172 replies to this topic

[Lykaon]

Tesunie, on 13 August 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

So far, I still do not see, nor understand at this current time, how double armor provides some extra bonus to heavier armored mechs over lighter armored mechs.

And please correct me if I am missing any part of the math, or not understanding the full problem. Just means you might need to explain what the problem is a bit more...

In my opinion the OP is trying to explain a perception of an issue divorced from the cause of an issue.

Essentially how it feels as opposed to why it feels that way.

As I posted above the overall effects of how the borrowed table top mechanics function within the framework of MWo is mechs deal significantly higher damage values with disturbingly higher accuracy and concentration of damage.

Now when an Atlas takes a 35 point hit to it's CT it's damaged.It will likely take three or four hits of this magnatude to kill the atlas.Accounting for some defencive manuvers and potentially a miss the Atlas will be under fire from this one damage source for upwards of 25 seconds.

Conversly the light mech struck in the same manner is destroyed possibly with the first hit.This leads to the perception of being instantly killed.

There is no single body location except the head where the Atlas would be instantly crippled by a single application of damage from a single source.The light mech however has several locations that can kill it outright.

[Tesunie]

Natanael Cormac, on 13 August 2013 - 10:43 PM, said:

I am not saying at 2A/2C is greater than A/C.

What I AM saying is that 2A-2C is greater than A-C.


The second equation however yields two different results. 30 and 15. That's twice the range!


Clearly the Atlas has an absolutely negligible decrease in effectiveness, while the Commando's already punitive powers are made much worse. Now this is an extreme case, and as I said before, I understand that these mechs are not meant to be compared to eachother by standards of damage. This is the extreme example to help express the idea.

Likewise, I am suspicious this might be a problem that affects speed tweak as well, with lights getting a larger benefit than assaults receive... but alas. Or should I said atlas... lol

Sorry for cutting pieces of your quote out, trying to save some room.

I do understand what you are saying, the individual number gap (15 compared to 30) is larger. However, in the multiplication the numbers are the same. Same fraction, same numbers in essence. As far as my point of view and concept of the armor goes.

Here is an example:
Commando runs around behind Atlas, and shoots Atlas in the rear. Atlas tries to swat nasty light off it's back. Light remains in back and Atlas can't shoot back. Instead of having to deal with litterally all the Atlas's armor, the light only has to punch through the weaker rear armor. Thus, a Commando can, in fact, kill an Atlas faster than it's smaller payload would suggest.

I'm not saying that everything is perfect, but I don't think the Armor is the issue. I think convergence is providing false bonuses we shouldn't have in the game. It's too easy to snipe/pick the weakest points (especially on slower mechs, making them often times more vulnerable than their faster cousins) and destroy only that spot. See a heavily armed fast Atlas with a red LT(RT) internal structure? Aim for it and see if he's got an XL (instead of aiming for the still heavily armored CT, other side torso, or arms and legs).

I think the biggest problem with your thoughts is the fact that fast light mechs are not meant to be able to take on larger foes on their own and survive (or even have an equal chance). Doubled armor, if anything, increased the faster mechs survival much more than slower mechs, just due to ability to dodge a lot of hits. Slower mechs are rip targets to have our wonderful pin point accuracy pick parts off as they become vulnerable. Look at the Awesome. Ever wonder what the number one complaint is with the mech? Too large of torso, making it very easy to put down from the front. It's one of the least played (as far as I've seen, been told, and know of) assault mech in the game.

Basically, light mechs are fast. That's their big advantage. However, when we have some heavies and some mediums moving almost as fast thanks to mechlab and larger engine sizes (not a complaint, just a statement of fact), a Quickdraw tends to be able to do a lot of what a light mech can do. My Quickdraw actually tends to hang out with the smaller lights most times, only a few steps behind them. If anything, the Speed Cap is hurting lights more than any Armor problems, among other things.

Natanael Cormac, on 13 August 2013 - 11:17 PM, said:

Clever puns aside... let's keep it civil noble mechwarriors

Come on guys, you're in the same faction and everything

Also, not that it really adds much to the sentiment, but I forgot to add earlier that part of the Medium's plight is that the Heavy is such a good Predator right now, it certainly does not help. Thus creating a hostile environment for Mediums (their natural prey) and possibly a boon to Lights (as there are not enough mediums to effectively control their population).

