269 replies to this topic

[Slanski]

A very thought out and constructive post MCXL.

The confusion stems from the incomplete quantitative adaptation of board game values. All TT weapon damage values should read:

Mech heat dissipation=(10HS + installed HS)/10seconds

Medium Laser: 5 damage/10 seconds, resource cost 3 heat/10 seconds (0.5 DPS)
AC10: 10 damage/10 seconds, resource cost 3 heat/10seconds, 1 ammo (1 DPS)
LRM20: 20 damage/10 seconds, resource cost 6 heat/10seconds, 20 missiles (2 DPS)

By tweaking rate of fire for the sim and putting raw damage instead of DPS values into the formula the devs have made a classic physics mistake. The formula lacks the denominator from the game (seconds). Balance changes into something not recognizable from the board game. The same goes for the heat/resource cost, which was implemented without its adaptation to 3 second cycles.
By then arbitrarily putting weapons on different RoF the actual DPS of the weapons has been warped (making the AC2 into a monster and the non heat constrained Gauss into a nightmare).

Expected values in MWO (implied at 3 seconds cycle):

Medium Laser: 1.5 damage/3 seconds, 0.9 heat/3 seconds (0.5 DPS)
AC10: 3 damage/3 seconds, 0.9 heat/3 seconds (tripple ammo per ton) (1 DPS)
LRM20: 6 damage/3 seconds, 1.8 heat/3 seconds (tripple ammo per ton) (2 DPS)

Actual values in MWO (against twice armor, so half resulting DPS to get TT comparison):

Medium Laser: 5 damage/3 seconds, 4 heat/3 seconds (1.6 raw DPS, 0.8 converted DPS)
AC10: 10 damage/2.5 seconds, 3 heat/2.5 seconds (4 raw DPS, 2 converted DPS)
LRM20: 40 damage/4.25 seconds, 6 heat/4.25 seconds (9.41 raw DPS, 4.7 converted DPS)

So the LRM20 ends up 2.35 times as deadly as in TT, AC10 is twice as deadly, MLas is 1.6 times as deadly.
LRM 20 goes from 0.6 heat/second to 1.41 heat per second, AC10 goes from 0.3 heat per second to 1.2 and MLas from 0.3 heat per second to 1 (trippling the load on the heatsinks).

TL;DR:

Stop implementing TT per shot damage values and their per shot heat and start implementing TT DPS values and heat per second values!

The Devs have developed a nice game, but if we continue to damage control and tweak from a base that lacks a denominator, we will end up with weapon loadouts and mechs that will be unrecognizable by canon and the fanbase. You incentivize competative players to build bastardized builds around very few weapon systems that have an off DPS/ton (Heat/s)/ton advantage.

[Yokaiko]

RAM, on 05 November 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

Seeing as you got it wrong, it may not be as simple as one would think


RAM
ELH

So what is it? Because it doesn't follow Solaris rules either.

[Ghosth]

"Stop implementing TT per shot damage values and their per shot heat and start implementing TT DPS values and heat per second values!"

Amen brother Amen

[MustrumRidcully]

Maybe, one day....

[Tuhalu]

Slanski, on 05 November 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

The Devs have developed a nice game, but if we continue to damage control and tweak from a base that lacks a denominator, we will end up with weapon loadouts and mechs that will be unrecognizable by canon and the fanbase. You incentivize competative players to build bastardized builds around very few weapon systems that have an off DPS/ton (Heat/s)/ton advantage.

This is pretty much the bottom line.

You don't balance based on half a system. You don't balance on 2/3 of a system. You balance on a whole system. In this case Level 2 Inner Sphere technology.

Up til now, the devs have balanced and rebalanced their game based on fractions of the intended gear in the game. And at that time it may have made sense. Unfortunately, one change has forced another and then required another as more and more items are added.

Here's a list of differences from the base game:

• Physical Combat: The choice to not implement physical damage skews things in favor of faster, smaller mechs with close range firepower. This was an intended buff to allow smaller mechs to be more desirable! It was also a scope consideration (too much work to implement correctly).
  
• Rate of Fire: Rather than 1 shot per 10 seconds, varies from 1 shot per 4.75 seconds to 1 shot per 0.5 seconds. The basic rationale is that it's too boring waiting for 10 seconds between shots... which doesn't explain why the rate was changed by varying amounts.
  
• Armor: Because of the doubled fire rate (minimum!) armor was doubled.
  
• Ammo: Eventually the devs realised that ammunition based weapons required more ammunition per ton to balance out the additional armor. Mechs had become 67% harder to kill, so ammo was increased by 25-67% (excepting MGs and SRMs which got no increase and the Ultra AC/5 and LB-10X which had minimal increases).
  
• Damage: Missile-based ammunition weapons got a damage boost. SRMs went from 2 per missile to 2.5 per missile. LRMs went from 1 per missile to 2 per missile (on top of a 50% increase in ammunition!). Most of this happened before TAG and NARC were added (much less the forthcoming ECM and Active Probe systems!). Combined with Ammo effects, this meant that SRMs are only doing 20% more per ton of ammo, while LRMs were doing 300% more per ton of ammo!
  
