42 replies to this topic

[Atomvinter]

I see a lot of forum posts where people are discussing which weapons have more DPS (damage-per-second). Some take the example of the AC/2 vs the AC/20 to prove that the smaller weapon is superior to the bigger one. Ok, let's look at the "fancy mathematics" first:

Alone, the AC/2 has 4 DPS (2 shots per second, dealing 2 damage each) and the AC/20 has 5 DPS (0.25 shots per second, dealing 20 damage each)

As the AC/2 weighs less than half of the AC/20, it would be quite possible to fit two AC/2s and still save weight, and then you'll have 8 DPS for 12 tons of weapons compared to 5 DPS for 14 tons.

So the coclusion must be: OMG HAXORRZZZ the AC/2 is Uberweapon betterz thanz yo silly AC/20 1337 L00lZ!

Right?
...


NO, wait a minute: This isn't Diablo or some other game where DPS is the only stat that seems to matter. Here's why:

- Two AC/2s generate 4 heat per second - one AC/20 generates 1.5. This means more heatsinks, so the weight saved might not be saved after all.

- You have to hit with ten AC/2 shots in the same location of an enemy mech to produce the same effect as a single AC/20 shot. With two AC/2s this takes about 2.5 seconds, and the chances of the enemy mech moving in response to taking fire is substantial. Odds are, you miss with one in three shots, and the rest are spread out over several parts of the enemy mech, unless you are firing from point blank range.

- Some people find it very difficult to hit the broad side of a barn with any ballistic weapon because of the current lag issue. These players might prefer rapid firing weapons so they may increase their chances of hitting by using the advanced SAP* technique (* = spray and pray). This is a valid tactic, but not very cheap when having to rearm those 300 shells that you fired at the mountainside, trying to hit a rubberbanding Jenner.


My conclusion: Both AC/20 and AC/2 have their uses. The AC/2 has superior range and can be an excellent harasser weapon that keeps snipers heads down or make enemy assaults miss because of weapon shake. The AC/20 is an excellent brawler weapon when used correctly. It delivers huge amounts of damage instantly to a single location... and if that location is the head of an Awesome, the results are often quite satisfying. (I am not so sure about the AC/10 and AC/5 though as they are very heavy compared to the damage they do, in my opinion)

BOTTOM LINE: DPS is not a deciding factor for me. I choose weapons that I feel I can consistently deliver damage with (as in: hit something), without overheating. My advice, esp. to new players is to try out different weapons and not make their build in Excel solely by looking at stats. Learning the stats should be a helpful tool for making that "epic build", but it doesn't help to have a 120 point alpha strike if you never get any kills.

I would like to give a big shoutout to Ohmwrecker for this helpful post: http://mwomercs.com/...s-excel-inside/

Edited by Atomvinter, 18 November 2012 - 07:05 AM.

[FrostPaw]

Atomvinter, on 18 November 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:

BOTTOM LINE: DPS is not a deciding factor for me.

That's fine, but it really doesn't matter to the people for which it is. You can't make people think differently by telling them what they think is wrong......it's what they think.

[KingCobra]

That's why I suggested getting rid of the ALPHA STRIKE and just allowing 2 weapons per weapon grouping and no chain fire. Even with 3 weapons in a group the DPS is massive like 2 large lasers and a gauss rifle or 3 lrm's or even 3 ssrm 6.

Edited by KingCobra, 18 November 2012 - 07:13 AM.

[Atomvinter]

FrostPaw, on 18 November 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

That's fine, but it really doesn't matter to the people for which it is. You can't make people think differently by telling them what they think is wrong......it's what they think.

Yees, and my post is what *I* think. Feel free to disagree.

[Vassago Rain]

There are two schools of thought on this.
Some like it when their attacks spit out sustainable damage (DPS). Some like having just the one second of firepower (burst).

[Atomvinter]

KingCobra, on 18 November 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

That's why I suggested getting rid of the ALPHA STRIKE and just allowing 2 weapons per weapon grouping and no chain fire. Even with 3 weapons in a group the DPS is massive like 2 large lasers and a gauss rifle or 3 lrm's or even 3 ssrm 6.

I don't think that will happen, as alpha strikes are an iconic, abeit ineffective, way of fighting with at battlemech.

Vassago Rain, on 18 November 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

There are two schools of thought on this. Some like it when their attacks spit out sustainable damage (DPS). Some like having just the one second of firepower (burst).

Indeed, and I'm not saying any of the weapons are better than the other. They fit different uses AND different players. I think all autocannons are difficult to use and for the moment prefer energy weapons.

