1080 replies to this topic

[Doctor Proctor]

The problem with discussions like these is that they're often based on theoretical numbers like the Smurfy sustained DPS stat. Do a simple thing and check your own stat pages, then take the amount of damage divided by the number of hits for various weapons. What you'll probably find is that AC weapons do pretty much what it says on the tin (ie- AC/5 does about 5 damage per hit) while lasers only do something like 60-70% of their listed damage (ie- LL does 5.5 damage per hit).

Granted, everyone is a little different, but I doubt anyone here consistently gets 85%+ of the listed damage per hit with beam weapons (excluding pulse varieties just because I haven't calculated those yet). What this means though is that if laser weapons do something like 60% of their listed damage on a hit, then you need twice as many (and therefore twice as many heatsinks) to reach the theoretical DPS of the weapon. This completely eliminated the supposed weight advantage that laser weapons have over ballistics and explains why so many are favoring ballistics right now. Despite their drawbacks, they're not only better at concentrating damage on a single panel but they're also ahead of the DoT style lasers in terms of raw DPS as well.

For those that think that these weapons are all fine and balanced though, I would challenge you to post up your damage numbers from your stats. I'm curious to see if anyone is really capable of getting to that 85%+ level of damage per hit that would at least get close to equaling the theoretical DPS calculations.

Weapon DPS Calculations

Spoiler

Energy Weapons
SL: 3 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 1.62
Accuracy: 59.80%
DPS: (1.62 / (2.25 cycle + .75 burn time)) * 59.80% = 0.32 actual DPS

ML: 5 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 2.84
Accuracy: 77.07%
DPS: (2.84 / (3 cycle + 1 burn time)) * 77.07% = 0.55 actual DPS

LL: 9 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 5.15
Accuracy: 79.40%
DPS: (5.15 / (3.25 cycle + 1 burn time)) * 79.40% = 0.96 actual DPS

PPC: 10 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 9.32
Accuracy: 53.63%
DPS: (9.32 / 4 cycle) * 53.63% = 1.25 actual DPS

Ballistic Weapons
AC/2: 2 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 2.06 (Higher than optimal damage...perhaps because of crits?)
Accuracy: 60.38%
DPS: (2.06 / 0.52 cycle) * 60.38% = 2.39 actual DPS

AC/5: 5 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 5.31 (Higher than optimal damage...perhaps because of crits?)
Accuracy: 60.77%
DPS: (5.31 / 1.5 cycle) * 60.77%= 2.15 actual DPS

AC/10: 10 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 10.09 (Higher than optimal damage...perhaps because of crits?)
Accuracy: 61.91%
DPS: (10.09 / 2.5 cycle) * 61.91% = 2.50 actual DPS

AC/20: 20 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 19.61
Accuracy: 63.37%
DPS: (19.61 / 4 cycle) * 63.37% = 3.11 actual DPS

LB-10X: 1 Per Pellet (10x per volley) at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 7.48
Accuracy: 80.67%
DPS: (7.48 / 2.5 cycle) * 80.67% = 2.41 actual DPS

Edited by Doctor Proctor, 24 December 2013 - 09:24 AM.

[Rhent]

Varent, on 24 December 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

It sounds like you are simply upset with a facet of this game. Thats fine but what you would suggest would completely destroy a specific player section that play. That may make you happy but it would upset a whole other group. PPC and AC are fine as they are currently. The current problem with the game is not the weapons its the fact that its simply too easy to mount those weapons onto jump capable mechs wich causes an abundance of one playstyle. The playstyle would change should you make it harder to use weapons while jumping. At the same time you cant do it in a way wich would completely destroy jump Sniping. My own suggestion has always been to increase the amount of jump jets needed to fire effectively in the air. This would limit the overall weight you could put towards weapons, especially in heavier mechs whos jump jets weigh abit.

Jumping and Cresting isn't necessarily the reason although they use the system set out below just as well. It goes down to Risk vs Reward. Lets look at the weapon families:


Face opponent extended time to fire:
Laser
LRM
SSRM
Gauss

Face opponent split second to fire:
PPC
AC
SRM

Think about it, what weapons in the game have the most skewed Risk vs Reward, it ain't Lasers, its AC's. AC's and PPC's let you do instaneous focused damage and then you can shield yourself from opposing fire and then repeat. At least SRM's have a spread, and that will stay after HSR is fixed. But AC/PPC are set up with such a low risk, you would be a fool not to equip them.

