63 replies to this topic

[LaserAngel]

Acehilator, on 05 December 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

Wow that is even worse than I expected, currently trying a Phract with two ERPPCs and 15 DHS (5 external). Runs hot, yeah.

So, thoughts?

ER Weapons need a buff
Pulse Lasers need a buff
Medium Lasers could be nerfed slightly (if PGI leaves the sledgehammer at home for once)
DHS could be set to 2.0 (would still not be enough to make ER weapons with the current values viable I guess)

That is pretty much how I feel. Though as much as I love those Heavy Energy Weapons and the Awesome in general I do not think dropping the heat on those weapons is the proper course of action. A damage increase and cooldown increase for the PPC.

Garth already mentioned reducing the burn time on the ER Large Laser. The PPC/ER PPC are getting projectile velocity increases and then there is the EMP effect.

There is currently very little reason if any to run a HEW any hotter or large than the Large Laser and Garth once more believes the Large Laser is where it should be. I happen to agree with that.

On the other end of things, DHS might be increasing heat capacity to far over SHS and that compounds the ability to boat Small/Medium Lasers. Drop the DHS capacity increase to 1.0 and maybe nerf the Small Laser then look at the Medium.

TheMightyWashburn, on 05 December 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

As for 9M, yes, the stock version is hard to use. But my custon version is VERY powerful. I run at 84 KPH with 2 LL and 2 ML and 2 SRM4s and 1 SRM6 with 300 SRMs. I an a bullet train of death in that thing! I can easily take down any atlas in a one on one fight. They just cant hanle my speed and precision. Not to mention hey all have Xl engines lol

I hear PPC praise on one hand and see an Awesome 9M stripped back to Large Lasers just like my 9M.

Edited by LaserAngel, 05 December 2012 - 03:08 PM.

[TheMightyWashburn]

LaserAngel, on 05 December 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

...and maybe nerf the Small Laser then look at the Medium.

Surely you jest? nerf the small laser?
You're funny.

[LaserAngel]

TheMightyWashburn, on 05 December 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

Surely you jest? nerf the small laser?
You're funny.

I know amusing right? The 2.25 sec cooldown stands out. Everyone wants to try the reduce the heat game with the ER Large Laser and PPC/ER PPC though instead of looking at other aspects given the heat system.

[Like a Sir]

TheMightyWashburn, on 05 December 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

For like the 30th time, I USE ER PPCs AND PPCs TO GREAT EFFECT!!!. Im getting tired of this myth that they are useless. YES, they need SOME help. A tiny little bit of help. You would never stop QQing about how much I can core you with my 6 PPC awesome if they made them much more viable. I can already run 6 PPCs without overheating (alpha then chain fire). PGI forbid if I were able to alpha more than once every 10 seconds.




As for 9M, yes, the stock version is hard to use. But my custon version is VERY powerful. I run at 84 KPH with 2 LL and 2 ML and 2 SRM4s and 1 SRM6 with 300 SRMs. I an a bullet train of death in that thing! I can easily take down any atlas in a one on one fight. They just cant hanle my speed and precision. Not to mention hey all have Xl engines lol

RIght on, similar set up to mine lol. The only Difference is 4 medium pulses. And yeah, at 83.8 you can surprise and kill a lot of people...

[shabowie]

In what way is this data useful? We already knew that mechs with lots of energy hardpoints for medium lasers and as many double heat sinks as you can carry is overpowered. And that it would get slightly better with true DHS. Most people want true DHS (double of SHS, with SHS even having different higher values maybe), a flatter heat capacity (with risks for carrying waste heat which we dont have now) and weapon stats rebalanced to mitigate the problem of high alpha being the only way to play. The current system is kinda broken.

What are the developers going to do to fix the broken heat system we have?

Mechs have a huge capacity to store excess heat and very little capacity to dissipate it in this game.

Edited by shabowie, 05 December 2012 - 04:45 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

shabowie, on 05 December 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

Mechs have a huge capacity to store excess heat and very little capacity to dissipate it in this game.

Huh, it's almost like the energy-heavy designs have to choose between high-alpha damage or lower alpha in exchange for better heat dissipation, while most ammo-based designs have lower alpha-damage but can fire longer without overheating... what a weird design principle, why wouldn't one weapon type just get all the best of everything?

