13 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

If we'd try to "backport" the current M:WO stats back into the table top, this is about what they would look like (the table top version of the stats are on the right edge)



To explain briefly how this worked - I took the current stats from the game (minus the bugged small and pulse laser heat), and calculated the theoretical average damage and heat of each weapon over 10 seconds. There are two damage columns - one the directly ported damage, the other basically calculating the double armour out again (effectively halving all damage values).

[MCXL]

I feel almost inspirational, but I know you had to be working on this before I posted ;3

Great minds bro.

I added links to your threads at the end of mine, because your info is solid, and I LIKE YOU <3.

Oh and for anyone who is curious, a link to my thread is in my sig.

Edited by MCXL, 04 November 2012 - 01:43 PM.

[Watchit]

wait... why would taking away the double armor decrease damage done by the weapons? How much armor points a mech has has nothing to do with how much damage a weapon does.

[Ghosth]

How many ways are there to say you can't double armor, and triple ROF without doing something for heat.

Ammo was added for ballistics but energy weapons get nothing.

And now DHS come out and they want to again give us nothing.

The way I see it for Assaults and Heavys bringing anything other than Ballistic or Missile to the fight is counterproductive.

[ArmyOfWon]

Watchit, on 04 November 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

wait... why would taking away the double armor decrease damage done by the weapons? How much armor points a mech has has nothing to do with how much damage a weapon does.

Because if you halve the armor values across the board, you only need to do half the damage for the same relative effect (vs 100% armor)

[Watchit]

ArmyOfWon, on 04 November 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

Because if you halve the armor values across the board, you only need to do half the damage for the same relative effect (vs 100% armor)

Ah I see now, it just wasn't very clear to me the way it was worded in the table.

[Renthrak]

I've been working on something vaguely similar. Essentially, I've been using the table top values and MWO weapon data to calculate how the weapons would achieve the table top result. I'll use an example to illustrate what I mean.

A table top 'turn' represents 10 seconds. Autocannons are rated based on the damage they inflict in one 10 second turn. So, an AC/20 is any autocannon that causes 20 points of damage in 10 seconds, whether that's one big bullet or many smaller ones, it all adds up to the same damage over time. A 'round' of ammo is measured as the amount used during that 10 seconds, so an AC/20 firing 2 bullets (10 damage each) in 10 seconds would count 2 bullets as one 'round' of ammo.

So, if we take the MWO rate of fire, what would the damage, heat, and ammo numbers need to be to produce the table top numbers over 10 seconds? That's what I've been looking at. The results were interesting in several areas. I haven't had the chance to put it into a nice chart yet, but intend to.

[MustrumRidcully]

MCXL, on 04 November 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

I feel almost inspirational, but I know you had to be working on this before I posted ;3

No, I wasn't. I had done such a post a few weeks or months back, in the Closed Beta forums. But the stats have changed since then, and I didn't know how to get Excel charts into the forums then. (I still don't know, but I know how to make Excel Charts into PNGs and upload PNGs to hotlinkabable image providers).

Quote

wait... why would taking away the double armor decrease damage done by the weapons? How much armor points a mech has has nothing to do with how much damage a weapon does.

Maybe I need to explain it differently. (I see someone else already did it )

All our current armour values are doubled. So if we deal 2 points to armour, that would be equivalent to dealing 1 point of damage to non-doubled armour.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 04 November 2012 - 11:00 PM.

[XTRMNTR2K]

Holy moly.

43,3 heat for an ER PPC. **** me sideways.



If there's still anyone out there who won't get what's wrong with this, chances are they never will.

[MustrumRidcully]

XTRMNTR2K, on 05 November 2012 - 04:10 AM, said:

Holy moly.

43,3 heat for an ER PPC. **** me sideways.



If there's still anyone out there who won't get what's wrong with this, chances are they never will.

Just don't shoot whenever the weapon is off cooldown!
Manage your heat!
This isn't COD/Hawken.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 05 November 2012 - 05:25 AM.

[XTRMNTR2K]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 November 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

Just don't shoot whenever the weapon is off cooldown!
Manage your heat!
This isn't COD/Hawken.

I think you should put quotation marks around that so people see the irony.

[MustrumRidcully]

XTRMNTR2K, on 05 November 2012 - 05:45 AM, said:

I think you should put quotation marks around that so people see the irony.

I like it when my readers think while reading. *cue next wall of text*

[XTRMNTR2K]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 November 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

I like it when my readers think while reading. *cue next wall of text*

Good point.


Though you may be asking too much... After all, there are still people who fall for the "Alt-F4 for external view" trick.
(And no, I've never actually tricked anyone - just observed others doing so.)

[Slanski]

Thank you for publishing it in this clear format. I would like to see this implemented in one of MustrumRicully's or MCXL's posts.

When you look at DPS/ton and HPS/ton you will realize that weapons are completely off in cost and effect. My completely underarmed (by boardgame standards) Dragon with AC2, LRM10 and assorted MLasers will do 700+ damage a match, because the AC2 is almost an AC20 and the LRM10 DPS begs belief.

As a fan I want to have board game DPS transported to a sim, not board game damage/shot values. These DPS values are what the weight and heat requirements of the weapons are balanced about at their respective ranges.