534 replies to this topic

[Stabbitha]

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

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

Or the gauss is plugged up with taffy and the PPC is not... Neither is relevant to core weapon balance for crying out loud...

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.

Well of course you are. It's a solution that is elegant in it's simplicity that would be far easier to balance and remove exponential/geometric heat generation by hotter weapons. Weapons you are more than willing to admit are broken but haven't actually proposed a good way of balancing other than "crowd out other weapons" or "some mechs get cover". Or something, I gave up trying to follow the thought process down the damn rabbit hole...

Apoc1138, on 17 November 2012 - 06:15 AM, said:

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

The TT game already had compromises built in, gauss = ammo, higher dmg/dps, longer range, chance for barrel explosion, PPC = hotter, no ammo limits, could be made heat neutral by investment in HS's, min range.

PGI are going to continue to reinvent the wheel to try an achieve the balance they will never get.

[Xerxys]

Abrahms, on 03 November 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

If regular Heatsinks were 1.5 and double were like, 2.4, all the weapons would be a lot more balanced. The only other route is ditching TT

I couldn't disagree more. It's the basic mechanic of heat dissipation, or lack thereof. The heat sinks would work just fine if PGI had made all the necessary changes to damage, rate of dissipation, amount of dissipation, heat cap, etc.... If they had brought EVERY aspect of battle into consideration when making the initial adjustment, we would not be ******** about how PGI managed the screw the pooch yet again by reducing the double heat sinks. And the whole adding heat cap with the heat sinks is going to allow for more constant alpha strikes until you're almost overheating than a lower heat cap with greatly increased heat dissipation. TT would have been a great place to start if PGI had made changes to all aspects of the weapons firing instead of just the rate of fire with small changes to the heat cost of firing said weapons. The very basic mechanics to this aspect of the game were ****** from that gate.

[Xerxys]

XTRMNTR2K, on 03 November 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

WHY CAN'T I LIKE THIS POST MORE THAN ONCE?!


But on a serious note, these values are pretty damn close to what I have in mind. 50% more efficiency for our current SHS and 1.6 times that for DHS... Should make for an interesting change to balance and general gameplay.

Why can't I dislike a post? Now I feel compelled to bring up points that may have been overlooked by the poster.

Abrahms, on 03 November 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

Reality is that to really hold to TT values, single heatsinks would need to be 2-3x as efficient, however, due to the nature of a FPS, 1.5 would be a pretty solid place to bring the values closer together while still distinguishing the benefit of unlimited ammo versus ballistic ammo/firing delay/etc.

Tripling HSs power for SHS would return us to the 40 tons to 40 tons for heat neutral PPC v Gauss for 30 damage, but again, I dont think we have to go that far. But also 40 tons versus 100 tons for the same effect in MWO is pretty dumb. 1.5 would close that gap to some degree. At a minimum its a good start.

No, you would simply have to alter all aspects of the TT values to align with the new 3 second round instead of just the rate of fire. It isn't rocket surgery or brain science here people. It may not work perfectly, but it would sure as hell be more efficient and require fewer/smaller 'tweaks' to align everything to where you need it.

[Xerxys]

Vlad Ward, on 03 November 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

Except, no.

There are three main figures which actually matter when it comes to damage and heat dissipation; Maximum DPS, Sustainability of Maximum DPS, and Heat Neutral DPS.

These can't just be thrown out for each weapon. They're functions of weapon type, number, and # of real, available heat sinks.