It's like that chart of the population of Foxes and Rabbits that they show you in grade school... except... with missiles!

Kinda agree here. The bigger problem is that the lore advantages (and TT BV advantages) to fielding medium mechs are not present in this game. No R&R. No way to mass swarm the enemy with cheaper units that hold as much fire power as a heavy, even if it doesn't have as much armor as one. So, why take a medium when, even by lore and everything else, the larger heavies and assaults can do a lot of the same thing but better? There aren't any penalties to fielding larger, so go large or go home! (Using as an expression, not as my actual feelings in the game.)

MustrumRidcully, on 14 August 2013 - 12:29 AM, said:

It could very well be that the process of operations looked like this:
AC/20 one to two hit wonder (and similar weapon configs) made combat too fast paced.
=> Doubled Armor
One-Hit Wonder is gone, but an individual engagement now moves from a 2 second event to a 10-20 second long engagement with long pauses.
=> Triple Rate of Fire. Thanks to doubled armor, the one-hit kill is still impossible, but now you get something to do every 3-4 seconds, which feels satisfyingly active.

Who likes to get dropped in any game with a single hit? Add in no respawn... and it's be very fast and boring for a lot of people.

I wouldn't have minded weapons having a slower refire rate personally. Would like to test it some if I could sometime. See if it makes the game more or less fun. But, I think they where right increasing weapon refire rates. People like to remain active. They don't want to actually wait to have to make another action.

Lykaon, on 14 August 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

In my opinion the OP is trying to explain a perception of an issue divorced from the cause of an issue.

Essentially how it feels as opposed to why it feels that way.

As I posted above the overall effects of how the borrowed table top mechanics function within the framework of MWo is mechs deal significantly higher damage values with disturbingly higher accuracy and concentration of damage.

Now when an Atlas takes a 35 point hit to it's CT it's damaged.It will likely take three or four hits of this magnatude to kill the atlas.Accounting for some defencive manuvers and potentially a miss the Atlas will be under fire from this one damage source for upwards of 25 seconds.

Conversly the light mech struck in the same manner is destroyed possibly with the first hit.This leads to the perception of being instantly killed.

There is no single body location except the head where the Atlas would be instantly crippled by a single application of damage from a single source.The light mech however has several locations that can kill it outright.

So, like as I've been thinking and feeling myself, convergence is sounding like more of the problem, and not mech health.

[Dan Nashe]

Lykaon, on 14 August 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

In my opinion the OP is trying to explain a perception of an issue divorced from the cause of an issue.

Essentially how it feels as opposed to why it feels that way.

As I posted above the overall effects of how the borrowed table top mechanics function within the framework of MWo is mechs deal significantly higher damage values with disturbingly higher accuracy and concentration of damage.

Now when an Atlas takes a 35 point hit to it's CT it's damaged.It will likely take three or four hits of this magnatude to kill the atlas.Accounting for some defencive manuvers and potentially a miss the Atlas will be under fire from this one damage source for upwards of 25 seconds.

Conversly the light mech struck in the same manner is destroyed possibly with the first hit.This leads to the perception of being instantly killed.

There is no single body location except the head where the Atlas would be instantly crippled by a single application of damage from a single source.The light mech however has several locations that can kill it outright.

With 1x armor, this is true but moreso. It takes 50 damage to core a jenner.
Without doubling it would take 25.
I would say the jenner benefitted the most from doubling armor, because it takes two shots to kill, instead of one. This means it could take 4 shots to kill if each alpha hits a different location. In contrast, even at 1x you couldn't ordinarily kill an atlas in one shot. So the light mechs gained from 0 "rounds" (1 round is really 4 shots right now in MWO) worth of shooting back, to at least one chance to return fire. An infinite increase in damage for the 50 percent of time the mech doesn't shoot first.

So I reject the premise that doubling favors assaults for that reason.
It is true that without doubling armor, every mech in the game would die to one volley of enemy fire.
(I.e., getting shot by 3 mechs coordinating, which is normal). This would favor medium mechs more becuse assaults would not lve significantly longer than mediums.

However, it would be a crappy game IN MY OPINION. A lot of fps like this are great games.
No dual in mwo between non lights lasts more than 20 seconds. So there is an argument for increasing armor or decreasing weapon damage.

