46 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

A while ago I made myself some elaborate excel sheets on the quest to find a way to have a more mathematically founded (not perfectly, but more than just gut feeling!) idea on weapon balance. Since this patch brought us some changes, it's time to update the old charts with the new stats.

New Weapon Efficiency Charts!
These charts tell you how efficient - e.g how much damage you can get for the weight investment in the weapon itself, (double) heat sinks and sufficient ammo - under certain constrains.
If you wish to know the details on how these numbers are arrived at:

Spoiler

I create certain test "scenarios". These are defined by 3 factors:
- How much damage you want to deal (minimum value)
- How long the engagement you wish to achieve this damage an may maximally last, without you running out of ammo or overheating before the time is up.
- How often you want to repeat the process. (This is important to get a figure for ammo investment)

I created 6 scenarios, 2 each for the times 15 seconds, 20 seconds and 30 seconds for two different effective damage/second values. (Eg. if you'd need to deal 120 damage in 15 seconds, you'd need 240 damage in 30 seconds). This allows comparing how the weapon efficiency changes over time. A mech might not overheat in 15 seconds, but he might do so in 20, requiring you to add more heat sinks, lowering a weapon's efficiency it you need it to fire for 20 seconds compared to its efficiency at 15 seconds).

The scenarios with the lower damage/second goal I named the "Low Damage Volume" scenarios, the one with the higher "High Damage Volume" scenarios.

For each scenario, I calculate how many weapons of one type (e.g. medium lasers or gauss rifles) you would need to reach the targeted damage output in the targeted time. I calculated how much heat they would produce, and how much heat sinks you would need to not overheat in the time firing the weapon, as well as how much ammo would you totally consume.
Afterwards, I calculated how heavy the weapons, ammo and heat sinks would be.
As a special consideration for heat sinks: I assume a 250 rated engine for the build, and do not calculate the engine's weight in, but I assume that the mech comes with these 10 engine heat sinks "for free".

This is a big boon for double heat sinks, as the first 10 engine heat sinks aren't just free- they are "true" double heat sinks, meaning that you get +20 heat capacity and +2 Heat/Sec Dissipation for free. Since you basically cannot avoid having the engine heat sinks, this means that low-heat weapon setups basically have a lot of wasted heat sinking potential.

This means a "realistic" build with a mixed weapon loadout may still be more efficient than the loadouts the charts work for, which only "boat" one weapon. As an example, 2 Gauss Rifles will not use up any appreciatable amount of heat dissipation, so if you got the tonnage, you can add 2-3 tons in medium lasers without running into heat issues, but considerably increasing your damage output.

High Damage Volume (Suitable for Heavy and Assault Mechs)

The target numbers in terms of damage over the designated time is so high that only heavy and assaults are likely to reach it. As you need more weapons to reach this, heat is an important factor here.
To give you an idea what you need to reach (or exceed) the damage number in the alloted time frame. (SInce you can't equip half weapons, some builds will naturally deal more end damage. The efficiency stat is calculated on the actual damage achieved, not the minimum damage.)

Spoiler

2 AC/20 or Gauss Rifles
3 AC/10 or 3 AC/5 or 3 (ER) PPC
6 Medium Laser or 6 Streak SRM (And here I was claiming that this is just something for heavies and assaults - 6 medium lasers is certainly doable on many Medium Mechs at least)
4 Large Laser or ER LArge Laser (for the record: needs about 24 to 37 DHS)
2 SRM6s
2 LRM10
1 LRM20

If we take a look at the changed weapons:
The Large Pulse Laser now seems to look much more attractive then it used to be, though the medium laser still beats it it notably for just a 30m range difference. But maybe the 0.5 beam duration is worth it...
The PPC now beats the Gauss Rifle in efficiency, which seems fair considering it has less range and a minimum range on top of it. But compared to the AC/5, it looks still a bit weaker. The Ultra AC/5 also seems more impressive here.

