16 replies to this topic

[BerryChunks]

http://gamedesignfan...etech-3025.html

This blog should give you all the information necessary about mech design to make informed decisions of which weapons to choose.

[MustrumRidcully]

BerryChunks, on 04 January 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

http://gamedesignfan...etech-3025.html

This blog should give you all the information necessary about mech design to make informed decisions of which weapons to choose.

For the table top game, I see it, but MW:O has different stats, requiring a different analysis of the weapons.

Here are the MW:O stats translated back to the table top:



Though it may not be entirely up to date, I believe some heat and damage stats may have been further tweaked since then.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 05 January 2013 - 07:37 AM.

[LethalRose]

I disagree with so much of that article.

Its 2 years old. We are playing a computer game guys not a table top simulator.

[MagicHamsta]

LethalRose, on 05 January 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

I disagree with so much of that article.

Its 2 years old. We are playing a computer game guys not a table top simulator.

Agreed.

Quote

I consider the LRM/5 the best

*Facepaw*

Edited by MagicHamsta, 06 January 2013 - 12:53 AM.

[Solomon Ward]

I also consider LRM/5 the best.

From a receiving perspective and with AMS installed.

[Ewigan]

I find LRM5 to be the best, too.
If you boat them that is. Cause well, firing one launcher doesn't make sense because of AMS. but 4 or more? yes, that does make sense, especially with the near to none heat AND the awesome recycle time.

[BerryChunks]

I know it takes some critical thinking to do, so don those caps.

LRM5's are the best where there are no rules restricting how many weapons you can put on. LRM5 spam was Rule #1 in MW3, which also happened to be a video game, and surprise surprise, not a TT game, yet it conformed to what the article is talking about.

Saying "this is a video game, not TT" is a red herring. That rhetoric qualifies absolutely nothing.

[MustrumRidcully]

BerryChunks, on 07 January 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

I know it takes some critical thinking to do, so don those caps.

LRM5's are the best where there are no rules restricting how many weapons you can put on. LRM5 spam was Rule #1 in MW3, which also happened to be a video game, and surprise surprise, not a TT game, yet it conformed to what the article is talking about.

Saying "this is a video game, not TT" is a red herring. That rhetoric qualifies absolutely nothing.

I think there may be additional factors at work in MW:O that make LRM5s more attractive.

In MW:O
LRM5s have a higher rate of fire. LRM5s can fire every 3.75 seconds, LRM20s every every 4.75 seconds. That means with LRM5s. That leads to this:
LRM5: 2 Ton for 3.08 DPS and 0.62 HPS. => 4.97 DPS per 1 HPS / 1.54 DPS/Ton
LRM10s: 5 Tons for 5.33 DPS and 1.07 HPS. => 4.98 DPS per 1 HPS / 1.07 DPS/Ton /
LRM15s: 7 Tons for 7.05 DPS and 1.18 HPS. => 5.97 DPS per 1 HPS / 1.01 DPS/Ton /
LRM20s: 10 Tons for 8.42 DPS and 1.26 HPS. => 6.68 DPS per 1 HPS / 0.842 DPS/Ton /

So LRMs as they get heavier get more heat efficient, but they get less weight efficient if we only count weapon weight.

Let's see what we get if we try to go heat neutral with Double Heat Sinks
LRM5: 3.08 DPS / (2 Tons + 6.2/2 Tons In DHS = 5.32 Tons) => 0.58 DPS / Ton; Wtih Artemis: 0.49
LRM10: 5.33 DPS / (5 Tons + 5.35Tons in DHS = 10.35 Tons) => 0.51 DPS / Ton; With Artemis: 0.47
LRM15: 7.05 DPS / (7 Tons + 5.9 Tons in DHS = 12.9 Tons) => 0.54 DPS / Ton; With Artemis: 0.51
LRM20: 8.42 DPS / (10 Tons + 6.3 Tons in DHS = 16.3 Tons) => 0.52 DPS / Ton; With Artemis: 0.49

So assuming you have the hard points without ARTEMIS, for the same damage output, LRM5s are the most efficient of the LRMs, followed by LRM15, then LRM20, then LRM10. With ARTEMIS, the math changes in favor to the LRM15.

