201 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 21 January 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

No the reason was because you didnt need 7 tons of ammo in tabletop. MWO has triple the rate of fire so you need way more ammo than tabletop.

Besides RNG should never destroy your mech. Its a poor game mechanic.

Lets see, I fire one AC10 round every 10 seconds and I have almost lasted 2 minutes
And 7 tons of High explosives shouldn't have a chance to blow you up?

wanderer, on 21 January 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

By the TT rulebook, targeting computers cannot be used with pulse lasers to make aimed shots.

Which was not the case back in the 90s and early 2000.

Khobai, on 21 January 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

Yeah they got rid of that in the most recent editions because it was quite frankly overpowered.

Took me by surprise once. But left me with enough armor (2 points) to back out of range and keep popping with 3 Gauss and 2 ERPPC. Hardened armor was his mistake in that exchange.

[Khobai]

Quote

Lets see, I fire one AC10 round every 10 seconds and I have almost lasted 2 minutes
And 7 tons of High explosives shouldn't have a chance to blow you up?

Ammo isnt high explosives though. Battletech was actually very unrealistic in having ammo explode like that. This isnt 1750 where we have to keep all our black powder in the powder keg to prevent it from exploding.

[Captain Stiffy]

In TT one single hit on any of your ammo would destroy your 'mech. I have never seen anyone without case survive an ammo explosion in TT. (the numbers are just too high, the ammo basically explodes as if it was shot at you)

Edited by Captain Stiffy, 21 January 2014 - 11:18 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Captain Stiffy, on 21 January 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

In TT one single hit on any of your ammo would destroy your 'mech. I have never seen anyone without case survive an ammo explosion in TT. (the numbers are just too high, the ammo basically explodes as if it was shot at you)

It happens on occasions. late in the game LRM ammo hit with a single reload remaining... Not often mind you, but in 28+ years you see a lot.

Khobai, on 21 January 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

Ammo isnt high explosives though. Battletech was actually very unrealistic in having ammo explode like that. This isnt 1750 where we have to keep all our black powder in the powder keg to prevent it from exploding.

Ballistics and Missiles still have propellant that are combustible.

[Tesunie]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 January 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:

Archer made in work on TT with 4 tons... I used 11 tons in CB... just to be sure I didn't run out!
@Tesunie, we also have faster recycle than TT so we are throw twice as much ordinance in half the time (with an LRM20)

True, but we also need to throw 2-3x more LRMs at someone to really do anything compared to TT, so we need more ammo. We do same TT damage value per missile, but most missiles don't really hit (I personally have a ~30% hit rate with my LRMs), and we are still fighting double armor, and they aren't grouped up into groups of 5 per hit location, but instead are hitting as individual missiles wherever they happen to hit (no pin point accuracy unlike most other weapons in the game)...

Basically, in TT an LRM mech might need 4 tons, I need 8 tons just to supply two ALRM15s on my Stalker (I will admit, I could place in 6 tons and maybe get by a whole match most times, thinking about dropping that, but not sure). Basically, I need twice the ammo, so twice the risk, just to preform the same task as I would in TT.

Gaan Cathal, on 21 January 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

Narp. To counter that we have the massively important advantage of pinpoint damage application. Inflated hitpoints reduce the relative damage of lasers more than pinpoint projectiles.

True. I did touch on that in later posts as well.

Gaan Cathal, on 21 January 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

If you have nothing but ammo in a location then the chance of ammo explosion is the same whether you have 1 ton or 12 tons. This is because MW:O determines if a hit produces a crit (our nominal theoretical 0.42 chance, although this actually varies by weapon) and then randomly assigns that crit to a filled critslot in that location. Empty critslots cannot be critted. Ergo if all filled critslots in your side torso are ammo, chance of crit assignment to ammo is 100%, irrespective of the gross amount. This is why people critpad their Gauss, and did it for their non-explosive AC/20 as best they could back when it was made of paper.