The ER PPC still looks not very attractive. The range of 810m is theoretically impressive, but practically not that relevant. I would probably lower the heat at least one additional point.
The ER Large Laser has the same problem. The Gauss still beats it notably, and it has only 15m less range (and that's only normal range, the max range is much higher due to the different damage drop offs between energy and ballistic weapons). Hardly worth it.

Low Damage Volume (Suitable for Light or Medium Mechs)
The target numbers in terms of damage over the designated time are low enough that a light or medium mech can field the necessary weapons. For this target numbers, many mech builds can actually work without adding additional heat sinks, simply because they'd produce so little heat that they wouldn't reach their heat capacity even fi they dissipate no heat at all.
To give you an idea what you need to reach (or exceed) the damage number in the alloted time frame. (SInce you can't equip half weapons, some builds will naturally deal more end damage. The efficiency stat is calculated on the actual damage achieved, not the minimum damage.)

Spoiler

1 AC/20
2 AC/10 or AC/5, AC/2, UAC/5 or LB10-XAC
6 Small Lasers (With Double HEat Sinks, you can do fine just with engine double heat sinks)
5 Small Pulse Lasers
4 Medium or Medium Pulse Lasers (2 out-of-engine DHS is all you need for the mediums here, but 8 for the pulse lasers)
2 Large Pulse Lasers
2 (ER) Large Lasers (needs 14 respectively 24 DHS)
2 (ER) PPC
4 Streak SRM2
2 SRM6
2 LRM5 or LRM10
2 LRM15 or LRM20

.

If we take a look at the changed weapon:
The Large Pulse Laser still has no chance to compete with the Medium Laser here: For light mechs, neither Large nor Large Pulse Laser sound interesting. No surpise that Garth and Paul love their Medium Laser Jenners and Cicadas.

At this weight level, the PPC is highly competitive with other weapons ints range bracket. I would strongly recommend against using ballistics other than the UAC/5 now on light mechs.

The ER Large Laser and ER PPC don't really look any more attractive here than they do for the heavier firepower loadouts.

---

The underlying spreadsheets can be found here on GoogleDocs: https://docs.google....cXc&usp=sharing
You will need to export or copy them in your own document to edit them. Unfortunately I have not yet included the charts themselves, only the underlying math.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 06 February 2013 - 01:53 PM.

[Dracol]

Nice work. In game, the tweak made an erppc spider over heat at an annoying rate. Post patch, it has become a less cumbersome weapon to utilize with minimal overheating issues.

[Zyllos]

While the changes in heat for the weapons are welcomed, their implementation was incorrectly applied.

ER versions of weaponry are not as powerful in MWO as they are in CBT. The reasons are due to how CBT weapons factored minimum/maximum range Ballistic Skill modifiers. Having that extra range usually ment that you did not have penalties for the majority of the ranges, thus made your shot easier to hit.

But in MWO, that extra range actually increases the difficulty to hit the target. The only advantage that ER weaponry bring to the game is a way to deal damage at greater distances at the expence of greater heat.

I think they need to think more about the advantage of extra range in direct fire weaponry. While lasers have hitscan properties, the extra range will still allow for more spread/missing just due to the nature of the game.

I personally think the Large Pulse Laser was given a bit too much of a buff, but time will tell, I guess.

Edited by Zyllos, 06 February 2013 - 02:09 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

ERLL should have an even shorter burn time to take into account the bonuses in BT you get from extra range in regards to accuracy at ALL ranges. This was a part of the heat and weight etc balance equation that is not represented in MWO.

if the ERLL had a shorter burn time at long range you would put more damage into a single location and at shorter range the same. IT would be a high heat but much more accurate weapon as it was suppose to be.

the ERPPC though ... well, i dont know how to simulate that. Maybe larger maps will make extreme range shooting more beneficial?

[Zyllos]

Asmudius Heng, on 06 February 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

ERLL should have an even shorter burn time to take into account the bonuses in BT you get from extra range in regards to accuracy at ALL ranges. This was a part of the heat and weight etc balance equation that is not represented in MWO.

if the ERLL had a shorter burn time at long range you would put more damage into a single location and at shorter range the same. IT would be a high heat but much more accurate weapon as it was suppose to be.

the ERPPC though ... well, i dont know how to simulate that. Maybe larger maps will make extreme range shooting more beneficial?

