214 replies to this topic

[AdCox19]

target lock isnt lost anymore when the target shuts down? or how is it possible that a streak cat continued to shoot at me when i shut down?

[Frostbeast]

Look into the Item Beacon Probe in your mechlab

[Gerbaum]

Wtf guys?

You cried several weeks ago, Lrms were too strong, and they did a nerf to 1.7 and spread missiles.

Then you cried they are too weak, and they did now that minimal buff from 1.7 to 1.8.

Now again you cry they are way too strong.

Come on...

[Frostbeast]

I never cry to weak. I dont even need lrms

[Mongoose Trueborn]

Please enjoy your stay. Now rolling excessive LRMS to make people cry.

[BOOMLegShot]

3 different mechs get their head hitboxes reduced but not the Catapult, the ONE mech that desperately needed it the most? No mech should have one-third to one-half of its deaths be due to headshots, yet that is where the Catapult stands right now. Likewise I had never seen an abundance of (post launch patch) Cataphrat, Cicada, or Awesome headshot deaths yet they get reduced hitboxes?</p>

Edited by BOOMLegShot, 27 November 2012 - 03:32 PM.

[Black Templar]

i am not running a LRM-boat, but i think the dmg buff to missiles is fine!

e.g. LRM20:
1.7 x 20 = 34dmg
1.8 x 20 = 36dmg

that is a slight yet insignificant buff. also you almost never get hit by all 20 lrms at once. please stop this QQ-madness!

Edited by Black Templar, 27 November 2012 - 02:03 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

There is a lot to do to balance the game, Niko...

My advice would be - create metrics for weapon strength. That's what I did.


TL;DR:
Balance still isn't there. Double Heat Sinks are definitely an upgrade and make high heat weapons more competitive. Ballistics tend to get more efficient the higher their range, Energy Weapons it's the other way around - which is what you would expect for all weapons. Range is an advantage, and so you need to pay for it in some manner - for example by dealing a bit less damage for the same weight.

Methodology

I went with a slightly different approach this time than for the first time, to better account for the unique aspects of the heat sink implementation. By which I primarily mean the way engine heat sinks work (both general, as well as specifically they work now for engines).

The below chart is based on the following constraints:
A Mech with a 250 Engine Rating is used (this gives it 10 "free" heat sinks)
The Mech has no defined tonnage limit at this point, but it is equipped with enough instances of each weapon in the chart so that it achieves the following goals:

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 chose the values for damage and time based on the general experience of this game - I believe most "intense" engagements are within the 20 second time limit - by then, the combatants either seperate again, or one of them is defeated.
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.

After all this is done and calculated, I compare the weight of the weapon system including ammo and heat sinks vs. the damage it can inflict. (E.g. Damage / Weight). This is the "Efficiency" of the weapons

For the weight, I did not calculate the engine weight or engine heat sinks, of course. (That means that many ballistic weapons may have more heat sinks than they'd need.

The Spreadsheet
The excel spreadsheet on which this chart is based on can be found on GoogleDrive.
I could unfortunately not import it into GoogleDocs, the spreadsheet broke - so you will need Excel for now to read it.

The Chart



The vertical axis lists the efficiency (damage dealt in the targeted time divided by tonnage to run it), the horiziontal axis obviously lists the weapons (within the categories of ballistic, energy and missiles, ordered by range):

Alternate Sorting (Ballistics and Energy weapons sorted by Range)

Spoiler

Ballistics
As we see on this table, the only ballistic weapon that notably gains with Double Heat Sinks is the AC/2. The other ballistics are "carried" by their engine heat sinks alone.

Note that the Ultra AC/5 Double Shot stats do not account yet for the jamming effect. I think what is important to notice here though is that the Ultra AC/5 would be great already without the double shot - and I wouldn't be surprised if the new Jamming probability and jam duration would make not using the double shot feature more useful.

The LBX-10 AC is overrated on this chart, since I didn't assign it an efficiency yet - which it should have, since it has the same drawbacks as the SRMs and LRMs - it spreads it damage around. The efficiency of the LBX-10 AC in this chart would represent you basically standing within 100m or less of the enemy, which isn't really utilizing its range, but would mean using it to brawl like with an AC/20.

Energy Weapons
The Energy Weapons notable benefit from Double Heat Sinks. Without them, even the more efficient ones are underpowered against most Auto-CAnnons and the Gauss, but with DHS, some of them pull ahead.

Very noticeable is how Medium Lasers and Small Lasers are more efficient than most weapons, with the small laser pulling ahead considerably.

The Pulse Lasers are extremely weak. The ER Large Laser is actually less efficient than the PPC.

