63 replies to this topic

[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?

But the Medium Laser does not make all energy weapons. IF the Medium Laser is too strong, nerf the Medium Laser.

Solis Obscuri, on 05 December 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

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.

I like that too, and I don't want that gone either. (Though for truely pure ammo based builds, we need a better MG. There is a real lack in the low tonnage area for ballistics now.)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 06 December 2012 - 08:43 AM.

[Solis Obscuri]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 December 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

But the Medium Laser does not make all energy weapons. IF the Medium Laser is too strong, nerf the Medium Laser.


I like that too, and I don't want that gone either. (Though for truely pure ammo based builds, we need a better MG. There is a real lack in the low tonnage area for ballistics now.)

Anectdotally, I'd say that the small laser, small pulse laser, medium laser, medium pulse laser, large laser, all function pretty well (though I'd still like to see a shorter duration on the large laser, to improve damage concentration). It's been a little while since I used an ERLarge or Large Pulse, so I'm not weighing in on those right now, but if pressed I would say they are ok/close to ok. PPCs seem ok some of the time, but other time they just don't seem to do much damage, and I still think there's a hit detection or damage drop-off bug in them somewhere. They also run a touch hotter than I'd like. ERPPCs deliver more consistent damage, but run very hot for what they deliver.

Autocannons, SRMs, LRMs, Gauss(lolnoheat), U/AC, etc. all seem to do ok under the heat system also.

So a straight-up DHS buff concerns me three ways:

• It messes with the generally-decent balance between approximately 20 different weapons in order to buff 2-4 weapons (which could just be individually buffed instead)
  
• It creates a much bigger performance divide between the players who can afford their own 'mech and a DHS upgrade and those who can't. Right now 7/5ths DHS are head-and-shoulders above SHS to such a degree that I'm running them on pretty much everything I own. I have to imagine that a further 43% improvement to their efficienty will just make them that much better, particularly on my more energy-intensive loadouts. Lord knows my mediums with DHS are now spitting out match damage scores that look like an assault running singles, I'd estimate that on average updating to DHS and endo roughly boosts my damage output by 50%.
  
• Energy weapons are lightweight, and if people need many less heat sinks to use them reasonably they can run bigger engines and bigger lagshields on beam-boats. Until hit detection gets a major improvement, that remains an elephant in the room.

I apologize for getting so snippy. I've been very gratified to see the T1 ballistics operate in a useful manner after so many previous MW titles where they were just awful, and the jab at ballistics hit a nerve.

Edited by Solis Obscuri, 06 December 2012 - 01:05 PM.

[shabowie]

Solis Obscuri, on 06 December 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

I apologize for getting so snippy. I've been very gratified to see the T1 ballistics operate in a useful manner after so many previous MW titles where they were just awful, and the jab at ballistics hit a nerve.

What jab at ballistics? What the hell are you talking about? This whole thread was an attack on a straw man. Most people who want true DHS just want to see heat dissipation go up greatly, with weapon values and heat capacity tweaked to bring things into balance. Ballistics are already incredibly efficient.

Edited by shabowie, 06 December 2012 - 01:38 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Well, Solaris, now that you understand where my charts are coming from, you may see why I think that energy weapons are not really okay yet. I don't want the Ballistics to suck, I just want the energy weapons to be reasonable, and they are not in my opinion, anecdotal experience, and my math. Smalls and Mediums are too efficient (that said - Smalls may never comet o matter unless we have 10+ energy slot boats available... ), and Pulse Lasers, ER Lasers and PPCs are too inefficient. The Large Laser seems to me the only weapon that has finally reached the right spot. (Though IMO, this was achieved the wrong way - it's damage was increased, instead of its heat lowered. This makes stock mech configurations still too hot.)

I also don't think that Ballistics are perfectly fine either. The AC/10 and AC/20 look too weak to me. I would expect that the higher the range of a ballistic weapon, the less efficient it should be, and that's currently not true. I know that this logic wasn't followed in the table top, but there was another weighting factor in place there - low range ballistics also deal a lot of single target damage. That was very valuable in a game without convergence and random hit locations. MW:O (like most Mechwarrior titles, if not all?) has weapon converging at your crosshair, so 4 Medium Lasers are just as good as 1 AC/20. pin point damage wise...

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 06 December 2012 - 02:35 PM.

[MCXL]

The crux of the problem is that if you convert MWO values to TT you actually need a heat dissipation of about 4.2 for DHS and 2.1 for SHS per 10 to even come CLOSE to matching the heat gain to dissipation ratio of TT.

Read my thread, link below.

[Kaemon]

These discussions are always interesting, I find it hard to believe you can ever truly balance a weapon given every mech has different stacking ability of that weapon?