So, maybe ER lasers need a smaller beam time (maybe even the ER PPC needs a faster projectile?) to add to the accuracy at greater ranges?

I could go along with that. Currently, the Large Laser and ER Large Laser have the same beam time, of 1.0s. Maybe the ER Large Laser should be 0.75s? Of course, this will make the weapon deadlier up close but it does produce quite a bit of heat so that might not be an issue.

I think this is a good suggestion for ER weaponry.

[Sean Casey]

I think large lasers and small lasers should exchange burn times. It would more accurately reflect the lower "to hit" rolls at short range that the LL's and ER LLAS had in TT, and somewhat reduce the effects of boating SLAS with less skilled players, perhaps even allowing a return to their original heat values.

I find I do more damage with pulse lasers with the same amount of shots simply because their short burn time means more damage on target, and because of this I find with regular lasers I do more damage with MLAS than LLAS with the same number of shots because much of the LLAS beam misses compared to with MLAS.

Guess that is why I tend to like ballastic mechs, if you hit, you do full damage in one blast.

[Dracol]

Although it's a corner case, the spider can utilize the xtra range of the erppc. Shooting across forest to hit enemies leaving their base is always fun, but only if you can do actual damage.

[Vapor Trail]

I'm with the people that think that the LPL should have an incredibly short (.25-.33 second) burn time... while the medium and small are longer. (from .5 to up to about .75 seconds).

I'm still wondering what reason there is to take a small pulse over a medium laser.

[Asmudius Heng]

Zyllos, on 06 February 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

So, maybe ER lasers need a smaller beam time (maybe even the ER PPC needs a faster projectile?) to add to the accuracy at greater ranges?

I could go along with that. Currently, the Large Laser and ER Large Laser have the same beam time, of 1.0s. Maybe the ER Large Laser should be 0.75s? Of course, this will make the weapon deadlier up close but it does produce quite a bit of heat so that might not be an issue.

I think this is a good suggestion for ER weaponry.

Thanks - you have the idea - i think 0.75 would probably be good - i dont think that will break anything but it would be an advantage especially hitting faster mechs at long range for better damage.

Extra speed on the ERPPC maybe - its the only thing i can think of that would mean an accuracy buff in a real time game. this also models the ACs as the longer range the AC the faster it is which models that accuracy bonus of longer range weapons in BT quite well. the AC20 being the slowest.

So maybe thats not a bad option.

[stjobe]

I cry when you put the numbers for the MG and the Small Laser side by side like that. It really shows how badly the MG needs not a silly crit buff, but a substantial (x2/x3) damage buff.

[Vassago Rain]

Vapor Trail, on 06 February 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

I'm with the people that think that the LPL should have an incredibly short (.25-.33 second) burn time... while the medium and small are longer. (from .5 to up to about .75 seconds).

I'm still wondering what reason there is to take a small pulse over a medium laser.

Small pulses are completely worthless.

[SpiralRazor]

I called this..The ER PPC and ERLL still suck, and arent worth mounting..


Alpine wont change this.

I called this..The ER PPC and ERLL still suck, and arent worth mounting..


Alpine wont change this.

And I agree that machine gun needs a DAMAGE buff..not criticals, which would do the same thing in effect. The Small Pulse laser is completely useless...as is the Flamer, still for freaking months.


Lazy *** Paul is lazy.

[Vapor Trail]

Actually, I've managed a decent build with five ER Large... Trick with it was that it you couldn't just blaze away with an alpha... Two and three.

[LaserAngel]

While I take Garth's word lightly they finally got around to making most of these changes he mentioned months ago. Stand off distance offers little in this game. Mechs are much faster than in TT and we're much more accurate shots. I do like the renewed suggestions to decrease the ER LL's burn-in time to make it an option to squeeze in that damage at range. Increasing the ER PPC's velocity is something I hadn't considered before but it would make it unique for those longer ranges.