[Varent]

Rhent, on 24 December 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

Jumping and Cresting isn't necessarily the reason although they use the system set out below just as well. It goes down to Risk vs Reward. Lets look at the weapon families:


Face opponent extended time to fire:
Laser
LRM
SSRM
Gauss

Face opponent split second to fire:
PPC
AC
SRM

Think about it, what weapons in the game have the most skewed Risk vs Reward, it ain't Lasers, its AC's. AC's and PPC's let you do instaneous focused damage and then you can shield yourself from opposing fire and then repeat. At least SRM's have a spread, and that will stay after HSR is fixed. But AC/PPC are set up with such a low risk, you would be a fool not to equip them.

and?

what you are suggesting is that mechs simply face each other and open fire like the duels of old. What instant fire weapons have put in is more skill since you have to turn to use your mech to block and just not take a complete beating.

If anything this has created a higher skill cap and allowed some players to take it to the next level. LRMS are long range weapons wich offer very little risk to begin with, Streaks are designed to be shot while running past for the most part, you dont have to be fully facing to fire them, especially depending on the modules you use. The gause rifle is now a dedicated sniper weapon (as it should be) so you should be from a pretty good distance while using it and not exposing yourself too much. Large and er large lasers have decent range and allow you to pick and choose where and how you engage. The only weapons I would say that really make you have to expose yourself are medium lasers and lower and large pulse lasers.

The only true victom among those is sadly large pulse, though thats a whole nother argument. Regarding mediums and smalls I would say since alot of medium mechs and light mechs run them that they are right where they need to be since thos emechs rely on out maneuvering and staying mobile while firing. Otherwise on larger mechs they tend to be back up and suppportive in nature.

[Rhent]

Varent, on 24 December 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

and?

what you are suggesting is that mechs simply face each other and open fire like the duels of old. What instant fire weapons have put in is more skill since you have to turn to use your mech to block and just not take a complete beating.

If anything this has created a higher skill cap and allowed some players to take it to the next level. LRMS are long range weapons wich offer very little risk to begin with, Streaks are designed to be shot while running past for the most part, you dont have to be fully facing to fire them, especially depending on the modules you use. The gause rifle is now a dedicated sniper weapon (as it should be) so you should be from a pretty good distance while using it and not exposing yourself too much. Large and er large lasers have decent range and allow you to pick and choose where and how you engage. The only weapons I would say that really make you have to expose yourself are medium lasers and lower and large pulse lasers.

The only true victom among those is sadly large pulse, though thats a whole nother argument. Regarding mediums and smalls I would say since alot of medium mechs and light mechs run them that they are right where they need to be since thos emechs rely on out maneuvering and staying mobile while firing. Otherwise on larger mechs they tend to be back up and suppportive in nature.

In a word: No.

For lasers, you have to face your opponent for 0.75 seconds, you don't stand there facing them the entire time. It actually requires skills to hit with streaming weapons, significantly more than with single target instantaneous damage. I could understand why people would be scared of adding risk to low risk high reward weapons systems (AC), however it doesn't mean I think its good for the game to give in. My niece loves candy, I'm not going to feed it to her everyday, just because a group of players like their low risk high reward weapon systems doesn't mean they should not be touched. Please see SplatCats for an explanation.

[Varent]

Rhent, on 24 December 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

In a word: No.

For lasers, you have to face your opponent for 0.75 seconds, you don't stand there facing them the entire time. It actually requires skills to hit with streaming weapons, significantly more than with single target instantaneous damage. I could understand why people would be scared of adding risk to low risk high reward weapons systems (AC), however it doesn't mean I think its good for the game to give in. My niece loves candy, I'm not going to feed it to her everyday, just because a group of players like their low risk high reward weapon systems doesn't mean they should not be touched. Please see SplatCats for an explanation.

it takes the ability to hold your mouse onto a single positiong. That is not skill, that is patience and a steady hand. Being able to turn a mech to evade damage is just as much skill. So is timing, So is aim at distance and lining up a sort so it hits at a distance on a moving target. Your taking out all over types of 'skills' people have in this game and equating them to nothing? That makes no sense whatsoever. There are many people in this game with many different types of skills. Just because you dont like how those people are using there skills and it doesnt make sense to you does not mean they are not skills.

[Black Ivan]

ACs and PPCs are definitly the game breakers. Being shot a from moret han 1 kilometer with AC2 is just absurd.
PGI has to balance range and damage of ballistics and PPCs against the other weapons.

[Tesunie]

Varent, on 24 December 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

LRMS are long range weapons wich offer very little risk to begin with...