My Maths say otherwise:
If someone has 3 or MORE crits of ammo:
0.25 x 0.10 = 0.025 = 2.5%
0.16 x 0.20 = 0.032 = 3.2%
0.03 x 0.30 = 0.009 = 0.9%
Total crit chances per shot: 2.5% + 3.2% + 0.9% = 6.6%

This is, of course, presuming that you can and do only hit ammo. I can bring up several designs I have to compare real life numbers, and they will drop, but the point also remains that, when you do a crit, you might not hit my ammo but instead will still be hitting/taking out something I probably need.

Otherwise, you bring a good point. (And, if crit chance numbers provided to me by Stjobe are correct, it should be 44% chance, not 42%, but 42% is close enough for most cases.) But bringing several crit slots of ammo still increases the chance that one of them will explode, especially by a double or triple crit chance.

Crit padding, I would also like to note, still takes up tonnage, which means it takes up "usable space". Most of that stuff, unless it is useless and then they are "wasting space", is probably useable by the build. Sure, a single heat sink might not be overly vital, but it's still has a function and it's loss will still effect the mech.

Gaan Cathal, on 21 January 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

If you're going to to factor in multiple weapon strike for your odds, you need to also include the chances of doing enough crit damage to actually kill an ammo bin. Bear in mind in that case, that your weapons are not directly summative if they don't kill an ammo bin in one shot because if you do 15 crit damage, spread 5 to each of 3 ammo bins, you get no explosion.

I really don't feel the need to preform the math to determine the chances and damages of EVERY WEAPON IN THE GAME, to prove a point. There is a reason most of my examples have AC10s, AC20s, Gauss, PPCs, etc mentioned, as they can take out a crit slot in a single crit hit.

You also forget that, when a section is destroyed on a mech, any remaining ammo/gauss still there have their corresponding chances to explode. This makes destroying an ammo heavy section, even if you don't crit it much, very dangerous still.

I'm also using math in Stjobe's perspective, which is "keep it simple stupid" and assuming some highly fluctuating and difficult numbers are "in a set rate", such as when you crit, do you hit ammo? We are presuming in the best possible take (for the moment for the sake of debating this), so we are presuming that the weapon hitting has enough strength to take out the crit slot, and that when it crits, it will hit/has nothing else to hit but ammo.

Otherwise, we will be at this all day doing math for every weapon and every crit loadout possible (if not all year). Personally, I'd rarther play the game more, and debate less on here. I don't mind bringing numbers, but I'm not going to spend the time to do every possible configuration/possibility that can or might happen. I don't expect Stjobe to either. That would be insane! Even more insane than bringing 8 tons of ammo into a TT match!

[Joseph Mallan]

I am still more than happy to take the risk of blowing up with my 3-4 tons of AC and 2-4 tons of Missile ammo! It doesn't make me wanna change my style.

[wanderer]

Three? Heck, I use six for my dual UAC/5 'Phract. Tends to gobble ammo. Ditto my AC/20 Shadow Hawk, 5 tons there.

As noted, I have no problem with higher odds of explosions. Even a 50-50 chance when a bin goes up would be fine.

[Gaan Cathal]

Tesunie, on 21 January 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

My Maths say otherwise:
If someone has 3 or MORE crits of ammo:
0.25 x 0.10 = 0.025 = 2.5%
0.16 x 0.20 = 0.032 = 3.2%
0.03 x 0.30 = 0.009 = 0.9%
Total crit chances per shot: 2.5% + 3.2% + 0.9% = 6.6%

This is, of course, presuming that you can and do only hit ammo. I can bring up several designs I have to compare real life numbers, and they will drop, but the point also remains that, when you do a crit, you might not hit my ammo but instead will still be hitting/taking out something I probably need.

Otherwise, you bring a good point. (And, if crit chance numbers provided to me by Stjobe are correct, it should be 44% chance, not 42%, but 42% is close enough for most cases.) But bringing several crit slots of ammo still increases the chance that one of them will explode, especially by a double or triple crit chance.

No it doesn't...

