59 replies to this topic

[Vapor Trail]

Well, if you saw my last thread (on the rationale behind the ".14" sinks):
http://mwomercs.com/...ehind-14-sinks/
This thread is going to take a lot of the same prep work.
You can find that prep work there.

Anyway...

The Devs apparently want to prevent DHS from causing battles to become a Christmas-time laser light show. (lots of red and green).

This is their "current, intended" position. (pre-11/6/12 patch and effects, as far as I understand it)
(and yes, these graphs do NOT currently take the +15% rapid cooling pilot efficiency into account.)

Single Heat Sinks:

Spoiler

"Double" .14 HdR sinks:

Spoiler

The .14 HdR sinks limit the spike from Small and Medium Lasers to the point that they aren't out-competing the Ballistics.

However:

The problem I see with this is that all the ballistics are still markedly better DPS producers per ton mass than the vast majority of the energy weapons, and only the Small and Medium Lasers even have a decent chance of competing. This leaves the large energy weapons in a state where, while they still shoot, there are much better alternatives to be had.

Take, for example, the Gauss. In TT the Gauss was a really solid long range weapon. It out-damaged the ERPPC by +50% at the same rate of fire, for most of the ERPPC's range, and the ERPPC only had a narrow margin at the end of it's range where it actually could out-compete the Gauss.

However, the increase in the Gauss' RoF (and range) to the level it is at now has caused it to become so much better than the PPC (and everything else) that it is THE go-to ballistic for long range, short range, middle range... all the other ballistics have been pigeonholed in niche roles. The average increase in the rest of the ballistic rates of fire has caused them to become better than the Larger energy weapons in almost every case.

So the only time you see energy weapons taken is when the mech is deliberately suboptimal (large energy weapons taken just for the sake of having large energy weapons), when taking a ballistic isn't possible, or when the design deliberately boats Small or Medium lasers.

What I want to demonstrate is that it's possible to have a weapons balance where variety can rule, rather than just a single weapon or small group of weapons.

These are graphs of effects of some proposed changes. The same changes in question are represented in BOTH of them. The intent behind these is to produce maximum balance with minimum changes to the existing system

Single Heat sinks:
(without taking into account the +15% meaning singles with the 15% will be slightly better than this.)

Spoiler

Basically with single HS, the Ballistics rule. the Gauss, 5, 10, and 20 are all clearly better than the majority of the energy weapons, and the 2 is pretty competitive with the larger energy weapons.

Double Heat sinks:
(In reality these are 1.85 sinks... but with the +15% from the pilot efficiencies...Guess what, double efficiency. This graph doesn't take the 15% into account (rate is .185) meaning that with efficiency would be slightly better)

Spoiler

With doubles the energy weapons are MUCH more competitive with the ballistics, but the ballistics aren't impotent and are still highly competitive. The Gauss is very close to the ERPPC, but still has a slight advantage. The 5 is close to the LPL, but with a clear range advantage. The 10 is close to the Large, with a clear range advantage, and the 20 is the ballistic competitor to the Small and Medium lasers.

The advantage of the Pulse Lasers is now pretty much how quickly they deliver their damage. Shorter burn times ==> less time with your CT exposed and stationary relative to the target.

The key to understanding this graph is to remember that these are weapons in what is the "Best Case" configuration as regards heat, ie. Heat Neutral at max RoF. This is not to say that Heat Neutral at max RoF is necessarily the best case for mech design. A mech that can frontload some damage (by sacrificing heat sinks for more weapon tonnage) is going to out damage a strictly heat neutral mech. The trick is knowing how much... and managing it in combat. If you decrease the average rate of fire from the max (by decreasing the dedicated heat sinks for the weapon) you lower the DPSpT figure.

For example, if you decrease the average Rate of Fire of an ERPPC from 1 shot every three seconds, to 1 shot every ten seconds, you lower the DPSpT figure (within the optimum range) from ~ .06623 to .05 with singles, and from ~ .1096 to ~.0713 with doubles. But you're looking at a reduction in per weapon tonnage from 50.333 tons to 20 tons with singles, and 30.24 tons to ~14 tons with doubles. In both cases, it's enough to double up on the weapon... Speculation on the implications of this is left up to the individual mech designer. The same kind of effect would be evident (to a lesser extent, based on relative heat per shot) on the rest of the energy weapons

The problem with setting doubles at 185% single efficiency is that stock designs are going to run 7% hotter than normal. But that should be bearable though, rather than having them run 30% hotter.