Little risk. explain.

LRMs can be:
- Shut down by ECM completely. Tag can help, but it can make LRMs useless still (depending upon how you use them and situation).
- AMS can help reduce or even negate damage from LRMs (depending upon situation and how many AMS are there and how many LRMs are in the air).
- Terrain and blocking line of sight can stop your LRMs from tracking, as you lose lock. (The travel slow. Situation dependent.)
- You can't "aim" LRMs, and they will hit what and where they hit. (Situation dependent. Artemis, TAG and NARC can help.)
- Fast mechs can actually "out run" LRMs. (They can be hit by LRMs and only take the splash damage instead of the direct damage, a problem with HSR at the moment I suspect. They can also run perpendicular to the launcher and have most if not all the missiles slam into the ground behind them.)
- Bringing TAG and keeping direct line of sight on an ECM target, TAGing them for most or the whole flight time (staying exposed).

LRMs though also can mitigate risk by:
- Using a teammate's lock to send indirect fire (Situation dependent, with ECM and AMS being considered).
- From use of some modules, one can gain a lock, shoot LRMs, and then duck behind cover (Target decay, once more ECM and AMS must be considered).

I'm sure I missed something, but LRMs are a system that can be used in many ways. To say they are less risky than other weapons is not true. If anything, LRMs are considered even more of a risk/gamble by many players in the game. ECM is a hard counter. AMS is a soft counter. Placing LRMs on your mechs can (sometimes) be a risk of having a weapon system that wont even be able to do anything for a game. You take the risk of a team having nothing by ECM or AMS, negating your abilities on the field. (Do not confuse what I am saying as "LRMs are useless", but they are situational. In the right places they can be deadly, in the wrong situation they can be useless.) Oh, and don't forget that 180m minimum range...

[Rhent]

Varent, on 24 December 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

it takes the ability to hold your mouse onto a single positiong. That is not skill, that is patience and a steady hand. Being able to turn a mech to evade damage is just as much skill. So is timing, So is aim at distance and lining up a sort so it hits at a distance on a moving target. Your taking out all over types of 'skills' people have in this game and equating them to nothing? That makes no sense whatsoever. There are many people in this game with many different types of skills. Just because you dont like how those people are using there skills and it doesnt make sense to you does not mean they are not skills.

Hey man, I understand your viewpoint. I took your side when splatcats were about to get nerfed. The sad fact of the matter was I was wrong and the nerf was needed, just not the over nerf.

It takes a lower amount of skill to instantaneously fire and then torso turn compared to getting damage done with lasers now. Try killing a spider with a single ac/20 versus 3 LL. The AC/20 will kill the spider before the 3LL almost always, gee I wonder why?

[Varent]

Tesunie, on 24 December 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

Little risk. explain.

LRMs can be:
- Shut down by ECM completely. Tag can help, but it can make LRMs useless still (depending upon how you use them and situation).
- AMS can help reduce or even negate damage from LRMs (depending upon situation and how many AMS are there and how many LRMs are in the air).
- Terrain and blocking line of sight can stop your LRMs from tracking, as you lose lock. (The travel slow. Situation dependent.)
- You can't "aim" LRMs, and they will hit what and where they hit. (Situation dependent. Artemis, TAG and NARC can help.)
- Fast mechs can actually "out run" LRMs. (They can be hit by LRMs and only take the splash damage instead of the direct damage, a problem with HSR at the moment I suspect. They can also run perpendicular to the launcher and have most if not all the missiles slam into the ground behind them.)
- Bringing TAG and keeping direct line of sight on an ECM target, TAGing them for most or the whole flight time (staying exposed).

LRMs though also can mitigate risk by:
- Using a teammate's lock to send indirect fire (Situation dependent, with ECM and AMS being considered).
- From use of some modules, one can gain a lock, shoot LRMs, and then duck behind cover (Target decay, once more ECM and AMS must be considered).

I'm sure I missed something, but LRMs are a system that can be used in many ways. To say they are less risky than other weapons is not true. If anything, LRMs are considered even more of a risk/gamble by many players in the game. ECM is a hard counter. AMS is a soft counter. Placing LRMs on your mechs can (sometimes) be a risk of having a weapon system that wont even be able to do anything for a game. You take the risk of a team having nothing by ECM or AMS, negating your abilities on the field. (Do not confuse what I am saying as "LRMs are useless", but they are situational. In the right places they can be deadly, in the wrong situation they can be useless.) Oh, and don't forget that 180m minimum range...

you missed alot apparently. The argument was over the time it takes to hold a weapon on track. When you can be 1000 meters away not even physically seeing your target with a hill in the way from people hitting you then the concept of having to hold a weapon on target and expose yourself to fire is null and void. Go grind your lrm axe elsewhere please k thanks.

