201 replies to this topic

[Toong]

Tesunie, on 23 January 2014 - 08:11 PM, said:

If my math serves me correct, it's a 44% chance to cause a crit, but a 66% total chance to crit internals in general due to the multiple crit rule, but I'm not being technical or anything here...


As far as ammo explosion chances, here's another perspective on the issue, from the "victims" point of perspective.
Let's take my Stalker for an example. Excluding factors such as armor and where it is place (I'll go into this later), my Stalker walks into a match with a total chance of exploding from ammo of 90% (9 tons of ammo, each with 10% chance of exploding that's 9x10%=90%). I can mitigate this to some extent by placing as much of my ammo crits into hard or less often hit locations, such as the arms, but the chance still remains. I only diminished the chances is all. Then, I have armor. I can place more armor (max) in those locations to try and prevent enemy fire from punching through to internals to score those deadly crits. However, most people already run max armor, so this doesn't really change much at all. The last thing I can do, while in a match, is to try and shift damage by rotating or staying out of the lines of fire. If I rotate, I'm still taking the chance those locations will get hit, but I can try to make my opponent hit a different spot instead. Another thing to factor is the thought that, as the match goes on my ammo count will probably drop. This also reduces the chance of my ammo exploding. However, it doesn't chance the fact that I start with a 90% chance of exploding at the start of the match. (LRMs would become even more risky than they are now, and a lot of players already consider them a "non-weapon".)

If I was to remake my Stalker for a TT game, I would probably have anywhere from 2-4 tons of LRM ammo (half the ammo), replace my SSRMs for SRM4s, and retain the one ton SRM ammo (I could probably also run the design with SHS in TT, or less DHS). With the less weight used for ammo, I could possibly drop Endo, and replace with cheaper FF. Already, I have halved the chance of my ammo exploding, as I have half the ammo in my mech. Half the ammo means less crits to go boom.

With the proposed explosion chance, with the need for double or even triple ammo values from TT (there is a reason I included my TT rough redesign of my Stalker), you would be asking me to walk into a match with a 900% chance of exploding base. This isn't the "chance to cause an explosion result in a single hit" but my mechs actual potential to explode within a single match. And even though it's total is 900%, that doesn't mean that I will always explode. However, it means I have a really high chance of it base. Other factors will help to reduce this chance, but the base fact is that it would be far more dangerous to run anything with ammo. This would only push the meta away from anything with ammo, and into anything with energy (SSRMs would probably be one of the few weapons to survive, as it can run well with 1 ton of ammo, and is still good for hunting lights).

All this suggestion would do is make energy weapons the meta. Don't believe me? See people's reactions to ghost heat? I see so many people chain fire 3 med lasers to "avoid the ghost heat" all the time. Ghost heat doesn't even apply till, what? Past 6? We would see this very same overreaction to this announcement. Just like we have seen to LRMs when they got reduced after LRMApocalypse version 2 (the non-"Artemis-to-the-head"). Or am I the only one who has seen this?

Yes, this is exactly my point. Any realism or "wow factor" supposedly gained by increasing the chance of an ammo explosion is vastly outweighed by the fatal disruption to the balance of ballistics, especially when one considers the amount of ammo people need to carry in MWO compared to the tabletop, where ammo explosions actually are guaranteed.

Also when you say 900% I think you mean 90%, but your point still stands. Large amounts of ammo coupled with a guaranteed explosion makes for a bad day.

Joseph Mallan, on 24 January 2014 - 07:01 AM, said:

You don't seem to accept that I am an Ammo carrying beast. I average 7-8 tons of ammo. I think that if it gets hit My lil bit of a toon should explode in a loud and lovely manner. I am wanting to add ammo explosions cause they have a chance of happening due to the propellant held within each and every missile and ballistic shell I am carrying in my Mech... in this game. How easy or difficult it should be is up for debate as we don't have it in the game right now. If it feels like it happens to often I support it happening less, if (like now) it isn't happening enough, I support it happening more. I am not confusing TT with MW:O, But MW;O takes place in the BattleTech universe and in that Universe Ammo blows up spectacularly both when hit in combat and when a Mech rides it's heat to long and the ammo cooks off!

And yes, if ammo gets hit I want it to go boom. Even if it is mine! It is the risk I assume when I take ammo. As is there is no risk! Boring!

Saying you want the explosions to happen, even if it's yours, doesn't make it a good gameplay decision, though. I understand perfectly that you want spectacular, showy explosions. In a similar manner, it bugs me that I can see my laser beams on HPG manifold, which exists in a vacuum. However, despite the inaccuracy of being able to see lasers in a vacuum, I understand the gameplay reasons behind it. Having invisilasers would make the game frustrating and not fun at all.

And you are incorrect in saying there is currently no risk of an ammo explosion. The current rules governing ammo explosions are this: every time ammo is destroyed, it has a 10% chance to explode; every time a section containing ammo is destroyed, each ton of ammo has a 10% chance to explode. That chance is not insignificant. I do not usually like using anecdotes as evidence, but I personally witnessed at least two cookoffs last night alone. Although they are not as common as you seem to want them (which I think would be detrimental to the game), they do happen.

It's also worth mentioning that ammo explosions due to heat did actually happen, once upon a time, and it wasn't all that great.

