13 replies to this topic

[Artgathan]

In the spirit of investigating relative weapon balance in terms of MW:O I did some number crunching. The table below is a comparison of the relative effectiveness (a weapons Damage Per Second / Heat Per Second) from TT to MW:O. The results may surprise you (values in the "Relative" column are MWO / TT):

Weapon Relative
SL 1.98
ML 1.33
LL 0.77
SPL 1.50
MPL 1.25
LPL 0.81
ERLL 0.74
PPC 0.90
ERPPC 0.87
Flamer

AC2 1.00
AC5 1.00
Ultra AC5 2.00
AC10 1.00
LBX10 1.00
AC20 0.86
MG
Gauss 1.00

SRM2 0.80
SSRM2 0.80
SRM4 0.80
SRM6 0.80

LRM5 0.50
LRM10 0.50
LRM15 0.50
LRM20 0.50

Values greater than 1 indicate that the weapon has a higher DPS to HPS ratio in tabletop (IE: the weapon does more damage for less heat in the tabletop version). Weapons with a Relative value of less than 1 indicate that they are more effective (more damage for less heat) in MW:O.

Some more info before I launch into the meat of my argument:

• The tabletop efficiencies are calculated by taking (Damage / 10) / (Heat / 10). This is because weapons fire in 10 second intervals. Effectively, a TT ac/20 has a DPS of 2.
  
• MWO efficiencies are taking from Ohmwrecker's guide and are just DPS / HPS.
  
• Values for the MG and Flamer are not present because for MG you can't divide by 0 (mg generates 0 heat) and there was no HPS value listed for Flamers.
  
• The full formula is (MWO DPS / MWO HPS) / (TT DPS / TT HPS)

Some of the interesting findings I noticed were that relative to tabletop, PPCs are better in MWO (they do more damage for less heat generation). AC2s are 'balanced' from a DPS/HPS perspective (they do 20 times the DPS of the TT version, but they also generate 20 times the heat). The most efficient weapons by far are LRMs (being 2X as effective in MWO than TT), followed by Large Lasers (1.3X more effective in MWO). Interestingly, the values for the Ultra-AC5 make it the most inefficient weapon in MWO, but it is often cited as being 'required' for tournament level play.

This is all very interesting because it shows one thing: weapons cannot be considered 'balanced' based on DPS / HPS.

This in turn raises the question of what makes a weapon 'feel' balanced in this game?

Keep in mind that the metric I've used has one glaring problem. If a weapon was considered OP in tabletop, keeping the same HPS/DPS ratio in MW:O will make it OP here too.

So, how do we account for true balance in MW:O?

(Also, if someone could let me know how to post a table in here, I'll format this better)

Edited by Artgathan, 04 February 2013 - 10:58 AM.

[Zakie Chan]

You should post the data in excel or something similar and take a screenshot of the cells and post it. It would greatly improve the chances of a good discussion.

[Ensaine]

I'm not reading this wall of text.....learn to format stuff.... ya' know, like, hit enter once in awhile?

[Team Leader]

The first paragraph scrabbled my mind. Boggle is too mainstream.

[De La Fresniere]

Weapons have a huge number of attributes that contribute positively or negatively to their efficiency. Damage per second, damage per heat, weight, crit slot use, range, projectile travel time, potential convergence issues, ammo requirements (with most ammo being explosive as well), how fragile it might be (Gauss and AC/20 break easily), and then there's how all these things interact with each other.

It's... unreasonable to expect to be able to reduce a weapon's effectiveness to a number.

[BatWing]

Balance... balance... balance.. you do understand that this is a nightmare just to think about it??

How to have balanced weapons?

All of this Math used to balance something.. Do you understand that is not the solution? You cannot achieve Balance thru a math formula.

In fact if weapon A was balanced to weapon B, what would be the difference to use weapon A better than weapon B and vice-versa?

If weapons are balanced, why use one better than another? just because you like the sound of a cannon better than the light of a laser?

Weapons should be unbalanced because they have different characteristics. However how avoiding then that only 1 uber weapon will be used and all the others trashed?

Well, that is called ECONOMY and SCARCITY, two thing are not existing in MWO.

Look at the real life. What would be the difference between using an assault rifle, an hand gun or a shotgun?

Those weapons are NOT balanced to each other. they serve different roles. However they cost different prices as well. If you don t have enough money probably you need to get an hand gun and make it work.

You may have plenty of money but the store where you go to buy maybe out of stock of Assault rifles. You might have to get a shotgun and learn a different approach to combat till when longer range weapons will become available.

You may already own a assault rifle, something happened and your rifle broken.. crap happens.. now what? can t repair it, can t buy a new one, need to use a different waepon... sorry for your bad luck.

As you see, the ecosystem around you create balance. Money, prices, availability creates balance for things that cannot be balanced because they are simply different.

This gmae lost any balancing simulation so far. Repair and Rearm has been disable. There is no global economy or scarcity to tell you what you can or cannot use. Weapons do not break or destroy therefore if you buy an AC20, you will have it forever. BS if you ask me....

So, forget about all of this math approach, and use common sense. Actually it seems to me common sense is missing here.

