Apoc1138, on 14 November 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:
@Vapor Trail
before class eh... that explains alot
it is arbitrary because YOU have decided to create your own rule that says that a weapon must fire for 160 seconds continuously to be deemed "viable"... which is utter rubbish as a 1v1 never lasts that long
A ton of gauss ammo is 150 points of damage. If you're designing around surviving a single 1v1, why would a Gauss Rifle require more than two tons of ammo? Most GaussKitties in my experience have somewhere around 7 or 8 tons of ammo. Why? Because the people building those GaussKitties aren't designing for surviving a 1v1. Four tons of ammo per weapon is 40 shots. 40 shots is 160 seconds. Balancing shouldn't consider just the 1v1, but the weapon overall.
Yes the 160 seconds Common Ballistic Base ammo load figure is arbitrary. But it's not pure "pull it out of my ***" arbitrary. It's based on experience on what works for at least one weapon.
But people whined...
People whined that I didn't take ammo dependence into account in my figures. So I tried. I tried to find a figure that would work by making an educated choice and extrapolating that out to lots of different weapons without having to figure out a perfect ammo load for each.
People then whined that I didn't figure the energy weapons based on the same time frame. I'm going to try that. Eventually.
Now you've started whining that since I made a educated choice as to the CBBal that I'm arbitrarily increasing the PPC's cycle time from three seconds to more than three seconds, and when I explain the PPCs you're back on CBBal.
Confused face.
The average RoF for the PPCs I've been using is based on the heat generation and dissipation rates. It has nothing to do with 160 second figures.
Apoc1138, on 14 November 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:
your math-fu has also failed you on 2 fronts... I can fire 8-9 full salvos before shutdown... I know this because I've tested it... so whatever your maths says, it's wrong
(you've assumed dissipation of 2.2... 22 DHS is more like 3.68 per second for a start)
Ok. I did screw up my math...
I try to check it but I'm trying to pass calculus this semester, so I've got to do more math than just here on the forums. Sometimes things slip.
To Correct:
22 DHS is 3.68 heat per second.
Using that figure:
2 PPCs generate 18 heat.
Average RoF one salvo every 4.89 seconds.
Number of salvos at Max RoF before shutdown (heat cap at 74)
3.68*3 = 6.96 heat per salvo after cooldown.
(74-18) / 6.96 = 8 salvoes before shutdown.
Better?
Apoc1138, on 14 November 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:
secondly - to remove a PPC and add a gauss;
PPC off saves 7 tons... I would have to remove 3 DHS' to get the crit slots to fit the gauss, but I'm still short (7 + 3 = 10) 5 tons to fit the gauss... so I'd have to make yet more compromises to fit the gauss and that's before I even start to think about ammo for the gauss
I don't JUST have 2 PPC's, but using your build I would end up with JUST one PPC and one Gauss, or I remove all my heatsinks thus crippling my other weapons as well and I end up with a 1 trick pony that I can't use in any other situation
either I remove all my heatsinks to fit the gauss, or I remove all my other weapons to fit the gauss... either way I end up with too many heatsinks and no weapons or I end up with weapons I can't use because you've taken all my heatsinks away
So you're saying that the "2 PPC" build is not a " 2 PPC" build. It's a "2 PPC and some other junk" build. Therefore the math I did is invalid because you have other weapons. DUH. The math I did is valid BASED on the initial conditions. IE: a mech with 22 double heat sinks and 2 PPCs and nothing else.
Let me mind meld for a minute and extract your exact build. Nope, getting nothing because I don't read minds. Based on what I got from your post about a build with "2 PPCs" (which was from another thread) I assumed that all you had was 2 PPCs. You said you used a mech with 2 PPCs and did 600 points of damage. I guess I'm at fault because the build you're using as an example of the usefulness of the PPC doesn't use just PPCs.
