Apoc1138, on 09 November 2012 - 07:54 AM, said:
I haven't admitted anything, I've pointed out that demanding energy weapons be heat neutral whilst ammo based weapons are allowed to have limited ammo is a pointless fallacy...
Either you've missed it, or you're presenting a strawman. I'll repeat, in case it's the former:
Heat neutrality is a benchmark.
Nothing more.
Please note, I did NOTHING to alter the ability to render the ERPPC heat neutral while performing my proposed changes.
Apoc1138, on 09 November 2012 - 07:54 AM, said:
you've done part of what I asked you to, but not everything... it was a combined post that I made and you're just deliberately picking out the bits you think you can defend against without considering the whole
Ok. lets consider the whole:
Apoc1138, on 09 November 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:
just to point out the massive glaring flaw in your work... you talk about assigning ammo to ballistic weapons based on firing continuously for 160 seconds... so why add enough heatsinks to make a weapon totally heat neutral... surely for an energy weapon to be comparable it only also needs to fire for 160 seconds... it gets worse than that because an energy weapon can cooldown and keep firing indefinitely where as a ballistic weapon can't reload ammo (it's also totally pointless to make and AC/20 heat neutral when it can only fire for 160 seconds)
yes, energy weapons have a downside... HEAT
so do ballistic weapons... AMMO
Yep. Both are accounted for in my calculation of DPSpT. Your quibble? 160 seconds fire too little? Too much?
The tradeoff with the ammo fed weapon is that you have to plan ahead in the Mechlab. If you take too little ammo, you run out and you die. If you take too much, you might not have enough weapons/armor/speed as a result, and you die.
In TT, the fact that the Gauss was ammo fed was balanced by the fact that it did 1.5x the damage of the ERPPC, at the same rate of fire, for a similar (read 'slightly different but a close approximation to') tonnage as a Heat Neutral ERPPC system.
This comparison is completely broken by the Gauss having a 1 shot in 4 seconds RoF.
A stated goal of the Devs is to keep MWO as close to TT as feasible. I'm claiming that not only is weapon balance not currently sufficiently close to TT, but that it
is feasible to get it closer.
Apoc1138, on 09 November 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:
you then just start using your invented DPSpT figure as if it's a cardinal unrefutable fact with no gameplay factors that balance it
Nope, Please note the word "Theorycrafting" in the thread title. The key word in that compound word is "theory". I've never claimed DPSpT as a measure of weapon balance is unrefutable. In fact, I believe that a better measure may exist. If you have math to refute my theory that DPSpT is a legitimate measuring stick to base weapon balance on you're free to present it. Likewise, you're free to present the math describing a better system. But proof is required for refutation. If you would like to present a theory (backed by math) as to why DPSpT is flawed as a measurement (even a slightly inaccurate one) i'll willingly poke holes in it, if I can.
Weapons balance should dictate gameplay. Not the reverse. If there
is a specific problem with gameplay, then it should be addressed, and
if it
requires addressing through shifting weapon balance, then so be it. But it has to be pretty blatant that weapon's balance is at fault before you begin monkeying with it.
For example, maximum and optimum ranges of a weapon dictates maximum and optimum engagement range with that weapon.
You don't (or shouldn't really) start firing until the target is within your weapon's maximum range. The pilot's desire to open fire outside the maximum range of his weapon does not dictate that the range of the weapon should change.
I'm trying to show that weapons balance itself is flawed right now, and therefore gameplay is suffering. To torture the last example: The pilot's desire to fire the Gauss rapidly should not dictate that the RoF should be set artificially high.
Apoc1138, on 09 November 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:
go back and re-do all your calcs but with a DPSpT based on being able to fire constantly for 160 seconds before shutdown, rather than totally heat neutral... then try to assign a fair adjustment based on unlimited ammo vs. 160 seconds of ammo...
Did one.
May redo the spreadsheet... However all it proves is that a slightly heat positive weapon system is slightly
more powerful than a heat neutral one. In the end, all that changes is a slight movement in the overall balance. The chart would get more accurate, the degree of the imbalance would slightly smaller, but the fact that there is an imbalance would still remain.
If you 'want them redone now,' so you can demonstrate something to support your end of the argument, you can do your own math.
Apoc1138, on 09 November 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:
also bear in mind that we have 2.0 engine sinks and 1.4 DHS' instead of DHS' all round (I'd much prefer 1.8's all round personally as that seems closer to the figure the devs intended and gives assaults the boost they need and lights the nerf that was intended)
Spreadsheet and charts was done before the 2.0 engine sinks, 1.4 outside sinks values were known. Regardless, engine sinks are not considered, and .14 Heat per Second sinks are considered elsewhere.
Apoc1138, on 09 November 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:
if anything a "popup" sniper with no ammo limit is just as or more dangerous than a pop up sniper with limit of 160 seconds... as long as he can keep range / cover when not firing
In this situation I'd say the weapon with the longer range and/or the greatest damage per shot would be the first weapon taken... wouldn't you? And if you're planning on this as your tactic when designing your mech, you're going to be taking as much ammo as you thought necessary.
Heat per salvo vs heat cap would be the prime factors to consider for this tactic, rather than DPSpT. However, this niche tactic (and yes, it's a niche tactic) simply takes advantage of a collection of factors in the
jumpjet implementation. The weapons balance is not at fault.
Whole considered.
Apoc1138, on 09 November 2012 - 07:54 AM, said:
it's fine, please continue to believe that the gauss is a god mode weapon, I hope I meet you in game as frequently as possible
Nope, not "god mode," sorry. Never used the term. Simply unbalanced. I've killed my fair share of Gauss toting mechs, as I'm sure you have. A killer mech not does a Gauss Rifle make. However, it's a lot easier to do
well when you're able to spit out three times the damage over time at the same tonnage investment as your closest long range competitor,
and 1.5 times the damage per shot.
And the whole "my gun is gone... but I still have ammo" problem is the entire reason the "dumping ammo" rules were written for TT.
They just have to be implemented in MWO.
2
alpha strikes matter. a laserboat hunchback can pump out more damage over a short period of time
