24 replies to this topic

[Pr8Dator]

I've been crunching alot of numbers and playing with a ton of formulas on my excel worksheet in order to come up with a mathematical formula which defines in numerical value the combat effectiveness of a mech. Needless to say, it ended up as an extremely sophisticated and tedious endeavor that produced results that depended somewhat on other arbitrary modifier values which can be very subjective.

As such, I scrapped all that excel worksheet and formulas and came up with an extremely simple way of comparing mech combat effectiveness between mechs that I own and that is:

Grossly Simplified Mech Combat Effectiveness = Speed X Firepower

Simple?

I found anything above 2500 to be very effective in the field and I use this to compare between different mechs and builds that I own. The idea behind the formula is simple: the more firepower you can pack at a higher speed, the more combat effective you are.

Why did I not take armor into consideration? First of all, armor doesn't do much if you are slow and getting hit fully. Secondly, armor is commonly a counter-weight for more speed or firepower so it shows in those values as well.

Why did I not take heat into consideration? Again, that can be a very subjective measure. A 9 ML hunchie may not be very heat efficient but as long as it can pull off 2 alphas before overheating, it can core you right through as well. Also, heat can be tactically managed in numerous ways on the field so I think its too subjective to be included in a skeletal simplified formula.

Hope some of you find this useful or at least entertaining to do for your mechs.

Edited by Pr8Dator, 26 December 2012 - 07:18 AM.

[Mr Killdozer]

I think leaving heat efficiency out of the equation is a mistake. The 4P hunch you mentioned may have a high alpha and can severely damage most mechs that are standing still, in actuality your hitting a moving target most of the time and spreading the damage over the enemy mech rather then concentrating it on one spot. My much more heat efficient 6 med laser 4P has killed numerous other 8 or 9 med las 4P's. Mostly because they were shut down or not firing due to heat problems.

Edited for spelling

Edited by Mr Killdozer, 26 December 2012 - 07:32 AM.

[Pr8Dator]

Mr Killdozer, on 26 December 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

I think leaving heat efficiency out of the equation is a mistake. The 4P hunch you mentioned may have a high alpha and can severelydmage most mech that are standing still, in actuality your hitting a moving target most of the time and spreading the damage over the enemy mech rather then concentrating it on one spot. My much more heat efficiency 6 med laser 4P has killed numerous other 8 or 9 med las 4P's. Mostly because they were shut down or not firing due to heat problems.

Like I said in the post, there are MANY more factors you need to consider if you want a very comprehensive mathematical definition so that's not what I am trying to do in this simplified formula due to the reasons surrounding heat that I have mentioned in the post. I would show you how complex I actually got to in my excel worksheet only to come to extremely subjective conclusions anyways.

BTW, I find the 9ML Hunchie very effective on the field too ... in fact, it is many players fav mech too... check out my fav mech thread at http://mwomercs.com/...t-mechs-so-far/

Edited by Pr8Dator, 26 December 2012 - 07:34 AM.

[Timelordwho]

Mr Killdozer, on 26 December 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

I think leaving heat efficiency out of the equation is a mistake. The 4P hunch you mentioned may have a high alpha and can severely damage most mechs that are standing still, in actuality your hitting a moving target most of the time and spreading the damage over the enemy mech rather then concentrating it on one spot. My much more heat efficient 6 med laser 4P has killed numerous other 8 or 9 med las 4P's. Mostly because they were shut down or not firing due to heat problems.

Edited for spelling

Since this is just a rough statistic anyway, you could do (Speed x firepower x heat efficiency) +Armor

Edited by Timelordwho, 26 December 2012 - 07:38 AM.

[Pr8Dator]

Timelordwho, on 26 December 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

Since this is just a rough statistic anyway, you could do (Speed x firepower x heat efficiency) +Armor

That was exactly how my excel formula started becoming 3 pages long....

[Thorqemada]

Lets approve that MWO is an almost scientific Sim

Some Data (Speed x Firepower):
STK-5S: 5586 (ECM immune)
Jenner (F): 4441,6 (ECM immune)
CPLT (F): 4408 (ECM immune)
Atlas (F): 2563,2 (2029.2 affected by ECM)
CN9-AL: 2511 (1701 affected by ECM)
Hunchback (F): 2349 (ECM immune)

Still like to play my Cent the most but i feel very well that the Cat has a way bigger punch when i play it and that the Jenner is a real beast, Stalker kills anything in front of him.

Edited by Thorqemada, 26 December 2012 - 07:49 AM.