[Tesunie]

Varent, on 24 December 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

it takes the ability to hold your mouse onto a single positiong. That is not skill, that is patience and a steady hand.

Being able to hold a target for an entire beam duration and hitting only a single component is a skill. ACs (defensive twisting and other things) have their own set of skills compared to other weapons (Lasers and keeping a beam duration on target among others).

This is as bad as saying "Jump sniping is skill less", but they don't seem to recognize the skills needed to preform that action with accuracy. Or saying "LRMs require no skill to use", when in fact they require a different skill set to use well. Some skill sets might be/appear easier than others, but that doesn't mean it's not a skill still.

(For more on my opinion on LRMs and skills, see this: http://mwomercs.com/...00#entry1814400 . It's a little old, so not all the points are still relevant, but I would like to think it still has a lot of good points.)

Other than the single point I quoted, I can agree with the rest...

(This is also as much in response to Varent, as it is who he was responding to, as it is to anyone else in the thread. So please, Varent, don't take this too personally.)

[Varent]

Rhent, on 24 December 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

Hey man, I understand your viewpoint. I took your side when splatcats were about to get nerfed. The sad fact of the matter was I was wrong and the nerf was needed, just not the over nerf.

It takes a lower amount of skill to instantaneously fire and then torso turn compared to getting damage done with lasers now. Try killing a spider with a single ac/20 versus 3 LL. The AC/20 will kill the spider before the 3LL almost always, gee I wonder why?

Admitedly never played a splat cat, wasnt very fun to me... sorry was just a sidenote there.

I would take streaks to that battle with the spider over the ac20 ANY DAY OF THE WEAK. I would say both can kill the spider equally well depending on skill though. Keep in mind your using two weapon systems designed for very different things. Change the scenario.

spider is at 700 meters out and shooting its large laser out at you. I would want the large lasers to fight back since I would do little to no damage with the ac and possibly have to line up the shot if hes moving.

Different weapons, different uses.

That said I dont think its different amounts of skill. Its DIFFERENT skills. I play a 4 er laser capult as a support mech staying mobile and hopping around delivering punishment at maximum ranges and making people keep there heads down. I hold my lasers on exact areas to burn away what I want.

I also play a 4srm 6 griffin running and jumping around in close, torso twisting and firing weapons hot while harassing heavier mechs.

Both take skill. Both are usefull.

Tesunie, on 24 December 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

Being able to hold a target for an entire beam duration and hitting only a single component is a skill. ACs (defensive twisting and other things) have their own set of skills compared to other weapons (Lasers and keeping a beam duration on target among others).

This is as bad as saying "Jump sniping is skill less", but they don't seem to recognize the skills needed to preform that action with accuracy. Or saying "LRMs require no skill to use", when in fact they require a different skill set to use well. Some skill sets might be/appear easier than others, but that doesn't mean it's not a skill still.

(For more on my opinion on LRMs and skills, see this: http://mwomercs.com/...00#entry1814400 . It's a little old, so not all the points are still relevant, but I would like to think it still has a lot of good points.)

Other than the single point I quoted, I can agree with the rest...

(This is also as much in response to Varent, as it is who he was responding to, as it is to anyone else in the thread. So please, Varent, don't take this too personally.)

well stated! I find it simply annoying how so many are willing to toss away all the other skills. I admitedly was being a little blanket there but I was trying to make a point that there is overall ALOT of skills in this game and each deserve there own place.

[Tesunie]

Varent, on 24 December 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

you missed alot apparently. The argument was over the time it takes to hold a weapon on track. When you can be 1000 meters away not even physically seeing your target with a hill in the way from people hitting you then the concept of having to hold a weapon on target and expose yourself to fire is null and void. Go grind your lrm axe elsewhere please k thanks.

I might have missed something, this thread has been flying so fast the last few days...

If you are shooting LRMs 1000m away, you might not be getting the most from it. LRMs are considered more effective from 700-600m away or closer. Most LRM users prefer to keep targets between 200-400m for more reliable hits.

If you read, I did mention that. But with ECM and AMS, LRMs can't always do the indirect fire thing. There was a reason I placed (Situation dependent) after almost every remark. LRMs are so situational, it's hard to measure them. Some games they will be completely useless. Other games they will be having a "grande ol' time".