P.s. I thoughtinternal structure was also doubled.

Personally? I THINK torso armor should be increased by 50 percent to account for aiming. Although lights are so fast they get legged as a primary kill strategy, so they can have plus 50 percent legs too.

Also, if person A has 1 million, invests at 100 percent and gets 2 million, but person b invests two million at the same rate, but pays twice as much for everything they buy, the gains are not meaningfully different.

I am not saying that the ratios are perfect. Maybe the game would be better if mediums, assaults and heavies had closer armor values. And if hsr is fixed, maybe lights too.

So the math is wrong, but the idea is valid.
Remember in battletech assaults of the same quality are always worth more than mediums. So MWO is fighting an uphill battle to fix that while trying to stay true to battletech where it can.

Edit: li ke my desire for fights that last more than 10 seconds, I prefer the current fast convergence to millisecond macros that chainfire to avoid convergence. And I like my guns shoooting where they aim.
Forced convergence problems would lower damage and be truer to tt, but I would enjoy the game less. So I prefer other solutions (tweaking weapon damage, speed, recycle, etc. Or targetted armor buffs like extra torso armor). Note that weapon points solve some issues. If you only have two energy slots, you can only do 10 damage with mls in a shot, so a big gun is still more focused damage (2 ppcs).

I guess what I want to say is, valid issues, reasonable people can prefer different solutions.

Edited by DanNashe, 14 August 2013 - 01:38 PM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Natanael Cormac, on 13 August 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

The original intention of doubling armor values was very simple, and very direct:

Account for the translation to Real Time vs Turn Based.

In the Real Time game online, you can fire faster than in the abstracted Turn Based game, not to mention the goal of longer battles than in tabletop (20 entire turns in a TT game would translate into about 3 minutes worth of MWO time... but the game is set for up to 5 times that long).

The problem with this is the unbalancing of mechs by weight. The lighter your mech is... the less armor it has. This makes sense and is in line with TT. The problem is... by simply doubling the armor values you EXACERBATE the balance of health points.

The Smallest Mech at current (though the lighter Locust and Flea are planned and announced), the Commando has a mere 4 tons of armor at stock. Compare this to the largest mech in the game, the Atlas, with 19 tons of stock armor. In this respect, the Atlas has a 15 ton armor advantage over the Commando. However, when you double the armor values you essentially double the "effective" tons of armor on a mech. So a Commando would have the equivalent of 8 tons of armor, while an Atlas would have the equivalent of 38 tons of armor. This gives the Atlas an effective advantage of 30 tons of armor!!!

This effects the lightest mechs the most, and the heaviest mechs the least, obviously. Thus, Light and Medium mechs are impacted the most (as can be seen in game).

The answer IS NOT to simply add more multiples to the armor of every mech in order to create a "longer game". This will only make the problem worse. Luckily, the developers have been hesitant to simply add more health.


I would very much like to bring this to the attention of the developers, and the attention of the community, and hopefully this topic is informative.


Moving forward, it would be impolite to merely criticize without at least attempting to offer a solution (Constructive Feed back over negative feedback).

One possible solution would be to use the Atlas as a model and apply a straightforward bump to all armor values based on the atlas. So the Atlas would keep it's armor value at around 614, while the Commando would get bumped up to about 368.

There are several problems with this. For one, the commando would now have 11.5 tons of armor. Almost HALF of it's entire weight. So how do you handle more armor without more weight. Does the Commando get Ghost Armor (lol)? Do you create several tiers of armor per weight, kind of like how jump jets weigh different amounts depending on how much your mech weighs (sounds complicated)?

I'm not sure what the best way to handle it is, but I believe that there is a better way. And I intend to work hard, think hard, and listen hard, so that we can all figure this out.

-Cormac

[EDIT] (Note: My suggestion is meant to imply that the goal should be to increase the overall 'heartyness' of the low end mechs to keep up with the higher end of the weight scale. This will allow for longer, more tactical games. I in no way endorse lowering armor of heavy or assault mechs. In fact I think their Armor Values are pretty spot on, and an increase to THEIR armor values might make them too good)

Here is a huge flaw to your arguement.

TT armor value for a Jenner is 64 armor. Doubled that is 128 armor. Yet a Jenner can mount up to 238 armor which is closer to quadruple armor than double armor.

