534 replies to this topic

[Apoc1138]

Diablobo, on 24 November 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

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>

erm... but according to you high heat weapons are broken and severely penalise any mech they are mounted on... now you are saying that it's "obvious" the 2 PPC's are better than 1 gauss (at the same weight)
you can't have it both ways, either I would be better off with 1 "non-broken" gauss, or 2 "broken" PPC's, you just totally contradicting yourself by now siding with the PPC's

WeekendWarrior, on 24 November 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

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.

this has been mentioned many times already, and it still doesn't account for the differences between a dice rolling game and a live action game, you can't (as in shouldn't because it doesn't work) "balance" a live action game based on table top stats, it just doesn't work, which is why PGI are having to stray so far from TT to create the game they want (not even saying MWO will ever be "balanced" according to some peoples definition, but it will be the game that PGI want it to be regardless of what anyone else thinks)

@ VT, you and I have already been around this one several times, you know full well that I don't only mount 2 PPC's and you know full well that I haven't even mounted every double heatsink that I could, yet another lame attempt at a strawman parrading as "logic"
having already stated many times that I don't agree with your abitrary idea on what time period they should be "balanced" over, why do you seem to think that if you keep re-stating the same idea over and over people will suddenly agree with you?
In TT, 3 PPC's had a DPS of 3 and 2 gauss also 3... in this game 9.99 and 7.5
the PPC's have had a massive buff in terms of damage output, they've also had a nerf in terms of heat generated limiting how long they can output this increased DPS for, but from TT values they've also had a small buff in terms of heat (down from 10 to 9 per "shot"), and the devs have said they are actively looking at both, however neither the gauss nor the PPC need buffs or nerfs anywhere NEAR what you are suggesting as then the PPC would be massively buffed from TT because you haven't accounted for the fact that PPC's have a higher DPS in this game compared with TT

Edited by Apoc1138, 24 November 2012 - 10:58 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Didn't anyone here ask for a an analysis on weapon efficiency taking into account engine heat sinks et all?

I did it.






SThis is a modified "TET" Chart. THe last time I made the chart, I simply stipulated that I'd always compare groups of 4 or 8 weapons and simply calculated what I would need to runt hem for 20 seconds, and how much damage they would inflict.

TThis time, I went "closer" to outfitting a mech:
1) I did account for engine heat sinks (assuming an Engine with a 250 Engine Rating)
2) To determine how many weapons I would compare, I decided that I'd stage a fight to core basically an Atlas, with a bit of a safety margin for misses. And that damage needed to be done in the TET of 20.
3) For ammo purposes, I assumed you'd need to fight at least 6 such engagements (this means the mech in question would have ammo for 120 seconds or 1200 damage. That should hopefully be sufficient.)

More details in my new State of Balance thread.

[Apoc1138]

you are getting closer... however I think your 200 damage in 20 seconds is still a bit on the keen side... it would need 3 gauss rifles to do that and afaik no mech can mount 3 gauss so it's a bit of a pointless comparison

you've also added in an "efficiency" score that can be tweaked to account for things like an AC/2 going all over the show, but how do you actually work out what to set that to? (without the server side info)

I would think this is the level of detail PGI are going in to, however they have more info available to them

[MustrumRidcully]

Apoc1138, on 25 November 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

you are getting closer... however I think your 200 damage in 20 seconds is still a bit on the keen side... it would need 3 gauss rifles to do that and afaik no mech can mount 3 gauss so it's a bit of a pointless comparison.

you've also added in an "efficiency" score that can be tweaked to account for things like an AC/2 going all over the show, but how do you actually work out what to set that to? (without the server side info)

i don't, that's why for now, I set it to 1 for most weapons except for missiles, because there it's relatively obvious that not 100 % of the weapon shots always hit.

Quote

I would think this is the level of detail PGI are going in to, however they have more info available to them

They might be able to, but do they do it? I don't think so, not yet at least.

But if you or they have more information or wish some tweaks, I also uploaded the excel sheet to Google Drive: https://docs.google....a18wVG9TUTBjaHM
Just download it yourself (just press CTRL-S, that's the Google Shortcut to download), and tweak on your own.
(I couldn't get it to work in Google Docs unfortunately.)


Oh, and I also made a 150 damage chart, to get away from your 3 Gauss Rifle Problem. (I am not sure when we'll get an Assault that could carry 3 Gauss... Might still be far off. Anyone remember any 3049/3050 mechs with 3-4 ballistic slots, in 3 different sections?)