However, just because they can fire indirectly does not mean that they have no risk. The risk of just bringing in LRMs is far greater most times than any other weapon system. No matter what a laser or AC will always be able to do damage to a target that can be seen (someone has to be seeing you to shoot anything at you, even LRMs. Though LRMs can get by with a spotter). However, LRMs can be able to see a target, and not be able to do a thing about it sometimes (TAG can help, I know). LRMs can also see a target, shoot, and still do no damage.

All I'm saying is, there are risks with LRMs as well. With LRMs, the risk can be how they are used on the field of battle as much as just taking them. No other weapon system in the game has as many counters as LRMs, and SSRMs to some extent. Then again, no other weapon system has as many ways to buff them (Artemis, TAG, NARC) either. LRMs are also the weapon with the most utility, meaning it can be used for more than just direct line of sight damage but can be used for indirect, as a scare tactic, etc.

As far as "LRM axe to grind", I like my LRMs. I am merely mentioning that they do have risks as much (if not more so) as any other weapon system in the game.

[Sandpit]

Know what's hilarious? 3 Threads sitting right on top of one another on the forums. Yet we wonder why it might be difficult for players, devs, and new players t find information, form ideas, and enter discussions on the game. Not to mention just finding relevant information on something they're curious about....

http://mwomercs.com/...id/page__st__60
http://mwomercs.com/...s/page__st__380

Keep on keepin on though forumites

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 24 December 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

Know what's hilarious? 3 Threads sitting right on top of one another on the forums. Yet we wonder why it might be difficult for players, devs, and new players t find information, form ideas, and enter discussions on the game. Not to mention just finding relevant information on something they're curious about....

http://mwomercs.com/...id/page__st__60
http://mwomercs.com/...s/page__st__380

Keep on keepin on though forumites

Welcome to the reality of a forum.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 24 December 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

PPC and AC are fine as they are currently. The current problem with the game is not the weapons its the fact that its simply too easy to mount those weapons onto jump capable mechs wich causes an abundance of one playstyle... My own suggestion has always been to increase the amount of jump jets needed to fire effectively in the air. This would limit the overall weight you could put towards weapons, especially in heavier mechs whos jump jets weigh abit.

It has very little to do with jump sniping, so your whole argument is invalid. ACs and PPCs are a problem regardless of what mech they are in. Removing jump jets completely would not fix the problem, while removing ACs/PPCs would make jump sniping nonexistent - therefore, the problem is ACs/PPCs.

Doctor Proctor, on 24 December 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

The problem with discussions like these is that they're often based on theoretical numbers like the Smurfy sustained DPS stat. Do a simple thing and check your own stat pages, then take the amount of damage divided by the number of hits for various weapons. What you'll probably find is that AC weapons do pretty much what it says on the tin (ie- AC/5 does about 5 damage per hit) while lasers only do something like 60-70% of their listed damage (ie- LL does 5.5 damage per hit).

Granted, everyone is a little different, but I doubt anyone here consistently gets 85%+ of the listed damage per hit with beam weapons (excluding pulse varieties just because I haven't calculated those yet). What this means though is that if laser weapons do something like 60% of their listed damage on a hit, then you need twice as many (and therefore twice as many heatsinks) to reach the theoretical DPS of the weapon. This completely eliminated the supposed weight advantage that laser weapons have over ballistics and explains why so many are favoring ballistics right now. Despite their drawbacks, they're not only better at concentrating damage on a single panel but they're also ahead of the DoT style lasers in terms of raw DPS as well.

For those that think that these weapons are all fine and balanced though, I would challenge you to post up your damage numbers from your stats. I'm curious to see if anyone is really capable of getting to that 85%+ level of damage per hit that would at least get close to equaling the theoretical DPS calculations.

Weapon DPS Calculations

Spoiler

Energy Weapons
SL: 3 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 1.62
Accuracy: 59.80%
DPS: (1.62 / (2.25 cycle + .75 burn time)) * 59.80% = 0.32 actual DPS

ML: 5 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 2.84
Accuracy: 77.07%
DPS: (2.84 / (3 cycle + 1 burn time)) * 77.07% = 0.55 actual DPS

LL: 9 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 5.15
Accuracy: 79.40%
DPS: (5.15 / (3.25 cycle + 1 burn time)) * 79.40% = 0.96 actual DPS

PPC: 10 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 9.32
Accuracy: 53.63%
DPS: (9.32 / 4 cycle) * 53.63% = 1.25 actual DPS