This is opposed to an Atlas which has a stock armor value of 304 and can only mount up to 610 armor in MWO which is only doubled.

The point is, Light mechs aren't suffering because they get a pretty huge buff in regards to how much armor they can mount. Most lights in MWO are running around with at least triple armor compared to their TT counterparts.

[OneEyed Jack]

Viktor Drake, on 14 August 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Here is a huge flaw to your arguement.

TT armor value for a Jenner is 64 armor. Doubled that is 128 armor. Yet a Jenner can mount up to 238 armor which is closer to quadruple armor than double armor.

This is opposed to an Atlas which has a stock armor value of 304 and can only mount up to 610 armor in MWO which is only doubled.

The point is, Light mechs aren't suffering because they get a pretty huge buff in regards to how much armor they can mount. Most lights in MWO are running around with at least triple armor compared to their TT counterparts.

Stock armor on stock mechs is not the same thing as max armor, which is determined by tonnage.

[Tesunie]

Viktor Drake, on 14 August 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Here is a huge flaw to your arguement.

TT armor value for a Jenner is 64 armor. Doubled that is 128 armor. Yet a Jenner can mount up to 238 armor which is closer to quadruple armor than double armor.

This is opposed to an Atlas which has a stock armor value of 304 and can only mount up to 610 armor in MWO which is only doubled.

The point is, Light mechs aren't suffering because they get a pretty huge buff in regards to how much armor they can mount. Most lights in MWO are running around with at least triple armor compared to their TT counterparts.

What about stock armor? I bet you stock armor of a Jenner from TT and MWO would be the same (MWO being double the TT version of the same mech). In TT, you could customize your mech, just like in this game. In TT, they had max armor certain tonnage mechs could place on their structure. That max (as far as I know) is still observed in MWO, just doubled. So, if a Jenner can have max 238 armor, than I bet that the TT customization rules for extra armor on a Jenner (35 ton mechs in general) would be exactly half that amount.

They are running around with triple stock TT armor, not TT max customized armor possible for said mech.

[ollo]

Natanael Cormac, on 13 August 2013 - 10:43 PM, said:

Tesunie, I believe the problem most likely lies in my explanation, so I will try another approach.

The premise is that percentage rates are a poor metric to use when comparing the old vs the new point values. Yes, all armor values were doubled across the board evenly, but I am not looking at the total number of armor points in a given match. What i AM looking at is the RANGE of the armor points in a given match.

A = Atlas Armor
C = Commando Armor

I am not saying at 2A/2C is greater than A/C.

What I AM saying is that 2A-2C is greater than A-C.


The first equation is simple fractions. It gives you 4.75 both times. (38/8 and 19/4).

The second equation however yields two different results. 30 and 15. That's twice the range!

Either you can't do math or i can't do math. I don't really know WTF everone here is arguing about - twice the armor means twice the amount of time you'll live (or your opponent). It also means that it takes twice the amount of time to kill the opponent in either case. What should a ******* range have to do with it? Even if you multiplied armor by 1000 it still wouldn't change anything, but ohooo, the range is gigantic!

If you have a heavy mech that 'lives' twice as long as another light in direct confrontation, then it can kill 2 lights, no matter what the numbers are, as the lights also 'live' twice as long. The weapons everyone is sporting are irrelevant if the ratio is set.

Example:
Heavy 80 armor (160 doubled), 20 dmg/round
Light 40 armor (80 doubled), 5 dmg/round
Before doubling it takes 2 rounds to kill the light, 16 rounds to kill the heavy, the heavy can kill 8 lights in a row
After doubling it takes 4 rounds to kill the light, 32 rounds to kill the heavy, the heavy can kill 8 lights in a row

The only difference the doubling makes besides longer matches is in the one-shot area (lights are more durable now because they can't be killed with one shot anymore in some cases) and minor rounding stuff on high damage weapons (e.g. coring CT might be not exactly doubled, with 45 armor you need 3 AC20 shots and after doubling 5, but this is highly conditional and doesn't benefit or punish either mech class).

In any way, the doubled armor values only benefit, if anything, the lighter classes. Percieved issues have other causes that have been partly explained here, convergence, AC2s with higher DPS than AC20s, lag-shielded Spiders/Ravens, useless weapons with (Angel) ECM, easier to miss light mechs, biased mech sizes or proportions, you name it. But doubled armor just serves the intention to not die instantly on enemy sight like it some time was in beta with normal values, and IMHO is the issue at the absolute bottom of the list of anything that's wrong with the game.