Direct Fire Weapons
If you compare weapons with similar range, it still seems that other than the AC/20 and AC/10, most ballistics excel their non-ballistic counterpart, some by a notable margin.
While the ER PPC has the largest range of all, it seems so much less efficient than any other weapon.

Missiles
Streaks may seem low on this chart, but I am currently not applying any to-hit based modifiers on the weapon efficiency. SSRMs are less "efficient" only if you ignore that they never miss.


Alternative Scenarios
I also greated alternative TET scenarios. This is a series of graphs for those cases.

Spoiler

The first two charts are based on "low" damage targets. That means that for example you often don't need more than 2 of the heavier ballistics to achieve the goal. The damage figure I would consider kinda realistic, the drawback is that the ballistic builds here usually have a lot of "waste" dissipation or heat capacity left over, meaning if these were mech builds, you could easily upgrade their damage output by adding a lighht energy weapon or maybe even a SRM.

For the number of heat sinks, it matters mostly how many weapons you have, and how long they are supposed to fire. The longer, the more sinks you tend to need. How many weapons you fire depends on what I call "damage volume"), basically - how much damage do I want the setup to deal at a minimum in the targeted time frame.
For ammo consumption, I need not just to consider how much ammo a weapon needs in one targeted engagement time frame, but also how many I expect to have. I describe this as the frequency. I tend to assume that if you have a high damage volume, you don't need quite such a high frequency - there are only 8 enemy mechs to kill, after all.



Chart 1 - Single Heat Sinks, Low Damage Volume, High Frequency
The first chart describes damage to tonnage efficiency based on single heat sinks (with 10 "free" engine heat sinks).
http://i883.photobuc...Frequency01.png


Chart 2 - Double Heat Sinks, Low Damage Volume, High Frequency
The second chart describes damage to tonnage efficiency based on double heat sinks (again with 10 "free" engine double heat sinks.)
http://i883.photobuc...Frequency01.png


Chart 3 - Single Heat Sinks, High Damage Volume, Low Frequency
The third chart describes damage to tonnage efficiency based on single heat sinks (with 10 "free" engine heat sinks), but this time, the damage requirements have been doubled. (Which means that at least starting at the 20 second duration mark, even most ballistics need to add a few heat sinks and it would no longer be feasible to add a medium laser or small laser to the build without negatively affecting its endurance.)
http://i883.photobuc...Frequency01.png


Chart 4 - Double Sinks, High Damage Volume, Low Frequency
The third chart describes damage to tonnage efficiency based on double heat sinks (with 10 "free" engine heat sinks), but this time, the damage requirements have been doubled. (Which means that at least starting at the 20 second duration mark, even most ballistics need to add a few heat sinks and it would no longer be feasible to add a medium laser or small laser to the build without negatively affecting its endurance.)
http://i883.photobuc...Frequency01.png





In this graph you'll notice that the PPC for example will pull ahead of the Gauss RIfle with DHS.

Raw Data
This can be found in the Excel sheets, but here is one chart for the 20 second / 160 damage / 6 engagements chart.

Spoiler

You may notice that you don't need many - or any - heat sinks to run most ballistics for this duration and damage goal.

Single vs Double Heat Sinks
There seems to be very little reason to not use DHS. Unless you run out of Crit Space. WHich is quite possible.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 27 November 2012 - 02:09 PM.

[Die Quiet]

As an old fan of MW I'm excited to be able to play this Beta. That being said, I cannot justify spending money on an unfinished product to get a better mech. The free ones on loan are there to just give a taste of what gameplay is like but I think you guys went a little far in making them complete pieces of crap that overheat after 2-3 volleys so people would spend the real money to get better equipment.

This issue is really for those who haven't played before. When they log in to try for the first time they should have fun so they keep playing and go on to tell their friends how awesome it is and so forth. Instead they will log on to a difficult new system and fight against people who hopelessly outclass them and their loaner. The thing is they won't know anything about the methods and gear to make their mechs better. They will play for a day on a free game and say, "Well, what the hell. This sucks and I'm not paying 10$ to buy one basic mech I don't understand."

I see a lot of promise in this game and will keep it on the back burner. I know it's just a beta but that is why I'm posting this thought at all. I'd like to hear what anyone else thinks.

[Mongoose Trueborn]

LRMs will fill the sky until the formus are flooded with tears. Enjoy LRMs Online.

Edited by Mongoose Trueborn, 27 November 2012 - 04:43 PM.

[Scarlett Avignon]

Die Quiet, on 27 November 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

As an old fan of MW I'm excited to be able to play this Beta. That being said, I cannot justify spending money on an unfinished product to get a better mech. The free ones on loan are there to just give a taste of what gameplay is like but I think you guys went a little far in making them complete pieces of crap that overheat after 2-3 volleys so people would spend the real money to get better equipment.