Example problem:

CPLT-K2 Gaussapult, 2 Gauss rifles, 10 single heat sinks
Maximum DPS: 11.25
Sustainability of Maximum DPS: Infinite
Heat Neutral DPS: 11.25

AWS-9M MPLAS-boat, 6MPLAS, 23 double (2.0) heat sinks
Maximum DPS: 18.00
Sustainability of Maximum DPS: 3 volleys, 6 seconds, 108 damage
Heat Neutral DPS: 6.35

AWS-9M Stock, 3 ER PPC, 20 double (2.0) heat sinks
Maximum DPS: 20.00
Sustainability of Maximum DPS: 2 volleys, 3 seconds, 60 damage
Heat Neutral DPS: 3.08

A Mech's Maximum DPS is significantly more important than its Heat Neutral DPS in a good number of combat situations, especially for faster Mechs. This "Heat Neutral Tonnage" number is absolutely worthless. No one runs perfectly heat neutral builds aside from Gauss and no one needs to because you're not engaged in combat firing all your weapons for the entire 15 minutes you're in a game.

This is so contrary to everything I've been seeing, I'm at a loss as to where to start. First of all, those 20 DHS you're referring to would eat up 30 critical slots. Just trying to remember my Awesome pre DHS, I didn't have enough critical slots to accommodate. This isn't saying that it doesn't have 30 open critical slots, just that you you can't get them to match up perfectly to allow the a perfect fit to max out the open critical slots in each area. More than likely you're going to have 2 left over in multiple slots, so you literally cannot make a heat neutral energy spec using DHS and anything you could manage with SHS would be so hindered by the weight of the heat sinks and weapons that you couldn't allow for the tonnage. Almost every counter to changing the heat system is that it would allow for too many alpha strikes and it's a legitimate concern, so adding up total damage v. sustained damage is working against a need for a new heat system. I'm not going any further than this other than to say that your statement doesn't hold water.

[Xerxys]

Yokaiko, on 03 November 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

None of this is in a vacuum. You are neglecting that the mech (except gauss cat) HAVE other weapons, if you can only fit half of the heatsinks you need to run your MAIN weapon, what do you do with the rest of them?

Many mechs have an entirely energy or even heavily energy reliant variant. Your argument is lacking.

[Xerxys]

Vlad Ward, on 03 November 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

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.




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.

Let's not mix apples and oranges here. Make the mechs perform as they're meant to and adjust the pilot skills to keep **** from being OP.
Good point on the shut down part as well.

Beo Vulf, on 03 November 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

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.

I've had this issue and it really killed the ballistic experience for me and it was something that never really piqued my interest to begin with.

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

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).

This is what most people aren't wanting to admit.
Cheers

Vlad Ward, on 03 November 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

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?

The Awesome has 39 open critical slots arranged just perfectly to allow 13 DHS to be added and actually fit? Even still you're an assault mech set up to brawl while running half the burst damage/sustained damage of other assault mechs. The heat neutral tonnage is helpful to determine if the chassis you're trying to make heat neutral can hold everything you need to have to stay HN and the ease by which it can be accomplished in comparison.

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?

This is going to make excessive alpha strikes a real issue. What needs to be found and is an efficient and effective mix to bring energy weapon builds on par with the other weapon systems. Unfortunately anything you do to aid the energy weapons, short of reducing heat cost, is going to affect all other builds as well. This would also allow for energy weapons to be massive alpha strike weapons and is counterproductive to what the game needs as a whole.

Unfortunately this is a dead horse that we have not alternative other than to continue beating.

[Indoorsman]

Stabbitha, on 18 November 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

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

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.

So you're saying I want the test to say Gauss is better than PPC? I am biased torwards the truth? /gasp

Subjective means opinion, my tests are not based on opinion.

Stabbitha, on 18 November 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

...a set of circumstances that... ...generally won't happen in the game.

Cover happens. Need I prove it?

Stabbitha, on 18 November 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

Or the gauss is plugged up with taffy and the PPC is not... Neither is relevant to core weapon balance for crying out loud...

It is my opinion that taffy is not relevant to core weapon balance too. Cover is.

[AC]

You know if they came in and across the board increased the cool down for all weapons by .5 seconds, it would solve some of the heat issues. The big problem right now is how fast all the weapons are able to fire. It is unprecidented. None of the other MW games had a recycle rate anywhere near MWO right now.