[Vapor Trail]

Actually, the mechs aren't that much faster than in TT. Slower in some cases.

A Jenner running 11 (requiring a 7 walk, or a 245 rated engine) in TT equates to 33 m/sec, which is 118.8 Kph.

A Jenner with a 315 rated engine (possible with an XL) has walk of 9, run of 17, and tops out at 51m/sec or 183.6 Kph.

The major difference is that in TT you can't maintain that speed over terrain. Turning, changing elevation, woods, rough, water, etc., all slow you down.

Edited by Vapor Trail, 06 February 2013 - 03:41 PM.

[LaserAngel]

Vapor Trail, on 06 February 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

Actually, the mechs aren't that much faster than in TT. Slower in some cases.

A Jenner running 11 (requiring a 7 walk, or a 245 rated engine) in TT equates to 33 m/sec, which is 118.8 Kph.

A Jenner with a 315 rated engine (possible with an XL) has walk of 9, run of 17, and tops out at 51m/sec or 183.6 Kph.

Quite right once you hit the speed cap wall. I don't pilot light mechs so I rarely hit it. Still, it's very rare to see a medium mech not pushing out 81 km/h stock unless you're carrying an AC/20. Map size only compounds this issue, 8 vs. 8., little use benefit of standoff distance, etc.

[De La Fresniere]

LPL still mostly sucks, but at least it's nowhere as absurd as it was.

The ERLL buff was pathetic, should have been much better.

PPCs... it allows boaters to fire them more often, but they're still mostly unusable by "smaller" mechs. This is because individually they're pretty bad weapons, but if boated they can fire at the same time and do concentrated damage to a single spot. Buff should have been a weight reduction.

Overall, it didn't change anything for me. I still use 4xLL, all other large energy weapons are clearly inferior.

[Khobai]

Energy weapon balance still needs work:


1) PPCs need their min range removed. PPC heat might also need to be increased back to 8.5 or 9.0 pending the removal of the min range (but I think most players would accept that tradeoff).

"But they have a minimum range in Battletech"

So do AC/2s, AC/5s, UAC/5s, and Gauss. Yet none of those have min ranges in MWO. Min range is not a fun mechanic and does not belong in MWO. Period.


2) All Pulse Lasers need a buff to justify their extra tonnage. Pulse Lasers should either do bonus damage within half their max range OR Pulse Lasers should get triple the absolute max range instead of double for purposes of damage dropoff. Either of those traits would portray Pulse Lasers as being more accurate than standard Lasers.


3) ER Large Lasers still generate way too much heat. I believe the correct amount of heat for an ER Large Laser is somewhere around 8.5 or 9.0.

Quote

The major difference is that in TT you can't maintain that speed over terrain. Turning, changing elevation, woods, rough, water, etc., all slow you down.

Correct. Range means a lot less in MWO because youre not slowed down nearly as much by turning or terrain. So even though the MWO maps may be the same relative size as the four mapsheets put together in Battletech, the maps in MWO still feel a lot smaller because terrain is much easier to traverse. Whereas in Battletech traveling over a minor elevation, light woods, or even the shallowest of water will effectively halve your movement speed.

Edited by Khobai, 06 February 2013 - 04:20 PM.

[One Medic Army]

Well, these days I'd use an ERPPC in place of an AC/10 on a light/medium/heavy mech.
But the name of the game is getting as much damage into the enemy in as little time as possible (to concentrate the damage).

PPC/ERPPC are still the only 2 energy weapons that do real burst damage, all the lasers have a burn time.

[MustrumRidcully]

Maybe they need to work on making terrain have more effect on mech speeds? Currently basically nothing can slow you down. I know the want to do something in regards to water, but theoretically, forested regions should also slow you down. Implementing that might be more diffuclt.

Still, even if you do all that - range just doesn't have the same worth as it has in the table top, simply because it doesn't affect hit probability when you aim with your mouse! Firing medium laser at 270m is just as difficult then firing a large laser at 270m, but in the table top, the large laser would hit much more often than the medium laser. Adjusting the burn times might help here. I believe that is still something on the table...