534 replies to this topic

[Diablobo]

I think it is absurd that the weapons have to be tweaked by the MWO devs to achieve some sort of arbitrary parity. An AC2 had limited use in TT, so there's no reason to make it on par with the rest of the heavy weapons here in MWO. The same goes for the small laser and a couple others that I'm sure we can think of. So what if the AC2, MG, or flamer don't get used much? There are plenty of good weapons to choose from. We don't have to use them all.

Edited by Diablobo, 24 November 2012 - 08:38 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

5 point weapons should have equal DpS
10 point weapons should have equal DpS
15 point weapons should have Equal DpS
20 Point Weapons should have equal DpS

That would balance weapons perfectly. So why is it so hard to do?

[Diablobo]

I guess we should have known this game was in trouble when an AC2 was turned into a heavy weapon.
<facepalm>

[Joseph Mallan]

I rarely used AC2s on TT. They had no hitting power. I was however extremely lucky with them and in every game I used them I cause through armor ammo explosions or multiple engine hits. IMO the weapon sucked... but it had moments where opponents were chasing my Blackjack instead of my teams Assaults and Heavies!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 24 November 2012 - 08:57 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

You are correct, Tickdoff Tank. Convergence (aka "not randomly generated hit rolls") changes the TT balance assumptions. Unfortunately, MW:O doesn't really much yet to fix this - medium and small lasers benefit the most from convergence, and they are the most heat and damage/weight efficient energy weapons, for example. The only thing lowering their effectiveness a bit compared to, say, an AC/20, is that they have a beam duration, but even there, MW:O does the opposite of what would be necessar y- the longer range lasers need to have the lower beam duration, the shorter range need the longer beam duration.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 November 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

Personal preference I guess. I have pulled MGs from every Mech that ever had them. 400 point ammo explosions are not my idea of a good weapon in MY Mechs.

I see little difference between a 400 point ammo explosion and a 150 point explosion (1 ton of AC10/5/2 ammo) both do enough damage to gut your mech.

MustrumRidcully, on 24 November 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

The only thing lowering their effectiveness a bit compared to, say, an AC/20, is that they have a beam duration, but even there, MW:O does the opposite of what would be necessary- the longer range lasers need to have the lower beam duration, the shorter range need the longer beam duration.

I would love to see them do this. Would be a great balancing factor to the lasers. And I would also like to see the beam duration of the pulse lasers reduced a bit more as well.

[MustrumRidcully]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 November 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

5 point weapons should have equal DpS
10 point weapons should have equal DpS
15 point weapons should have Equal DpS
20 Point Weapons should have equal DpS

That would balance weapons perfectly. So why is it so hard to do?

Range, rate of fire, and that there are two point values (tonnage and crit slots), and ammo and heat.

But yes, the basic is the same, you just have to assign a reasonable "cost" for everything.

If we assume that weight and crit slots are fixed, as is range, we need to start tweaking from there.
In the table top, a weapon with 540m range would have a much higer hit probability than a medium laser at the same range (if the medium laser could hit at all), except very close ranges. With the current rules, it would suggest that lonig range weapons simply are too heavy for the damage they inflict, or that we need to change the current range drop-off rules significantly. Either weapons deal only 50 % damage at their current normal range, or we adjust some weapon damage up or down (medium lasers down a bit, large lasers and PPCs up a bit, small lasers down a bit more.)

Weapon convergence is the other aspect. An AC20 has the same range as the medium laser, deals 4 times the damage, needs ammo and 12 times the tonnage - so it may be a bit underpowered or the ML is a bit overpowered. So again, we need to look into adjusting this - make the medium laser a bit weaker, the AC a bit stronger.

But we haven't yet looked at heat. This also makes quite a difference - in MWO:, weapons produce more heat due to the fire rate of weapon - but it is not exactly a good idea to simply double the heat cost of a weapon just because you doubled its rate o fire. The heat cost in TT were also based on the assumption on heat generation vs heat dissipation rates and the heat capacity, and if you multiply one side by a factro and not the other, things get out of whack - Every mech will get hotter, but the really hot mechs will get so hot that their heat capacity is simply no longer sufficient. (And this isn't fixed by saying"LOL, L2P" issue -it's a "LOL, why u use high heat weapon?"

