398 replies to this topic

[GODzillaGSPB]

Found a solution yet for the uac5 dps calculation? It's funny, but I'm actually asking for a "nerf" so to speak. In comparison the uac5 alone currently makes many mech builds much much more attractive by just adding this weapon. Of course, if you have the ingame experience, you know it jams too often to actually be THAT good, but It'd be nice if the numbers would reflect that, too. Makes for easier comparison.

An example: A dragon with a uac5 + 3t ammo versus the same dragon with an lbx10 + 2t ammo (both weapons + ammo need the same crit-space) and the uac5-version comes out better by far because of the very optimistic dps calculation.

If it's too complicated to fit into a formula, why not make it easy instead? Just add a malus to the dps calculation. Be a bit more...pessimistic so to speak.

Thanks in advance.

[3rdworld]

The next version is going to have the 1.175 CD figure. I am waiting until I can get home to test the MWO Heat scale before I put it out.

In actuality over the average of a match the AC.5 likely does more dps than the UAC. But the UAC is capable of crazy burst if you get lucky on the jams.

Also:

We pinned now!!!

[GODzillaGSPB]

3rdworld, on 23 January 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

The next version is going to have the 1.175 CD figure. I am waiting until I can get home to test the MWO Heat scale before I put it out.

In actuality over the average of a match the AC.5 likely does more dps than the UAC. But the UAC is capable of crazy burst if you get lucky on the jams.

Also:

We pinned now!!!

I know, I asked Niko Snow to pin the thread like I said I would.

Your tool deserves it. Today alone I was able to prepare three awsome Dragon builds where before I never thought it possible to ever get a satisfying build out of that mech.

Regarding the uac5: Yes, if you get lucky - and often I do ^^ - you can get awsome burts right when you need it. So I think the Excel Mechlab should still calculate a higer DPS for the uac5 in comparison to the ac5. Just not that high.

It's funny though. If this would actually be true - we'd have to run several tests and put the statistics through an analysis - then PGI should make changes and not the Excel Mechlab. *g* Because the uac5 SHOULD be better than the ac5.

[3rdworld]

Never mind. The AC/5 has a 1.7cd. So the UAC should always have a higher DPS unless you are very unlucky.

[MustrumRidcully]

3rdworld, on 23 January 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

We pinned now!!!

I am not sure whether I need to congratulate or worry about your alcohol problems.*

*) Actually I am, I noticed before opening the t hread - finally stickied. Congratulations to that as well.

[3rdworld]

Excel Mech Lab v1.79.1.xlsm

• Added COM-TDK
  
• Added TBT-3C
  
• Modified UAC DPS & HPS to account for Jam rates.
  
• Updated MWO Heat Scale.

UAC

• As you can see above, we had a pretty indepth disscussion concerning the UACs optimistic dps calculations. The new calcs assume that the UAC has a 25% chance to Jam on 50% of its shots or a 12.5% chance to jam for 5 seconds. This left us with an average CD of 1.175, and DPS & HPS numbers were adjusted accordingly.

If you are wondering about the naming convention change: I generally move from say .7 to .8 only if there is a large reboot in the sheet. There has been no such change so I decided to just make this the 1st update to the .79 version.

[GODzillaGSPB]

Very cool, was so looking forward to this. Now...on to comparing all my uac5 builds...damn!

[Ethidium]

the AWS9M doesn't seem to be in the drop down menu anymore, though I can still load it from a saved design that I made in a previous version of the sheet.

[3rdworld]

Ethidium, on 31 January 2013 - 02:25 AM, said:

the AWS9M doesn't seem to be in the drop down menu anymore, though I can still load it from a saved design that I made in a previous version of the sheet.

Fixed, I added the AWS-PB and it got booted of the list on accident.

Should be correct now if you will re-download.

Thanks.

[Kiiyor]

Image search for the win.

FINALLY.



STICKIED!

[CompproB237]

I just noticed a bug. Cicada CDA-2B has the stock loadout wrong. It has the Medium Lasers in the side torsos when they should be in the arms. It appears that this is simply the stock loadout's setting as the hardpoints are correct for the 'Mech.

[GODzillaGSPB]

I have a proposal for two new features and a suggestion for a few advanced options.

New feature #1: Make it so that people can assign more then one weapon group number to the weapons.

New features #2: An ammunition counter. Could be coupled with a formula that calculates how long you can fire with the related weapon(s) until you run out of ammo. Would be a rather complicated formula I guess, taking shots per second, heat and number or weapons of the same type into account...but it's just an idea. ^^

Advanced options: Somewhere in the lower part, a section where we can modify heat values. That way you wouldn't need to update the values when PGI changes it. For instance I'm dying to try out how the new heat would benefit a mech with a large pulse laser.

