10 replies to this topic

[Wildstreak]

So I got this idea to test MG versus SL and LBX for certain reasons. Then I think about how some people are commenting on PPCs and at times AC10s so I add them. Also did it with SPL and ML. Here I will describe the specific method I use and show pictures for reference, I do NOT recommend doing this with LRMs as it is already known about the splash effect and what would happen if it is removed, LRMs are supposed to be still getting tested. Created this method because it shows, time wise, the effect of weapons in MWO as opposed to the usual stat crunching done, not saying stat crunching is bad just think this gives a better idea where certain weapons stand against each other.

WEAPON TEST METHOD
If anyone wants to test another weapon for comparison to these, the method I use is:
1 - Take the Mech with the weapon to be tested (ammo weapons should have 1-2 tons ammo)
2 - Enter Testing Grounds
3 - Find the Atlas
4 - Get within 88m centered on its front
5 - In its CT, there is a row of 3 panels with Xs on them, aim for the middle one
6 - Make sure the test weapon is assigned its own weapon group
7 - Get your timer ready
8 - To start, press and hold the button for the group given to the test weapon in Step 6. Holding the button constantly fires the weapon. Do this until:
8A - Atlas destroyed
8B - You run out of ammo

Note time to one of the end steps.
Save screenshot and post it with time + details here.

WEAPONS TEST
1 MG on a RVN-4X using 1 ton ammo, 5 minutes, 35 seconds until ammo ran out, I think a test with no spread would be better than this

Spoiler

1 SL on AWS-8Q, 2 minutes

Spoiler

1 SPL on HBK-4H, 1 minute, 58 seconds

Spoiler

1 ML on HBK-4H, 1 minute, 35 seconds

Spoiler

LBX AC/10 on HBK-4H using 2 tons ammo, 1 minute 15 seconds then ammo ran out, note spread is not always same as this, I have other pictures to prove it.

Spoiler

AC/10 on CN9-A with 2 tons ammo, 40 seconds, used 1 ton + 1 shot ammo

Spoiler

PPC on AWS-8Q, 50 seconds

Spoiler

I am sure people know about why a MG is compared to a SL
I also wanted to see comparison of MG spread vs LBX spread
The SPL was included for comparison to the SL and ML
AC/10 was added to compare to the LBX and the PPC
Note the PPC is NOT an ER version and is used under 2m of its minimum range

EDIT

OK, not going to post the same 'dead Atlas' pics but here are stats for other weapons I have access to now.

MPL on an Awesome, 1 minute 20 seconds

LL on Awesome, 55 seconds

LPL on Awesome, 50 seconds

Gauss Rifle on Trial DRG-5N©, 42 seconds, 11 shots used

Edited by Merchant, 28 April 2013 - 07:33 PM.

[Deathlike]

Merchant, on 25 April 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

WEAPONS TEST
1 MG on a RVN-4X using 1 ton ammo, 5 minutes, 35 seconds until ammo ran out, I think a test with no spread would be better than this

Get close to reduce the effect of the spread/cone of fire. The difference will "astound you".

Quote

1 SPL on HBK-4H, 1 minute, 58 seconds

Without using much effort, you can see that the SPL needs buffing. The whole idea that lowering the duration of the firing clearly isn't doing a significant difference. Remember that SL and SPL have the same damage per shot.

Quote

LBX AC/10 on HBK-4H using 2 tons ammo, 1 minute 15 seconds then ammo ran out, note spread is not always same as this, I have other pictures to prove it.

It's been needing a buff for a while... probably in terms of pellet damage and spread.

[Wildstreak]

Deathlike, on 26 April 2013 - 12:11 AM, said:

Get close to reduce the effect of the spread/cone of fire. The difference will "astound you".

I won't because in my belief, there may be a similar problem with MG spread that exists in LBX spread. Since some LBX pellets miss due to spread, then it can well be true some MG bullets miss also. How many, how much damage is being missed out on, only PGI would know for certain. I would rather see results without spread before judging damage. You should see my LBX results including what happened when I cut range in half from 100m to 50m.

Deathlike, on 26 April 2013 - 12:11 AM, said:

It's been needing a buff for a while... probably in terms of pellet damage and spread.

Don't know about pellet damage but spread, oh hell yes.

[Wildstreak]

Added 4 more weapons to OP.
LL, LPL, MPL and Gauss.

[Wintersdark]

An interesting read, but if I could ask a favour, could you run all your tests on the same mech? That way, one could compare directly. For example, knowing the AC10 cores the Centurion in 40 seconds vs. the Large Pulse Lazer coring the Awesome in 50 doesn't really help for comparing the two weapons.

Of course, I realise that I could do this too, but I'm surly and lazy and want you to do all the work for me.

At least I'm honest!

[H Seldon]

Wintersdark, on 28 April 2013 - 11:31 PM, said:

An interesting read, but if I could ask a favour, could you run all your tests on the same mech? That way, one could compare directly. For example, knowing the AC10 cores the Centurion in 40 seconds vs. the Large Pulse Lazer coring the Awesome in 50 doesn't really help for comparing the two weapons.

Of course, I realise that I could do this too, but I'm surly and lazy and want you to do all the work for me.

At least I'm honest!

He did run the tests against the same mech, an Atlas. He used different mechs to mount the weapons.

