106 replies to this topic

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 June 2015 - 06:04 PM, said:

Here's the thing.... I have found...that most people when HONEST about averaging their own damage...are seldom the Damage Gods they claim to be. Heck, I think I have one chassis that is holding above 500 avg dmg.

Funny thing is my Lights are all predictably low averages (hey, I suck at Lights) But my avg damage between my good Medium Chassis and Heavies and Assaults, really has minimal difference.

My top avg damage mechs, with at least 25 matches
(that 500 damage actually has less than 25 matches, so nope, doesn't count!)
Assaults:
-ZEU-6S (65 matches) 427 avg dmg
-BNC- 3E (27 matches) 418 avg dmg
-BNC-LM (37 matches) 391 avg dmg
Heavies:
-TDR-5S (30 matches) 435 avg dmg
-ON1-VA (76 matches) 431 avg dmg
-CTF-IM (64 matches) 390 avg dmg
-JM6-DD (68 matches) 390 avg dmg
Mediums:
-HBK-4J (77 matches) 444 avg dmg
-CN9-D (57 matches) 411 avg dmg
-HBK-4G (262 matches) 399 avg dmg
Lights:
-UM-R60 (44 matches) 262 avg dmg

So my highest avg comes from a Medium,but because it's a LRMboat. Yet it sits with a 2.34 KDr and 1.17 W/L while my 4G which scores significantly lower damage (45 pts on avg) sits with a 2.86 KDr and 1.54 W/L... because LRMs generate more damage, but are inefficient killers. Honestly, if I have to spend more than 150 damage to kill you in a 4G, I'm doing something wrong.

But I found it interesting how little difference I have in avg damage with mechs between 50 and 100 tons.

But while I am certainly no Pro (though I'll happily face off against any other 4G pilot)...most people's actual averages have not been massively higher (and it's funny how often I drop with the 1337s and how often their scores.....were not wow worthy). We all have those awesome high scoring matches, but tend to forget how many times we turned around a corner and got dual gaussed to the face, game over, etc. And too many people eppen keeps them from being honest on forums which is funny... people are worried about what a bunch of strangers think.

My Timber Prime has 1.97 WL, 3.61 KD, takes 326 damage to kill a mech, and averages 506 damage a match. My Whale Prime averages 497 damage a match, 1.66 WL, deals 324 damage per kill, and 2.91 KD.

Conversely, my AWS-9M has a 1.67 WL, 2.38 KD, averages 311 a match, but kills each mech in 248 damage because ERPPCs

[Pariah Devalis]

FupDup, on 12 June 2015 - 06:56 PM, said:

I consider 200 damage to be the "minimum viable product" for not being entirely useless. Higher is obviously preferred, and most of the time I beat that easily. Most of the time...

Agreed. Granted, I feel bad doing less than 250 even in something as silly as an MLX. Curious, due to Bishop's self analysis, I went ahead and checked mine. Really varies on the chassis itself being used, but definitely seeing the trend of more damage with increase of tonnage.

Approximately 350 damage for Adders, 300 for Kit Foxes, and 275 for Mist Lynx.

Ice Ferret was at 335, Nova was sitting at just under 370, while the Stormcrow is just a hair above 500. Huge gulf in lethality there, which is, while not unexpected, still curious to look at.

Hellbringer at 470, Mad Dog at 489 (only had one viable variant to look at), and Timber Wolf at approximately 590, however I have not used a Timberwolf seriously since a little before the Hellbringer came out, so it is based largely on pre-nerfed values. Insufficient games with any Summoner to be valid.

Warhawk was at around 540, and the Direwolf at 590, which really surprise me as I lost count how many games were in the 700-950 range in those two, but their averages are much lower. Insufficient games with any Gargoyle to be valid.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 12 June 2015 - 07:12 PM.

[Rampancy]

Props to people who do well in Direwolves. I hate them. Hate them, hate them, hate them.

I like to poptart in my DWF-S and my 2xLB20, 1xLB10, 2xASRM6 DWF-A is hilarious fun as well but for when I'm actually trying to do well I cannot stand them. So slow. So vulnerable. Such low-slung arms.

[LordKnightFandragon]

FupDup, on 12 June 2015 - 06:56 PM, said:

I consider 200 damage to be the "minimum viable product" for not being entirely useless. Higher is obviously preferred, and most of the time I beat that easily. Most of the time...

If I deal any less then about 350 I feel like I really dropped the ball. And 350 is where im still kinda silently raging at myself for not having done more, especially if it doesnt come with atleast 1 kill lol. Ive deal 500+ dmg and no kills, we won, and I was still not satisfied.

[Theodore42]

Damage isn't a useful indicator of how valuable you are to a team. You can take down an assault mech in 2 alpha strikes with a medium mech in the right place.