[The Cheese]

Give me graphs, or give me death.

[Solis Obscuri]

Ok, in the fashion of what Garth did earlier, would you please drop in a couple more data points for me, Wash?

HBK-4G
2 Medium Lasers
1 Small Laser
1 AC/20
12 SHS

HBK-4G
3 Medium Pulse Lasers
1 AC/20
11 DHS

HBK-4H
4 Medium Lasers
1 AC/10
12 SHS

HBK-4H
5 Medium Lasers
1 AC/10
13 DHS

HBK-4J
2 Medium Lasers
4 Small Lasers
1 LRM-10
1 LRM-15
11 SHS

HBK-4J
2 Medium Pulse Lasers
1 SRM-6
1 LRM-20
10 SHS

HBK-4J
5 Medium Lasers
1 LRM-10
1 LRM-15
12 DHS

[shabowie]

Solis Obscuri, on 05 December 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

Huh, it's almost like the energy-heavy designs have to choose between high-alpha damage or lower alpha in exchange for better heat dissipation...

There isn't really such a thing as good heat dissipation in the game is the only problem. Most designs therefore revolve around doing high Alpha and then either breaking contact or rotating in super heat efficient weapons as filler until they can Alpha again.

And carrying around super high heat levels has basically no consequences, making the alpha side even more attractive than a sustained DPS approach. Alpha strike damage kills the sustained damage approach guy before he can ever catch up, and a massive ability to carry large amounts of waste heat without consequences further exacerbates that fundamental problem.

So no, there really isn't this super balanced give and take you suggested exists.

PS. This is reflected in the OPs numbers where you see damage dramatically fall off once heat capacity is full. Except for the cicada which has 19 DHS which massively boost heat capacity (heat dissipation is still entirely inadequate to keep up no matter what the value of the none engine sinks), which is the real reason why it's numbers are so far out of whack, it's not filled it's pool in the time allotted for the other mechs to have already drowned in heat.

Edited by shabowie, 05 December 2012 - 08:50 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

Thontor, on 05 December 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

Need to know the engine ratings, how many heat sinks are 2.0 and how many are 1.4 depends on engine rating.

All stock 200 standards.

[Wired]

+9001 internets for OP.

I wish this thread would be stickied.

[Vermaxx]

You compared two already optimized builds that already get a huge buff out of the engine sinks.

Do an assault mech, that according to tabletop needs DHS TO FUNCTION, and tell me that DHS is game breaking.

DHS was ALWAYS better for people with light weapon loads. A tabletop mech with 10 DHS could carry a relatively large payload AND NEVER EVER OVERHEAT. All that goes out the window in a game with these fire rates.

I've preached fire discipline, but it doesn't work. There is a fine line between discipline and liability, and the heat system forces heavy/assault mechs to walk that line.

DHS made many of the smaller mechs very dangerous, but the tradeoff is lower range, and larger mechs that can belt out damage constantly as lighter mechs charge.

Edited by Vermaxx, 05 December 2012 - 08:31 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

shabowie, on 05 December 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

rotating in super heat efficient weapons as filler until they can Alpha again.

TBH, that's how I've played MW games for most of the last 17 years. I've been pretty psyched that MWO made pure-ammo builds relatively viable, really, between balancing laser duration and their heat-dissipation system.

[shabowie]

Hatachi, on 05 December 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

Just throwing this in. If you made Heatsinks 1.75 across the board, they come out to almost exactly 2.0 with elite skills 15% of coolrun unlocked.

From in game observation I have serious doubts that many proficiencies are working.

I got the same heat percentage from firing 4 medium lasers on a Jenner with 10 engine DHS with mastered proficiencies as I would have expected without any proficiencies. With slightly faster dissipation and greater overall heat capacity from proficiencies I wouldn't have expected that.

Other people have raised questions about the torso twist proficiencies, maybe they all need to be double checked.

Edited by shabowie, 06 December 2012 - 01:35 AM.

[pesco]

Garth Erlam, on 05 December 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

So much math! Do me a favour, and calculate my Cicada next?

6 x medium lasers, 19 DHS.

You do realize that that build's OP-ness in a heat-neutral setting is due to weapon stacking, not heat?