The point I was trying to make is that some people tend to get so obsessed with the numbers that they don't make builds that fit their playstyle, only builds that look good on paper.

[Grym]

DPS is a factor but really people should be looking at a weapon in the way of "application of dps".

AC20 fits a brawler much better than the AC2 because its damage upfront.

But the AC2 can be used at pretty much all ranges.

KingCobra, on 18 November 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

That's why I suggested getting rid of the ALPHA STRIKE and just allowing 2 weapons per weapon grouping and no chain fire. Even with 3 weapons in a group the DPS is massive like 2 large lasers and a gauss rifle or 3 lrm's or even 3 ssrm 6.

No.

[Cant Get Right]

Atomvinter, on 18 November 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:

I see a lot of forum posts where people are discussing which weapons have more DPS (damage-per-second). Some take the example of the AC/2 vs the AC/20 to prove that the smaller weapon is superior to the bigger one. Ok, let's look at the "fancy mathematics" first: Alone, the AC/2 has 4 DPS (2 shots per second, dealing 2 damage each) and the AC/20 has 5 DPS (0.25 shots per second, dealing 20 damage each) As the AC/2 weighs less than half of the AC/20, it would be quite possible to fit two AC/2s and still save weight, and then you'll have 8 DPS for 12 tons of weapons compared to 5 DPS for 14 tons. So the coclusion must be: OMG HAXORRZZZ the AC/2 is Uberweapon betterz thanz yo silly AC/20 1337 L00lZ! Right? ... NO, wait a minute: This isn't Diablo or some other game where DPS is the only stat that seems to matter. Here's why: - Two AC/2s generate 4 heat per second - one AC/20 generates 1.5. This means more heatsinks, so the weight saved might not be saved after all. - You have to hit with ten AC/2 shots in the same location of an enemy mech to produce the same effect as a single AC/20 shot. With two AC/2s this takes about 2.5 seconds, and the chances of the enemy mech moving in response to taking fire is substantial. Odds are, you miss with one in three shots, and the rest are spread out over several parts of the enemy mech, unless you are firing from point blank range. - Some people find it very difficult to hit the broad side of a barn with any ballistic weapon because of the current lag issue. These players might prefer rapid firing weapons so they may increase their chances of hitting by using the advanced SAP* technique (* = spray and pray). This is a valid tactic, but not very cheap when having to rearm those 300 shells that you fired at the mountainside, trying to hit a rubberbanding Jenner. My conclusion: Both AC/20 and AC/2 have their uses. The AC/2 has superior range and can be an excellent harasser weapon that keeps snipers heads down or make enemy assaults miss because of weapon shake. The AC/20 is an excellent brawler weapon when used correctly. It delivers huge amounts of damage instantly to a single location... and if that location is the head of an Awesome, the results are often quite satisfying. (I am not so sure about the AC/10 and AC/5 though as they are very heavy compared to the damage they do, in my opinion) BOTTOM LINE: DPS is not a deciding factor for me. I choose weapons that I feel I can consistently deliver damage with (as in: hit something), without overheating. My advice, esp. to new players is to try out different weapons and not make their build in Excel solely by looking at stats. Learning the stats should be a helpful tool for making that "epic build", but it doesn't help to have a 120 point alpha strike if you never get any kills. I would like to give a big shoutout to Ohmwrecker for this helpful post: http://mwomercs.com/...s-excel-inside/

Can i just say while i like your post a lot. I think knowing the damage numbers in detail would be a good thing. Because some of us feel the game is not working right on this level. Like the ac/20 headshot leg damage splash damage excuse. it's not a lb10x. i'd like to see heatmaps, charts, graphs, hard data. But i'd also like to see some people join them and help them with the coding of things because they need it and are asking for it.
IDC about dps in the sense that you are talking about. But i like me some factual data to go by. Some people have been asking for data since the beginning though.

[Atomvinter]

Cant Get Right, on 18 November 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Can i just say while i like your post a lot. I think knowing the damage numbers in detail would be a good thing. Because some of us feel the game is not working right on this level. Like the ac/20 headshot leg damage splash damage excuse. it's not a lb10x. i'd like to see heatmaps, charts, graphs, hard data. But i'd also like to see some people join them and help them with the coding of things because they need it and are asking for it. IDC about dps in the sense that you are talking about. But i like me some factual data to go by. Some people have been asking for data since the beginning though.

Yes, by all means, and that is why I'm linking to Ohmwreckers post at the end. I used it for my "fancy mathematics" in this post.