[Braggart]

ollo, on 14 August 2013 - 02:49 PM, said:

Either you can't do math or i can't do math. I don't really know WTF everone here is arguing about - twice the armor means twice the amount of time you'll live (or your opponent). It also means that it takes twice the amount of time to kill the opponent in either case. What should a ******* range have to do with it? Even if you multiplied armor by 1000 it still wouldn't change anything, but ohooo, the range is gigantic!

If you have a heavy mech that 'lives' twice as long as another light in direct confrontation, then it can kill 2 lights, no matter what the numbers are, as the lights also 'live' twice as long. The weapons everyone is sporting are irrelevant if the ratio is set.

Example:
Heavy 80 armor (160 doubled), 20 dmg/round
Light 40 armor (80 doubled), 5 dmg/round
Before doubling it takes 2 rounds to kill the light, 16 rounds to kill the heavy, the heavy can kill 8 lights in a row
After doubling it takes 4 rounds to kill the light, 32 rounds to kill the heavy, the heavy can kill 8 lights in a row

The only difference the doubling makes besides longer matches is in the one-shot area (lights are more durable now because they can't be killed with one shot anymore in some cases) and minor rounding stuff on high damage weapons (e.g. coring CT might be not exactly doubled, with 45 armor you need 3 AC20 shots and after doubling 5, but this is highly conditional and doesn't benefit or punish either mech class).

In any way, the doubled armor values only benefit, if anything, the lighter classes. Percieved issues have other causes that have been partly explained here, convergence, AC2s with higher DPS than AC20s, lag-shielded Spiders/Ravens, useless weapons with (Angel) ECM, easier to miss light mechs, biased mech sizes or proportions, you name it. But doubled armor just serves the intention to not die instantly on enemy sight like it some time was in beta with normal values, and IMHO is the issue at the absolute bottom of the list of anything that's wrong with the game.

a proper balance change would have been increasing all mechs with about 2 rounds of survivability. Maintaining the difference in armor, without increasing it. All mechs increase in survivibility, without the rich get richer of doubling armor.

Lets just assume that they double weapon damage next. Who benefits most out of that. mechs that can fit more weapons an others.

Double armor has ruined this game. Without a doubt. If PGI would step back and change it to a flat increase, we would see so many different mechs and builds on the field.

[Tesunie]

Braggart, on 14 August 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

a proper balance change would have been increasing all mechs with about 2 rounds of survivability. Maintaining the difference in armor, without increasing it. All mechs increase in survivibility, without the rich get richer of doubling armor.

Lets just assume that they double weapon damage next. Who benefits most out of that. mechs that can fit more weapons an others.

Double armor has ruined this game. Without a doubt. If PGI would step back and change it to a flat increase, we would see so many different mechs and builds on the field.

So, let me get this right...

- Double Armor ruins the game.
- Match maker ruins the game.
- Not having reporting features in the game ruins the game.
- Having heat and ammo ruins the game.
- Ammo having a chance to explode ruins the game.
- Having 3PV ruins the game.
- Having 1PV ruins the game.
- LRMs are too strong and are ruining the game.
- LRMs are too weak and are ruining the game.
- SSRMs are ruining the game.
- PPCs are ruining the game.
- Capping is ruining the game.
- Killing all enemy mechs (team death match) is ruining the game.
- AC20s are ruining the game.
- XL engines are ruining the game.
- Single Heat Sinks are ruining the game.
- FF armor isn't good enough, and is ruining the game.
- Endo Steel provides too much benefit, and is ruining the game.
- Convergence is ruining the game.
- Ghost heat is ruining the game. (Strange, but not game breaking.)
- Pin Point damage is ruining the game.
- Fast mechs are ruining the game.
- Medium mechs are ruining the game.
- Assault mechs are too common, and are ruining the game.
- Snipers are ruining the game.
- Scouts are useless and are ruining the game.
- Brawlers are useless and are ruining the game.
- Heat scale is wrong, and is ruining the game.
- 12 v 12 is ruining the game.
- 8 v 8 was ruining the game.
- ... is ruining the game.
The game is ruining the game. Why don't we just petition to have the game erased from existence? Wouldn't that be easier than claiming everything is ruining the game? (Sarcasm, if you couldn't tell.)