For any given shot:

critchance * (critsammo/critsnotammo) * explodechance = boomchance

Assuming no other items in the side torso:

For one ton ammo:
0.42*(1/1)*0.1 = 0.042 = 4.2%

For twelve tons ammo:
0.42*(12/12)*0.1 = 0.042 = 4.2%

Tesunie, on 21 January 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

Crit padding, I would also like to note, still takes up tonnage, which means it takes up "usable space". Most of that stuff, unless it is useless and then they are "wasting space", is probably useable by the build. Sure, a single heat sink might not be overly vital, but it's still has a function and it's loss will still effect the mech.

Crit padding is about the location of installed components, not the installation of components. I'm not referencing it as a balancing factor in any way, purely as evidence of a phenomenon (doop-doo-doo-doo).

Tesunie, on 21 January 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

You also forget that, when a section is destroyed on a mech, any remaining ammo/gauss still there have their corresponding chances to explode. This makes destroying an ammo heavy section, even if you don't crit it much, very dangerous still.

I've already agreed this would need to change if ammo explosion chances were corrected.

Tesunie, on 21 January 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

Otherwise, we will be at this all day doing math for every weapon and every crit loadout possible (if not all year). Personally, I'd rarther play the game more, and debate less on here. I don't mind bringing numbers, but I'm not going to spend the time to do every possible configuration/possibility that can or might happen. I don't expect Stjobe to either. That would be insane! Even more insane than bringing 8 tons of ammo into a TT match!

Well, I guess if PGI can't be bothered to do their job, we probably shouldn't.

[Tesunie]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 January 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

TT Targetting computers with Large Pulse Lasers and a 2 Gunner could be quite accurate removing up to 50 damage from one locaction (that's 100 damage here).

A Stock build has nearly exactly the ammo as was described in Canon fluff... about 1 minute of continuous fire.

We have better than a Targetting Computer, we have Instant Convergence and an accurate targeting reticule...

Which could/would last most games I've been in, though I shall admit I haven't played much TT.

Play a game of TT, with Stock mechs. Double all armor and structure. Then play with the standard ammo levels. What happens? You find you need more ammo. Right?

Khobai, on 21 January 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

No the reason was because you simply didnt need 7 tons of ammo in tabletop. MWO has triple the rate of fire, triple range, and double armor, so you need way more ammo than tabletop.

Besides RNG should never destroy your mech. Its a poor game mechanic. Ammo explosions should occur 100% of the time but do a survivable amount of damage (~20 damage per bind of ammo is fine). That would eliminate the RNG of ammo explosions by making them much more consistent in how much damage they do. Ballistics should also be balanced in other ways, because its quite frankly idiotic to try and balance ballistics by making ammo explosions more volatile.

CASE should also reduce ammo explosion damage in the same location by 50%-100% so CASE is actually useful.

Lastly there should be an ammo ejection feature, so you can eject ammo if your ballistic/missile weapon systems are destroyed. It makes no sense to be carrying ammo after those weapons have been destroyed. Tabletop and every other mechwarrior game had that feature.

Was my point when comparing TT to this game. TT you don't need that much ammo. This game, you do, and for most of those reasons too.

I can't agree with your explosion damage and what you think CASE should do, but I do feel CASE needs something... more. If R&R was in, placing CASE in an XL mech would make a ton more sense, as it would reduce damage/repairs. However, CASE is really not worth the crit/tons at the moment, especially if you field an XL engine. (Most people also see it as, "if I'm going to lose half my mech anyway, I'd rather just die and get it over with". Can't say I agree, as I field std engines a lot and run around with half a mech, but still, I can understand their viewpoint.)

An auto ammo eject when no more weapons can use that ammo type would be a good thing I think...

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 21 January 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

Three? Heck, I use six for my dual UAC/5 'Phract. Tends to gobble ammo. Ditto my AC/20 Shadow Hawk, 5 tons there.

As noted, I have no problem with higher odds of explosions. Even a 50-50 chance when a bin goes up would be fine.