Apoc1138, on 14 November 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:
if you can't even get these basics correct then I really have trouble believing any of your calculations
Perhaps doing the math yourself would help? I'm trying to put "how" I get the figures I do along with the figures. Maybe checking me will let you find something that works better than what I've come up with.
Apoc1138, on 14 November 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:
BZZZT wrong answer... I've never made such an admission... this goes back to YOUR arbitrary 160 seconds again... I size up my opponent and then use MY strengths to overcome HIS shortfalls. A Gauss user has long reload time, so I use cover to avoid getting shot at, NOT to cooldown. Cooling down is a byproduct of something I would be doing ANYWAY regardless of what weapons I had and how hot I might be.
Regardless of weather you mean to or not you do cool off.
Weapon balance drives tactics.
Weather you know about or understand the math behind it or not, the math still functions. Your playstyle adapts to the math, rather than the other way around.
Apoc1138, on 14 November 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:
I make no effort to cooldown... if I was doing that deliberately then I would ditch the PPC's and only use my UAC5 brawler build... as it is, I find the PPC build a decent anti gauss and overall good support fire mech that never shuts down during normal usage.
See above.
Apoc1138, on 14 November 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:
You seem to be basing all your calculations on 2 mechs standing in the open firing constantly... if this is how you are playing the game then maybe this is why you are not doing very well and feel the need to come up with charts to explain why you keep dying.
Yep. WEAPON balance. Not tactics. I keep saying this, but people don't listen. Weapon Balance drives Tactics.
KDR is 4.7. Win loss is 8.54. My mechs are a dual AC/20 Splatapult and a couple different Cicada builds. Not doing this because I think I die too much. Doing this because I want MWO to be better.
Apoc1138, on 14 November 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:
]
You're telling ME what I MUST do in order to CALCULATE how efficient a killer I am... well, I don't need to do any calculations because I have the scoreboard every round and first hand experience telling me that with a gauss or dual gauss I get worse results / damage / kills than when I use 2 PPC's
your math tells me that I MUST get killed by gauss users all the time, however my experience tells me this isn't true
Because the math is weapon balance, not handicapping players based on skill. Skill is supposed to count for more in a fight than weapon balance. My position is that the current weapon balance is driving build diversity away from the large energy weapons BECAUSE those builds are markedly inferior
Are you a skilled mechwarrior, or the average mechwarrior? I'll assume that you're going to answer "skilled". When you face an inferior pilot in an optimized build while you pilot a non-optimized build, you probably should win. This would be the goal of weapon balance, skill being the primary determining factor.
When you face an inferior pilot in the same build, you should win.
When you face an inferior pilot in an inferior build, you should destroy them.
But again, the math isn't about SKILL. TT weapon balance, while not perfect, had a certain order to it. MWO weapon balance, due to the Dev's goal of translating TT to a real-time first person game, should be somewhere in the same neigborhood.
1 PPC is demonstrably much more inferior to a Gauss Rifle in MWO than it was in TT.
Therefore the weapon balance does not support the goal.
Apoc1138, on 14 November 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:
you don't have access to all the game mechanics and you don't have access to the server side data regarding weapon usage / hit rates / damage / kills etc. so I'm going to rely on my direct experience and PGI's knowledge of the server side data and not a spreadsheet and chart that I already know is based on false assumptions
you can keep on telling me that PPC's are pointless and I will keep on using them to kill stuff
NOT pointless... just more inferior than they should be.
Apoc1138, on 14 November 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:
based on spreadsheets similar to yours that I created myself, I DID used to use gauss alot... since opening my mind to the idea that maybe playing the game on a spreadsheet was not the best way to be doing things and actually playing the game itself, my ideas on what weapons are "viable" has changed drastically
I don't know exactly what variables your math is missing, but it must be missing something because in game experience tells me your math is wrong
Perhaps it's the skill of the average player vs your higher skill?
Guess I hit the quote limit... Have more, but adding it breaks the forum.
Edited by Vapor Trail, 14 November 2012 - 12:30 PM.
7