[Harrison Kelly]

BatWing, on 04 February 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

This gmae lost any balancing simulation so far. Repair and Rearm has been disable. There is no global economy or scarcity to tell you what you can or cannot use. Weapons do not break or destroy therefore if you buy an AC20, you will have it forever. BS if you ask me....</p>

So, forget about all of this math approach, and use common sense. Actually it seems to me common sense is missing here.

Balancing by economy is stupid. The whole idea that something is balanced because nobody can afford to pay for it absolutely moronic, and while the TT purists won't ever accept that, they should start getting used to the idea. The game of "Mechwarrior Online" should not revolve around space money. Space moneys should be a means for progression, not a balancing mechanic, or else the game is annoying frustrating for people who don't have the time or real money to accumulate lots of space money. Once again, this will annoy the TT purists, but then again everything but a clone of BattleTech annoys them.
The best way to balance the weapons in this game is to give them all different roles, strengths, and drawbacks. Some weapons currently have too many drawbacks to see use (PPCs). Some weapons don't have a niche role (Large Pulse Lasers--what does thing do that other energy weapons don't?) Balancing all weapons out equally is a failed philosophy. Creating unique spaces where all the weapons serve a useful purpose and can co-exist instead of competing for the same roles is a way to successfully balance a game.

Edited by Harrison Kelly, 04 February 2013 - 11:32 AM.

[BatWing]

Harrison Kelly, on 04 February 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

Balancing by economy is stupid. The whole idea that something is balanced because nobody can afford to pay for it absolutely moronic, and while the TT purists won't ever accept that, they should start getting used to the idea. The game of "Mechwarrior Online" should not revolve around space money. Space moneys should be a means for progression, not a balancing mechanic, or else the game is annoying frustrating for people who don't have the time or real money to accumulate lots of space money. Once again, this will annoy the TT purists, but then again everything but a clone of BattleTech annoys them.
The best way to balance the weapons in this game is to give them all different roles, strengths, and drawbacks. Some weapons currently have too many drawbacks to see use (PPCs). Some weapons don't have a niche role (Large Pulse Lasers--what does thing do that other energy weapons don't?) Balancing all weapons out equally is a failed philosophy. Creating unique spaces where all the weapons serve a useful purpose and can co-exist instead of competing for the same roles is a way to successfully balance a game.

Good for you..

[Artgathan]

BatWing, on 04 February 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

Balance... balance... balance.. you do understand that this is a nightmare just to think about it??

How to have balanced weapons?

All of this Math used to balance something.. Do you understand that is not the solution? You cannot achieve Balance thru a math formula.

In fact if weapon A was balanced to weapon B, what would be the difference to use weapon A better than weapon B and vice-versa?

If weapons are balanced, why use one better than another? just because you like the sound of a cannon better than the light of a laser?

Weapons should be unbalanced because they have different characteristics. However how avoiding then that only 1 uber weapon will be used and all the others trashed?

Well, that is called ECONOMY and SCARCITY, two thing are not existing in MWO.

Look at the real life. What would be the difference between using an assault rifle, an hand gun or a shotgun?

Those weapons are NOT balanced to each other. they serve different roles. However they cost different prices as well. If you don t have enough money probably you need to get an hand gun and make it work.

You may have plenty of money but the store where you go to buy maybe out of stock of Assault rifles. You might have to get a shotgun and learn a different approach to combat till when longer range weapons will become available.

You may already own a assault rifle, something happened and your rifle broken.. crap happens.. now what? can t repair it, can t buy a new one, need to use a different waepon... sorry for your bad luck.

As you see, the ecosystem around you create balance. Money, prices, availability creates balance for things that cannot be balanced because they are simply different.

This gmae lost any balancing simulation so far. Repair and Rearm has been disable. There is no global economy or scarcity to tell you what you can or cannot use. Weapons do not break or destroy therefore if you buy an AC20, you will have it forever. BS if you ask me....

So, forget about all of this math approach, and use common sense. Actually it seems to me common sense is missing here.

Actually it's very easy to balance weapons mathematically, and using a common sense approach is nonsense. You need to be able to statistically analyze a system to determine it's relative effectiveness in a given situation. Waving your hands in the air and saying 'set it at 5' is not an approach to balancing. The point of this post was to demonstrate that in regards to DAMAGE PER UNIT OF HEAT certain weapons in MW:O are superior to their TT versions. Ironically, one of these weapons is the PPC, which many consider balanced in TT but much less useful in MW:O. The common complaint about the PPC is that it generates too much heat but in reality generates less heat than it does in TT for the same damage.

Also the logical extension of 'we should balance through money' if PGI makes a gun that can 1-shot-kill any mech in the game, but it costs 50,000 c-bills a shot, it would be 'balanced'. Balancing through an economy system is lasy and allows players to exploit weapons that are unbalanced within gameplay.