I think the reasons we don't see more ammo explosions is twofold: one, the playerbase currently prefers high damage alpha instead of consistent damage over time. This means that components are destroyed in fewer hits, which means destroyed sections have fewer criticals applied to them before they are destroyed. The second reason is, from what I've seen, most people store their ammo in their legs, head, and CT, places that are either much less likely to be targeted, or less likely to cause an ammo explosion before you'd likely die anyway. I think one way to see more ammo explosions, without having to resort to the ridiculous notion of making explosions guaranteed, is to double the structural hitpoints of 'mechs, which is something PGI has been flirting with already. More hitpoints would mean longer time to destruction, which would mean more critical hits, which would translate into a higher chance of seeing an explosion.

[Joseph Mallan]

Guess your experience is different than mine. Not that I am calling you a liar. I'm not. I guess I don't "Feel" Like I am having ammo explosions cause I don't "see" ammo exploding! And 10% chance to set off ammo once its hit is just ridiculously low. 10% to hi the ammo sounds about right, but once its hit I am still for it going KaBoom!

I am not for doubling anything else in this game! We have plenty of ammo per ton, plenty of armor, and once we get through the crunch shell the soft bits need to stay squishy.

[Tesunie]

ReXspec, on 24 January 2014 - 12:17 AM, said:

- Increase Armor Values up to TT standards.

- Have slot numbers in each body part of a 'mech represent 'mech design.

- We have double armor (and structure) values over TT. Did you mean reduce?

- What do you mean by this part? I is no understand...

Joseph Mallan, on 24 January 2014 - 07:01 AM, said:

You don't seem to accept that I am an Ammo carrying beast. I average 7-8 tons of ammo. I think that if it gets hit My lil bit of a toon should explode in a loud and lovely manner. I am wanting to add ammo explosions cause they have a chance of happening due to the propellant held within each and every missile and ballistic shell I am carrying in my Mech... in this game. How easy or difficult it should be is up for debate as we don't have it in the game right now. If it feels like it happens to often I support it happening less, if (like now) it isn't happening enough, I support it happening more. I am not confusing TT with MW:O, But MW;O takes place in the BattleTech universe and in that Universe Ammo blows up spectacularly both when hit in combat and when a Mech rides it's heat to long and the ammo cooks off!

And yes, if ammo gets hit I want it to go boom. Even if it is mine! It is the risk I assume when I take ammo. As is there is no risk! Boring!

Place your ammo in your torso instead of in legs or other hard/not often hit areas. You'll see a lot more of your deaths being ammo explosions. I suggest placing 3-4 tons on each side, and 1-2 tons in the CT. Trust me on this...

And, you can always wait to hear "ammo destroyed", or just wait till your section keeping ammo gets it's structure exposed. Then, just shut down your mech to simulate your concept. See how often you would be "destroyed" by doing this, and then consider how much fun it is to spend most of the match viewing other people having fun playing...

Toong, on 24 January 2014 - 07:41 AM, said:

Yes, this is exactly my point. Any realism or "wow factor" supposedly gained by increasing the chance of an ammo explosion is vastly outweighed by the fatal disruption to the balance of ballistics, especially when one considers the amount of ammo people need to carry in MWO compared to the tabletop, where ammo explosions actually are guaranteed.

Also when you say 900% I think you mean 90%, but your point still stands. Large amounts of ammo coupled with a guaranteed explosion makes for a bad day.

No, I meant 900%. I have 9 tons of ammo, that's 9 crits of ammo. Each crit would have a 100% chance of exploding when destroyed. This gives a 900% chance, 9 x 100%. This, of course, is total "chance" that I can have ammo explode. It is mitigated by placing it in different sections, placing it in sections not hit (like my Stalker and it's arms, as I normally lose a side torso instead, and most other people and the legs), having armor on those sections, other crits, etc. But, even though the chances get reduces (sometimes to less than 10-0%), the actual overall chance is still 900% that I can die from ammo explosion. If I have one ton, I have a 100% chance with their idea, as that one ammo can get hit, and if it does, it explodes.

In TT, my same Stalker (which would have a 100% chance of ammo exploding per ammo) would probably have (depending upon how much ammo I feel it needs) 3-5 tons of ammo total, which is 300-500% chance total of exploding. Then, boosted by a lot of the same ways as MWO for reducing that chance, and also with the added benefit of randomized hit locations, and lack of pin point accuracy (AKA: Most weapons either wont even hit that section, or if they do, not all your weapons are going to hit that singular same side. Meaning I don't have multiple weapon chancing a crit at the same time, unlike with MWO. Combined with less ammo overall...)

Toong, on 24 January 2014 - 07:41 AM, said:

And you are incorrect in saying there is currently no risk of an ammo explosion. The current rules governing ammo explosions are this: every time ammo is destroyed, it has a 10% chance to explode; every time a section containing ammo is destroyed, each ton of ammo has a 10% chance to explode. That chance is not insignificant. I do not usually like using anecdotes as evidence, but I personally witnessed at least two cookoffs last night alone. Although they are not as common as you seem to want them (which I think would be detrimental to the game), they do happen.

...