This kind of loadout is the lynchpin behind one of the earliest questions this game has faced: How will you combat boating? The fact that the only way you can limit (laser) boating is by gimping every heat-generating weapon means that so far you (PGI) have, sorry, failed to combat boating.

This all stems from the fact that, ranges aside, BattleTech numbers make medium lasers more efficient by weight and heat than large lasers. This is cool because it makes the smaller lasers very nice to have as a backup weapon, yet not over-effective as a main weapon due to spread.

MWO does some spreading by giving lasers a duration. Unfortunately that applies to all lasers, not just boats. It nerfs the single backup-weapon just as much as a 6MLAS bank. And heat nerfs the 3ERPPC Awesome just as much as your Cicada. Too bad the Awesome was never overpowered to begin with... With DHS you can somewhat fix things but in the end your game has deviated so far from BattleTech's balancing landscape that BattleTech stock variants tend to be frustratingly underpowered. And those are what you make newbies grind their way through...

An answer to your stacking problem has been expounded on this forum many times over the last months: eliminate dynamic convergence. Set a fixed convergence range for each weapon, adjustable in the Mechlab if you are so inclined. Multiple advantages: Nerfs stacked weapons, nothing else; gives bigger meaning to weapon ranges; avoids shots exiting barrels at impossible angles.

Edited by pesco, 06 December 2012 - 07:13 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Garth Erlam, on 05 December 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

So much math! Do me a favour, and calculate my Cicada next?

6 x medium lasers, 19 DHS.

You should have

Garth Erlam, on 05 December 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

The designers have it yeah, though what I meant was him taking two (to me) random Mechs, and comparing them. That it's out in the community is great

Also - thanks for the above, I hope more people read it

It highlights to me that the real problem is Medium Lasers being to efficient, however ,and not DHS at 2.0 too strong.

That's a fundamental problem here - the weapons aren't balanced. Some weapons are already too good and will get better with DHS 2.0, and some weapons are too weak and will get reasonable with DHS 2.0

Either way, you have work ahead of you, and the options should be clearly visible.



Option a ) Stick with the current implementation, accepting that it favors ligher mechs that rarely can add out-of-engine heat sinks.
You wil lthen need to adjust the following weapons ( - for nerf, + for buff)
- Small Lasers
- Medium Lasers (note: Both for small and medium lasers, the best form of nerf would reduce both damage and heat together)
+ Small Pulse Laser
+ Medium Pulse Laser
+ Large Pulse Laser
+ ER Large Laser
+ PPC
+ ER PPC

+/- And some finetuning or the ballistics will also be needed.

Option b ) Make DHS real doubl
You will then need to adjust the following weapons ( - for nerf, + for buff)
- Small Lasers
- Medium Lasers

+/- And some finetuning or the ballistics will also be needed.


As a reminder, my weapon efficiency calculations for different Targeted Engagement Times, for Double Heat Sinks in their current implemenation, and using a 250 rated engine:



Weapon efficiency here means that I account for the tonnage requirement to run those weapons through a number of engagements as described, e.g. heat sinks, ammo, weapon cost. I basically then divide the damage total for that build (which may be higher than the targeted damage value, but it will be at least that) with the weight of the entire weapon system (without the engine).

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 06 December 2012 - 07:35 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Solis Obscuri, on 05 December 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

Huh, it's almost like the energy-heavy designs have to choose between high-alpha damage or lower alpha in exchange for better heat dissipation, while most ammo-based designs have lower alpha-damage but can fire longer without overheating... what a weird design principle, why wouldn't one weapon type just get all the best of everything?

Because we already have Ballistics.

[Solis Obscuri]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 December 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

Because we already have Ballistics.

Well, I'm glad you've finally admitted your "charts" are just made-up numbers to justify buffing laser boats more. The lack of quantifiable data and methodology had me suspicious for quite a while.

[MustrumRidcully]

Solis Obscuri, on 06 December 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

Well, I'm glad you've finally admitted your "charts" are just made-up numbers to justify buffing laser boats more. The lack of quantifiable data and methodology had me suspicious for quite a while.

Huh?

The lack of quantifiable data? I posted my methodology in the original thread. The spreadsheet is available online. You can see everything. My charts shows that small and medium lasers are exceptionally strong (which I didn't expect initially) and outperform (with DHS) even most ballistics, but that ballistics outperform the higher heat energy weapons and the pulse laser weapons.

