47 replies to this topic

[General Taskeen]

SkyCake, on 13 April 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

That sucks... I always suspected this... should be fixed our at least explained by pgi

Fixed in what way?

The PPC of canon also had a field inhibitor, which would be an interesting function if it was actually put into the game. I.E., firing a PPC in min-range for full damage with risk of weapon explosion or Mech damage when the Field Inhibitor is switched to 'Off.'

[Thomas Dziegielewski]

It's linear.

Testing grounds yes? It has issues.

[TruePoindexter]

Thomas Dziegielewski, on 13 April 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

It's linear.

Testing grounds yes? It has issues.

Also are weapon firing points on the same plane as the camera in the cockpit? This could lead to a variance from the weapon's firing point to target vs the cockpit camera's point of view. Just a few meters can have a dramatic effect on damage output when the linear ramp is so narrow. I suspect in this case it's just Testing Grounds being odd but I have wondered at the difference between the hud's range finder and the actual travel distance of the shot.

[RockWolf]

Ok here is why the shot damages were not linear. The distances weren't!!!


It is a quick sketch and simplified with rectangular triangles. You have to think that you actually measuring distances from your cockpit. The further you are away from the opponent, the lower the difference is between the readings and the weapons range.
Another aspect is the height of the target. If the target is lower than your straight(with the horizon) line of sight, the its the opposite effect, you are overestimating. Just my food for thought.

Edited by RockWolf, 13 April 2013 - 08:26 PM.

[Lefty Lucy]

Thomas Dziegielewski, on 13 April 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

It's linear.

Testing grounds yes? It has issues.

The Devs also said that testing grounds had issues when people were reporting missile damage that was out of wack. Then it was found that splash damage was incorrectly multiplying missile damage.

I'm pretty sure that damage is spot-on in training grounds.

[TruePoindexter]

RockWolf, on 13 April 2013 - 08:17 PM, said:

Ok here is why the shot damages were not linear. The distances weren't!!!


It is a quick sketch and simplified with rectangular triangles. You have to think that you actually measuring distances from your cockpit. The further you are away from the opponent, the lower the difference is between the readings and the weapons range.
Another aspect is the height of the target. If the target is lower than your straight(with the horizon) line of sight, the its the opposite effect, you are overestimating. Just my food for thought.

Thank you for illustrating what I was describing. Damage is calculated off the distance the projectile travels not the distance from the shooter to the target. These are two desperate numbers making it insufficient to use the range on the HUD for calculations.

[aniviron]

AnubiteGroove, on 13 April 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

I also find number crunching mid-battle to not be an issue. It's as simple as "I am this far, he is that weak, I have this heat level, is it worth it?"

But it's good to know how much damage you do at what range- if this thread discovers you do five damage at 60m and one at 30m, that's very useful information when you're actually in combat- it means firing at 60 is probably worth it if they're low or you're out of options, and firing at 30 is essentially never worth it, time to see if you can maneuver.

[Lefty Lucy]

OK: live server test with the help of NefariousParable. Using a CTF-3D so the PPC mounts were at the same height as my cockpit and same forward projection, firing at the full-armored right arm of a DRG-1C (40 armor, 20 internal).

Firing at 45 meters with no vertical declination, it took 12 salvos of 2 PPCs (24 total hits) to destroy the arm. Zero damage was transferred to the torso. This means that each shot was doing exactly 2.5 damage.

This fits with a non-linear damage drop off. In fact I'd be willing to bet that the actual damage drop off is 10*(x/90)^2 where x is the range to the target in meters considering Sobakasu's previous testing.

[aniviron]

RockWolf, on 13 April 2013 - 08:17 PM, said:

Why do you have to perpetuate these violent cataphract-on-atlas stereotypes!?

[stjobe]

I decided to test this, so I stuck a PPC on one of my Commandos and headed for the training grounds.

The method I used was this:
* Stand 90m from a fresh 'mech
* Fire the PPC once into its CT
* Note down the health percentage readout
* Move forwards 10m
* Repeat from step 2.

First 'mech I saw was a COM-1B (128 armour + 85 IS = 223 health)
90m: 95% (11.15 damage)
80m: 91% (8.92 damage)
70m: 89% (4.46 damage)
60m: 87% (4.46 damage)
50m: 85% (4.46 damage)
40m: Poor thing died on me, so I went to look for a more well-armoured CT.