1 SL might be great for a backup weapon, but 6 on another mech is OP, so how do you balance it to be able to do both?

At one point a 'heat tax' was mentioned for stacked weapons of similar builds, not sure where that went, but is the issue individual weapons, the mountpoint/heat dissipation capacity of the mechs they are on, or the convergence of stacked same type weapons?

To me it's all 3, but people argue 1 or more depending on what point they are trying to get across.

I was hoping intially PGI would go a 'specific manufacturers have distinct properties' so they could adjust the weapons based on mech (or get a bit more leeway to do so), and adjust chassis (not individual weapons per se) to achieve more hegemony between the different classes (so we don't have light assaults, etc...).

But the TT nerd rage would probably swallow us whole, and I foresee just as many issues with that as I do with our current system.

So meh.

[MustrumRidcully]

If stacking a weapon is a problem, it's because the weapon is a problem. That's all there is to it. If you find 6 medium lasers or 6 streaks too powerful, it's because the medium laser or the streak is too powerful. No need for heat taxes.

Yes, you don't notice the power difference if you only carry one example of an OP weapon, but that is just because you are using a bunch of non-overpowered weapons along side it, overall bringing you closer to the average/typical power level. Boating allows only one thing - exploiting already existing imbalances. Fix those imbalances, and boating is not a problem.

[Viper69]

Interesting.

[Timelordwho]

Acehilator, on 05 December 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

At the current brawlfest metagame, PPCs are unusuable because of minimum range. Can you use a 3-2 rotation (on cooldown) with three ERPPCs? Forgot to test with my Atlas-RS.

I actually have quite a bit of success with 2 ERPPCs 2 ML 2 SSRM with 22 DHS on a cat. It keeps surprisingly cool for an ERPPC sniper build that can still brawl somewhat.

[Zyllos]

We already told PGI that the reason why all these issues come up are because of weapon convergence.

If every weapon only fired straight (but its configuration centered on the redicule) but had a cone of fire, we would not have all the issues of having people drill holes in mechs by boating a ton of smaller weapons.

This 100% the under lying issues of why everything is not working and feels out of place.

I could almost guarantee you that if we had cone of fire, all the heat issues would fix itself because then you would see boats of smaller weapons not being as efficient as firing single large weapons.

But, PGI said, back in closed beta, that cone of fire will never be implemented (even though some weapons already have them, like SRMs, fixed SSRMs, LRMs and LBX-10) so balance will be extremely difficult to accomplish.

[FerretGR]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 December 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

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.

I've been arguing for 2.0 DHS for a long time now, from the perspective of an Awesome pilot who saw the issues that larger builds have with heat. From that perspective I was concerning myself with the ER weapons, PPCs, etc. But I'm utterly convinced that MustrumRidcully is correct in his assessment of the issue now. There are two ways the devs can go, I think, and Mustrum has them spelled out precisely.

[Asatruer]

It is correct that the problem is not convergence alone, but convergence is (along with mouse aiming and RoF) the primary difference in how guns shoot from BattleTech. Without those differences, TT values would be fine. Do we want to be without those? No, probably not completely.

I do think that nerfing the most commonly boated weapon that is exploiting the convergence system (the medium laser) would work to help bring things in line with a closer balance, but I do not really like the idea of nerfing a weapon just because lots of them are doing too well, since this could have to great of an impact on the installation and use of a single, a couple or a few, rather than a bunch or a boatload.


On an aside... What do you call a group of HBK-4Ps?
An armada!... you know... because they are a bunch of boats....
ok, ok it was a bad joke...

Edited by Asatruer, 07 December 2012 - 04:16 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 December 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

Well, Solaris, now that you understand where my charts are coming from, you may see why I think that energy weapons are not really okay yet. I don't want the Ballistics to suck, I just want the energy weapons to be reasonable, and they are not in my opinion, anecdotal experience, and my math. Smalls and Mediums are too efficient (that said - Smalls may never comet o matter unless we have 10+ energy slot boats available... ), and Pulse Lasers, ER Lasers and PPCs are too inefficient. The Large Laser seems to me the only weapon that has finally reached the right spot. (Though IMO, this was achieved the wrong way - it's damage was increased, instead of its heat lowered. This makes stock mech configurations still too hot.)

I agree that I want large energy weapons to be more viable than they are (again, I would have gone about the large laser differently, by reducing the beam duration so it does better point damage, which should be one of the chief advantages of a heavy energy weapon). As for pulse lasers... they're not too bad, but I'm not always sure they're worth the tonnage increase. Though 7 MPL AWS-8Qs hurt when they hit me, which says something for the weapon's ability to concentrate damage.