I don't play UACs cause they don't like performing for me! Ammo should blow up. It was like Christmas morning when a Enemy Mech blew up!

Tes you will notice I am on the death to convergence band wagon right?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 21 January 2014 - 11:37 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

I can't agree with your explosion damage and what you think CASE should do

Heres the thing: you get 50% damage reduction just for putting ammo in your arm or leg instead of your side torso. Because when damage transfers its reduced by 50%.

What that means is, CASE would have to at least give a 50% damage reduction, in order to make putting ammo in your side torso equal to putting ammo in an arm or leg.

So that was my reasoning for making CASE reduce ammo explosion damage by at least 50%.

[Tesunie]

wanderer, on 21 January 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

Three? Heck, I use six for my dual UAC/5 'Phract. Tends to gobble ammo. Ditto my AC/20 Shadow Hawk, 5 tons there.

As noted, I have no problem with higher odds of explosions. Even a 50-50 chance when a bin goes up would be fine.

My Stalker has 9 tons of total ammo, 8 LRM and 1 SSRM ammo... and I can't say I've run out of ammo yet. I have a Battlemaster set up the same way, with a larger engine and 7 tons LRM ammo, and 1 SSRM ammo, and it's gotten very close to running empty a few times already...

I too wouldn't mind a slightly more chance of an ammo explosion, but I don't think 100% chance (when it is crit and destroyed) is good either...

Gaan Cathal, on 21 January 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

No it doesn't...

For any given shot:

critchance * (critsammo/critsnotammo) * explodechance = boomchance

Assuming no other items in the side torso:

For one ton ammo:
0.42*(1/1)*0.1 = 0.042 = 4.2%

For twelve tons ammo:
0.42*(12/12)*0.1 = 0.042 = 4.2%

Your math is incorrect. You have several "steps" if you may. You are short cutting the math.
If you want to presume that it is a 1 in 12 shot (only one ammo crit slot, which I rarely see personally, but okay), these are your worse crit chances.

Formula used:
(Crit chance) x (0.083*) x (Ammo chance of 10%) = (total worse chance to crit and explode ammo)
(* It's got an 1/12 chance, which is 8.3%, or 0.083)

0.25 x 0.083 x 0.10 = 0.002075 = 0.2075%
0.16 x (0.083 x 2 =) 0.02656 x 0.10 = 0.00042496 = 0.042496%
0.03 x (0.083 x 3 =) 0.249 x 0.10 = 0.000747 = 0.0747%
Actual worse total possible: 0.2075% + 0.042496% + 0.0747% = 0.324696%

The worst single shot crit chance on a "crit padded single ton of ammo" is 0.32%. The best chance you can get is 6.6% So the actual range is 0.32-6.6% chance on a single shot causing an ammo explosion (with a weapon that can destroy the crit in a single shot).

The chance is not against a single crit, but does increase with upwards of at least 3 crits of ammo before leveling off. It is 4.4% normal for a single crit of ammo and nothing else able to be hit. It jumps to 6.2% when there are only two crits of ammo available and nothing else can be crit. It then jumps to 6.6% chance when there are three or more crits of ammo, and nothing else to hit.

(Unless information provided to me about crit percentages was incorrect, unto which I blame Stjobe, as he provided the data. )

Gaan Cathal, on 21 January 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

Crit padding is about the location of installed components, not the installation of components. I'm not referencing it as a balancing factor in any way, purely as evidence of a phenomenon (doop-doo-doo-doo).

And most of the installed components are needed for the betterment of the mech.

Gaan Cathal, on 21 January 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

I've already agreed this would need to change if ammo explosion chances were corrected.

True, but for now it is still in the game and must be counted as part of the ammo explosion chance rate currently in the game. If you are talking about ammo explosions, everything that can cause one must be considered. This fact here increases the chance of an ammo explosion as well being caused, and has personally been my premature death many times already.

Gaan Cathal, on 21 January 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

Well, I guess if PGI can't be bothered to do their job, we probably shouldn't.