I found a CN9-A (272 armour + 175 IS = 447 health):
90m: 97% (13.41 damage)
80m: 95% (8.94 damage)
70m: 94% (4.47 damage)
60m: 93% (4.47 damage)
50m: 92% (4.47 damage)
40m: had to take two shots to get to 91% = about 2.2 damage/shot
30m: 4 shots to get to 90% = about 1.1 damage/shot
20m: 9 shots to get to 89% = about 0.5 damage/shot
10m: 29 shots to get to 88% = about 0.15 damage/shot

Plotting those numbers into a graph, this is what I get (red is Commando, blue is Cent):



Doesn't look very linear to me. Although plotting the health percentages instead of the calculated damage done makes it look way more linear:



But that is probably a fault with my methodology; of course it's going to be linear as I only shot until I got a percent reduction, and in the CN9-A's case, that would be a single percent per 10m distance. The percentage graph doesn't take into account that under 50 meters I needed multiple shots to affect a single percentage change.

Edited by stjobe, 14 April 2013 - 02:50 AM.

[Tykelau]

This is great stuff. Knowing the mechanics of the game is part of the fun for me, and I do find this information comes in handy on the fly (in battle).

Though I do constantly check the distance of enemy mechs (and friendlies! though only using Q and the minimap, since I am not aiming at them...) using the range finder, Q, and the minimap during a firefight. The amount of info you can get doing this is crazy, and it can be the difference between a win and a loss.

And yes, I have trypants on.

Edited by Tykelau, 14 April 2013 - 02:56 AM.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Lefty Lucy, on 13 April 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

The Devs also said that testing grounds had issues when people were reporting missile damage that was out of wack. Then it was found that splash damage was incorrectly multiplying missile damage.

I'm pretty sure that damage is spot-on in training grounds.

While damage may be spot on (and I think you are correct about that), that does not mean that the range calculations or damage to range calculations are working correctly.

With the missile damage problem we were not dealing with a weapon system that has damage drop off based on range, so the problem with PPCs may be related to that game mechanic and not a basic damage problem.

That said, it is interesting to see your results and I think more testing would be a good thing. Have you considered trying to do this in the live game? (I can only imagine how difficult focused testing is while having 15 others in a game with you)

[Dagada]

Tickdoff Tank, on 14 April 2013 - 04:49 AM, said:

That said, it is interesting to see your results and I think more testing would be a good thing. Have you considered trying to do this in the live game? (I can only imagine how difficult focused testing is while having 15 others in a game with you)

he did.... against a dragon.... numbers where very similar to testing grounds... just like in the missile tests

Thomas Dziegielewski, on 13 April 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

It's linear.

Testing grounds yes? It has issues.

Thomas can you do the same kinda test you guys did with the srm missile test and post screen shots for us skeptical ********... only you and those of your kind have the magical powers of dev tools to show true dmg on paper dolls.

[Coolant]

Taemien, on 13 April 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

They did, PPCs do reduced damages under 90m. You don't need to know much more than that. You can run the tests for kicks and giggles. But in the end, no one is going to run calculations in their mind saying, "I'm 60 meters away and can deal 5.69 damage right now..." Especially not on a live server.

I know I very rarely even look how far away I am from my target, letting my feel for the weapons I'm using determine if I'm doing adequate damage. As in I can tell when I'm within 450, 270, 180, and 90 meters.

Kudos to the OP for taking the time to run the tests, but anyone using this as evidence in a case to get PGI to say something to make them feel better about themselves is just wasting their time.

Don't need to know much more than that? Really? Any kind of testing provides useful results even if YOU don't see the benefits. For me, it helps me weigh the use of taking a PPC or ERPPC for certain situations or builds. I like to know all the details or at least as much as can be made known in order to build the most optimum config. But, hey, guess you like guessing...

[Soy]

Tykelau, on 14 April 2013 - 02:55 AM, said:

This is great stuff. Knowing the mechanics of the game is part of the fun for me, and I do find this information comes in handy on the fly (in battle).

Yes, thanks guys for this info.