Later that section could incorporate other stats, like tonnage, crit space or ammo per ton values for all the gear...but that might be too much, I admit.

[TheMightyWashburn]

I can not longer type into the boxes to alter things? I cant type in the armor values nor the item names.

[3rdworld]

Excel Mech Lab v1.79.2.xlsm

• Updated Heat values
  
• Updated AWS-PB stock loadout
  
• Corrected some errors

TheMightyWashburn, on 06 February 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

I can not longer type into the boxes to alter things? I cant type in the armor values nor the item names.

Hrmm. I have not changed anything in that regard. Must be an error in your file. (did you select to enable editing?)

CompproB237, on 03 February 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:

I just noticed a bug. Cicada CDA-2B has the stock loadout wrong. It has the Medium Lasers in the side torsos when they should be in the arms. It appears that this is simply the stock loadout's setting as the hardpoints are correct for the 'Mech.

Fixed. Thanks

[3rdworld]

GODzillaGSPB, on 06 February 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

I have a proposal for two new features and a suggestion for a few advanced options.

New feature #1: Make it so that people can assign more then one weapon group number to the weapons.

Pretty good idea. Let me figure out how I am going to do it.

GODzillaGSPB, on 06 February 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

New features #2: An ammunition counter. Could be coupled with a formula that calculates how long you can fire with the related weapon(s) until you run out of ammo. Would be a rather complicated formula I guess, taking shots per second, heat and number or weapons of the same type into account...but it's just an idea. ^^

I can probably add this, not sure where I am going to put it though.

GODzillaGSPB, on 06 February 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

Advanced options: Somewhere in the lower part, a section where we can modify heat values. That way you wouldn't need to update the values when PGI changes it. For instance I'm dying to try out how the new heat would benefit a mech with a large pulse laser.

Later that section could incorporate other stats, like tonnage, crit space or ammo per ton values for all the gear...but that might be too much, I admit.

Changing values would be a pain. because of trying to keep it compatible with 2007, it forces me to conglomerate many of the ranges onto the main sheet instead of split up nice and neat.

Sorry about the delay. I was sick on tuesday and wanted to verify the Heat scale with the new heat values.

They have changed something cause I am coming off small amounts like .01. Probably changed a small decimal or something, it wasn't easily identifiable, so I have not chased it down yet.

Edited by 3rdworld, 07 February 2013 - 11:21 AM.

[GODzillaGSPB]

3rdworld, on 07 February 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

I can probably add this, not sure where I am going to put it though.

I wouldn't mind scrolling. These infos probably wont interest the usual mechlab user, but those who like to know it can scroll down.

I'd also like to add something to the idea: Full salvo counter. Let's say you have 2x lrm5 and 1x lrm10 (upcoming config of one of my Trebuchet *g*) and you use one torso as an ammo bunker with all the lrm ammo. Now it would be interesting to know - without calculating it yourself (I did of course ^^) how many full lrm salvos one can fire. I have 5 tons of ammo --> 5x 180 missiles / (5+5+10) = 45 full salvos.

This can be done in a small section, where all the ammo of the build is summed up in groups (ac5 ammo, ac20 ammo, srm, lrm ssrm and so on), divided by the connected launcher(s) or canon(s) giving the number of full salvos until you run out.

This also helps multi-ballistic builds estimate whether their ammunition will last the whole match or not.

Oh and it is not only easier to calculate but may absolutely suffice as a means of ammo calculation. So you can forget about the calculation of firing duration since this is much more of a "guesstimation" anyway.

When is there ever a situation where you pull the trigger and only release it once the ammo is depleted? I'd say never. You have to pause due to heat or general battle pauses and nobody will count the time he already fired. But full salvos until empty...that makes sense.

Edited by GODzillaGSPB, 08 February 2013 - 06:06 AM.

[GODzillaGSPB]

The Trebuchet hardpoints needs a bit fixing.

[3rdworld]

This should be up to date.

Excel Mech Lab v1.79.3.xlsm

• Updated the Trebuchet Hardpoints
  
• Updated the Cent speed

Upcoming features

I am thinking about putting in some sort of "dropship" feature. That will let you select a couple of preferences like "prefered mech" in each class and possibly # of mechs ie 2 raven 3Ls.

I have been pretty busy at work lately, but will still support this as long as people still use it.

Thanks guys.

[Skylarr]

Why did they remove the PINS?

[GODzillaGSPB]

3rdworld, on 20 February 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

I have been pretty busy at work lately, but will still support this as long as people still use it.

Thanks guys.

That's pretty awsome. I've done modding myself in the past, even for a bigger audience (Rome Total War, TES Oblivion) and in the end I was pretty selfish about it: When I lost interest in the game, I stopped playing AND modding.

So, all power to you!