172 replies to this topic

[Saint Rigid]

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)

Edited by Natanael Cormac, 13 August 2013 - 04:03 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

The only flaw I see in your idea is that Light Mechs are not supposed to be frontline combat vehicles. They are for speedy flanking or harassing the enemy's supply lines. They are fast but fragile and should fold like a cardboard cutout when hit with heavy weapons. Increasing armor is not what Lights need. What lights need is to have their role recreated. We need raiding scenarios, and scouting missions. Make them useful in their field, not in their heavier brethren's.

[Saint Rigid]

There is a difference to folding like cardboard... and folding like cardboard that has been soaked in kerosene lol

Part of my point is that Light mechs AND Medium mechs are TOO fragile in the game... which skews the meta towards the heaviest mechs. It doesn't matter how much recon you can do or how fast you run if even a single blow can completely take you out of the game (very counter to the design philosophy of MWO).

HOWEVER, I agree that their role needs to be redefined/intesified. I used to play a commando myself, and some of the best times I had were spotting for my team-mates... I didn't even need TAG (with the shorter range back then). Just knew where to run, who to target, and how to avoid being noticed. And it felt like the game noticed a little more back then...

[One Medic Army]

Conversely in this game the assaults generally take damage only to their CT and side torsos.
Lights take damage everywhere, lights get an effective buff to survivability via this fact.

Not to mention that doubled armor+internals means they don't get 1-shot by a single AC/20 round anymore, you think that would be better?

[Khobai]

Doubling of armor is not the problem. Convergence is.

Without convergence there would be no need to even have double armor in the first place.

[Joseph Mallan]

Natanael Cormac, on 13 August 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

There is a difference to folding like cardboard... and folding like cardboard that has been soaked in kerosene lol

Part of my point is that Light mechs AND Medium mechs are TOO fragile in the game... which skews the meta towards the heaviest mechs. It doesn't matter how much recon you can do or how fast you run if even a single blow can completely take you out of the game (very counter to the design philosophy of MWO).

HOWEVER, I agree that their role needs to be redefined/intesified. I used to play a commando myself, and some of the best times I had were spotting for my team-mates... I didn't even need TAG (with the shorter range back then). Just knew where to run, who to target, and how to avoid being noticed. And it felt like the game noticed a little more back then...

I respectfully disagree. Lights on TT Were devastated by a single AC20 or Gauss round. It takes pin point convergence of 2 BFG weapons to deal with a light. That is OP in my book. I understand the thinking for 2x Armor, but any more would be to much.

[Wolfways]

Lights are fragile? lol

Lights get more armour due to speed.

Oh, and there's always at least 4-5 lights per side in my matches, and they are always the last ones standing. They survive just fine.

Edited by Wolfways, 13 August 2013 - 04:16 PM.

[Khobai]

Lights are not fragile, they are the most survivable weight class in the game, thanks to poor hit registration.

Mediums are the weight class that lack survivability because they get neither the evasion of lights nor the armor of heavies.

Quote

Not to mention that doubled armor+internals means they don't get 1-shot by a single AC/20 round anymore, you think that would be better?

It would absolutely be better. There is a reason why AC/20s weigh 14 tons and take up 10 crit slots and only get 5 ammo per ton. They are supposed to be one of the most fear weapons in the game, and that fear is severely lacking in MWO thanks to double armor. Besides PGI could always add a respawn gamemode so dying to a single AC/20 shot wouldnt matter.

[Tesunie]

If doubling the armor is unbalancing (even if it is done clearly and evenly across the board and provides no mathematical benefit I am aware of, if I'm wrong, provide more math) and you want matches to last longer, couldn't we just cut damage in half? Then we get to shoot more often, but standard TT values of armor wouldn't be changed. Just a thought on the subject.

As for armor, did the gap between Cammando and Atlas (your comparison) get more than a doubled effect?
Example: (Armor "tons" does not change, just the number of points they give per ton)
Commando 4 tons
Atlas 19 tons

A commando in game acts like it has 8 tons of armor. An Atlas acts like it has 38 tons of armor (even though they all say they don't really have that much armor). The difference between the two is 15 tons by TT values. Difference by "acts in game" is 30 tons. Therefore, the Atlas doesn't have any "extra" difference of armor compared to a Commando's doubled armor value. It still remains at a double rate.

If an AC20 chews through (I don't know real numbers, but if you know the numbers just plug them in) 2 tons of armor a shot in TT by point value (assuming 1 ton of armor = 10 points as a random number), then in the game an AC20 shot will chew through only 1 ton of armor (as 1 ton = 20 points in this example). It will take twice the shots of an AC20 to drop either mech than it would have in TT.

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.


In relation to a real world exchange, it'd be like saying doubling a recipe you are cooking wont produce twice as much product over a single batch. If you double the recipe, you get twice as much out of it. Your flour doesn't suddenly become too much and you need to add in less flour in a doubled recipe. As long as everything across the board is raised by the same percentage, then the recipe (or for MWO armor values) should remain unchanged.