The changes to the weapons that produce these graph:

Spoiler

"D"HS heat dissipation rate:
.185 heat/second (+.045 from current "Doubles" or - .015 from "true doubles")

Small Laser:
Damage 2.5 per shot.
Burn time 1sec (+.25sec), cooldown 2.5 sec (+.25 sec) ==> Duty Cycle = 3.5 seconds

Medium Laser:
Burn time 1.5 sec (+.25sec), Cooldown 3.5 sec (+.75 sec) ==> Duty Cycle = 5 seconds.

Gauss:
Cooldown = 7.5 seconds ==> Duty Cycle = 7.5 seconds

AC/2:
Cooldown 2 seconds ==> Duty Cycle 2 seconds

AC/5:
Cooldown 3.5 seconds ==> Duty Cycle 3.5 seconds

AC/10:
Cooldown 3 seconds. ==> Duty cycle 3 seconds.

AC/20:
Cooldown 3.5 seconds ==> Duty Cycle 3.5 seconds.

With the exception of the Gauss, most of these are relatively small tweaks. The Gauss tweak is so large because the the weapon shouldn't have ever had as low a cycle time as it did. The low cycle time combined with the low heat per shot is the ultimate source of all the problems with Gaussapults. The lack of heat limitation on the weapon caused that RoF to break the weapon.

I'd expect that if these values were implemented, there'd be at least one round of tweaks, because I fit these changes "by eye" rather than by math. But that aside, I'd expect that the balance would be better off overall with these changes than with the current numbers.

I really should start playing the game more...

[MustrumRidcully]

Why is this on page gazillion and 3? This is interesting, and seems a very light-weight solution.

It seems PGI is worrying that the pace of combat will become too fast with "real" DHS, this seems to point a way to balance weapons, give us somewhat "nerfed" DHS, and keep the damage output under control.

(In general ,they really have to think about what this will mean for the game - if the current pace is fine, Clan Tech will be... interesting.)

[Merrik Starchaser]

because everyone was TL;DR which is a shame this is a great way to look at it

[Vapor Trail]

Actually, it's because I posted it at a high traffic time in the forums. It spent all of twenty seconds on the front page and got buried quick.

And I don't usually self-bump. Glad someone saw it .

[Xt1nct1on]

extremely well written *bump

[MustrumRidcully]

Vapor Trail, on 08 November 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

Actually, it's because I posted it at a high traffic time in the forums. It spent all of twenty seconds on the front page and got buried quick.

And I don't usually self-bump. Glad someone saw it .

And I did it without stalking...

[Draco Argentum]

Excellent analysis and good balance for such a handful of tweaks.

[Terror Teddy]

Yup, it also presents the problem of several weapons. Very good read.

[Apoc1138]

I think in your exuberance in nerfing the gausscat (or any dual gauss potential mech) you've made it pointless to mount one of them on mechs that come with 1 of as standard

0.5s reload on the gauss would be more than sufficient - it's already heavy and bulky and easy to destroy

[Vapor Trail]

Heavy...
Bulky...
Easy to destroy...

...and puts out about one and a half times (absolute minimum), to triple the DPSpT of its closest energy competitor at the same tonnage. That would be the ERPPC.

Heavy: does not apply. For the same damage, the weapon system weighs less. A Gauss deals 3.75 DPS while investing 15 + 3 + (ammo) tons. For four tons of ammo thats 22 tons. An ERPPC with 22 tons invested in the system has an average RoF of once every 8.6667 seconds. That's a DPS of 1.153. For (true)doubles that's once every 4.3333 seconds. That's a DPS of 2.308. For ".14 sinks" it's a RoF of once every 6.19 seconds, for a DPS 1.616.

Bulky: Ever try cramming forty heatsinks into a mech? Or even fifteen? Sure the weapon (ERPPC) isn't all that bulky, but the equipment needed to run it is. Gauss bulks out at 7 + 3 + ammo. With four tons of ammo, that's 14 critical slots. Less than the criticals needed to place the heat sinks for an ERPPC firing at a rate of once every 10 seconds, which requires twenty. The system above (22 ton ERPPC) has 15 heat sinks and the ERPPC, total of 18 criticals for singles. For the same number of doubles the number of criticals jumps to 48.