• Min and Max Ranges: Most weapons have an extreme range bracket now in which damage drops off to 0 over distance. SRMs did not get extra range. LRMs get extra range (if someone is spotting for them) AND don't lose damage over distance. Some weapons keep a minimum range implementation, others do not.
  
• Heat Costs: A minimal amount of heat cost tweakage has been done to try and make some of the more excessively heat causing weapons competitive and to make the coolest lasers (in damage per heat terms) a bit hotter.
  
• Double Heat Sinks: Effectiveness reduced significantly with no regard to relaxing the drawback of 3 criticals per sink. Maximum effective heat dissipation with double heat sinks now LESS than the maximum for single heat sinks.

Of course, there is also the impact effect from various weapons, but that's a mechanic that only exists in MWO.

The mistakes made:

• Rate of Fire changed with no changes in heat dissipation requirements. This skews custom builds strongly in favor of low heat and/or low weight weapons stacked with masses of heat sinks.
  
• Rate of Fire changed by differing amounts. Relative tonnage required to sustain ROF without overheating now wildly different. I don't even know what this was a solution to, but it has probably broken more things than it "fixed".
  
• Ammo increased by random amounts. Every ammunition based weapon should have seen the same increase in volleys/rounds per ton. Assuming no increase in the strength of internal structure, that would be a 67% increase. If there was an increase in IS, then it might need to be 100% increase.
  
• LRM and SRM damage increased. These changes were made to combat complaints that the weapons were underpowered and didn't track well. Then they made them track well and added TAG and NARC! After ECM and Active Probes are fully implemented and correctly functioning, these weapons need to be brought back to standard and re-assessed.
  
• Min and Max Ranges not applied across the board or without change to the cost of those weapons. Ballistic weapons with no minimum range. Makes intuitive sense, but their costs (tonnage, heat, etc) are balanced around that. SRMs without an extended range. That decision was made before SRMs became more "spready" and thus less likely to hit at longer ranges.

Devs: Get these last few pieces of gear into the game, then go back to square one and rebalance the game without the mistakes you have made until now! It's cool. We'll understand.

[MCXL]

Ok, after sleeping for like 18 hours, I'm now working on chapter two. This piece wont be as long as the OP, but will draw from it heavily. One key point that I would like to recognise is that "Rather than 1 shot per 10 seconds, varies from 1 shot per 4.75 seconds to 1 shot per 0.5 seconds. The basic rationale is that it's too boring waiting for 10 seconds between shots... which doesn't explain why the rate was changed by varying amounts." Is pretty key to understanding the systemic problems here.

I bet I will be done in about an hour.

[Slanski]

Indeed MCXL. But use the TT dps and hps values (which are well balanced against weightand slot) to create reasonable dps/ton and hps/ton weapons.

I don't care if the AC20 shoots 1 in 10s or 10 times a second as long as it does 20 damage/10 seconds at a cost of 14 tons and 6 heat/10seconds. Even the technical read outs specify various versions of the AC20 with various actual rate of fire which all end up doing comparable damage. I hope that subsequent iterations maintain a balance between weapon systems.

Balance DPS, not slavish per shot damage values. Damage spread over mechs occurs by aiming and not by die roll and single round design.

[Vapor Trail]

The varying RoFs is easy: "variety of play," and to get us away from a "all alpha strikes, all the time" mentality.

If you've got the heat dissipation for it, waiting for a weapon with a long recycle time to cycle while you have weapons with a shorter time ready to go is not optimal.

Firing the fast cycling weapons, and interspersing it with the slow weapon, instead of just firing everything together.

Or "Pew, pew pew. Bang. Pew, pew. Pew, pew. Bang."
instead of
"Wait, wait, wait, BIGBURNINGBALLOFBLAM, wait, wait wait..."

The differing RoFs I don't really have a problem with...
... some of the consequences of the RoFs they chose though....

Edited by Vapor Trail, 05 November 2012 - 08:05 AM.

[Lefty Lucy]

Vapor Trail, on 05 November 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

The varying RoFs is easy: "variety of play," and to get us away from a "all alpha strikes, all the time" mentality.

If you've got the heat dissipation for it, waiting for a weapon with a long recycle time to cycle while you have weapons with a shorter time ready to go is not optimal.

Firing the fast cycling weapons, and interspersing it with the slow weapon, instead of just firing everything together.

Or "Pew, pew pew. Bang. Pew, pew. Pew, pew. Bang."
instead of
"Wait, wait, wait, BIGBURNINGBALLOFBLAM, wait, wait wait..."

The differing RoFs I don't really have a problem with...
... some of the consequences of the RoFs they chose though....

Yeah, for example I like how the AC2 and AC5 are actually worth taking in MWO compared to the TT game, because they tweaked the RoF.