I think the reasons we don't see more ammo explosions is twofold: one, the playerbase currently prefers high damage alpha instead of consistent damage over time. This means that components are destroyed in fewer hits, which means destroyed sections have fewer criticals applied to them before they are destroyed. The second reason is, from what I've seen, most people store their ammo in their legs, head, and CT, places that are either much less likely to be targeted, or less likely to cause an ammo explosion before you'd likely die anyway. I think one way to see more ammo explosions, without having to resort to the ridiculous notion of making explosions guaranteed, is to double the structural hitpoints of 'mechs, which is something PGI has been flirting with already. More hitpoints would mean longer time to destruction, which would mean more critical hits, which would translate into a higher chance of seeing an explosion.

I bet you he places it where the meta tells him to, in the legs and away from his torsos in lesslikely to be hit locations. Then I bet he also does the meta (something that rarely to never happened in lore) twisting of the torso to spread damage to less damaged areas (or away from ammo locations). These actions already reduce his chances of getting an ammo explosion, just like with my Stalker and placing as much of the ammo (4 tons each) in the arms instead of the legs. I've had people ammo hunt for it in my legs before, and they failed. If people knew I had that much ammo sitting in my arms, I suspect people would start to aim for them instead of my CT, as I tend to twist damage easily from my CT to my sides...

My Battlemaster seems to explode very often from ammo, as I have the ammo in the supposedly "safe" side torsos. Should try it some time?

I also believe still that when a section is destroyed, any ammo inside that section has a chance of exploding as though hit and destroyed by a critical hit. Can't confirm this at this time though...

[Toong]

Tesunie, on 24 January 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

- We have double armor (and structure) values over TT. Did you mean reduce?

Armor values are doubled, but currently structure values are not. PGI has said on a few occasions that they are considering doubling structure as well, to help make the 'mechs a little beefier. The reason they have not done so yet is because if 'mechs are made too beefy, there is an increased risk of having lots of 'mechs running around without weapons.

Tesunie, on 24 January 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

Place your ammo in your torso instead of in legs or other hard/not often hit areas. You'll see a lot more of your deaths being ammo explosions. I suggest placing 3-4 tons on each side, and 1-2 tons in the CT. Trust me on this...

And, you can always wait to hear "ammo destroyed", or just wait till your section keeping ammo gets it's structure exposed. Then, just shut down your mech to simulate your concept. See how often you would be "destroyed" by doing this, and then consider how much fun it is to spend most of the match viewing other people having fun playing...

Haha. This is a good 'simulation' of the proposed changes.

Tesunie, on 24 January 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

No, I meant 900%. I have 9 tons of ammo, that's 9 crits of ammo. Each crit would have a 100% chance of exploding when destroyed. This gives a 900% chance, 9 x 100%.

A 900% chance of an ammo explosion is literally impossible. I'm not terribly good with statistics, but I'll try my best to explain the miscalculation. Under Yiazmat's proposal, ammo would always explode if hit with a critical, but ammo is not guaranteed to actually be hit with a critical. Your 9 x 100% calculation would be true only if your ammo was in a single section, and every hit to that exposed section was guaranteed to crit against all 9 tons of ammo simultaneously. Not only is this impossible under the current game rules (a maximum of 3 criticals can happen from any one hit), but due to the way ammo explosions are handled, you could still only get 1 explosion from the event.

Okay, scratch all that. I re-read your post and I think I see where the miscommunication is. You're not talking about percentage of deaths resulting from an ammo explosion, you're talking about base chance per hit for an ammo explosion. The chance still isn't 900% though; probabilities cannot simply be added together to get the total probability. Since you can only get 1 explosion from any given section, the maximum chance of an explosion is still somewhere between 0-100%. I have no idea how to calculate the exact percentage; it depends on how much ammo you actually have in any given section, and the fact that you sometimes get multiple crits is also problematic. However, even having 3 tons of ammo in a section would probably give you a per-hit chance of an ammo explosion somewhere in the 40-50% range.

Probabilities are hard.

Tesunie, on 24 January 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

I also believe still that when a section is destroyed, any ammo inside that section has a chance of exploding as though hit and destroyed by a critical hit. Can't confirm this at this time though...

You are correct. Every time an ammo bin is destroyed by a crit, it has a 10% chance to explode. Every time a section is destroyed that contains ammo, every undestroyed bin that still has ammo in it also has a 10% chance to explode individually. The damage, of course, is the number of remaining rounds in the exploding bin multiplied by the ammo's damage per round. So while it's extraordinarily rare, it's possible to only take minor damage from an ammo explosion if the ammo bin only had only one or two shots left in it.

[Tesunie]

For my Stalker:
9 Crits of ammo
100% explosion when crit/destroyed.

Reduced by what section it is on, and it's chance of being hit.
Reduced by armor on that location
Reduced by other possible crits on that location
Reduced by the highest possible number of hits/damage before section destruction.
Reduced by "combat twisting" and "damage redirection"

Formula:
Number of crits of ammo x Chance of ammo exploding x number of sections that contain ammo x number of crit slots total between ammo and non ammo for those section x number of shots a 10 damage weapon can cause before section destruction x the total crit chance per shot = new unfinished total chance of ammo explosion (call it a "mid-adjusted" chance).

Math:
9 x 100% x (0.125 x 3 = 0.375) x (0.34 + 0.34 + 0.167 = 0.847) x (3 shots x 66% = 1.98) = 5.66 or 566%

I have reduced the 900% total explosion to 566% chance of ammo explosion without adding in armor, Damage redirection, opponent's aiming, where they "aim" to hit, chance that those specific section will get hit...