I'd say kills and component destruction are a better indicator of a players value than damage done. It's true that sometimes kills get stolen, but on the other hand, why didn't YOU make the kill? A mech is at 100% until you take off the right component or make the kill, regardless of damage done.

Here is how I judge my skill:

Assists count as 1/2 point. Components destroyed counts as 2 points and kills count as 3 points. For damage, 1 point per 100 damage.

So 7 components destroyed (14 points) + 3 kills (9 points) + 7 assists (3.5 points) and 310 damage (3 points) = 30 points, which I consider a very good match. Way better than what you might consider a 310 damage game.

By judging myself in these terms, and not in terms of "damage done," I adjust my play style to affect the battlefield, not just my "stats."

Winning is all that matters, and this is the weight I give to the stats that affect a win. Maybe the component destruction is a little over weighted, since you can pop zombie components or useless ones sometimes, but overall, if you are consistently doing these things that affect the battlefield, you're doing it right. Loading up on just the damage stat means nothing alone.

Also, judging yourself in these terms gets you way more c-bills than just doing damage.

[Y E O N N E]

My general rule of thumb is Mech mass multiplied by 10 for pulling your weight, multiplied by 15 for doing well, and multiplied by 20 for amazing. Of course, there's also a scaling factor as well. Obviously, an Atlas doing 1000 damage every game is unrealistic and an Atlas only doing 2000 damage is amazing.

So, my scale is mostly focused around Lights. 400 damage in a Locust is a good game; more than that, and you are carrying hard or missing your shots.

[YueFei]

Mowing through all 3 torsos of an Atlas is about 400 damage. If everyone on your team clears 400 damage, you probably won.

[T0rmented]

You are forgetting internal structure with those atlas. 124 max armour so say hes got
100 forwards + 62 internal = 162 damage to CT core atlas does atlas have ct quirk??)
muliply it by 3 atlas = 486 damage minimum if everything is clean CT for 3 atlas if they carry 24 rear armour each

which leads me back on topic

I aim to do a mech classes total hit point value in damage.
eg jenner 238 armour max + internal (for sake of ease im just halving the armour not exact internal value) 238/2 = ~119
ergo mechs damage in weight is ~119 + 238 = ~357
build your mech to do its weight worth in damage, do that damage minimum and your jenner has been worth it

I dont use this method for assaults but it works up to heavy class.

For assaults aim to do around the same as a timberwolfs score: (462+ ~231 = 693)

100 ton works out roughly: 614 + ~ 307 = 921

which can be rough for atlas but dire can manage it if in the right spot, but like i say breaking 600 makes me feel like my jobs been done in one of the big boys.

Thats my personal take on best measurement of good damage, break your hit point value and your kicking ass.

[YueFei]

T0rmented, on 12 June 2015 - 08:08 PM, said:

You are forgetting internal structure with those atlas. 124 max armour so say hes got
100 forwards + 62 internal = 162 damage to CT core atlas does atlas have ct quirk??)
muliply it by 3 atlas = 486 damage minimum if everything is clean CT for 3 atlas if they carry 24 rear armour each

You can't multiply CT health by 3.
To be precise:
124 CT armor, 62 internal.
84 ST armor, 42 internal plus 11 quirk

CT is 186.
ST is 137. x2 is 274.
274 plus 186 is 460.
that assumes zero back armor.

Like I said, about 400.

[CocoaJin]

600 dmg in my HBK-4G is 3-5 kills. While the same number of kills in my QKD-5K is like 700-800 damage...even 900 or more in some case.

Some builds are just more efficient.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

While there's efficient damage and inefficient damage. It only takes 35 to the head to kill anything. But my HGN-732 requires 174 damage to CT to put down and I'm not going to let you put me down with a just a CT blowout, so you'll get quite a bit of damage out of me.

For me, I just want to dish more than I took.

[Jman5]

FupDup, on 12 June 2015 - 06:56 PM, said:

I consider 200 damage to be the "minimum viable product" for not being entirely useless. Higher is obviously preferred, and most of the time I beat that easily. Most of the time...

That used to be my go-to damage average too, and it was the number I was expecting going into this project. However it seems that with all those resilient Clan XLs and the large number of hitpoint quirks the minimally viable number is now much higher. 200 for lights is still average, but the other classes are pushing 300+ on the average winning teams.

[Theodore42]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 12 June 2015 - 08:29 PM, said:

While there's efficient damage and inefficient damage. It only takes 35 to the head to kill anything. But my HGN-732 requires 174 damage to CT to put down and I'm not going to let you put me down with a just a CT blowout, so you'll get quite a bit of damage out of me.

For me, I just want to dish more than I took.

YEP.

Skilled players spread damage over useless parts. It annoys me when I see my team spamming away ammo and heat at a mech that only needs 1 shot in the right place. If you can't hit that spot, there is no chance you'll get the kill, or do any meaningful damage. Maybe it's the right decision to do damage anyway, and maybe that damage is an indicator of skill, but as for getting a win? It means nothing.