Harrison Kelly, on 04 February 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

Balancing by economy is stupid. The whole idea that something is balanced because nobody can afford to pay for it absolutely moronic, and while the TT purists won't ever accept that, they should start getting used to the idea. The game of "Mechwarrior Online" should not revolve around space money. Space moneys should be a means for progression, not a balancing mechanic, or else the game is annoying frustrating for people who don't have the time or real money to accumulate lots of space money. Once again, this will annoy the TT purists, but then again everything but a clone of BattleTech annoys them.
The best way to balance the weapons in this game is to give them all different roles, strengths, and drawbacks. Some weapons currently have too many drawbacks to see use (PPCs). Some weapons don't have a niche role (Large Pulse Lasers--what does thing do that other energy weapons don't?) Balancing all weapons out equally is a failed philosophy. Creating unique spaces where all the weapons serve a useful purpose and can co-exist instead of competing for the same roles is a way to successfully balance a game.

I agree. Using the economy to balance the game is stupid. I'm not suggesting the weapons need to be balanced perfectly - I don't want a small laser to be able to fire 1 KM and do 5 damage a shot. My main point was to show that the weapons we see boated most often (LL, SRM, LRM, AC/20) may have an advantage over the other weapons in terms of DPS/HPS.

[BlackBeltJones]

Ensaine, on 04 February 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

I'm not reading this wall of text.....learn to format stuff.... ya' know, like, hit enter once in awhile?

You should die!

[Death Mallet]

Artgathan, on 04 February 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

In the spirit of investigating relative weapon balance in terms of MW:O I did some number crunching. The table below is a comparison of the relative effectiveness (a weapons Damage Per Second / Heat Per Second) from TT to MW:O. The results may surprise you (values in the "Relative" column are MWO / TT):

<snip>

• The tabletop efficiencies are calculated by taking (Damage / 10) / (Heat / 10). This is because weapons fire in 10 second intervals. Effectively, a TT ac/20 has a DPS of 2.

Sorry, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but this data is meaningless.

In TT, the "fires every 10 seconds" is just a fluff explanation. The reality is, all weapons in TT have the exact same cycle time. 1 Turn.

The fact that weapons have different cycle times in MWO, throws any meaningful comparisons between the two out the window.

In addition the damage spread mechanic in TT that is absent in MWO, dramatically changes the in-game performance of the weapon systems.

It's a fools errand to try to balance MWO weapons against TT weapons. It also happens to be a bad idea since many TT weapons were dramatically OP or UP.

The important thing is to try to bring balance to the weapon systems *within* the MWO environment while preserving the feel of the background. That's a big enough challenge in and of itself. Trying to bite off more than that is foolish, and probably impossible to achieve fully.

[NRP]

I'm new here so could someone explain why the table top game is at all relevant to an interactive, real time computer simulation? I can see the lore providing a rough outline for the game universe, but arguing specifics from the TT game seems beyond ridiculous to my noob eyes.

[MustrumRidcully]

DPS/HPS is not a good metric on its own.

For mech design purposes, all equipment comes with two cost:
- Weight
- Criticals

Weight i usually (but not always) more relevant than criticals, so I'd focus on balancing the weight first.
Weapons "hide" some of t heir cost - for example, some weapons need ammo, pretty much all weapons produce heat. But it's obvious that you can compensate for this with heat sinks and equipping ammo, which costs you weight and crits.

To sustain the PPCs full DPS, you need 30 heat sinks (well, pre-Feb-5th patch). That's a weapon system weight of 37 tons. You get 3.33 DPS for that. You could reach a DPS of 3.75 if you would equip 3 Medium Lasers and 30 standard heat sinks, a total of 33 tons. Or you could equip a single Gauss Rifle, also a DPS of 3.75, but you'd need only 3 ton in heat sinks and maybe 3 tons in ammo to last you a match, for something at around 20 tons.
If you go with "real" double heat sinks, your PPC cost would lower to 22 tons (still advantage Gauss). Unfortunately, we got only poordubs, so, the cost would be even higher.

Of course, you could argue - isn't it a bit unrealistic to equip so many heat sinks that you compensate all heat?
And I'd agree, you don't need to be heat neutral ever. You just need to be able to fire long enough to kill something before it kills you. But now things get more complicated. If you equip 1 PPC with only half the heat sinks required to cool it, you might last 30 seconds. But if you equip 2 PPCs with only half the heat sinks each that would be required to cool it, you'd last only 20 seconds. So you suddenly have to compare entire mech loadouts, you can't just compare weapon by weapon.

If you go that route, you might get something like I got here: http://mwomercs.com/...nks-2012-12-08/
This is a system that considers "boated" loadouts of weapons (e.g. only one weapon type installed, but potentially multiple of them), to achieve a certain (minimum) damage value in a certain time, with enough ammo to repeat that type of engagement multiple times without overheating before the time us up or running out of ammo, and even considering the "free" heat sinks from the engine, and the complicated poordub math.
(All data pre-Feb-5th-patch)

[Calem]

The comparison is a bit academical as it doesn’t take into account that in TT, dice are rolled to apply damage, in MWO that’s subject to game mechanics. Implying LRMs are so much better here is delusional when they in fact can (subject to circumstances) be completely avoided, or the LRM boat be nullified by ECM. Also MWO things like firing delay, weapon speed for ballistics etc. skew the comparison further. My dice don't have those.