See how, even though I bring in 900% total chance, it gets reduced by other numbers? Some of these numbers I can figure out, others are impossible to figure out in a straight up math number. So the actual chance is much lower than 900% (with 100% chance of explosion mind you). If this was with the standard 10% chance, just shift the decimal point around, it becomes a 56.6% chance. Do recall there are other factors in play as well, such as how often that section gets aimed for/hit, armor values, etc.

My battlemaster will probably make for a better example. It brings 8 tons/crits of ammo total to a battlefield. 5 in the right torso, 3 in the left. Here is the math there for 100% chance of ammo explosion (which is 800% base chance).

Formula:
Number of crits of ammo x Chance of ammo exploding x number of sections that contain ammo x number of crit slots total between ammo and non ammo for those section x number of shots a 10 damage weapon can cause before section destruction x the total crit chance per shot = new unfinished total chance of ammo explosion (call it a "mid-adjusted" chance).

Math:
Right torso crit slots: 0.50
Left: 0.25
8 x 1.00 x (0.125 x 2 = ) 0.25 x (0.50 + 0.25 = ) 0.75 x (3 x 66% = ) 1.98 = 2.97 or 297% mid-total chance.

I can take the 297% mid chance, and probably drop it by 2/3, as I have 3 torso sections and 2 of which contain ammo, each as likely to be a target as the other sections. So, it's about a 1.98 or a 198% chance I will die from an ammo explosion in a match, still excluding armor, defensive twisting, opponent's aim, etc. (Basically, numbers I can't factor in to easily.)

Edit: Messed up some numbers.

Edited by Tesunie, 24 January 2014 - 10:00 AM.

[Tesunie]

Toong, on 24 January 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

Armor values are doubled, but currently structure values are not. PGI has said on a few occasions that they are considering doubling structure as well, to help make the 'mechs a little beefier. The reason they have not done so yet is because if 'mechs are made too beefy, there is an increased risk of having lots of 'mechs running around without weapons.

I've done the testing on the testing grounds, in TT, your total structure is half your total max armor. If you take a section, take the total armor, divide the max armor in half, and then add in the "stock" armor, you will notice it will match the damage a mech on the trial grounds can take (use an AC2 for testing, as it's easier to count the damage with it, and a larger AC tends to deal too much damage too fast). At least, it did for me when I tested it.

Basically, the doubled armor, and kept the rule that determined structure as based on max armor around. What they are considering is making structure a farther doubled on top of that (last I knew).

Toong, on 24 January 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

Haha. This is a good 'simulation' of the proposed changes.

That's the point. I'd go with "Stop placing your ammo in safe meta places" and start placing it in the torso like it's a stock mech... You'll see yourself go pop far more often.

Toong, on 24 January 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

A 900% chance of an ammo explosion is literally impossible. I'm not terribly good with statistics, but I'll try my best to explain the miscalculation. Under Yiazmat's proposal, ammo would always explode if hit with a critical, but ammo is not guaranteed to actually be hit with a critical. Your 9 x 100% calculation would be true only if your ammo was in a single section, and every hit to that exposed section was guaranteed to crit against all 9 tons of ammo simultaneously. Not only is this impossible under the current game rules (a maximum of 3 criticals can happen from any one hit), but due to the way ammo explosions are handled, you could still only get 1 explosion from the event.

Okay, scratch all that. I re-read your post and I think I see where the miscommunication is. You're not talking about percentage of deaths resulting from an ammo explosion, you're talking about base chance per hit for an ammo explosion. The chance still isn't 900% though; probabilities cannot simply be added together to get the total probability. Since you can only get 1 explosion from any given section, the maximum chance of an explosion is still somewhere between 0-100%. I have no idea how to calculate the exact percentage; it depends on how much ammo you actually have in any given section, and the fact that you sometimes get multiple crits is also problematic. However, even having 3 tons of ammo in a section would probably give you a per-hit chance of an ammo explosion somewhere in the 40-50% range.

Probabilities are hard.

I'm talking about the base chance of my mech going into a match and being able to explode from ammo. It gets reduced greatly by other factors (some are hard to calculate). That was a placeholder while I figured out the math (and to make a point). Look at above post for more finalized math. I'm not going by "per shot" here, but by "per game". In a game, there is a total of 9 chances someone can crit/explode my ammo, as I have 9 crits of it. That doesn't mean that all of them will get hit and crit, but just the chance that one of them will at some point in the match. This was also a "base" chance, not reduced by any factors yet. It was like people saying you have a "base" chance of causing a crit of 42%, which is only a part of the actual formula being used. (And it should have been 44% from my math anyway, but who cares about 3% on a number that big.)

Toong, on 24 January 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

You are correct. Every time an ammo bin is destroyed by a crit, it has a 10% chance to explode. Every time a section is destroyed that contains ammo, every undestroyed bin that still has ammo in it also has a 10% chance to explode individually. The damage, of course, is the number of remaining rounds in the exploding bin multiplied by the ammo's damage per round. So while it's extraordinarily rare, it's possible to only take minor damage from an ammo explosion if the ammo bin only had only one or two shots left in it.