[Hoshi Toranaga]

It is good to see that SSRMs were tuned. they think about retuning ACs (which are fine btw.) etc. and still PPCs are useless crap.

[Asatruer]

Indoorsman, on 20 November 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

Cover happens. Need I prove it?

Cover does indeed happen, but cover is not a factor of a weapon, nor a factor of a mech, Cover is a factor of the map, and the use of cover is a factor of the Pilot. When trying to balance weapons, or mechs, you have to grant cover equally to all parties, just like you have to assume equal pilot skill, because otherwise what you are doing is confounding the results of weapon balance with the factors of map or pilot balance. If you runs a series of "tests" where both parties have no cover, equal cover, one has cover, and then the other has cover you can get actual results related to weapon and mech balance. Running the tests where only one mech has cover skews the results to show that having cover is better than not having cover.

Similarly, when trying to balance maps, each side should have equal mechs, and not just equal meaning two light, two medium, two heavy, and two assault, but actual mirrored mechs and weapons. To do otherwise might skew the results to show that the north start position is better than the south, when in fact the results are showing that the north side of the map is better for LRMs against PPCs.

Edited by Asatruer, 21 November 2012 - 10:13 AM.

[SteelPaladin]

Asatruer, on 21 November 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

Cover does indeed happen, but cover is not a factor of a weapon, nor a factor of a mech, Cover is a factor of the map, and the use of cover is a factor of the Pilot. When trying to balance weapons, or mechs, you have to grant cover equally to all parties, just like you have to assume equal pilot skill, because otherwise what you are doing is confounding the results of weapon balance with the factors of map or pilot balance. If you runs a series of "tests" where both parties have no cover, equal cover, one has cover, and then the other has cover you can get actual results related to weapon and mech balance. Running the tests where only one mech has cover skews the results to show that having cover is better than not having cover.

Similarly, when trying to balance maps, each side should have equal mechs, and not just equal meaning two light, two medium, two heavy, and two assault, but actual mirrored mechs and weapons. To do otherwise might skew the results to show that the north start position is better than the south, when in fact the results are showing that the north side of the map is better for LRMs against PPCs.

This is a fundamental principle of scientific analysis. You do not alter more than one variable when doing an experimental comparison. Failure to follow that rule leads to spurious results.

[Vapor Trail]

And just to drive the point home, a mech with a single Small Laser can defeat a mech toting quad Gauss Rifles...

... if you first stipulate that the Small Laser Mech can pop in and out of cover and shoot the Quad GR mech in the back at will.

Does this mean the Small Laser is the equal of four Gauss Rifles and is either balanced or should be nerfed? No, it just means that the pilot (mis)match-up is incredibly one-sided.

[Abrahms]

.

[Terror Teddy]

Vapor Trail, on 21 November 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

And just to drive the point home, a mech with a single Small Laser can defeat a mech toting quad Gauss Rifles... ... if you first stipulate that the Small Laser Mech can pop in and out of cover and shoot the Quad GR mech in the back at will. Does this mean the Small Laser is the equal of four Gauss Rifles and is either balanced or should be nerfed? No, it just means that the pilot (mis)match-up is incredibly one-sided.

I fully agree.

What I tend to see that when people compare weapon balance they compare DIFFERENT weapons and dont consider their role.

Gauss should be compared to similar ballistic weapons to see if it is unbalanced compared to them
PPC should be compared to other similar energy weapons to see if it is unbalanced or broken in comparison.

Then we have to consider each weapons role.

To me both the above weapons are sniper weapons and should have close range drawbacks to promote other weapons within their groups to shine up close (which the PPC has) - but that is MY opinion.

Edited by Terror Teddy, 22 November 2012 - 12:03 AM.