[Lefty Lucy]

Tickdoff Tank, on 14 April 2013 - 04:49 AM, said:

While damage may be spot on (and I think you are correct about that), that does not mean that the range calculations or damage to range calculations are working correctly.

With the missile damage problem we were not dealing with a weapon system that has damage drop off based on range, so the problem with PPCs may be related to that game mechanic and not a basic damage problem.

That said, it is interesting to see your results and I think more testing would be a good thing. Have you considered trying to do this in the live game? (I can only imagine how difficult focused testing is while having 15 others in a game with you)

Lefty Lucy, on 14 April 2013 - 12:37 AM, said:

OK: live server test with the help of NefariousParable. Using a CTF-3D so the PPC mounts were at the same height as my cockpit and same forward projection, firing at the full-armored right arm of a DRG-1C (40 armor, 20 internal).

Firing at 45 meters with no vertical declination, it took 12 salvos of 2 PPCs (24 total hits) to destroy the arm. Zero damage was transferred to the torso. This means that each shot was doing exactly 2.5 damage.

This fits with a non-linear damage drop off. In fact I'd be willing to bet that the actual damage drop off is 10*(x/90)^2 where x is the range to the target in meters considering Sobakasu's previous testing.

I recruited a bored soul on Comstar NA last night, and we did a single in-game test run.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lefty Lucy, on 13 April 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

Minimum range mechanic in TT is simply a hit penalty. There's an an optional rule that allows you to fire within minimum range with a draw back, but I don't know the specifics off the top of my head.

Results from 30 and 60 meter tests:

-1B:
60 m: 3 shots to remove
30 m: 8 shots

-2A:
60 m: 3 shots
30 m: 10 shots

-A1:
60 m: 6 shots
30 m: 24 shots

Conclusion: Definitely not linear from 30-90 with zero at 30. I tested shots at 15 m, and they still did damage as well.

Actually, if I am recalling the TT Mechanic (and it has been a while) a PPC under 90m did 0 damage, because the field inhibitor of the PPC did not allow the beam to coalesce until 90m to avoid the "feedback" which would cause the PPC itself to essentially explode.

The minimum range for LRM, AC2, AC5 and gauss also was "damage free" zones, but Solaris and other supplements added lvl 3 rules allowing things like disengaging the field inhibitor, which had a chance of slagging the PPC, hot-loading LRMs, which had a chance of in rack detonation if the location was hit (Though it kinda contradicted the ammo explosion thing ), and other things.

I'm really quite happy PGI removed the minimum from ballistics, but like the very reduced sub 90m damage where they aren't useless, but are far from effective. Completely removing it, or making it linear from max would go against the canon reasoning and largely make PPCs better than ERPPCs due to the heat, since people fight at close range a lot more than snipe, overall.

[Lefty Lucy]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 April 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

Actually, if I am recalling the TT Mechanic (and it has been a while) a PPC under 90m did 0 damage, because the field inhibitor of the PPC did not allow the beam to coalesce until 90m to avoid the "feedback" which would cause the PPC itself to essentially explode.

Nope. I've been an avid player of the TT game for a long time, and have played frequently relatively recently. All weapons with a minimum range in TT simply have a hit penalty within their minimum range.

The canon reasoning for minimum ranges are just hand-wavy attempts to justify mechanics that were put in place in the '80s because the game designers felt that long-ranged weapons needed a draw back. Even LRMs in TT just have a hit penalty within 6 hexes (180 meters) despite the fact that having an arming distance would make them do zero damage.

[Noobzorz]

CYBRN4CR, on 13 April 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Kudos for being a beta tester and actually testing. The game needs more beta testers like you.

This is not beta testing.

The role of a beta tester is to play the game and provide feedback based on feel. PGI already knows how much damage the PPC is doing.

Anyway, all of that is moot because "open beta" no longer means open beta in the F2P era

[Lefty Lucy]

Noobzorz, on 14 April 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

This is not beta testing.

The role of a beta tester is to play the game and provide feedback based on feel. PGI already knows how much damage the PPC is doing.

Anyway, all of that is moot because "open beta" no longer means open beta in the F2P era

Apparently PGI thinks that damage drop off within 90 meters is linear. If this is what is intended, and but it is not how it is actually working, then that would be a bug.