On the flip side, if they also doubled weapon damage to bring everything back into "normal TT values but doubled", you would see everything playing at the same rate. Don't believe me? Go play a round of TT, but have any armor and damage value doubled. You will find things will play the same way. It shouldn't make any change. By doubling armor and not damage, about the only unbalance I can think of produced is with ammo running out before causing the proper amount of damage. Double armor should mean a doubling in ammo, and that is the only imbalance I can see with having doubled armor.


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...

[Tincan Nightmare]

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

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.

Ok, I don't want to be negative, but you are seriously trying to get a 25 ton mechs armor points up to over half of a 100 ton mechs? Why would a Commando that masses a fourth of an Atlas carry over half its armor? Lights are just that, Lights. They rely on speed and (at least in TT where such things matter) low cost and greater numbers. They are not supposed to engage heavies and assaults in a straight up slugging match. Now in MWO this role has been greatly reduced, as lights lack rewards for effective scouting/spotting, and dealing damage and getting kills seems to be the sole reason of existence. But they are supposed to be recon or raiders. The TRO 3025 description of an Atlas says that a single Atlas could engage a full battalion of Stingers (thats 36 mechs of 20 tonners) and win. Now even in a TT setting that is a whole lot of hyperbole (yah a few Stingers would probably go down with him, but that Atlas isn't surviving 36 med. lasers) but it does articulate the concept on where the balance of power in terms of firepower and survivability lays.

Now in MWO, without a constant cost of upkeep for ammo, parts, or repairs, there is no financial reason not to take an assault once you can afford one. Plus with a limited number of players per side, the concept that lights and mediums are far more common than heavies or the rare assault in the BT universe is lost. I too want more reasons for players to be able to pilot lights (and especially mediums as I love mediums), but increased ability for Jenners and Commandos to engage Atlai and Stalkers in a straight up fight shouldn't be one of them. Instead more varied game modes and maps that reward speedier designs would be preferable. I wouldn't mind seeing a respawn type match where each player has a limited amount of tonnage that is used up for each mech spawned.

[Bhael Fire]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 August 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

The only flaw I see in your idea is that Light Mechs are not supposed to be frontline combat vehicles. They are for speedy flanking or harassing the enemy's supply lines. They are fast but fragile and should fold like a cardboard cutout when hit with heavy weapons. Increasing armor is not what Lights need. What lights need is to have their role recreated. We need raiding scenarios, and scouting missions. Make them useful in their field, not in their heavier brethren's.

I agree. A large part of the balancing issues they are having is due to the fact that the designers didn't bother defining the roles very clearly within the context of the game modes. Basically, because the two game modes are simply variations of death match, there's not much room for defining non-combat roles. Hence the reason there's a heavy push to make lights combat effective by players; there's not much else for them to do, other than cap.

Edited by Bhael Fire, 13 August 2013 - 05:32 PM.

[Foxfire]

I always thought that double armor accounted for the fact that you could actually aim in this game instead of having to roll randomly to see what location that you hit....

[Joseph Mallan]

Foxfire, on 13 August 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:

I always thought that double armor accounted for the fact that you could actually aim in this game instead of having to roll randomly to see what location that you hit....

It was also because surprisingly, The Makers of BattleTech had the length of combat pretty well pegged. 12 v 12 games lasted around 10+ Turns or 100+ seconds of fighting.

[stjobe]

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

If doubling the armor is unbalancing (even if it is done clearly and evenly across the board and provides no mathematical benefit I am aware of, if I'm wrong, provide more math) and you want matches to last longer, couldn't we just cut damage in half? Then we get to shoot more often, but standard TT values of armor wouldn't be changed. Just a thought on the subject.

Since weapon damage uses TT values, but firing rates are doubled or even tripled or quadrupled (or in the case of the AC/2, vigintupled - that is, multiplied by 20), weapons do two to three times the amount of DPS compared to TT (or 40 times, in the case of the AC/2). Of course single armour values won't suffice at that point.

So they doubled armour, and it worked for what they wanted to achieve; matches lasted longer. What they didn't think of though (or didn't care about), was that the fear of facing an opponent with a single AC/20 was gone - and a lot of the spirit of BattleTech with it.

An AC/20 was truly a weapon to be feared in TT; it could one-shot any 'mech if it hit the head (TT heads were capped at 9 armour + 3 internal structure), and lights if it hit them at all. Double AC/20s were simply overkill; much better to use those tons for other weaponry so you could be effective at all ranges and against multiple opponents.

This doubling of armour also had effects on the other end of the scale; the MG, which was a rather fearsome weapon against TT lights, and a very nice heat-less extra crit chance against heavier 'mechs, suddenly wasn't able to do much of anything. Its damage (which incidentally got the least DPS boost of any weapon in the game when translated from TT values) just wasn't enough to put a dent in double armour.

It's taken them over a year to get the MG into something resembling usefulness, and the single AC/20 probably never will be feared in MWO, not even by lights.

So what could you do?