I think you must be confusing me with someone else.

But if you still need to know how they are assembled:

1) I set a target damage value
2) I set a targeted engagement time
3) I set how many such engagements the mech should be
4) I assume a 250 rated engine as baseline (that means 10 internal heat sinks which will not cost you any tonnage, but will be used to calculate heat capacity and heat dissipation, in line with how MW:O has them currently implemented)
5) With this data, my spreadsheets finds the minimum number of weapons needed to achieve the targeted damage value in that time.
6) With this number, I calculate how many shots it would require and how much ammo would be required in total for the entire time and how much heat would be produced in that time
7) I then calculate how many heat sinks the mech would need to not overheat in that time.
8) I then calculate the total weight of all the weapons, the heat sinks and the ammo (for ammo, also accounting the number of engagements)
9) I then also calculate the total damage the build will make (that may be more than the mimum, since I can't equip half weapons or anything weird like that)
10) I divide the damage by the weight.
11) Based on setting different variables I then can create the necessary data for the spreadsheets.

The heat sink mechanics, the engine rating, the targeted damage value, the targeted engagement time, and the number of engagements is basically variable (within limits, if the heat sink mechanic gets any more complex, my formulaes will need adjustment, but if they just tweak the heat sink values, it will work.).

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 06 December 2012 - 08:51 AM.

[HitmannD]

I'm also one of the ER PPC users, mainly because of my tabletop experience, and despite the failings of the weapon system I use it effectively. I currently have an Awesome 9m variant and typically run with 2 different load-outs. The first loadout 2 ER PPCs in synch fire mode and 2 SRM 6's. The 2nd load-out 3 ER PPC's on cycle, and 3 small lasers. I run extremely hot, which is why I cycle fire, but love the burst damage I can put out in extreme situations and the range. My overall damage numbers aren't anywhere near someone boating ballistics, missiles, or small energy weapons, but manage to make it work by pinpointing soft points on mechs. In my honest experience, the PPC needs a bit of love, but only a little bit so they're not OP...

First off, don't even think about running PPC's without the efficiencies that cool you down and a big engine with lots of heatsink slots if you've got doubles. Without an engine upgrade you're going to have problems.

The biggest issue as I see it is the rate of fire in MWO being ~3x that of table top which tends to favor low heat weaponry, and DHS's being skewed to favor lighter mechs due to the 10 freebies in the engine.

Suggestions (not all of these need to be implemented for balance, just throwing out ideas):

• Buff the PPC & large laser by reducing heat generation slightly (including ER versions, probably the best solution)
  
• Make the PPC cause 3/2/1 point of splash damage (depending on range) to other components on the enemy mech (I love this idea, but it doesn't do much to fix the rate of fire/heat issue nor the disproportionate small mech benifit, it just makes the PPC a better overall choice)
  
• Buff DHS's to favor larger mechs so that the heat dissipation goes up depending on mech class (1.4 for light & medium, 1.5 for heavy, 1.6 for assault... Just arbitrary numbers off the top of my head. This is probably one of the best ways you'll stop the disproportionate benefit problem)
  
• Leave DHS's the way they are, but make them the clan versions that take up only 2 slots so that more can be utilized. (probably the worst solution, but hey, it would be nice. Maybe require a module slot to utilize clan tech 2 slot DHS?)
  
• (edit - added) Increased projectile speed of the PPC so that it can be better utilized as a long range weapon
  
• (edit - added) Perhaps an "advanced targeting computer" module requiring a lock that calculates the lead necessary for the range of the target (please note it doesn't aim for you, just gives you a little dot to stick your crosshairs on)

The way I see it, buffing heatsinks is not the way to go because its just going to benefit everyone. What we need is something that benefits high heat weapons solely so that it doesn't exacerbate the issue of low heat weapons being superior with the high rate of fire. Furthermore, something to make the double heatsinks more viable in large mechs, typically having the same number of crit slots & hardpoints as small mechs yet less critical space due to the size of the weapons mounted.





HitmannD
A Disgruntled Awesome 9m Pilot

Edited by HitmannD, 06 December 2012 - 08:49 AM.