534 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

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

Pilot Skill would be factored in using an ELO ranking system.

Basically it would look something like this:


(BV of Mech x ELO Ranking modifier) = Total BV of Player

Combined total BV of all Players on Team = Team BV

Matchmaking would try to match teams with team BV within 10% of eachother or so.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Diablobo, on 24 November 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

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.

My point was that saying TT was always balanced is incorrect. MWO is much different than TT, and it needs to be. No one wants to fire 1 time every 10 seconds. And simply tripling the ROL anf reducing damage by 2/3 is not very much fun either. But I agree that the current ROF increase is hurting high heat weapons much more than the low heat weapons.

[Diablobo]

Yes, an ELO ranking stat would be nice, but when an AC2 is almost as good as an AC20 in MWO, we can just toss the BV system in the trash.

[Khobai]

Quote

Yes, an ELO ranking stat would be nice, but when an AC2 is almost as good as an AC20 in MWO, we can just toss the BV system in the trash.

AC/2s are actually way better than AC/20s. They do 80% of the DPS for 1/3rd the tonnage. But thats more a testament to PGI's inability to balance anything.

[Soulryder]

Sug, on 03 November 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

Link?

I hear the same thing about pulse lasers and ssrms but I can't find any info in the patch/announcement forums.

http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/

Didn't read anything about Lasers, but a lot of other weapon systems

[Abrahms]

Im fine with the AC2 being a good weapon. It has enough spread damage that it actually is still an under represented weapon. It also runs so hot that you wont find many people boating it.

Maybe down the road with DHS/XL mechs youll find more peple able to exploit 4+ AC2s (most Cataphracts havent earned enough $$ yet).

In fact, the weapons overall are becoming pretty close to balanced however HEAT is still broken.

Change DHS to 2.0 hps and regular to 1.5 (to keep the weird proportions PGI seems to be trying to use now) and I think most weapons would become very usable with their proper niches. It wouldnt be perfect but I could find myself taking any of the available weapons except maybe the LBX (still needs fixing via specific utility changes).

[Indoorsman]

Abrahms, on 24 November 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

Change DHS to 2.0 hps and regular to 1.5 (to keep the weird proportions PGI seems to be trying to use now) and I think most weapons would become very usable with their proper niches. It wouldnt be perfect but I could find myself taking any of the available weapons except maybe the LBX (still needs fixing via specific utility changes).

The only problem is that they said 2.0 DHS caused people to die way too fast. So 2.0 DHS and 1.5 singles would be people dying even faster. For any kind of widespread heat change to go through like what you are suggesting, they would across the board have to nerf damage or buff armor. They've tweaked missiles and ballistics, hopefully they tweak lasers before they do anything like that though.

[OldGrayDonkey]

So basically they had a nice, well balanced, system handed to them and to make it more of a shooter than sim, they dorked the whole system up.

[Abrahms]

Indoorsman, on 24 November 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

The only problem is that they said 2.0 DHS caused people to die way too fast. So 2.0 DHS and 1.5 singles would be people dying even faster. For any kind of widespread heat change to go through like what you are suggesting, they would across the board have to nerf damage or buff armor. They've tweaked missiles and ballistics, hopefully they tweak lasers before they do anything like that though.

Alternatively move the average cooldown to 5 seconds instead of 3 and buff heatsinks only slightly (1.2 and 1.7). Or increase armor by 150% instead of 100%.

Many ways to do that. THe problem though is that the heat system being so entirely off throws the TT weapon balance entirely off based on the weapons required tonnage to perform proportionately with other weapons.

[Khobai]

Quote

Im fine with the AC2 being a good weapon. It has enough spread damage that it actually is still an under represented weapon. It also runs so hot that you wont find many people boating it.

Not really underrepresented anymore since the UAC/5 jam nerf everyones gone back to AC/2s.

[Xyberviri]

MWO is like playing BT with out the die, like literally.

all this complaining about the rules from the game would happen if you had no die and had to do everything in your head.

[MustrumRidcully]

Xyberviri, on 24 November 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

MWO is like playing BT with out the die, like literally.

all this complaining about the rules from the game would happen if you had no die and had to do everything in your head.

And would give people the option to fire their weapons 2 to 4 times per turn instead of once.