Retro ATTACK: Here is an old match I have for you (before clan mechs even):



It's fairly short but I'll give you the highlights:

At 1 minute, literally a full lance, and maybe half the team, are all spamming an Atlas. This Atlas probably absorbed the most damage of any mech I shoot this match. Killing him is also the biggest waste of time in this match, for myself and my team. 6 mechs shooting at 1 for a full minute is pathetic, even if it's an assault mech.

At 3:20 I come across a Cataphract. He has fallen back after getting his LT structure damaged to orange. I immediately see where to shoot him and I make the kill. While a different player did most of the work, that Cataphract still has 100% of his capacity to do damage. By allowing him to disengage, he can reengage to a safer place and be just as effective as he was at full armor. So almost killing him was practically useless (although it allowed me to get an easy kill).

My favorite part is at 5:30, when I put 2 alpha strikes into a Battlemaster's back LT and waste him. While that is very little damage done, it saved a lot of time and cost me no HP.

Yes, I did 949 damage in this match. But if you watch the whole thing, the most important things I do are component destruction and kills. At least 50% of the damage I did was a waste.

And to add up the points under my scoring system, it is:

5 kills (15 points) + 6 assists (3 points) + 11 components destroyed (22 points) + 949 damage (9 points) = 49

When I watch the match, I feel the value of my contribution is accurately reflected in the points of the system I've made up, rather than just in the damage done. 949 is a lot, but it isn't what affected a win. It's everything else.

Edit: Oh yeah, the skills back then seem to have been... not so great.

Edited by Theodore42, 12 June 2015 - 10:11 PM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Theodore42, on 12 June 2015 - 10:04 PM, said:

Snip

Well sometimes you can't get the kill shot, but sometimes you can take another component away from them like a leg or maybe an arm that has something important in it.

Then there's functionally killing something, like ripping the right arm off a WVR-6K which is often easier than outright killing the mech or blowing out the left torso of a laser vomit Hellbringer. Its what I like about MWO over standard FPS shooters, sometimes the more tactically sound decision is ripping off an open component to critically wound an opponent than hitting the CT that may not outright kill the enemy.

[El Bandito]

200,261 / 345 = 580,47 damage per match. None has the right to say my Direwhale Prime is not carrying its weight.

Muahahahahaha!


The lurmboat HBK-4J of mine has 456,18 damage per match. Over-quirked ez-mode mech, so no surprise there.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Edited by El Bandito, 13 June 2015 - 12:01 AM.

[MechWarrior3671771]

I think categorizing by size is deceptive, I would go with damage output instead. All other things being equal, a 6 med pulse FS should outdamage a 2 ERL Raven.

[Theodore42]

Theodore42, on 12 June 2015 - 10:04 PM, said:

Skilled players spread damage over useless parts. It annoys me when I see my team spamming away ammo and heat at a mech that only needs 1 shot in the right place. If you can't hit that spot, there is no chance you'll get the kill, or do any meaningful damage. Maybe it's the right decision to do damage anyway, and maybe that damage is an indicator of skill, but as for getting a win? It means nothing.

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 12 June 2015 - 10:11 PM, said:

Well sometimes you can't get the kill shot, but sometimes you can take another component away from them like a leg or maybe an arm that has something important in it.

Then there's functionally killing something, like ripping the right arm off a WVR-6K which is often easier than outright killing the mech or blowing out the left torso of a laser vomit Hellbringer. Its what I like about MWO over standard FPS shooters, sometimes the more tactically sound decision is ripping off an open component to critically wound an opponent than hitting the CT that may not outright kill the enemy.

Yep, that's why in my scoring system I make a kill worth 3 points and a component destroyed worth 2 points (and 100 damage worth 1 point). I really feel that destroying a component is worth about 2/3 of a kill on average. Sometimes it's worth a whole kill.

Edited by Theodore42, 12 June 2015 - 10:55 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 June 2015 - 06:04 PM, said:

Here's the thing.... I have found...that most people when HONEST about averaging their own damage...are seldom the Damage Gods they claim to be. Heck, I think I have one chassis that is holding above 500 avg dmg.

Funny thing is my Lights are all predictably low averages (hey, I suck at Lights) But my avg damage between my good Medium Chassis and Heavies and Assaults, really has minimal difference.