[buckX]

SpiralRazor, on 05 November 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

What you leave out though Buck, is that you can have a collection of Large Lasers....you cannot have a collection of Ac/10s...Also, its currently massively easier to land damage from Large Lasers then it is from AC/10s...a fact compounded by that the faster your opponents going, the harder it is to land AC shells on them...wheres with lasers you can pretty much splash damage on anything, and on slow mechs you can take there heads clean off with a good connection and fast rendering card.

I will grant you that there aren't many mechs that can mount it, but the K2 can, as well as several upcoming mechs. It's also been very doable to hit with ACs up until this current patch, and the changes that made it hard are getting rolled back tomorrow. Also, even if you only take 1, the AC10 is doing about as much dps as 3 LL, and you rarely see more than 3 of those in play (occassionally 4). Certainly you can't match the dps of a K2 with 2AC10s with 6 LLs and have any hope of not overheating.

[Vermaxx]

Lefty Lucy, on 05 November 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

Yeah, for example I like how the AC2 and AC5 are actually worth taking in MWO compared to the TT game, because they tweaked the RoF.

They were "worth taking" in tabletop also, as long as you had four of them and could park the mech half the battle away. As long as you understood you were sinking a mech as long range fire support, it was fine. Given the pilot had a good gunnery skill and could afford to simply stand still most of the fight, he could easily dump all his shots into people and dork their armor for closer mechs.

Battletech is not about the man in the mech, it is about the mech in a unit. Very few games were played with each person being 'one mech' as a role playing scenario. Mostly people built units to fight other people.

Incidentally, playing as a RPG balances out a lot of the issues with tabletop. Because the GM can limit what you have, what you can modify, how long it takes and how much it costs, how much ammo you have, and all that other krap that PGI isn't doing.

Edited by Vermaxx, 05 November 2012 - 08:14 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Yeah, for example I like how the AC2 and AC5 are actually worth taking in MWO compared to the TT game, because they tweaked the RoF.

No they arnt. AC2 and AC5 are both way worse than a UAC5 with unjam macro. I can prove this in any match you want to play with me. You can use your wimpy low-caliber ACs and ill use UAC5s with my macro.

Also youre forgetting tabletop had a battle value system. Weapons like the AC2 and AC5 had relatively low battle value compared to weapons like Gauss. You could have 2-3 low BV weapons for the same BV as a high BV weapon. So you werent really handicapping yourself by using the AC2/AC5 in tabletop. But using the AC2/AC5 instead of UAC5/Gauss in MWO is just handicapping yourself bigtime. MWO lacks a battle value system so theres absolutely no reason not to use the best weapons available in every slot...

Edited by Khobai, 05 November 2012 - 08:18 AM.

[Slanski]

Lefty Lucy, on 05 November 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

Yeah, for example I like how the AC2 and AC5 are actually worth taking in MWO compared to the TT game, because they tweaked the RoF.

Sorry, through their RoF tweak your AC2 is worth taking, because it really is an AC16.5 weighing 6 tons. Actually choosing an AC20 is deliberately penalizing yourself. DPS/ton and HPS/ton on weapons are completely off in the current implementation. Most users can only identify part of the problem and are surprised at heat scaling, while in truth the entire balance is distorted by wildly off DPS numbers.

[Lefty Lucy]

Slanski, on 05 November 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Sorry, through their RoF tweak your AC2 is worth taking, because it really is an AC16.5 weighing 6 tons. Actually choosing an AC20 is deliberately penalizing yourself. DPS/ton and HPS/ton on weapons are completely off in the current implementation. Most users can only identify part of the problem and are surprised at heat scaling, while in truth the entire balance is distorted by wildly off DPS numbers.

Yeah, that's what I said, that in MWO AC2 are worth taking, versus in TT where they aren't.

[Raj]

I would certainly like to see a developer reply to this post as well.

Quote

we will end up with weapon loadouts and mechs that will be unrecognizable by canon and the fanbase

This is already happening as we can see stock builds that simply won't function. They need to figure out a long term solution and tweaking what they've got just isn't going to do it.

[Lefty Lucy]

Raj, on 05 November 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

I would certainly like to see a developer reply to this post as well.

This is already happening as we can see stock builds that simply won't function. They need to figure out a long term solution and tweaking what they've got just isn't going to do it.

The AWS-9M is broken with 2.0 DHS. It's even more broken with 1.4 DHS. I don't mean "OMG so powerful" broken, but "oh wow, this us unusable" broken.

[Imagine Dragons]

Oh, I have to read this thread again and again...

*not sarcasm*

Edited by XenomorphZZ, 05 November 2012 - 09:15 AM.

[Lefty Lucy]

XenomorphZZ, on 05 November 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

Oh, I have to read this thread again and again...

You can choose not to read any threads that have "heat" in the title.

[Imagine Dragons]

Lefty Lucy, on 05 November 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

You can choose not to read any threads that have "heat" in the title.

I didn't mean it like that, its a great thread imo...

[Delta66]

This post should serve as a compendium of everything I have been saying about heat in game for the past few weeks

I LOVE playing
But
I do not love the fact that Standard Configs in Tabletop are almost all unworkable.
A Stock Awesome would need 84 HS To give it the kind of viability and performance one would expect from it's tabletop description.