[Indoorsman]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 November 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Xyberviri, on 24 November 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

MWO is like playing BT with out the die, like literally. all this complaining about the rules from the game would happen if you had no die and had to do everything in your head.

And would give people the option to fire their weapons 2 to 4 times per turn instead of once.

And the board was behind glass and the perspective was through the eyes of a mech. And it wasn't like chess anymore it was like Counterstrike.

[Vapor Trail]

Indoorsman, on 24 November 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

MustrumRidcully, on 24 November 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Xyberviri, on 24 November 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

MWO is like playing BT with out the die, like literally.

all this complaining about the rules from the game would happen if you had no die and had to do everything in your head.

And would give people the option to fire their weapons 2 to 4 times per turn instead of once.

And the board was behind glass and the perspective was through the eyes of a mech. And it wasn't like chess anymore it was like Counterstrike.

And instead of having (badly) trained monkeys with reliability ratings of 0 -> 5 handling the aiming, we're doing it ourselves.

Abrahms, on 24 November 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

THe problem though is that the heat system being so entirely off throws the TT weapon balance entirely off based on the weapons required tonnage to perform proportionately with other weapons.

Exactly this.

Gauss is way too fast for the heat dissipation rates we have. The ERPPC is supposed to be "the Gauss" of the energy weapons. Not equal in performance to the actual Gauss Rifle (approximately 75% the damage output for 93% of the minimum tonnage), but good enough that there's an actual choice to be made for each weapon selection.

As it stands now, there might be a choice for the first weapon selection. Attempting to mount and use two ERPPCs in MWO is just gimping yourself IMO.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Khobai, on 24 November 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

AC/2s are actually way better than AC/20s. They do 80% of the DPS for 1/3rd the tonnage. But thats more a testament to PGI's inability to balance anything.

DPS is not all that matters. That AC2 (and I love the AC2) will be spreading that damage all over the place while the AC20 is all to one spot. The AC2 also generates a lot of heat, but has great range. Both the AC2 and AC20 are excellent weapons in MWO, but I think the AC20 does need a bit of a boost.

But I flatly reject your statement that PGI is unable to balance anything.

[Apoc1138]

Diablobo, on 24 November 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

MWO makes high heat weapons impractical and severely penalizes their use.

I've said this before in this thread, so I'll say it again

then please explain to me why I get more kills and better damage using a pair of PPC's instead of a single gauss on an atlas support fire build?

I really like the way that the MathWarriors in this thread have locked it in to their heads that their wonky maths is now fact and that all further statements from them on the subject flatly refuse to go back and examine their maths and the mistakes they made and possibly make any adjustments to it

luckily PGI are taking a more pragmatic approach to the actual game and not listening to people that can't even get the very basic data correct in the first place

[Diablobo]

Apoc1138, on 24 November 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

I've said this before in this thread, so I'll say it again

then please explain to me why I get more kills and better damage using a pair of PPC's instead of a single gauss on an atlas support fire build?

I really like the way that the MathWarriors in this thread have locked it in to their heads that their wonky maths is now fact and that all further statements from them on the subject flatly refuse to go back and examine their maths and the mistakes they made and possibly make any adjustments to it

luckily PGI are taking a more pragmatic approach to the actual game and not listening to people that can't even get the very basic data correct in the first place

Uhhhh....okay...I'll explain your "success" with dual PPCs. How about the fact that you are doing 20 damage to a location instead of 15 with the gauss. Are you serious? You can't see the obvious 20>15??
I guess that explains why you keep trying to tear into our math. You can't even count, much less do basic arithmetic. <facepalm>

Edited by Diablobo, 24 November 2012 - 06:55 PM.

[Vapor Trail]

<p>

Apoc1138, on 24 November 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I've said this before in this thread, so I'll say it again</p>
<p> </p>
<p>then please explain to me why I get more kills and better damage using a pair of PPC's instead of a single gauss on an atlas support fire build?</p>
<p>

</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Because you happen to be good enough at the game to compensate for the downsides of the PPC?</p>
<p>Because you're twitchy enough to make those arm mounts work for you better than the torso mounted Gauss? </p>
<p>Because other people underestimate you in your dual PPC build and don't prioritize you high enough, allowing you to live longer?</p>
<p>Because you're packing enough double heat sinks to cool at least three, and probably four TT PPCs to heat neutrality?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Or perhaps it's because if you PACK a mech with double heat sinks, a mech with only 2 PPCs <em>can</em> have a greater average DPS than a mech with only 1 Gauss?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The imbalance isn't that that is not the case, it's that the possible DPS difference between 2 PPCs and 1 Gauss isn't high <em>enough</em>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Extreme example:

Spoiler

</p>
<p>A 250-270 engine gets you 10 DHS in the engine. HdR of 2.0 heat/sec. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>12 DHS in the arms and torsos, three each. 1.4 * 12 = 1.68 HdR, total of 3.68 HdR before Pilot Lab skill.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>28 tons of weaponry and heat sinks (and 42 criticals) vs 15+x tons (and 7+x criticals). </p>
<p> </p>
<p>15% increase in heat dissipation from Pilot Lab skill. 3.68 * 1.15 = 4.232 HdR</p>
<p> </p>
<p>18 heat / 4.232 heat/sec = 4.2533 seconds. This is the average duty cycle.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The only advantage that the PPC has is that it <em>can</em> fire faster than this, allowing you to front-load your damage, and back-load your cooling time.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You're dissipating 12.696 heat every firing cycle, leaving you generating 5.304 heat every firing cycle. Your heat cap is at 74. You should get 11 salvoes off before the heat cap forces you to stop or shutdown, for 30 seconds of fire at maximum rate. Now, you have to cool off, weather you want to or not. To return to baseline heat, you have to cool through the recycle time of the last salvo... plus 1.2533 seconds per salvo fired. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>This means to find your average DPS, the total damage output is divided not by the time in which you dealt it, but in the time in which it takes for you to be ready to do it again. Otherwise it's useless as an average.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So, salvos at t =0 and every 3 seconds thereafter for 30 seconds, with last salvo at 30. 11 shots. Cooldown from last salvo is complete at t=33. 33 + 1.2533 * 11 = 46.7863 seconds total time elapsed.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>11 salvos = 220 damage. 220 damage / 46.7863 seconds = DPS of 4.7022.</p>
<p>1 salvo = 20 damage. 20 damage / 4.252 seconds = DPS of 4.7037.</p>
<p>The difference between the two is <em>rounding error</em>. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<div>Gauss average DPS: 3.75.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The thing is that for TT balance to hold, <em>three</em> PPCs is supposed to have an average DPS in the neighborhood of that of <em>two</em> Gauss. And it's supposed to do so for nearly equal tonnage<i> per weapon</i> for the PPC with <em>single</em> heat sinks, before considering the savings from engine sinks. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>17 tons of weapon and heat sink per weapon added.</div>
<div>51 tons of weapon and heat sink for 3 TT PPCs.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>32+x tons of weapon, ammo, and heat sink for 2 TT Gauss. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Both setups equal in damage and heat output over time, at the indicated tonnage.</div>
<div>

</div>
<div> </div>


WTH? Keeps doing this to me.

Edited by Vapor Trail, 24 November 2012 - 09:31 PM.

[Koreanese]

lrms are dominating??? haha is this a comedy show?

[WeekendWarrior]

Abrahms, on 24 November 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

In fact, the weapons overall are becoming pretty close to balanced however HEAT is still broken.

Change DHS to 2.0 hps and regular to 1.5 (to keep the weird proportions PGI seems to be trying to use now) and I think most weapons would become very usable with their proper niches. It wouldnt be perfect but I could find myself taking any of the available weapons except maybe the LBX (still needs fixing via specific utility changes).

Hilarious.
Is basic math really that hard guys?
They roughly doubled to trippled heat through the increased ROF.
If you want to keep the TT balance, you'd have to increase heat dissipation by the same amount!!
A TT PPC fires once every 10 seconds, and generates 10 heat, which are perfectly dissipated by the 10 engine heatsinks.
If the MWO PPC fires three times in those 10 seconds thus generating 30 heat, to keep the balance the engine heat sinks would have to sink 30 heat points! At standard rates!
Untill that happens, low heat weapons will always be superior to high heat weapons in MWO, unless they tweak the weapon stats away from the TT values. A process they've already started (see laser damage/heat), and which immensely complicates the entire thing.


Know the best part though?
PGI is trying to reinvent the wheel here.
There already exists an upspeeded version of the TT rules, dividing every 10 second round into 4 phases, complete with variable rates of fire and a fitting heat system: Solaris VII Duelling rules.