MustrumRidcully, on 06 December 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

I also don't think that Ballistics are perfectly fine either. The AC/10 and AC/20 look too weak to me. I would expect that the higher the range of a ballistic weapon, the less efficient it should be, and that's currently not true.

IMO, the AC/20 is a little weak in a standing fight, but it makes up for it by being able to deliver such heavy front loaded damage (good hit-and-fade-weapon). The AC/10 is bit weak, I'm hoping the velocity increase at least makes it more useful in mid-range skirmishing, though a small RoF increase would bring it into line better with it's larger and smaller brethren. Still, I find it performs well enough in practice that I use it regularly.

MustrumRidcully, on 06 December 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

I know that this logic wasn't followed in the table top, but there was another weighting factor in place there - low range ballistics also deal a lot of single target damage. That was very valuable in a game without convergence and random hit locations. MW:O (like most Mechwarrior titles, if not all?) has weapon converging at your crosshair, so 4 Medium Lasers are just as good as 1 AC/20. pin point damage wise...

And that's definitely why MWO both upped the heat on the medium laser, and made it take a full second for it to deliver 5 damage. So while it's still harder to hit with the AC/20, it's harder to focus damage with those lasers. And, frustratingly, things like that are hard to quantify in a pure-numbers context. So are things like considering the benefit of weapons range - I think BT intro rules overestimated the benefits of range on the light ballistic weapons (then later overcorrected with the Gauss Rifle), and right now I think MWO is overestimating the benefits of range a little on the heavier energy weapons. Damage, DoT, damage/heat, damage/weight are all pretty easy to look at on pure numbers, but they only tell part of the story - which is one of the reasons I haven't tried to put together a comparative analysis of weapons just based on numbers.

[MustrumRidcully]

Thontor, on 07 December 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

the only reason stacking weapons is a problem is because they are using damage/heat numbers designed for random hit chance and locations. When you put in convergence, where all weapons either hit, or they all miss... And when they do hit, they all hit the same spot... That kinda makes weapons values designed for random hit chance and locations overpowered.

That is why light weapons tend to be stronger in MW:O than they were in the table top, yes.

But that doesn't mean we need to nerf boating. If we wanted that, we should just get rid of convergence and have cones of fire.

We just need to rebalance weapons with convergence in mind. 4 Medium Lasers deal the same damage as an AC/20 at the same range. The AC/20 weighs 14 tons and generates 6 heat and consumes ammo, the 4 Mediums weigh 4 tons and generate 16 heat. Nerf the MLs a bit, and you're fine.

Streak-SRM 2 is only deemed OP because the weapon effectively hits more often than the SRM 2, while it was actually only supposed to produce no heat on consume no missiles on situations the SRM 2 would have missed, making it a more economical and heat efficient weapon - not a weapon with a higher damage output.

Thontor, on 07 December 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

the only reason stacking weapons is a problem is because they are using damage/heat numbers designed for random hit chance and locations. When you put in convergence, where all weapons either hit, or they all miss... And when they do hit, they all hit the same spot... That kinda makes weapons values designed for random hit chance and locations overpowered.

That is why light weapons tend to be stronger in MW:O than they were in the table top, yes.

But that doesn't mean we need to nerf boating. If we wanted that, we should just get rid of convergence and have cones of fire.

We just need to rebalance weapons with convergence in mind. 4 Medium Lasers deal the same damage as an AC/20 at the same range. The AC/20 weighs 14 tons and generates 6 heat and consumes ammo, the 4 Mediums weigh 4 tons and generate 16 heat. Nerf the MLs a bit, and you're fine.

Streak-SRM 2 is only deemed OP because the weapon effectively hits more often than the SRM 2, while it was actually only supposed to produce no heat on consume no missiles on situations the SRM 2 would have missed, making it a more economical and heat efficient weapon - not a weapon with a higher damage output.

[MustrumRidcully]

Solis Obscuri, on 07 December 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

I agree that I want large energy weapons to be more viable than they are (again, I would have gone about the large laser differently, by reducing the beam duration so it does better point damage, which should be one of the chief advantages of a heavy energy weapon). As for pulse lasers... they're not too bad, but I'm not always sure they're worth the tonnage increase. Though 7 MPL AWS-8Qs hurt when they hit me, which says something for the weapon's ability to concentrate damage.

IMO, the AC/20 is a little weak in a standing fight, but it makes up for it by being able to deliver such heavy front loaded damage (good hit-and-fade-weapon). The AC/10 is bit weak, I'm hoping the velocity increase at least makes it more useful in mid-range skirmishing, though a small RoF increase would bring it into line better with it's larger and smaller brethren. Still, I find it performs well enough in practice that I use it regularly.