Spoiler

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 25 November 2012 - 09:07 AM.

[WeekendWarrior]

Annihilator

[MustrumRidcully]

WeekendWarrior, on 25 November 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

Annihilator

That's a bit ofg still, isn't it?

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 26 November 2012 - 01:19 AM.

[SpiralRazor]

Wolfs Dragoons had Annihilators in 3025. They come from tech readout 3050...

[Vapor Trail]

Thunder Hawk began production again in 3050.

The Victor VTR-9A1 has the potential... depending on what the Devs decide to do about leg mounted weapons. It has 2 MGs, one in the LL and one in the RL, and an AC/20 in the RA. If they move the MGs to the side torsos, we'll likely see a tri-Gauss out of it.

The Daboku MX-90-D might... if they ever implement crit spreading for large weapons. Four ballistic mounts in the side torsos... Which raises other issues if it comes in, such as a 4 UAC5 build.

Other than that, I'm not sure if there are any canon mechs that are able to sport three Gauss in 3050 or before.

[Apoc1138]

MustrumRidcully, on 25 November 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

Oh, and I also made a 150 damage chart, to get away from your 3 Gauss Rifle Problem. (I am not sure when we'll get an Assault that could carry 3 Gauss... Might still be far off. Anyone remember any 3049/3050 mechs with 3-4 ballistic slots, in 3 different sections?)

where did you get 200 points to core an atlas from? iirc it has 80ish points of armour and something like half again structure? so 120 points to core an atlas? unless I've gotten the wrong info from somewhere

I think this swings even more in favour of the PPC then... as you only need 2 PPC's, but you still need 2 Gauss to core an atlas within 20 seconds (2 gauss will actually do it in about 16 seconds where as only 2 PPC's would need 18... but 3 PPC's could do it in 12 seconds at full refire rate or in the same time as the 2 gauss for less weight in heatsinks)

Edited by Apoc1138, 26 November 2012 - 02:15 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Apoc1138, on 26 November 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

where did you get 200 points to core an atlas from? iirc it has 80ish points of armour and something like half again structure? so 120 points to core an atlas? unless I've gotten the wrong info from somewhere

I think this swings even more in favour of the PPC then... as you only need 2 PPC's, but you still need 2 Gauss to core an atlas within 20 seconds (2 gauss will actually do it in about 16 seconds where as only 2 PPC's would need 18... but 3 PPC's could do it in 12 seconds)

I calculated the worst case scenario as 150 (an Atlas user mad enough to not armour his back), and then put in an extra 50 points for handling the occassional miss. I doubt that many players hit the CT with 100 % chance.

When I get home, I might be able to upload more charts. I think I've now gotten a setup that's flexible enough to generate a lot of them for different scenarios.

Feel free to suggest a few scenarios (preferably in the thread I devoted on the topic) that I should test.
(For example - if you have a reasonable guesstimate on "Center-Torso-Hit-Chance", I could put this in as a variable. But just time/damage goals would be enough)

The general trend is, of course - the shorter the time you need to run, the better energy weapons get. But judging for my experience most matches will eventually get to a "brawl" point - where you really need to last a few more seconds. In the beginning, long range direct fire mechs will be able to take some pot shots where heat management doesn't matter but that rarely leads to kills.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 26 November 2012 - 02:17 AM.

[Vapor Trail]

From his state of balance thread, which was linked above:
http://mwomercs.com/...dhs-with-graphs

Quote

The damage value is based on the idea that this might about the damage you will deal to core a single 100 ton Assault mech with maxed out armour, with enough leeway to account for missing the center torso.

[Apoc1138]

MustrumRidcully, on 26 November 2012 - 02:14 AM, said:

I calculated the worst case scenario as 150 (an Atlas user mad enough to not armour his back), and then put in an extra 50 points for handling the occassional miss. I doubt that many players hit the CT with 100 % chance.

When I get home, I might be able to upload more charts. I think I've now gotten a setup that's flexible enough to generate a lot of them for different scenarios.

