Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Snargfargle

Data Analysis of Secondary Armament: Massachusetts

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

5,382
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
10,085 posts

Massachusetts: Analysis of Secondary Armamemt

Opponent: Des Moines

Orientation: Broadside

Range 10.5 km

Number of iterations: 5

Signals and other skills: All applicable to a secondary spec

IFHE 1 2 3 4 5 avg
Shots fired 770 480 610 800 850 702
Hits 149 58 112 133 153 121
Accuracy 19 12 18 17 18 17
Shell Dmg 46046 32740 32384 41492 46046 39742
Fires 1 4 4 2 2 3
Fire Dmg 4554 17860 18216 9108 4554 10858
Dmg/fire 4554 4465 4554 4554 2277 4176
Duration 276 191 228 301 315 262
             
MCSA + DE 1 2 3 4 5 avg
Shots fired 466 402 642 432 480 484
Hits 177 170 267 293 189 219
Accuracy 38 42 42 68 39 45
Shell Dmg 24275 24146 30844 26898 24572 26147
Fires 6 6 5 6 6 6
Fire Dmg 26325 26457 19756 23702 26028 24454
Dmg/fire 4388 4410 3951 3950 4338 4216
Duration 189 198 297 214 185 224

Note that without MCSA the number of shots fires increases significantly from 484 to 702.

Note that the accuracy increased from 17% to 45% with MCSA.

Note that damage per fire is similar at 4176 vs. 4216.

Note that with MCSA + DE that fires increased significantly from 3 to 6.

Note that IFHE increases shell damage significantly from 26127 to 39743.

Note that with MCSA + HE that fire damage increased significantly from 10858 to 24454.

Note that the bots may or may not have extinguished fires as a human player would have.

Note that time to sinking was about the same, though slightly less for MCSA + DE.

Conclusion: As soon as get another command point point for one of my commanders, I am going to spec it MCSA + IFHE and see what this does, as it may result in the most damage to CAs. 

More data: Damage per shell

IFHE

Dmg/shell 309 564 289 312 301 328

MCSA + DE

Dmg/shell 137 142 116 92 130 119
Edited by Snargfargle
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[-BRS-]
Members
487 posts
10,739 battles

Looks to me that it is a wash between the two with total damage being pretty equivalent.  The biggest difference being do you like your victims to die from being shot or from burning.

Comp. #WV44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,382
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
10,085 posts
16 minutes ago, TheCompGuy25 said:

Looks to me that it is a wash between the two with total damage being pretty equivalent.  The biggest difference being do you like your victims to die from being shot or from burning.

Comp. #WV44

That was sort of my conclusion. I'm wondering if against BBs that the DE might be a better choice than IFHE because there is a lot less to pen with IFHE on a BB. Also. as for DDs it really doesn't matter. IFHE really seems only to aid in killing cruisers.

The tests take some time but eventually I'll get around to more of them. 

Edited by Snargfargle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,045 posts
3,620 battles

I think this test is overlooking a key point - all else is not equal. In a battle against a moving human opponent, it's more important to get hits as fast as possible, because you're both taking hits yourself and your opponent is maneuvering to minimize damage. You won't have time for the increased per-shell damage from IFHE to reach the same mean as the increased DPM from the accuracy buff of MCSA when damaging an enemy from full health to sinking. This is like the practical difference with the 150mm KM DD guns vs. everyone else's DD guns. KM has high alpha, but alpha only counts if you hit.

So I think the most important factor in the IFHE vs MCSA is how many hits you can get in the relatively short period of time you can actually expect a player-controlled enemy ship to be within your secondary battery range.

EDIT 2: Another thought is that it's hard to quantify the relative value of IFHE vs. MCSA because MCSA also requires manual targeting, which is another player task that distracts from maneuvering and aiming the main battery or torpedo tubes, and also that IFHE with AI secondary control allows you to fire at two targets.

Edited by RainbowFartingUnicorn
Edited for clarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,382
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
10,085 posts
1 minute ago, RainbowFartingUnicorn said:

I think this test is overlooking a key point - all else is not equal. In a battle against a moving human opponent, it's more important to get hits as fast as possible, because you're both taking hits yourself and your opponent is maneuvering to minimize damage. You won't have time for the damage to reach the mean from full health to sinking. So I think the most important factor in the IFHE vs MCSA is how many hits you can get in a relatively short period of time.

You are correct -- this was a static test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,129
[O7]
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,894 posts
8,457 battles

Question:

Are you just letting the secondaries shoot until the DM dies? In that case the amount of damage done by shells would better be represented by shell dmg per hit because the total damage done would be shell dmg + fire damage. Larger shell damage looks better at first glance but not if it took more shells and still took a longer time to kill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,082
[A-I-M]
Members
2,233 posts
11,368 battles
36 minutes ago, TheCompGuy25 said:

Looks to me that it is a wash between the two with total damage being pretty equivalent.  The biggest difference being do you like your victims to die from being shot or from burning.

Comp. #WV44

Of course total damage is equivalent:

HE

SHOT

THEM

UNTIL

THEY

SANK

!

Look at total shots or duration(time) to achieve the “wash”. 

Then decide for yourself whether a 38-second difference in average time to destruction is a “wash”.

Then decide for yourself whether what you give up for that difference is worth it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
897
[PVE]
Members
3,952 posts
22,262 battles

Humans (usually) control their DCP better than bots so fire damage is gonna vary quite a bit due to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,382
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
10,085 posts
11 minutes ago, Aratnomis said:

Most folks spec MCSA+IFHE, this is the comparison you missed.

I need another point on a captain to have one spec'd thus. When the free re-spec comes down I'll do more analysis. I'm also going to look at the data for BBs and DDs too if I have the time.

I used to do this science stuff for a career and know that in order to properly analyze the data, I would need to have a much larger sample size than five. If I really wanted to I could set up a program to mine the data as it was collected. However I really don't want to invest a lot of time in this. Mainly I was just wanting to get an idea of the best commander spec for my Massy. Of course, if IFHE changes a lot then a brand new analysis would have to be done.

Edited by Snargfargle
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27
[WOLF9]
[WOLF9]
Members
169 posts
7,275 battles
1 hour ago, Snargfargle said:

I need another point on a captain to have one spec'd thus.

I would also skip DE for your tests.  REASON: If you are hitting more with MCSA you have a higher number of chances to start fires, so the 'significant' increase in fires can't directly be attributed to DE.  My captain is 17 points, currently without AFT.  With the respec I'm going to swap IFHE for AFT and see where I land.  I'll likely get IFHE for the 18th point.

Abbye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×