I've had this happen to me many times. Get a side destroyed that had ammo in it, take two, maybe three steps, and then POP. Ammo explosion. My Battlemaster has a 50% total chance of this happening if all ammo bins are full upon that section's destruction. 50% is fairly high already, and this is something many people here (including myself) is not adding into our math, as (I know I can't) we can't seem to figure out where it should go in. Also, as you use ammo, the chance drops too, which is another thing we can't get a solid number for... (Just like taking damage from a non-10 instant damage weapon, such as lasers or smaller ACs/missiles.)



For longer explanation of what I mean by "900% total base chance", look at post above.

[Joseph Mallan]

Tesunie, on 24 January 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

- We have double armor (and structure) values over TT. Did you mean reduce?

- What do you mean by this part? I is no understand...



Place your ammo in your torso instead of in legs or other hard/not often hit areas. You'll see a lot more of your deaths being ammo explosions. I suggest placing 3-4 tons on each side, and 1-2 tons in the CT. Trust me on this...

You act as if I don't have ammo in my torsos!
Atlas
Kinaro
Hunchback-4SP

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 24 January 2014 - 10:08 AM.

[Tesunie]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 January 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

You act as if I don't have ammo in my torsos!

With an XL engine, which already makes your survivability less, so you probably notice the explosions less.
Edit: I notice most of my explosions happen upon section destruction. This is my personal experience and my differ from others.

My Battlemaster has a Std engine (as well as my Stalker, but the arms make for great hiding places). Trust me when I say, I notice when I get an ammo explosion. Normally, I think I can still go on, as I only lost a "POP!" Nope. I'm a dead duck from the ammo explosion.

My Dragon, with ammo in the arm, only 3 tons of it too, went pop 2 times last night, and I didn't play that many matches.
My Battlemaster went up once in the 3-4 matches I played with him, but I generally didn't take damage in the sides most matchs, and got CT cored, or didn't get damaged much/killed in the match.

Remove the XL engine, then run with ammo in the sides, particularly in a mech known for getting it's sides shot out. You'll notice it. Trust me. (Though it is nice to see someone else not hiding ammo in the legs. It just doesn't seem... right to me somehow to toss ammo in the legs...)

Edited by Tesunie, 24 January 2014 - 10:12 AM.

[Cranky Poed]

watching an Atlas die due an ammo explosion from having weak leg armour and ammo stored in there...all I had was a med laser. It kinda felt like I was cheating

Edited by Cranky Poed, 24 January 2014 - 10:22 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Tesunie, on 24 January 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

With an XL engine, which already makes your survivability less, so you probably notice the explosions less.
Edit: I notice most of my explosions happen upon section destruction. This is my personal experience and my differ from others.

My Battlemaster has a Std engine (as well as my Stalker, but the arms make for great hiding places). Trust me when I say, I notice when I get an ammo explosion. Normally, I think I can still go on, as I only lost a "POP!" Nope. I'm a dead duck from the ammo explosion.

My Dragon, with ammo in the arm, only 3 tons of it too, went pop 2 times last night, and I didn't play that many matches.
My Battlemaster went up once in the 3-4 matches I played with him, but I generally didn't take damage in the sides most matchs, and got CT cored, or didn't get damaged much/killed in the match.

Remove the XL engine, then run with ammo in the sides, particularly in a mech known for getting it's sides shot out. You'll notice it. Trust me. (Though it is nice to see someone else not hiding ammo in the legs. It just doesn't seem... right to me somehow to toss ammo in the legs...)

You remove the XL! I know the weakness it brings and accept the possible ramifications.

[Tesunie]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 January 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:

You remove the XL! I know the weakness it brings and accept the possible ramifications.

I'm not saying "remove the XL" per say, I'm just saying that a lot of possible deaths from ammo explosions (caused from section destruction, which is what I find causes most of my explosions personally) doesn't happen as you have the XL. By the time your largest chance of an ammo explosion comes up, you are dead anyway (with the current system).

Per shot, your chances of your ammo exploding in that Jager is: (4/7 crits are ammo) 57.14%
0.25 x 0.5714 x 1 x 0.10 = 0.014285 = 1.4285%
0.16 x 0.5714 x 2 x 0.10 = 0.0182848 = 1.82848%
0.03 x 0.5714 x 3 x 0.10 = 0.0051426 = 0.51426%
Total crit chances per shot: 1.4285% + 1.82848% + 0.51426% = 3.77124% total chance per shot landed in either side torso without armor.

With 25 internal structure, they have 3 shots of a 10 damage weapon (for ease of math, which is AC10/PPC, a fairly common combo still). So, that's a total of 3.77124% x 3 = 11.31372% chance that, presuming you are at full ammo, you will explode from ammo before the section is destroyed by shot damage. Then, add in a base 40% (4 x 10%) chance that ammo will explode when that section is destroyed (which you basically ignore as you have the XL engine). If you had a Std engine, and lose both sides before being destroyed, you would have an (11% per side x 2 (each side) + 40% x 2 = ~103% chance of an ammo explosion under these situations. However, you most likely wont be running full ammo at this stage in the game, reducing that chance, and it is unlikely you will lose both sides (with a Std engine just to clarify) in this mech, meaning that will normally drop the chance even farther (by 51% typically). Just by having that XL engine though, you negate about 80% of the "total danger", as upon a side torso destruction, you die and any ammo explosion result is irrelevant and not counted, as MWO stops processing chances upon death.


Now, for that mechs estimated total chance of exploding from ammo explosions under current rules (this is a chance, and not all numbers can be properly formulated, so it is actually lower). Your base is 80%, with 8 crits of ammo to possible explode.