Getting a mite bit tired of hearing "Such and such is ruining the game. This is the best way to fix such and such". If I was the games developers, I'd be hiding from the forums more often than listening. You make one small change and ask for advice, and get melted with the flames of hate.


Sorry. Rant may not be done. But this is becoming (not the overall topic, the "ruins the game" statement) an old, dead excuse of a reason for a possible problem. Sick of it. Instead of saying "It's ruining the game", how about you produce some evidence as to why this is bad for the game. Some real numbers to crunch. Like what the person did when he finally found out why SRMs and SSRMs where so good before they fixed the splash damage. He provided very clear, reasonable data as to why it was a problem.

So far, I have as of yet to see any solid, mathematical, statistical, or anything else saying how broken double armor is. All mechs gained double armor. That means all mechs survive twice as long no matter what weapons are going their way than if they had not doubled the armor. It effects all mechs equally. No mech chassis benefited more from this than others. Assaults did get more overall armor due to the double, but the same amount of weapons are needed to drop it as before, only doubled. So instead of a PPC legging a light on it's own in one hit, it takes two. Instead of a light mech engaging an Atlas for 30 seconds to kill, it will take the light 60 seconds. That's also 60 seconds to "run away, he's too much for me" instead of "run awa... dead". If anything, assaults and heavies are still even more vulnerable even with double armor, as they are slower and even LRMs that loose their lock half way to target can still hit them. Everything can hit them. Unlike faster mechs.

(PS: Internal structure is half the max armor value. Thus, armor got doubled, so internal structure got doubled as well, if I am correct. DO also recall that critical hits can now damage the internal structure itself now, making the internal boost a little less useful than before. We also do not die from crits dealt to our engines either.)

[Saint Rigid]

Tesunie, you forgot lists

-Lists are ruining the game... lol (joke).

While I understand that many noble mechwarriors fear that the sky is falling, I assure you that I do not.
My interest is in the balance and FEEL of the game.

Double Armor is not OP. It's not BROKEN lol. I just feel that it adds a flavor of lopsidedness. Unfortunately, due to the super saturation of "RUINING THE GAME", mild-mannered statements can be misconstrued. Unbalanced does not mean BROKEN.

Just looking for a discussion, which I believe is going fairly well so far (maybe I'm just optimistic lol). The purpose of the game is not math, the purpose of the game is fun. But sometimes you need math... I guess...

[Tesunie]

Natanael Cormac, I concede on the point of lists.

As for the rest, I agree with you. If something is wrong because of doubled armor, it isn't a bad thing to question the concept and bring forth evidence. You have not said it is breaking the game, hence I have had no problems with you. You make good points, even if I don't agree with you. You defend your side. You have treated respect with respect. You haven't arbitrarily deemed "double armor" as "ruining the game". You've provided your feelings, and continue to back up those with math and numbers (some form of evidence).

Feelings can be a good indicator that something is wrong. I can understand that. However, finding what is really the problem requires more than feelings. Math helps to back up and prove those feelings to determine what the problems are and possible solutions to said problems.

Now, I'm thinking you are on to something here. However, I don't think it's the double armored values that is the problem. I feel it's something else. When I do the math as far as I understand the numbers, I don't see any problems with the armor values. So I am concluding, unless some other numbers change or numbers I wasn't aware of becomes presented, that armor values isn't the problem and so it must be something else. This is my own conclusion and nothing more.

I actually encourage this discussion to continue, for more thoughts, opinions, evidence and ideas on the subject and other closely related subjects to become presented. Discussion is good.

As for something being broken or not working as intended, errors will happen. It doesn't mean it's ruining the game. When SRMs caused almost no damage, it wasn't ruining the game. You just either accepted the fact and used the SRMs anyway, or you saw they no longer worked at the moment, shelved them, and move onto a different weapon system till they refix the problem. Kinda the nature of a beast (game) such as this. I accept that this will probably continue to be a problem in some way, shape or form for the life of the game. After all, it's got a lot of lore, history, and other games to be compared to and referenced off of. It's based heavily off TT, but it isn't TT. People constantly compare this game to the previous mechwarrior titles. That's a lot to work with, and finding what does and doesn't work can be a challenge.