[Wildstreak]

Wintersdark, on 28 April 2013 - 11:31 PM, said:

An interesting read, but if I could ask a favour, could you run all your tests on the same mech?

Did all tests on the same Mech, Atlas, I list what Mech I used to fire from, that is where I think you got confused.

Did some more weapons tests with changes that have happened since last time. Strange thing, it looks like some stuff changed without being in patch notes, note for example the Energy times have increased. I decided to leave the previous results up for comparison to see.

Did all previous weapons plus AC/20 using Trial Hunchback, AC/2 & AC/5 using Trial Jagermech and Gauss using Trial Highlander.

Included number of shots this time for all weapons.

Results below, only picture is when Atlas did not die on the AC/2, might have if I had 2 tons ammo.

MG on HBK-4H using 2 tons ammo,
TEST #1 - 6 minutes, 52 seconds, missed recording # of shots but it was a bit over 1 ton
TEST #2 - 5 minutes, 25 seconds, 2120 shots

AC/2 on Trial JM6-S using 1 ton ammo, 1 minute, 75 shots, almost overheat
EDIT - figured out an AC/2 should kill an Atlas by CT coring with 78 shots.

Spoiler

AC/5 on Trial JM6-S using 2 tons ammo, 55 seconds, 32 shots, no heat when firing?

LBX AC/10 on HBK-4H using 2 tons ammo, 1 minute 13 seconds, 25 shots

AC/10 on HBK-4H with 2 tons ammo, 47 seconds, 16 shots

AC/20 on Trial HBK-4G using 2 tons ammo, 30 seconds, 8 shots

Gauss Rifle on Trial HGN-732, 45 seconds, 11 shots used

SL on AWS-8T, 2 minutes 45 seconds, 52 shots

SPL on AWS-8T, 2 minutes 35 seconds, 53 shots

ML on AWS-8T, 2 minutes 12 seconds, 32 shots

MPL on an AWS-8T, 1 minute 40 seconds, 26 shots

LL on AWS-8T, 1 minute 17 seconds, 18 shots

LPL on AWS-8T, 1 minute 5 seconds, 16 shots

PPC on AWS-8T, 1 minute 5 seconds, 16 shots

ERPPC on AWS-8T, 1 minute 5 seconds, 16 shots

Conclusions

- All Energy users got penalized in some patch since Ballistics > Energy except for tonnage and need for ammo.

- Something is funky about the AC/5, not only does it barely beat the AC/2 time wise, I never saw the heat scale move above 0% on the Tourmaline test ground but the AC/2 in the same place nearly went Overheat. Never had heat problems on any other weapon and they registered heat.

- The AC/2 heat generation seems way too much since I nearly overheated firing just 1 but no other weapon caused this, may also be doing damage too well or need a RoF adjustment given time difference with the AC/5.

- The MG results may be different because of the crit seeking. I did the second test because I forgot to count shots on the first, 2 different times suggests the second had crit results better than the first, also did not notice in TEST #1 but in TEST#2 as soon as the armor was gone and I went internal, 2 MLs on the Atlas went red quickly. I do think Engine / Gyro crits work different though, maybe all the criticals of an Engine/Gyro in 1 location need to be hit to get a kill.

Submitting ticket on the AC/2 and AC/5 results about heat and 5 second difference, I think it would be 10-15 seconds difference for an AC/2 to get the kill.

Edited by Merchant, 30 May 2013 - 05:02 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Energy weapons didn't get nerfed, ballistics don't work properly in the training grounds. They cycle faster than they used to.

I learned this while building a stagger fire macro for my Jager. I macros that would work in the training grounds would attempt to cycle too fast in game and not work correctly. Basically, ballistics just fire too fast in the training grounds.

This is why in the training grounds ac2's generate ridiculous amounts of heat, as the already generate a lot, when firing faster they can overheat you like nobodies business.

The ac5 generates far less heat, and less dps (3.3 vs 4.0) which should explain the rest. A single ac5 will rarely generate enough heat to ever overheat, and certainly not on a Mech with DHS.

[Wildstreak]

Well, AC/2s should make heat similar to AC/5s. I think it is downright silly AC/2s can crank up your heat scale while AC/5s run cooler then the Frozen Night map, makes you question why use AC/2s at all. I just saw a match where a Jager with 4 AC/2s was overheating a lot, figure if he had 4 AC/5s he would not see a dent in his heat scale.

[Wildstreak]

Well, got a response that AC/2s are considered fine but I don't get that.
With massive heat buildup over time, might as well skip the AC/2 and take the cooler AC/5. May not fire as fast but less chance of massive heat overload.
I have seen too many Mechs such as Jagers with multiple AC/2s constantly overheating their Mechs. Think of all the trouble saved if they used AC/5s.

The MG could be argued it needs a RoF change based on time compared to SL/SPL but the damage seems to have it right in line with other Ballistics now.

[Victor Morson]

The testing ground is broken.

Sorry to bother you folks but this needs to come to people's attention. It's literally running data sets from previous patches. It's damage does not reflect the damage happening in a real match in any way, shape or form. Many guns that are very bad even against replicated stationary targets in a live match are many times better in the Testing Grounds.

LRMs even still work in them.

Please do not use any data gathered in them at all until they are fixed.

Edited by Victor Morson, 30 May 2013 - 08:58 PM.