I love looking at numbers and trying to find that sweet spot between damage output, weight, heat, weapon range, DPS and so on. I have Ohmwreckers reference guide as a favorite in my browser.

But, numbers don't tell the whole story. If you can't get used to a particular weapon, you can't use it effectively, no matter how good it is on paper.

[WildeKarde]

My mate has a gauss and 2 er ppc's on his atlas as he says it does huge damage, it does but not when he shuts down after three volleys. Too many take the build of the moment even when it doesn't suit how they play.

Everyone takes the damage on a alpha as a measure of their effectiveness but personally I don't think I've ever actually us alpha strike in a game.

[Leetskeet]

High damage sustainable alphas are superior to dps in this game. You can have your fun with triple AC2's, but it's not going to save you from some laserboat or Gausscat.

[IIIuminaughty]

I wonder if OP's like this game actually plays the game
or just sit on forums and figure out calculations not made by them?

[Lauranis]

KingCobra, on 18 November 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

That's why I suggested getting rid of the ALPHA STRIKE and just allowing 2 weapons per weapon grouping and no chain fire. Even with 3 weapons in a group the DPS is massive like 2 large lasers and a gauss rifle or 3 lrm's or even 3 ssrm 6.

This doesn't solve a thing, it is trivial to split the weapons up into two groups and simply activate them simultaneously. Aside from that the focused DPS output of the 3 example you give can be mitigated by the target, or are mitigated by the weapon systems themselves, eg:

example 1: 2 large lasers and a gauss rifle. The instant the lasers fire, roll your torso and turn suddenly with the legs, this will spread the damage across the mech, and the gauss rifle (as it has a travel time) will not hit where the user desired (assuming you are fast enough)

example 2: They are LRM's, by their very nature they spread their damage across the target, even then, in faster mechs, torso rolling and rapid course changes in the final moments before impact can cause many to miss faster mechs. (even if Artemis and Tag are used against you).

example 3: well Ssrm's have been a bit of a problem in the past, though their current bugged behaviour, and their future planned behaviour will somewhat negate this problem (if you didn't know they will *soon* have a designated spread that will have them hit the upper sections of the mech randomly)

[DrBlue62]

Rearming AC2 Ammo is pretty cheap. Less than a thousand per ton.

[Wrenchfarm]

I generally agree with the OP. While it is ESSENTIAL to know the damage/heat/recycle numbers and can be a great source of guidance when designing your mech, DPS isn't the end all be all. With the AC20 VS AC2 example even, what about all those times when you only get one shot?

Every weapon has trade offs and advantages beyond raw damage values. It is up to your individual playing style and preferences to determine which weapon is best.

Other than 2X Gauss. It wins all day erry day.

[Versoth]

Vassago Rain, on 18 November 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

There are two schools of thought on this. Some like it when their attacks spit out sustainable damage (DPS). Some like having just the one second of firepower (burst).

The problem with that statement is that there are quantifiable differences between the two.

The Burst people require less time to output the same damage. Therefore they have more time to spend in cover, looking for cover, maneuvering to flank that clueless Atlas, etc.

They also only have to aim properly once to do their damage. Then they can look around, spread damage, etc.

The DPS people suffer for their choice every second they are not firing and doing damage. Every second you spend in cover or looking for cover is a second you are not outputting damage.

Then again, if they fire enough they can make up the difference. If you do twice as much damage in 3 seconds as another weapon does in a single burst, every time you accurately fire for 2 seconds you did more damage than a single burst.

Then again, you have to spend all of your firing time aiming accurately. You have to track your target and not look away for your DPS to matter. Every shot that misses your target component is, in terms of time-to-kill, wasted time and ammo.


There are other advantages and disadvantages, of course. Burst damage weapons often have a distinctive sound and seeing ones center torso armor go from 'perfectly ok' to 'gone' in one big bang often makes one rethink ones current position and tactical plan.

Then again, getting hit with an AC/2 four times per second is a pretty good way to never see and aim correctly again.

Atomvinter, on 18 November 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

I don't think that will happen, as alpha strikes are an iconic, abeit ineffective, way of fighting with at battlemech.

In a cover-dominated landscape, alpha strikes are actually very efficient, both in terms of time and damage taken to accomplish the same task. Consider: popping out from cover, doing 30 damage to a single component and slipping back into cover, versus spending seven and one-half seconds doing the same thing with a loud 'here I am!' booming report.