I don't know if there is much to do at all, to be frank. Since they chose to dramatically increase the rate of fire while keeping the TT damage values, armour must double or we get matches that are over after first contact. I don't see them going back to 5-10 second (individual) cooldowns either, but that would solve the issue pretty neatly. It would never fly with the current generation of gamers though (and I don't mean that in any disparaging way, it's just that they've grown up with faster games than I did).

So I think we're stuck with our double armour and anaemic weapons, sadly. Never will I tremble in fear as I realize I'm up against an opponent mounting the monster-weapon of the BattleTech Universe, the BFG, the big Kahuna - the feared AC/20. I'll just shrug my shoulders and thank my lucky stars he's not mounting a pair, because that would have been dangerous.

[80Bit]

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

...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!!!....

What are you trying to say? Doubling up armor does not exacerbate anything, or change the armor advantage of the Atlas. That's not how multiplication works.

At 4 vs 19 tons, the Commando has 21.05% the armor of the Atlas.
At 8 vs 38 tons, the Commando has 21.05% the armor of the Atlas.

At 4 vs 19 tons, the Commando can take 64 points of armor damage, and the Atlas can take 304. 3xAC20 hits vs 15xAC20 hits.
At 8 vs 38 tons, the Commando can take 128 points of armor damage, and the Atlas can take 608. 6xAC20 hits vs 30AC20 hits.



If you want to make the argument that Lights and Mediums need more survivability, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with the doubling of armor values.

[Tennex]

200% of an assaul's armor 550 is more than 200% than a light's 250 armor. at the same time an AC20 is still going to do 20 damage.

But significantly less with 2x armor to an assault

A highlander has 166 armor in CT. A Raven has 44. AC20 remove all of a highlander's armor in 8 hits and all of the raven's in 3 hits.

With double armor Highlander's 332 armor and raven's 88. AC20 will remove the highlander's armor in 17 hits. and strip the raven's armor in 5 hits.
Where there only used to be a 5 AC20's difference between how many shots it took to kill an assault mech vs the light mech, now there is a 12 AC20 difference.


The double armor buff made assault mechs significantly more survivable compared to lighter mechs. Simply because they start with a higher armor pool.

Edited by Tennex, 13 August 2013 - 06:20 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Tennex, on 13 August 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

200% of an assaul's armor 550 is more than 200% than a light's 250 armor. at the same time an AC20 is still going to do 20 damage.

But significantly less with 2x armor to an assault

Yeah but even so it does not take the limbs off your lights as it should.

[Tennex]

80Bit, on 13 August 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

What are you trying to say? Doubling up armor does not exacerbate anything, or change the armor advantage of the Atlas. That's not how multiplication works.

At 4 vs 19 tons, the Commando has 21.05% the armor of the Atlas.
At 8 vs 38 tons, the Commando has 21.05% the armor of the Atlas.

At 4 vs 19 tons, the Commando can take 64 points of armor damage, and the Atlas can take 304. 3xAC20 hits vs 15xAC20 hits.
At 8 vs 38 tons, the Commando can take 128 points of armor damage, and the Atlas can take 608. 6xAC20 hits vs 30AC20 hits.



If you want to make the argument that Lights and Mediums need more survivability, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with the doubling of armor values.

yes it does. The difference between killing an atlas and killing an commando was 12 AC20 shots. Now the difference is 24 AC20 shots.

Multiplication widdened the survivability gap between the two weight chassis. Because thats how multiplication works. Assaults start with more they get more armor when multiplied.

put 1 dollar in the bank with 200% growth rate at the end of a year, you get 2 dollars at the end of the year. Someone puts a million dollars in they get a total of 2 million dollars back.
one person makes 1 dollar, the other makes a million. Percentage is still 200%
Starting with more gives you significantly more.


multiplication.

Edited by Tennex, 13 August 2013 - 06:41 PM.

[One Medic Army]

Tennex, on 13 August 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

yes it does. The difference between killing an atlas and killing an commando was 12 AC20 shots. Now the difference is 24 AC20 shots.

And you fire your AC/20 2.5times in 10 seconds rather than 1 time, and get 7shots/ton rather than 5.
Also that atlas is going to take probably 80% of AC/20 hits to it's CT. The Commando is probably going to take closer to 25% to it's CT.

It's a realtime environment with actual aiming, it's not going to be like TT. People need to quit complaining about tweaks like doubled armor that were made because of that change.

Edited by One Medic Army, 13 August 2013 - 06:27 PM.

[Tennex]

One Medic Army, on 13 August 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

And you fire your AC/20 2.5times in 10 seconds rather than 1 time, and get 7shots/ton rather than 5.
Also that atlas is going to take probably 80% of AC/20 hits to it's CT. The Commando is probably going to take closer to 25% to it's CT.

It's a realtime environment with actual aiming, it's not going to be like TT. People need to quit complaining about tweaks like doubled armor that were made because of that change.

there is no correlation between mech hitbox and armor multiplication. sure you can argue there is a relationship but does 2x armor justify the damage gained from aiming? does 1.5x?

its impossible to say

though since there is such a heavy heavy favoritism for assault mechs' i'd say 2x armor overcompensated for damage gained by aim.

Edited by Tennex, 13 August 2013 - 06:31 PM.