You need to spend 30 seconds looking at the game before you run to the forums. Every mech except for the hero mechs can be purchased with C-bills.

Also, this is the wrong section of the forums for this type of post.

Edited by Franklen Avignon, 27 November 2012 - 03:04 PM.

[Xendojo]

MOAR PEW PEW LESS QQ


Cry me a river dude. A 0.1 damage increase and you say LRM Online?
Moar pew pew less QQ please.

[MustrumRidcully]

Okay, a shot list of possible changes based on the metrics I used:

http://i883.photobuc...difiedStats.png

This is only for energy and ballistic weapons. Currently I do not understand the missile mechanics well enough to give good advice. Likewise, I didn't adjust the LB10-X AC. I think its current stats may be okay if it can never change its ammo type. If it can, adjustments might be necessary.

Energy weapons are only balanced against Ballistic Weapons when using Double Heat Sinks under this scenario (as implemented right now - Engine Heat Sinks operate at +2 capacity, 0.2/sec dissipation; Out-Of-Engine heat sinks operate as +1.4 Capacty and 0.14/sec dissipation.)


To list the changes:
MG: Damage increased to 0.25 dmg per shot, or 2.5 DPS
AC/20: No Change
AC/10:Cooldown increased to 2.6. Ammo / Ton increased to 20
AC/5: Cooldown increased to 2.6 Ammo / Ton increased to 40.
LB10-X AC: Ammo/Ton increased to 20. (Same as AC/10)
Ultra AC/5: Base Cooldown increased to 2.75. Lowered Jamming Chance to 15 %, assuming an average jam duration of 5.5 seconds. (Leading to a resulting average Cooldown Cycle when double shooting of 1.79.
Gauss Rifle: Ammo/Ton increased to 12.

The AC Ammo Values now reflect the idea that each ton of ammo gives the weapon a damage potential of 200. The Gauss Rifle is slightly disadvantages here and gets only 180 damage per ton.


Flamer: Increase damage to 0.6
Small Laser: Reduce damage to 2.75, raise heat to 2.25;
Small Pulse Laser: Increase damage to 4 and heat to 3.3, lower cooldown to 2.0.
Medium Pulse Laser: No Changes
Medium Laser: Reduce damage to 2.5 and heat to 2.0
Large Pulse Laser: Reduce heat to 7.0, lower duration 0.5,lower rate off fire to 3.
Large Laser: Reduce damage to 8 and heat to 7,lower beam duration to 0.75.
ER Large Laser: Reduce damage to 9, heat to 8.75, lower beam duration to 0.75.
PPC: Lower heat to 7.5, increase cooldown to 3.5
ER PPC: Lower heat to 9 and increase cooldown to 3.5

The Large Lasers got a beam duration reduction so it is easier to hit targets at range with them.

Resulting Efficiency Charts:

Single Heat Sinks vs Double Heat Sinks in 1 TET Scenario (20 seconds, 160 damage minimum damage goal, 6 total of such engagements:
http://i883.photobuc...difiedStats.png


For Double Heat Sinks in 3 different TET scenarios:
http://i883.photobuc...difiedStats.png



And a few comparisons between mechs in the old and the new system:
(For this calculations, I still only use DPS and HPS values - the methodology of my above spreadsheets was a bit different - basically more precise for an actual 15/20/30 second engagement.)

Spoiler

Hunchback 4P
HBK-4P Stock:
Currently:
- Overheats after 8.6 seconds firing all its Medium Lasers
- Damage after 10 seconds consequently: 86.4 seconds
- Damage after 20 seconds: 86.4 seconds

HBK-4P-Stock with my Stats:
- Overheats after 26.8 seconds
- Damage after 10 seconds: 50
- Damage after 20 seconds: 100

Awesome 8Q
AWS-8Q stock Before Changes:
- Shutdown: 9.4 seconds
- Damage after 10 seconds: 93.5
- Damage after 20 seconds: 93.5

AWS-8Q stock After Changes:
- Shutdown: 16 seconds
- Damage after 10 seconds: 85.7
- Damage after 20 seconds: 137

Awesome 9M
AWS-9M stock Before Changes (only firing ER PPCs)
- Shutdown: 6.9 seconds
- Damage after 10 seconds: 68.8
- Damge after 20 seconds: 68.8

AWS-9M stock After Changes (only firing ER PPCs)
- Time Till ShutdowN: 15.5 seconds
- Damage after 10 seconds: 85.7
- Damage after 20 seconds: 133

Catapult K2 (Stock)
Catapult K2 Stock (2 PPCs, 2 Medium Lasers firing) Before Changes:
- Shutdown: 8.33 seconds
- Damage after 10 seconds: 76.4
- Damage after 20 seconds: 76.4

