534 replies to this topic

[Gaan Cathal]

Terror Teddy, on 09 November 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

Firing the following 2 weapons over 10 seconds:
AC20: Heat: 185 (70*2,5) DPS: 50
Gauss: Heat: 25 (10*2,5) DPS: 37,5

The Gauss, a weapon with huge *** magnetic accelerators and energy banks generate in comparison NO heat. How? Even NOT using real world physics makes ones head hurt in the illogical inbalance of the weapon.

The energy needed to expel that metal ball SHOULD give off more heat than 600% LESS than the AC20.

Ignoring the issues surrounding heat-heavy weapons (i.e. lasers/PPCs), which I personally think need a tonnage and/or slot decrease more than a heat decrease, the Gauss compared with other ballistics is way out of whack. It has the best alpha, second best range and a solid mid-range dps. And the lowest heat per second of any ballistic (barring the machine gun, which is so anaemic as to be irrelevant until crits arrive). This is just bad. HPS for the Gauss needs to be raised considorably. The AC10 has comparable dps (4 vs 3.75) with less range, less tonnage. These qualities and the advantage inherent in high alpha suggest they should have comparable heat issues. The AC10 sits at 1.2 HPS, the Gauss at 0.25 - that's almost five times as hot.

Indoorsman, on 09 November 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

You realize that it's quite the opposite? Most of the hard math suggestions DO rely on TT values. Check the very first post of this thread.

I honestly agree with you that TT values can't be used hard-and-fast as balancing mechanics. However the core issue, that of heat balance being clearly out of whack, is true irrespective of that. I don't understand why damage was split over a sub-10s ROF but heat wasn't. It's a glaring mathematical issue, not purely a case of not adhering to TT. That said, there are values being talked about that are a lot more relevant for real time balancing - Damage Per Second, Heat Per Second, Damage Per Heat, Damage Per Ton - these need focusing on more than TT values, IMO.

[Draco Argentum]

Indoorsman, on 09 November 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

You realize that it's quite the opposite? Most of the hard math suggestions DO rely on TT values. Check the very first post of this thread.

I'm not making a strawman at all. I am pointing out the MANY ways that MWO is different from a board game and how the balance mechanism in TT isn't going to be used in MWO (that would be the BV system).

I don't care about this thread. Try reading something by Mustrum or zorak where they've redone everything to normalise dps/ton and have it appropriately scale with range.

[Kmieciu]

Gauss is canonically high weight, high damage, long range, low heat weapon. The only reasonable option is to adjust the rate of fire. Namely: increase the cooldown.

As for the PPC:
I know for a FACT, that during the early closed beta PPC had max range of 3x the effective range (1620 meters to be exact). I used to put 2 PPC in the side torso of a Dragon or a Awesome (in order to circumvent convergence issues) and sniped at LRM boats. At 1000 meters a single PPC did 6 points of damage, so 12 damage on the center torso was enough to make LRM boats hide.

Right now @1000 meters PPC do close to no damage. (0,8 if the damage drop is linear). And LRMs are flat out better than PPC at 180-1000 meters.

I say roll back the PPC range nerf, then we`ll see how they perform.

[Gaan Cathal]

Kmieciu, on 09 November 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

Gauss is canonically high weight, high damage, long range, low heat weapon. The only reasonable option is to adjust the rate of fire. Namely: increase the cooldown.

Emphasis mine. Low heat is relative. The Guass currently runs at a Heat/S almost an order of magnitude lower than other ballistics. By all means up it's weight a bit, maybe require an extra slot for the bulk, keep damage and range...but really, it should not be generating a quarter of the Heat/S of it's class mean. The alternative is lowering the Heat/S of the other ballistics, which will further punish energy weapons.

[Purlana]

Indoorsman, on 09 November 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

You realize that it's quite the opposite? Most of the hard math suggestions DO rely on TT values. Check the very first post of this thread.

I'm not making a strawman at all. I am pointing out the MANY ways that MWO is different from a board game and how the balance mechanism in TT isn't going to be used in MWO (that would be the BV system).

If you look at the hard math it's clear cut that GRs blow PPCs out of the water. No TT info needed....

Edited by Purlana, 09 November 2012 - 05:55 AM.

[Kmieciu]

Gaan Cathal, on 09 November 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

By all means up it's weight a bit, maybe require an extra slot for the bulk, keep damage and range...but really, it should not be generating a quarter of the Heat/S of it's class mean.

Changing weight or critical slots is a thing the Devs will never do, since it may invalidate current and future builds. It would be like opening Pandora`s box: probably created more problems than solved them. Even in the non-canonical MechWarrior 4 the Gauss generated 1 point of heat.

But Mechwarrior4 did one thing right: Ballistic weapons were running so cool, that people incorporated them as a supplement to every design. You could use them while cooling down from firing lasers.