Formula:
Number of crits of ammo x Chance of ammo exploding x number of sections that contain ammo x number of crit slots total between ammo and non ammo for those section x number of shots a 10 damage weapon can cause before section destruction x the total crit chance per shot = new unfinished total chance of ammo explosion (call it a "mid-adjusted" chance).

Math:
Side torso crit to ammo: 57.14%
8 x 0.10 x (0.125 x 2 = ) 0.25 x (0.5714 + 0.5714 = ) 1.1428 x (3 x 66% = ) 1.98 = 0.4525488 or 45.25% Adjusted chance.

Your total started out at 80% chance of an ammo explosion upon walking into the match, which was reduced by where you placed your ammo. Factor in that a side torso is "roughly" as likely to get hit as the center torso, say it's a 2/3 chance (0.67%) added into that, making it a new 30.32% rough chance of an ammo explosion. Due to you not needing to worry about ammo destruction upon section destruction, you actually protect yourself from any "farther" chance, as it would add in an additional 40% to each side after the 3 estimated damage 10 shots.

Surprisingly, your XL engine diminishes your chance of actually experiencing an ammo explosion in this game, but reduces your life expectancy at the same time as though you always suffer an ammo explosion when a side torso is destroyed (in essence, because you die either way).

If this was 100% explosion chance upon ammo destruction, then your numbers (in order) would look more like this:
Per shot chance: 37.7124% total. (113.1372% chance before section destruction, as x3 10 damage shots destroy the section.)
Per match total: 303.2% (roughly speaking, excluding numbers that can't be calculated).

[Joseph Mallan]

Tesunie, on 24 January 2014 - 11:52 AM, said:

I'm not saying "remove the XL" per say, I'm just saying that a lot of possible deaths from ammo explosions (caused from section destruction, which is what I find causes most of my explosions personally) doesn't happen as you have the XL. By the time your largest chance of an ammo explosion comes up, you are dead anyway (with the current system).

Per shot, your chances of your ammo exploding in that Jager is: (4/7 crits are ammo) 57.14%
0.25 x 0.5714 x 1 x 0.10 = 0.014285 = 1.4285%
0.16 x 0.5714 x 2 x 0.10 = 0.0182848 = 1.82848%
0.03 x 0.5714 x 3 x 0.10 = 0.0051426 = 0.51426%
Total crit chances per shot: 1.4285% + 1.82848% + 0.51426% = 3.77124% total chance per shot landed in either side torso without armor.

With 25 internal structure, they have 3 shots of a 10 damage weapon (for ease of math, which is AC10/PPC, a fairly common combo still). So, that's a total of 3.77124% x 3 = 11.31372% chance that, presuming you are at full ammo, you will explode from ammo before the section is destroyed by shot damage. Then, add in a base 40% (4 x 10%) chance that ammo will explode when that section is destroyed (which you basically ignore as you have the XL engine). If you had a Std engine, and lose both sides before being destroyed, you would have an (11% per side x 2 (each side) + 40% x 2 = ~103% chance of an ammo explosion under these situations. However, you most likely wont be running full ammo at this stage in the game, reducing that chance, and it is unlikely you will lose both sides (with a Std engine just to clarify) in this mech, meaning that will normally drop the chance even farther (by 51% typically). Just by having that XL engine though, you negate about 80% of the "total danger", as upon a side torso destruction, you die and any ammo explosion result is irrelevant and not counted, as MWO stops processing chances upon death.


Now, for that mechs estimated total chance of exploding from ammo explosions under current rules (this is a chance, and not all numbers can be properly formulated, so it is actually lower). Your base is 80%, with 8 crits of ammo to possible explode.

Formula:
Number of crits of ammo x Chance of ammo exploding x number of sections that contain ammo x number of crit slots total between ammo and non ammo for those section x number of shots a 10 damage weapon can cause before section destruction x the total crit chance per shot = new unfinished total chance of ammo explosion (call it a "mid-adjusted" chance).

Math:
Side torso crit to ammo: 57.14%
8 x 0.10 x (0.125 x 2 = ) 0.25 x (0.5714 + 0.5714 = ) 1.1428 x (3 x 66% = ) 1.98 = 0.4525488 or 45.25% Adjusted chance.

Your total started out at 80% chance of an ammo explosion upon walking into the match, which was reduced by where you placed your ammo. Factor in that a side torso is "roughly" as likely to get hit as the center torso, say it's a 2/3 chance (0.67%) added into that, making it a new 30.32% rough chance of an ammo explosion. Due to you not needing to worry about ammo destruction upon section destruction, you actually protect yourself from any "farther" chance, as it would add in an additional 40% to each side after the 3 estimated damage 10 shots.

Surprisingly, your XL engine diminishes your chance of actually experiencing an ammo explosion in this game, but reduces your life expectancy at the same time as though you always suffer an ammo explosion when a side torso is destroyed (in essence, because you die either way).

If this was 100% explosion chance upon ammo destruction, then your numbers (in order) would look more like this:
Per shot chance: 37.7124% total. (113.1372% chance before section destruction, as x3 10 damage shots destroy the section.)
Per match total: 303.2% (roughly speaking, excluding numbers that can't be calculated).