[Strongbad]

I personally feel that long range fire is really inefficient in this game...except for the odd missile

[Wrenchfarm]

Nobody is mentioning how AMS can deal with staggered LRM5 bursts much easier than large volleys of LRM fire.

It makes me sad when people play this game in the bubble of a spreadsheet than actually looking at how the game plays.

[MavRCK]

It's a well written article and a good first-step read for any new players to MWO. This article leads in the right direction... but the analysis is flawed and undermined by the author's inconsistent and non-transparent method of analysis. Some of his conclusions are flat-out wrong and demonstrate the author's lack of experience and understanding of the game.

Edited by MavRCK, 07 January 2013 - 04:49 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Wrenchfarm, on 07 January 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

Nobody is mentioning how AMS can deal with staggered LRM5 bursts much easier than large volleys of LRM fire.

It makes me sad when people play this game in the bubble of a spreadsheet than actually looking at how the game plays.

That is true, but my tip - don't stagger them then.

If you use 1 LRM20, you can't stagger it either, so why stagger 4 LRM5?

Also, unless they chaned something recently - if your mech has, say, tubes for LRM15s, and you fire an LRM20, the missiles will be staggered, but if you fire 4 LRM5s together, there is no staggering.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 08 January 2013 - 02:45 AM.

[Ravennus]

MavRCK, on 07 January 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

It's a well written article and a good first-step read for any new players to MWO. This article leads in the right direction... but the analysis is flawed and undermined by the author's inconsistent and non-transparent method of analysis. Some of his conclusions are flat-out wrong and demonstrate the author's lack of experience and understanding of the game.

The main problem is that this guy has never played MWO. He's analyzing the tabletop Battletech game, and an earlier version at that.

[Wrenchfarm]

MustrumRidcully, on 08 January 2013 - 02:44 AM, said:

That is true, but my tip - don't stagger them then.

If you use 1 LRM20, you can't stagger it either, so why stagger 4 LRM5?

Also, unless they chaned something recently - if your mech has, say, tubes for LRM15s, and you fire an LRM20, the missiles will be staggered, but if you fire 4 LRM5s together, there is no staggering.

Hum, why would I want to use 4 hardpoint to achieve the same thing? Unless I had NOTHING else to use the slots or tonnage for, I'd rather make use of everything I could.

I suppose if you had a really slot/tonnage tight build and you weren't going to use the extra hardpoints for anything you might as well break up a larger missile pack into smaller ones, if only to spread out critical hits. But that is such a specific and singular situation I would hesitate to give it as advice.

Also, just to clarify - it is absolutely true that the physical missile tubes on your mech determine how many missiles you can fire out in one volley. But to be clear, that is true across the board. Firing 4xLRM5s out of say a ten slot tube would still be divided into two volleys of 10 just like if you tried to fire a LRM20 through it. By the language in your post you seem to imply that you can cheat the system be firing multiple smaller packs, but that's just not true, it will still be staggered. Pretty sure we are on the same page, but just want to avoid any misinformation.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

You don't need a blog or excel sheets to know that MLs are the best Energy. Pulses suck. Flamers are garbage. ERs suck. Large too large, Small too small. What's left?

Edited by Bluten, 08 January 2013 - 05:40 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Wrenchfarm, on 08 January 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

Hum, why would I want to use 4 hardpoint to achieve the same thing? Unless I had NOTHING else to use the slots or tonnage for, I'd rather make use of everything I could.

Because your mech is heavy enough as it is, for example. Say, you really only want 2 LRM10s, because with all the ammo, heat sinks and additional weapons in other hard points you intend to pack, you got a few missile hard points unused - so you can choose 4 LRM5s instead, for example, because that will be more efficient.

Hard points are an additional design constraints created by PGI for this game, but the main constraints where always weight and criticals for Battletech, and the introduction of hard points hasn't changed that.

[Wanderfalke NK]

You may have forgotten the fact that, if you chainfire lrms you enemy can be distracted more easiely, then just you simply fireing one 20 salve. Sure you might do less dmg, considering your target has ams. But its the best supportive way to shot lrms. Its like the quad ac2 builts. Dmg output is good but the distracting effect on your target may be the advantage you and/or your team needs for a victory.

Edited by Wanderfalke NK, 17 January 2013 - 02:31 PM.