My top avg damage mechs, with at least 25 matches
(that 500 damage actually has less than 25 matches, so nope, doesn't count!)
Assaults:
-ZEU-6S (65 matches) 427 avg dmg
-BNC- 3E (27 matches) 418 avg dmg
-BNC-LM (37 matches) 391 avg dmg
Heavies:
-TDR-5S (30 matches) 435 avg dmg
-ON1-VA (76 matches) 431 avg dmg
-CTF-IM (64 matches) 390 avg dmg
-JM6-DD (68 matches) 390 avg dmg
Mediums:
-HBK-4J (77 matches) 444 avg dmg
-CN9-D (57 matches) 411 avg dmg
-HBK-4G (262 matches) 399 avg dmg
Lights:
-UM-R60 (44 matches) 262 avg dmg

So my highest avg comes from a Medium,but because it's a LRMboat. Yet it sits with a 2.34 KDr and 1.17 W/L while my 4G which scores significantly lower damage (45 pts on avg) sits with a 2.86 KDr and 1.54 W/L... because LRMs generate more damage, but are inefficient killers. Honestly, if I have to spend more than 150 damage to kill you in a 4G, I'm doing something wrong.

But I found it interesting how little difference I have in avg damage with mechs between 50 and 100 tons.

But while I am certainly no Pro (though I'll happily face off against any other 4G pilot)...most people's actual averages have not been massively higher (and it's funny how often I drop with the 1337s and how often their scores.....were not wow worthy). We all have those awesome high scoring matches, but tend to forget how many times we turned around a corner and got dual gaussed to the face, game over, etc. And too many people eppen keeps them from being honest on forums which is funny... people are worried about what a bunch of strangers think.

Hm...Mad Stats makes this pretty easy.

Highest damage per match with ~50+ matches is...surprise surprise, a TimberGod.

Timby-C 85 matches 679 average damage
They're used almost exclusively in CW, so not many recorded stats on my part for the normal queue

Next up is the Dragon 1N
46 matches 638 average damage
dem AC90s

For mechs I actually use,
Nova-Prime
535 matches 556 average damage
I like this robot, and I hate this robot. Quirks make me hate it less.

WubShee (3M)
887 matches 590 average damage
So while I feel bad with less than 600, it seems pretty accurate

Smaller robots
Cute Fox Prime
192 matches 367 average damage
Fits that 300...still feels bad compared to the big boys

Myth Lynx Prime
97 matches 373 average damage
wat, better than the Cute Fox?

And Firestarters are the only IS lights I've got 50+ matches in since the reset, 347 Ember and 443 for the Wubbing-S

Lowest with 30 (actually 32) matches is the Myth Lynx B, at 294.


Just don't ask about the Lolcusts...although it seems I don't use very many robots, just the ones I'm familiar with. Preferably the fun ones, which also contain Cbill bonuses.

[Windsaw]

I've seen a locust with a joke build with just MGs and flamers doing more than 250 damage.

That is a truly fabulous outcome!

[Duke Nedo]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 June 2015 - 06:04 PM, said:

Here's the thing.... I have found...that most people when HONEST about averaging their own damage...are seldom the Damage Gods they claim to be. Heck, I think I have one chassis that is holding above 500 avg dmg.

Funny thing is my Lights are all predictably low averages (hey, I suck at Lights) But my avg damage between my good Medium Chassis and Heavies and Assaults, really has minimal difference.

My top avg damage mechs, with at least 25 matches
(that 500 damage actually has less than 25 matches, so nope, doesn't count!)
Assaults:
-ZEU-6S (65 matches) 427 avg dmg
-BNC- 3E (27 matches) 418 avg dmg
-BNC-LM (37 matches) 391 avg dmg
Heavies:
-TDR-5S (30 matches) 435 avg dmg
-ON1-VA (76 matches) 431 avg dmg
-CTF-IM (64 matches) 390 avg dmg
-JM6-DD (68 matches) 390 avg dmg
Mediums:
-HBK-4J (77 matches) 444 avg dmg
-CN9-D (57 matches) 411 avg dmg
-HBK-4G (262 matches) 399 avg dmg
Lights:
-UM-R60 (44 matches) 262 avg dmg

So my highest avg comes from a Medium,but because it's a LRMboat. Yet it sits with a 2.34 KDr and 1.17 W/L while my 4G which scores significantly lower damage (45 pts on avg) sits with a 2.86 KDr and 1.54 W/L... because LRMs generate more damage, but are inefficient killers. Honestly, if I have to spend more than 150 damage to kill you in a 4G, I'm doing something wrong.

But I found it interesting how little difference I have in avg damage with mechs between 50 and 100 tons.

But while I am certainly no Pro (though I'll happily face off against any other 4G pilot)...most people's actual averages have not been massively higher (and it's funny how often I drop with the 1337s and how often their scores.....were not wow worthy). We all have those awesome high scoring matches, but tend to forget how many times we turned around a corner and got dual gaussed to the face, game over, etc. And too many people eppen keeps them from being honest on forums which is funny... people are worried about what a bunch of strangers think.

From some other thread:

Mainline robots between 400 and 500, up to 600 for the best ones for me.

100% solo pugging

Edited by Duke Nedo, 12 June 2015 - 11:43 PM.