers etc, and use TT DHS heat dissipation numbers? Being sad about it doesn't change the fact that all the results using those erroneous combinations of factors will be heavily flawed; am I missing something?

Uh, you're the one who just tried to reference TT rules for heat capacity. MWO heat sinks add 2 to capacity for doubles, apparently.

I made the same mistake a couple days ago, but someone pointed out that there's a Dev post confirming that DHS are +2HC.

Secondly: I used 2.0 DHS because they're easier as an example of the method. The other poster involved in the conversation was unsure where our two methodologies differed. Being a hypothetical scenario designed to demonstrate the methodology, the results themselves are fairly unimportant.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 03 November 2012 - 03:26 PM.

[Vlad Ward]

Lyteros, on 03 November 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

@ Vlad

on first post:

so you get 11 dps max for 180 damage, (5 dps stustained) with 6 mpl on an assault? I'll raise you a dualgauss cata with 11 dps constant on 6 times longer range at 15 tons less drop weight.

on second post:

Agree on that strat. I wasnt implying standing still and "keeping the LRM spam button pressed" with what I described.

Combat movement, getting in good position, avoiding fire and using obstacles and terrain - all included.

But unlike your "flyby" expample, mine is rather keep in the fight and keep hitting the targets without need getting out to cool, rather just continue shooting the whole time you can and start a tactical retreat if you get focused or in a bad situation, to come back later and continue the bombardment.
Without the need to leave for cooldown.

Especially in smaller mechs it often takes 2-3 mechs in your team to die, before you get focussed... If you can spend the entire time pumping out dps instead of having short streaks of high dps and then continued low dps (or cycles of high dps, cool, high dps...) I think the ability to have a more constant dps is the better option.
I'm not talking of 5+ minutes here, rather 30-120 seconds should suffice, but not the 10 sec high intensity phases you seem to talk about. And going constantly cool at rather high sustained dps is for sure NOT a disadvantage.

Honestly, I think Laser weapons need a general heat reduction. I'm not saying they're fine as is.

I just think this "Heat Neutral Tonnage" figure is absolute bollucks and I'm tired of people referencing it as if it means anything.

As for piloting, that's where the sustainability of maximum DPS figure comes in. It's a judgment call for the pilot whether or not they think they'll need to stay in a fight longer than the Mech is able to stay online. Generally, if at all possible, I opt for ducking out and burst firing when I can because it's more forgiving of accuracy and really screws with my opponents (they're forced to re-target if I leave a skirmish). I have no qualms with more heat efficient builds like the SL Jenner. I just don't see the need to be totally heat neutral all the time.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 03 November 2012 - 03:44 PM.

[Knightwyvern]

Vlad Ward, on 03 November 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Uh, you're the one who just tried to reference TT rules for heat capacity. MWO heat sinks add 2 to capacity for doubles, apparently.

I made the same mistake a couple days ago, but someone pointed out that there's a Dev post confirming that DHS are +2HC.

Secondly: I used 2.0 DHS because they're easier as an example of the method. The other poster involved in the conversation was unsure where our two methodologies differed. Being a hypothetical scenario designed to demonstrate the methodology, the results themselves are fairly unimportant.

Ah, I see. Lovely how so much of the game mechanics are "hidden" (changed from TT rules and comparatively hard to discover that.)

Ok, so it was based on methodology and hypothesis, no problem with that. However reading through the back and forth, it did appear to me as if the hypothetical results both parties were getting were then being commented on and used in a sense that seemed to indicate application to the actual game; i.e. "it's flawed because you don't just stand still" or "have to take into account people's accuracy" etc. These things, of course, wouldn't matter in a purely hypothetical sense and only apply when taken into a practical approach. Hence my confusion. In such a practical approach, things would become more complex in an exponential fashion; taking into account things like secondary weapons, torso depression and weapon location, convergence variance, etc.

I think that as far as the original topic goes, it's plainly obvious to people despite the methodology used, that high heat weapons are currently less effective in general than low heat weapons. ERPPC vs LL? No contest. ERPPC vs Gauss? No contest.