So, you expect me to sit here, and run the math for every single weapon, possibility, how many ticks a laser would need to get, how many SRMs might hit (or register to hit right now) how many LRMs might hit and crit, how many... I think not. It's not a job I'm being paid to do. And, for the record, PGI has already done that, as it is their job, and they get paid to do so.

But then again, you continue to use lazy math to try and prove your point, which is in and of itself incorrect and takes about a third of the work, and you want to complain to me because I'm not doing 100% of the chances for 100% of the weapons? Are you insane?

[Tesunie]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 January 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

Tes you will notice I am on the death to convergence band wagon right?

However, instant convergence is still here, and my math for this thread must place that under consideration for the moment.
(Guess why I'm liking your posts? You present good information, and even if I disagree with it, I can't disagree with the way you are using it.)

Khobai, on 21 January 2014 - 11:57 AM, said:

Heres the thing: you get 50% damage reduction just for putting ammo in your arm or leg instead of your side torso. Because when damage transfers its reduced by 50%.

What that means is, CASE would have to at least give a 50% damage reduction, in order to make putting ammo in your side torso equal to putting ammo in an arm or leg.

So that was my reasoning for making CASE reduce ammo explosion damage by at least 50%.

You can place ammo in the arms then, and CASE in the torso, and then get the 50% reduction (I still don't know where PGI got this rule from) and still have CASE save your CT, and any explosion that hits the side torso with CASE still can't progress any farther...

I can see your point, but I don't agree with it. However, as far as suggestions go, I can't say it's a bad one, even if I disagree with it. (Basically, I disagree with the idea, but not really too strongly, and I can understand the concept behind it and how it would work. I might not agree, but it's reasonable and understandable.)

[Artgathan]

What if ammo always explodes when it's health is depleted, but it has a specific hitbox on locations holding ammo that must be hit to detonate it?

No more RNG! Skill-Based Destruction for everyone!

[Khobai]

Quote

You can place ammo in the arms then, and CASE in the torso, and then get the 50% reduction (I still don't know where PGI got this rule from) and still have CASE save your CT, and any explosion that hits the side torso with CASE still can't progress any farther...

I can see your point, but I don't agree with it. However, as far as suggestions go, I can't say it's a bad one, even if I disagree with it. (Basically, I disagree with the idea, but not really too strongly, and I can understand the concept behind it and how it would work. I might not agree, but it's reasonable and understandable.)

So you would rather have CASE do nothing and everyone keep putting ammo in arms and legs? The only way CASE can compete with putting ammo in arms and legs is to offer the same benefit when putting ammo in the side torso.

[Thunder Lips Express]

I would rather they do something to make the games last longer. What the op suggested would make the games end way too soon

[Gaan Cathal]

Tesunie, on 21 January 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

Formula used:
(Crit chance) x (0.083*) x (Ammo chance of 10%) = (total worse chance to crit and explode ammo)
(* It's got an 1/12 chance, which is 8.3%, or 0.083)

Where are you deriving your 1/12 chance from? Assuming a side torso with all critslots fully occupied? If so, I did specify that I'm talking in that specific case about isolated ammo caches - this is exactly why I used the "two tons in a leg" example in my first demonstrative calculation - because the leg has no empty slots if it has two tons ammo.

In cases where ammo is non-exclusive, the formula I used holds for single attacks with a minimum 10 damage:

For six tons ammo with two tons heatsinks:
0.42*(6/12)*0.1 = 0.021 = 2.1%

Tesunie, on 21 January 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

So, you expect me to sit here, and run the math for every single weapon, possibility, how many ticks a laser would need to get, how many SRMs might hit (or register to hit right now) how many LRMs might hit and crit, how many... I think not. It's not a job I'm being paid to do. And, for the record, PGI has already done that, as it is their job, and they get paid to do so.

I was agreeing with you that it's not worth our time. And, frankly, I find it extremely unlikely PGI have done so, which was rather my point. These are the developers of the infamous 3s Jenner logic, remember.

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 21 January 2014 - 12:56 PM.