The difference "being easy to destroy" means someone's already stripped your armor and is working on your internals. So you were probably going to lose it to section destruction soon (like a few seconds, unless you're lucky) anyway.

Lets see. >1.5 to 3 times the average damage per second for the same tonnage invested. Less critical space needed at that tonnage.

A .5 second decrease in Gauss RoF (to 1 shot in 4.5 seconds) means the average DPS decreases from 3.75 to 3.333. An ERPPC is capable of equalling that... if you invest 51 tons in the system for singles. It's not possible for doubles, ( 22 doubles is 66 criticals).

So why take more than one ERPPC now? For that matter, why take an ERPPC if you can take a Gauss to begin with? Coolness factor?

"Gauss über alle, für immer!" is not fun

Edited by Vapor Trail, 09 November 2012 - 02:45 AM.

[Terror Teddy]

Vapor Trail, on 09 November 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:

For that matter, why take an ERPPC if you can take a Gauss to begin with? Coolness factor? "Gauss über alle, für immer!" is not fun

Not to mention that the Gauss is described as:

Quote

Unlike most traditional ballistic weapons, the Gauss Rifle does not use combustible propellant, so its firing generates very little heat. However, the sheer mass and bulk of the weapon limits its applications.

Ok, +1 tonne from the AC20 but 3 LESS criticals than the AC20.

It's 30% LESS bulky than the AC20.

[Aym]

I like your OP, I really do. However your post comparing the tonnage/bulk of the ER PPC to the Gauss rifle keeps trying the idea of a 'heat neutral' er ppc. I think it's clear the Dev Team is not interested in 'heat neutral' builds except for maybe all-gauss configurations (which again I think are a problem). At no reasonable point do you really need the ER PPC to be heat neutral, you need to be able to fire a reasonable amount of shots during an engagement accounting for times you WILL be dodging either by twisting away from your opponent or actively using cover. If you are not doing this then the heat of the ER PPC is not your only problem. I realize it may be nigh impossible to get that factor in mathematically, but it really should be on everyone's minds when considering the heat debate.

[Apoc1138]

at the ranges you end up engaging at, the PPC is just as viable as a weapon as the ER PPC but with massively reduced heat

I was playing a dual PPC atlas last night with DHS' and it is muy divertido... and with no ammo to worry about you can blast away at everything all match long

people should worry less about the math when it comes to weapons and more about playing the game for fun

if you wanted a pure sniper build then yeah you could go with ER PPC's and keep hiding every 4-5 volleys instead of being able to do 7 without a cooldown

Edited by Apoc1138, 09 November 2012 - 03:09 AM.

[Terror Teddy]

Apoc1138, on 09 November 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

people should worry less about the math when it comes to weapons and more about playing the game for fun

As long as the weapon stats are balanced im ok. But certain weapons are overshadowing others by being too good by the tonnage or too bad to be even worth thinking over.

[Vapor Trail]

And that's even before you start considering the heat the AC/20 puts out. 7 times the heat at the same rate of fire means seven times the heat sinks to keep it at the same level of 'cool.'

For example a Gauss firing at max RoF puts out .25 heat/second, and needs 2.5 single heat sinks to keep heat neutral.

An AC/20 trying to do the same thing puts out 1.75 heat/sec and therefore requires 17.5 single heat sinks to keep it heat neutral.

17.5/2.5 = 7.

[Apoc1138]

Terror Teddy, on 09 November 2012 - 03:10 AM, said:

As long as the weapon stats are balanced im ok. But certain weapons are overshadowing others by being too good by the tonnage or too bad to be even worth thinking over.

I don't care about weapon stats, I care about kills / damage at the end of the round
I don't tend to get great scores with a gauss... I am getting good scores with dual PPC's or dual UAC5's
if everyone else sticks to the gauss and medium lasers because "the maths tells me to" and I keep on killing them then I am fine with that

the devs clearly never want the game to be heat neutral so I don't know why people keep demanding that it should be

Edited by Apoc1138, 09 November 2012 - 03:15 AM.