Cliff notes dude. 4 tons of ammo per torso, that is 1/3 of my crits so you are more likely to hit ammo than XL. So I don't care what the actual % is to hit that Ammo crit, If there is ammo there and you hit it, It shoud blow right up. Now can we get some usless but cool looking graphics for every Mech so I know when I get blown to Kingdom Come by my Ammo exploding! it is much more important that glare & dirt on my Canopy!

[ReXspec]

Tesunie, on 24 January 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

- We have double armor (and structure) values over TT. Did you mean reduce?

- What do you mean by this part? I is no understand...

For the first part:

Let me explain... armor protection values are technically "lower" for MWO because the weapon RoF's are increased by 2.5x in comparison to TT. So, I guess I should say by decreasing RoF of all the weapons and putting the armor protection values at TT standards, you are increasing the LONGEVITY of 'mechs. Your right, it's notsomuch "increasing" armor values, as you are increasing a mech's longevity by slowing weapon rates of fire and placing armor values at TT level.

For the second part:

Every single 'mech in MWO has twelve slots in the torso and arms while the legs and head have six. Whether it's an assault 'mech or a light 'mech. This sub-optimal system is implying that every single 'mech has the same amount of room in each body part. This should NOT be so. In TT and MW4, each mech' had unique hardpoints with a differing amount of slots in each body part. The number of slots in each body part reflected what the 'mechs design was; what the 'mech was designed to be armed with.

This system SHOULD be present in MWO, but PGI love their cheese builds, sub-optimal 'mechs and non-canon 'mechs I guess. : /

Edited by ReXspec, 24 January 2014 - 12:32 PM.

[Tesunie]

ReXspec, on 24 January 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

For the second part:

Every single 'mech in MWO has twelve slots in the torso and arms while the legs and head have six. Whether it's an assault 'mech or a light 'mech. This sub-optimal system is implying that every single 'mech has the same amount of room in each body part. This should NOT be so. In TT and MW4, each mech' had unique hardpoints with a differing amount of slots in each body part. The number of slots in each body part reflected what the 'mechs design was; what the 'mech was designed to be armed with.

This system SHOULD be present in MWO, but PGI love their cheese builds, sub-optimal 'mechs and non-canon 'mechs I guess. : /

Got ya on the first part, and I "liked" for that.

Second part:
As far as I understand the crit system, in TT all mechs had the same number of crits, no mater what size they where. Larger mechs could take more use of these crits. Larger mechs also had the same number of crits as a smaller mech due to structure and armor taking up proportionally more space. This leaves designed with the same "working space" if you may.

I have never heard of a mech that had a different layout of crit slots than what is used here. I can't say I'm a TT pro though. All of the other MW games, as far as I know, basically used the same crit like system (MW2 really did). TT also doesn't have any locked hard points that I am aware of, but MW4 and this game did. MW4 too it to a different level, but removed any form of crit placement. You took JJs, it placed the crits wherever it wished to. You placed on 3 more heat sinks, you didn't control where they went...

The most different with weapon placement that I know of from TT to MWO is with the AC20. In MWO, you must have enough crits to place it in one section, or it can't be placed. In TT, if you go to place an AC20 in, say an arm, and there wasn't enough crits for it, it would shift the overflow of crits to the side torso.

Am I missing something I should know from my TT information? I know I'm newish to TT, but all my data sheets look very similar for me, between my Crabs and King Crabs, etc.

[ReXspec]

Tesunie, on 24 January 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

Got ya on the first part, and I "liked" for that.

Second part:
As far as I understand the crit system, in TT all mechs had the same number of crits, no mater what size they where. Larger mechs could take more use of these crits. Larger mechs also had the same number of crits as a smaller mech due to structure and armor taking up proportionally more space. This leaves designed with the same "working space" if you may.

I have never heard of a mech that had a different layout of crit slots than what is used here. I can't say I'm a TT pro though. All of the other MW games, as far as I know, basically used the same crit like system (MW2 really did). TT also doesn't have any locked hard points that I am aware of, but MW4 and this game did. MW4 too it to a different level, but removed any form of crit placement. You took JJs, it placed the crits wherever it wished to. You placed on 3 more heat sinks, you didn't control where they went...

The most different with weapon placement that I know of from TT to MWO is with the AC20. In MWO, you must have enough crits to place it in one section, or it can't be placed. In TT, if you go to place an AC20 in, say an arm, and there wasn't enough crits for it, it would shift the overflow of crits to the side torso.

Am I missing something I should know from my TT information? I know I'm newish to TT, but all my data sheets look very similar for me, between my Crabs and King Crabs, etc.

What version of the TT do you play? Because different types of TT use different rules as far as critical slots go. I play the RPG (mainly) so, the crits used in that system are similar to the system FASA used in MW4. "Dynamic crits" is what I liked to call them. But basically, the number of crits in each 'mech differed by 'mech design.

Truth be told, I never like the board game because it lacked depth, and to see a light 'mechs armed with super-heavy weapons like a Gauss or AC-20 and experience little to no consequence from firing the things were just... no. Just... no. lol

[Tesunie]

ReXspec, on 24 January 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

What version of the TT do you play? Because different types of TT use different rules as far as critical slots go. I play the RPG (mainly) so, the crits used in that system are similar to the system FASA used in MW4. "Dynamic crits" is what I liked to call them. But basically, the number of crits in each 'mech differed by 'mech design.