[Allekatrase]

Terror Teddy, on 22 November 2012 - 12:03 AM, said:

I fully agree. What I tend to see that when people compare weapon balance they compare DIFFERENT weapons and dont consider their role. Gauss should be compared to similar ballistic weapons to see if it is unbalanced compared to them PPC should be compared to other similar energy weapons to see if it is unbalanced or broken in comparison. Then we have to consider each weapons role. To me both the above weapons are sniper weapons and should have close range drawbacks to promote other weapons within their groups to shine up close (which the PPC has) - but that is MY opinion.

I agree to an extent, however I think the role comparison is more important. The PPC may be an energy weapon, but it doesn't behave like one. All of the other energy weapons are lasers and frankly the PPC is closer in behavior to a ballistic weapon. If they made it a hit scan weapon with no travel time things would be different, but as is it's pretty much a ballistic weapon.

[Terror Teddy]

Allekatrase, on 22 November 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

and frankly the PPC is closer in behavior to a ballistic weapon. If they made it a hit scan weapon with no travel time things would be different, but as is it's pretty much a ballistic weapon.

Interesting. Using that reasoning I can understand why they have decided to make the Gauss a brittle glass cannon instead of giving it a minimum range - it makes it different from the PPC apart from being ballistic VS energy. Otherwise they would both be:
-The longest direct fire support weapon in it's group
-Both have a minimum range

This way they DO make them different from each other - but sadly still underpowered compared to other energy (PPC) or overshadowing other heavy ballistics (Gauss).

Oh well, still about 6 months to go.

[Apoc1138]

Vapor Trail, on 21 November 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

And just to drive the point home, a mech with a single Small Laser can defeat a mech toting quad Gauss Rifles...

... if you first stipulate that the Small Laser Mech can pop in and out of cover and shoot the Quad GR mech in the back at will.

Does this mean the Small Laser is the equal of four Gauss Rifles and is either balanced or should be nerfed? No, it just means that the pilot (mis)match-up is incredibly one-sided.

another massive strawman

you are deliberately creating an extreme version of what the person said just so that you can point out how "rediculous" this extreme caricature of the original statement is, just to try to avoid facing that fact that the "mathematical model" you created bears no relation to actual game play balance

[Allekatrase]

Apoc1138, on 22 November 2012 - 02:24 AM, said:

another massive strawman

you are deliberately creating an extreme version of what the person said just so that you can point out how "rediculous" this extreme caricature of the original statement is, just to try to avoid facing that fact that the "mathematical model" you created bears no relation to actual game play balance

I like how you skipped all the other posts that completely proved this point and went for this one instead. Just because he makes a poor argument here doesn't mean you're not wrong.

The mathematical models ARE the game. Computers are just calculators. It's all just math. When looking at balance you have to simplify it to as few variables as possible. Your supposed examples of cover and ROF are also strawmen and your anecdotal evidence that it works for you is irrelevant.

How do you factor cover into balance? What is the value, given equal cover opportunities, of increased rate of fire and how do you balance that? It's an unnecessary complication with weapons that opperate in a similar fashion. If you were comparing to LRMs then the mechanics surrounding them would be a bigger element. But we're not. We're comparing direct fire weapons.

Edited by Allekatrase, 22 November 2012 - 02:47 AM.

[Black Ivan]

Lasers and PPCs are near to useless under the current head systems. The 1.4 or whatever double heat sinks make that even worse. I now try to avoid using lasers at every oppourtunity and will never again equip pulse lasers. They are just to hoot to use hem in battle. On the otherh and there are the Gausscats and Streakpults who seem to have no heat issues.

[MustrumRidcully]

I don't agree that you can ignore Rate of Fire differences. DPS is important, but how you deliver your DPS is also important.

But there are ways to try to weigh DPS based on the rate of fire or rather the single shot damage of a weapon.

For example, you could use somethnig like this:
DPS_{alphamodified} = (Damage_Shot + 5 * DPS) / 6.
Now weapons with a low alpha value but the same DPS will have a lower value, and weapons with a high alpha value will have a higher value.