[Terror Teddy]

Apoc1138, on 09 November 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

the devs clearly never want the game to be heat neutral so I don't know why people keep demanding that it should be

Yet the GAUSS is the most heat neutral superior ballistic weapon in the game...

*I* dont want the weapons heat neutral either but some weapons ARE when they are completely unbalanced by being that.

[Vapor Trail]

Aym, on 09 November 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

I like your OP, I really do. However your post comparing the tonnage/bulk of the ER PPC to the Gauss rifle keeps trying the idea of a 'heat neutral' er ppc. I think it's clear the Dev Team is not interested in 'heat neutral' builds except for maybe all-gauss configurations (which again I think are a problem). At no reasonable point do you really need the ER PPC to be heat neutral, you need to be able to fire a reasonable amount of shots during an engagement accounting for times you WILL be dodging either by twisting away from your opponent or actively using cover. If you are not doing this then the heat of the ER PPC is not your only problem. I realize it may be nigh impossible to get that factor in mathematically, but it really should be on everyone's minds when considering the heat debate.

The thing is, we're not using heat neutral ERPPCs (at max RoF) as the goal. You'll note that I didn't change the ERPPC one lick. It STILL takes 43.333 tons of single heat sinks to render an ERPPC heat neutral at max RoF under my changes.

It's just that, with my changes above, the Gauss is putting out 2 DPS at heat neutral max RoF instead of 3.75. To get the ERPPC to output an average 2 DPS you have to get it's average rate of fire to once every 5 seconds (twice that of TT, BTW) and to do that you need 26 single heat sinks (or 13 doubles). That's a 33 ton, 29 critical investment for the singles... or a twenty ton, 42 critical investment for doubles. In short, you get ONE heat neutral ErPPC at a RoF of once every 5 seconds on any given mech. Two Gauss is easier to fit (See Gaussapult).

Edited by Vapor Trail, 09 November 2012 - 03:23 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Aym, on 09 November 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

I like your OP, I really do. However your post comparing the tonnage/bulk of the ER PPC to the Gauss rifle keeps trying the idea of a 'heat neutral' er ppc. I think it's clear the Dev Team is not interested in 'heat neutral' builds except for maybe all-gauss configurations (which again I think are a problem). At no reasonable point do you really need the ER PPC to be heat neutral, you need to be able to fire a reasonable amount of shots during an engagement accounting for times you WILL be dodging either by twisting away from your opponent or actively using cover. If you are not doing this then the heat of the ER PPC is not your only problem. I realize it may be nigh impossible to get that factor in mathematically, but it really should be on everyone's minds when considering the heat debate.

A single ER PPC made "heat neutral" is no t the same as an entire mech being heat neutral.

ALso, contrary to what PGI seems to think, heat neutral configs are not some evil boogeyman that make the game easy mode, and we will need to hammer this into them until they get it. A heat neutral config is not an optimal configuration - if you're heat neutral, that means you can shoot for an amount of time you never need, in exchange for losing damage in the short time that you really would have needed to kill an enemy before he kills you.

Finding the right balance between building your mech as heat neutral and overheating within 6 seconds is the goal.

And, to say it again - the high heat capacity MW:O gives us actually makes alpha strikes - which can be the worst offenders on deadly, short term damage output - very easy, while the low dissipation mostly punishes mechs with high heat weapons without necessarily reducing the potential DPS of any mechs... If an ER Laser is too hot, who cares, take a Gauss Rifle or AC/5, more DPS, more sustained fire due to less heat.

[Kmieciu]

I doubt the Devs are going to introduce major changes to the weapons. Last patch we got heat reduction for AC20 (7->6). That alone reduced the weight of a heat neutral the weapon system (weapon+heatsinks) by 1,5 tonnes.
AC20 now needs 15 heat sinks to be heat neutral. So a Hunchback with AC20 and 8 DHS can shoot it non-stop. I like that.

In my opinion the Gauss needs a slightly longer recycle delay (4->6 seconds?). It should be used as a long range weapon. AC20 should be the undisputed king of "in your face" urban fighting.

The only other change we need is to increase the ammo per tonne. Right now we operate with 2xTT armor 1.5xammo. To make the trial mechs viable, we need the 2xTT ammo.

Edited by Kmieciu, 09 November 2012 - 03:34 AM.