[wanderer]

Quote

So you would rather have CASE do nothing and everyone keep putting ammo in arms and legs? The only way CASE can compete with putting ammo in arms and legs is to offer the same benefit when putting ammo in the side torso.

CASE already does what it should. Clan CASE works on limbs and is 0-crit 0-tonnage to boot, so all those shiny 'Mechs you see will only lose the section the ammo cooked off in, anyway.

There's a damage-reducing upgrade to CASE later (CASE II) that weighs in at one ton.

[Voivode]

I have a better idea. To make this game exactly as balanced as BT TT, I'm introducing a set of wireless dice that will do all your aiming for you!

[Tesunie]

Gaan Cathal, on 21 January 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:

[/size]

Where are you deriving your 1/12 chance from? Assuming a side torso with all critslots fully occupied? If so, I did specify that I'm talking in that specific case about isolated ammo caches - this is exactly why I used the "two tons in a leg" example in my first demonstrative calculation - because the leg has no empty slots if it has two tons ammo.

In cases where ammo is non-exclusive, the formula I used holds for single attacks with a minimum 10 damage:

For six tons ammo with two tons heatsinks:
0.42*(6/12)*0.1 = 0.021 = 2.1%

[/size]

I was agreeing with you that it's not worth our time. And, frankly, I find it extremely unlikely PGI have done so, which was rather my point. These are the developers of the infamous 3s Jenner logic, remember.

I was taking the worst possible chances, which is one ammo crit out of twelve possible crit locations. These are the worse numbers you can find.

Once more, you are short cutting the math, as you also have chances of doing two crits and three crits in a single hit.
You have a 25% chance of getting a single crit.
You have a 16 % chance of getting two crits with the same hit.
You have a 3% chance of getting three crits with a single hit.
You need to do the math seperately for each chance, and add the chances together.

Another possible formula for this could be:
((Chance for a single crit x chance of hitting the ammo crit) + (chance of a double crit x (chance of hitting the ammo x 2)) + (Chance of dealing a triple crit x (chance of hitting the ammo x3))) x (the chance of causing an ammo explosion) = the total chance that a single shot has for hitting an ammo crit and causing that ammo crit to explode per shot.
(I suspect that the number end result will be the same as my other version, or very close.)

Even if you go by crits against ammo in the legs, there is still a better chance than the "worst case" I've been presenting.
The leg has 6 crits. 2 are open. If those two crits are filled with ammo, that's a 2/6 (1/3) chance that it will hit the ammo (if actuators do count for the crit "rolls" in MWO that is). So, the odds are still better than 0.32%, and worse than 6.6% (or possibly is the max 6.4% from two ammo crits available math, depending upon if Actuators can get hit or not).

You summing the whole crit system into 42% (should be 44% if my numbers are right anyway) as a SINGLE CRIT POSSIBLE. That isn't correct, as you only have a 25% chance of causing a single crit with a single shot. Then you have a farther 16% chance for a double crit, and a 3% chance for a triple crit. All these other chances INCREASES the likely hood of hitting a 1 in 12 ammo crit, as well as (if you have more than one ammo) increases the likely hood that you will hit more than one ammo crit and make one of them explode. Often times, you only need one to blow to kill a mech.



Lets give this some practical examples, shall we? My Battlemaster: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...d83edc6e97ad3eb

Lets say, best chance for you, you hit my side torso which is striped of armor. (My Battlemaster has what is probably considered average ammo for the weapons I carry.) I have 5 tons of ammo in there, with 4 crit slots of "buffer". a heat sink and two med lasers. So, that's a 5/9 (0.56 or 56%) chance of hitting ammo with a crit.

I'm just going to say you hit me with a single AC10-20/PPC/Gauss/etc that is large enough to destroy the crit slot it hits, if it hits.