MW4 AC10 9 damage 0,6 heat 4 recycle
MW4 LBX AC10 14 damage 1 heat 4 recycle (Another reasonable thing: give the weapon that scatters more overall damage.)

[Orzorn]

Lowering the recycle time of the Gauss is probably the best solution we have right now.

As for the PPC and ERPPC, give them back their longer ranges, and lower their heat.

That's all we can do if the developers don't wish to do a heat overhaul and balance ever item according to its recycle time, as has been suggested. I would prefer such a solution as well, but it all comes down to what the devs want to do or have the resources to do.

Edited by Orzorn, 09 November 2012 - 06:40 AM.

[Indoorsman]

Purlana, on 09 November 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

If you look at the hard math it's clear cut that GRs blow PPCs out of the water. No TT info needed....

Welcome to the thread, oh and duh. Why do people see one of my posts and just assume because I'm against using TT to balance this game that I am against balancing this game?

[Viper69]

May want to addend your OP, missiles are now less powerful and a more balanced weapon.

[MustrumRidcully]

Indoorsman, on 09 November 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

Welcome to the thread, oh and duh. Why do people see one of my posts and just assume because I'm against using TT to balance this game that I am against balancing this game?

I may finally have starting getting what you actually want, though sometimes I fear we're just fighting strawmen positions. As I said - my evaluations aren't based on the table top.
What they are still lacking (and I am currently too lazy to do, I am not getting paid for it after all) is evaluationg how potential single hit location damage (taking convergence into account) and range should affect damage efficiency.

For now, I am just left to observe that DPS/TOnnage, high heat energy weapons suck. Small and Medium Lasers may be too good, and ballistics do not behave like we want them to.

[Asatruer]

CCC Dober, on 09 November 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

@Asa

I'm saying it how it is, not how you like to hear it. And if you can't stomach the fact that there are indeed drones out there and apologists, as has been evidenced in this very thread, then you are welcome to keep your eyes wide shut and continue to wonder why things go downhill. Keep tolerating stupid and outright malicious people and see where that goes. Been there, done that, learned the lessons.

You want me to "say it how it is"?Fine.
CCC, you are being as dense as you claim Indoorsman is.
You are keeping your eyes wide shut on what Indoorsman is actually saying.
You are the one being outright malicious.

I will say this again, but you will probably not listen because you did not the previous two times I have said it, nor the three or four times Indoorsman has already said it.

I think weapons in imbalanced, and heat is a problem.
Indoorsman thinks weapons are imbalanced, and heat is a problem.
I assume you think weapons are imbalanced, and heat is a problem.
PGI thinks weapons are closed to balanced, and heat is not a problem.

How can Indoorsman be a PGI drone or PGI apologist if he believes the opposite of what they believe?
Whose eyes are wide shut?

It certainly is not me, but I am done with this tangent as it is just cruft and white noise. Carry on believing Indoorsman is a PGI shill/drone/apologist/kool-aid-drinker all you want, that is your prerogative to believe a bunch of nonsense.

Draco Argentum, on 09 November 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

Indoorsman continuously brings up strawmen about TT not being balanced. Most of the hard maths based suggestions do not have any reliance on TT at all. He is arguing in bad faith.

I would not go so far as to say it is a strawman, but I am perplexed about why he believes the things he does. But that is no cause for ad hominem attacks, nor defending someone elses ad hominem attacks.

Draco Argentum, on 09 November 2012 - 05:24 AM, said:

I don't care about this thread.

If the only reason you are here is to argue with and attack one of the participants in this thread, then get the f out... If you want to constructively add to the thread, play nice and do not stoop to the levels and tactics that you are attributing to Indoorsman.



I do not understand why he thinks tweaking many variables over just starting with one variable is the better course of action, and I disagree with him, but I can at least see that he wants the same end product. Balanced weapons and a better heat system. I do not need him to agree with me on the finer points of how to get there, or what the root causes of the problems are. It would have been great if I could have convinced him that it is less the shift to mouse based targeting, and more the added baggage PGI added onto it (convergence and disparate ballistic qualities of shots) but I do not evaluate my self-worth on how many people on internet forums I can get to agree 90% with me, that way madness lies.

Edited by Asatruer, 09 November 2012 - 10:22 AM.

[Nirrpit]

I fail to see how any of this constitutes this system as "broken". Let's face it; this is not tabletop. This is a online playable version of Battle Tech. In order to make it consistant, MWO cannot follow TT rules flawlessly (see other games like Dungeons and Dragons Online which is based on D&D 3.5 rules). The key words are BASED ON. If you want D&D 3.5 play the TT version. If you want to play TT Mech rules, then play TT. But flaming the devs who work hard to make this game fun and diverse are no way to get your point across. The devs are not to blame for one person not able to modify their game.

