7 replies to this topic

[Syllogy]

Suggestion to PGI: Take a look at these numbers and start balancing heavier weapons to be more efficient than smaller weapons (not more damaging) when it comes to Weight and/or Heat

After some epic long nerd-raging debates with friends, we decided to put numbers to paper that reflected the true damage values of each weapon vs. weight, time, and heat-neutrality.
What we found was actually pretty embarrassing as far as weapon balancing goes.

For example:

ER PPC = 10 Damage / 3 Second Recycle Time = 3.33 DPS

Small Laser = 3 Damage * (2.25 Second Recycle Time + .75 Firing Time) = 1 DPS

So your average PPC (with nothing else taken into account) is roughly 3 times more powerful than a Small Laser over any given time.

Also, you can calculate Damage Per Ton based on the weight of the weapon.

ER PPC = 10 Damage / 7 Tons = 1.43 Damage Per Ton (DPT)
Small Laser = 2 Damage / .5 Tons = 6 Damage Per Ton (DPT)

This shows that for the weight, the Small Laser is a bit over 3 times more weight efficient than the ER PPC.

This is all pretty standard, but when compared against other statistics, this can get fun:

Small Laser Generates 2 Heat, to dissipate the heat completely before it recycles (Become Heat Neutral) requires 6.67 Single Heat sinks (2 Heat * 10) / (2.25 Recycle + .75 Firing Time)

ER PPC Generates 13 Heat, to become Heat Neutral, it requires 43.33 Heat Sinks: (13 Heat * 10) / 3 Recycle

If you throw distance to the wind, and calculate both of these on equal footing, Damage Per Ton (Adding the weight of Heat Sinks to be Heat Neutral) and then calculate (Damage Per Ton) Per Second, you would find that the Small Laser is deals out twice as much damage as the ER PPC over the same amount of time based on weight.

Translated: (Again, disregarding Range) 5 Small Lasers do as much DPS than an ER PPC and takes up half of the weight on your Mech.

There are only a few mechs that could even benefit from this example, but the rest of the damage table is riddled with the same inadequacies that explain why things (like the AC20) just aren't stacking up to half of the effectiveness of others (Like the UAC5)

Suggestion to PGI: Take a look at these numbers and start balancing heavier weapons to be more efficient than smaller weapons (not more damaging) when it comes to Weight and Heat

Full table to follow since we're still double checking our numbers across Ballistic and Missile Weapons, but it's revealing about why people make the choices that they make when they are outfitting their mechs.


*The reason that we did not calculate Range into the equation is that we took notes over the course of 20+ matches and found that most engagements that took advantage of a full suit of weapons happened between 100m and 500m. Anything outside of 500m was usually done by Snipers and LRM Boats.

**This means that outside of 500m, even though many of the heavier weapons were effective, they were underutilized because of speed, accuracy, terrain, and general flow of engagement.

[Colby Boucher]

Wonderful ideas. I hope PGI takes a look, as it's a good explination as to why boating is sutch a problem.

[sycocys]

Isn't that kind of how the balance of heavy-med-short weapons are supposed to work? I'm all for continued tweaking, but I've been noticing a far more balanced load out of weapons across the board the less they mess with it - and that's a great thing.

[Syllogy]

sycocys, on 29 November 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

Isn't that kind of how the balance of heavy-med-short weapons are supposed to work? I'm all for continued tweaking, but I've been noticing a far more balanced load out of weapons across the board the less they mess with it - and that's a great thing.

It's not really balanced when heavier weapons return less bang for the buck. They're more expensive to repair, to rearm, and in the case of ballistics, they have shorter range.

For example, a UAC 5 trumps the AC20 in every way, more Range, more DPS, more DPT, more DPS/T, so there's no logical reason to equip an AC20 vs. a UAC5

[sycocys]

AC20 can core in just a couple-few shots if you hit your target - so there is a reason to use it. Heck on my HBK I left it on just for the purpose of knocking out lights with a good one shot + lasers. Not having your weapon jam is just one good reason to not use the UAC5.

I think things are falling into a reasonable balance finally and it's good to see more than just 2-3 weapons on the field.

[DeadlyNerd]

People fail to realize that boating of 1 weapon(unless it's an A1 with streaks) is not fully utilizing your mech.
That's when these ideas come up. While I respect the initiative, there's no real need to balance weapons across the board.

True, all ACs(excluding the UAC) need to have the same dps and that energy weapons need to have the heat overhauled, but that's about it.

Try to use up most of the hardpoints your mech offers and then come back with results. You'll be surprised how much the utility of that mech increases.

Edited by DeadlyNerd, 29 November 2012 - 04:12 PM.

[Syllogy]

DeadlyNerd, on 29 November 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

Try to use up most of the hardpoints your mech offers and then come back with results. You'll be surprised how much the utility of that mech increases.

I played around with 2 Atlas-D builds:

Build 1:
2 Medium Lasers, 2 Large Lasers, 2 SSRM-2, 1UAC5

Build 2:
4 Medium Lasers, 2 LRM 20's.

Build 1 regularly does 300-500 damage per round, Build 2 regularly does 600-900 damage per round.

Granted, these are pretty vanilla builds, but it shows where the balance is.

[DeadlyNerd]

Those are 2 builds with different uses in combat. 1 is a brawler, the other is a support. Support is always going to do more damage if your scouts are competent.