[Pr8Dator]

Thorqemada, on 26 December 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

Lets approve that MWO is an almost scientific Sim

Some Data (Speed x Firepower):
Jenner (F): 4441,6 (ECM immune)
CPLT-(F): 4408 (ECM immune)
Atlas (F): 2563,2 (2029.2 affected by ECM)
CN9-AL: 2511 (1701 affected by ECM)
Hunchback (F): 2349 (ECM immune)

Still like to play my Cent the most but i feel very well that the Cat has a way bigger punch when i play it and that the Jenner is a real beast.

There you go! Verification of the effectiveness of such a simple formula

[Timelordwho]

Stalker 3-F :: 5808 (ECM immune).

One-shots any mech from the back.

[Mr Killdozer]

I didn't mean to knock the standard 8/9 med las hunchback, it's popular for a reason. My point was that I think your revised formula is too simplified. Heat is a big factor in this game and ignoring it makes high alpha strike, bad heat management mechs seem better then they really are. You have obviously done a lot of work to get this rating system going and scrapping something that you have spent a lot of time on is hard. In the end this is just my opinion and thanks for adding productively to the MWO community.

[Pr8Dator]

Mr Killdozer, on 26 December 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

I didn't mean to knock the standard 8/9 med las hunchback, it's popular for a reason. My point was that I think your revised formula is too simplified. Heat is a big factor in this game and ignoring it makes high alpha strike, bad heat management mechs seem better then they really are. You have obviously done a lot of work to get this rating system going and scrapping something that you have spent a lot of time on is hard. In the end this is just my opinion and thanks for adding productively to the MWO community.

No prob buddy. Heat was truly an extremely complex issue I tried to deal with in my original formula. I tried using the simplistic multiplication method only to found that it won't work due to the fact that any heat below 1.0 is as good as a 0 and anything above a 1.3 is as good as never overheating when used responsibly. As such, we are once again forced to work the formula within a subjective range in order for it to mean anything. Also, the performance relationship from 1.0 to 1.30 is a HUGE spectrum which I tried to give modifiers for each 0.05 increment and it got real complex real quick... you get what I mean LOL!

[Timelordwho]

Pr8Dator, on 26 December 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

No prob buddy. Heat was truly an extremely complex issue I tried to deal with in my original formula. I tried using the simplistic multiplication method only to found that it won't work due to the fact that any heat below 1.0 is as good as a 0 and anything above a 1.3 is as good as never overheating when used responsibly. As such, we are once again forced to work the formula within a subjective range in order for it to mean anything. Also, the performance relationship from 1.0 to 1.30 is a HUGE spectrum which I tried to give modifiers for each 0.05 increment and it got real complex real quick... you get what I mean LOL!

I've had mechs with sub 1.0 HE that performed decently. It happens when you take a hybrid loadout of long range weapons + brawling weapons (like ERPPCs + a brawling kit)

[Pr8Dator]

Timelordwho, on 26 December 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

I've had mechs with sub 1.0 HE that performed decently. It happens when you take a hybrid loadout of long range weapons + brawling weapons (like ERPPCs + a brawling kit)

Yes, that was considered as well and in the end, an individual heat metrix for each individual weapon had to be worked out instead of using a single heat efficiency index...

Edited by Pr8Dator, 26 December 2012 - 07:59 AM.

[Timelordwho]

Pr8Dator, on 26 December 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

Yes, that was considered as well and in the end, an individual heat metrix for each individual weapon had to be worked out instead of using a single heat efficiency index...

HE still gives a rough idea. This formula isn't an exact science.

[Willie Sauerland]

I think I disagree with your definition of "combat effective" for several reasons. First, this is a team-based game which this formula does not take into account. Second, the pilot makes the mech do the things it does. Third, heat plays an enormous factor. Fourth, going back to the fact this is a team game, combat effective does not necessarily mean "the one who puts out the most damage" but rather who plays their role within the team better.

There are a lot of viable combat effective builds which do not do very well with this forumla. Take for exapmle the 4 AC/5 cataphract CFT-4x: 1096 (54.8 x 20). If we were to use chain fire, it would drop to a heroic 274, yet this mech will drop other mechs quickly based on rate of fire and damage done. Plus it does a good job of suppression as well which can be invaluable.

[Pr8Dator]

Timelordwho, on 26 December 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

HE still gives a rough idea. This formula isn't an exact science.