And that's definitely why MWO both upped the heat on the medium laser, and made it take a full second for it to deliver 5 damage. So while it's still harder to hit with the AC/20, it's harder to focus damage with those lasers. And, frustratingly, things like that are hard to quantify in a pure-numbers context. So are things like considering the benefit of weapons range - I think BT intro rules overestimated the benefits of range on the light ballistic weapons (then later overcorrected with the Gauss Rifle), and right now I think MWO is overestimating the benefits of range a little on the heavier energy weapons. Damage, DoT, damage/heat, damage/weight are all pretty easy to look at on pure numbers, but they only tell part of the story - which is one of the reasons I haven't tried to put together a comparative analysis of weapons just based on numbers.

Special mechanics like beam durations and projectile speed do complicate the math. But can be done, for example by applying an efficiency modifier on the damage value. Finding a "realistic" modifier could be something the developers could possibly be something that can be evaluated based on server statistics (for example - hit rates with weapons), depending on what data is tracked. It could also be done based on control users that you basically get into a lab and only there measure all the detailed info you normally cannot track.

Alternatively - we can make a guess, use that guess to rebalance weapons, and check how player builds change and how other statistics are affected.

It requires experimentation - but this is supposedly a Open Beta, so why not.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 08 December 2012 - 02:51 AM.

[Slanski]

pesco is spot on.

The reason Garth's Cicada is so powerful is that versus a slow moving big target those MLasers become an AC30. Perfect dynamic convergence and a low ping mean that this weapon system will most like 2shot any assault from the rear or cripple a targetted location.

The TT weight/heat balance for the MLaser assumes that these 6 shots are going to impact all over the enemy mech.

Now we are in the bind that we cannot fix the ER PPC in heat limitation without making the MLaser boats (AWS-8Q, Swayback) completely OP. If we do not have a working heat throttle on ER PPC/ER Laser output, the only solution is to reduce their heat and increase their firing delay, to reduce burst (which I do not like as an idea). The better fix would be to do something about dynamic convergence of weapons groups.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I think that we have to accept that the present convergence mechanic is here to stay. Extended range is not such an advantage in a real time game as in the TT given the ease with which fast mechs can close range, in conjunction with netcode problems effectively shielding fast movers. The devs have also made it clear that they favour close range brawling, which increases the use of multiple "short ranged" light weapons. Any balancing that is done now needs to take account of netcode issues as i cannot see them being fixed in the short to mrdium term. Once it is "fixed" then a further rebalancing can always be done, it's not as if this game is ever going to be "complete", it will always be changing.
We are supposed to be in a Beta, give us changes to test and provide them with data, if they are really bad they could have a rollback hotfix ready to go if necessary, if not a week is not that long. We have had to wait much longer on occaision for "fixes".
The one thing that we can be certain of is that the player base can effectively test/break changes far more quickly and effectively than their internal testing as evidenced by some recent changes.
I don't think that such a thing as "perfect balance" exists, or is desirable. All I want is for it to be good enough that the game is playable and all weapons have some viability, even if in a niche role.
With the introduction of ECM we now have all the major components in place, its now a case of "tweaking" for balance.

[Slanski]

Nij Van Rhijn, I have played EVE-online long enough to know that, in an evolving product, sweeping changes can make an earlier iteration of the game almost unrecognizable later. Interestingly enough the game mostly changes for the better. I can imagine a future convergence system that will not pinpoint lasers as exactly as they hit today and from that paradigm players will look back on todays Medium and Large Lasers as incredibly broken.

The design challenge is that we have two resources, tonnage for weapons and tonnage for heat sinks (and their efficiency), determining the desirability of all weapons systems. Coupled with a game mode that favours closer range assaults on very limited space it shapes the load out of our mechs. Opportunity cost of installing one weapon system over the other forces competative players into very few systems currently. If closing/opening the heat throttle on the mechs to make large energy weapons viable breaks the small energy weapons, then only two more options remain:

1. Do something about the stats of the large weapons directly.
2. Do something about the convergence of efficient small weapons into one shot SuperACs, giving them a benefit they never had when designed.

[Lanessar]

The only thing I see clearly from said table is that the Devs are working on heat, when the Medium laser is the problem.

[Heeden]

Lanessar, on 10 December 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

The only thing I see clearly from said table is that the Devs are working on heat, when the Medium laser is the problem.

MLas is roughly the same as LLas as far as damage-per-heat goes and the devs think the large is in a pretty good place so I imagine they'll be wanting to balance around that. In fact only the ERs are horribly out of whack with the PLas variants possibly needing a look.

The problem with changing the whole heat system to fix a couple of problems with energy weapons is it will also be a buff to ballistics and missiles.