Adapt. Play. Win.

[MustrumRidcully]

Nirrpit, on 09 November 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

I fail to see how any of this constitutes this system as "broken". Let's face it; this is not tabletop. This is a online playable version of Battle Tech. In order to make it consistant, MWO cannot follow TT rules flawlessly (see other games like Dungeons and Dragons Online which is based on D&D 3.5 rules). The key words are BASED ON. If you want D&D 3.5 play the TT version. If you want to play TT Mech rules, then play TT. But flaming the devs who work hard to make this game fun and diverse are no way to get your point across. The devs are not to blame for one person not able to modify their game.

Adapt. Play. Win.

Does the need to not adhering to TT rules suggest that we do not need to balance weapons? Do you think everything will be fine if we just stop using the bad weapons and focus on the good ones, leaving all the work the devs and artists spend on designing the bad weapons wasted?

Adapt. Play. Win. is always possible, even in a balanced game system. But in an imbalanced game system, it leads to the weak choices to become rare and eliminated, falling into irrelevance and either being used for joke builds or to identify "noobs" that don't know better yet. I do not consider this a valuable feature.

[Nirrpit]

I do agree that a more balanced weapon system is in order. But, being that this game is still in beta, I feel that (with proper feedback from beta testers) that balence will be acheived. When the gausscats first became popular everyone felt that this build was unfair and unbalenced. I disagree. I think that almost any loadout can be countered with intellegent choices and trial and error. This applies to the current unbalanced weapons as well. Until they are fixed, we the testers have to adapt-- as well as give constructive feedback to the developers so they CAN fix them.

[Vapor Trail]

Nirrpit, on 09 November 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

I do agree that a more balanced weapon system is in order. But, being that this game is still in beta, I feel that (with proper feedback from beta testers) that balence will be acheived. When the gausscats first became popular everyone felt that this build was unfair and unbalenced. I disagree. I think that almost any loadout can be countered with intellegent choices and trial and error. This applies to the current unbalanced weapons as well. Until they are fixed, we the testers have to adapt-- as well as give constructive feedback to the developers so they CAN fix them.

The build isn't the problem. In theory, you should be able to build a mech that has about the same average damage output as the GaussKitty on a heavier chassis, using nothing but PPCs or ERPPCs. In fact, the Awesome 8Q (and 9Q) is that mech, pretty much.

However, the problem is that the Gauss Rifle has a refire rate that's way fast. Allowing it to simply pound rounds downrange while the Awesome 8Q has to wait, and wait, and wait to cool after a salvo.

In fact the Gauss is about 2.5 times as powerful as it was in TT.

Edit, forgot an important word.

Edited by Vapor Trail, 09 November 2012 - 11:42 AM.

[Draco Argentum]

Nirrpit, on 09 November 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

Until they are fixed, we the testers have to adapt-- as well as give constructive feedback to the developers so they CAN fix them.

If we're testers we don't adapt. Thats for gamers. Testers are meant to point out flaws in a product, not work around them.

[Zyllos]

Man, so many issues would be alleviated if they would fix the DPS to Heat issues.

The reasons why many weapons are not used is because other weapons are just better if you drop weapons/equipment for more heatsinks to increase DPS. That is why so many weapons feel unbalanced. TT damage with increased RoF with TT heat means high heat intensive weaponry are just not worth it. Especially how quickly people can charge a target. That extra range/damage is just completely nullified for the heat you pay.

Edited by Zyllos, 09 November 2012 - 04:42 PM.

[Mordegar]

2 issues are currently killing the ERPPC's for me and thats the generated heat when you fire 2 at once and the problems with convergence when you mount them in your arms. It's impossible to land a hit with them while you move your arms around to lead a target because of that.
A large laser/er large laser will be superior in every aspect compared to both ppc's because of the heat/dmg ratio efficiency and the ability to counter convergence by leading your beams on your target.

[Aedensin]

To be honest when I saw TT I stopped reading.

TT rules don't always translate to MMO, that's just how it goes.

[MechWarrior849305]

I will repeat it once more: when ballistic and rocket group of weapons some kind of even (with exeption of gauss), the energy group is totally sucks. Runnig with the smallest weapon to be competitive sound really dumb. Gauss totally overbuffed, it's clear even for a newb like me (thou i've played MW3-4).
As it's said, gauss could be balanced by increasing reloading time, but what's about other weapons?
I would say, if heat is a punishment for energy weapons, then the punishment for rocket/ballistic should be...ammo For now, the upload per ton is quite massive, most of the times they are not even launched. Cut it in half and see what will change I'd say. Pilot should think then to go on battlefield with low on ammo, or with limited weaponry