In fact, towards the end of the formula, even DPS was called into question as a high DPS weapon may not be as effective as a high damage low dps weapon against a target of fixed low health. In the end, none of the commonly accepted measures turn out to be exact science and the whole formula became only as effective as arbitrarily ranking weapons on a scale of 1 to 10 based on gut feel.

Willie Sauerland, on 26 December 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

I think I disagree with your definition of "combat effective" for several reasons. First, this is a team-based game which this formula does not take into account. Second, the pilot makes the mech do the things it does. Third, heat plays an enormous factor. Fourth, going back to the fact this is a team game, combat effective does not necessarily mean "the one who puts out the most damage" but rather who plays their role within the team better.

There are a lot of viable combat effective builds which do not do very well with this forumla. Take for exapmle the 4 AC/5 cataphract CFT-4x: 1096 (54.8 x 20). If we were to use chain fire, it would drop to a heroic 274, yet this mech will drop other mechs quickly based on rate of fire and damage done. Plus it does a good job of suppression as well which can be invaluable.

Exactly why I scrapped the whole excel project. what is presented here is just something for people to compare their own mechs with... like I said, I hope it is at least a good entertainment.

Edited by Pr8Dator, 26 December 2012 - 08:07 AM.

[MadPanda]

So you are telling us to multiply speed with firepower to get some arbitrary number? What's the point? I already know how good my mechs are by playing them.

More useful would be a system to quickly rate your teammates in a game. Here's my point system to rate your teammates:

+2 for each ecm in team
+1 for each light mech that also has ecm
+1 for each assault in team

-1 for each player name with numbers in it
-1 for each trial mech variant
-1 for each light mech without ecm

Check for these things and calculate it to get your team score. Score above 5 is good.

[Timelordwho]

Willie Sauerland, on 26 December 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

I think I disagree with your definition of "combat effective" for several reasons. First, this is a team-based game which this formula does not take into account. Second, the pilot makes the mech do the things it does. Third, heat plays an enormous factor. Fourth, going back to the fact this is a team game, combat effective does not necessarily mean "the one who puts out the most damage" but rather who plays their role within the team better.

There are a lot of viable combat effective builds which do not do very well with this forumla. Take for exapmle the 4 AC/5 cataphract CFT-4x: 1096 (54.8 x 20). If we were to use chain fire, it would drop to a heroic 274, yet this mech will drop other mechs quickly based on rate of fire and damage done. Plus it does a good job of suppression as well which can be invaluable.

4 AC5 CFT-4x would score 2-3k with my heat efficiency weighted metric.

This guy would run 3.3k :
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...7be0947ed5a309a

The non-XL version would be ~2.5k. Less output, but less time dead too.

Edited by Timelordwho, 26 December 2012 - 08:23 AM.

[Willie Sauerland]

Timelordwho, on 26 December 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

4 AC5 CFT-4x would score 2-3k with my heat efficiency weighted metric.

This guy would run 3.3k :
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...7be0947ed5a309a

The non-XL version would be ~2.5k. Less output, but less time dead too.

That is why I was saying the given OP forumla is really too simplistic since it does not even begin to come close to mathematically proving combat effectiveness.

[Dead Fury]

You need to add in armor values in some way. That is a huge portion of any mechs effectiveness.

Personally I would modify your current equation as so..

MA = Max Armor (for that mech)
CA = Current Armor

Firepower * Speed / (MA / CA)

My hunchback would have for example.
Firepower: 45
Speed: 92.62
MA: 338
CA: 338

(45 * 92.62)/(338/338) = (45 * 92.62)/1 = 4167.9 combat effectiveness

______

You also need to calculate in Heat Efficiency. However, different weapon systems work differently with different heat efficiency's. Thus, you would need to assign values to every weapon system also.

Thus, this equation will always be TO SIMPLISTIC.

Edited by Unstruck Fury, 26 December 2012 - 03:11 PM.

[Pugastrius]

A lot of you guys are completely missing the fact that neither of these should actually be a linear formula.

For Example:

Quote

- As speed increases, past a certain point, it becomes magnitudes more difficult to hit the mech, a sign that the formula should be exponential.

Conversely:

- As Firepower increases, the number of attacks required to kill an opposing mech increases logarithmically.

Thus a "Better" formula is something along the lines of:

(60*[Sqrt(FirePower/60)]) * Speed*(Exp[Speed/100 - 1)) = Mech Power

Feel free to adjust the constants as you see fit.

Edited by Pugastrius, 26 December 2012 - 04:01 PM.