Truth be told, I never like the board game because it lacked depth, and to see a light 'mechs armed with super-heavy weapons like a Gauss or AC-20 and experience little to no consequence from firing the things were just... no. Just... no. lol

I played the basic game of TT, with basic TT datasheets.

As far as light mechs with heavy weapons:
Hollander: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Hollander Gauss. 35 Tons.
Urbanmech: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Urbanmech AC20. 30 Tons.
Jackal: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Jackal ERPPC, SRM2, AMS. 30 Tons.
Spector: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Spector Large laser, 2 med lasers. 30 tons.

They existed in lore, why not be able to have "pseudo" version here?

[ReXspec]

Tesunie, on 24 January 2014 - 01:33 PM, said:

I played the basic game of TT, with basic TT datasheets.

As far as light mechs with heavy weapons:
Hollander: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Hollander Gauss. 35 Tons.
Urbanmech: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Urbanmech AC20. 30 Tons.
Jackal: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Jackal ERPPC, SRM2, AMS. 30 Tons.
Spector: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Spector Large laser, 2 med lasers. 30 tons.

They existed in lore, why not be able to have "pseudo" version here?

I recommend MW4 and the RPG in that case. The RPG is a little more complex, but it's still fun. ^^


Also, you have to remember, those 'mechs were designed to arm super-heavy weapon systems. I'd much rather push PGI for accurate crit slot numbers and a greater variety of chassis' rather then have these "psuedo" versions of light 'mechs. : /

Edited by ReXspec, 24 January 2014 - 01:49 PM.

[Tesunie]

ReXspec, on 24 January 2014 - 01:38 PM, said:

You have to remember, those 'mechs were designed to arm super-heavy weapon systems. I'd much rather push PGI for accurate crit slot numbers and a greater variety of chassis' rather then have these "psuedo" versions of light 'mechs. : /

Besides the fact that this is getting a little off topic...

How fast do you think PGI can can create mechs? I'd rather have a pseudo version in the game able to be made on a similar weight chassis, than have to wait for "the perfect one" for it. It's been proven that mechs of that weight class can handle the weapon, why not just leave it be? They have to sacrifice a lot just to get that on their mechs.

[ReXspec]

Tesunie, on 24 January 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:

Besides the fact that this is getting a little off topic...

How fast do you think PGI can can create mechs? I'd rather have a pseudo version in the game able to be made on a similar weight chassis, than have to wait for "the perfect one" for it. It's been proven that mechs of that weight class can handle the weapon, why not just leave it be? They have to sacrifice a lot just to get that on their mechs.

Because of the implication.

If the devs say a 'mech was released for one purpose, and players try to make it play toward another by creating cheese builds, people complain. And when people complain, it causes the devs to swing the nerf bat mercilessly without really thinking.

PGI is kind of notorious for this...the introduction "heat scaling" is the prime example. They introduced a convoluted new system to "tone down" pinpoint damage and force players to stick to their 'mechs roles. In reality, all they did was nerf boats and make heat management much more complicated while only partially succeeding in toning down pinpoint damage.

THIS is what we DON'T need. If people want cheese builds, we should get 'mechs that are designed for cheese builds. If PGI doesn't want as much pinpoint damage, they should lower the rate of fire of all weapons, and add cross-hair deviation based on movement and recoil.

[Tesunie]

ReXspec, on 24 January 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

Because of the implication.

If the devs say a 'mech was released for one purpose, and players try to make it play toward another by creating cheese builds, people complain. And when people complain, it causes the devs to swing the nerf bat mercilessly without really thinking.

PGI is kind of notorious for this...the introduction "heat scaling" is the prime example. They introduced a convoluted new system to "tone down" pinpoint damage and force players to stick to their 'mechs roles. In reality, all they did was nerf boats and make heat management much more complicated while only partially succeeding in toning down pinpoint damage.

THIS is what we DON'T need. If people want cheese builds, we should get 'mechs that are designed for cheese builds. If PGI doesn't want as much pinpoint damage, they should lower the rate of fire of all weapons, and add cross-hair deviation based on movement and recoil.

This is rather off topic, but I shall still respond.

A mech may have been created for one purpose, but even in BT, many mechs have been repurposed over the years. Look at the Commando. It started out as a scout, and then got changed over to a "heavy hitting slower light" who was still considered fairly fast. In MWO, it rechanged back to a scout role, or probably a Striker role would be more accurate.

What we could have used more was slower convergence, meaning that accuracy would be determined more on how long you can keep your reticule over a target. However, as much as people hate Ghost Heat, you have to give it credit that it's been stopping a lot of the typical and easy to set up high pin point alpha builds. As long as you stay within the weapon number limits, ghost heat doesn't effect you. None of my builds were affected by ghost heat when it was implemented. It still doesn't seem to effect me.

If anything, they could easily add in a deconvergence "rock" or "shake" with the firing of a high AC or Gauss, could be cool, but might always be more of a detriment too. Don't know on that one. However, to limit their options to "these mechs can do it, and the mechs that you want to do that aren't in the game yet"... Kinda can be very frustrating. I'm still waiting for the Flea and the Urbanmech...


One of the problems with changes to anything (like convergence) is that, just like ghost heat, a lot of people will complain about it. If you "mess with convergence" people will claim you "remove skill from the game". There is no winning on this point.