[Diablobo]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 November 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

You are correct, Tickdoff Tank. Convergence (aka "not randomly generated hit rolls") changes the TT balance assumptions. Unfortunately, MW:O doesn't really much yet to fix this - medium and small lasers benefit the most from convergence, and they are the most heat and damage/weight efficient energy weapons, for example. The only thing lowering their effectiveness a bit compared to, say, an AC/20, is that they have a beam duration, but even there, MW:O does the opposite of what would be necessar y- the longer range lasers need to have the lower beam duration, the shorter range need the longer beam duration.

I think that the difficulty of piloting a mech and hitting a moving target in a fairly small spot multiple times to achieve concentrated damage while simultaneously getting blasted by enemy fire is a decent counter-balance to the cone of fire dice rolls in TT. Seldom are mechs firing under the ideal conditions necessary to achieve the maximum concentration in one location that MWO allows. Boating small weapons is still less heat efficient than firing one heavy weapon in most cases, so there is that offset to the convergence thing.

Edited by Diablobo, 24 November 2012 - 09:15 AM.

[Diablobo]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 November 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

(And this isn't fixed by saying"LOL, L2P" issue -it's a "LOL, why u use high heat weapon?"

Almost as bad as the "it's a video game not TT" line.
I love it!

Edited by Diablobo, 24 November 2012 - 09:19 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Diablobo, on 24 November 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

I think that the difficulty of piloting a mech and hitting a moving target in a fairly small spot multiple times to achieve concentrated damage while simultaneously getting blasted by enemy fire is a decent counter-balance to the cone of fire dice rolls in TT. Seldom are mechs firing under the ideal conditions necessary to achieve the maximum concentration in one location that MWO allows. Boating small weapons is still less heat efficient than firing one heavy weapon in most cases, so there is that offset to the convergence thing.

I believe you underestimate the effect of RNG + to-hit rolls in Battletech.

To hit a stationary Atlas Center Torso at 270m with 2 Medium Lasers, you need to roll
2d6 vs 4 (gunnery skill) +2 (long range) = 6. That's roughly a 50 % chance to hit with one medium laser, to hit with both, it becomes a 25 % chance.

Now, the chance to hit Center Torso after a succesful attack roll, is about 14 %. To do it twice in a row, it would be about 2 % chance.
So you overall have a 0.5 chance to hit center torso with 2 medium lasers.

Do you really hit center torso only in 0.5 % of the cases?

Convergence alone eliminates the to-hit probability from 2 medium lasers together that occurs in the first step.
Mouse Aiming vastly increases the chance to hit at 270m, and considerably reduces the random hit generation factor.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 24 November 2012 - 09:27 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 November 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

Range, rate of fire, and that there are two point values (tonnage and crit slots), and ammo and heat.

But yes, the basic is the same, you just have to assign a reasonable "cost" for everything.

If we assume that weight and crit slots are fixed, as is range, we need to start tweaking from there.
In the table top, a weapon with 540m range would have a much higer hit probability than a medium laser at the same range (if the medium laser could hit at all), except very close ranges. With the current rules, it would suggest that lonig range weapons simply are too heavy for the damage they inflict, or that we need to change the current range drop-off rules significantly. Either weapons deal only 50 % damage at their current normal range, or we adjust some weapon damage up or down (medium lasers down a bit, large lasers and PPCs up a bit, small lasers down a bit more.)

Weapon convergence is the other aspect. An AC20 has the same range as the medium laser, deals 4 times the damage, needs ammo and 12 times the tonnage - so it may be a bit underpowered or the ML is a bit overpowered. So again, we need to look into adjusting this - make the medium laser a bit weaker, the AC a bit stronger.

But we haven't yet looked at heat. This also makes quite a difference - in MWO:, weapons produce more heat due to the fire rate of weapon - but it is not exactly a good idea to simply double the heat cost of a weapon just because you doubled its rate o fire. The heat cost in TT were also based on the assumption on heat generation vs heat dissipation rates and the heat capacity, and if you multiply one side by a factro and not the other, things get out of whack - Every mech will get hotter, but the really hot mechs will get so hot that their heat capacity is simply no longer sufficient. (And this isn't fixed by saying"LOL, L2P" issue -it's a "LOL, why u use high heat weapon?"

I think in TT the range mods were to simulate the size of the target you were shooting at at said range plus "other factors". This uses my own skill at shooting alone. RoF... I don't know I understand the cyclic times being different for the weapons, I just have 25+ years of all weapons only shooting once "per turn". Both ways are conflicting with my vision of the game/games.