(As for my list, I was just mentioning every problem I can think of that has been discussed on these forums being described as "the end of the game" or "ruining the game" statements. Fairly crazy, huh? )

[ollo]

Braggart, on 14 August 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

a proper balance change would have been increasing all mechs with about 2 rounds of survivability. Maintaining the difference in armor, without increasing it. All mechs increase in survivibility, without the rich get richer of doubling armor.

Lets just assume that they double weapon damage next. Who benefits most out of that. mechs that can fit more weapons an others.

Double armor has ruined this game. Without a doubt. If PGI would step back and change it to a flat increase, we would see so many different mechs and builds on the field.

WTF????? That is even worse!!!! After your logic a 'proper' balance change would have been to increase the survivability of every mech by, let's say, 1000 rounds, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN THE DIFFERENCE! So a Jenner has now 1002 Rounds survivability and an Atlas has 1012 or so. Clearly the balance has been preserved, thank god!

Either someone explains to me where i am wrong RIGHT NOW, WITH FORMULAE, or i'll assume you all skipped Math 101...

[Joseph Mallan]

Braggart, on 14 August 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

a proper balance change would have been increasing all mechs with about 2 rounds of survivability. Maintaining the difference in armor, without increasing it. All mechs increase in survivibility, without the rich get richer of doubling armor.

2 Rounds? Do you mean 2 more Turns of survival? An extra 20 seconds?

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 August 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

2 Rounds? Do you mean 2 more Turns of survival? An extra 20 seconds?

There's the rub, isn't it? TT moves in increments of 10 seconds, MWO is real-time. Something that increases a 'mechs survivability by 2 TT turns (20 seconds) may only increase the survivability of a 'mech in MWO by 3-5 seconds (2 cooldowns).

[Reptilizer]

What a *********** of flawed argumentation spanning 4 pages! Unbelievable!

The OPs assumption, where he connects "survivability" with the two values "armor" and "weapon damage" is simply wrong.
It would be more correct with changing "weapon damage" with "applied damage", but then the spreadsheetwarrior stuff would not look so convincing anymore, right?

Seriously, survivabilty is a function of damage that reaches the mech and the resistance (armor/internals) of the mech against that damage. I guess we all agree, that (regardless of the level of skill^TM) big and slow targets are easier to hit than small and fast ones. Accordingly the damage that reaches any mech is only a fraction of the possible weapon damage, determined by the "hitability" for lack of a better term. This "hitability" is a quite complex factor, varying from map to map (cover factors in) and mech to mech (hitboxes in weight classes differ. Awesome anyone?). "hitability" also pobably^TM is not something that is scaling linear. So PLEASE shredder this calculations. My eyes bleed.

Since i suspect, nobody on the forums is able to give a correct value for the "hitability" we would have to look for some statistics to see wether lights really are less durable than assaults and if double armor has worsened the problem if it exists at all. anybody got nice statistics on that, before double armor and after, normalized for weapon damage changes? Anyone? No?
Then please close this thread. It is wasting everybodys time.

[LeShadow]

Kunae, on 14 August 2013 - 06:03 AM, said:

You should never use "poor hit registration" as a balancing factor. Once hit-reg is fixed, all of the "balancing" done to compensate for it will make the subject mech/class vaporize into a fine mist.

Assuming they actually manage to fix it.
Which isn't easy, at least on the latency front.
Personally, i'm waiting for regional servers
and praying they'll at least fix the torso hitbox gaps.
But even then a single high-ping player can screw it all up.

[Braggart]

ollo, on 14 August 2013 - 10:16 PM, said:

WTF????? That is even worse!!!! After your logic a 'proper' balance change would have been to increase the survivability of every mech by, let's say, 1000 rounds, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN THE DIFFERENCE! So a Jenner has now 1002 Rounds survivability and an Atlas has 1012 or so. Clearly the balance has been preserved, thank god!

Either someone explains to me where i am wrong RIGHT NOW, WITH FORMULAE, or i'll assume you all skipped Math 101...

no, 1000 rounds would be stupid, it would make mechs absurdly stupid. The problem is you. You are stupid enough to think that general comments like yours make a difference, or that they have even been thought out. You have no idea what you are talking about. So imma stop you right now, and slap you with some damn knowledge.