Feel free to suggest a few scenarios (preferably in the thread I devoted on the topic) that I should test.
(For example - if you have a reasonable guesstimate on "Center-Torso-Hit-Chance", I could put this in as a variable. But just time/damage goals would be enough)

The general trend is, of course - the shorter the time you need to run, the better energy weapons get. But judging for my experience most matches will eventually get to a "brawl" point - where you really need to last a few more seconds. In the beginning, long range direct fire mechs will be able to take some pot shots where heat management doesn't matter but that rarely leads to kills.

if anyhting, your data is really making me want to try a quad PPC atlas, as it sounds absolutely lethal to Catapults which are already pretty easy to take down with their big fat faces

[Indoorsman]

Apoc1138, on 26 November 2012 - 02:25 AM, said:

if anyhting, your data is really making me want to try a quad PPC atlas, as it sounds absolutely lethal to Catapults which are already pretty easy to take down with their big fat faces

I mentioned maybe a few pages ago maybe that PPC were better than you guys were giving credit. Even mentioned a quad PPC atlas... W/gauss TOO.

[MustrumRidcully]

Apoc1138, on 26 November 2012 - 02:25 AM, said:

if anyhting, your data is really making me want to try a quad PPC atlas, as it sounds absolutely lethal to Catapults which are already pretty easy to take down with their big fat faces

Do it. Preferable with a stop watch running and report back, so I can tune the data.

[Vapor Trail]

Hmm... quad PPC. Warhawk lite. It HAS been a while since I've tried it...
Before DHS even. Not enough cash to spend willy-nilly on testing.
I'd like to see it done as well.

Predictions:
36 heat per salvo.
Probably somewhere between 12 and 14 extra DHS... [edit] <--- flawed assumption. 10-12 better numbers.
So about 3.96 heat/sec dissipation, and a heat cap of 69.6. Before Pilot Lab stuff.

69.9-36 = 33.6.
36 - (3.96*4) = 20.16
33.6 /20.16 = 1.6667

Total of two, maybe two and a half salvos before having to cool off for 17 seconds or so. With pilot efficiencies, you might make three.
Still, three salvos is 120 damage. Which, given sufficient accuracy, should be a CTcore on any heavy.

So 22 DHS max... 36 heat per salvo...
3.68 Dissipation rate and 66.8 heat cap, before Pilot Lab.

66.8-36= 30.8

Still, two, maybe two and a half base, maybe three after Lab perks.

Edited by Vapor Trail, 26 November 2012 - 01:33 PM.

[Abrahms]

Indoorsman, on 26 November 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

I mentioned maybe a few pages ago maybe that PPC were better than you guys were giving credit. Even mentioned a quad PPC atlas... W/gauss TOO.

Ive tried 4xPPC in BETA. Didnt work. Even with heatsinks in literally every single remaining crit-slot it still ran too hot to function. It was way better to drop a PPC and up the engine for more heatsinks.

Now ive heard about diminishing returns on heatsinks which basically makes anything over 1 or maybe 2 PPCs entirely useless.

[Indoorsman]

Abrahms, on 02 December 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

Ive tried 4xPPC in BETA. Didnt work. Even with heatsinks in literally every single remaining crit-slot it still ran too hot to function. It was way better to drop a PPC and up the engine for more heatsinks.

Now ive heard about diminishing returns on heatsinks which basically makes anything over 1 or maybe 2 PPCs entirely useless.

Well I've never tried 4PPC, just 4PPC AND Gauss

[MustrumRidcully]

Indoorsman, on 02 December 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

Well I've never tried 4PPC, just 4PPC AND Gauss

Yeah, I think that's how my 4 PPC experiment went as well. Did you enjoy it more than I did?

[Apoc1138]

Indoorsman, on 26 November 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

I mentioned maybe a few pages ago maybe that PPC were better than you guys were giving credit. Even mentioned a quad PPC atlas... W/gauss TOO.

I think you'll find that I'm running a 2 PPC atlas now and loving it, I'm on your side already

in light of this post:

Garth Erlam, on 30 November 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

The most popular ideas around the studio for this currently:
1) Make LL/ERLL have very quick fire time - about fast as a SL.
2) Make PPC shots hit much, much, much, much faster and have less heat.

isn't this thread basically redundant?

Edited by Apoc1138, 03 December 2012 - 01:53 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Apoc1138, on 03 December 2012 - 01:49 AM, said:

I think you'll find that I'm running a 2 PPC atlas now and loving it, I'm on your side already

in light of this post:



isn't this thread basically redundant?

When they implement it, yes. but otherwise... Maybe someone will point out the definite reason why it must or must not happen?