As to the rest of the things you brought up (range, weight etc) That should not be a factor. A medium laser should only have to do the same damage as an AC5 within its parameters. Damage should fall off at an equivalent range increase between both weapons also so at +50% range both weapons will still do X damage. Anything more than this any we are so aver thinking the issue.

After that ACs are heavy, Lasers are hot, and Missiles spread damage. It's not that hard to accept and work with.

[Indoorsman]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 November 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

5 point weapons should have equal DpS
10 point weapons should have equal DpS
15 point weapons should have Equal DpS
20 Point Weapons should have equal DpS

That would balance weapons perfectly. So why is it so hard to do?

I had no idea it was so easy and straightforward!

Diablobo, on 24 November 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

Please do us the courtesy of not trotting out that lame, tired old line "This is a video game and not TT"
If they want to use TT weapon damage numbers, heat values, and mech designs, they are going to have to follow TT rules at least a little. Tripling the heat is most decidedly not that.

TT not balanced? Have you told the TT devs within the last 25 years, or did you just dream up this weak rationalization to justify your defense of MWO's broken heat system?

If TT was balanced, what was the point of BV?

[Indoorsman]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 November 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

A medium laser should only have to do the same damage as an AC5 within its parameters. Damage should fall off at an equivalent range increase between both weapons also so at +50% range both weapons will still do X damage. Anything more than this any we are so aver thinking the issue.

After that ACs are heavy, Lasers are hot, and Missiles spread damage.

Sounds boring, :-o

[Joseph Mallan]

Well balanced any other way and we have what we have now.

[MustrumRidcully]

Indoorsman, on 24 November 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

IIf TT was balanced, what was the point of BV?

Balance.

Do you think the Devs in MW:O will be able to pull off Battle Value MW:O-STYLE?

[Khobai]

Quote

Do you think the Devs in MW:O will be able to pull off Battle Value MW:O-STYLE?

No. They wont do a BV system ever, even though this game desperately needs it for fair matchmaking.

But what this game really needs is a self-modifying BV system. Weapons and Mechs should increase or decrease in BV based on how often they're used rather than having fixed BV based on how good/bad their stats are. That allows for a meta game where players cycle through all the different weapons/mechs because of the fluctuating BV values. This is essentially what LoL does with the concept of imperfect balance.

Edited by Khobai, 24 November 2012 - 10:03 AM.

[Diablobo]

We don't need BV in MWO. If someone wants to hop in a Commando with just a small laser and the slowest engine and paper thin armor, how is the matchmaking system supposed to compensate for that? Give his/her team an extra mech? No, the BV is more for matchmaking, and to try and and go into that much detail would still not account for the biggest and most wildly ranged variable: pilot skill.

Edited by Diablobo, 24 November 2012 - 10:08 AM.

[Diablobo]

TT was not balanced in having every weapon be equally powerful or every 60 ton mech be just as powerful as the other 60 tonners. It was balanced with respect to being possible to mount high heat weapons on a mech and still be about as effective as one with low-heat weapons. MWO makes high heat weapons impractical and severely penalizes their use.

Even assuming that TT was imbalanced (whatever that means), that just goes to show that MWO is even more messed up because it is three times as bad with the triple heat. Criticizing TT does not make MWO seem better, it just makes it seem three times worse.

Edited by Diablobo, 24 November 2012 - 10:17 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

If someone wants to hop in a Commando with just a small laser and the slowest engine and paper thin armor, how is the matchmaking system supposed to compensate for that? Give his/her team an extra mech?

No it would try to put mechs that are equally bad on the other team.

Basically it would add up the BV values for one team then try to match it to another team with equal BV value within +/- 10% or whatever. Its a balance system that would actually work quite well since it would allow people to play whatever they want instead of forcing everyone to bring optimized builds all the time.

BV values could also modify themselves based on popularity. So if one type of weapon or one type of mech is used significantly more than the others it would get a BV increase to reflect that.

Edited by Khobai, 24 November 2012 - 10:24 AM.

[Diablobo]

Khobai, on 24 November 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:

No it would try to put mechs that are equally bad on the other team.

Basically it would add up the BV values for one team then try to match it to another team with equal BV value within +/- 10% or whatever. Its a balance system that would actually work quite well since it would allow people to play whatever they want instead of forcing everyone to bring optimized builds all the time.

BV values could also modify themselves based on popularity. So if one type of weapon or one type of mech is used significantly more than the others it would get a BV increase to reflect that.

The BV equations have pilot skill as a factor. How is the equation supposed to balance with two different and unknown variables?