The reason doubling armor favors heavier mechs is simple. they have more to start, so they get more because it is a % based increased. Same goes for elite skills and such. All the piloting skills in this game are 10% increases, Faster mechs get more speed tweak, mechs with more twist get even more twist, and mechs with more heatsinks get more heat thresh hold, and more dissipation. Anytime you use % based increases, you create a rich get richer scenario, where mechs that can hold more weapons, armor, speed, etc etc etc get more of a bonus.

But lets get back to the armor scenario. A hunchback has to try and claw through 100 center torso armor, while protecting it's 50 ct armor. Now you might say well thats fair. no, it isnt. because originally that hunchback only had to claw through at most probably 50 armor. Notice something there, That atlas had as much armor as a boosted hunchback. The hunchback only had 32 armor way back when. Everyone was dying to quickly. So PGI doubled the armor. Now a hunch had a chance prior the changes to take out an atlas, as 50 armor was not that tough to clear out, Anyone back in beta knows what a hunch could do, and what it is capable of now. PGI should have gave everyone a 25(this # is changable based on balance) points of armor. Every gets an even increase in survival, no one gets any more than anyone else, battles will play out similar to before, but last longer....................Which is exactly what they wanted. a hunch would have 57 armor, and an atlas 87. The atlas still has its superior firepower, and superior armor, without having so much armor that it becomes impossible for a medium mech to have a slightest chance.

Ever wonder why the game is go big or go home now.........................Doubled armor. That massive armor increase had made it all about slugging it out like mechs are supposed to, but it only applies to heavier heavies, and assaults. Mediums are just as frail as before because their armor increase is negligible when you realize they have 60 tons of extra armor to destroy, rather than what should be 25. Mediums were once one of the most feared in mwo.

[Tskeet]

No. You have some really good ideas but the key underlying factor is that MWO is a multiplayer game and the multiplayer is broken.


The problem is balancing teams. Tonnage should be a bare minimum of balancing but preferably in the future we'll use a method like Battle Value (BV) from the TT. Assign mechs, weapons, upgrades with a BV number. When the matchmaker .. makes matches... it will try to make teams as close as possible. But again, even a tonnage match would be a good start because I've been counting and I'm sure no such thing currently exists.

[LeShadow]

You repeatedly point out that the absolute difference in armor between lighter and heavier chassis increased with the double armor buff.
I don't think anyone disagrees on that point. However, after four pages of discussion, I still fail to see the significance of that fact.

Ignoring all other factors and just looking at dps and armor, you get (1v1):

time to live = your armor / enemy's dps
dmg done to enemy = your dps / time to live
% dmg done to enemy = dmg done to enemy / enemy armor

Doubling armor doubles your time to live and in turn the dmg you do before you fall,
which is "worth" half as much (in armor %) because of the double armor.
Effectively, the only thing that changes is the time this takes till someone falls.

This is true for any combination of 'Mechs. Light vs Assault, Assault vs Light, Heavy vs Heavy etc.
If your dps*armor is greater than your foe's, you win and take dmg according to that formula before your foe falls.
If your dps*armor is lower than your foe's, you lose and deal dmg according to that formula before you fall.

Run the numbers, you'll see the end result is the same with or without double armor. It just takes longer, that's all.

Now, of course there are rounding issues (which favor no particular weight class) and thresholds (what can a single ac20 hit do to a 'Mech?). The latter, BTW, tend to favor the lighter chassis if you increase armor since they prevent one-hit kills.

But that aside, if your assessment is true, there has to be an error in my math, right? If so, please point it out, 'cause I can't seem to find it.

Edited by LeShadow, 15 August 2013 - 07:55 AM.

[oldradagast]

Every few months this topic surfaces again, though usually it is based on the the theory being that if mechs had half the hitpoints they would die faster to all weapons, so people wouldn't "feel the need" to boat the best weapons in the game to quickly kill their opponents.

At least this post is different... They could scale up the values so a Commando gets 3x Armor, an Atlas gets 2x, and everything scales in between. Still, in a proper game, you wouldn't have pin-point alphas blowing everything away in one or two salvos... Not a bad idea, but I still say perfect convergence is the big issue.

Edited by oldradagast, 15 August 2013 - 08:02 AM.