Catapult K2 Stock(2 PPCs, 2 Medium Lasers firing) Before Changes:
- ShutdowN: 15.21 seconds
- Damage after 10 sec: 68.6
- Damage after 20 sec: 106

Some None Stock Configs for comparison

Catapult K2 (Gauss Kitty)
CPLT-K2: Gauss Cat (2 Gauss Rifles, 2 Medium Lasers, 10 Engine Double Heat Sinks)
Before:
- Time till Shutdown: 100
- Damage after 10 seconds: 100
- Damage after 20 second: 200

After:
- Time till Shutdown: Never
- Damage after 10 seconds: 87.5
- Damage after 20 seconds: 175


Catapult K2 (2 PPC, 2 MLs, 10 Engine Double Heat Sinks, 6 Out-of-Engine DHS)
Before:
Time till Shutdown: 11.3 seconds
Damage after 10 sec: 91.66
Damage after 20 sec: 103.7

After:
Time till Shutdown: 24 seconds
Damage after 10 seconds: 68.4
Damage after 20 seconds: 139

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 28 November 2012 - 01:50 AM.

[Mad Elf]

MustrumRidcully, on 27 November 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

There is a lot to do to balance the game, Niko...

Excellent piece of work, and I agree with your conclusions.

One thing though:

Quote

SSRMs are less "efficient" only if you ignore that they never miss.

...for very loose values of "never". LRMs "never" miss either, by those lights. Missiles (all kinds) can be dodged by fast mechs, and the time-to-lock for SSRMs (which some people have said has got longer this patch) has an effect on "efficiency". Also, AMS doesn't work against any other kind of weapon.

It's a highly complicated subject, and you'll never be able to account for dodging, leading the target, lock time, and all the other variables that affect combat efficiency, so I'd say leaving all of them out and just look at the optimal damage per firing, as you have done, is the best way to go for a first-stage analysis.

[Neonin]

TL;DR - Horizontal arm nerf on 'phracts purely for cosmetic reasons is dumb. If it's a balance change, say so!

I appreciate that no-one likes to see bits of a mech clipping through other bits, but did anyone actually play a Cataphract after making this change? As someone who pilots one, I can categorically say that nerfing the horizontal movement of my arms for purely cosmetic reasons is extremely irritating and does affect my combat capabilities.

As it was, I could move the arm reticule to the edge of the cockpit when my torso was fully-traversed to one side and maybe, maybe have a hope of landing a laser shot or two on a circling enemy. Very handy for trying to deal with Lagshield Lights and Streakycheesecats. This change negatively affects that ability.

If it has been put in for balance reasons then please just admit it. Sticking something like this in when the patch notes basically say it's been done for aesthetic reasons is a bit silly. If there's an aesthetic problem you could have just adjusted the mech perhaps? You're worried about an arm clipping through a cannon my loadout doesn't even have!

[Der BierVampiR]

I`m very concerned about the new limited arm movement of the cataphract. Basically it makes this mech now to a kind of nova (ok thats not exactly correct - nova has no torso movement at all). This is a really bad thing and i hope it will be changed again. If the clippling was a problem then i suggest you will simply change the catapract model so that it will have a smaller right torso center gun and the arm movement will be normal again.
I have played a few rounds with the cataphract and from a good mech (before patch) it`s now a kind of disabled mech (in terms of close combat).

(sorry for eventually improper english, i`m not a native speaker)

Edited by Der BierVampiR, 27 November 2012 - 04:03 PM.

[Scarlett Avignon]

Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

Not sure why you think your Cataphract deserves to break this fundamental rule of physics.

[Ryvucz]

I've played my Cataphract after the patch, first mech to play in. ( Phranken skin =3 )

I like the way it is now, actually. Personally I find the torso more responsive to moving versus canon movement, then torso, then more canon movement.

[Der BierVampiR]

Franklen Avignon, on 27 November 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

Not sure why you think your Cataphract deserves to break this fundamental rule of physics.

I do not see any mech handbook out there which describes the cataphract as limited concerning the arm movement. If you look at the nova for example you can easily see that it has no torso movement. But the cataphract has not be mentioned in any ways that is has limited arm movement.

Ryvucz, on 27 November 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

I've played my Cataphract after the patch, first mech to play in. ( Phranken skin =3 )

I like the way it is now, actually. Personally I find the torso more responsive to moving versus canon movement, then torso, then more canon movement.

Well the torso is not more responsive as far as i can tell. Only the arms are more sticked to the torso now.

[Mongoose Trueborn]

Xendojo, on 27 November 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

MOAR PEW PEW LESS QQ


Cry me a river dude. A 0.1 damage increase and you say LRM Online?
Moar pew pew less QQ please.

You must not be playing the same game as me. Before the buff LRMs were OP. Now they just **** everyone and you can't risk moving out from cover without getting crushed.