Ballistic Weapons
AC/2: 2 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 2.06 (Higher than optimal damage...perhaps because of crits?)
Accuracy: 60.38%
DPS: (2.06 / 0.52 cycle) * 60.38% = 2.39 actual DPS

AC/5: 5 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 5.31 (Higher than optimal damage...perhaps because of crits?)
Accuracy: 60.77%
DPS: (5.31 / 1.5 cycle) * 60.77%= 2.15 actual DPS

AC/10: 10 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 10.09 (Higher than optimal damage...perhaps because of crits?)
Accuracy: 61.91%
DPS: (10.09 / 2.5 cycle) * 61.91% = 2.50 actual DPS

AC/20: 20 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 19.61
Accuracy: 63.37%
DPS: (19.61 / 4 cycle) * 63.37% = 3.11 actual DPS

LB-10X: 1 Per Pellet (10x per volley) at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 7.48
Accuracy: 80.67%
DPS: (7.48 / 2.5 cycle) * 80.67% = 2.41 actual DPS

Great data. Awesome analysis. I'm pleasantly surprised that the LBX did so well, actually.

[Sandpit]

Varent, on 24 December 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

Welcome to the reality of a forum.

The problem is (besides the fact that it's just irritating) is it makes it much harder for anyone that matters to actually read through feedback. It also makes it REALLY difficult for new players to actually use forums in a productive manner when every other thread is the exact same subject.

[Tesunie]

Doctor Proctor, on 24 December 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

Weapon DPS Calculations

Spoiler

Energy Weapons
SL: 3 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 1.62
Accuracy: 59.80%
DPS: (1.62 / (2.25 cycle + .75 burn time)) * 59.80% = 0.32 actual DPS

ML: 5 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 2.84
Accuracy: 77.07%
DPS: (2.84 / (3 cycle + 1 burn time)) * 77.07% = 0.55 actual DPS

LL: 9 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 5.15
Accuracy: 79.40%
DPS: (5.15 / (3.25 cycle + 1 burn time)) * 79.40% = 0.96 actual DPS

PPC: 10 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 9.32
Accuracy: 53.63%
DPS: (9.32 / 4 cycle) * 53.63% = 1.25 actual DPS

Ballistic Weapons
AC/2: 2 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 2.06 (Higher than optimal damage...perhaps because of crits?)
Accuracy: 60.38%
DPS: (2.06 / 0.52 cycle) * 60.38% = 2.39 actual DPS

AC/5: 5 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 5.31 (Higher than optimal damage...perhaps because of crits?)
Accuracy: 60.77%
DPS: (5.31 / 1.5 cycle) * 60.77%= 2.15 actual DPS

AC/10: 10 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 10.09 (Higher than optimal damage...perhaps because of crits?)
Accuracy: 61.91%
DPS: (10.09 / 2.5 cycle) * 61.91% = 2.50 actual DPS

AC/20: 20 Damage at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 19.61
Accuracy: 63.37%
DPS: (19.61 / 4 cycle) * 63.37% = 3.11 actual DPS

LB-10X: 1 Per Pellet (10x per volley) at Optimal Range
Average Damage Per Hit: 7.48
Accuracy: 80.67%
DPS: (7.48 / 2.5 cycle) * 80.67% = 2.41 actual DPS

Cimarb, on 24 December 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

Great data. Awesome analysis. I'm pleasantly surprised that the LBX did so well, actually.

I'd like to see this done for missile weapons too. A lot of good information here. I know my LRMs tend to have around 30% accuracy...

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 24 December 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

It has very little to do with jump sniping, so your whole argument is invalid. ACs and PPCs are a problem regardless of what mech they are in. Removing jump jets completely would not fix the problem, while removing ACs/PPCs would make jump sniping nonexistent - therefore, the problem is ACs/PPCs.

actually it has everything to do with jump sniping. mount those same weapons on a non jump capable mech and you have a very good balance in comparison to other mechs.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Here's what I got from my stat page:

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 24 December 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

actually it has everything to do with jump sniping. mount those same weapons on a non jump capable mech and you have a very good balance in comparison to other mechs.

Lol, not at all. Same issue. If you have a problem with jump sniping, learn to use cover. Jump sniping is USELESS without pinpoint, instantaneous damage (AC/PPC). On the other hand, pinpoint, instantaneous damage loses nothing without jump jets. Equip a JJ mech with all duration weapons and try to jump snipe with it - go ahead, try it - and still tell me the issue is with jump jets. You would be lying if you did.