Seven and a half seconds of firing and standing in not-cover is less safe for your mech, throws away any advantage gained from the lack of enemy knowledge of your location or loadout, and is seven and a half seconds of pixel-perfect aiming that you are not spending looking at the tactical position of everyone else.

On the other hand, if you're in an Atlas and your job on the team is to hold attention while your support gets in position, being loud and proud is the point. If you're the distraction or the damage-taker, you aren't spending your time in cover. So take your AC/2s and go rock-lock somebody.

[vettie]

StrataDragoon, on 18 November 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

I wonder if OP's like this game actually plays the game or just sit on forums and figure out calculations not made by them?

Oh hush up and do the math...
LOL!, Love ya man! (not like that, more like a brother, wait, I guess you would be more like my son well anyway...w00t!)

[Vassago Rain]

Versoth, on 18 November 2012 - 07:34 AM, said:

The problem with that statement is that there are quantifiable differences between the two. The Burst people require less time to output the same damage. Therefore they have more time to spend in cover, looking for cover, maneuvering to flank that clueless Atlas, etc. They also only have to aim properly once to do their damage. Then they can look around, spread damage, etc. The DPS people suffer for their choice every second they are not firing and doing damage. Every second you spend in cover or looking for cover is a second you are not outputting damage. Then again, if they fire enough they can make up the difference. If you do twice as much damage in 3 seconds as another weapon does in a single burst, every time you accurately fire for 2 seconds you did more damage than a single burst. Then again, you have to spend all of your firing time aiming accurately. You have to track your target and not look away for your DPS to matter. Every shot that misses your target component is, in terms of time-to-kill, wasted time and ammo. There are other advantages and disadvantages, of course. Burst damage weapons often have a distinctive sound and seeing ones center torso armor go from 'perfectly ok' to 'gone' in one big bang often makes one rethink ones current position and tactical plan. Then again, getting hit with an AC/2 four times per second is a pretty good way to never see and aim correctly again. In a cover-dominated landscape, alpha strikes are actually very efficient, both in terms of time and damage taken to accomplish the same task. Consider: popping out from cover, doing 30 damage to a single component and slipping back into cover, versus spending seven and one-half seconds doing the same thing with a loud 'here I am!' booming report. Seven and a half seconds of firing and standing in not-cover is less safe for your mech, throws away any advantage gained from the lack of enemy knowledge of your location or loadout, and is seven and a half seconds of pixel-perfect aiming that you are not spending looking at the tactical position of everyone else. On the other hand, if you're in an Atlas and your job on the team is to hold attention while your support gets in position, being loud and proud is the point. If you're the distraction or the damage-taker, you aren't spending your time in cover. So take your AC/2s and go rock-lock somebody.

Yes, of course.
But the point is, there are two schools of thought, and that's how it's always been. Some like it when they can put that one AWP round into people, others say an MP5 fired forever is better.

I take what's useful from both schools.

[Xervitus]

KingCobra, on 18 November 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

That's why I suggested getting rid of the ALPHA STRIKE and just allowing 2 weapons per weapon grouping and no chain fire. Even with 3 weapons in a group the DPS is massive like 2 large lasers and a gauss rifle or 3 lrm's or even 3 ssrm 6.

You from the Diablo 3 dev team?

[MustrumRidcully]

It's simple - because it does matter.

Let's say you have one weapn that deals 5 damage every 4 seconds. And the other deals 5 damage every 3 seconds. All other things are equal. Do you believe that the two weapons are equally powerful?
If you need to chew through 30 points of armour - which of these two weapons would be better? The one that can do it in 18 seconds or the one that can do it in 24 seconds?

You see how much DPS matters here, don't you?

Now, is it the only statistic that matters? Obviously not. And for the same reason more than DPS can matter in games like Diablo or WoW, too - it matters how long you need to sustain your damage output (e.g. stay visible, stay in range, stay on target) to get there. If you deal 20 damage every 4 seconds that can better than dealing 5 damage every second, for example. There is a difference whether you deliver x DPS with a hit-scan weapon or x DPS with a weapon with a slow projectile or x DPS with a weapon with a fast projectile.
It matters whether you need to spend 10 tons for 5 DPS or 5 tons for 4 DPS. It matters whether your 4 DPS generates 2 HPS or whether your 3.75 DPS generates .25 heat per second.

It matters whether you can sustain 5 DPS for 5 seconds or for 20 seconds. It matters whether you can sustain 5 DPS for 5 seconds and 1 DPS for 35 seconds, or 1.5 DPS for 40 seconds.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 18 November 2012 - 07:51 AM.