88 replies to this topic

[Asatruer]

MustrumRidcully, on 28 November 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

OR, rather even more preferable, but even harder to implement and unlikely to happen, make SHS and DHS have suited for different roles. Say, Single HeatS Sinks optimally suited for powerful alpha strikes builds but slow recovery times, and Double Heat Sinks better suited for sustained damage, or vice versa.

Without a BattleValue system to help matchmaking, I do have a slight preference for advanced tech being more of a side-grade rather than up-grade. One concern about this particular method of side-grading DHS I have though is how would the DHS being better at sustained fire, and less good with alphas work out for mechs like the AWS-9M with its three ERPPCs? Without really looking deeply at it, It seems that making SHS good for high heat capacity would make the AWS-9Q the better burst sniper, and the DHS having better dissipation would make the AWS-9M better as a sustained brawler. This seems potentially backwards to me given that the ERPPCs have the extended range.

[MustrumRidcully]

Well, the "lore"; if I can say it like that, suggests that the AWS is direct fire support mech - and not one of those "sniper" ones, but one that delivers consistent damage. Firing 3 PPs 75 % of his turns and 2 25 % of this turns is pretty imrpessive and intimidating.

But if you prefer him as a Sniper - which of the heat sinks we use for our alpha strikes and which we use for sustained fire is a mere preference. There is no reason that we have to keep SHS as they are right now. In fact, it seems almost impossible right now to balance any energy weapon larger than a medium laser against ballistics or missiles without increasing the heat dissipation.

[Vapor Trail]

Asatruer, on 26 November 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

Generally speaking I have thought that this would be a good idea, but I think the burn times you suggested are a bit high for the ML and LL. A SL that fires like the MG and Flamer makes a lot of sense, but I think that it would need a bit of a DPS buff to account for how difficult it is to keep a target under the reticle for that long. A nice quality of life improvement to lasers that I think would be nice now, and would become nearly required with a greatly increased burn time, is the ability to cancel the shot early, say require holding the button down to fire, and letting up on the trigger to stop the shot early. As it is with the current burn times I often find myself having to wildly pull my beams off target because a team mate has put their back between me and my initial intended target.

Yeah... Like I said in the next line:

Vapor Trail, on 26 November 2012 - 04:09 AM, said:

Those are just arbitrary figures just to illustrate the mechanic, not serious estimates of where they need to be.

The ML burn time there is what, 2.66 times it's current value? I doubt that we'd need it that high to balance it vs a small increase in heat dissipation.

I've done the "Blue on Blue Avodiance Yank" before as well. I find it tends to happen a lot more with longer range shots though. MLs tend to need yanking somewhat, LLs a lot, and SLs almost never. So the SL's can probably have their burn time maxed fairly easily (from a Blue on Blue standpoint) while MLs not so much. And the Large versions probably wouldn't change burn time much at all.

The only other possibility is having the duty cycle of the small and medium lasers go up by increasing the cooldown time.

I'm at a loss on how else to keep the smaller lasers from breaking the game if heat dissipation goes up.

[Asatruer]

Vapor Trail, on 29 November 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

I'm at a loss on how else to keep the smaller lasers from breaking the game if heat dissipation goes up.

Other than deal with convergence? I have no other ideas either.

[MustrumRidcully]

Asatruer, on 29 November 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Other than deal with convergence? I have no other ideas either.

What'S wrong with nerfing their damage so that, if you want to use small lasers to deal the same damage as an AC20, you need a simliar weight in Small Lasers and heat sinks than you'd need for the AC/20? (It should be a bit less SL weight than AC20 weight, since the AC20 has a better range.)

One of the main factors (I think) the Small Laser and the Medium Laser are so efficient is that they itself don't weigh much. Their heat efficiency only comes afterwards. WIth convergence, this efficiency is unreasonable.

[Indoorsman]

Make em be like an XL engine lol

[Tuoweit]

MustrumRidcully, on 25 November 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

1) It manages to deal 200 damage within 20 seconds.
2) It does so without overheating within that time (it might mean it overheats at 21 seconds)
3) It has enough ammunition to repeat this 6 times. (So that's 120 seconds or 1200 damage worth of ammo ).

I have to say I don't agree with your methodology at all. A weapon does not need to be capable of 200 damage in sustained fire to be effective (e.g. HBK-4P), and 1200 damage worth of ammo is 8-9 tons for ACs/gauss *per weapon* which is ludicrous because you simply won't be able to fire it all 99% of the time. So most of your weights are thrown off (wildly, in some cases, like the Medium Lasers) and, IMO, the charts pretty much say nothing useful (for the purpose of generally balancing weapons) as a result.

Generally, I believe that it's impossible to come up with a sufficiently detailed mathematical model for balancing the weapons, because there are so many variables in how the weapons actually play out in-game - relative mech speeds, armour, minimum ranges, versatility, aiming characteristics, secondary effects, locks, mech hardpoint layout, etc.

Quote

If you're a developer or like to pretend you are one

I don't know if you intended that as some kind of jab at the developers, but it could definitely be interpreted as one.

[MustrumRidcully]

I obviously disagree. This benchmark is better than having none at all, and it gives meaningful information.

There is a simple test for this - do my benchmarks show any things that we do not see in the actual game?
Do you for example see that people are avoiding medium lasers and clinging to PPCs, for example?

The benchmark is just one of many. I can (and have) created benchmarks for different target damage values. The goal here, however, was to have a reasonably high damage value so that it woudl be competitive against whatever is thrown at you. ANd you have to realize - if within a certain weight limit it is possible to deal 200 damage in 20 seconds, then it is a goal to attain, because if you can do that, and your enemy cannot, you are more likely to beat him.

If it's possible to deal 300 damage in 20 seconds with the same weight limit, then it is a goal worthy to attain, because if you can do that and your enemy cannot, you are more likely to beat him.


The efficiency basically tells us at how much weight you need to invest to achieve.
IF you can make a 200 damage/20 second mech with one weapon in 37 tons (with 2 Gauss Rifles, for example), and with 50 tons for another weapon (3 Large Lasers), it means that a 65 ton mech could possibly outdamage an 80 ton mech, potentially killing it before it kills him. Or, from another perspective - the 65 ton mech will deal more damage to the enemy team then his 80 ton comrade because his 80 ton comrade picked the wrong gun. But he might be matched on the other team with another 80 ton mech that delivers more damage since it used a smiilar weapon setup as the 65 ton, but scaled up for his extra weight.


Now, there are areas that I didn't cover. For example, the range. But, it should be obvious that more range makes a weapon better (and minimum range makes it worse). So if one weapon has a longer range than another, and a better efficiency, and no minimum range, it seems obvious to me that the higher efficient weapon is any way superior.

So yes, I think this system is good. It can use some refinement (and I may get to that). It will need testing multiple scenarios, it will never be perfect. But it is giving solid, actionable information. Actual testing can always lead to more refinements.

[MustrumRidcully]

Oh, and if you wish to - you can lower the targeted damage output. The situation doesn't really change majorly for example if you go down to 120.

(And the latest chart, by the way, are for 160 damage, not 200, as someone pointed out that a benchmark that required 3 Gauss Rifles may be too extreme.)