Lets do the math now, as per individual chances of all possible crit types:
(Crit chance) x (chance of hitting the ammo crit) x (number of crits) x (ammo explosion chance) = (total chance of ammo explosion per shot)
0.25 x 1.00 x 1.00 x 0.10 = 0.025 = 2.5%
0.16 x 1.00 x 2.00 x 0.10 = 0.032 = 3.2%
0.03 x 1.00 x 3.00 x 0.10 = 0.009 = 0.9%

Now, add in the "chance it's going to hit the ammo" into it, instead of setting that to 100%:
0.25 x 0.56 x 1.00 x 0.10 = 0.014 = 1.4%
0.16 x 0.56 x 2.00 x 0.10 = 0.01792 = 1.792%
0.03 x 0.56 x 3.00 x 0.10 = 0.00504 = 0.504%
Total actual chance of hitting, critting, and exploding an ammo crit in my right torso is actually:
1.4% + 1.792% + 0.504% = 3.696% chance. (Not your simplified math of (0.42 x 0.56 x .10 = 0.02352) 2.352%)

Take the left side now. I have 3 crits ammo out of 12 (9 other crits are taken by 2 med lasers, 2 SSRM2s, BAP, and one DHS). This is a 3/12 (0.25 or 25%) chance of hitting ammo for every crit applied.
0.25 x 0.25 x 1.00 x 0.10 = 0.00625 = 0.625%
0.16 x 0.25 x 2.00 x 0.10 = 0.008 = 0.8%
0.03 x 0.25 x 3.00 x 0.10 = 0.00225 = 0.225%
The chances of a single shot causing a crit, hitting an ammo crit, and making it explode is:
0.625% + 0.8% + 0.225% = 1.65% chance. (Not 1.05%.)

So, the odds are still better than 0.32%, and worse than 6.6% for each side torso, as I stated before.


Now, lets do this for my Dragon build: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...97a9f01e57ba7ef

Same thing here, but slightly different loadout. Same math formula.
(If anyone can confirm if Actuators can get crit in this game, it would be good to know. Otherwise, this set of math will presume that one can crit them as "waste" crit chances).

The right arm of my Dragon has 3 tons of ammo and an UAC5. That's 3 ammo crits and 8 other crits. So, a 3/8 (0.375 or 37.5%) chance of hitting ammo.
0.25 x 0.375 x 1.00 x 0.10 = 0.009375 = 0.9375%
0.16 x 0.375 x 2.00 x 0.10 = 0.012 = 1.2%
0.03 x 0.375 x 3.00 x 0.10 = 0.003375 = 0.3375%
Total: 0.9375% + 1.2% + 0.3375% = 2.475% chance of hitting, critting, and exploding my ammo. (Not 1.6875%)

Next spot with ammo, right torso. It's got 1 ton of ammo, an XL crit slot, and BAP. So thats 1/6 (0.167 or 16.7%) crit slots. This is also presuming that engines can take up crit hits, even though they don't do anything right now.
0.25 x 0.167 x 1.00 x 0.10 = 0.004175 = 0.4175%
0.16 x 0.167 x 2.00 x 0.10 = 0.005344 = 0.5344%
0.03 x 0.167 x 3.00 x 0.10 = 0.001503 = 0.1503%
Total: 0.4175% + 0.5344% + 0.1503% = 1.1022% total chance of a single hit shoring a crit, hitting ammo, and making it explode. (Not 0.7014%)

Still sits between 0.32-6.6%.



All I have to ask is, don't make me start adding in the concept of "several weapons hitting at once" and what "they will threaten" for crits/explosions... (AKA: Take the total number, and multiply by number of weapons hitting. We do have instant convergence, don't forget.)

Also, none of these calculations include the risk of when a section with ammo is destroyed and what the chances of an ammo crit exploding under those situations... (we still have to include it in these numbers to be fair to the current system, before you arbitrarily decide to chance some numbers.) Personally, I think bumping it up to 20-30% chance to explode would be far more reasonable of a risk, as one should consider the amount of ammo we much place into our mechs to keep them working in the same manner as TT.


(Edit: Added in totals using your math.)

Edited by Tesunie, 21 January 2014 - 02:32 PM.